Jimmy B with 5 Final Fours...seeding shows should only have 2

[Cuseball]

This would clearly indicate Jimmy is a big time NCAA overachiever. Only two years as a #1 seed were when we lost Arinze and Fab right before the tournament. Based on seeding we should not have a title, not played for the title 3 times and not played in the Final Four 5 times. Sounds like great results to me.

Discuss

 

[EastCoast2]

So, based on your logic, a #1 seed beats a #2 seed 100% of the time? Our Carmelo team had no business making a FF? Same with MCW?

 

[Eric15]

This would clearly indicate Jimmy is a big time NCAA overachiever.

JB has been to the tourney 30 times. Why are you only looking at 5 of those appearances to draw a conclusion?

 

[Trueblue25]

Bound to hit the final four a few times out of 30.

 

[Cheriehoop]

Tied with Bobby Knight, Jim Calhoun, Lute Olsen and Guy Lewis with 5 Final 4's.

 

[CusefanATL]

This would clearly indicate Jimmy is a big time NCAA overachiever. Only two years as a #1 seed were when we lost Arinze and Fab right before the tournament. Based on seeding we should not have a title, not played for the title 3 times and not played in the Final Four 5 times. Sounds like great results to me.

Discuss

Popcorn

 

[pearl31]

So, based on your logic, a #1 seed beats a #2 seed 100% of the time? Our Carmelo team had no business making a FF? Same with MCW?

yeah and (your brilliant logic) JB should take a hike and give the keys to Hopkins right now

 

[Brooky03]

I broke this down once with a big spreadsheet. Wish I kept it. Anyway, using the assumption that you should only lose to a seed better than yours and only beat seeds worse, he's overacheived in the tournament more than underachieved. Some other elite coaches have overachieved more often than JB but he's still in rare company. The spreadsheet I had also looked at how far each seed should be expected to advance vs. his far they got, which also worked out in Jim's favor.

Bottom line, he's a better tournament coach than most and not an underacheiver to the degree some like to believe.

 

[NineOneSeven]

yeah and (your brilliant logic) JB should take a hike and give the keys to Hopkins right now

You just cannot help yourself man.

 

[pearl31]

You just cannot help yourself man.

Hmmm, alright, so you're on board with JB walking right now, as that poster advocates?

 

[EastCoast2]

yeah and (your brilliant logic) JB should take a hike and give the keys to Hopkins right now

I'd rather have that happen now than have this train wreck last another 15 months. I wouldn't be surprised to see a transfer after this season.

 

[Alsacs]

Only one time in the history of the NCAA tournament have all 4 seeds made the Final Four.
2008.
2 seeds beat 1 seeds all the time.

 

[Cheriehoop]

Only one time in the history of the NCAA tournament have all 4 seeds made the Final Four.
2008.
2 seeds beat 1 seeds all the time.

Total NCAA championship stats below since 1985. Being a #1 or 2 #seed history says you have a 74% chance of winning the NCAA championship. Pretty darn good odds. Getting a #3 seed adds another 13% chance to your odds or an 87% chance.

#1 seed - 19 championships (61%)
#2 seed - 4 championships (13%)
#3 seed - 4 championships (13%)
#4 seed - 1 championship (3%)
#5 seed - 0 championships
#6 seed - 1 championship (3%)
#7 seed - 1 championship (3%)
#8 seed - 1 championship (3%)

Seed's odds of reaching the final 4 since 1985 (124 possible appearances)

#1 - 51 appearances 41%
#2 - 26 appearances 21%
#3 - 13 appearances 10.5 %
#4 - 13 appearances 10.5%
#5 - 6 appearances 5%
#6 - 3 appearances 2%
#7 - 2 appearances 2%
#8 - 5 appearances 4%
#9 - 1 appearance 1%
#10 - 1 appearance 1%
#11 - 3 appearances 2%

What I did find a little interesting is that the basketball world has changed since 2010. Lower seeds have been beating the odds more and making the Final 4.

Since 2010 68% have been a top 4 seed compared with 1985 through 2009 when 87.4% of the Final 4 appearances were made by the top 4 seeds. That'a big decrease. Shows how there is so more parity and maybe guesswork on seeding than the previous 24 years. Since 2010 a #7, a #9, #10 seeds have made the final 4 for the first time ever. SU was the only #10 seed to ever make the Final 4 just last year.

 

[Alsacs]

Total NCAA championship stats below since 1985. Being a #1 or 2 #seed history says you have a 74% chance of winning the NCAA championship. Pretty darn good odds. Getting a #3 seed adds another 13% chance to your odds or an 87% chance.

#1 seed - 19 championships (61%)
#2 seed - 4 championships (13%)
#3 seed - 4 championships (13%)
#4 seed - 1 championship (3%)
#5 seed - 0 championships
#6 seed - 1 championship (3%)
#7 seed - 1 championship (3%)
#8 seed - 1 championship (3%)

Seed's odd of reaching the final 4 since 1985 (124 possible appearances)

#1 - 51 appearances 41%
#2 - 26 appearances 21%
#3 - 13 appearances 10.5 %
#4 - 13 appearances 10.5%
#5 - 6 appearances 5%
#6 - 3 appearances 2%
#7 - 2 appearances 2%
#8 - 5 appearances 4%
#9 - 1 appearance 1%
#10 - 1 appearance 1%
#11 - 3 appearances 2%

What I did find a little interesting is that the basketball world has changed since 2010. Lower seeds have been beating the odds more and making the Final 4.

