Bracketology

[GrayGhost77]

Almost the entire rotation was dealing with decently significant injuries. Trent was hurt and also then couldn't see out of one eye in the tourney. Grandson could barely play. Just a brutal time for all of that to happen

Yeah they were as good as anyone when fully healthy. Good rebounding team, excellent defense, and we had 3 guys who could shoot lights out from distance on any given night (Plummer, Trent, and Grandy). Good mix of old and young talent. Oh what could have been.

 

[Roundball Sage]

Lol, I work in valuation and financial consulting for large health systems and private physician practices.

I hope that the fact you work with health systems and doctors has nothing to do with your interest in Illini roundball. Not to say some of us couldn't have well used those services over the years with these early tournament wash-out disappointments and what that did to our health.

Do we take basketball too seriously sometimes? You know the old saying: Basketball isn't Life. It's more important than that!

 

[danielb927]

One caveat with the "underseeded opponent" conversation is that the deeper you go in a tournament, the more likely you are to face a team that was underseeded. That's partly because you just see more teams, and partly because the underseeded teams are more likely to have advanced too.

That doesn't apply much to us, though, because we haven't gone deep in the tourney.

For each of our 5 NCAAT games since 2021, here's the seed we were "treated like" given our opponent's KenPom ranking.

- In 2021 R1, Drexel played like a 15 seed -> we were "treated like" a 2 seed
- In 2021 R2, Loyola played like a 3 seed -> we were "treated like" a 6 seed
- In 2022 R1, UTC played like a 12 seed -> we were "treated like" a 5 seed
- In 2022 R2, Houston played like a 2 seed -> we were "treated like" a 7 seed
- In 2023 R1, Arkansas played like a 5 seed -> we were "treated like" a 12 seed

So while we've been seeded pretty close to our predictive strength, all 5 of our opponents have been under-seeded, by an average of 2.8 seed lines. That looks like bad luck to me, although I'm still not convinced there isn't some statistical reason that the average tournament opponent always looks "under-seeded" over time...

 

[Navy_illini]

I wanted to take a look back at some of our NCAA Tournament appearances to try to gauge just how much the BTT matters. Again, I just flatly reject that the Thursday and Friday results cannot sway anything ... if you want to say "the BTT doesn't matter," I would argue the earliest you could make that claim is for the semifinals on Saturday. It is of course relatively common knowledge that the finals on Sunday are NOT considered by the Committee (unless they have to hold a spot for a sub-.500 team or something). For simplicity's sake, I will look at our AP ranking, as I really don't feel like digging up old RPI metrics by week, if those are even available.

2000: We were 19-8 and ranked #21 going into the BTT. 2 wins vs. the top 25 on the year, both at home (#13 Ohio State and #16 Indiana). Realistically, I would have thought we'd be looking at a #7 or #6 seed or so with that resume, but I guess they did consider "how a team finished" back then, and we ended the regular season winning 8 of our last 9. In the BTT, we beat #13 Indiana, beat Penn State and lost to #5 Michigan State, giving us a 21-8 record on the morning of Selection Sunday. We earned a #4 seed in the Tournament. Even with that hot finish, I would think that getting another 2 wins in the BTT probably pushed us from a #5 to a #4.

2001: We beat a bad Purdue team and lost to an okay Indiana team in the BTT and still got a #1 seed, so I am guessing we indeed had that locked up before the BTT began.

2002: Going into the BTT, we were 23-7, ranked #10 and had just won 8 in a row to end the regular season. That seems like clearly a #3 seed to me. We beat a bad Minnesota team in the BTT before losing to #21 Ohio State on Saturday, to finish at 24-7 on Selection Sunday, earning us a #4 seed. I do not think it is a stretch to say another win over a top 25 OSU team on a neutral floor could have swapped us with the lowest #3 seed.

2003: We were 21-6, ranked #13 and finished the year winning 6 of 8. That looks like a #4 seed on merit (possibly a high #5), but we then proceeded to win three in Chicago and hang a BTT Championship banner ... and still got a #4 seed. So, nothing overly conclusive I guess, but it's worth noting that due to how the bracket played out in the BTT, our three wins (Northwestern, Indiana and Ohio State) were not very impressive. Still, those extra two wins before Selection Sunday likely didn't move the needle.

