Week of 2/10 Bracketology

Status
Not open for further replies.
#1      

Dan

Dan
Admin
Dan
#3      
Fighter of the Nightman
Illinialldayeveryday said:
We aren't even close to the bubble after the last month of mediocre play. I think a 3-4 finish probably keeps on the 6/7 area.
Click to expand...
I don't think anyone really thought we were on the BUBBLE, per say. It was more that if we kept stacking losses, we would eventually get there ... and if we were losing to Rutgers and Nebraska in the fashion we did, it didn't bode well for the upcoming brutal stretch to end the season.

However, as I have often said, that "brutal stretch" is also an INCREDIBLE opportunity to right the ship down the stretch. Not that this wouldn't be a very good accomplishment vs. very good teams or anything, but even just winning our two home games this week would put us in this position on Sunday...

18-8 overall record
#8-10 NET Ranking (most likely)
#10-13 strength of schedule (most likely)
8-7 vs. Quad 1
4-1 vs. Quad 2
0-0 vs. Quad 3
6-0 vs. Quad 4

Again, no small task, but that is before any opportunities vs. Wisconsin, Michigan or Purdue, let alone Duke. We will have to play very well down the stretch, of course, but we can play ourselves back into a pretty good seed ... which is pretty hard to believe, given the past month. If we finish strong and get some good wins while passing the eye test, I am cautiously optimistic that the Committee will seriously consider the fact that we lost 3 games without key starters in a pretty specific stretch of January and have looked great outside of that ... fingers crossed, anyway!

FWIW, I imagine your projected 3-4 finish would look like this, give or take switching one of the Quad 1 home wins?

W vs. UCLA
W vs. Michigan State
L at Wisconsin
L vs. Duke (New York, NY)
W vs. Iowa
L at Michigan
L vs. Purdue

That would leave us with the following resume before any BTT results:

19-12 overall record
#14-18 NET Ranking (total guess)
#10-13 strength of schedule (most likely)
8-11 vs. Quad 1
5-1 vs. Quad 2
0-0 vs. Quad 3
6-0 vs. Quad 4

It would be a fascinating scenario ... our metrics and Quad 1 wins would be really good, with no bad losses. However, you're playing with fire with a 19-12 record, injuries or not. I think to feel good about a 6/7 seed, we'd need 20 wins.

On another note, I think we would be surprised how much a slight deviation from that pattern could REALLY change our seeding probabilities. Last year's team was a #3 seed with 8 losses and worse metrics than this year's team (lower NET, MUCH lower strength of schedule, fewer Quad 1 wins and a Quad 3 loss). I would not be shocked at all, assuming once again that we are even capable of this, if a 5-2 finish and 2 wins in the BTT had us within shooting distance of a #3 seed again... We'd obviously need some help, but that would be 23-10 overall, 11+ Quad 1 wins, zero bad losses, likely top 10 in the NET Rankings and having just gone 9-3 in a stretch that included AT LEAST 9 Quad 1 games, depending on our BTT opponents.
 
#4      
Fighter of the Nightman
Another Bracketology note ... I am not sure how this compares to past seasons, but 1-2 wins might end up being ESSENTIAL differences between seed lines this year. Just look at the NET resumes of the teams in the 3-7 range on the Bracket Matrix right now.

3 Seeds
#9 Iowa State: 18-5 overall, 6-4 vs. Quad 1
#11 Kansas: 16-7 overall, 5-6 vs. Quad 1
#19 Michigan State: 19-4 overall, 5-4 vs. Quad 1
#24 Marquette: 18-6 overall, 5-4 vs. Quad 1

4 Seeds
#7 Arizona: 17-6 overall, 7-6 vs. Quad 1
#10 Texas Tech: 18-5 overall, 6-3 vs. Quad 1
#15 Wisconsin: 19-5 overall, 7-5 vs. Quad 1
#17 Kentucky: 16-7 overall, 7-6 vs. Quad 1

5 Seeds
#18 Michigan: 18-5 overall, 5-3 vs. Quad 1
#20 St. John's: 21-3 overall, 3-3 vs. Quad 1
#22 Ole Miss: 18-6 overall, 5-6 vs. Quad 1
#23 Missouri: 17-6 overall, 4-6 vs. Quad 1

