Bracketology 2020: Answering the Biggest Questions on the NCAA Tournament Field

We sent up the Twitter bat signal for bracketology questions for the men's NCAA tournament, and you guys answered the call.

Each of these questions was submitted to me by a reader/follower, and each one pertains to unknowns for the next few days.

Let me first say that this is one of my favorite pieces to do every year. Some people just type out their thoughts on sports, throw them out into the world and couldn't care less about what happens from there. However, I enjoy the interaction, especially with people who are legitimately curious about how the tangled web of conference tournament results could impact particular teams.

I'll hit on a couple bubble teams. I'll discuss teams battling for position on the top four seed lines. I'll even address a particular strength of schedule concern. But I wouldn't be able to do any of it without you guys. So thanks for the questions, and I hope you all enjoy the ever-loving chaos coming our way on Thursday and Friday.

If you have any more questions along the way that can be answered in 280 characters or fewer, I'll have a Twitter tab open somewhere on my three monitors.

One final thought before we dive in: There were several questions about North Carolina and what would happen if the last-place Tar Heels miraculously win the ACC tournament.

Unfortunately, this had to be submitted for edits several hours before their game against Syracuse began, and it didn't make sense to put together a long-winded response in case they lost. (Which they did.) But just to address any other possible long-shot bid projections, I'll just point out that Oregon earned a No. 12 seed last year for winning the Pac-12 tournament as the No. 6 seed, finishing with 23 wins and a NET ranking of 51.

Our first question comes from @gottaluvillini. You can probably guess which team we'll be discussing:

"What do you think is the highest seed and the lowest seed possible for the University of Illinois?"

The Illini did an awesome job in Big Ten play this year, winning 13 league games and earning a coveted double bye in a tournament that is certain to be a test of endurance. It's the first time they finished above .500 in a decade, and the last nine times (dating back to 1998) that they finished at least four games over .500 in the Big Ten, they earned a No. 5 seed or better in the NCAA tournament.

Surely, getting six more wins than losses in this year's gauntlet of a conference would be enough for a spot on those top five lines then, right?

The problem for Illinois is that it did nothing in nonconference play. Its only Quadrant 1 game was a 21-point loss to Arizona. Its only Quadrant 2 game was a neutral-site loss to loathed rival Missouri. And in its only Quadrant 3 game, it lost at home to Miami (FL) in the ACC-B1G Challenge. The Illlini's best nonconference win was a home game against Old Dominion, which isn't saying much.

The road wins over Wisconsin, Michigan, Penn State and Purdue were quite impressive, and at least they didn't lose to Nebraska or Northwestern. But the full body of work reads like a No. 7 seed right now, and it is driving Illinois fans mad to see their team projected behind the likes of Ohio State, Michigan and Iowa, since they finished at least two games ahead of each of those teams in the conference standings.

The good news is opportunities abound. If the Illini were to win the Big Ten tournament, it would likely come against a path of Iowa (NET No. 34), Wisconsin (NET No. 24) and Michigan State (NET No. 7). I could see them climbing up as high as a No. 3 seed if they pull that off, pending the results of the other major conference tournaments, of course.

But if Minnesota upsets Iowa on Thursday and proceeds to knock off Illinois on Friday, that would not be good. Ayo Dosunmu, Kofi Cockburn and Co. would probably land in a No. 8/No. 9 first-round game, and there's a good chance they would end up in the Midwest Region for a second-round matchup with Kansas.

Next up, @JackCaroddo gets right to the point with a succinct question.

"Can Richmond get an at-large bid?"

Can it happen? Absolutely.

Will it happen? Well...

At this moment, Richmond would be in, in my estimation. But it's very close, there are bid thief possibilities in all of the major conferences, and a loss to either Davidson or La Salle in the A-10 quarterfinals could prove fatal.

Let's assume the Spiders win that game, though, and let's also assume there will be be a maximum of three major-conference teams who either win their tournament as a team with no at-large hope or play well enough to move from the wrong side of the bubble to the correct side. (The former might be Clemson winning the ACC tournament; the latter might be UCLA making a decent run in the Pac-12 tournament.) Things could play out differently, but those are perfectly reasonable assumptions.

In that scenario, it probably comes down to the A-10 semifinal against Rhode Island—provided the Rams can beat Duquesne to get there.

It's not exactly a marquee opportunity with Rhode Island hovering a bit outside the NET top 50, but a Quadrant 2 win followed by a loss to Dayton would be a whole heck of a lot better for the Spiders than a loss to Rhode Island. Not only would that loss immediately hurt a bit, but it would put Rhode Island back in the bubble conversation and in a position to possibly steal the A-10 auto bid.

