Week of 1/5 Bracketology

Status
Not open for further replies.
#3      
BalloonsTheElephant
Vinegarben said:
A 4 seed is the same as the death penalty
Click to expand...
finding dory GIF
 
#8      
FreshlySqueezed
FloridaMan said:
Has been discussed extensively. While not a death sentence, lower than a 3 reduces chances of a Final Four/champinship significantly. Fact.

View attachment 46207View attachment 46208
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what your point is?

The OP said it was a death sentence, when, in FACT, it is not. A 4 seed won the tournament a couple years ago.

No one said that a 4 is better than a 1, 2, or 3.
 
#9      
FloridaMan
FreshlySqueezed said:
I'm not sure what your point is?

The OP said it was a death sentence, when, in FACT, it is not. A 4 seed won the tournament a couple years ago.

No one said that a 4 is better than a 1, 2, or 3.
Click to expand...
My point is in the first sentence of my post???????
 
Last edited:
#10      
Illinicpa14
FloridaMan said:
Has been discussed extensively. While not a death sentence, lower than a 3 reduces chances of a Final Four/champinship significantly. Fact.

View attachment 46207View attachment 46208
Click to expand...
Is there a way that you can distinguish the path from the quality of team factoring in KP or other analytics?

Part of the reason is these stats exist is because the 9th best team might actually be a 1 seed that had an extra 2 losses vs a 4-5 seed that in general are flawed teams. The 2-3 seeds naturally are typically better teams and more capable of winning 4 straight games.
 
#11      
Fighter of the Nightman
IlliniFanTX said:
Literally in 2023, a 4 seed won the title.
Click to expand...
I take your point, and he was obviously being really hyperbolic. However, I think it's fair to point out that (A) Hurly and UConn are arguably something special and maybe not as applicable to everyone else and (B) that UConn team had its #1 seed lose in the Second Round and never had to play them. Maybe they beat them anyway, but most average #4 seeds usually can't count on that.

Personally, while it's obvious that #4 seeds can go on deep runs, put me in the camp that unless you get the #1 seed, the bottom half of the bracket is MUCH, much better. JMO, of course, but I find the 4/5 draw to be a lot tougher than it looks. If you get past your First Round opponent (all of whom are needless to say just a step better than the #14 and #15 seeds you'd play as a top 3 seed), you then have to face an equally strong opponent in the Second Round just to play for the opportunity of likely going down to a #1 seed in the Sweet Sixteen. There is a reason the #4/5 seed games are always some of the most fun early round games, IMO.

Also, I will admit that I am biased by Illinois' own history, where it seems that FAR too often we had a good team earn a #4 or #5 seed only to be on a path in the NCAA Tournament that just made a deep run really unlikely. How far do our 2002, 2003, 2004, 2006, 2022, etc. teams go if they just move a tad up the seeding line and get a #3 seed? In my lifetime as a fan, we have been a #4 or #5 seed a total of 7 times. We failed to make it past the First Round once, we failed to make it to the Sweet Sixteen in 5 of those 7 years and we are 0 for 7 on going on a run where we get to the Elite Eight or beyond. I admit it is part superstition, but it reminds me so much of a sort of "consolation prize" season, where you have a great year, maybe get a conference championship of some kind and the NCAA Tournament is just a crapshoot. This team is capable of a deep run, but we improve our odds by a LOT if we get above the #4 seed line, IMO.
 
#12      
the juiceman cometh
FloridaMan said:
Has been discussed extensively. While not a death sentence, lower than a 3 reduces chances of a Final Four/champinship significantly. Fact.

View attachment 46207View attachment 46208
Click to expand...
So now failing to reach Final Four = death?

Serious question? Do the fans who feel this way actually enjoy fandom? I have no right to tell anyone how to fan but this is supposed to be fun, right?

