Week of 2/16 Bracketology

Status
Not open for further replies.
#78      
Fighter of the Nightman
BTW, there was a very prevalent attitude circa 2022 or so that winning the BTT "might not be worth it" because the BTT champion was tired and then often flopped in the NCAA Tournament. This was of course recency bias due to Illinois winning it in 2021 and going down to Loyola in the Second Round and Iowa winning it in 2022 and losing in the First Round. However, I do feel at this time of year it is necessary to remind folks that there is really no proof that winning the BTT - and every game you can all year - is not good for a team.

Here is each year's BTT champion sorted by NCAA Tournament finish. I'm also putting each team's NCAAT seed in there for context, as obviously a #5 seed-type team that gets hot and wins the BTT might be less likely to maintain that than a #1 seed-type team that wins the BTT and just keeps rolling.

National Champion
2000 - #1 Michigan State

National Runner-Up
2005 - #1 Illinois
2007 - #1 Ohio State
2015 - #1 Wisconsin
2018 - #3 Michigan

Final Four
1999 - #1 Michigan State
2019 - #2 Michigan State

Elite Eight
2013 - #2 Ohio State
2014 - #4 Michigan State
2024 - #3 Illinois

Sweet Sixteen
2008 - #3 Wisconsin
2009 - #5 Purdue
2010 - #2 Ohio State
2011 - #1 Ohio State
2012 - #5 Michigan State
2017 - #7 Michigan
2025 - #5 Michigan

Second Round
2001 - #7 Iowa
2002 - #4 Ohio State
2004 - #6 Wisconsin
2003 - #4 Illinois
2021 - #1 Illinois

First Round
2006 - #3 Iowa
2016 - #2 Michigan State
2023 - #1 Purdue
2022 - #5 Iowa

N/A
1998 - Michigan (postseason ban)


So yeah, there have been top seeds that have been upset, but there have been lower seeds that have made the Sweet Sixteen ... just like your typical March Madness. All in all, there have been 26 BTT champions that played in the NCAA Tournament. 22 of 26 made the Second Round, 17 of 26 made the Sweet Sixteen, 10 out of 26 made the Elite Eight and 5 out of 26 made the Final Four. I'm guessing those are better odds than Big Ten teams overall during the same timeframe.
 
#79      
Calvin
AirNeazy said:
IMO Final Four is above all.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's an elite bar to clear, and for whatever reason, we haven't had runs to the FF in proportion to our success overall. The limited attention span among potential viewers has concentrated more and more focus on the tournament. Not sure I'd put a lesser run above a BT or BTT title though.

I'm glad they've changed the BTT format so the top 4 have at most 3 days to play before the NCAAs. 5-8 no doubt could do it, but I think it sets up much better and I like rewarding the regular season performance.

This has (for me) been one of the most enjoyable teams to watch in recent years, and that's saying a lot given how good the past 5 years have been. Really hope these guys play their best in the post-season.
 
#80      
Fighter of the Nightman
Calvin said:
Yeah, it's an elite bar to clear, and for whatever reason, we haven't had runs to the FF in proportion to our success overall...
Click to expand...
We have had some truly unfortunate underachievement in the NCAA Tournament, and I think it really plays into some folks severely underrating how good of a history Illinois has. If you just look at our NCAAT results since 1980 by what you would "expect" based on the seed we earned based on our regular season resume and compare it to what actually happened ... well, it explains why you could get someone arguing we are an almost-top-10 program all-time and someone else saying we are closer to #25. We are likely somewhere between #10-15 all-time in regular season success and closer to #18-25 all-time in NCAA Tournament success, thus a usual ranking between #14-22 on most lists I've seen. Anyway:

Year | Illini Seed ... Expected Result | Actual Result
Actual result is green if we "overachieved" or "met expectations" past the Second Round, yellow if we "met expectations" by losing in the First Round or Second Round and red if we "underachieved." I'm also assuming that BOTH a #8 and #9 seed would "expect" to lose in the First Round, since it's an even matchup.

2025 | #6 Seed ... Second Round | Second Round
2024 | #3 Seed ... Sweet Sixteen | Elite Eight
2023 | #9 Seed ... First Round | First Round
2022 | #4 Seed ... Sweet Sixteen | Second Round
2021 | #1 Seed ... Final Four | Second Round
2013 | #7 Seed ... Second Round | Second Round
2011 | #9 Seed ... First Round | Second Round
2009 | #5 Seed ... Second Round | First Round
2007 | #12 Seed ... First Round | First Round
2006 | #4 Seed ... Sweet Sixteen | Second Round
2005 | #1 Seed ... Final Four | National Runner-Up
2004 | #5 Seed ... Second Round | Sweet Sixteen
2003 | #4 Seed ... Sweet Sixteen | Second Round
2002 | #4 Seed ... Sweet Sixteen | Sweet Sixteen
2001 | #1 Seed ... Final Four | Elite Eight
2000 | #4 Seed ... Sweet Sixteen | Second Round
1998 | #5 Seed ... Second Round | Second Round
1997 | #6 Seed ... Second Round | Second Round
1995 | #11 Seed ... First Round | First Round
1994 | #8 Seed ... First Round | First Round
1993 | #6 Seed ... Second Round | Second Round
1990 | #5 Seed ... Second Round | First Round
1989 | #1 Seed ... Final Four | Final Four
1988 | #3 Seed ... Sweet Sixteen | Second Round
1987 | #3 Seed ... Sweet Sixteen | First Round
1986 | #4 Seed ... Sweet Sixteen | Second Round
1985 | #3 Seed ... Sweet Sixteen | Sweet Sixteen
1984 | #2 Seed ... Elite Eight | Elite Eight
1983 | #7 Seed ... Second Round | First Round
1981 | #4 Seed ... Sweet Sixteen | Sweet Sixteen

So in that timeframe, our results are...

