RabidDawgClassic
- Los Angeles, CA
Week of 3/10 Bracketology
- Status
RabidDawgClassic
- Los Angeles, CA
So we’re now down to the point where we think the committee makes its selections based on the whims of three podcast yahoos and their intern? Man… I really should’ve listened to my mother and gone to grifting school.
Fighter of the Nightman
- Chicago, IL
Yep, it's sometimes easy to forget, but let's rewind to Selection Sunday in March 2021 ... these were the Big Ten teams in the NCAA Tournament, with their NET Rankings on that day for reference:Here's a fun article from Ken Pomeroy as to why the SEC is probably overrated heading into the tournament:
1 SEED: #3 Illinois, #4 Michigan
2 SEED: #6 Iowa, #8 Ohio State
4 SEED: #22 Purdue
9 SEED: #27 Wisconsin
10 SEED: #35 Maryland, #38 Rutgers
11 SEED: #70 Michigan State (gotta keep that Izzo streak alive, lol...)
We also had #42 Penn State, #63 Indiana, #77 Minnesota and #92 Northwestern not making the Tournament but still being top 100 NET teams. The only "really bad" team was Nebraska at #126. On top of that, it was widely recognized that Illinois looked like the best team in the nation heading into the NCAA Tournament, with (IIRC) 20%+ of brackets picking us to win it all. We all know the story, but for anyone interested, here is how it happened in real time just to relive the shock.
THURSDAY
9:20 pm - #11 Michigan State went down in the play-in game. So, did Izzo REALLY make the NCAA Tournament this year??
FRIDAY
12:15 PM - #1 Illinois provides some redemption for the Big Ten with a 78-49 win vs. #16 Drexel, but this was to be expected for a #1 seed.
3:00 pm - The first shocker is in, as #2 Ohio State falls to #5 Oral Roberts in OT. Upsets happen, so I am not sure anyone thought there was something "wrong" quite yet, especially since the hype for Michigan, Iowa and especially Illinois was still high.
6:10 pm - #9 Wisconsin demolishes #9 North Carolina. A good win, but the image of a conference won't live or die with an 8/9 game.
7:25 pm - #4 Purdue goes down in OT to #13 North Texas. While most thought that Purdue was actually over-seeded, the grumblings of the Big Ten being at least a tad overrated were probably starting.
8:20 pm - #10 Rutgers takes down #7 Clemson in a thrilling game. I actually vividly remember watching this game and being so happy RU won to help salvage the conference's image, haha.
SATURDAY
2:00 pm - #1 Michigan takes care of business 82-66 vs. #16 Texas Southern. Again, as is expected.
5:25 pm - #2 Iowa wins 86-74 vs. #15 Grand Canyon in a game that was not that close. Hawkeyes looked good.
6:10 pm - #10 Maryland beats #7 UConn for a solid win for the conference.
--- First Round is over. While the Big Ten suffered two upsets, its three main contenders (Illinois, Michigan and Iowa) are alive and well, and it got three solid lower-seed wins from Wisconsin, Rutgers and Maryland. ---
SUNDAY
12:15 pm - Disaster strikes, as #1 Illinois goes down 71-58 to #8 Loyola in one of the most vomit-inducing losses I've ever watched. I actually had to take my last online final for my MBA program after this game, which was due by 5:00 pm ... to say I was miserable is an understatement! The Big Ten's favorite to win it all just went down in the VERY first game of the Second Round.
1:40 pm - #1 Baylor easily dispatches of #9 Wisconsin.
6:10 pm - Despite a valiant effort, #10 Rutgers goes down 63-60 vs. #2 Houston. The Big Ten goes 0-3 on the first day of the Second Round.
MONDAY
11:10 am - Full-on meltdown mode commences, as #2 Iowa loses by 15 to #7 Oregon. It is clear as day that, at least overall, the Big Ten was quite overrated. Michigan
sick is now the ONLY Big Ten team left in the Tournament with an entire day of Second Round games yet to play.OrangeBlue98
Iowa is not in a great spot right now (LvilleILL1)
- Des Moines, IA
Man, if that REALLY did happen (and I fully get that the post you replied to was a joke), I'd have a newfound respect for the committee. My idea of putting UConn in the 8/9 game opposite Duke to have a Round 2 TV ratings bonanza is weak sauce compared to that conspiracy.
Fighter of the Nightman
- Chicago, IL
Haha, I think that is definitely a farfetched scenario ... but I also kind of roll my eyes at people on the other end of the spectrum who act like the Committee isn't considering how interesting matchups are. It could even be mostly subconscious, but March Madness is a H-U-G-E money maker, especially with advertising (over the course of the Tournament, its ad spending/revenues actually dwarf the Super Bowl...).
