The March Mundane: Most Stale Final Fours of the 2000s
All eyes are on San Antonio this weekend, and not just for the vast amount of art exhibits in display across the city, per San Antonin's event calendar. No, art and basketball aficionados will both be flocking to Mission City as the Final Four gets underway in the historic Alamodome, for the first time 10 years.
It's a Final Four chock full of storylines, thanks in large part to how comically lopsided the bracket has progressed. On the left side, the Elite Eight saw a 3-seed, two 9-seeds, and an 11-seed. The highest and lowest of that bunch progressed to the Final Four. And on the right side, we saw a (1) v (3) and a (1) v (2) matchup, with the 1-seeds winning both.
We're left with a nice cut of four teams, with The Favorite (Villanova), The Blue-Blood (Kansas), The 'Red-Hot' Team (Michigan), and The Underdog (Loyola of Chicago).
It got me thinking, though, how the uneven Final Four is a microcosm of the last decade's Final Fours: the last 10-20 years have seen a wide disparity in the level of teams that reach the semifinals, some years being as highly-seeded as possible, others being representative of full pandemonium.
With that in mind, here's a partially objective, partially subjective look at some of the most predictable and some of the most unexpected Final Four weekends of the 2000s. (Why cut off at 2000? Because I'm lazy.)
To finish on a good note, we're going to start with the boring:
5. 2001
(1) Duke*
(1) Michigan State
(2) Arizona*
(3) Maryland
Average Seed: 2
Median Seed: 1 / 2
Result Unpredictability Rating (0 to 5): 2
--
MARCH MADNESS SCORE: 5.5
The '01 Final Four was fairly basic in terms of the teams that qualified: #1 overall seed Duke, defending champions Michigan State, and talented Arizona and Maryland. What rescued it from being a totally stale affair were the games themselves. Zona scored a mild upset over the Spartans, who were a trendy pick to repeat as champions, and Duke required the biggest comeback in Final Four history to hold off a wild upset at the hands of ACC rivals Maryland. Duke ultimately took the title as expected, though not without a tough test from Gilbert Arenas, Richard Jefferson and co.
4. 2012
(1) Kentucky*
(2) Kansas*
(2) Ohio State
(4) Louisville
Average Seed: 2
Median Seed: 2
Result Unpredictability Rating (0 to 5): 1
--
MARCH MADNESS SCORE: 5
2012, also known as the year in which Creighton ruined North Carolina's title run, was a wild tournament. Two different 15-seeds beat 2 seeds! A 13-seed took a 1-seed to overtime in the Sweet 16! However, by the time we reached the Final Four, the tournament was starting to normalize, and the higher seeds won out, with the highest overall seed in the bracket taking top honors. To make matters worse, though the games were both competitive and entertaining, each game on Final Four weekend was a rematch from the regular season. And each team that won in the regular season won yet again (Kentucky over Louisville, Kansas over Ohio State, Kentucky over Kansas).
3. 2009
(1) North Carolina*
(1) Connecticut
(2) Michigan State*
(3) Villanova
Average Seed: 2
Median Seed: 1 / 2
Result Unpredictability Rating (0 to 5): 0
--
MARCH MADNESS SCORE: 3.5
Though my little Tar Heel heart has no problem fondly recalling the 2009 Final Four, I imagine it wasn't nearly as pleasant for objective fans of college basketball. Neither Final Four game was competitive down the stretch, and Michigan State's defeat over top-seeded Connecticut couldn't even register as an upset, given that UConn was the weakest 1-seed, and the game was in Detroit, for Pete's sake. Then, the Championship: UNC played Michigan State in the regular season (in Ford Field, ironically) that year and won by 35-- the championship wasn't much closer, as the 2009 Final Four came to an all-too-predictable finish.
2. 2008
(1) North Carolina
(1) Memphis*
(1) UCLA
(1) Kansas*
Mean Seed: 1
Median Seed: 1
Result Unpredictability Rating (0 to 5): 1
--
MARCH MADNESS SCORE: 3.0
Ranking 2008 at the #2 spot comes with two caveats: first off, this was the first (and still only) Final Four to feature all #1 seeds, hence its renown. "So how does having all #1 seeds not earn it the #1 spot?!?", you squawk. Well, that ties in to my second caveat: that a Final Four goes chalk is not always a bad thing, as it can provide some terrific basketball. It's hard to call any result an 'upset' in a weekend oozing with so much talent, but the results lent a little sliver of madness. Kansas was certainly the least likely of the 1-seeds to win it all, boasting the worst record and least NBA talent of the 4 (which is a bit like saying Ringo was the least impressive Beatle; technically true, but most would still consider that a compliment). The Jayhawks did so by a stunning (and for me, traumatic) rout of #1 overall North Carolina, then a title win over Memphis in one of the best championship games every played.
1. 2007
(1) Florida*
(1) Ohio State*
(2) UCLA
(2) Georgetown
Mean Seed: 1 / 2
Median Seed: 1 / 2
Result Unpredictability Rating (0 to 5): 0
--
MARCH MADNESS SCORE: 3.0
The 2007 Final Four completely nullifies my last caveat. This tournament was one of the most chalk tournaments ever, and resulted in the most dreadfully boring Final Four ever. The only team in the Elite Eight that wasn't a 1- or 2-seed was Pac-10 champions Oregon, who was....a 3-seed. Though two different 2 seeds "upset" the top seeds, the Final Four still boasted a top-heavy slate, with little to show for it. Both 1-seeds absolutely controlled proceedings in the semifinals, and then #1 overall seed Florida waltzed to their 2nd-straight title by beating Ohio State for the second time that season. YAWN. Years like the stretch from '07 -'09 remind us to not take teams like Loyola-Chicago for granted! The joy, excitement, and unexpectedness they bring isn't a given.