Most Elite 8s Since 1990

[wingsfan055]

If UConn wins the title this year, they will rightfully be considered the Team of the Century. They are currently tied with Duke and North Carolina with 3 Titles this century. A win this year gives them a perfect 4-0 record in Title games this century. What's more impressive would be doing it with 3 different coaches. That speaks to the culture and legacy of the program and it's fans. Let's go!

 

[upstater]

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?

I didn't say EVEREY TIME.

But here's the thing. You seemed shocked and incredulous by 1995, you mocked me. But then you looked at the records and the seeding, and it's clear they were underseeded. '98 as well.

 

[ConnHuskBask]

I didn't say EVEREY TIME.

But here's the thing. You seemed shocked and incredulous by 1995, you mocked me. But then you looked at the records and the seeding, and it's clear they were underseeded. '98 as well.

I actually didn't look it up, but now that you mention it they finished 8th in the AP and 6th in the coaches poll. The committee giving UConn a 2 seed definitely goes down as one of the gravest injustices the sport has ever seen.

 

[superjohn]

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.

Gonzaga gets so much love because they've been the best program in the country the past 8 seasons along with Villanova.

 

[upstater]

I actually didn't look it up, but now that you mention it they finished 8th in the AP and 6th in the coaches poll. The committee giving UConn a 2 seed definitely goes down as one of the gravest injustices the sport has ever seen.

It's amazing to me you can't grasp basic facts. Better overall record, better conference record.

I guess you're highly impressed by UMass's losses to George Washington (2x) and Temple. Way to go!

Go look at what UConn was ranked before they lost to Villanova in the BE final.

2, 2, 2, 4, 3, 1, 4, 4. 3 losses all season until the BET.

 

[Jaydumo20]

Gonzaga gets so much love because they've been the best program in the country the past 8 seasons along with Villanova.

Well, it's hard to say the best without a natty. It really is. Maybe most consistent. It's hard to "statistics" your way around that. As a Rays fan I'd love it to be otherwise.

 

[ConnHuskBask]

It's amazing to me you can't grasp basic facts. Better overall record, better conference record.

I guess you're highly impressed by UMass's losses to George Washington (2x) and Temple. Way to go!

UMass finished 1995 26-4 blew out Temple in A10 final and UConn 25-4 and was blown out by Nova in BET final.

Who can't grasp the facts?

 

[Jaydumo20]

@superjohn the real question is (my edit got cut short) why are the Zags called a baby blue blood by a bunch of people recently (ESPN, and the tourney podcast on spotify)and we don't ever get mentioned. Can the zags be a blue blood without a natty. I think it's silly

 

[NickDanger]

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.

"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."
Please stop? Why should he? His point is valid: it is harder to go far in the tournament with a low seed.
He never said the seedings were unfair! You're reading that in yourself.

 

[superjohn]

@superjohn the real question is (my edit got cut short) why are the Zags called a baby blue blood by a bunch of people recently (ESPN, and the tourney podcast on spotify)and we don't ever get mentioned. Can the zags be a blue blood without a natty. I think it's silly

Recency bias. After we won the whole thing in 2014 Bilas did a segment for ESPN about us being the bluest blue blood and whether any of the other blue bloods belonged with UConn. We weren't really relevant again nationally until now.

 

[Jaydumo20]

Recency bias. After we won the whole thing in 2014 Bilas did a segment for ESPN about us being the bluest blue blood and whether any of the other blue bloods belonged with UConn. We weren't really relevant again nationally until now.

That's a good point. I do agree with that. Which is why it troubles me to hear people call georgetown and ucla a blue blood. UCLA I can kind of understand but not really. But Georgetown? The way people have been talking about them recently you'd think they won it all last year, as opposed to being one of the biggest embarrassments from a known program.

 

[upstater]

UMass finished 1995 26-4 blew out Temple in A10 final and UConn 25-4 and was blown out by Nova in BET final.

Who can't grasp the facts?

