NCAA WBB Tournament - Final Four Appearances Since 1995

[ICCYFAN]

In the aftermath of the UCONN game, there was discussion of "blueblood" programs and how difficult it is to break into those ranks and stay there.

Since 1995, CBF's first year at ISU, there have been 29 WBB Final Fours, as the tournament was cancelled in 2020. 29 Seasons x 4 Schools / Year = 116 possible spots, yet only 34 schools have made a Final Four appearance and only 10 schools have won titles.

UCONN - 22 Final Four Appearances & 11 Titles
Stanford - 12 FF & 1 Title
Tennessee - 11 FF & 5 Titles
Notre Dame - 9 FF & 2 Titles

South Carolina - 6 FF & 3 Titles
LSU - 6 FF & 1 Title

Baylor - 4 FF & 3 Titles
Duke - 4 FF
Louisville - 4 FF

Maryland - 3 FF & 1 Title
Georgia - 3 FF
Oklahoma - 3 FF

Purdue - 2 FF & 1 Title
La Tech - 2 FF
NC State - 2 FF
UNC - 2 FF
Rutgers - 2 FF
Miss. St. - 2 FF
Iowa - 2 FF

Texas A&M - 1 FF & 1 Title
14 Other Schools with 1 FF Appearance - Texas, Arkansas, Old Dominion, Penn State, SW Missouri State, Minnesota, Michigan St., Cal, Syracuse, Oregon St., Washington, Oregon, Arizona & Va. Tech.

I'm over sixty, so the ebb and flow of one and two time participant programs is interesting - I remember many of those teams!

Over the last 30 years (29 tournaments), the top seven schools on this list have accounted for 70 of 116 possible FF appearances (60%) and 22 of 29 titles (76%). That sucks for those of us who live and die with a "consistently good but not great" program.

Are there any conclusions to be drawn from this 30-year history? Other than Baylor, the current Big XII is almost nonexistent - is this evidence of "opportunity" or "unable to compete"?

As an aside, South Carolina's WBB program was nothing special before Dawn Staley arrived in 2008 - I believe they had 8 prior NCAA tournament appearances. She made her first Final Four in 2015 and hasn't looked back. It isn't frequent and takes a special coach, but it is evidence schools without "blue blood" can ascend.

 

[ZorkClone]

Ultimately this seems very bad for the sport, but as it’s not controlled at all I don’t see it changing much.

 

[BoxsterCy]

In the aftermath of the UCONN game, there was discussion of "blueblood" programs and how difficult it is to break into those ranks and stay there.

Since 1995, CBF's first year at ISU, there have been 29 WBB Final Fours, as the tournament was cancelled in 2020. 29 Seasons x 4 Schools / Year = 116 possible spots, yet only 34 schools have made a Final Four appearance and only 10 schools have won titles.

UCONN - 22 Final Four Appearances & 11 Titles
Stanford - 12 FF & 1 Title
Tennessee - 11 FF & 5 Titles
Notre Dame - 9 FF & 2 Titles

South Carolina - 6 FF & 3 Titles
LSU - 6 FF & 1 Title

Baylor - 4 FF & 3 Titles
Duke - 4 FF
Louisville - 4 FF

Maryland - 3 FF & 1 Title
Georgia - 3 FF
Oklahoma - 3 FF

Purdue - 2 FF & 1 Title
La Tech - 2 FF
NC State - 2 FF
UNC - 2 FF
Rutgers - 2 FF
Miss. St. - 2 FF
Iowa - 2 FF

Texas A&M - 1 FF & 1 Title
14 Other Schools with 1 FF Appearance - Texas, Arkansas, Old Dominion, Penn State, SW Missouri State, Minnesota, Michigan St., Cal, Syracuse, Oregon St., Washington, Oregon, Arizona & Va. Tech.

I'm over sixty, so the ebb and flow of one and two time participant programs is interesting - I remember many of those teams!

Over the last 30 years (29 tournaments), the top seven schools on this list have accounted for 70 of 116 possible FF appearances (60%) and 22 of 29 titles (76%). That sucks for those of us who live and die with a "consistently good but not great" program.

Are there any conclusions to be drawn from this 30-year history? Other than Baylor, the current Big XII is almost nonexistent - is this evidence of "opportunity" or "unable to compete"?

