Nope. They set a school record for B10 road wins.
well that's just, like, your opinion, man
Nope. They set a school record for B10 road wins.
They have the talent to beat any team in the country, but I don't see them making the final four. Lucas is good, but I he's not a player that can completely take over a game (yet). I've been unimpressed with Morgan since his injury, and Roe is still developing. Their free throw shooting is a little suspect too. S16 or E8 for them.
The way the Big Ten is played, and how the refs call the games reall hurts State. They want to run up and down the court as fast as they can. When tournament play starts, they will be even better.
but for as much talent as they have they should be a better team.
Now that the regular season is over Michigan's wins over Duke and UCLA seem fraudulent. State is legitimate and will be at least elite 8. Izzo always does well in the tourney.
How do the wins over Duke and UCLA seem fradulent?
Son, that ain't fraud you smell, them's good ol' fashioned cowpies.
They are clearly the best team in a conference stocked with a lot of good but not great teams. That said I don't think they're quite in that upper echelon with UNC, UConn, Pitt, Oklahoma, etc.
I'm used to seeing such idiocy from Big East fans, but I'm surprised to see it here.
13-3 road/neutral record. 12-2 against RPI top 50, with the three sub-50 losses coming with either Morgan or Suton out. MSU is by no means a lock for the Final Four, obviously, and probably not one of the favorites to win it all, but they have to be considered on the short list of Final Four contenders.
they will be upset by the 3rd round.
Maybe they will get upset. But dude, take off the blinders, and the maize and blue goggles, and realize they're a good team. And that program has a recent history of making deep tourney runs
like I said, I've watched half of their games. They play down to their opponents; they've pulled off some wins that could have very easily been losses. On a neutral court against a team that suddenly gets hot, I don't think they advance.
So based on what I've watched I don't see them going very far; I feel that the probability of them being upset(in reality) is significantly greater than the probability derived from strictly looking at their record.
Tell you what, I'll bookmark this thread and we will revisit it in a couple weeks. I'll admit they were better than I thought they were if they make it past the 3rd round.
I think their athleticism has carried them most of the year... they easily outclass all other Big10 teams in that aspect in almost all 5 starters and the first 2 bench guys.
That said, I agree they don't possess the "killer instinct", or maybe the "top gear" needed to make a big run in the big show.
A solid, uptempo mid-major could hand it to them if they don't put them away... however that can happen to anyone come the Tourney...
"... they've pulled off some wins that could have very easily been losses." - but they weren't losses. Good teams tend to win these games, and bad teams lose them.
"On a neutral court against a team that suddenly gets hot, I don't think they advance." - I think that goes for just about every team in the tournament.
I'm as tired of MSU basketball as anyone, but I'll admit they have a damn strong team.
"I'll admit they were better than I thought they were if they make it past the 3rd round."
It's very generous of you to withhold judgment as to whether MSU is any good until they make the Elite 8. I appreciate that you don't think they are a national championship-type team, but withholding due credit until 3 NCAA Tourney wins is kinda like saying "I'll admit they were better than I thought once it patently obvious to the whole world."
Where is the idiocy? All of the posters here (except one) agreed that State is a top 16 team with loads of potential. A near-consensus like this is pretty rare in the MGoWorlds. It isn't "idiocy" to think the #8 team in the country and a probable 2 seed won't make the final four. The only (projected) final four team they've played beat them by 35. It is fair to have doubts.
Hey man I want to be in your bracket pool. Where do I sign up?
I'd be a little worried that their leading scorer is so inefficient at scoring (eFG% well below 50), but they're no fraud. They're not at the level of UNC, UConn, Pitt, but they should certainly make it past the first weekend of the tournament. They've been excellent on the road.
I don't smell anything fraudulent about State, only Ohio State.
Which like, duh.
They're a top ten team. Never doubt the Izzo.
Maybe next time when you run your point by someone, you should listen to their response. Glad you came out to Commune last night though.
