2009 NCAA Tournament - Historical Analysis of Top Seeds (1 through 4)

Last year, I did a series of posts analyzing the NCAA tournament based on Ken Pomeroy's Efficiency Ratings, so I am going to be updating those posts with the 2008 info and also analyzing the 2009 NCAA Tournament. I switched the format up a little for the analysis of the 2008 tournament as well.

Here's the schedule for the analysis I will be doing and links as I post each Part:

Part I: Historical Analysis of Final 4 Teams (Offensive & Defensive Efficiency Ratings)
Part II: Historical Analysis of Top Seeds (1 through 4)
Part III: Historical Analysis of Upsets (5 vs 12 & 6 vs 11)
Part IV: 2009 NCAA Tournament Game by Game Analysis & Possible Upsets

In this post, I am going to do a Historical Analysis of the tops seeds by year and what the Overall Efficiency Ranking is of the teams they lose to. Overall Efficiency rankings are in parenthesis after the team name. I will be adding my analysis once the top seeds are announced for this year's tournament.

Part II: Historical Analysis of Top Seeds (1 through 4)

2008:

1 Seeds: Kansas(1) won championship, Memphis(2) lost to Kansas(1), UCLA(3) lost to Memphis(2), and UNC(4) lost to Kansas(1)

Analysis: In 2008, the best four teams in efficiency were also the 4 number 1 seeds, which meant the committee did a good job in seeding them. Not only did these 4 teams all make the Final 4, but once they got there, the higher rated team in efficiency won each time. You won't see the top 4 teams in efficiency all making it this year, because over the past 5 seasons, these 4 teams had some of the best efficiency ratings and in other years they probably all could have won the title. Chances are the top 4 teams this year will not be as strong as these teams were.

2 Seeds: Georgetown(7) lost to Davidson(20), Duke(8) lost to West Virginia(19), Texas(9) lost to Memphis(2) and Tennessee(14) lost to Louisville(6)

Analysis:For 2 seeds, Texas losing to Memphis and Tennessee losing to Louisville were not upsets. In the case of Georgetown and Duke, they had the unfortunate luck of playing two teams that were underseeded. Davidson and West Virginia were both in the Top 20 teams overall in efficiency, but were a 10 and 7 seed respectfully. Teams that are underseeded are the most likely to pull off "upsets" in the tournament. In the case of Davidson, they entered the tourney with a 21 game winning streak, which is also another key indicator of teams pulling off upsets and having that Stephen Curry guy didn't hurt either. Also, the Hoyas weakness was turnovers on both side of the ball and Davidson was able to exploit that since they were rated highly in both areas. Meanwhile, West Virginia was able to destroy Duke on the offensive boards, which exploited Duke's 131st ranking in defensive rebounding.

3 Seeds: Wisconsin(5) lost to Davidson(20), Louisville(6) lost to UNC(4), Stanford(12) lost to Texas(9), and Xavier(18) lost to UCLA(3)

Analysis: Only one "upset" here with Davidson knocking out Wisconsin. The Badgers were an extremely slow placed team ranking 318th in the country and they also had problems forcing turnovers, which leads me to believe they weren't the most athletic group. That made the playing field more level for Davidson who was the far better offensive time ranking 27th in Eff. FG% vs. Wisconsin's ranking of 140th.

4 Seeds: Washington State(10) lost to UNC(4), Pitt(21) lost to Michigan State(15), UConn(22) lost to San Diego(113), and Vanderbilt(53) lost to Siena(99)

Analysis: Vanderbilt was a fraud as a 4 seed and was lucky to even be in the tournament with an overall efficiency ranking of 53, which would project as a 13 seed. The only decent team they beat all season was Tennessee, which is how they racked up 25 wins. Their main weakness was defense(in any category you could name) and it showed against a highpowered Siena team. It wasn't that Siena was all that great, since they later lost to 12th seeded Villanova, but Vanderbilt was just really awful on defense, so when you combine that with an overseed, they were just ripe for the picking. There's no reason to go into the UConn upset loss to San Diego, since they probably would have won if A.J. Price didn't get hurt after playing just 9 minutes. Price was their PG and best 3-Point shooter, so that was obviously a big loss.

