December Bracketology

[Fighter of the Nightman]

So, while I am no Bracketology expert, let's look at two recent resumes of ours - a #4 seed resume in 2022 and a #3 seed in 2024. Given it seems like a really important goal for us to stay above that #4 seed line and get a top 3 seed, this should be a relevant comparison. By the way, I am only listing the Away Record because that is what's saved in the NET Archives for each year ... kind of tells me the Committee indeed does value that!

2021-2022 | #4 Seed & #14 Overall Seed
Record: 22-9
NET Ranking: #15
NET SOS Rank: #21
Away Record: 7-4
Quad 1 Record: 6-6
Quad 2 Record: 6-3
Quad 3 Record: 6-0
Quad 4 Record: 4-0

2023-2024 | #3 Seed & #12 Overall Seed
Record: 26-8
NET Ranking: #13
NET SOS Rank: #35
Away Record: 6-5
Quad 1 Record: 8-6
Quad 2 Record: 6-1
Quad 3 Record: 7-1
Quad 4 Record: 5-0

Actually very similar resumes on paper, so some food for thought for the crowd that thinks zero BTT games matter. The 2022 team lost its first BTT game on Friday to #38 Indiana, a Quad 1 loss. The 2024 team won the BTT, so even if you discount the Sunday result, that was wins against #33 Nebraska and #49 Ohio State, both Quad 1 wins. You can tell me all you want that the 2024 team would have been a #3 seed even if we lost our first BTT game, but ... I will not believe you, lol. Anyway...

So looking strictly at our #10 NET Ranking this year, we would be "on track" for a #3 seed (i.e., in the top 12). Again, this is our resume today:

Record: 10-3
NET Ranking: #10
NET SOS Rank: N/A but this site has us at #7 ... not sure how B1G play will affect it.
Away Record: 1-0
Quad 1 Record: 3-3
Quad 2 Record: 1-0
Quad 3 Record: 0-0
Quad 4 Record: 6-0

I don't have a KenPom subscription of anything, but this is what would happen if you applied the ESPN App's win probability to our remaining games, we would only be underdogs at Purdue and vs. Michigan. I list the actual probabilities below, but obviously the ESPN App has a lot of faith in us. While we all know crazy stuff happens in college hoops, even as a "par" this is quite optimistic and would have us as a possible (likely?) #1 seed. So, I'll just assume that we can win every game where the probability is above 70.0% and go from there (yes, I know this allows us to escape out of Evanston this time...), listed here.

Expected Wins
W vs. #199 Rutgers (Q4) ... 96.9% W
W vs. #108 Minnesota (Q3) ... 92.7% W
W vs. #146 Maryland (Q3) ... 91.2% W
W vs. #97 Oregon (Q3) ... 90.4% W
W vs. #140 Penn State (Philadelphia, PA) [Q3] ... 89.2% W
W vs. #52 Washington (Q2) ... 88.8% W
W vs. #69 Northwestern (Q2) ... 87.9% W
W vs. #66 Wisconsin (Q2) ... 82.6% W
W at #146 Maryland (Q3) ... 78.0% W
W vs. #33 Indiana (Q2) ... 73.2% W
W at #69 Northwestern (Q1) ... 71.5%

---> That's 21 wins. The remaining games are ALL on the road, with the exception of Michigan. And none of them is going to be a walk in the park. There is one, however, that is above 60.0% and likely to be played in front of a very "meh" home court advantage:

Really Should Be a Win
W at #40 USC (Q1) ... 68.0% W

---> That's 22 wins and up to a 5-3 Quad 1 record. If we consider the Michigan home game and Purdue away game as expected losses as referenced earlier, the next ones up would be these:

Opportunities For Signature Wins
at #13 Iowa (Q1) ... 57.1% W
at #11 Nebraska (Q1) ... 57.0% W
at #39 UCLA (Q1) ... 53.7% W
at #12 Michigan State (Q1) ... 51.0% W

---> If we can even go 1-3 in those games (and 0-2 in the Michigan/Purdue games), that gets us to 23-8 overall and 6-9 in Quad 1 games. Given the strength of schedule, I think that has us right on the border of a #4 and a #3 seed, barring BTT results. So, I would say the key is stealing two games from the four listed above ... and I know I have my orange-tinted glasses on, but that is entirely doable. Our path to a deep Tournament run seems via a great seed seems to be...

1. Obviously take care of business to get to 22 wins.
2. Go 2-2 or better in the Signature Wins category above, most likely (at least IMO) stealing a win at Iowa and at UCLA.
3. Then give it all we have vs. Purdue and Michigan for icing-on-the-cake wins that get us an even better overall seed or allows the dream of a #1 seed to stay alive if things break our way. The path is in front of us, and if we keep playing like we have been, it's going to be an exciting year!

For some reference, here are the #2 seeds in the last three NCAA Tournaments to look for some metrics we should maybe shoot for. NET Ranking is listed first and then some select metrics. They are also all listed in order of their overall seed that year, so from the #5 overall seed to the #8 overall seed (even though the ranking shown is their NET Ranking).

2023 #2 Seeds
#3 UCLA: 29-5 Overall. 8-5 vs. Quad 1. 9-0 vs. Quad 2. 0 Quad 3/Quad 4 Losses.
#7 Texas: 26-8 Overall. 14-8 vs. Quad 1. 4-0 vs. Quad 2. 0 Quad 3/Quad 4 Losses.
#10 Arizona: 28-6 Overall. 9-2 vs. Quad 1. 7-4 vs. Quad 2. 0 Quad 3/Quad 4 Losses.
#12 Marquette: 28-6 Overall. 8-5 vs. Quad 1. 6-0 vs. Quad 2. 1 Quad 3/Quad 4 Loss.

2024 #2 Seeds
#7 Tennessee: 24-8 Overall. 8-7 vs. Quad 1. 5-1 vs. Quad 2. 0 Quad 3/Quad 4 Losses.
#4 Arizona: 25-8 Overall. 8-3 vs. Quad 1. 7-4 vs. Quad 2. 1 Quad 3/Quad 4 Loss.
#14 Marquette: 25-9 Overall. 9-8 vs. Quad 1. 6-1 vs. Quad 2. 0 Quad 3/Quad 4 Losses.
#6 Iowa State: 27-7 Overall. 10-6 vs. Quad 1. 6-1 vs. Quad 2. 0 Quad 3/Quad 4 Losses.

2025 #2 Seeds
#5 Tennessee: 27-7 Overall. 11-7 vs. Quad 1. 5-0 vs. Quad 2. 0 Quad 3/Quad 4 Losses.
#6 Alabama: 25-8 Overall. 11-8 vs. Quad 1. 8-0 vs. Quad 2. 0 Quad 3/Quad 4 Losses.
#11 Michigan State: 27-6 Overall. 13-5 vs. Quad 1. 5-1 vs. Quad 2. 0 Quad 3/Quad 4 Losses.
#13 St. John's (NY): 30-4 Overall. 6-4 vs. Quad 1. 11-0 vs. Quad 2. 0 Quad 3/Quad 4 Losses.

So to the extent there are "rules," I would say these are good goals to go for...

