Week of 3/10 Bracketology

Status
Not open for further replies.
#76      
RollChief
21ChampaignSt said:
Glad you liked it. It was meant to be absurd.

1. I know nobody claimed that a database existed. My point is that for a random group of 12 athletic administrators to keep track of a thousand+ different story lines, it would necessitate some kind of database. After a long weekend, making tons of difficult decisions, I'm skeptical that anyone in the room cares, much less has it top of memory, that Akron's coach used to coach at Illinois. And I'm skeptical that a database exists. If you want to argue that these are subconscious decisions, I guess that's plausible but it still requires them to have these super obscure facts about EVERY TEAM somewhere accessible in their minds.

2. What is the supposed motivation?

3. That's exactly right. Humans are obsessed with patterns. And sometimes we see patterns that aren't actually there and assign meaning to them because we hate the thought of coincidences. Announcers will get their talking points regardless. That's what they're paid to do.

Of course, I don't know any more about this than you do. So, you may be right. I haven't seen any convincing proof though.
Click to expand...

Your 1st and 3rd points, along with @Fighter of the Nightman ’s comment about how it’s not exactly binary (no thought to narratives vs full blown conspiracies with big boards covered in strings connecting teams/players/coaches/podcasts together) is probably the most pragmatic way of looking at it.

Almost entirely unrelated but KenPom has a portion of his site that tracks total commitments by percentage, meaning which colleges subscribers to the site follow/track. Illinois is 4th on this list. Pretty good indicator of a dedicated fan base that you’d want to cater storylines for, maybe?

1D950614-2AE9-4A69-A5B4-3AC2C04380F7.jpeg
 
#77      
21ChampaignSt
RollChief said:
Your 1st and 3rd points, along with @Fighter of the Nightman ’s comment about how it’s not exactly binary (no thought to narratives vs full blown conspiracies with big boards covered in strings connecting teams/players/coaches/podcasts together) is probably the most pragmatic way of looking at it.

Almost entirely unrelated but KenPom has a portion of his site that tracks total commitments by percentage, meaning which colleges subscribers to the site follow/track. Illinois is 4th on this list. Pretty good indicator of a dedicated fan base that you’d want to cater storylines for, maybe?

View attachment 40379
Click to expand...
That's pretty cool! Have never seen that before. Surprised to see Michigan so high.
 
#78      
Piotyr
Fighter of the Nightman said:
… but you literally can’t know that for sure, and neither can we. 🤣 There is an ocean of reasonable and nuanced middle ground between conspiracy theories and the knee-jerk, expert-worship reaction on the opposite end of the spectrum.

We can be pretty damn sure their first priority is setting up the best bracket they can using the guidelines and analytics available. We can also be sure that fans online will over-speculate with their specific teams in mind to come up with so-called storylines that the Committee probably didn’t even consider. However, I think it’s really unfair to insinuate anyone questioning if the Committee would take two equal seeds and try to put them in the region with the most exciting matchup is some kind of lunatic, lol.
Click to expand...
I mean, based on several journalists over the last 20 years actually sitting in on the committee, yes, we can know that for sure. It's enough of a task to just get a valid bracket, and by that time the committee is done, no further meddling.

Having done several bracketing committees myself in the day and done over 10 mock committees for the NCAA tournament as an exercise, it's an extremely valid and educated position that the committee doesn't look for matchups, fans do.
 
#81      
alaskaillini
21ChampaignSt said:
This was published today by the NCAA. They must read the board.
www.ncaa.org

Debunking NCAA tournament myths - NCAA.org

Discover the truth behind the NCAA tournament selection and seeding process. This blog debunks common myths about NET rankings, conference favoritism, win totals
www.ncaa.org www.ncaa.org
Click to expand...
If they read this board from late January through mid-February, we will be lucky to make the field of 68 - since we were apparently guided by a bunch of idiots as coaches and comprised of heartless players.
 
#82      
FreshlySqueezed
RollChief said:
Your 1st and 3rd points, along with @Fighter of the Nightman ’s comment about how it’s not exactly binary (no thought to narratives vs full blown conspiracies with big boards covered in strings connecting teams/players/coaches/podcasts together) is probably the most pragmatic way of looking at it.

Almost entirely unrelated but KenPom has a portion of his site that tracks total commitments by percentage, meaning which colleges subscribers to the site follow/track. Illinois is 4th on this list. Pretty good indicator of a dedicated fan base that you’d want to cater storylines for, maybe?

View attachment 40379
Click to expand...
Actually, that says that they don't need to cater a storyline for. Illinois fans are invested and going to watch regardless.

