Bubble Watch - Open Thread

Submitted by Leaders And Best on

I think the bolded teams are the ones Michigan is rooting for to get the best odds to make the NCAA Tournament.

Texas A&M 71, LSU 38 F            SEC Semis

St. Joseph's 82, Dayton 79 F      A-10 Semis

Connecticut 77, Temple 62 F     AAC Semis

Kentucky 93, Georgia 80 F         SEC Semis

Michigan St. 64, Maryland 61 F  B1G Semis

VCU 76, Davidson 54 F                A-10 Semis

Memphis 74, Tulane 54 F            AAC Semis

Fresno St. 68, San Diego St. 63 F  MWC Champ.

Steve Fisher and SDSU may have just cost Michigan a berth to the NCAA Tourmanent with a loss tonight. Going to be a long 24 hours.

 

MGoBoard
Basketball

mgofro

March 12th, 2016 at 3:27 PM ^

If Michigan doesn't get in, fuck the NCAA and decline the NIT bid. Over 20 wins and 10-8 record in the toughest basketball conference should be enough.

Joined: 01/18/2016

MGoPoints: 4557

Franz Schubert

March 12th, 2016 at 3:33 PM ^

Who has 4 top 26 wins, and no losses outside the top 70. Why is Michigan even considered a bubble team? UM has way better wins and better losses than any other bubble team.

Joined: 07/20/2009

MGoPoints: 4453

Leaders And Best

March 12th, 2016 at 3:48 PM ^

But 4 wins also don't make a season or resume. Outside of those 4 wins, there is nothing else of substance on Michigan's resume except avoiding bad losses. Some of these bubble teams did not have as many opportunities as Michigan to play that kind of competition, and I think that will be an argument used against Michigan.

Michigan really could have used some more oppotunities against midlevel teams to boost their resume. I think our nonconference scheduling philosophy will have as much to blame if we are left out as the actual team's perfomance.

Joined: 09/09/2009

MGoPoints: 22534

snarling wolverine

March 12th, 2016 at 4:13 PM ^

It's simpler than that. If we simply hadn't played two of those four awful RPI teams - like, have them drop off the schedule with no replacement - our RPI would be in the mid-40s right now and there'd be no question of us being in. Just playing those teams - even though we beat them by a million points - kills our RPI.

Joined: 12/14/2011

MGoPoints: 98770

Franz Schubert

March 12th, 2016 at 3:57 PM ^

Is teams showing the ability to beat tournament teams. A bunch of wins over non-tournament teams in the 50-100 range is not going to carry weight against wins against tournament teams. If a team hasn't proven that they can beat actual tournament teams why would they be taken over a team that has beaten 4 tournament locks? In fact, Michigan has 4 wins against teams that will be at worst top 5 seeds!!! And only a single loss to a non- tournament team OSU at #70. This is not even close.

Joined: 07/20/2009

MGoPoints: 4453

Leaders And Best

March 12th, 2016 at 4:15 PM ^

We have no wins over teams ranked 27-100 (0-5). The teams ranked 27-60 are many of the teams that are going to be playing in the tournament. You have to look at that in addition to our 4 marquee wins. We don't have a lot of solid wins and that is weighing us down.

Syracuse has FIVE wins against major conference teams that are going to be in the tournament, and they are probably going to be left out.

Joined: 09/09/2009

MGoPoints: 22534

Leaders And Best

March 12th, 2016 at 4:20 PM ^

I am perfectly fine with calling Texas a win over the #27 team. But that also means Michigan only has 3 top 25 wins now. You can't have it both ways. The cutoffs don't matter that much. The point I was making is that Michigan has some great wins which is a strong argument for them. But you also can't ignore that they have no wins of substance outside of that where a lot of other bubble teams do.

Joined: 09/09/2009

MGoPoints: 22534

Franz Schubert

March 12th, 2016 at 5:54 PM ^

At this point are wins over tournament teams. No bubble team has 4 wins over tournament teams like Michigan. Looking deeper, these are not wins over just tourney teams, Michigan will have 4 wins against possibly 4 seeds or better! On top of this, having only one loss to a team not in the tourney(OSU) is unheard of.

