NCAA Tournament Bracketology

Status
Not open for further replies.
#26
Mad Scientist
Arizona, USA
It’s ridiculous for UM and PSU to be higher seeds than we are. Iowa should be no more than the same seed, and tOSU should be on our line as well. BIG regular season doesn’t count for much if you finish in the top four of a loaded conference and teams under you are considered better.
Say it with me now:

We had a terrible non-conference slate and even more terrible performance. Those games still count.
 
#30
South Carolina
No one seems to be predicting us as a 6 seed and playing in STL. How sweet that would be...
With potentially ten Big 10 teams in the tournament, the overall conference champ and highest rated team should be given a Midwest venue and the other 9 geographical locations will be a crap shoot. Personally, I'm hoping for Greensboro and either San Diego State, Utah State, BYU or Arizona in game #2.
 
#31
Jerry Palm seems to have it right this morning on the CBS web site. He has us safely securing a 6-seed and I would argue that we should still be higher than Penn State, whom he has as a 5-seed. (They've lost 5 of 6, finished 11-9 in the Big 10 and those factors will count......at least in the backs of the minds of the Committee.) Generally speaking and without knowing anything about prospective conference tournament upsets, I would suggest:

Win 3 games = 4 seed (24-10 and Big 10 champs)
Win 2 games = 5 seed (23-11)
Win 1 game = 6 seed (22-11)
Win 0 games = 7 seed (21-11)

A 6-seed gives us a game against an 11-seed, which could be one of the First 4 teams (i.e. currently UCLA, Cincinnati, Wichita St. or Richmond.)
I agree with this, with the possibility for an 8-seed if we lose our first BTT game. It would be so nice to go on a run to the BTT championship and secure a possible top 4 seed, given those are the ones that are officially advertised as geographically protected ... playing in St. Louis would be awesome. And a run to the BTT with this bracket is very doable, if a challenge.

Also, RE: the 5- vs. 6-seed, I like the 6 especially this year, as the dropoff from the top 2 seeds to the 3 seeds is significant ... hell, I'd argue we have put together a 3-seed body of work since the new year, so that's practically our neighborhood and we can take those teams (i.e., make the Sweet Sixteen!).
 
#32
Beat Iowa, feel great, 6 seed or better.
Lose to Iowa- doesn’t hurt our seed, full week off and presumably a 7 seed or better.

Beat MN/NW, so what, doesn’t help seed.
Lose to MN/NW, potential to fall to an 8 seed.

I want Iowa.
 
Likes: foby
#34
North Bethesda, Maryland
Say it with me now:

We had a terrible non-conference slate and even more terrible performance. Those games still count.
I get what you mean, but I’m reacting based on who we are now, not then. Also, I’m a fan...that means I don’t have to think logically all the time 😉
 
Likes: WizardBill
#38
I want the highest seed because I think we can and should beat anyone first round. We aren’t a team dependent on shooting. We win by defense, rebounding, size, clutch play late in the game. So it benefits us second round and hopefully beyond to be a higher seed.

5-12 match up and upset is for teams that are weak! We’re not that team, even if we haven’t been in the tourne recently. End rant.

Credit: also IPA’s
 
#39
Say it with me now:

We had a terrible non-conference slate and even more terrible performance. Those games still count.
Everyone keeps saying this. It feels like everyone weighs the beginning of the season heavier than the end, rather than equal. I get that we have 21 wins or whatever because we played crappy teams in the beginning of the year. And we have some losses against some of those crappy teams. BUT, when you compare teams in the same conference, those records SHOULD have weight and be compared and head to head SHOULD count for something..AKA Michigan had a worse conference record, we beat them twice, and our overall record is better; it is nuts that anyone would rank them ahead of us.
 
#41
As of March 9th ESPN, we are a 7th seed out of the East Bracket with Dayton a #1 and Kentucky a #2...this bracket would be the most favorable imo if it comes to fruition....Nova, Mich, Butler, Maryland are ahead of us here as well....very winnable imo.

Katz has us as a #5 seed from the same region, with # 1 Dayton, Duke, Creighton, Maryland ahead of us.

NBC has us a 7 seed in the Midwest-Kansas a #1 with BYU, Louisville, Iowa, Kentucky all ahead of us.

CBS has us a #6 in the Midwest with # 1 Kansas, Wisky, Duke, Kentucky, Creighton all ahead of us....brutal if this happens.

SB Nation has us #8 in the South region with Baylor #1 and Auburn, MSU, Louiville, Seton Hall ahead of us.

USA Today has us Midwest # 7 with # 1 Kansas, Butler, Ville, Dayton, Nova and BYU ahead of us.

I believe we ultimately end up a # 6 seed, either way it is so good to be talking NCAA tourney again for us seeding status and who can we beat etc...

ESPN version as far as teams and NBC version would be the best scenario though I think.
 
#42
As of March 9th ESPN, we are a 7th seed out of the East Bracket with Dayton a #1 and Kentucky a #2...this bracket would be the most favorable imo if it comes to fruition....Nova, Mich, Butler, Maryland are ahead of us here as well....very winnable imo.

Katz has us as a #5 seed from the same region, with # 1 Dayton, Duke, Creighton, Maryland ahead of us.

NBC has us a 7 seed in the Midwest-Kansas a #1 with BYU, Louisville, Iowa, Kentucky all ahead of us.

CBS has us a #6 in the Midwest with # 1 Kansas, Wisky, Duke, Kentucky, Creighton all ahead of us....brutal if this happens.

SB Nation has us #8 in the South region with Baylor #1 and Auburn, MSU, Louiville, Seton Hall ahead of us.