1 National Runner-Up
2 Final Four
5 Elite Eight
9 Sweet Sixteen
22 Second Round

And while this is obviously not realistic and only for illustrative purposes, these WOULD be our stats over the same time period if we "met or exceeded expectations" for our seed each year. I'm making the subjective guess that 1989 would have at least been a National Runner-Up given losing to that specific Michigan team and that the 2001 / 2021 teams would have lost in their first Final Four games ... totally arbitrary, lol, but I had to take a guess!

2 National Runner-Up
4 Final Four
6 Elite Eight
17 Sweet Sixteen
26 Second Round

What has especially killed us and still gives me nightmares is the #4 seed path, lol. Of the 7 times we have been a #4 seed, we have only made the Sweet Sixteen twice ... and one of those times (2002) involved beating a #12 seed in the Second Round. In the "typical" Second Round matchup of #4 vs. #5, we have a 1-5 record as the #4 seed and haven't won such a game since 1981. :sick:
 
#81      
21ChampaignSt
A little off topic but I just saw this graphic that showed each B1G team's last Natty and I'm more convinced than ever that this is a non issue.

The B1G has never churned out national champions at a high rate because 1) it's hard to do and 2) we don't have a blue blood in our conference (or we haven't for most of the conference's history)

1940s: 2 champions
1950s: 1 champion
1960s: 1 champion
1970s: 2 champions
1980s: 2 champions
1990s: 0 champions
2000s: 1 champion
2010s: 0 champions
2020: -

So, as a conference, we only average 1 or 2 champions per decade. Even taking the current drought into account, we're really not far off that pace.
 
Last edited:
#82      
ChiefGritty
Fighter of the Nightman said:
We have had some truly unfortunate underachievement in the NCAA Tournament, and I think it really plays into some folks severely underrating how good of a history Illinois has. If you just look at our NCAAT results since 1980 by what you would "expect" based on the seed we earned based on our regular season resume and compare it to what actually happened ... well, it explains why you could get someone arguing we are an almost-top-10 program all-time and someone else saying we are closer to #25. We are likely somewhere between #10-15 all-time in regular season success and closer to #18-25 all-time in NCAA Tournament success, thus a usual ranking between #14-22 on most lists I've seen. Anyway:

Year | Illini Seed ... Expected Result | Actual Result
Actual result is green if we "overachieved" or "met expectations" past the Second Round, yellow if we "met expectations" by losing in the First Round or Second Round and red if we "underachieved." I'm also assuming that BOTH a #8 and #9 seed would "expect" to lose in the First Round, since it's an even matchup.

2025 | #6 Seed ... Second Round | Second Round
2024 | #3 Seed ... Sweet Sixteen | Elite Eight
2023 | #9 Seed ... First Round | First Round
2022 | #4 Seed ... Sweet Sixteen | Second Round
2021 | #1 Seed ... Final Four | Second Round
2013 | #7 Seed ... Second Round | Second Round
2011 | #9 Seed ... First Round | Second Round
2009 | #5 Seed ... Second Round | First Round
2007 | #12 Seed ... First Round | First Round
2006 | #4 Seed ... Sweet Sixteen | Second Round
2005 | #1 Seed ... Final Four | National Runner-Up
2004 | #5 Seed ... Second Round | Sweet Sixteen
2003 | #4 Seed ... Sweet Sixteen | Second Round
2002 | #4 Seed ... Sweet Sixteen | Sweet Sixteen
2001 | #1 Seed ... Final Four | Elite Eight
2000 | #4 Seed ... Sweet Sixteen | Second Round
1998 | #5 Seed ... Second Round | Second Round
1997 | #6 Seed ... Second Round | Second Round
1995 | #11 Seed ... First Round | First Round
1994 | #8 Seed ... First Round | First Round
1993 | #6 Seed ... Second Round | Second Round
1990 | #5 Seed ... Second Round | First Round
1989 | #1 Seed ... Final Four | Final Four
1988 | #3 Seed ... Sweet Sixteen | Second Round
1987 | #3 Seed ... Sweet Sixteen | First Round
1986 | #4 Seed ... Sweet Sixteen | Second Round
1985 | #3 Seed ... Sweet Sixteen | Sweet Sixteen
1984 | #2 Seed ... Elite Eight | Elite Eight
1983 | #7 Seed ... Second Round | First Round
1981 | #4 Seed ... Sweet Sixteen | Sweet Sixteen

So in that timeframe, our results are...

1 National Runner-Up
2 Final Four
5 Elite Eight
9 Sweet Sixteen
22 Second Round

And while this is obviously not realistic and only for illustrative purposes, these WOULD be our stats over the same time period if we "met or exceeded expectations" for our seed each year. I'm making the subjective guess that 1989 would have at least been a National Runner-Up given losing to that specific Michigan team and that the 2001 / 2021 teams would have lost in their first Final Four games ... totally arbitrary, lol, but I had to take a guess!

2 National Runner-Up
4 Final Four
6 Elite Eight
17 Sweet Sixteen
26 Second Round

What has especially killed us and still gives me nightmares is the #4 seed path, lol. Of the 7 times we have been a #4 seed, we have only made the Sweet Sixteen twice ... and one of those times (2002) involved beating a #12 seed in the Second Round. In the "typical" Second Round matchup of #4 vs. #5, we have a 1-5 record as the #4 seed and haven't won such a game since 1981. :sick:
Click to expand...
The Rest of College Basketball:

To compete for a national championship you need a historically great team, the peak of an era, a dominant force through that entire college basketball season, a hegemonic force that everyone sees coming a mile away.

