The unpredictability of the NCAA tournament often leads to Final Four teams meeting via completely divergent paths. Sometimes we talk about a team reaching the Final Four because the bracket broke in a favorable way— a one-seed was knocked out early or a team drew a Sweet 16 date with an 11 seed. Ken Pomeroy recently wrote about how largely, at the top of the field, the best teams’ chances of a title are not affected much by their draw.
Nate Silver had a take on the seeding topic a few years ago, demonstrating that certain seeds counterintuitively and unequivocally are at a disadvantage. (For instance, he argues that a team would rather be saddled with a 10 seed instead of an 8, because of the ensuing path each team takes after winning its first game.) Both points are valid and provide background for this analysis.
I’ve attempted to contextualize the paths of each of this year’s Final Four teams. We’ll work only within the last 11 years because that is how far back we have comprehensive adjusted offensive and defensive efficiency data. (Granted, more work can certainly be done in this area, as 18 tournaments occurred between 1985 – the year the tournament expanded to 64 teams—and 2002.)
To determine strength of Final Four path, I calculated the Pythagorean winning percentage (Pyth) using the average AdjO and AdjD of each team’s four opponents, the same way strength of schedule is calculated in Ken’s system.
Below are the results, broken down into the 10 easiest and 10 most difficult paths to the Final Four, along with who owned them, what seed they were, and strength of the Final Four teams based on their season-long Pyth.
Most difficult paths to the Final Four
Seed Year Team Pyth F4PathSOS 9 2013 Wichita State .8970 .9219 3 2003 Marquette .9077 .9208 5 2010 Butler .9259 .9102 8 2011 Butler .8407 .9100 4 2006 LSU .9274 .9079 4 2011 Kentucky .9390 .9040 11 2006 George Mason .8864 .9037 4 2013 Michigan .9476 .9028 3 2009 Villanova .9278 .9011 4 2012 Louisville .9070 .8977
Wichita State this year has been discussed most frequently as the fortunate beneficiaries of a bracket that broke wide open. The West regional was thought to be the weakest and thus most likely to have a surprise contender emerge. So it’s somewhat surprising that Wichita State’s path to the Final Four was far from easy and, in fact, registers as the most difficult in the past 11 years.
Before 2013 Wichita State, the team with the most fearsome slate was Marquette in 2003, the No. 3 seed in the Midwest regional. Not only did Dwyane Wade’s team have to defeat two of the three highest-rated teams in the country that year (Pittsburgh and Kentucky), they also kicked off the tournament against an abnormally strong 14 seed, Holy Cross.
Butler in 2010 and 2011 owned two of the most difficult roads to the Final Four, making what Brad Stevens’ teams did even more incredible.
Michigan this year claimed the eighth-most difficult path to the Final Four after needing to go through VCU, Kansas, and Florida, one of the toughest trios in any region this year.
Least difficult paths to the Final Four
Seed Year Team Pyth F4PathSOS 1 2003 Texas .9277 .7706 1 2008 UCLA .9744 .7711 1 2005 Illinois .9730 .7976 2 2006 UCLA .9479 .8009 1 2007 Florida .9758 .8123 2 2004 Connecticut .9697 .8133 1 2013 Louisville .9767 .8222 1 2004 Duke .9777 .8229 1 2009 Connecticut .9631 .8264 1 2012 Kentucky .9679 .8283
The 2003 Final Four also featured Texas, a No. 1 seed who had the easiest road to the final weekend in the past 11 years.
UCLA’s three consecutive Final Four runs between 2006-2008 are by any measure impressive but the Bruins certainly benefited from some favorable breaks during the bookends of that incredible string. Their paths to the 2006 and 2008 Final Fours were two of the four easiest of any teams in the sample. Their 2006 run was the easiest for a non-1 seed.
Louisville’s road to the Final Four this year has been the seventh-weakest during this timespan. Coupled with their already overwhelming strength, they have made getting to the Final Four look easy.
Other notable items:
Of the five Final Four runs made by traditional mid-majors in the past 11 years, 2011 VCU had by far the easiest path, coming in with the 21st most difficult slate. The number is misleading, though, as the Rams had to win an extra game against an above-average, but not great, opponent due to their placement in the First Four.
Every team that made it to the Final Four in 2011 faced a stronger opponent in the Sweet 16 than they did in the Elite Eight. In both 2004 and 2005, three of the four Final Four teams had tougher Sweet 16 dates than Elite Eight matchups.
All 44 teams’ paths to the Final Four are below, in order from most to least difficult:
Seed Year Team Pyth F4PathSOS 9 2013 Wichita State .8970 .9219 3 2003 Marquette .9077 .9208 5 2010 Butler .9259 .9102 8 2011 Butler .8407 .9100 4 2006 LSU .9274 .9079 4 2011 Kentucky .9390 .9040 11 2006 George Mason .8864 .9037 4 2013 Michigan .9476 .9028 3 2009 Villanova .9278 .9011 4 2012 Louisville .9070 .8977 2 2007 UCLA .9672 .8965 2 2007 Georgetown .9689 .8962 5 2005 Michigan St. .9535 .8952 2 2004 OK State .9603 .8934 4 2005 Louisville .9601 .8897 3 2004 Georgia Tech .9524 .8872 2 2003 Kansas .9673 .8855 2 2009 Michigan St. .9371 .8843 1 2008 N. Carolina .9712 .8814 1 2008 Memphis .9776 .8714 11 2011 VCU .8122 .8687 2 2010 West Virginia .9403 .8683 5 2010 Michigan St. .9005 .8638 3 2006 Florida .9615 .8633 1 2007 Ohio State .9705 .8620 1 2005 N. Carolina .9797 .8619 3 2011 Connecticut .9270 .8605 3 2003 Syracuse .9292 .8581 1 2010 Duke .9763 .8566 2 2012 Ohio State .9640 .8480 1 2009 N. Carolina .9658 .8476 1 2008 Kansas .9859 .8417 2 2012 Kansas .9485 .8379 4 2013 Syracuse .9445 .8356 1 2012 Kentucky .9679 .8283 1 2009 Connecticut .9631 .8264 1 2004 Duke .9777 .8229 1 2013 Louisville .9767 .8222 2 2004 Connecticut .9697 .8133 1 2007 Florida .9758 .8123 2 2006 UCLA .9479 .8009 1 2005 Illinois .9730 .7976 1 2008 UCLA .9744 .7711 1 2003 Texas .9277 .7706