Anyway this site shows similar but slightly better odds for #4 seeds and appears to be more up to date. https://bracketodds.cs.illinois.edu/seedadv.html

Either way, #3 seeds do not have much better odds of making the Final Four than #4 seeds. Is that also a death sentence? Is the regular season a bust if we don't end up with a 2-seed or better?
 
#13      
FloridaMan
the juiceman cometh said:
So now failing to reach Final Four = death?

Serious question? Do the fans who feel this way actually enjoy fandom? I have no right to tell anyone how to fan but this is supposed to be fun, right?

Anyway this site shows similar but slightly better odds for #4 seeds and appears to be more up to date. https://bracketodds.cs.illinois.edu/seedadv.html

Either way, #3 seeds do not have much better odds of making the Final Four than #4 seeds. Is that also a death sentence? Is the regular season a bust if we don't end up with a 2-seed or better?
Click to expand...
Seriously????? I mean I didn't say that either.
Screenshot 2026-01-05 at 1.16.45 PM.png


10% is significantly better than 5%, IMO. I'll take the double digit percentage chance of a championship rather than single, but hey, that's just me. Now, if we're talking the difference between a 2/3 then, ya, not much of a difference based on your site; and obviously a 1 is best, but that is not a very likely scenario for us in this particular season. (As it is for most teams every season, acknowledged). But that's not what we are talking about, is it?

A serious question for you. Why is it so offensive to a certain group of posters for other posters to contribute their opinions if said opinion, even in the slightest way, could be interpreted as not 100% positive for the current program? Why do said opinions require this group of posters to immediately try to shut down the discussion with goofy accusations of not enjoying Illini basketball or not being true fans of the program?

I mean, Dan himself says this site is "devoted to the glory AND heartbreak that is Illini sports." lol
 
Last edited:
#15      
Fighter of the Nightman
For anyone who cares, here is the Final Four since 2000 by the seeds that made it.

2000
#1 Michigan State (Champion)
#5 Florida (Runner-Up)
#8 Wisconsin
#8 North Carolina

2001
#1 Duke (Champion)
#2 Arizona (Runner-Up)
#1 Michigan State
#3 Maryland

2002
#1 Maryland (Champion)
#5 Indiana (Runner-Up)
#1 Kansas
#2 Oklahoma

2003
#3 Syracuse (Champion)
#2 Kansas (Runner-Up)
#1 Texas
#3 Marquette

2004
#2 UConn (Champion)
#3 Georgia Tech (Runner-Up)
#1 Duke
#2 Oklahoma State

2005
#1 North Carolina (Champion)
#1 Illinois (Runner-Up)
#4 Louisville
#5 Michigan State

2006
#3 Florida (Champion)
#2 UCLA (Runner-Up)
#4 LSU
#11 George Mason

2007
#1 Florida (Champion)
#1 Ohio State (Runner-Up)
#2 UCLA
#2 Georgetown

2008
#1 Kansas (Champion)
#1 Memphis (Runner-Up - Vacated)
#1 North Carolina
#1 UCLA

2009
#1 North Carolina (Champion)
#2 Michigan State (Runner-Up)
#1 UConn
#3 Villanova

2010
#1 Duke (Champion)
#5 Butler (Runner-Up)
#2 West Virginia
#5 Michigan State

2011
#3 UConn (Champion)
#8 Butler (Runner-Up)
#4 Kentucky
#11 VCU

2012
#1 Kentucky (Champion)
#2 Kansas (Runner-Up)
#2 Ohio State
#4 Louisville (Vacated)

2013
#1 Louisville (Champion)
#4 Michigan (Runner-Up)
#4 Syracuse
#9 Wichita State

2014
#7 UConn (Champion)
#8 Kentucky (Runner-Up)
#1 Florida
#2 Wisconsin

2015
#1 Duke (Champion)
#1 Wisconsin (Runner-Up)
#1 Kentucky
#7 Michigan State

2016
#2 Villanova (Champion)
#1 North Carolina (Runner-Up)
#2 Oklahoma
#10 Syracuse

