Week of 3/3 Bracketology

PepeSilvia · Mar 7, 2025

I'm not super optimistic it happens but if they beat Purdue and go on a run to win the Big10 tournament which would be another 3 or 4 more wins I think they legitimately could get a 3 seed.

Currently 17 on NET and Bart while being 19 on Kenpom. Purdue is in the mid-low teens there and we would beat some tough teams in the tournament.

If all of that occurred they would be at least 23-11(24-11 if they are the 7 seed and win) come selection Sunday(were 23-8 last year). 4 or 5 consecutive Big10 wins probably pushes their metrics up to top 10-12 territory.

Toews · Mar 7, 2025

illini0440 said:
You think a 6 seed is the best we can do?

I meant like at least the 6 but could do a little more. Tbh though 5 would be the ceiling probably the teams ahead of us all have good resumes too and it’s hard to move up too many seed lines with conference tourney.

TheodoreRex · Mar 7, 2025

illini0440 said:
You think a 6 seed is the best we can do?

I can't comprehend a world where we aren't a lock as a 6 seed if we beat Purdue. 8 quad 1 wins- 4 or 5 against top 25 teams, almost no "bad losses". A great strength of schedule. 20 wins..

If we beat Purdue, and win 2 in the Big Ten Tourney, I'd have to think we start flirting with a 5 seed...

What sucks is if we just win one of those games like USC, Nebraska, @ Northwestern, etc.. We'd be sitting at a 6 and probably playing for a 5 tonight.

pweo · Mar 7, 2025

I'm hoping the committee is better than last years. Felt like all the seeds were set by Friday and the only changes were at the bubble

Fighter of the Nightman · Mar 7, 2025

pweo said:
I'm hoping the committee is better than last years. Felt like all the seeds were set by Friday and the only changes were at the bubble

As someone previously mentioned, Wisconsin almost certainly only earned its seed last year by making it to Sunday of the BTT.

Regarding our seed “ceiling,” I cannot stress enough how much less I’d want a 5 seed than a 6 seed for this group. At least with a 4 seed there’s some small aspect of prestige with being a “protected seed” … a 5 seed literally just sucks!

1) Your First Round 12 seed opponent very well might be BETTER than an 11 seed. Often times it seems like a 12 seed is a team that’s had an excellent season from a mediocre conference, whereas an 11 seed is a mediocre team from a better conference. JMO, but I think this squad is way more likely to let some pumped up (but actually good) mid-major rain threes on us than get simply outplayed by some middling ACC team.

2) Whereas a Second Round game vs. a 3 seed could have us inspired to be the “Good Illini” on a bright stage, it always feels like the 4/5 game in the Second Round is some brutal slogfest … NOT our cup of tea, lol.

3) People say this every year, but I truly believe this year’s crop of 1 seeds is just so much better than that second tier. If you’re a 6 seed and you get past the First Round, you’re looking at a road to the Elite Eight of beating a 3 seed then a 2 seed (which are always about the same, IMO). If you’re a 5 seed, that path is to play a theoretically similar 4 seed and then a juggernaut 1 seed on short rest and with tired legs.

The bottom half of the bracket is infinitely superior.

sacraig · Mar 7, 2025

Fighter of the Nightman said:
As someone previously mentioned, Wisconsin almost certainly only earned its seed last year by making it to Sunday of the BTT.

Regarding our seed “ceiling,” I cannot stress enough how much less I’d want a 5 seed than a 6 seed for this group. At least with a 4 seed there’s some small aspect of prestige with being a “protected seed” … a 5 seed literally just sucks!

1) Your First Round 12 seed opponent very well might be BETTER than an 11 seed. Often times it seems like a 12 seed is a team that’s had an excellent season from a mediocre conference, whereas an 11 seed is a mediocre team from a better conference. JMO, but I think this squad is way more likely to let some pumped up (but actually good) mid-major rain threes on us than get simply outplayed by some middling ACC team.

2) Whereas a Second Round game vs. a 3 seed could have us inspired to be the “Good Illini” on a bright stage, it always feels like the 4/5 game in the Second Round is some brutal slogfest … NOT our cup of tea, lol.