4 of UConn's losses that year were to ranked teams.

Not to Temple and George Washington twice.

UConn had a better conference, same record, and they didn't have 3 bad losses.

Are you a UConn fan?

 

[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."
Please stop? Why should he? His point is valid: it is harder to go far in the tournament with a low seed.
He never said the seedings were unfair! You're reading that in yourself.

Yes, indeed. You understand my point. We lost to UCLA in the E8. We likely would've lost to them in the F4 or the championship as well. I'm not saying they took away a championship from us.

I'm saying that counting E8s is possibly an arbitrary exercise when you consider teams are underseeded and they may face the toughest team earlier.

I noted that this has happened to UConn multiple times and that this underseeding in those years is at odds with their actual record compared to those seeded above UConn.

This isn't an argument for "we should have won more championships!" I acknowledged that in future years, as in 2004, the seeding was of a benefit to us.

The whole point of what I wrote is that counting E8s or F4s is a little misleading when you consider the questionable seeding by the committee.

 

[ConnHuskBask]

4 of UConn's losses that year were to ranked teams.

Not to Temple and George Washington twice.

Better conference, same record, and they didn't have 3 bad losses.

Are you a UConn fan?

So the team from a worst conference was awarded the better seed by the committee? I could have sworn someone here said we were underseeded by the committee many years because we didn't play in one of the top leagues?

 

[HuskyHawk]

Gonzaga gets so much love because they've been the best program in the country the past 8 seasons along with Villanova.

It's not just that. They have a perpetual Cinderella appeal because they come from a small conference. They are David vs the Goliaths every year, even when they are a #1 seed.

Side note. Unless UConn wins, the team that wins will have never won a title. The other three remaining former champs all lost yesterday.

 

[upstater]

So the team from a worst conference was awarded the better seed by the committee? I could have sworn someone here said we were underseeded by the committee many years because we didn't play in one of the top leagues?

Big East was not a top league. That's my point. Underseeding the BE is just normal.

You keep skipping over the facts though. So I'll say them again: UConn lost to 4 ranked teams. UMass lost to GWU 2x and Temple and unranked team in the NCAAT. 1 loss to a ranked team.

Now you're saying the A10 is worse than the BE. Which only STRENGHTENS my argument

 

[ConnHuskBask]

Big East was not a top league. That's my point. Underseeding the BE is just normal.

You keep skipping over the facts though. So I'll say them again: UConn lost to 4 ranked teams. UMass lost to GWU 2x and Temple and unranked team in the NCAAT. 1 loss to a ranked team.

Now you're saying the A10 is worse than the BE. Which only STRENGHTENS my argument

You seem exceedingly wound up over a (perceived) one seed line slight from 28 years ago.

 

[Waquoit]

Big East was not a top league. That's my point.

The mocking will continue until morale improves

 

[pj]

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

ESPN has the West Coast Conference media rights (West Coast Conference Announces Landmark Media Rights Agreements). They don't have the Big East.

 

[upstater]

You seem exceedingly wound up over a (perceived) one seed line slight from 28 years ago.

Au contraire.
You're the one that got wound up over a comment.

 

[BigFanCT]

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.

Strong strong disagree here

 

[uconnfan68]

It's not just that. They have a perpetual Cinderella appeal because they come from a small conference. They are David vs the Goliaths every year, even when they are a #1 seed.

Side note. Unless UConn wins, the team that wins will have never won a title. The other three remaining former champs all lost yesterday.

Let’s not let the newbies win.

 

[TheChamps990411]

The committee giving UConn a 2 seed definitely goes down as one of the gravest injustices the sport has ever seen.

I have to disagree. Duke, Arizona, UNC and Kansas had great teams that season that spent most of the season top 5 while Uconn never got higher than 6th. #2 seed was fair. We were young and very talented and you could see 99` was going to be huge for us. It took a great team like UNC to knock us off. No shame in that and we were well deserving of a #2 seed but had no real case for a #1 nevermind claiming it as an all time injustice.