Filling Out Your Bracket: The Final Four

No. 1 Seeds

Since 2000, there have been 13 games in the Final Four featuring a No. 1 seed against a non-No. 1 seed. No. 1 seeds have won an impressive 10 (77 percent) of those games. The average margin of victory in these games was the No. 1 seed winning by 6.46 points per game. Of the three losses a No. 1 seed experienced in the Final Four against a higher-seeded team, two came against a No. 2 seed and one came against a No. 3 seed. No. 1 seeds won five out of five games against teams seeded No. 4 or higher in the Final Four.

No. 2 Seeds

There have been 12 Final Four games featuring a No. 2 seed since 2000 – seven that played as the favored seed and five that played as the higher seed. No. 2 seeds won only three of the seven (43 percent) against higher seeds, and two of the five (40 percent) against No. 1 seeds. In all Final Four games involving a No. 2 seed, the average margin of victory has been for the No. 2 seed to win by 0.75 points per game.

Same Seeds

There have been five games in the NCAA Tournament this decade that have matched even seeds against each other. All of these games have had two No. 1 seeds playing, and three of them occurred in last year’s tournament (2008). The average margin of victory for the winning team is actually 10.8 points per game in these five games. The closest game of the five was a five point win by North Carolina over Illinois in the 2005 National Championship.

Conferences

Here is the breakdown of how each conference has fared in Final Four games since 2000 (wins, losses, winning percentage):

SEC: 5-2 (71 percent)
ACC: 7-5 (58 percent)
Big East: 4-3 (57 percent)
Big Ten: 5-6 (45 percent)
Conference USA: 1-1 (50 percent)
Big 12: 3-5 (38 percent)
Pac-10: 2-4 (33 percent)
Colonial: 0-1 (0 percent)

Even though the SEC has the best record as a conference, the only team with any Final Four victories in the SEC is Florida. Florida has won the national championship twice and runner-up once since 2000. Similarly, Memphis is the only representative for Conference USA and George Mason is the only representative for the Colonial Athletic Association.

Summary

• No. 1 seeds have had tremendous success against non-No. 1 seeds in the Final Four
• No. 2 seeds have struggled in Final Four games, even when they are the favored seed
• Games featuring teams of the same seed have not turned out to be very close games
• The Pac-10 and Big 12 conferences have been the worst of the power conferences in Final Four games

Filling Out Your Bracket: The Elite Eight

No. 1 Seeds

Since 2000, 26 out of 36 (72 percent) No. 1 seeds have advanced to the Elite Eight. 15 out of those 26 (58 percent), or 42 percent of the original 36, have also advanced into the Final Four.

No. 1 seeds have played No. 2 seeds 11 times in the Elite Eight, and they have won only five (45 percent) of those games. No. 1 seeds have played No. 3 seeds eight times, winning only four (50 percent). They have played five games combined in the Elite Eight against No. 6, No. 7, and No. 10 seeds and have won all of them. They have also played against a No. 11 seed twice, winning once and losing once.

Overall in Sweet Elite Eight games, No. 1 seeds have an average margin of victory of 1.77 points per game in their favor. Against only No. 2 and No. 3 seeds, this average margin is still in their advantage slightly at 0.58 points per game.

No. 2 Seeds

No. 2 seeds have advanced to the Elite Eight 15 times out of a possible 36 (42 percent) since 2000. They then have advanced to the Final Four eight (53 percent) of those times. This equates to 22 percent of the original 36 No. 2 seeds since 2000 making the Final Four.

No. 2 seeds have played No. 1 seeds 11 times, and also a No. 4 seed, No. 5 seed, No. 8 seed, and a No. 12 seed once each. Interestingly, the No. 2 seeds have fared just as well in Elite games against No. 1 seeds (winning 55 percent of the time) as they have against the higher seeds combined (winning 50 percent of the time).

Overall, No. 2 seeds have had an average margin of victory of 2.4 points per game in their favor in Elite Eight games.

Overall

Here is the breakdown of how each conference has fared in Sweet Sixteen games since 2000 (wins, losses, winning percentage):

ACC: 8-1 (89 percent)
Big Ten: 7-4 (64 percent)
SEC: 4-3 (57 percent)
Big East: 5-5 (50 percent)
Big 12: 6-8 (43 percent)
Pac-10: 4-6 (40 percent)
Other: 2-9 (18 percent)

The other conferences, besides power conferences, that have played in the Elite Eight since 2000 are the Atlantic Ten, Conference USA, MAC, CAA, and Southern Conference.

Summary

• No. 1 seeds have no advantage over No. 2 or No. 3 seeds in Elite Eight games, but it is much more difficult for a No. 2 or No. 3 seed to reach the Elite Eight than for a No. 1 seed
• No. 2 seeds have won about half of their Elite Eight games, and have actually done better when they play a No. 1 seed than when they play a higher seed
• The ACC has won eight of nine Elite Eight games since 2000
• The Big 12 and Pac 10 have relatively poor records in the Elite Eight
• Non-power conferences have had very little success in Elite Eight games since 2000

The Sweet Sixteen

No. 1 Seeds

Since 2000, 31 out of 36 (86 percent) No. 1 seeds have advanced to the Sweet Sixteen. 26 out of those 31 (84 percent), or 72 percent of the original 36, have also advanced into the Elite Eight.

No. 1 seeds have played No. 4 seeds 11 times, No. 5 seeds 14 times, No. 12 seeds 5 times, and played a No. 13 seed once in the Sweet Sixteen. They have won nine (82 percent) times against No. 4 seeds, 11 (79%) times against No. 5 seeds, and have won all six times in which they faced a No. 12 or No. 13 seed.

Overall in Sweet Sixteen games, No. 1 seeds have an average margin of victory of 7.16 points per game in their favor. Against only No. 4 and No. 5 seeds, this average margin is still in their advantage at 5.64 points per game.

No. 2 Seeds

No. 2 seeds have advanced to the Sweet Sixteen 19 times out of a possible 36 (53 percent) since 2000. They then have advanced to the Elite Eight 15 (79 percent) of those times. This equates to 42 percent of the original 36 No. 2 seeds since 2000 making the Elite Eight.

No. 2 seeds have played No. 3 seeds 11 times, No. 6 seeds seven times, and a No. 11 seed one in the Sweet Sixteen. They have won eight (73 percent) times against No. 3 seeds, six (86%) times against No. 6 seeds, and won their only game against a No. 11 seed.

Overall, No. 2 seeds have had an average margin of victory of 6.53 points per game in their favor in Sweet Sixteen games. Against No. 3 seeds they win by 5.09 points per game on average, and against No. 6 seeds they win by 8.00 points per game.

No. 3 and No. 6 Seeds

There has been 15 times since 2000 that a No. 3 or No. 6 seed has been the lower seed in a Sweet Sixteen game, meaning that the No. 2 seed was upset in the first or second round in their side of the bracket. The No. 3 or No. 6 seed has won nine of these 15 (60 percent) games. No. 3 seeds have won seven of ten (70%) games against a higher seed in the Sweet Sixteen, while No. 6 seeds have only won two of their five (40%).

In addition, a No. 3 or No. 6 seed has been the higher seed in a Sweet Sixteen game 18 times since 2000. Since they were the higher seed, this means they had to be playing a No. 2 seed. The No. 3 or No. 6 seed has won four of these 18 (22 percent) games. No. 3 seeds have won three of 11 (27%) games against No. 2 seeds in the Sweet Sixteen, while No. 6 seeds have won only one of their seven (14 percent).

No. 4 and No. 5 Seeds

There has been four times since 2000 that a No. 4 or No. 5 seed has been the lower seed in a Sweet Sixteen game, meaning that the No. 1 seed was upset in the second round in their side of the bracket. The No. 4 or No. 5 seed actually lost three of these four games. The only win came against a No. 9 seed, whereas all of the three losses came against No. 8 seeds.