Joined: 07/20/2009

MGoPoints: 4453

Leaders And Best

March 12th, 2016 at 6:45 PM ^

Some of these bubble teams did not have the same opportunity to play 15 games against top 50 teams. And they would make the argument that they could go 4-11 or better against that same schedule. It's an apples to oranges comparison. Monmouth went 2-2 against the top 50 with all of those games away from home. Monmouth played 23 road/neutral games and went 17-6 in those games. Michigan went 9-7 in a similar comparison.

I am not endorsing Monmouth or arguing against Michigan's inclusion, but I think it is important to understand the arguments against Michigan and that Michigan getting in isn't as cut and dry as many on this board are making it seem.

Joined: 09/09/2009

MGoPoints: 22534

Franz Schubert

March 12th, 2016 at 6:58 PM ^

Lost 3 games to 200+ RPI teams which is horrendous. That is not what good teams have on their resume. Period. You are now talking in hypotheticals, how about looking at what the resume says. Monmouth has horrible losses and their best wins are still not as good as Michigan's. Not even close. Your comparisons of Syracuse first, and now Monmouth with Michigan are laughable. You can't make any arguments when you lose 3 games to 200+ teams. Good luck with that.

Joined: 07/20/2009

MGoPoints: 4453

Leaders And Best

March 12th, 2016 at 7:19 PM ^

I am not arguing for Monmouth over Michigan like I said before, but I don't think the case for Michigan is anywhere as cut and dry as you make it. Monmouth opened the season with 12 of their first 13 games on the road. Do you know how difficult that is? 2 of their 200+ losses happened during that stretch. All of those 200+ losses were on the road. I suggest you look at it. For a mid-major, I was pretty impressed.

KenPom himself has described how much more difficult road games are, and Monmouth has that argument in their favor. I am not saying it is right, but it is part of the discussion.

Joined: 09/09/2009

MGoPoints: 22534

ijohnb

March 13th, 2016 at 9:26 AM ^

think it is a lot more random right now than the committee/NCAA would like to admit. It is basically like a jury in a close case. If a member of the committee has a strong feeling for Michigan we will be in, if a member has a strong feeling against we will be out. We absolutely have the resume to be in should not be in the first four either, but for some reason public sentiment is pretty anti-UM for some reason and the Indiana win surprisingly did little to turn the tide. We need Beilein to be on every Sunday sports show advocating and articulating what you are saying but it is not something he engages in. I would prepare to be looking at NIT brackets tomorrow while Sportscenter does a special on Monmouth a day before they get their face punched in by whoever they play.

Joined: 09/21/2009

MGoPoints: 69986

Leaders And Best

March 12th, 2016 at 7:26 PM ^

I was making the point that there are teams that are not getting in the tournament who have more wins over tournament teams than Michigan as that was an argument for Michigan's inclusion. You asked for a team with more wins, and I gave you one.

Joined: 09/09/2009

MGoPoints: 22534

Muttley

March 12th, 2016 at 11:46 PM ^

4-9 against Lunardi six-seeds or better, 0-2 away against a 7 (Wiscy) & neutral against a 10 (or better) Connecticut.

Only one away loss to a non-tournament team, OSU which is a 4ish NIT seed according to Bracket Matrix.

I doubt there are more competitive 11 seeds out there.

Joined: 07/07/2009

MGoPoints: -73246

Leaders And Best

March 12th, 2016 at 4:10 PM ^

All we had to do was schedule a couple MAC teams instead of Delaware St and Bryant.

Part of it was out of Michigan's control. The Big Ten was so top heavy this year, and Michigan's schedule did not have home games against Wisconsin and OSU which hurt as those could have been potential resume building wins.

Joined: 09/09/2009

MGoPoints: 22534

SpaceDad

March 12th, 2016 at 10:28 PM ^

Four wins is a negative on the resume. However, those four wins are three against Top 25 RPI and one against Top 50 RPI. Also, I disagree that outside of the four wins that there is nothing of substance. Michigan has five wins (and no losses) againt RPI 100-125. These are wins against pretty good teams and should not be totally discounted.

