Is the Only Pathway to Final Four as a #1 or #2 Seed?

[Mo1239]

I made a thread last weekend that Purdue was 0-5 against #1 seeds in the Sweet Sixteen and Round of 32 in the last 20 years. This latest loss is the 6th against a top seed in the last two decades. While Purdue has been competitive for large portions of all of those games (led 33-25 today and in every other game in the second half at some point), they can seemingly never catch a break against a team they have a talent disparity with in the tournament.

That's why the only way I can see Purdue making a Final Four appearance these days is if they have a top seed and can avoid the blue blood programs with better athletes on paper (we've lost to Kansas three times, Connecticut, Duke, Florida since the late 90's in the tournament).

Is it inconceivable that Painter could build a regular season team that can finish in the top 5 nationally and earn a top seed? I would argue wins over Villanova and Minnesota at home (both very winnable games) and closing out Michigan late in the Big Ten tournament might've been enough for this team to have been a #2 seed at worst.

 

[Casey and his Brother]

I've seen quite a few #1 seeded Purdue teams and they never make it to the Final Four.

 

[RegionWarrior101]

I made a thread last weekend that Purdue was 0-5 against #1 seeds in the Sweet Sixteen and Round of 32 in the last 20 years. This latest loss is the 6th against a top seed in the last two decades. While Purdue has been competitive for large portions of all of those games (led 33-25 today and in every other game in the second half at some point), they can seemingly never catch a break against a team they have a talent disparity with in the tournament.

That's why the only way I can see Purdue making a Final Four appearance these days is if they have a top seed and can avoid the blue blood programs with better athletes on paper (we've lost to Kansas three times, Connecticut, Duke, Florida since the late 90's in the tournament).

Is it inconceivable that Painter could build a regular season team that can finish in the top 5 nationally and earn a top seed? I would argue wins over Villanova and Minnesota at home (both very winnable games) and closing out Michigan late in the Big Ten tournament might've been enough for this team to have been a #2 seed at worst.

No, we won't ever be a Top 5. You hope for a 3 seed, the 1 needs to lose in their half and hope the 2 can get upset

 

[rsquare]

On perhaps move to the WAC and play Gonzaga's cupcake schedule.

 

[RegionWarrior101]

On perhaps move to the WAC and play Gonzaga's cupcake schedule.

They are backing it up now. Elite 8

 

[mathboy]

Tonight, Kansas played like a National Champion. They were the # and they showed why tonight. We had a punchers' chance, but they way they played tonight, it was not going to happen. Credit Kansas for p[lying a great game. I think they will be the NC this year./

 

[Dakota Girl]

Not only is being a 1 or 2 seed the key but you need to do it consistently. Just go look at the champions over the last 40 years and what their seeds were and how frequently they had those top seeds.

 

[BoilerStation]

I think getting to that 3 seed or better line is the key. Getting a 2 in your third game or upset team is far more likely than avoiding a 1 when you are a 4 or 5 seed.

 

[Inspector100]

Nope, none of this matters. Just win your games. If you aren't good enough to win your games, you don't win the tournament. You are going to have to play all of these teams that are winning their games in the end, so it doesn't matter where you start.

 

[BoilerStation]

Nope, none of this matters. Just win your games. If you aren't good enough to win your games, you don't win the tournament. You are going to have to play all of these teams that are winning their games in the end, so it doesn't matter where you start.

100% false. The starting point does matter as well as the results of other games.

 

[Wolegib]

Seeding does not matter. What matters is having a great backcourt. Great big men are neutralized by zone defenses. To make it to the final 4, you need to have elite guards. I am reminded of Marquette's run to the final 4 with Dwayne Wade leading their team on his back. every year that Purdue has lost, it was it a team who's guard beat us. if Purdue wants to find a way to the final 4, it's going to be via a great guard tandem, not by a dynamic presence inside the paint.

Look at Kansas. look at how far Russell took OSU. look at Duke with Erving. When Michigan was winning, it was Spike who elevated his game. this year it was Walton.

In the NCAA tournament, you are only as good as your backcourt. making the final four with a great big man is the exception . Yes, some final four teams like Kentucky do have great big men, but they also have a great backcourt.

