Good. One less variable to track. ��
Bracketology
- Status
Good. One less variable to track. ��
Honestly dude, go on the Ill St. fan board and have fun. Give me Ill St. and Middle Tenn. St. on a neutral court and it would be the same result as us vs. VCU. PS. VCU is a better team than both of those...
I think it depends if we play Michigan or Iowa. If we beat Michigan I'm going to feel good, like 75-80% chance.
If we beat Iowa I would still feel alright, but more like 55-60% chance.
But still lots of basketball to be played. Maybe a ton of bubble teams crash, or maybe a ton of bubble teams surge.
Cal gets beat down by the Utes 74-44.
Me thinks, somebody quit.
danielb927
Orange Krush Class of 2013
- Rochester, MN
I'm not quite agreeing with your first round odds. I've got us with about a 75% chance of seeing Michigan in the first round, and just 19% chance of Iowa. It seems like there are probably more than 64 9-vs-UM scenarios, but since my method is a set of random simulations I can't see what those are.
Obviously all of this fun only matters if we take care of Rutgers. With that in mind, it's interesting to note that our BTT draw odds are pretty independent of whether we beat Rutgers or not. If we do beat them, 5% of our first round odds go from Michigan to Nebraska/tOSU, and 5% of our second round odds go from Purdue to Wisconsin and, to a lesser extent, Minnesota.
Essentially, it's pretty likely we'll be playing Michigan, and it's very likely that if we win our first game we'll be up against Purdue.
Last edited:
I asked this last night, and after today's games it still is on the table. If the Big10 is a 7 bid league then only 2 of NW, Mich, or Illini dance. Is our best path being seeded in the 8/9 vs Michigan?
We'd have the advantage over Michigan winning head to head, and theoretically the committee wouldn't hold losing to Purdue against us.
We'd have the advantage over Michigan winning head to head, and theoretically the committee wouldn't hold losing to Purdue against us.
danielb927
Orange Krush Class of 2013
- Rochester, MN
Just to hash that out a bit more, it seems like if Iowa wins there's no way UM can pass them for the 7 seed no matter what happens. So that's 64 scenarios right there. Then you also have a situation where UM and Iowa lose, and Illinois also loses, that's 80 total. Obviously if UM wins and Iowa loses, we'll play Iowa in the 8/9 game, which is 32 scenarios, and the remaining 16 are the ones with a three-way tie where we grab the 7 seed.
Also, why isn't Iowa on anyone's bracket? Does today's win add them to the bubble? They are 4-3 against ranked teams.
Cheez
- Sun Prairie WI
I was bored at work today and charted each of the 2^9 (512) scenarios that could have existed this morning. Now that two games have been played, we're down to 2^7 (128).
That said, there are 3 ways that we do not face Michigan in the first round. The formula I use to check my formulas are as follows:
[(2^n)/(2^r)]/(2^n) where
n=number of games remaining for the conference
r=number of outcomes needed
1. We get the 7 seed (Illinois win + Iowa loss + Michigan Loss): [(2^7)/(2^3)]/(2^7) = 16/128
2. We get the 8 seed (Illinois win + Michigan Win + Iowa Loss): [(2^7)/(2^3)]/(2^7) = 16/128
3. Michigan wins the 7 seed (Illinois Loss + Michigan Win + Iowa loss): [(2^7)/(2^3)]/(2^7) = 16/128
So, you're right - there are 80 scenarios where Illinois plays michigan and 48 where we dont. I messed up a tiebreaker somewhere.
Agree with all of this. This is just for fun. What really matters is what happens on the court - and hopefully Illinois continues to be successful there
Last edited:
Cheez
- Sun Prairie WI
That's where our difference is... which means I was right this morning and got my head wrapped up in seeing "better seed = illini opponent" when that's not the case.
This is also the change that I alluded to earlier when I said I had my tiebreakers wrong. I had them right, and confused myself, Let's try this again. Daniel - keep me honest. I'm out of practice as you can see
Thursday Breakdown:
9 seed vs. Michigan: 71.61% (80 / 128 scenarios)
8 seed vs. Iowa: 11.79% (16 / 128 scenarios)
9 seed vs. Iowa: 9.79% (16 / 128 scenarios)
7 seed vs. Ohio State: 3.53% (8 / 128 scenarios)
7 seed vs. Nebraska: 3.10% (8 / 128 scenarios)
Full Breakdown:
9 seed vs. Michigan / Purdue: 71.61%
8 seed vs. Iowa / Purdue: 11.79%
9 seed vs. Iowa / Purdue: 9.79%
7 seed vs. Ohio State / Wisconsin: 2.58% (4 / 128 scenarios)
7 seed vs. Nebraska / Wisconsin: 2.26% (4 / 128 scenarios)
7 seed vs. Ohio State / Minnesota: 0.95% (4 / 128 scenarios)
7 seed vs. Nebraska / Minnesota: 0.84% (4 / 128 scenarios)
Last edited:
Iowa
SOS - 48
RPI - 90
Teams ranked 1-50 - 4-8
Teams ranked 51-100 - 3-3
Teams ranked 101-200 - 4-2 (108 Memphis neutral court, 142 Nebraska Omaha at home)
Teams ranked 201+ - 5-0
Illinois
SOS - 18
RPI - 56
Teams ranked 1-50 - 5-8
Teams ranked 51-100 - 6-4
Teams ranked 101-200 - 1-0
Teams ranked 201+ - 5-0
Has to be the RPI and the loss to Memphis and even more so to Nebraska Omaha.
danielb927
Orange Krush Class of 2013
- Rochester, MN
That's where our difference is... which means I was right this morning and got my head wrapped up in seeing "better seed = illini opponent" when that's not the case.
