Michigan 72, Northwestern 63
AND THAT'S THE BALLGAME! MICHIGAN WINS! #GoBlue pic.twitter.com/ISPUyYmgij
— Michigan Basketball (@umichbball) February 25, 2016
I doubt any Michigan basketball fan is quite as excited as the team's official account, but despite a hideous start and an underwhelming game in general, the Wolverines kept their NCAA Tournament hopes alive.
For that they can thank Muhammad-Ali Abdur-Rahkman, the only consistent offensive force for Michigan, which played in front of a subdued and sparse crowd of brave souls undeterred by the winter storm. Rahkman scored 19 points and made 8/12 shots inside the arc as he gained the paint again and again.
Michigan's early energy matched that of the audience. Northwestern jumped out to a 10-0 lead; the Wolverines missed their first eight shots—including five by Duncan Robinson alone on a series of good looks—before Zak Irvin finally snapped the dry spell with a layup nearly six minutes in.
Certified Wolverine-killer Alex Olah kept the Wildcats comfortably ahead for most of the half, with Rahkman the main reason Michigan remained within striking distance, before the Wolverines crept back into it despite their shooting woes. Robinson hit the team's first three-pointer just before the first-half buzzer sounded; at that moment it looked like Michigan would pull away when they found their rhythm in the second stanza.
Instead, the second half began much like the first. Northwestern opened with an 8-0 run keyed by back-to-back Aaron Falzon triples before Rahkman stemmed the tide with a layup. Rahkman finally got some help in the form of Aubrey Dawkins, who seemingly found the shot Robinson has lost. His two three-pointers in the span of three possessions tied the game midway through the half. After the two squads went toe-to-toe for five minutes, Dawkins gave the home team the lead for good with his third triple after running the floor off his own defensive rebound.
Rahkman had one more big play, putting back his own miss to extend the lead to five, and the Wolverines were able to ice the game at the line—Derrick Walton (16 points, 6 rebounds, 3 assists) went 6/6 from the charity stripe down the stretch.
While this game won't blow away the committee by any stretch, Michigan managed to avoid a resumé-crippling loss. It's become a common refrain this season: in a home game against a crummy opponent, the Wolverines made it look tougher than it should've been. They probably need to win one of the final two games against Wisconsin and Iowa if they want to make the tournament. They definitely need to play better to do so.
February 24th, 2016 at 9:31 PM ^
I just don't understand how all the 5-stars can turn down these facilities!
Crisler crowd second before the national anthem pic.twitter.com/SswXJiHAl8
— Zach Shaw (@_ZachShaw) February 24, 2016
February 24th, 2016 at 9:34 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
February 24th, 2016 at 10:06 PM ^
Exactly, there was a blizzard on a weeknight game against a crappy opponent after a two game losing streak.
Perfect storm.
Not to mention, I was there, and it filled up a decent amount more by 7:15. That picture was taken before 7:00PM because I'm not in it and we got to our seats at 6:55.
February 25th, 2016 at 11:23 AM ^
The announcers on BTN even mentioned that they were impressed there was such a large crowd considering the weather.
February 24th, 2016 at 10:29 PM ^
huh? Your comment is kinda dumb. The facilties' quality are on par with any programs in the country. If you're referring to the attendence (which you are) then it's sparseness on this night has to do with a huge blizzard. And anyone knows that Michigan bball typically has a full and energentic crowd. The number of people in attendence is not the same as "the facilities". I take that back, the comment wasn't kinda dumb, it was really dumb.
February 24th, 2016 at 11:19 PM ^
I was making fun of the people who think that Michigan's top-notch facilities are enough to let them recruit with the big boys.
Let's not pretend that tonight's weather played an enormous factor in tonight's turnout. No one was coming to this game anyway. UM has been playing to empty arenas all season long.
On the other hand, it snows in Wisconsin and Indiana too, and they don't seem to have a problem filling their arenas.
February 24th, 2016 at 11:37 PM ^
You made a dumb comment and it got downvoted. It happens to all of us at one time or another. Don't be defensive, just move on.
February 24th, 2016 at 11:42 PM ^
You're right it was dumb, my bad. It must have been the blizzard.