3) People say this every year, but I truly believe this year’s crop of 1 seeds is just so much better than that second tier. If you’re a 6 seed and you get past the First Round, you’re looking at a road to the Elite Eight of beating a 3 seed then a 2 seed (which are always about the same, IMO). If you’re a 5 seed, that path is to play a theoretically similar 4 seed and then a juggernaut 1 seed on short rest and with tired legs.

The bottom half of the bracket is infinitely superior.

Just. Win.

At this point, I just want the best seed possible to hopefully rebuild some publicity, and then let winning cure the rest.

SkyysNotFalling · Mar 7, 2025

The 4-7 seed line is a jumbled mess this year. Committee has some big decisions to make to separate a lot of these teams. If we win tonight & show well in the BTT anything from a 4-8 seed is on the table imo.

mhuml32 · Mar 7, 2025

lstewart53x3 said:
Since I’ve seen some confusion in this thread about our resume, I figured I’d upload our NET Team Sheet, which shows where we stand as of this moment. This is the primary resource the committee will be using to analyze our resume and compare it the resume’s of other teams.

You can see every team’s current Team Sheet here:

https://www.warrennolan.com/basketball/2025/net-teamsheets-plus#google_vignette

And here’s ours:

View attachment 40270

Looking at our record in Q1, Q2, Q3, and Q4 games, we are 7-9 in Q1 games, 6-2 in Q2, and have no Q3 or Q4 losses.

The committee views a “bad” loss as a Q3 or Q4 loss, which means that in the eyes of the committee, we have *0* bad losses.

Our losses at Northwestern and Nebraska, as painful as they were to us, are both Q1 losses, about as far away from a bad loss as you can get.

Then the committee splits the quadrants up further into QA & B.

The best type of win available is a Q1A win. These are wins against teams ranked 1-15 in NET at home, 1-25 on a neutral court, and 1-40 on the road.

We have 4 of these wins. Only 6 teams have more than 4 Q1A wins. So we have very strong wins, in addition to no bad losses.

9 games against top-16 NET is crazy stuff.

Illini2010-11 · Mar 7, 2025

sacraig said:
Just. Win.

At this point, I just want the best seed possible to hopefully rebuild some publicity, and then let winning cure the rest.

Exactly! The higher seed Illinois gets, the better the Illini have played down the stretch. The Illini rode the momentum from late last season into an E8 run. Hopefully with some better health (and shooting), the Illini have turned the corner.

I am personally not going to sweat the seed that Illinois gets, as long as it is out of the 8/9 game. The Illini have shown that when health and clicking, they can beat anyone. At this point, I just want to see some consistently good basketball that we have seen the last couple of games, and then let the seeding fall where it may.

Illini2010-11 · Mar 7, 2025

SkyysNotFalling said:
The 4-7 seed line is a jumbled mess this year. Committee has some big decisions to make to separate a lot of these teams. If we win tonight & show well in the BTT anything from a 4-8 seed is on the table imo.

Really is quite crazy. Usually seedings are pretty much baked in at this point, but it is just a jumbled mess right now, and the Illini have plenty of opportunities to improve.

the juiceman cometh · Mar 7, 2025

Fighter of the Nightman said:
As someone previously mentioned, Wisconsin almost certainly only earned its seed last year by making it to Sunday of the BTT.

Regarding our seed “ceiling,” I cannot stress enough how much less I’d want a 5 seed than a 6 seed for this group. At least with a 4 seed there’s some small aspect of prestige with being a “protected seed” … a 5 seed literally just sucks!

1) Your First Round 12 seed opponent very well might be BETTER than an 11 seed. Often times it seems like a 12 seed is a team that’s had an excellent season from a mediocre conference, whereas an 11 seed is a mediocre team from a better conference. JMO, but I think this squad is way more likely to let some pumped up (but actually good) mid-major rain threes on us than get simply outplayed by some middling ACC team.