6 Seeds
#12 ILLINOIS: 16-8 overall, 6-7 vs. Quad 1
#16 Maryland: 17-6 overall, 5-5 vs. Quad 1
#25 UCLA: 18-6 overall, 6-6 vs. Quad 1
#44 Memphis: 19-4 overall, 5-2 vs. Quad 1

7 Seeds
#28 Louisville: 18-6 overall, 4-5 vs. Quad 1
#29 Mississippi State: 17-6 overall, 5-5 vs. Quad 1
#32 Creighton: 18-6 overall, 5-3 vs. Quad 1
#35 Oregon: 16-8 overall, 7-6 vs. Quad 1

Our resume looks more like 3-seed Kansas than anyone in the 6-seed tier, lol! We obviously need to avoid losses down the stretch to keep our record in good shape, but I think many need to rewire their brains from "Do we seem like a #3 seed?" to "Can we beat out the field for a #3 seed spot?" We don't have to measure up to some hypothetical expectation of this archetypal #3 seed from NCAA Tournaments we all remember from the mid-2000s, haha. We just need one of the 12 best resumes.

Now I also want to be clear that I have adjusted down my expectations a lot, and this should go without saying when I post this stuff ... the Minnesota result was awesome and will hopefully serve as a turning point, but I won't exactly fall out of my chair shocked if we come out vs. UCLA looking flat, slow and taking way too many threes that don't go in. However, IF we can truly get some momentum and finish out the season 5-2 or so, man ... I think that would get us a lot more movement up these seed lines than one might initially expect.

I haven't looked up all of those other teams' schedules to end the year, but I am guessing VERY few contain this many opportunities:

Q1: vs. #25 UCLA
Q1: vs. #19 Michigan State
Q1: at #15 Wisconsin
Q1: vs. #2 Duke (New York, NY)
Q2: vs. #67 Iowa
Q1: at #18 Michigan
Q1: vs. #8 Purdue

Also at a neutral site BTT, 9 Big Ten teams would be Quad 1, and the other 9 would be Quad 2 ... so guaranteed at least one more Q1/Q2 game there.
 
#6      
Fighter of the Nightman
Illinialldayeveryday said:
So realistically we will most likely end up in the 7-5 seed range. But if we really falter could be 8/9 and if we go on a heater a 4 or 3.
Click to expand...
Yeah, pretty much ... but (and this is just my impression, not backed by hard data) that seems like a pretty crazy range for mid-February. We are blessed with good metrics and what seems like an abnormal number of Quad 1 opportunities remaining. Again, just back-of-the-napkin guesses and all, but assuming we make it to at least Saturday of the BTT, I'd guess the following "par" for each regular season finish...

16-8 overall record
#14 NET Ranking
#14 SOS
6-7 vs. Quad 1
4-1 vs. Quad 2
0-0 vs. Quad 3
6-0 vs. Quad 4

Finish 7-0: #3 seed all but locked up, possibly a #2 depending on other teams
Finish 6-1: Pretty good shot at a #3 seed given our metrics, but we could be a high #4 if teams in front of us hold firm
Finish 5-2: #4/5 seed most likely
Finish 4-3: #5/6 seed most likely, depending on who the wins/losses come against
Finish 3-4: #7 seed most likely
Finish 2-5: Solidly in the dreaded #8/9 conversation, but we might be saved by our metrics if the 2 wins are headliners?
Finish 1-6: Officially flirting with the Bubble
Finish 0-7: Legitimately unlikely to make the NCAA Tournament, as unthinkable as that might have once been

I'd probably change my mind on some of these if I tried to do this again, lol ... but it's my general perception as of now. One thing I am somewhat sure of is that, given our really good metrics, quality wins and lack of bad losses ... we will generally benefit from "chaos" in the coming weeks more than we are hurt by it, assuming we can get 3+ wins.
 