20 minutes til tip #ExpandTheMaizeRage @umichbball @AceAnbender pic.twitter.com/38EQfl6RKL
— Blayze Damron (@Just_Blayze) February 6, 2016
#ExpandTheMaizeRage @umichbball pic.twitter.com/sP2UfXQ9aA
— Blayze Damron (@Just_Blayze) February 3, 2016
Wow! There have been a lot of blizzards up there this year!Student sections looking pretty packed 30 minutes to tipoff pic.twitter.com/OOPgP8uOAf
— Zach Shaw (@_ZachShaw) January 13, 2016
February 25th, 2016 at 12:41 AM ^
Not sure I understand the point of judging our fan support based on shots of the crowd 20-30 minutes before tipoff. On weeknight games, especially, a lot of us arrive shortly before (or sometimes after) tipoff because we have work earlier in the day and can't make it any sooner.
I went to all three of the games in your post but I probably wasn't seated at the time any of those photos were taken.
February 25th, 2016 at 3:50 AM ^
The better question is why is a UMhoops writer posting garbage like that.
February 25th, 2016 at 9:51 AM ^
See the #expandmaizerage hash tag. I agree with him-- for most UM games, while most/all the tickets might be sold, there are scads of empty seats, and I'm not just talking 20 minutes before the game.
Our home court advantage would be increased, and it would be a better atmosphere with a larger Maize Rage and with an improved system to make sure other tickets are actually used.
(I've commented on the latter numerous times here, asking why it's nigh impossible to find cheap seats on Stub Hub etc when thousands aren't being used for some games, e.g., Bryant, but no one has an answer).
February 24th, 2016 at 11:58 PM ^
Well, let's not act like MBB's fan support as as strong as it could be. While generally full and energetic, the atmosphere in Crisler is rarely as boisterous and intimidating as the top half of the conference, as in IU, OSU, MSU, UW and even Illinois. Even with a storm, none of those venues would look like this.
There are many reasons why, not limited to a still small student section coming off of a long and dark era, a "renovated" seating plan that doesn't pack in fans like older, cozier arenas and a stadium that isn't necessarily close to central campus. Fact is, basketball games just aren't as sexy of a activity for today's UM student body given 20 years of struggles.
It's impossible given Ann Arbor, but building a hoops arena in the mold of classic fieldhouses truly on campus and strategically planning seating to be more on top of the court would be a huge boon to the program.
February 25th, 2016 at 12:21 AM ^
The seating/Maize Rage situation can be improved, but I don't think there's anything wrong with the building itself. I like that it has a relatively small capacity (12,700). Nowadays you're not going to build anything smaller than that.
Complaining about the location is nitpicking. If its current location doesn't qualify as "truly on campus," that's true for a lot of schools' buildings.
February 25th, 2016 at 12:42 AM ^
Yes it's relatively small and amenities are nice, but it's generic as hell. And I get your point about location, but in the context of the program's current standing it impacts whether or not students go. It's a hike - especially from the hill and South U / Washtenaw areas where most kids live - for a generally mediocre team on winter weeknights against average opponents. The program's cache just isn't strong enough for most kids to make that trade-off.
February 25th, 2016 at 12:52 AM ^
Pretty much every basketball arena built in the last 30 years is "generic." The Kohl Center and Value City Arena are NBA-sized monstrosities. No one builds old-school Cameron Indoor Stadiums anymore. We could have done much worse - prior to the renovations, there were some who proposed building an entirely new arena, which would have surely been larger, and located in a more inaccessible place, but we settled on just renovating Crisler instead.
I really don't think the building or its location has much to do at all with crowd support or the lack thereof.
(BTW, I think you mean the program's cachet - unless we've got some cool hiding place for stuff.)
February 25th, 2016 at 1:10 AM ^
Haha yes - cachet. I honestly didn't know that distinction, so there's that.
My broader point is that basketball is not nearly as ingrained in UM's culture as it is at Indiana, MSU, OSU, Wisconsin and even Illinois / Purdue. In that sense, it's my opinion that we have a long way to go. And in order to get there, having a building closer to students would help (though not feasible at this point). People would complain about the distance while I was at UM for undergrad and grad school.
Also, good point about Kohl and VCA. However, I feel like those venues have fans more on top of the action than Crisler. TV makes that pretty clear, there's a different energy.
