What does it take for a team to go far in the NCAA Tournament?

[SabresRule]

Sometimes, a team will need certain things to go far in the big dance.

What do YOU think a team needs?

Here are five things I think can be vital in the tournament:

1. A hot hand. A shooter who can't miss can take a team great distances (Stephen Curry last year, Glen Rice in 1989)

2. Athletic talent. This is why Big 10 teams have not fared well in the NCAA Tournament. Other than the Illinois teams of Deron Williams, this conference has not been known for having exciting, up-tempo players that can play at a high rate.

3. Depth. One-man teams rarely win the whole thing.

4. Luck. Whether it's a better team getting roadblocked or getting a lucky bounce on a shot, good fortune can be crucial.

For example, the Michigan Wolverines had a good deal of luck when they reached the 1989, 1992, and 1993 Final Fours.

1989- Benefitted largely from not having to play Oklahoma, a team that Michigan couldn't have kept up with. The Wolverines were lucky to instead play an overachieving Virginia team, and that resulted in one of the most lopsided Elite Eight games ever: 105-62. Virginia showed no heart or effort in that game; Oklahoma could have given Michigan more of a dogfight.

1992- They can thank East Tennessee State for clearing the roadblock that was the Arizona Wildcats. Michigan would have played (and lost) to Zona in the second round (This was when Arizona was awesome, not the mediocrity they are now)

1993- Yes, they were the #1 seed, but when combining Arizona's inexplicable first-round loss to Santa Clara with the fact that George Washington and Temple didn't even show any fight against Michigan in the Seattle regionals, I wonder.

5. Accuracy. When your baskets fall, it can work out well. See Villanova in 1985 or the West Virginia three-point machines of recent years.

Feel free to respond to what I say or what you think a team can need to go far.

 

[cosmo_kramer]

Win six games. Or, five, just to go far into it.

 

[anders5189]

All the things you mentioned are important, but at the end of the day it is luck. Most games are very competitive so it takes some luck to survive round after round. That is what makes the tournament so special. No one is bestowed greatness like in college football. The #1 seeds are assured of nothing. 3 of the 4 teams that reach the FF go home losers. This is why winning the NC in college basketball is so hard.

Look at the NBA. The Celtics won it all last year, yet they played sorry ass basketball for half of their playoff games. Imagine how many titles Carolina would win if we only had to win 4 out of 7? Doesn't matter since that's not the deal. But if you want to win this title you better have some luck and some Pepto Bismol. You're gonna need it.

 

[HD MM]

2. Athletic talent. This is why Big 10 teams have not fared well in the NCAA Tournament. Other than the Illinois teams of Deron Williams, this conference has not been known for having exciting, up-tempo players that can play at a high rate.

Huh?

2 short years ago, the Buckeyes were in the National Championship game! BTW, don't tell Greg Oden, Daequon Cook or Mike Conley Jr. they're "not athletic".

 

[anders5189]

Huh?

2 short years ago, the Buckeyes were in the National Championship game! BTW, don't tell Greg Oden, Daequon Cook or Mike Conley Jr. they're "not athletic".

They were athletic too, but those teams are the exception not the rule in the Big Ten. Most Big Ten teams have less athleticism than you'd find at the Y on a Sat morning.

 

[Ramy]

It takes not only a good team, but some luck too.

 

[hallrk]

Al McGuire used to say the last shot has to go in. That's very true. Most teams that win the NCAA have a game or two thats decided on a last second shot.

 

[Paul Wozniak]

Sometimes, a team will need certain things to go far in the big dance.

What do YOU think a team needs?

Here are five things I think can be vital in the tournament:

1. A hot hand. A shooter who can't miss can take a team great distances (Stephen Curry last year, Glen Rice in 1989)

2. Athletic talent. This is why Big 10 teams have not fared well in the NCAA Tournament. Other than the Illinois teams of Deron Williams, this conference has not been known for having exciting, up-tempo players that can play at a high rate.

3. Depth. One-man teams rarely win the whole thing.

4. Luck. Whether it's a better team getting roadblocked or getting a lucky bounce on a shot, good fortune can be crucial.

