Bracketology
- Status
Illini2010-11
- Sugar Grove
My biggest gripe with solely using computers to seed/select teams is exemplified by the following example this year: Auburn
The computers love them because of their incredible efficiency when winning, but have lost to most of the good teams they played. They are in top 5 or 6 in most computer metrics. Most would agree that they have no business being a 1 or 2 seed, but if we went off these computers that would happen.
That is why I like the blended approach the committee uses. Human factors matter (injuries, etc.), and computers are not able to fully account for this.
The computers love them because of their incredible efficiency when winning, but have lost to most of the good teams they played. They are in top 5 or 6 in most computer metrics. Most would agree that they have no business being a 1 or 2 seed, but if we went off these computers that would happen.
That is why I like the blended approach the committee uses. Human factors matter (injuries, etc.), and computers are not able to fully account for this.
This goes hand in hand with my belief that the .NET rewards blowing out really weak teams. The algorithm doesn't seem to discount being very efficient against very bad teams sufficiently. I may be wrong. That is why my earlier request to see the alternate runs of the .NET. Lets see the evidence one way or another.
SEC has top 2 seeds out so they might not face a good team
Illini in Indiana
- Indiana
The 3 seed is looking more likely Duke, Kentucky, Creighton all 3/4 seed in front of us going down.
Get to the B10 Finals, and we get a 3 Seed win or lose.
The Selection team loves to set up tough 1-4 seeds and Duke and Kentucky are bigger draws than us
Get to the B10 Finals, and we get a 3 Seed win or lose.
The Selection team loves to set up tough 1-4 seeds and Duke and Kentucky are bigger draws than us
Vegas odds put them around 7th in the country, so it isn't just computers that like them.
Edit: and we're around #11
Last edited:
We gotta win tomorrow.
I don't think Creighton will drop. They have a lot of good wins this year. I'll be very surprised if they do.
Kentucky has been so up and down with some good wins and some good losses and some head scratching losses. We could pass them with a win tomorrow but I think they will still be a 3 seed.
Duke has some bad losses and ended the season poorly. I feel like with a win we should pass them.
It's gonna be very interesting if we win tomorrow.
DeonThomas
- South Carolina
Ignore Lunardi. He hates Illinois. He always has us at least one seed lower (worse) than the Committee.
GrayGhost77
- Centennial, CO
Just win tomorrow and pretty sure we'll be a lock for a 3.
IlliniwekKDR
- Colorado Springs, CO
The way Nebraska has showed out tonight, a win tomorrow would look great for the resume
He may hate us but he has us as a 3 seed right at this moment
Wow! A third seed by Lunardi. He just posted it. I know he's not always accurate, but it's a start. Jerry Palm as well.
Is it wild to think we have already locked up a 3 seed regardless of whether we win tomorrow? Looking at Lunardi's bracket, all the 3 seeds have lost except for us. and most of 4 seeds have lost except for Auburn. So who's gonna jump us if we lose tomorrow?
Illini2010-11
- Sugar Grove
Two key games to watch tomorrow, as it relates to bubble teams:
ACC Championship Game and Pac 12 Championship game. NC State and Oregon both looking to be bid thieves.
ACC Championship Game and Pac 12 Championship game. NC State and Oregon both looking to be bid thieves.
IlliniwekKDR
- Colorado Springs, CO
I just checked his bracket, and it still has us at 4 (last updated last night though). Where are you seeing this?
Playing a full season means something. They collapsed mid season. They were hot at the end, but can't just ignore those games.
Agree. Sagarin used to have a recency measure in his analysis. Early games should matter, but not as much as how a team finishes.
One might be tempted to say, "man, MSU in with a 19-14 record wtf?" To which many people would reply, "yeah, but metrics..."
So I'd ask, with what record would metrics not matter? I mean, theoretically, MSU could have the same efficiency numbers as they do now even with a worse record, right? (As in, if a couple two-tree of their wins were more efficient and a few of their losses were less inefficient, they could have lost more games but ended up with same-ish efficiency numbers, I think.)
Like, is a team ever gonna get in at 17-16? And if not, why should a team at 19-14 or 18-15? That just doesn't make sense lookin' at it IMO.
So I'd ask, with what record would metrics not matter? I mean, theoretically, MSU could have the same efficiency numbers as they do now even with a worse record, right? (As in, if a couple two-tree of their wins were more efficient and a few of their losses were less inefficient, they could have lost more games but ended up with same-ish efficiency numbers, I think.)
Like, is a team ever gonna get in at 17-16? And if not, why should a team at 19-14 or 18-15? That just doesn't make sense lookin' at it IMO.
What happened to everyone saying we had a 3 seed wrapped up if we won today against O$U? Why do we have to win tomorrow too now?
IMO, we will be a 4 unless we go to the Championship game...only because we are Illinois. Anyone else would already be a 3 seed.
IMO, we will be a 4 unless we go to the Championship game...only because we are Illinois. Anyone else would already be a 3 seed.
Let me start off by saying I am of the school of thought that games beyond Friday in the conference tournaments don't matter to the NCAA tournament selection committe. I've seen enough of these annual debates to come to that conclusion. Most of us agree -- because it's been stated by committee members before -- that the Sunday games are completely irrelelvant.
But why, in this day and age, do all the games not matter? Pretty much all of us on this board spent the last two or three weeks playing around with various scenarios using the Big Ten Tournament Generator, coming up with countless BTT seeding scenarios. Does such a generator -- albeit a bit more elaborate -- not exist for the selection committee to use? Assuming that technology could be expanded out to consider 1-16 seeding and location scenarios, why does the committee not just use something like that? I hope they're not putting their bracket scenarios together with pens and dozens of sheets of paper.
Seriously... using such a bracket generator would allow them to plug in various scenarios up until the last minute on Sunday, then reveal the bracket that coincided with such scenarios. If this technology isn't available to them this year, it should be next year!
But why, in this day and age, do all the games not matter? Pretty much all of us on this board spent the last two or three weeks playing around with various scenarios using the Big Ten Tournament Generator, coming up with countless BTT seeding scenarios. Does such a generator -- albeit a bit more elaborate -- not exist for the selection committee to use? Assuming that technology could be expanded out to consider 1-16 seeding and location scenarios, why does the committee not just use something like that? I hope they're not putting their bracket scenarios together with pens and dozens of sheets of paper.
Seriously... using such a bracket generator would allow them to plug in various scenarios up until the last minute on Sunday, then reveal the bracket that coincided with such scenarios. If this technology isn't available to them this year, it should be next year!
- Status