1. Definitely don't have double digit losses, and preferably have 8 or fewer, on Selection Sunday.
2. Surprisingly, NET Ranking appears to be even more of a guideline for the top seeds than the lower ones ... with that said, you definitely want to be close to the top 10, ideally.
3. Don't lose Quad 3 or Quad 4 games. Of the 12 teams reviewed, only two had a Quad 3/Quad 4 loss, and they each only had one. 2024 Arizona combatted that with a stellar #4 NET Ranking (theoretically a #1 seed) and a great record in Quad 1 (8-3) and Quad 2 (7-4) games. 2023 Marquette didn't have as great of a NET Ranking, but they only had 6 losses overall and also had a great record in Quad 1 (8-5) and especially Quad 2 (6-0) games.
4. If you don't have 8 or more Quad 1 wins, you better make up for it with (A) a shiny overall record, (B) a ton of Quad 2 wins or (C) ideally both! St. John's (NY) had the record of a #1 seed last year, but they were the lowest-ranked #2 seed probably because of only having a 6-4 record in Quad 1 games (for reference, our #6 seed team last year had an 8-10 record in Quad 1 games...).

I know each season is different, and you are graded on a curve against your peers for your NCAA Tournament seed. However, when looking at our schedule and taking into account our results so far, I think we have an excellent shot at a #2 seed if we can get to a 24-7 record before the BTT starts. That is going 14-3 the rest of the way ... difficult, yes, but not out of the realm of possibility by any means! The game at Iowa next weekend is H-U-G-E.

 

[HereSoIDontGetFined]

Absolutely wild that most of our remaining quad 1 games are on the road and nearly everything else is at home.

 

[RabidDawgClassic]

View attachment 45931

 

[RabidDawgClassic]

We weren't talking about Illinois specifically, but if you want to bring up a sore subject.....as a #3 seed, we lost to Austin Peay(1987), lost to UT Chattanooga (#14 seed) in 1997, beat #13 seed UT Chattanooga by 1 point in 2022, so yes..... we've had our share of brutal games vs the lower seeds.

Those losses were under Henson and Kruger, two Hall of Fame caliber coaches.

I agree 100% that 6 and 7 are about the same, but I don't think that 10 and 11 are. That 11 seed usually comes from a play in game and those games are usually two big names having turbulent seasons and getting in the tournament is a lifeline. It's house money or you get a team with something to prove because they don't think they belong there. The winner has a game under their belt and the jitters are gone. UNC, Texas and Xavier were all 11 seeds last year. I think Colorado, who has 2 NBA players, also came out of that game and beat Florida in the 6/11 game. It's a big difference.

That's purely MO.

That game was perhaps the most frustrating illini victory in my lifetime. There’ve been many frustrating losses (Penn State variety, to name a few), but that would had my gut churning for all 60 minutes.

 

[lstewart53x3]

2021-2022 | #4 Seed & #14 Overall Seed
Record: 22-9
NET Ranking: #15
NET SOS Rank: #21
Away Record: 7-4
Quad 1 Record: 6-6
Quad 2 Record: 6-3
Quad 3 Record: 6-0
Quad 4 Record: 4-0

2023-2024 | #3 Seed & #12 Overall Seed
Record: 26-8
NET Ranking: #13
NET SOS Rank: #35
Away Record: 6-5
Quad 1 Record: 8-6
Quad 2 Record: 6-1
Quad 3 Record: 7-1
Quad 4 Record: 5-0

This really shows just how much every game matters. Looking at these two seasons, the 4 seed had two more Q2 losses, but the 3 seed had one more Q3 loss, so that basically cancels each other out.

Which means that the difference between the 3 seed and 4 seed was two additional Q1 wins. Razor thin.

With 8 remaining Q1 games, I imagine we need to win 5 of them to get into a 3 seed conversation and 6 to get into a 2 seed conversation. And ideally we drop 0 Q3/Q4 games and 1 or less Q2 games.

 

[Fighter of the Nightman]

That game was perhaps the most frustrating illini victory in my lifetime. There’ve been many frustrating losses (Penn State variety, to name a few), but that would had my gut churning for all 60 minutes.

I've never felt sick to my stomach like that watching the Illini in the NCAA Tournament, with the possible exception of the Loyola game ... and of course, they were in back-to-back years!!

 

[Bigtex]

So, while I am no Bracketology expert, let's look at two recent resumes of ours - a #4 seed resume in 2022 and a #3 seed in 2024. Given it seems like a really important goal for us to stay above that #4 seed line and get a top 3 seed, this should be a relevant comparison. By the way, I am only listing the Away Record because that is what's saved in the NET Archives for each year ... kind of tells me the Committee indeed does value that!

2021-2022 | #4 Seed & #14 Overall Seed
Record: 22-9
NET Ranking: #15
NET SOS Rank: #21
Away Record: 7-4
Quad 1 Record: 6-6
Quad 2 Record: 6-3
Quad 3 Record: 6-0
Quad 4 Record: 4-0

2023-2024 | #3 Seed & #12 Overall Seed
Record: 26-8
NET Ranking: #13
NET SOS Rank: #35
Away Record: 6-5
Quad 1 Record: 8-6
Quad 2 Record: 6-1
Quad 3 Record: 7-1
Quad 4 Record: 5-0

Actually very similar resumes on paper, so some food for thought for the crowd that thinks zero BTT games matter. The 2022 team lost its first BTT game on Friday to #38 Indiana, a Quad 1 loss. The 2024 team won the BTT, so even if you discount the Sunday result, that was wins against #33 Nebraska and #49 Ohio State, both Quad 1 wins. You can tell me all you want that the 2024 team would have been a #3 seed even if we lost our first BTT game, but ... I will not believe you, lol. Anyway...

So looking strictly at our #10 NET Ranking this year, we would be "on track" for a #3 seed (i.e., in the top 12). Again, this is our resume today:

Record: 10-3
NET Ranking: #10
NET SOS Rank: N/A but this site has us at #7 ... not sure how B1G play will affect it.
Away Record: 1-0
Quad 1 Record: 3-3
Quad 2 Record: 1-0
Quad 3 Record: 0-0
Quad 4 Record: 6-0

I don't have a KenPom subscription of anything, but this is what would happen if you applied the ESPN App's win probability to our remaining games, we would only be underdogs at Purdue and vs. Michigan. I list the actual probabilities below, but obviously the ESPN App has a lot of faith in us. While we all know crazy stuff happens in college hoops, even as a "par" this is quite optimistic and would have us as a possible (likely?) #1 seed. So, I'll just assume that we can win every game where the probability is above 70.0% and go from there (yes, I know this allows us to escape out of Evanston this time...), listed here.

Expected Wins
W vs. #199 Rutgers (Q4) ... 96.9% W
W vs. #108 Minnesota (Q3) ... 92.7% W
W vs. #146 Maryland (Q3) ... 91.2% W
W vs. #97 Oregon (Q3) ... 90.4% W
W vs. #140 Penn State (Philadelphia, PA) [Q3] ... 89.2% W
W vs. #52 Washington (Q2) ... 88.8% W
W vs. #69 Northwestern (Q2) ... 87.9% W
W vs. #66 Wisconsin (Q2) ... 82.6% W
W at #146 Maryland (Q3) ... 78.0% W
W vs. #33 Indiana (Q2) ... 73.2% W
W at #69 Northwestern (Q1) ... 71.5%

---> That's 21 wins. The remaining games are ALL on the road, with the exception of Michigan. And none of them is going to be a walk in the park. There is one, however, that is above 60.0% and likely to be played in front of a very "meh" home court advantage:

Really Should Be a Win
W at #40 USC (Q1) ... 68.0% W

---> That's 22 wins and up to a 5-3 Quad 1 record. If we consider the Michigan home game and Purdue away game as expected losses as referenced earlier, the next ones up would be these:

Opportunities For Signature Wins
at #13 Iowa (Q1) ... 57.1% W
at #11 Nebraska (Q1) ... 57.0% W
at #39 UCLA (Q1) ... 53.7% W
at #12 Michigan State (Q1) ... 51.0% W

---> If we can even go 1-3 in those games (and 0-2 in the Michigan/Purdue games), that gets us to 23-8 overall and 6-9 in Quad 1 games. Given the strength of schedule, I think that has us right on the border of a #4 and a #3 seed, barring BTT results. So, I would say the key is stealing two games from the four listed above ... and I know I have my orange-tinted glasses on, but that is entirely doable. Our path to a deep Tournament run seems via a great seed seems to be...

