How hard is it to make the Final 4?

[Xuperman]

Our 'Final Five' team from 2004 was obviously right on the doorstep until the refs realized Duke needed help..........

That conspiracy theory is legit. The zebras had to comfort an unhinged Coach K by making sure Myles got his 5th before it was too late....he was destroying them.

But really it was lost from the 3 point line and the charity stripe. The wrong game to look worse than last year's team in both areas.

[AviatorX]

That team had a lot of talent but wasn't actually a buzzsaw. Xavier played like shit.

Xavier was horrible that day, but UCLA started 4 guys who have put together legitimate NBA careers (obviously Westbrook and Love have gone well beyond that) and finished 35-4 (when the PAC-10 was actually good) with top 10 efficiency on offense and defense. They were pretty damn good.

[GoMuskies]

Yes, but of the four "real" teams they played in the Tournament, we were the only one they beat convincingly. Two point win over Texas A&M. 10 point win over Western Kentucky, but it was a 4 point game with 5 to play, and Memphis whipped them. Yes, great talent, but an imminently beatable team for that 2008 squad if they played to their potential. That day, they didnt.

[xubrew]

Huh? Not following the logic.

You need to make the tourney to get to the Final 4. And since fewer teams make it, then fewer teams could achieve the Final 4? Is that it?

I don't know how many teams were in the tourney back then, but I do know that since it's been 64, there have been 4 #11 seeds, 1 #10 seed, and 1 #9 Seed make the Final 4. So 6 out of 140 (4%) Final 4 teams came from the "bottom half" of the bracket. Or said differently, in 35 years there have been 32 teams each year in the bottom half of the bracket (35*32= 1,120) and a total of 6 have made the final 4. So, .5%.

So I guess it was harder back then....? As if it's not incredibly difficulty already??

I personally think the difficulty level has always been the same. Regardless of how many teams are in the tournament, only four make the Final Four, so on the first day of the season the chances for any given team to make it are pretty much the same.

You say only four #11 seeds have made the Final Four. Well, prior to 1980, three of those four teams wouldn't have even been in the NCAA Tournament at all, and therefore had not chance of making the Final Four once the regular season ended. So, one could ARGUE that it is easier for 11 seeds now since the field is now bigger and increases their chances of being able to participate due to having a larger margin for error during the regular season.

I've heard many people dismiss what UCLA did on the grounds that there were only 16-25 teams in the tournament back then (depending on the year). I think that's idiotic. All that meant was that it was harder to make the NCAA Tournament to even get a shot at making the Final Four back then. It wasn't any easier to make the Final Four. I mean, no one ever argues that it was easier to win the World Series prior to the playoffs being expanded, because it wasn't.

[MHettel]

I personally think the difficulty level has always been the same. Regardless of how many teams are in the tournament, only four make the Final Four, so on the first day of the season the chances for any given team to make it are pretty much the same.

You say only four #11 seeds have made the Final Four. Well, prior to 1980, three of those four teams wouldn't have even been in the NCAA Tournament at all, and therefore had not chance of making the Final Four once the regular season ended. So, one could ARGUE that it is easier for 11 seeds now since the field is now bigger and increases their chances of being able to participate due to having a larger margin for error during the regular season.

I've heard many people dismiss what UCLA did on the grounds that there were only 16-25 teams in the tournament back then (depending on the year). I think that's idiotic. All that meant was that it was harder to make the NCAA Tournament to even get a shot at making the Final Four back then. It wasn't any easier to make the Final Four. I mean, no one ever argues that it was easier to win the World Series prior to the playoffs being expanded, because it wasn't.

Back to the stats: if you are a 9 seed or lower, the history over the last 35 years tells me you have a .5% chance of making the Final 4. One in 200.

[xubrew]

Back to the stats: if you are a 9 seed or lower, the history over the last 35 years tells me you have a .5% chance of making the Final 4. One in 200.

I was furthering PaulXU's point about UCLA, and how a smaller tournament doesn't make what they did any less impressive.

And yes, if a team is not in the top half of the bracket, their chances of making the Final Four are small, but they're still better than what they were prior to 1985 when most of those teams wouldn't have even been in the NCAA Tournament at all, making their chances 0% instead of 0.5%

[WCWIII]

Not to nit-pick. But I found details like Memphis State should count as the same as Memphis. And if there is ever a reason to not count a school's now vacated final four, it should be in a list like this. I think my final answer was 43 plus or minus ... doesn't change the conclusions - it's hard to make the final four. Unfortunately, there is only a single school with more tourney wins since 1985 without a Final Four and it's not Butler and it's not Gonzaga. Our time will come.

[cinskyline]

Xavier was horrible that day, but UCLA started 4 guys who have put together legitimate NBA careers (obviously Westbrook and Love have gone well beyond that) and finished 35-4 (when the PAC-10 was actually good) with top 10 efficiency on offense and defense. They were pretty damn good.

I've always felt like Xavier hurt itself by blowing a big lead to West Virginia in the previous game. They had to burn up a ton of energy to put the Mountaineers away in overtime. There was nothing left in the tank against UCLA two days later.

[XU 87]

I've always felt like Xavier hurt itself by blowing a big lead to West Virginia in the previous game. They had to burn up a ton of energy to put the Mountaineers away in overtime. There was nothing left in the tank against UCLA two days later.

Maybe so. X played poorly in the UCLA game, although UCLA having all those NBA players probably helped. But I just remember X couldn't make any shots, and the only way they could win that game was to shoot the ball really well.

[xukeith]

Maybe so. X played poorly in the UCLA game, although UCLA having all those NBA players probably helped. But I just remember X couldn't make any shots, and the only way they could win that game was to shoot the ball really well.

Wasn't that game played in California?