Bracketology

Status
Not open for further replies.
#76      

FreshlySqueezed

FreshlySqueezed
FreshlySqueezed
727ill said:
St Mary's and Loyola are not the same lol. Loyola is a couple bounces away from being irrelevant. St Mary's has been a really good program for a very long time. Even then, I'd take them in a second round matchup.
Click to expand...

Loyola was 10th in NET in 2021. Houston was 2nd last year. St. Mary's is currently 6th.

Program strength is irrelevant in a 2nd round matchup. Obviously the NET isn't perfect, but it is a pretty solid gauge of team strength.

Like another poster said, Xavier is the exact opposite of what we've been stuck with the past 2 years. Their NET and KenPom rankings are essentially identical to ours but are currently sitting on the 3 line in most brackets.
 
#77      

727ill

7
727ill
danielb927 said:
Agreed that they're different programs, but why do I care in 2023? In a single-elimination tournament, I want the easiest opponents, period.

I'm counting Houston in this category too. "Mid-major" was just a quip, I don't care what conference they're in, although it seems easier for teams from smaller conferences to be under-seeded.

A 5 seed that should have been a 1 or 2 last year, and an 8 seed that should have been a 3 or 4 in 2021. No thank you on the three-peat for under-seeded opponents*.

* Edit - I guess they wouldn't be that bad as a 3 seed. I was thinking of a 4/5 matchup...
Click to expand...

You aren't getting any easy opponents past the first round unless there is an upset (or you are a top 2 seed). I'd still take St. Mary's as an opponent over a comparable high-major school.

Also I'm probably in the minority here but I thought Loyola was properly seeded in 2021. They were just a bad matchup for us (mainly Krutwig).
 
#78      

Fighter of the Nightman

Fighter of the Nightman
Chicago, IL
Fighter of the Nightman
All this talk of our Bubbleicity™ :sneaky: got me thinking of two resumes of ours that were very different from each other during my earlier years as a fan. I also am including conference records and "final 10 games/how you finish" or whatever, as I do think they still took both into account. The final 10 games WILL take into account the Big Ten Tournament, by the way:

2007 (#12 seed)
Record: 23-12 (9-7)
Final 10 Record: 7-3
Top 25 Wins: vs. #24 Indiana
Bad Losses: Arguably none ... maybe at Iowa?
Record vs. NCAAT Teams: 7-9
Neutral Record: 6-3
Road Record: 3-5

2010 (missed the NCAAs)
Record: 21-15 (10-8)
Final 10 Record: 4-6
Top 25 Wins: at #18 Clemson, vs. #25 Northwestern, vs. #5 Michigan State, at #11 Wisconsin, vs. #13 Wisconsin (BTT)
Bad Losses: vs. Utah (Las Vegas), vs. Bradley (Las Vegas), vs. Georgia (Atlanta)
Record vs. NCAAT Teams: 6-9
Neutral Record: 1-6
Road Record: 6-4

Moral of the story seems to be to avoid bad losses, which thankfully we have done so far this year.
 
#79      

jrichisamazing

J
jrichisamazing
danielb927 said:
Agreed that they're different programs, but why do I care in 2023? In a single-elimination tournament, I want the easiest opponents, period.

I'm counting Houston in this category too. "Mid-major" was just a quip, I don't care what conference they're in, although it seems easier for teams from smaller conferences to be under-seeded.

A 5 seed that should have been a 1 or 2 last year, and an 8 seed that should have been a 3 or 4 in 2021. No thank you on the three-peat for under-seeded opponents*.

* Edit - I guess they wouldn't be that bad as a 3 seed. I was thinking of a 4/5 matchup...
Click to expand...

Definitely! And I would bet my beach house there will be some ACC teams over-seeded this year. I wouldn't mind meeting someone like Miami in the 2nd round.
 
#80      

Illini2010-11

I
Sugar Grove
Illini2010-11
727ill said:
You aren't getting any easy opponents past the first round unless there is an upset (or you are a top 2 seed). I'd still take St. Mary's as an opponent over a comparable high-major school.