In addition, a No. 4 or No. 5 seed has been the higher seed (played a No. 1 seed) in a Sweet Sixteen game 25 times since 2000. The No. 4 or No. 5 seed has won only five (20 percent) of these. No. 4 seeds have won two of 11 (18 percent) games against No. 1 seeds in the Sweet Sixteen, while No. 5 seeds have won three of their 14 (21 percent).

Overall

Here is the breakdown of how each conference has fared in Sweet Sixteen games since 2000 (wins, losses, winning percentage):

Big 12: 13-5 (72 percent)
Big Ten: 12-7 (63 percent)
Pac 10: 10-9 (53 percent)
ACC: 9-10 (47 percent)
SEC: 7-10 (41 percent)
Big East: 10-16 (38 percent)
Mid-Majors: 10-14 (42 percent)
Small Conf.: 1-1 (50 percent)

Here the Mid-Major conferences include the Atlantic Ten, Missouri Valley, WCC, CAA, Conference USA, Horizon League, MAC, WAC, and Mountain West. Small conferences include the Sun Belt and Southern Conference.

Note that there were a few Mid-Major conferences with very good Sweet Sixteen records (Atlantic Ten, Conference USA), and also a few with very bad records (Missouri Valley, Horizon, Mountain West).

Summary

• On average, three of the four No. 1 seeds have advanced to the Elite Eight each year

• If a No. 7, 8, 9, or 10 seed is able to advance to the Sweet Sixteen, then they also have a very good chance of advancing to the Elite Eight

• No. 3, 4, 5, and 6 seeds have reached the Elite Eight at a surprisingly low rate

• The Big 12 and Big Ten have fared very well in Sweet Sixteen games, while the SEC and Big East have fared poorly

Other Second Round Games

I previously considered second round match-ups featuring No. 1 and No. 2 seeds. In this entry I consider all other second round NCAA Tournament games. If all goes well for the top seeds in the first round, this would be the No. 3 vs. No. 6 and No. 4 vs No. 5 match-ups. However, upsets in this part of the bracket are very prevalent.

No. 3 Seeds

Since 2000, 34 out of 36 (94 percent) No. 3 seeds have advanced to the second round. 21 out of those 34 (62 percent), or 58 percent of the original 36, have also advanced into the Sweet Sixteen. Out of the 34 second round games, 22 have come against No. 6 seeds. No. 3 seeds have won only 12/22 (55 percent) of these games, suggesting that No. 3 and No. 6 seeds are fairly even. The other 12 second round games have come against No. 11 seeds, where No. 3 seeds won nine (75 percent) times.

Overall in second round games, No. 3 seeds have an average margin of victory of 3.59 points per game in their favor. Against No. 6 seeds, this average margin is a mere 0.41 points per game in their favor, and is in their advantage by 9.42 points per game against No. 11 seeds.

No. 4 Seeds

No. 4 seeds have advanced to the second round 28 times out of a possible 36 (78 percent) since 2000. They then have advanced to the Sweet Sixteen 14 of those 28 (50 percent) times. This equates to 39 percent of the original 36 No. 4 seeds since 2000. Of their 28 second round games, 18 have come against No. 5 seeds. No. 4 seeds have won only seven (39 percent) of these games. The percentage is most likely so far below half because of a relatively low sample size, but nonetheless the No. 4 seeds appear to have no distinct advantage against No. 5 seeds. The other 10 second round games were against No. 12 seeds, where No. 4 seeds won seven (70 percent) of those games.

Overall, No. 4 seeds have had an average margin of victory of just 0.64 points per game in their favor in second round games. Against No. 5 seeds they lose by 0.28 points per game on average, and against No. 12 seeds they win by 2.3 points per game.

No. 5 Seeds

No. 5 seeds have made the second round of the NCAA Tournament 23 times out of a possible 36 (64 percent) since 2000. They were able to advance to the Sweet Sixteen 15 of those 23 times (65 percent), meaning 42 percent of the original No. 5 seeds were able to reach the Sweet Sixteen. Notice that this is higher than the 39 percent of No. 4 seeds that were able to make it that far. Of the 23 second round games, 18 came against No. 4 seeds, where the No. 5 seeds won 11 (61 percent) games. The other five games were all against No. 13 seeds, where No. 5 seeds won four (80 percent) games.

No. 5 Seeds have an average margin of victory in their second round games of 1.87 points per game in their favor. On average against No. 4 seeds they win by 0.28 points per game on average, and against No. 13 seeds they win by 7.6 points per game.

No. 6 Seeds

Since 2000, No. 6 seeds have reached the second round 24 of a possible 36 (67 percent) times. Of those 24 tries, No. 6 seeds were able to advance further to the Sweet Sixteen 12 (58 percent) times. This means that 33 percent of all No. 6 seeds since 2000 have reached the Sweet Sixteen. Of the 24 second round games featuring No. 6 seeds, 22 of them came against No. 3 seeds. No. 6 seeds won 10 (45 percent) of those games, and also won both of their games against No. 14 seeds in the second round.

No. 6 seeds have an average margin of victory of winning by 0.54 points per game in second round games. In games against No. 3 seeds, they have lost by 0.41 points per game, and they have won by 11 points per game against No. 14 seeds.

Overall

In other articles I have considered conference records by low seed and high seed. However, since the match-ups seem to be much more even in this group, I will consider cumulative conference records. Here is the breakdown of how each conference has fared in these second round games (wins, losses, winning percentage):

Pac-10: 10-3 (77 percent)
SEC: 10-5 (67 percent)
Big East: 15-10 (60 percent)
Big Ten: 9-8 (53 percent)
Big 12: 8-9 (47 percent)
ACC: 7-12 (37 percent)
Mid-Majors: 12-16 (43 percent)
Small Conf.: 1-9 (10 percent)

Here the Mid-Major conferences include the Atlantic Ten, Missouri Valley, WCC, CAA, Conference USA, Horizon League, MAC, and Mountain West. Small conferences include the Sun Belt, America East, Big Sky, Big West, MAAC, Patriot, Southland, and Big South.

Note that the lone victory in these games for a small conference team was last year when Western Kentucky defeated San Diego. Western Kentucky was actually the favored team in this instance as a No. 12 seed playing a No. 13 seed.

Summary

• No. 4 and No. 5 seeds have essentially equal chances at reaching the Sweet Sixteen
• No. 3 and No. 6 seeds are fairly evenly matched, but No. 3 seeds have a much higher chance of winning their first round game, giving them a better chance of reaching the Sweet Sixteen
• The Pac 10 conference has fared exceptionally well in these second round games, while the ACC has done surprisingly poorly
• Small Conference teams have done extremely poorly in these match-ups

Filling Out Your Bracket: No. 1 and No. 2 Seeds in the Second Round

No. 1 and No. 2 seeds nearly always advance to the second round of the NCAA Tournament. In fact, they have done so a combined 71/72 times since the 2000 season. While No. 1 seeds and No. 2 seeds are always very strong teams, sometimes there can be a large difference in ability between the two. Thus in this article they will be considered separately. However, the two seeds have very similar opponents in the second round. No. 1 seeds face either a No. 8 or No. 9 seed, while No. 2 seeds draw either a No. 7 or No. 10 seed. I will work off of the assumption that the teams earning the seed in this range have virtually interchangeable ability, thus I will also analyze these two match-ups as combined together.

No. 1 Seeds

No. 1 Seeds have lost their second round game five times out of 36 (14%) since 2000. Four of the five teams to have defeated No. 1 seeds in the second round were No. 8 seeds and only one was a No. 9 seed (UAB over Kentucky in 2004). The average margin of victory in these second round games is for the No. 1 seed to win by 10.47 points per game.