Joined: 05/15/2015

MGoPoints: 494

Franz Schubert

March 12th, 2016 at 3:51 PM ^

We are 0-5 against teams ranked 26-70. Big difference. If you want to look at things objectively, tell me another bubble team that had 4 wins over absolute tourney field locks. Most of these bubble teams are lucky to have even one. I think the commitee will look at the tournament team wins metric as it's the most applicable when you consider its tournament entrance that's being determined. Michigan has exactly 1 loss to a team that's not in the field!!! SMU doesn't count because they would be a lock if eligible.

Joined: 07/20/2009

MGoPoints: 4453

Leaders And Best

March 12th, 2016 at 3:55 PM ^

The point is we have no wins over those teams--the type of teams you play in the 1st round and are competing against for the final bids in the Tournament. That record counts for something too, and some of the other bubble teams have more of those wins.

Joined: 09/09/2009

MGoPoints: 22534

Leaders And Best

March 12th, 2016 at 4:03 PM ^

The point I was making is you can't ignore that part of the resume either. And it is dragging Michigan down in comparison to other teams.

The semantics point was talking about 26-70 vs. 26-100. I was only making the point that Michigan had no success versus those teams.

Joined: 09/09/2009

MGoPoints: 22534

Franz Schubert

March 12th, 2016 at 4:06 PM ^

But that's an arbitrary and frankly not a real relevant range. Michigan's 4 wins against Top 5 seeds proves they are a tournament team. Beating 20 non tournament teams in the 50-100 range would not prove anything.

Joined: 07/20/2009

MGoPoints: 4453

Leaders And Best

March 12th, 2016 at 4:52 PM ^

You were the the one who made "Top 26" wins just to fit the Texas win in (and Texas is #27 now BTW), and talk about teams 50-100 while ignoring teams 25-50. The range is not important to my point; the quantity of solid wins is. Wins over other teams do matter. It may not matter as much as the marquee wins, but they are a factor.

Michigan went 0-2 against an ~7 seed Iowa, 0-1 against ~7 seed Wisconsin, 0-1 against ~10 seed UConn. They lost to a bubble team in Ohio State. They beat no teams in this range, and you have to look at this along with our marquee wins.

Joined: 09/09/2009

MGoPoints: 22534

bronxblue

March 12th, 2016 at 4:17 PM ^

Well, if by semantics you mean different fscts, sure. Look at a bunch of those bubble teams and you see a lot of their top 100 wins are in the 70s and above. UM isn't a great team, but they have a weird resume that doesn't fit into an easy narrative.

Joined: 11/22/2008

MGoPoints: 172112

Leaders And Best

March 12th, 2016 at 4:25 PM ^

That is the point I am making. People keep posting about Michigan's 4 wins, but ignoring everything else when you can't. Go look at Syracuse's resume. They can make a similar argument to what we are making about Michigan.

It is impossible to compare our resume with the same standards to Monmouth and St Mary's because they play a completely different schedule with different opportunities. I am not defending either position, but I am just trying to keep an open mind to both sides.

Joined: 09/09/2009

MGoPoints: 22534

Franz Schubert

March 12th, 2016 at 5:35 PM ^

Good wins are against teams that actually make the fucking tournament. Do you get that? 59-100 range wins against non tournament teams are not comparable to 4 wins against tournament teams, not just tournament teams but 5 seed or higher tournament teams. Do you not see the difference in beating legitimate tournament teams and non tournament teams?

Joined: 07/20/2009

MGoPoints: 4453

SagNasty

March 12th, 2016 at 3:34 PM ^

Michigan has to be in. Their resume is just as good as any other bubble team. They better not be in any of those play in games and either. Would love an 8 or a 9 seed with the chance to take down a number 1 seed if they could advance.



Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

Joined: 06/22/2011

MGoPoints: 944

bdneely4

March 12th, 2016 at 3:40 PM ^

Cbs has us as a potential 11 seed in a play in game. If we win, we would play Dayton. Living in Dayton, I would love to have the play in game in Dayton and then the chance to play Dayton. Only problem there is that I love this Dayton team. They are an athletic scrappy team.



Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

Joined: 01/06/2009

MGoPoints: 13954