If you're looking for percent probabilities, here's the way I see it:

• Lose to Davidson/La Salle: 10 percent chance to dance
• Lose to Duquesne: 35 percent chance to dance
• Lose to Rhode Island: 45 percent chance to dance
• Lose to Dayton: 98 percent chance to dance

Let's get a little more down in the weeds with this question from @jonaltena:

"When there is a massive SOS difference (NET, KenPom) for a team like Iowa what has the committee traditionally done with that?"

To provide some context here, at the start of the day on Wednesday, KenPom had Iowa's overall strength of schedule at No. 5 and its nonconference strength of schedule at No. 99. The NET said No. 96 and No. 243, respectively.

That's a rather outrageous discrepancy, and I have no earthly clue why that's the case, as the NET ranking of each of Iowa's 11 nonconference opponents is +/- 10 spots from its KenPom ranking.

This is far from the only preposterous SOS issue with the NET. It also said Dayton had faced the 29th-toughest schedule and Michigan's ranked 49th, where as KenPom put them at No. 105 and No. 1, respectively. Basically, the NET's SOS is broken and the NCAA needs to fix that this offseason, since SOS is such an integral part of any rating system.

But as far as what the selection committee will do with that information, I have no idea, but I would assume it won't do anything with it. I've never paid any attention to KenPom's SOS because the RPI/NET SOS has always been the one the committee uses.

Frankly, I barely look at the NET SOS unless it's one of the two extremes, like Penn State's horrific nonconference SOS or the excellent one that Arkansas has. NET ranking is far more important than SOS ranking, and even that is much more of a guide than some sort of doctrine. You inspect each resume for wins and losses and sort of come up with your own verdict on whether the schedule was weak or strong.

Gonzaga is a lock for a No. 1 seed despite a NET SOS of 110 and NCSOS of 282. So if you're an Iowa fan, I wouldn't stress too much about SOS. The committee knows about your seven Quadrant 1 wins.

Time to bring in @mikezor052288, who has probably been in this piece every time I've done it because he tweets at me like 99 percent of days during the regular season. This dude loves brackets, and he's wondering if we'll see an extra mid-major in there this year:

"How similar are the resumes of UNI this year and Belmont last year?"

If you take out the unsightly loss to Drake in the Missouri Valley Conference tournament, they're almost indistinguishable.

Belmont finished last year at No. 47 in the NET and Northern Iowa is 48th.

The Bruins had two Quadrant 1 wins to UNI's one, but the Panthers won a true road game against Colorado while Belmont just had a couple of road wins over fellow mid-majors (Murray State and Lipscomb). Quantity favors Belmont, quality favors Northern Iowa.

They both had three Quadrant 2 wins and (before UNI's loss to Drake) they both had two Quadrant 3 losses.

But Belmont was eliminated in its conference championship by a Murray State team with a first-team All-American on its roster. Northern Iowa lost by 21 to Drake in the MVC quarterfinals. Big difference there, and it's why I initially felt that the Panthers had almost no case for an at-large bid.

Then Utah State, Liberty, East Tennessee State and Yale earned their conferences automatic bids, making things look much better for Northern Iowa.

If they had been forced to "compete" with those teams in the selection committee's debates, the Panthers likely would have lost that battle. They certainly would've been below ETSU and Utah State. But unless Vermont loses to Hartford in the America East championship or Stephen F. Austin loses at some point in the Southland tournament, no other team from outside the top nine conferences is going to be in the conversation for an at-large bid, which makes Northern Iowa that much more attractive.

This could be similar to 2012 when Iona lost in the MAAC semifinals a full week before Selection Sunday and was completely forgotten about until showing up in a play-in game.

Up next, @ckalk33 is wondering about a team that has gotten knocked out in the first round in five of its last seven trips to the NCAA tournament:

"Where do you have Saint Mary’s slotted and how do you feel about them beating a mid or lower tier power conference team in the 1st round?"

To answer the first half of the question, I see the Gaels getting a No. 9 seed. And if that changes, it's more likely they drop to a No. 10 than climb to a No. 8.

Most bracketologists are a little higher on Saint Mary's than I am, but I don't love the resume. The two tight wins over BYU were great, as was the season-opening two-point win over Wisconsin, but the Gaels also suffered bad losses to Winthrop, Santa Clara and Pacific. And it would've been nice had they played their WCC overlords closer in any of their three chances—the closest being a 10-point loss.

