Week of 1/26 Bracketology

Status
Not open for further replies.
#51      
jrichisamazing
mysterio2525 said:
despite how they are playing right now I find it hard to find losses in the big east for uconn.... because that league is not what it's been at all
Click to expand...

Which is a shame because the Big East is my favorite conference to watch after the B1G. Lots of passionate fanbases, great home court environments, and exciting basketball. But it really fell off a cliff this year for some reason.

St. Johns is probably our best hope for knocking UConn off. They still have to play each other twice. UConn also has to play Creighton twice. I know they aren't good this year but they still have a shot at the dance. McDermott might be able to figure something out.
 
#52      
EmeraldCityIllini
Have been a pretty big fan of both CBS and ESPN’s bracket updates today.

Both us at 2 - espn facing winner of SLU and Miami and Navy in Rd1. CBS winner of Iowa/TCU with Marist in rd1.

Would be surprised if Iowa would be in that spot.

SLU is 24 in KP and we got PTSD from Loyola being unranked and a bad matchup. But I think we matchup great with SLU
 
Last edited:
#54      
mysterio2525
jrichisamazing said:
Which is a shame because the Big East is my favorite conference to watch after the B1G. Lots of passionate fanbases, great home court environments, and exciting basketball. But it really fell off a cliff this year for some reason.

St. Johns is probably our best hope for knocking UConn off. They still have to play each other twice. UConn also has to play Creighton twice. I know they aren't good this year but they still have a shot at the dance. McDermott might be able to figure something out.
Click to expand...
Creighton really disappointed. even st. John's. but when Marquette, Syracuse and Georgetown are just trash teams this year it hurts. Villanova is ok...I guess
 
#56      
Piotyr
mysterio2525 said:
Creighton really disappointed. even st. John's. but when Marquette, Syracuse and Georgetown are just trash teams this year it hurts. Villanova is ok...I guess
Click to expand...
DePaul fans are thinking their team is OK this year, but it's more that everyone else is worse that they look average in the league.
 
#57      
IlliniFan42
Piotyr said:
DePaul fans are thinking their team is OK this year, but it's more that everyone else is worse that they look average in the league.
Click to expand...
They've already matched their Big East win total, don't take this from them, it's very sad.
 
#59      
Fighter of the Nightman
I want to emphasize again that I do not know all of the intricacies that people have mentioned here RE: placing protected seeds in a given region, such as how they sort teams by the overall seed lines. The only point of this post is to show that since 2000, there have been plenty of examples of a "better" protected seed getting placed in a region that is more advantageous for a "worse" protected seed. I would obviously assume that these placements followed the other rules/guidelines that have been mentioned here, I am simply showing that IF it worked out as far as other factors, the Committee wouldn't not put #1 Michigan in Chicago with #2 Illinois simply BECAUSE we'd like the placement even more. In other words, they are not against "screwing over" a better protected seed, as long as it makes sense with the rest of their rules and the overall bracket.

A quick overview of four parameters I'm using here:

1) I am only looking at protected seeds, which are seeds #1-4. I am assuming placements beyond that simply have to do with "making the bracket work" and were not specifically looking at geography.
2) I am only looking at the Regionals (i.e., Sweet Sixteen and Elite Eight locations). Since teams can be at the same First Weekend site and be in different parts of the broader bracket, that is not the point here.
3) I am trying to limit this to clear examples that would be closer to us being placed in Chicago with a better seed Michigan. For example, #3 Boston College got put in Philadelphia with #1 Duke ... big deal, lol, Duke has a lot of fans in the Northeast, and the driving distances aren't that different.
4) I am ignoring examples where two protected seeds really like the location, but it is still better for the higher seed. For example, #2 Michigan State was put in Indianapolis in 2009, but #1 Louisville would have viewed that as just as good of a location for their fans, if not better.

So, since 2000, these are examples of a #1/2/3 seed getting placed with a #2/3/4 seed where the "worse" seed has a noticeably better example. As with the last time I did it, the "better" seed that is being sort of screwed over is in red, and the "worse" seed that theoretically got lucky are in green.

