Bracketology / Weekend Games

Status
Not open for further replies.
#26      
Kinkyfish
One Man Fast Break said:
My hunch is we want to be in a region with a Big XII team as the 1/2 (depending on our seed 7, 8, 9 or 10 based on how everything shakes out).

They are by far the dominant conference metrically, so they deservedly are cleaning up the high seeds. If by any chance the metrics are "wrong" and the Big XII is overrated (or just not as good as their out of conference collective performance suggests) then those teams are likely more vulnerable than the metrics suggest (because all the conference games become a giant circlejerk).

That is essentially what happened with the Big Ten in 2021.
Click to expand...
Tough comparison IMHO
 
#29      
casemeau
What will the BTT bracket look like once USC and UCLA join the conference? Will it just be a straight 16-team bracket with no byes?
 
#30      
Point-Illinois
casemeau said:
What will the BTT bracket look like once USC and UCLA join the conference? Will it just be a straight 16-team bracket with no byes?
Click to expand...
I imagine the Wednesday games will simply be the bottom 8 teams. (Instead of the current bottom 4)

They’ll add 2 games (total of 4 on Wednesday) and the winners of those 4 games will feed into the Thursday games like usual.

Though I think a 16 team standard tournament is something to look at. 4 days of games and possibly end on Saturday.
 
Last edited:
#32      
blife
Call me old school, but I think this Q1, Q2, Q3 stuff is a bunch of overvalued nonsense. Probably made up by the same guys who developed common core math for our kids and grandkids. I know a tournament team when I see one. I assume the committee does too. I know a team that is playing on a hot streak when you catch them and vice versa. You get beat by a dog (and we have), and they are somehow a Q1 so it is a good loss? I will never buy that. All loses are bad. Some just less bad than others. None are good. I know the committee has to have a formula and justify their choices to those excluded from the Big Dance. Just seems like a lame way to put a team in, that should be out; and a deserving team out, that should be in. I do think the committee generally has made good choices over the years, just do not like this Q1 stuff. Way overhyped for its actual usefulness to me. Mini rant over.
 
#33      
Fighter of the Nightman
blife said:
Call me old school, but I think this Q1, Q2, Q3 stuff is a bunch of overvalued nonsense. Probably made up by the same guys who developed common core math for our kids and grandkids. I know a tournament team when I see one. I assume the committee does too. I know a team that is playing on a hot streak when you catch them and vice versa. You get beat by a dog (and we have), and they are somehow a Q1 so it is a good loss? I will never buy that. All loses are bad. Some just less bad than others. None are good. I know the committee has to have a formula and justify their choices to those excluded from the Big Dance. Just seems like a lame way to put a team in, that should be out; and a deserving team out, that should be in. I do think the committee generally has made good choices over the years, just do not like this Q1 stuff. Way overhyped for its actual usefulness to me. Mini rant over.
Click to expand...
FWIW, I think the Committee’s actual process is somewhere between what you said here and religiously following the Quad stuff. It’s a guideline for sure.
 
#35      
danielb927
blife said:
Call me old school, but I think this Q1, Q2, Q3 stuff is a bunch of overvalued nonsense. Probably made up by the same guys who developed common core math for our kids and grandkids. I know a tournament team when I see one. I assume the committee does too. I know a team that is playing on a hot streak when you catch them and vice versa. You get beat by a dog (and we have), and they are somehow a Q1 so it is a good loss? I will never buy that. All loses are bad. Some just less bad than others. None are good. I know the committee has to have a formula and justify their choices to those excluded from the Big Dance. Just seems like a lame way to put a team in, that should be out; and a deserving team out, that should be in. I do think the committee generally has made good choices over the years, just do not like this Q1 stuff. Way overhyped for its actual usefulness to me. Mini rant over.
Click to expand...

I'm curious how you see the idea of grouping opponents into Q1-Q4 (or looking at their NET ranking, more generally) as different than your description that some losses are less bad than others. Is it just that you see the "eye test", so to speak, as more accurate?
 