2007:

1 Seeds: Florida(2) won championship, UNC(1)lost to Georgetown(7), Ohio St(4) lost to Florida(2), and Kansas(3) lost to UCLA(6)

2 Seeds: Georgetown(7) lost to Ohio St(4), Memphis(9) lost to Ohio St(4), Wisconsin(8) lost to UNLV(42) and UCLA(6) lost to Florida(2)

3 Seeds: Oregon(18) lost to Florida(2), Pitt(13) lost to UCLA(6), Wash St(29) lost to Vanderbilt(35), and Texas A&M(7) lost to Memphis(9)

4 Seeds: Maryland(10) lost to Butler(25), S. Illinois(28) lost to Kansas(3), Texas(21) lost to USC(27), and Virginia(45) lost to Tennessee(31)

Analysis: In 2007, there were really no major upsets among the top seeds, except for UNLV over Wisconsin. UNLV was ranked 35 in Offensive Efficiency and 42 in Defensive Efficiency so I'm not sure how they were only 42 overall. Also, Wisconsin is a slow paced team just like UNLV, so Wisconsin's main edge was probably nullified there.

2006:

1 Seeds: Duke(5) lost to LSU(10), Memphis(9) lost to UCLA(3), UConn(4) lost to George Mason(23), Villanova(7) lost to Florida(1)

2 Seeds: Texas(2) lost to LSU(10), UCLA(3) lost Florida(1), Tennessee(22) lost to Wichita St(32), Ohio St(18) lost to Georgetown(14)

3 Seeds: Iowa(19) lost to Northwestern St.(105), Gonzaga(41) lost to UCLA(3), UNC(8) lost to George Mason(23), Florida(1) won championship

4 Seeds: LSU(10) lost to UCLA(3), Kansas(6) lost to Bradley(26), Illinois(11) lost to Washington(13), Boston College(24) lost to Villanova(7)

Analysis: The main thing that jumps out here is how poorly seeded the # 1 seeds were. Texas, Florida, and UCLA all probably should have been # 1's along with UConn. This is probably why there were some many "upsets" in this tournament. Tennessee as a # 2 was way overseeded since they were ranked 22 overall, so it's no surprise they got bumped early by # 32 Wichita St.

The biggest upset here is Iowa losing to Northwestern St who was a #14 seed. Iowa probably should have been a # 5 seed, and while were 1st in Defensive Efficiency they also were ranked 129 in Offensive Efficiency, so they probably were even worse than 19 overall.

George Mason's string of upsets doesn't look as flukey when you look at their Overall Efficiency ranking of 23, they probably should have been a 5 seed. The other big upset here is Kansas losing to Bradley. Bradley was ranked 11 in Defensive Efficiency that year and actually was a faster paced team than Kansas.

2005:

1 Seeds: UNC(1) won championship, Illinois(2) lost to UNC(1), Duke(3) lost to Michigan St(7), and Washington(15) lost to Louisville(4)

2 Seeds: Oklahoma St(8) lost to Arizona(12), Wake Forest(9) lost to West Virginia(28), UConn(14) lost to North Carolina St(20), and Kentucky(10) lost to Michigan St(7)

3 Seeds: Gonzaga(32) lost to Texas Tech(30), Kansas(13) lost to Bucknell(91), Oklahoma(11) lost to Utah(22), and Arizona(12) lost to Illinois(2)

4 Seeds: Boston College(25) lost to Wisc.Milw.(42), Louisville(4) lost to Illinois(2), Florida(6) lost to Villanova(5), and Syracuse(18) lost to Vermont(62)

Analysis: Two big upsets here, Kansas losing to Bucknell and Syracuse losing to Vermont. Kansas lost to a Bucknell team ranked 33 in Defensive Efficiency. I also noticed that Kansas was in the middle of the pack as far as the pace they played at, so maybe they weren't as athletic of a team in 2005 as normal. Vermont had a decent rank of 55 in Offensive Efficiency, but this upset is hard to explain.

