Updated My Website: Shows how Syracuse has fared in the modern day NCAA tournament

[jetsqb101]

As for the Duke discussion, they rank 36th on the Per-Tournament difference list. This is only a measure of how much you would expect them to over or under perform their seed.

The Expected Wins list is designed to display something closer to what you're talking about as it shows the most dominant teams of the era. On that list Duke comes in first with [70.2581 wins], such an impressive number that if you were to combine Syracuse's success [41.2661 wins] with Florida's success [28.4032 wins] they would still have less expected of them than Duke alone. I've typed out the top six below to show that Kansas is really the only school sniffing at them, and if you'd like to look at the full list of Expected Wins Rankings it is provided here.

1. [70.2581 wins] Duke
2. [65.3387 wins] Kansas
3. [59.7984 wins] North Carolina
4. [52.3548 wins] Kentucky
5. [49.3871 wins] Arizona
6. [41.2661 wins] Syracuse

 

[jetsqb101]

I also think it's nice that you guys can analyze the Per-Tournament difference meaning well, it's nothing to boast about but Syracuse has over-performed to an extent. With that being said it's much better than some of the teams in the negative column, as Georgetown has under-performed to about the same extent Syracuse has over-performed, and Pitt and Notre Dame are two of the worst under-performers in the nation.

 

[Alsacs]

Duke's high number is because they have been a 1 seed 13 times. It means 4 wins are expected those times. Syracuse as Docsu has been saying from 1993-2003 we never above a 2 seed.
Thus, our expectations were lower and the 96 run to the NC game helps a lot and our 03 title as a 3 seed is huge. I think a way to tinker this implements what Poppy brought up factor in if you were wearing the white jersey or away jersey when you lose. If your in white you are the higher seed but if the team is in their away jersey they were expected to lose.

 

[RF2044]

From 81-90 we were a three seed or better six times (1984, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90). From 91-2000 we were a three seed or better one time (1991). Look at the guys we brought in before probation. We had seven McDonalds All Americans in the 80's. Adrian Autry came in in 1990. Then Wallace in 1992 (who was from Rochester) then... no one until Carmelo in 2002. Since Carmelo we've had eight. You culd say nine because I'd say that Battle is all but a lock.. The run to the title game in 1996 was just that...unexpected by a four seed after a good but not great regular season.

What assistants were dead weight?

Dead weight might be a little harsh, but I think he's referring to the pre-Troy Weaver staff, that wasn't excelling on the recruiting trail.

 

[ClamOtto]

Great website! Rutgers coming in at 171 in expected wins ranking, just below such juggernauts as the Central Michigan Chippewas and the Middle Tennessee Blue Raiders...

 

[HOFCeluck]

Dead weight might be a little harsh, but I think he's referring to the pre-Troy Weaver staff, that wasn't excelling on the recruiting trail.

I guess the question is why they weren't excelling.

 

[jetsqb101]

Duke's high number is because they have been a 1 seed 13 times. It means 4 wins are expected those times. Syracuse as Docsu has been saying from 1993-2003 we never above a 2 seed.
Thus, our expectations were lower and the 96 run to the NC game helps a lot and our 03 title as a 3 seed is huge. I think a way to tinker this implements what Poppy brought up factor in if you were wearing the white jersey or away jersey when you lose. If your in white you are the higher seed but if the team is in their away jersey they were expected to lose.

As a quick clarification, a 1 seed would be expected to win 4 games based upon seeding differences but not my data which takes into account the average performance of a given seed. The completely average #1 seed wins roughly 3 games, meaning that a team that's done what it was 'supposed' to in going to the final four gets some credit for over-performing as many of their peers don't meet that expectation.

It's a good thought to consider what opponent was versed in every round and I would like to implement that into the site, but it can be very difficult to take into consideration with a project like this. I can work with a sample of 31 tournaments, or 124 16-team brackets, and it would be very difficult to account for every possible scenario reliably with a sample like that.

Lastly, as much as I like the site it's really just a pet project I've had. I've got graduate school starting up in about a month so it's safe to say my free time is about to dwindle!

