Results of Imbalanced Teams, Since 2004

Criteria: Top 10 offense or defense by KenPom rankings, worse than 70th on the other side of the ball.

2014: Michigan (Elite 8), Duke (Round of 64), Creighton (Round of 32), Iowa (Round of 64), Iona (First Round minor tourney), Baylor (Sweet 16), Ohio State (Round of 64), VCU (Round of 64), Saint Louis (Round of 32), Cincinnati (Round of 64), San Diego State (Sweet 16)
: Iowa State (Round of 32), Colorado State (Round of 32), Creighton (Round of 32), N.C. State (Round of 64), Wisconsin (Round of 64), Georgetown (Round of 64), Saint Louis (Round of 32), Stephen F. Austin (First round NIT), Oregon (Sweet 16)
: Missouri (Round of 64), Creighton (Round of 32), Florida (Elite 8), Indiana (Sweet 16), Purdue (Round of 32), Duke (Round of 64), Louisville (Final 4), South Florida (Round of 32), Alabama (Round of 64), Virginia (Round of 64)
2011: Notre Dame (Round of 32), Oakland (Round of 64), Arizona (Elite 8), Colorado (NIT semifinals), FSU (Sweet 16), St. Peter’s (Round of 64), Alabama (NIT finals), Seton Hall (no tournament)
2010: Notre Dame (Round of 64), Cornell (Sweet 16), Cal (Round of 32), USC (no tournament), FSU (Round of 64), Purdue (Sweet 16), Temple (Round of 64), Dayton (NIT champions)
2009: Arizona (Sweet 16), Illinois (Round of 64), Stephen F. Austin (Round of 64), FSU (Round of 64)
2008: Oregon (Round of 64), Drake (Round of 64), IUPUI (no tournament), Virginia Tech (NIT third round), Miss. St. (Round of 32)
2007: Arizona (Round of 64), Notre Dame (Round of 64), BYU (Round of 64), Southern Illinois (Sweet 16), Illinois (Round of 64), UConn (no tournament)
2006: Gonzaga (Sweet 16), Notre Dame (2nd round NIT), Boston College (Sweet 16), Tennessee (Round of 32), Iowa (Round of 64), Southern Illinois (Round of 64), Washington State (no tournament), Texas A&M (Round of 32), Bradley (Sweet 16)
2005: Gonzaga (Round of 32), Wake Forest (Round of 32), Washington (Sweet 16), Arizona (Round of 64), Oklahoma State (Sweet 16), Washington State (no tourney), Minnesota (Round of 64), Iowa State (Round of 32), Nevada (Round of 32)
2004: Arizona (Round of 64), Wake Forest (Sweet 16), Michigan State (Round of 64), Louisville (Round of 64), Richmond (Round of 64)

This entry was posted in Miscellaneous. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Results of Imbalanced Teams, Since 2004

Register |

  1. jeff says:

    Shane – Really liked your Money Brackets column, particularly the “imbalanced teams” section, which has proven predominantly prophetic. Yet Notre Dame lingers on, which leads me to a question: instead of just relying on the Kenpom efficiency ratings for each team which, I believe, reflect the entire season, is there some sort of efficiency number that instead reflects a more recent sampling — ie. just the 2nd half of the season, the last 10 or so games, something like that? I recall Bilas mentioning during the ACC tourney how ND had improved defensively over the course of the season; I don’t know if the numbers actually bear that out, but still I wonder whether a team’s more recent form might be more indicative of their tournament prospects?

    1. Scout says:

      I’ll try to put this to good use imtyliamede.

  2. matt says:

    no longer imbalanced! Duke in the top 20 in defense!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *