That is what I thought, but when I looked at the B1G tournament calculator I could swear it said at MSU - so I went with that.
Bracketology
- Status
Fighter of the Nightman
- Chicago, IL
IIRC, those read “backwards” like a soccer game where the home team is first on that website.
Lunardi currently has us at ESPN as a 4 seed playing 13 Akron coached by… John Groce. A win gets us 5 seed Clemson or 12 seed Grand Canyon
I’d prefer 5 seed Clemson, please.
I'm assuming the 4 seeds having better numbers than 5 seeds, is because many 4 seeds get lucky and play a 12 seed in the second round.
Which brings up a good question. Have we ever gotten lucky in the tournament like that? Not that I can recall...
Yep, they definitely don't take narratives into account.
Definitely.
(PS: I'm only kidding, this is Lunardi and not the actual seeding comm./process)
Fighter of the Nightman
- Chicago, IL
Yeah, but our 2022 path was to play Kelvin Sampson. Our 2021 path was to play instate Loyola and then Underwood’s former employer Oklahoma State. Then of course there was 2011 with Self and KU, and in 2005 we were in the same pod as Bruce Pearl.
I don’t think they craft the bracket by narrative or anything, but I also don’t think it’s a conspiracy to say they don’t mind them! Ratings are still key.
Oh yes, you have know that they care about ratings. I would say narrative/storyline does factor in somewhat, despite the claims that it doesn't, but I also did not want to go full conspiracy-mode. It's probably more like: "well, we could reasonably put these teams in these spots... everything else makes sense... so what would be the most fun/engaging matchups?".
But, I honestly do not think they are moving teams to places they shouldn't be or moving teams up or down 2 seeds just to get narrative-driven matchups.
If McCullar doesn't come back this year, Kansas is more like a 8/9 seed type team. They have a tough remaining schedule and could easily go 0-4 to finish the regular season.
But I would guess the furthest they drop would be to a 5 seed. Would be a great matchup for us if we do end up a 4 seed.
But I would guess the furthest they drop would be to a 5 seed. Would be a great matchup for us if we do end up a 4 seed.
I think it can mostly be attributed to college basketball being a small world with few degrees of separation between programs and coaches.
Here's why I struggle with the ratings argument. Which viewers are they trying to gain by pairing up Illinois and Akron? Illinois fans are already watching. Akron fans are already watching. And no one else cares about John Groce (no offense, John). Same goes for Pearl and Auburn or Sampson and Houston. These are just insular things that Illinois fans care about and we'll be tuning in anyway.
1997. We blew a tremendous opportunity as a 6 seed with both the 3 and the 2 seeds getting bounced early. Stupid Chattanooga!
foby
- Bonnaroo Land
Totally unrelated, but I say that at least a dozen times every week.1997. We blew a tremendous opportunity as a 6 seed with both the 3 and the 2 seeds getting bounced early. Stupid Chattanooga!
View attachment 31554
Fighter of the Nightman
- Chicago, IL
I think we underrate the size of these two groups:
1. Illini fans who aren’t crazies. No message boards, no knowledge of recruiting, might not watch every game, etc.
2. Illinois residents who are super casual fans when we are good. Probably don’t even watch us at all when we aren’t ranked but proudly adopt the Illini if we look like we “have a real chance” (like 2021).
Even a 10% increase in our “base” rating due to the fans in these groups being swayed by some manufactured hype around us playing John Groce (even if they can’t quite remember who he is!!) is valuable to the networks. Again, probably only a tie-breaker, but scoring 1.5 million vs. 1.1 million in viewers is actually massive for college hoops. JMO.
We also blew a great opportunity as an 11 seed in 1995 with the 3 seed losing ahead of us.1997. We blew a tremendous opportunity as a 6 seed with both the 3 and the 2 seeds getting bounced early. Stupid Chattanooga!
View attachment 31554
Fighter of the Nightman
- Chicago, IL
These discussions of "narrative" got me thinking of who our all-time March Madness nemesis is, lol. These are my candidates ... either an absolutely crushing loss AND/OR some teams we have met more than once over the years:
KENTUCKY
L 46-44 in 1942 Elite Eight
L 76-47 in 1949 Final Four
L 76-74 in 1951 Final Four
L 54-51 in 1984 Elite Eight
KANSAS
W 80-64 in 2001 Sweet Sixteen
L 73-69 in 2002 Sweet Sixteen
L 73-59 in 2011 Second Round
ARIZONA
L 87-81 in 2001 Elite Eight
W 90-89 in OT in 2005 Elite Eight
LOYOLA (CHICAGO)
L 79-64 in 1963 Elite Eight
L 71-58 in 2021 Second Round (Illini a #1 seed)
MARYLAND
L 72-70 in 1984 Sweet Sixteen
L 67-61 in 1998 Second Round
LOUISVILLE
W 83-69 in 1989 Sweet Sixteen
W 72-57 in 2005 Final Four
CHATTANOOGA
L 75-63 in 1997 Second Round (Illini a #6 seed, Chattanooga a #14 seed)
W 54-53 in 2022 Second Round
WESTERN KENTUCKY
W 65-60 in 2003 First Round
L 76-72 in 2009 First Round (5/12 matchup)
DAYTON
W 80-61 in 1952 Sweet Sixteen
L 88-86 in 1990 First Round (5/12 matchup)
AUSTIN PEAY
L 68-67 in First Round (3/14 matchup)
Might have missed one or two. That Kentucky history is pretty insane, but you figure it has to be Arizona given how recent those games were, how close both were and that a trip to the Final Four was on the line both times.
