ChiefGritty
- Chicago, IL
I just can't see a scenario in which they put a 1 in Chicago with us as a 2.
We would burn the internet down if the shoe were on the other foot there, and we'd be right.
Week of 2/2 Bracketology
- Status
We would burn the internet down if the shoe were on the other foot there, and we'd be right.
I mean Houston got a 1 seed in Indy last year with 2 Tennessee, 3 UK and 4 Purdue.
2024, UNC got the last 1 seed in the West with 2 seed Arizona.
ChiefGritty
- Chicago, IL
Hmm, I had forgotten that. That's really bad, but maybe it means us in Chicago is possible.
Certainly a preferable option to, say a 1 seed in the South region in Houston with Houston as the 2 seed and Texas Tech as the 4/5.
And we were in that part of the bracket too, with our first two games in Milwaukee. (Kentucky ended up winning but I bet they weren't happy about that.)
Let’s just hope we make it to the sweet 16. This team seems different. They are smart and disciplined in a way most of Underwood’s teams have not been.
some folks do a really good job of posting seeding odds as it relates to tournament advancement.
I know it’s far more likely a 2 seed loses round 1 - but I’d be curious the “upset rate” of 1s versus 2s in the round of 32.
I know it’s far more likely a 2 seed loses round 1 - but I’d be curious the “upset rate” of 1s versus 2s in the round of 32.
Fighter of the Nightman
- Chicago, IL
I'm kind of mentally fried right now, but I am not sure I understand the question!
I would agree in theory, but they have done it many times in the past.
Examples Since 2000
While there are a lot of examples in that post, I would argue the following are what I would consider to be screwing over a #1 seed at least as badly as getting a #2 seed Illini team in Chicago this year.
- #1 Oklahoma being with #3 Syracuse in Albany, NY in 2003
- #1 Ohio State being with #3 Texas A&M in San Antonio, TX in 2007
- #1 Duke being with #3 Baylor in Houston, TX in 2010
- #1 Ohio State being with #3 Syracuse in Newark, NJ in 2011
- #1 Wichita State being with #2 Michigan and #4 Louisville in Indianapolis, IN in 2014
- #1 Virginia being with #2 Michigan State in Chicago, IL in 2016
- #1 North Carolina being with #4 Kansas in Kansas City, MO in 2019
- #1 Houston being with #3 Kentucky and #4 Purdue in Indianapolis, IN in 2025
Now I will say it appears to happen less often with a #2 seed than with a #3/4 seed. However, I get the impression the Committee isn't ONLY protecting in order of seed, and their goal is to provide some level of protection to all top 4 seeds. Obviously the #1 seeds will be first consideration and then down the line, but I don't think they'd necessarily think that #2 seed Illinois doesn't "deserve" Chicago simply because it would suck for #1 Michigan if they met in the Elite Eight.
Fighter of the Nightman
- Chicago, IL
In my previous post pointing out the many examples of this, I purposely left off #5+ seeds, as they are not considered "protected." So, I think last year us getting in Milwaukee was more just random chance and some bad luck for Kentucky, whereas Kentucky was given Milwaukee as a somewhat desirable location.
The real question is how much will the Committee STOP trying to protect a #2/3/4 seed if the side effects of doing so are seen as screwing over a higher #1/2/3 seed ... such as the usual example of a #1 seed getting the Chicago Regional and having to face #2 seed Illinois there. I personally am guessing that their attitude is you are given "protection" through the Sweet Sixteen, and they aren't concerned about who technically has it better out of a #1 and #2 seed by the time the Elite Eight rolls around, but who knows?
ChiefGritty
- Chicago, IL
Which is odd because you could argue forcing a 1 to play a road game against a 4 is even worse, a round earlier against a team that deserves a favorable path less.
There's also the conference piece of it, I feel like they are loathe to have a 1 and a 2 from the same conference? Because Michigan wouldn't be swamped at the UC the way, say, UConn would.
The committee rule is that the top 4 seeds in a conference should be in different regions. After that, all bets are off.
It generates an interesting case in the B1G and B12, who project to have more than 4 top 4 seeds.
They assign regions in order of seed preference. So if the result ends up 1. Arizona, 2. Duke, 3. UConn, and 4. Illinois, then Arizona would get the Vegas region, Duke would get DC (obviously), UConn would get either Chicago or Houston, and since Chicago is significantly closer, they'll get Chicago, then Illinois would get Houston.
Which means if we are the top 2 seed, we will get Chicago if the 1 seed is not a B1G team. And we won't get Chicago if the 1 seed is a B1G team.
As for the 5th B1G team with a top 4 seed, it won't be Illinois, so I don't care where they go. Bring em on.
Kansas is #11 in the country after winning 6 straight, including vs Iowa State, BYU, and at Texas Tech. They have 6 teams in the top 25 and UCF safely in the tournament field, while the B1G has 5 teams in the top 25 with Iowa and Wisconsin safely in the tournament field.
The weakest team in the B12 is Utah, which is #101. There are 3 teams below that in the B1G.
