Q

[EvilMD]

I was doing research on UK and UL in the Final Four and found out that before 1979, the NCAA used a weird seeding formula for each region. In 1978, we were actually the 2Q seed behind Michigan State. Q meant automatic qualifier, and L meant at large. We beat Arkansas a 2L and Duke a 1Q in the Final Four. How was UK, the number one ranked team most of that season, not given a top seed?

Oh, and here's my research. These are the years U of L made the Final Four since they went to the seeding system we use now, U of L's seed in parentheses, and who the seeds of the teams they beat or lost to that year...

1980 (2) W5 W8
1982 (3) L1
1983 (1) L1
1986 (2) W11 W1
2005 (4) L1
2012 (4) L1
2013 (1) W9 W4

Now here are UK's years, seeding, and the seeds of who we played...

1984 (1) L1
1993 (1) L1
1996 (1) W1 W5
1997 (1) W1 L4
1998 (2) W3 W3
2011 (4) L3
2012 (1) W4 W2
2014 (8) W2 L7
2015 (1) L1

U of L has been to seven Final Fours, lost to a one seed in the first game four times, and won it all the other three times. In each of those three title years, they beat someone seeded 8th or lower. Now put that in perspective, UK has been to nine Final Fours (again, 1978 not included because different seeding system), and never played anyone seeded lower than 7th. They never played anyone seeded lower than fourth in the first game.

 

[mj2k10]

The 78 thing was probably a leftover from when conference champs went to specific regions. The Mideast always had the Big 10 champ and the SEC champ. The field expanded to 32 in 75 (first time more than one team from a conference could get in), but strict seeding didn't happen until 79. Since there wasn't strict seeding, calling UK 2Q might have just been a bookkeeping thing, possibly as simple as alphabetical order (SEC after Big 10). The Big 10 champ and SEC champ were always on opposite sides of the regional draw, but the other teams in the region were, as far as I know, placed pretty much at random.

And I've noted many, many times just how little luck UK has had in terms of who they've had to play in the NCAA Tournament. I'm not a paranoid, and it has nothing to do with how the NCAA has set up the regions (you just can't predict who's going to make it to the regional finals), but there's absolutely truth to the idea that UK almost NEVER catches a break on their way to the FF (or then in the FF itself).

Just compare Elite 8 games. That's the game where UK struggled mightily (until Cal- he's 4-1, thank you very much).

Seeding started in 79. UK has been in 17 regional finals since then. Here are the seeds that UK has played in those games:

1, 2, 11, 1, 3, 2, 2, 2, 1, 1, 3, 5, 2, 2, 3, 2, 3. Add them up= 46. Average of 2.7

And a note on the 2 biggest numbers there- the 11 was LSU in 86, who UK had already beaten 3 times, and the 5 was Michigan State in 05. Not exactly big breaks.

Here's UNC, 18 appearances:

8, 3, 4, 8, 2, 1, 10, 2, 1, 6, 2, 7, 6, 2, 3, 2, 4, 2. Add those up= 73. Average 4.1

And Duke, 15 appearances:

6, 7, 1, 1, 1, 4, 2, 1, 2, 6, 6, 7, 3, 1, 2. Add those up= 50. Average 3.3

And Kansas, 12 appearances:

6, 4, 1, 1, 4, 2, 1, 3, 2, 10, 11, 1. Add those up= 46. Average 3.8

And I'd just like to add what might be UK's most impressive NCAA Tournament stat. Sweet 16 games have been pretty much the same level of quality since 75. Prior to that, UK was automatically in the Sweet 16 just by qualifying for the tournament. But anyway, since 75, UK is 20-5 in the Sweet 16, and currently on a 7 game winning streak.

 

[EvilMD]

The 78 thing was probably a leftover from when conference champs went to specific regions. The Mideast always had the Big 10 champ and the SEC champ. The field expanded to 32 in 75 (first time more than one team from a conference could get in), but strict seeding didn't happen until 79. Since there wasn't strict seeding, calling UK 2Q might have just been a bookkeeping thing, possibly as simple as alphabetical order (SEC after Big 10). The Big 10 champ and SEC champ were always on opposite sides of the regional draw, but the other teams in the region were, as far as I know, placed pretty much at random.