 

[Dryfly88]

Seeding absolutely matters. There is 32 years (since expansion in 1985) of data that supports it. The higher the seed the better chance you have of making the final four and winning the championship. There are exceptions but that is all they are. Here is the information:

http://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball...ness-brackets-how-do-seeds-perform-final-four

 

[mathboy]

Seeding absolutely matters. There is 32 years (since expansion in 1985) of data that supports it. The higher the seed the better chance you have of making the final four and winning the championship. There are exceptions but that is all they are. Here is the information:

http://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball...ness-brackets-how-do-seeds-perform-final-four

DryFly is absolutely correct. Had the BIIG received more respect this year, we might have had a #2 seed. We could have easily make one more rung and got to the E8 level. The truth is that there are more talented teams than Purdue in this year's NCAA's. All we could hope for is to play lights out or have the other guys drop a deuce on the court.

 

[Casey and his Brother]

You'd almost think looking at that data that usually the higher seeds are the better teams, and that's why they have a better shot at getting to the Final Four. Are you sure the little number is what drives teams to perform better in the tournament?

Questions:

1984: #3 seed Purdue loses to #6 Memphis...why?
1985: #6 seed Purdue loses to #11 Auburn...why?
1986: #6 seed Purdue loses to #11 LSU...why?
1987: #3 seed Purdue loses to #6 Florida...why?
1988: #1 seed Purdue loses to #4 Kansas State...why?
1990: #2 seed Purdue loses to #10 Texas...why?
1991: #7 seed Purdue loses to #10 Temple...why?
1994: #1 seed Purdue loses to #2 Duke...why?
1995: #3 seed Purdue loses to #6 Memphis...why?
1996: #1 seed Purdue loses to #8 Georgia...why?
1998: #2 seed Purdue loses to #3 Stanford...why?
2000: #6 seed Purdue loses to #8 Wisconsin...why?
2011: #3 seed Purdue loses to #11 VCU...why?
2016: #5 seed Purdue loses to #12 Little Rock...why?


Meanwhile: 1980 #6 Purdue makes it to the Final Four...why?

 

[chooba]

Um, no
It's about matchups, a little luck, and peaking at the right time.

Msu final 4s under izzo
'99, 1seed
00, 1 seed
01, 1 seed
05, 5 seed
09, 2 seed
10, 5 seed
15, 7 seed

And for all izzos success,. We also have some of the biggest shit the bed moments in tournament history. Like record breaking shit your pants moments.

You gotta get there, u gotta bring your a game every game, be able to play multiple styles, cuz u won't always be able to force your will, make shots, play defense and the bench has to bring it.

Good season though boilers, hopefully I don't have to see biggie and Drago in El no more. That shit is getting old

 

[Dryfly88]

You'd almost think looking at that data that usually the higher seeds are the better teams, and that's why they have a better shot at getting to the Final Four. Are you sure the little number is what drives teams to perform better in the tournament?

Questions:

1984: #3 seed Purdue loses to #6 Memphis...why?
1985: #6 seed Purdue loses to #11 Auburn...why?
1986: #6 seed Purdue loses to #11 LSU...why?
1987: #3 seed Purdue loses to #6 Florida...why?
1988: #1 seed Purdue loses to #4 Kansas State...why?
1990: #2 seed Purdue loses to #10 Texas...why?
1991: #7 seed Purdue loses to #10 Temple...why?
1994: #1 seed Purdue loses to #2 Duke...why?
1995: #3 seed Purdue loses to #6 Memphis...why?
1996: #1 seed Purdue loses to #8 Georgia...why?
1998: #2 seed Purdue loses to #3 Stanford...why?
2000: #6 seed Purdue loses to #8 Wisconsin...why?
2011: #3 seed Purdue loses to #11 VCU...why?
2016: #5 seed Purdue loses to #12 Little Rock...why?


Meanwhile: 1980 #6 Purdue makes it to the Final Four...why?

Is your position that seeding does not matter? That you don't have a better chance of making the final 4 and championship with a better seed? Do you think the data is just made up? You seem to be hung up on 1 schools performance in the tournament. I'm talking about all of the schools over 32 years.

The title of the thread is "Is the only pathway to a Final Four a #1 or #2 seed"? The answer is no. There have been schools win it with other seed numbers. What is true, is that the better your seed the better your chances of reaching the final four. I really don't see how that can be argued.

 

[Casey and his Brother]

Tell me this, if you inverted seed #16 and seed #1 each year, would the outcome have changed?