An aside - why NOT build arena's old school anymore? You can still have have amenities - remember the revolution in baseball park design since Camden Yards? A little character goes a long way.
February 25th, 2016 at 9:13 AM ^
"My broader point is that basketball is not nearly as ingrained in UM's culture as it is at Indiana, MSU, OSU, Wisconsin and even Illinois / Purdue."
Basketball school, Basketball school, disagree, meh maybe, Basketball school, disagree
February 27th, 2016 at 2:05 AM ^
I'm not sure what you're trying to say. The fact that one is a basketball school implies that yes, basketball is pretty well ingrained in the culture. Besides, football and basketball schools aren't mutually exclusive, especially in the big ten. UW, MSU and OSU do both better than nearly any schools in the country.
February 25th, 2016 at 11:14 AM ^
No one builds little intimate bandboxes any more because they don't generate enough money. It's very expensive to build a new arena, and schools want them to be moneymakers when they're up and running. That inevitably means luxury boxes and a high seating capacity.
I've always thought that if Northwestern could become a good program, Welsh-Ryan could become a selling point for them. It's one of the last of the old gyms.
February 25th, 2016 at 1:21 PM ^
It can be done if you hire the right architects. ND did a great job with this when they built their new hockey arena. The people that made it happen (Rossetti and Barton Malow) were the same ones that worked on the Michigan Stadium renovations.
February 25th, 2016 at 1:37 PM ^
But that's hockey. Hockey arenas aren't expected to bring in as much money so you can still build them small and intimate.
For basketball, the 15K+ arena is pretty much the standard, even for schools like PSU that clearly shouldn't be building that large.
February 27th, 2016 at 2:00 AM ^
Meh, I don't think size has much to do with intimacy or atmosphere. It's just a matter of style, of which Crisler lacks. I mean there's a dang indoor waterfall perched over giant escalators. Couldn't feel more like an airport terminal.
Most of the classic college bball venues are larger than crisler yet pack in more character. However the seating / aisles / spacing was set up in renovated Crisler makes it visually appear that no one is there. (Or, maybe there aren't as many people in the stands as we think.) Somehow, even the newer arenas like Kohl, Maryland's or, Nebraska's feel like fans are on top of the court. It doesn't have to be tiny like Welsh-Ryan or Cam Indoor to be intimate. Assembly Hall is massive and that place is a magnificent hoops cathedral.
Fully recognize this has devolved into a silly rant, but humor me. I really don't feel like they even considered atmosphere or timelessness in the renovation. Instead, like much of the new athletic facilities, it feels like a corporate lounge and will look dated in 5 years.
February 25th, 2016 at 1:24 PM ^
They need to do something about the wooden panels in the club/media section. I don't know who's idea it was to leave it like that, at least paint it dark blue so it's not as noticeable.
February 24th, 2016 at 11:19 PM ^
Have you been to Crisler since the renovation? It's a great arena now.
At any rate, I'm not sure what that has to do with attendance on a night in which there was a winter storm advisory.
February 25th, 2016 at 12:05 AM ^
There was crappy weather outside and it filled up decently later on.
February 24th, 2016 at 9:34 PM ^
February 24th, 2016 at 9:35 PM ^
So glad we have Rahk. Some games he looks like he is a four-year starting senior. I'm starting to think he can drive to the basket almost as good as Caris (jk, but he is good). The ability of him and Walton to get to the hoop is great, where is Zak? I was impressed with the way the whole team played except for him. He has REALLY regressed this year and is not looking like a true third-year player. He was a top prospect and has honestly not lived up to his hype (what little he had). His inconsistency and inability to look natural out there baffles me. I can't wait until Beilein really hits on the one shooting guard he usually gets in the top 100 who doesn't need any coaching. Anyways enough complaining. That was a team effort and a great win, I think we can pull out one of the next two. You never know when our shooting will get hot and we're starting to show our ability to score without taking threes which is promising. Go blue. Beat Wisky.
February 24th, 2016 at 9:59 PM ^
he is looking outstanding...I can't wait to see how much he progresses into next year. He's going to be a standout.
I also have to give credit to Doyle. I gave him crud after his bad performance last game, tonight he looked much more comfortable, he was aggressive, scored some needed points, and looked much more comfortable. Would be nice if he could gain some confidence and become more consistent. He wasn't stellar, but he played much better tonight than I've seen lately (at least in the 2nd half).
