ADVERTISEMENT

64 Preseason #1 Teams: 14 Won Title, 9 Runners-up, 5 F4 Losses, 6 E8 Losses

D

dlh331

All-SEC
Gold Member
Jan 4, 2003
7,793
15,389
113
Someone asked the other day how the pre-season #1 fared in the NCAA tourney. The AP started the preseason poll in 1962. In those 54 seasons since the team finished:

14 NCAA titles for 25.9%
9 Runners-up for 16.7%

So the #1 team made the title game 23 times for 42.6%

5 Final 4 losses for 9.3%

So the #1 team made at least the Final 4 28 times for 51.9% which is rather high for random event such as the NCAAT has been

6 Elite 8 losses for 11.1%
8 Sweet 16 losses for 14.8%
9 Rd 32/1st round losses for 16.7%
3 missed the NCAAT for 5.6%

**Thanks to my man below the total should be 54 seasons; not 64

Darryl
 
Last edited:
A different way to look at preseason rankings is where were the eventual champs ranked:

#1 14 times
#2 11 times
#3 4 times
#4 6 times
#5 1 time (1998 UK)
#6 2 times
#7 3 times
#8 1 time
#9 2 times
#10 1 time
#11-25 3 times
Unranked 6 times

So, a pre-season top 4 team has won the title 35 times for 54.5% of the time.

Darryl
 
  • Like
Reactions: blubo
dlh331 said:
A different way to look at preseason rankings is where were the eventual champs ranked:

#1 14 times
#2 11 times
#3 4 times
#4 6 times
#5 1 time (1998 UK)
#6 2 times
#7 3 times
#8 1 time
#9 2 times
#10 1 time
#11-25 3 times
Unranked 6 times

So, a pre-season top 4 team has won the title 35 times for 54.5% of the time.

Darryl
Click to expand...
Check your math. That adds up to 54, when all your other posts talk about 64.

Beyond that, I enjoy these type of threads, because I find historical trends interesting. Back in the bad old Tubby days, there used to be constant arguments about how important preseason ratings were. My argument was always that it's hard to take a team seriously as a title threat if they're not at least in the preseason top 10. Whether it's 44/54, or 44/64, the numbers bear that out.
 
mj2k10 said:
Check your math. That adds up to 54, when all your other posts talk about 64.

Beyond that, I enjoy these type of threads, because I find historical trends interesting. Back in the bad old Tubby days, there used to be constant arguments about how important preseason ratings were. My argument was always that it's hard to take a team seriously as a title threat if they're not at least in the preseason top 10. Whether it's 44/54, or 44/64, the numbers bear that out.
Click to expand...
mj2k10 said:
Check your math. That adds up to 54, when all your other posts talk about 64.

Beyond that, I enjoy these type of threads, because I find historical trends interesting. Back in the bad old Tubby days, there used to be constant arguments about how important preseason ratings were. My argument was always that it's hard to take a team seriously as a title threat if they're not at least in the preseason top 10. Whether it's 44/54, or 44/64, the numbers bear that out.
Click to expand...

You are correct, it's 54 seasons, not 64. In addition, let's stop calling it a preseason poll, as its acutally the FIRST official poll. In other words, it counts.
 
Thanks guys; I edited what I could. Makes the numbers look even better. I had a senior moment...seems to happen more and more but luckily I tend to forget the lapses after a week or so....

Darryl
 
  • Like
Reactions: blubo
The 3 teams that missed the tourney:

1966 UCLA defending champ went 18-8

1970 South Carolina went 25-3, 14-0 in the ACC and lost in the ACC tourney when only 1 team went. Was AP #6

1975 NC State finished 22-6, AP #7; lost in ACC tourney

Darryl
 
dlh331 said:
The 3 teams that missed the tourney:

1966 UCLA defending champ went 18-8

1970 South Carolina went 25-3, 14-0 in the ACC and lost in the ACC tourney when only 1 team went. Was AP #6

1975 NC State finished 22-6, AP #7; lost in ACC tourney

Darryl
Click to expand...

Wasn't Kentucky ranked #3 at the start of the 2012-13 season? You may have missed that one. Uggg.... I hate to bring that up. Bad Mojo.
 
TyCatPrice14 said:
Nope UofL was followed by IU at 2 and then UK at three.
Click to expand...

Good study. When I've dabbled in this before, I found if you look at the preseason poll as a grouping (top 5, second 5, so forth) rather than an actual ranking you start getting something pretty meaningful. The top spot is just a number. The top 5 can be expected to do some impressive work

By the way, it is PRE-season as in the season has not started. That is a grossly different ranking scenario as it is not based on any actual performance data. In season polls have the benefit of in season data which makes them totally different.
 
kybassfan said:
Good study. When I've dabbled in this before, I found if you look at the preseason poll as a grouping (top 5, second 5, so forth) rather than an actual ranking you start getting something pretty meaningful. The top spot is just a number. The top 5 can be expected to do some impressive work

By the way, it is PRE-season as in the season has not started. That is a grossly different ranking scenario as it is not based on any actual performance data. In season polls have the benefit of in season data which makes them totally different.
Click to expand...

groundbreaking info right there
 
It'd be interesting to see the stats after the field went to 64. I'm assuming the %'s are lower.
 
Alumni Gym said:
Wasn't Kentucky ranked #3 at the start of the 2012-13 season? You may have missed that one. Uggg.... I hate to bring that up. Bad Mojo.
Click to expand...

What in the heck does that have to do with #1 ranked teams at the start of the season? Try to pay attention.
 