KENTUCKY
L 46-44 in 1942 Elite Eight
L 76-47 in 1949 Final Four
L 76-74 in 1951 Final Four
L 54-51 in 1984 Elite Eight
KANSAS
W 80-64 in 2001 Sweet Sixteen
L 73-69 in 2002 Sweet Sixteen
L 73-59 in 2011 Second Round
ARIZONA
L 87-81 in 2001 Elite Eight
W 90-89 in OT in 2005 Elite Eight
LOYOLA (CHICAGO)
L 79-64 in 1963 Elite Eight
L 71-58 in 2021 Second Round (Illini a #1 seed)
MARYLAND
L 72-70 in 1984 Sweet Sixteen
L 67-61 in 1998 Second Round
LOUISVILLE
W 83-69 in 1989 Sweet Sixteen
W 72-57 in 2005 Final Four
CHATTANOOGA
L 75-63 in 1997 Second Round (Illini a #6 seed, Chattanooga a #14 seed)
W 54-53 in 2022 Second Round
WESTERN KENTUCKY
W 65-60 in 2003 First Round
L 76-72 in 2009 First Round (5/12 matchup)
DAYTON
W 80-61 in 1952 Sweet Sixteen
L 88-86 in 1990 First Round (5/12 matchup)
AUSTIN PEAY
L 68-67 in First Round (3/14 matchup)
Might have missed one or two. That Kentucky history is pretty insane, but you figure it has to be Arizona given how recent those games were, how close both were and that a trip to the Final Four was on the line both times.
Last edited:
foby
- Bonnaroo Land
We beat Poleville by 29 total in 2 games. Now, that's how a nemesis is supposed to behave.
The blame for that one goes to me. After UTC upset Georgia, I annoyed several friends with choruses of “Chattanooga Choo-Choo” sure that we were a lock for the Sweet 16.1997. We blew a tremendous opportunity as a 6 seed with both the 3 and the 2 seeds getting bounced early. Stupid Chattanooga!
View attachment 31554
This game was on a Friday St. Patrick’s Night. I had a great plan, walk to the bar around halftime of the Villanova-ODU game, watch the end there, and be into my second beer as we tipped off against Tulsa. Then Nova and ODU went into three overtimes, capped by a big Monarch upset. By the time we tipped off, I was pretty sloppy and the Illini were as well.
1.5M vs 1.1M is not a 10% increase in our base though.
If an Illinois (lapsed/casual/whatever) fan isn't tuning into an Illinois NCAA tournament, a matchup with Pearl/Sampson/Groce is not going to be what gets them to tune in and certainly not insignificant enough numbers for the committee to try and figure that out for as many of the 68 teams as they can. There is simply too much else for them to do on selection Sunday.
Fighter of the Nightman
- Chicago, IL
In general, we have had a tragic history in March Madness ... the fact that 5 Final Fours, 9 Elite Eights and 13 Sweet Sixteens is "tragic" shows just how great we have been during the regular season historically. Our NCAA Tournament pedigree might not even be top 30 all-time, whereas our regular season pedigree is borderline top 10 ... hence why you usually find the Illini in the top 20-25 programs all-time. We need another big Tournament run.
Going back to 1980, I looked where we had a top 6 seed in the NCAA Tournament, as I think that's a reasonable cutoff for "having a decent chance" at a run. You set yourself up VERY reasonably to be in the Second Round and at least play a winnable game to make the Sweet Sixteen.
Impressively, of all of the NCAA Tournaments in this timeframe if you count what we were projected at for 2020 and what we are projected at for this year, the Illini have been a top 6 seed in over half of those years, even counting years we didn't make it at all like that terrible stretch under Groce! We have given ourselves many, many chances, and it has produced a lot of heartache for our Illini ... which I would sort into these categories.
MASSIVE DISAPPOINTMENT
1987: First Round loss as a #3 seed that finished #11 in the AP Poll. Honestly glad I was not alive for this one, my dad still doesn't like to talk about it, lol...
2021: Second Round loss to a smaller instate school as a #1 seed that finished #2 in the AP Poll ... ugh, still haunts me.