As an aside, South Carolina's WBB program was nothing special before Dawn Staley arrived in 2008 - I believe they had 8 prior NCAA tournament appearances. She made her first Final Four in 2015 and hasn't looked back. It isn't frequent and takes a special coach, but it is evidence schools without "blue blood" can ascend.

Thanks, sort of what I might have expected but was unwilling to put that much work into it to document it. Interesting to go over your stats..

For all of their old MBB glory, current #1 UCLA has never been to a Final Four. They have been good in making the Sweet Sixteen a lot eh last decade but haven't broken through to the Elite Eight or Final Four. They are obviously a favorite to make the Final Four this year. Another top squad and favorite is UCLA and they hadn't been to Sweet Sixteen in 30 years until last year.

 

[BoxsterCy]

Ultimately this seems very bad for the sport, but as it’s not controlled at all I don’t see it changing much.

That's a bit of the reason Clark was such a big deal, wasn't just her entertaining style for casual fans. Would have been less of a story if she was making a couple of Final Four at ND under Muffet McGraw, would have just been another blue-blood team returning to the Final Four.

I've probably had my once in a lifetime shot at the Final Four after my local Gophers made it in 2004. They have only made the NCAA six times since than. Each year I have less and less interest in keeping track of them. Even when they get decent players they seem to get plagued by injuries. With the track record it's hard for the new coach to try and turn it around with recruiting and transfers (the transfer and NIL semi-pro era and Gophers small budget for hoops). They have desperately need a few of the best Minnesota HS gals to do a Clark and stay home but what they get is watching Page Bueckers in the Final Four.

 

[ICCYFAN]

Ultimately this seems very bad for the sport, but as it’s not controlled at all I don’t see it changing much.

What's "not controlled" that keeps the blue bloods at the top?

They simply recruit better than others and somehow manage the portal (eg - Princeton grad transfer to UCONN) while keeping the key parts of their roster intact. The transfer portal is actually siphoning away some of Geno's bench depth, for instance Innes Bettencourt at Gonzaga.

ISU has a strong young core (Brown, Crooks, Hare?), which is gaining "experience". Can we make use of them for titles and FF appearance(s) before they graduate, or is the deck simply stacked against us?

 

[acoustimac]

Great information. Like others this confirms what has been my impression. I suspect other sports are similar? Volleyball? Was refreshing to see two bluebloods get beat in the semis.

I think the Clark example goes to show that one generational player can carry a good team and make it great. The challenge is getting that player to not choose a blue bloods and stay home. Easier said than done.

 

[acoustimac]

What's "not controlled" that keeps the blue bloods at the top?

They simply recruit better than others and somehow manage the portal (eg - Princeton grad transfer to UCONN) while keeping the key parts of their roster intact. The transfer portal is actually siphoning away some of Geno's bench depth, for instance Innes Bettencourt at Gonzaga.

ISU has a strong young core (Brown, Crooks, Hare?), which is gaining "experience". Can we make use of them for titles and FF appearance(s) before they graduate, or is the deck simply stacked against us?

I suspect it’s going to take one more piece…someone that can elevate this strong core up to the next step. We need a guard that is a 17-20ppg hot shot. again…easier to say than get.

 

[VeloClone]

In the aftermath of the UCONN game, there was discussion of "blueblood" programs and how difficult it is to break into those ranks and stay there.

Since 1995, CBF's first year at ISU, there have been 29 WBB Final Fours, as the tournament was cancelled in 2020. 29 Seasons x 4 Schools / Year = 116 possible spots, yet only 34 schools have made a Final Four appearance and only 10 schools have won titles.

UCONN - 22 Final Four Appearances & 11 Titles
Stanford - 12 FF & 1 Title
Tennessee - 11 FF & 5 Titles
Notre Dame - 9 FF & 2 Titles

South Carolina - 6 FF & 3 Titles
LSU - 6 FF & 1 Title

Baylor - 4 FF & 3 Titles
Duke - 4 FF
Louisville - 4 FF

Maryland - 3 FF & 1 Title
Georgia - 3 FF
Oklahoma - 3 FF

Purdue - 2 FF & 1 Title
La Tech - 2 FF
NC State - 2 FF
UNC - 2 FF
Rutgers - 2 FF
Miss. St. - 2 FF
Iowa - 2 FF

Texas A&M - 1 FF & 1 Title
14 Other Schools with 1 FF Appearance - Texas, Arkansas, Old Dominion, Penn State, SW Missouri State, Minnesota, Michigan St., Cal, Syracuse, Oregon St., Washington, Oregon, Arizona & Va. Tech.

