Bowl/Playoff Projections - Illinois #21 in CFB Playoff Rankings

Status
Not open for further replies.
#26      
One caveat I'll throw in: I think if LSU wins out, they're in. Yes, 2 losses, but winning the best conference in the country and beating Bama & UGA (in the SECCG) IMO gives them a spot.

It would definitely put the committee in a tough spot. Don't forget about Tennessee, they beat Bama and whooped LSU @Death Valley. The pitchforks will be out if they chose LSU over Tenn in that scenario.

The committee will definitely be rooting for LSU or Tenn to lose again.
 
#28      
Another storyline to consider...

If we did finish at 9-3 (9-4 after the championship loss), would we get snubbed out of a better bowl by an 8-4 Iowa or Wisconsin? Would either team qualify as having a "bigger, more passionate, better traveling fan base".
 
#29      
Another storyline to consider...

If we did finish at 9-3 (9-4 after the championship loss), would we get snubbed out of a better bowl by an 8-4 Iowa or Wisconsin? Would either team qualify as having a "bigger, more passionate, better traveling fan base".
If our attendance goes back down after this week's loss it'd be very hard to argue that notion. Wisconsin's worst home attendance was 73,080 - 96% of the capacity of their stadium. Iowa sold out its 69,250 capacity stadium for all of its home games this season. The MSU game was our highest attendance (56,092) home game by over 10,000 and we still only managed to fill 92% of our capacity. Still lots of work to be done on that end, and not sure there's any solution other than sustained success over a multi-year span of time.
 
#30      

OnlyOrange

Belleville, IL
It would definitely put the committee in a tough spot. Don't forget about Tennessee, they beat Bama and whooped LSU @Death Valley. The pitchforks will be out if they chose LSU over Tenn in that scenario.

The committee will definitely be rooting for LSU or Tenn to lose again.
For sure. One more loss for both and they're cooked. I think LSU will lose to UGA, but I don't see Tennessee losing again (given their schedule). With their only loss coming to UGA, I firmly believe they'll be in without issue.

IMO in that case it's UGA, tOSU/UM winner, Tennessee, and TCU.
 
#31      

Illini2010-11

Sugar Grove
Another storyline to consider...

If we did finish at 9-3 (9-4 after the championship loss), would we get snubbed out of a better bowl by an 8-4 Iowa or Wisconsin? Would either team qualify as having a "bigger, more passionate, better traveling fan base".
I would not think Illinois would be "passed" over by Iowa or Wisconsin.

The scenario that could happen: Minnesota beats Northwestern, Iowa, and Wisconsin to close season at 9-3. They would claim 2.5 of their losses were without key players (Ibrahim vs Purdue, and Morgan in 2nd half vs Illinois and then Penn State). I think Illini would still get nod because of head-to-head win, but I could see a bowl picking Minnesota over Illinois. If it were to happen and give Illinois a more favorable bowl matchup, I would not complain.

A lot will be cleared up over the next couple of weeks.
 
#32      

Illini2010-11

Sugar Grove
For sure. One more loss for both and they're cooked. I think LSU will lose to UGA, but I don't see Tennessee losing again (given their schedule). With their only loss coming to UGA, I firmly believe they'll be in without issue.

IMO in that case it's UGA, tOSU/UM winner, Tennessee, and TCU.
I honestly think Texas takes out TCU this weekend. In that event, would the committee place a 1-loss Oregon or USC Pac 12 champ in the field?

I think you would have UGA, tOSU/UM winner, Tennessee, and then ??? -> would committee take loser of tOSU/UM or Pac 12 champ; can't think a 2 loss SEC team would be selected.

I cringe at the thought of 3 SEC teams getting selected -> LSU winning Out, tOSU/UM winner, UGA (losing conference champ), TN

Of course, Illinois (if they win Saturday) can throw another large wrinkle in on Dec 3...
 
#33      
I honestly think Texas takes out TCU this weekend. In that event, would the committee place a 1-loss Oregon or USC Pac 12 champ in the field?

I think you would have UGA, tOSU/UM winner, Tennessee, and then ??? -> would committee take loser of tOSU/UM or Pac 12 champ; can't think a 2 loss SEC team would be selected.

I cringe at the thought of 3 SEC teams getting selected -> LSU winning Out, tOSU/UM winner, UGA (losing conference champ), TN

Of course, Illinois (if they win Saturday) can throw another large wrinkle in on Dec 3...
Just beat Purdue first!
 
