02-11-2014, 05:00 PM
BC - I don't have the data readily at hand, but in the last couple of years of Monty's tenure, ESPN did an analysis of the top underperformers and overperformers in the NCAA tourney for the ten years prior. Stanford was very high on the underperformer list.
In the last 6 years of his tenure (after going to the FF), Stanford made it to the sweet 16 once. Their seeds during that stretch: #2 (2nd rd loss), #1 (2nd round), #1 (Elite 8), #8 (2nd round, the only year they reached their seeding level), #4 (2nd round), #1 (2nd round). A #2 seeded team should theoretically lose in the Elite 8. A #1 seed should in theory make it to the FF. Yes, it's a lot harder to exceed your seed expectations when you're seeded highly, but these teams lost 2 and sometimes 3 rounds prior to the round their seeding predicted. Perhaps Stanford was over-rated by The Committee. Regardless, it became all too regular to have this let down, IMO.
In the last 6 years of his tenure (after going to the FF), Stanford made it to the sweet 16 once. Their seeds during that stretch: #2 (2nd rd loss), #1 (2nd round), #1 (Elite 8), #8 (2nd round, the only year they reached their seeding level), #4 (2nd round), #1 (2nd round). A #2 seeded team should theoretically lose in the Elite 8. A #1 seed should in theory make it to the FF. Yes, it's a lot harder to exceed your seed expectations when you're seeded highly, but these teams lost 2 and sometimes 3 rounds prior to the round their seeding predicted. Perhaps Stanford was over-rated by The Committee. Regardless, it became all too regular to have this let down, IMO.