Also I'm probably in the minority here but I thought Loyola was properly seeded in 2021. They were just a bad matchup for us (mainly Krutwig).
Click to expand...
I am sorry, but Loyola was terribly underseeded in 2021. They were ranked in the top 20 in virtually every poll and had a net ranking of 10 at the end of the regular season. How exactly were they properly seeded as an 8 seed (28-32 ranked range)? I think that is the definition of bias against mid-major programs. Really they should have been a sweet 16 matchup for a 1 seed, not a round of 32 matchup.

Loyola should have absolutely been a 4 or 5 seed, possibly 6 at worst. But an 8 seed was simply ridiculous, and many said so once the brackets were revealed. It seemed like the committee wanted a storyline matchup instead of actually properly ranking the teams.
 
Last edited:
#82      

Fighter of the Nightman

Fighter of the Nightman
Chicago, IL
Fighter of the Nightman
Illini2010-11 said:
I am sorry, but Loyola was terribly underseeded in 2021. They were ranked in the top 20 in virtually every poll and had a net ranking of 10 at the end of the regular season. How exactly were they properly seeded as an 8 seed (28-32 ranked range)? I think that is the definition of bias against mid-major programs. Really they should have been a sweet 16 matchup for a 1 seed, not a round of 32 matchup.

Loyola should have absolutely been a 4 or 5 seed, possibly 6 at worst. But an 8 seed was simply ridiculous, and many said so once the brackets were revealed. It seemed like the committee wanted a storyline matchup instead of actually properly ranking the teams.
Click to expand...
Yeah, one can admit that we should have beaten Loyola and either (A) were out-schemed or whatever and (B) did not bring the proper intensity while still also acknowledging that they were criminally underseeded.

Equally annoying is Houston being the #5 seed in our region with a record of 30-5 coming into our game and a ranking that ranged from #6 to #18 all season...

Even if you don't view either of those as us being "screwed," it certainly isn't us getting "lucky" ... maybe we are due for a nice little cakewalk to the Elite Eight this year. :ROFLMAO:(y)
 
#83      

727ill

7
727ill
Illini2010-11 said:
I am sorry, but Loyola was terribly underseeded in 2021. They were ranked in the top 20 in virtually every poll and had a net ranking of 10 at the end of the regular season. How exactly were they properly seeded as an 8 seed (28-32 ranked range)? I think that is the definition of bias against mid-major programs. Really they should have been a sweet 16 matchup for a 1 seed, not a round of 32 matchup.

Loyola should have absolutely been a 4 or 5 seed, possibly 6 at worst. But an 8 seed was simply ridiculous, and many said so once the brackets were revealed. It seemed like the committee wanted a storyline matchup instead of actually properly ranking the teams.
Click to expand...

NET isn't used to seed teams and the AP poll really doesn't matter. They had 1 quad-1 win the whole regular season and had the worst SOS of teams in the Kenpom top-25.

You can make an argument that they were the best 8-seed and drawing them was unfair because we were the #2 overall seed.
 
#84      

Illini2010-11

I
Sugar Grove
Illini2010-11
727ill said:
NET isn't used to seed teams and the AP poll really doesn't matter. They had 1 quad-1 win the whole regular season and had the worst SOS of teams in the Kenpom top-25.

You can make an argument that they were the best 8-seed and drawing them was unfair because we were the #2 overall seed.
Click to expand...
The NET is absolutely included in the seeding process as part the tools for committee members to use, but not the end all be all:

www.ncaa.com

How the field of 68 DI men’s teams is picked for March Madness

The NCAA’s guide to how the 68 teams are chosen, seeded and bracketed for the Division I men's basketball tournament every season.
www.ncaa.com www.ncaa.com

"NCAA EVALUATION TOOL (NET)​

The NET is one of many resources/tools available to the committee in the selection, seeding and bracketing process. Computer models cannot accurately evaluate qualitative factors such as games missed by key players or coaches, travel difficulties and other effects of specific games.

Each committee member independently evaluates a vast amount of information during the process to make individual decisions. It is these qualitative, quantitative and subjective opinions -- developed after hours of personal observations, discussion with coaches, directors of athletics and commissioners, and review and comparison of various data -- that each individual ultimately will determine their vote on all issues related to selections, seeding and bracketing.

The NET has two components: the Team Value Index, which is based on game results and factors the result, the game location and outcome. The other component is net efficiency (offensive efficiency minus defensive efficiency), which is adjusted to account for the strength of the opponent and the location of the game.

