[teejers1]

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.

As with everything, it's in the details.  
The real question is:  of the teams that played on the court that day, which was "better" (i.e., should Stanford or its opponent have won)?

I saw all those games and attended many, the biggest disappointment, obviously, was the Alabama L.  They had 2 NBA players, for sure (all star?), but overall Stanford had the better team and should have won.   Suffice it to say the foul discrepancy called by the officials was not helping Stanford's cause.

UNC?  They were a better team than Stanford (fully healthy), and they made FF that year.  That was unlucky draw for Stanford.  It sucked, but I don't think it was a particularly bad loss (although I do think Peppers was allowed to play football out there a bit too much).

The Siena L was next most disappointing, imo, (perhaps magnified by first time in NCAA in ages).  I remember one play where they had a breakaway layup, and the Siena player stopped at three point line to throw up a bomb.  Draino.  That kind of day (in empty arena, right?).

Maryland?  They were an excellent team that played well that day (and Stanford was out a player or two).  Understandable result.

None of the other Ls stand out in any way (Kansas way better, Kentucky in FF - one point L in OT;) hard to argue too much on those.  Perhaps I'm missing other bad ones, but right now, I can't think of them.

And of course, the FF run was tremendous - remains the most enjoyable Stanford sporting event of my lifetime (even over Orange Bowl and Rose Bowl wins).

Bottom line:  as noted by others, a regular-appearing team in NCAAs sounds awfully good right now . . .

[teejers1]

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.

As with everything, it's in the details.  
The real question is:  of the teams that played on the court that day, which was "better" (i.e., should Stanford or its opponent have won)?

I saw all those games and attended many, the biggest disappointment, obviously, was the Alabama L.  They had 2 NBA players, for sure (all star?), but overall Stanford had the better team and should have won.   Suffice it to say the foul discrepancy called by the officials was not helping Stanford's cause.

UNC?  They were a better team than Stanford (fully healthy), and they made FF that year.  That was unlucky draw for Stanford.  It sucked, but I don't think it was a particularly bad loss (although I do think Peppers was allowed to play football out there a bit too much).

The Siena L was next most disappointing, imo, (perhaps magnified by first time in NCAA in ages).  I remember one play where they had a breakaway layup, and the Siena player stopped at three point line to throw up a bomb.  Draino.  That kind of day (in empty arena, right?).

Maryland?  They were an excellent team that played well that day (and Stanford was out a player or two).  Understandable result.

None of the other Ls stand out in any way (Kansas way better, Kentucky in FF - one point L in OT;) hard to argue too much on those.  Perhaps I'm missing other bad ones, but right now, I can't think of them.

And of course, the FF run was tremendous - remains the most enjoyable Stanford sporting event of my lifetime (even over Orange Bowl and Rose Bowl wins).

Bottom line:  as noted by others, a regular-appearing team in NCAAs sounds awfully good right now . . .