[Papa John]

Fair enough, let's do it your way:

1989: #3 seed. Expectation based on seed: sweet 16. Result: lost in first round. -2
1992: #12 seed. Expecation: first round. Result: lost in first round. 0
1995: #10 seed. Expectation: first round. Result: lost in second round. +1
1996: #9 seed. Expectation: first round. Result: lost in second round. +1
1997: #6 seed. Expectation: second round. Result: lost in sweet 16. +1
1998: #3 seed. Expectation: sweet 16. Result: lost in final four. +2
1999: #2 seed. Expectation: elite 8. Result: lost in second round. -2
2000: #1 seed. Expectation: final four. Result: lost in second round. -3
2001: #1 seed. Expectation: final four. Result: lost in elite 8. -1
2002: #8 seed. Expectation: second round. Result: lost in second round. 0
2003: #4 seed. Expectation: sweet sixteen. Result: lost in second round. -1
2004: #1 seed. Expectation: final four. Result: lost in second round. -3


So, if I did the math correctly, that comes out to a -7 score for 12 appearances. So that magnifies the discrepancy between the last six appearances and first six appearances, but it doesn't change my conclusion.

I think the question is how do you operationally define "much more"? In my first post I looked at "how often" did Montgomery's teams overachieve versus underachieve. Immediately above I looked at "how much." I think both approaches are valid, it just depends on which question you want to answer. OutsiderFan took a year-by-year approach to his analysis, so that's what I did at first.

[Papa John]

Fair enough, let's do it your way:

1989: #3 seed. Expectation based on seed: sweet 16. Result: lost in first round. -2
1992: #12 seed. Expecation: first round. Result: lost in first round. 0
1995: #10 seed. Expectation: first round. Result: lost in second round. +1
1996: #9 seed. Expectation: first round. Result: lost in second round. +1
1997: #6 seed. Expectation: second round. Result: lost in sweet 16. +1
1998: #3 seed. Expectation: sweet 16. Result: lost in final four. +2
1999: #2 seed. Expectation: elite 8. Result: lost in second round. -2
2000: #1 seed. Expectation: final four. Result: lost in second round. -3
2001: #1 seed. Expectation: final four. Result: lost in elite 8. -1
2002: #8 seed. Expectation: second round. Result: lost in second round. 0
2003: #4 seed. Expectation: sweet sixteen. Result: lost in second round. -1
2004: #1 seed. Expectation: final four. Result: lost in second round. -3


So, if I did the math correctly, that comes out to a -7 score for 12 appearances. So that magnifies the discrepancy between the last six appearances and first six appearances, but it doesn't change my conclusion.

I think the question is how do you operationally define "much more"? In my first post I looked at "how often" did Montgomery's teams overachieve versus underachieve. Immediately above I looked at "how much." I think both approaches are valid, it just depends on which question you want to answer. OutsiderFan took a year-by-year approach to his analysis, so that's what I did at first.