#37      
the Rose Bowl wasn't obligated to take the Illini in 2008. Just sayin
Agreed. But, it was a choice between Illinois and Boston College (if I recall correctly; I can go back and look at the BCS rankings later) as opposed to Illinois and any rando Big Ten/PAC-10 team. And then, the remaining non NY6 bowls were definitely prohibited from taking 'any team they wanted' from conference affiliations. They were required to select from a certain range depending on record.
 
#38      

Illini2010-11

Sugar Grove
Agreed. But, it was a choice between Illinois and Boston College (if I recall correctly; I can go back and look at the BCS rankings later) as opposed to Illinois and any rando Big Ten/PAC-10 team. And then, the remaining non NY6 bowls were definitely prohibited from taking 'any team they wanted' from conference affiliations. They were required to select from a certain range depending on record.
You are correct. There were some strict procedures in place at that time.


1) Team needed 9 wins
2) Team must be ranked in top 14
3) Only two teams per conference allowed in BCS games -> If I recall correctly, Florida was ranked #9, but were the third SEC team, so they were relegated to Citrus Bowl vs Michigan

This meant that Illinois was the lone only option for the Rose Bowl Committee to preserve the Big 10/Pac 10 alliance. There is very little doubt in my mind that the Rose Bowl Committee would have chosen an 8 win Michigan team if they were not locked into the BCS rules.
 
#39      
You are correct. There were some strict procedures in place at that time.


1) Team needed 9 wins
2) Team must be ranked in top 14
3) Only two teams per conference allowed in BCS games -> If I recall correctly, Florida was ranked #9, but were the third SEC team, so they were relegated to Citrus Bowl vs Michigan

This meant that Illinois was the lone only option for the Rose Bowl Committee to preserve the Big 10/Pac 10 alliance. There is very little doubt in my mind that the Rose Bowl Committee would have chosen an 8 win Michigan team if they were not locked into the BCS rules.
I'm a mathematics major who also writes computer code on the side. I LOVED this whole process. The only real issue with the BCS was the formulas (they actually weren't too bad) and that there should have been a playoff associated with those formulas. The bowl selection process was fantastic though, and it rewarded on-field outcomes instead of "we like this team more than this team". I was probably one of the few who actually was disappointed when it went away. Now-a-days, too much bias influences decisions.
 
#40      

Illini2010-11

Sugar Grove
I'm a mathematics major who also writes computer code on the side. I LOVED this whole process. The only real issue with the BCS was the formulas (they actually weren't too bad) and that there should have been a playoff associated with those formulas. The bowl selection process was fantastic though, and it rewarded on-field outcomes instead of "we like this team more than this team". I was probably one of the few who actually was disappointed when it went away. Now-a-days, too much bias influences decisions.
As a numbers guy, I loved the process as well.

The biggest flaw was the derived formulas. Because of the penalties of losing a game, many teams simply stacked their schedule with cupcakes where they could run the score up (see SEC non-conference schedules). Beating a MAC school, for example, by 50 would be ok for the output score, but a loss to a top team by a few points would almost disqualify a team from the go. So much game theory involved in a school creating the schedule...do you take a given beatdown cupcake win that will not do much to the output score, or risk the severe negative consequences of a close loss to a good team?

In the new era, there are many more top tier games scheduled in the first few weeks, that we rarely saw during the BCS era. I want to see marquee games all year round, so while there are flaws in new system, I do appreciate the non-conference games we are seeing.

Moving forward, there should be some data driven selection process, but so much of the data is deceptive.
 
#41      
One of the best things about the BCS era is that there were very specific rules about what teams all bowls could select, and it was based on on-field results, not fan attendance. That's the way it should be. Honestly, there's a LOT I liked about the BCS era over the CFP era.
I guess I'd disagree. Bowls have to make money and they need to make money for their home communities. If that part is taken out, the bowls end up going away or payouts go down considerably.
 
#42      
I guess I'd disagree. Bowls have to make money and they need to make money for their home communities. If that part is taken out, the bowls end up going away or payouts go down considerably.
That's a very valid point. However, in all honesty, I couldn't care less about bowls making money. If bowls making money means they reward less deserving teams, I'd just assume they got rid of the bowl in the first place. There's no reason Illinois should have been passed over for the Rose Bowl in 2008, but as Illini2010-11 said:
There is very little doubt in my mind that the Rose Bowl Committee would have chosen an 8 win Michigan team if they were not locked into the BCS rules.
And honestly, that's some bullcrap. Michigan didn't deserve to go, but they probably would have.
 
#43      

lstewart53x3

Scottsdale, Arizona
As a numbers guy, I loved the process as well.

