Joe Lunardi is a pretty good Bracketologist, I suppose, using the meaning of picking the Selection Committee's choices. But not necessarily the other meaning, i.e. making the actual picks in the tournament. I haven't checked his track record, but I assume it's no better than average.
That's why it's not to surprising to see him asking a ridiculous question: Would you take UConn? Or the rest of the field?
Insane question, let's face it. UConn is probably not even the best team in the country, let alone such an overwhelming favorite that you'd take them over all 67 other teams. That's a question that should have been asked maybe twice in the last 30 years: for 2015 Kentucky, and 1999 Duke. Go back a bit and yes, 1991 UNLV for sure. None of these teams won it all, but they should have been overwhelming favorites approaching the 50% level.
Really, to pick a team vs. the field I'd go back to 1976 Indiana and/or several UCLA teams. There were a few years where I'd say there was duo of teams that added up to 50%: 2005 with North Carolina and Illinois, and 2021 with Baylor and Gonzaga.
Lunardi invokes 2006-2007 Florida as his 2024 UConn equivalent:
The 2006-07 Florida Gators, defending national champions, reached Christmas that season with only two losses. They then embarked on a 17-game winning streak, leaving little doubt about the identity of the top team in the land.
He admits that Florida was returning all five starters from the season before, which is a huge difference that he glosses over with "nobody does that any more!" But is UConn the best team? Maybe every AP voter thinks so, but by this point they're voting mostly by résumé not by true strength. UConn is only #5 in our Strength power rating, behind Arizona, Houston, Purdue, and Alabama. Maybe that's wrong, but KenPom has them #2 behind Houston and the BPI has the Huskies #4 behind Houston, Purdue, and Arizona. So the consensus seems to be that UConn has a solid chance at the Final Four but they won't even be the favorite to repeat.
Repeating is difficult. Florida did it with all five starters back, and Duke did it in 1991-1992 with four of their starting five back. UNLV had everyone back in 1991 but lost in the Final Four to Duke. Arizona in 1998 had five starters back but lost in the Elite Eight.
UConn is more similar to some teams that didn't repeat despite being 1-seeds. Like 2017 Villanova, who went 31-3 the year after their championship but fell in the Round of 32. Other 1-seeded defending champs (since 1985) that failed to repeat include 1991 UNLV, 1994 North Carolina, 1997 Kentucky, 2001 Michigan State, 2002 Duke, 2011 Duke, 2022 Baylor, and 2023 Kansas.
Here's how much they returned from the previous year's squads and where they finished (for all 1-seed repeat attempts):
- 1991 UNLV (5 starters back, lost Final Four)
- 1992 Duke (4 starters back, National Champs)
- 1994 North Carolina (4 starters back, lost Round of 32)
- 1997 Kentucky (2 starters back, lost in Finals)
- 1998 Arizona (5 starters back, lost Elite Eight)
- 2001 Michigan State (2 starters back, lost Final Four)
- 2002 Duke (3 starters back, lost Sweet Sixteen)
- 2007 Florida (5 starters back, National Champs)
- 2011 Duke (3 starters back, lost Sweet Sixteen)
- 2017 Villanova (3 starters back, lost Round of 32)
- 2022 Baylor (2 starters back, lost Round of 32)
- 2023 Kansas (1 starter back, lost Round of 32)
- 2024 UConn (2 starters back, ???)
1995 Arkansas might count here since they were a 2-seed and made it to the title game; in fact, they seem more similar to 2007 Florida than UConn does. But as you can see the results are mixed, even with teams much more dominant at the time than UConn is today.
Let's expand the time back as far as seeds go, so 1979 to 1985 and we add just one team:
- 1985 Georgetown (5 starters back, lost in Finals)
So there's something to be said for a defending champ 1-seed having 4-5 starters back: those 6 teams had two champions, 1 runner-up, and a Final Four team. With 1-3 starters back, those 7 teams had a runner-up, a Final Four team, two that lost in the Sweet Sixteen and three that lost in the Round of 32. So it looks like actually returning the team that won the title last year is important. Overall, of 13 teams that tried to repeat and got a 1-seed, 6 made the Final Four, a 46% rate, and 2 have won, a 15% rate—a rate that almost exactly matches the odds of a 1-seed to win the title (24 teams in 38 x 4 attempts since 1985). 60 1-seeds have made the Final Four since 1985, a 39% rate. So being a returning champ 1-seed doesn't seem to impart any real advantage except maybe a slightly higher chance of making the Final Four. But check the number of returning starters first.