Since 2010 68% have been a top 4 seed compared with 1985 through 2009 when 87.4% of the Final 4 appearances were made by the top 4 seeds. That'a big decrease. Shows how there is so more parity and maybe guesswork on seeding than the previous 24 years. Since 2010 a #7, a #9, #10 seeds have made the final 4 for the first time ever. SU was the only #10 seed to ever make the Final 4 last year.

My point was about 1 seeds and my phone skipped over 1
2008 was the only time all 4 1 seeds made the Final Four.
If you are a one or two seed you have a real good chance to win the NC.

 

[SWC75]

The first year the NCAA tournament was seeded was 1979. A #1 seed is projected to make it to the Final Four. A #2 seed should lose in the Elite 8. #3 and #4 should fall in the Sweet 16. #5-8 would lose in the round of 32. #9-16 are supposed to lose in the Round of 64. Of course that doesn’t necessarily happen. The point is: how much have we exceeded those expectations or fallen short of them? We get one point for every round we made it to that we weren’t supposed to get to and another for each Final Four game we win. We lose a point for each round we fall short when we don’t make it to the projected round. We get nothing if we lose when we were supposed to.

The tournament Had 40 teams in 1979 so there were 8 preliminary games involving teams seeded 7th-10th. In 1980-84 there were 48th teams and 32 of them had to play in the first round. They were seeded 5th or lower.
1979: We were seeded #4 so we were supposed to lose in the Sweet 16 – and we did. = 0 Points
1980: We were seeded 1st and supposed to go to the Final Four. We lost in the Sweet 16 again. = -2 Points
1981-82: We were in the NIT.
1983: We were seeded 6th and expected to lose in the Round of 32, which we did. = 0 Points
1984: We were seeded 3rd and expected to lose in the Sweet 16, which we did = 0 Points
1985: We were seeded 7th and expected to lose in the Round of 32, which we did = 0 Points
1986: We were seeded 2nd and expected to lose in the Elite 8 but lost in the Round of 32: -2 Points
1987: We were seeded 2nd and expected to lose in the Elite 8 but went to the National Championship Game = +2 Points
1988: We were seeded 3rd and expected to lose in the Sweet 16 but lost in the Round of 32 = -1 point
1989: We were seeded 2nd and expected to lose in the Elite 8 and we did = 0 Points
1990: We were seeded 2nd and expected to lose in the Elite 8 but lost in the Sweet 16 = -1 Points
1991: We were seeded 2nd and expected to lose in the Elite 8 but lost in the Round of 64 = -3 Points
1992: We were seeded 6th and expected to lose in the Round of 32, which we did = 0 Points
1993: We were on probation.
1994: We were seeded 4th and expected to lose in the Sweet 16, which we did = 0 points
1995: We were seeded 7th and expected to lose in the Round of 32, which we did = 0 Points
1996: We were seeded 4th and expected to lose in the Sweet 16 but went to the National Championship Game = +3 points
1997: We were in the NIT
1998: We were seeded 5th and expected to lose in the Round of 32 and lost in the Sweet 16 instead = +1 Point
1999: We were seeded 8th and expected to lose in the Round of 32 but lost in the Round of 64 instead = -1 Point
2000: We were seeded 4th and expected to lose in the Sweet 16, which we did = 0 Points
2001: We were seeded 5th and expected to lose in the Rounds of 32 and did = 0 points
2002: We were in the NIT
2003: We were seeded 3rd and expected to lose in the Sweet 16 but won the National Championship = +4 Points
2004: We were seeded 6th and expected to lose in the Round of 32 but lost in the Sweet 16 instead = +1 Point
2005: We were seeded 4th and expected to lose in the Sweet 16 but lost in the Round of 64 = -2 Points
2006: We were seeded 5th and expected to lose in the Round of 32 and lost in the Round of 64 instead = -1 Point
2007-2008: We were in the NIT.
2009: We were seeded 3rd and expected to lose in the Sweet 16 and we did = 0 Points
2010: We were seeded 1st and expected to lose in the Final Four but we lost in the Sweet 16 instead = -2 Points
2011: We were seeded 3rd and expected to lose in the Sweet 16 but lost in the Round of 32 instead = -1 Points
2012: We were seeded 1st and expected to lose in the Final Four but lost in the Elite 8= -1 Point
2013: We were seeded 4th and expected to lose in the Sweet 16 but lost in the Final Four instead = +2 Points
2014: We were seeded 3rd and expected to lose in the Sweet 16 but lost in the Round of 32 instead = -1 Point
2015: We were on probation.
2016: We were seeded 10th and expected to lose in the Round of 64 but lost in the Final Four instead = +3 Points

That’s 30 years in a seeded NCAA tournament. We’ve exactly matched expectations 11 times and thus gotten no points for those years. We’ve exceeded expectations 7 times for a total of +16 points. We’ve come up short of expectations 12 times for -18 points. That’s a net of -2 points. Overall, it’s about what you would expect, I guess.

