I did a little research last night regarding teams that earned high seeds in the tournament, but weren't among the country's most efficient teams (points per possession on offense and defense, adjusted based on schedule strength), using KenPom's efficiency data from the last 11 Tournaments/seasons (The KenPom era). The results, at first blush, seem fairly bleak.
There have been 26 teams to receive a Top 4 seed that finished the season outside of the KenPom Top 20. These 26 teams combined to win 22 total tournament games. Only three of these 26 teams won two games to advance to the Sweet 16 (2006 3 seed Gonzaga, 2006 4 seed Boston College, and 2013 3 seed Marquette).
If you only look at 2 and 3 seeds, the teams were slightly better, but still remarkably poor when compared to more efficient 2 and 3 seeds. There have been 12 teams to receive a 2 or 3 seed that finished the season outside the KenPom Top 20. These 12 teams combined to win 13 tournament games. Only two of the 12 advanced to the Sweet 16 (and one, 2013 Marquette, to the Elite Eight). Two of these 12 teams failed to win a single game (2006 Iowa, 2012 Duke).
So what does this mean for Iowa State (currently 23rd in KenPom)? The past results definitely don't look good, but I'm not sure it means a whole lot. The big issue with this data is that it doesn't include teams that were at or around Iowa State's position before the tournament, got hot, and finished in the Top 20. And this data set does include teams that were within the Top 20 prior to the Tournament, and only dropped out because of their struggles therein. So there's definitely some cause and effect here. And so despite the scary numbers in the second and third paragraphs, there's still time to rewrite this season's KenPom ranking and, more importantly, write this team's tournament results. Two or three wins will likely surge ISU into the Top 20 and out of this data set for future years. But there is definitely a warning sign here, for teams who amassed great tournament resumes despite non-elite efficiency.
There have been 26 teams to receive a Top 4 seed that finished the season outside of the KenPom Top 20. These 26 teams combined to win 22 total tournament games. Only three of these 26 teams won two games to advance to the Sweet 16 (2006 3 seed Gonzaga, 2006 4 seed Boston College, and 2013 3 seed Marquette).
If you only look at 2 and 3 seeds, the teams were slightly better, but still remarkably poor when compared to more efficient 2 and 3 seeds. There have been 12 teams to receive a 2 or 3 seed that finished the season outside the KenPom Top 20. These 12 teams combined to win 13 tournament games. Only two of the 12 advanced to the Sweet 16 (and one, 2013 Marquette, to the Elite Eight). Two of these 12 teams failed to win a single game (2006 Iowa, 2012 Duke).
So what does this mean for Iowa State (currently 23rd in KenPom)? The past results definitely don't look good, but I'm not sure it means a whole lot. The big issue with this data is that it doesn't include teams that were at or around Iowa State's position before the tournament, got hot, and finished in the Top 20. And this data set does include teams that were within the Top 20 prior to the Tournament, and only dropped out because of their struggles therein. So there's definitely some cause and effect here. And so despite the scary numbers in the second and third paragraphs, there's still time to rewrite this season's KenPom ranking and, more importantly, write this team's tournament results. Two or three wins will likely surge ISU into the Top 20 and out of this data set for future years. But there is definitely a warning sign here, for teams who amassed great tournament resumes despite non-elite efficiency.
Last edited:
