Dan
Admin
Illinois a 4 seed in the Bracket Matrix
http://www.bracketmatrix.com/
The Selection Show
Sunday, March 17th, 5:00pm CT, CBS
http://www.bracketmatrix.com/
The Selection Show
Sunday, March 17th, 5:00pm CT, CBS
Bracketology
- Status
OnlyOrange
- Belleville, IL
Seems like after Duke's loss, we have a shot for the 3 seed...but I think we need to win the next 2.
ChiefGritty
- Chicago, IL
If the committee's understanding is that McCullar and Dickinson won't play, I agree, they have historically been super harsh seeding teams that don't have the players that built their resume.
Fun fact: conference tournaments don't matter all that much in comparison to the NCAA tournament, but since the tournament expanded in 1985, no national champion has ever not made the semifinals of their conference tournament (ok, Indiana in 1987 didn't play a conference tournament).
Super harsh is right. I think what happened to FSU on the football side is a great example of how your entire season doesn't count if they decide you don't project as high as they want. The cynic in me says it's ratings driven, not resume driven, but we won't ever know. tOSU almost got bypassed when they won the national championship, but thankfully were able to rack up a blowout with their back-up QB before the committee could dismiss them.
Fighter of the Nightman
- Chicago, IL
Yep, we definitely need to make it to Sunday in order to be a #3 seed (IMO), but I really like our chances if we do. We got a LOT of help around the nation this week, and we need to hold up our end of the bargain ... beat two teams we have already beat! Maryland also slipped from #81 to #72, so by quitting the season a day early, they have cemented us as having a Quad 3 loss and one fewer Quad 1 win. However, we have these opportunities in front of us:
vs. #53 Ohio State (Quad 2)
vs. #37 Nebraska (Quad 1)
Win both of those, and this is a great resume going into Sunday:
Overall: 25-8
NET Ranking: ?? #16 today ... likely around #11 or #12?
Q1: 6-6
Q2: 7-1
Q1/Q2 Combined: 13-7
Q3: 7-1
Q4: 5-0
Q3/Q4 Combined: 12-1
Road: 6-5
Neutral: 4-0
Road/Neutral: 10-5
Not to mention, it would have us playing great basketball going into the Big Dance!
For reference, this was our 2022 resume that earned us a #4 seed, with our hypothetical 2024 stats from above. Green for stats where 2024 is better, yellow for the same, red for worse to more easily contrast:
Overall: 22-9 ... 25-8
NET Ranking: #15 ... #11/#12
Q1: 6-6 ... 6-6
Q2: 6-3 ... 7-1
Q1/Q2 Combined: 12-9 ... 13-7
Q3: 6-0 ... 7-1
Q4: 4-0 ... 5-0
Q3/Q4 Combined: 10-0 ... 12-1
Road: 7-4 ... 6-5
Neutral: 2-2 ... 4-0
Road/Neutral: 9-6 ... 10-5
In fact, I would argue we are in a rather similar situation as our 2022 team on paper, but the key variable is how both compare to OTHER teams aiming for a #3 seed. They lost early to Indiana in the BTT and did not give themselves a shot at a #3 seed. I'm not sure what other teams we needed to lose in 2022 to get that #3 seed, but I do know what teams to root against this year ... and they lost. We need to begin our win-or-go-home attitude today!!
Last edited:
The old bracketology thread had the NET rankings up there in the last couple posts. Looking at that, is there any world houston is not the number one overall seed?
Same record as Purdue. Best team in best conference in the country. Better quad 1. I’ve seen it talked about like Purdue is a lock for that spot, but houston is it to me.
Same record as Purdue. Best team in best conference in the country. Better quad 1. I’ve seen it talked about like Purdue is a lock for that spot, but houston is it to me.
I believe it's the non-conference schedule that's holding Houston back.
Illini2010-11
- Sugar Grove
You have to dig a little deeper than NET and Quad wins. Purdue has, arguably, a much more polished resume as a whole. Houston's best win is at home against Iowa State and @Baylor. Purdue had a three game stretch where they beat Gonzaga, Tennessee, and Marquette. They later beat (then top ranked) Arizona. Without a doubt, Purdue has much higher quality wins in the Quad 1A field. That likely gets Purdue the top overall seed.
But Purdue's losses were @OSU (#53 in NET), @Neb (#37), and @NW (#52), while Houston's losses were @Kansas (#19), @TCU (#42), @ISU (#9)
NET, Coaches, AP, and Pomeroy all have Houston #1. Massey Composite might be diluted by inferior systems, but FWIW, it also has them #1. When the committee goes against such information, perhaps they're taking into account things that a computer can't, or perhaps the computers are taking into account things that the humans can't. I'm more inclined to think it's the latter.
+1 Using things like the NET or brackets of wins doesn't do justice to how well Purdue has played over the course of the season. A Purdue/Houston final would be a heck of a game even if it wasn't nearly as interesting as an Illinois rematch.
Illini2010-11
- Sugar Grove
Honestly, if bracket was released today, the three losses for Purdue, Houston, and UCONN are all a pretty much a wash (all Quad 1 road games). The key differentiator is the extent of top tier wins. This is where Purdue holds the edge over Houston and UCONN.
Purdue top wins: Arizona (NET 4), Tennessee (NET 5), Alabama (NET 8), Marquette (NET 13), Illini twice (NET 16), Gonzaga (NET 17), Wisconsin twice (NET 21), and Michigan State now twice (NET 24). That is 11 wins total against teams in the top 25 NET! That is very indicative of the top team in the nation for seeding.
Again, that is as of today at 2PM CT. However, I would be surprised if Purdue did not get top overall seed if they at least make it to the BTT Final.
Tennessee losing and UNC getting the last one seed is not ideal for us if we stay on the 4 line. If Tennessee was the 1 seed, it would have reduced the chances of us being in the UConn or Houston region tremendously, because there are a lot of SEC teams hovering around the 4 line, and I doubt they would want to set up an SEC sweet 16 game.
This.
The Big 12 hit the NET jackpot this year and that's helped inflate Houston's resume a bit after a fairly pedestrian non-conference schedule.
Houston is a fantastic team and deserving of a 1 seed but their wins, while of similar Quad variety, don't stack up to Purdue's.
I just think this sort of analysis is better handled by computers than humans trying to boil it down to a neat "resume". A computer can take into account a team's performance in all their games, not just the best wins or worst losses.
The betting market can do even better by taking into account extra information through a wisdom of the crowds, but there isn't really a practical way to use that to determine seeds.
Computers are algorithms made by humans.
Betting markets are definitely a bunch of humans.
I'm not against objective measures of performance, but college bball will always have apples to oranges comparisons for schedules, wins, etc.. as long as there are 350+ teams. There simply isn't a perfect algorithm for capturing those differences. Even the existing ones come to different answers.
ChiefGritty
- Chicago, IL
It's amazing how much our culture has changed since the early days of the BCS in college football.
Kenpom (and .NET) style analysis do not work on football. There is not enough data.
I'd love to see the .NET recalculated two different ways:
1) Cap margins of victory at 15 pts. A big win is a big win. All we learn is which coached are jerks and push for blowouts vs. those who play subs and walkons.
2) Re-evaluate the at-large teams dropping all results against teams ranked 250+
Agree that football is different due to small sample size and even fewer non-conference games.
Scoring margin is no longer a direct input (though it still impacts net efficiency). When it was an input, it was capped at 10 points.
Beating really bad teams doesn't do much to help anyone's ranking directly. Perhaps - since so many results are closed loops within conference - it could have an additional hidden impact on how conferences are rated relative to each other.
Running up efficiency numbers against weak teams causes the conference to be rated higher. Once conference play starts, as you observed, it becomes a closed loop. I want to see how the conferences rate without the noise in the data from playing clearly overmatched teams.
Net efficiency is adjusted for strength of opponent and location, so it doesn't help a team to beat a very weak team unless they do even better than "expected". It also increases the out-of-conference sample size, so I doubt removing them would make the rankings more accurate.
It could change the incentives in scheduling, though, which I would be happy with.
Yes, I agree there isn't a perfect algorithm. That's why I said the betting markets can do better, but not by much when compared to an average of ranking systems (link). Their main edge is taking into account information that's new and/or isn't generally included in computer ranking systems, particularly injuries and roster changes.
And I think the selection committee does not possess anywhere close to the skill of odds-makers.
So I don't think it makes sense to override the algorithms just because one team's best wins are better than the other's, since those wins (and all their other games) are already taken into account in the algorithms. If they override the algorithms because one team lost some games when their star player was hurt, that's more reasonable (though it would be best if they re-ran the algorithms with those games excluded rather than make a judgement call).
I think o$u should be in. If you were a 5 seed would u want to play them or would you rather play Iowa. O$u looks more complete Iowa could beat you if they got hot on offense
- Status