BigTen.org's first tiebreaker is overall winning percenrage, second tiebreaker is school alphabetical order.As of right now bigten.org has us in third. I'm sure that is correct as they should know the tiebreak rules.
That's odd isn't it. You would think they would have an algorithm that automatically placed the teams properly.BigTen.org's first tiebreaker is overall winning percenrage, second tiebreaker is school alphabetical order.
I don't know why bigten.org standings are not true BTT tiebreakers, but unfortunately it's not helpful.
Want to show Liddell why he made a bad decision. He would be a help to this team. Kick their butts.What really stands out for me is the fact that the Illini have the best road record overall of any BIG school. Imagine if we win at OS, 6-4 on the road in conference play. That's elite in this year's conference.
Not sure I'll read every word of this post but I "liked" this post to acknowledge the hard work that went into it.Here's the latest outlook. We're sitting in 5th place by mean seed, but not far behind PSU and MSU (less than half a seed line), with just over a 50% chance of a double-bye.
Also strange to observe that IU seems to have a weirdly good shot at a top-4 seed. The actual numbers there are very small - out of a million runs, they were the 4 seed 163 times (about 1 in 6,000) and the 3 seed only once. Comparing IU and, say Rutgers, I think we see this behavior because:
(obviously those scenarios are very unlikely to occur, but still fun to think about if you like stats)
- Both teams sit at 9 losses, so their best finish would be 11-9
- Both teams would need 2 or 3 of the 4 11-6 teams to finish 11-9 in order to get a 4 or 3 seed.
- For IU, those two things are correlated — they play both Illinois and Wisconsin, so an 11-9 IU means a higher likelihood of other 11-9 teams.
- For Rutgers, those two things are uncorrelated — they play Maryland and Purdue, so an 11-9 Rutgers means nothing about 11-6 teams falling to 11-9.
- The lesson — correlation is important!
View attachment 5769
We've been talking about tiebreakers a lot this week. The next two charts show 1) what the forecast would look like if all ties were broken by coin flip, and 2) the difference between the real situation and that scenario (where positive indicates better odds with the real tiebreakers).
As you can see, we do slightly better in the coin flip TB scenario, with about a 60% chance of a double-bye. The B1G tiebreakers are lowering our shot at the 1, 3, and 4 seed, but helping us out at the 2. This is, again, averaged over a million simulations, so that's not to say there aren't times when we're tied for 2nd and tiebreakers put us 3rd — just that, on average, tiebreakers are tending to bump us towards the 2 and 6 seeds and away from the 3 and 4 seeds.
View attachment 5770
View attachment 5771
Some other notes:
- Non-conference record was used in 269 of 1 million simulations, or around 1 in 4,000.
- I'm now counting championship tiesituations as well as total ties. We have about a 20% chance of a tie at the top, which breaks down into:
- 2 teams - 15%
- 3 teams - 4%
- 4 teams - 1.3%
- 5 teams - 0.5% (1 in 200)
- 6 teams - 0.03% (1 in 3,000)
- In terms of total ties, it looks like there's still a very remote chance for a 7-team tie, about 1 in 10,000. The simulation did not encounter any ties with 8+ teams, but that doesn't mean they're not still possible.
- Coin flip tiebreakers still seem to be in play, but only happened 4 times in a million simulations.
- A note on methods: With 20 games left, there are just over 1 million ways the remainder of the season could go. At this point it starts to be feasible to just check every scenario by going down the list. My code doesn't have a switch to go to that approach, though — it just simulates the remainder of the season N times, which should still produce something fairly close to the truth if N is large enough.
- Fun fact — assuming every game left has a 60% favorite and 40% underdog, 1 million simulations still only have a 1% chance of hitting the "all underdogs" scenario, which is over 3000 times less likely than "all favorites".
Not exactly. For now I'm only saving a few end results: the seeding breakdown, some info on ties, and matchup information. But there's nothing preventing the program from saving the exact outcome of every simulation — I just haven't done it yet. Sounds like a neat idea and should be pretty easy to add.
Is the bolded why Penn vs Iowa Saturday not listed?Here's a handy rooting guide for that 1% chance at the #1 seed. Winners are in bold and I've included the chance according to Torvik.
Michigan St. at Maryland (46%)
Also, other than Penn St. potentially beating Michigan St., it doesn't matter what Penn St. or Wisconsin do otherwise.
Here's a handy rooting guide for that 1% chance at the #1 seed. Winners are in bold and I've included the chance according to Torvik.
Michigan St. at Maryland (46%)
Indiana at Illinois (72%)
Maryland at Rutgers (59%)
Michigan St. at Penn St. (63%)*
Illinois at Ohio St. (25%)
Michigan at Maryland (40%)
Ohio St. at Michigan St. (44%)*
Iowa at Illinois (64%)
*Michigan St. needs to lose only one game, the chance of which is 76%.
Also, other than Penn St. potentially beating Michigan St., it doesn't matter what Penn St. or Wisconsin do otherwise. If we win out, they can only match us in wins, and if that happens, we come out on top in tie-breakers. If all of the above happens and each of them lose a game, we get the #1 seed outright.