Three of the five No. 1 seeds to have been upset in the second round were from the Pac 10 Conference. Three of the five teams to get the upset victory had won their first round game by more than 10 points. This is significant when compared to the average margin of victory in 8/9 match-ups of 1.11 points per game (in favor of No. 8 seeds). Three of the five upset teams also went on to win at least one more game in the tournament. Wisconsin and North Carolina both reached the Final Four as No. 8 seeds in 2000, and Alabama reached the Elite Eight as a No. 8 seed in 2004.

No. 2 Seeds

No. 2 seeds have lost second round games 16 out of 35 (46%) times since 2000. This rate for upsets is astonishingly high and much more prevalent than for No. 1 seeds in the second round. Nearly two of the four No. 2 seeds lose in the second round every tournament. The average margin of victory in these second round games is for the No. 2 seed to win by 2.57 points per game.

Eight of the 15 teams to upset a No. 2 seed in the second round this decade have been No. 7 seeds and seven have been No. 10 seeds. Six of the 15 teams went on to win their next game to advance to the Elite Eight, but none were able to make the Final Four. No. 7 or No. 10 seeds that were successful in upsetting No. 2 seeds also tended to have won their first round games by significant margins, averaging a 9.31 point per game victory margin.

No. 1 and No. 2 Seeds Combined

The following shows how each power conference has fared as a No. 1 or No. 2 seed since 2000:

Big 12: 12-0 (100 percent)

Pac 10: 8-3 (73 percent)

ACC: 10-4 (71 percent)

Big Ten: 5-2 (71 percent)

Big East: 6-5 (55 percent)

SEC: 5-5 (50 percent)

Other: 4-2 (66 percent)

Even though the Big 12 Conference has had the second most games this decade as a No. 1 or No. 2 seed in the second round, they have not lost in 12 opportunities. The Pac 10, ACC, and Big Ten all have had very good success as No. 1 or No. 2 seeds in the second round as well, while the Big East and SEC have each been upset fairly often in these games. Non-power conference have faired reasonably well as No. 1 and No. 2 seeds as well.

Now to show how the conferences have fared in upsetting No. 1 or No. 2 seeds in the second round since 2000:

Big East: 4-4 (50 percent)

Big Ten: 3-7 (30 percent)

ACC: 2-5 (29 percent)

SEC: 2-7 (22 percent)

Pac 10: 1-4 (20 percent)

Big 12: 0-5 (0 percent)

Other: 9-18 (33 percent)

The only conference (the Big 12) not to have been upset in these games is also the only conference not to have scored any upsets in these games. The power conferences appear to be fairly even in upsetting No. 1 and No. 2 seeds in the second round, with the exception of the Big 12 and the Big East, which has found the most success in this upset role. Non-power conferences have been mores successful than most of the power conferences in getting upset wins.

Summary

• No. 2 seeds get upset a lot in the second and much more often than No. 1 seeds

• Teams that are able to beat No. 1 or No. 2 seeds in the second round often had big wins in the first round

• The Big 12 Conference has never had a team upset in the second round as a No. 1 or No. 2 seed, and has also never had a team beat a No. 1 or No. 2 seed in the second round as a higher seed

• Non-power conference teams appear just as likely to advance as lower seeds and more likely to get upsets as higher seeds in these second round games

• The Big East has had the most success upsetting No. 1 and No. 2 seeds in the second round, while the SEC and Big East have been upset the most frequently in the second round as No. 1 and No. 2 seeds

Filling Out Your Bracket: Tough First Round Picks

The hardest single games to pick correctly in the NCAA Tournament are, not surprisingly, the games pitting teams of closest numerical seed against each other. For first round games, this means the match-ups of No. 8 and No. 9 seeds, No. 7 and No. 10 seeds, and No. 6 and No. 11 seeds.

While these games are often the toughest to pick correctly, the bright side is that they often do not matter as much. Because the winner of these games usually must play a No. 1, No. 2, or No. 3 seed in the second round, most of the teams that are able to advance past the first round do not make it much further.

Of course there are plenty of exceptions. One of the most notable occurred very recently in 2006, when George Mason advanced all the way to the Final Four as a No. 11 seed, the highest number seed out of the six in consideration.

Clearly, as is the case with picking all tournament games, a wrong pick can be deadly.

No. 6 seeds vs No. 11 seeds

Since the 2000 NCAA Tournament, at least one No. 11 seed has advanced to the second round every year except one (2004). No. 11 seeds have defeated No. 6 seeds 12 times out of 36 (percent). The average margin in these games is for the No. 6 seed to win by 3.67 points.

No. 7 seeds vs. No. 10 seeds

Like the previous match-up, there has been at least one No. 10 seed to advance to the six round in every NCAA Tournament this decade except in 2006. No. 10 seeds have defeated No. 7 seeds 12 out of 36 times (33 percent), again exactly the same as the previous match-up.

Notice that six of the 12 (50 percent) No. 10 seeds that made it out of the first round also won their second round games. In fact, two of the 12 (16.7 percent) went to the Elite Eight. In comparison, only eight out of the 24 (percent) No. 7 seeds that won their first round game also won their second. Four of those 24 (16.7 percent) went to the Elite Eight.

The average margin in this first round match-up is for the No. 7 seed to win by 4.56 points. Notice that this is a larger margin of victory than in the match-up of a No. 6 seed and No. 11 seed.

Combined Match-ups: 6/11 and 7/10 games

Since the statistics from the two previous match-ups are so eerily similar, it makes sense to combine them for comparison. The easiest way to perform comparisons is to separate teams by conferences. For the purposes of this article, note that the power conferences are the ACC, Big East, Big 10, SEC, Big 12, and Pac 10. The mid-major conferences are the Atlantic 10, CAA, Conference USA, Missouri Valley, WAC, MAC, Mountain West, Horizon, and West Coast. All other conferences are considered to be small conferences.

It should be no surprise that most teams in the position of a No. 6 or No. 7 seed are from power conferences. Here is a breakdown of how each power conference has fared in these two types of first round match-ups since 2000 (conference, record, win percentage):

ACC: 8-2 (80 percent)
Big East: 9-3 (75 percent)
Big 10: 10-4 (71 percent)
SEC: 3-2 (60 percent)
Big 12: 5-4 (56 percent)
Pac 10: 3-3 (50 percent)

As a whole, power conference teams have won 68 percent (38/56) of their games as No. 6 and No. 7 seeds in the first round since 2000, while mid-major teams have won at a 62.5% (10/16) clip. There have been no small conference teams that have received No. 6 or No. 7 seeds since 2000.

Teams that are seeded No. 10 or No. 11 are a much more diverse group. The majority actually comes from the most successful mid-major conferences. Here is an analysis of conference types in pulling upsets in these match-ups (category, record, win percent):

Power Conferences: 8-18 (31 percent)
Mid-Major Conferences: 14-27 (34 percent)
Small Conferences: 2-3 (40 percent)

The chances of an upset appear fairly even no matter what level of conference a team is from. However, further analysis reveals a little more. Four of the nine mid-major conferences have appeared exceptionally often as No. 10 or No. 11 seeds in this time frame.

These are the Atlantic 10, Missouri Valley, Mountain West, and West Coast Conferences. It is accurate to say these are considered the elite mid-major conferences. If the mid-major conferences are broken down like this, the elite mid-major conferences win these match-ups only 18.5 percent (5/27) of the time, while non-elite mid-major conference win at an astonishing 64 percent (9/14) clip.

It is also worth noting that ignoring the Ivy League, which seems to be far over-rated in the seeding process this decade, small conference teams are 2-1 this decade as No. 10 or No. 11 seeds.

No. 8 seeds vs No. 9 seeds

Seed-wise, these are the most even match-ups of the first round of the NCAA Tournament. Accordingly, they have also been historically the most even (and therefore most difficult to predict).