2002
Syracuse, NY (East)
#1 Maryland
#2 UConn
#3 Georgia
#4 Kentucky

Madison, WI (Midwest)
#1 Kansas
#2 Oregon
#3 Mississippi State
#4 Illinois

2003
Albany, NY (East)
#1 Oklahoma
#2 Georgia
#3 Syracuse
#4 Louisville

Minneapolis, MN (Midwest)
#1 Kentucky
#2 Pitt
#3 Marquette
#4 Dayton

2004
St. Louis, MO
#1 Kentucky
#2 Gonzaga
#3 Georgia Tech
#4 Kansas

2005
Syracuse, NY
#1 North Carolina
#2 UConn
#3 Kansas
#4 Florida

2007
San Antonio, TX (South)
#1 Ohio State
#2 Memphis
#3 Texas A&M
#4 Virginia

2008
Houston, TX (South)
#1 Memphis
#2 Texas
#3 Stanford
#4 Pitt

2010
Houston, TX (South)
#1 Duke
#2 Villanova
#3 Baylor
#4 Purdue

2011
Newark, NJ (East)
#1 Ohio State
#2 North Carolina
#3 Syracuse
#4 Kentucky

Anaheim, CA (West)
#1 Duke
#2 San Diego State
#3 UConn
#4 Texas

2012
St. Louis, MO (Midwest)
#1 North Carolina
#2 Kansas
#3 Georgetown
#4 Michigan

2014
Anaheim, CA (West)
#1 Arizona
#2 Wisconsin
#3 Creighton
#4 San Diego State

Indianapolis, IN (Midwest)
#1 Wichita State
#2 Michigan
#3 Duke
#4 Louisville

2016
Chicago, IL (Midwest)
#1 Virginia
#2 Michigan State
#3 Utah
#4 Iowa State (this could have been green, too)

2019
Washington, DC (East)
#1 Duke
#2 Michigan State
#3 LSU
#4 Virginia Tech

Louisville, KY (South)
#1 Virginia
#2 Tennessee
#3 Purdue
#4 Kansas State

Kansas City, MO (Midwest)
#1 North Carolina
#2 Kentucky
#3 Houston
#4 Kansas

2022
Chicago, IL (Midwest)
#1 Kansas
#2 Auburn
#3 Wisconsin
#4 Providence

2025
Indianapolis, IN (Midwest)
#1 Houston
#2 Tennessee
#3 Kentucky
#4 Purdue

TL;DR

Once again, this is not saying anything about the non-geographic reasons for why a #2/3/4 seed Illini team would be shipped somewhere else besides Chicago. It is simply making the point that it certainly doesn't seem like the Committee ever uses the logic of, "We don't want to screw over a #1 seed Michigan by putting them in Chicago with #2 seed Illinois!" I get the impression that at that point, the Committee's done their best to protect all protected seeds, and you can only do so much when it comes to a potential Elite Eight matchup.

Plus, and this is just my own conjecture ... I do think they want to sell tickets. At the expense of the integrity of the bracket?? No. However, if it doesn't mess anything else up? Yeah, I think they'd prefer to have a top 3 seed Illinois team going through St. Louis and Chicago.
 
#60      
skyIdub
Fighter of the Nightman said:
I want to emphasize again that I do not know all of the intricacies that people have mentioned here RE: placing protected seeds in a given region, such as how they sort teams by the overall seed lines. The only point of this post is to show that since 2000, there have been plenty of examples of a "better" protected seed getting placed in a region that is more advantageous for a "worse" protected seed. I would obviously assume that these placements followed the other rules/guidelines that have been mentioned here, I am simply showing that IF it worked out as far as other factors, the Committee wouldn't not put #1 Michigan in Chicago with #2 Illinois simply BECAUSE we'd like the placement even more. In other words, they are not against "screwing over" a better protected seed, as long as it makes sense with the rest of their rules and the overall bracket.

A quick overview of four parameters I'm using here:

1) I am only looking at protected seeds, which are seeds #1-4. I am assuming placements beyond that simply have to do with "making the bracket work" and were not specifically looking at geography.
2) I am only looking at the Regionals (i.e., Sweet Sixteen and Elite Eight locations). Since teams can be at the same First Weekend site and be in different parts of the broader bracket, that is not the point here.
3) I am trying to limit this to clear examples that would be closer to us being placed in Chicago with a better seed Michigan. For example, #3 Boston College got put in Philadelphia with #1 Duke ... big deal, lol, Duke has a lot of fans in the Northeast, and the driving distances aren't that different.
4) I am ignoring examples where two protected seeds really like the location, but it is still better for the higher seed. For example, #2 Michigan State was put in Indianapolis in 2009, but #1 Louisville would have viewed that as just as good of a location for their fans, if not better.

So, since 2000, these are examples of a #1/2/3 seed getting placed with a #2/3/4 seed where the "worse" seed has a noticeably better example. As with the last time I did it, the "better" seed that is being sort of screwed over is in red, and the "worse" seed that theoretically got lucky are in green.