UConn:
What, like it's hard? reese witherspoon GIF
 
#83      
wc_illini
RollChief said:
5. For Gonzaga, was last year the year they won the WCC regular season title and WCC tournament, or the year they made the Sweet 16?
Click to expand...
It was the year they didn't make the Sweet 16, ending their streak of 9 consecutive
 
#84      
PizzaHutParkingLot
Fighter of the Nightman said:
We have had some truly unfortunate underachievement in the NCAA Tournament, and I think it really plays into some folks severely underrating how good of a history Illinois has. If you just look at our NCAAT results since 1980 by what you would "expect" based on the seed we earned based on our regular season resume and compare it to what actually happened ... well, it explains why you could get someone arguing we are an almost-top-10 program all-time and someone else saying we are closer to #25. We are likely somewhere between #10-15 all-time in regular season success and closer to #18-25 all-time in NCAA Tournament success, thus a usual ranking between #14-22 on most lists I've seen. Anyway:

Year | Illini Seed ... Expected Result | Actual Result
Actual result is green if we "overachieved" or "met expectations" past the Second Round, yellow if we "met expectations" by losing in the First Round or Second Round and red if we "underachieved." I'm also assuming that BOTH a #8 and #9 seed would "expect" to lose in the First Round, since it's an even matchup.

2025 | #6 Seed ... Second Round | Second Round
2024 | #3 Seed ... Sweet Sixteen | Elite Eight
2023 | #9 Seed ... First Round | First Round
2022 | #4 Seed ... Sweet Sixteen | Second Round
2021 | #1 Seed ... Final Four | Second Round
2013 | #7 Seed ... Second Round | Second Round
2011 | #9 Seed ... First Round | Second Round
2009 | #5 Seed ... Second Round | First Round
2007 | #12 Seed ... First Round | First Round
2006 | #4 Seed ... Sweet Sixteen | Second Round
2005 | #1 Seed ... Final Four | National Runner-Up
2004 | #5 Seed ... Second Round | Sweet Sixteen
2003 | #4 Seed ... Sweet Sixteen | Second Round
2002 | #4 Seed ... Sweet Sixteen | Sweet Sixteen
2001 | #1 Seed ... Final Four | Elite Eight
2000 | #4 Seed ... Sweet Sixteen | Second Round
1998 | #5 Seed ... Second Round | Second Round
1997 | #6 Seed ... Second Round | Second Round
1995 | #11 Seed ... First Round | First Round
1994 | #8 Seed ... First Round | First Round
1993 | #6 Seed ... Second Round | Second Round
1990 | #5 Seed ... Second Round | First Round
1989 | #1 Seed ... Final Four | Final Four
1988 | #3 Seed ... Sweet Sixteen | Second Round
1987 | #3 Seed ... Sweet Sixteen | First Round
1986 | #4 Seed ... Sweet Sixteen | Second Round
1985 | #3 Seed ... Sweet Sixteen | Sweet Sixteen
1984 | #2 Seed ... Elite Eight | Elite Eight
1983 | #7 Seed ... Second Round | First Round
1981 | #4 Seed ... Sweet Sixteen | Sweet Sixteen

So in that timeframe, our results are...

1 National Runner-Up
2 Final Four
5 Elite Eight
9 Sweet Sixteen
22 Second Round

And while this is obviously not realistic and only for illustrative purposes, these WOULD be our stats over the same time period if we "met or exceeded expectations" for our seed each year. I'm making the subjective guess that 1989 would have at least been a National Runner-Up given losing to that specific Michigan team and that the 2001 / 2021 teams would have lost in their first Final Four games ... totally arbitrary, lol, but I had to take a guess!

2 National Runner-Up
4 Final Four
6 Elite Eight
17 Sweet Sixteen
26 Second Round

What has especially killed us and still gives me nightmares is the #4 seed path, lol. Of the 7 times we have been a #4 seed, we have only made the Sweet Sixteen twice ... and one of those times (2002) involved beating a #12 seed in the Second Round. In the "typical" Second Round matchup of #4 vs. #5, we have a 1-5 record as the #4 seed and haven't won such a game since 1981. :sick:
Click to expand...
At least once in my lifetime, I need an Illini team seeded low enough to be overlooked, then make a run like Sidarius Thornwell’s South Carolina
or Malachi Richardson’s Syracuse
 
#85      
wc_illini
Fighter of the Nightman said:
Long rant incoming, lol, as I also find the "only the postseason matters" attitude incredibly sad and an indictment on so much of the "mystique" of college sports being lost in the last decade plus. I generally agree with your last statement, and I H-A-T-E the relatively new yet mostly prevalent attitude among college sports fans that teams who haven't literally won a National Championship "haven't done anything." That might sound like a ridiculous strawman, but you see this all the time with comments about Oregon Football, and while I get that it is trolling ... that is sort of the point. To say something like Oregon Football's financial investments in its programs have "amounted to nothing" because they haven't won a National Championship is such a low IQ take, lol. College sports are supposed to be about pageantry and tradition, and I generally find that the more intelligent and thoughtful a sports fan is, the more he/she will give praise to a wider range of programs for their accomplishments. If you are not in awe of the 1990s Braves because they "only" won one World Series, well ... your opinion should be considered so ridiculously casual as to be irrelevant.

With that said, I will say that I think there are tiers based on a program's current situation. In 2021, I can honestly say I cared way more about winning the BTT than making the Sweet Sixteen. Given how we were screwed out of a regular season title, I REALLY wanted that group to be able to hang a banner. In fact, I honestly don't think I had ever heard the term "make the Second Weekend" until it became a constantly used attack term used by rival fan bases (especially Michigan) to trash an Illini Basketball program that was CLEARLY back yet just happened to have lost in the Second Round two years in a row. For all of my sports life, each round of the NCAA Tournament was its own island to me and most fans I knew ... losing in the Second Round was better than in the First Round, losing in the Sweet Sixteen was better than the Second Round, losing in the Elite Eight was better than the Sweet Sixteen, etc. There wasn't this magical wall of "success" that came with making a Sweet Sixteen. The only exception was making the Final Four, given the extreme level of pageantry and celebration involved with that feat; everything before it was just varying degrees of a good season that fell short of a Final Four.

In 2022, I cared way more about winning the Big Ten regular season (once it was on the table) than how we did in the NCAA Tournament. We hadn't won one in 17 years, and the aforementioned screw job from 2021 was still fresh. I also had started to have a sort of 2006-esque feeling with that team by early March where we just seemed like a low floor/low ceiling squad that would sort of blend in with our program's good history, so I was glad they got some sort of eternal recognition with a championship of some kind. I was annoyed by the haters talking about "another Second Round loss" and really wanted to make it to the Sweet Sixteen, sure ... but instead of a conference championship?? No way.

