[BostonCard]

Two #1 seeds and a #2 seed lost in the second round.  That's terrible.  Yes, there was the elite 8 team, but having 75% of your top-seeded teams fail to reach the second round is ignominious.  I'd wager that no other coach has such as a bad record with 1 or 2 seeds. 

Like Boston Card pointed out, we overachieved a few times, but so have other coaches.  Whoever did that quantitative analysis (which I haven't looked for--it's probably still out there someplace if anyone cares to search) concluded that Monty was subpar in the Tourney.  I agree.

Getting to the final four as a #3 seed is about as big a surprise to the upside as losing in the second round as a #1 seed.  A #2 seed losing in the second round is actually pretty common; it's about as common as getting to the sweet sixteen as a six seed.  By simulation, you would not be able to say that Monty's results were so out of whack that they could not be explained by mildly bad luck.

BC

[BostonCard]

Two #1 seeds and a #2 seed lost in the second round.  That's terrible.  Yes, there was the elite 8 team, but having 75% of your top-seeded teams fail to reach the second round is ignominious.  I'd wager that no other coach has such as a bad record with 1 or 2 seeds. 

Like Boston Card pointed out, we overachieved a few times, but so have other coaches.  Whoever did that quantitative analysis (which I haven't looked for--it's probably still out there someplace if anyone cares to search) concluded that Monty was subpar in the Tourney.  I agree.

Getting to the final four as a #3 seed is about as big a surprise to the upside as losing in the second round as a #1 seed.  A #2 seed losing in the second round is actually pretty common; it's about as common as getting to the sweet sixteen as a six seed.  By simulation, you would not be able to say that Monty's results were so out of whack that they could not be explained by mildly bad luck.

BC