My point is that the higher seeded teams are usually the better teams (assuming the committee does their job accurately), so naturally they are going to win more than they lose. If you seeded this year's Kansas team #4 and Purdue #1, would Purdue have won by 32 last night?

 

[Dryfly88]

Tell me this, if you inverted seed #16 and seed #1 each year, would the outcome have changed?

Are you inverting all the other seeds too? Or just #1 and #16?

 

[pig1960]

Anyone who contends seed doesn't matter is completely FOS.

 

[Casey and his Brother]

Are you inverting all the other seeds too? Or just #1 and #16?

You can play around with the numbers all you want. Let's say Purdue went from a #4 to a #3 this year, and Kansas fell from a #1 to a #2. Are we in a better position to beat them last night because our seeds are closer?

 

[Dryfly88]

You can play around with the numbers all you want. Let's say Purdue went from a #4 to a #3 this year, and Kansas fell from a #1 to a #2. Are we in a better position to beat them last night because our seeds are closer?

I'm not "playing around with the numbers". I'm providing factual information. You are the one caught up in looking only at PU.

Fact: The higher your seed, the better chance you have to make the final four and win a championship. It isn't about PU and Kansas last night. That is where you are losing the point of the thread.

 

[Casey and his Brother]

Why doesn't the highest seeded team always win if the only thing that matters is where you seed them? Doesn't the quality of the team regardless of seeding come into play at some point?

 

[Dryfly88]

Why doesn't the highest seeded team always win if the only thing that matters is where you seed them? Doesn't the quality of the team regardless of seeding come into play at some point?

Casey, I'm not sure how this went sideways. I have never said that being the higher seed guarantees you win any individual game. Did you read the article I provided a link for above? It is very clear from the data that the higher your seed the Better your chances are to make it to the final four. It doesn't say (nor have I) that it means the higher seed wins every time over a lower seed. That isn't what this thread is about.

 

[Casey and his Brother]

Casey, I'm not sure how this went sideways. I have never said that being the higher seed guarantees you win any individual game. Did you read the article I provided a link for above? It is very clear from the data that the higher your seed the Better your chances are to make it to the final four. It doesn't say (nor have I) that it means the higher seed wins every time over a lower seed. That isn't what this thread is about.

It wasn't really an argument with your statistics. It was more about the post above mine that said Purdue as a #2 seed would "easily make one more rung and got to the E8 level."

All things being equal, they'd still have to beat Oregon. Not sure that would have been done easily simply because the seed changed. Purdue is still Purdue. Oregon is still Oregon. Maybe it's not a 32 point loss, but it's not an easy win. If you kept the same bracket Purdue could have just as easily lost to Michigan the previous weekend (I know, they won't match up B1G schools and would have given us the two worst 7-10 teams because they want us to win in this hypothetical scenario).

 

[Dryfly88]

It wasn't really an argument with your statistics. It was more about the post above mine that said Purdue as a #2 seed would "easily make one more rung and got to the E8 level."

All things being equal, they'd still have to beat Oregon. Not sure that would have been done easily simply because the seed changed. Purdue is still Purdue. Oregon is still Oregon. Maybe it's not a 32 point loss, but it's not an easy win. If you kept the same bracket Purdue could have just as easily lost to Michigan the previous weekend.

I have no opinion on any individual game. Just the tournament as a whole.

 

[Casey and his Brother]

I have no opinion on any individual game. Just the tournament as a whole.

Statistically there is absolutely a correlation between seeding and winning %. I'm going to say I believe there is a qualitative aspect beyond seeding that drives the actual outcomes.

 

[Dryfly88]

Statistically there is absolutely a correlation between seeding and winning %. I'm going to say I believe there is a qualitative aspect beyond seeding that drives the actual outcomes.

That is all I have been saying.

 

[Casey and his Brother]

We cool Dryfly. I would phrase it to say that it's not that there is a better chance of winning as a higher seed, it's just been the more probable outcome based on empirical data.

 

[Dryfly88]

We cool Dryfly. I would phrase it to say that it's not that there is a better chance of winning as a higher seed, it's just been the more probable outcome based on empirical data.

32 years of tournaments is a lot of empirical data.

 

[Casey and his Brother]

32 years of tournaments is a lot of empirical data.

