Punching The Ticket: Yes, That Was Bad
Same. [Bryan Fuller/MGoBlog]
Surprise! Getting four cracks at a fourth top-100 victory only to fall short in all of them is bad for a team's NCAA Tournament chances. Michigan was already in a precarious spot heading into the weekend; after falling to Iowa, they need at least two wins in the Big Ten Tournament to avoid missing the dance for the second straight season.
Michigan's resumé as it currently stands:
Record: 20-11 (19-11 vs. D-I), 10-8 Big Ten
RPI: 70
KenPom: 54
RPI Strength of Schedule: 69
KP SOS: 54
RPI Top-50: 3-9
RPI 51-100: 0-2
RPI 101+: 16-0
Unless Penn State (#114) pulls some upsets in the BTT—they draw Ohio State in the second round for the right to play Michigan State—Michigan isn't going to pick up any more RPI top-100 victories without an upset over Indiana; that, of course, would require the Wolverines to beat Northwestern on Thursday, which KenPom projects has a 57% chance of happening.
Of the 89 brackets currently comprising the Bracket Matrix, Michigan makes only 46 of them, and the more recently updated brackets almost all omit the Wolverines; they're the second team left out of the field in the consensus. After updating his bracket last night, CBS's Jerry Palm placed M as one of the first four teams out, citing the lack of quality wins as the primary reason they're not in:
Michigan has fallen off the bracket for now. The Wolverines lost at home to Iowa 71-61 on Saturday to fall to 3-9 against the top 50, 3-11 against the top 100 and 10-11 against the top 200.
Those are all bad numbers. Michigan will have a lot of work to do in Indianapolis at the Big Ten tournament.
Michigan fell off the Yahoo big board. They're the fourth team out to ESPN's Joe Lunardi. Notably, Michigan is projected to miss the tourney before accounting for the inevitable bid-stealers that will arise from the conference tournaments this week. Even if the Wolverines get a lot of help from other bubble teams, it's difficult to see a path to the tournament that doesn't involve a victory against Indiana.
I guess I'll post a rooting guide anyway. Teams you want are in bold, bubble teams are in italics.
- Monmouth vs. Iona (MAAC championship) (tonight, 7 pm, ESPN)
- Green Bay vs. Valparaiso (Horizon semifinal) (tonight, 7 pm, ESPNU)
- Pepperdine vs. St. Mary's (WCC semifinal) (tonight, 9 pm, ESPN)
- BYU vs. Gonzaga (WCC semifinal) (tonight, 11:30 pm, ESPN2)*
- Syracuse vs. Pittsburgh (ACC 2nd round) (Wednesday, noon, ESPN)
- Washington State vs. Colorado (Pac-12 1st round) (Wednesday, 5:30, Pac-12 Network)
- UCLA vs. USC (Pac-12 1st round) (Wednesday, 9 pm, Pac-12 Network)
- Arizona State vs. Oregon State (Pac-12 1st round) (Wednesday, 11:30 pm, Pac-12 Network)
- Arkansas vs. Florida (SEC 2nd round) (Thursday, 1 pm, SEC Network)
- Butler vs. Providence (Big East quarterfinal) (Thursday, 2:30 pm, FS1)
- Penn State vs. Ohio State (Big Ten 2nd round) (Thursday, 6:30 pm, ESPN2)
*You want St. Mary's to beat the winner in the title game; both BYU and Gonzaga are on the bubble but the Zags are closer to getting in.
Great work spotting the outlier year, a year we papered our bad defense over with various NBA level talents + an experienced 5th year center in Jordan Morgan. Aside from that, looking at the data, does it seem like a winning strategy?
wow you are the most apologist of the apologists - really not worried at all?
If UM misses the tourney next year, will you be? What would it take for you to say JB just isn't getting it done?
Not trying to put you on blast, but you just don't seem to have any reservations.
Nobody feels like this is a team with a chance to make the sweet 16 next year (and for a team with UM's history and resources, there should be a reasonable expectation that there is a shot at least once every 3 years). What what you put the chances of that at?
Olm, Mr Rogers already has stated in this thread that he's ok with the hoops team as is becuase they play an "interesting" brand of basketball - as contrasted to Harbaugh's often boring brand of football. I'm not making it up - Dude said that.
So why is everone wasting anymore time trying to engage and debate someone who cares so little for winning and success? He is without doubt one of the last remaining Richrod loyalists, content to be entertained without concern for results.
In fact, he has stated a couple of times in this thread that defensive effective rate does not concern him or is not important. So, clearly we have someone that just wants to see shootouts in whatever the sport, any winning is just frosting on the cake.
So the perfect collegiate sport givien that interest level is baseball - aluminum bat slugfests. Do you enjoy that Mr Rogers? I'll bet you think THOSE games last too long?!
If you will notice that our best seasons correspond to when our DEff is the highest ranked.
Maybe what you are trying to say is that it's not important for us to have a top 10 or maybe even a top 20 when you consider the offensive efficiency. I agree. the defence only needs to be a little better than average, say top 40.
Of course he wouldn't, but there's a very vocal contingent on this site that is willing to accept mediocrity from the hoops team, because they couldn't care less about it.
"As long as Beilein continues to do things the right way and we make the tourney once a decade, we're fine."
Edit: See below.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
I'd actually be fine with it. As long as the games are entertaining, which the basketball team is. Fun offense to watch when it's humming.
Is that you richrod?
Except that it's been two years of coughing, sputtering, and throwing rods in 2nd gear.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
the offense has looked putrid in many games. No half court, poorly executed, chucking up a bad shot near the end of the shot clock.
the opposing team has a great flow because the defense has been just terrible.
you seem like a fan who just likes to watch a good offense and ignore defense - you tipped your hand by saying that watching football was a chore this year. The defense was a thing of beauty! I loved watching every game.
watching Michigan get the doors blown off time and time again in basketball has been the painful part.
Since when is getting our asses handed to us repeatedly by teams with a pulse "putting on a good show?"
I agree that the trajectory of the program doesn't look all that great right now. However, I disagree with your comparison comment. If we actually look at the facts, then Michigan basketball has made the tournament 17/30 times in the last 30 years for 56.66 percent (64-team field started in 1985). Beilein has made the tournament 5/9 in his time at Michigan for 55.55 percent. It looks like he is hitting the historical benchmark for tournament appearances.
a bump in the road. What a delightful little euphemism.
Mentioned yesterday and curious about your thougths on scholarship situation.
Right now we have to cut somebody next year or have somebody go to prep school, plus we are already full for 2017. (Many here would be aghast at this concept based on the flak Harbaugh took, but something has to give)
We have one player in the next two years who appears to be able to significantly contribute, Simpson. ( Yes Davis looks vastly improved, but big guys take awhile)
The only player IMO who has significant upside on the roster is Wagner.
This team is not getting much better for the next couple of years. Chatman, Doyle and Wilson have really hurt.
Contrast with MSU who is loaded with recruits right now for next year.
What year do you project the cycle to go up? Could this Bump last 4 years?
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
Fred, which GOOD NCAA pograms have missed the tournament in consecutive years?
Or are we not comparing ourselves to the good teams? Like, Yes, compare to Illinois, but No, don't compare to msu? Is that how we're grading this "bump in the road?"
If that's what we're settling for then I'll jump on the "let's kick the tires on a new coach" bandwagon...
Really!?! Don't get me wrong, I like spike, but he was far from a "top" player on the team. Emotional leader? Sure, I guess. But limited skill/athletic wise with limited upside. He was not a "move the needle" type of player.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
Comments