Is Final Four "Experience" Necessary For Success?

by Aerobab on Feb 28, 2008 10:32 AM EST in Tennessee Volunteer Basketball

Quick note: subjective and objective analysis follows. Please feel free to counter my points, question the analysis, or point out things that I missed. I hope you enjoy reading this as much as I enjoyed piecing it together. -- Aerobab

"They're playing great right now and they've got loads of talent...but they just lack Final Four experience and I think that'll hurt them on the big stage."

How many times have we heard something similar to that? Every single year it's the same story from the "expert" sports pundits: a team shows up to "The Big Dance" with each of the requisite credentials -- record, resume, talent, and intangibles -- but lacks the respect of the pundits. Why? "Lack of Final Four experience".

My question: is there any validity in the pundit's statements? Given some early projections and much recent hype for our men's basketball team, we could be looking at the first trip to the Final Four in the Vol's history! If "experience" is a prerequisite to winning at the top-level, are we doomed? Should we go ahead and write off this season as a "learning-experience" for the next few years? (Pretty pictures after the jump...)

First off, I must define experience. For the analysis that I'm about to present, I defined "experience" as "a class of student-athletes appearing in the Final Four (F4) at least once in the preceding three seasons". This assumes that any given player will stay on a given team for 4 whole seasons, counting the 'present' tournament year. No red/grayshirts, transfers, early leaves (withdrawal, bolt to NBA, etc.) were considered. Another general assumption that I made is that I did not consider coaching experience/turnover. For example, Florida's Billy Donovan's 2000 F4 coaching experience does not factor into the success of his 2006 or 2007 teams (outside of 4 yr. window) nor is UNC's Billy Guthridge's first trip to the 1998 F4 weighed less because of Dean Smith's 1995 and 1997 success (new coach within 4 yr. window).

Additionally, I need to define "team". It seems silly, but I need to define it differently for the sake of the analysis. My "team" is "the grouping of student-athletes for a defined season". In other words, the 2006 Vols are a different team than the 2007 Vols, even though the team name remains the same.

I've put together this pretty powerful spreadsheet listing the champion, runner-up, and semi-final runners-up for each of the 69 annual tournaments, dating back to 1939; mostly courtesy of the wonderful Wikipedia; complete with colors, drop-down lists and the like. (CAUTION: Not for those with photosensitive epilepsy!) (Seriously, it's probably not.) I think most of you will have fun putting together all kinds of information, but here's what I thought were the most significant bytes of information that should put the "experts" to (partial) shame:

1.) Of 276 F4 Teams since 1939 (69 tournaments):
a) 88 Teams had previous F4 experience (31.9%)
b) 188 Teams had no previous F4 experience (68.1%)

2.) National Championship Winners:
a) 39 NC winners had previous F4 experience (56.5%)
b) 30 NC winners had no previous F4 experience (43.5%)

3.) National Championship Runners-Up:
a) 21 NCRs-U had previous F4 experience (30.4%)
b) 48 NCRs-U had no previous F4 experience (69.6%)

4.) Semifinal Runners-Up (138 teams):
a) 28 SFRs-U had previous F4 experience (20.3%)
b) 110 SFRs-U had no previous F4 experience (79.7%)

...or in pretty pictures for you visual types. (Data reduced; epilepsy hazard is less.)

[Note: "Semifinal Appearance" is intended to be "Semifinal Runners-Up". I I'm too lazy to change it and don't want any confusion between the winners and losers of that game are.]

...and because most of us are SEC homers and we all know how awesome the ESS-EEE-CEE is (not relevant to argument - simply presented for information):

5.) SEC Notes:
a) 15 Championship game appearances amongst 3 teams (Arkansas-2, Florida-3, Kentucky-10)
b) 10 Championships amongst 3 teams (Arkansas, Florida-2, Kentucky-7) (14.5%)
c) 25 SEC teams advanced to the F4 (Arkansas-2, Florida-3, Georgia, Kentucky-13, LSU-4, Miss. St.) (9%)
i)Of the 25 teams, 18 had no previous F4 experience; 4 of the 18 won Championships and another 4 were NCRs-U.

Are the "expert" pundits correct in their "lack of experience" philosophy? Yes and No. The data shows that those with F4 experience have the slight edge (less than 60/40) to win the championship game and only occasionally (20%) do they loose a semifinal game. At the same time, nearly 70% of all F4 participants to date had no F4 experience

So what does this data tell us about the 2008 Vols' chances of success in the tournament? It tells me that we've got a great shot (nearly 70%) at making it out of the Elite Eight! It tells me that we've got an excellent shot (nearly 80%) at losing the semi-final game! It tells me that we've got a great shot (nearly 70%) at losing the championship game! Lastly, it tells me that it'll take some work to win the tournament, given that only 43.5% of teams with no F4 experience have historically done so. (However, if you unfairly extract UCLA's amazing run from 1964-75, the F4 experience percentage of winning the tourney jumps to 50%!)