The game has changed a lot in 32 years though. Let's pull the same data since the 3 point line moved back. Let's pull the same data since one and dones. Is that different? How about when the pod system showed up? What range of data is truly applicable now? You're not a dummy or lazy, don't rest on some website's research. Is there a new trend?

 

[Dakota Girl]

Seeding does not matter. What matters is having a great backcourt. Great big men are neutralized by zone defenses. To make it to the final 4, you need to have elite guards. I am reminded of Marquette's run to the final 4 with Dwayne Wade leading their team on his back. every year that Purdue has lost, it was it a team who's guard beat us. if Purdue wants to find a way to the final 4, it's going to be via a great guard tandem, not by a dynamic presence inside the paint.

Look at Kansas. look at how far Russell took OSU. look at Duke with Erving. When Michigan was winning, it was Spike who elevated his game. this year it was Walton.

In the NCAA tournament, you are only as good as your backcourt. making the final four with a great big man is the exception . Yes, some final four teams like Kentucky do have great big men, but they also have a great backcourt.

Yep guard play is the key. Maybe we will be in better shape with an Eastern , Edwards combo in a couple years.
Zone only shuts down bigs if you do not have shooters to stretch the zone. Like us two and three years back. This year we hammered zones into submition.

 

[BoilerBiker]

DryFly is absolutely correct. Had the BIIG received more respect this year, we might have had a #2 seed. We could have easily make one more rung and got to the E8 level. The truth is that there are more talented teams than Purdue in this year's NCAA's. All we could hope for is to play lights out or have the other guys drop a deuce on the court.

big ten respect:
our notre dame win contributed to earning a 4 seed rather than the 5 or even 6 some thought we might get.
if purdue had defeated villanova and/or louisville, then that would have greatly helped us and the conference in both perception and computer rankings. win all 3 of those, and we would have likely been that 2 seed.

just win and the respect will come.
that hasn't happened as the tourney has played out unfortunately.
big ten is the only power 5 conference no longer represented.

 

[Dryfly88]

The game has changed a lot in 32 years though. Let's pull the same data since the 3 point line moved back. Let's pull the same data since one and dones. Is that different? How about when the pod system showed up? What range of data is truly applicable now? You're not a dummy or lazy, don't rest on some website's research. Is there a new trend?

You're not a dummy either. Feel free to research all you want and share the info here. If you truly don't think a better seed matters in tourney success then prove it. I look forward to seeing your results.

 

[lbodel]

I made a thread last weekend that Purdue was 0-5 against #1 seeds in the Sweet Sixteen and Round of 32 in the last 20 years. This latest loss is the 6th against a top seed in the last two decades. While Purdue has been competitive for large portions of all of those games (led 33-25 today and in every other game in the second half at some point), they can seemingly never catch a break against a team they have a talent disparity with in the tournament.

That's why the only way I can see Purdue making a Final Four appearance these days is if they have a top seed and can avoid the blue blood programs with better athletes on paper (we've lost to Kansas three times, Connecticut, Duke, Florida since the late 90's in the tournament).

Is it inconceivable that Painter could build a regular season team that can finish in the top 5 nationally and earn a top seed? I would argue wins over Villanova and Minnesota at home (both very winnable games) and closing out Michigan late in the Big Ten tournament might've been enough for this team to have been a #2 seed at worst.

It totally depends on a number of reasons.

First off, the difference between a #1 and #2 seed can be great. We lost a road game to Louisville earlier in the year, but I certainly think we have a much better shot at beating them than a Kansas or UNC. There's a big difference there I think, so being on that #2 end of the bracket is incredibly helpful, whether it's as the #2 or not.

Secondly, all these posts about how to make a Final Four. It's not some strategic decision you can make. For example, Florida has not had to play a single team seeded higher than them and to make it to the Final Four, they'll be playing a #7 seed. Flip-flop Purdue and Florida as #4 seeds and I don't think Florida would be playing right now if it had Purdue's path and I think Purdue has a very good shot of still being alive in Florida's bracket.

 

[Dryfly88]

Just wanted to bump this since we now have the final four teams for this season.

While I'm cheering for SC to win, I think this year played out very similar to the past 31 years. The seed total for the FF this year is (12) compared to an average of (11) from previous years.