#7      
mysterio2525
Fighter of the Nightman said:
Yeah, pretty much ... but (and this is just my impression, not backed by hard data) that seems like a pretty crazy range for mid-February. We are blessed with good metrics and what seems like an abnormal number of Quad 1 opportunities remaining. Again, just back-of-the-napkin guesses and all, but assuming we make it to at least Saturday of the BTT, I'd guess the following "par" for each regular season finish...

16-8 overall record
#14 NET Ranking
#14 SOS
6-7 vs. Quad 1
4-1 vs. Quad 2
0-0 vs. Quad 3
6-0 vs. Quad 4

Finish 7-0: #3 seed all but locked up, possibly a #2 depending on other teams
Finish 6-1: Pretty good shot at a #3 seed given our metrics, but we could be a high #4 if teams in front of us hold firm
Finish 5-2: #4/5 seed most likely
Finish 4-3: #5/6 seed most likely, depending on who the wins/losses come against
Finish 3-4: #7 seed most likely
Finish 2-5: Solidly in the dreaded #8/9 conversation, but we might be saved by our metrics if the 2 wins are headliners?
Finish 1-6: Officially flirting with the Bubble
Finish 0-7: Legitimately unlikely to make the NCAA Tournament, as unthinkable as that might have once been

I'd probably change my mind on some of these if I tried to do this again, lol ... but it's my general perception as of now. One thing I am somewhat sure of is that, given our really good metrics, quality wins and lack of bad losses ... we will generally benefit from "chaos" in the coming weeks more than we are hurt by it, assuming we can get 3+ wins.
Click to expand...
I'm still thinking we go on a run and even going 5-2 and at least 1 win in btt we they e the 3 seed because analytics like us and we are fun to watch
 
#9      
jrichisamazing
IlliniFaninHoosierLand said:
Latest BTT seeding projection:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1888981606859235638

Double bye chances are just about gone as we are now at a 10% chance to get that. 4% chance we end up playing the first day of the BTT.
Click to expand...

A 10% chance is still a pretty high percentage with 6 games remaining, so i wouldn't say just about gone. But we realistically have to go 2-0 at home this week to have any real chance. FWIW, Torvik gives us a 16% chance.
 
#10      
IlliniFaninHoosierLand
jrichisamazing said:
A 10% chance is still a pretty high percentage with 6 games remaining, so i wouldn't say just about gone. But we realistically have to go 2-0 at home this week to have any real chance. FWIW, Torvik gives us a 16% chance.
Click to expand...
Considering we were at a 46% chance just a few weeks ago, it's gonna be tough for us to get a double bye at this point. I'd like to see us get it but it's looking pretty unlikely.
 
#11      
lstewart53x3
Fighter of the Nightman said:
I don't think anyone really thought we were on the BUBBLE, per say. It was more that if we kept stacking losses, we would eventually get there ... and if we were losing to Rutgers and Nebraska in the fashion we did, it didn't bode well for the upcoming brutal stretch to end the season.

However, as I have often said, that "brutal stretch" is also an INCREDIBLE opportunity to right the ship down the stretch. Not that this wouldn't be a very good accomplishment vs. very good teams or anything, but even just winning our two home games this week would put us in this position on Sunday...

18-8 overall record
#8-10 NET Ranking (most likely)
#10-13 strength of schedule (most likely)
8-7 vs. Quad 1
4-1 vs. Quad 2
0-0 vs. Quad 3
6-0 vs. Quad 4

Again, no small task, but that is before any opportunities vs. Wisconsin, Michigan or Purdue, let alone Duke. We will have to play very well down the stretch, of course, but we can play ourselves back into a pretty good seed ... which is pretty hard to believe, given the past month. If we finish strong and get some good wins while passing the eye test, I am cautiously optimistic that the Committee will seriously consider the fact that we lost 3 games without key starters in a pretty specific stretch of January and have looked great outside of that ... fingers crossed, anyway!

FWIW, I imagine your projected 3-4 finish would look like this, give or take switching one of the Quad 1 home wins?

