SWC75
Bored Historian
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 32,681
- Like
- 62,967
This is from a prior post:
Here is a summary of seeding vs. achievement since the seedings began in 1979.
1 seed means you are projected to make the Final Four
2 seed means you are projected to make the Elite 8
3 or 4 seed means you are projected to make the Sweet 16
5, 6, 7, or 8 seed means you are projected to make the Round of 32
Below 8 seed means you are projected to lose in the first round
1979 We were a 4 seed and lost in the Sweet 16 = Even
1980 We were a 1 seed that lost in the Sweet 16 = -2 rounds
1983 We were a 6 seed that lost in the Round of 32 = Even
1984 We were a 3 seed that lost in the Sweet 16 = Even
1985 We were a 7 seed that lost in the Round of 32 = Even
1986 We were a 2 seed that lost in the Round of 32 = -2 rounds
1987 We were a 2 seed that made it to the National Championship game = +2 rounds
1988 We were a 3 seed that lost in the Round of 32 = -1 round
1989 We were a 2 seed that lost in the Elite 8 = Even
1990 We were a 2 seed that lost in the Sweet 16 = -1 round
1991 We were a 2 seed that lost in the Round of 64 = -3 rounds
1992 We were a 6 seed that lost in the Round of 32 = Even
1994 We were a 4 seed that lost in the Sweet 16 = Even
1995 We were a 7 seed that lost in the Round of 32 = Even
1996 We were a 4 seed that made it to the National Championship game = +3 rounds
1998 We were a 5 seed that lost in the Sweet 16 = +1 round
1999 We were an 8 see that lost in the Round of 64 = -1 round
2000 We were a 2 seed that lost in the Sweet 16 = Even
2001 We were a 5 seed that lost in the Round of 32 = Even
2003 We were a 3 seed that won the National Championship = +4 rounds
2004 We were a 5 seed that lost in the Sweet 16 = Even
2005 We were a 4 seed that lost in the Round of 64 = -2 rounds
2006 We were a 5 seed that lost in the Round of 64 = -1 rounds
2009 We were a 3 seed that lost in the Sweet 16 = Even
2010 We were a 1 seed that lost in the Sweet 16 = -2 rounds
2011 We were a 3 seed that lost in the Round of 32 = -1 round
Totals: 26 tournaments. We broke even 12 times. We exceeded our seed 4 times and came up short 10 times. Our net achievement compared to the round we were supposed to lose in was -6 rounds. We were even at the point where we had won the national championship. Of course some of our losses in the “even” years were to lower-seeded teams that had pulled off upsets in earlier rounds so we might still have expected to beat those teams. That was the case in 1979, 1984 and 2004. In none of the four “positive” years did we lose to a lower (worse) seed.
Another way to look at it is this:
From 1977-86:
(In 1977-78 there were no seedings but we lost to lower ranked teams.)
We exceeded our ranking/seeding zero times.
We were even with our seeding in 1979, 1983, 1984 and 1985 but the 1979 and 1984 teams lost to lower seeded teams- we jsut did it in the round we were projected to lose in anyway.
We lost before we were expected to in 1977, 1978, 1980 and 1986.
From 1987-2003
We exceeded our seed in 1987, 1996, 1998 and 2003
We matched our seed in 1989, 1992, 1994, 1995, 2000, 2001. None of the losses were to lower seeded teams.
We lost before we were expected to in 1988, 1990, 1991 and 1999
From 2004 onward
We have not exceeded our seed.
We matched our seeding in 2004 and 2009 but lost to a lower seeded team in 2004.
We lost before we were expected to in 2005, 2006, 2010 and 2011
I think most Syracuse fans have learned to brace themsleves for disappointment based on recent results. Wisconsin is a formidable oppoenent but, even with no Fab, I think we are expected to win this game. Ohio State is a #2 seed but would have been #1 if the Fab announcement had been made before the seedings and I don't think people would be surprized to lose to them. So based on recent results, maybe we should 'expect' to lose to Wisconsin.
Why we were so bad vs. seeding/ranking in 1977-86 and in 2004-2011, i don't know. We were much better in 1987-2003 but 5 even years, 4+ years and 4- years is not an exceptional performance. of course, if you tend to have highly seeded teams, it's harder to exceed your seed and easier to fall short of it. If you are a #1 seed you are expected to win at least 4 games. #2 seeds are supposed to win 3 games. #3-4 seeds are supposed to win 2 games. As we have seen that's not easy to do, even for a very good team.
I just wonder if things are about to change again and maybe we will at elast match our seed this year and in future years or if we will continute to end the season with disappointment. I have no idea what, if anything, controls these things.