No. 9 seeds have won 17/36 (47.2 percent) of games against No. 8 seeds since 2000. The average margin in these games is very slim; for the No. 8 seed to win by 1.11 points.

No matter who wins, neither of these seeds fair very well in the second round. Only one out of 17 (6 percent) of No. 9 seeds that won their first game also won their second. Only four out of 19 (21 percent) of No. 8 seeds were able to do the same. However, three of these No. 8 seeds went to the Elite Eight and two made it all the way to the Final Four.

Since No. 8 seeds and No. 9 seeds are so even in this match-up, the conference record breakdown does not distinguish between high and low seed. Here are the records for conferences in these games that have had at least five appearances since 2000 (conference, record, win percent):

Big 12: 5-2 (71 percent)
Big 10: 5-3 (62.5 percent)
Mountain West: 3-2 (60 percent)
Atlantic 10: 4-3 (57 percent)
SEC: 6-5 (54.5 percent)
Pac 10: 4-7 (36 percent)
Big East: 2-6 (25 percent)

Overall, power conference teams have won 48 percent (23/48) of their games in this match-up since 2000, while mid-major conference teams have won 52 percent (11/21) and small conference teams have won 67 percent (2/3).

Summary

• No. 10 and No. 11 seeds each advance to the second round 1/3 of the time
• Power conference teams are more likely to win as No. 6 or No. 7 seeds
• Teams from low level mid-major conferences or small conferences are more likely to win as No. 10 or No. 11 seeds
• No. 8 seeds and No. 9 seeds have essentially equal chances of winning in the first round
• The Big 12 and Big 10 have been very successful in 8/9 match-ups, while the Pac 10 and Big East have been particularly bad
• Teams from gradually lesser conferences seem to have better odds in 8/9 match-ups

Filling Out Your Bracket: Make or Break First Round Picks

The most tricky and often most crucial games to pick in the first round of the NCAA Tournament are No. 4 seed vs. No. 13 seed and the No. 5 seed vs. No. 12 seed match-ups.
No. 4 and No. 5 seeds have shown the ability to reach the Final Four, while No. 12 and No. 13 seeds have also been able to make the Sweet Sixteen.

In the past nine NCAA tournaments, five teams have made the Sweet Sixteen as a No. 12 or No. 13 seed, and one has even reached the Elite Eight. In the same time period, three teams have reached the Final Four as a No. 4 or No. 5 seed, and two of those teams reached the Championship Game.

One of the best examples of how crucial these match-ups can be came in 2000. No. 5-seeded Florida was lucky to survive No. 12-seeded Butler in the first round by a score of 69-68, and then the Gators proceeded to advance all the way to the Championship Game.

In the 72 games played in these first round pairings since 2000, the higher seeded team has won 21 times (29% of the time). Since there are eight of these games in each NCAA Tournament’s first round, on average there are over two upsets per year in these games.

Further, many of these games are very close regardless of who wins. The average margin in both of these first round match-ups is 6.94 points in favor of the lower-seeded team.

It is also true that No. 12 seeds do have significantly better success against No. 5 seeds than No. 13 seeds do against No. 4 seeds. No. 12 seeds have won 13 of 36 (36%) games against No. 5 seeds while No. 13 seeds have won 8 of 36 (22%) of games against No. 4 seeds. The average margin in the 5/12 match-up is 5.22 points in favor of the No. 5 seed, and the average margin in the 4/13 match-up is 8.67 points in favor of the No. 4 seed.

There are several factors that can help in trying to pick the right underdogs in these games.

One of the most important is experience. 10 of the 21 high-seeded teams to win were in at least their second consecutive NCAA Tournament appearance, and many had even more tournament experience than that. Also many of the low-seeded teams to get upset in the first round had relatively little tournament experience.

Another thing to look for is conference tendencies. Most No. 4 seeds and No. 5 seeds are power conference teams, but not always. There have been five teams from non-power conference seed No. 4 or No. 5 in this decade, and they are a mere 2-3 in these first round match-ups. All of these games have been against other non-power conference opponents.

Conversely, No. 12 and No. 13 seeds are usually non-power conference teams, but not always. Five power conference teams have been seeded No. 12 or No. 13 in this decade, and they an impressive 3-2 in these first round games, all coming against power conference opponents.

Further, some power conference teams have held up better than others in playing as the favored team in these games. The Big Ten and Pac 10 have been very successful as No. 4 or No. 5 seeds, while the SEC has been upset more than their fair share.

Here are the records for each of the power conference’s as No. 4 and No. 5 seeds in the first round since 2000: (conference, record, winning percentage)

Big Ten: 10-2 (83%)

Pac 10: 5-1 (83%)

Big East: 14-5 (74%)

ACC: 8-3 (73%)

Big 12: 4-2 (67%)

SEC: 8-5 (62%)

Similary, some non-power conferences have had much more success in pulling off upsets in these first round games than others. The Mountain West conference has had surprisingly very little success while the Missouri Valley, West Coast, and Metro Atlantic Athletic Conferences have had good records as No. 12 and No. 13 seeds in the first round.

Here are the records for each non-power conference in first round games as No. 12 and No. 13 seeds since 2000 (conference, record, winning percentage):

Missouri Valley: 3-1 (75%)

WCC: 2-1 (67%)

MAAC: 2-1 (67%)

America East: 1-1 (50%)

Big Sky: 1-1 (50%)

WAC: 2-3 (40%)

Horizon: 2-4 (33%)

MAC: 1-2 (33%)

Sun Belt: 1-3 (25%)

Big West: 1-3 (25%)

CAA: 1-5 (17%)

Mountain West: 1-9 (10%)

Big South: 0-1 (0%)

Patriot: 0-1 (0%)

Summit: 0-1 (0%)

Ivy: 0-2 (0%)

Southern: 0-3 (0%)

Atlantic Ten: 0-3 (0%)

Ohio Valley: 0-4 (0%)

Teams from conferences typically considered Mid-Major Conference fare slightly better than teams from conferences typically considered small conferences.

Mid-Major Conferences (Atlantic Ten, CAA, Horizon, MAC, Mountain West, Missouri Valley, WAC, WCC) are 12-28 (30%) as No. 12 and No. 13 seeds in the first round. Small Conferences (America East, Big Sky, Big South, Big West, Ivy, MAAC, Ohio Valley, Patriot, Southern, Summit, Sun Belt) are 6-21 (22%) as No. 12 and No. 13 seeds in the first round.

Summary

• Aim for two No. 12 and No. 13 seeds to advance to the second round, but be cautious of picking against No. 4 and No. 5 seeds that could go deep in the tournament

• Favored teams from non-power conferences are more likely to be upset and Underdog teams from power conferences are more likely to post an upset victory

• Underdog teams with NCAA Tournament experience are especially dangerous, while favored teams without much tournament experience are especially vulnerable

• Low seeded teams from the Big Ten and Pac Ten are rarely upset in these match-ups, while low seeded teams from the SEC may be the most vulnerable of the power conference teams

• High seeded teams from the Mountain West, Atlantic Ten, and Ohio Valley Conferences have been highly unsuccessful in these games, while teams from the Missouri Valley, MAAC, and West Coast Conferences have been highly successful

Filling Out Your Bracket: Cinderellas in the Elite Eight and Beyond

There is no better satisfaction than correctly picking an underdog in the NCAA tournament. Most high-seeded teams that we may pick to win usually one win one or two games at most in the tournament. But there are some notable exceptions, and picking a Cinderella to go deep into the tournament correctly could take you to the top of your bracket pool.

Since 2000 there have been five double-digit seeds that have qualified for the Elite Eight. Only one of those teams has moved on to the Final Four, a No. 11 seed. Two No. 8 seeds have also reached the Final Four in the same time period.