2004:

1 Seeds: St Joe's(6) lost to Oklahoma St(3), Kentucky(9) lost to UAB(42), Duke(1) lost to UConn(2), and Stanford(14) lost Alabama(29)

2 Seeds: UConn(2) won championship, Oklahoma St(3) lost to Georgia Tech(7), Gonzaga(17) lost to Nevada (22), and Mississippi St(18) lost to Xavier(16)

3 Seeds: Pitt(4) lost to Oklahoma St(3), Georgia tech(7) lost to UConn(2), Texas(15) lost to Xavier(16), and NC State(8) lost to Vanderbilt(24)

4 Seeds: Wake Forest(20) lost to St Joe's(6), Kansas(13) lost to Georgia Tech(7), Cincinnati(12) lost to Illinois(11), and Maryland(19) lost to Syrace(25)

Analysis: Only one big upset here, Kentucky losing to UAB. UAB was ranked 27th in Defensive Efficiency and was one of the fastest paced teams out there. Their pressing fast paced style was a good matchup for them against a slower paced Kentucky team and this is what led to the upset here.

Overall Analysis:
You rarely see a # 1 seed ranked in the top 10 overall efficiency lose to another team who isn't in the top 10 overall. This held true to form again in 2008. However, if there is a # 1 team who is outside the Top 10 in overall efficiency this season, you can be pretty sure they will lose within the first 3 rounds.

In general, when a high seed loses a game, it is due to either them being seeded to high for their efficiency rating or if a change of pace is forced upon them from another good defensive minded team.

If looking for upsets, it might be best to see which teams are seeded too high and which are seeded too low based on overall efficiency. For instance, in 2006 #7 seed Georgetown had an overall efficiency rank of 14 and the knocked off # 2 seed Ohio St, which had an overall efficiency rank of 18.

2009 NCAA Tournament Analysis of Top Seeds:

1 seeds:

Overall Efficiency: Louisville(4), Pitt(6), North Carolina(2), UConn(3)

Offensive Efficiency: Louisville(42), Pitt(2), North Carolina(1), UConn(20)

Defensive Efficiency: Louisville(2), Pitt(34), North Carolina(35), UConn(3)

Off. Effective FG%: Louisville(65), Pitt(32), North Carolina(45), UConn(92)

Def. Effective FG%: Louisville(10), Pitt(76), North Carolina(87), UConn(2)

Off. Turnover Rate: Louisville(116), Pitt(33), North Carolina(15), UConn(50)

Def. Turnover Rate: Louisville(37), Pitt(235), North Carolina(162), UConn(334)

Off. Rebounding Rate: Louisville(124), Pitt(1), North Carolina(8), UConn(11)

Def. Rebounding Rate: Louisville(101), Pitt(26), North Carolina(117), UConn(85)

Off. Free Throw Rate: Louisville(283), Pitt(286), North Carolina(94), UConn(14)

Def. Free Throw Rate: Louisville(59), Pitt(50), North Carolina(6), UConn(1)

Analysis: I have no beef with any of these teams being #1 seeds, but if you look at efficiency ratings then Memphis(1) would replace Pitt(6). Louisville's toughest obstacle in making the Elite 8 is Wake Forest(21), Pitt's toughest is Xavier(24), UNC's toughest is Gonzaga(5), and UConn's toughest are Purdue(14), Washington(16) & BYU(18). Looks like UNC and UConn have the toughest roads to the Elite 8. I think at least one of these # 1 seeds will not make the Elite 8. Also, Pitt could have trouble in the second round against Tennessee(32) or Oklahoma State(33).

2 seeds:

Overall Efficiency: Memphis(1), Duke(7), Michigan State(13), Oklahoma(17)

Offensive Efficiency: Memphis(39), Duke(4), Michigan State(33), Oklahoma(8)

Defensive Efficiency: Memphis(1), Duke(17), Michigan State(10), Oklahoma(46)

Off. Effective FG%: Memphis(157), Duke(102), Michigan State(129), Oklahoma(11)

Def. Effective FG%: Memphis(1), Duke(94), Michigan State(102), Oklahoma(40)

Off. Turnover Rate: Memphis(49), Duke(19), Michigan State(207), Oklahoma(112)

Def. Turnover Rate: Memphis(63), Duke(30), Michigan State(169), Oklahoma(304)

Off. Rebounding Rate: Memphis(31), Duke(29), Michigan State(5), Oklahoma(53)

Def. Rebounding Rate: Memphis(51), Duke(181), Michigan State(6), Oklahoma(119)