2017
#1 North Carolina (Champion)
#1 Gonzaga (Runner-Up)
#3 Oregon
#7 South Carolina

2018
#1 Villanova (Champion)
#3 Michigan (Runner-Up)
#1 Kansas (Vacated)
#11 Loyola Chicago

2019
#1 Virginia (Champion)
#3 Texas Tech (Runner-Up)
#2 Michigan State
#5 Auburn

2021
#1 Baylor (Champion)
#1 Gonzaga (Runner-Up)
#2 Houston
#11 UCLA

2022
#1 Kansas (Champion)
#8 North Carolina (Runner-Up)
#2 Duke
#2 Villanova

2023
#4 UConn (Champion)
#5 San Diego State (Runner-Up)
#5 Miami (FL)
#9 FAU

2024
#1 UConn (Champion)
#1 Purdue (Runner-Up)
#4 Alabama
#11 NC State

2025
#1 Florida (Champion)
#1 Houston (Runner-Up)
#1 Auburn
#1 Duke

So here are the stats by seed for these 25 most recent NCAA Final Fours.

National Champions
18 #1 Seeds ... 72% of Total
2 #2 Seeds ... 8% of Total
-----> 20 Top 2 Seeds ... 80% of Total
3 #3 Seeds ... 12% of Total
-----> 23 Top 3 Seeds ... 92% of Total

1 #4 Seed ... 4% of Total
1 #7 Seed ... 4% of Total
-----> 2 Non-Top 3 Seeds ... 8% of Total

National Championship Game Participants
27 #1 Seeds ... 54% of Total
7 #2 Seeds ... 14% of Total
-----> 34 Top 2 Seeds ... 68% of Total
6 #3 Seeds ... 12% of Total
-----> 40 Top 3 Seeds ... 80% of Total

2 #4 Seeds ... 4% of Total
4 #5 Seeds ... 8% of Total
1 #7 Seed ... 2% of Total
3 #8 Seeds ... 6% of Total
----->10 Non-Top 3 Seeds ... 20% of Total

Final Four Participants
39 #1 Seeds ... 39% of Total
19 #2 Seeds ... 19% of Total
----->58 Top 2 Seeds ... 58% of Total
10 #3 Seeds ... 10% of Total
-----> 68 Top 3 Seeds ... 68% of Total

8 #4 Seeds ... 8% of Total
8 #5 Seeds ... 8% of Total
3 #7 Seeds ... 3% of Total
5 #8 Seeds ... 5% of Total
2 #9 Seeds ... 2% of Total
1 #10 Seed ... 1% of Total
5 #11 Seeds ... 5% of Total
-----> 32 Non-Top 3 Seeds ... 32% of Total

TL;DR

While anything can happen in March and that's why we love it, 92% of National Champions, 80% of National Champion Game participants and 68% of Final Four teams have had a #3 seed or higher. You can make an argument that the real cutoff is a #2 seed, but if you feel you are an underrated #3 seed and/or your team is getting hot at the right time, your path to the Final Four is functionally the same as a #2 seed's path. You cannot say the same if you are an underrated #4 seed.

P.S. Also just as an interesting FYI and to hopefully make our tragic Loyola loss sting a LITTLE bit less, the following #1 seeds have gone down in the Second Round (or before) in the timeframe above, and several more needed overtime and/or barely survived a real scare.

2000 Stanford
2000 Arizona
2002 Cincinnati
2003 Kentucky
2003 Stanford
2010 Kansas
2011 Pitt
2013 Gonzaga
2014 Wichita State
2015 Villanova
2017 Villanova
2018 Virginia (First Round)
2018 Xavier
2021 Illinois
2022 Baylor
2023 Purdue (First Round)
2023 Kansas

So while our 2021 result still haunts me and truly sucked, it's not unheard of by any means.
 