• In 2000, No. 8-seeded Wisconsin and No. 8-seeded North Carolina made it to the Final Four.
• No. 11-seeded Temple reached the Elite Eight in 2001.
• No. 12-seeded Missouri and No. 10-seeded Kent State qualified for the Elite Eight in 2002.
• In 2006, No. 11-seeded George Mason made it all the way to the Final Four.
• In 2008, No. 10-seeded Davidson advanced to the Elite Eight.

There are some interesting observations that can be made from these Cinderellas:

Three of the seven Cinderellas listed came from power conferences, and another three of them came from fairly prestigious mid-major conferences. Only Davidson, out of the Big South, had success in the NCAA tournament from a small conference.

Five of the seven teams advanced as far as they did by playing one game against another underdog team, where underdog team means any team other than the lowest possible seed they could have played. Interesting enough, each of these five teams had exactly one game like this. The only two teams to earn all of their wins against the lowest possible seeds were Kent State in 2002 and Davidson in 2008.

The common view that underdogs need senior leadership to advance appears to be inaccurate. While all seven Cinderellas had at least one senior that was a major contributor, four of the seven had only one contributing senior.

Kent State in 2002, George Mason in 2006, and Davidson in 2008 were the only teams with more than one contributing senior. It is interesting, yet is likely coincidence, that these teams are the three most recent Cinderellas in the list. Perhaps multiple seniors has become more of a necessity for potential Cinderellas in very recent years.

Another common trend among the seven Cinderellas was defense. Five of the seven teams allowed 64 points per game or less over the course of the season. The two exceptions were North Carolina in 2000 and Missouri in 2002, both power conference teams.

Finally, scoring balance was a key attribute for most of the Cinderellas. Five of the seven teams had at least three players averaging over 10 points per game on the season. George Mason in 2006 and Temple in 2002 had five players averaging over 10 points per game. The two exceptions were Wisconsin in 2000 and Davidson in 2008.

Wisconsin had an outstanding defense (only allowed 55.8 points per game on the season) so they were able to get away with only one player averaging above 10 points per game. Davidson had one player (Stephen Curry) averaging over 25 points per game, so they were able to have success with only two players averaging over 10 points per game.

In summary, if you are risky enough to try to pick a Cinderella team to advance to the Elite Eight, remember these things:

• Most underdogs come from distinguished conferences.
• Cinderellas very rarely make it all the way to the Final Four.
• If there is a potential for other upsets in a high-seeded team’s side of the bracket, then they have a better chance of advancing further.
• Multiple seniors may not be as important for Cinderellas, but teams should have at least one key senior contributor.
• Most Cinderella teams have a strong defense and good scoring balance.

Seeds in the Final Four

No. 1 Seeds

The 2008 NCAA tournament provided the first Final Four consisting of all No. 1 seeds since the tournament expanded to 64 teams in 1985 (and later 65 teams).

Assuming teams are seeded accurately, the No. 1seeds are the most likely to advance from the Final Four in each region. Clearly this is not good to go off of when filling out your bracket though, as the chance of all four No. 1 seeds advancing is very slim.

Since 2000, a No. 1 seed has been in the Final Four for every NCAA tournament except one year. The exception was in 2006, when three No. 1 seeds all lost in the Elite Eight.

In five of the last nine NCAA tournaments, there have been at least two No. 1 seeds in the Final Four. The only time there were actually more than two was this past season, when there were four.

Out of the 36 teams that have qualified for the Final Four since 2000, 15 (42 percent) of them have been No. 1 seeds.

No. 2 Seeds

Should a No. 1 seed in a region fall, the next most likely candidate for the Final Four is the No. 2 seed.

There has been at least one No. 2 seed in six of the past nine Final Fours, and there have been two No. 2 seeds to advance to the semifinal round in two of the years.

Overall, eight (22 percent) of the 36 teams to make the Final Four since 2000 have been No. 2 seeds.

Overall Distribution

Here are the complete percentages for each respective seed qualifying for the Final Four since 2000.

No. 1 seeds: 42 percent

No. 2 seeds: 22 percent

No. 3 seeds: 14 percent

No. 4 seeds: 6 percent

No. 5 seeds: 8 percent

No. 6 seeds: 0 percent

No. 7 seeds: 0 percent

No. 8 seeds: 6 percent

No. 9 seeds: 0 percent

No. 10 seeds: 0 percent

No. 11 seeds: 3 percent

No. 12 seeds: 0 percent

No. 13 seeds: 0 percent

No. 14 seeds: 0 percent

No. 15 seeds: 0 percent

No. 16 seeds: 0 percent

In addition, no team seeded higher than 11 has ever qualified for the Final Four since the 1985 expansion. Seed Nos. 7, 9, and 10 have also never reached the Final Four since 1985.

Total Seed Number in the Final Four

A good way to assess the distribution of seeds that appear in the Final Four is to look at the sum of the seed numbers that reach the Final Four. The smallest possible seed number is four, which is the case only if all four No. 1 seeds reach the Final Four.

Over the last nine seasons, the total seed number has been as low as four last season and as high as 22 in 2000. The average total seed number has been 10.7, and we can be 95 percent confident that the overall average total seed number for all seasons is between six and 15.

Suggestion Summary

• Take either one or two No. 1 seeds in your Final Four.

• Take one No. 2 seed in your Final Four.

• Make sure your total seed number isn’t too low or too high (aim for around 10).

• Don’t take any No. 7, 9, or 10 seeds in your Final Four.

Seeds in the Final Four

No. 1 Seeds

The 2008 NCAA tournament provided the first Final Four consisting of all No. 1 seeds since the tournament expanded to 64 teams in 1985 (and later 65 teams).

Assuming teams are seeded accurately, the No. 1seeds are the most likely to advance from the Final Four in each region. Clearly this is not good to go off of when filling out your bracket though, as the chance of all four No. 1 seeds advancing is very slim.

Since 2000, a No. 1 seed has been in the Final Four for every NCAA tournament except one year. The exception was in 2006, when three No. 1 seeds all lost in the Elite Eight.

In five of the last nine NCAA tournaments, there have been at least two No. 1 seeds in the Final Four. The only time there were actually more than two was this past season, when there were four.

Out of the 36 teams that have qualified for the Final Four since 2000, 15 (42 percent) of them have been No. 1 seeds.

No. 2 Seeds

Should a No. 1 seed in a region fall, the next most likely candidate for the Final Four is the No. 2 seed.

There has been at least one No. 2 seed in six of the past nine Final Fours, and there have been two No. 2 seeds to advance to the semifinal round in two of the years.

Overall, eight (22 percent) of the 36 teams to make the Final Four since 2000 have been No. 2 seeds.

Overall Distribution

Here are the complete percentages for each respective seed qualifying for the Final Four since 2000.

No. 1 seeds: 42 percent

No. 2 seeds: 22 percent

No. 3 seeds: 14 percent

No. 4 seeds: 6 percent

No. 5 seeds: 8 percent

No. 6 seeds: 0 percent

No. 7 seeds: 0 percent

No. 8 seeds: 6 percent

No. 9 seeds: 0 percent

No. 10 seeds: 0 percent

No. 11 seeds: 3 percent

No. 12 seeds: 0 percent

No. 13 seeds: 0 percent

No. 14 seeds: 0 percent

No. 15 seeds: 0 percent

No. 16 seeds: 0 percent

In addition, no team seeded higher than 11 has ever qualified for the Final Four since the 1985 expansion. Seed Nos. 7, 9, and 10 have also never reached the Final Four since 1985.

Total Seed Number in the Final Four

A good way to assess the distribution of seeds that appear in the Final Four is to look at the sum of the seed numbers that reach the Final Four. The smallest possible seed number is four, which is the case only if all four No. 1 seeds reach the Final Four.

Over the last nine seasons, the total seed number has been as low as four last season and as high as 22 in 2000. The average total seed number has been 10.7, and we can be 95 percent confident that the overall average total seed number for all seasons is between six and 15.