So, if they are sitting there thinking that they have a good/exciting #6 seed Illini team and they are considering where to put us between two theoretically equal/fair placements, I can practically guarantee you they'd have us play #11 seed Oklahoma and get a Porter Moser rematch instead of having us play #11 San Diego State. And I don't think that's even close to a conspiracy theory.
Your comment about MSU stands out to me. Why are they considered to have the streak of being in the tourney when they were not in 2021? If you are in a play-in game and lose, you did not make the tournament, right?Yep, it's sometimes easy to forget, but let's rewind to Selection Sunday in March 2021 ... these were the Big Ten teams in the NCAA Tournament, with their NET Rankings on that day for reference:
1 SEED: #3 Illinois, #4 Michigan
2 SEED: #6 Iowa, #8 Ohio State
4 SEED: #22 Purdue
9 SEED: #27 Wisconsin
10 SEED: #35 Maryland, #38 Rutgers
11 SEED: #70 Michigan State (gotta keep that Izzo streak alive, lol...)
We also had #42 Penn State, #63 Indiana, #77 Minnesota and #92 Northwestern not making the Tournament but still being top 100 NET teams. The only "really bad" team was Nebraska at #126. On top of that, it was widely recognized that Illinois looked like the best team in the nation heading into the NCAA Tournament, with (IIRC) 20%+ of brackets picking us to win it all. We all know the story, but for anyone interested, here is how it happened in real time just to relive the shock.
THURSDAY
9:20 pm - #11 Michigan State went down in the play-in game. So, did Izzo REALLY make the NCAA Tournament this year??
FRIDAY
12:15 PM - #1 Illinois provides some redemption for the Big Ten with a 78-49 win vs. #16 Drexel, but this was to be expected for a #1 seed.
3:00 pm - The first shocker is in, as #2 Ohio State falls to #5 Oral Roberts in OT. Upsets happen, so I am not sure anyone thought there was something "wrong" quite yet, especially since the hype for Michigan, Iowa and especially Illinois was still high.
6:10 pm - #9 Wisconsin demolishes #9 North Carolina. A good win, but the image of a conference won't live or die with an 8/9 game.
7:25 pm - #4 Purdue goes down in OT to #13 North Texas. While most thought that Purdue was actually over-seeded, the grumblings of the Big Ten being at least a tad overrated were probably starting.
8:20 pm - #10 Rutgers takes down #7 Clemson in a thrilling game. I actually vividly remember watching this game and being so happy RU won to help salvage the conference's image, haha.
SATURDAY
2:00 pm - #1 Michigan takes care of business 82-66 vs. #16 Texas Southern. Again, as is expected.
5:25 pm - #2 Iowa wins 86-74 vs. #15 Grand Canyon in a game that was not that close. Hawkeyes looked good.
6:10 pm - #10 Maryland beats #7 UConn for a solid win for the conference.
--- First Round is over. While the Big Ten suffered two upsets, its three main contenders (Illinois, Michigan and Iowa) are alive and well, and it got three solid lower-seed wins from Wisconsin, Rutgers and Maryland. ---
SUNDAY
12:15 pm - Disaster strikes, as #1 Illinois goes down 71-58 to #8 Loyola in one of the most vomit-inducing losses I've ever watched. I actually had to take my last online final for my MBA program after this game, which was due by 5:00 pm ... to say I was miserable is an understatement! The Big Ten's favorite to win it all just went down in the VERY first game of the Second Round.
1:40 pm - #1 Baylor easily dispatches of #9 Wisconsin.
6:10 pm - Despite a valiant effort, #10 Rutgers goes down 63-60 vs. #2 Houston. The Big Ten goes 0-3 on the first day of the Second Round.
MONDAY
11:10 am - Full-on meltdown mode commences, as #2 Iowa loses by 15 to #7 Oregon. It is clear as day that, at least overall, the Big Ten was quite overrated. Michigan
Fighter of the Nightman
- Chicago, IL
I do think you "made the Tournament" officially, as you got to hear your name called on Selection Sunday. I also double checked, and it looks like all of the #16 seeds (back when that was the only play-in game) always list those years among their NCAA Tournament appearances.
It is kind of odd, though ... like, it's not a "play-in" game for the NCAA Tournament if the loser gets to claim they played their way in.
It's still part of the Tournament. The Tournament is now 68 teams. Otherwise how could you justify making automatic qualifiers play a play-in game? Play-in games would have to be restricted to at-large bids if you didn't define the First Four as being a part of the Tourney.
