Of course. ALWAYS against clownpants U.
NCAA Tournament 2023 Thread
theNewGuy
- Dallas, TX
More like "B1G Drunk Energy"
Semi-OT background, but I would like some input here. I'm trying to analyze how much Big Ten programs (and specifically Illinois) have over- or underachieved compared to their seeds since the Tournament went to 64 teams in 1985. So, I need a metric to go against.
So my ON-topic questions is this. What do you think is a "fair" baseline expectation for each seed line in March Madness to mark the postseason as a failure, meeting expectations or exceeding expectations? The original way I did it was this:
NC Game or Winning the NC: Exceeding expectations for any team
Final Four: Expectation for a #1 seed
Elite Eight: Expectation for a #2 seed
Sweet Sixteen: Expectation for a #3 seed or #4 seed
Second Round: Expectation for a #5 seed, #6 seed or #7 seed
First Round: Expectation for #8 seed or lower (8/9 is so even)
This seemed obvious at first, but it is SO difficult to make a Final Four. I feel kind of harsh saying a #1 seed who made the Elite Eight and lost to a #2 seed "failed to meet expectations" that year. Additionally, a #2 seed losing to a #3 seed in the Sweet Sixteen is not exactly uncommon. However, I don't really know how I'd edit the above.
So my ON-topic questions is this. What do you think is a "fair" baseline expectation for each seed line in March Madness to mark the postseason as a failure, meeting expectations or exceeding expectations? The original way I did it was this:
NC Game or Winning the NC: Exceeding expectations for any team
Final Four: Expectation for a #1 seed
Elite Eight: Expectation for a #2 seed
Sweet Sixteen: Expectation for a #3 seed or #4 seed
Second Round: Expectation for a #5 seed, #6 seed or #7 seed
First Round: Expectation for #8 seed or lower (8/9 is so even)
This seemed obvious at first, but it is SO difficult to make a Final Four. I feel kind of harsh saying a #1 seed who made the Elite Eight and lost to a #2 seed "failed to meet expectations" that year. Additionally, a #2 seed losing to a #3 seed in the Sweet Sixteen is not exactly uncommon. However, I don't really know how I'd edit the above.
Also that IU homer is such a tool.
Illini92and96
- Austin, TX
Given there are always seed based upsets I would relax it a bit. You also need to define "expectations" and how optimistic you want to be. I'd say a #1 HAS to get to elite 8 or it would be a severe disappointment. Sure the goal is the final four, but not all the 1 seeds will get there based on history so it's not a realistic/automatic expectation. More of a hope.
Final four. Great/memorable year for any team.
Elite 8 - minimum expectation for 1 seed to reach this stage, would have thought about "what could have been". They would be half of the remaining teams.
Sweet sixteen - minimum for 1/2 seed to reach this stage. They would be half of the remaining teams.
Second round - minimum expectations for 1/2/3/4 seed to reach this stage. They would be half of the remaining teams. Maybe the five seeds expect to move on, but given all the 5/12 upsets is it a clear expectation? 6 and 7 seeds aren't far from the 8/9 tossup games.
Interesting stat from Ken Pomeroy. I continue to hate everyone in the East bracket:
Great idea! I’d look at +/- “expected wins” and go straight off seeding:
9 - 16 seed = 0 (ignore First Four games)
5 - 8 seed = 1
3 - 4 seed = 2
2 seed = 3
1 seed = 4
There’s enough data since 1985 that the 8/9 and 2/3 issue just gets washed out. Curious to see the results.
Sure they do. But the Big Ten seems to have a rep of more of a general slugfest within their Conference... or perhaps the style of ball play. Maybe this goes way back to the 'Three Yards and a Cloud of Dust' thing taken from the footballers of tough, grind-it-out, Rust Belt stuff. Or that signature Big Ten teams like the Illini have been disappointingly inconsistent overall despite a respectable record.
The Pollsters have pretty much been in love with Alabama, Houston, Purdue, and UCLA for much of the year. Everyone else is trying to show that they too belong up there or can play with those guys. And like the Illini, some have come maddeningly close to knocking Purdue down a notch.
The thing to watch this year is who is the team hiding in the bushes that will make a big splash that everyone is overlooking right now.
Purdue finished the season 4-4 and it easily could have been worse than that. Add in the having to play the 13th and the 10th seeds in the semi's and finals of the BTT and their history of choking and I was shocked they were still rewarded with a #1.