#36      
danielb927
Homecoming 2019 said:
I think it should be a straight up bracket, have every team get an equal chance, just like the ncaa tourney.
Click to expand...

Doubt they'll do it this way. Will probably be 4 double byes and 4 single byes a la the old Big East tourney. For one thing, you can't really play more than 4 games in a day in one arena, so a straight 16-team bracket would mean either multiple arenas in round 1, or unequal rest in the quarterfinals.
 
#37      
Goillinikobd
Fighter of the Nightman said:
Oh. My. GOD. Please!!!!!!
Click to expand...
Point-Illinois said:
I imagine the Wednesday games will simply be the bottom 8 teams. (Instead of the current bottom 4)

They’ll add 2 games (total of 4 on Wednesday) and the winners of those 4 games will feed into the Thursday games like usual.

Though I think a 16 team standard tournament is something to look at. 4 days of games and possibly end on Saturday.
Click to expand...
What is the lowest seed to ever win a BIG title?

I ask this to support speculation that there is there some historically defensible cut off for making the BIG tourney. I know there is at least one conferences (can’t remember the name) that has a cut off based on regular season win/loss for making the tournament.

You reach a point where a conference size, both in number of teams and the geographical scatter forces some decisions. BIG will soon be coast to coast with longish flights.

BIG football is already split into two conferences. MLB, NBA, and NHL added divisions over time and limit the number of teams that qualify for the championship playoffs.
 
#38      
IlliniFaninHoosierLand
Goillinikobd said:
What is the lowest seed to ever win a BIG title?

I ask this to support speculation that there is there some historically defensible cut off for making the BIG tourney. I know there is at least one conferences (can’t remember the name) that has a cut off based on regular season win/loss for making the tournament.
Click to expand...

The lowest seed was Michigan as an 8 seed back in 2017. Began their run defeating the Illini by 20.

P5 schools will never do a conference tournament qualification cutoff. Too much lost money from fans of teams not allowed to play. Some low major conferences do it but it's more of a cost savings overall for those conferences.
 
#41      
Second place is 1st loser
blife said:
Call me old school, but I think this Q1, Q2, Q3 stuff is a bunch of overvalued nonsense. Probably made up by the same guys who developed common core math for our kids and grandkids. I know a tournament team when I see one. I assume the committee does too. I know a team that is playing on a hot streak when you catch them and vice versa. You get beat by a dog (and we have), and they are somehow a Q1 so it is a good loss? I will never buy that. All loses are bad. Some just less bad than others. None are good. I know the committee has to have a formula and justify their choices to those excluded from the Big Dance. Just seems like a lame way to put a team in, that should be out; and a deserving team out, that should be in. I do think the committee generally has made good choices over the years, just do not like this Q1 stuff. Way overhyped for its actual usefulness to me. Mini rant over.
Click to expand...
Now, when you're looking at 15 teams, that pretty much all look the exact same and there are only 10 spots in left in the field... you're going to ask 10 people in a room to come to the same conclusion?

There has to be metrics as a determining factor.

Newsflash here. Those metrics are saving us. Our entire season has been propped up by two wins(Texas and UCLA) 3+ months ago and no brutal losses. The metrics work in our favor and are going to get us in the tournament. By using the "eye test", which you are promoting...there's no way that a group of unbiased onlookers would look at us as a tournament team.

Double digit losses to Penn State(twice), Missouri, Northwestern, Indiana and at Ohio State. We've won only two conference road games(Minnesota and Nebraska). We are literally two miracles (Northwestern and Michigan) from being in significant trouble. We shoot the ball terribly, we turn it over at a high rate and we still could potentially finish 9th(??) in the conference.

Much of this is playing devil's advocate, but with an unbiased eye, do we "look" like a tournament team?
 
#42      
Battle89
Second place is 1st loser said:
Now, when you're looking at 15 teams, that pretty much all look the exact same and there are only 10 spots in left in the field... you're going to ask 10 people in a room to come to the same conclusion?

There has to be metrics as a determining factor.

