SuperMetroid
- Evanston
2/21 Polls & Bracketology - Illinois #15 in AP Poll
- Status
IlliniKat91
- Chicago, IL
Ain't nothing low key about that lol
I do not get the AP rankings and frankly our actual rank does not matter because it does not determine seeding
The selection committee put us as a 3 seed ahead of Wisconsin which was after our RU lost. So the voters are saying a victory against scUM at home is weighted more than a victory at MSU.
Wisky has a good resume and their win at PU looks really good.
Lots of tough games left for everyone nothing is set in stone. Need to beat O$U
The selection committee put us as a 3 seed ahead of Wisconsin which was after our RU lost. So the voters are saying a victory against scUM at home is weighted more than a victory at MSU.
Wisky has a good resume and their win at PU looks really good.
Lots of tough games left for everyone nothing is set in stone. Need to beat O$U
I think it's more so about rewarding the teams directly behind us for winning rather than penalizing us for losing at Rutgers. As you said, these rankings don't mean a lot. But I still expect us to be in the top 10 by the time the B1G tourney rolls around. If we're not, then we shouldn't be.
Are we had of advertisement?
GrayGhost77
- Centennial, CO
I like our chances against Loyola a second time.
I know this thread is for NCAA brackets, but I've been playing with the B1G bracket generator. http://bball.notnothing.net/big10.php?sport=mbb
It uses the Sagarin favorites for defaults. If I change only two results and have Michigan win at home against Rutgers followed by Rutgers winning at home against Wisconsin, then Wisconsin gets the 3rd seed and Michigan gets the 6th. That means if Michigan beats the 11-14 winner on Thursday, we get a Wisconsin-Michigan rematch on Friday. That could be pretty intense.
It uses the Sagarin favorites for defaults. If I change only two results and have Michigan win at home against Rutgers followed by Rutgers winning at home against Wisconsin, then Wisconsin gets the 3rd seed and Michigan gets the 6th. That means if Michigan beats the 11-14 winner on Thursday, we get a Wisconsin-Michigan rematch on Friday. That could be pretty intense.
Homecoming 2019
- Chicago
Finally sitting at a 3-seed, would be very happy if we end up in this position.
I like the 3/4 seed because I feel as if you're more likely to get a cinderella in the next round versus the top 2 seeds. I'd be curious to see the actual historical statistics to see if my theory holds water.
9 BIG teams, wow.
Fighter of the Nightman
- Chicago, IL
Some notes on the NET Rankings and a list of teams to root for down the stretch (assuming it doesn't impact our chances of a Big Ten Championship):
REALLY NEED TO ROOT FOR
Northwestern: Right now, NU sits at #77, making our win in Evanston Quad 2 and our win in Champaign Quad 3. If NU can finish in the top 75, all of a sudden we have another Quad 1 win AND another Quad 2 win. That could be huge for our resume. NU finishes vs. NEB, at PSU, at #25 IOWA and vs. MINN. I am hopeful that with that lineup of games, they can finish top 75, as they will likely want revenge on Minnesota, and a loss at Iowa shouldn't hurt their ranking too much.
Rutgers: Right now, RU is at #80, making our win in Champaign Quad 3 and our loss in Piscataway Quad 2. Similarly to NU, RU needs to sneak into the top 75 for our win to be Quad 2 and our loss to be Quad 1. Additionally, RU hosts Wisconsin in a monumental game for the Big Ten Championship, so we will all be rooting for them there anyway. They finish with at MICH, vs. #13 WISC, at IND and vs. PSU. I think they can possibly win out, MAYBE with one loss, and I am optimistic that they'll sneak into the top 75 with the way they've been playing.
Kansas State: Brucie and the Boyz currently sit at #60, and they are actually playing pretty well. If they finish in the top 50, we will have another Quad 1 win because the game was at a neutral site. They finish at #5 KU, vs. ISU, at #9 TTU and vs. OU. It would also help us with seeding if they shocked one of KU or TTU! So, we gotta root for our former coach here, but I am not so optimistic they can sneak into the top 50, unfortunately.
