There seems to be a common attitude that we're better off just mailing it in in Hoover, since teams that go deep in Hoover burn themselves out and don't do well in the NCAA Tournament.
I've compiled results for the last 10 years, comparing how many games a team played in Hoover to what place they finished in the NCAA Regionals the next week:
There doesn't look to be any correlation between games played in Hoover and Regional success.
However, SEC teams tend to be seeded highly (there's never been an SEC 4 seed), so maybe it's fairer to compare games played in Hoover to the difference between a team's seed and the place they finish in the Regional. If a 1 seed comes in 4th, they get a -3. If a 3 seed wins the Regional, they get a +2. If a team comes in the same place they're seeded as, they get 0. Etc.
Still, there doesn't seem to be any validity to teams with more games in Hoover underachieving the next week.
ETA: Here is the source file for those interested.
I've compiled results for the last 10 years, comparing how many games a team played in Hoover to what place they finished in the NCAA Regionals the next week:
There doesn't look to be any correlation between games played in Hoover and Regional success.
However, SEC teams tend to be seeded highly (there's never been an SEC 4 seed), so maybe it's fairer to compare games played in Hoover to the difference between a team's seed and the place they finish in the Regional. If a 1 seed comes in 4th, they get a -3. If a 3 seed wins the Regional, they get a +2. If a team comes in the same place they're seeded as, they get 0. Etc.
Still, there doesn't seem to be any validity to teams with more games in Hoover underachieving the next week.
ETA: Here is the source file for those interested.
Last edited:
