Week of 3/3 Bracketology

Status
Not open for further replies.
#177      
Toews
lstewart53x3 said:
The committee has shown that total number of losses are not a major contributor to where you get seeded. I also don’t see them putting too much importance into average NET rankings of your wins and losses.
Click to expand...

This is half true. Average NET losses might not matter a ton but what does matter is the newly introduced metrics like WAB, SOR, and KPI (resume ratings). You can find them on T-Rating and those are the metrics where we're off the pace of the top teams because while our schedule was very difficult, the wins and performances we've had with that schedule was only pretty good and not great.
 
#178      
jrichisamazing
DeonThomas said:
I have interest in 3 more regular season games:

Illini to beat Boilers
Trojans defeat UCLA Bruins
MSU over Wolverines

We then secure the 6-seed and face #3 Michigan, if we make it to the quarterfinals. Also avoid Spartans until finals. I think Michigan is significantly overrated with all of those narrow victories this season.
Click to expand...

The problem with that is we wouldn't get a Q1 opponent in our first BTT game. I guess the question is do you want the easiest path possible to win the BTT, or the path that helps strengthens your resume the most?
 
#179      
ugottabjoshinme
Wisconsin last year had 13 losses and was 5-9 in Q1 games and got a 5 seed.

If Illinois beats Purdue, wins a couple in the BTT, we will have 12 losses and as many as 10 Q1 wins. A 5 should be obtainable in this scenario but the resume reads even better than that.
 
#180      
jrichisamazing
ugottabjoshinme said:
Wisconsin last year had 13 losses and was 5-9 in Q1 games and got a 5 seed.

If Illinois beats Purdue, wins a couple in the BTT, we will have 12 losses and as many as 10 Q1 wins. A 5 should be obtainable in this scenario but the resume reads even better than that.
Click to expand...

I would be careful comparing this year to past years. From what I've seen, this is kind of an anomaly year (or maybe it's the new norm). The non con season in general was historically tougher. A lot more teams scheduled better quality non con games. Plus the B1G and SEC becoming super conferences naturally exposed teams to more Q1 games.

From what I've been seeing....basically the bubble is super weak but the rest of the field is very tough. Lots of good resumes.

There is a top 6 that's pretty much locked in. Auburn, Houston, Duke, Alabama, Tennessee, and Florida.

But then the rest of the 2 seeds through the 9 seeds are very tight. A 2 could easily drop to a 4, a 4 could drop to a 6, a 6 to an 8. And vice versa of course.

We talk a lot about us moving up the seeds, but almost everyone around us can do the same.
 
#181      
21ChampaignSt
Here's another way to look at it.

Only 4 teams ranked in the top 15 of NET have ever gotten a seed worse than 6.

3 were mid majors:
2019 Woffard
2021 Loyola 🤢
2023 FAU

The other was UCLA in 2021 with a SOS of 65 and a Q1 record of 5-7. Really not comparable to Illinois.

If we win our next 3, maybe even our next 2, we'll finish top 15 in NET. The committe isn't going to punish a team with our SOS, Q1 wins, or injury situation.
 
#184      
mhuml32
This Duke team is currently the highest rated team in the KenPom era, by a sizable margin.
 
#188      
PizzaHutParkingLot
jrichisamazing said:
Speaking of Duke.....it's always fun finding juicy potential matchups. How about #1 Duke vs #4/5 Maryland. Bring back the vintage ACC rivalry. Plus Maryland's size could give Duke some issues.
Click to expand...
Pray Let It Be GIF by CBS

From your lips to the Committee's ears.
 
#191      
The Sprouting Divot
ugottabjoshinme said:
If Illinois beats Purdue on Friday there is no scenario they are below a 7.
Click to expand...
A team like us with some good wins and an equal number of lousy losses, and one that has proven that it can beat anyone by 20+ and also lose to anyone by 20+ is a pretty solid candidate for the 8/9 game in my opinion.

My point was that if "bad Illinois" shows up for our first BTT game and we get pantsed again, it will negate any upward trajectory we might garner by having beating Purdue.
 
#192      
Illini2010-11
The Sprouting Divot said:
A team like us with some good wins and an equal number of lousy losses, and one that has proven that it can beat anyone by 20+ and also lose to anyone by 20+ is a pretty solid candidate for the 8/9 game in my opinion.

My point was that if "bad Illinois" shows up for our first BTT game and we get pantsed again, it will negate any upward trajectory we might garner by having beating Purdue.
Click to expand...
Being blown out by a quad 1A team (i.e., Duke) does not necessarily translate to a lousy loss in terms of how the committee views games. The reality is that the Illini have exactly 0 bad losses on the resume. Metrics really like Illinois. We are so laser-focused on Illinois (as we should be), that we sometimes fail to look at peers. The Illini resume looks very good, even with the blowout losses.

Sure there is a scenario where if Illini lose out, that they fall back into the 8/9 game (but the Illini would still have great odds of being a 7 seed, especially if the Illini NET remains in the top 25). Beating Purdue, and there is literally no scenario where the Illini are going to play in the 8/9 game. In fact, the Illini might already approach a 6 seed in that case.

As to your last sentence...who knows with this team. If Illinois beats Purdue and then gets blown out in the BTT opener, the team very well might make a run to the S16.
 
Last edited:
#193      
The Sprouting Divot
Illini2010-11 said:
Being blown out by a quad 1A team (i.e., Duke) does not necessarily translate to a lousy loss in terms of how the committee views games. The reality is that the Illini have exactly 0 bad losses on the resume. Metrics really like Illinois. We are so laser-focused on Illinois (as we should be), that we sometimes fail to look at peers. The Illini resume looks very good, even with the blowout losses.

