Elite Eight losses

[YourPublicEnemy]

I'd like to see our number of losses in this round compared to others. To me, Elite Eight losses are hard because your season is judged on whether you get to the final weekend of the season. You hang banners for Final Fours but not Elite Eights.

So in 30 years, we have come up one game shy of a Final Four in
86,92,95,99,03,05,10,17.

That's eight banners. What really sucks is that in only two of those losses were we not the better team (92,99).

 

[WildMoon]

I'd like to see our number of losses in this round compared to others. To me, Elite Eight losses are hard because your season is judged on whether you get to the final weekend of the season. You hang banners for Final Fours but not Elite Eights.

So in 30 years, we have come up one game shy of a Final Four in
86,92,95,99,03,05,10,17.

That's eight banners. What really sucks is that in only two of those losses were we not the better team (92,99).

wait, why do people say things like this? We were the better team when we were ranked lower?

I always find this interesting that we always view our selves the better team in all of our losses...(2010 we were ranked higher, so i agree with them being the better team.)

 

[kev69]

Seeding/rankings mean little.

 

[WildMoon]

Seeding/rankings mean little.

you are actually making my point. There is really no way to really know who's the better team.

If you asked all the fans before the game, they would all say that they were the better team. Whether it be West Virginia, UConn, UConn, Wisconsin, Indiana, and UNC...

 

[the nail at the foul line]

We are 14 and 19 in Elite 8. Or 17 and 20 if you count early years.

UNC is 20 and 6. Or 20 and 8 if you count early years.

Before you freak too much...A lot of difference in playing Ohio State and Marquette to get to FF and Penn.

We have lost to them 3 times in my life. Each one very painful to me.

 

[YourPublicEnemy]

wait, why do people say things like this? We were the better team when we were ranked lower?

I always find this interesting that we always view our selves the better team in all of our losses...(2010 we were ranked higher, so i agree with them being the better team.)

We had fewer losses than UNC, beat them in December and had about 15 points taken from us in the Elite 8 game. We were better regardless of their seed.

The only one where I'd say the team rated below us was maybe better was 1995 UNC.

 

[EvilMD]

The two previous times we lost to UNC in the Elite Eight, we won it all the following year.

 

[EvilMD]

I'd like to see our number of losses in this round compared to others. To me, Elite Eight losses are hard because your season is judged on whether you get to the final weekend of the season. You hang banners for Final Fours but not Elite Eights.

So in 30 years, we have come up one game shy of a Final Four in
86,92,95,99,03,05,10,17.

That's eight banners. What really sucks is that in only two of those losses were we not the better team (92,99).

We were the better team in 86, but we had to beat LSU four times after just beating Alabama a fourth time. Funny I was just watching this game on youtube. Didn't recall us being up by four with five minutes to go.

We were not the better team in 92. In 95 we were ranked third and UNC fifth entering the tournament. In 99 Michigan State was the one seed. In 03 Bogans was hurt. In 05 we were probably a better team. The 10 team just got unlucky as a poor shooting West Virginia team couldn't miss for one game. And in 2017 the 1 seed got the favorable whistle, at least for the first 20 minutes.

 

[the nail at the foul line]

The two previous times we lost to UNC in the Elite Eight, we won it all the following year.

Yes and also when we beat them in EE.

We have more losses in EE than all but a few programs have EE.

 

[Poetax]

wait, why do people say things like this? We were the better team when we were ranked lower?

I always find this interesting that we always view our selves the better team in all of our losses...(2010 we were ranked higher, so i agree with them being the better team.)

It makes posters believe their own opinion better.

 

[mj2k10]

Honest assessment of Elite 8 losses since seeding started:

83- Not the better team. But a heartbreaking loss because it was so close.
86- Definitely the better team, but not a team that was likely to win a title. Would have been an underdog in the FF in the first game, and the final if they won in the semi.
92- Not the better team. But the ultimate heartbreak.
95- Pretty evenly matched teams. But the best players on the floor played for UNC.
99- Not the better team. Mich State went on to win the title in 2000 with mostly the same players.
03- Probably the better team. But totally outplayed, and the best player on the floor, by far, played for Marquette.
05- Pretty evenly matched. Would have been a major underdog in the FF.
10- Definitely the better team, but West Virginia was probably the best team UK played that year.
17- Very evenly matched teams. Play 10 times, at best it's 6-4 in UK's favor (or 6-4 for UNC). Tough because whoever won the game, be it UNC or UK, was going into the FF as the favorite.