USA Today has us Midwest # 7 with # 1 Kansas, Butler, Ville, Dayton, Nova and BYU ahead of us.

I believe we ultimately end up a # 6 seed, either way it is so good to be talking NCAA tourney again for us seeding status and who can we beat etc...

ESPN version as far as teams and NBC version would be the best scenario though I think.
bracketmatrix.com is probably the best judge of our current seed. They also have rankings of who has been the best predictor over the past 5 years. The top dog being bracketville who has us as a 7 currently w/ Kansas/Creighton as 1/2.
 
#43
Everyone keeps saying this. It feels like everyone weighs the beginning of the season heavier than the end, rather than equal. I get that we have 21 wins or whatever because we played crappy teams in the beginning of the year. And we have some losses against some of those crappy teams. BUT, when you compare teams in the same conference, those records SHOULD have weight and be compared and head to head SHOULD count for something..AKA Michigan had a worse conference record, we beat them twice, and our overall record is better; it is nuts that anyone would rank them ahead of us.
This is ridiculous. They are higher in every metric and have a more quality resume. They don't have a bad loss and have multiple high tier wins. Conference standings and head to head means nothing when you look at the resume.

Michigan top 5 wins by net
Gonzaga- #3
Creighton- #11
Migh St- #7
Rutgers- #32
Purdue- #33

Michigan worst loses by net
Indiana- #60
Illinois- #38
Minnesota- #43
Iowa- #34
Penn State- #35

Illinois best wins by net
Wisconsin- #24
Michigan- #25
Rutgers- #32
Purdue- #33
Iowa- #34

Illinois worst loses by net
Miami- #102
Missouri-#84
Iowa- #34
Rutgers-#32
Maryland- #18
 
#44
South Carolina
Interesting NCAA Tournament stats for the Illini since Lou's first appearance in 1981, once the seeding process had been incorporated two years earlier. Our record over that span is 31-25:

Wins:
Tourney wins when playing a worse seed: 29 (we were favored to win these games)
Upset wins when playing a better seed: 2 (#4 seed Cincy in 2004 and #8 seed UNLV in 2011)

Losses:
Losses against a higher seed/better team: 11 (we were supposed to lose these games)
Upset losses against worse seeds: 14 (we were likely favored in these games, and we left the court disappointed)


Note: Our overall record dating back to the 1940's is 40-31 and we've played in 5 Final Fours.
 
#45
I get how our non-conference record is hurting the NET ranking, but I thought after our winning streak we made it as high as 29, then we lost 4 in a row and slipped to the mid 30s. We have been 4-1 since then and have dropped another 4 spots. We beat Iowa and they stay at 34 and we drop from 38->39. I don't get it.
 
#46
I'd almost prefer the 6 seed to the 5 seed. The 5/12 seed matchup seems like it ends up in an upset a lot of the time.
Careful.

CBS Sports:

"History of 12 vs. 5 seeds in March Madness
There have been 50 upsets by 12-seeds since the NCAA tournament field expanded in 1985. That means the lower seed is 50-90, equating to a 35.71 win percentage."

"History of 11 vs. 6 seeds in March Madness
There have been 52 No. 11 seeds that have defeated No. 6 seeds (37.1 percent) since the NCAA tournament field expanded in 1985."
 
#47
Significant news developing. This is the governor of Ohio, the state that is home to the First Four one week from today and first round games in Cleveland on March 20 and 22. Governor is saying no fans in the building for NCAA Tournament games
 
#48
Significant news developing. This is the governor of Ohio, the state that is home to the First Four one week from today and first round games in Cleveland on March 20 and 22. Governor is saying no fans in the building for NCAA Tournament games
Sounds like it's his opinion and not enforceable (yet) but that would really suck.
 
#49
This is ridiculous. They are higher in every metric and have a more quality resume. They don't have a bad loss and have multiple high tier wins. Conference standings and head to head means nothing when you look at the resume.

Michigan top 5 wins by net
Gonzaga- #3
Creighton- #11
Migh St- #7
Rutgers- #32
Purdue- #33

Michigan worst loses by net
Indiana- #60
Illinois- #38
Minnesota- #43
Iowa- #34
Penn State- #35

Illinois best wins by net
Wisconsin- #24
Michigan- #25
Rutgers- #32
Purdue- #33
Iowa- #34

Illinois worst loses by net
Miami- #102
Missouri-#84
Iowa- #34
Rutgers-#32
Maryland- #18
Sure, I get what you are saying. Resume and all that. It just seems weird to me. We beat them twice. We have better conference record (against like teams, thought not exactly same). Ultimately, with a similarly rated team, I feel like it'd be hard to really say "I think Michigan is better than Illinois, even though Illinois beat them twice and Illinois has a better conference record."

I totally understand that is not how resumes work and they are not going to compare Illinois directly to Michigan.

Also, I get that just because you beat someone doesn't mean you are a better team. There are upsets and whatnot. I concede that they may possibly have a better resume.
 
#50
I posted a couple of weeks ago this was a possibility, and got feedback regarding that money interests would insure that games would be played. I commented that 2 weeks was a long time. Well...

Significant news developing. This is the governor of Ohio, the state that is home to the First Four one week from today and first round games in Cleveland on March 20 and 22. Governor is saying no fans in the building for NCAA Tournament games
That's not what he said. He's RECOMMENDING no large indoor gatherings for HS, College or Pro sports.

The NCAA and the NBA couldn't give less of a darn what he recommends. Now, if public health officials and the NCAA Coronavirus panel deem it unsafe.....that's a different ballgame altogether. The NCAA would have to react in some fashion, which could include moving locations.

It will be interesting.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.