Cincinnati: UC has really taken a turn since demolishing us in Kansas City, lol. They're currently #88, and we need them to stay in the top 100 to avoid that being our first loss outside of Quad 1 and Quad 2.
Michigan State: MSU has floundered its way to #29, meaning our home win against them is hanging on to Quad 1 status by a thread (the win in East Lansing will be Quad 1 no matter what). They play at #25 Iowa tonight, and I have to think we root for MSU here. Their next games are fairly rough, with vs. #4 PUR, at MICH, at #22 OSU and vs. UMD. Knocking off Purdue in East Lansing would also, needless to say, help us in the Big Ten Championship race.
We could also theoretically be rooting for Michigan, as our win vs. them recently became Quad 2 due to them dropping to #34, but I think it conflicts with too many other things. We ALREADY have two wins against MSU, so I would assume keep them in the top 30 and root for them to win in Ann Arbor, and if we win in Ann Arbor on Sunday, it will be Quad 1 regardless. Also ... I just hate Michigan, lol.
Our remaining games really do provide us the opportunity to play ourselves into a fantastic seed and possibly a path of orange-clad arenas through Milwaukee and Chicago. This kind of surprised me, but we have as many Quad 1 wins as Arizona and 1 fewer than Kentucky (consensus 1-seeds right now), and we have a lot more opportunities than either down the stretch to improve upon that:
vs. #18 Ohio State (Quad 1, very likely to stay that way)
at #34 Michigan (Quad 1, 100% will stay that way)
vs. #84 Penn State (Quad 3 ... CANNOT LOSE, as this is very unlikely to even get up to a Quad 2...)
vs. #19 Iowa (Quad 1, very likely to stay that way)
It's exciting that in the next couple of weeks, our NCAA status could take a WILD swing upward. Just keep winning!
REALLY NEED TO ROOT FOR
Northwestern: Right now, NU sits at #77, making our win in Evanston Quad 2 and our win in Champaign Quad 3. If NU can finish in the top 75, all of a sudden we have another Quad 1 win AND another Quad 2 win. That could be huge for our resume. NU finishes vs. NEB, at PSU, at #25 IOWA and vs. MINN. I am hopeful that with that lineup of games, they can finish top 75, as they will likely want revenge on Minnesota, and a loss at Iowa shouldn't hurt their ranking too much.
Rutgers: Right now, RU is at #80, making our win in Champaign Quad 3 and our loss in Piscataway Quad 2. Similarly to NU, RU needs to sneak into the top 75 for our win to be Quad 2 and our loss to be Quad 1. Additionally, RU hosts Wisconsin in a monumental game for the Big Ten Championship, so we will all be rooting for them there anyway. They finish with at MICH, vs. #13 WISC, at IND and vs. PSU. I think they can possibly win out, MAYBE with one loss, and I am optimistic that they'll sneak into the top 75 with the way they've been playing.
Kansas State: Brucie and the Boyz currently sit at #60, and they are actually playing pretty well. If they finish in the top 50, we will have another Quad 1 win because the game was at a neutral site. They finish at #5 KU, vs. ISU, at #9 TTU and vs. OU. It would also help us with seeding if they shocked one of KU or TTU! So, we gotta root for our former coach here, but I am not so optimistic they can sneak into the top 50, unfortunately.
Cincinnati: UC has really taken a turn since demolishing us in Kansas City, lol. They're currently #88, and we need them to stay in the top 100 to avoid that being our first loss outside of Quad 1 and Quad 2.
Michigan State: MSU has floundered its way to #29, meaning our home win against them is hanging on to Quad 1 status by a thread (the win in East Lansing will be Quad 1 no matter what). They play at #25 Iowa tonight, and I have to think we root for MSU here. Their next games are fairly rough, with vs. #4 PUR, at MICH, at #22 OSU and vs. UMD. Knocking off Purdue in East Lansing would also, needless to say, help us in the Big Ten Championship race.