Suggestion Summary

• Take either one or two No. 1 seeds in your Final Four.

• Take one No. 2 seed in your Final Four.

• Make sure your total seed number isn’t too low or too high (aim for around 10).

• Don’t take any No. 7, 9, or 10 seeds in your Final Four.

Filling Out Your Bracket: Use Conference Tendencies for Final Four Teams

In the nine NCAA tournaments played in the current decade, the six major conferences have accounted for 34 of the 36 Final Four teams. The only two teams to qualify for the Final Four outside of the ACC, Big Ten, Big East, SEC, Big 12, and Pac-10 were George Mason from the CAA in 2006 and Memphis from Conference USA in 2008.

So when you are filling out your bracket for March Madness, the safest bet is to have all of your Final Four teams from the top six conferences.

Furthermore, since the 2000 NCAA tournament, the following are the average number of teams each major conference has placed in the Final Four per year.

1) ACC: .889

2) Big Ten: .778

3) Big 12: .667

4) Big East: .556

T-5) SEC: .444

T-5) Pac-10: .444

An ACC team has been in the Final Four in six of the nine NCAA tournaments this decade.

The Big East averages 6.89 teams making the tournament each year during the 2000s, whereas no other conference averages more than 5.44 qualifying teams. However, the Big East does not have the highest number of teams qualifying for the Final Four on average.

Therefore, quantity does not imply quality. Just because a conference has more teams in the NCAA tournament does not mean that conference will have more teams in the Final Four.

Also notice that seven of the last nine Final Fours have featured two teams from one conference, and one of those even featured two teams from two conferences. In 2003 the Big 12 (Kansas and Texas) and the Big East (Syracuse and Marquette) both had two teams in the Final Four.

No conference has ever had more than three Final Four representatives in one season, at least in this decade.

Out of the eight different times a conference has had two teams in the Final Four this decade, it has been the ACC twice, the Big Ten twice, the Big 12 twice, the Big East once, and the SEC once.

However, both of the two most recent NCAA tournaments had four teams from four different conferences. This is most likely coincidence, but it does provide some question as to whether this trend of multiple teams from one conference being in the Final Four is changing.

In summary, for when you are picking your Final Four teams:

• Pick only teams from the six major conferences.
• Pick at least one ACC team.
• The four conferences most commonly represented in the Final Four, in order from most to least, are the ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, and Big East.
• Don’t pick teams from a specific conference just because that conference has a lot of teams in the tournament.
• Know that two teams from the same conference usually make the Final Four, but be careful when choosing which conference.

Memphis Basketball Looks to Bounce Back with Star Recruit

The collapse of the Memphis Tigers at the end of regulation and overtime in last year’s National Championship game will not soon be forgotten. The Tigers missed four out of five free throws at the end of the game and surrendered a miraculous, buzzer-beater three-pointer from Kansas’ Russell Robinson that sent the game to overtime.

Perhaps worse than the emotional letdown of the championship game, Memphis also lost their two best players to the NBA draft. Leading scorer Chris Douglas-Roberts and freshman sensation point guard Derrick Rose both will no longer be able to play with the team this season. Combined, these two players accounted for an average of 33 points per game last season.

While Memphis does have a plethora of role players returning from last year’s team that will look to make a larger impact, the Tigers look with urgency to their incoming recruiting class to provide immediate results. The highlight of that recruiting class is undoubtedly Tyreke Evans.

Tyreke Evans is the No. 6 rated recruit for this year’s college basketball freshman class according to Rivals.com. At American Christian High School in Aston, Pennsylvania, Evans excelled at the point guard position, earning the No. 3 point guard rating from Rivals.com.

However, Memphis will not be giving Evans the direct burden of filling in the shoes of this year’s No.1 NBA draft pick, Derrick Rose. The team has announced the veteran Willie Kemp will take over as point guard, and Tyreke will shift to shooting guard. In many ways though, Evans is still expected to replace Rose.

Evans and Rose have many similarities, but it is mostly Evans’ hype coming out of high school that will draw him comparisons to the former freshman phenom.

While Evans is ranked as the No. 6 recruit in his class, Derrick Rose was the No. 3 rated recruit in the freshman class of 2007. Rose was also the No. 1 rated point guard, while Evans ranks No. 3.

Both Evans and Rose have very good size for the guard position. Evans is 6’5 while Rose is slightly shorter at 6’4.

They both also come from very similar backgrounds. Tyreke Evans is from Chester, PA, a tough area in Philadelphia, while Derrick Rose is from the south side of Chicago.

When his incredible basketball talent began to show, Rose’s mother made sure that Derrick’s older brother looked out for him to keep him safe and out of trouble during High School. Tyreke Evans had a very similar situation, as his older brothers protected him and even sent him to a private high school away from the streets of Philly.

In his senior year of high school, Evans averaged 29 points per game. Rose averaged fewer points at 25.2 per game in his senior season, but did lead his team to their second straight state title.

Both stars have the rare ability to make the game look very easy. They both are extremely quick and very talented at driving the ball to the basket and finishing strong.

There is one more thing that both Rose and Evans have in common that is extremely important. Derrick Rose only played one year at Memphis before leaving for the NBA, and nobody would be surprised if Tyreke Evans did the exact same thing.

Evans has already been projected to be the No. 10 overall pick and next year’s draft, and has said he hopes that his time on Memphis helps to prepare him for the NBA.

Ever since the rule was set that players must be one year removed from High School to be eligible for the NBA, the one-and-done college basketball player has become extremely common. In 2006, six of the top seven ranked players (again according to Rivals.com) out of high school left for the NBA after their freshman season. Last year, nine of the top ten ranked players made the same jump to the NBA after just one year in college.

Being the No. 6 rated recruit for this year’s class, if the trend continues then the chances of Tyreke Evans bolting for the NBA after one year at Memphis are very high.

In fact, it is fairly simple to create a logistic regression statistical model to predict the probability of Evans going one-and-done. Thus, I used data from the last two seasons’ freshman classes to do just that. I used the top 30 ranked recruits for the freshman class of 2006 and the top 30 ranked recruits from last year.

I found a model based solely off of the rankings from Rivals.com to be an extremely good predictor for whether or not the player goes to the NBA after one season. Based off of this model, which only takes into account his No. 6 ranking, Tyreke Evans is given a 77.4% chance of turning professional after this season.

Additionally, I came up with another model that includes a measure for success in a player’s first year of college. I chose to quantify this success in terms of points scored per game. Based off of this model, the chance of Evans going to the NBA after his freshman year depends on how well he does this season. To give an idea, if Evans averages 10 points per game this season, his probability of going to the NBA then drops to 52%. If Evans averages 20 points per game, then his probability of going to the NBA goes up to 92.5%.

It should be noted that there is not a lot of data available to use for this study since the rule has only been in place for two years. The probabilities mentioned assume that the trends from the previous two years will hold this season as well.

It should also be noted that when I say leaving for the NBA after one season, I mean that a player fails to return to his college team the next season for the main reason of playing in the NBA. Players that “tested the waters” in the NBA and then returned to their college teams were not considered to be one-and-done. Also, players that left their teams for reasons other than the NBA (academics, etc.) were not considered to be one-and-done either.

Clearly, Memphis fans should be more immediately concerned about the productivity from Evans for this season rather than if he will be around beyond that, but it certainly makes it more difficult for Memphis (or any other team) to maintain a dominant program if its star players only play for one season.

Tyreke Evans gives the Memphis program a lot to be excited about for this season, even if he does not stay a Tiger beyond that. For Memphis to have another chance at a national title this season, Evans will have to live up to his hype. Just like Derrick Rose before him.