Alumni Gym said:
I stand corrected based on your meaning. However, it's still not a preseason poll, it's actually the official FIRST poll.
Click to expand...

Except for the fact that the season hasn't started and they've played no games. The other polls take place after the season has started and they have played games.

Hindsight is 20 20 for a reason.
 
kybassfan said:
Except for the fact that the season hasn't started and they've played no games. The other polls take place after the season has started and they have played games.

Hindsight is 20 20 for a reason.
Click to expand...

you sure about that? i think we need more research.
 
Alumni Gym said:
You are correct, it's 54 seasons, not 64. In addition, let's stop calling it a preseason poll, as its acutally the FIRST official poll. In other words, it counts.
Click to expand...

Why change the English language?

And counts for what exactly? Do they award a championship? Hang banners? Given money? What?

Pre-season means BEFORE the season. And it counts for NOTHING!
 
MdWIldcat55 said:
Interesting. But there are a few factors that skew the poll.

Here is just one:

I'd guess at least six of those pre-season No. 1s who won it all were the UCLA teams of the late 1960s, early 1970s that were practically a lock before the first practice: 67-68-69...71-72-73.

If I'm right, the seemingly impressive "14 for 54" for nearly 26 percent would be more like "8 for 48," which is a little more than 16 percent.

Sure, somebody could have beaten those UCLA teams of Lew Alcindor and Bill Walton. But they were much more prohibitive favorites than UNC or UK or Maryland would be this year, for example. They got a waltz into the Final Four in the days of the Weber State, Long Beach-laden "West Regional" and then clearly had more firepower than everyone else.

Overall, I think it has gotten much, much harder to win the tournament than it was in the 1960s or 1970s. Teams like Indiana in 1976 or Kentucky in 1978 could have -- and sometimes did -- stumble. But the talent differential between the top team and everyone else was often greater than today.

So, while the odds of winning it all as preseason No. 1 might be 25.9 percent, when looking at the last 54 years, since 1961, it is not nearly that high today.
Click to expand...
Pretty valid point, so let's look at the numbers from 74 through 2014- 41 years in what I consider the "modern" era of NCAA basketball. 74-75 marked the end of the UCLA dynasty, and the first time the tourney expanded to 32 teams (meaning any champ had to win 5 tourney games) and the first time more than one team from a conference could make it in.

In those 41:

The preseason #1 has won 8 times, lost in the final 6 times, and lost in semis 4 times.

The preseason #2 has won 8 times, lost in the final 1 time, and lost in the semis 8 times.

The preseason #3 has won 4 times, lost in the final 5 times, and lost in the semis 2 times.

The preseason #4 has won 4 times, lost in the final 1 time, and lost in the semis 4 times.

Of the 41 champs, 25 were preseason top 5, as were exactly half of the 82 teams appearing in the finals. Of the 164 FF teams, 98 were preseason top 10. 28 of the 164 were unrated.
 
mj2k10 said:
Pretty valid point, so let's look at the numbers from 74 through 2014- 41 years in what I consider the "modern" era of NCAA basketball. 74-75 marked the end of the UCLA dynasty, and the first time the tourney expanded to 32 teams (meaning any champ had to win 5 tourney games) and the first time more than one team from a conference could make it in.

In those 41:

The preseason #1 has won 8 times, lost in the final 6 times, and lost in semis 4 times.

The preseason #2 has won 8 times, lost in the final 1 time, and lost in the semis 8 times.

The preseason #3 has won 4 times, lost in the final 5 times, and lost in the semis 2 times.

The preseason #4 has won 4 times, lost in the final 1 time, and lost in the semis 4 times.

Of the 41 champs, 25 were preseason top 5, as were exactly half of the 82 teams appearing in the finals. Of the 164 FF teams, 98 were preseason top 10. 28 of the 164 were unrated.
Click to expand...

evidence seems clear to me.
 
MdWIldcat55 said:
I think that's a plausible analysis, and indicates a clear correlation between Top Five preseason picks and postseason success.

It does indicate that; 1. There's no discernible difference between being picked #2 (where I suspect UK will be) and being picked #1, in terms of winning it all. 2. Whether #1 or #2, you are only going to win it all, on average, one time in five. But if not picked #1 or #2, your odds fall swiftly to winning it one year in ten for the #3 and #4 preseason picks, and then rapidly plummet off the probability cliff.
Click to expand...

Well done. There is a pretty decent correlation in 5 team groupings. Being picked #1, not so much. Picked in top 5, pretty decent chance you get the get the top team in that group.

We can look at the number one pick another way. Consider a medical test with a 75% false positive rate. If the doc said he needed to remove a certain part of your anatomy based on a test with those kinds of stats, are you going to hand him a knife?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

IL Wildcat

Scouting Jackson State

Replies
53
Views
3K
Rupp Rafters - Basketball Forum
runt#69
runt#69
IL Wildcat

Scouting Clemson

Replies
44
Views
4K
Rupp Rafters - Basketball Forum
IL Wildcat
IL Wildcat
D

Mid-point of 2020-29 Decade; Top 16 Programs Based On NCAAT Success

Replies
18
Views
1K
The House of Blue
dlh331
D
D

IF UConn Wins 4th Title in 14 years...

Replies
51
Views
2K
The House of Blue
TuckyFan
TuckyFan
Jeff Drummond

Football ***** Postgame Notes - Florida 48, UK 20 *****

Replies
1
Views
376
The House of Blue
College#19
C
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back