Jerry Palm has Rutgers as a 4 seed and the Illini as a 11 seed that is a joke
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
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??
He is probably looking and forecasting with current NET rankings in mind.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.Jerry Palm has Rutgers as a 4 seed and the Illini as a 11 seed that is a joke
^ 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.
Are you taking Lodgers?Me, too! I have a second place up in the Spokane area so would be very easy and cheap for me.
Ha ha! Depends on if the fam decided to come or not.Are you taking Lodgers?
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.
I dont like that either,let me know when you find us with a 1 seed in ChicagoNot sure why you guys love Lunardi so much. What would be more accurate? One guy's biased bracket or 95 brackets accumulated into one?
http://www.bracketmatrix.com/
Latest Lundari update has Illini as a 7 seed in the East playing Memphis in Greensboro.
I think this would be a pretty good matchup for us actually.
Surely we’re a 4 or 5 seed if the tournament started todayAssuming seeds hold, then we would face Duke in the 2nd round.
^ 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.
I think this would be a pretty good matchup for us actually.
Bracket Matrix has some catch up to do. They have us as the 9th team in the BigI dont like that either,let me know when you find us with a 1 seed in Chicago
Thanks...interesting.Not sure why you guys love Lunardi so much. What would be more accurate? One guy's biased bracket or 95 brackets accumulated into one?
http://www.bracketmatrix.com/
Yeah, they only really update about twice per week at this time. Eventually goes to daily. Yes, I actually wrote to them to check this out!Bracket Matrix has some catch up to do. They have us as the 9th team in the Big
Yeah, they only really update about twice per week at this time. Eventually goes to daily. Yes, I actually wrote to them to check this out!