For example, the Michigan Wolverines had a good deal of luck when they reached the 1989, 1992, and 1993 Final Fours.

1989- Benefitted largely from not having to play Oklahoma, a team that Michigan couldn't have kept up with. The Wolverines were lucky to instead play an overachieving Virginia team, and that resulted in one of the most lopsided Elite Eight games ever: 105-62. Virginia showed no heart or effort in that game; Oklahoma could have given Michigan more of a dogfight.

1992- They can thank East Tennessee State for clearing the roadblock that was the Arizona Wildcats. Michigan would have played (and lost) to Zona in the second round (This was when Arizona was awesome, not the mediocrity they are now)

1993- Yes, they were the #1 seed, but when combining Arizona's inexplicable first-round loss to Santa Clara with the fact that George Washington and Temple didn't even show any fight against Michigan in the Seattle regionals, I wonder.

5. Accuracy. When your baskets fall, it can work out well. See Villanova in 1985 or the West Virginia three-point machines of recent years.

Feel free to respond to what I say or what you think a team can need to go far.

You better check the record books, sonny. we're right up there with everybody else. Years without a BIG TEN team in the final four are the exception not the norm. We have won quite a few championships, and our numbers are not inflated by just one team in our conference like Kentucky or UCLA. How many tournaments have you seen now? 10? Do your homework.

 

[Paul Wozniak]

They were athletic too, but those teams are the exception not the rule in the Big Ten. Most Big Ten teams have less athleticism than you'd find at the Y on a Sat morning.

Yeah, you're right. Only the ACC has players that are athletic.

You have lost any credibility you had with that utterly ridiculous statement.

 

[cybok0]

Yeah, you're right. Only the ACC has players that are athletic.

You have lost any credibility you had with that utterly ridiculous statement.

:up

 

[Paul Wozniak]

Sometimes, a team will need certain things to go far in the big dance.

What do YOU think a team needs?

Here are five things I think can be vital in the tournament:

1. A hot hand. A shooter who can't miss can take a team great distances (Stephen Curry last year, Glen Rice in 1989)

2. Athletic talent. This is why Big 10 teams have not fared well in the NCAA Tournament. Other than the Illinois teams of Deron Williams, this conference has not been known for having exciting, up-tempo players that can play at a high rate.

3. Depth. One-man teams rarely win the whole thing.

4. Luck. Whether it's a better team getting roadblocked or getting a lucky bounce on a shot, good fortune can be crucial.

For example, the Michigan Wolverines had a good deal of luck when they reached the 1989, 1992, and 1993 Final Fours.

1989- Benefitted largely from not having to play Oklahoma, a team that Michigan couldn't have kept up with. The Wolverines were lucky to instead play an overachieving Virginia team, and that resulted in one of the most lopsided Elite Eight games ever: 105-62. Virginia showed no heart or effort in that game; Oklahoma could have given Michigan more of a dogfight.

1992- They can thank East Tennessee State for clearing the roadblock that was the Arizona Wildcats. Michigan would have played (and lost) to Zona in the second round (This was when Arizona was awesome, not the mediocrity they are now)

1993- Yes, they were the #1 seed, but when combining Arizona's inexplicable first-round loss to Santa Clara with the fact that George Washington and Temple didn't even show any fight against Michigan in the Seattle regionals, I wonder.

5. Accuracy. When your baskets fall, it can work out well. See Villanova in 1985 or the West Virginia three-point machines of recent years.

Feel free to respond to what I say or what you think a team can need to go far.

You were three years old then. What could possibly know about this? You were 7 and 8 the other years, you listed. Hardly an expert for those years.

 

[cosmo_kramer]

You were three years old then. What could possibly know about this? You were 7 and 8 the other years, you listed. Hardly an expert for those years.

Google is his friend.

 

[Ramy]

You better check the record books, sonny. we're right up there with everybody else. Years without a BIG TEN team in the final four are the exception not the norm. We have won quite a few championships, and our numbers are not inflated by just one team in our conference like Kentucky or UCLA. How many tournaments have you seen now? 10? Do your homework.