I think the simplified version of what you suggested is the one I put forth ... and I do have that. Using that, these are the Big Ten results. For simplicity's sake, I counted vacated Tournament appearances, and these are obviously pre-2023:
< School: # Appearances (# Exceeding - # Meeting - # Underperforming) >
Michigan State: 31 Total (10 - 14 - 7)
Purdue: 28 Total (5 - 9 - 14)
Indiana: 26 Total (5 - 12 - 9)
Illinois: 24 Total (2 - 11 - 11)
Wisconsin: 24 Total (8 - 9 - 7)
Michigan: 23 Total (8 - 7 - 8)
Maryland: 22 Total (7 - 6 - 9)
Ohio State: 22 Total (6 - 5 - 11)
Iowa: 20 Total (3 - 12 - 5)
Minnesota: 12 Total (4 - 7 - 1)
Nebraska: 7 Total (0 - 5 - 2) ... worth noting they've never won a game!
Penn State: 4 Total (2 - 1 - 1)
Rutgers: 4 Total (1 - 3 - 0)
Northwestern: 1 Total (0 - 1 - 0)
So the only program who's "disappointed" with high seeds as often as we have is Ohio State, but they have made up for it with three times as many years "exceeding expectations." Pretty depressing, lol ... but hey, doesn't this mean we are due?! Seriously, for as many good teams as we have had over the years, we are SERIOUSLY due to make an unexpected run.
ILLINI RESULTS
Exceeded Seed Expectations
2005: #1 seed losing in the National Championship Game
2004: #5 seed losing in the Sweet Sixteen
Met Seed Expectations
2013: #7 seed losing in the Second Round
2011: #9 seed losing in the Second Round
2007: #12 seed losing in the First Round
2002: #4 seed losing in the Sweet Sixteen
1998: #5 seed losing in the Second Round
1997: #6 seed losing in the Second Round
1995: #11 seed losing in the First Round
1994: #8 seed losing in the First Round
1993: #6 seed losing in the Second Round
1989: #1 seed losing in the Final Four
1985: #3 seed losing in the Sweet Sixteen
Underperformed Seed Expectations
2022: #4 seed losing in the Second Round
2021: #1 seed losing in the Second Round
2009: #5 seed losing in the First Round
2006: #4 seed losing in the Second Round
2003: #4 seed losing in the Second Round
2001: #1 seed losing in the Elite Eight (these are the ones that are harsh...)
2000: #4 seed losing in the Second Round
1990: #5 seed losing in the First Round
1988: #3 seed losing in the Second Round
1987: #3 seed losing in the First Round ... sorry, guys!
1986: #4 seed losing in the Second Round
One alarmingly bizarre stat is that we are 1-5 in Second Round games as a #4 seed ... WTF?? In my head, though, I guess I feel like losing a frustrating game in the Second Round as a #4 seed is archetypal Illinois.
Here are some fun/extreme examples from other Big Ten schools!
Exceeded Seed Expectations
2015: #7 seed Michigan State losing in the Final Four
2002: #5 seed Indiana losing in the National Championship Game
2000: #8 seed Wisconsin losing in the Final Four
2000: #6 seed Purdue losing in the Elite Eight
1989: #11 seed Minnesota losing in the Sweet Sixteen
Underperformed Seed Expectations
2021: #2 seed Ohio State losing in the First Round
2016: #2 seed Michigan State losing in the First Round
2006: #3 seed Iowa losing in the First Round
1996: #1 seed Purdue losing in the Second Round
1995: #3 seed Michigan State losing in the First Round
1991: #3 seed Nebraska losing in the First Round ... the one that got away!!
1986: #3 seed Indiana losing in the First Round
1985: #1 seed Michigan losing in the Second Round
Enjoy, and apologies for any errors!! Bottom line, Illini Nation - it's time we got some luck in March, why not this year?!
Last edited:
pruman91
- Paducah, Ky
lol.............If you are trying to make me laugh , then kudos , you did it.........I respect your opinion .....i say that a lot aboot a lot of posters and i do say it because I believe it.......we all have a right to voice an opinion in a respectful way ......I will try to stay on that path right now....
I have watched a bunch of BB this year , as in all the other years of my existence on this globe........Yes , the B$G has been a slugfest .......but that's nothing new.......The Big 12 has been a slugfest this year , nothing new there either.......Same with the SEC..........College BB has been rendered in to a slugfest with the amount of $$$ involved and I don't see a lot of difference when I tune in to a BB game I want to watch.....I will pass on anything aboot the Big East or the ACC as east coast teams are smothered in espn bias and I have had enough of that coming out of my ears......
Seems obvious to me your inclusion of 3 yards and a cloud of dust and rust belt , grind it out is your opinion and so be it......
it's not mine and i believe you might be in the minority as far as the B$G being the slugfest king of the heap.......
