Most Elite 8s Since 1990

[upstater]

Kentucky 14
North Carolina 13
UConn 11
Duke 11
Kansas 10

Pretty impressive to see UConn with so many Elite 8s, especially given the relatively low seeds we've received for not playing in one of the top conferences (ACC, B1G, B12, SEC).

 

[BFieldHusky]

Add in the factor, that we haven't be in one in 9 years

 

[ConnHuskBask]

Kentucky 14
North Carolina 13
UConn 11
Duke 11
Kansas 10

Pretty impressive to see UConn with so many Elite 8s, especially given the relatively low seeds we've received for not playing in one of the top conferences (ACC, B1G, B12, SEC).

Funny you cite getting bad seeds. I was just looking at this the other day and was staggering at the amount of 1 and 2 seeds we had. Not sure where your complaint is.

Since 1990:

1

11

9

2

2

1

2

1

5

2

5

2

2

1

4

1

3

9

7

9

7

5

4

 

[Brochacho]

Funny you cite getting bad seeds. I was just looking at this the other day and was staggering at the amount of 1 and 2 seeds we had. Not sure where your complaint is.

Since 1990:

1

11

9

2

2

1

2

1

5

2

5

2

2

1

4

1

3

9

7

9

7

5

4

We were probably under seeded in 2014 and 2016. Definitely this year. Other than that, the committee has been very fair to us.

 

[Tenspro2002]

Kentucky 14
North Carolina 13
UConn 11
Duke 11
Kansas 10

Pretty impressive to see UConn with so many Elite 8s, especially given the relatively low seeds we've received for not playing in one of the top conferences (ACC, B1G, B12, SEC).

The bad seeding has really only been the last 10 years. For example, in 2014 we should have been a #5/6 instead of #7.

What drove our success was having consistently excellent regular seasons so that we got #1/2 seeds the majority of the time, in 1990, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1998, 1999, 2002, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2009. And we generally performed to seed, hence all the Elite 8s. (Incidentally, one of the times we didn't perform to seed was 2005, when I distinctly remember being stunned that we got a #2, since I was expecting a #3 or maybe even #4.)

 

[gsmooth]

The bad seeding has really only been the last 10 years. For example, in 2014 we should have been a #5/6 instead of #7.

What drove our success was having consistently excellent regular seasons so that we got #1/2 seeds the majority of the time, in 1990, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1998, 1999, 2002, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2009. And we generally performed to seed, hence all the Elite 8s. (Incidentally, one of the times we didn't perform to seed was 2005, when I distinctly remember being stunned that we got a #2, since I was expecting a #3 or maybe even #4.)

I think UConn getting the #2 seed in 2005 was the tourny committee giving that for reputation more than anything. I never thought that team was going to go to the Final Four-there were just too many issues with that team (Rashad hospitalized for weeks, AJ Price brain hemorrage)

In 2004, they normally would've gotten a #1 seed, but Stanford and St. Joseph's were unbeaten until around their 27th games. UConn was clearly the best team in the country that year with a * healthy Okafor and healthy Ben Gordon *.

 

[upstater]

Funny you cite getting bad seeds. I was just looking at this the other day and was staggering at the amount of 1 and 2 seeds we had. Not sure where your complaint is.

Since 1990:

1

11

9

2

2

1

2

1

5

2

5

2

2

1

4

1

3

9

7

9

7

5

4

I didn't say bad seeds. I said low, should've read lower. Elite 8 records are sometimes on the edge of impressive because the seeds at times mean you only play one ranked team to get there. The blue bloods in the ranking above typically get an easier path than UConn. That's my point.

Let me give you an example of one way this plays out:

UConn had to play several #1 seeds in those Elite 8s, some of whom went on to win the national championship. That's a sign of being underseeded.

#3 Duke in 1990
#1 UCLA in 1995
#1 North Carolina in 1998
#1 Maryland in 2002

2004, 2006 and 2009 we had the upper hand and easier roads.

2014 we went through a gauntlet. We played the following seeds: 2, 3, 4, 1, 8.

The point is, UConn has been up against it in these Elite 8s. Not sure any team has lost to more eventual national champions in the E8 over the period.

 

[JustbrewitMan]

Kentucky 14
North Carolina 13
UConn 11
Duke 11
Kansas 10

Pretty impressive to see UConn with so many Elite 8s, especially given the relatively low seeds we've received for not playing in one of the top conferences (ACC, B1G, B12, SEC).