W vs. UCLA
W vs. Michigan State
L at Wisconsin
L vs. Duke (New York, NY)
W vs. Iowa
L at Michigan
L vs. Purdue

That would leave us with the following resume before any BTT results:

19-12 overall record
#14-18 NET Ranking (total guess)
#10-13 strength of schedule (most likely)
8-11 vs. Quad 1
5-1 vs. Quad 2
0-0 vs. Quad 3
6-0 vs. Quad 4

It would be a fascinating scenario ... our metrics and Quad 1 wins would be really good, with no bad losses. However, you're playing with fire with a 19-12 record, injuries or not. I think to feel good about a 6/7 seed, we'd need 20 wins.

On another note, I think we would be surprised how much a slight deviation from that pattern could REALLY change our seeding probabilities. Last year's team was a #3 seed with 8 losses and worse metrics than this year's team (lower NET, MUCH lower strength of schedule, fewer Quad 1 wins and a Quad 3 loss). I would not be shocked at all, assuming once again that we are even capable of this, if a 5-2 finish and 2 wins in the BTT had us within shooting distance of a #3 seed again... We'd obviously need some help, but that would be 23-10 overall, 11+ Quad 1 wins, zero bad losses, likely top 10 in the NET Rankings and having just gone 9-3 in a stretch that included AT LEAST 9 Quad 1 games, depending on our BTT opponents.
Click to expand...
I really don’t think total number of losses matters all that much—or at least not as much as quality of wins and losses.

Look at North Carolina. They had 7 losses and got a 1 seed last year, whereas Gonzaga with 7 losses got a 5 seed.

The difference:

North Carolina in Q1 & Q2: 17-7
Gonzaga in Q1 & Q2: 9-7

Auburn was a 4 seed with 7 losses and went 13-7 in Q1 & Q2.

If we go 13-12 in Q1/Q2 like you mention, I see that as more of a 4-5 seed than a 6-7 seed.
 
#12      
the juiceman cometh
lstewart53x3 said:
I really don’t think total number of losses matters all that much—or at least not as much as quality of wins and losses.

Look at North Carolina. They had 7 losses and got a 1 seed last year, whereas Gonzaga with 7 losses got a 5 seed.

The difference:

North Carolina in Q1 & Q2: 17-7
Gonzaga in Q1 & Q2: 9-7

Auburn was a 4 seed with 7 losses and went 13-7 in Q1 & Q2.

If we go 13-12 in Q1/Q2 like you mention, I see that as more of a 4-5 seed than a 6-7 seed.
Click to expand...
It definitely matters, but it's not the end-all-be-all. Yes, there have been 1-seeds with 7 losses. But there has never been a 1-seed with 8 or more losses. There is clearly an upper limit to the number of losses you can have before certain seed lines become unattainable, regardless of the strength of your wins. We could win all our remaining games by 50+ points and I don't think there's any chance we attain a 1-seed at this point, for example (even though some of those wins would be huge for the resume).

I agree, a 4/5 seed is certainly still attainable, but not sure a 19-12 record gets us there without a run in the BTT. Wisconsin had that exact record last season before going on a BTT run and making the finals (losing to us). Following that almost best case BTT scenario they ended up as a 5-seed.
 
#13      
lstewart53x3
the juiceman cometh said:
It definitely matters, but it's not the end-all-be-all. Yes, there have been 1-seeds with 7 losses. But there has never been a 1-seed with 8 or more losses. There is clearly an upper limit to the number of losses you can have before certain seed lines become unattainable, regardless of the strength of your wins. We could win all our remaining games by 50+ points and I don't think there's any chance we attain a 1-seed at this point, for example (even though some of those wins would be huge for the resume).

I agree, a 4/5 seed is certainly still attainable, but not sure a 19-12 record gets us there without a run in the BTT. Wisconsin had that exact record last season before going on a BTT run and making the finals (losing to us). Following that almost best case BTT scenario they ended up as a 5-seed.
Click to expand...
The point of my example is to show the variance between seeds by teams who all had the same number of losses.

For example, last season:

4 seed Auburn
2 seed Iowa St
1 seed North Carolina
5 seed St Mary’s
13 seed Charleston
7 seed Dayton
10 seed Nevada
5 seed Gonzaga
6 seed South Carolina

All had 7 losses.

Whats the difference between those teams—they all had the same number of losses, yet they each got very different seeds? Their record in Q1 and Q2 games.