The other conference's play is just as much of a slugfest and probably moreso as their teams have better talent and athleticism than the B$G...........This is a down year for the B$G....no doubt aboot it............To paint it any other way other than we have less talent than the other conferences is fool's gold...........
Pollsters-shmollsters......media peeps that don't have the time to watch the games they need to to give an honest appraisel of the teams they vote on........Give me coaches polls and opinions to measure the cream of the crop nationwide.........
And finally , your statement aboot some team hiding in the bushes ????.....hmmm , with the scrutiny now a days by the media types , i think a better way to voice that opinion is the annually stated fact of who gets hot at the right time......
Stating the obvious is not new here or on other boards as I have posted here and all the way back to that maddening scissor board that Brumby had in a galaxy far far away..............I miss the news-gazette's cesspool board sometimes ....not often , but sometimes ......
the hatred was real ........between certain posters towards another .......the vile stated aboot the Illini and whatever coach we had was blood-lettingly honest and not for the eyes of the timid .........
I like the ad min here that allows discourse , but draws a line ........I have went over the line numerous times .....I don't like being on the wrong side of the line . so i will say i respect you and everyone else's opinions.........I just disagree with most of your posts because it's usually stating the obvious........no disrespect intended..........just agree to disagree.....I will continue to respect everyone else's opinions , but reserve the right to disagree politely and respectfully.............
What do the numbers look like if you just ignore all of the -1, 0 and +1 seasons? More meaningful is when a team exceeds or underperforms by two games or more. Looks like we've never been better than +1 and the only two seasons at -2 or worse are 2021 (-3) and 1987 (-2).I think the simplified version of what you suggested is the one I put forth ... and I do have that. Using that, these are the Big Ten results. For simplicity's sake, I counted vacated Tournament appearances, and these are obviously pre-2023:
< School: # Appearances (# Exceeding - # Meeting - # Underperforming) >
Michigan State: 31 Total (10 - 14 - 7)
Purdue: 28 Total (5 - 9 - 14)
Indiana: 26 Total (5 - 12 - 9)
Illinois: 24 Total (2 - 11 - 11)
Wisconsin: 24 Total (8 - 9 - 7)
Michigan: 23 Total (8 - 7 - 8)
Maryland: 22 Total (7 - 6 - 9)
Ohio State: 22 Total (6 - 5 - 11)
Iowa: 20 Total (3 - 12 - 5)
Minnesota: 12 Total (4 - 7 - 1)
Nebraska: 7 Total (0 - 5 - 2) ... worth noting they've never won a game!
Penn State: 4 Total (2 - 1 - 1)
Rutgers: 4 Total (1 - 3 - 0)
Northwestern: 1 Total (0 - 1 - 0)
So the only program who's "disappointed" with high seeds as often as we have is Ohio State, but they have made up for it with three times as many years "exceeding expectations." Pretty depressing, lol ... but hey, doesn't this mean we are due?! Seriously, for as many good teams as we have had over the years, we are SERIOUSLY due to make an unexpected run.
ILLINI RESULTS
Exceeded Seed Expectations
2005: #1 seed losing in the National Championship Game
2004: #5 seed losing in the Sweet Sixteen
Met Seed Expectations
2013: #7 seed losing in the Second Round
2011: #9 seed losing in the Second Round
2007: #12 seed losing in the First Round
2002: #4 seed losing in the Sweet Sixteen
1998: #5 seed losing in the Second Round
1997: #6 seed losing in the Second Round
1995: #11 seed losing in the First Round
1994: #8 seed losing in the First Round
1993: #6 seed losing in the Second Round
1989: #1 seed losing in the Final Four
1985: #3 seed losing in the Sweet Sixteen
Underperformed Seed Expectations
2022: #4 seed losing in the Second Round
2021: #1 seed losing in the Second Round
2009: #5 seed losing in the First Round
2006: #4 seed losing in the Second Round
2003: #4 seed losing in the Second Round
2001: #1 seed losing in the Elite Eight (these are the ones that are harsh...)
2000: #4 seed losing in the Second Round
1990: #5 seed losing in the First Round
1988: #3 seed losing in the Second Round
1987: #3 seed losing in the First Round ... sorry, guys!
1986: #4 seed losing in the Second Round
One alarmingly bizarre stat is that we are 1-5 in Second Round games as a #4 seed ... WTF?? In my head, though, I guess I feel like losing a frustrating game in the Second Round as a #4 seed is archetypal Illinois.
Here are some fun/extreme examples from other Big Ten schools!