Tweet Comment 14 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Nice!

I'm going to have to play with that spreadsheet some. Good work. I think the two main things to take away from your last paragraph are 1) The chances of getting to the final four with no experience are pretty good. 2) The chances of winning it when you get there are slanted against you a bit. I still like what this says for UT. Just get us there and give us an opponent. I would love to be in that position.

by rbk on Feb 28, 2008 11:42 AM EST reply actions

A quick peek at that sheet reveals

that Wyoming has won a basketball National Championship.

by David Hooper on Feb 28, 2008 1:20 PM EST reply actions

all I have to say is this:

Every team has a "first time" in the Final Four. The first time Duke was there was its first. The first time Kentucky was there was its first.

May as well start getting experience now ...

by ghostofneyland on Feb 28, 2008 1:36 PM EST reply actions

Careful

That's why I was careful to use a slightly different definition for "team". Duke's first time in '63 obviously had no impact on the '91 championship team. They were two separate teams, even though both share a common "team name".

Even if we make it that far this year, our experience will expire after the 2011 tournament. Then it's back to square one unless there's a repeat perfomance within that 3 yr window.

Confusing, I know...but it's necessary.

by Aerobab on Feb 28, 2008 1:55 PM EST up reply actions

O I C

I see. I overlooked that aspect. Sorry.

by ghostofneyland on Feb 28, 2008 2:00 PM EST up reply actions

No problem

Your comment below TOTALLY redeems yourself!

Much thanks!

by Aerobab on Feb 28, 2008 2:26 PM EST up reply actions

Seriously

Looking deeper, this is one of the best posts I've read all year.

by ghostofneyland on Feb 28, 2008 1:40 PM EST reply actions

One question

What effect does the start of the tourney have? In 1939, all teams would have had no F4 experience by definition. Does that significantly skew the numbers in favor of the non-experienced bunch?

by David Hooper on Feb 28, 2008 1:54 PM EST reply actions

None.

Does the start of the tourney skew the #'s? No. The start is the start. It is what it is. Everybody is inexperienced at that point, so in theory nobody would have an advantage over anybody else. If you look the 1st "experienced" team was Dartmouth...6 years after the inaugural tourney! If said "experience" matters all that much, I'm certain that at least one team from the '39 tourney would have reappeared prior to '42. (Perhaps there were early rules that prohibited repeat perfomers? True parity? Blind luck?)

Is our 1998 football championship any less valued because it was the first of the BCS era? Nope. How about Kurt Busch's 2004 NASCAR championship after switching to the "Chase for the Cup" format (which is horrible, I may add)? Nuh-ugh.

For the record, I did consider tossing the first several years, but that just would not have been fair, unless you also toss out UCLA's run in the 60s-70s for the unfair skewing that they produce for the experienced side. So for simplicity, I just evaluated all the data.

by Aerobab on Feb 28, 2008 2:21 PM EST up reply actions

Thanks.

The other thing I read is that of the 60 Big Dance teams with experience, 39 of them won it all - 65%. Of the 78 Big Dance teams with no experience, only 78 won it all - about 38.5%. There would be a little skew toward the middle whenever two teams with experience or two teams without experience meet in the Dance. One would win and one would lose, resulting in a 50% factored into the appropriate category. That seems to give 2-1 odds to the experienced team, all other factors disregarded. Sound right?

On another note: it doesn't seem to me that dismissing UCLA's run would be appropriate. After all, if there is indeed a benefit gained by having experience, wouldn't that be the archetype? That's why I'm happier that you left it in the study.

Again, beautiful work, though. I'm just trying to probe it a bit.

by David Hooper on Feb 28, 2008 3:26 PM EST up reply actions

Necessary?

I wouldn't go as far as saying necessary, but I'd consider it very helpful. The teams that have been exposed to that kind of attention generally perform better.

However, if you win or lose a championship, do they ever talk about "having been to the big game" as being the key?

If the Vols get to the final four, they'll have earned it. Whatever happens after that, we won't be talking about them having not been in the final four before.

My Signature Should be Better Than This

by MoonDogLeft on Feb 28, 2008 6:37 PM EST reply actions

Also

What about the experience we got from playing Memphis at Memphis? Do you think that's a lot like a Final Four appearance?

Go Vols!

by Joel Hollingsworth on Feb 28, 2008 8:19 PM EST reply actions

Ooh. Interesting.

Certainly Memphis took the loss much like a F4 loss. And if it was much like a F4 win for UT, the Vandy loss would have been similar to a F4 loss.

by David Hooper on Feb 28, 2008 10:03 PM EST up reply actions

ONE GAME AT A TIME

You can only play one game at a time and only win one game at a time. Each game UT plays a better team until they are one of two remaining {DUH}.The Vols will have experience by just playing in the SEC.If they make it to the Final Four Apperance it wont be because of experience but buy just plan old hard work and whupping every body else rear end.

OLD SMOKEY

by old smokey on Feb 29, 2008 8:10 AM EST reply actions