Last year's runner-up seems to do just as well if they get a 1-seed the following year:
- 1982 North Carolina (3 starters back - National Champs)
- 1989 Oklahoma (2 starters back - lost Sweet Sixteen)
- 1992 Kansas (2 starters back - lost Round of 32)
- 1993 Michigan (5 starters back - lost in Finals)
- 1998 Kentucky (2 starter back - National Champs)
- 2000 Duke (2 starters back - lost in Sweet Sixteen)
- 2013 Kansas (3 starters back - lost in Sweet Sixteen)
- 2015 Kentucky (3 starters back, lost in Final Four)
- 2017 North Carolina (3 starters back - National Champs)
- 2022 Gonzaga (2 starters back - lost in Sweet Sixteen)
*1984 Houston was runner-up as a 2-seed following their 1983 runner-up year
*1990 Duke was National Champ as a 2-seed following their 1989 runner-up year
*2007 UCLA made the Final Four as a 2-seed following their 2006 runner-up year
*2009 Michigan State made the Final Four as a 5-seed following their 2008 runner-up year
*2010 Butler was runner-up as an 8-seed following their 2009 runner-up year
So two national titles in 10 attempts, again not far from the 15% rate than 1-seeds have to win it all, given the sample size. But the 50% Final Four rate is pretty impressive.
And what about the whole Final Four?
- 1979 Notre Dame (3 starters back - lost Elite Eight)
- 1980 DePaul (3 starters back - lost Round of 32)
- 1982 Virginia (3 starters back - lost Sweet Sixteen)
- 1983 Houston (3 starters back, lost in Finals)
- 1983 Louisville (2.5 starters back, lost in Final Four)
- 1986 St. John's (2 starters back, lost Round of 32)
- 1989 Arizona (2 starters back, lost Sweet Sixteen)
- 1990 Arkansas (4 starters back, lost Elite Eight)
- 1993 Indiana (4 starters back, lost Elite Eight)
- 1998 North Carolina (4 starters back, lost in Final Four)
- 2000 Michigan State (3.5 starters back, National Champs)
- 2002 Maryland (4 starters back, National Champs)
- 2003 Oklahoma (3.5 starters back, lost Elite Eight)
- 2005 Duke (3 starters back, lost Sweet Sixteen)
- 2008 UCLA (4 starters back, lost in Final Four)
- 2009 North Carolina (4.5 starters back, National Champs)
- 2012 Kentucky (3 starters back, National Champs)
- 2013 Louisville (3.5 starters back, National Champs)
- 2014 Wichita State (2.5 starters back, lost in Round of 32)
- 2015 Wisconsin (3.5 starters back, lost in Finals)
*1989 Duke reached the Final Four as a 2-seed following their 1988 Final Four appearance
*1990 Duke was runner-up as a 2-seed following their 1989 Final Four appearance
*2003 Kansas made the Finals as a 2-seed following their 2002 Final Four appearance
Here we have 20 samples, and 5 national champs, a 25% rate. Seems pretty good. And again a 50% Final Four rate, besting the 39% rate for a typical 1-seed.
It appears that if we expand to include 2-seeds we'll capture some more results (I listed the ones I noticed right off the bat), but I suspect it wouldn't be as predictive as the rate for 1-seeds. It probably would exceed the rate for the typical 2-seed, though, so you might emphasize last year's Final Four teams if they get 1- or 2-seeds the following year.
The bottom line, though, is that UConn is nothing special in being a (very likely) 1-seed following a championship year, and the model for their success in the tournament is not 2007 Florida or 1992 Duke, but rather 2017 Villanova, 2022 Kansas, and 2023 Baylor all of whom lost in the Round of 32. That said, UConn is also the weirdest name in NCAA tournament history, winning out of the blue several years, getting to the Final Four whether they're pretty good or really good. So I'm not sure anyone can predict what UConn will do in the tournament.
But you'd be a fool not to take "the field" if given the chance.
Comments