However ... fast forward to 2023 and especially 2024, and I very much was swayed by the idea of getting the Sweet Sixteen monkey off of our backs. Winning the BTT was awesome, but I would have been epically disappointed if we went down in the Second Round yet again. It was so nice to finally see our name in the bracket in the later stages when the nation's eyes were focused on an increasingly small number of teams. So, I understand the sentiment. With that said, though ... we have already done all of that during this Underwood renaissance. BTT banner? Check. Regular season banner? Check. First Round NBA Draft picks? Check. "Deep" March Madness run? Check. So, with the obvious exception of treating a Final Four (and even more obviously a National Championship victory!) as this sort of end-all accomplishment, I truly don't get at this point not viewing each individual accomplishment sort of "in its own lane" - separate little trophies our storied program can add to the trophy case without sacrificing our prospects for other accomplishments!
Click to expand...
It isn't even clear what the original "question" is. Is it what we'd be happiest about? Because I'd celebrate a B1G regular season or tourney title more than a first round NCAA tourney win. What we'd be most upset about? A first round NCAA tourney upset would sting more than finishing 2nd in the B1G regular season. Or what we'd be willing to trade? Because I'd rest a hurting player now or in the B1G tourney to be full strength in the NCAA tourney.

And I agree the context is different every year. Now that we've established our program as being top 10 nationally often enough, and perhaps based on my pro teams' histories, performing to expectations in the post-season ranks very high for me (even though I hate that the post season is a crap shoot compared to what the regular season actually says about a team's ability).
 
#87      
TheGMan
Fighter of the Nightman said:
We have had some truly unfortunate underachievement in the NCAA Tournament, and I think it really plays into some folks severely underrating how good of a history Illinois has. If you just look at our NCAAT results since 1980 by what you would "expect" based on the seed we earned based on our regular season resume and compare it to what actually happened ... well, it explains why you could get someone arguing we are an almost-top-10 program all-time and someone else saying we are closer to #25. We are likely somewhere between #10-15 all-time in regular season success and closer to #18-25 all-time in NCAA Tournament success, thus a usual ranking between #14-22 on most lists I've seen. Anyway:

Year | Illini Seed ... Expected Result | Actual Result
Actual result is green if we "overachieved" or "met expectations" past the Second Round, yellow if we "met expectations" by losing in the First Round or Second Round and red if we "underachieved." I'm also assuming that BOTH a #8 and #9 seed would "expect" to lose in the First Round, since it's an even matchup.

2025 | #6 Seed ... Second Round | Second Round
2024 | #3 Seed ... Sweet Sixteen | Elite Eight
2023 | #9 Seed ... First Round | First Round
2022 | #4 Seed ... Sweet Sixteen | Second Round
2021 | #1 Seed ... Final Four | Second Round
2013 | #7 Seed ... Second Round | Second Round
2011 | #9 Seed ... First Round | Second Round
2009 | #5 Seed ... Second Round | First Round
2007 | #12 Seed ... First Round | First Round
2006 | #4 Seed ... Sweet Sixteen | Second Round
2005 | #1 Seed ... Final Four | National Runner-Up
2004 | #5 Seed ... Second Round | Sweet Sixteen
2003 | #4 Seed ... Sweet Sixteen | Second Round
2002 | #4 Seed ... Sweet Sixteen | Sweet Sixteen
2001 | #1 Seed ... Final Four | Elite Eight
2000 | #4 Seed ... Sweet Sixteen | Second Round
1998 | #5 Seed ... Second Round | Second Round
1997 | #6 Seed ... Second Round | Second Round
1995 | #11 Seed ... First Round | First Round
1994 | #8 Seed ... First Round | First Round
1993 | #6 Seed ... Second Round | Second Round
1990 | #5 Seed ... Second Round | First Round
1989 | #1 Seed ... Final Four | Final Four
1988 | #3 Seed ... Sweet Sixteen | Second Round
1987 | #3 Seed ... Sweet Sixteen | First Round
1986 | #4 Seed ... Sweet Sixteen | Second Round
1985 | #3 Seed ... Sweet Sixteen | Sweet Sixteen
1984 | #2 Seed ... Elite Eight | Elite Eight
1983 | #7 Seed ... Second Round | First Round
1981 | #4 Seed ... Sweet Sixteen | Sweet Sixteen

So in that timeframe, our results are...

1 National Runner-Up
2 Final Four
5 Elite Eight
9 Sweet Sixteen
22 Second Round

And while this is obviously not realistic and only for illustrative purposes, these WOULD be our stats over the same time period if we "met or exceeded expectations" for our seed each year. I'm making the subjective guess that 1989 would have at least been a National Runner-Up given losing to that specific Michigan team and that the 2001 / 2021 teams would have lost in their first Final Four games ... totally arbitrary, lol, but I had to take a guess!

2 National Runner-Up
4 Final Four
6 Elite Eight
17 Sweet Sixteen
26 Second Round

What has especially killed us and still gives me nightmares is the #4 seed path, lol. Of the 7 times we have been a #4 seed, we have only made the Sweet Sixteen twice ... and one of those times (2002) involved beating a #12 seed in the Second Round. In the "typical" Second Round matchup of #4 vs. #5, we have a 1-5 record as the #4 seed and haven't won such a game since 1981. :sick:
Click to expand...
Not that it really changes anything, but you have 2021 as meeting expectations. That is definitely an "underachieved" result.
 
#89      
thefalcon5
It seems to me we are more squarely on a two line than it appears on the surface. There’s obviously some bad scenarios that would push us down, but frankly losing two more regular season games and perhaps only a single win in the btt should provide us enough ammunition to maintain a two seed. I do think MSU/Purdue/Nebraska are going to have a rougher month than us and that’s a big factor in this as I think three big ten teams should be 1 or 2 seeds.

