If one likes retro-especially as a college basketball fan-they should love the 2018 NCAA Tournament Final Four.
One of the first things that jumped to mind about this year’s quartet of Kansas, Loyola Chicago, Michigan and Villanova after it was settled Sunday night was that this year’s group has a distinct 1985 flavor to it. Now we’ll see if it ends up with 1985 results, in one way or another.
The 1985 NCAA Tournament was the first year of an expanded 64-team field (essentially the beginning of the wondrous event we have today), and all four of this year’s final teams were factors on the national college landscape then. Yes, even Loyola.
For the Ramblers, it was the last NCAA tourney appearance prior to this one, but they weren’t just a field-filler. A 4 seed in the East Regional that was ranked 14th in the final Associated Press regular season poll, Loyola behind greats Alfredrick (The Great) Hughes, Andre Battle and Carl (Go-Go) Golston made it to the Sweet 16, before being knocked out by defending national champion Georgetown.
Michigan, Kansas and Villanova were all part of the Southeast Regional. The Wolverines were the 1 seed that year, the No. 2-ranked team in the country and one of the absolute tournament favorites, dominating the Big Ten and entering postseason on a 16-game winning streak. Michigan went out in the second round, though, the same round as Kansas, which was a 3 seed in the region and ranked 13th nationally (and had a pretty good freshman named Danny Manning) but also exited early, falling to 11th-seeded Auburn. By Kansas standards of today, that would be a gross disappointment, but for the Jayhawks then this was just the fourth NCAA bid in a span of 10 years and KU had been to just one Sweet 16 since 1974 at that time.
And then there was Villanova, which put together arguably the greatest championship run ever by an underdog, winning the national title as an 8 seed. The late, great Rollie Massimino (his initials are on the jerseys of Wildcats players this year) led his team past Dayton in the first round in a true road game, knocked out Michigan in the second round, and in the national title game memorably toppled intimidating, top-ranked Georgetown, shooting 78.6% and playing what has been called the perfect game.
Villanova has a chance to repeat its 1985 success with another title, while 11th-seeded Loyola is two wins away from succeeding the ’85 Wildcats as the most improbable national champion certainly of the 64+ team era, and quite possibly of all time. Given that the 1980s is widely regarded as a golden era for college hoops, comparisons with it should be seen as a distinct compliment for this year’s NCAA Tournament.
For all the wildness of this NCAA Tournament, the last four teams standing features only one major surprise. Three of the four teams remaining-Kansas, Michigan and Villanova-surprised absolutely no one by getting this far, with the Jayhawks and Wildcats both coming into the Final Four carrying 1 seeds and Michigan a No. 3 seed that won the Big Ten Tournament.
One thing we can say about the national semifinalists: they all know how to win. All four have already topped 30 wins for the season, and there are no double-digit loss teams in this group. Nothing approaching the unsightly 13-, 14- and 15- loss teams that increasingly dot this tournament. Furthermore, all four won their conference tournaments, and should’ve dispelled myths that playing tourneys early (Big Ten, MVC) or in a bunch of tourney games late (Big East, Big 12) is an impediment to NCAA success.
Statistically, it’s incredible how close these four teams are. All four shoot at least 47% (Michigan is the lowest; Loyola at 50.9% highest) and allow opponents no better than 42.7% (Villanova), with Loyola again the best at 41.4%. Three of the four shoot right about 40% from three-point range (Michigan is the low at 36.6%), and none is a dominant rebounding team (Villanova is the closest thing at a +3.1 rebounding margin).
The four teams are also defined by their unselfishness. Kansas, Loyola and Villanova all have at least five players averaging in double figures (the Wildcats have six!), and all three also rank in the top 40 in the country in assists.
One statistical category to watch in the Final Four: turnovers. There are statistics in the NFL about how teams that win the turnover battle win at least 75% of the time, and while a turnover or two difference isn’t automatically a major deciding factor in college basketball, extra possessions can only help and empty ones don’t. Of the four teams, Michigan (+3.6 turnover margin and just 9.2 turnovers per game) and Villanova (+2.4, 10.6) take care of the ball considerably better than the other two.
Of course, the other notable storyline among the four remaining teams is that they all feature likable coaches who are considered among the good guys in the sport. John Beilein is widely regarded as running the antithesis of the type of program that has had the FBI on its heels, and Porter Moser is highly regarded by most any who has come in contact with him in the Missouri Valley Conference. Jay Wright is one of the sport’s coolest cats at Villanova, and Bill Self is president of the National Association of Basketball Coaches.
It certainly was notable to us how freshmen-laden teams Duke and Kentucky were eliminated before the Final Four again, competitive but coming up short in their final NCAA tourney losses. This is three straight years now that both have been preseason top five teams based almost entirely on mega-hyped recruiting classes, yet the final product is not meeting the expectations. Add in the rise of veteran teams to the Final Four the last couple years, and increasingly it is becoming apparent to us that the expectations of recruiting classes to be so good that they automatically step in and become the top teams in the country is an unrealistic one.