Off. Free Throw Rate: Memphis(83), Duke(52), Michigan State(44), Oklahoma(9)

Def. Free Throw Rate: Memphis(128), Duke(55), Michigan State(150), Oklahoma(36)

Analysis: Memphis(1) & Duke(7) are solid 2 seeds, but Michigan State(13) and Oklahoma(17) might be slightly overseeded. They could be two teams to look at for possible 2nd round upsets and I don't think either one of them gets to the Elite 8. Oklahoma(17) looks like an upset candidate if they have to play an underseeded Clemson(22) in the 2nd round. If not than Arizona State(12) and Syracuse(15) will certainly have an even better chance to take care of them. Michigan State(13) could have trouble with USC(27), but an underseeded West Virginia(8) and Kansas(11) have a great chance to take out Michigan State if they meet up. Duke(7) could have trouble with UCLA(9) or Villanova(19). For Memphis(1), Missouri(10) and Marquette(20) would have the best chance to knock them off.

3 seeds:

Overall Efficiency: Missouri(10), Kansas(11), Syracuse(15), Villanova(19)

Offensive Efficiency: Missouri(18), Kansas(19), Syracuse(10), Villanova(25)

Defensive Efficiency: Missouri(8), Kansas(15), Syracuse(42), Villanova(25)

Off. Effective FG%: Missouri(42), Kansas(24), Syracuse(14), Villanova(81)

Def. Effective FG%: Missouri(53), Kansas(17), Syracuse(72), Villanova(93)

Off. Turnover Rate: Missouri(12), Kansas(242), Syracuse(176), Villanova(76)

Def. Turnover Rate: Missouri(8), Kansas(240), Syracuse(256), Villanova(89)

Off. Rebounding Rate: Missouri(96), Kansas(43), Syracuse(77), Villanova(65)

Def. Rebounding Rate: Missouri(229), Kansas(29), Syracuse(289), Villanova(79)

Off. Free Throw Rate: Missouri(172), Kansas(69), Syracuse(68), Villanova(30)

Def. Free Throw Rate: Missouri(242), Kansas(179), Syracuse(9), Villanova(209)

Analysis: All four of these 3 seeds could be in trouble of losing in the second round, because the 6 seeds are really tough and are way underseeded. Missouri(10) would play Marquette(20), Kansas(11) would play West Virginia(8), Syracuse(15) would play Arizona State(12), and Villanova(19) would play UCLA(9). All 4 could be gone after the second round and are probably hoping that some of the 11 seeds knock off the 6 seeds in the first round.

4 seeds:

Overall Efficiency: Gonzaga(5), Washington(16), Wake Forest(21), Xavier(24)

Offensive Efficiency: Gonzaga(6), Washington(35), Wake Forest(40), Xavier(44)

Defensive Efficiency: Gonzaga(9), Washington(11), Wake Forest(14), Xavier(18)

Off. Effective FG%: Gonzaga(10), Washington(164), Wake Forest(59), Xavier(43)

Def. Effective FG%: Gonzaga(4), Washington(77), Wake Forest(28), Xavier(11)

Off. Turnover Rate: Gonzaga(7), Washington(165), Wake Forest(200), Xavier(253)

Def. Turnover Rate: Gonzaga(98), Washington(189), Wake Forest(138), Xavier(263)

Off. Rebounding Rate: Gonzaga(197), Washington(3), Wake Forest(67), Xavier(32)

Def. Rebounding Rate: Gonzaga(107), Washington(82), Wake Forest(76), Xavier(17)

Off. Free Throw Rate: Gonzaga(218), Washington(13), Wake Forest(25), Xavier(6)

Def. Free Throw Rate: Gonzaga(26), Washington(99), Wake Forest(84), Xavier(96)

Analysis: 4 seeds generally have a tough time making it to the Elite 8 since they have to beat # 1 seeds to get there. I think Gonzaga(5) has the best chance to make the Elite 8 from this group. They should give North Carolina(2) a hell of a game if these two teams meet up. Wake Forest(21) could give Louisville(4) trouble as well, but since they are so bad with turnovers(200), I find it hard to believe they will beat Louisville if those two teams meet. I don't see Washington(16) and Xavier(24) making much noise in the tournament. They could be possible upset candidates in the first round.

More: March Madness