Illwinsagain
- Cary, IL
I do think that auto qualifiers should be auto put into the Th/Fr schedule. They earned it! Play in games should be reserved to at large bids, IMHO.
Haha since I phrased it pretty definitively I suppose I have to die on this hill.. .but you don't think the committee (and members) have their own team of @21ChampaignSt 's putting together compelling scenarios alongside grading each team's performance?
Three yahoos and their intern get more than a million listens per podcast, 3 times a week, and have millions of young people engaging with them on social media every day. If the NCAA is going to take liberties in seeding and positioning (which they can), certainly they're smart enough to recognize where and how the needle gets moved ratings wise. If there's a pretty easy opportunity to draw in an additional several hundred thousand viewers on a random few games, that's a good chunk of ad revenue. This scenario probably is far-fetched but to me it seems like a good way to get more young people to pay attention.
Fighter of the Nightman
- Chicago, IL
Also, on the topic of what constitutes making the NCAA Tournament, I will die on the hill that it was morally wrong for the Selection Committee not to release an official "Field of 68" for the 2019-20 season that had to be cut short due to COVID-19. It would have hurt literally no one, and it would have been a sort of nice gesture (during a very depressing time!) to recognize teams that put together a season worthy of hearing their names called on Selection Sunday.
I remember thinking that Rutgers, specifically, got screwed. They ended the year with victories vs. #9 Maryland and in OT at Purdue to get to 20-11. It was their first 20-win season in almost two decades, and it would have been the first time they heard their names called on Selection Sunday since 1991. I was also INCREDIBLY annoyed that all throughout 2021, people kept saying it was the first time we had made the NCAA Tournament since 2013 even though we very clearly would have made it in 2020, lol.
I remember thinking that Rutgers, specifically, got screwed. They ended the year with victories vs. #9 Maryland and in OT at Purdue to get to 20-11. It was their first 20-win season in almost two decades, and it would have been the first time they heard their names called on Selection Sunday since 1991. I was also INCREDIBLY annoyed that all throughout 2021, people kept saying it was the first time we had made the NCAA Tournament since 2013 even though we very clearly would have made it in 2020, lol.
Illini2010-11
- Sugar Grove
Really is quite amazing that the USC loss remained Quad 2. There were some indicators pointing in the wrong direction in the middle of last month.
If USC loses to Rutgers, I guess there is a small chance of the USC loss falling into Quad 3 bucket, but in the end of the day it will not matter for Illini seeding purposes at all.
Major kudos to Brad and Co in scheduling this season. Always good to see 20+ wins and only 6 games falling in the lower half of the Quad metrics system.
TheDukeUIUC
- Twin Cities, MN
Agreed, but this also strengthens the 16-seed line (some would be 15-seeds without the First Four games). I believe this has been part of the reason we've seen the two 16 over 1 upsets recently.
I think you entirely missed the point of @21ChampaignSt 's post.
I will say I don't really like that the bottom 3 teams won't make the conference tourney this year. I also get that adding yet another round to the conference tourney is untenable (imagine playing Sunday and then Tu-W-Th-Fr-Sa-Su, just pure insanity).
I think they could get creative with the conference schedule, though. Keep the 20 game schedule, but plan just the first 19 games, one game against each conference opponent with return games (make them the first two played in December). Those 19 games count for the conference standings. Then for the last game, make the bottom 6 teams play each other for their conference tournament spot (so 15 vs 16, 14 vs 17, 13 vs 18), and the rest of the teams play 1 vs 2, 3 vs 4, 5 vs 6, 7 vs 8, 9 vs 10, 11 vs 12 as an extra effective Q1 game pre-tournament. Each of these games would feature teams on opposite sides of the bracket, so it would avoid any potential conference tournament rematches until the championship.
I think they could get creative with the conference schedule, though. Keep the 20 game schedule, but plan just the first 19 games, one game against each conference opponent with return games (make them the first two played in December). Those 19 games count for the conference standings. Then for the last game, make the bottom 6 teams play each other for their conference tournament spot (so 15 vs 16, 14 vs 17, 13 vs 18), and the rest of the teams play 1 vs 2, 3 vs 4, 5 vs 6, 7 vs 8, 9 vs 10, 11 vs 12 as an extra effective Q1 game pre-tournament. Each of these games would feature teams on opposite sides of the bracket, so it would avoid any potential conference tournament rematches until the championship.