And I've noted many, many times just how little luck UK has had in terms of who they've had to play in the NCAA Tournament. I'm not a paranoid, and it has nothing to do with how the NCAA has set up the regions (you just can't predict who's going to make it to the regional finals), but there's absolutely truth to the idea that UK almost NEVER catches a break on their way to the FF (or then in the FF itself).

Just compare Elite 8 games. That's the game where UK struggled mightily (until Cal- he's 4-1, thank you very much).

Seeding started in 79. UK has been in 17 regional finals since then. Here are the seeds that UK has played in those games:

1, 2, 11, 1, 3, 2, 2, 2, 1, 1, 3, 5, 2, 2, 3, 2, 3. Add them up= 46. Average of 2.7

And a note on the 2 biggest numbers there- the 11 was LSU in 86, who UK had already beaten 3 times, and the 5 was Michigan State in 05. Not exactly big breaks.

Here's UNC, 18 appearances:

8, 3, 4, 8, 2, 1, 10, 2, 1, 6, 2, 7, 6, 2, 3, 2, 4, 2. Add those up= 73. Average 4.1

And Duke, 15 appearances:

6, 7, 1, 1, 1, 4, 2, 1, 2, 6, 6, 7, 3, 1, 2. Add those up= 50. Average 3.3

And Kansas, 12 appearances:

6, 4, 1, 1, 4, 2, 1, 3, 2, 10, 11, 1. Add those up= 46. Average 3.8

And I'd just like to add what might be UK's most impressive NCAA Tournament stat. Sweet 16 games have been pretty much the same level of quality since 75. Prior to that, UK was automatically in the Sweet 16 just by qualifying for the tournament. But anyway, since 75, UK is 20-5 in the Sweet 16, and currently on a 7 game winning streak.

Thanks for the info. Great stuff. I typed up Question for Jon Scott in my subject line but for whatever reason the mods changed it to Q, so now he probably won't see it. I looked up the 1978 tournament on Wikipedia and in their write-up they said UK beat top seed Michigan State to reach the Final Four. That didn't sound right to me. What you have laid out makes perfect sense.

Think about if we did it this way now. The top two seeds of each region would be locked in....West would have the Pac 10 and Big 12 regular season winner as seeds 1 and 2. The Midwest would have the Big 10 and AAC. The South would have the SEC and wildcard and the East would have the ACC and Big East. Then the seeding of everyone else would begin from 3 on down. It would make conference regular seasons mean something again.

 

[EvilMD]

And I've noted many, many times just how little luck UK has had in terms of who they've had to play in the NCAA Tournament. I'm not a paranoid, and it has nothing to do with how the NCAA has set up the regions (you just can't predict who's going to make it to the regional finals), but there's absolutely truth to the idea that UK almost NEVER catches a break on their way to the FF (or then in the FF itself).

Just compare Elite 8 games. That's the game where UK struggled mightily (until Cal- he's 4-1, thank you very much).

Seeding started in 79. UK has been in 17 regional finals since then. Here are the seeds that UK has played in those games:

1, 2, 11, 1, 3, 2, 2, 2, 1, 1, 3, 5, 2, 2, 3, 2, 3. Add them up= 46. Average of 2.7

And a note on the 2 biggest numbers there- the 11 was LSU in 86, who UK had already beaten 3 times, and the 5 was Michigan State in 05. Not exactly big breaks.

Here's UNC, 18 appearances:

8, 3, 4, 8, 2, 1, 10, 2, 1, 6, 2, 7, 6, 2, 3, 2, 4, 2. Add those up= 73. Average 4.1

And Duke, 15 appearances:

6, 7, 1, 1, 1, 4, 2, 1, 2, 6, 6, 7, 3, 1, 2. Add those up= 50. Average 3.3

And Kansas, 12 appearances:

6, 4, 1, 1, 4, 2, 1, 3, 2, 10, 11, 1. Add those up= 46. Average 3.8

And I'd just like to add what might be UK's most impressive NCAA Tournament stat. Sweet 16 games have been pretty much the same level of quality since 75. Prior to that, UK was automatically in the Sweet 16 just by qualifying for the tournament. But anyway, since 75, UK is 20-5 in the Sweet 16, and currently on a 7 game winning streak.