Historical numbers don't really back this up. 5 seeds beat 12 seeds a significantly higher percentage of the time than 6 seeds beat 11 seeds (.647 vs. .609). I think the lore of the 5/12 upset has more to do with the optics around those numbers. 5 is a round number. 12 is more than double 5. These kinds of things trick the brain into thinking the upset is a bigger deal than it really is, which then tricks the brain into thinking it happens all the time because we get excited about and remember those 5/12 upsets, and we don't do the same for 6/11 upsets. Historically, being a 5-seed's chances at avoiding an upset are solidly better than the 6-seed's (and being a 7 seed is nearly identical to being a 6-seed for the first round, but worse after that).

Records for every seed in March Madness from 1985 to 2025

These are the all-time, round-by-round records for every seed in the March Madness men's tournament from 1985 (when the field expanded) to 2025.

www.ncaa.com

To add a recent historical perspective, in the last 10 years, 5-seeds have produced 15 Sweet Sixteen teams, while 6-seeds have produced 6. Three 5-seeds have gone to the Final Four, while zero 6-seeds have.

5-Seeds - BracketResearch.com

A brief history and some highlights of 5-seed performance in the NCAA Tournament, including totals by round overall and in the last 10 years.

bracketresearch.com

6-Seeds - BracketResearch.com

A brief history and some highlights of 6-seed performance in the NCAA Tournament, including totals by round overall and in the last 10 years.

bracketresearch.com

I will take the 5 over the 6!

21ChampaignSt · Mar 7, 2025

These are the teams I'll be watching over the next 8 days. They're all currently higher than us on Bracket Matrix but depending what happens over our next 2+ games, I think we could leapfrog.

Arizona (NET #10) - projected 4 seed
Purdue (NET #15) - projected 4 seed
Clemson (NET #22) - projected 5 seed
Missouri (NET #16) - projected 5 seed
Oregon (NET #30) - projected 5 seed
Marquette (NET #23) - projected 6 seed
Louisville (NET #25) - projected 6 seed

the juiceman cometh · Mar 7, 2025

21ChampaignSt said:
These are the teams I'll be watching over the next 8 days. They're all currently higher than us on Bracket Matrix but depending what happens over our next 2+ games, I think we could leapfrog.

Arizona (NET #10) - projected 4 seed
Purdue (NET #15) - projected 4 seed
Clemson (NET #22) - projected 5 seed
Missouri (NET #16) - projected 5 seed
Oregon (NET #30) - projected 5 seed
Marquette (NET #23) - projected 6 seed
Louisville (NET #25) - projected 6 seed

If St. Mary's does anything short of win the WCC tourney, could we potentially pass them up? I'd think so...their Quadrant record is not the most impressive. No bad losses, but only 4 Q1 wins, 10 total Q1+Q2. Though beating Gonzaga twice looks far more impressive in NET terms than you'd think so who knows what the committee does with that.

Combo · Mar 7, 2025

Illini2010-11 said:
Exactly! The higher seed Illinois gets, the better the Illini have played down the stretch. The Illini rode the momentum from late last season into an E8 run. Hopefully with some better health (and shooting), the Illini have turned the corner.

I am personally not going to sweat the seed that Illinois gets, as long as it is out of the 8/9 game. The Illini have shown that when health and clicking, they can beat anyone. At this point, I just want to see some consistently good basketball that we have seen the last couple of games, and then let the seeding fall where it may.

I don’t think we can beat Duke when healthy. That team is just ridiculously loaded

Illini2010-11 · Mar 7, 2025

Combo said:
I don’t think we can beat Duke when healthy. That team is just ridiculously loaded

I welcome a rematch vs Duke. It would mean that the Illini are likely in the F4 or Finals. Can't imagine Duke being placed in the same region as the Illini. But, yes, it would be a very uphill fight and the Illini would have to hit about 20 3's to stay competitive.

21ChampaignSt · Mar 7, 2025

the juiceman cometh said:
If St. Mary's does anything short of win the WCC tourney, could we potentially pass them up? I'd think so...their Quadrant record is not the most impressive. No bad losses, but only 4 Q1 wins, 10 total Q1+Q2. Though beating Gonzaga twice looks far more impressive in NET terms than you'd think so who knows what the committee does with that.

For sure. I mean, I think we can get as high as a 4 seed. It could turn into a splitting hairs situation for the committee in that 4-7 seed spot. If so, I like our chances in that scenario because in the past I think the committee has unofficially used number of Q1 wins as a tie breaker between similar teams. And we'll have plenty of those (hypothetically if we win next 3).