2002
Syracuse, NY (East)
#1 Maryland
#2 UConn
#3 Georgia
#4 Kentucky

Madison, WI (Midwest)
#1 Kansas
#2 Oregon
#3 Mississippi State
#4 Illinois

2003
Albany, NY (East)
#1 Oklahoma
#2 Georgia
#3 Syracuse
#4 Louisville

Minneapolis, MN (Midwest)
#1 Kentucky
#2 Pitt
#3 Marquette
#4 Dayton

2004
St. Louis, MO
#1 Kentucky
#2 Gonzaga
#3 Georgia Tech
#4 Kansas

2005
Syracuse, NY
#1 North Carolina
#2 UConn
#3 Kansas
#4 Florida

2007
San Antonio, TX (South)
#1 Ohio State
#2 Memphis
#3 Texas A&M
#4 Virginia

2008
Houston, TX (South)
#1 Memphis
#2 Texas
#3 Stanford
#4 Pitt

2010
Houston, TX (South)
#1 Duke
#2 Villanova
#3 Baylor
#4 Purdue

2011
Newark, NJ (East)
#1 Ohio State
#2 North Carolina
#3 Syracuse
#4 Kentucky

Anaheim, CA (West)
#1 Duke
#2 San Diego State
#3 UConn
#4 Texas

2012
St. Louis, MO (Midwest)
#1 North Carolina
#2 Kansas
#3 Georgetown
#4 Michigan

2014
Anaheim, CA (West)
#1 Arizona
#2 Wisconsin
#3 Creighton
#4 San Diego State

Indianapolis, IN (Midwest)
#1 Wichita State
#2 Michigan
#3 Duke
#4 Louisville

2016
Chicago, IL (Midwest)
#1 Virginia
#2 Michigan State
#3 Utah
#4 Iowa State (this could have been green, too)

2019
Washington, DC (East)
#1 Duke
#2 Michigan State
#3 LSU
#4 Virginia Tech

Louisville, KY (South)
#1 Virginia
#2 Tennessee
#3 Purdue
#4 Kansas State

Kansas City, MO (Midwest)
#1 North Carolina
#2 Kentucky
#3 Houston
#4 Kansas

2022
Chicago, IL (Midwest)
#1 Kansas
#2 Auburn
#3 Wisconsin
#4 Providence

2025
Indianapolis, IN (Midwest)
#1 Houston
#2 Tennessee
#3 Kentucky
#4 Purdue

TL;DR

Once again, this is not saying anything about the non-geographic reasons for why a #2/3/4 seed Illini team would be shipped somewhere else besides Chicago. It is simply making the point that it certainly doesn't seem like the Committee ever uses the logic of, "We don't want to screw over a #1 seed Michigan by putting them in Chicago with #2 seed Illinois!" I get the impression that at that point, the Committee's done their best to protect all protected seeds, and you can only do so much when it comes to a potential Elite Eight matchup.

Plus, and this is just my own conjecture ... I do think they want to sell tickets. At the expense of the integrity of the bracket?? No. However, if it doesn't mess anything else up? Yeah, I think they'd prefer to have a top 3 seed Illinois team going through St. Louis and Chicago.
Click to expand...

This is just my goofball brain, but I picture you composing this post sitting in the ambulance with a laptop as your wife is transferred to a different facility.

(only because you already confirmed she's fine! so dark comedy!)

It's the same when I tell people that this world is a simulation because silly sh@t happens to me at work, and I tell them it's because future me is running the simulation and likes to f$ck with present me.

Then they ask "didn't your brother just die randomly unexpectedly?"

Yep, he must have pi$$ed me off. :LOL:
 
#61      
aaeismacgychel
Fighter of the Nightman said:
I want to emphasize again that I do not know all of the intricacies that people have mentioned here RE: placing protected seeds in a given region, such as how they sort teams by the overall seed lines. The only point of this post is to show that since 2000, there have been plenty of examples of a "better" protected seed getting placed in a region that is more advantageous for a "worse" protected seed. I would obviously assume that these placements followed the other rules/guidelines that have been mentioned here, I am simply showing that IF it worked out as far as other factors, the Committee wouldn't not put #1 Michigan in Chicago with #2 Illinois simply BECAUSE we'd like the placement even more. In other words, they are not against "screwing over" a better protected seed, as long as it makes sense with the rest of their rules and the overall bracket.