February 24th, 2016 at 10:11 PM ^
February 24th, 2016 at 11:14 PM ^
How the bigs are next year will be absolutely crucial. Really need some of those guys to be able to hit 3's and play the 4 well so Irvin can play the 3 (or even 2?) like he should be. DJ WIlson or Wagner or Donnal playing well at the 4 would be a godsend. Donnal would be fine at the 4 this year I think if Doyle had stepped up.
February 24th, 2016 at 11:39 PM ^
But with college basketball moving more and more to the four-out, one-in model, putting a big guy like Donnal at the 4 is probably going to expose you defensively in most games. It only makes sense against the shrinking number of teams that still play two big men at the same time.
February 26th, 2016 at 1:01 AM ^
That's a good point. Donnal is probably not athletic enough to guard a lot of 4s, but he could certainly guard some when M plays teams like Purdue. Also, I'd think DJ Wilson is athletic enough to guard most 4s, right? Chatman is also capable of that if he can develop.
February 25th, 2016 at 8:45 AM ^
game. Kam has clearly shown he is a better option at the 4 and is illustrating that right now with his playing time, as opposed to DJ who is warming the bench. Donnal will start at the 5 next year and get breaks from Doyle and the freshies. DJ has never shown promise and continues to have a bad haircut.
February 25th, 2016 at 10:38 AM ^
DJ has fabulous hair
February 24th, 2016 at 11:22 PM ^
Of course, a lot of our opponents also go small. There are a lot fewer twin tower lineups than there used to be.
February 25th, 2016 at 1:09 AM ^
Irvin is listed at 6'6" and 215 lbs. Even when other teams go small, he's more than likely guarding someone taller and heavier than him. That player might not always be 6'10 250lbs but most teams, even in their 'small' lineup, aren't putting a 4 that small on the floor.
February 26th, 2016 at 11:59 AM ^
February 24th, 2016 at 9:35 PM ^
February 24th, 2016 at 9:41 PM ^
...this afternoon, but Alex wrote a preview.
February 24th, 2016 at 9:45 PM ^
February 24th, 2016 at 9:53 PM ^
Who's hating?!
February 24th, 2016 at 9:36 PM ^
They have 20 wins and a winning record in B1G play. As long as they win their first B1G tournament game, they're in. Soft bubble with SMU & Louisville being banned. The tournament also just doesn't turn down B1G teams with 20 wins and winning conference records unless they're PSU.
February 25th, 2016 at 9:53 AM ^
isn't a magical number to get into the NCAA's. Every year there are teams from the P5 conferences with 20 wins playing in the NIT:
2015: Miami, FL (21-12), UConn (20-14), A$M (20-11)
2014: Arkansas (21-11), Clemson (20-12), Minny (20-13), Mississippi (20-12), Utah (21-11)
2013: Kentucky (21-11), ASU (21-12), Tennessee (20-12), Bama (21-12), Maryland (22-12), Virginia (21-11), Iowa (21-12)
2012: Washington (21-10), Oregon (22-9), Arizona (23-11), Mississippi (20-13), Stanford (21-11)
February 25th, 2016 at 10:57 AM ^
February 25th, 2016 at 12:21 PM ^
there's two big ten teams on the list.
February 25th, 2016 at 12:36 PM ^
Technically now, yes. In 2013 Maryland was still in the ACC and This Is Michigan's point was that BigTen teams with 20 wins tend to get in.
February 25th, 2016 at 1:17 PM ^
Iowa and Minnesota
February 24th, 2016 at 9:45 PM ^
I think we are probably in (by the skin of our teeth) if we don't win another game.
I think we're definitely better than 50/50 to get in if we lose the next two but win a game in the B1G tournament, which is probably the most likely scenario.
I feel like this has been what the blog has been saying all year, so I'm not sure why you're now declaring we have to either win @ Wisconsin or beat an Iowa team in the conversation for a one-seed to get in. We needed to win this game. We did, and that's fine (you think anyone on the committee actually watched it?!)..
February 24th, 2016 at 9:52 PM ^
February 24th, 2016 at 9:57 PM ^
Comments