Feel free to scroll the NET team sheets from last year to see for yourself. You’ll notice that teams are seeded much closer to their strength of resume than they are by overall record:


Bracket:

www.ncaa.com

2024 NCAA bracket: Scores, stats, for March Madness men’s tournament

Here's a look back at the 2024 NCAA tournament for March Madness. The UConn men won it all for the second season in a row.
www.ncaa.com www.ncaa.com

We’re currently 10-8 in Q1/Q2 games. If we won out, we would be 17-8 in Q1/Q2 games, not including the BTT, which would absolutely put us in the running for a 1 seed. North Carolina earned a 1 seed last year with a 17-7 record in Q1/Q2. We would be a 2 seed at worst in that scenario (I don’t believe we’ll get anywhere close to winning out).

You also referenced Wisconsin from last year. They finished the season with just 5 Q1 wins (they were 5-9 in Q1 games). We already have 6. What hurt Wisconsin wasn’t their overall record, but their lack of quality wins.

I will say, we’ll be a very unique team to seed this year given we’ll likely have a much stronger resume than our overall record would suggest.
 
#14      
the juiceman cometh
lstewart53x3 said:
The point of my example is to show the variance between seeds by teams who all had the same number of losses.

For example, last season:

4 seed Auburn
2 seed Iowa St
1 seed North Carolina
5 seed St Mary’s
13 seed Charleston
7 seed Dayton
10 seed Nevada
5 seed Gonzaga
6 seed South Carolina

All had 7 losses.

Whats the difference between those teams—they all had the same number of losses, yet they each got very different seeds? Their record in Q1 and Q2 games.

Feel free to scroll the NET team sheets from last year to see for yourself. You’ll notice that teams are seeded much closer to their strength of resume than they are by overall record:


Bracket:

www.ncaa.com

2024 NCAA bracket: Scores, stats, for March Madness men’s tournament

Here's a look back at the 2024 NCAA tournament for March Madness. The UConn men won it all for the second season in a row.
www.ncaa.com www.ncaa.com

We’re currently 10-8 in Q1/Q2 games. If we won out, we would be 17-8 in Q1/Q2 games, not including the BTT, which would absolutely put us in the running for a 1 seed. North Carolina earned a 1 seed last year with a 17-7 record in Q1/Q2. We would be a 2 seed at worst in that scenario (I don’t believe we’ll get anywhere close to winning out).

You also referenced Wisconsin from last year. They finished the season with just 5 Q1 wins (they were 5-9 in Q1 games). We already have 6. What hurt Wisconsin wasn’t their overall record, but their lack of quality wins.

I will say, we’ll be a very unique team to seed this year given we’ll likely have a much stronger resume than our overall record would suggest.
Click to expand...
Fair enough about Q1 wins but in your original post you pointed out that in the scenario we went 19-12 out combined Q1-Q2 record would be 13-12. That Wisconsin team went 14-14 in combined Q1-Q2. So the resumes are not that far off when would add in Q2.
 
#15      
CentralILLini
2-0 this week changes a ton besides just gaining 2 Q1 wins. I still think we hit our stride to end the season once everybody gets healthy. Health and therefore continuity have really hurt us the past month+. Again, i believe that this is at least a sweet 16 team with a chance to go on a real run. I didn't feel that way 2 years ago, especially after getting matched up with an Arkansas team in the first round that was loaded with NBA talent and athleticism.
 
#16      
21ChampaignSt
The crazy thing is, despite the slump, we could still match or even exceed the 12 Quad 1 wins that the 2021 team had. Which, since the Quad system began, is like the 3rd most q1 wins in a single season.

Auburn will set the record this year for most q1 wins, unfortunately.
 
#17      
lstewart53x3
the juiceman cometh said:
Fair enough about Q1 wins but in your original post you pointed out that in the scenario we went 19-12 out combined Q1-Q2 record would be 13-12. That Wisconsin team went 14-14 in combined Q1-Q2. So the resumes are not that far off when would add in Q2.
Click to expand...
True, good catch. 13-12 probably puts us right around that 5 seed that Wisconsin got last year.
 
#18      
lstewart53x3
We have a historically difficult schedule this year.