Exceeded Seed Expectations
2015: #7 seed Michigan State losing in the Final Four
2002: #5 seed Indiana losing in the National Championship Game
2000: #8 seed Wisconsin losing in the Final Four
2000: #6 seed Purdue losing in the Elite Eight
1989: #11 seed Minnesota losing in the Sweet Sixteen
Underperformed Seed Expectations
2021: #2 seed Ohio State losing in the First Round
2016: #2 seed Michigan State losing in the First Round
2006: #3 seed Iowa losing in the First Round
1996: #1 seed Purdue losing in the Second Round
1995: #3 seed Michigan State losing in the First Round
1991: #3 seed Nebraska losing in the First Round ... the one that got away!!
1986: #3 seed Indiana losing in the First Round
1985: #1 seed Michigan losing in the Second Round
Enjoy, and apologies for any errors!! Bottom line, Illini Nation - it's time we got some luck in March, why not this year?!
Edit: Are those all of the more extreme examples for other B1G teams? If so, then here are the standings for Overperform - Underperform by 2 rounds:
Wisconsin 1-0
Minnesota 1-0
Indiana 1-1
Purdue 1-1
Michigan State 1-2
Iowa 0-1
Michigan 0-1
Nebraska 0-1
Ohio State 0-1
Illinois 0-2
So by this metric, Illinois could be considered the worst-performing B1G team in the NCAA tournament, relative to seeding/expectations.
Last edited:
pruman91
- Paducah, Ky
It's all about the Benjamin's daddy Bruce taught him well.
January 31, 2023 (St. Louis Post-Dispatch):
“Illinois Fighting Illini men's basketball head coach Brad Underwood had some criticism for The Associated Press Top 25 College Basketball Poll and USA Today Men's Basketball Coaches Poll voters...
"I don't know if we're getting much love," Underwood said. "Obviously, Purdue — unanimous No. 1 and deservedly so. They've only been beat once. But you know, not enough teams ranked, and it's all because we beat each other up.”
So I called it a slugfest. Coach called it ‘we beat each other up’. That’s what I was referencing. Is that stating the obvious? Sure. But sometimes the obvious contains the answer we seek or the point I’m making.
I respect everyone’s opinion that comes here. That’s right... everyone. Even those who really didn’t like my take on the Top 25 Polling a few days ago. An opinion is a point of view. And we each are looking at things from a different direction... from different ages in life and different places we live and different biases and different relationships to this game.
There is an Overton Window on any board or blog. Posters find out quickly where the third rails are. I try to stay within certain lines (‘stating the obvious’) because I do not come here to offend but to emphasize or expand on certain points.
You have great status on this board and I respect that. Posters like much/most of what you share.
I’ll just say for myself that I have a great and long personal relationship with the game of basketball. I grew up and played with a guy who played in the NBA. And there would have been a second guy as well but he passed away as a young man before he got there. I’ve been a season ticket holder for the Chicago Bulls. I’ve spent countless hours either playing this game or watching it. So if I share something it’s simply that... to share one point of view. From a guy who has lived this game since I was a kid.
“I just disagree with most of your posts because it's usually stating the obvious....no disrespect intended.”
I’ll just let that speak for itself.
Generally, many posters have been quite positive to me and I express my appreciation for that.
Now, back to the game...
pruman91
- Paducah, Ky
fair enough .......being a Bulls fan you might like the fact that I knew Jerry Sloan and he played as tough in family reunion games as he did at Evansville and in the NBA.............
I don't come here to get any STATUS ....just wanted to be very clear on that.......I come here to have some fun with my friends and usually i do .....It helps me keep my sanity and discuss what i love the most .....sports in general and BB , MLB , FB and hockey the best .......
I'm done.....I stated my opinions , you stated yours.......case closed.....................HAGD..................
I couldn’t be happier that Michigan missed the cut. If I’m being objective though… 27 tourney teams have a lower Ken Pom rating than Michigan. 2/4 11 seed play in teams have a lower net rating. You are right though, 15 losses is tough for the committee to overcome.
Good research and I think it gives a good overview. But I think you need to dig deeper to truly know if your team underperformed or out performed expectations or if they got a bad seed match up. I think 2021 2009 1990 1988 1987 are the disappointing years. If you are a 1 seed you have to make the S16 and if you are 6 or lower you need the round of 32I think the simplified version of what you suggested is the one I put forth ... and I do have that. Using that, these are the Big Ten results. For simplicity's sake, I counted vacated Tournament appearances, and these are obviously pre-2023:
< School: # Appearances (# Exceeding - # Meeting - # Underperforming) >
Michigan State: 31 Total (10 - 14 - 7)
Purdue: 28 Total (5 - 9 - 14)
Indiana: 26 Total (5 - 12 - 9)
Illinois: 24 Total (2 - 11 - 11)
Wisconsin: 24 Total (8 - 9 - 7)
Michigan: 23 Total (8 - 7 - 8)
Maryland: 22 Total (7 - 6 - 9)
Ohio State: 22 Total (6 - 5 - 11)
Iowa: 20 Total (3 - 12 - 5)
Minnesota: 12 Total (4 - 7 - 1)
Nebraska: 7 Total (0 - 5 - 2) ... worth noting they've never won a game!
