Bracketology

Status
Not open for further replies.
#52
Cincinnati, OH
For a trip down memory lane, here are the locations we have been sent to over the last twenty years (theoretically "protected" seeds):

2013: 7-seed in Austin, TX
2011: 9-seed in Tulsa, OK
2009: 5-seed in Portland, OR
2007: 12-seed in Columbus, OH
2006: 4-seed in San Diego, CA
2005: 1-seed in Indianapolis, IN --> Rosemont, IL --> St. Louis, MO :cool:
2004: 5-seed in Columbus, OH --> Atlanta, GA
2003: 4-seed in Indianapolis, IN
2002: 4-seed in Chicago, IL --> Madison, WI
2001: 1-seed in Dayton, OH --> San Antonio, TX
2000: 4-seed in Winston-Salem, NC

This really kind of reminded me that we seemed surprisingly underseeded in 2002, 2004 and 2006 ... is that how people saw it at the time??

Underseeded?
 
#53
^ Whatever terminology is correct, I meant that it looks like our body of work in 2002, 2004 and 2006 might have warranted a better seed than we got. I know this isn't the end-all, but our final AP rankings going into Selection Sunday were pretty high:

2002: #13 with wins vs. #25 IU, vs. #17 Iowa, vs. #8 Mizzou, Big Ten champions and having won 9 of our last 10 games at a time when that was still used as a metric by the Committee...
2004: #13 with wins vs. #12 UW, vs. #11 Mizzou, outright Big Ten champions, BTT runners-up and having won 13 of our last 14 games at a time when that was still used as a metric by the Committee...
2006: #13 with wins at #25 MSU, vs. #20 Iowa and vs. #7 MSU ... I guess a 4-seed isn't that bad then, but I seem to remember us all cautiously optimistic for a 3?

Again, rankings don't mean that much (they are just the easiest things to find while doing quick research on that season), but a #13 ranking from the Big Ten - especially when you won the conference - and a hot finish in that day and age usually put you in the conversation for a 3-seed, right? 2004 as a 5-seed is the one that really stands out as too harsh to me, IMO. I guess people really saw the Big Ten as weak that year.
 
Likes: KevinC
#55
Jerry Palm has Rutgers as a 4 seed and the Illini as a 11 seed that is a joke
From what I gather, that's what happens when we lose to Miami and Missouri and they beat Seton Hall. On non conference performance was less than stellar. The fact that they're counting close wins vs sub par teams as a bad thing, Nichols State, Grand Canyon and Northwestern I'm sure aren't helping.
 
#56
Carbondale, IL
^ Whatever terminology is correct, I meant that it looks like our body of work in 2002, 2004 and 2006 might have warranted a better seed than we got. I know this isn't the end-all, but our final AP rankings going into Selection Sunday were pretty high:

2002: #13 with wins vs. #25 IU, vs. #17 Iowa, vs. #8 Mizzou, Big Ten champions and having won 9 of our last 10 games at a time when that was still used as a metric by the Committee...
2004: #13 with wins vs. #12 UW, vs. #11 Mizzou, outright Big Ten champions, BTT runners-up and having won 13 of our last 14 games at a time when that was still used as a metric by the Committee...
2006: #13 with wins at #25 MSU, vs. #20 Iowa and vs. #7 MSU ... I guess a 4-seed isn't that bad then, but I seem to remember us all cautiously optimistic for a 3?

Again, rankings don't mean that much (they are just the easiest things to find while doing quick research on that season), but a #13 ranking from the Big Ten - especially when you won the conference - and a hot finish in that day and age usually put you in the conversation for a 3-seed, right? 2004 as a 5-seed is the one that really stands out as too harsh to me, IMO. I guess people really saw the Big Ten as weak that year.
In 2002 I remember during the selection show the hosts gave their predictions for top seeds in each region and multiple had us as a 2, so a 4 was a surprise. Maybe a tradeoff for getting to play in Indy. Either way, the team played awful in both of its games.
 
#59
Just checking out the latest Bracketology on ESPN. Illinois is still a #9 seed. Lunardi has the #6 seeds as Michigan (haven't we beat them), Rutgers (hmmm could of sworn we beat them), Wisconsin (hey, wait, I saw them on a menu of a diner in Champaign -- Roadkill Topped with Cheese), and Ohio State.
 
#60
Just checking out the latest Bracketology on ESPN. Illinois is still a #9 seed. Lunardi has the #6 seeds as Michigan (haven't we beat them), Rutgers (hmmm could of sworn we beat them), Wisconsin (hey, wait, I saw them on a menu of a diner in Champaign -- Roadkill Topped with Cheese), and Ohio State.
Considering that bracket was last updated yesterday morning prior to our game, I wouldn't put a lot of stock into it.
 
#68
Cincinnati, OH
^ Whatever terminology is correct, I meant that it looks like our body of work in 2002, 2004 and 2006 might have warranted a better seed than we got. I know this isn't the end-all, but our final AP rankings going into Selection Sunday were pretty high:

2002: #13 with wins vs. #25 IU, vs. #17 Iowa, vs. #8 Mizzou, Big Ten champions and having won 9 of our last 10 games at a time when that was still used as a metric by the Committee...
2004: #13 with wins vs. #12 UW, vs. #11 Mizzou, outright Big Ten champions, BTT runners-up and having won 13 of our last 14 games at a time when that was still used as a metric by the Committee...
2006: #13 with wins at #25 MSU, vs. #20 Iowa and vs. #7 MSU ... I guess a 4-seed isn't that bad then, but I seem to remember us all cautiously optimistic for a 3?

Again, rankings don't mean that much (they are just the easiest things to find while doing quick research on that season), but a #13 ranking from the Big Ten - especially when you won the conference - and a hot finish in that day and age usually put you in the conversation for a 3-seed, right? 2004 as a 5-seed is the one that really stands out as too harsh to me, IMO. I guess people really saw the Big Ten as weak that year.
13th ranked team each time and end up ranked 4 - 4- 5. I'm failing to see the angst about this. And speaking to the 2002 season, that Missouri team ended up being trash (final RPI that season: 54). I don't know how the committee assessed victories, but I can't imagine that win weight heavily on their decision. That Iowa team ended up worse (RPI: 70). That team did get insanely hot down the stretch and they might have been the reason I fell in love with Illinois basketball....but I'm failing to see strength in the argument about them being under seeded.
 
#69
Cincinnati, OH
I think this would be a pretty good matchup for us actually.

Agreed. Memphis might be fighting for a spot in the tournament by the end of February. Would enjoy a game against them and then a chance to take down Duke.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.