Peppers at 10, which seems low.
As pointless as it is this early in the season, Lunardi's 1st Bracketology since the season started came out today. In the preseason one, he projected us as a 3 seed, and clearly a lot of things have changed in college basketball since. We are now sitting as a #8 seed in the East bracket going up against Dayton. Seeing as the best win we have so far is against RPI (ESPN) #103 FSU, and our worst loss is RPI #153 Charlotte, 8th seed seems very valid and maybe even a bit generous. Of course, while still interesting, this all means nothing, especially before conference play has begun.
Other interesting points:
- #1 seeds - Arizona, Syracuse, Louisville, OSU
- Big Ten teams (tied with ACC for the most teams with 7) - #1 OSU, #2 MSU, #2 Wisconsin, #6 Iowa, #8 U of M, #10 Indiana, #11 Minnesota
- FSU (#11) is the only team we beat projected to make it to the tourney. Charlotte is our only loss not projected to make it.
It's a 3 or a 4. Here's how it breaks down.
Unless craziness happens, Baylor and Marquette have 3-seeds locked down. Here are the remaining teams competing for the last two slots. Stats according to CBS. In no particular order:
Remember UConn last year shot up all the way to a 3-seed with their Big East tournament run. Louisville, despite finishing the regular season slow, has the opportunity to do similar here. FSU, if they were to beat Duke and UNC on back to back nights, would have a case for themselves as well. Georgetown's numbers are very similar to Michigan's and both had rather ignominous conference tournament exits. At this point, it seems unlikely that either Indiana or Wisconsin would pass Michigan on the NCAA S-Curve, but crazier things have happened.
Tomorrow you are rooting for North Carolina to crush Florida State and eliminate one of the contenders. It'd be nice if Cincinnati won tonight, but it does not appear that is going to happen, so we're stuck with Louisville for the time being. In the most likely scenario it comes down to Georgetown vs Michigan for the last 3-seed, and we're splitting hairs at that point so it's guess work as to what the selection committee will decide.
Fortunately, there have been a lot of upsets in the mid-major conference tournaments and the overall competitiveness of the 13 and lower seeds has seen a significant drop in the last week.
Here are the teams that are likely to be 13 and 14 seeds (Michigan's likeliest opening round opponents, in no particular order):
|Long Beach St||13||38||122|
|New Mexico St||13||64||116|
|South Dakota St||13||45||184|
Long Beach St would be the worst draw here, and I'm hoping they move up in the S-Curve to a 12 seed or better. They beat Xavier and Pittsburgh and they lost by single digits in road games vs UNC, Kansas and Louisville (i.e. they can play with anyone).
South Dakota St's best wins come over Oral Roberts and Washington. Common opponents they split their season series with Oakland and lost to Minnesota by 16.
Colorado has a bunch of Pac-12 wins and not much else to speak of. They lost OOC to Wichita St, Colorado St, and Maryland. They are not a good team on paper but someone had to win the P12 Tournament!
New Mexico St managed to beat New Mexico on the road and that is it on their list of impressive games.
Belmont is another scary draw. Their wins this year aren't flashy but they took Duke to the wire, losing by 1 point at Cameron. They also lost on the road to Memphis.
Montana has an impressive win streak going but they have played the weakest schedule of this pack of teams. Their best win came over Long Beach St at home.
Ohio who nipped Akron for the MAC title, wouldn't it be fun to draw this team in the first round. What would we chant? Ohio (not THAT ohio) has no real impressive wins to speak of and didn't play a grueling schedule. Their best "win" was a 5 point loss at Louisville back at the start of the season.
Davidson's results read something like, boring boring boring, WTF-beat-Kansas, boring boring boring. They beat Kansas on the road by 6 back in December. Their other 4 games vs respectable tournament quality opponents were all losses.
Cackle With Knowing Glee: New Mexico St, South Dakota St, Colorado, Montana, or Ohio
Worry If: Belmont, Davidson, or Long Beach St (or whomever Long Beach Supplants from the 12-line).
Good night and see you after the selection show tomorrow.
TLDR: The three seed is currently a coin flip. We have a really good chance to have a team we should throttle in the opening round.
On Lunardi's most recent bracket we are still a 3 seed, currently sitting in the East region with Syracuse on the top line and Duke as the 2. Vanderbilt is the 6 in our pod, which I hope changes between now and the tournament, since they will have a huge advantage in the Nashville location he assigns us to.
Assuming we can get through Northwestern to the Semis of the BTT and (probably) another game against Ohio, I don't see how we fall below a 3. Also, assuming Ohio and MSU are pretty solid 2 seeds, the tournament committee won't put us in the same region so there is no intra-conference game in the Sweet 16. My point here is that if Duke stays as a 2 seed, we have about a 50-50 chance of seeing them in the Sweet 16, if both teams make it through. I think fans of both schools would love another game, and we will want to avenge the loss in the tournament last year and in Hawaii at the beginning of the season this year.
Obviously it's a long week between now and Selection Sunday, and things will change. But, this might be an intriguing story to watch as it gets closer.
Latest bracketology, updated today, as the following Big Ten teams and UM opponents represented. 7 Big Ten teams total.
2 Duke (vs. 16 Bucknell)
8 Illinois (vs. 9 Harvard - Amaker woo???)
1 ohio state (vs. 16 Weber State)
7 Purdue (vs. 10 Wichita State)
8 Wisconsin (vs. 9 Dayton)
5 Virginia (vs 12 Belmont)
11 Memphis (vs 6 Creighton)
2 mihcigan state (vs. 15 Buffalo)
5 Michigan (vs. 12 FSU or Xavier)
2 Indiana (vs. 15 Cleveland State)
By combining two things I geek out about -- politics and sports statistics -- Nate Silver has become something of a legend in my own mind. Plus he's from Michigan. Briefly, he's a baseball statistician who rose to prominance by predicting the 2008 election better than any polls and has since become a sort of pop-statistician for the New York Times doing both election and sports predictions. He has come out with a bracket largely based on KenPom and similar computer rankings adjusted for injuries, locations and the like (as far as I can tell it hasn't been adjusted for current form, which is why Villanova isn't given a 0% chance of winning their first game). It picks Tennessee to win, so I'm angry at it right now, but it's worth a look and at least as legit as Joe Lunardi.
EDIT: This post is not saying Lunardi is a bad source. He's been great at predicting who will make it into the tournament and who wont. It was written to point out that his predictions should be taken with a grain of salt beyond bubble-predictions- seedings, regions, etc.
Since our beloved men's basketball team first played itself onto the bubble in the last few weeks, countless threads have been started citing Joe Lunardi's picks for Who's in/who's out, rankings, and even the regions teams will be placed in. What has earned Lunardi the "Bracketologist" title? More importantly, does his "wisdom" deserve so much attention within the mgoblogosphere? Like most of you, I assumed it would be his proven track record that allows him this McShay-like authority. Unfortunately, the following data argues otherwise. He accurately predicts the bubble, but beyond that you might as well have your girlfriend set up the bracket.
[The statistical data in this post is courtesy of ssreports.wordpress.com. I was going to compile the data myself for my first diary, but some time spent on google showed me that someone beat me to the punch.]
The article is worth a read but here are the main points:
Lunardi Accuracy 2010
Who's in who's out- 64/65
"Saying Lunardi got 64 out of 65 teams correct is no big accomplishment because over 50 of those teams either received auto-bids or were locks."
Teams correctly seated- 27/65 (41.5%)
2009- 31/65 (47.7%)
Teams correctly placed in each region- 17/64 (26.5%)
2009- 29/64 (45.3%)