It really is amazing how many times regions have cleared out for UNC and Duke. I keep hoping it will balance out one day and we'll get a few more Final Fours out of it. And it goes beyond that....last year Kentucky, Duke and Wisconsin were three teams that could have easily won it all in 2014, 2013, 2011 and 2010. Just our luck we had to beat two other great teams to try to finish off an amazing season.

 

[jrpross]

The guy is pretty brilliant isn't he?

 

[mj2k10]

It really is amazing how many times regions have cleared out for UNC and Duke. I keep hoping it will balance out one day and we'll get a few more Final Fours out of it. And it goes beyond that....last year Kentucky, Duke and Wisconsin were three teams that could have easily won it all in 2014, 2013, 2011 and 2010. Just our luck we had to beat two other great teams to try to finish off an amazing season.

Yep.

Look back at how rare it's been for 3 or more 1 seeds to make the FF. It's only happened 5 times. Yet UK has been involved with 3 of those (93, 97, and last year). And 1 seeds make the FF (since 79) at right around 40% (60 out of a possible 148). UK's been in the FF 9 times since seeding started. 5 of those, they've faced a 1 seed (and once a 2, twice a 3).

UK is due a run like UL had in 13, Duke had in 10, or UNC had in 05 (98 is probably the closest for UK). You're never going to win it all without beating some very, very good teams, but it helps A LOT if other people knock out some of the potentially best competition for you.

 

[.S&C.]

The Duke shiz is no conspiracy. Duke does get favorable paths and favorable treatment. academics love the academic schools. The NCAA has tried for years to show Duke as the poster boy. That's why coach k never left.

It amazes me at the minority of fans that don't buy into this. It's right in your face every year.

Regions matter, except for Duke. That's the new one.

 

[mj2k10]

The Duke shiz is no conspiracy. Duke does get favorable paths and favorable treatment. academics love the academic schools. The NCAA has tried for years to show Duke as the poster boy. That's why coach k never left.

It amazes me at the minority of fans that don't buy into this. It's right in your face every year.

Regions matter, except for Duke. That's the new one.

Why should I buy into it?

Their region last year was logical. Gonzaga, rightly or wrongly, was viewed as one of the strongest 2 seeds.

In 2014, they got put in the region death, right along with UK.

In 2013, they got matched with the #1 overall seed. Ditto 2012.

In 2011, they got sent out west, and had to face Arizona in a Sweet 16 game.

2010 is the one that was a complete joke, but even 2010 is partially explainable in that it was the first year that the NCAA put the huge (idiotic) emphasis on geography.

And if anyone was trying to help them from 05-09, they failed miserably, as Duke never made it past the Sweet 16 in any of those years.

 

[.S&C.]

Why should I buy into it?

Their region last year was logical. Gonzaga, rightly or wrongly, was viewed as one of the strongest 2 seeds.

In 2014, they got put in the region death, right along with UK.

In 2013, they got matched with the #1 overall seed. Ditto 2012.

In 2011, they got sent out west, and had to face Arizona in a Sweet 16 game.

2010 is the one that was a complete joke, but even 2010 is partially explainable in that it was the first year that the NCAA put the huge (idiotic) emphasis on geography.

And if anyone was trying to help them from 05-09, they failed miserably, as Duke never made it past the Sweet 16 in any of those years.

Honestly, I stopped at gonzaga. It's fairly obvious why they were put there.

 

[EvilMD]

There are a couple of years that Duke definitely got the best draw, and undeservedly so. Unfortunately those years came at our expense.

Kansas and Kentucky were 32-2 in 2010. Duke had at least five losses. So how did we get West Virginia as our two while Duke got Villanova? You can say "Well Duke destroyed West Virginia in the Final Four so there goes that argument" but that still would have put us in the Final Four.

Then you have last year. Duke got all the soft teams from out West. We got Kansas and Notre Dame, which beat Duke twice last year, including the ACC tournament. Granted, Kansas wasn't a threat to us, but how many people believe that Notre Dame team wouldn't have wiped the floor with Utah or Gonzaga? And then you have the fact that we had Wisconsin and Arizona in our half of the bracket, while Duke had....Villanova? Really?

But mjk is right...Duke doesn't get this every year. They were the two in our region in 2012, and also the three in our region in 2014. It just seems that every time Duke gets the golden ticket, it costs us big time.