A quick overview of four parameters I'm using here:

1) I am only looking at protected seeds, which are seeds #1-4. I am assuming placements beyond that simply have to do with "making the bracket work" and were not specifically looking at geography.
2) I am only looking at the Regionals (i.e., Sweet Sixteen and Elite Eight locations). Since teams can be at the same First Weekend site and be in different parts of the broader bracket, that is not the point here.
3) I am trying to limit this to clear examples that would be closer to us being placed in Chicago with a better seed Michigan. For example, #3 Boston College got put in Philadelphia with #1 Duke ... big deal, lol, Duke has a lot of fans in the Northeast, and the driving distances aren't that different.
4) I am ignoring examples where two protected seeds really like the location, but it is still better for the higher seed. For example, #2 Michigan State was put in Indianapolis in 2009, but #1 Louisville would have viewed that as just as good of a location for their fans, if not better.

So, since 2000, these are examples of a #1/2/3 seed getting placed with a #2/3/4 seed where the "worse" seed has a noticeably better example. As with the last time I did it, the "better" seed that is being sort of screwed over is in red, and the "worse" seed that theoretically got lucky are in green.

2002
Syracuse, NY (East)
#1 Maryland
#2 UConn
#3 Georgia
#4 Kentucky

Madison, WI (Midwest)
#1 Kansas
#2 Oregon
#3 Mississippi State
#4 Illinois

2003
Albany, NY (East)
#1 Oklahoma
#2 Georgia
#3 Syracuse
#4 Louisville

Minneapolis, MN (Midwest)
#1 Kentucky
#2 Pitt
#3 Marquette
#4 Dayton

2004
St. Louis, MO
#1 Kentucky
#2 Gonzaga
#3 Georgia Tech
#4 Kansas

2005
Syracuse, NY
#1 North Carolina
#2 UConn
#3 Kansas
#4 Florida

2007
San Antonio, TX (South)
#1 Ohio State
#2 Memphis
#3 Texas A&M
#4 Virginia

2008
Houston, TX (South)
#1 Memphis
#2 Texas
#3 Stanford
#4 Pitt

2010
Houston, TX (South)
#1 Duke
#2 Villanova
#3 Baylor
#4 Purdue

2011
Newark, NJ (East)
#1 Ohio State
#2 North Carolina
#3 Syracuse
#4 Kentucky

Anaheim, CA (West)
#1 Duke
#2 San Diego State
#3 UConn
#4 Texas

2012
St. Louis, MO (Midwest)
#1 North Carolina
#2 Kansas
#3 Georgetown
#4 Michigan

2014
Anaheim, CA (West)
#1 Arizona
#2 Wisconsin
#3 Creighton
#4 San Diego State

Indianapolis, IN (Midwest)
#1 Wichita State
#2 Michigan
#3 Duke
#4 Louisville

2016
Chicago, IL (Midwest)
#1 Virginia
#2 Michigan State
#3 Utah
#4 Iowa State (this could have been green, too)

2019
Washington, DC (East)
#1 Duke
#2 Michigan State
#3 LSU
#4 Virginia Tech

Louisville, KY (South)
#1 Virginia
#2 Tennessee
#3 Purdue
#4 Kansas State

Kansas City, MO (Midwest)
#1 North Carolina
#2 Kentucky
#3 Houston
#4 Kansas

2022
Chicago, IL (Midwest)
#1 Kansas
#2 Auburn
#3 Wisconsin
#4 Providence

2025
Indianapolis, IN (Midwest)
#1 Houston
#2 Tennessee
#3 Kentucky
#4 Purdue

TL;DR

Once again, this is not saying anything about the non-geographic reasons for why a #2/3/4 seed Illini team would be shipped somewhere else besides Chicago. It is simply making the point that it certainly doesn't seem like the Committee ever uses the logic of, "We don't want to screw over a #1 seed Michigan by putting them in Chicago with #2 seed Illinois!" I get the impression that at that point, the Committee's done their best to protect all protected seeds, and you can only do so much when it comes to a potential Elite Eight matchup.

Plus, and this is just my own conjecture ... I do think they want to sell tickets. At the expense of the integrity of the bracket?? No. However, if it doesn't mess anything else up? Yeah, I think they'd prefer to have a top 3 seed Illinois team going through St. Louis and Chicago.
Click to expand...
So, from my understanding as you said they really don't care about whether a higher ranked Top 4 seed team is facing a lower ranked Top 4 seed team closer to the lower ranked team's location. Instead they go in S-Curve order giving each team their preferred pod location for their Round of 64 and 32 matchups if available or their secondary, then tertiary, if not available.

