Wednesday, we looked at the 1990 Sweet 16 — primarily because it was an amazing Sweet 16, but also because looking at the field and comparing it to the present day was fascinating. Seven members of the 1990 Sweet 16 made it back to the 2015 NCAA Tournament, and five returned to this year’s Sweet 16.
Consistency, longevity, durability; resilience, emergence, impotence — which programs stick around in the upper tier of college basketball, which ones fall away, and which previously struggling schools create a bright new day for themselves?
It’s worth considering these questions as the 2015 Sweet 16 runs its course. One way of looking at the long-term success of college basketball programs (or lack thereof) is to list the Sweet 16s in five-year periods, dating back to 1975.
Why 1975? It could be seen as a random year, but it was the first year in which the NCAA tournament invited more than one team per conference, following the 1974 ACC Tournament championship game between North Carolina State and Maryland. Maryland, a top-five team, lost that game and — per 1974 policies — was not allowed to compete in a 25-team tournament. In 1975, 32 teams were allowed in, creating the at-large bid for power conferences. However, full at-large eligibility for power conferences wasn’t made possible until 1980.
What also happened in 1980 is that geography was de-emphasized as a reason for placing certain teams in certain regions. As great as UCLA was under John Wooden, for instance, critics of the dynasty hasten to point out that in West Regionals during the Bruins’ glory years, UCLA played other teams from the West. Had UCLA played powers from the Midwest or East, the seven-year run of championships — might not have happened. (UCLA would have won “only” eight national titles in 12 years instead of 10, perhaps.)
*
Let’s start this exercise by adding a few other notes:
In 1979, the tournament began to be seeded, offering a little more structure and clarity to the relative strength of teams (or at least, the quality of their regular seasons over time). In 1980, the NCAA tournament moved to 48 teams, and in the next few years, it grew to 53 teams before arriving at its 64-team sweet spot in 1985, a numbe which remained in place for many years. Then came the expansion to 65 (which will apply to the 2010 portion of our historical survey) and, finally, the move to 68 teams, which applies to the current Sweet 16.
Here we go:
The 1975 Sweet 16 (Final Four teams listed first; Elite Eight teams second; and then the eight losing regional semifinalists):
UCLA, Kentucky, Louisville, Syracuse.
Kansas State, Indiana, Maryland, Arizona State.
North Carolina, Boston College, Oregon State, Central Michigan, Notre Dame, Cincinnati, Montana, UNLV.
The 1980 Sweet 16:
Louisville, UCLA, Iowa, Purdue.
Georgetown, LSU, Duke, Clemson.
Syracuse, Maryland, Missouri, Texas A&M, Kentucky, Indiana, Ohio State, Lamar.
The 1985 Sweet 16:
Villanova, Georgetown, St. John’s, Memphis.
North Carolina, Georgia Tech, North Carolina State, Oklahoma.
Illinois, Loyola-Illinois, Kentucky, Alabama, Maryland, Auburn, Louisiana Tech, Boston College.
The 1990 Sweet 16:
UNLV, Duke, Arkansas, Georgia Tech.
Connecticut, Loyola Marymount, Texas, Minnesota.
Ball State, Alabama, North Carolina, Xavier, UCLA, Clemson, Syracuse, Michigan State.
The 1995 Sweet 16:
UCLA, Arkansas, Oklahoma State, North Carolina.
Connecticut, Virginia, Massachusetts, Kentucky.
Wake Forest, Tulsa, Mississippi State, Maryland, Arizona State, Georgetown, Kansas, Memphis.
The 2000 Sweet 16:
Michigan State, Florida, Wisconsin, North Carolina.
Iowa State, Oklahoma State, Purdue, Tulsa.
Syracuse, UCLA, Duke, Seton Hall, LSU, Gonzaga, Tennessee, Miami (FL).
The 2005 Sweet 16:
North Carolina, Illinois, Louisville, Michigan State.
Wisconsin, Arizona, West Virginia, Kentucky.
North Carolina State, Villanova, Oklahoma State, Milwaukee, Texas Tech, Washington, Utah, Duke.
The 2010 Sweet 16:
Duke, Butler, Michigan State, West Virginia.
Baylor, Kansas State, Tennessee, Kentucky.
Saint Mary’s, Purdue, Syracuse, Xavier, Northern Iowa, Ohio State, Washington, Cornell.
The 2015 Sweet 16 (obviously, without Final Four or Elite Eight teams, since they haven’t been determined yet):
Kentucky, West Virginia, Wichita State, Notre Dame, North Carolina, Wisconsin, Xavier, Arizona, UCLA, Gonzaga, Utah, Duke, North Carolina State, Louisville, Michigan State, Oklahoma.
*
You can clearly see from the above list that not all Sweet 16 programs are equal. Let’s briefly look at three examples:
West Virginia is a sneaky-good program. It is on each of the last three Sweet 16s in this list. Yet, this is its first Sweet 16 since 2010, so it’s not as though the program has been outstanding every year. From 2005 through 2010, though, the Mountaineers were an almost-annual force: They reached four Sweet 16s in a stretch of six seasons.
Tennessee made the Sweet 16 in 2000 and then again in 2010. This might suggest relentless consistency, but a lot of years in between were not that successful. Only when Bruce Pearl settled in did this program take off, beginning in 2006. From 2002 through 2005, Tennessee failed to make the NCAAs. You’ll see that Utah is on two of the past three Sweet 16s here. The Utes are another example of a program that has not been an annual factor in the NCAA tournament, but has managed to make Sweet 16s every now and then. We’ll see if the Utes can sustain what they’ve established this season.
A final example is UCLA. The Bruins’ NCAA profile over time is a fascinating mixed bag. You see a lot of Sweet 16 appearances on this list, and many of them are as mid- or low-level seeds (an 8 in 1980, a 7 in 1990, a 6 in 2000, an 11 here in 2015). Yet, what you don’t see is the collection of Sweet 16 appearances from the 1990s as a higher seed (under Jim Harrick or Steve Lavin) or in the Ben Howland years, when the Bruins made three straight Final Fours.
*
Ultimately, this look at Sweet 16s in five-year increments is not meant to end discussions or debates. When you notice differences in programs such as the ones provided above (West Virginia, Tennessee, UCLA), you can begin to fill in some blanks and get a sense of how durable various college basketball programs have turned out to be.
