How hard is it to make the Final 4?

[MHettel]

The NCAA tourney expanded to 64 teams in 1985. Thats 35 years ago. That means there have been a total of 140 Final 4 participants over that time.

There are around 350 NCAA D1 teams. So at MOST 40% of the teams could have made the Final 4. But we know so teams have made it multiple times.

I wondering how many different Schools have made it? What's your guess?

I wonder how many of the total spots were filled by the top 5 teams with the most Final 4's? Any guesses on this one?

Same EXACT thing can be said about #1 seeds. How many different teams have pulled that off?

I'll be researching this over the next day. Will be interesting to see if any quick guesses come close to the actual answers....

[xu82]

It’s pretty damn hard. I’ve been paying attention.

It’s either blue bloods, or lightning in a bottle for the most part. We’ve been good enough at times, but it never bounced our way. I’ll be curious to see what you come up with.

[bleedXblue]

I'm going with 45 schools have made a Final 4 since 1985....total guess

[Xville]

Without the google machine, I'm going to guess 40 and I'm going to immediately go google this now :).

How many big east teams? 7?

Nova
Georgetown
St John's
Butler (gross)
Uconn
Providence
Seton hall

Ones who havent: x, marquette (they have but I dont think after 85 unless I'm forgetting something), creighton, depaul (same as marquette)

[Xville]

Forgot marquette made it in 03 with wade...for some reason, thought they only made the elite eight.

Great, now I'm depressed...basically everyone has made the final four in the big east besides us and creighton

[STL_XUfan]

Without the google machine, I'm going to guess 40 and I'm going to immediately go google this now :).

How many big east teams? 7?

Nova
Georgetown
St John's
Butler (gross)
Uconn
Providence
Seton hall

Ones who havent: x, marquette (they have but I dont think after 85 unless I'm forgetting something), creighton, depaul (same as marquette)

You forgot about the Dwayne Wade Marquette team. *missed your correction

I feel a bit cursed as I cheer for two of the most successful teams without a final 4. (Xavier and Missouri)

[xudash]

I'm going with 45 schools have made a Final 4 since 1985....total guess

I’ll go with 40. I think it is a little less than that.

[xuphan]

Forgot marquette made it in 03 with wade...for some reason, thought they only made the elite eight.

Great, now I'm depressed...basically everyone has made the final four in the big east besides us and creighton

Crazy how many big East teams have made it to the final four. Hopefully our time is coming soon.

[sirthought]

My guess is 95 teams.


BTW, your number of 140 possible teams is 4 too high, since we didn't have a final four in 2020.

[MHettel]

My guess is 95 teams.


BTW, your number of 140 possible teams is 4 too high, since we didn't have a final four in 2020.

BTW, You should make sure you are right, before you tell somebody that they are wrong....

[sirthought]

BTW, You should make sure you are right, before you tell somebody that they are wrong....

There are only 34 years of final fours. 34 x 4 = 136. What did I get wrong?

[MHettel]

Ok, here is the Analysis.

In the 35 years with the 64 team format there have been 140 "Final 4 Teams".

There have been a total of 49 schools that have made the Final 4. With about 350 total D1 teams, that means just about 1 in 7 teams have made it (14%).

The 5 teams that have the MOST Final 4 appearances (Duke, UNC, KU, MSU & UK) account for 48 FINAL 4 APPEARANCES. That is 34% of the total!

The next 5 teams (Syracuse, UConn, Michigan, Florida, Arizona*) have combined for 24 additional appearances. That means the TOP 10 schools have combined for 51% of the total!!!

*side note: Arizona, was tied with UCLA, UofL, and Nova with 4 appearances, so I just counted one of those teams as #10. (Before you ask, I picked Arizona to be a reminder that they had all four of those appearances under Lute Olsen, and exactly ZERO since then).

Outside of the Top 10, there are 17 OTHER teams that have more than one appearance, and they average 2.7 appearances each.

So we've now accounted for 118 of the 140 total appearances, leaving 22 teams that have a single final 4 under their belt.

Recap: 27 (7.7% of D1) teams account for 118 Final 4 Appearances (84% of the total). Now remove those teams from the total number of D1 teams, and that means 22 of the remaining 323 D1 teams have a Final 4 Appearance (6.8%).

Conclusion: YES! it's REALLY hard to make a Final 4.

Other Random Stats:

ACC, B10, SEC, BE, B12 & Pac 12 have 120 of 140 Final 4 appearances.