 

[OttoMets]

I guess the question is why they weren't excelling.

Like everything else, a combination of factors. I believe that our failure to capitalize on 1996 hurt a lot: good recruits want to play for a winner; to lose 13 games and go to the NIT in 1997 put us right back into the post-probation situation of fighting over average recruits (we took another pretty big class in 1998 [edit - 1997], but Allen Griffin, Eric Williams, Damone Brown, and Sam Spann weren't program-changers).

Louis Orr -- great person and alumnus -- turned some people off with all the God stuff. Religion can be popular with recruits' families, but I know some thought he was over the top.

Bernie...eh. Generally a good guy, but he didn't have the same cachet that some of his peers had in the late '90s.

 

[HOFCeluck]

Louis Orr is the guy I thought of first. Not who I would consider to be a recruiter, but he left for a better job. Not exactly "dead weight" IMO.

 

[RF2044]

Louis Orr is the guy I thought of first. Not who I would consider to be a recruiter, but he left for a better job. Not exactly "dead weight" IMO.

The real issue was that we lost out on Winfred Walton, who was a stud who would have had a major impact on our program. That 97 team went to the NIT, but would have been a top 20 team with Walton. His loss can't be overstated.

We were then okay for the next couple of years, until we had a better overall season in 2000.

Throughout that entire timeframe, we didn't do much to elevate beyond being a bottom half of the top 25 caliber program, largely due to recruiting. Orr left, Weaver came in, and we immediately landed Edelin--which set the stage for a big class of 2001. Landed Carmelo the next year, the rest is history.

 

[IthacaMatt]

With this analysis, it appears as though everything is done in a vacuum and is unweighted. An 8 losing to a 9 is essentially as crushing an upset as 2 to a 15. Also, what if, say, a 12 and 13 win their 1st games? The 12 should win that second game, but here it's treated as gravy and neither is punished.

Well, that's not true, because a 2 seed would be expected to win additional games after their early upset, and should have made the regional final. Those missing games that they never played also are counted.

 

[Col. Bleep]

Hey everyone, I just finished updating my website: http://marchstatistics.com/wp/?page_id=169

Hope you have a protectable interest in your formula.
This is just the kind of thing TV nets would love to use come tourney time.
You could be the new Joe Lunardi.
Wait...let me rephrase that...you could bring "bracketology" to the next level.

 

[shandeezy7]

Right. Like Duke is in the 20's; is there any team's history you'd rather have since 85? Maybe without the fanbase, but the success speaks for itself.

Obviously anyone would take that history. You'd be an idiot not to. Just pointing out that this isn't a formula regarding tourney success. It's a formula regarding tourney success relative to seed. The last four times Duke won a championship, they were a one seed. The one other championship they won, they were a two seed. With the way the formula appears to be weighted, reaching the title game as a one seed is not unexpected. However, losing to a 15 seed is highly unexpected, which drags your score way down.

 

[jetsqb101]

Hope you have a protectable interest in your formula.
This is just the kind of thing TV nets would love to use come tourney time.
You could be the new Joe Lunardi.
Wait...let me rephrase that...you could bring "bracketology" to the next level.

It's an honor for me to just see people discuss it and analyze the data for themselves, I've got other things I'd like to make a career of though. The actual formula isn't something overly complicated and the data can be found for it relatively easily, and so long as credit is given to the original source I'm happy about any level of exposure it gets.

 

[RF2044]

It's an honor for me to just see people discuss it and analyze the data for themselves, I've got other things I'd like to make a career of though. The actual formula isn't something overly complicated and the data can be found for it relatively easily, and so long as credit is given to the original source I'm happy about any level of exposure it gets.

Regardless, thanks for posting this data--it made for some interesting discussion / dialogue... which is exactly what analysis is supposed to do!

Kudos for the interesting topic.

 

[HOFCeluck]

Agreed..TFCIT

 

[two3zone]

I forgot about WW...he would have been huge.

To be fair, if he played like he did at Fresno he wouldn't have been too much of a difference maker.

 

[pfister1]

To be fair, if he played like he did at Fresno he wouldn't have been too much of a difference maker.