 

[jwardelt]

In the end, no matter what seed you get, you're going to have to beat 1 and 2 seeds at some point. Can't expect to walk through 4 or 5 games playing a higher seed.

 

[Statey]

Seeding absolutely matters. There is 32 years (since expansion in 1985) of data that supports it. The higher the seed the better chance you have of making the final four and winning the championship. There are exceptions but that is all they are. Here is the information:

http://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball...ness-brackets-how-do-seeds-perform-final-four

Generally speaking, the lower (better) seeds are handed out that way because they're the better teams. Of course a 2-seed is more likely to make a final four than a 10-seed, but it's because they're a better team, not because they're the better seed... they're a better seed because they're a better team.

This is the same correlation people bring up in relation to recruiting: "stars matter!". The stars represent how good (so-called) experts think they are. Generally this is based off analysis, stats, etc, that ranks (or "seeds") these players, and then - again, generally speaking - the top 25-ish get 5 stars, the next 50-100 get 4 stars and so worth. 5 star players are more likely to get into the NBA, but not because they were assigned 5 stars, but rather because they were assessed to be the better players. And these assessments/rankings are at least directionally accurate.

 

[Dryfly88]

Generally speaking, the lower (better) seeds are handed out that way because they're the better teams. Of course a 2-seed is more likely to make a final four than a 10-seed, but it's because they're a better team, not because they're the better seed... they're a better seed because they're a better team.

I don't get your point? No one is saying they aren't the better teams. The OP asked is the only way to get to a FF by being a #1 or #2 seed. The answer is of course no, but it sure increases your odds of getting there.

To further my point it isn't just the difference between a #2 and a #10 like your example. The difference between a #1 and a #2 is also significant. Also a #3 vs #4 and so on. I was responding to the folks that fall into that camp of "It doesn't matter what your seed is, you have to play good teams some time"........ It obviously does matter. I really don't know why people fight that fact. Maybe they prefer to look for the outliers and just hope to beat the odds.

 

[Statey]

I don't get your point? No one is saying they aren't the better teams. The OP asked is the only way to get to a FF by being a #1 or #2 seed. The answer is of course no, but it sure increases your odds of getting there.

To further my point it isn't just the difference between a #2 and a #10 like your example. The difference between a #1 and a #2 is also significant. Also a #3 vs #4 and so on. I was responding to the folks that fall into that camp of "It doesn't matter what your seed is, you have to play good teams some time"........ It obviously does matter. I really don't know why people fight that fact. Maybe they prefer to look for the outliers and just hope to beat the odds.

I'm not arguing the correlation, and maybe I quoted you inappropriately, but there seems to be so much causality inferred by some. "If Purdue can get the 4-seed, their chances go up compared to a 5-seed". Not really, Purdue is who they are; the chances to make a final four in any given year isn't impacted that much at all by a 1-seed fluctuation either direction. UK got a 2-seed and got to play a 10 in the next round. UNC got a 1-seed and they got to play an 8 in the next round. I think the argument that you have to play against really good teams no matter what is more right than it is wrong... there is no cakewalk to the national title game. It's a single-elimination tourney with the 50 best teams in the country.

 

[Dryfly88]

I'm not arguing the correlation, and maybe I quoted you inappropriately, but there seems to be so much causality inferred by some. "If Purdue can get the 4-seed, their chances go up compared to a 5-seed". Not really, Purdue is who they are; the chances to make a final four in any given year isn't impacted that much at all by a 1-seed fluctuation either direction. UK got a 2-seed and got to play a 10 in the next round. UNC got a 1-seed and they got to play an 8 in the next round. I think the argument that you have to play against really good teams no matter what are more right than they are wrong... there is no cakewalk to the national title game. It's a single-elimination tourney with the 50 best teams in the country.

I'm not looking at PU or any other individual team. Just looking at the numbers from the past 32 tournaments. The #4 seed has a 15% better win % than the #5 seed in the first round. #1 and #2 seeds have won more titles then all other seeds combined. Things like that. It isn't a "cake walk" for anyone, no argument there. But history suggests strongly that your odds of getting to the FF are better with the higher your seed #. That is all I have been saying. For some reason people want to dismiss the seeding #'s like they have no bearing. I don't understand why? Maybe they confuse this position with one where I'm saying "If only PU would have gotten a higher seed they would have gone further". I'm not taking that position at all. This has nothing to do with PU or any particular team.