I understand @21ChampaignSt is being satirical so it probably makes my case look stupid to keep quoting it lol
mattcoldagelli
- Script Illinois Enthusiast
If someone at the NCAA was asked "go find us a demo of viewers not already watching the games that could give us a ratings shot in the arm" and they came back with "people so into PMT they know all the hosts' rooting interests/alma maters", that person should have been fired on the spot.
I'll die on the opposite hill. Several hundred thousand more people are going to watch Illinois play Kelvin Sampson or Bruce Pearl, for example? Name brand programs, in general, will draw more viewers but only 8 games two weeks ago even drew more than 700k viewers. The average first round NCAA tournament game drew 2 million viewers last year. The four network, combined TV-only average was 8.3 million.
In my experience, virtually no one cares what Bruce Pearl did to Illinois outside of a very small percentage of Illinois fans. I have friends who went to Tennessee and Auburn and they didn't know what Pearl did. And I have a bunch of fellow Illinois alums who have no idea what he did either and I'm in my 40s. Similarly, I have friends who are IU alums who have no idea what Sampson did.
I'm not going to tune in to an Arizona/Xavier NCAA tournament game just because of Sean Miller, for example. There are also only 4 games on at a time... anyone who is invested enough in college basketball to watch a game because of some certain storyline is already going to be watching the NCAA tournament. I don't see how several hundred thousand viewers are going to appear out of nowhere to watch Illinois extract revenge on Porter Moser.
There are a few practical reasons why the committee probably doesn't change seeds / matchups for better storylines.
1. I just listed like 30 different narratives off the top of my head for Illinois. Assuming other teams just have 20 narratives, that's over 1,300 different narratives that we think the committee - this random group of administrators - has committed to memory or filed away somewhere. Even the biggest storyline to us - going up against Bruce Pearl likely doesn't even register to these people. It would probably be news to most of them that Pearl used to be an assistant coach at Iowa 35 years ago.
2. The bracket is one giant puzzle. Every time you manipulate something to make one story happen, you mess up other potential storylines, not to mention locations, etc. And at that point, we would be assuming that these athletic administrators are not only comparing resumes to one another, but then they're comparing and arguing about different storylines and choosing the ones that will get the best television ratings. You move Oklahoma up in the bracket so that their coach can have a rematch against one of the teams he played in the tournament 4 years ago but then by doing so you may have just taken away a border rivalry matchup between Missouri and Oklahoma. And now you have a room full of not-TV-executives arguing about which one will draw more viewers.
3. This is the most important probably. It is just so unlikely that anyone who was planning to watch a different game or not watch the games at all will say, "Oh man, Porter Moser is playing Illinois again? That's must watch TV! Now I'm definitely calling off work." It's just not a factor. People will either watch the team they're a fan of, the game they have money on, the "best match up", or they'll score watch and flip back and forth to the closest games and the games with the biggest impact on their brackets.
Editing to add that if these storylines make March Madness more fun for you, then by all means embrace it! I'm not trying to be a buzzkill.
1. I just listed like 30 different narratives off the top of my head for Illinois. Assuming other teams just have 20 narratives, that's over 1,300 different narratives that we think the committee - this random group of administrators - has committed to memory or filed away somewhere. Even the biggest storyline to us - going up against Bruce Pearl likely doesn't even register to these people. It would probably be news to most of them that Pearl used to be an assistant coach at Iowa 35 years ago.
2. The bracket is one giant puzzle. Every time you manipulate something to make one story happen, you mess up other potential storylines, not to mention locations, etc. And at that point, we would be assuming that these athletic administrators are not only comparing resumes to one another, but then they're comparing and arguing about different storylines and choosing the ones that will get the best television ratings. You move Oklahoma up in the bracket so that their coach can have a rematch against one of the teams he played in the tournament 4 years ago but then by doing so you may have just taken away a border rivalry matchup between Missouri and Oklahoma. And now you have a room full of not-TV-executives arguing about which one will draw more viewers.
3. This is the most important probably. It is just so unlikely that anyone who was planning to watch a different game or not watch the games at all will say, "Oh man, Porter Moser is playing Illinois again? That's must watch TV! Now I'm definitely calling off work." It's just not a factor. People will either watch the team they're a fan of, the game they have money on, the "best match up", or they'll score watch and flip back and forth to the closest games and the games with the biggest impact on their brackets.
Editing to add that if these storylines make March Madness more fun for you, then by all means embrace it! I'm not trying to be a buzzkill.
Fighter of the Nightman
- Chicago, IL
Looking at the current Bracket Matrix again, I thought it would be interesting to look at our record vs. the projected field. For context, Illinois is currently the second #7 seed.