The variable this year is WAB. How will that factor in? That seems to be the chink in our resume right now.

fuggles · Mar 7, 2025

I would rather have the 6 to avoid the 1 seed in the sweet sixteen. Especially this year.

Toews · Mar 7, 2025

21ChampaignSt said:
For sure. I mean, I think we can get as high as a 4 seed. It could turn into a splitting hairs situation for the committee in that 4-7 seed spot. If so, I like our chances in that scenario because in the past I think the committee has unofficially used number of Q1 wins as a tie breaker between similar teams. And we'll have plenty of those (hypothetically if we win next 3).

The variable this year is WAB. How will that factor in? That seems to be the chink in our resume right now.

That's right and that's why we don't really have a shot at the 4 and 5 will be difficult. We have a resume that would have usually played very well but they changed the formula.

21ChampaignSt · Mar 7, 2025

Toews said:
That's right and that's why we don't really have a shot at the 4 and 5 will be difficult. We have a resume that would have usually played very well but they changed the formula.

We'll see. We don't know how the committee will use it. I haven't seen anything that claims they value it any more than anything else on the team sheet. But they might place a lot of value in it. I just don't think we know. You also have to assume that 3 more Q1 wins would improve our WAB number and if other teams ahead of us stub their toe, theirs would presumably fall. And the disparity between us and other 4s and 5s wouldn't be so great.

Illinicpa14 · Mar 7, 2025

the juiceman cometh said:
Historical numbers don't really back this up. 5 seeds beat 12 seeds a significantly higher percentage of the time than 6 seeds beat 11 seeds (.647 vs. .609). I think the lore of the 5/12 upset has more to do with the optics around those numbers. 5 is a round number. 12 is more than double 5. These kinds of things trick the brain into thinking the upset is a bigger deal than it really is, which then tricks the brain into thinking it happens all the time because we get excited about and remember those 5/12 upsets, and we don't do the same for 6/11 upsets. Historically, being a 5-seed's chances at avoiding an upset are solidly better than the 6-seed's (and being a 7 seed is nearly identical to being a 6-seed for the first round, but worse after that).

Records for every seed in March Madness from 1985 to 2025

These are the all-time, round-by-round records for every seed in the March Madness men's tournament from 1985 (when the field expanded) to 2025.

www.ncaa.com

To add a recent historical perspective, in the last 10 years, 5-seeds have produced 15 Sweet Sixteen teams, while 6-seeds have produced 6. Three 5-seeds have gone to the Final Four, while zero 6-seeds have.

5-Seeds - BracketResearch.com

A brief history and some highlights of 5-seed performance in the NCAA Tournament, including totals by round overall and in the last 10 years.

bracketresearch.com

6-Seeds - BracketResearch.com

A brief history and some highlights of 6-seed performance in the NCAA Tournament, including totals by round overall and in the last 10 years.

bracketresearch.com

I will take the 5 over the 6!

But wouldn’t you argue part of that win percentage is that the average 5 is a better team then the average 6.

For us, in either scenario it’s the same team.

Toews · Mar 7, 2025

21ChampaignSt said:
We'll see. We don't know how the committee will use it. I haven't seen anything that claims they value it any more than anything else on the team sheet. But they might place a lot of value in it. I just don't think we know. You also have to assume that 3 more Q1 wins would improve our WAB number and if other teams ahead of us stub their toe, theirs would presumably fall. And the disparity between us and other 4s and 5s wouldn't be so great.

Yeah but they didn't have it even before as a tool or metric which allowed pure volume of opportunities to not be balanced out. That's why too many fans look at our resume and are expecting a seed with last years tools and that's just not how it is.

lstewart53x3 · Mar 7, 2025

Toews said:
Yeah but they didn't have it even before as a tool or metric which allowed pure volume of opportunities to not be balanced out. That's why too many fans look at our resume and are expecting a seed with last years tools and that's just not how it is.

Where are you getting this information?