Again, one of the biggest points is not whether or not the committee would do it, it's whether or not there's even a benefit to do it. Any fan that is into Illinois basketball enough to know some silly storyline is almost certainly going to be watching the game anyway.
 
#83      
FreshlySqueezed
21ChampaignSt said:
This was published today by the NCAA. They must read the board.
www.ncaa.org

Debunking NCAA tournament myths - NCAA.org

Discover the truth behind the NCAA tournament selection and seeding process. This blog debunks common myths about NET rankings, conference favoritism, win totals
www.ncaa.org www.ncaa.org
Click to expand...
In bold:

"Committee members do not even see the matchups until the bracket is finalized."

They do not care about creating storylines because storylines are naturally created regardless.
 
#84      
illinitiger
mysterio2525 said:
This matches exactly what we do on the basketball court. Either easy 2 or 3 point shot. Missing a deep 2 is detrimental just like playing quad 3 games
Click to expand...
I like our scheculing much better than our shot selection.

We are good/smart at rigging our "no quad 3" schedule

Not so great always on shot selection.... ." guys lets shoot a gazillion 3s and let's see out it goes"
 
#87      
OrangeBlue98
Fighter of the Nightman said:
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.
Click to expand...
I don't even think it would be considered a "Porter Moser rematch". It would just be a Big Ten vs SEC first round matchup, which everyone knows would be a Round 1 matchup that would generate a good rating.

While I don't think there are any major conspiracy theories underfoot when creating the bracket, I do think that if there is an easy matchup that would generate massive TV ratings in the early rounds, the committee will do that if it's easy to move teams within seed lines. For example, any matchups of major conference teams in the first round (Big 12 vs SEC, Big Ten vs Big East, etc.) or a 1-8 2nd round matchup like Duke vs UConn would bump up the TV ratings.
 
Last edited:
#88      
NarrowJ
FreshlySqueezed said:
In bold:

"Committee members do not even see the matchups until the bracket is finalized."

They do not care about creating storylines because storylines are naturally created regardless.
Click to expand...

So the committee doesn't even see the matchups until bracket is finalized?

So then this means the storyline matchups are created during the finalization of the bracket, which the committee cannot see... no wonder everyone is blind to it, they are even keeping the committee in the dark about this.

ItS aN EveN BiGgEr CoNsPiRaCy THaN wE ThOugHT!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
#90      
mhuml32
NarrowJ said:
So the committee doesn't even see the matchups until bracket is finalized?

So then this means the storyline matchups are created during the finalization of the bracket, which the committee cannot see... no wonder everyone is blind to it, they are even keeping the committee in the dark about this.

ItS aN EveN BiGgEr CoNsPiRaCy THaN wE ThOugHT!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...

Can't help but share:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1728205852207907069
 
#91      
jrichisamazing
Sorry to interrupt the conspiracy talk...

But I think it's useful to look at the teams seeded 4-7 on the matrix and seperate them by conference. And now that all the conference brackets are set, we can look into each teams path. There is kind of a 3 step process for who/what to root for.

1) Mass chaos with a bunch of bad teams beating these 4-7 seeds.

2) Top seeds dominate. Root for the 1-3 seeds to beat these 4-7 seeds.

3) If 1 or 2 don't happen, then hopefully teams from the same conference are on the same side of the bracket and beat each other. That way we dont have a bunch of 4-7 seeds making deep runs.

B1G - 7 teams. Wisconsin, Maryland, Purdue, Michigan, Oregon, UCLA, and Illinois. By far the most teams in the 4-7 seed range. If we can run our side of the bracket and MSU can take care of their side, then we could potentially jump ALL of our conference foes.

Big 12 - 3 teams. Arizona, BYU, Kansas. Kansas and Arizona are on the same side of the bracket. BYU is most likely playing Iowa St in their first game. Would be great if Kansas won 2, while Arizona and BYU go winless.

ACC - 2 teams. Clemson and Louisville. They are on the same side of the bracket, and opposite Duke. With how weak the ACC is, the only way either team can strengthen their resume is by making it to the championship game AND beating Duke. Unlikely.

SEC - 2 teams. Ole Miss and Mizzou. On opposite sides of the bracket so both could make runs unfortunately. But let's hope the tough SEC beats them up and they both go winless.

Big East - 1 team, Marquette. Plays bubble team Xavier, then most likely probably St Johns. Hopefully they win 1 game max.

WCC - 1 team, St Mary's. The play Gonazaga for the championship tonight. Hopefully Gonzaga wins.