DISAPPOINTMENT
1981: Sweet Sixteen as a #4 seed is nice, but we lost to a #8 seed there. Elite Eight was there for the taking.
1988: Second Round loss as a #3 seed to the #6 seed.
1990: First Round loss as a #5 seed.
1997: Second Round loss as a #6 seed might seem like the default, but as you noted we lost to #14 seed Chattanooga, and #10 Providence had just upset #2 Duke ... missed chance to finally go on a SURPRISE NCAA Tournament run.
2003: Second Round loss as a #4 seed to a #5 seed might seem reasonable, but this is the first ENTIRE season I remember ... we came out so flat vs. Notre Dame, and I really thought that team could go further in Cook's senior year.
2009: First Round loss as a #5 seed is always a disappointment, but I also will say that we all had very little confidence in this squad without Chester out there.
ARGUABLY MET EXPECTATIONS BUT IN A DISAPPOINTING WAY
1986: Second Round loss as a #4 seed to the #5 seed (and by 2 points) ... you're theoretically the favorite, but it's a toss-up (and we were only #19 in the AP Poll that year so maybe even over-seeded?).
2001: Elite Eight loss as a #1 seed to a #2 seed. Arguably our goal was a Final Four, but that Arizona team was really tough ... it's obviously beyond frustrating the way we lost with an NCAAT-record number of fouls...
2006: Second Round loss as a #4 seed to a #5 seed. Some might see this as a disappointment given the incredibly high status of the program at this time, but I just remember not really thinking this team was going far ... we were within a missed 3-pointer of the Sweet Sixteen. Disappointing but not a flop.
MET REASONABLE EXPECTATIONS IN A SATISFACTORY WAY
1984: Elite Eight as a #2 seed, and we lost to a #1 seed. Yes, the WAY we lost (BS call playing Kentucky on their literal home floor) I'm sure was massively disappointing, but a successful postseason nonetheless.
1985: Sweet Sixteen as a #3 seed is reasonable if you lose to the #2 seed.
1989: Final Four as a #1 seed is all you can ask for, IMO. That team was good enough to win it all so it's disappointing (especially losing to Michigan), but this is still a season where we did what we set out to do - make it to the Final Four.
1993: Second Round loss as a #6 seed to the #3 seed. Plus, we got smoked, lol, so we weren't going anywhere.
1998: Second Round loss as a #5 seed to the #4 seed.
2000: Second Round loss as a #4 seed to a #5 seed - and that #5 seed Florida team would make its way all the way to the National Championship Game. Plus, I feel like we were still "learning to be good" again as a program with all of those young guys.
2002: Sweet Sixteen as a #4 seed, and we lost to a #1 seed. We were also coming off of an Elite Eight run where we lost some key players, so it really spoke to the health of the program that we were right back in the Second Weekend the next year.
2022: Second Round loss as a #4 seed to a #5 seed. Similarly to 2006, our record earned us a top 4 seed, but we weren't really playing like it. The difference from 2006, IMO, was that Houston was very under-seeded and we'd just hung a Big Ten Championship banner, so this one was easier to take, at least for me ... the only disappointment is that the whole "not making the Second Weekend" narrative REALLY gained steam here.
EXCEEDED EXPECTATIONS
2004: Sweet Sixteen as a #5 seed, and we lost to a #1 seed. The real travesty here is that this team was not a higher seed, but the way we pummeled #4 seed Cincinnati in the Second Round and the fact that we had everyone returning gave me a good feeling as we exited this Tournament.
2005: National Championship Game loss as a #1 seed to another #1 seed. Yes, the goal was to win it all ... but if you are one of the last TWO teams standing playing for a National Title down to the final seconds, you have had an incredible year ... March Madness is a single-elimination crapshoot, after all.
YET TO BE
2024: #13 AP - #4 seed projected - Sweet Sixteen expectation, given everything?
P.S. Before my time gets audited by the board, no I am not working today!
OK, I am going most productive AT your company, but least productive FOR your company.P.S. Before my time gets audited by the board, no I am not working today!
...as I sit here typing on IL on a Wednesday afternoon. And I am working today!
What is this "work" thing you speak of? (Says the old retired guy with a cocktail at 3:45 pm 
)
)
Great list. What’s notable to me is that in these over twenty trips to the dance we’ve exceeded expectations only ONCE? And just barely at that (a #5 beating a #4 in the 2nd round).
I would never call getting to the championship in 2005 with a 37-1 team for the ages “exceeding expectations.” We were the favorite.
This starkly shows the Illini’s disappointing tournament history, that’s for sure.
I would never call getting to the championship in 2005 with a 37-1 team for the ages “exceeding expectations.” We were the favorite.
This starkly shows the Illini’s disappointing tournament history, that’s for sure.
DeonThomas
- South Carolina
Speaking on behalf of addicts..........
You can't be an addict if the bolded text is true.
- Status