Here is a summary of seeding vs. achievement since the seedings began in 1979.
1 seed means you are projected to make the Final Four
2 seed means you are projected to make the Elite 8
3 or 4 seed means you are projected to make the Sweet 16
5, 6, 7, or 8 seed means you are projected to make the Round of 32
Below 8 seed means you are projected to lose in the first round
1979 We were a 4 seed and lost in the Sweet 16 = Even
1980 We were a 1 seed that lost in the Sweet 16 = -2 rounds
1983 We were a 6 seed that lost in the Round of 32 = Even
1984 We were a 3 seed that lost in the Sweet 16 = Even
1985 We were a 7 seed that lost in the Round of 32 = Even
1986 We were a 2 seed that lost in the Round of 32 = -2 rounds
1987 We were a 2 seed that made it to the National Championship game = +2 rounds
1988 We were a 3 seed that lost in the Round of 32 = -1 round
1989 We were a 2 seed that lost in the Elite 8 = Even
1990 We were a 2 seed that lost in the Sweet 16 = -1 round
1991 We were a 2 seed that lost in the Round of 64 = -3 rounds
1992 We were a 6 seed that lost in the Round of 32 = Even
1994 We were a 4 seed that lost in the Sweet 16 = Even
1995 We were a 7 seed that lost in the Round of 32 = Even
1996 We were a 4 seed that made it to the National Championship game = +3 rounds
1998 We were a 5 seed that lost in the Sweet 16 = +1 round
1999 We were an 8 see that lost in the Round of 64 = -1 round
2000 We were a 2 seed that lost in the Sweet 16 = Even
2001 We were a 5 seed that lost in the Round of 32 = Even
2003 We were a 3 seed that won the National Championship = +4 rounds
2004 We were a 5 seed that lost in the Sweet 16 = Even
2005 We were a 4 seed that lost in the Round of 64 = -2 rounds
2006 We were a 5 seed that lost in the Round of 64 = -1 rounds
2009 We were a 3 seed that lost in the Sweet 16 = Even
2010 We were a 1 seed that lost in the Sweet 16 = -2 rounds
2011 We were a 3 seed that lost in the Round of 32 = -1 round
Totals: 26 tournaments. We broke even 12 times. We exceeded our seed 4 times and came up short 10 times. Our net achievement compared to the round we were supposed to lose in was -6 rounds. We were even at the point where we had won the national championship. Of course some of our losses in the “even” years were to lower-seeded teams that had pulled off upsets in earlier rounds so we might still have expected to beat those teams. That was the case in 1979, 1984 and 2004. In none of the four “positive” years did we lose to a lower (worse) seed.
Another way to look at it is this:
From 1977-86:
(In 1977-78 there were no seedings but we lost to lower ranked teams.)
We exceeded our ranking/seeding zero times.
We were even with our seeding in 1979, 1983, 1984 and 1985 but the 1979 and 1984 teams lost to lower seeded teams- we jsut did it in the round we were projected to lose in anyway.
We lost before we were expected to in 1977, 1978, 1980 and 1986.
From 1987-2003
We exceeded our seed in 1987, 1996, 1998 and 2003
We matched our seed in 1989, 1992, 1994, 1995, 2000, 2001. None of the losses were to lower seeded teams.
We lost before we were expected to in 1988, 1990, 1991 and 1999
From 2004 onward
We have not exceeded our seed.
We matched our seeding in 2004 and 2009 but lost to a lower seeded team in 2004.
We lost before we were expected to in 2005, 2006, 2010 and 2011
I think most Syracuse fans have learned to brace themsleves for disappointment based on recent results. Wisconsin is a formidable oppoenent but, even with no Fab, I think we are expected to win this game. Ohio State is a #2 seed but would have been #1 if the Fab announcement had been made before the seedings and I don't think people would be surprized to lose to them. So based on recent results, maybe we should 'expect' to lose to Wisconsin.
Why we were so bad vs. seeding/ranking in 1977-86 and in 2004-2011, i don't know. We were much better in 1987-2003 but 5 even years, 4+ years and 4- years is not an exceptional performance. of course, if you tend to have highly seeded teams, it's harder to exceed your seed and easier to fall short of it. If you are a #1 seed you are expected to win at least 4 games. #2 seeds are supposed to win 3 games. #3-4 seeds are supposed to win 2 games. As we have seen that's not easy to do, even for a very good team.
I just wonder if things are about to change again and maybe we will at elast match our seed this year and in future years or if we will continute to end the season with disappointment. I have no idea what, if anything, controls these things.