The Dagger - NCAAB

Mon Mar 23, 2009 8:30 am EDT

Is the NCAA tournament entering an era of chalk?

Last year, we had all four number one seeds advance to the Final Four of the NCAA tournament. And this year, in what's even a bigger crime against the concept of the underdog, all of the one, two and three seeds have combined to go 24-0 in the first two rounds of the tournament.

The highest-seeded team left is 12-seed Arizona, who won a game in which they were actually favored in the first round, and then beat a 13-seed in the second round. The second-highest seed left is the fifth-seeded Purdue Boilermakers. After that, it's 1s, 2s, 3s and 4s.

Cinderella will not be joining us in 2009. Cinderella spends her evenings waitressing at a truckstop, her late nights mopping up at a massage parlor and her days smoking Marlboro Reds, making non-stop calls to the Maury Povich show and trying to convince Dale to put some damn pants on and find a job. She's not coming to our ball.

What gives? Why isn't Cinderella joining us anymore? Have mid-majors lost some of their mojo? Have the big-time teams learned to counter the precise offenses and tenacious defenses of their less-talented brethren? Is it the NBA age limit thing that essentially requires young fellows who would normally jump to the NBA to spend a year playing college ball? Is Cinderella not coming to the Sweet 16 because she has a restraining order against Eric Devendorf, and he's not allowed within 100 feet of her?

I don't know the answer. But we're chalkier now than we've ever been, and I've made a sweet graph to illustrate the point. The numbers represent the average seed of all four teams who made the Final Four in a given year.

2006 was the George Mason year, which throws things off a bit, but even without it (and 2000, for that matter, when two eight-seeds made the Final Four), we'd see a trend climb upwards since 2000.

The timing makes sense with the NBA age limit deal, and it certainly made a difference last year, with Derrick Rose and Kevin Love. But save for maybe Tyreke Evans (and that may be a stretch), no one really fits that description this year.

The other possibility is that I'm drawing too big a conclusion from just two years of heavy chalk, and we really don't have a large enough sample size to know anything for sure. I'll grant that that's a distinct possibility.

Maybe it's not the case, though. Maybe we're entering an era where Cinderella has permanently turned into a pumpkin, and on Halloween, someone carved Rick Pitino's face into her. For better or worse, that's what we had last year, and it's what it looks like we're going to have again this year.

digg delicious
more

49 Comments

Post a Comment
  1. Daniel C
    1. Posted by Daniel C Thu Sep 03, 2009 3:39 pm EDT

    Report Abuse

    I sure do love pumpkins, cotton
  2. Chris L
    2. Posted by Chris L Thu Sep 03, 2009 3:16 pm EDT

    Report Abuse

    I agree that the sample size isn't big enough to draw any conclusions. Personally, I think we've hit a point in college basketball where there's a dozen or so elite teams, and then a big dropoff to a diluted middle of the pack. Why this disparity exists, I don't know, but the top seeds are doing a good job of validating their regular season play with this early success.
  3. David E
    3. Posted by David E Thu Sep 03, 2009 3:37 pm EDT

    Report Abuse

    In all honesty, I think that the committee has gotten better at seeding the non-Big 6 schools. 5 or 10 years ago, Memphis would have been a 5 or 6 seed, Xavier an 8 or 9 and Gonzaga would be an 11 or 12. Cinderella is still coming to the dance, but instead of needing a fairy godmother, her invitation came in the mail.
  4. Hambone
    4. Posted by Hambone Thu Sep 03, 2009 3:17 pm EDT

    Report Abuse

    This year seems more like a fluke. How many games have we had so far where big time favorites escaped by the skin of their teeth? I wonder if any of that has to do with how tight the teams were this season. All of the top seeds have experience in close games, losing plenty. Maybe that hardened them too much to get upset.
  5. Jake
    5. Posted by Jake Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:47 pm EDT

    Report Abuse

    Make more weaker teams in big six conferences get in(i.e Northwestern, Penn state), rather than morehead st, and there may be more upsets.....
  6. Ron H
    6. Posted by Ron H Thu Sep 03, 2009 3:09 pm EDT

    Report Abuse

    "Is Cinderella not coming to the Sweet 16 because she has a restraining order against Eric Devendorf, and he's not allowed within 100 feet of her?"
    HILARIOUS.
  7. killerblues
    7. Posted by killerblues Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:02 pm EDT

    Report Abuse

    I think MJD has no idea how to read trends. Only the past 2 seasons, 2007 and 2008 did you see a spike in the seed average. from this tiny sample size, one would say that the trend has a slight decrease in seed average with the exception of the outliers since the seeds tended to decrease from 2001-2005. Even then I think it's more fluke than statistic. let's add another 10 years of data points and maybe your claim will be legitimate.
  8. woohoo
    8. Posted by woohoo Thu Sep 03, 2009 4:03 pm EDT