UConn - 11 Elite 8's, 5 Final Fours, 4 National Championships - Not considered a "Blue Blood" by 90% of media

Gonzaga - 5 Elite 8's, 2 Final Fours, 0 National Championships - referred to as a "Blue Blood" on ESPN radio multiple times this week

 

[businesslawyer]

I didn't say bad seeds. I said low, should've read lower. Elite 8 records are sometimes on the edge of impressive because the seeds at times mean you only play one ranked team to get there. The blue bloods in the ranking above typically get an easier path than UConn. That's my point.

Let me give you an example of one way this plays out:

UConn had to play several #1 seeds in those Elite 8s, some of whom went on to win the national championship. That's a sign of being underseeded.

#3 Duke in 1990
#1 UCLA in 1995
#1 North Carolina in 1998
#1 Maryland in 2002

2004, 2006 and 2009 we had the upper hand and easier roads.

2014 we went through a gauntlet. We played the following seeds: 2, 3, 4, 1, 8.

The point is, UConn has been up against it in these Elite 8s. Not sure any team has lost to more eventual national champions in the E8 over the period.

Please stop. The reasons the "blue blood in the ranking above" typically get an easier path is that they typically win more games during the regular season. Which is what, in some people's eyes, makes them a blue blood and not us.

For 33 years we're won an astounding number of championships and, as your first post showed, have done almost as well as anyone reaching regional finals. But there are a number of schools that, with far fewer championships in that period, have been more consistent and won more games.

 

[Waquoit]

Funny you cite getting bad seeds. I was just looking at this the other day and was staggering at the amount of 1 and 2 seeds we had. Not sure where your complaint is.

A big chunk came in 90's when Mike Francesa would kill JC for having all those 1 and 2 seeds and not making the Final Four.

 

[storrsroars]

If history holds, we should expect a tight game. In the 10 previous EEs, UConn was a single digit loser in 4 of 5 losses and a single digit winner in 4 of 5 wins. Exceptions were an 11 pt loss to UNC in 98 and a 16 pt win vs Bama in 04.

 

[uconngb]

UConn - 11 Elite 8's, 5 Final Fours, 4 National Championships - Not considered a "Blue Blood" by 90% of media

Gonzaga - 5 Elite 8's, 2 Final Fours, 0 National Championships - referred to as a "Blue Blood" on ESPN radio multiple times this week

All you need to know......

 

[Jaydumo20]

UConn - 11 Elite 8's, 5 Final Fours, 4 National Championships - Not considered a "Blue Blood" by 90% of media

Gonzaga - 5 Elite 8's, 2 Final Fours, 0 National Championships - referred to as a "Blue Blood" on ESPN radio multiple times this week

I always wondered about this. I know they've been more consistently good (during our down years) but even if you take UConn out of the equation I wonder why the zags get so much love. I think it's because we look at the program as this Narnia-esque, snowy fantasy land that has nothing else but a very good men's bball program. So it stands out more. Kind of like those little restaurants or food trucks that only serve one thing: that "al pastor only" truck? I think we praise the product before we even taste it.

But...is there a program that hasn't won a modern day natty that has better post season success than them? Wisconsin? I'd have to look it up.

 

[ConnHuskBask]

I didn't say bad seeds. I said low, should've read lower. Elite 8 records are sometimes on the edge of impressive because the seeds at times mean you only play one ranked team to get there. The blue bloods in the ranking above typically get an easier path than UConn. That's my point.

Let me give you an example of one way this plays out:

UConn had to play several #1 seeds in those Elite 8s, some of whom went on to win the national championship. That's a sign of being underseeded.

#3 Duke in 1990
#1 UCLA in 1995
#1 North Carolina in 1998
#1 Maryland in 2002

2004, 2006 and 2009 we had the upper hand and easier roads.

2014 we went through a gauntlet. We played the following seeds: 2, 3, 4, 1, 8.

The point is, UConn has been up against it in these Elite 8s. Not sure any team has lost to more eventual national champions in the E8 over the period.

So let me get this straight:

A perceived slight you have is that the committee underseeded UConn in say 1995 because they made the regional final as the #2 seed and played the #1 seed and lost?

So was the #16 seed who played UCLA round 1 and lost underseeded?

 

[businesslawyer]

If history holds, we should expect a tight game. In the 10 previous EEs, UConn was a single digit loser in 4 of 5 losses and a single digit winner in 4 of 5 wins. Exceptions were an 11 pt loss to UNC in 98 and a 16 pt win vs Bama in 04.

The loss in ‘98 was a single digit game until the very end. Bama in ‘04, however, was a much bigger blowout than the final score.

 

[upstater]

Please stop. The reasons the "blue blood in the ranking above" typically get an easier path is that they typically win more games during the regular season. Which is what, in some people's eyes, makes them a blue blood and not us.