1. Obviously take care of business to get to 22 wins.
2. Go 2-2 or better in the Signature Wins category above, most likely (at least IMO) stealing a win at Iowa and at UCLA.
3. Then give it all we have vs. Purdue and Michigan for icing-on-the-cake wins that get us an even better overall seed or allows the dream of a #1 seed to stay alive if things break our way. The path is in front of us, and if we keep playing like we have been, it's going to be an exciting year!

For some reference, here are the #2 seeds in the last three NCAA Tournaments to look for some metrics we should maybe shoot for. NET Ranking is listed first and then some select metrics. They are also all listed in order of their overall seed that year, so from the #5 overall seed to the #8 overall seed (even though the ranking shown is their NET Ranking).

2023 #2 Seeds
#3 UCLA: 29-5 Overall. 8-5 vs. Quad 1. 9-0 vs. Quad 2. 0 Quad 3/Quad 4 Losses.
#7 Texas: 26-8 Overall. 14-8 vs. Quad 1. 4-0 vs. Quad 2. 0 Quad 3/Quad 4 Losses.
#10 Arizona: 28-6 Overall. 9-2 vs. Quad 1. 7-4 vs. Quad 2. 0 Quad 3/Quad 4 Losses.
#12 Marquette: 28-6 Overall. 8-5 vs. Quad 1. 6-0 vs. Quad 2. 1 Quad 3/Quad 4 Loss.

2024 #2 Seeds
#7 Tennessee: 24-8 Overall. 8-7 vs. Quad 1. 5-1 vs. Quad 2. 0 Quad 3/Quad 4 Losses.
#4 Arizona: 25-8 Overall. 8-3 vs. Quad 1. 7-4 vs. Quad 2. 1 Quad 3/Quad 4 Loss.
#14 Marquette: 25-9 Overall. 9-8 vs. Quad 1. 6-1 vs. Quad 2. 0 Quad 3/Quad 4 Losses.
#6 Iowa State: 27-7 Overall. 10-6 vs. Quad 1. 6-1 vs. Quad 2. 0 Quad 3/Quad 4 Losses.

2025 #2 Seeds
#5 Tennessee: 27-7 Overall. 11-7 vs. Quad 1. 5-0 vs. Quad 2. 0 Quad 3/Quad 4 Losses.
#6 Alabama: 25-8 Overall. 11-8 vs. Quad 1. 8-0 vs. Quad 2. 0 Quad 3/Quad 4 Losses.
#11 Michigan State: 27-6 Overall. 13-5 vs. Quad 1. 5-1 vs. Quad 2. 0 Quad 3/Quad 4 Losses.
#13 St. John's (NY): 30-4 Overall. 6-4 vs. Quad 1. 11-0 vs. Quad 2. 0 Quad 3/Quad 4 Losses.

So to the extent there are "rules," I would say these are good goals to go for...

1. Definitely don't have double digit losses, and preferably have 8 or fewer, on Selection Sunday.
2. Surprisingly, NET Ranking appears to be even more of a guideline for the top seeds than the lower ones ... with that said, you definitely want to be close to the top 10, ideally.
3. Don't lose Quad 3 or Quad 4 games. Of the 12 teams reviewed, only two had a Quad 3/Quad 4 loss, and they each only had one. 2024 Arizona combatted that with a stellar #4 NET Ranking (theoretically a #1 seed) and a great record in Quad 1 (8-3) and Quad 2 (7-4) games. 2023 Marquette didn't have as great of a NET Ranking, but they only had 6 losses overall and also had a great record in Quad 1 (8-5) and especially Quad 2 (6-0) games.
4. If you don't have 8 or more Quad 1 wins, you better make up for it with (A) a shiny overall record, (B) a ton of Quad 2 wins or (C) ideally both! St. John's (NY) had the record of a #1 seed last year, but they were the lowest-ranked #2 seed probably because of only having a 6-4 record in Quad 1 games (for reference, our #6 seed team last year had an 8-10 record in Quad 1 games...).

I know each season is different, and you are graded on a curve against your peers for your NCAA Tournament seed. However, when looking at our schedule and taking into account our results so far, I think we have an excellent shot at a #2 seed if we can get to a 24-7 record before the BTT starts. That is going 14-3 the rest of the way ... difficult, yes, but not out of the realm of possibility by any means! The game at Iowa next weekend is H-U-G-E.

Nice summary. Underwood teams need to improve in Q1 games.

 

[Fighter of the Nightman]

This really shows just how much every game matters. Looking at these two seasons, the 4 seed had two more Q2 losses, but the 3 seed had one more Q3 loss, so that basically cancels each other out.

Which means that the difference between the 3 seed and 4 seed was two additional Q1 wins. Razor thin.

With 8 remaining Q1 games, I imagine we need to win 5 of them to get into a 3 seed conversation and 6 to get into a 2 seed conversation. And ideally we drop 0 Q3/Q4 games and 1 or less Q2 games.

I think if we win 5 more Quad 1 games, all else equal, we should feel pretty safe as a #3 seed rather than merely being in the conversation. I agree that the difference between 8 total Quad 1 wins and 9 total Quad 1 wins is likely the straw that will break the camel's back as far as getting a #2 seed, again all else equal.

 

[Fighter of the Nightman]

On the topic of us trying to get a top 3 seed and stay on the bottom half of the bracket (assuming a #1 is off the table, though that is the ultimate goal!), it's important to remember that while we definitely control our own destiny ... we will also be graded on a curve compared to other teams! This came up a lot in 2024 when some posters would say things like we didn't "look" like a #3 seed; and that didn't matter at all, because we only had to be one of the 12 highest seeded teams in that specific season! It reminds me of the old joke about someone asking his friend if he was seriously going to outrun a bear, and the friend says, "I don't have to outrun the bear ... I just have to outrun you!"

Point is, we could be helped out by teams in our neighborhood losing ... and as someone who enjoys conjuring up a "rooting interest" for random college basketball games that I am watching, I will enjoy rooting for fellow prospective #2/3 seeds to lose!! With that in mind, I have a few things I noticed when looking at the NET Rankings (which are the numbers referenced below).

1. I am really hoping #8 UConn cleans up in the Big East and is a #1 seed. First of all, I am not dying to play them again as a fellow #2/3 seed, lol. However, I also think they would possibly get credit for beating us if we are both on the border between two seed lines. Thus, I would rather just have them "out of our league" and not have to worry about them.

2. This one uses the same logic but comes to an inverse conclusion. Considering we play #6 Purdue on the road only and will be underdogs there, I am rooting for them to start racking up losses and dropping to a projected #4 seed. Especially considering that a placement in Chicago and Indianapolis could be on the line, let's just have Purdue slide on down the totem pole!