Each December, the NCAA will release the first official NET rankings, and then post those daily at www.ncaa.com."

Might be splitting hairs a little, but Loyola was 2-2 Q1 and 4-2 Q2, and then 18-0 the rest of games through end of regular season/conference tourney. Their SOS may have been terrible, but after starting 3-2, they went 21-2 the rest of the way. Not to mention their conference had back to back days of games throughout that COVID season, which is not optimal.

All in all, it is simply hard to not see them as one of the best 25 teams going into the 2021 tourney. Either way, Illinois should have been able to win that game vs Loyola, but it is very fair to say that Loyola was not valued by the committee in the selection process.
 
Last edited:
#85      

battle

battle
battle
if we are a 6 - I don't see that there are 'easy' vs. 3 games, eg, suggested StM or Miami or X (others ranked 9-12 could be Va, UConn, ....), however, there are easier ones and one we would match up better. When I've seen Miami they have been hot, I'd rather not play them until E8. I've seen X a bunch of times - and they have been really good and not so good (like us), but more importantly I think we match up quite well. Have not seen StM. Also, don't want to face an underrated 11 (teams such as Creighton that had a lot of injuries but are much better ... only use them as an example since if they keep playing this way, are likely end up a 5-7). But I'd much rather put it all together, - each week we are getting better - go on a run and get a higher seed
 
#86      

danielb927

danielb927
Orange Krush Class of 2013
Rochester, MN
danielb927
727ill said:
NET isn't used to seed teams and the AP poll really doesn't matter. They had 1 quad-1 win the whole regular season and had the worst SOS of teams in the Kenpom top-25.

You can make an argument that they were the best 8-seed and drawing them was unfair because we were the #2 overall seed.
Click to expand...

In terms of resume, yes. The issue is not necessarily that the committee has incorrectly evaluated the resume; it's that we've faced teams whose resume has not reflected how good they really are. The latter is fairly well predicted by predictive systems like KenPom, NET, T-Rank, etc., which account for strength of schedule discrepancies like the bolded.

Maybe "under-seeded" is not a clear enough term - seeding is supposed to be resume-based at least for now. "Sneakily good" might be more accurate?
 
#88      

Fighter of the Nightman

Fighter of the Nightman
Chicago, IL
Fighter of the Nightman
Calvin said:
Unfortunately, I think 13-7 is maybe even optimistic given 5 losses already, 8 games to go, with one being @Purdue. That means going 6-1 on the other 7.
Click to expand...
I mean, assuming the other loss is in Bloomington, I would call it optimistic but also somewhat realistic to achieve this:

W vs. Rutgers
W at Penn State - This will be the make-or-break, IMO, but Wisconsin just did it...
L at Indiana
W vs. Minnesota
W vs. Northwestern
W at Ohio State ... Again, road games are tough but we've beat them once.
W vs. Michigan
L at Purdue

While it's definitely "optimistic," it's also pretty much the generic "good finish to the season" outcome. In essence, winning at PSU or OSU makes up for one of the home shellacking against PSU or the disappointing effort at NU in Evanston. I think it's reasonable.
 
#89      

danielb927

danielb927
Orange Krush Class of 2013
Rochester, MN
danielb927
Fighter of the Nightman said:
I mean, assuming the other loss is in Bloomington, I would call it optimistic but also somewhat realistic to achieve this:

W vs. Rutgers
W at Penn State - This will be the make-or-break, IMO, but Wisconsin just did it...
L at Indiana
W vs. Minnesota
W vs. Northwestern
W at Ohio State ... Again, road games are tough but we've beat them once.
W vs. Michigan
L at Purdue

While it's definitely "optimistic," it's also pretty much the generic "good finish to the season" outcome. In essence, winning at PSU or OSU makes up for one of the home shellacking against PSU or the disappointing effort at NU in Evanston. I think it's reasonable.
Click to expand...

Robert had a good article looking at this recently. He likes to pair off games by toughest/easiest first:
@ Purdue, vs. Minnesota - probably 1-1
@ IU, vs. Michigan - probably 1-1

That leaves 4 "defining" games to close the season: vs. Rutgers, @ Penn St., vs. Northwestern, @ OSU.