As for the wins:

84- UK was the better team, though not by as much as people thought.
93- UK was obviously better. UK wins that game 9/10 times
96- UK was obviously better. UK wins that game 95/100 times
97- UK was obviously better.
98- UK was slightly worse, though it was very close.
11- Very evenly matched.
12- No contest. UK wins 99/100.
14- Very even.
15- UK clearly better, but Notre Dame was the best team UK played all year, until the next game.

Honestly, I think the main issue has been simple luck. When UK gets to the Elite 8, it's NEVER against some Cinderella who's made an unexpected run. The one time it was, in 86, it worked against UK because it was a team they had already played 3 times (and as I researched last week, and as played out with SC/Fla, LOWER seeds have dominated conference rematch regional finals). The other schools that make frequent appearances in the Elite 8, like UNC, Duke, and Kansas, have had numerous match-ups with teams seeded below 4 that help bloat the winning percentage.

 

[mktmaker]

I've generally felt that many (most?) of the most heart-breaking losses in UK history have come in the Elite Eight.

1970 This was during the two-year UCLA gap between Alcindor and Walton when they were vulnerable (This is in the midst of UCLA winning 10 titles in 12 years -- hard to imagine now). But Jacksonville was a powerhouse team. (I guess we were doomed when Casey broke his leg.)

1977 We were Kyle Macy (who practiced but was ineligible) short of a title -- which we would win the following year. We lost to those baby-blues. There was a lot of controversy in that game.

1995 Again we lost to UNC in a highly contentious game. And again we would take the same players (plus Mercer) and win the title the following year.
For those of you who don't know the story, following is Dr. Neil Burch's account of the game from UK's Historical Laureate, Jon Scott's web site:

http://www.bigbluehistory.net/bb/statistics/Games/19950325NorthCarolina.html

You can watch the donnybrook at 7:45 on the following video:




2003 Marquette: I didn't think Tubby should have played (the injured) Bogans.

2005 Michigan State: It was a meltdown at the end.

2010 West Virginia: A stunner. It still hurts.

 

[Mojocat]

Honest assessment of Elite 8 losses since seeding started:

83- Not the better team. But a heartbreaking loss because it was so close.
86- Definitely the better team, but not a team that was likely to win a title. Would have been an underdog in the FF in the first game, and the final if they won in the semi.
92- Not the better team. But the ultimate heartbreak.
95- Pretty evenly matched teams. But the best players on the floor played for UNC.
99- Not the better team. Mich State went on to win the title in 2000 with mostly the same players.
03- Probably the better team. But totally outplayed, and the best player on the floor, by far, played for Marquette.
05- Pretty evenly matched. Would have been a major underdog in the FF.
10- Definitely the better team, but West Virginia was probably the best team UK played that year.
17- Very evenly matched teams. Play 10 times, at best it's 6-4 in UK's favor (or 6-4 for UNC). Tough because whoever won the game, be it UNC or UK, was going into the FF as the favorite.

As for the wins:

84- UK was the better team, though not by as much as people thought.
93- UK was obviously better. UK wins that game 9/10 times
96- UK was obviously better. UK wins that game 95/100 times
97- UK was obviously better.
98- UK was slightly worse, though it was very close.
11- Very evenly matched.
12- No contest. UK wins 99/100.
14- Very even.
15- UK clearly better, but Notre Dame was the best team UK played all year, until the next game.

Honestly, I think the main issue has been simple luck. When UK gets to the Elite 8, it's NEVER against some Cinderella who's made an unexpected run. The one time it was, in 86, it worked against UK because it was a team they had already played 3 times (and as I researched last week, and as played out with SC/Fla, LOWER seeds have dominated conference rematch regional finals). The other schools that make frequent appearances in the Elite 8, like UNC, Duke, and Kansas, have had numerous match-ups with teams seeded below 4 that help bloat the winning percentage.

Your concluding point is what I was thinking as I read your post. Just an unbelievable lack of good fortune. The bracket simply never opens up for us. I think LSU was an 11 seed, but that's about it. One time in 18 games. And even then we were faced with beating them for a 4th time.

I'd love to see the seeds that Duke, Carolina, Kansas, etc have played in Elite Eight games. Or maybe I wouldn't - I'm certain it's galling.......

 

[willievic]

The two previous times we lost to UNC in the Elite Eight, we won it all the following year.

Let's hope history repeats itself.

OLD STOLL FIELD GUY!