3. The other teams in our neighborhood, so to speak, are below:

#7 Vanderbilt: 13-0 overall, 4-1 vs. Q1, 2-0 vs. Q2, zero Q3/Q4 losses.
#9 BYU: 12-1 overall, 3-1 vs. Q1, 2-0 vs. Q2, zero Q3/Q4 losses.
#10 Illinois: 10-3 overall, 3-3 vs. Q1, 1-0 vs. Q2, zero Q3/Q4 losses.
#11 Louisville: 11-2 overall, 3-2 vs. Q1, 1-0 vs. Q2, zero Q3/Q4 losses.
#12 Iowa: 11-2 overall, 0-2 vs. Q1, 1-0 vs. Q2, zero Q3/Q4 losses.
#13 Alabama: 10-3 overall, 2-3 vs. Q1, 3-0 vs. Q2, zero Q3/Q4 losses.
#14 Michigan State: 12-1 overall, 4-1 vs. Q1, 0-0 vs. Q2, zero Q3/Q4 losses.
#15 Nebraska: 13-0 overall, 2-0 vs. Q1, 4-0 vs. Q2, zero Q3/Q4 losses.

It's noticeable that all of these teams have avoided bad Q3/Q4 losses, so we need to make sure we stay in that club and root for some of these teams to lose some stinkers along the way! Also, while it's nice that we are "on par" with Q1 wins, this highlights what a massive opportunity we have at Iowa next weekend. It's only January, but winning that one creates some separation between us and some of these teams, IMO.

 

[Fighter of the Nightman]

And on the note of picking up Quad 3 and Quad 4 losses, I present you the list you absolutely do not want to be on, lol. The following Power Conference teams are, as of today, either a Quad 3 or Quad 4 loss in at least some type of game.

HOME GAMES
Quad 3: #76-160
#76 Oklahoma State (Big XII)
#77 Arizona State (Big XII)
#84 Colorado (Big XII)
#88 Ole Miss (SEC)
#89 Syracuse (ACC)
#92 West Virginia (Big XII)
#93 Stanford (ACC)
#94 Cincinnati (Big XII)
#95 Oregon (Big Ten)
#96 Missouri (SEC)
#100 Providence (Big East)
#102 South Carolina (SEC)
#106 Mississippi State (SEC)
#108 Minnesota (Big Ten)
#112 Pitt (ACC)
#114 Xavier (Big East)
#123 Florida State (ACC)
#128 DePaul (Big East)
#130 Georgetown (Big East)
#134 Utah (Big XII)
#137 Penn State (Big Ten)
#149 Maryland (Big Ten)
#160 Georgia Tech (ACC)

Quad 4: #161+
#175 Marquette (Big East)
#182 Boston College (ACC)
#197 Rutgers (Big Ten)

NEUTRAL SITE GAMES
Quad 3: #101-200
#102 South Carolina (SEC)
#106 Mississippi State (SEC)
#108 Minnesota (Big Ten)
#112 Pitt (ACC)
#114 Xavier (Big East)
#123 Florida State (ACC)
#128 DePaul (Big East)
#130 Georgetown (Big East)
#134 Utah (Big XII)
#137 Penn State (Big Ten)
#149 Maryland (Big Ten)
#160 Georgia Tech (ACC)
#175 Marquette (Big East)
#182 Boston College (ACC)
#197 Rutgers (Big Ten)

Quad 4: #201+
N/A


AWAY GAMES
Quad 3: #135-240
#137 Penn State (Big Ten)
#149 Maryland (Big Ten)
#160 Georgia Tech (ACC)
#175 Marquette (Big East)
#182 Boston College (ACC)
#197 Rutgers (Big Ten)

Quad 4: #241+
N/A

So yeah ... Rutgers at home is quite literally THE worst loss a Power Conference team can have at this point in the year, so we better frickin' show up, lol.

 

[Fighter of the Nightman]

And one final Bracketology post, the NET Rankings by conference ... take it FWIW.

BIG TEN
#1 Michigan
#6 Purdue
#10 Illinois
#12 Iowa
#14 Michigan State
#15 Nebraska
#33 Indiana
#40 USC
#42 UCLA
#44 Ohio State
#54 Washington
#64 Wisconsin
#72 Northwestern
#95 Oregon
#108 Minnesota
#137 Penn State
#149 Maryland
#197 Rutgers

---> Top 4 Average: #7.3
---> Overall Average: #60.7
---> Bottom 4 Average: #147.8


BIG XII
#2 Arizona
#3 Iowa State
#9 BYU
#16 Kansas
#17 Houston
#20 Texas Tech
#36 UCF
#41 Baylor
#51 TCU
#61 Kansas State
#76 Oklahoma State
#77 Arizona State
#84 Colorado
#92 West Virginia
#94 Cincinnati
#134 Utah

---> Top 4 Average: #7.5
---> Overall Average: #50.8
---> Bottom 4 Average: #101.0


ACC
#5 Duke
#11 Louisville
#18 North Carolina
#28 SMU
#31 Virginia
#32 NC State
#37 Clemson
#39 Miami (FL)
#55 Cal
#56 Virginia Tech
#69 Wake Forest
#70 Notre Dame
#89 Syracuse
#93 Stanford
#112 Pitt
#123 Florida State
#160 Georgia Tech
#182 Boston College

---> Top 4 Average: #15.5
---> Overall Average: #67.2
---> Bottom 4 Average: #144.3


SEC
#7 Vanderbilt
#13 Alabama
#22 Tennessee
#23 Florida
#24 Georgia
#27 Kentucky
#30 Arkansas
#34 Auburn
#35 LSU
#50 Oklahoma
#59 Texas
#67 Texas A&M
#88 Ole Miss
#96 Missouri
#102 South Carolina
#106 Mississippi State

---> Top 4 Average: #16.3
---> Overall Average: #48.9
---> Bottom 4 Average: #98.0


BIG EAST
#8 UConn
#25 Villanova
#26 St. John's (NY)
#45 Butler
#46 Seton Hall
#49 Creighton
#100 Providence
#114 Xavier
#128 DePaul
#130 Georgetown
#175 Marquette

---> Top 4 Average: #26.0
---> Overall Average: #76.9
---> Bottom 4 Average: #136.8

And here are the rankings by each category.

Average of Top 4 Teams
#7.3 Big Ten
#7.5 Big XII
#15.5 ACC
#16.3 SEC
#26.0 Big East

Average of All Teams
#48.9 SEC
#50.8 Big XII
#60.7 Big Ten
#67.2 ACC
#76.9 Big East

Average of Bottom 4 Teams
#98.0 SEC
#101.0 Big XII
#136.8 Big East
#144.3 ACC
#147.8 Big Ten

So while the rankings will change a lot throughout the season, it seems the Big Ten is sort of the opposite of how it has been perceived in most past years. We have a very strong top of the league, and the bottom of our league is absolutely terrible. It will be essential to avoid losses to the likes of Maryland, Rutgers, Minnesota, PSU, etc. The random dud losses to inferior teams will cost us W-A-Y more this year than it has in years past when the bottom of the league was still somewhere around the top 100.

On the flip side, unlike in 2024 or 2022, we won't be relying on just beating one top dog team (Purdue both times) for our desired "signature win." Beating any of Michigan, Purdue, MSU, Iowa or Nebraska would (at least as of now) be the type of win vs. a top 15 NET opponent that we haven't had that much of in the last few years since 2021 ... those are massive opportunities.