2004: The Committee must have REALLY not thought much of the Big Ten this year, because we were 24-5, ranked #12 and had just won 12 games in a row on Selection Sunday ... and we got a #5 seed. So clearly, the BTT did not matter this year.

2005: We likely had a #1 seed locked up in February. However, we went and won the BTT just for the fun of it.

2006: I firmly believe a bad BTT performance cost us a #3 seed this year. Going into the BTT, we were 25-5, ranked #9 and won 6 of our final 7 games (including two top 25 wins, one on the road). However, we lost our first BTT game to MSU, and Iowa (who won the BTT that year) got a #3 seed while being ranked #20 (!!) and we got a #4 seed. It seems patently obvious that a BTT win or two would have mattered here.

2007: Given that we were literally a #12 seed this year (ridiculous as a Power Five team), it seems plausible that our two wins in the BTT to get to Saturday likely snuck us into the field at all...

2013: I believe they had the removed "last 12 games" as a factor by this point due to unbalanced conference schedules. Man, this was a really weird year. We were 21-11 going into the BTT, and it seems clear that big wins earlier in the year (#10 Gonzaga, #8 OSU, #1 Indiana at #8 Minnesota) were carrying us big time. We ended up getting a #7 seed (which seemed really high to me that year, but what do I know??), but it is unclear if our one BTT win vs. Minnesota kept us off that #8 line.

2021: I think we pretty clearly had a #1 seed before the BTT, but beating a Tournament team in Rutgers and a top 10 Iowa team likely removed any and all doubt.

2022: This one is tough and requires speculation. We were 22-8 and #15 in the NET before the BTT, so we likely had a #4 seed already. However, it is unclear if getting two more Quad 1 wins (Indiana and Iowa on neutral floors) could have given us a shot at a #3 seed?

2023: Similarly to 2013, we were coasting on wins we got months ago. Going into the BTT, we were 20-11 and ranked #35 in the NET rankings, so that indicates a #9 seed (which we got). However, if we would have gotten past Penn State and Northwestern, we would have doubled our Quad 1 wins. That maybe only gets us up to a #8 seed (i.e., no difference), but if we then beat Indiana on the Saturday, I think that very well might have snuck us off the 8/9 line ... but impossible to say.

Anyway, I think my takeaway is that whether or not the BTT can fundamentally change your seed really depends on a few factors. The wins you get there need to be Quad 1 or Quad 2, and you need to have already been on the border between two seed lines for it to move the needle. I think we likely cost ourselves a better potential seed in both 2002 and 2006, and it's possible we did in 2022. I also think our good performance in the BTT clearly made a Selection Sunday difference in 2007. For other years, it seems to have been totally immaterial.

NCAA Tournament 2022 winners, losers: Texas A&M, Xavier among notable snubs from bracket on Selection Sunday

So your sample set you used is somewhat flawed as you pointed out. Most of the years you looked at the committee looked at how you finished the year


My biggest evidence conference tournaments mean very little look at Texas A&M last year and in 2022

In 2022 making the championship wasn’t enough to get in

Last year again making championship they were a 7th seed. Even winning 3 good games

I agree first round games may have an impact but later rounds not so much

 

[Iloveorangekoolaid]

Oh my, I had completely blocked that out of my mind. That was brutal!

Yeah I really don’t wanna play in Pittsburgh this year because I have too much PTSD from those 2 games in that arena.

 

[FreshlySqueezed]

One caveat with the "underseeded opponent" conversation is that the deeper you go in a tournament, the more likely you are to face a team that was underseeded. That's partly because you just see more teams, and partly because the underseeded teams are more likely to have advanced too.

That doesn't apply much to us, though, because we haven't gone deep in the tourney.

For each of our 5 NCAAT games since 2021, here's the seed we were "treated like" given our opponent's KenPom ranking.