I think Izzold has built a team to win the Big Ten conference, but will not fare as well when they play teams from conferences where the refs reward finesse instead of power. That is why they did so badly against ACC teams; they are a football team with basketball uniforms. That works in the Big Ten, but not in the Big East or ACC.
It is also why UM did so well against UCLA, Duke, and kept it close against UConn.
In the NCAA's, it depends on what kind of crew you get, but it is hard not to run into that one crew that bites you in the ass when you play as physically as MSU does.
That's weird. In the parallel universe I must live in (Planet Earth, third from the sun, the year is 2009) you could reasonably argue MSU has performed better in the post-season than during the Big 10 season, as evidenced by this :
MSU since 2000
3 regular season titles (00, 01, 09)
Final Four: 00, 01, 05
Elite Eight: 03
Sweet 16: 08
That's one final four, one sweet sixteen, and one elite eight in years they did not even win the Big 10 championship. And a National Title, but they won the Big 10 as well, so let's forget it happened. Yes, they were upset a couple times, but that's kinda bound to happen when you make the tourney every single damn year.
Your thinking of Purdue and Wisconsin.
are not good shooting team. Obviously they can rebound to compensate for their spotty shooting. If they face a team that can really rebound, MSU might be in big time trouble because they don't have Plan B when they can't rebound from missed shots.
I actually think the exact opposite. MSU is deep and talented. They could win the whole thing if they catch a couple breaks.
exposed them. As would UConn, Pitt, Louisville, and Oklahoma. And they would probably face one of them before the Final Four, and lose.
Potentially losing to the 4-5 best teams in the country is not getting "exposed."
I think everyone agrees that MSU is a sweet 16 team for sure, maybe farther if they play well, how the hell is that fraudulent?
To put it another way, not being one of the 4 best teams in the country makes them a fraud?
This is a pretty weak line of argument.
He's saying that the #8 team in the country not being as good as the top 5 = "exposed".
I love how people look at Michigan's chances in the Big Ten tournament optimistically, saying that they could get to the championship game even though they are vastly undersized and rely heavily on low-percentage shots, yet Michigan State, a team that has proven themselves with a near-perfect Big Ten road record, is full of holes and must be fraudulent because they...what? Play exceptional defense? Have a high level of size and talent? Lost to North Carolina, arguably the most talented team in the country? They are a good team with a good coach, there is nothing fraudulent about them
you don't see us making claims of going to the Final Four though.
Michigan, on a good day, could beat anyone. Flip a coin, twice. Did you manage to get two heads in a row? Congratulations, you're in the Sweet Sixteen.
are 50:50 like a coin toss?
How many "good days" does Michigan have in a season?
Does a "good day" against Purdue still amount to a win if the opponent is UNC?
I can think of two good days; UCLA and Duke.
Has Michigan been able to string two together? No. Is it possible?
I think if there was any environment that it would be made manifest, this would be it.
You can say the same thing about basically every team in the tournament; given the right environment, anyone can make a run. This tournament is full of great teams. The reason that Michigan is on the bubble is because they have had fewer "good days" and more "bad days" than 30 or 40 other teams. It is much less likely that Michigan will win two NCAA tournament games, which would have to be victories over teams with higher seeds, than for Michigan State to win three NCAA tournament games, which would all be victories over teams ranked lower than them assuming they are a 2 seed.
I think that the problem most people have with your argument is that you don't define fraudulent. Assuming their #2 seed holds, Michigan State is expected to get to the Elite Eight, which is where most of the people in this thread believe they will end up. I don't know why you think that they have to get to the Final Four to not be considered a fraudulent team
"It is much less likely that Michigan will win two NCAA tournament games, which would have to be victories over teams with higher seeds, than for Michigan State to win three NCAA tournament games, which would all be victories over teams ranked lower than them assuming they are a 2 seed."
I disagree. From the games I have watched, I feel that kurtosis is about to show itself, which is probably how I should have phrased my original post;
I hope we are going to see something with a high level of improbability.
Go Blue, long live the Fat Tail.