 

[Piotyr]

Well, I've said time and time again that the various bracketologies and metrics don't mean a whole lot until January, and now it's January, so let's take a look at the current state of the bracket, and how things are looking to shake out come March.

First, three things to keep in mind:
1. The polls are meaningless. At least from a bracketing and quality perspective. They're useful for recruiting and media attention, but they hold no actual merit as to the quality of a team or where they'll be bracketed.
2. There are effectively two kinds of metrics: resume-based metrics and efficiency-based metrics. Resume-based metrics evaluate a team based on who they've played and beat. Their value is more in terms of how earned their spot is in an era of unbalanced conference schedules and wildly different non-conference schedules. Efficiency-based metrics evaluate a team based on how they've performed in each game. This is more predictive of how they'll perform going forward, and is more indicative of the actual quality of a team.
3. This is just for fun, and things will still change and teams will perform differently going forward to March, so a team that's in a position to get a 1 seed now may not be lined up for such at the actual tournament selection.

The bracket:
There are 68 teams that make the tournament, and 31 conferences with automatic bids (RIP Pac-12 until next year), so there will be 37 at-large selections. Of those 31 conferences, 17 of them do not have a team currently in the top 75 of the NET (CUSA, BW, BSky, CAA, Horz, SB, Sum, BSth, ASun, SoCon, MAAC, Pat, OVC, SWAC, NEC, AE, MEAC). 4 others (Southland, Ivy, MAC, WAC) have one team in the top 75 of the NET (McNeese, Yale, Akron, Utah Valley) that is still being propped up by non-con numbers, and should they not sweep through their conference, likely don't have the resumes to be in the at-large discussion proper. That leaves 10 conferences with at least one team that is currently at least worthy of at-large discussion. For now, we'll assume the best team in each conference wins the conference, so that would mean the American and MVC conferences get 1 team each (Tulsa, Illinois State), but keep those in mind for potential bid thieves as we get into March.

Assuming the highest NET team in each conference makes the tournament, that gives us the 31 auto bids:
B1G - Michigan (1)
B12 - Arizona (2)
WCC - Gonzaga (4)
ACC - Duke (5)
SEC - Vanderbilt (6)
BE - UConn (8)
MW - Utah State (19)
A10 - St. Louis (29)
American - Tulsa (37)
MAC - Akron (47)
Southland - McNeese (48)
WAC - Utah Valley (51)
MVC - Illinois State (53)
Ivy - Yale (59)
CAA - William & Mary (79)
BW - UC San Diego (80)
BSth - High Point (89)
CUSA - Middle Tennessee (99)
Summit - St. Thomas (115)
BSky - Idaho State (119)
SB - Arkansas State (120)
Horz - Wright State (123)
SoCon - ETSU (128)
ASun - Lipscomb (143)
MAAC - Quinnipiac (157)
OVC - UT Martin (171)
Patriot - Colgate (181)
NEC - LIU (184)
AE - Vermont (198)
SWAC - Grambling (222)
MEAC - Howard (244)

That leaves 37 at large bids. To simplify, I'll just take the 37 best teams in resume metrics that aren't already listed as having auto bids, as long as their efficiency metrics aren't in the toilet (see: Miami-OH). The two most prominent resume metrics are WAB (wins above bubble) and SOR (strength of record), so we'll just average those to get our 37. Again, the metrics are just starting to show meaning, so this is more of an exercise to see where teams are at right now.

At large field (37): Iowa State, Nebraska, Purdue, BYU, North Carolina, Alabama, Michigan State, Houston, Kansas, Texas Tech, Villanova, Illinois, USC, UCF, Louisville, SMU, Auburn, Oklahoma State, St. Mary's, Seton Hall, Clemson, Virginia, Georgia, Iowa, Tennessee, LSU, Miami-FL, California, Baylor, Florida, Ohio State, Butler, St. John's, UCLA, Virginia Tech, Kentucky, Oklahoma

Just missed, don't have the resume (yet): Arizona State, Indiana, Stanford, Missouri, Wisconsin, Washington, Creighton, TCU, New Mexico, Nevada, Boise State, NC State, Wake Forest, Texas, Texas A&M

Now, keep in mind, this is just a snapshot of right now, and just to give an indicator of whose resume isn't all that right now and needs to improve their standing to feel safe come March.

As for the seeding, I'll just rank the teams based on an average from NET, KenPom and Torvik. Auto bids bold.

Seeds:
1 (1). Michigan
2 (1). Arizona
3 (1). Purdue
4 (1). UConn
5 (2). Iowa State
6 (2). Vanderbilt
7 (2). Gonzaga
8 (2). Houston
9 (3). Duke
10 (3). Illinois
11 (3). Alabama
12 (3). Louisville
13 (4). BYU
14 (4). Florida
15 (4). Tennessee
16 (4). Kansas
17 (5). Michigan State
18 (5). Iowa
19 (5). St. John's
20 (5). Virginia
21 (6). Texas Tech
22 (6). Nebraska
23 (6). North Carolina
24 (6). Arkansas
25 (7). Kentucky
26 (7). St. Mary's
27 (7). Georgia
28 (7). Villanova
29 (8). UCLA
30 (8). Utah State
31 (8). Clemson
32 (8). Baylor
33 (9). Auburn
34 (9). LSU
35 (9). Miami-FL
36 (9). St. Louis
37 (10). SMU
38 (10). USC
39 (10). Ohio State
40 (10). Creighton
41 (11). Seton Hall
42 (11*). Butler
43 (11*). UCF
44 (11). Akron
45 (11*). Oklahoma
46 (11*). Virginia Tech
47 (12). Tulsa
48 (12). Illinois State
49 (12). McNeese
50 (12). Utah Valley
51 (13). Yale
52 (13). William and Mary
53 (13). UC San Diego
54 (13). High Point
55 (13). Middle Tennessee
56 (14). St. Thomas
57 (14). Idaho State
58 (14). Arkansas State
59 (14). Wright State
60 (15). ETSU
61 (15). Lipscomb
62 (15). Quinnipiac
63 (15). UT Martin
64 (16). Colgate
65 (16*). LIU
66 (16*). Vermont
67 (16*). Grambling
68 (16*). Howard

First four out: Indiana, NC State, Creighton, Texas
Next four out: Wisconsin, Texas A&M, VCU, Washington

Granted, there's an entire conference season to go, but this is a basic windows as to where teams are right now. I'm sure Indiana will do enough to improve their resume, as their efficiency metrics are far and away the best for a team not in the field right now. NC State would be next, and they should be okay, but not setting the world on fire either.

 

[FeelYourPaign]

Well, I've said time and time again that the various bracketologies and metrics don't mean a whole lot until January, and now it's January, so let's take a look at the current state of the bracket, and how things are looking to shake out come March.

First, three things to keep in mind:
1. The polls are meaningless. At least from a bracketing and quality perspective. They're useful for recruiting and media attention, but they hold no actual merit as to the quality of a team or where they'll be bracketed.
2. There are effectively two kinds of metrics: resume-based metrics and efficiency-based metrics. Resume-based metrics evaluate a team based on who they've played and beat. Their value is more in terms of how earned their spot is in an era of unbalanced conference schedules and wildly different non-conference schedules. Efficiency-based metrics evaluate a team based on how they've performed in each game. This is more predictive of how they'll perform going forward, and is more indicative of the actual quality of a team.
3. This is just for fun, and things will still change and teams will perform differently going forward to March, so a team that's in a position to get a 1 seed now may not be lined up for such at the actual tournament selection.