L 67-110 vs. #1 Duke (New York, NY)
L 87-100 vs. #2 Alabama (Birmingham, AL)
L 64-66 vs. #2 Tennessee
L 78-80 at #2 Michigan State
L 65-79 vs. #2 Michigan State
W 86-80 vs. #3 Wisconsin
L 74-95 at #3 Wisconsin
W 88-80 vs. #4 Purdue
L 71-90 vs. #4 Maryland
W 93-73 at #5 Michigan
W 109-77 at #5 Oregon
W 80-77 vs. #6 Missouri (St. Louis, MO)
W 83-78 vs. #6 UCLA
W 90-77 vs. #10 Arkansas (Kansas City, MO)
W 94-69 at #11 Indiana
W 87-79 vs. #11 Ohio State
W 90-58 vs. #16 SIU Edwardsville
So we have beaten every team seeded #3 or worse at least once with the exception of Maryland, and we are undefeated vs. teams seeded #5 or worse. That bodes well for our First and even Second Round matchups, IMO, further solidifying that this team should absolutely have a return to the Sweet Sixteen as its realistic standard for a successful March Madness.
We have also proven we can play with those #2 seed-caliber teams, as our losses to Tennessee, at Michigan State and even MSU at home could have gone the other way. It's that #1 seed territory I want ZERO part of until the Elite Eight, haha ... which again is why I am really hopeful we get exactly a #6 seed and not a #4/5 seed.
L 67-110 vs. #1 Duke (New York, NY)
L 87-100 vs. #2 Alabama (Birmingham, AL)
L 64-66 vs. #2 Tennessee
L 78-80 at #2 Michigan State
L 65-79 vs. #2 Michigan State
W 86-80 vs. #3 Wisconsin
L 74-95 at #3 Wisconsin
W 88-80 vs. #4 Purdue
L 71-90 vs. #4 Maryland
W 93-73 at #5 Michigan
W 109-77 at #5 Oregon
W 80-77 vs. #6 Missouri (St. Louis, MO)
W 83-78 vs. #6 UCLA
W 90-77 vs. #10 Arkansas (Kansas City, MO)
W 94-69 at #11 Indiana
W 87-79 vs. #11 Ohio State
W 90-58 vs. #16 SIU Edwardsville
So we have beaten every team seeded #3 or worse at least once with the exception of Maryland, and we are undefeated vs. teams seeded #5 or worse. That bodes well for our First and even Second Round matchups, IMO, further solidifying that this team should absolutely have a return to the Sweet Sixteen as its realistic standard for a successful March Madness.
We have also proven we can play with those #2 seed-caliber teams, as our losses to Tennessee, at Michigan State and even MSU at home could have gone the other way. It's that #1 seed territory I want ZERO part of until the Elite Eight, haha ... which again is why I am really hopeful we get exactly a #6 seed and not a #4/5 seed.
At this point, there are about 6 really scary teams, and Michigan State is the clear 7th. Illinois already played those 7 teams a total of five times:
- Lost by 43 vs Duke in MSG in the midst of a team plague and with Morez out with a broken wrist. Never had a chance.
- Lost by 13 vs Alabama in an early non-con game that was a 17 point deficit 10 minutes in, and sort of hovered around 8-12 for the rest of the game. Just couldn't come back after the early hole.
- Lost by 2 to Tennessee in a game where Illinois just couldn't make a play in the last minute.
- Lost by 2 at MSU in a game where KJ was effectively out due to fouls
- Lost by 14 vs MSU in a game where they led by 2 with 4 minutes left and effectively just gave up.
As scary as those teams are, it was really only the Duke game where Illinois just couldn't keep up, and that was effectively the nadir of the season with half the roster unable to play well and just giving up at halftime.
This team at their best, though? Certainly at least equal to Tennessee and MSU.
- Lost by 43 vs Duke in MSG in the midst of a team plague and with Morez out with a broken wrist. Never had a chance.
- Lost by 13 vs Alabama in an early non-con game that was a 17 point deficit 10 minutes in, and sort of hovered around 8-12 for the rest of the game. Just couldn't come back after the early hole.
- Lost by 2 to Tennessee in a game where Illinois just couldn't make a play in the last minute.
- Lost by 2 at MSU in a game where KJ was effectively out due to fouls
- Lost by 14 vs MSU in a game where they led by 2 with 4 minutes left and effectively just gave up.
As scary as those teams are, it was really only the Duke game where Illinois just couldn't keep up, and that was effectively the nadir of the season with half the roster unable to play well and just giving up at halftime.
This team at their best, though? Certainly at least equal to Tennessee and MSU.
- Status