The even better news is, again barring a major collapse, a three seed seems like a comfortable floor.

Sadly I do think we’ll need to win out in regular season action and need some help elsewhere to bump up to a one, though as of today, all of our losses are to top 25 NET teams excluding a surging 33rd ranked Wisconsin team.

Outside of the obvious, absolutely massive hat tip to the scheduling this year.
 
#91      
rdk573
Fighter of the Nightman said:
We have had some truly unfortunate underachievement in the NCAA Tournament, and I think it really plays into some folks severely underrating how good of a history Illinois has. If you just look at our NCAAT results since 1980 by what you would "expect" based on the seed we earned based on our regular season resume and compare it to what actually happened ... well, it explains why you could get someone arguing we are an almost-top-10 program all-time and someone else saying we are closer to #25. We are likely somewhere between #10-15 all-time in regular season success and closer to #18-25 all-time in NCAA Tournament success, thus a usual ranking between #14-22 on most lists I've seen. Anyway:

Year | Illini Seed ... Expected Result | Actual Result
Actual result is green if we "overachieved" or "met expectations" past the Second Round, yellow if we "met expectations" by losing in the First Round or Second Round and red if we "underachieved." I'm also assuming that BOTH a #8 and #9 seed would "expect" to lose in the First Round, since it's an even matchup.

2025 | #6 Seed ... Second Round | Second Round
2024 | #3 Seed ... Sweet Sixteen | Elite Eight
2023 | #9 Seed ... First Round | First Round
2022 | #4 Seed ... Sweet Sixteen | Second Round
2021 | #1 Seed ... Final Four | Second Round
2013 | #7 Seed ... Second Round | Second Round
2011 | #9 Seed ... First Round | Second Round
2009 | #5 Seed ... Second Round | First Round
2007 | #12 Seed ... First Round | First Round
2006 | #4 Seed ... Sweet Sixteen | Second Round
2005 | #1 Seed ... Final Four | National Runner-Up
2004 | #5 Seed ... Second Round | Sweet Sixteen
2003 | #4 Seed ... Sweet Sixteen | Second Round
2002 | #4 Seed ... Sweet Sixteen | Sweet Sixteen
2001 | #1 Seed ... Final Four | Elite Eight
2000 | #4 Seed ... Sweet Sixteen | Second Round
1998 | #5 Seed ... Second Round | Second Round
1997 | #6 Seed ... Second Round | Second Round
1995 | #11 Seed ... First Round | First Round
1994 | #8 Seed ... First Round | First Round
1993 | #6 Seed ... Second Round | Second Round
1990 | #5 Seed ... Second Round | First Round
1989 | #1 Seed ... Final Four | Final Four
1988 | #3 Seed ... Sweet Sixteen | Second Round
1987 | #3 Seed ... Sweet Sixteen | First Round
1986 | #4 Seed ... Sweet Sixteen | Second Round
1985 | #3 Seed ... Sweet Sixteen | Sweet Sixteen
1984 | #2 Seed ... Elite Eight | Elite Eight
1983 | #7 Seed ... Second Round | First Round
1981 | #4 Seed ... Sweet Sixteen | Sweet Sixteen

So in that timeframe, our results are...

1 National Runner-Up
2 Final Four
5 Elite Eight
9 Sweet Sixteen
22 Second Round

And while this is obviously not realistic and only for illustrative purposes, these WOULD be our stats over the same time period if we "met or exceeded expectations" for our seed each year. I'm making the subjective guess that 1989 would have at least been a National Runner-Up given losing to that specific Michigan team and that the 2001 / 2021 teams would have lost in their first Final Four games ... totally arbitrary, lol, but I had to take a guess!

2 National Runner-Up
4 Final Four
6 Elite Eight
17 Sweet Sixteen
26 Second Round

What has especially killed us and still gives me nightmares is the #4 seed path, lol. Of the 7 times we have been a #4 seed, we have only made the Sweet Sixteen twice ... and one of those times (2002) involved beating a #12 seed in the Second Round. In the "typical" Second Round matchup of #4 vs. #5, we have a 1-5 record as the #4 seed and haven't won such a game since 1981. :sick:
Click to expand...

All I know is we better make the SW16 this year or else this board will have a meltdown and I am going to vomit..
 
#93      
aaeismacgychel
Fighter of the Nightman said:
Long rant incoming, lol, as I also find the "only the postseason matters" attitude incredibly sad and an indictment on so much of the "mystique" of college sports being lost in the last decade plus. I generally agree with your last statement, and I H-A-T-E the relatively new yet mostly prevalent attitude among college sports fans that teams who haven't literally won a National Championship "haven't done anything." That might sound like a ridiculous strawman, but you see this all the time with comments about Oregon Football, and while I get that it is trolling ... that is sort of the point. To say something like Oregon Football's financial investments in its programs have "amounted to nothing" because they haven't won a National Championship is such a low IQ take, lol. College sports are supposed to be about pageantry and tradition, and I generally find that the more intelligent and thoughtful a sports fan is, the more he/she will give praise to a wider range of programs for their accomplishments. If you are not in awe of the 1990s Braves because they "only" won one World Series, well ... your opinion should be considered so ridiculously casual as to be irrelevant.

With that said, I will say that I think there are tiers based on a program's current situation. In 2021, I can honestly say I cared way more about winning the BTT than making the Sweet Sixteen. Given how we were screwed out of a regular season title, I REALLY wanted that group to be able to hang a banner. In fact, I honestly don't think I had ever heard the term "make the Second Weekend" until it became a constantly used attack term used by rival fan bases (especially Michigan) to trash an Illini Basketball program that was CLEARLY back yet just happened to have lost in the Second Round two years in a row. For all of my sports life, each round of the NCAA Tournament was its own island to me and most fans I knew ... losing in the Second Round was better than in the First Round, losing in the Sweet Sixteen was better than the Second Round, losing in the Elite Eight was better than the Sweet Sixteen, etc. There wasn't this magical wall of "success" that came with making a Sweet Sixteen. The only exception was making the Final Four, given the extreme level of pageantry and celebration involved with that feat; everything before it was just varying degrees of a good season that fell short of a Final Four.