The bracket:
There are 68 teams that make the tournament, and 31 conferences with automatic bids (RIP Pac-12 until next year), so there will be 37 at-large selections. Of those 31 conferences, 17 of them do not have a team currently in the top 75 of the NET (CUSA, BW, BSky, CAA, Horz, SB, Sum, BSth, ASun, SoCon, MAAC, Pat, OVC, SWAC, NEC, AE, MEAC). 4 others (Southland, Ivy, MAC, WAC) have one team in the top 75 of the NET (McNeese, Yale, Akron, Utah Valley) that is still being propped up by non-con numbers, and should they not sweep through their conference, likely don't have the resumes to be in the at-large discussion proper. That leaves 10 conferences with at least one team that is currently at least worthy of at-large discussion. For now, we'll assume the best team in each conference wins the conference, so that would mean the American and MVC conferences get 1 team each (Tulsa, Illinois State), but keep those in mind for potential bid thieves as we get into March.

Assuming the highest NET team in each conference makes the tournament, that gives us the 31 auto bids:
B1G - Michigan (1)
B12 - Arizona (2)
WCC - Gonzaga (4)
ACC - Duke (5)
SEC - Vanderbilt (6)
BE - UConn (8)
MW - Utah State (19)
A10 - St. Louis (29)
American - Tulsa (37)
MAC - Akron (47)
Southland - McNeese (48)
WAC - Utah Valley (51)
MVC - Illinois State (53)
Ivy - Yale (59)
CAA - William & Mary (79)
BW - UC San Diego (80)
BSth - High Point (89)
CUSA - Middle Tennessee (99)
Summit - St. Thomas (115)
BSky - Idaho State (119)
SB - Arkansas State (120)
Horz - Wright State (123)
SoCon - ETSU (128)
ASun - Lipscomb (143)
MAAC - Quinnipiac (157)
OVC - UT Martin (171)
Patriot - Colgate (181)
NEC - LIU (184)
AE - Vermont (198)
SWAC - Grambling (222)
MEAC - Howard (244)

That leaves 37 at large bids. To simplify, I'll just take the 37 best teams in resume metrics that aren't already listed as having auto bids, as long as their efficiency metrics aren't in the toilet (see: Miami-OH). The two most prominent resume metrics are WAB (wins above bubble) and SOR (strength of record), so we'll just average those to get our 37. Again, the metrics are just starting to show meaning, so this is more of an exercise to see where teams are at right now.

At large field (37): Iowa State, Nebraska, Purdue, BYU, North Carolina, Alabama, Michigan State, Houston, Kansas, Texas Tech, Villanova, Illinois, USC, UCF, Louisville, SMU, Auburn, Oklahoma State, St. Mary's, Seton Hall, Clemson, Virginia, Georgia, Iowa, Tennessee, LSU, Miami-FL, California, Baylor, Florida, Ohio State, Butler, St. John's, UCLA, Virginia Tech, Kentucky, Oklahoma

Just missed, don't have the resume (yet): Arizona State, Indiana, Stanford, Missouri, Wisconsin, Washington, Creighton, TCU, New Mexico, Nevada, Boise State, NC State, Wake Forest, Texas, Texas A&M

Now, keep in mind, this is just a snapshot of right now, and just to give an indicator of whose resume isn't all that right now and needs to improve their standing to feel safe come March.

As for the seeding, I'll just rank the teams based on an average from NET, KenPom and Torvik. Auto bids bold.

Seeds:
1 (1). Michigan
2 (1). Arizona
3 (1). Purdue
4 (1). UConn
5 (2). Iowa State
6 (2). Vanderbilt
7 (2). Gonzaga
8 (2). Houston
9 (3). Duke
10 (3). Illinois
11 (3). Alabama
12 (3). Louisville
13 (4). BYU
14 (4). Florida
15 (4). Tennessee
16 (4). Kansas
17 (5). Michigan State
18 (5). Iowa
19 (5). St. John's
20 (5). Virginia
21 (6). Texas Tech
22 (6). Nebraska
23 (6). North Carolina
24 (6). Arkansas
25 (7). Kentucky
26 (7). St. Mary's
27 (7). Georgia
28 (7). Villanova
29 (8). UCLA
30 (8). Utah State
31 (8). Clemson
32 (8). Baylor
33 (9). Auburn
34 (9). LSU
35 (9). Miami-FL
36 (9). St. Louis
37 (10). SMU
38 (10). USC
39 (10). Ohio State
40 (10). Creighton
41 (11). Seton Hall
42 (11*). Butler
43 (11*). UCF
44 (11). Akron
45 (11*). Oklahoma
46 (11*). Virginia Tech
47 (12). Tulsa
48 (12). Illinois State
49 (12). McNeese
50 (12). Utah Valley
51 (13). Yale
52 (13). William and Mary
53 (13). UC San Diego
54 (13). High Point
55 (13). Middle Tennessee
56 (14). St. Thomas
57 (14). Idaho State
58 (14). Arkansas State
59 (14). Wright State
60 (15). ETSU
61 (15). Lipscomb
62 (15). Quinnipiac
63 (15). UT Martin
64 (16). Colgate
65 (16*). LIU
66 (16*). Vermont
67 (16*). Grambling
68 (16*). Howard

First four out: Indiana, NC State, Creighton, Texas
Next four out: Wisconsin, Texas A&M, VCU, Washington

Granted, there's an entire conference season to go, but this is a basic windows as to where teams are right now. I'm sure Indiana will do enough to improve their resume, as their efficiency metrics are far and away the best for a team not in the field right now. NC State would be next, and they should be okay, but not setting the world on fire either.

Awesome! Do this again in a month please

 

[Piotyr]

Figures, I single out Miami OH for having a good resume but horrendous efficiency, and they go and beat Akron today to go to 15-0.

No matter how bad the efficiency, if Miami somehow goes like 31-1 on the year and loses in the MAC final, I think they get an at-large bid.

Granted, there's very little chance of that, but the MAC is very bad and they just played their two toughest games and won them (there's no return trip to Akron for them), so maybe.

 

[WolfpackIllini]

So, while I am no Bracketology expert, let's look at two recent resumes of ours - a #4 seed resume in 2022 and a #3 seed in 2024. Given it seems like a really important goal for us to stay above that #4 seed line and get a top 3 seed, this should be a relevant comparison. By the way, I am only listing the Away Record because that is what's saved in the NET Archives for each year ... kind of tells me the Committee indeed does value that!

2021-2022 | #4 Seed & #14 Overall Seed
Record: 22-9
NET Ranking: #15
NET SOS Rank: #21
Away Record: 7-4
Quad 1 Record: 6-6
Quad 2 Record: 6-3
Quad 3 Record: 6-0
Quad 4 Record: 4-0

2023-2024 | #3 Seed & #12 Overall Seed
Record: 26-8
NET Ranking: #13
NET SOS Rank: #35
Away Record: 6-5
Quad 1 Record: 8-6
Quad 2 Record: 6-1
Quad 3 Record: 7-1
Quad 4 Record: 5-0

Actually very similar resumes on paper, so some food for thought for the crowd that thinks zero BTT games matter. The 2022 team lost its first BTT game on Friday to #38 Indiana, a Quad 1 loss. The 2024 team won the BTT, so even if you discount the Sunday result, that was wins against #33 Nebraska and #49 Ohio State, both Quad 1 wins. You can tell me all you want that the 2024 team would have been a #3 seed even if we lost our first BTT game, but ... I will not believe you, lol. Anyway...