Last edited:
#16      
Battle89
Fighter of the Nightman said:
TL;DR

While anything can happen in March and that's why we love it, 68% of National Champions, 92% of National Champions, 80% of National Championship Game participants and 68% of Final Four teams have had a #3 seed or higher. You can make an argument that the real cutoff is a #2 seed, but if you feel you are an underrated #3 seed and/or your team is getting hot at the right time, your path to the Final Four is functionally the same as a #2 seed's path. You cannot say the same if you are an underrated #4 seed.
Click to expand...
Fighter, what is the distinction here, please? Genuinely not clear and not just poking fun.
 
#18      
the juiceman cometh
FloridaMan said:
Seriously????? I mean I didn't say that either. View attachment 46212

10% is significantly better than 5%,
Click to expand...
But the difference between a 3 and 4 seed, to make the Final Four (as in your original post) is actually 10.6% vs 9.4%. So now you're talking percentages for winning the National Championship. Basically the bar shifts to whatever metric justifies being unhappy. It's like the goal for some portion of fans is being justifiably upset and so everything is viewed through the lens of whatever will get us there. I mean, just for perspective, we're griping about a #4 seed projection (meaning we'd be roughly a top 16 team in the nation) in early January, 3 games into the conference schedule.

FloridaMan said:
A serious question for you. Why is it so offensive to a certain group of posters for other posters to contribute their opinions if said opinion, even in the slightest way, could be interpreted as not 100% positive for the current program? Why do said opinions require this group of posters to immediately try to shut down the discussion with goofy accusations of not enjoying Illini basketball or not being true fans of the program?
Click to expand...
This is a laughable misstatement of my post. For one, I've also been critical too at times. I actually think part of why I am the way I am as a poster these days is I also used jump on some of these bandwagon critical posts and then felt silly when everything worked out fine.

Also, nobody tried to "shut you down." Your post remains for all to agree or disagree with, and if anything by quoting it so people would see it a second time I amplified it.

And I certainly am not offended by you, nor am I offended by any poster who seemingly only seeks out the negative. That's their prerogative. Not trying to judge, just asking a question about why anyone would put themselves through that. Some of the expectations I see on here; there's not a program in the nation that would live up to them.

FloridaMan said:
I mean, Dan himself says this site is "devoted to the glory AND heartbreak that is Illini sports." lol
Click to expand...
Sure, but there's also a difference between heartbreak and what I see a lot of on this board (more akin to cognitive distortions such as "catastrophizing," or "discounting the positive"). Every single team but one ends their season in heartbreak. That doesn't mean only one team had a good season.
 
#19      
Fighter of the Nightman
Battle89 said:
Fighter, what is the distinction here, please? Genuinely not clear and not just poking fun.
Click to expand...
Lol, good catch - fixed! There was no way I was making it through that post without an error. :ROFLMAO: It should have said this:

While anything can happen in March and that's why we love it, 92% of National Champions, 80% of National Champion Game participants and 68% of Final Four teams have had a #3 seed or higher.
 
#20      
Fighter of the Nightman
To add one more anecdote about my point above, it's not so much that a #3 seed is inherently SO much more likely to make a Final Four than a #4 seed; neither is overly likely compared to a #2 seed or especially a #1 seed. After all, if the bracket is hypothetically all chalk, not only do the #3 seeds not make it but neither do any of the #2 seeds. In other words, the #2 seeds are "next in line" for a Final Four. However, the reason the #2 seeds have a higher chance of making the Final Four than a #3 seed is because they are statistically more likely to succeed within the same path, AKA they're more capable year in and year out of taking down a #1 seed in the Elite Eight. This is the part that goes beyond cold hard statistics, but I would argue that the #4 seed is less likely to make a Final Four for a totally different reason that ends up spitting out a somewhat similar probability - and that's that their path is inherently more difficult structurally.