The biggest flaw was the derived formulas. Because of the penalties of losing a game, many teams simply stacked their schedule with cupcakes where they could run the score up (see SEC non-conference schedules). Beating a MAC school, for example, by 50 would be ok for the output score, but a loss to a top team by a few points would almost disqualify a team from the go. So much game theory involved in a school creating the schedule...do you take a given beatdown cupcake win that will not do much to the output score, or risk the severe negative consequences of a close loss to a good team?

In the new era, there are many more top tier games scheduled in the first few weeks, that we rarely saw during the BCS era. I want to see marquee games all year round, so while there are flaws in new system, I do appreciate the non-conference games we are seeing.

Moving forward, there should be some data driven selection process, but so much of the data is deceptive.
We’ve been bad for so long that I didn’t even realize the bowl structure changed when the BCS era went away.
 
#44      
Illinois will not be viewed as some “small fan base,” which we are not. We brought over 30k to the Rose Bowl and a very big crowd to the Sugar Bowl - both effectively home games for our opposition.

It’s on us to keep this up, but the evidence is there that when we get a good bowl, we show up. Forget Iowa and Wisconsin, win 2 of the next 3, and we’ll be a preferred pick.
 
#45      
Jan. 2ReliaQuest team logo
Illinois
vs.
team logo
Florida
Big Ten/ACC vs. SEC12 p.m.Tampa, Fla.



Citrus-Bowl-75th-Anniversary-Logo-157w-140h.png

Citrus Bowl​

Monday, Jan. 2

Orlando, FL

ill.png

Illinois

mis.png

Ole Miss

-4

Music City Bowl

Projected matchup
: Illinois vs. Kentucky

Citrus Bowl
Illinois vs. Alabama

Vrbo Citrus Bowl​

Monday, January 2, 2023
1:00, ABC
Camping World Stadium, Orlando, FL
Last Year: Kentucky 20, Iowa 17
Bowl Ties: Big Ten vs SEC
Bowl Projection: Illinois vs Ole Miss

Jan. 2Citrus BowlIllinois vs. Alabama

Music City Bowl: Illinois vs. Kentucky

Citrus Bowl (Jan. 2)​

Tie-In: Big Ten vs. SEC

Projection: Illinois vs. Ole Miss
CitrusJan. 2Illinois (Big Ten No. 2) vs. Ole Miss (SEC No.2 )
 
#46      

mhuml32

Cincinnati, OH
Would love any SEC matchup that avoids Bama, LSU, Georgia, Tennessee. Feel confident facing the rest.
 
#48      
One of the best things about the BCS era is that there were very specific rules about what teams all bowls could select, and it was based on on-field results, not fan attendance. That's the way it should be. Honestly, there's a LOT I liked about the BCS era over the CFP era.
Counterpoint...the bowls are about making money.....getting fans to travel to their location, and spending a lot of money locally. Under the old bowl system (and even during the BCS era), sure, it had evolved into conference agreements w/ bowls and a certain level of structure (Rose, Orange, Cotton, Sugar, etc.). But at the end of the day, bowls are designed to make money for the local economy and charities they support.

In the current bowl structure, I'm totally fine with bowls picking who they want, based on factors which include which fan bases travel best and who'll spend the most. And just know if you invite Iowa St to a bowl, you're gonna run out of Busch Light, ha.
 
#49      
Illinois will not be viewed as some “small fan base,” which we are not. We brought over 30k to the Rose Bowl and a very big crowd to the Sugar Bowl - both effectively home games for our opposition.

It’s on us to keep this up, but the evidence is there that when we get a good bowl, we show up. Forget Iowa and Wisconsin, win 2 of the next 3, and we’ll be a preferred pick.
I figured I would back this up with pictures of our Rose Bowl and Sugar Bowl crowds:

Rose Bowl
Rose Bowl 2.jpeg

This is not any fewer fans than the super-big-massive Penn State fan base brought one year later vs. USC:
632096672.jpg.0.jpg


Sugar Bowl
Sugar Bowl.jpeg


When looking at alumni base, city/MSA populations, state populations or any other metric, there really isn't a logically sound reason to believe Iowa has a bigger fan base than we do ... in fact, I would argue it's quite obvious it's smaller overall. Wisconsin is more believable, but I would bet it's closer than most think. The difference is they have had teams worth cheering for consistently for two straight generations now. I know we have understandably developed an inferiority complex and started to believe that Illini football fandom consists of this small group of seemingly-self-hating zealots in places like Loyalty :ROFLMAO: , but I would wager that most bowl executives would see an Illini team that has put together a season worthy enough to be a consideration for their bowl to be a massively appealing candidate.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.