    Report Abuse

    Sorry Jake I don't think so.....Northwestern and Penn State, if they replaced the lower seeds as last in would be in the 15s and 16 seed spots and would get just as drilled by the UCONN's and Memphis of the world. They are no better just because they are mediocre in bigger conferences. I had really hoped my alum, Auburn, had gotten in, but at the same time I realize there was a ton more they could have done, such as not losing to mercer at home. Same with the other teams you mentioned, it's not like they are cheated out of the tournament, they could win many more games or the conference tournament. I also think Auburn would get absolutely hammered by UNC or Pitt. Keeping out the little man will only make the tournament more boring and the tournament could no longer be called the NCAA tournament since we'd be keeping out a large # of NCAA schools. Really I dont think there is an argument that Penn State or Auburn or Northwestern would fair any better than say Cleveland State or even ETSU which put up quite a fight against the #1 seed they played. It'd be a terrible change.
  9. PLAYA
    9. Posted by PLAYA Thu Sep 03, 2009 4:03 pm EDT

    Report Abuse

    Your comment about the mid majors is on track, but they arent cinderellas anymore. Gonzaga was a perenial cinderella but now they are a powerhouse. George Mason was a true cinderellla but other than that it has been fairly consistent. I think if anything its the watering down of the major conferences that has made the seeds more predictable. Its not that Davidson isnt good enough to beat anyone this year, its the Ohio States and Oklahoma States and Marylands that just arent good enough to knock anyone off anymore and thats where the chalk really keeps writing.
  10. Lakers baby!!
    10. Posted by Lakers baby!! Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:45 pm EDT

    Report Abuse

    I agree... but come on if only ST. Marys, Davidson, Penn State and Northwestern would have made it there would be more upsets going on... too bad for the NCAA committee tehy always leave the hottest teams out!!!
  11. James D
    11. Posted by James D Thu Sep 03, 2009 3:38 pm EDT

    Report Abuse

    I don't really see the correlation. This year is not over yet, and I don't know if I can speak for the rest of the country, but most of the #1 seeds look overrated and vulnerable. Pitt should have lost twice, but barely scrapped by. Louisville almost lost to Siena. Not to mention Michigan State and Memphis both escaped close games. By next Sunday at least two of the number one seeds will be gone, and then MJ will have to rethink his theory and find something else to write about.
  12. Jesse
    12. Posted by Jesse Thu Sep 03, 2009 4:34 pm EDT

    Report Abuse

    The NCAA doesn't want teams like Davidson or Saint Mary's in the field. Cinderellas make for great entertainment but they don't make as much money. Very few people benefit if Davidson makes the final 4 but a LOT of people benefit if Duke or North Carolina do.
  13. Sean S
    13. Posted by Sean S Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 pm EDT

    Report Abuse

    It was a close handed slap. She was out of line. I would've done it to..
  14. Charles D
    14. Posted by Charles D Thu Sep 03, 2009 3:42 pm EDT

    Report Abuse

    I think it is because the mid-majors are getting a little more respect in the polls and the seedings. Teams like Gonzaga are no longer getting low seeds.
  15. Reppin 4rm Big D to Jrzy
    15. Posted by Reppin 4rm Big D to Jrzy Thu Sep 03, 2009 3:38 pm EDT

    Report Abuse

    its all based on the system....back to those early and late season injuries.....those close non-conference and conference losses...the one upset or huge blowout....and then only 65 teams make it but the best 65 dont go....the most beneficiary 65 teams go and only 30 of those have legit chances due to the disparity of talent among the schools...the way the bracket is set up prevents a lot of upsets....if a 1 seed opened up against an 8 and 16 against a 9 and etc then there would be more variance....this isnt round robin this is one and done so whoeva shows up to play on that day is gonna win.....it should favor the high seeds since they have the most talent to give them the best chances to win.....if and when a 16 beats a 1 we wont say wow that 16 is real good we'll say that 1 was overrated and didnt belong in that spot
  16. Charlee G
    16. Posted by Charlee G Thu Sep 03, 2009 3:26 pm EDT

    Report Abuse

    Besides having McDonald's All-Americans, we should have Jack in the Box, Subway, and Hardees All-Americans. All these statistics stem from recruiting. There are 15 teams in the country that blue chip kids migrate to because of coaching and tradition. I don't need to list them, look at the coaches poll. Players are chasing glory and go where the spotlight falls. Memphis, Xavier and Gonzaga have brought their own lights---good for them.
  17. Kevin H
    17. Posted by Kevin H Thu Sep 03, 2009 4:54 pm EDT