State has played a tough schedule and only lost 5 games. That number would likely be 4 had Goran Suton not been injured against Maryland. He's no All-American, but he makes a big difference when he's on the floor, and it may have been enough to beat the Terps.
They'll make the sweet 16, probably the Elite 8, possibly the Final Four. That said, even if they lose in the sweet 16, I don't think that makes them under achievers. Unless you're one of the top top teams, the sweet 16 is an achievement.
I also think that MSU is a fraud. Where is this recent history of runs in the tourney? They've had 1 final four in the past 7 seasons, along with 3 first round exits and 1 second round exit. In all of these games but 2002 they were the higher seed.
How many of those teams lost only three games (only one of which was on the road) in a conference this good? We are not talking about the last seven years, we are talking about this year's Michigan State team, which is really good. Nobody thinks that they are good enough to win the whole thing, but they absolutely have the ability to get deep into the tournament
They are a sweet 16 team at best.
Right, which would prove that they aren't a fraud. A sweet 16 appearance is an achievement and would be considered a successful season for Sparty.
Technically, if you are a #2 seed (which MSU probably will be), the bracket projects you to advance to the regional final. Losing in the Sweet 16 would constitute mild underachievement.
MSU will probably need to win the B10 tourney to get a 2 seed, but maybe not. If your team is Big Ten champs and makes the sweet 16, I can't see that as too much of a bust season.
Not really. A Big Ten Championship and an appearance in the Sweet 16 would be a damn good season for MSU. I would expect them to be ranked in the preseason top 5 next year and a favorite to reach the Final Four.
To be clear, I'd take a season like that anyday. But based strictly on seeding, a #2 seed is supposed to reach the regional final. Every game before that is against a lower-seeded team.
Technically, you're right. However, their likely defeater would be the 3-seed, and losing to a team one seed below you on a neutral court is an upset by definition only, and certainly not considered much of a let down.
I didn't say sweet 16 is a bust. However, I hardly consider that "Deep" into the tournament.
they could have beaten out GVSU for a few "sleeper" recruits from the West Side of the state, I would pencil them in for a Final 4 birth.
I thought it was absurd for some to demand that MSU make the Elite Eight to consider MSU to be a quality team this year. Not only did MSU meet those demands but (win or lose--game still going on as I type), I 'd say they surpassed them.
yeah i remember the ridiculousness of this thread, they are going to be in the final four, therefore not overrated or under-performing by any metric.
Agreed. Let us agree that the term "fraudulent" never be used to describe MSU / Izzo in the tournament.
I'm very impressed with MSU.
It's really funny to see some of the original responses now knowing they're in the final four and have beaten the "almighty" Louisville.
Sorry, I'm still unrepentant.
for those cheering for msu:
You're saying that any given year, when we are in contention for an in-state prospect, who may or may not end up being a great player (I'm not saying that Ziegler will or will not be a Manny-like player), you're pulling for our in state rival who would be considered one of the top 4 teams in the country?
And this hypothetical player could be a banner player that could lead Michigan deeper into the Tournament, in the future, if we got him?
And you're will to take this risk profile for the sake of the public have a better perception of the B10?
Yeah, msu winning in 2000 was a great combination with the staff at the time. Truly great for our program.
If Ziegler's criteria was "I'm going to the better program", we weren't in contention before this game tipped off. MSU, today, is a far, far, far superior program to UM.
thanks for reminding us of that. Everyone here on this Michigan message board is now better off because this has been clarified.
Dude, even if you did graduate from here, just go pay your donation to RCMB and hang out there. They're a superior program. Worth your time. Really.
So, rather than responding to my rebuttal, you're just going to scream "troll". That's an indication of your desire to have an actual debate about.
I'm going to repaste this from the other thread, because I really have a desire to set this straight.
Your point that since msu operates at a different level and that them winning today doesn't change anything?
No, I philosophically disagree. I'm going to steal a quote here, but I'm going with "Life is a game of inches". Today, with msu winning, we were put an inch back.