From Robert’s most recent article, our number of regular season Q1 games each of the last 4 years:

2022: 11
2023: 12
2024: 11
2025: 19 (assumption based on opponent current NET rankings)

www.illiniboard.com

Where Do We Stand? February 11th

We have finally fallen out of the rankings. I say "finally" because I had expected it to happen at least four times and yet we kept hanging in there. This week... no number in front of our name. I guess it's kind of fun to be the "wait, they have
www.illiniboard.com www.illiniboard.com
 
#19      
jrichisamazing
the juiceman cometh said:
It definitely matters, but it's not the end-all-be-all. Yes, there have been 1-seeds with 7 losses. But there has never been a 1-seed with 8 or more losses. There is clearly an upper limit to the number of losses you can have before certain seed lines become unattainable, regardless of the strength of your wins. We could win all our remaining games by 50+ points and I don't think there's any chance we attain a 1-seed at this point, for example (even though some of those wins would be huge for the resume).

I agree, a 4/5 seed is certainly still attainable, but not sure a 19-12 record gets us there without a run in the BTT. Wisconsin had that exact record last season before going on a BTT run and making the finals (losing to us). Following that almost best case BTT scenario they ended up as a 5-seed.
Click to expand...

Wisconsin was only 4-8 in Q1 games entering the BTT last season, and only gained 1 more Q1 win in the BTT.
 
#20      
jrichisamazing
lstewart53x3 said:
We have a historically difficult schedule this year.

From Robert’s most recent article, our number of regular season Q1 games each of the last 4 years:

2022: 11
2023: 12
2024: 11
2025: 19 (assumption based on opponent current NET rankings)

www.illiniboard.com

Where Do We Stand? February 11th

We have finally fallen out of the rankings. I say "finally" because I had expected it to happen at least four times and yet we kept hanging in there. This week... no number in front of our name. I guess it's kind of fun to be the "wait, they have
www.illiniboard.com www.illiniboard.com
Click to expand...

And with how backloaded our schedule is, every team left on our schedule (plus UCLA) is currently ahead of us on bracketmatrix other than Iowa.

This time of year it gets really fun to forecast our seed line, and this schedule is going to make it even more entertaining. Especially if we get hot. Every win adds to our resume, and at the same time prevents our direct competitors from adding to theirs.
 
#21      
Illwinsagain
A little help from those in the know, what does Wins Above Bubble represent? Besides Gonzaga, no one rated near us is nearly as bad as us.
 
#23      
GrayGhost77
Illwinsagain said:
A little help from those in the know, what does Wins Above Bubble represent? Besides Gonzaga, no one rated near us is nearly as bad as us.
Click to expand...
Exactly what it sounds like. How many wins are you above being on the tournament bubble? If your WAB is 2.0, say, then if you had 2 more losses you'd likely be on the bubble in projected NCAAA tourney seeding.
 
#24      
sulli
sulli said:
www.backingthepack.com

Wins Above Bubble added to NCAA tournament selection process

Progress!
www.backingthepack.com www.backingthepack.com
Click to expand...
I think ours is lower than those around us because we've lost more games than our T-score would indicate based on our efficiency metrics. Another way of saying that is we blow people out and lose close games (or games we shouldn't), I guess. With the tough schedule coming up, we could lose or gain a lot of ground on that stat since we have so many challenging games left. We have a bunch of games that would be 25%-75% chance at a win for a bubble team, so each one is pretty high variance (we'll gain or lose .25-.75 a game to WAB). Whereas if we had a bunch of really bad teams at home and really tough teams on the road we'd be more likely to stand pat since beating bad teams would gain us like .1 and losing to really tough teams on the road would lose us like .1 or .2.

EDIT: On the bartorvik website it shows what each win remaining would do. We'd go up by ~4 WAB if we win out through the final 6 regular season games. If we go 3-3 (wins at home) then we would add ~1. If we lose out, we'd drop ~2 and be right on the bubble. To me the stats look like 18 wins is where we need to be, but in reality I think it is probably 19 because it is very rare for the committee to let someone in with <19 wins (although it does happen and our schedule probably warrants it).
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back