Again, this conversation isn't just about the objective stats. It sort of assumes that a team IS good enough to go on a Final Four run. We aren't talking about a prototypical #3 seed or #4 seed here but rather the exact same team with the exact same ceiling slotted in both spots of the bracket. If our 2024 team gets the #4 seed in our bracket, we lose in the Sweet Sixteen ... given how we lost to #1 seed UConn, that's just a damn-near fact. We got to enjoy one more round of success and an Elite Eight appearance precisely because we earned that top 3 seed and avoided a #1 seed for another round. And that gets back to why some people (including me!) are saying it's so important for this team to stay above the #4 seed line ... why handicap ourselves with a path that throws a #1 seed in front of our faces an entire round earlier?? That is actually a HUGE distinction, all else equal. No one is denying we *could* go on a Final Four run as a #4 seed, but I look at this specific team and I would take our chances vs. an Alabama-esque rematch in the Sweet Sixteen over trying to take on Arizona in a heartbeat, lmao...
 
#21      
the juiceman cometh
Fighter of the Nightman said:
Lol, good catch - fixed! There was no way I was making it through that post without an error. :ROFLMAO: It should have said this:

While anything can happen in March and that's why we love it, 92% of National Champions, 80% of National Champion Game participants and 68% of Final Four teams have had a #3 seed or higher.
Click to expand...
This is true but the issue I have with this framing it it makes it seem like the 3 seed is some majorly important cut-off, rather than just where you chose to draw the line. You could also say that 76% of all Final Four participants were #4 seed or higher and that would make it look like getting at least a #4 is crucial. Or that 58% were #2 seed or higher, to make the #2 seed look essential. Or that 100% of all FF teams were #11 seed or higher, to make it look like if you can get into the top-11 you've got a chance. It's the framing doing the work here, not the data.

The data says that the biggest drop off by far is between the #1 and #2 seed lines. There's a smaller but sizable drop off between #3 and #4 seeds, but only after you get to the Final Four.
 
#22      
Iloveorangekoolaid
A big thing I look for every year is being top 21 offense in KenPom and top 31 defense. 19 of the last 20 champs hit those marks. The offense will easily finish there. Defense currently sits at 21. We were hovering around 30 before the Mizzou game. Our elite 8 team in 24 had a defense rating of 80. Woof. Obviously TJ missed a big chunk of games but that’s kinda who we were with playing Coleman at center and really not playing a ton of Dain until the postseason. Last year the defense was 40. Ideally we can finish with a top 20 defense and then survive and advance in March.
 
#24      
NarrowJ
Illinialldayeveryday said:
If we go January with only one loss (Iowa or Purdue) I think we would go into February as a 3 seed.
Click to expand...

We would be 17-4 with another 1, maybe 2, Q1 wins.

ESPN Bracketology currently has us as a 3 already as we sit now. I realize that we are a 4 in other projections, but just saying, its something relevant.

Trying to look at who is clearly ahead of us and I think we can pass more than just the teams needed to be projected as a 3 seed if we are, in fact, 17-4 by that point.

Houston has Texas Tech 2x and a couple other road games.

Michigan State has a cake walk through January up until they face Michigan at the end of the month.

BYU plays #1 Arizona plus Texas Tech, Kansas and a road game at Utah.

Nebraska has 5 road games this month and ends it with a trip to Ann Arbor, Michigan.

North Carolina just lost @ SMU and has 4 more road games this month.

Alabama goes to Vandy on Wednesday but no real tests until mid-February. Doubt we'd jump them.

Speaking of Vandy, they of course play Alabama as said above, but also go to Arkansas + 3 other road games.

Kansas is on the other end (they have to catch us) and they play multiple top 10 teams at home & have 3 road games.

If we were to beat Purdue and they falter vs Iowa or on their West Coast swing, could we jump them if they have similar W-L record?

What if Gonzaga loses a game (or, gasp, two games) vs their lowly conference opponents?

Not too worried about teams jumping us if we only lose 1 game though.