Fighter of the Nightman · Mar 7, 2025

the juiceman cometh said:
Historical numbers don't really back this up. 5 seeds beat 12 seeds a significantly higher percentage of the time than 6 seeds beat 11 seeds (.647 vs. .609). I think the lore of the 5/12 upset has more to do with the optics around those numbers. 5 is a round number. 12 is more than double 5. These kinds of things trick the brain into thinking the upset is a bigger deal than it really is, which then tricks the brain into thinking it happens all the time because we get excited about and remember those 5/12 upsets, and we don't do the same for 6/11 upsets. Historically, being a 5-seed's chances at avoiding an upset are solidly better than the 6-seed's (and being a 7 seed is nearly identical to being a 6-seed for the first round, but worse after that).

Records for every seed in March Madness from 1985 to 2025

These are the all-time, round-by-round records for every seed in the March Madness men's tournament from 1985 (when the field expanded) to 2025.

www.ncaa.com

To add a recent historical perspective, in the last 10 years, 5-seeds have produced 15 Sweet Sixteen teams, while 6-seeds have produced 6. Three 5-seeds have gone to the Final Four, while zero 6-seeds have.

5-Seeds - BracketResearch.com

A brief history and some highlights of 5-seed performance in the NCAA Tournament, including totals by round overall and in the last 10 years.

bracketresearch.com

6-Seeds - BracketResearch.com

A brief history and some highlights of 6-seed performance in the NCAA Tournament, including totals by round overall and in the last 10 years.

bracketresearch.com

I will take the 5 over the 6!

I get that, but sometimes blanket stats/averages don't apply to every situation equally. For this specific team, based on what I have seen to-date, I would feel more nervous in a 5/12 matchup than a 6/11 matchup. I'm not denying the large sample size over 40+ NCAA Tournaments or whatever, I am simply saying that this team is hardly typical and it seems like the type of group that has a much better chance to go on a run as a 6.

Let's get past the "cold hard numbers" here for a second and imagine two scenarios using the current bracket matrix, where we are currently the third #7 seed on that site. In both scenarios, say we are playing relatively the same (e.g., we beat Purdue and win a game in the BTT), and it simply comes down to a subjective decision by the Selection Committee for whether we are the first #6 seed or the last #5 seed:

#6 Seed Scenario
First Round vs. the winner of #11 Oklahoma and #11 Boise State First Four game
Second Round vs. #3 Texas Tech
Sweet Sixteen vs. #2 Michigan State

#5 Seed Scenario
First Round vs. #12 Drake
Second Round vs. #4 Texas A&M
Sweet Sixteen vs. #1 Auburn

While you can make rather semantic arguments about which First/Second Round path is better-suited for this team, there is zero argument that we stand a much better chance of winning rematches vs. #2 seeds Michigan State, Tennessee or Wisconsin than we do knocking off #1 Auburn or #1 Duke.

I guess most of my disagreement here with some posters is that I do NOT necessarily think that just because we get a #5 seed instead of a #6 seed, it necessarily means we are playing better ... it could simply be a manner of logistics and getting the bracket to work correctly. So my point is that if the exact same Illinois resume with the exact same current level of play can earn Illinois the last #5 seed or the first #6 seed, I am taking the #6 seed all day ... because I want to make the Elite Eight again!

a scenario where we get the fourth #5 seed. These would be our most likely paths.

#7 SEED
First Round vs. (1

21ChampaignSt · Mar 7, 2025

Toews said:
Yeah but they didn't have it even before as a tool or metric which allowed pure volume of opportunities to not be balanced out. That's why too many fans look at our resume and are expecting a seed with last years tools and that's just not how it is.

How do you feel about Torvik? That's a new tool that's been added this year, too.

You seem pretty confident WAB is going to be a very influential factor. Is that your opinion or is there something more official that says WAB is more important than NET, Q1 wins, SOS, predictive metrics, etc.? Is there a source you can share?

eas23 · Mar 7, 2025

pweo said:
I'm hoping the committee is better than last years. Felt like all the seeds were set by Friday and the only changes were at the bubble

Conference tournaments aren't play-ins for seeding. The results are just one data point on a season long resume.

Week of 3/3 Bracketology

Gesture of Northern Aggression