 

[goforitcats]

They're a private school with a elitist bent concerning b-ball. They're UNC without all the cheating.

 

[the nail at the foul line]

In 78 UK and Marquette would have played in 2nd round if not for upset. Imagine 1 and 2 ranked teams meeting in 2nd round now. Al McGuire working for NBC at the time embarrassed them into getting serious with seeding in 79. It could be argued the 3 best teams in nation were in mid east in 78.

I used to get frustrated watching UK playing Big Ten teams in EE while Carolina played Penn.

 

[Cat78Scot]

They're a private school with a elitist bent concerning b-ball. They're UNC without all the cheating.

You mean without AS MUCH cheating? Cory Maggette rings a bell.

 

[mj2k10]

There are a couple of years that Duke definitely got the best draw, and undeservedly so. Unfortunately those years came at our expense.

Kansas and Kentucky were 32-2 in 2010. Duke had at least five losses. So how did we get West Virginia as our two while Duke got Villanova? You can say "Well Duke destroyed West Virginia in the Final Four so there goes that argument" but that still would have put us in the Final Four.

Then you have last year. Duke got all the soft teams from out West. We got Kansas and Notre Dame, which beat Duke twice last year, including the ACC tournament. Granted, Kansas wasn't a threat to us, but how many people believe that Notre Dame team wouldn't have wiped the floor with Utah or Gonzaga? And then you have the fact that we had Wisconsin and Arizona in our half of the bracket, while Duke had....Villanova? Really?

But mjk is right...Duke doesn't get this every year. They were the two in our region in 2012, and also the three in our region in 2014. It just seems that every time Duke gets the golden ticket, it costs us big time.

I agree, but most of that seemingly had to do with geography.

2010 (which very much stuck in my craw), the committee rated Kansas 1, UK 2, Duke 3, Syracuse 4, West Virginia 5, Ohio State 6, Kansas State 7, Villanova 8. Kansas got St Louis, then UK got next closest- which was Syracuse. Which is stupid, but they looked up the mileage, and that's how they did it. Then Duke to Austin (and why Duke was rated ahead of Syracuse is a very good question, even if that turned out to be right post-tournament), Syracuse to Salt Lake City.

They didn't use an s-curve, so next was West Virginia to their closest, then Ohio State, then Kansas State, then Villanova. Then Duke lucked into Purdue (minus Hummel) as their 4.

All of it sucked, all of it makes logistical sense.

Ditto last year. UK 1, Villanova 2, Duke 3, Wisconsin 4, Virginia 5, Arizona 6, Gonzaga 7, Kansas 8. Again, they went mainly by geography, and honestly, as much as people hate on Gonzaga, they were a stronger 2 seed than Kansas. There were 2 problems for UK. The first was that Notre Dame was not only the strongest 3, but probably the 4th best team in the country by the end of the year. The 2nd was that UK would have been much, much, much better off if Duke had been rated 2nd, Wisconsin 3rd, Villanova 4th. Or if Virginia had won the ACC Tourney and bumped Duke off the one line. As it stood, Duke got the call ahead of Wisconsin because Duke beat them (at their place), and the committee deferred to Villanova's gaudy record. Which put Wisconsin on UK's side of the bracket.

Again, it sucked, but it makes logistical sense.

 

[EvilMD]

Well then we need to move the state of Kentucky somewhere more advantageous.

 

[Ky-troutbum]

They're a private school with a elitist bent concerning b-ball. They're UNC without all the cheating.

Yeah, not all the cheating, just some of it!

 

[JPScott]

They're a private school with a elitist bent concerning b-ball. They're UNC without all the cheating.

I think you mean UNC without open records.

 

[mj2k10]

Well then we need to move the state of Kentucky somewhere more advantageous.

You say that in jest, but one of the really, really, really idiotic things about ignoring the s-curve in favor of geography is that you can make a good argument that you're better off with one of the lower 1 seeds than the overall #1. Yeah, you might give up some homecourt edge in the regionals, but because the balance of power in college basketball is so tilted east of the Mississippi, there's a good chance that you end up with relatively crappy 2-4 seeds. If they're just going down seed lines and sending teams wherever is closest, the #1 overall seed in the Midwest (or South, depending on location) is likely to get a stacked region.