ACC leads with 11 National Champs, BE next with 8, then SEC with 6. B10 (3), B12 (2), & Pac 12 (2) round out the multiple winners. Only 3 other conferences have won one.....

B10 has the most runner's up with 9. so they are 3-9 in the final game. ACC Dominates here again, going 11-6 in the final.

The Current BE has 8 schools with 17 total Final 4 appearances.


Shifting Gears to #1 seeds:

Only 42 teams have achieved a #1 seed. 27 of those teams have done it more than once.

The Top 5 teams have 58 #1 seeds Combined (41%).

Duke, UNC & Kansas ALL have been #1 seeds 14 times, or a whopping 40% of the total number of possible times EACH!

My conference data is a little weak for the #1 seeds, but my Calculation shows that of the current BE (including UCONN), there have been
5 teams that have earned a total of 15 #1 seeds.

Why did I do this? Because everybody freaks-the-fuck-out that we haven't made a Final 4, and I wanted to get a better understanding of what it takes. The Bottom line is that we are NOT a top 10 program, and if you are not in that small group, then the odds are seriously stacked against you. You gotta chip away, I guess....

[MHettel]

There are only 34 years of final fours. 34 x 4 = 136. What did I get wrong?

Just count. 1985 to 90 is SIX. Not 5. That's what fucked you up.

[Xuperman]

Without cheating with google, I'm trying to remember how many of our old A10 brethren made either list. I'm pretty certain that St Joe was a #1 seed but thinking that UMass/Temple/URI may have landed in one or the other.

Cool Thread!

[paulxu]

ACC leads with 11 National Champs, ....

Being old, this statistic (which is from 1985 till the present) reminds me that UCLA has 11 national championships all by itself.
Yes, there were less teams in the tourney, but that is a crazy stat for John Wooden (10 of them).
If it's hard to make the Final Four, just imagine how hard that was.

[Xavier]

I know it is still hard- but I always thought it was widely known that most of UCLA players were getting paid quite a bit by a booster. It never really gets mentioned when people talk about Wooden and UCLA so maybe it is being a bit fabricated.

[paulxu]

My guess is that a lot of college athletes over the years get "paid" in one way or another.
Loaned cars from dealerships, jobs that aren't really jobs, etc.
Probably went on a lot more back in Wooden's time than now...and it all may change with athletes getting to benefit from endorsements openly now.

But his paid guys still had to go up against the other paid guys, and win 10.

[bleedXblue]

My guess is that a lot of college athletes over the years get "paid" in one way or another.
Loaned cars from dealerships, jobs that aren't really jobs, etc.
Probably went on a lot more back in Wooden's time than now...and it all may change with athletes getting to benefit from endorsements openly now.

But his paid guys still had to go up against the other paid guys, and win 10.

Yeah, I don't know what to think on this one. 10 is 10. That's a ridiculous amount. You have to believe that part of it was playing for Wooden.......and the other part likely was their "package" was more lucrative.

[atljar]

St Joe was a 1 seed the year we beat them in the A10 tourney, but ended the year in the Elite 8. UMass had a final four with Marcus Camby and Calipari, but that technically was erased from history.

[Xavier]

Frankly, there have only been 3 times going into the tournament that I thought Xavier had a real, legitimate chance to get to the final four. (I am talking hopes somewhat high). Two of them were with Mack- and I think they were somewhat exploited in the early outs. The other was Millers elite 8 team. That team had the length, the defense, the versatility on offense and a toughness that Macks two teams didn't have.

[bleedXblue]

Frankly, there have only been 3 times going into the tournament that I thought Xavier had a real, legitimate chance to get to the final four. (I am talking hopes somewhat high). Two of them were with Mack- and I think they were somewhat exploited in the early outs. The other was Millers elite 8 team. That team had the length, the defense, the versatility on offense and a toughness that Macks two teams didn't have.

Just ran into a total buzzsaw with Westbrook and Love

[GoMuskies]

Frankly, there have only been 3 times going into the tournament that I thought Xavier had a real, legitimate chance to get to the final four. (I am talking hopes somewhat high). Two of them were with Mack- and I think they were somewhat exploited in the early outs. The other was Millers elite 8 team. That team had the length, the defense, the versatility on offense and a toughness that Macks two teams didn't have.

It's kind of funny that the only time we REALLY got close to making the Final Four wasn't one of those three. But I totally agree.

[GoMuskies]

Just ran into a total buzzsaw with Westbrook and Love

That team had a lot of talent but wasn't actually a buzzsaw. Xavier played like shit.