What a shame it was for Gonzaga to find out shortly before its West Regional semifinal against Florida State that it would not have its No. 2 scorer, after Killian Tillie re-aggravated a hip injury in warmups. Whether it affected the Bulldogs psychologically, we’ll never know, but unquestionably a 6-foot-10 forward who shot 47.9% from three-point range this season might’ve come in handy against the Seminoles’ sticky zone defense (even as Tillie was very quiet in the Zags’ first two NCAA wins). As it was, Gonzaga had little success from outside or from the field in general (just 33.9%) in its 75-60 loss to FSU, which got superb play from its bench against the Bulldogs and throughout the tournament.
Another Florida State note: count us among those who didn’t take much from FSU coach Leonard Hamilton’s postgame TV interview after the Seminoles lost the West Regional final to Michigan. It became something of a social media controversy because the Seminoles didn’t foul with 10 seconds left down 58-54 and Hamilton when asked why not said it was because “the game was over.” The question from reporter Dana Jacobson was perfectly fair, and Hamilton probably should’ve had his players foul and didn’t provide perfect answers. In the immediate aftermath of an emotional game, sometimes it happens. Hamilton admitted as much a day later, so in the end it was little to do about not much.
Being knocked out of the NCAA Tournament stings for any team, as it should. It may not dull the pain at the moment, but for a number of teams it should be remembered just how much they have accomplished, and that there should be no shame in their seasons ending when they did. If anyone had said at start of the year that teams like Clemson or Nevada would’ve made it to the Sweet 16, or that Florida State, Kansas State or Texas Tech would be a win away from the Final Four, their fans would’ve taken it in a second. All five of those teams had excellent runs and in many cases (Clemson, Nevada, Texas Tech) terrific seasons as a whole.
Understanding that tournament performance in itself does not justify NCAA Tournament selection or seeds, we’ve tried to stay away from some of the suggestions of what Loyola’s tournament run proves. Besides, the Ramblers could’ve easily been knocked out in the first round by Miami (Fla.) if not for Donte Ingram’s buzzer-beater, or in the second round by Tennessee if not for Clayton Custer’s shooter’s roll, or in the third round if Marques Townes doesn’t drill a three at the end of the shot clock in the final seconds against Nevada.
That doesn’t mean there can’t be or aren’t more general takeaways. Chief among them has to be that the NCAA Selection Committee’s recent awakening to the idea that a team’s quantity of top-level wins as the chief measure of tournament worthiness-regardless of number of opportunities in such games-is a crock.
Loyola had one Quadrant 1 win this year in two opportunities. That didn’t mean for a second that the Ramblers weren’t capable of winning a lot more if they’d had more opportunities for such games. Loyola did win a bunch of Quadrant 3 games (15-2 record in them), and its performance in March suggests strongly what we’ve asserted: that dominance over teams in the 100-200 range nationally deserves more respect than it receives in the selection criteria. Also, perhaps it should be acknowledged that this is one the RPI got right: the Ramblers were No. 22 in the final regular season RPI, nearly 20 spots higher than any other major computer ranking.
The bigger lesson from Loyola’s play, though, and the play of teams like the Ramblers, should be taken from the closeness of games. Consistently, time and again, teams like Loyola, Bucknell, Buffalo, College of Charleston, Marshall, UNC Greensboro and Stephen F. Austin (all this year) show that quality teams from non-spotlight leagues that win a lot of games in the regular season are fully capable of playing with top teams in the postseason. The No. 1 task of the Selection Committee every year, more than any other, should be trying to get a read on these teams, and figuring out why teams that are considered to have no shot at at-large bids are still capable of playing the top teams in the country right down to the wire.
A number of these teams would be more than capable of winning a game or two as at-large picks, and maybe more. An ancient excuse about such teams is “they’re not national title contenders anyway,” yet Loyola’s run has proven clearly that is not true. How many other teams like the Ramblers capable of a run at or to the Final Four have been sidelined in recent years by the committee’s clear cold shoulder at them? Middle Tennessee State this year? Illinois State last year? Valparaiso two years ago? It’s time to demand that the committee is doing more to evaluate these teams’ quality as fairly and honestly as possible.
We love the NIT, but honestly it’s been hard to take much from it this year. The NCAA’s experimental, FIBA/NBA-ized rules have turned this year’s event into essentially an exhibition. We keep hearing how these rules “improve flow,” yet the little we’ve watched, we don’t see it. The games have one more TV timeout in each half (how is that a positive??) and we’ve still seen more than a few games go well beyond two hours. Moreover, it must be pointed out: postseason play is hardly the best time to be evaluating any data related to fouls. Conference tournaments and the NCAA tourney have shown quite clearly that officials have as usual become more lax calling fouls in the postseason, so to claim that playing games in quarters in the postseason is leading to less free throws (if the data even shows that) would be completely disingenuous.
Twitter: @HoopvilleAdam