I would agree with his take that going 4-0 is pretty optimistic. I'd be happy with 3-1 in that set to end up at 12-8, and ecstatic if we go 4-0 (or steal one in the state of Indiana).
 
#90      

Fighter of the Nightman

Fighter of the Nightman
Chicago, IL
Fighter of the Nightman
danielb927 said:
Robert had a good article looking at this recently. He likes to pair off games by toughest/easiest first:
@ Purdue, vs. Minnesota - probably 1-1
@ IU, vs. Michigan - probably 1-1

That leaves 4 "defining" games to close the season: vs. Rutgers, @ Penn St., vs. Northwestern, @ OSU.

I would agree with his take that going 4-0 is pretty optimistic. I'd be happy with 3-1 in that set to end up at 12-8, and ecstatic if we go 4-0 (or steal one in the state of Indiana).
Click to expand...
For sure, I am not saying I expect to go 4-0 in the "defining" games. However, given the nature of the Big Ten this year, they are all a lot more winnable than I think a usual season's "defining" games during a similar stretch.

I mean, let's be real, though ... we could win every single game left on our schedule if we view each in a vacuum. Rutgers won at Purdue, and Northwestern won at Indiana. We could also trip up absolutely anywhere (though I'd prefer to think we could handle Minnesota at home...).
 
#92      

ChiefGritty

ChiefGritty
Chicago, IL
ChiefGritty
Fighter of the Nightman said:
All this talk of our Bubbleicity™ :sneaky: got me thinking of two resumes of ours that were very different from each other during my earlier years as a fan. I also am including conference records and "final 10 games/how you finish" or whatever, as I do think they still took both into account. The final 10 games WILL take into account the Big Ten Tournament, by the way:

2007 (#12 seed)
Record: 23-12 (9-7)
Final 10 Record: 7-3
Top 25 Wins: vs. #24 Indiana
Bad Losses: Arguably none ... maybe at Iowa?
Record vs. NCAAT Teams: 7-9
Neutral Record: 6-3
Road Record: 3-5

2010 (missed the NCAAs)
Record: 21-15 (10-8)
Final 10 Record: 4-6
Top 25 Wins: at #18 Clemson, vs. #25 Northwestern, vs. #5 Michigan State, at #11 Wisconsin, vs. #13 Wisconsin (BTT)
Bad Losses: vs. Utah (Las Vegas), vs. Bradley (Las Vegas), vs. Georgia (Atlanta)
Record vs. NCAAT Teams: 6-9
Neutral Record: 1-6
Road Record: 6-4

Moral of the story seems to be to avoid bad losses, which thankfully we have done so far this year.
Click to expand...
The committee's methodology is genuinely quite different than it was in those days to be fair.

Also FWIW on Selection Sunday the records were 23-11 vs 19-14. And that's a big way things are different, there's really no hesitation to let in and move up in seed a team with a gross looking record anymore.

I'm not really enamored with the Quad stuff, but the committee really follows it and it has made things more predictable.
 
#93      

jrichisamazing

J
jrichisamazing
Fighter of the Nightman said:
For sure, I am not saying I expect to go 4-0 in the "defining" games. However, given the nature of the Big Ten this year, they are all a lot more winnable than I think a usual season's "defining" games during a similar stretch.

I mean, let's be real, though ... we could win every single game left on our schedule if we view each in a vacuum. Rutgers won at Purdue, and Northwestern won at Indiana. We could also trip up absolutely anywhere (though I'd prefer to think we could handle Minnesota at home...).
Click to expand...

Agreed, but on the flipside....

Our poor FT shooting, innate ability to make boneheaded plays, and general tendancy to have ice cold shooting nights means we have a lot more loseable games than the past couple years as well.

I could 100% see us getting hot down the stretch and earning a 4 seed, or maybe even a 3 seed if some other teams fall apart. But I could also see us lose a bunch of close ones and limp into the tourney as a 9.

They funny thing is, in both those scenarios we still have the talent and versatility to make a run in the NCAA's. We are literally a microcosm of college basketball in general this year.
 