And I love Michigan to that extent that I won't give up a single inch. I won't acknowledge my rivals success. I will cheer for my rivals if Michigan gains something from it(like going to the national championship game), but I think I've already established my view that the delta created between the two schools (in basketball) is much larger than the positive publicity generated by the B10 being in the Final Four.
And yes, I do think you're an msu fan. Which I have no problem with. But just be honest about it.
an MSU fan.
However, you do seem to be totally consumed with hate and envy of Michigan State's basketball program, and it clouds you judgment. The threads you launched today, along with your replies in this one, really do seem to confirm that.
You say that you love Michigan to that extent that I won't give up a single inch. Why? What about the University is it that you love so much that it causes you to hate all of their rivals? Do they teach this there now? Was it a 2 or 3 credit course?
I seem to have missed out of those lectures.
Is it really so hard to recognize when a rival well, and congratulate them?
What? Where have I said that I hate msu? I've stated nothing of the sort in any of my replies. I ignore them. I question their success. I was wrong when I thought they wouldn't go to the final four. I've stated I was wrong.
I love it to the extent that I feel that even when my rivals win, it incrementally (inch by inch) takes something away from Michigan, in most circumstances. There are exceptions to this, such as:
"I have no problem cheering for my rivals if it helps Michigan"
I thought I included that in my last post.
you certainly have not "seized the day"
neither have you addressed my argument. sigh eventually admitted that I was right. Still waiting for you to do the same.
I made a pretty concise articulation as to why I thought I was right. I admitted when I was wrong. You've typed in caps in a couple of threads; 'PWNED' and 'LULZ'.
Wow. You're on top of value add food chain here, clearly. At least I get a catharsis out of this.
It doesn't deserve the respect of being refuted. You can be a Michigan fan without making pointless, baseless accusations against other teams. It sounds like you've been spending too long on RCMB and have drunk too deeply from that cup of sour grapes and envy.
Let me know when you're able to refute my argument.
Your pou-pou'ing and ad-hominem emboldens the fact that you can't.
And why are you chastising my desire for Michigan to be better than msu in basketball?
And you can't spell poo-pooing.
I am not chastising you for your desire for Michigan to be better than MSU in basketball, I'm chastising you for being a dumbass. (Note: Now THAT'S ad hominem, though your previous posts make it more like QED.)
Ad hominem is attacking a person instead of attacking the merit of the argument presented. Which you still haven't done.
And I don't need to go ad hominem against you. Because we both know I'm right.
You say you're not chastising me yet you say that I'm envious? Lets not move the goalposts here.
But correct, no.
Also, learn to read: I am chastising you, but not for the reason you claimed. There is nothing wrong with desiring Michigan to be better. Also when you keep editing your posts, it makes it difficult to respond.
First of all, LULZ, you've been PWNED all day.
Second of all, yes I did address your argument. I think. It's difficult to even know what your argument even is as you have created 3 different posts and added numerous new comments. Here's what I wrote:
I never said MSU winning is good for Michigan, one way or the other. I was just having a good time messing with you.
Seriously though, I don't really care if they win or lose. I just like following Michigan. I'm glad they are in the Final Four because it's good for Detroit for them to be there.
"Seriously though, I don't really care if they win or lose. I just like following Michigan. I'm glad they are in the Final Four because it's good for Detroit for them to be there."
Say msu wins it all. Say they get a few really good players that they previously weren't going to get, but because of their success, they managed to have them sign a LOI. These players go on and beat Michigan soundly in 2011 and 2012.
I can't possibly be indifferent to this. I am cheering against msu because in the spectrum of possible outcomes, this is one I do not wish to see happen.
I don't understand why this set of outcomes doesn't shock and somewhat scare people here. Haven't we experienced this with OSU?
Let me ask you something; were you cheering for OSU in '02 '06 and '07? Or were you indifferent? Because this ended up being pretty bad for Michigan.
(Chris, please let me know if I got the years wrong. Then again, I'm sure you would have let know anyways).
allegiance to Michigan?
