South Regional: A Retrospective on Luck and Variance

[DiderotsGhost]

I love the NCAA tournament just like everyone else here, but it's an entertainment product, not a realistic way to choose a national champion. A team's likelihood to advance is almost certainly related to the "luck of the draw", and this is so much more true in a high-variance one-and-done type tournament than it is in a best-of-7 type tournament like the NBA does. The best example of this was 1-seed Virginia losing in the 1st round in 2018 and an almost identical 1-seed Virginia winning the entire tournament the next year. Virginia's entire season was deemed a failure in 2018, but a huge success in 2019, even though they had similar results outside of the tournament.

It's clear in hindsight, we drew the most difficult region. Here's a look at the Sagarin ratings of the teams in our region:

3. Houston (5-seed)
4. Arizona (1-seed)
7. Tennessee (3-seed)
8. Villanova (2-seed)

15. Illinois (4-seed)
20. Michigan (11-seed)
22. Ohio State (7-seed)
36. Seton Hall (8-seed)

So our regional had 4 of the top 8 teams in the country according to Sagarin. Houston was severely under-seeded; Sagarin says they should've been a 1, but probably should've been a 2 in reality. Michigan was very underseeded as an 11. They now look like a 5. Albeit, this includes their tourney play, but even before then, they were 22, which would be a 6 seed. Ohio State looks more like a 6 than a 7, as well. The only over-seeded team in the bracket was Colorado State which Sagarin says should've been a 9. Probably also worth noting on a sheer talent basis, Michigan would be a top 10 team in the country.

Contrast with Kansas, which had a relative cake-walk to the Final Four. They drew the weakest 4 seed as a Sweet 16 opponent: Providence. Sagarin says Providence should've been a 7 or 8 seed. They get Miami in the Elite 8. Miami was #52 according to Sagarin, or essentially like a 13 seed. In this case, Sagarin is probably underrating them (and their recent rating was #20, which would be more like a 5/6), but suffice it to say, this was one of the easier draws. You'd much rather play Miami than Villanova, Houston, Duke, Arkansas, or UNC.

Baylor got unlucky, too, drawing a UNC team that was severely underseeded. UNC should've been more like a 5/6 even ignoring what they've done in the tournament. The same Baylor team that won a national title last year, goes out in the 2nd Round with a bad draw.

My point isn't to excuse our loss. You have to win difficult games to advance at some point and we didn't. Merely to say that we tend to judge coaches by their NCAA tournament results, when in actuality, there's a huge luck element in that tournament. This was a very successful season where we had a bad shooting night against a team with top 10 talent that was severely under-seeded. Even if we had beaten MIchigan, our entire region was brutal, and we would've had the most difficult path to the Final Four of any team.

Barnes has done an incredible job here. I do wish we'd have some luck in the NCAA tournament at some point. If we had played in the Midwest Regional in Auburn's spot, we probably would've gone to the Elite 8. I think we lose to Kansas there (who's playing better than anyone in the country right now), but the season looks much more successful just based on random chance. And while I love the NCAA tournament, I do hate this aspect of this.

In any case, I'm excited about the national title with my other team, UNC. Grew up in East Tennessee, went to UNC.

 

[cardvolfan]

Absolutely awesome post. Unfortunately, many fans evaluate results on a surface-level format (you’re either a winner or you’re a loser) that doesn’t consider anything along the large number of variables that come into play. I suspect they have the capacity to be objective, but just can’t let go of their deep-seated agendas.

 

[cwbytruckers]

The difference in the final four and not for UT is we didnt have a 4 or 5 that could consistently go in the paint and get a huge bucket. And until we get that it doesnt matter how good our guards are. You need a whole team. No one on the team could handle the Michigan big man. I remember watching the Michigan Arizona game in Vegas and thinking Michigan is either over rated or having a bad night but i hope we dont see them come tourny time. I was right.

 

[Sudden Impact]

Agree....

 

[AurantiacoFan]

I love the NCAA tournament just like everyone else here, but it's an entertainment product, not a realistic way to choose a national champion. A team's likelihood to advance is almost certainly related to the "luck of the draw", and this is so much more true in a high-variance one-and-done type tournament than it is in a best-of-7 type tournament like the NBA does. The best example of this was 1-seed Virginia losing in the 1st round in 2018 and an almost identical 1-seed Virginia winning the entire tournament the next year. Virginia's entire season was deemed a failure in 2018, but a huge success in 2019, even though they had similar results outside of the tournament.