For Regional Sweet 16 and Elite 8 matchups they do the same thing Following the S curve, making adjustments as needed to balance. If teams are close enough on the s-curve, they will give the teams their preferred region if possible. So for example say the #7 S Curve team is Gonzaga and the #8 S Curve team is us. Say Arizona was the #1 and Nebraska the #2 and that the Midwest and West locations are still open. While technically Gonzaga should go to Chicago and we should go to San Jose based on where we fall on the S Curve, there would be a very strong chance the committee puts us in Nebraska's bracket in the Chicago region as their 2 seed and put Gonzaga in San Jose as Arizona's 2 seed so long as they could balance the regions.

And when it comes to the 3 seed and 4 seeds, same logic applies. The real question comes in when it gets to higher seeds. In my opinion non Top 4 seeds should get geographic disadvantage wherever applicable. For example say UCLA got an 8 seed, they should not be allowed the San Diego pod or the San Jose region in my opinion. However in recent years, the committee seems to have a different philosophy. And this sort of path could be possible.
 
#62      
Fighter of the Nightman
skyIdub said:
This is just my goofball brain, but I picture you composing this post sitting in the ambulance with a laptop as your wife is transferred to a different facility.

(only because you already confirmed she's fine! so dark comedy!)

It's the same when I tell people that this world is a simulation because silly sh@t happens to me at work, and I tell them it's because future me is running the simulation and likes to f$ck with present me.

Then they ask "didn't your brother just die randomly unexpectedly?"

Yep, he must have pi$$ed me off. :LOL:
Click to expand...
Lol, I am so damn worthless without an actual mouse and an actual, full-sized keyboard, so I could have never done this on a laptop! :ROFLMAO: But I LOL'd at the visual indeed. ;)
 
#63      
IlliniwekKDR
EmeraldCityIllini said:
Have been a pretty big fan of both CBS and ESPN’s bracket updates today.

Both us at 2 - espn facing winner of SLU and Miami and Navy in Rd1. CBS winner of Iowa/TCU with Marist in rd1.

Would be surprised if Iowa would be in that spot.

SLU is 24 in KP and we got PTSD from Loyola being unranked and a bad matchup. But I think we matchup great with SLU
Click to expand...
I would find it unlikely we actually get matched up with SLU. I can't imagine the committee hates us enough to give their students the opportunity to walk to the game from campus
 
#64      
Illinicpa14
Fighter of the Nightman said:
I want to emphasize again that I do not know all of the intricacies that people have mentioned here RE: placing protected seeds in a given region, such as how they sort teams by the overall seed lines. The only point of this post is to show that since 2000, there have been plenty of examples of a "better" protected seed getting placed in a region that is more advantageous for a "worse" protected seed. I would obviously assume that these placements followed the other rules/guidelines that have been mentioned here, I am simply showing that IF it worked out as far as other factors, the Committee wouldn't not put #1 Michigan in Chicago with #2 Illinois simply BECAUSE we'd like the placement even more. In other words, they are not against "screwing over" a better protected seed, as long as it makes sense with the rest of their rules and the overall bracket.

A quick overview of four parameters I'm using here:

1) I am only looking at protected seeds, which are seeds #1-4. I am assuming placements beyond that simply have to do with "making the bracket work" and were not specifically looking at geography.
2) I am only looking at the Regionals (i.e., Sweet Sixteen and Elite Eight locations). Since teams can be at the same First Weekend site and be in different parts of the broader bracket, that is not the point here.
3) I am trying to limit this to clear examples that would be closer to us being placed in Chicago with a better seed Michigan. For example, #3 Boston College got put in Philadelphia with #1 Duke ... big deal, lol, Duke has a lot of fans in the Northeast, and the driving distances aren't that different.
4) I am ignoring examples where two protected seeds really like the location, but it is still better for the higher seed. For example, #2 Michigan State was put in Indianapolis in 2009, but #1 Louisville would have viewed that as just as good of a location for their fans, if not better.

So, since 2000, these are examples of a #1/2/3 seed getting placed with a #2/3/4 seed where the "worse" seed has a noticeably better example. As with the last time I did it, the "better" seed that is being sort of screwed over is in red, and the "worse" seed that theoretically got lucky are in green.