I think the achievement is being in 30 NCAA tournaments over that time and getting those seedings. A coach builds a foundation for a program. After that it's up to the players, the other team, the refs and Lady Luck.

 

[SWC75]

Total NCAA championship stats below since 1985. Being a #1 or 2 #seed history says you have a 74% chance of winning the NCAA championship. Pretty darn good odds. Getting a #3 seed adds another 13% chance to your odds or an 87% chance.

#1 seed - 19 championships (61%)
#2 seed - 4 championships (13%)
#3 seed - 4 championships (13%)
#4 seed - 1 championship (3%)
#5 seed - 0 championships
#6 seed - 1 championship (3%)
#7 seed - 1 championship (3%)
#8 seed - 1 championship (3%)

Seed's odd of reaching the final 4 since 1985 (124 possible appearances)

#1 - 51 appearances 41%
#2 - 26 appearances 21%
#3 - 13 appearances 10.5 %
#4 - 13 appearances 10.5%
#5 - 6 appearances 5%
#6 - 3 appearances 2%
#7 - 2 appearances 2%
#8 - 5 appearances 4%
#9 - 1 appearance 1%
#10 - 1 appearance 1%
#11 - 3 appearances 2%

What I did find a little interesting is that the basketball world has changed since 2010. Lower seeds have been beating the odds more and making the Final 4.

Since 2010 68% have been a top 4 seed compared with 1985 through 2009 when 87.4% of the Final 4 appearances were made by the top 4 seeds. That'a big decrease. Shows how there is so more parity and maybe guesswork on seeding than the previous 24 years. Since 2010 a #7, a #9, #10 seeds have made the final 4 for the first time ever. SU was the only #10 seed to ever make the Final 4 last year.

74% of #1 or #2 seeds have won the National championship?

 

[Cheriehoop]

15 out of the past 31 Final Fours have had multiple #1 seeds in it, 3 times three #1's have made it , once all 4 did as you said.

In 2003, SU was really the first Championship team that was that young. Now it's so much more common place. Our top 7 players consisted of 3 freshman, 3 sophomores and only 1 senior. I can't think of a prior championship team that relied on youth like we did. There were many teams with young superstars before that, in fact, many had 2 that never won a championship. Truly a special, unique team that fit all the pieces of the puzzle together.

 

[br801]

74% of #1 or #2 seeds have won the National championship?

74% of the national champions in that time period have been either a #1 or #2 seed, so the national champion has emerged from the eight top seeds in the tournament 74% of the time.

 

[SWC75]

74% of the national champions in that time period have been either a #1 or #2 seed, so the national champion has emerged from the eight top seeds in the tournament 74% of the time.

Which doesn't mean that each of those teams team has a 74% chance of winning the national championship. There have been 256 #1 and #2 seeds in 32 years. Each one has a 12.5% chance if you regard a #2 seed's chances as equal to a #1 seed.

 

[br801]

Which doesn't mean that each of those teams team has a 74% chance of winning the national championship. There have been 256 #1 and #2 seeds in 32 years. Each one has a 12.5% chance if you regard a #2 seed's chances as equal to a #1 seed.

Of course each individual team doesn't have a 74% chance of winning a title, but each group of the eight top seeds in a given year during this 32 year period does have that chance.

 

[SWC75]

Of course each individual team doesn't have a 74% chance of winning a title, but each group of the eight top seeds in a given year during this 32 year period does have that chance.

This was your statement: "Being a #1 or 2 #seed history says you have a 74% chance of winning the NCAA championship. Pretty darn good odds." That's different from saying that there's a 74% chance that the winner will be a #1 or #2 seed.

 

[br801]

This was your statement: "Being a #1 or 2 #seed history says you have a 74% chance of winning the NCAA championship. Pretty darn good odds." That's different from saying that there's a 74% chance that the winner will be a #1 or #2 seed.

What you quoted above was never my statement.

 

[Rage4CUSE]

Hmmm, alright, so you're on board with JB walking right now, as that poster advocates?

I'd be on board with it only in the fact that this is probably a lost season, so why not get him some more run as a HC before he officially takes over.

I'd expecting JB to finish out this and next season, but I wouldn't be upset Hopkins gets some run as HC.

 

[Rage4CUSE]

This was your statement: "Being a #1 or 2 #seed history says you have a 74% chance of winning the NCAA championship. Pretty darn good odds." That's different from saying that there's a 74% chance that the winner will be a #1 or #2 seed.

Yeah, and the difference is each #1 and #2 chances add up to 74%. Each of those teams has about an 8.5% chance to win. Give it take a few .0 percentage points.

 

[SWC75]

What you quoted above was never my statement.

My bad- you were not the OP for this part of the thread.