We could also theoretically be rooting for Michigan, as our win vs. them recently became Quad 2 due to them dropping to #34, but I think it conflicts with too many other things. We ALREADY have two wins against MSU, so I would assume keep them in the top 30 and root for them to win in Ann Arbor, and if we win in Ann Arbor on Sunday, it will be Quad 1 regardless. Also ... I just hate Michigan, lol.
Our remaining games really do provide us the opportunity to play ourselves into a fantastic seed and possibly a path of orange-clad arenas through Milwaukee and Chicago. This kind of surprised me, but we have as many Quad 1 wins as Arizona and 1 fewer than Kentucky (consensus 1-seeds right now), and we have a lot more opportunities than either down the stretch to improve upon that:
vs. #18 Ohio State (Quad 1, very likely to stay that way)
at #34 Michigan (Quad 1, 100% will stay that way)
vs. #84 Penn State (Quad 3 ... CANNOT LOSE, as this is very unlikely to even get up to a Quad 2...)
vs. #19 Iowa (Quad 1, very likely to stay that way)
It's exciting that in the next couple of weeks, our NCAA status could take a WILD swing upward. Just keep winning!
Last edited:
BracketOdds - How Far Does Each Seed Advance?
March Madness: What are the odds? A tool for bracketologists.
Traditionally, the 2 vs 7/10 game is much easier than the 3 vs 6/11. And looking at the matrix right now, those 6 seeds look much scarier than the 7 seeds IMO.
So it would be really nice to jump up to that 2 seed line. The 2 most likely teams to drop are Purdue and Baylor IMO. But maybe Duke will choke, the ACC is a cake walk this year but Duke has 3 straight road game plus the game against UNC to finish the season.
So it would be really nice to jump up to that 2 seed line. The 2 most likely teams to drop are Purdue and Baylor IMO. But maybe Duke will choke, the ACC is a cake walk this year but Duke has 3 straight road game plus the game against UNC to finish the season.
sacraig
- The desert
The fact that the 10 and 11 seeds have measurably more expected wins in the tournament than 9 seeds tells me the committee historically has a flaw in their seeding scheme.BracketOdds - How Far Does Each Seed Advance?
March Madness: What are the odds? A tool for bracketologists.bracketodds.cs.illinois.edu
I’m glad there’s a number of people like you on here that put so much effort into this kind of stuff…
Even though I’m currently more of a sit at the back of the room, free-loading slacker. …I wanted you to know I appreciate it. Thanks for keeping me informed and letting me cheat off your homework.
danielb927
Orange Krush Class of 2013
- Rochester, MN
Actually this doesn’t surprise me at all. I wouldn’t say it reveals a “flaw” in seeding — what it shows is that there is more separation in quality between teams at the top than in the middle seeds.
Consider the “usual” first 2 games for the 9, 10, and 11 seeds:
9 seed - 8/1
10 seed - 7/2
11 seed - 6/3.
In all cases the average opponent seed is the same: 4.5. But the average quality is not.
Let’s look at an example assuming perfect seeding for the 2022 season, today. We can think of every seed based on the KenPom average efficiency margin rating of the four teams on that seed line. So, “seed 1” is the average of KenPom ranked teams 1-4, “seed 2” is 5-8, and so on.
By this metric, here’s the strength of the opponent seedlines in question:
1 seeds: +29.0
2 seeds: +25.2
3 seeds: +24.6
6 seeds: +18.0
7 seeds: +16.2
8 seeds: +15.8
This means beating a 1 and an 8 is harder (average of +22.4) than a 7 and 2 (+20.7) or a 6 and 3 (+21.3).
Of course, there’s also some difference in the 9/10/11 teams themselves:
9 seeds: +15.4
10 seeds: +14.9
11 seeds: +14.4
This clearly doesn’t outweigh the jump in opponent strength going from 7/2 to 8/1.
Add to this that 1 seeds almost never lose in round 1, while 2/3 seeds somewhat commonly lose, and you can see why the 9 seeds usually leave earlier than 10s and 11s. Moving up to the 9 line gets you a slightly easier first game in exchange for a much harder second game.
