NCAA Tournament Bracketology

Status
Not open for further replies.
#26
By “win out” are we talking regular season or B10 tourney too?

I think winning out would easily be in consideration for a top 4 seed. Thats 5 more Q1 wins for 10-12 total depending on how Rutgers and Purdue finish. Only 3 teams currently have more than 8; kansas, baylor, seton hall. Only 12 teams have more than 6 currently.
 
#28
Charleston
Still think some posters who keep talking about a 4 seed are sniffing the glue. B1G record is completely irrelevant. I don't even think they see it on the form. Its total season record, and our NC sucks, we have to own that for the whole season.
So, I think you might need some of that glue. Winning out and winning the BTT puts us at 25-9. Are you saying we would not be a top 16 team on an 8 game winning streak?
Seriously? Win out, we get top 4, maybe even a3 (which is what I said two weeks ago. ;)
 
#30
If we win out the regular season (in other words, win at #16 NET OSU and vs. #29 NET Iowa), we would be sitting at 22-9 on the regular season in the toughest conference in the country, possibly as its champion. I literally don't care who we lost to or what our NET is, that would be a 4-seed or 5-seed, depending on what we do in the BTT. :)
 
Last edited:
Likes: illini55
#33
Am I reading it correctly that he has us in as the lowest ranked 8 seed?
Yes, which is odd because last bracket he had us playing a lower seeded 1. Kansas is the #1 overall so i am very frustrated at this and i would not be shocked if they put us up for a possible match with self to create a buzz. I dont want that. We really need to win another 4 or so games in a row
Just because we keep winning doesnt mean we move up. The teams above us or close to us need to lost to jump them. Maybe beating OSU at OSU would help us jump them.
Baylor or Sand Deigo State losing doesnt really help us any, Now Texas Tech or someone like that could move us up.
 
#34
There is a single bracket on bracketmatrix that currently has us missing the tournament entirely as an NIT 1-seed.
yeah, there is something wrong with that place...If you click on the Illinois link & then on the KPI column it puts our wins/losses from worst to best... but after the Missouri/Miami losses, the next lowest score is for the Rutgers road loss. (they don't think much of Rutgers) They think less of NW at there place, than half of our non-conf patsies at our place. Seems like maybe they average those scores & all the weak teams hurt us if you don't totally blow them out.
kpi.png
 
Last edited:
Likes: cuillini
#36
San Bernardino, Ca.
yeah, there is something wrong with that place...If you click on the Illinois link & then on the KPI column it puts our wins/losses from worst to best... but after the Missouri/Miami losses, the next lowest score is for the Rutgers road loss. (they don't think much of Rutgers) They think less of NW at there place, than half of our non-conf patsies at our place. Seems like maybe they average those scores & all the weak teams hurt us if you don't totally blow them out.
View attachment 5791
I was just going to address this bracket. He doesn't seem to like anyone in the B10. For example, Michigan is listed as a 6 seed, he has them for a 10. In fact he has every B10 team rated worse than the bracketmatrix average. He's got some obvious bias built into his model.
 
#37
That is more logical and makes a little more sense now. Scheduling bunnies at the beginning doesn’t help.. wish we didn’t have the loss against Miami and Missouri ... those two hurt
Losing by 21 to AZ didn't help, nor did winning tight games vs Nichols, Grand Canyon, etc...

That all goes into it. Our non conference performance was as awful as our conference performance is outstanding. Take both into consideration and we're at an 8 or 9.

Now, I'm in favor of either of these options:

Win out and get a 6 or lose out and get a 10. Both are better scenarios than the dreaded 8/9.
 
Likes: BlueLeader
#38
Really appreciate how it looks like they just inserted the Big Ten standings into the latter half of the rankings this week.

The Big Ten is going to collectively wreak some havoc in the NCAA tournament. Can't wait for the mayhem to begin!
I see the Big Ten with multiple teams in the sweet 16, but none in the Final Four. It's the deepest conference in the country(by far), but MSU without Langford and Maryland without depth....no true threat to cut the nets down.
 
#39
I was just going to address this bracket. He doesn't seem to like anyone in the B10. For example, Michigan is listed as a 6 seed, he has them for a 10. In fact he has every B10 team rated worse than the bracketmatrix average. He's got some obvious bias built into his model.
Haha, that makes sense when you read his bio on his previous site kpisports.net...
"The idea for KPI first came the summer of 2003 while a student manager for the basketball team at Michigan State and searching for a better way to calculate a team’s RPI. The Master Schedule file – “a great abuse of Microsoft Excel” (of which I was absolved in 2010) – has evolved incredibly over more than a decade – coming along for my rides as Video Coordinator at Michigan State, Data Analyst at the Big Ten Conference and back to Michigan State in 2009 as Director of Basketball Operations before moving into the role of Assistant Athletic Director at MSU in 2015. The name for the formula started as a pun from my initials (KP, also what most people call me) and doesn’t necessarily stand for anything. The “Kevin Pauga Index” has been its assumed meaning, but now that the KPI Sports idea is more than just one ranking system and formula, it’s a bit more tough to tell."
 