Fighter of the Nightman
- Chicago, IL
This might not be exactly what you are asking for, but it's the easiest way I could think to do it. This is where each #2 seed finished in the last 20 NCAA Tournaments, so 80 different #2 seeds.
2025 - Elite Eight, Elite Eight, Elite Eight, Second Round
2024 - Elite Eight, Sweet Sixteen, Sweet Sixteen, Sweet Sixteen
2023 - Elite Eight, Sweet Sixteen, Second Round, First Round
2022 - Final Four, Final Four, Second Round, First Round
2021 - Final Four, Sweet Sixteen, Second Round, First Round
2019 - Final Four, Elite Eight, Sweet Sixteen, Sweet Sixteen
2018 - Elite Eight, Sweet Sixteen, Second Round, Second Round
2017 - Elite Eight, Sweet Sixteen, Second Round, Second Round
2016 - National Champion, Final Four, Second Round, First Round
2015 - Elite Eight, Elite Eight, Second Round, Second Round
2014 - Final Four, Elite Eight, Second Round, Second Round
2013 - Elite Eight, Elite Eight, Sweet Sixteen, First Round
2012 - National Runner Up, Final Four, First Round, First Round
2011 - Elite Eight, Elite Eight, Sweet Sixteen, Second Round
2010 - Final Four, Elite Eight, Sweet Sixteen, Second Round
2009 - National Runner Up, Elite Eight, Sweet Sixteen, Sweet Sixteen
2008 - Elite Eight, Sweet Sixteen, Second Round, Second Round
2007 - Final Four, Final Four, Elite Eight, Second Round
2006 - National Runner Up, Elite Eight, Second Round, Second Round
2005 - Elite Eight, Sweet Sixteen, Second Round, Second Round
So of the 80 teams...
- 7 (8.8%) lost in the First Round. So 73 (91.2%) at least made it to the Second Round.
- 22 (27.5%) went down in the Second Round. So 51 (63.8%) at least made it to the Sweet Sixteen.
- 16 (20.0%) lost in the Sweet Sixteen. So 35 (43.8%) at least made it to the Elite Eight.
- 21 (26.3%) lost in the Elite Eight. So 14 (17.5%) made it to the Final Four or beyond.
- 10 (12.5%) lost in their first Final Four game. So 4 (5.0%) made it to the National Championship Game.
- Of the 4 that played for a title, 3 (3.8%) finished as National Runner Up and 1 (1.3%) won the National Championship
If I am thinking about this correctly, you effectively want to eliminate the 7 teams that lost in the First Round from the sample size and see what percent of the remaining 73 teams (i.e., those teams that found themselves in the Second Round to begin with) advanced to the Sweet Sixteen or beyond. And it looks like that answer is 51 out of the 73 teams ... so the #2 seed won its Second Round game just under 70% of the time.
Fighter of the Nightman
- Chicago, IL
I read this a few times, and my brain just keeps telling me to root for Michigan to lose a lot?
This is great! Thank you.
Yes you’re correct, basically wanted to eliminate the first round results. I’m curious how that ranks to first seeds in the round of 32.
My overall point. When it comes to second weekends, being a first or second seeds seems like you get similar caliber opponents.
The real advantage in a 1 versus 2 seed seems to flip flop by round, which makes sense. The caliber of teams within the top 10-15 in the sport typically are wider gaps, than the caliber of teams in the 5-12 seed range. I remember the Loyola matchup, where I wasn’t overly jazzed up to play Georgia Tech if they won that game either.
The one thing I like a lot about a 3 seed is getting both the 2 seed, and the higher odds of the 6 being upset. Might be a ramble haha. Just continue to get better and roll
If you give St. John's a chance to reach the final 4, but not Kansas, Texas Tech, or BYU, your orange kool-aid is very strong today trying to defend the BIG. If Peterson stays healthy, Kansas can knock off anyone. Tech has one of the best 1-2 punches in college in Anderson and Toppin and already beat Duke, and BYU seems like they have the talent but just haven't put it together yet. If they manage that come tourney time, they will be a load with the scorers they have on that team. St John's is weird. Seems like a Frankenstein team that just didnt mesh, but they've been on a win streak. However, it IS the Big East. We'll see when they play UCONN this week.
Yeah , much of that wedge is driven by quad 2 where 5 of their 8 quad 2 wins are against teams outside of the top 75, i hope ppl dont think blasting depaul, providence, gtown etc really makes this resume much better than ours.
No argument on the quad 1 side.....but the q1/q2 record alone makes it look like a bigger gulf than it should be
Last edited:
Illinois should just win out and it'll all shake into place.I read this a few times, and my brain just keeps telling me to root for Michigan to lose a lot?
That STL > Chicago > Indy path is just too good.
Illwinsagain
- Cary, IL
Always a good plan!I read this a few times, and my brain just keeps telling me to root for Michigan to lose a lot?
Is there ever a time when your brain is NOT telling you that???I read this a few times, and my brain just keeps telling me to root for Michigan to lose a lot?
- Status