I've been in the camp that a 5 seed is probably our ceiling. But after writing this out, I think a 4 seed is more than doable. Obviously the toughest thing will be holding up our end of the deal and actually making it to at least Saturday, and hopefully Sunday.
 
#95      
Piotyr
thefalcon5 said:
This is actually something I’d consider the ideal scenario. Q4 games for tuneups. Q1/2 for quality win opertunities.

All Q3 games do is give you a chance at a bad loss.
Click to expand...
Oh for sure, it just also happened to be a bit of luck.

Last year, Illinois played 8 Q3 games with largely the same opponents. Oakland was a bit better, Missouri was significantly worse, Colgate was also a Q3, and then 5 B1G home games came up Q3 (Indiana, Maryland, Minnesota, Michigan, Rutgers).

Plus they lost at home to Maryland, which was a Q3 loss. *gasp*
 
#96      
abchew2
ChiefGritty said:
Fun Fact: Illinois is the only team in all of Division 1 that has played zero Quad 3 games.

Six Quad 4 cupcake buy games, everything else in Quad 1/2
Click to expand...
This feels smart as far as for what you can control. really zero to gain from Q3 game. Bad loss and zero benefit for a win with more chance of an upset than a Q4. Smart non conference scheduling.
 
#97      
HailtotheChief
jrichisamazing said:
Sorry to interrupt the conspiracy talk...

But I think it's useful to look at the teams seeded 4-7 on the matrix and seperate them by conference. And now that all the conference brackets are set, we can look into each teams path. There is kind of a 3 step process for who/what to root for.

1) Mass chaos with a bunch of bad teams beating these 4-7 seeds.

2) Top seeds dominate. Root for the 1-3 seeds to beat these 4-7 seeds.

3) If 1 or 2 don't happen, then hopefully teams from the same conference are on the same side of the bracket and beat each other. That way we dont have a bunch of 4-7 seeds making deep runs.

B1G - 7 teams. Wisconsin, Maryland, Purdue, Michigan, Oregon, UCLA, and Illinois. By far the most teams in the 4-7 seed range. If we can run our side of the bracket and MSU can take care of their side, then we could potentially jump ALL of our conference foes.

Big 12 - 3 teams. Arizona, BYU, Kansas. Kansas and Arizona are on the same side of the bracket. BYU is most likely playing Iowa St in their first game. Would be great if Kansas won 2, while Arizona and BYU go winless.

ACC - 2 teams. Clemson and Louisville. They are on the same side of the bracket, and opposite Duke. With how weak the ACC is, the only way either team can strengthen their resume is by making it to the championship game AND beating Duke. Unlikely.

SEC - 2 teams. Ole Miss and Mizzou. On opposite sides of the bracket so both could make runs unfortunately. But let's hope the tough SEC beats them up and they both go winless.

Big East - 1 team, Marquette. Plays bubble team Xavier, then most likely probably St Johns. Hopefully they win 1 game max.

WCC - 1 team, St Mary's. The play Gonazaga for the championship tonight. Hopefully Gonzaga wins.


I've been in the camp that a 5 seed is probably our ceiling. But after writing this out, I think a 4 seed is more than doable. Obviously the toughest thing will be holding up our end of the deal and actually making it to at least Saturday, and hopefully Sunday.
Click to expand...
I would say string 4 more consecutive wins to go with our last 3 and a B10 Tournament title would get us to a 4/5 seed. Making the Final may even get the 5 seed. Otherwise, I except a 6/7 area.
 
#98      
Fighter of the Nightman
HailtotheChief said:
I would say string 4 more consecutive wins to go with our last 3 and a B10 Tournament title would get us to a 4/5 seed. Making the Final may even get the 5 seed. Otherwise, I except a 6/7 area.
Click to expand...
Not sure if you factored this in, but while we cannot be sure how much the BTT results matter through Saturday ... it has been confirmed by the Committee and is widely accepted that the result of the BTT Championship Game cannot be taken into account, as it takes place WAY too late on Sunday (e.g., our 2021 BTT Championship Game vs. OSU that went into OT actually pushed back the Selection Show a bit and resulted in the end of our game having 6+ million views!).
 
#100      
Illini 993
With how top-heavy the NCAA bracket will be this year, I would rather stay at a #6 or 7 than go up to a #4 or 5. Then the Illini would play the #1 in the Elite 8, instead of the sweet 16 (if I am reading the bracket correctly.) IMHO, the #2s seem less intimidating than the #1s.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back