[smileyy]

Just ran into a total buzzsaw with Westbrook and Love

Darren Collison and Luc Richard Mbah a Moute also went on to have NBA careers from that team as well. They were loaded and also, IMO, underachieved by not winning the title.

[murray87]

Our 'Final Five' team from 2004 was obviously right on the doorstep until the refs realized Duke needed help..........:sadwave:

I think the team that lost the heart breaking 2OT game to Kansas State seemed like it was well built to get to the last weekend.

And I try not to dwell on the Mack's early exit in his last game. Still too raw.

[Xville]

Honestly, I think a much more accurate picture would be how hard is it to make a final four if you are a p6 program. Of course if you are a mid major or a low major, it is incredibly hard, but a p6? ..in my opinion, if for 35 years you have been a p6 that whole time and have not been to 1 final four, you have underachieved.

[xubrew]

It's kind of funny that the only time we REALLY got close to making the Final Four wasn't one of those three. But I totally agree.

I'm actually not angry about this any more. I really was for a long time. But, to this day, I STILL think that had this foul been called, Xavier would have gone to the Final Four. Twelve years later I'm not still mad about it, but I absolutely still think it.

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/SW5QT70DHhI/hqdefault.jpg


Another look at it...

https://farm3.static.flickr.com/2298/2356290447_684ac95018_o.jpg

[xubrew]

Being old, this statistic (which is from 1985 till the present) reminds me that UCLA has 11 national championships all by itself.
Yes, there were less teams in the tourney, but that is a crazy stat for John Wooden (10 of them).
If it's hard to make the Final Four, just imagine how hard that was.

There were less teams in the Tournament, but that didn't make getting to the Final Four any easier. It just meant that getting to the NCAA Tournament and having a chance to go to the Final Four was a lot harder. One could argue making the Final Four was actually harder back then because they took fewer teams, so it was a lot harder to be one of the teams they took.

[Xavier]

Our 'Final Five' team from 2004 was obviously right on the doorstep until the refs realized Duke needed help..........:sadwave:

I think the team that lost the heart breaking 2OT game to Kansas State seemed like it was well built to get to the last weekend.

And I try not to dwell on the Mack's early exit in his last game. Still too raw.

Yep, I forgot about that team. I'd have high hopes going into any tournament with Crawford and Tu in the back court.

[MHettel]

There were less teams in the Tournament, but that didn't make getting to the Final Four any easier. It just meant that getting to the NCAA Tournament and having a chance to go to the Final Four was a lot harder. One could argue making the Final Four was actually harder back then because they took fewer teams, so it was a lot harder to be one of the teams they took.

Huh? Not following the logic.

You need to make the tourney to get to the Final 4. And since fewer teams make it, then fewer teams could achieve the Final 4? Is that it?

I don't know how many teams were in the tourney back then, but I do know that since it's been 64, there have been 4 #11 seeds, 1 #10 seed, and 1 #9 Seed make the Final 4. So 6 out of 140 (4%) Final 4 teams came from the "bottom half" of the bracket. Or said differently, in 35 years there have been 32 teams each year in the bottom half of the bracket (35*32= 1,120) and a total of 6 have made the final 4. So, .5%.

So I guess it was harder back then....? As if it's not incredibly difficulty already??

[Xuperman]

Our 'Final Five' team from 2004 was obviously right on the doorstep until the refs realized Duke needed help..........:sadwave:

That conspiracy theory is legit. The zebras had to comfort an unhinged Coach K by making sure Myles got his 5th before it was too late....he was destroying them.

But really it was lost from the 3 point line and the charity stripe. The wrong game to look worse than last year's team in both areas.

[AviatorX]

That team had a lot of talent but wasn't actually a buzzsaw. Xavier played like shit.

Xavier was horrible that day, but UCLA started 4 guys who have put together legitimate NBA careers (obviously Westbrook and Love have gone well beyond that) and finished 35-4 (when the PAC-10 was actually good) with top 10 efficiency on offense and defense. They were pretty damn good.

[GoMuskies]

Yes, but of the four "real" teams they played in the Tournament, we were the only one they beat convincingly. Two point win over Texas A&M. 10 point win over Western Kentucky, but it was a 4 point game with 5 to play, and Memphis whipped them. Yes, great talent, but an imminently beatable team for that 2008 squad if they played to their potential. That day, they didnt.

[xubrew]

Huh? Not following the logic.

You need to make the tourney to get to the Final 4. And since fewer teams make it, then fewer teams could achieve the Final 4? Is that it?