Penn State: 4 Total (2 - 1 - 1)
Rutgers: 4 Total (1 - 3 - 0)
Northwestern: 1 Total (0 - 1 - 0)
So the only program who's "disappointed" with high seeds as often as we have is Ohio State, but they have made up for it with three times as many years "exceeding expectations." Pretty depressing, lol ... but hey, doesn't this mean we are due?! Seriously, for as many good teams as we have had over the years, we are SERIOUSLY due to make an unexpected run.
ILLINI RESULTS
Exceeded Seed Expectations
2005: #1 seed losing in the National Championship Game
2004: #5 seed losing in the Sweet Sixteen
Met Seed Expectations
2013: #7 seed losing in the Second Round
2011: #9 seed losing in the Second Round
2007: #12 seed losing in the First Round
2002: #4 seed losing in the Sweet Sixteen
1998: #5 seed losing in the Second Round
1997: #6 seed losing in the Second Round
1995: #11 seed losing in the First Round
1994: #8 seed losing in the First Round
1993: #6 seed losing in the Second Round
1989: #1 seed losing in the Final Four
1985: #3 seed losing in the Sweet Sixteen
Underperformed Seed Expectations
2022: #4 seed losing in the Second Round
2021: #1 seed losing in the Second Round
2009: #5 seed losing in the First Round
2006: #4 seed losing in the Second Round
2003: #4 seed losing in the Second Round
2001: #1 seed losing in the Elite Eight (these are the ones that are harsh...)
2000: #4 seed losing in the Second Round
1990: #5 seed losing in the First Round
1988: #3 seed losing in the Second Round
1987: #3 seed losing in the First Round ... sorry, guys!
1986: #4 seed losing in the Second Round
One alarmingly bizarre stat is that we are 1-5 in Second Round games as a #4 seed ... WTF?? In my head, though, I guess I feel like losing a frustrating game in the Second Round as a #4 seed is archetypal Illinois.
Here are some fun/extreme examples from other Big Ten schools!
Exceeded Seed Expectations
2015: #7 seed Michigan State losing in the Final Four
2002: #5 seed Indiana losing in the National Championship Game
2000: #8 seed Wisconsin losing in the Final Four
2000: #6 seed Purdue losing in the Elite Eight
1989: #11 seed Minnesota losing in the Sweet Sixteen
Underperformed Seed Expectations
2021: #2 seed Ohio State losing in the First Round
2016: #2 seed Michigan State losing in the First Round
2006: #3 seed Iowa losing in the First Round
1996: #1 seed Purdue losing in the Second Round
1995: #3 seed Michigan State losing in the First Round
1991: #3 seed Nebraska losing in the First Round ... the one that got away!!
1986: #3 seed Indiana losing in the First Round
1985: #1 seed Michigan losing in the Second Round
Enjoy, and apologies for any errors!! Bottom line, Illini Nation - it's time we got some luck in March, why not this year?!
Remember most NC winners have a really close game somewhere in the tournament. We unfortunately have been on the wrong side of those games a few times
Texas A&M-Corpus Christi defeats Southeast Missouri State 75-71. It is the Islanders' first NCAA Tournament win. Islanders will face Alabama Thursday afternoon in Birmingham.
I was hoping for Hofstra
Another way to look at it which would make everyone on this board question their very existence - the Illini don't under perform, the committee actually favors us and frequently over seeds us.What do the numbers look like if you just ignore all of the -1, 0 and +1 seasons? More meaningful is when a team exceeds or underperforms by two games or more. Looks like we've never been better than +1 and the only two seasons at -2 or worse are 2021 (-3) and 1987 (-2).
Edit: Are those all of the more extreme examples for other B1G teams? If so, then here are the standings for Overperform - Underperform by 2 rounds:
Wisconsin 1-0
Minnesota 1-0
Indiana 1-1
Purdue 1-1
Michigan State 1-2
Iowa 0-1
Michigan 0-1
Nebraska 0-1
Ohio State 0-1
Illinois 0-2
So by this metric, Illinois could be considered the worst-performing B1G team in the NCAA tournament, relative to seeding/expectations.
InDaAZ
- Eugene, Oregon
Gif + username = synergy