#43
Lunardi still has us as an 8 seed after the IU win
The great and powerful Lunardi had us as an 8 seed since before the Penn State road victory. Four game winning streak later, we still haven't moved off the 8. He might be losing some of his magic.
How much has Illini’s NET changed during that 4 game winning streak? My guess is not much. PSU was a very good win, but other 3 the Illini were “supposed” to win. Based on last year’s seedings and the teams’ NET rankings, 8 is about right. Next two games and BTT are when the Illini can make some movement up the seeding ladder.
 
#44
Lunardi still has us as an 8 seed. Has IU as a 10. My opinion - we should be a 7 and Indiana first 4 out. He certainly doesn't seem to like us too much
If we are still considered an 8 seed because our losses to Miami and Missouri then shouldn't Duke be considered a 4 or 5 seed because of their losses to Wake Forest and Clemson or Kentucky be considered a 4 or 5 seed because of their losses to Evansville and Utah? Just saying!
 
#45
How much has Illini’s NET changed during that 4 game winning streak? My guess is not much. PSU was a very good win, but other 3 the Illini were “supposed” to win. Based on last year’s seedings and the teams’ NET rankings, 8 is about right. Next two games and BTT are when the Illini can make some movement up the seeding ladder.
Exactly. Last 3 games were simply solidfying our place as an 7-9 seed. You can't move up by beating 3 teams you are supposed to beat. These next 2 games and the BTT is when we can make some big moves.
 
#46
If we are still considered an 8 seed because our losses to Miami and Missouri then shouldn't Duke be considered a 4 or 5 seed because of their losses to Wake Forest and Clemson or Kentucky be considered a 4 or 5 seed because of their losses to Evansville and Utah? Just saying!
Duke’s NET is 6. One could argue Lunardi has them to low. KY is 14, so 3 may be right. Haven’t really paid much attention to what teams are 2, 3, and 4 seeds.
 
#47
Still think some posters who keep talking about a 4 seed are sniffing the glue. B1G record is completely irrelevant. I don't even think they see it on the form. Its total season record, and our NC sucks, we have to own that for the whole season.
If this was a purely computer driven model, we wouldn't have a selection committee.

You can bet damn well that they know how teams have improved over the course of a season. I don't care what's on "the form". The selection committee will apply a good deal of gut and common sense as well as television ratings to their selections.
 
#48
Lunardi is great at picking the field (a lot of "experts" are, most of the teams are really clear). Seeding, not so much. The top few seeds he gets right, after that, as is to be expected, not so much.

In my totally uneducated opinion, depending on how the last 2 plus the B1G Tourney play out, we could see anywhere from a 5-10. Loose out, 10, win out 5. A mixture of Ws & Ls and somewhere 6-9.

Personally, I'm thrilled regardless and gonna really enjoy an NCAA tournament with Illinois participating again. Abrams, Egwu, BP3 and Co. vs. Shane Larkin and a brutal out of bounds call seems like so long ago!
 
#49
Forgottonia
If this was a purely computer driven model, we wouldn't have a selection committee.

You can bet damn well that they know how teams have improved over the course of a season. I don't care what's on "the form". The selection committee will apply a good deal of gut and common sense as well as television ratings to their selections.
No one knows exactly how the decisions will be made because there is a human factor. Net is a guidance. I don’t believe tv matchups should be a part of seeding, but clearly they are. I assume that comes into play after the selections are made. There was a point of emphasis in the past to weigh the last 10 more heavily than the earlier games. That was taken out several years ago and they are supposed to weigh all games the same. Of course the human element comes into play at that point. If you look at the AP poll they clearly have more of a recency bias. I feel good about where we are and the way we are playing. That’s all we can control at this point, so the rest is just noise to me. 🤷‍♂️

Other than the tourney winners, it never seemed to me that conference tourney games meant as much as regular season games. I’ve never heard how that is addressed officially. Anyone know? McCamey’s last year we had a decent tourney run but it didn’t seem to matter iirc.
 
Last edited:
#50
That is more logical and makes a little more sense now. Scheduling bunnies at the beginning doesn’t help.. wish we didn’t have the loss against Miami and Missouri ... those two hurt
The Missouri loss is currently only a Quad 2 loss, and most teams above us in Net Rankings have at least one Quad 2 loss. The Miami loss is a Quadrant 3 loss and only 11 teams above us have Quad 3 losses (Kentucky has a Quad 4 loss...).

Net Rankings can be difficult to understand simply based on Quadrant wins/losses. For example, Arizona (who is ranked well above us in Net) has two Quadrant 2 losses and one Quadrant 3 loss. They only have three Quad 1 wins, and we have five....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.