The Real Prestige Rankings: Part XI

This is the eleventh and final part in my series of Prestige Rankings for NCAA Basketball over the past 24 years. This is a summary of the previous ten articles, and allows you to see the rankings all in one spot. However, it does not have the explanation and detail of the earlier articles.

My rankings are a more accurate and simplistic approach to the Prestige Rankings released by ESPN several weeks ago.

Conferences:

Here are conferences, in order of rank, along with their average point totals:

1. ACC – 435.00
2. Big Ten – 399.91
3. Big East – 366.81
4. SEC – 338.42
5. Big 12 – 321.67
6. Pac 10 – 280.20
7. Atlantic 10 – 148.71
8. Mountain West – 148.33
9. Conference USA – 106.83
10. West Cost Conference – 72.50
11. Missouri Valley – 68.60
12. Horizon – 54.00
13. WAC – 45.11
14. MAC – 38.00
15. Sun Belt – 33.54
16. CAA – 30.17
17. Patriot League – 24.63
T-18. MAAC – 18.00
T-18. Ivy League – 18.00
20. Southern – 16.36
21. Big Sky – 14.44
22. Big West – 13.33
23. Ohio Valley – 10.18
24. MEAC – 9.73
25. Big South – 7.63
26. SWAC – 7.50
27. America East – 5.78
28. Southland – 5.33
29. Atlantic Sun – 4.67
30. Northeast – 3.64
31. Summit – 1.20
32. Independents – 0.00

Top 50 Teams:

Here are the top 50 teams, listed in order with cumulative point totals over the past 24 seasons (rank, team, ESPN rank, point total)

1. Duke (1) – 1,135
2. North Carolina (3) – 1,106
3. Kansas (2) – 1,076
4. Kentucky (4) – 978
5. Arizona (5) – 749
6. UCLA (7) – 731
7. Connecticut (6) – 724
8. Syracuse (9) – 713
9. Georgetown (T-10) – 690
10. Michigan State (T-10) – 655
11. Louisville (T-14) – 637
12. Texas (18) – 632
13. Illinois (23) – 616
14. Maryland (28) – 601
15. Indiana (13) – 587
16. Oklahoma (12) – 576
17. Arkansas (T-14) – 563
18. Purdue (29) – 546
19. Temple (20) – 538
20. Oklahoma State (32) – 506
21. Cincinnati (19) – 504
22. Florida (21) – 500
23. Alabama (T-35) – 484
24. Michigan (22) – 475
25. Stanford (25) – 466
26. Memphis (T-14) – 460
27. UNLV (8) – 453
28. Utah (24) – 448
29. Georgia Tech (33) – 446
30. Ohio State (27) – 440
31. Villanova (T-30) – 425
32. Xavier (17) – 418
33. Wake Forest (T-37) – 416
34. Iowa (49) – 404
T-35. Seton Hall (51) – 378
T-35. Pittsburgh (T-43) – 378
T-37. Wisconsin (T-43) – 364
T-37. Boston College (T-70) – 364
39. North Carolina State (52) – 358
40. St. John’s (T-35) – 356
41. Gonzaga (26) – 318
42. Missouri (T-37) – 316
43. LSU (T-40) – 314
44. Auburn (T-90) – 310
45. Iowa State (T-57) – 304
46. Tulsa (39) – 302
T-47. Virginia (T-70) – 278
T-47. Notre Dame (T-86) – 278
49. Mississippi State (T-86) – 252
50. West Virginia (67) – 248

Summary:

If you compare my rankings to the ESPN rankings, I think it is quite clear that my simplistic scoring method was very comparable to the more complicated ESPN method. In fact, I believe my scoring system has corrected for the questionable areas in the ESPN rankings.

The weaker teams that were ranked highly in ESPN’s rankings because of playing against weaker competition are not ranked as highly in my version. As a result, the above average teams in the major conferences are all ranked more favorably in my rankings because they were pushed behind small conference teams in ESPN’s version.

Looking at the team rankings, most of the large rank differences come from the teams from weaker conferences (UNLV, Gonzaga, Tulsa, etc.) and from the more average teams in major conferences (Auburn, Notre Dame, Mississippi State, Boston College, etc.).

Please look back to my previous articles in this series for more detail on the teams and conferences.

The Real Prestige Rankings: Part X

This is the tenth and second to last part in my series of Prestige Rankings for NCAA Basketball over the past 24 years. My rankings are a more accurate and simplistic approach to the Prestige Rankings released by ESPN several weeks ago.

Here I will unveil the top conferences and top overall teams in the rankings. The eleventh and final part in the series will be released tomorrow, and will be a brief summary and consolidation of my previous articles.

Conferences: (Conference Rank, Team, Points, Overall Rank, ESPN’s Overall Rank)

3) Big East – Average Point Total: 366.81

1) Connecticut – 724 (7, 6)
2) Syracuse – 713 (8, 9)
3) Georgetown – 690 (9, T-10)
4) Louisville – 637 (11, T-14)
5) Cincinnati – 504 (21, 19)
6) Villanova – 425 (31, T-30)
T-7) Seton Hall – 378 (T-35, 51)
T-7) Pittsburgh – 378 (T-35, T-43)
9) St. John’s – 356 (40, T-35)
10) Notre Dame – 278 (T-47, T-86)
11) West Virginia – 248 (50, 67)
12) Depaul – 210 (T-54, 95)
13) Marquette – 190 (58, T-61)
14) Providence – 130 (T-73, T-111)
T-15) South Florida – 4 (T-191, T-229)
T-15) Rutgers – 4 (T-191, T-225)


The Big East, with the help of its recently added teams, is the third ranked conference in the last 24 seasons. The Big East boasts eleven top 50 programs, which is by far the most of any conference (the Big East also has more teams than most conferences).

The race for the top spot in the conference was very close, as the top four teams were all within ranked overall within five spots of each other. UConn grabbed the top spot with the seventh overall rank, Syracuse was second in the Big East and eighth overall, Georgetown came next at ninth overall, and Louisville finished fourth in the Big East but eleventh overall.

The Big East has earned five national championships since 1985. Villanova has one (1985), Louisville has one (1986), Syracuse has one (2003), and Connecticut has two (1999 and 2004).

Nine teams in the Big East have reached at least the Final Four in the last 24 seasons (UConn, Syracuse, Georgetown, Louisville, Cincinnati, Villanova, Seton Hall, St. John’s, and Marquette).

The main visible negative for this conference is the bottom teams. Both South Florida and Rutgers have been very poor basketball programs in this time period. Neither has a tournament victory, and they have only two tournament appearances each.

2) Big 10 – Average Point Total: 399.91

1) Michigan State – 655 (10, T-10)
2) Illinois – 616 (13, 23)
3) Indiana – 587 (15, 13)
4) Purdue – 546 (18, 29)
5) Michigan – 475 (24, 22)
6) Ohio State – 440 (30, 27)
7) Iowa – 404 (34, 49)
8) Wisconsin – 364 (T-37, T-43)
9) Minnesota – 226 (52, 68)
10) Penn State – 86 (T-96, T-185)
11) Northwestern – 0 (T-273, T-290)

The Big East may have the highest number of teams in the top 50, but the Big Ten has the highest proportion of teams within the top 50, helping it to be the second ranked conference in the last 24 seasons. The Big Ten has eight of its eleven teams ranked inside the top 50 (actually inside the top 37).

Michigan State is the pride of the conference and is ranked tenth in the overall rankings. Illinois and Indiana were the only teams within 100 points of the Spartans.

The Big Ten has three national championships to its credit since 1985. Indiana has one (1987), Michigan has one (1989), and Michigan State has one (2000).

Seven Big Ten teams have reached at least the Final Four in the last 24 seasons (Michigan State, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio State, Wisconsin, and Minnesota).

The separation between the Big Ten and the top ranked conference comes from the Big Ten’s lack of a top overall team and Northwestern.