Sure there is a scenario where if Illini lose out, that they fall back into the 8/9 game (but the Illini would still have great odds of being a 7 seed, especially if the Illini NET remains in the top 25). Beating Purdue, and there is literally no scenario where the Illini are going to play in the 8/9 game. In fact, the Illini might already approach a 6 seed in that case.

As to your last sentence...who knows with this team. If Illinois beats Purdue and then gets blown out in the BTT opener, the team very well might make a run to the S16.
Click to expand...
I venture to say that we have very different opinions about what defines a bad loss.

While certainly the first thing that comes to mind for us (and likely many casual fans, and fans of other teams) is the Duke loss, I think an argument can be made for several other losses that were ultimately "worse" based on how we played, how we lost, and who we lost to.

I feel like historically speaking, Underwood's teams seem to have 1-2 frustrating head-scratchers a season. This year has had far more than that to this point.
 
#194      
Illini2010-11
The Sprouting Divot said:
I venture to say that we have very different opinions about what defines a bad loss.

While certainly the first thing that comes to mind for us (and likely many casual fans, and fans of other teams) is the Duke loss, I think an argument can be made for several other losses that were ultimately "worse" based on how we played, how we lost, and who we lost to.

I feel like historically speaking, Underwood's teams seem to have 1-2 frustrating head-scratchers a season. This year has had far more than that to this point.
Click to expand...
It is not our opinion that matters though. The committee literally uses the quad-based system to assess wins and losses. In that respect, they will look at the resume and say there were no "bad losses", the efficiency metrics are very good, etc.

In our minds, yes, we have seen a number of head-scratching losses that we would say are bad (@NW, USC, MD, @Neb, MSU, @WIS, Duke) with how the games played out. However, all of those games are either Quad 1 or Quad 2 (for now...USC may still ultimately fall into Quad 3 range). Ultimately, the committee will not look at those as harshly as us fans. Without a doubt, the Illini have underperformed for large stretches of the season, but it is also true that many of these head-scratchers came with illnesses running through the team or key parts of the team injured.

Thankfully, the committee looks at the resumes more level-headed than many on this board.
 
#195      
Old Farm Illini
The Sprouting Divot said:
I venture to say that we have very different opinions about what defines a bad loss.

While certainly the first thing that comes to mind for us (and likely many casual fans, and fans of other teams) is the Duke loss, I think an argument can be made for several other losses that were ultimately "worse" based on how we played, how we lost, and who we lost to.

I feel like historically speaking, Underwood's teams seem to have 1-2 frustrating head-scratchers a season. This year has had far more than that to this point.
Click to expand...
We can feel bad and hate some of our losses, but emotions aside, they're not objectively bad on paper. Our worst loss is against USC who is 66th. Clemson, a projected 5 seed, lost at home against Georgia Tech who is sub 100. Everyone has head scratching losses.

Edit - Our worst loss is Rutgers but point remains.
 
#196      
The Sprouting Divot
Illini2010-11 said:
It is not our opinion that matters though. The committee literally uses the quad-based system to assess wins and losses. In that respect, they will look at the resume and say there were no "bad losses", the efficiency metrics are very good, etc.

In our minds, yes, we have seen a number of head-scratching losses that we would say are bad (@NW, USC, MD, @Neb, MSU, @WIS, Duke) with how the games played out. However, all of those games are either Quad 1 or Quad 2 (for now...USC may still ultimately fall into Quad 3 range). Ultimately, the committee will not look at those as harshly as us fans. Without a doubt, the Illini have underperformed for large stretches of the season, but it is also true that many of these head-scratchers came with illnesses running through the team or key parts of the team injured.

Thankfully, the committee looks at the resumes more level-headed than many on this board.
Click to expand...
Agreed on all points, but unless the human element has been completely removed from the equation, the members of the seeding committee (at least theoretically...) are able to inject their perception of each team's overall identity and stature into the S-curve.

And our team has more potential for extreme variance than any other team I'm aware of this season. If I'm on the committee (and I'm not!) I wouldn't give our kind of team the benefit of the doubt.

On the contrary, I'd make them put their money where their mouth is. No better place for that than the 8/9 game...
 
#197      
lstewart53x3
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:


And here’s ours:

IMG_0269.jpeg


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.
 
#198      
Toews
Illini2010-11 said:
It is not our opinion that matters though. The committee literally uses the quad-based system to assess wins and losses. In that respect, they will look at the resume and say there were no "bad losses", the efficiency metrics are very good, etc.

In our minds, yes, we have seen a number of head-scratching losses that we would say are bad (@NW, USC, MD, @Neb, MSU, @WIS, Duke) with how the games played out. However, all of those games are either Quad 1 or Quad 2 (for now...USC may still ultimately fall into Quad 3 range). Ultimately, the committee will not look at those as harshly as us fans. Without a doubt, the Illini have underperformed for large stretches of the season, but it is also true that many of these head-scratchers came with illnesses running through the team or key parts of the team injured.

Thankfully, the committee looks at the resumes more level-headed than many on this board.
Click to expand...
It's more complicated than that now. Yes the quads are still used but they are specifically looking at resume metrics now as well. That's where we are suffering as we are averaging 29th in resume rating compared to being 15th in quad 1 and 2 games and high efficiency metrics. Our SOR, WAB, and KPI are all closer to 29.
 
#199      
lstewart53x3
Toews said:
It's more complicated than that now. Yes the quads are still used but they are specifically looking at resume metrics now as well. That's where we are suffering as we are averaging 29th in resume rating compared to being 15th in quad 1 and 2 games and high efficiency metrics. Our SOR, WAB, and KPI are all closer to 29.
Click to expand...
We’ll see how it plays out this year, but I have a hard time believing the committee will prioritize metrics over hard data, wins & losses.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back