Those percentages prove my point. It's not the end of the world if we become a 3 instead of 2, but it is still important.
Bracketology
- Status
Miami didnt play wash state........it was wright state (127 NET)
and the average 6 is better than the average 7. It goes both ways. Must win tomorrow for us and Arizona.
AyoDos11
- Southern Illinois
Plus getting a 3 seed means (potentially) playing a Houston, MSU, or UConn type team in the S16 as opposed to playing a Iowa St, Nebraska, Gonzaga, or Purdue type team.
I think the focus should be on getting to the sweet 16. Let's not fast forward. Get St. Louis, which gives us a big advantage and take it one game at a time with a loud atmosphere.
AI hallucination? I'm pretty sure this site is correct:
2-Seeds - BracketResearch.com
A brief history and some highlights of 2-seed performance in the NCAA Tournament, including totals by round overall and in the last 10 years.
bracketresearch.com
3-Seeds - BracketResearch.com
A brief history and some highlights of 3-seed performance in the NCAA Tournament, including totals by round overall and in the last 10 years.
bracketresearch.com
2-seed:
1st rd record: 149-11 (93%)
2nd rd record: 102-47 (68%)
- vs 7-seeds: 65-27 (71%)
- vs 10-seeds: 37-20 (65%)
3rd rd record: 72-30 (71%)
3-seed:
1st rd record: 137-23 (86%)
2nd rd record: 84-53 (61%)
- vs 6-seeds: 49-33 (60%)
- vs 11-seeds: 35-20 (64%)
3rd rd record: 41-43 (49%)
So 72 2-seeds vs 41 3 seeds (of 160) have reached the elite 8. I agree that part of that difference is that 2-seeds are better than 3-seeds, but my blind guess is that half of that is opponent strength.
Probably. I tried
I should have went the first website I researched which had accurate results.Anyway honestly I don't even care that much. Like I said I don't feel like there is much difference.
Last edited:
The shift begins:
My take is that while most brackets still have us as a 2-seed, ESPN has outsize influence with the NCAA, so I expect a "follow-the-leader" situation.
My take is that while most brackets still have us as a 2-seed, ESPN has outsize influence with the NCAA, so I expect a "follow-the-leader" situation.
Last edited:
Massive implications today. Have to win. Getting on the 2 seed line in the West versus a 3 seed in the East is huge for us
Hope UCLA knocks off Sparty
http://www.bracketmatrix.com/rankings.html has Lunardi at 125th over the last five years.
"The shift begins."
The Shift: one of the bracketoligists with the worst track records overreacting to one game.
For one, if Lunardi/ESPN have "outsize influence" why do his brackets do so poorly? Bracket Matrix ranks him as the #125 bracketologist (out of 186) over the last 5 years.
Second, nothing has changed. We still need to beat Wisconsin and need Iowa St. to lose to Arizona. It was always thus.
Third, if we end up a 3 seed...fine. The fact that the worst that can happen is ending up a 3 seed is something to celebrate in itself
I feel like one thing that’s hurting us is our wins above bubble (WAB) is so low (14th).
They're playing great right now. Losing at Michigan doesn't hurt you just like it won't hurt us if we win today. There's some recency bias.
We have nobody to blame but ourselves. Losing that game at UCLA, up 23, was utterly ridiculous. Losing BOTH games in OT versus Wisconsin and MSU, when basic end of game free throws and end of game rebounding wins both games is on us. Can't blame MSU for that. Those were losses were there to be won. Recency bias means something. 4-4 is a bad look. There was a time was "What did you do in your last 10" was a metric. If may not officially be one anymore, but we all know it's discussed and it should.
MSU has won games and we haven't down the stretch. That shouldn't have been the case. This team SHOULD be 27-4, if they just would have not have thrown games away. Looking in the mirror and not at MSU is the issue.
I would gladly take a 3 seed in Duke's regional over a 2 seed with Florida or Arizona.
two things,
Illini have to win this game today to be considered for the 2 line
Miami (OH) is not a tourney team, zero quad 1 wins and only 2 quad 2 wins. They shouldn't even be on the bubble. Way better teams are on the bubble.
Illini have to win this game today to be considered for the 2 line
Miami (OH) is not a tourney team, zero quad 1 wins and only 2 quad 2 wins. They shouldn't even be on the bubble. Way better teams are on the bubble.
They will drop a line to an eleven seed.
McNeese state will make a game of whomever they play. They are really good and took down a really good SFA team. They could be a S16 sleeper
Not that it matters but why did Lunardi punish us for having a triple bye?
Win today and I think we're pretty comfortable on the 2 line. If ISU also loses it's a lock. If they win it'll still be a question but I favor us. If we somehow win tomorrow too we're absolutely guaranteed a 2. I don't really see a 1 as a possibility unless some crazy set of circumstances happens, probably like a <1% chance.
Personally I really hope we get to the 2, I think it makes a huge difference. We have struggled to make deep tournament runs, and our only sweet 16 appearance came when we faced 2 double digit seeds the first weekend. This team definitely can beat a 6 seed, but getting a 7 or 10 would make our second weekend path much easier.
Personally I really hope we get to the 2, I think it makes a huge difference. We have struggled to make deep tournament runs, and our only sweet 16 appearance came when we faced 2 double digit seeds the first weekend. This team definitely can beat a 6 seed, but getting a 7 or 10 would make our second weekend path much easier.
MSU is ahead of us in all the results based metrics: KPI, SOR, and WAB and currently has 1 more Q1 win. Illinois is ahead in all the predictive metrics BPI, Kenpom, T-Rank. The two are rightfully really close to each other and one of them not winning today could swing the order.
Surprised our WAB is so low with the big wins we have had.
Yeah, I am worried about this and I also think it's a bad metric. I could see a scenario where this metric is really important for a few years and then, when cooler heads prevail, it gets scrapped.
One major problem with WAB is it doesn't take into account, at all, the the manner of victory. Getting blown out by 40 vs. losing on a last second shot in quadruple OT? To WAB they are the SAME. Here's a fun example, for it's 21 point blowout loss @ Kansas, Iowa St. got dinged to the tune of -0.18 WAB. Our OT loss @ MSU got roughly the same penalty, -0.15 WAB. UConn's OT win @ Seton Hall (#80 NET) got them +0.51 WAB, similar to our 36 point obliteration @ USC (#78 NET) which netted us +0.53 WAB. This is why Miami (OH) does well in WAB. It's basically just Wins and Losses with a glossy analytic sheen.
Comparing against other Big Ten teams, Purdue, the team right above us in WAB, gets the exact same credit for winning in OT @ Nebraska as we get for winning comfortably @ Nebraska. Purdue also gets the same credit for their 5-pt win @ USC that we do for our 36-pt win. What should be a point in our favor in a direct comparison becomes a wash. MSU, who also has a better WAB than us, gets a lot more credit for their OT away win against lowly Rutgers (+0.33 WAB), than we get for dismantling the same team (26 pt win, +0.13 WAB) merely because we did it at home, and therefor the "average bubble team" has a higher winning% for that game. But, against a bad opponent, what actually is more impressive? Scraping by in OT away, or winning by 26 at home? That OT game against MSU was the closest Rutgers got to beating anyone good - should MSU really be rewarded for that?
- Status