It wasn't the loss of Winfred Walton that hurt so much as the loss of the quality of player we thought we had recruited in Walton.

Also people get a little touchy when you call Orr or Fine dead weight and that may be fair. They brought things to the program, but I don't think it was high level recruiting like some earlier and more recent guys did.

 

[NKR1978]

Lot of back-patting going on despite this number.

As always, Syracuse doesn't underachieve as much as the nay-sayers say, but it's also not as successful as the orange-glasses crowd believes.

I don't think I need Orange glasses to say we're a top 9-15 program over the last 30 years.

UConn, Duke, Kentucky, UNC, MSU, Kansas, Louisville and Florida are the only ones off the top of my head that I'd put definitively above us.

I think us and Arizona are the next level. Everyone else has had some real poor seasons to put them below us (thinking UCLA, Michigan, Indiana). Arizona is never awful, sometimes great and usually well above average. That's us as well.

 

[HOFCeluck]

Meh. We've been to two final fours since Arizona's last.

 

[Alsacs]

I don't think I need Orange glasses to say we're a top 9-15 program over the last 30 years.

UConn, Duke, Kentucky, UNC, MSU, Kansas, Louisville and Florida are the only ones off the top of my head that I'd put definitively above us.

I think us and Arizona are the next level. Everyone else has had some real poor seasons to put them below us (thinking UCLA, Michigan, Indiana). Arizona is never awful, sometimes great and usually well above average. That's us as well.

Bingo. This is spot on where we are on the College hoops landscape.
I always considered Arizona the Syracuse of the West Coast. Always consistent, always ranked well, is a contender and both sides won 1 title and made multiple Final Fours. Both feel they should have additional titles with all their talent and both HOF coaches building the programs up Olson-UofA, Boeheim-SU.

 

[AZOrange]

Bingo. This is spot on where we are on the College hoops landscape. I always considered Arizona the Syracuse of the West Coast. Always consistent, always ranked well, is a contender and both sides won 1 title and made multiple Final Fours. Both feel they should have additional titles with all their talent and both HOF coaches building the programs up Olson-UofA, Boeheim-SU.

I can't think of a better comparable

 

[RF2044]

To be fair, if he played like he did at Fresno he wouldn't have been too much of a difference maker.

I invite you to watch the 1996 McDonald's All American game to get a refresher on what Walton was capable of. After not being admitted to SU, he went to a JUCO where he got lousy coaching, got out of shape, and then went on to play on a goofy Fresno State team with a bunch of gunners that included that screwball Herren and a point guard who attacked someone with a samuri sword.

The way that both his career unfolded and his level of development were totally different than they would have been had he come to SU. To be fair.

 

[Col. Bleep]

I invite you to watch the 1996 McDonald's All American game to get a refresher on what Walton was capable of. After not being admitted to SU, he went to a JUCO where he got lousy coaching, got out of shape, and then went on to play on a goofy Fresno State team with a bunch of gunners that included that screwball Herren and a point guard who attacked someone with a samuri sword.

The way that both his career unfolded and his level of development were totally different than they would have been had he come to SU. To be fair.

He had great talent.
But a lot of players with talent - sometimes huge talent - go nowhere.
Maybe they have personality problems, behavior issues , lack a work ethic or really should never be in college in the first place.

Walton never played at SU for a reason.
He couldn't cut it academically.
There's no telling what would have happened had he enrolled.
We might even have been on probation again.

The fact he wound up at Tark's renegade Fresno State program speaks volumes.

 

[Knicks411]

Obviously anyone would take that history. You'd be an idiot not to. Just pointing out that this isn't a formula regarding tourney success. It's a formula regarding tourney success relative to seed. The last four times Duke won a championship, they were a one seed. The one other championship they won, they were a two seed. With the way the formula appears to be weighted, reaching the title game as a one seed is not unexpected. However, losing to a 15 seed is highly unexpected, which drags your score way down.

Just wanted to say not trying to knock the work done on this, and I know what it's supposed to measure. Real good topic, especially considering there's no actual games to talk about right now