#94      

FreshlySqueezed

FreshlySqueezed
FreshlySqueezed
727ill said:
NET isn't used to seed teams and the AP poll really doesn't matter. They had 1 quad-1 win the whole regular season and had the worst SOS of teams in the Kenpom top-25.

You can make an argument that they were the best 8-seed and drawing them was unfair because we were the #2 overall seed.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure where you are getting any of your information, no offense. The NET and the nitty gritty report are big parts of what is used to seed teams.

They were absolutely underseeded. Colorado was 3-5 in Q1 with 3 Q3 losses and got a 5 seed. Their NET was 9, one spot ahead of Loyola.
 
#96      

727ill

7
727ill
FreshlySqueezed said:
I'm not sure where you are getting any of your information, no offense. The NET and the nitty gritty report are big parts of what is used to seed teams.

They were absolutely underseeded. Colorado was 3-5 in Q1 with 3 Q3 losses and got a 5 seed. Their NET was 9, one spot ahead of Loyola.
Click to expand...

The committee uses the NET to evaluate teams, they don't use it to seed them. If they did then Loyola would have been a 4 seed. The NCAA didn't drop Loyola 4 seed lines just to create a matchup..

Now it's quite likely Loyola was a low-6 or high-7 and they had to get bumped down due to other factors.
 
Last edited:
#98      

Illini2010-11

I
Sugar Grove
Illini2010-11
727ill said:
The committee uses the NET to evaluate teams, they don't use it to seed them. If they did then Loyola would have been a 4 seed. The NCAA didn't drop Loyola 4 seed lines just to create a matchup..

Now it's quite likely Loyola was a low-6 or high-7 and they had to get bumped down due to other factors.
Click to expand...
No Idea what this sentence actually means, but it goes completely against the criteria defined by the NCAA. Also, if NET was the end all be all, both Colgate and Loyola would have actually been 3 seeds in the tournament, so no arguments there. An evaluation by nature will include the process of selection, seeding, and then the ultimate bracket. In the link I presented earlier, the NCAA clearly indicates that NET is one of the tools used for purposes of selection, seeding, and bracketing, but not the sole determining factor. A lot of inputs go into these overall considerations. Therefore, the Selection Committee did not hold Loyola in any real high regard for their NET and may have been subjectively biased more towards a mid-performing larger conference team. As an example, Texas Tech was awarded a 6 seed that season going 17-10 overall and had a NET of 16. Their schedule was more difficult but they went 4-10 Q1 and 2-0 Q2. They were propped up by going 3-0 Q3 and 8-0 Q4. If they are deserving of a 6 seed due to their favorable NET rating, then Loyola was certainly deserving as well.
 
#99      

Calvin

C
Calvin
jrichisamazing said:
Agreed, but on the flipside....

Our poor FT shooting, innate ability to make boneheaded plays, and general tendancy to have ice cold shooting nights means we have a lot more loseable games than the past couple years as well.

I could 100% see us getting hot down the stretch and earning a 4 seed, or maybe even a 3 seed if some other teams fall apart. But I could also see us lose a bunch of close ones and limp into the tourney as a 9.

They funny thing is, in both those scenarios we still have the talent and versatility to make a run in the NCAA's. We are literally a microcosm of college basketball in general this year.
Click to expand...

I think your flipside is pretty spot on, unfortunately. The team hasn't really found it's identity, at least the one I think it needs to have to be successful. Guys are shooting way too many 3s (Coleman in particular) when they need to be attacking the basket. We have several guys who are dangerous if they're in attack mode. I don't necessarily mean attacking the rack, like TSJ does, although he's maybe the best at it. I think we have guys who can use passing, length, and creativity to penetrate. Epps might be the best example of that, but CH and Mayer have had success around the basket. Dain has been very efficient too.

I just feel that at this point in the season, guys have to embrace what they've proven they can do well.
 
#100      

jrichisamazing

J
jrichisamazing
Purdue, Alabama, Houston, and Kansas are the 1 seeds on bracketmatrix right now. Obviously there is a lot of basketball left, but if the season ended today, which team would you want in our regional?

For me it is easily Kansas. IMO, there is a pretty clear top 3 right now. Bama, Purdue, and Houston. It would be nice to stay away from them. I could really see Hawkins slowing down Jalen Wilson, and then Kansas becomes very beatable.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.