2002
Syracuse, NY (East)
#1 Maryland
#2 UConn
#3 Georgia
#4 Kentucky

Madison, WI (Midwest)
#1 Kansas
#2 Oregon
#3 Mississippi State
#4 Illinois

2003
Albany, NY (East)
#1 Oklahoma
#2 Georgia
#3 Syracuse
#4 Louisville

Minneapolis, MN (Midwest)
#1 Kentucky
#2 Pitt
#3 Marquette
#4 Dayton

2004
St. Louis, MO
#1 Kentucky
#2 Gonzaga
#3 Georgia Tech
#4 Kansas

2005
Syracuse, NY
#1 North Carolina
#2 UConn
#3 Kansas
#4 Florida

2007
San Antonio, TX (South)
#1 Ohio State
#2 Memphis
#3 Texas A&M
#4 Virginia

2008
Houston, TX (South)
#1 Memphis
#2 Texas
#3 Stanford
#4 Pitt

2010
Houston, TX (South)
#1 Duke
#2 Villanova
#3 Baylor
#4 Purdue

2011
Newark, NJ (East)
#1 Ohio State
#2 North Carolina
#3 Syracuse
#4 Kentucky

Anaheim, CA (West)
#1 Duke
#2 San Diego State
#3 UConn
#4 Texas

2012
St. Louis, MO (Midwest)
#1 North Carolina
#2 Kansas
#3 Georgetown
#4 Michigan

2014
Anaheim, CA (West)
#1 Arizona
#2 Wisconsin
#3 Creighton
#4 San Diego State

Indianapolis, IN (Midwest)
#1 Wichita State
#2 Michigan
#3 Duke
#4 Louisville

2016
Chicago, IL (Midwest)
#1 Virginia
#2 Michigan State
#3 Utah
#4 Iowa State (this could have been green, too)

2019
Washington, DC (East)
#1 Duke
#2 Michigan State
#3 LSU
#4 Virginia Tech

Louisville, KY (South)
#1 Virginia
#2 Tennessee
#3 Purdue
#4 Kansas State

Kansas City, MO (Midwest)
#1 North Carolina
#2 Kentucky
#3 Houston
#4 Kansas

2022
Chicago, IL (Midwest)
#1 Kansas
#2 Auburn
#3 Wisconsin
#4 Providence

2025
Indianapolis, IN (Midwest)
#1 Houston
#2 Tennessee
#3 Kentucky
#4 Purdue

TL;DR

Once again, this is not saying anything about the non-geographic reasons for why a #2/3/4 seed Illini team would be shipped somewhere else besides Chicago. It is simply making the point that it certainly doesn't seem like the Committee ever uses the logic of, "We don't want to screw over a #1 seed Michigan by putting them in Chicago with #2 seed Illinois!" I get the impression that at that point, the Committee's done their best to protect all protected seeds, and you can only do so much when it comes to a potential Elite Eight matchup.

Plus, and this is just my own conjecture ... I do think they want to sell tickets. At the expense of the integrity of the bracket?? No. However, if it doesn't mess anything else up? Yeah, I think they'd prefer to have a top 3 seed Illinois team going through St. Louis and Chicago.
Click to expand...
The only item I hate is your point on tickets when they give us SLU in St. Louis.
 
#66      
Fighter of the Nightman
ptgrd23 said:
Beat Nebraska @ Nebraska
Beat Michigan @ Champaign
Win BTT

I don't want a #2 seed.

Take care of business and we will get #1 seed in Midwest and will stay at home in Chicago just like 2005
Click to expand...
It's been noted that it's impossible for the Committee to consider the results of the BTT Championship Game due to its timing, but I still always want a banner! I'm also skeptical that Saturday's results aren't considered by the Committee (as many claim), but I do think in most cases the #1 seeds are pretty much decided before the BTT Semifinals. So, I think our true last hurdle to make sure we get a #1 (assuming we are even in position for that) is to at least win our first BTT Quarterfinals game on that Friday, so we are playing on Saturday.

If we honestly win in Lincoln and beat Michigan in Champaign, it's probably a pretty big understatement to say we would clearly be in the driver's seat for a #1 seed. I made a previous post where I analyzed the stats on Selection Sunday for top 4 seeds since 2022. The average #1 seed had a record of 28.9 wins and 4.5 losses. This is the list of #1 seeds by number of losses on Selection Sunday:

3 Losses
2022 Arizona: 31-3
2023 Houston: 31-3
2024 Houston: 31-3
2025 Duke: 31-3
2022 Gonzaga: 26-3

4 Losses
2024 UConn: 30-4
2025 Houston: 30-4
2025 Florida: 30-4
2024 Purdue: 29-4

5 Losses
2023 Alabama: 29-5
2023 Purdue: 29-5
2025 Auburn: 28-5

6 Losses
2022 Kansas: 28-6
2022 Baylor: 26-6

7 Losses
2023 Kansas: 27-7
2024 North Carolina: 27-7

Just spit-balling here, but with our Quad 1A wins, #6 NET Ranking and 5-0 record on the road ... I think we can get a #1 seed with 5 losses, obviously depending on what happens around us. That would mean finishing the regular season 10-1 if we are counting a BTT loss in there, and it would mean finishing 9-2 if we assume a BTT loss happens Saturday or later. I know we keep saying every game is huge (because it is, if you are gunning for a #1 seed...), but a win in Lincoln R-E-A-L-L-Y opens things up to some big time dreaming. For one, if you win in Lincoln, you can win in East Lansing. For two, if you can win in West Lafayette and Lincoln and maybe East Lansing, you can take down Michigan at home.