In 2022, I cared way more about winning the Big Ten regular season (once it was on the table) than how we did in the NCAA Tournament. We hadn't won one in 17 years, and the aforementioned screw job from 2021 was still fresh. I also had started to have a sort of 2006-esque feeling with that team by early March where we just seemed like a low floor/low ceiling squad that would sort of blend in with our program's good history, so I was glad they got some sort of eternal recognition with a championship of some kind. I was annoyed by the haters talking about "another Second Round loss" and really wanted to make it to the Sweet Sixteen, sure ... but instead of a conference championship?? No way.

However ... fast forward to 2023 and especially 2024, and I very much was swayed by the idea of getting the Sweet Sixteen monkey off of our backs. Winning the BTT was awesome, but I would have been epically disappointed if we went down in the Second Round yet again. It was so nice to finally see our name in the bracket in the later stages when the nation's eyes were focused on an increasingly small number of teams. So, I understand the sentiment. With that said, though ... we have already done all of that during this Underwood renaissance. BTT banner? Check. Regular season banner? Check. First Round NBA Draft picks? Check. "Deep" March Madness run? Check. So, with the obvious exception of treating a Final Four (and even more obviously a National Championship victory!) as this sort of end-all accomplishment, I truly don't get at this point not viewing each individual accomplishment sort of "in its own lane" - separate little trophies our storied program can add to the trophy case without sacrificing our prospects for other accomplishments!
Click to expand...
I'm with you. It depends on the team and depends on the season.

For example:
2005: This felt National Championship or bust. It just did. Winning the B10 Championship and BTT was nice but it was also just another brief stop in the road. It was expected we won those. In fact by about mid-season the dream was not just a Natty but the perfect undefeated season. I don't even recall anymore which game we clinched the B10 Championship (looks like it was the Northwestern thrashing).

2022: Meanwhile in 2022, getting to win a B10 Championship in the final game of the season against rival Iowa. That was incredibly special considering the previous year. And it wasn't expected. Yes I wanted a BTT Championship and to make a Final 4, but winning that banner was wonderful.

2021: This did feel like a Final 4 or bust team to me, but after being screwed out of a B10 Championship by Michigan, man did winning the BTT feel sweet.

I think it's all based on expectations and rivalries. Sometimes you'll take a 1st round exit if it means sticking it to Bobby Knight and winning a B10 Championship on his home court in Bloomington. Or a 2nd round exit if it means winning a BTT over Juwan's 14-3 team. Or Natty or bust like in 2005. I'm not on the Natty or bust train with this team yet, unlike 2005. But seeing us beat Michigan twice to win a regular season and BTT. Yeah that'd be nice. Even nicer though if we beat them 3 times and return a very long overdue favor...
 
#94      
Fighter of the Nightman
21ChampaignSt said:
A little off topic but I just saw this graphic that showed each B1G team's last Natty and I'm more convinced than ever that this is a non issue.

The B1G has never churned out national champions at a high rate because 1) it's hard to do and 2) we don't have a blue blood in our conference (or we haven't for most of the conference's history)

1940s: 2 champions
1950s: 1 champion
1960s: 1 champion
1970s: 2 champions
1980s: 2 champions
1990s: 0 champions
2000s: 1 champion
2010s: 0 champions
2020: -

So, as a conference, we only average 1 or 2 champions per decade. Even taking the current drought into account, we're really not far off that pace.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I have always thought it was crazy and interesting how the makeup of our conference has historically seemed unique in this regard. We have a surprisingly great / large group of "second tier" programs with great histories, but nobody comes close to a Kentucky that can carry a conference with a lot of titles.

Rewind to just after the 2005 NCAA Tournament, one year after we made our fifth Final Four, five years before UConn got National Championship #3 out of what would become six and well before the more extreme conference realignment that was to come. The National Championships and Final Fours makeup of the conferences is interestingly different.

ACC | 40 Final Fours & 11 National Championships
North Carolina: 16 Final Fours, 4 NCs
Duke: 14 Final Fours, 3 NCs
NC State: 3 Final Fours, 2 NCs
Maryland: 2 Final Fours, 2 NCs
Virginia: 2 Final Fours, 0 NCs
- Wake Forest, Georgia Tech and Florida State all had 1 Final Four and 0 NCs
- Miami (FL), Clemson and Virginia Tech all had 0 Final Fours

Big XII | 32 Final Fours & 4 National Championships
Kansas: 12 Final Fours, 2 NCs
Oklahoma State: 6 Final Fours, 2 NCs
Kansas State: 4 Final Fours, 0 NCs
Texas: 3 Final Fours, 0 NCs
Oklahoma: 2 Final Fours, 0 NCs
Baylor: 2 Final Fours, 0 NCs
Colorado: 2 Final Fours, 0 NCs
- Iowa State had 1 Final Four and 0 NCs
- Missouri, Texas Tech, Texas A&M and Nebraska all had 0 Final Fours

Big East | 20 Final Fours & 5 National Championships
Georgetown: 4 Final Fours, 1 NC
Syracuse: 3 Final Fours, 1 NCs
UConn: 2 Final Fours, 2 NCs
St. John's (NY): 2 Final Fours, 0 NCs
Villanova: 2 Final Fours, 1 NC
Providence: 2 Final Fours, 0 NCs
- Seton Hall, Notre Dame, West Virginia, Pitt and Rutgers all had 1 Final Four and 0 NCs
- Boston College had 0 Final Fours

Pac Ten | 30 Final Fours & 15 National Championships
UCLA: 14 Final Fours, 11 NCs
Arizona: 4 Final Fours, 1 NC
Cal: 3 Final Fours, 1 NC
Stanford: 2 Final Fours, 1 NC
Oregon State: 2 Final Fours, 0 NCs
USC: 2 Final Fours, 0 NCs
Oregon: 1 Final Four, 1 NC
- Washington and Washington State had 1 Final Four and 0 NCs
- Arizona State had 0 Final Fours

