Iowa St beat a ranked Texas Tech team yesterday and are currently in the semi-finals of the Big 12 tournament. That was the swap. If we win today, we're a 2. It's just a timing thing. If we win today, then we are back up to a 2, either above Iowa St or Michigan St. All 4 2 seeds and us play today. Things will shake themselves out. The great thing is that even though he has us as a 3 seed, we are still slotted in St. Louis, which confirms Nebraska wants Oklahoma City, and Iowa St and Illinois are the only 2 schools currently requesting St. Louis. The other potential spoilers are Kansas and Purdue, and we will be above them as long as we win today.
Bracketology
- Status
It's mostly an affect of other teams playing their conference tournaments already vs Illinois not having started yet.
Yeah, all our resume ranks are low (because they ignore margin of victory, so all our close losses count just as much as if they had been blowouts):
KPI: 16
SOR: 13
WAB: 14
While all our efficiency ranks are high:
BPI: 7
KenPom: 5
Torvik: 5
The polls seem to blend the two, but favor resume ranks and name brand. The people who know best (sportsbooks) have us at #7. We'll see what the committee does.
If I check my cynicism at the door, I'd say that it was easy to ignore our late-season win/loss record when all the other possible 2-seeds were struggling. But with IAST playing well in their tourney, they were no longer defined by their late-season struggles.
FWIW, we're still a 2 in nearly the same number of brackets as yesterday (avg of 2.07 instead of 2.05))
Right, WAB is a "counting" stat. So the triple bye hurts compared to teams that win more games in their conf tourney.
We've played 31 games and have 6.89 WAB
IAST has played 33 games and has 7.69 WAB
If we had 33 games at our current rate, we'd have 7.33, good for 12th instead of 14th. Not a big change, but it's a dumb thing to get wrong when creating that metric.
To some degree, but if we win against Wisconsin that adds 0.68 to our total, putting us just ahead of Iowa St., and still behind Nebraska at #9 (and dropping to #10 if Virginia beats Miami (FL)). Yes, if Nebraska loses to Purdue, then we would move above them, but Purdue would get 0.72 for their win and move past us. If we lose to Michigan, then either Alabama or Arkansas would move past us if they make their conference championship (i.e. if they beat their relatively easy QF opponents the winner of the subsequent matchup passes us). So in the scenario where we beat Wisconsin and lose to Michigan, I think we likely end up #11 in WAB.
If we lose to Wisconsin then we would lose about 0.32 WAB (that's what Washington lost for losing to them), there are 4 teams that could conceivably pass us.
In either event, our WAB would be way lower than predictive metrics, and will probably be the biggest knock against us. Which is a bummer because it's an obviously flawed metric.
If we win the games we should have won, Wisconsin, MSU, and UCLA this wouldn't even be a question. We have struggled when teams put pressure on Wagler.
So everyone's on the same page- metrics say Miami should be out and the Illini should be a 2-seed. Wins above bubble says Miami should be in and the Illini should be a 3-seed.
Result metrics have Miami in. Efficiency metrics have Illinois as a 2 seed. Different perspectives can be used to manage different parts of this bracket, as I've demonstrated for about 2 months here.
This doesn't have to be difficult.
7-7 in Q1 games on the surface also looks "meh" in the context of the top 10 in the NET.
Obviously, not all Q1 and Q2 games are created equal we know. But still, Iowa State being 8-6 in Q1 and 10-0 in Q2 and Houston 9-5 and 9-0 in Q2 does make you atleast want to investigate.
I don't think the committee has said they will definitely follow that idea though. It's just been suggested/floated by others, right?
Otherwise, UConn (edit: and MSU) should be a 3
During the top 16 unveiling, they said WAB and results based tools are used more for tournament selection and not so much for seeding.
EDIT: and yes, Uconn should probably be a 3, but maybe they sweep through the big easy tourney easily and snag a 2.
Last edited:
Either a ton of people on BracketMatrix are wrong, or they're going to use something in addition to efficiency metrics for seeding. Optimistically, they want to be able to overrule when the computers go rogue. Pessimistically, they want to do whatever they want for whatever reason.
Edit: and just by looking at the ways BracketMatrix diverges from efficiency ranks, it seems like resume metrics are considered. Maybe not directly, and it's just the Quad records or their subjective eye test (aka bias) that skews them torwards W/L results
Last edited:
A ton of people on BracketMatrix are wrong is the one undeniable fact of tournament selection.
Iowa St beat a good Tech team without their best player, the same team we already beat. Their other tourney wins are nothing burgers.
Ha, yeah, that's for sure. But the BracketMatrix avg has been very accurate.
So if selection were right now, do you really think that UConn would be a 3, and Purdue would be a 2? Nobody on BM has either of those right now. If not, what's that based on? My guess is Quads, which are just a more complicated way to perform resume comparisons (W/L adjusted for opponent/location, but ignoring margin of victory)
Beating ASU isn't impressive, but beating them by 50 is. Our "best" wins by adjusted efficiency metrics are our blowouts of similar teams (Mizz, NW, USC).
Bracket matrix has updated as people catch up to us being a 3-seed, as predicted.
The absolute farce that people were discussing the possibility of us being a 1-seed has ended, now the 2 is in jeopardy.
The absolute farce that people were discussing the possibility of us being a 1-seed has ended, now the 2 is in jeopardy.
Illinicpa14
- Chicago
We’re not a 2 no matter what happens around us now; there’s no bad losses for teams left.
Gotta hope that we don’t get passed by Nebraska/Purdue winner for St Louis as a 3
But also the way we’ve played, not sure it matters
We are a lock to not be a 2. We are trying to hang on to being a 3. Either way, I don't see us getting to the 2nd weekend.
The bottom 2 seed and the top 3 seed often go to the same region. If we get the the 3rd or 4th 2 seed, I think we just swap places with ISU. This is assuming they leave Duke as the #1 seed. If they give the #1 to MI, given the Duke injuries, ISU movies to the midwest while we likely stay in the east.
3 seed. Season over next weekend.
Fire Brad !!!! it.
Fire Brad !!!! it.
We will be a 3 seed. No question.
So what 6 seed and 2 seed do we want in our regional?
Potential 6 seeds - BYU, UNC, Tenn, Louisville
Potential 2 seeds - UConn, Iowa St, Houston
I really don't know if I can pick one out of each group. We can beat any of them, but also lose to any of them. I think BYU and Louisville are most likely to be upset by an 11. UConn and Iowa St are more likely to get upset than Houston is.
Potential 6 seeds - BYU, UNC, Tenn, Louisville
Potential 2 seeds - UConn, Iowa St, Houston
I really don't know if I can pick one out of each group. We can beat any of them, but also lose to any of them. I think BYU and Louisville are most likely to be upset by an 11. UConn and Iowa St are more likely to get upset than Houston is.
- Status