So looking strictly at our #10 NET Ranking this year, we would be "on track" for a #3 seed (i.e., in the top 12). Again, this is our resume today:

Record: 10-3
NET Ranking: #10
NET SOS Rank: N/A but this site has us at #7 ... not sure how B1G play will affect it.
Away Record: 1-0
Quad 1 Record: 3-3
Quad 2 Record: 1-0
Quad 3 Record: 0-0
Quad 4 Record: 6-0

I don't have a KenPom subscription of anything, but this is what would happen if you applied the ESPN App's win probability to our remaining games, we would only be underdogs at Purdue and vs. Michigan. I list the actual probabilities below, but obviously the ESPN App has a lot of faith in us. While we all know crazy stuff happens in college hoops, even as a "par" this is quite optimistic and would have us as a possible (likely?) #1 seed. So, I'll just assume that we can win every game where the probability is above 70.0% and go from there (yes, I know this allows us to escape out of Evanston this time...), listed here.

Expected Wins
W vs. #199 Rutgers (Q4) ... 96.9% W
W vs. #108 Minnesota (Q3) ... 92.7% W
W vs. #146 Maryland (Q3) ... 91.2% W
W vs. #97 Oregon (Q3) ... 90.4% W
W vs. #140 Penn State (Philadelphia, PA) [Q3] ... 89.2% W
W vs. #52 Washington (Q2) ... 88.8% W
W vs. #69 Northwestern (Q2) ... 87.9% W
W vs. #66 Wisconsin (Q2) ... 82.6% W
W at #146 Maryland (Q3) ... 78.0% W
W vs. #33 Indiana (Q2) ... 73.2% W
W at #69 Northwestern (Q1) ... 71.5%

---> That's 21 wins. The remaining games are ALL on the road, with the exception of Michigan. And none of them is going to be a walk in the park. There is one, however, that is above 60.0% and likely to be played in front of a very "meh" home court advantage:

Really Should Be a Win
W at #40 USC (Q1) ... 68.0% W

---> That's 22 wins and up to a 5-3 Quad 1 record. If we consider the Michigan home game and Purdue away game as expected losses as referenced earlier, the next ones up would be these:

Opportunities For Signature Wins
at #13 Iowa (Q1) ... 57.1% W
at #11 Nebraska (Q1) ... 57.0% W
at #39 UCLA (Q1) ... 53.7% W
at #12 Michigan State (Q1) ... 51.0% W

---> If we can even go 1-3 in those games (and 0-2 in the Michigan/Purdue games), that gets us to 23-8 overall and 6-9 in Quad 1 games. Given the strength of schedule, I think that has us right on the border of a #4 and a #3 seed, barring BTT results. So, I would say the key is stealing two games from the four listed above ... and I know I have my orange-tinted glasses on, but that is entirely doable. Our path to a deep Tournament run seems via a great seed seems to be...

1. Obviously take care of business to get to 22 wins.
2. Go 2-2 or better in the Signature Wins category above, most likely (at least IMO) stealing a win at Iowa and at UCLA.
3. Then give it all we have vs. Purdue and Michigan for icing-on-the-cake wins that get us an even better overall seed or allows the dream of a #1 seed to stay alive if things break our way. The path is in front of us, and if we keep playing like we have been, it's going to be an exciting year!

For some reference, here are the #2 seeds in the last three NCAA Tournaments to look for some metrics we should maybe shoot for. NET Ranking is listed first and then some select metrics. They are also all listed in order of their overall seed that year, so from the #5 overall seed to the #8 overall seed (even though the ranking shown is their NET Ranking).

2023 #2 Seeds
#3 UCLA: 29-5 Overall. 8-5 vs. Quad 1. 9-0 vs. Quad 2. 0 Quad 3/Quad 4 Losses.
#7 Texas: 26-8 Overall. 14-8 vs. Quad 1. 4-0 vs. Quad 2. 0 Quad 3/Quad 4 Losses.
#10 Arizona: 28-6 Overall. 9-2 vs. Quad 1. 7-4 vs. Quad 2. 0 Quad 3/Quad 4 Losses.
#12 Marquette: 28-6 Overall. 8-5 vs. Quad 1. 6-0 vs. Quad 2. 1 Quad 3/Quad 4 Loss.

2024 #2 Seeds
#7 Tennessee: 24-8 Overall. 8-7 vs. Quad 1. 5-1 vs. Quad 2. 0 Quad 3/Quad 4 Losses.
#4 Arizona: 25-8 Overall. 8-3 vs. Quad 1. 7-4 vs. Quad 2. 1 Quad 3/Quad 4 Loss.
#14 Marquette: 25-9 Overall. 9-8 vs. Quad 1. 6-1 vs. Quad 2. 0 Quad 3/Quad 4 Losses.
#6 Iowa State: 27-7 Overall. 10-6 vs. Quad 1. 6-1 vs. Quad 2. 0 Quad 3/Quad 4 Losses.

2025 #2 Seeds
#5 Tennessee: 27-7 Overall. 11-7 vs. Quad 1. 5-0 vs. Quad 2. 0 Quad 3/Quad 4 Losses.
#6 Alabama: 25-8 Overall. 11-8 vs. Quad 1. 8-0 vs. Quad 2. 0 Quad 3/Quad 4 Losses.
#11 Michigan State: 27-6 Overall. 13-5 vs. Quad 1. 5-1 vs. Quad 2. 0 Quad 3/Quad 4 Losses.
#13 St. John's (NY): 30-4 Overall. 6-4 vs. Quad 1. 11-0 vs. Quad 2. 0 Quad 3/Quad 4 Losses.

So to the extent there are "rules," I would say these are good goals to go for...

1. Definitely don't have double digit losses, and preferably have 8 or fewer, on Selection Sunday.
2. Surprisingly, NET Ranking appears to be even more of a guideline for the top seeds than the lower ones ... with that said, you definitely want to be close to the top 10, ideally.
3. Don't lose Quad 3 or Quad 4 games. Of the 12 teams reviewed, only two had a Quad 3/Quad 4 loss, and they each only had one. 2024 Arizona combatted that with a stellar #4 NET Ranking (theoretically a #1 seed) and a great record in Quad 1 (8-3) and Quad 2 (7-4) games. 2023 Marquette didn't have as great of a NET Ranking, but they only had 6 losses overall and also had a great record in Quad 1 (8-5) and especially Quad 2 (6-0) games.
4. If you don't have 8 or more Quad 1 wins, you better make up for it with (A) a shiny overall record, (B) a ton of Quad 2 wins or (C) ideally both! St. John's (NY) had the record of a #1 seed last year, but they were the lowest-ranked #2 seed probably because of only having a 6-4 record in Quad 1 games (for reference, our #6 seed team last year had an 8-10 record in Quad 1 games...).

I know each season is different, and you are graded on a curve against your peers for your NCAA Tournament seed. However, when looking at our schedule and taking into account our results so far, I think we have an excellent shot at a #2 seed if we can get to a 24-7 record before the BTT starts. That is going 14-3 the rest of the way ... difficult, yes, but not out of the realm of possibility by any means! The game at Iowa next weekend is H-U-G-E.

Nightman, can you do my taxes?!