SEC | 26 Final Fours & 8 National Championships
Kentucky: 13 Final Fours, 7 NCs
Arkansas: 6 Final Fours, 1 NC
LSU: 3 Final Fours, 0 NCs
Florida: 2 Final Fours, 0 NCs
- Georgia and Mississippi State had 1 Final Four and 0 NCs
- Alabama, Tennessee, South Carolina Ole Miss, Auburn and Vanderbilt all had 0 Final Fours

Big Ten | 37 Final Fours & 10 National Championships
Indiana: 8 Final Fours, 5 NCs
Ohio State: 8 Final Fours, 1 NC
Illinois: 5 Final Fours, 0 NCs
Michigan State: 4 Final Fours, 2 NCs
Michigan: 4 Final Fours, 1 NC
Iowa: 3 Final Fours, 0 NCs
Wisconsin: 2 Final Fours, 1 NC
Purdue: 2 Final Fours, 0 NCs
- Penn State had 1 Final Four and 0 NCs
- Minnesota and Northwestern had 0 Final Fours (Minny vacated one)

So by category...

Final Fours
ACC - 40
Big Ten - 37
Big XII - 32
Pac Ten - 30
SEC - 26
Big East - 20

National Championships
Pac Ten - 15
ACC - 11
Big Ten - 10
SEC - 8
Big East - 5
Big XII - 4

Percent of Final Fours That Result in National Championships
Pac Ten - 50.0%
SEC - 30.8%
ACC - 27.5%
Big Ten - 27.0%
Big XII - 12.5%

Percent of Final Fours From Top Team
SEC - 50.0% (Kentucky)
Pac Ten - 46.7% (UCLA)
ACC - 40.0% (North Carolina) ... jumps to 75.0% if you add UNC and Duke
Big XII - 37.5% (Kansas)
Big Ten - 21.6% (Indiana or Ohio State)
Big East - 20.0% (Georgetown)

Percent of National Championships From Top Team
SEC - 87.5% (Kentucky)
Pac Ten - 73.3% (UCLA)
Big XII - 50.0% (Kansas or Oklahoma State)
Big Ten - 50.0% (Indiana)
Big East - 40.0% (UConn)
ACC - 36.4% (North Carolina) ... jumps to 63.6% if you add UNC and Duke

Schools With 3+ Final Fours
Big Ten - 6 (54.5% of total) [Indiana, Ohio State, Illinois, Michigan State, Michigan, Iowa]
Big XII - 4 (33.3% of total) [Kansas, Oklahoma State, Kansas State, Texas]
Pac Ten - 3 (30.0% of total) [UCLA, Arizona, Cal]
ACC - 3 (27.3% of total) [North Carolina, Duke, NC State]
SEC - 3 (25.0% of total) [Kentucky, Arkansas, LSU]
Big East - 2 (16.7% of total) [Georgetown, Syracuse]

TL;DR

The Big Ten has been a historically very deep league, and other than a period of dominance by Indiana that is ancient history at this point, we have not had a Blue Blood to boost our National Championship totals. Even still, we have had a way higher percentage of our league make it to the Final Four several different times, unfortunately coming up short. However, when you isolate Blue Bloods that are totally carrying their conferences (e.g., Kentucky in the SEC or UNC/Duke in the ACC) and compare it to an Indiana-less Big Ten, the rest of our conference is much better than the rest of everybody else's.
 
#96      
Illwinsagain
Fighter of the Nightman said:
Yeah, I have always thought it was crazy and interesting how the makeup of our conference has historically seemed unique in this regard. We have a surprisingly great / large group of "second tier" programs with great histories, but nobody comes close to a Kentucky that can carry a conference with a lot of titles.

Rewind to just after the 2005 NCAA Tournament, one year after we made our fifth Final Four, five years before UConn got National Championship #3 out of what would become six and well before the more extreme conference realignment that was to come. The National Championships and Final Fours makeup of the conferences is interestingly different.

ACC | 40 Final Fours & 11 National Championships
North Carolina: 16 Final Fours, 4 NCs
Duke: 14 Final Fours, 3 NCs
NC State: 3 Final Fours, 2 NCs
Maryland: 2 Final Fours, 2 NCs
Virginia: 2 Final Fours, 0 NCs
- Wake Forest, Georgia Tech and Florida State all had 1 Final Four and 0 NCs
- Miami (FL), Clemson and Virginia Tech all had 0 Final Fours

Big XII | 32 Final Fours & 4 National Championships
Kansas: 12 Final Fours, 2 NCs
Oklahoma State: 6 Final Fours, 2 NCs
Kansas State: 4 Final Fours, 0 NCs
Texas: 3 Final Fours, 0 NCs
Oklahoma: 2 Final Fours, 0 NCs
Baylor: 2 Final Fours, 0 NCs
Colorado: 2 Final Fours, 0 NCs
- Iowa State had 1 Final Four and 0 NCs
- Missouri, Texas Tech, Texas A&M and Nebraska all had 0 Final Fours

Big East | 20 Final Fours & 5 National Championships
Georgetown: 4 Final Fours, 1 NC
Syracuse: 3 Final Fours, 1 NCs
UConn: 2 Final Fours, 2 NCs
St. John's (NY): 2 Final Fours, 0 NCs
Villanova: 2 Final Fours, 1 NC
Providence: 2 Final Fours, 0 NCs
- Seton Hall, Notre Dame, West Virginia, Pitt and Rutgers all had 1 Final Four and 0 NCs
- Boston College had 0 Final Fours

Pac Ten | 30 Final Fours & 15 National Championships
UCLA: 14 Final Fours, 11 NCs
Arizona: 4 Final Fours, 1 NC
Cal: 3 Final Fours, 1 NC
Stanford: 2 Final Fours, 1 NC
Oregon State: 2 Final Fours, 0 NCs
USC: 2 Final Fours, 0 NCs
Oregon: 1 Final Four, 1 NC
- Washington and Washington State had 1 Final Four and 0 NCs
- Arizona State had 0 Final Fours

