I suppose it depends on whether you want to have an easier path to S16 or E8. I take the 5-seed scenario hands down for getting past the 1st and 2nd rounds. I honestly would not love our chances vs. Texas Tech, while I feel good about us vs. an A&M that has a pretty similar resume to ours. And while clearly Auburn is better than MSU, MSU is a very good team. They're 16-3 in conference, and I like their chances of beating a Michigan team that isn't playing well to win their 17th. They've already beaten us twice. We're going to be a heavy underdog in the S16 game in either of these scenarios, so I'd rather take the path that's likely to actually get us there.
Week of 3/3 Bracketology
- Status
NCAA Division I Men’s Basketball Committee discusses team evaluation process
Leading up to the 2024-2025 season, the NCAA Division I Men’s Basketball Committee discusses the team evaluation process.
www.ncaa.com
WAB is influential as another metric just as all the other metrics. When teams are very bunched up like this year, WAB and the other resume metrics which the committee said they are going to use this season for the first time are working as a balance against our really hard schedule which would have ordinarily given us a 4/5 seed. Using T-Rank the predictive metric is fine that doesn't hurt us we are pretty solid there. Using the resume metrics you can find on T-Rank is where we take a hit. You can see the metrics they use under Resume: https://barttorvik.com/teamsheets.php
It is, but a lot of it is because the 11 seeds are better now since they expanded to 68. 11 seeds are last in, so they are high majors with some talent vs a 12 which is a good mid major.
Agreed. And I think the virtually identical record in the 6/11 and 7/10 games, which is also typically between high-major at large bids, backs this up.
lstewart53x3
- Scottsdale, Arizona
Got it. Okay, so you’re drawing a lot of conclusions here.NCAA Division I Men’s Basketball Committee discusses team evaluation process
Leading up to the 2024-2025 season, the NCAA Division I Men’s Basketball Committee discusses the team evaluation process.
From what you’ve sent and everything I’ve read, they’ve added two new metrics to the team sheet—expanding from 5 metrics last year to 6 this year (6 instead of 7 because T-Rank replaces Sagarin).
One predictive metric, T-Rank and one results based metric, WAB.
To be clear, last year they had both predictive metrics and results based metrics to work with, just not these two in particular, yet if we go seed by seed throughout the tournament, quad 1 and 2 wins were still by far the most influential metric.
So your claim that this year is a “brand new formula” might be exaggerated. While they have new metrics to work with (one of those metrics paints us in a very good light btw), there is no evidence that I can find to show that WAB will more influential than each of the other metrics they already use or the Quadrant system which seems to have the largest impact on seeding.
If someone adds a pretty good number and someone adds a pretty bad number you think that changes the average? Why do you think we have a 7/8 on bracket projections with a previous 5 resume?
Fighter of the Nightman
- Chicago, IL
That's a fair point. If it is Sweet Sixteen or bust, the standard thinking of "higher the seed, the better" is pretty objectively true. However, if we have dreams of another Elite Eight and it's a top-heavy year where the #1 seeds appear head-and-shoulders better than the rest of the pack, that is when I think the bottom half of the bracket is so much better. There is a very good argument that last year's Illini team could have still made the Elite Eight in the same region as a #6 seed, but they could not have made it in the same region as a #4 or #5 seed ... simply because the behemoth that was #1 UConn was always going to be waiting for someone. I would always rather face that behemoth in the latest round possible.
However, I am sympathetic to the argument that this team has not displayed the consistency necessary to make an Elite Eight anyway, so we'd prefer a better path to the Sweet Sixteen. Either way, it will come down to whether or not our defense can carry us when we aren't knocking down threes. When we are knocking down open shots, we are damn hard to beat ... so when (or even whether!!) we stop Dancin' will depend on how we can weather the storm when the shots aren't falling.
lstewart53x3
- Scottsdale, Arizona
Because we don’t have a 5 resume? Because two weeks ago we lost 3 straight basketball games by an average of 26 points?
You think one new metric on a team sheet, out of dozens, is enough to drop a team from a 5 seed to an 8 seed?