 

[lstewart53x3]

Well, I've said time and time again that the various bracketologies and metrics don't mean a whole lot until January, and now it's January, so let's take a look at the current state of the bracket, and how things are looking to shake out come March.

First, three things to keep in mind:
1. The polls are meaningless. At least from a bracketing and quality perspective. They're useful for recruiting and media attention, but they hold no actual merit as to the quality of a team or where they'll be bracketed.
2. There are effectively two kinds of metrics: resume-based metrics and efficiency-based metrics. Resume-based metrics evaluate a team based on who they've played and beat. Their value is more in terms of how earned their spot is in an era of unbalanced conference schedules and wildly different non-conference schedules. Efficiency-based metrics evaluate a team based on how they've performed in each game. This is more predictive of how they'll perform going forward, and is more indicative of the actual quality of a team.
3. This is just for fun, and things will still change and teams will perform differently going forward to March, so a team that's in a position to get a 1 seed now may not be lined up for such at the actual tournament selection.

The bracket:
There are 68 teams that make the tournament, and 31 conferences with automatic bids (RIP Pac-12 until next year), so there will be 37 at-large selections. Of those 31 conferences, 17 of them do not have a team currently in the top 75 of the NET (CUSA, BW, BSky, CAA, Horz, SB, Sum, BSth, ASun, SoCon, MAAC, Pat, OVC, SWAC, NEC, AE, MEAC). 4 others (Southland, Ivy, MAC, WAC) have one team in the top 75 of the NET (McNeese, Yale, Akron, Utah Valley) that is still being propped up by non-con numbers, and should they not sweep through their conference, likely don't have the resumes to be in the at-large discussion proper. That leaves 10 conferences with at least one team that is currently at least worthy of at-large discussion. For now, we'll assume the best team in each conference wins the conference, so that would mean the American and MVC conferences get 1 team each (Tulsa, Illinois State), but keep those in mind for potential bid thieves as we get into March.

Assuming the highest NET team in each conference makes the tournament, that gives us the 31 auto bids:
B1G - Michigan (1)
B12 - Arizona (2)
WCC - Gonzaga (4)
ACC - Duke (5)
SEC - Vanderbilt (6)
BE - UConn (8)
MW - Utah State (19)
A10 - St. Louis (29)
American - Tulsa (37)
MAC - Akron (47)
Southland - McNeese (48)
WAC - Utah Valley (51)
MVC - Illinois State (53)
Ivy - Yale (59)
CAA - William & Mary (79)
BW - UC San Diego (80)
BSth - High Point (89)
CUSA - Middle Tennessee (99)
Summit - St. Thomas (115)
BSky - Idaho State (119)
SB - Arkansas State (120)
Horz - Wright State (123)
SoCon - ETSU (128)
ASun - Lipscomb (143)
MAAC - Quinnipiac (157)
OVC - UT Martin (171)
Patriot - Colgate (181)
NEC - LIU (184)
AE - Vermont (198)
SWAC - Grambling (222)
MEAC - Howard (244)

That leaves 37 at large bids. To simplify, I'll just take the 37 best teams in resume metrics that aren't already listed as having auto bids, as long as their efficiency metrics aren't in the toilet (see: Miami-OH). The two most prominent resume metrics are WAB (wins above bubble) and SOR (strength of record), so we'll just average those to get our 37. Again, the metrics are just starting to show meaning, so this is more of an exercise to see where teams are at right now.

At large field (37): Iowa State, Nebraska, Purdue, BYU, North Carolina, Alabama, Michigan State, Houston, Kansas, Texas Tech, Villanova, Illinois, USC, UCF, Louisville, SMU, Auburn, Oklahoma State, St. Mary's, Seton Hall, Clemson, Virginia, Georgia, Iowa, Tennessee, LSU, Miami-FL, California, Baylor, Florida, Ohio State, Butler, St. John's, UCLA, Virginia Tech, Kentucky, Oklahoma

Just missed, don't have the resume (yet): Arizona State, Indiana, Stanford, Missouri, Wisconsin, Washington, Creighton, TCU, New Mexico, Nevada, Boise State, NC State, Wake Forest, Texas, Texas A&M

Now, keep in mind, this is just a snapshot of right now, and just to give an indicator of whose resume isn't all that right now and needs to improve their standing to feel safe come March.

As for the seeding, I'll just rank the teams based on an average from NET, KenPom and Torvik. Auto bids bold.

Seeds:
1 (1). Michigan
2 (1). Arizona
3 (1). Purdue
4 (1). UConn
5 (2). Iowa State
6 (2). Vanderbilt
7 (2). Gonzaga
8 (2). Houston
9 (3). Duke
10 (3). Illinois
11 (3). Alabama
12 (3). Louisville
13 (4). BYU
14 (4). Florida
15 (4). Tennessee
16 (4). Kansas
17 (5). Michigan State
18 (5). Iowa
19 (5). St. John's
20 (5). Virginia
21 (6). Texas Tech
22 (6). Nebraska
23 (6). North Carolina
24 (6). Arkansas
25 (7). Kentucky
26 (7). St. Mary's
27 (7). Georgia
28 (7). Villanova
29 (8). UCLA
30 (8). Utah State
31 (8). Clemson
32 (8). Baylor
33 (9). Auburn
34 (9). LSU
35 (9). Miami-FL
36 (9). St. Louis
37 (10). SMU
38 (10). USC
39 (10). Ohio State
40 (10). Creighton
41 (11). Seton Hall
42 (11*). Butler
43 (11*). UCF
44 (11). Akron
45 (11*). Oklahoma
46 (11*). Virginia Tech
47 (12). Tulsa
48 (12). Illinois State
49 (12). McNeese
50 (12). Utah Valley
51 (13). Yale
52 (13). William and Mary
53 (13). UC San Diego
54 (13). High Point
55 (13). Middle Tennessee
56 (14). St. Thomas
57 (14). Idaho State
58 (14). Arkansas State
59 (14). Wright State
60 (15). ETSU
61 (15). Lipscomb
62 (15). Quinnipiac
63 (15). UT Martin
64 (16). Colgate
65 (16*). LIU
66 (16*). Vermont
67 (16*). Grambling
68 (16*). Howard

First four out: Indiana, NC State, Creighton, Texas
Next four out: Wisconsin, Texas A&M, VCU, Washington

Granted, there's an entire conference season to go, but this is a basic windows as to where teams are right now. I'm sure Indiana will do enough to improve their resume, as their efficiency metrics are far and away the best for a team not in the field right now. NC State would be next, and they should be okay, but not setting the world on fire either.

Good stuff. Would take a 3 seed in a heartbeat.

 

[lstewart53x3]

Missouri and Penn St are currently both Q2 wins.

Missouri now solidly Q2 after their win over Florida (84 NET, need top 100).
Penn St on the edge (131 NET, need top 135)

 

[TheDukeUIUC]

Absolutely wild that most of our remaining quad 1 games are on the road and nearly everything else is at home.

Well it is easier for a road game to get classified as a Quad 1, so that's part of it

 

[EmeraldCityIllini]

Absolutely wild that most of our remaining quad 1 games are on the road and nearly everything else is at home.

Doesn't the math usually work out this way? You just naturally have a bigger range for quad 1/2 opportunities on the road than at home.

I always prefer getting your quad 1A, the top 15-ish teams in the country, at home while getting all your fringe top 25 or middling conference games on the road.

Historically, looking at the great work Newman does here. I think a reasonable goal is to try and avoid any losses outside of Q1, while getting close to doube digits wins for quad 1.