    Report Abuse

    What is the graph supposed to show other than the author passed 5th grade science class?
  18. SpartanDan
    18. Posted by SpartanDan Thu Sep 03, 2009 8:11 pm EDT

    Report Abuse

    2000 was a freakish year too - the Final Four was 1, 5, 8, 8.
    The NBA minimum age rule probably has some impact here (the top teams have more pro prospects than before), but it could also just be a fluke. Let's not forget, last year part of the reason the 1s made it was because there was all sorts of early-round chaos - two 12s in the Sweet 16, a 10 in the Elite Eight. Sure, they'd be favored against anyone, but when your road to the Final Four goes 16-8-12-10 as a 1 seed, you darn well better make it. This year, except for Louisville, all of the 1s are going to have to go through, at worst, a 5 and a 3.
  19. Alex C
    19. Posted by Alex C Thu Sep 03, 2009 2:50 pm EDT

    Report Abuse

    More evidence the conference tournament champions do NOT belong in the tournament.
  20. studmuffin
    20. Posted by studmuffin Thu Sep 03, 2009 8:50 pm EDT

    Report Abuse

    Arizona does not have a football team, do they?
  21. Ralph S
    21. Posted by Ralph S Thu Sep 03, 2009 8:32 pm EDT

    Report Abuse

    Cinderella, was on a date with me; she will be available for the Sweet Sixteen round.
  22. buis g
    22. Posted by buis g Thu Sep 03, 2009 3:15 pm EDT

    Report Abuse

    In 2008, a 10 seed, Davidson, made it to the elite 8. Two 12 seeds (Western Kentucky and Villanova) were in the sweet 16. what more do you want? The game is played out on the court. The better team on that day wins. Most of the time a 1 seed will beat a 10 seed. Cinderella stories wouldn't be cinderella stories if they happened all the time. That's the beauty of the upset.
  23. studmuffin
    23. Posted by studmuffin Thu Sep 03, 2009 8:50 pm EDT

    Report Abuse

    Arizona does not have a football team, do they?
  24. buis g
    24. Posted by buis g Thu Sep 03, 2009 3:15 pm EDT

    Report Abuse

    Actually, "Cinderella" hasn't existed since the 80's. The lowest to make it to the final four in the 90's was a 6 (Michigan 1992). Most years consisted of 1, 2 , and 3 seeds.
  25. funguy
    25. Posted by funguy Thu Sep 03, 2009 4:04 pm EDT

    Report Abuse

    I think the news media and yourself really need to re-evaluate what a 'Cinderella' is. Since Gonzaga in 1999 as a 10 seed making it to the Elite Eight, A Cinderella team has to be a mid-major who is over-performing. Is this really Cinderella? I mean Cinderella wasn't supposed to dance, but did. Wasn't supposed to dance with the Prince but did, and wasn't supposed to marry him but did. There may be a couple of teams that I missed, but 1983 NC State wasn't suppposed to make the tourney and won the bid by winning the ACC tourney. 2000 UNC wasn't supposed to make the tourney but the selection committee let them in and they made it to the Final Four. 2009 Arizona wasn't supposed to make it in, but did and is over-performing by their 12 seed standard. (Granted UNC didn't win in 2000 and Arizona is still in control of their fate).
    I think a claim could be made for Villanova 1985 (winner as 8 seed), LSU 1986 (Final 4 as 11 seed had a shot with Shaq), Kansas in 1988 as a 6 seed is borderline. Utah and UNLV are the only two non-power conference schools to make it since 1966 UTEP (ok--UMass is in there too, but it got revoked, and George Mason in 2006 could be a Cinderella). History shows that the winner is going to be Power conference school. So how about the term Cinderella refering to a power conference school who either wasn't supposed to make it in (UNC 2000 Arizona this year) or a power conference school who has a 6 or lower seed (that would put them outside the TOP 25). That's if you want the term to mean something. As for the mid-majors...give 'em press but call them Bracket Busters or Mad Mid-Majors out to prove they can hang. You media types have a marketing department that can sizzle up the steak use them, just don't let them use the term Cinderella.

The Dagger

Add to My Yahoo! RSS

Jeff Eisenberg

The Dagger is a college basketball blog edited by Jeff Eisenberg. Email him, and follow him on Twitter.

Contributors:
Chris Chase, Matt Norlander,

Related Photo Gallery

Featured NCAAB Video

Y! Sports Blogs

The Dagger Recent Readers