Illinicpa14
- Chicago
Fair points on both! And I’d say 5,6,7 seeds all are the same macro point, which is you need to play a good game to win. Hard to sleepwalk at those seed lines.
Well this guy I guess was wondering the same thing as us. We shall see. Also I mean not three 3/4 seed line difference but 1/2. And on T-Rank they even have us based off of past years at 5/6 so it’s not that off.
Last edited:
Fighter of the Nightman
- Chicago, IL
Also, part of my aversion to the 4/5 spot is definitely superstition and just a feeling like the grass is greener on the other side, I'll admit ... since the first season I can really remember (2000), the top half of the bracket just seems like it ends in disappointment far more easily. Excluding being a #1 seed (which takes out exceptional 2005 but also disastrous 2021), this is my experience as a fan for the top half vs. bottom half of the NCAAT bracket:
TOP HALF
2000 as #4 Seed: Lost in Second Round to #5 Florida.
2002 as #4 Seed: Lost in Sweet Sixteen to #1 Kansas. However, we "got lucky" and got to play #12 Creighton in the Second Round rather than #5 Florida, after Creighton knocked the Gators off in 2 overtimes.
2003 as #4 Seed: Lost in Second Round to #5 Notre Dame.
2004 as #5 Seed: Lost in Sweet Sixteen to #1 Duke. Obliterated #4 Cincinnati in Second Round!
2006 as #4 Seed: Lost in Second Round to #5 Washington.
2007 as #12 Seed: Lost in First Round to #5 Virginia Tech.
2009 as #5 Seed: Lost in First Round to #12 Western Kentucky.
2022 as #4 Seed: Lost in Second Round to #4 Houston.
2023 as #9 Seed: Lost in First Round to #8 Arkansas.
BOTTOM HALF
2013 as #7 Seed: Lost in Second Round to #2 Miami (FL) in a hard-fought game where a blown call might have prevented us from a Sweet Sixteen.
2024 as #3 Seed: Lost in Elite Eight vs. #1 UConn after defeating #2 Iowa State in a thriller to get there.
So of the 11 years listed above, we were in the top half of the bracket NINE of those times. And of those nine, SEVEN were as a 4 or 5 seed! And of those seven times as a 4/5 seed, only two times turned out well. Of those two times that turned out well, only one (2004) involved us actually defeating our theoretically even 4/5 opponent in the Second Round. During this stretch, as a #4 or #5 seed, Illinois is 1-4 in that classic 4/5 Second Round matchup, with that one win being a special group that was hitting its stride and frankly deserved a much higher seed, as evidenced by a historically elite season the next year.
Other than 2021, we have historically performed very well when we can be good enough for a #1 seed (Final Four in 1989, Elite Eight in 2001 and National Championship Game in 2005). We have also busted through to the Elite Eight last season, in the only time we got a good seed on the bottom half of the bracket in the last 35+ years. It's that middle 4/5 territory that kind of fills me with nightmares and just always seems to get us stuck. It seems if we can avoid an ugly slugfest in the Second Round where we lose in a stinker, then we just run into a brick wall of a #1 seed in the Sweet Sixteen. I admit it's subjective, but something about that bottom half of the bracket just seems so much more hopeful, lol.
TOP HALF
2000 as #4 Seed: Lost in Second Round to #5 Florida.
2002 as #4 Seed: Lost in Sweet Sixteen to #1 Kansas. However, we "got lucky" and got to play #12 Creighton in the Second Round rather than #5 Florida, after Creighton knocked the Gators off in 2 overtimes.
2003 as #4 Seed: Lost in Second Round to #5 Notre Dame.
2004 as #5 Seed: Lost in Sweet Sixteen to #1 Duke. Obliterated #4 Cincinnati in Second Round!
2006 as #4 Seed: Lost in Second Round to #5 Washington.
2007 as #12 Seed: Lost in First Round to #5 Virginia Tech.
2009 as #5 Seed: Lost in First Round to #12 Western Kentucky.
2022 as #4 Seed: Lost in Second Round to #4 Houston.
2023 as #9 Seed: Lost in First Round to #8 Arkansas.