Of course, in any given season, there’s a lot of extra noise, and it could certainly be that the committee’s system tends to bias the real seeding away from this. The point is that even with ideal seeding—perfect ordering of the teams based on actual quality—it can be easier to make the Sweet Sixteen as a 10 or 11 seed, because the quality of teams does not change linearly with ranking.
GallopingGhost
- Denver, CO
Very solid breakdown Dayman. Thanks for putting this together!
I understand the basics about the NET “rankings” and it is somewhat useful but it’s algorithm needs to be adjusted a little. I am glad there is a human in the loop and the NET doesn’t decide seeding
Look at a few numbers
4 Houston
16 LSU
21 St Mary’s
27 San Fran
43 IU
77 NW
80 RU
93 MD
Not all quad 1 wins are created equal
Look at a few numbers
4 Houston
16 LSU
21 St Mary’s
27 San Fran
43 IU
77 NW
80 RU
93 MD
Not all quad 1 wins are created equal
I think you can include Gonzaga in this list as well, and think the adjustment to NET needs to involve the exclusion of Q4 games.
There are only 2 losses total this season amongst teams ranked in the NET top 40 which historically has been a benchmark for receiving an at large bid. Only a very small percent of teams have earned at large bids not being ranked in the top 40 of the NET or RPI.
Given that essentially winning all of your Q4 games is a prerequisite for making the dance I don’t see the value in further assessing that victory as it impacts overall win percentage, and efficiency numbers. I think this is especially true when most P5 teams are using the early season Q4 wins as a learning experience, or extended practice to ease into the season.
With Q4 games excluded I think the home/neutral/away factors need to play a larger role in the overall metric.
Returning to the Gonzaga mention, and excluding their Q4 games they are 10-2 against the top 3 quadrants, with only 3 road games. They may actually be the best team in the country but I think the NET needs to better quantify teams like them who play very weak schedules. I think quite a few teams are capable of going 10-2 against their Q1-3 schedule. RPI has them at #14 due to their weak schedule, and I think that’s more appropriate.
By the way, Gonzagas non-con SOS is weaker than their conference so this isn’t something that’s out of their control. They have the 14th easiest non-con schedule of NET Top 40 teams.
College basketball's NET rankings, explained
Here's everything you need to know about college basketball's NET ranking system.
www.ncaa.com
pruman91
- Paducah, Ky
Gordo: Illini are getting stronger as NCAA Tournament draws closer
With March Madness just around the corner, most college basketball teams are who they are.
Jeff Gordon
With March Madness just around the corner, most college basketball teams are who they are.
Illinois, though, is gaining strength as the NCAA Tournament nears.
Currently, the Illini are widely projected as a No. 3 seed. Their return to full health, the maturation of their younger players and their increasing team toughness make them a serious Final Four threat.“The mentality has got to be, ‘It’s February, it’s hard, it’s tough, nothing’s easy,’” coach Brad Underwood said after the Illini ground out a 79-74 victory Saturday at Michigan State. “And staying connected is the biggest part of that, and together, we learn to fight for who we are and not our individual stuff.”
“I’m really trying to find a rotation pattern,” Underwood said Saturday. “I felt pretty good about that tonight, making sure the guys had the right type of minutes.”
Long-distance shooter Alfonso Plummer went cold in the past two games, missing all seven 3-point attempts. For a team that relies on spreading the floor with perimeter shooters and working inside-out with Cockburn, this is problematic. But Jacob Grandison came out firing at Michigan State. He scored 24 points, with 6-for-10 shooting from 3-point range after scoring just 20 points in his previous four games.
---------------------------------------------------------------
good read
I don’t know about weaker than their conference schedule, but it was not as tough as it could’ve have been. They did play 3 top 25 NET teams.I think you can include Gonzaga in this list as well, and think the adjustment to NET needs to involve the exclusion of Q4 games.
There are only 2 losses total this season amongst teams ranked in the NET top 40 which historically has been a benchmark for receiving an at large bid. Only a very small percent of teams have earned at large bids not being ranked in the top 40 of the NET or RPI.