Sorry for the lengthy post, total stream of consciousness here lol.
 
#25      
Fighter of the Nightman
the juiceman cometh said:
This is true but the issue I have with this framing it it makes it seem like the 3 seed is some majorly important cut-off, rather than just where you chose to draw the line. You could also say that 76% of all Final Four participants were #4 seed or higher and that would make it look like getting at least a #4 is crucial. Or that 58% were #2 seed or higher, to make the #2 seed look essential. Or that 100% of all FF teams were #11 seed or higher, to make it look like if you can get into the top-11 you've got a chance. It's the framing doing the work here, not the data.

The data says that the biggest drop off by far is between the #1 and #2 seed lines. There's a smaller but sizable drop off between #3 and #4 seeds, but only after you get to the Final Four.
Click to expand...
For my response, I would refer to you my post above yours. I think the reason the stats aren't all that different for a #3 seed and a #4 seed are because the likelihood that either one beats a #1 seed in their bracket is similarly small ... thus, only a slightly better shot as a #3 seed. However, I think the placement in the bracket IS an important factor that doesn't show up in the stats. Over time it obviously evens out, but I feel like if we are having this conversation in a way that discusses one given team - like, for example, our 2026 Illini - the paths are very different and the #3 seed path is way better, getting to avoid the #1 seed until the Elite Eight ... as the data clearly shows that #1 seeds are more often than not a cut above the rest of the country.

So maybe a more productive version of my argument is that if it's Selection Sunday and the Illini get announced as a #3 seed in a "stereotypical bracket" vs. a #4 seed in a "stereotypical bracket," I am MUCH happier with the #3 seed for the simple reason that we are materially more likely to make the Elite Eight. In other words, even if we granted that a #3 seed and #4 seed are similar enough in the first two rounds and similar enough as it relates to a Final Four run, I think the in between Sweet Sixteen matchup is actually a very important and desirable difference.

Below is every Sweet Sixteen matchup since 2000 that either featured a #1 seed vs. a #4 seed or a #2 seed vs. a #3 seed. I didn't only pick those to try to exclude data, but the NCAAT is a glorious mess of upsets and fun, so this is the only way to try to gauge what path is theoretically better if everything outside of our control is chalk (as it would theoretically be statistically likely to be). Colors are from the perspective of being a #4 seed or a #3 seed, with wins in green and losses in red.

#4 Seed vs. #1 Seed in Sweet Sixteen
2000 - #1 Michigan State 75, #4 Syracuse 58
2001 - #1 Duke 76, #4 UCLA 63
2001 - #1 Illinois 80, #4 Kansas 64
2002 - #1 Maryland 78, #4 Kentucky 68
2002 - #1 Kansas 73, #4 Illinois 69
2004 - #1 Saint Joseph's 84, #4 Wake Forest 80
2005 - #4 Louisville 93, #1 Washington 79
2006 - #1 Villanova 60, #4 Boston College 59 (OT)
2006 - #4 LSU 62, #1 Duke 54
2007 - #1 Kansas 61, #4 Southern Illinois 58
2008 - #1 North Carolina 68, #4 Washington State 47
2009 - #1 Pitt 60, #4 Xavier 55
2009 - #1 North Carolina 98, #4 Gonzaga 77
2010 - #1 Duke 70, #4 Purdue 57
2011 - #4 Kentucky 62, #1 Ohio State 60
2012 - #1 Kentucky 102, #4 Indiana 90
2012 - #1 Syracuse 64, #1 Wisconsin 63
2012 - #4 Louisville 57, #1 Michigan State 44
2013 - #4 Michigan 87, #1 Kansas 85 (OT)
2013 - #4 Syracuse 61, #1 Indiana 50
2014 - #1 Florida 79, #4 UCLA 68
2014 - #1 Arizona 70, #4 San Diego State 64
2014 - #4 Michigan State 61, #1 Virginia 59
2015 - #1 Wisconsin 79, #4 North Carolina 72
2016 - #1 Oregon 82, #4 Duke 68
2016 - #1 Virginia 84, #4 Iowa State 71
2017 - #1 Gonzaga 61, #4 West Virginia 58
2017 - #1 Kansas 98, #4 Purdue 66
2017 - #1 North Carolina 92, #4 Butler 80
2019 - #1 Duke 75, #4 Virginia Tech 73
2019 - #1 Gonzaga 72, #4 Florida State
2021 - #1 Michigan 76, #4 Florida State 58
2022 - #1 Kansas 66, #4 Providence 61
2022 - #4 Arkansas 74, #1 Gonzaga 68
2024 - #4 Alabama 89, #1 North Carolina 87
2024 - #4 Duke 54, #1 Houston 51
2025 - #1 Florida 87, #4 Maryland 71
2025 - #1 Duke 100, #4 Arizona 93
2025 - #1 Houston 62, #4 Purdue 60