- In 2021 R1, Drexel played like a 15 seed -> we were "treated like" a 2 seed
- In 2021 R2, Loyola played like a 3 seed -> we were "treated like" a 6 seed
- In 2022 R1, UTC played like a 12 seed -> we were "treated like" a 5 seed
- In 2022 R2, Houston played like a 2 seed -> we were "treated like" a 7 seed
- In 2023 R1, Arkansas played like a 5 seed -> we were "treated like" a 12 seed

So while we've been seeded pretty close to our predictive strength, all 5 of our opponents have been under-seeded, by an average of 2.8 seed lines. That looks like bad luck to me, although I'm still not convinced there isn't some statistical reason that the average tournament opponent always looks "under-seeded" over time...

Love the analysis. With regard to the bolded: maybe in totality, but I don't think that would be true in looking at only rounds 1 and 2... right?

But I've had a couple puffs, so I could be thinking about it wrong.

 

[Battle89]

Lol, I work in valuation and financial consulting for large health systems and private physician practices. So, there are Wednesdays when I get home to my wife and kid at 9:00 pm and Fridays where I more or less just chill and monitor my email and crack open my first weekend beer at 2:30 pm. But I like to get all work I have to do done immediately and use the time I am waiting on coworkers or clients to pursue my true passion of looking up obscure Illini basketball information and posting it on Illinois Loyalty.

 

[RabidDawgClassic]

They have the @Northwestern win we didn't get, the @MSU win we don't have yet, their home win over Marquette at least equals our FAU win, and their N-Virginia win is miles better than anything else on our resume.

Not sure that's a better basketball team, but it's a better resume. Outside of FAU we have beaten nobody.

But we have the at Michigan and vs Nebraska wins they didn’t get.

 

[jumpingjack]

Selfishly, I’d love Omaha. That’s just over two hours from Des Moines, so I’d be able to commute (albeit late on the first night) to see the Illini. But I don’t think that one’s happening.

If we end up in Omaha, I'm buying a round for regulars who make the trip. My darling has a condo in walking distance to the CHI, so I will be buying many of them.

 

[the national]

You didn't mention 2010 in your original post because obviously we didn't make the tournament, but it would have been interesting to see what would have happened with the committee if we got that double overtime win over Ohio State in the BTT semis. We were a 1 seed in the NIT so a win over the #5 team in the country may have bumped us into the tourney.

Minnesota likely snagged our NCAA spot after the semis because they beat a top ten team in Purdue to advance to the finals, while we missed out on our shot against the Buckeyes. They ended up getting in as an 11 seed even after losing by 29 to OSU in the championship. That would also have obviously been a very winnable BTT final game for the Illini if we had made it.

I appreciate your memory on this. I had totally forgotten the circumstances of that year and how razor thin our chances were (but not totally dead). In my mind now, years later, we were totally out of it but as you detailed, there was some reason for hope. Maybe I wasn’t crazy to think the tourney was possible back then. That is to say, before Groce totally broke my spirit of optimism.

 

[lstewart53x3]

Put me down for seeds don’t matter as much as match ups.

I understand there’s data that points to the higher your seed, the better your chances of advancing.

But how much of that is *because* of the seed? And how much of that is because the best teams gets the best seeds?

If you were to create a randomly generated bracket, you would still expect the best teams with the best resumes to advance the furthest in the tournament, even though they have no seeding advantage, right?

So I believe your seed matters less than how your team is playing coming into the tournament and who you’re matched up against.

 

[grue2]

Put me down for seeds don’t matter as much as match ups.

I understand there’s data that points to the higher your seed, the better your chances of advancing.

But how much of that is *because* of the seed? And how much of that is because the best teams gets the best seeds?

If you were to create a randomly generated bracket, you would still expect the best teams with the best resumes to advance the furthest in the tournament, even though they have no seeding advantage, right?

So I believe your seed matters less than how your team is playing coming into the tournament and who you’re matched up against.

I would expect the current recipients of the 1-3 seeds to have far lower winning percentage if they were randomly seeded. If for no other reason than they would be much more likely to meet another 1-3 seed in the first two rounds.