It's clear in hindsight, we drew the most difficult region. Here's a look at the Sagarin ratings of the teams in our region:

3. Houston (5-seed)
4. Arizona (1-seed)
7. Tennessee (3-seed)
8. Villanova (2-seed)

15. Illinois (4-seed)
20. Michigan (11-seed)
22. Ohio State (7-seed)
36. Seton Hall (8-seed)

So our regional had 4 of the top 8 teams in the country according to Sagarin. Houston was severely under-seeded; Sagarin says they should've been a 1, but probably should've been a 2 in reality. Michigan was very underseeded as an 11. They now look like a 5. Albeit, this includes their tourney play, but even before then, they were 22, which would be a 6 seed. Ohio State looks more like a 6 than a 7, as well. The only over-seeded team in the bracket was Colorado State which Sagarin says should've been a 9. Probably also worth noting on a sheer talent basis, Michigan would be a top 10 team in the country.

Contrast with Kansas, which had a relative cake-walk to the Final Four. They drew the weakest 4 seed as a Sweet 16 opponent: Providence. Sagarin says Providence should've been a 7 or 8 seed. They get Miami in the Elite 8. Miami was #52 according to Sagarin, or essentially like a 13 seed. In this case, Sagarin is probably underrating them (and their recent rating was #20, which would be more like a 5/6), but suffice it to say, this was one of the easier draws. You'd much rather play Miami than Villanova, Houston, Duke, Arkansas, or UNC.

Baylor got unlucky, too, drawing a UNC team that was severely underseeded. UNC should've been more like a 5/6 even ignoring what they've done in the tournament. The same Baylor team that won a national title last year, goes out in the 2nd Round with a bad draw.

My point isn't to excuse our loss. You have to win difficult games to advance at some point and we didn't. Merely to say that we tend to judge coaches by their NCAA tournament results, when in actuality, there's a huge luck element in that tournament. This was a very successful season where we had a bad shooting night against a team with top 10 talent that was severely under-seeded. Even if we had beaten MIchigan, our entire region was brutal, and we would've had the most difficult path to the Final Four of any team.

Barnes has done an incredible job here. I do wish we'd have some luck in the NCAA tournament at some point. If we had played in the Midwest Regional in Auburn's spot, we probably would've gone to the Elite 8. I think we lose to Kansas there (who's playing better than anyone in the country right now), but the season looks much more successful just based on random chance. And while I love the NCAA tournament, I do hate this aspect of this.

In any case, I'm excited about the national title with my other team, UNC. Grew up in East Tennessee, went to UNC.

The problem with this is we can make several regions appear more difficult by using the same data set. If we begin examining the data with a desired belief or outcome in mind, then we can prove a lot of different things.

Example - I decided to look at Gonzaga's region with the intention to "prove" it was the most difficult. I just said let's pull the 4 HIGHEST rated teams using Sagarin ratings, regardless of their actual tournament seeding. Here is what I found:

• Average Sagarin Rating in Gonzaga's region = 90.97
• Average Sagarin Rating in Tennessee's region = 90.85

Or I could argue even based on actual game experience, that in Gonzaga's region's of top 6 seeded teams, 3 of them beat us including 6 seeded Alabama...whereas the 6 seeded team in our region is Colorado State.

Or I could argue how Baylor was penalized versus the other #1 seeds by having 8 seeded North Carolina versus the other teams having Boise State, San Diego State and Seton Hall.

By the way, one thing I think we all agree on, and that is true no matter how one looks at it....we played on heck of a tough schedule this past year.

 

[DiderotsGhost]

The difference in the final four and not for UT is we didnt have a 4 or 5 that could consistently go in the paint and get a huge bucket. And until we get that it doesnt matter how good our guards are. You need a whole team. No one on the team could handle the Michigan big man. I remember watching the Michigan Arizona game in Vegas and thinking Michigan is either over rated or having a bad night but i hope we dont see them come tourny time. I was right.

We still win that game by double-digits if we hit our shots. You can't go 2-for-18 from 3-pt and expect to win many tournament games. But I agree that the lack of a big man would've likely limited our ability to advance at some point; just not against Michigan.

 

[cwbytruckers]

We still win that game by double-digits if we hit our shots. You can't go 2-for-18 from 3-pt and expect to win many tournament games. But I agree that the lack of a big man would've likely limited our ability to advance at some point; just not against Michigan.

I totally agree about the three point shots. I was sitting in front of two michigan fans and they were like oh God they are hitting every thing in warmups this doesnt bode well for us. to myself i was thinking i feel some cold shooting coming on.

 

[DiderotsGhost]

The problem with this is we can make several regions appear more difficult by using the same data set. .

No, you literally can't, because the teams are ranked, and if 4 out of the top 8 teams are in 1 region, you can't then say "4 of the top 8" are in the other 3 regions.

