Comments on: CBB: Which Coaches’ Teams Underperform Their Seeds?

By: Ed

Ed — Tue, 22 Mar 2011 18:06:26 +0000

If you went back further, Ray Meyer would have to be on the list. Three straight years losing the first game as a #1 seed. Doubt we'll ever see that happen again.

By: Sean

Sean — Tue, 22 Mar 2011 12:09:50 +0000

At #3......... Ahhhh... Gene Keady. LOVED the hair---if that's what it was. We always thought he had invented some new shade of Brown to color it that was DARKER than black-----which sounds like something that would break the space/ time continuim. We called it 'Keady Black' (don't know why it wasn't 'Keady Brown')... He looked like the Thing from the Fantastic 4 with a bad toupee.

By: Michael D.

Michael D. — Tue, 22 Mar 2011 08:37:23 +0000

Following up on C. Money's question about Izzo: "Whenever folks start going on about how Izzo is so great at taking low seeds late into the tournament, I ask why he takes teams that are capable of late runs in the tournament and plays them down to low seeds"... Seems to me Izzo prefers to get his teams playoff-ready by taking on tough opponents from the start, whereas others like to ease into the season by front-loading a lot of creampuffs. He doesn't mind hanging some L's on his record in the regular season if it means his team learns how to take a punch along the way. This results in a winning %age that is good enough to get in the tournament but not spectacular, and thus a lower seed than might have been expected with an easier schedule, and a crew capable of outperforming their record at tournament time.

By: MikeN

MikeN — Tue, 22 Mar 2011 07:32:53 +0000

Coach K wasn't that good the half decade before that either.
Where's Calipari?

By: C Money

C Money — Tue, 22 Mar 2011 03:28:33 +0000

Also, I think all this means it that when Coach K gets a high seed (which is every time) he's a good bet to make it to the 2nd weekend, while Dixon and Barnes aren't. I wouldn't extrapolate much beyond that. In particular, if you look at Coach K's seed performance over the period since his championship in '01, you may not be too impressed. See below:

2002 1 (lost in sweet 16)
2003 3 (lost in sweet 16)
2004 1 (lost in final 4)
2005 1 (lost in sweet 16)
2006 1 (lost in sweet 16)
2007 6 (1st rd exit)
2008 2 (2nd rd exit)
2009 2 (lost in sweet 16)
2010 1 (won title)
2011 1 (??)
An average seed of 1.9 & an average final round of 3.2... so despite being _very_ highly seeded they tend to go out in the round of 16. So Coach K's good for taking a #1 or #2 seed to the 3rd round, but not much further.

By: C Money

C Money — Tue, 22 Mar 2011 03:00:26 +0000

Whenever folks start going on about how Izzo is so great at taking low seeds late into the tournament, I ask why he takes teams that are capable of late runs in the tournament and plays them down to low seeds.

In other words, if you take the preseason #2 team and underperform down to, say, a 6-seed then beat, for example, seeds #11, 3, 2 & 4 on the way to the final, then you really haven't done anything that remarkable.

By: Matt

Matt — Tue, 22 Mar 2011 02:40:12 +0000

Reputation often counts for more than anything else. Some of these seeds are earned on that alone. Look at Florida's overall 1 for the 2007 tourney and the 2 this year. The first was undeserved yet proven to be the right seed; we'll see how the latter does.

By: greggrant

greggrant — Mon, 21 Mar 2011 22:18:54 +0000

that's only one factor to determine underachievement but the regular season has a lot to do with a coach's resumé. Getting that high seed requires some wins actually, so regular season results should be taken into account here as well, if not with the same weight.

By: Nathan Walker

Nathan Walker — Mon, 21 Mar 2011 19:40:45 +0000

You also might find that Tom Izzo has been lucky in that some of the teams he faced were better-seeded than they should have been.

This year's College Basketball Prospectus book had an entire article on team success due to having lucky draws in the tourney.

By: BSK

BSK — Mon, 21 Mar 2011 19:22:55 +0000

This doesn't take into account sample size. Izzo outperforming his expected wins by 12 in 48 games is much better than Coach K exceeding his expected wins by 11 in 100 games.