 

[lstewart53x3]

I would expect the current recipients of the 1-3 seeds to have far lower winning percentage if they were randomly seeded. If for no other reason than they would be much more likely to meet another 1-3 seed in the first two rounds.

Correct, they might not go as far as they would have gone with a seeded tournament, but you’d still expect Purdue (Bracket Matrix 1 Seed) to go further than Dayton (Bracket Matrix 4 Seed) in a randomly generated bracket, yes?

If you hosted 10 randomly generated bracket tournaments over the span of 10 years, you’d likely expect the best teams who had the best resumes entering the tournament to go the furthest in the tournament, right?

 

[OrangeBlue98]

Regarding seeding and matchups - let me just say this.

I'd MUCH rather be a 5 seed in a bracket with Arizona as the one seed and Iowa State as the 4 seed then be a 4 seed in a bracket with Houston as the 1 seed and South Carolina as the 5 seed. The former setup are both great matchups for Illinois, while I think the latter matchups are both really bad matchups.

 

[danielb927]

Correct, they might not go as far as they would have gone with a seeded tournament, but you’d still expect Purdue (Bracket Matrix 1 Seed) to go further than Dayton (Bracket Matrix 4 Seed) in a randomly generated bracket, yes?

If you hosted 10 randomly generated bracket tournaments over the span of 10 years, you’d likely expect the best teams who had the best resumes entering the tournament to go the furthest in the tournament, right?

Absolutely. Better teams are more likely to go far both because they're better and because they're given (by design) an easier path. Take out the second part, and you'd still expect them to go farther.

Edit re: the bolded - while this is true, your expectation shouldn't be as strong as it would be looking at a predictive system like KenPom. In this case, Purdue is #2 (a legit 1 seed) while Dayton is #23 (more like a 6 seed), so you'd probably do even better expecting Dayton to do a little worse than an "average" 4 seed-quality team.

 

[ChiefGritty]

But we have the at Michigan and vs Nebraska wins they didn’t get.

They did beat Nebraska at home.

Is at Michigan a worse loss than home to Maryland? It's a funnier loss, that's for sure.

 

[Bbuck21]

I need new kicks for the fishing boat. Plus my wife and I will be travelling to Florida the last week of March. We will be laying on the beaches, eating fresh seafood, watching Grapefruit League baseball (the we is maybe), and visiting beach front sports bars to catch the first 2 rounds of the tournamant. I'll have no problem having my wife's company for the Illini games, but it's going to take a little more maneuvering to see more games. These might be the only shoes I take to Florida. What do you think? Which way do I go?

 

[Toews]

I think Illini got a pretty nice draw last year (Kansas was about as weak as 1s come and Arkansas was about as good as we could have received considering the lower 8s were Big Ten teams). I wasn't surprised at all when Kansas lost to Arkansas. It's tough because some times your path will seem better the farther you get, but your team has to be good enough to get to that point. Loyola and Houston though were extremely tough situations.

 

[Fighter of the Nightman]

Regarding seeding and matchups - let me just say this.

I'd MUCH rather be a 5 seed in a bracket with Arizona as the one seed and Iowa State as the 4 seed then be a 4 seed in a bracket with Houston as the 1 seed and South Carolina as the 5 seed. The former setup are both great matchups for Illinois, while I think the latter matchups are both really bad matchups.

Let's just win out and stay off that 4/5 line all together. I don't know about anybody else, but I have nightmares about being a 4/5. At best, it has left great Illini teams losing in the Sweet Sixteen to #1 seeds that we just could not hang with ... at worst, it has been a quick end to an otherwise good season:

Modern NCAAT Format: Illinois as #4 or #5 Seed
1986: #4 seed. Lost in Second Round to #5 Alabama 58-56.
1990: #5 seed. Lost in First Round to #12 Dayton 88-86.
1998: #5 seed. Lost in Second Round to #4 Maryland 67-61.
2000: #4 seed. Lost in Second Round to #5 Florida 93-76.
2002: #4 seed. Lost in Sweet Sixteen to #1 Kansas 73-69.
2003: #4 seed. Lost in Second Round to #5 Notre Dame 68-60.
2004: #5 seed. Lost in Sweet Sixteen to #1 Duke 72-62.
2006: #4 seed. Lost in Second Round to #5 Washington 67-64.
2009: #5 seed. Lost in First Round to #12 Western Kentucky 76-72.
2002: #4 seed. Lost in Second Round to #5 Houston 68-53.