Maybe there will be some slip-ups along the way, but winning at Mackey proved we CAN win any game left on the schedule. If we maintain this current level of play, finishing the regular season 9-2 is well within this team's ambitious goals. If we win the two games you mentioned ... 10-1 is definitely on the table, and we are sitting PRETTY for a #1 seed.
 
#67      
grue2
Fighter of the Nightman said:
...
So, since 2000, these are examples of a #1/2/3 seed getting placed with a #2/3/4 seed where the "worse" seed has a noticeably better example. As with the last time I did it, the "better" seed that is being sort of screwed over is in red, and the "worse" seed that theoretically got lucky are in green.
....
Click to expand...
Isn't this a really long way of saying -- if you get bumped out of your region as a #1 seed, expect to play a 2-3 seed who has the home court advantage because they are in their home region?
 
#68      
Fighter of the Nightman
On the topic of getting placed in Chicago, it sounds like most people think our biggest "issue" will be fellow Big Ten schools who would want that region getting a higher seed than we get, thus shifting us somewhere else due to needing to separate Big Ten teams. So, if we assume those are mostly Michigan, MSU, Nebraska and Purdue, this is what each team has to finish the year using the current NET Rankings. I'm also including my subjective comments, haha.

#3 Michigan | 18-1
vs. #5 Nebraska
at #9 Michigan State
vs. #129 Penn State
at #37 Ohio State
at #69 Northwestern
vs. #42 UCLA
at #10 Purdue
vs. #2 Duke (Washington, DC)
vs. #88 Minnesota
at #6 Illinois
at #21 Iowa
vs. #9 Michigan State

#5 Nebraska | 20-0
at #3 Michigan
vs. #6 Illinois
at #168 Rutgers
vs. #10 Purdue
vs. #69 Northwestern
at #21 Iowa
vs. #129 Penn State
vs. #159 Maryland
at #51 USC
at #42 UCLA
vs. #21 Iowa

#6 Illinois | 17-3
vs. #60 Washington
at #5 Nebraska
vs. #69 Northwestern
at #9 Michigan State
vs. #41 Wisconsin
vs. #35 Indiana
at #51 USC
at #42 UCLA
vs. #3 Michigan
vs. #109 Oregon
at #159 Maryland

#9 Michigan State | 18-2
at #168 Rutgers
vs. #3 Michigan
at #88 Minnesota
vs. #6 Illinois
at #41 Wisconsin
vs. #42 UCLA
vs. #37 Ohio State
at #10 Purdue
at #35 Indiana
vs. #168 Rutgers
at #3 Michigan

#10 Purdue | 17-3
at #35 Indiana
at #159 Maryland
vs. #109 Oregon
at #5 Nebraska
at #21 Iowa
vs. #3 Michigan
vs. #35 Indiana
vs. #9 Michigan State
at #37 Ohio State
at #69 Northwestern
vs. #41 Wisconsin

A Few Thoughts...
- Obviously, we have several tough games left, and we need to take care of our own business!! With that said, all of the following comments are only talking about IF we can keep this thing rolling and continue our hot streak...
- I'm placing a soft bet that Michigan picks up a surprising number of losses down the stretch and we can sneak past them. I think it's fairly likely they lose 3 or even 4 out of vs. Nebraska, vs. MSU, at MSU, at Illinois, at Purdue. vs Duke in DC and at Iowa. While it doesn't affect the Big Ten title race and has thus flown under the radar when looking at remaining schedules, Michigan still having to play a tough Duke team could be a huge benefit for us if they indeed lose that one.
- While you simply cannot discount the fact that Nebraska has ZERO losses, they also have some opportunities to pick some up down the stretch ... but will it be enough?? We'd need them to lose at least 3 to catch them even if we never lose again, but it's nice that we get a direct opportunity to both hand them one of those losses and gain a huge win all in one. So as to not hand Michigan a win in the process, I think we should be rooting HARD for Nebraska to go down in Iowa City and have a really rough trip out West...
- I really don't know how to feel about MSU, haha.
- Hopefully we just gained a massive leg up on Purdue for both Indy and Chicago placement. We now have the same record, a better road record, the same number of Quad 1 wins and a higher NET Ranking.