Given that essentially winning all of your Q4 games is a prerequisite for making the dance I don’t see the value in further assessing that victory as it impacts overall win percentage, and efficiency numbers. I think this is especially true when most P5 teams are using the early season Q4 wins as a learning experience, or extended practice to ease into the season.
With Q4 games excluded I think the home/neutral/away factors need to play a larger role in the overall metric.
Returning to the Gonzaga mention, and excluding their Q4 games they are 10-2 against the top 3 quadrants, with only 3 road games. They may actually be the best team in the country but I think the NET needs to better quantify teams like them who play very weak schedules. I think quite a few teams are capable of going 10-2 against their Q1-3 schedule. RPI has them at #14 due to their weak schedule, and I think that’s more appropriate.
By the way, Gonzagas non-con SOS is weaker than their conference so this isn’t something that’s out of their control. They have the 14th easiest non-con schedule of NET Top 40 teams.
College basketball's NET rankings, explained
Here's everything you need to know about college basketball's NET ranking system.
I don’t like it, but it seems to me that Gonzaga is ranked right where they belong. The BIG had 8 teams in the tourney last year but failed to send even 1 team to the final four. Gonzaga played for the National Championship. This isn’t an anomaly either as Gonzaga has made it to the second week of the tournament every year since 2015!I think you can include Gonzaga in this list as well, and think the adjustment to NET needs to involve the exclusion of Q4 games.
There are only 2 losses total this season amongst teams ranked in the NET top 40 which historically has been a benchmark for receiving an at large bid. Only a very small percent of teams have earned at large bids not being ranked in the top 40 of the NET or RPI.
Given that essentially winning all of your Q4 games is a prerequisite for making the dance I don’t see the value in further assessing that victory as it impacts overall win percentage, and efficiency numbers. I think this is especially true when most P5 teams are using the early season Q4 wins as a learning experience, or extended practice to ease into the season.
With Q4 games excluded I think the home/neutral/away factors need to play a larger role in the overall metric.
Returning to the Gonzaga mention, and excluding their Q4 games they are 10-2 against the top 3 quadrants, with only 3 road games. They may actually be the best team in the country but I think the NET needs to better quantify teams like them who play very weak schedules. I think quite a few teams are capable of going 10-2 against their Q1-3 schedule. RPI has them at #14 due to their weak schedule, and I think that’s more appropriate.
By the way, Gonzagas non-con SOS is weaker than their conference so this isn’t something that’s out of their control. They have the 14th easiest non-con schedule of NET Top 40 teams.
College basketball's NET rankings, explained
Here's everything you need to know about college basketball's NET ranking system.
I think you can include Gonzaga in this list as well, and think the adjustment to NET needs to involve the exclusion of Q4 games.
There are only 2 losses total this season amongst teams ranked in the NET top 40 which historically has been a benchmark for receiving an at large bid. Only a very small percent of teams have earned at large bids not being ranked in the top 40 of the NET or RPI.
Given that essentially winning all of your Q4 games is a prerequisite for making the dance I don’t see the value in further assessing that victory as it impacts overall win percentage, and efficiency numbers. I think this is especially true when most P5 teams are using the early season Q4 wins as a learning experience, or extended practice to ease into the season.
With Q4 games excluded I think the home/neutral/away factors need to play a larger role in the overall metric.
Returning to the Gonzaga mention, and excluding their Q4 games they are 10-2 against the top 3 quadrants, with only 3 road games. They may actually be the best team in the country but I think the NET needs to better quantify teams like them who play very weak schedules. I think quite a few teams are capable of going 10-2 against their Q1-3 schedule. RPI has them at #14 due to their weak schedule, and I think that’s more appropriate.
By the way, Gonzagas non-con SOS is weaker than their conference so this isn’t something that’s out of their control. They have the 14th easiest non-con schedule of NET Top 40 teams.
College basketball's NET rankings, explained
Here's everything you need to know about college basketball's NET ranking system.
On Torvik you can filter games to whatever quad difficulty you want. I filtered to only rank teams based on quad 2 or better games and the top 25 is almost the exact same. Gonzaga is still clearly the best team according to the rankings. I think the NET is doing a pretty good job.
- Status