I'm over sixty, so the ebb and flow of one and two time participant programs is interesting - I remember many of those teams!

Over the last 30 years (29 tournaments), the top seven schools on this list have accounted for 70 of 116 possible FF appearances (60%) and 22 of 29 titles (76%). That sucks for those of us who live and die with a "consistently good but not great" program.

Are there any conclusions to be drawn from this 30-year history? Other than Baylor, the current Big XII is almost nonexistent - is this evidence of "opportunity" or "unable to compete"?

As an aside, South Carolina's WBB program was nothing special before Dawn Staley arrived in 2008 - I believe they had 8 prior NCAA tournament appearances. She made her first Final Four in 2015 and hasn't looked back. It isn't frequent and takes a special coach, but it is evidence schools without "blue blood" can ascend.

I was shocked that Texas Tech who pretty much ran the conference (3 of the first 4 Big 12 championships) at the start of the Big 12 wasn't on your list but their lone FF and championship was in '93 two years before your start here. They made regular appearances in the S16 after that with three E8s but never made it back to the FF. They totally imploded after their last S16 in 2005 only making the dance twice without winning a game.

 

[acoustimac]

I was shocked that Texas Tech who pretty much ran the conference (3 of the first 4 Big 12 championships) at the start of the Big 12 wasn't on your list but their lone FF and championship was in '93 two years before your start here. They made regular appearances in the S16 after that with three E8s but never made it back to the FF. They totally imploded after their last S16 in 2005 only making the dance twice without winning a game.

Like many teams…a change of coaches (Sharp retired) has led to mediocrity and worse for Tech.

 

[BoxsterCy]

Like many teams…a change of coaches (Sharp retired) has led to mediocrity and worse for Tech.

Their fall also coincided with the rise of the Sherri Coale Sooners and than the rise of Mulkey's Bears. That's two powerhouses in their own backyard back-to-back.

Sooners made a great hire after Coale's program was swooning. Baranczyk won 74 games in three season of Big 12 play and grabbed two titles. Jury is still out on Baylor post-Mulkey.

There are not real powerhouses in Big 12 WBB right now. It's wide open for someone to be the next Sharp, Coale or Mulkey of the Big 12. It will be much harder to push that into being a national elite with all of the super leagues, portal super teams and established elites but being the top dog in the league is an open for all invitational.


Edit: In a bit of a downer disclosure, I am hopeful but not confident about the overall future of Big 12 WBB. Pretty concerned that the weakened league and a coaching change at some point doesn't exactly pave a path for easy success in light of the Big Ten's shadow. ISU will still be a great job for a new coach but the ceiling might be lowered quite a bit. Everything will be measured against the Fennelly Era but the landscape of WBB now is nothing like 2000 to 2020.

 

[acoustimac]

Edit: In a bit of a downer disclosure, I am hopeful but not confident about the overall future of Big 12 WBB. Pretty concerned that the weakened league and a coaching change at some point doesn't exactly pave a path for easy success in light of the Big Ten's shadow. ISU will still be a great job for a new coach but the ceiling might be lowered quite a bit. Everything will be measured against the Fennelly Era but the landscape of WBB now is nothing like 2000 to 2020.

I agree with you, but…the landcape of women’s basketball in general is light years different than in 2000. There are a lot more good players that have enabled lots of teams to be good…maybe not great, but the overall competition level is much higher than it’s ever been. That’s a good thing. The other side of your point…can ISU be a part of the elite again? I suspect it will take a knock it out of the ball park hire by our AD to head in that direction. I’ve always been a BF supporter, not always a fan of his coaching from time to time, but we all know we aren’t likely to see any major changes in his style before he retires.

Edit - I think the only major change we've seen in his career was his shift away from the zone defense to incorporate man techniques.