BOTTOM HALF
2013 as #7 Seed: Lost in Second Round to #2 Miami (FL) in a hard-fought game where a blown call might have prevented us from a Sweet Sixteen.
2024 as #3 Seed: Lost in Elite Eight vs. #1 UConn after defeating #2 Iowa State in a thriller to get there.
So of the 11 years listed above, we were in the top half of the bracket NINE of those times. And of those nine, SEVEN were as a 4 or 5 seed! And of those seven times as a 4/5 seed, only two times turned out well. Of those two times that turned out well, only one (2004) involved us actually defeating our theoretically even 4/5 opponent in the Second Round. During this stretch, as a #4 or #5 seed, Illinois is 1-4 in that classic 4/5 Second Round matchup, with that one win being a special group that was hitting its stride and frankly deserved a much higher seed, as evidenced by a historically elite season the next year.
Other than 2021, we have historically performed very well when we can be good enough for a #1 seed (Final Four in 1989, Elite Eight in 2001 and National Championship Game in 2005). We have also busted through to the Elite Eight last season, in the only time we got a good seed on the bottom half of the bracket in the last 35+ years. It's that middle 4/5 territory that kind of fills me with nightmares and just always seems to get us stuck. It seems if we can avoid an ugly slugfest in the Second Round where we lose in a stinker, then we just run into a brick wall of a #1 seed in the Sweet Sixteen. I admit it's subjective, but something about that bottom half of the bracket just seems so much more hopeful, lol.
Based off this, we should want to be a 5 seed. Lots of victories and S16's from the 5 seeds you listed. Unfortunately, most of them were at our expense.
If we win out Torvik gives us a 3-seed. https://barttorvik.com/teamcast.php?&team=Illinois&year=2025
I agree -- it will look like we fell off mostly because of injuries/sickness, and the Illini are now again among the best in the country.
I agree -- it will look like we fell off mostly because of injuries/sickness, and the Illini are now again among the best in the country.
Torvik also currently gives us a 5-seed, which makes Torvik an outlier at the moment. Out of 92 brackets on Bracket Matrix, only 3 have us at a 5 (including Torvik). I counted 9 6-seed projections, and then everyone else had us at either a 7 or 8. So while I think if we win out a 3-seed may be possible, a 4 or 5 is more likely.
I don't see much difference between the 3 and 4 seeds to be honest. They are all pretty similar, it's more a matter of who is playing hot. Purdue, Michigan, and A&M were all 3 seeds not that long ago. But they have picked up some losses. That could flip any day. So I guess the perfect situation is to get the 3 seed that isn't hot.
The odds of making the Elite 8 are much, much, higher this year with a 3 seed. The difference between the 1 seeds are 2 seeds is much larger than normal this year.
Now our BTT seeding is dependent on USC/UCLA tomorrow night. Trojans win, we're the 6 seed. Bruins win, we're the 7 seed.
No matter what, our first BTT game will be Thursday night.
No matter what, our first BTT game will be Thursday night.
Illini in Indiana
- Indiana
GrayGhost77
- Centennial, CO
Win one game in the BTT and we should be a 6 seed. I'll take it.
I will take a 6 over a 4 or 5 seed all day... We'd have a chance with #2 seed not a #1.. rather be on bottom side of bracket.
Look what Clemson did last year.
Look what Clemson did last year.
DeonThomas
- South Carolina
I think we've just about locked-up a "6-seed" as our floor. The three highly-credible ranking services below show us as a 5-seed. If we happen to lose in the BTT, we'll be losing to an NCAA tournament team on a neutral court. From here forward, we'll suffer no bad losses and we'll have lots of opportunities for good wins!
KenPom: 5 seed
NET: 5-seed
T-Rank: 5-seed
And we're pretty close to being declared the 5th best team in the Big Ten at 20-11, presently just behind 21-10 Purdue.
1. MSU
2. Maryland
3. Wisconsin
4. Purdue
5. Illinois
6-8. Oregon/Michigan/UCLA
One more win and I think we are a 6 seed for sure. Go on a run in the BTT and a 4/5 is possible.
Most importantly, out of the 8/9 game now.
Most importantly, out of the 8/9 game now.
- Status