Indeed, using that same analysis for the Midwest, it looks quite pitiful:

2. Kansas (1-seed)
13. Iowa (5-seed)
14. Auburn (2-seed)
21. LSU (6-seed)

27. Wisconsin (3-seed)
28. Providence (4-seed)
30. USC (7-seed)

33. San Diego State (8-seed)
40. Creighton (9-seed)
52. Miami-FL (10-seed)

Midwest looked like, by far, the weakest region from Day 1 and that's how it played out, too. Kansas is legit, but there's not been a single other team in that region that's even in Kansas' ballpark. Iowa was probably underseeded a slight bit (should've been a 4 instead of a 5), but that's about it. You have a 7-seed masquerading as a 3-seed (Wisconsin), another 7-seed masquerading as a 4 (Providence). And Auburn looked very weak down the stretch, yet still somehow was rewarded the #5 overall seed (i.e. the top 2-seed). You could honestly make a compelling case that there were 6 teams in the South that were better than the 2nd best team in the Midwest.

Kansas is one of the best teams in the nation and deserves to be in the Final Four, but let's be honest ... they had a much easier road than every other 1 seed. They didn't have to face a team anywhere near the level of Houston, UNC, or Arkansas until they hit the Final Four (vs Villanova). You put Kansas in South and Arizona in the Midwest, Kansas may or may not have advanced ,but Arizona is probably in the Final Four right now.

 

[walkenvol]

The difference in the final four and not for UT is we didnt have a 4 or 5 that could consistently go in the paint and get a huge bucket. And until we get that it doesnt matter how good our guards are. You need a whole team. No one on the team could handle the Michigan big man. I remember watching the Michigan Arizona game in Vegas and thinking Michigan is either over rated or having a bad night but i hope we dont see them come tourny time. I was right.

I’m going to have to respectfully disagree on your Dickerson take. Uros made him battle for position down low. I believe the game plan was to allow him to shoot the 3 based on his season average of 30% and instead he shot 75%. Next game in the tourney he came back to his average. He and Brooks both had a crazy good shooting night which was the difference along with our terrible shooting from 3.

 

[cwbytruckers]

I’m going to have to respectfully disagree on your Dickerson take. Uros made him battle for position down low. I believe the game plan was to allow him to shoot the 3 based on his season average of 30% and instead he shot 75%. Next game in the tourney he came back to his average. He and Brooks both had a crazy good shooting night which was the difference along with our terrible shooting from 3.

Doesnt matter what his season averages were. In that one game we had no one that could stop him.

 

[TheMookieMonster]

The difference in the final four and not for UT is we didnt have a 4 or 5 that could consistently go in the paint and get a huge bucket. And until we get that it doesnt matter how good our guards are. You need a whole team. No one on the team could handle the Michigan big man. I remember watching the Michigan Arizona game in Vegas and thinking Michigan is either over rated or having a bad night but i hope we dont see them come tourny time. I was right.

I slightly disagree. I do think the lack of a reliable post presence impacted us this post-season, but we beat ourselves by shooting 2-18 from 3-point range. We missed a ton of wide open shots that we had made for weeks. Variance and a bad day is what beat us.

 

[Stoerner Fumbles]

The difference was we shot 18% from 3, and Brooks shot 100% in the second half, scoring 18 of his 23. Dickinson played the game we expected. Brooks literally played the game of his life. We’ve beaten better teams. You can’t beat anyone shooting that badly.

I totally agree about the three point shots. I was sitting in front of two michigan fans and they were like oh God they are hitting every thing in warmups this doesnt bode well for us. to myself i was thinking i feel some cold shooting coming on.[/QUO

 

[cwbytruckers]

I slightly disagree. I do think the lack of a reliable post presence impacted us this post-season, but we beat ourselves by shooting 2-18 from 3-point range. We missed a ton of wide open shots that we had made for weeks. Variance and a bad day is what beat us.

Again i dont disagree the missed three point shots cost us that game. BUT WE DIDNT HAVE A BIG MAN THAT COULD GO GET A BASKET

 

[cwbytruckers]

The difference was we shot 18% from 3, and Brooks shot 100% in the second half, scoring 18 of his 23. Dickinson played the game we expected. Brooks literally played the game of his life. We’ve beaten better teams. You can’t beat anyone shooting that badly.

you all are just arguing the same thing i am saying. yes we shot badly. but if we could have shut down there big man or had a big man that could go get us baskets we wouldnt have had to rely on shooting so many threes that game.

 

[TheMookieMonster]

you all are just arguing the same thing i am saying. yes we shot badly. but if we could have shut down there big man or had a big man that could go get us baskets we wouldnt have had to rely on shooting so many threes that game.

I mean their big man had 9 points on the perimeter, no post player is going to be the difference in his perimeter shooting. There were a lot of reasons Hunter Dickinson dominated us and it wasn’t just because BHH or Aidoo weren’t cutting it. Just my opinion though.