I don't know how many teams were in the tourney back then, but I do know that since it's been 64, there have been 4 #11 seeds, 1 #10 seed, and 1 #9 Seed make the Final 4. So 6 out of 140 (4%) Final 4 teams came from the "bottom half" of the bracket. Or said differently, in 35 years there have been 32 teams each year in the bottom half of the bracket (35*32= 1,120) and a total of 6 have made the final 4. So, .5%.

So I guess it was harder back then....? As if it's not incredibly difficulty already??

I personally think the difficulty level has always been the same. Regardless of how many teams are in the tournament, only four make the Final Four, so on the first day of the season the chances for any given team to make it are pretty much the same.

You say only four #11 seeds have made the Final Four. Well, prior to 1980, three of those four teams wouldn't have even been in the NCAA Tournament at all, and therefore had not chance of making the Final Four once the regular season ended. So, one could ARGUE that it is easier for 11 seeds now since the field is now bigger and increases their chances of being able to participate due to having a larger margin for error during the regular season.

I've heard many people dismiss what UCLA did on the grounds that there were only 16-25 teams in the tournament back then (depending on the year). I think that's idiotic. All that meant was that it was harder to make the NCAA Tournament to even get a shot at making the Final Four back then. It wasn't any easier to make the Final Four. I mean, no one ever argues that it was easier to win the World Series prior to the playoffs being expanded, because it wasn't.

[MHettel]

I personally think the difficulty level has always been the same. Regardless of how many teams are in the tournament, only four make the Final Four, so on the first day of the season the chances for any given team to make it are pretty much the same.

You say only four #11 seeds have made the Final Four. Well, prior to 1980, three of those four teams wouldn't have even been in the NCAA Tournament at all, and therefore had not chance of making the Final Four once the regular season ended. So, one could ARGUE that it is easier for 11 seeds now since the field is now bigger and increases their chances of being able to participate due to having a larger margin for error during the regular season.

I've heard many people dismiss what UCLA did on the grounds that there were only 16-25 teams in the tournament back then (depending on the year). I think that's idiotic. All that meant was that it was harder to make the NCAA Tournament to even get a shot at making the Final Four back then. It wasn't any easier to make the Final Four. I mean, no one ever argues that it was easier to win the World Series prior to the playoffs being expanded, because it wasn't.

Back to the stats: if you are a 9 seed or lower, the history over the last 35 years tells me you have a .5% chance of making the Final 4. One in 200.

[xubrew]

Back to the stats: if you are a 9 seed or lower, the history over the last 35 years tells me you have a .5% chance of making the Final 4. One in 200.

I was furthering PaulXU's point about UCLA, and how a smaller tournament doesn't make what they did any less impressive.

And yes, if a team is not in the top half of the bracket, their chances of making the Final Four are small, but they're still better than what they were prior to 1985 when most of those teams wouldn't have even been in the NCAA Tournament at all, making their chances 0% instead of 0.5%

[WCWIII]

Not to nit-pick. But I found details like Memphis State should count as the same as Memphis. And if there is ever a reason to not count a school's now vacated final four, it should be in a list like this. I think my final answer was 43 plus or minus ... doesn't change the conclusions - it's hard to make the final four. Unfortunately, there is only a single school with more tourney wins since 1985 without a Final Four and it's not Butler and it's not Gonzaga. Our time will come.

[cinskyline]

Xavier was horrible that day, but UCLA started 4 guys who have put together legitimate NBA careers (obviously Westbrook and Love have gone well beyond that) and finished 35-4 (when the PAC-10 was actually good) with top 10 efficiency on offense and defense. They were pretty damn good.

I've always felt like Xavier hurt itself by blowing a big lead to West Virginia in the previous game. They had to burn up a ton of energy to put the Mountaineers away in overtime. There was nothing left in the tank against UCLA two days later.

[XU 87]

I've always felt like Xavier hurt itself by blowing a big lead to West Virginia in the previous game. They had to burn up a ton of energy to put the Mountaineers away in overtime. There was nothing left in the tank against UCLA two days later.

Maybe so. X played poorly in the UCLA game, although UCLA having all those NBA players probably helped. But I just remember X couldn't make any shots, and the only way they could win that game was to shoot the ball really well.

[xukeith]

Maybe so. X played poorly in the UCLA game, although UCLA having all those NBA players probably helped. But I just remember X couldn't make any shots, and the only way they could win that game was to shoot the ball really well.

Wasn't that game played in California?

[paulxu]

Phoenix.