I hand it over to anyone with the necessary Space Brain to figure out how all of those results happen in the most optimal way for us to get a #1 seed, haha.
 
#69      
Fighter of the Nightman
grue2 said:
Isn't this a really long way of saying -- if you get bumped out of your region as a #1 seed, expect to play a 2-3 seed who has the home court advantage because they are in their home region?
Click to expand...
Not sure, as I truly don't know much about what goes into how they shift teams. What it's definitely saying, though, is that the Committee isn't actively trying to avoid a #1 seed playing a #2/3 seed in an arena where it will feel like a road game, at least not in isolation.
 
#71      
WizardBill
aaeismacgychel said:
So, from my understanding as you said they really don't care about whether a higher ranked Top 4 seed team is facing a lower ranked Top 4 seed team closer to the lower ranked team's location. Instead they go in S-Curve order giving each team their preferred pod location for their Round of 64 and 32 matchups if available or their secondary, then tertiary, if not available.

For Regional Sweet 16 and Elite 8 matchups they do the same thing Following the S curve, making adjustments as needed to balance. If teams are close enough on the s-curve, they will give the teams their preferred region if possible. So for example say the #7 S Curve team is Gonzaga and the #8 S Curve team is us. Say Arizona was the #1 and Nebraska the #2 and that the Midwest and West locations are still open. While technically Gonzaga should go to Chicago and we should go to San Jose based on where we fall on the S Curve, there would be a very strong chance the committee puts us in Nebraska's bracket in the Chicago region as their 2 seed and put Gonzaga in San Jose as Arizona's 2 seed so long as they could balance the regions.

And when it comes to the 3 seed and 4 seeds, same logic applies. The real question comes in when it gets to higher seeds. In my opinion non Top 4 seeds should get geographic disadvantage wherever applicable. For example say UCLA got an 8 seed, they should not be allowed the San Diego pod or the San Jose region in my opinion. However in recent years, the committee seems to have a different philosophy. And this sort of path could be possible.
Click to expand...
I would imagine that once you get to the Sweet 16 they do not care as much about screwing over the seeds. I think they do not have to worry about TV ratings. The TV is always good that far in. So they need to get viewers to games in the 1st and 2nd rounds.
 
#72      
Second place is 1st loser
Piotyr said:
DePaul fans are thinking their team is OK this year, but it's more that everyone else is worse that they look average in the league.
Click to expand...
They are better this year and they were better last year. Holtman has done a hell of a job making them respectable. They're getting a new multi-million dollar practice facility. They're definitely keeping up on their end of the bargain with regards to putting money back into the program. That was a prerequisite for Holtman, who never should have been fired from OSU.
 
#74      
LouHenson
To me the whole thing were playing for now if possible is STL - Chi - Indy path. The “easiest” way to guarantee that is to be a 1 seed that is above any other
Possible 1 seed that would “prefer” the Midwest Chicago Regional. Yes we could get there from say a 3 or 4 seed, but I don’t see it as a 2 seed, as the BIG would not want 2 of its top seeds playing each other in regional final. Not saying it could not happen, but 3 or 4 seeds from the same conference seems way more palatable?

So really, we have to be “perceived” above Michigan in my mind. The reason I say that is that every bracket that has been made this year has scUM as a 1 in the Midwest. That says to me that scUM would want Chicago over the Philly to DC path. MSU is a possibility also, but just as scUM has been viewed above us all year, we seem to be viewed above them all year?

To get to being perceived above scUM, we are going to need to most likely beat them twice, or they simply lose in the BIG tourney before we do? Everything projection I run on t-rank says the same thing. We could get in front of scUM by winning out, but (the computers at least) don’t have us in front of scUM, if we lose to them in the BIG tourney.

That said the only way I can run that is to have us winning or losing to scUM in the tourney. That could be flawed by being seeded 1 and 2, play in final of tourney no value. We need to get in front of scUM - they need to lose now as much as possible.
 
#75      
Piotyr
The way I see is, is that someone in the B1G is going to get a 1 seed and get in the Chicago bracket. Would it be possible for Michigan to do that and Illinois be the 2 or even 3 seed in the same bracket? Yes, but it's far more likely the committee spreads the top 4 B1G teams out in the 4 regions, so to "lock up" the preferred path, they need to win the league.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back