Newsflash here. Those metrics are saving us. Our entire season has been propped up by two wins(Texas and UCLA) 3+ months ago and no brutal losses. The metrics work in our favor and are going to get us in the tournament. By using the "eye test", which you are promoting...there's no way that a group of unbiased onlookers would look at us as a tournament team.

Double digit losses to Penn State(twice), Missouri, Northwestern, Indiana and at Ohio State. We've won only two conference road games(Minnesota and Nebraska). We are literally two miracles (Northwestern and Michigan) from being in significant trouble. We shoot the ball terribly, we turn it over at a high rate and we still could potentially finish 9th(??) in the conference.

Much of this is playing devil's advocate, but with an unbiased eye, do we "look" like a tournament team?
Click to expand...
Much has been made (including by myself) here about the two early wins propping us up all season. But I find myself now thinking more of the no brutal losses.

Because there was also discussion preseason about how awful our cupcakes were this year, and that we should be playing teams just a bit better, to give more of a challenge and help our SOS. So in hindsight, were the multiple nonconf games against the 300+ ranked schools the right call?
 
#43      
battle
Second place is 1st loser said:
Much of this is playing devil's advocate, but with an unbiased eye, do we "look" like a tournament team?
Click to expand...
don't compare us to 2-4 seeds. everyone is focused on our warts. do a blind test on teams seeded 5-9 - i think we fare well. they have 9-12 losses. other teams have as many warts and bad losses and their good wins line up with comparably with ours after taking away UCLA and Texas. they also have near losses - some have 1-3 point come from behind escapes vs Q3-Q4. Duke came from behind to beat BC by 1-2 pts a month ago. Today TCU started their game today down 2-17 against sub500 Oklahoma and it was not their 4th game in 8 days. Providence got walloped. Marq at home escaped St Johns on a missed FT. I could go on from games over last month. i don't see why we're getting slotted for an 8 seed. TN and Iowa St lost key players. I'm hoping for 7-6 seed - I'm optimistic about our chances although I'd wish we start games with the mindset we're down 10 and its the start of the 2nd half
 
#44      
Fighter of the Nightman
nmillini said:
Why do some believe we are so special that the committee looks for special matchups? We aren't and they don't.
Click to expand...
I guess I disagree, haha. 3 of our last 4 Tourney paths have been through former coaches, in-state little brothers or Kelvin F##in Sampson. It’s not that it’s about us, it’s that the NCAA likes storylines. It isn’t some grand conspiracy, it’s more like - “The bracket is exactly the same if we have #7 Illinois play #10 Missouri in the St. Louis site or if we have #7 Illinois play #10 Ole Miss in Pittsburgh. Which one do we ever choose?!”
 
#45      
jumpingjack
nmillini said:
Why do some believe we are so special that the committee looks for special matchups? We aren't and they don't.
Click to expand...
Awkward Oh Boy GIF by Sara Dietschy
 
#46      
lstewart53x3
Fighter of the Nightman said:
I guess I disagree, haha. 3 of our last 4 Tourney paths have been through former coaches, in-state little brothers or Kelvin F##in Sampson. It’s not that it’s about us, it’s that the NCAA likes storylines. It isn’t some grand conspiracy, it’s more like - “The bracket is exactly the same if we have #7 Illinois play #10 Missouri in the St. Louis site or if we have #7 Illinois play #10 Ole Miss in Pittsburgh. Which one do we ever choose?!”
Click to expand...
Would be impossible to create a bracket without storylines.

68 teams make the tourney.
There’s a story line between us & ~20 of those teams.

Making the S16 gives us the opportunity to play 7 different teams and we will play 3 different teams.

Not only that, but each of the 68 teams have ~20 storyline teams they could play.

Impossible to avoid.
 
#47      
lstewart53x3
Possible storylines for us:

Any B1G team (that’s ~8 teams)
Kansas
Kentucky
Duke
Houston
Auburn
UCLA
Baylor
Texas
Gonzaga
Arizona
Saint Mary’s
Virgina
Missouri
Bradley
North Carolina (in a different year)

That’s 23 teams.

Over the course of the 3 games, it’s impossible to not play 1-2 of them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back