[BostonCard]

[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=9542.msg83734#msg83734 date=1392162270]I don't know how you can accuses Monty of systematic underperformance when he also took a team to the Final 4.  The NCAA tourney (and, in fact, any one and done tourney) is going to have its share of upsets.  To the extent that we were upset victims during the latter stages of Monty's career at Stanford is due to the fact that we were frequently a higher seed.

I can't recall exactly where I saw this, but near the end of Monty's tenure, ESPN or SI or someone did an analysis of how big-name coaches had done in the Tourney relative to their seeds.  If you were a 2, breaking even would be losing in the Elite 8, losing earlier would be a negative, and making the Final 4 would be bonus points.  Monty came out towards the bottom of the rankings.  And I think that was before the 2004 fiasco (which I was present for--sigh).

Also, his UC East Bay record in the Tourney is so-so:
2009: lost in the 1st round as a 7 seed
2010: lost in the 2nd round as an 8 seed
2012: lost the play-in game as a 12 seed vs. another 12
2013: better--as a 12 seed, beat the 5 in the first round, lost to the 4 in round two

Of course, that's 4 more appearances than we've made since 2009.
[/quote]

How exactly does that prove anything.  Aside from the problem that you are trying to draw conclusions based on a sample size of 4, you have the following:
2009: 7 seed losing to a 10 seed; A 10 seed has won 36% of the time.
2010: 8 seed losing to a 1 seed in the second round (first off, an eight seed wins its first round matchup less than 50% of the time; despite being the better seed, they advance only 46% of the time, so Monty gets credit).  Eight seeds advance to the sweet 16 only 10% of the time, so hardly a surprise.
2012: 12 seed versus a 12 seed; should be about even odds, right?
2013: 12 seed beating a 5 seed happens 31.5% of the time; they make it past the second round 15% of the time.

So, in four outings, once he beat the expected (2013), once he was beaten when he was expected to win (2009), and in two games when the chances of advancing were about 50/50, he won one and lost one. His two appearances in the second round he was a decided underdog and lost.

And for the assessment of "breaking even", here is the problem: If you are a two seed, you have three chances to fall shy and (if you win those three) one chance to exceed your expectations.  Compare to a 10 seed, which cannot possibly fall shy compared to expectations.  Thus, a coach who is a 10 seed four times and goes 1-3 has "exceeded expectations", while a coach who is, say, a 4 seed four times and goes 7-4 has fallen shy of expectations.

This site compiles the probabilities of advancing to each round given a particular seed: http://www.collegehoopsnet.com/ncaa-tour...ing-166169

You will see that a number one seed survives the elite eight 41% of the time; thus counterintuitively, a number one seed that makes the final four has exceeded the odds (not merely done as well as expected).  Likewise, #3 seeds advance past the second round only 47.8% of the time, so a #3 seed that makes the sweet sixteen has actually beaten the odds.

BC

[BostonCard]

[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=9542.msg83734#msg83734 date=1392162270]I don't know how you can accuses Monty of systematic underperformance when he also took a team to the Final 4.  The NCAA tourney (and, in fact, any one and done tourney) is going to have its share of upsets.  To the extent that we were upset victims during the latter stages of Monty's career at Stanford is due to the fact that we were frequently a higher seed.

I can't recall exactly where I saw this, but near the end of Monty's tenure, ESPN or SI or someone did an analysis of how big-name coaches had done in the Tourney relative to their seeds.  If you were a 2, breaking even would be losing in the Elite 8, losing earlier would be a negative, and making the Final 4 would be bonus points.  Monty came out towards the bottom of the rankings.  And I think that was before the 2004 fiasco (which I was present for--sigh).

Also, his UC East Bay record in the Tourney is so-so:
2009: lost in the 1st round as a 7 seed
2010: lost in the 2nd round as an 8 seed
2012: lost the play-in game as a 12 seed vs. another 12
2013: better--as a 12 seed, beat the 5 in the first round, lost to the 4 in round two

Of course, that's 4 more appearances than we've made since 2009.
[/quote]

How exactly does that prove anything.  Aside from the problem that you are trying to draw conclusions based on a sample size of 4, you have the following:
2009: 7 seed losing to a 10 seed; A 10 seed has won 36% of the time.
2010: 8 seed losing to a 1 seed in the second round (first off, an eight seed wins its first round matchup less than 50% of the time; despite being the better seed, they advance only 46% of the time, so Monty gets credit).  Eight seeds advance to the sweet 16 only 10% of the time, so hardly a surprise.
2012: 12 seed versus a 12 seed; should be about even odds, right?
2013: 12 seed beating a 5 seed happens 31.5% of the time; they make it past the second round 15% of the time.

So, in four outings, once he beat the expected (2013), once he was beaten when he was expected to win (2009), and in two games when the chances of advancing were about 50/50, he won one and lost one. His two appearances in the second round he was a decided underdog and lost.

And for the assessment of "breaking even", here is the problem: If you are a two seed, you have three chances to fall shy and (if you win those three) one chance to exceed your expectations.  Compare to a 10 seed, which cannot possibly fall shy compared to expectations.  Thus, a coach who is a 10 seed four times and goes 1-3 has "exceeded expectations", while a coach who is, say, a 4 seed four times and goes 7-4 has fallen shy of expectations.

This site compiles the probabilities of advancing to each round given a particular seed: http://www.collegehoopsnet.com/ncaa-tour...ing-166169

You will see that a number one seed survives the elite eight 41% of the time; thus counterintuitively, a number one seed that makes the final four has exceeded the odds (not merely done as well as expected).  Likewise, #3 seeds advance past the second round only 47.8% of the time, so a #3 seed that makes the sweet sixteen has actually beaten the odds.

BC