Michigan State is the highest ranked overall team in the Big Ten, and they only scored high enough for tenth overall.

Northwestern, at the bottom of the Big Ten rankings, has a score of zero points. They are the only team in any of the six major conferences to not have any tournament appearances in the last 24 seasons. They weigh down the Big Ten average point total significantly.

1) ACC – Average Score: 435.00

1) Duke – 1,135 (1, 1)
2) North Carolina – 1,106 (2, 3)
3) Maryland – 601 (14, 28)
4) Georgia Tech – 446 (29, 33)
5) Wake Forest – 416 (33, T-37)
6) Boston College – 364 (T-37, T-70)
7) North Carolina State – 358 (39, 52)
8) Virginia – 278 (T-47, T-70)
9) Florida State – 180 (T-59, 128)
10) Clemson – 142 (71, T-111)
11) Miami – 122 (T-78, T-145)
12) Virginia Tech – 72 (T-102, T-210)

The ACC is the No. 1 ranked conference in the last 24 seasons. It has not only the No. 1 and No. 2 ranked teams overall (Duke and North Carolina), but also has eight top 50 teams.

Also, the strength of the bottom part of the ACC is much better than other conferences. This is the only conference where every team has multiple tournament victories. The 72 points for Virginia Tech, ranked last in the conference, is by far more points than any other conference’s last ranked team. The previous high point total for a last place team in a conference was 8.

The ACC has six national championships to its credit since 1985. Duke has three (1991, 1992, and 2001), North Carolina has tw0 (1993 and 2005), and Maryland has one (2002).

Surprising, only four teams in the ACC have reached the Final Four in this time period. Duke, North Carolina, Maryland, and Georgia Tech are the only teams that have done so.

In addition, it should be noted that despite the ACC’s huge advantage over any other conference in average point total, that the newest addition to the ACC have hurt the conference’s prestige. Miami and Virginia Tech are the last two rated teams in the conference and Boston College is only at No. 6.

The average point total of the ACC without these three newest teams would actually be 518, which is significantly higher than their actual average point total of 437.

Top 50 Teams:

5) Arizona Wildcats – Total Points: 749

• 1 NCAA Championship, 1 Championship Game Appearance, 2 Final Four Appearances, 3 Elite Eight Appearance, 4 Sweet Sixteen Appearances, 0 Missed Tournaments
• ESPN Rank: 5

Arizona is the only team in Division I college basketball that has made the NCAA tournament every year for the past 24 seasons. That, along with some very successful tournaments, makes the Wildcats undoubtedly one of the most prestigious programs of the time period.

The highlight for Arizona came in 1997 when they won a national championship. They defeated No. 1-seeded Kentucky as a No. 4 seed in the finals in a close game.

Arizona also made the national championship game in 2001 as a No. 2 seed, but they lost to No. 1-seeded Duke. The Wildcats have two other Final Four appearances since 1985; one in 1988 and one in 1994.

The reason why Arizona ranks below teams that have missed a few tournaments is their high number of first round losses. In their 24 tournament appearances in this time period, Arizona has lost in the first round ten times. This includes each of the past two seasons.

4) Kentucky Wildcats – Total Points: 978

• 2 NCAA Championships, 1 Championship Game Appearance, 1 Final Four Appearance, 6 Elite Eight Appearances, 4 Sweet Sixteen Appearances, 3 Missed Tournaments
• ESPN Rank: 4

Arizona may have won the battle of the Wildcats by defeating Kentucky in the national championship game in 1997, but Kentucky wins the war by besting Arizona in the prestige rankings.

Kentucky has dominated the SEC conference and has had a lot of success in the NCAA tournament.

Kentucky is below the top three in the rankings because of a tournament ban that caused them to missed three straight tournaments from 1989 to 1991, and several missed opportunities. Their six losses in the Elite Eight round is more than any other college basketball team in this period

Kentucky does have two national championships to its credit in the last 24 seasons. They won the tournament as a No. 1 seed in 1996, after defeated No. 4-seeded Syracuse in the finals, and also won it all two years later in 1998 as a No. 2 seed. There they defeated No. 3-seeded Utah in the finals.

Kentucky also made the championship game in 1997 and the Final Four in 1993.

3) Kansas Jayhawks – Total Points: 1,076

• 2 NCAA Championships, 2 Championship Game Appearances, 3 Final Four Appearances, 3 Elite Eight Appearances, 5 Sweet Sixteen Appearances, 1 Missed Tournamens
• ESPN Rank: 2

Kansas is the No. 3 most prestigious program in the last 24 seasons. They have been in the NCAA tournament 23 of the 24 years and have made it to at least the Final Four in seven of those years.

The Jayhawks won the national championship in 1988 as a No. 6 seed by defeating No. 1-seeded Oklahoma in the finals. Then they added another national championship this last year by defeating No. 1-seeded Memphis in the finals in dramatic overtime fashion as a No. 1 seed. Kansas’ Mario Chalmers hit a game-tying three-pointer at the end of regulation.

Kansas has also been two the national championship game two other times. In 1991 they lost to No. 2-seeded Duke in the finals as a No. 3 seed and in 2003 they lost to No. 3-seeded Syracuse in the finals as a No. 2 seed. Kansas’ other Final Four appearances came in 1986, 1993, and 2002.

You may notice the only difference in my top five teams from ESPN’s is that Kansas and UNC switched places. While Kansas has had more regular season success because they do not have any competition that matches Duke in their conference, North Carolina has had the better tournament success.

2) North Carolina Tar Heels – Total Points: 1,106

• 2 NCAA Championships, 6 Final Four Appearances, 4 Elite Eight Appearances, 4 Sweet Sixteen Appearances, 2 Missed Tournaments
• ESPN Rank: 3

The Tar Heels are the second most prestigious basketball program over the last 24 seasons. They have only two missed tournaments, both of which came under coach Matt Doherty during the recovery after Dean Smith’s retirement.

Amazingly, in the 22 tournament appearances, UNC has only lost in the first round once. This came in 1999 when they were upset as a No. 3 seed by No. 14-seeded Weber State.

North Carolina has reached at least the Final Four eight times. They won the national championship in 1993 as a No. 1 seed by defeated No. 1-seeded Michigan. Then, after their only other Final Four victory in this time period, UNC won another national championship in 2005. They defeated No. 1-seeded Illinois as a No. 1 seed. The Tar Heels also had six losses in the semi-finals (1991, 1995, 1997, 1998, 2000, and 2008).

1) Duke Blue Devils – Total Points: 1,135

• 3 NCAA Championships, 4 Championship Game Appearances, 3 Final Four Appearances, 1 Elite Eight Appearance, 6 Sweet Sixteen Appearances, 1 Missed Tournaments
• ESPN Rank: 1

The number one most prestigious team in the last 24 seasons is the Duke Blue Devils. It seems no matter what criteria you use, Duke has been the top program in college basketball in this time period.

The Blue Devils have only missed one tournament, which came in 1995. They have also only lost in the first round twice out of their 23 tournament appearances.

Duke has made it to at least the Final Four ten times since 1985, easily more than any other team. Duke won the national championships in 1991, 1992, and 2001. In 1991 they defeated No. 3-seeded Kansas in the finals as a No. 2 seed. Then the next season they beat No. 6-seeded Michigan in the championship game as a No. 1 seed. They also won the tournament in 2001 as a No. 1 seed, when they defeated No. 2-seeded Arizona in the finals.

Duke has also lost in the championship four times. They lost to No. 2-seeded Louisville as a No. 1 seed in 1986, to No. 1-seeded UNLV as a No. 3 seed in 1990, to No. 1-seeded Arkansas as a No. 2 seed in 1994, and finally to No. 1-seeded UConn as a No. 1 seed in 1999.

Duke also made the Final Four in 1988, 1989, and 2004, but lost all of their semi-final games in those years.