SEC | 26 Final Fours & 8 National Championships
Kentucky: 13 Final Fours, 7 NCs
Arkansas: 6 Final Fours, 1 NC
LSU: 3 Final Fours, 0 NCs
Florida: 2 Final Fours, 0 NCs
- Georgia and Mississippi State had 1 Final Four and 0 NCs
- Alabama, Tennessee, South Carolina Ole Miss, Auburn and Vanderbilt all had 0 Final Fours

Big Ten | 37 Final Fours & 10 National Championships
Indiana: 8 Final Fours, 5 NCs
Ohio State: 8 Final Fours, 1 NC
Illinois: 5 Final Fours, 0 NCs
Michigan State: 4 Final Fours, 2 NCs
Michigan: 4 Final Fours, 1 NC
Iowa: 3 Final Fours, 0 NCs
Wisconsin: 2 Final Fours, 1 NC
Purdue: 2 Final Fours, 0 NCs
- Penn State had 1 Final Four and 0 NCs
- Minnesota and Northwestern had 0 Final Fours (Minny vacated one)

So by category...

Final Fours
ACC - 40
Big Ten - 37
Big XII - 32
Pac Ten - 30
SEC - 26
Big East - 20

National Championships
Pac Ten - 15
ACC - 11
Big Ten - 10
SEC - 8
Big East - 5
Big XII - 4

Percent of Final Fours That Result in National Championships
Pac Ten - 50.0%
SEC - 30.8%
ACC - 27.5%
Big Ten - 27.0%
Big XII - 12.5%

Percent of Final Fours From Top Team
SEC - 50.0% (Kentucky)
Pac Ten - 46.7% (UCLA)
ACC - 40.0% (North Carolina) ... jumps to 75.0% if you add UNC and Duke
Big XII - 37.5% (Kansas)
Big Ten - 21.6% (Indiana or Ohio State)
Big East - 20.0% (Georgetown)

Percent of National Championships From Top Team
SEC - 87.5% (Kentucky)
Pac Ten - 73.3% (UCLA)
Big XII - 50.0% (Kansas or Oklahoma State)
Big Ten - 50.0% (Indiana)
Big East - 40.0% (UConn)
ACC - 36.4% (North Carolina) ... jumps to 63.6% if you add UNC and Duke

Schools With 3+ Final Fours
Big Ten - 6 (54.5% of total) [Indiana, Ohio State, Illinois, Michigan State, Michigan, Iowa]
Big XII - 4 (33.3% of total) [Kansas, Oklahoma State, Kansas State, Texas]
Pac Ten - 3 (30.0% of total) [UCLA, Arizona, Cal]
ACC - 3 (27.3% of total) [North Carolina, Duke, NC State]
SEC - 3 (25.0% of total) [Kentucky, Arkansas, LSU]
Big East - 2 (16.7% of total) [Georgetown, Syracuse]

TL;DR

The Big Ten has been a historically very deep league, and other than a period of dominance by Indiana that is ancient history at this point, we have not had a Blue Blood to boost our National Championship totals. Even still, we have had a way higher percentage of our league make it to the Final Four several different times, unfortunately coming up short. However, when you isolate Blue Bloods that are totally carrying their conferences (e.g., Kentucky in the SEC or UNC/Duke in the ACC) and compare it to an Indiana-less Big Ten, the rest of our conference is much better than the rest of everybody else's.
Click to expand...
Thank you for keeping the Pac-10/12 separate. Having the B1G take credit for UCLA's success of the past would have felt wrong.
 
#97      
Altuve27
For me it’s ALL about making a good showing in the Tournament. If you don’t the whole season gets spoiled to some degree. That’s just reality.

Ask Matt Painter about that. Better yet, does anyone remember or even care about how good our team was a few years ago? No. They discuss how Loyola embarrassed us. How you finish matters.

Think about how beating Northwestern and then beating Tennessee in the bowl game changed how we felt about the football season.
 
#98      
GoodePodzMelendez
PleaseMakeABowlGame said:
Absolutely not, no! Do not want Michigan to beat Purdue, we can literally control our own destiny for a conf title 🤦‍♀️🤦‍♀️🤦‍♀️.

How this is even a debate is beyond me.

FWIW, yes, I agree we should want Purdue to lose, but this game was always one we needed them to win. It’s been that way for like a month.
Click to expand...
Here is the logic of pulling for Michigan. We do not want them to have two straight loses coming into C-U. I want to guarantee a triple bye so having Purdue lose helps us more than Michigan losing. Winning the conference does very little in the overall as we saw in 2022 losing to the 8 seed IU on Friday. I would rather have the triple bye just in case we slip up this weekend or against Michigan.
 
#100      
Fly Illini Fly!
GoodePodzMelendez said:
Here is the logic of pulling for Michigan. We do not want them to have two straight loses coming into C-U. I want to guarantee a triple bye so having Purdue lose helps us more than Michigan losing. Winning the conference does very little in the overall as we saw in 2022 losing to the 8 seed IU on Friday. I would rather have the triple bye just in case we slip up this weekend or against Michigan.
Click to expand...
I don't understand this even more. If all you care about is the triple bye, Purdue losing is not the ONLY way to achieve that. Root for Nebraska, Wisconsin, and Michigan State to lose.

I simply do not see us having more than at most 5 losses. Sorry, I don't.

So: root for Michigan State to lose @Purdue and @Michigan. That would give them 6 Ls.

And root for OSU to beat WISC today. Wiscy still has @Purdue, so that would give them 6 Ls.

Boom, mission achieved with only those two.

Plus, Nebby could also lose 2/3 of @Iowa, @USC, @UCLA.

I'd much rather have Purdue win this game and control our destiny for the title. What a ridiculous narrative.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back