For 33 years we're won an astounding number of championships and, as your first post showed, have done almost as well as anyone reaching regional finals. But there are a number of schools that, with far fewer championships in that period, have been more consistent and won more games.

I'm not going to stop. I disagree.

 

[Discograd]

I think in hoops the BE has been on the top rungs of college hoops for 20 plus years. Right thete with Big10, SEC, ETC.

 

[Tenspro2002]

Please stop. The reasons the "blue blood in the ranking above" typically get an easier path is that they typically win more games during the regular season. Which is what, in some people's eyes, makes them a blue blood and not us.

For 33 years we're won an astounding number of championships and, as your first post showed, have done almost as well as anyone reaching regional finals. But there are a number of schools that, with far fewer championships in that period, have been more consistent and won more games.

Our heyday corresponded to a time when we didn't win championships as frequently.

What makes a blue blood isn't making unexpected runs to a championship and being mediocre the rest of the time (2010s). It's being consistently dominant and striking fear into opponents year round and regularly making deep runs, some of which culminate in championships (90s-00s).

 

[Waquoit]

If history holds, we should expect a tight game.

As they say, past performance is no guarantee of future results. Especially since last game we broke our margin-of-victory ceiling in Sweet 16 or better games.

 

[upstater]

So let me get this straight:

A perceived slight you have is that the committee underseeded UConn in say 1995 because they made the regional final as the #2 seed and played the #1 seed and lost?

So was the #16 seed who played UCLA round 1 and lost underseeded?

YES!

Why? Because UCLA was #1 that year.

Kansas, Arkansas, UMass, UNC, Wake Forest, were all seeded ahead of UConn. UConn was 16-2 and finished 1st in the BE, and had a better overall record than the teams I mentioned.

Only Kentucky should have been ahead of us with UCLA.

This is a classic case of underseeding. And it meant we got the top seed in the Elite 8. A team that won the NC.

 

[ConnHuskBask]

YES!

Why? Because UCLA was #1 that year.

Kansas, Arkansas, UMass, UNC, Wake Forest, were all seeded ahead of UConn. UConn was 16-2 and finished 1st in the BE, and had a better overall record than the teams I mentioned.

Only Kentucky should have been ahead of us with UCLA.

This is a classic case of underseeding. And it meant we got the top seed in the Elite 8. A team that won the NC.

So anytime UConn lost to a 1 seed, and you provided 3 examples, it was due to a Big East bias in the selection committee by giving UConn a non 1 seed.

Not sure what the argument in 90 is with Duke being a 3 that beat us?

 

[AdamaNation]

Kentucky 14
North Carolina 13
UConn 11
Duke 11
Kansas 10

Pretty impressive to see UConn with so many Elite 8s, especially given the relatively low seeds we've received for not playing in one of the top conferences (ACC, B1G, B12, SEC).

My favorite stat for all these is fewest McDonald’s all Americans. By a lot.
What is our win rate per 5* recruit??

 

[FfldCntyFan]

I always wondered about this. I know they've been more consistently good (during our down years) but even if you take UConn out of the equation I wonder why the zags get so much love. I think it's because we look at the program as this Narnia-esque, snowy fantasy land that has nothing else but a very good men's bball program. So it stands out more. Kind of like those little restaurants or food trucks that only serve one thing: that "al pastor only" truck? I think we praise the product before we even taste it.

But...is there a program that hasn't won a modern day natty that has better post season success than them? Wisconsin? I'd have to look it up.

In large part they are the little engine that could. The tough little underdog from the upper left corner of the map that's focused almost always well the right. They also haven't invaded the big boys' space yet by winning it all (this is a huge part of why we are so resented).

 

[HuskyBaggins]

YES!

Why? Because UCLA was #1 that year.

Kansas, Arkansas, UMass, UNC, Wake Forest, were all seeded ahead of UConn. UConn was 16-2 and finished 1st in the BE, and had a better overall record than the teams I mentioned.

Only Kentucky should have been ahead of us with UCLA.

This is a classic case of underseeding. And it meant we got the top seed in the Elite 8. A team that won the NC.

All factual information

 

[HuskyBaggins]

So anytime UConn lost to a 1 seed, and you provided 3 examples, it was due to a Big East bias in the selection committee by giving UConn a non 1 seed.

Not sure what the argument in 90 is with Duke being a 3 that beat us?

UConn was properly seeded in 1990. Had a great regular season and then beat two top 5 teams back to back nights in the BET. If anything Duke was under seeded. Not based on their record, necessarily, but in hindsight, definitely.