This is also the change that I alluded to earlier when I said I had my tiebreakers wrong. I had them right, and confused myself, Let's try this again. Daniel - keep me honest. I'm out of practice as you can see
Thursday Breakdown:
9 seed vs. Michigan: 71.61% (80 / 128 scenarios)
8 seed vs. Iowa: 11.79% (16 / 128 scenarios)
9 seed vs. Iowa: 9.79% (16 / 128 scenarios)
7 seed vs. Ohio State: 3.53% (8 / 128 scenarios)
7 seed vs. Nebraska: 3.10% (8 / 128 scenarios)
Full Breakdown:
9 seed vs. Michigan / Purdue: 71.61%
8 seed vs. Iowa / Purdue: 11.79%
9 seed vs. Iowa / Purdue: 9.79%
7 seed vs. Ohio State / Wisconsin: 2.58% (4 / 128 scenarios)
7 seed vs. Nebraska / Wisconsin: 2.26% (4 / 128 scenarios)
7 seed vs. Ohio State / Minnesota: 0.95% (4 / 128 scenarios)
7 seed vs. Nebraska / Minnesota: 0.84% (4 / 128 scenarios)
This looks good to me! I like the notion of doing it deterministically and the fact that it lets you see individual scenarios. I just avoid it because it's not feasible until about the last two weeks of games.
peace davids
- Colorado
Wow. Lost by 30. Cal had a lot to play for and laid a fat egg.
Maybe the next coach at Miznoz?
The "you can only play the teams on your schedule" argument is useless. Yes, there are few opportunities in their conference, but that just means you need to be careful with your out of conference schedule. There are options other than getting home-and-homes with major conference teams, which I agree will not happen. For example, play the best teams that are in mid-major conferences. Put together a schedule of teams that are typically good - Akron, Valpo, North Dakota St, Belmont. There is no reason to schedule Ferris St., Fort Wayne, and IUPUI when you know that your conference schedule will not provide you with wins. And all of these teams are in the same boat. Yet none of them are willing to take a chance and schedule each other. It's easier to cry about the system being rigged against them and rack up wins against poor competition.
Deleted member 236589
D
Guest
I know I'm coming across as a mid-major apologist and I guess I kind of am, ISU is just the local school that is pointed out with the same issue that will be screamed about this year, has been screamed about for the last 20 years and will continue to be an argument going forward.
You kind of made my point, in making your point. Play them on a neutral floor and we'd beat them. Well, that's not the complaint of the mid-major. Why does it have to be a neutral court or in Champaign?
Middle Tennessee has the same argument. Why can't they get UT at home?
Heck, Winthrop beat us this year....Why are we going to hang out neck out there and go play games, @Winthtop, @Belmont, @Wichita State? Every major school feels that way because they don't want to be Indiana. They decided to go play IPFW at their place.....It was their National Championship, place was packed to the rafters and Indiana got beat. Same Indiana team that beat us by 30.
So, while I don't believe the ISUs, Middle Tennessees, etc....Of the world should get in just to fill a quota, I do think we should look past the pure data, use the eye test moreso and a 27-28 win mid-major should be considered over a 9th place ACC team. It's like I said, if we're going to consistently go that route, why play the regular season at all at a non p5 school. 27 wins vs 0 wins, who cares? All comes down to three games in the first week of March.
Yeah I'm sure Walton is still not over Mav's 'white collar' comment, and will play like he is possessed if they are matched against us.
Much harder question than this. On a neutral court, Pomeroy would have ISU and Middle Tenneessee favored, which is usually where Vegas prices it as well.
It's really hard to judge mid-majors, which is why Wichita is a 7 seed by Lunardi and the 4th team out by Palm. They're always going to be lacking in the Top 50/100 wins, but they'll have a sparkling RPI and not many losses. Take a look at SMU. They're in line for a 5/6 seed, with 1 top 50 win (home vs cinci), but with only 4 losses overall (2 to Mich and @ USC).
I'm actaully pro-big conference (9th best team in B1G is better than 2nd best team in MWC), but let's give credit where credit is due.
Iowa's RPI is 73, still pretty high. We also have a better road record, they are only 4-9, we're 6-7.
That is old brackets. Still need to wait for updates.
illinoisfan11
- Peoria, IL
I just looked at the score after I read your post. Whoa. Barring winning the Pac12 tourney, I can't imagine how Cal would be in. As a side note, I'm firmly out of the Martin to UI camp if we make a change. Sputtering down the stretch with 2 NBA players on your roster is not anything I want any part of.
Illwinsagain
- Cary, IL
Just for fun, I was looking at Palm's projection. I would not complain. 11 seed vs Wake for the play in. Then, if seeds hold, St. Mary's and Butler. Win those, it gets tougher, Oregon and Gonzaga, then Final 4!!!! Sorry, now back to praying we get in.
- Status