 

[TMvol10]

I’m going to have to respectfully disagree on your Dickinson take. Uros made him battle for position down low. I believe the game plan was to allow him to shoot the 3 based on his season average of 30% and instead he shot 75%. Next game in the tourney he came back to his average. He and Brooks both had a crazy good shooting night which was the difference along with our terrible shooting from 3.

I agree here. I think (could be wrong), he only hit 4 shots inside the paint. He hit 3 3s and a 15 footer. I think we guarded him how we wanted to, he just hit shots he typically doesnt make and we missed shots we typically do make. Kudos to him for hitting them in a big moment. In his 9 games prior to playing UT, he hit 2 3s total. Then he proceeded to hit 0 3s in the game against Nova. If you told me Dickinson was only going to make 4 shots in the paint, I would have thought we win the game. And honestly, Uros got a bucket on Dickinson every time he got the ball in the post. And BHH got some buckets in the post too. Not sure if post game was the issue in this one. But I'm just one persons opinion.

 

[cwbytruckers]

But again we

I mean their big man had 9 points on the perimeter, no post player is going to be the difference in his perimeter shooting. There were a lot of reasons Hunter Dickinson dominated us and it wasn’t just because BHH or Aidoo weren’t cutting it. Just my opinion though.

didnt have one big man to get in the paint and get a basket that was a legitimate threat each time he touched the ball. The type of performance Fulky had against Arizona. We need a Grant Williams type player again. We really missed ON being hurt. But even he disappeared at times way to often. Hopefully ours progress next year and we have that.

 

[VolArmy74]

I agree here. I think (could be wrong), he only hit 4 shots inside the paint. He hit 3 3s and a 15 footer. I think we guarded him how we wanted to, he just hit shots he typically doesnt make and we missed shots we typically do make. Kudos to him for hitting them in a big moment. In his 9 games prior to playing UT, he hit 2 3s total. Then he proceeded to hit 0 3s in the game against Nova. If you told me Dickinson was only going to make 4 shots in the paint, I would have thought we win the game. And honestly, Uros got a bucket on Dickinson every time he got the ball in the post. And BHH got some buckets in the post too. Not sure if post game was the issue in this one. But I'm just one persons opinion.

He dominated us at every level. Outside and inside. We couldn't remotely guard him, fouled him a lot and he smashed us on the boards as well. Except for the stretch where Aidoo played for about 4 to 5 minutes. The thing that gets me the most about that game is Aidoo not getting to come back in after that.

 

[walkenvol]

Doesnt matter what his season averages were. In that one game we had no one that could stop him.

Season averages are a large data point when the coaching staff is determining the defensive game plan. You can’t take away everything with your defense. You determine where the other team has the most offensive success and try to take that away and force them into scoring in other ways. CRB said after the game that they were good with Dickinson taking 3’s because he had not made them at a high rate throughout the season.

 

[SGMVols]

But again we

didnt have one big man to get in the paint and get a basket that was a legitimate threat each time he touched the ball. The type of performance Fulky had against Arizona. We need a Grant Williams type player again. We really missed ON being hurt. But even he disappeared at times way to often. Hopefully ours progress next year and we have that.

Grants don’t exactly grow on trees. If he had stayed for his senior year, he would’ve been the 2nd all-time career scorer in UT history.

 

[wmcovol]

I’ve seen other teams struggle but, unfortunately, Tennessee was the only team I saw go 2-18 from 3 and couldn’t get their best shooter open for a few shots.

 

[Voltime123]

I’ve seen other teams struggle but, unfortunately, Tennessee was the only team I saw go 2-18 from 3 and couldn’t get their best shooter open for a few shots.

That’s on Vescovi…he needs to develop a dribble drive so that if they take away the three he can at least keep the defense honest…We need more KC’s at guard

 

[wmcovol]

That’s on Vescovi…he needs to develop a dribble drive so that if they take away the three he can at least keep the defense honest…We need more KC’s at guard

Mich over played him, denied him the ball and double teamed him when he had it. The others should have stepped up strong to force Mich out of it. KC did for awhile but nonone hit anything from outside. Barnes elected to stand SV in the corner much of the 2nd half & it didn’t work.

 

[Voltime123]

Mich over played him, denied him the ball and double teamed him when he had it. The others should have stepped up strong to force Mich out of it. KC did for awhile but nonone hit anything from outside. Barnes elected to stand SV in the corner much of the 2nd half & it didn’t work.

Sorry if you are a good player you don’t allow the defense to deny you the ball, again he needs to work on his dribble and get better at developing his own drive to the basket outside of teammates helping him get open. This is two years in a row where he has failed in the last game of the year because he couldn’t create his own shot or make the ones he got

 

[walkenvol]

I’ve seen other teams struggle but, unfortunately, Tennessee was the only team I saw go 2-18 from 3 and couldn’t get their best shooter open for a few shots.

Vescovi got 3-4 good looks but they didn’t fall.