First off, before 1975 only one team per conference was allowed in the tournament. Anyone remember 1971 when USC only had 2 losses and both were to UCLA and they weren't allowed in the tournament. I think they were #2 in the nation too, so that is why most conferences had one team that dominated their championships.

 

[anders5189]

First off, before 1975 only one team per conference was allowed in the tournament. Anyone remember 1971 when USC only had 2 losses and both were to UCLA and they weren't allowed in the tournament. I think they were #2 in the nation too, so that is why most conferences had one team that dominated their championships.

That was a tough break. In 1974 Maryland and NC State were both in the Top 5 in the nation and NC State beat Maryland in OT to win the ACC Championship. State went on the NCAA Tournament and won it all. Maryland went home. It was after that year that the NCAA expanded the tournament to allow multiple teams from the same conference.

 

[Paul Wozniak]

First off, before 1975 only one team per conference was allowed in the tournament. Anyone remember 1971 when USC only had 2 losses and both were to UCLA and they weren't allowed in the tournament. I think they were #2 in the nation too, so that is why most conferences had one team that dominated their championships.

Same rules for all the conferences, right? My point is that the BIG 10 has won more than their share of titles. The BIG 10 bashing around here has become epidemic. Especially when you have three year olds commenting.

 

[SabresRule]

Anyone remember 1971 when USC only had 2 losses and both were to UCLA and they weren't allowed in the tournament. I think they were #2 in the nation too, so that is why most conferences had one team that dominated their championships.

In 1974 Maryland and NC State were both in the Top 5 in the nation and NC State beat Maryland in OT to win the ACC Championship. State went on the NCAA Tournament and won it all. Maryland went home.

Nowadays, with today's format, those teams could have been anywhere from a 1, 2, or 3 seed.

 

[Ramy]

Same rules for all the conferences, right? My point is that the BIG 10 has won more than their share of titles. The BIG 10 bashing around here has become epidemic. Especially when you have three year olds commenting.

I am have never bashed any other conference, but you had to talk about the SEC and KY always being there and winning and I was just explaining why that happened. If they had allowed other teams from the conferences then the results might have been different.

 

[HD MM]

Same rules for all the conferences, right? My point is that the BIG 10 has won more than their share of titles. The BIG 10 bashing around here has become epidemic. Especially when you have three year olds commenting.

Here, here! :up Especially in the College Football Threads by the "almighty SEC." (with the acceptation to Ramy).

Funny how the majority of those "fans" are no where to be found, (including that one boisterous Flordia fan) when their basketball teams are down. True fans see their teams through thick and thin and don't hide in the closet and wait until their teams are good to support them.

In all honesty, this would be the perfect time to bash the SEC seeing they got only 3 tournament bids, one of them by accident. But have you seen the Big 10 fans kick the SEC when they are down? Nope. I guess that's the difference between the two regions/fans. Class.

 

[Ramy]

Here, here! :up Especially in the College Football Threads by the "almighty SEC." (with the acceptation to Ramy).

Funny how the majority of those "fans" are no where to be found, (including that one boisterous Flordia fan) when their basketball teams are down. True fans see their teams through thick and thin and don't hide in the closet and wait until their teams are good to support them.

In all honesty, this would be the perfect time to bash the SEC seeing they got only 3 tournament bids, one of them by accident. But have you seen the Big 10 fans kick the SEC when they are down? Nope. I guess that's the difference between the two regions/fans. Class.

Accident? I wouldn't call it an accident that Mississippi State got in. They did win the tournament. Surprising yes, but no accident.

 

[Paul Wozniak]

I am have never bashed any other conference, but you had to talk about the SEC and KY always being there and winning and I was just explaining why that happened. If they had allowed other teams from the conferences then the results might have been different.

I'm sorry Ramy, that comment was not directed toward you, but to the 3 yr. old who above you, who figured out that MICHIGAN was lucky to win the tournament in 1989. My inclusion of Kentucky and UCLA was indeed a reference to those conferences being "one horse" conferences, and I understand your explanation, but the truth of the matter is that UCLA and Kentucky were just superior teams in their respective eras. No need to apologize for being better than everyone else. The BIG 10 though, has been a more balanced conference in comparison to the PAC 10 and SEC.