#3 Seed vs. #2 Seed in Sweet Sixteen
2001 - #2 Arizona 66, #3 Ole Miss 56
2002 - #2 Oklahoma 88, #3 Arizona 67
2003 - #3 Marquette 77, #2 Pitt
2003 - #2 Kansas 69, #3 Duke 65
2004 - #2 Oklahoma State 63, #3 Pitt 51
2005 - #3 Arizona 79, #2 Oklahoma State 78
2006 - #2 UCLA 73, #3 Gonzaga 71
2007 - #2 UCLA 64, #3 Pitt 55
2007 - #2 Memphis 65, #3 Texas A&M
2008 - #2 Texas 82, #3 Stanford 62
2008 - #3 Louisville 79, #2 Tennessee 60
2009 - #2 Michigan State 67, #3 Kansas 62
2009 - #2 Oklahoma 84, #3 Syracuse 71
2009 - #3 Missouri 102, #2 Memphis 91
2009 - #3 Villanova 77, #2 Duke 54
2011 - #2 Florida 83, #3 BYU 74 (OT)
2011 - #3 UConn 74, #2 San Diego State 67
2013 - #2 Duke 71, #3 Michigan State 61
2013 - #3 Marquette 71, #2 Miami (FL) 61
2016 - #2 Villanova 92, #3 Miami (FL) 69
2016 - #2 Oklahoma 77, #3 Texas A&M
2017 - #2 Kentucky 86, #3 UCLA 75
2018 - #3 Texas Tech 78, #2 Purdue 65
2019 - #2 Michigan State 80, #3 LSU 63
2019 - #2 Kentucky 62, #2 Houston 58
2019 - #3 Texas Tech 63, #2 Michigan 44
2019 - #3 Purdue 99, #2 Tennessee 94 (OT)
2022 - #2 Duke 78, #3 Texas Tech 73
2023 - #2 Texas 83, #3 Xavier 71
2023 - #3 Gonzaga 79, #2 UCLA 76
2024 - #2 Tennessee 82, #3 Creighton 75
2024 - #3 Illinois 72, #2 Iowa State 69
2025 - #2 Tennessee 78, #3 Kentucky 65

So while acknowledging the NCAA Tournament is crazy and fun, this is sort of what you would expect to see as both seeds if you (A) took care of business in the first two rounds and (B) faced the single most likely opponent in the Sweet Sixteen. The #4 seed is 10-29 vs. the #1 seed in such matchups, winning just over 25% of the time. Meanwhile the #3 seed took down the #2 seed in 12 of the 33 matchups or a little over 36% of the time. That's not a HUGE difference, but it is significant and it also doesn't take into account the presumably higher odds that your potential #2 seed opponent loses early vs. your potential #1 seed opponent. I don't have the brain power to include that, haha.

I'll gladly take a #2 or a #1 seed, too, so let's just go on a true hot streak. :cool:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back