When you are on that 4/5 line, you are signing yourself up for a brutal battle in the Second Round with an equally matched team (or a potential First Round scare like in 2003 or 2022 even if you win). Then if you survive that fight to the finish, you likely have a #1 seed waiting for you.

I know the grass is not always greener, but as an Illini fan who has watched us lose earlier than I felt we should SO many times in the top half of the bracket, being a #3 seed just sounds so nice, haha.

 

[ChiefGritty]

2006: #4 seed. Lost in Second Round to #5 Washington 67-64.
2009: #5 seed. Lost in First Round to #12 Western Kentucky 76-72.

Urge to kill rising.

And of course Virginia Tech in a 5-12 game in between them.

 

[OrangeBlue98]

Urge to kill rising.

And of course Virginia Tech in a 5-12 game in between them.

That game was really the game for me that I knew Weber had to go. VT was dead to rights, we were clearly outplaying them, and we went into a shell and let them steal it. I get a lot of teams run clock, but Weber teams just took it to an extreme. I just hate playing not to lose anyway, and the way Illinois did it was tough to watch.

 

[GrayGhost77]

I need new kicks for the fishing boat. Plus my wife and I will be travelling to Florida the last week of March. We will be laying on the beaches, eating fresh seafood, watching Grapefruit League baseball (the we is maybe), and visiting beach front sports bars to catch the first 2 rounds of the tournamant. I'll have no problem having my wife's company for the Illini games, but it's going to take a little more maneuvering to see more games. These might be the only shoes I take to Florida. What do you think? Which way do I go?View attachment 30962View attachment 30960View attachment 30961

Go with the slightly more expensive ones.

 

[Dan]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1755989416605102552

 

[Bigtex]

Let's just win out and stay off that 4/5 line all together. I don't know about anybody else, but I have nightmares about being a 4/5. At best, it has left great Illini teams losing in the Sweet Sixteen to #1 seeds that we just could not hang with ... at worst, it has been a quick end to an otherwise good season:

Modern NCAAT Format: Illinois as #4 or #5 Seed
1986: #4 seed. Lost in Second Round to #5 Alabama 58-56.
1990: #5 seed. Lost in First Round to #12 Dayton 88-86.
1998: #5 seed. Lost in Second Round to #4 Maryland 67-61.
2000: #4 seed. Lost in Second Round to #5 Florida 93-76.
2002: #4 seed. Lost in Sweet Sixteen to #1 Kansas 73-69.
2003: #4 seed. Lost in Second Round to #5 Notre Dame 68-60.
2004: #5 seed. Lost in Sweet Sixteen to #1 Duke 72-62.
2006: #4 seed. Lost in Second Round to #5 Washington 67-64.
2009: #5 seed. Lost in First Round to #12 Western Kentucky 76-72.
2002: #4 seed. Lost in Second Round to #5 Houston 68-53.

When you are on that 4/5 line, you are signing yourself up for a brutal battle in the Second Round with an equally matched team (or a potential First Round scare like in 2003 or 2022 even if you win). Then if you survive that fight to the finish, you likely have a #1 seed waiting for you.

I know the grass is not always greener, but as an Illini fan who has watched us lose earlier than I felt we should SO many times in the top half of the bracket, being a #3 seed just sounds so nice, haha.

while your information is good not surprising since Illinois has only beaten a better team once when Illinois has a higher seed.
2011 we were the 9 seed and beat 8 seed UNLV

That is IT - it is amazing our NCAAT history just doesn't upset teams.

 

[OnlyOrange]

Oh my, I had completely blocked that out of my mind. That was brutal!

Lucky you. That play lives rent free in my head. I think about it on a weekly basis at least.