The predictive metrics mostly fell in love with this team because of the 96-56 win over Arizona State in December. That single result vaulted them from No. 45 to No. 26 in KenPom, which is quite the achievement for a game that has been in the Quadrant 2 range all season. All hail the power of uncapped scoring margin.

That said, if the Gaels do land in a No. 8/No. 9 game against the likes of Providence, USC, Rutgers, etc., they could absolutely win that game and give the subsequent No. 1 seed a run for its money.

They would not be matched up with Gonzaga, and the committee might try to avoid putting them in Dayton's region, since they already played the Flyers this season, losing 78-68 in a game that got out of hand early. I certainly wouldn't pick them to beat Kansas, but they could knock off Baylor on the right day.

Staying in the West, @BobbyVanD22 is curious if the Ducks could quack the top three:

"Does the Pac-12 tournament really matter for Oregon for seeding? Seems like they are stuck on the 4 line."

It does feel like Oregon has been locked into that line for a while. Looking back through my weekly projections, I've had the Ducks in the Nos. 13-19 range on the overall seed list every time since Jan. 21.

The problem for Oregon is there just aren't any great wins to be had in the Pac-12. Even with the season sweep of Arizona, it was like, "OK, good job, but how come you lost to Washington State and Oregon State?" The Ducks won six of their final seven regular-season games, got three more Quadrant 1 wins in the process and barely moved.

As far as the NET is concerned, their best-case scenario would be facing and beating Arizona in the semifinals and Colorado in the championship. Those would both be strong Quadrant 1 wins that should help elevate Oregon to a No. 3 seed.

Regardless of the path, though, winning the next three games would be huge. Even though the Pac-12 is lacking for Final Four contenders, an outright regular-season crown paired with a conference championship is kind of a big deal. It only netted Arizona a No. 4 seed two years ago, but that Pac-12 was a heck of a lot worse than this one. I would think Oregon could climb up to a No. 3, replacing a team like Maryland or Seton Hall if it doesn't win its respective tournaments.

I received a similar question from @connorsampson18 about Wisconsin, asking if the Badgers are a lock for a No. 4 or No. 5 seed. I do think Wisconsin is a lock for at least a No. 5 seed, but that is hardly the ceiling in Madison. If the Badgers continue their eight-game winning streak and get three more Quadrant 1 wins against the likes of Michigan, Illinois and Michigan State, the selection committee would have to be out of its mind to not give them at least a No. 3 seed. I could even see the 10-loss Badgers getting a No. 2 seed if that happens.

Got to end things with a blue blood, right? And @mlquiram wants to know what Big Blue Nation's possibilities are:

"What is Kentucky's seed range?"

Placing the Wildcats has been a major struggle. They're 25-6, they won the SEC by a three-game margin and they have nine Quadrant 1 wins. That collection of data points screams "No. 2 seed with a chance to climb to the top line!"

But then there's the home loss to Evansville, the not-as-bad-but-still-rough losses to Utah and South Carolina and rankings from the NET (No. 21) and KenPom (No. 28), which suggest this should be more like a No. 6 seed.

The biggest reason for the divide is the margin of victory—or rather, the lack thereof.

Things for Kentucky aren't quite as bad as they are for Virginia. The Cavaliers are outside the top 40 in both metrics thanks to nine wins by three points or fewer and a heinous 29-point loss to Purdue. But Kentucky has 15 wins by single digits and has played a total of 21 games decided by nine points or fewer.

By the time the Wildcats suffered their three bad losses, they had dropped to No. 24 on KenPom. And because they just keep eking out wins in a conference that doesn't have any other teams in the top 30, they've been unable to gain any ground. Hell, they went 13-2 in the second half of the season and dropped four spots on KenPom. That's hard to do, and it's hard to project that team's tournament seed.

If they win the SEC tournament, a No. 2 seed is definitely in play. I currently have the Wildcats projected as my top No. 4 seed, but Duke and Florida State can't both win the ACC. Same goes for Maryland and Michigan State in the Big Ten, and Creighton, Seton Hall and Villanova in the Big East. A minimum of four teams from the current No. 2 and No. 3 seed lines will suffer another loss in the next few days.

But a No. 4 is probably Kentucky seed floor unless it loses early while teams like Oregon, Louisville, Ohio State and Butler make deep runs and pass them by.

Split the difference, and it's probably safe to pencil the Wildcats in for a No. 3 seed.

Kerry Miller covers men's college basketball and college football for Bleacher Report. You can follow him on Twitter: @kerrancejames.