POWERED BY

Miscellany

Georgetown Hoyas: The Most Underachieving Four-Year Stretch Ever in the NCAA Tournament

Georgetown has been a 3-seed, 6-seed, 3-seed, and 2-seed in the last four NCAA Tournaments. The Hoyas have one total win (over Belmont in the opening game last year). The losses have been to 14th seeded Ohio, 11th seeded Virginia Commonwealth (which went to the Final 4), 11th  seed NC State, and now 15th seeded Florida Gulf Coast.

How does that rank among all-time tournament fizzles over a consecutive 4-year consecutive span? Well, as it turns out, at the very bottom, at least since the NCAA began seeding teams since 1978. Originally, it was a smaller 48-team field, and then in 1985 it expanded to 64 teams. We can compare Georgetown’s performance to the average for each team with the same seed over time to see how much they have underachieved.

Given the seeds the last four years, Georgetown would have been expected to have 7.4 wins, putting them a whopping 6.4 wins below where they should be. This comes in just below Arizona from 1990 to 1993 (-6.1 wins below expected), a stretch that included losses to 15-seed Santa Clara (with Steve Nash) and 14-seed East Tennessee State, along with Sweet Sixteen and 2nd Round exits as a 2-seed.

The third worst stretch was Ray Meyers’ De Paul teams from 1979-1982 (-5.6 wins below expected). De Paul actually advanced to the Final Four as a 2-seed in 1979, but then lost as a 1-seed in the first game three straight years (remember, no 16 seeds then, so they opened vs. the 8/9 seed).

Duke from 2005 to 2008 was the only other one to be more than five wins below expected over a 4-year stretch. The Blue Devils lost twice in the Sweet Sixteen as a #1 seed, in the first round as a #6 seed, and in the second round as a #2 seed.

The remaining programs that were four or more wins below expected over a 4-year span of playing in the tournament: Missouri (1987-1990; -4.5), Michigan (1985-1988; -4.3), Notre Dame (2010-2013; -4.2), Pittsburgh (2008-2011; -4.2), Kansas (1995-1998; -4.0).

 

blog comments powered by Disqus
prev.loading
nextloading