Let me ask you something; were you cheering for OSU in '02 '06 and '07? Or were you indifferent? Because this ended up being pretty bad for Michigan.
And if success on the field translated to success in recruiting, then Bud Wilkinson's Oklahoma teams that won 50+ games in a row would still be on a winning streak.
again though, I still am waiting for someone to show me how this isn't zero sum, how our rivals success hasn't inflicted harm against Michigan, and how cheering against our rivals based on the reasoning I've stated here numerous times, is irrational.
The questioning of allegiance is based on the fact that I find it strange that people can be so cavalier about a series of events, that have a high probability of transpiring, that may cause harm to Michigan.
Durham, straight up - has OSU's recent success hurt Michigan. Yes or no?
how a rival losing in a tournament (MSU) has any positive impact on UM whatsoever. Who, specifically, recruit-wise, have we lost out on, because they are a little more successful?
OSU, same thing (and Pryor, was gone to OSU, UM was not in it).
It all just comes across as sour grapes and envy. And in my book, that makes for a bad sports fan.
previously still stands.
Has recent success at OSU hurt Michigan?
At most, extremely marginally to the point of being indistinguishable. Did Cooper's failures at OSU (2-9-1 against UM) doom OSU. Did UM's national championship in 1997 doom OSU? We all know the history since then.
These things did not perpetuate themselves. Otherwise, how do you account for the rise and fall of certain programs (USC in the late 80's and 90's, Univ. of Washington, FSU prior to 86 was nothing, Miami prior to 83, Alabama and Texas in their down years, etc, etc.)?
It is infinitely more important what UM and its coaching staffs do that what our rivals do. We can't be all-successful. Don't begrudge other programs their accomplishments.
I have a different opinion, but I will save it for another day.
And for Durham, Chris, et el., I hope you don't doubt the fact that I have an strong love (obsession for?) of Michigan. We just don't see eye to eye on potential harms brought against Michigan.
If you haven't visited MGoVideo.com, check it out. I've poured hundreds of hours into getting the 2008 Football season into numerous formats (HD .mp4, WS.DVD, 720p/1080i for the classics) available for people to watch and remember (although this past season was mostly worth forgetting). Some games from the 2008-2009 basketball season too.
So yeah, I love my Wolverines.
And lest we doubt your credibility when it comes to your sporting opinions, we can always fondly refer to the first post in this thread.
Yes, the level of civility that you've treated everyone with gives me a burning desire to support your website.
Recent success? Ohio State has pretty much always been good.
it bleeds through the context of your posts.
Why do you think that other teams success (whether Big Ten or otherwise) detract from Michigan? If find that attitude bizarre. And why must everything help Michigan?
When a friend of yours has success, do you think that it detracts from you? Do you have the attitude that "it isn't enough that I succeed, but all my friends must fail?"
Make no mistake, a conference is not formed because the charter schools hate each other. The lasting ones, like friends, form because of common values and goals. Trust me, the administrations and faculties of the Big Ten schools do not hate each other (quite the opposite, actually), just the rabid, irrational fans.
Yes! Life/nature, to a degree, is like that. There are so many seats at the table. So many spots in medical, law, dental, graduate school. There are winners, and there are losers. And to the Victors, go the spoils.
In basketball, there can only be a select few. You're either in or your out. And I want Michigan basketball to be back in.
this year, last year, nor the past 10 years. Yet Michigan State was, and you begrudge them that. That is irrational hatred.
In the things I did not accomplish in my life (like getting into MIT) I did not hate those that did. I do not wish them to subsequently fail, now that they are "seated at the table."
Their failure would have absolutely no impact on my success or failure. Neither does MSU's.
Michigan State does not need to get worse or fail more. Michigan just needs to get better.
And we please drop the hate thing? I'm still waiting for someone to show me where I've typed the word hate in all of this. You say it comes through contextually but the only scaffolding I've given to my entire line of argument is exclusively Michigan's.
I believe that there is probability in that somewhere in the progression of events there was an opportunity (a recruit, perhaps) that could have drastically changed the course of future events. Who knows.