Chances of winning the B1G, per KenPom - 100%!

Submitted by J. on

So, as it turns out, no fancy probabilities were required.  I'm writing this because I said that I would give an update, not because any of us needed it.  With the Wisconsin game still to come, since my last update, everything has, stunningly, gone perfectly for the Wolverines.  Based on the pre-game numbers, KenPom suggested that if Illinois were to play 100 games in East Lansing, Sparty would win 85.  Maybe the lack of injuries affected their psyche, or maybe they got unlucky -- or maybe you can't really predict sports. :-)  Luckily for Illinois, and for us, they didn't have to win 100 times at Breslin -- just once.

The Fighting Illini's improbable win, coupled with Michigan's defeat of a plucky Golden Gopher squad, assures Michigan of a Big Ten title.  Their regular season record histogram, according to the KenPom update:

15-3 50%
14-4 44%
13-5 6%

To earn a title share, either Staee or Wisconsin would have to win out; per KenPom, Sparty has a 17% chance, and Wisconsin has a 42% chance.

Putting this all together, the Wolverines have a 97% chance of an outright title.

Let's not kid ourselves, though.  Winning at Illinois is going to be tough, and Indiana is always a challenge.  None of us is going to feel completely confident until the outright title is clinched, but chances have never looked so good.

BTW, Michigan has also clinched no worse than a #2 seed in the Big Ten tournament.  Michigan wins a three-way tie or a head-to-head tie with Sparty.  The winner of a Wisconsin/Michigan tie that did not include the Spartans would depend upon who finishes #4.  However, none of us wants to be concerned with tiebreakers or who beat whom further down the standings.  The team has two bites at the apple and just needs one of them to count.  Win one, and we'll all party like it's 1986. ;-)

Go Blue!

Comments

MMB 82

March 2nd, 2014 at 8:41 AM ^

will have a huge chip on their shoulder, wanting to beat their arch-rival B1G champ opponent at home, and they have been playing well the last few games. No let-downs! Go Blue!

freejs

March 2nd, 2014 at 10:00 AM ^

Now this one, we can all get behind!

Illinois kind of presents a fun and interesting challenge. Road game, very hostile environment, team that is playing well and will come out with guns blazing. 

I think and hope we play much better defense than what I saw from MSU yesterday, and that we value the ball a heck of a lot better than they did. 

This will be a great game to see where we are, and as long as there is no hangover, you have to like where we are. The buy in from every kid on this team seems so damn high right now. And they definitely have seen the start of the reward, so let's hope they are ready to keep it rolling!

SF Wolverine

March 2nd, 2014 at 10:58 AM ^

Read a lot tougher than ten days ago. Neither is anything approaching a gimme; both schools would love to take a bite out of the B10 champ. Good tests for Coach B. and the team.

BiSB

March 2nd, 2014 at 10:59 AM ^

That sounds too high. That would mean the chances of not winning a Big Ten title are 0%. Which means, uh... SOMEONE BRING ME MY CALCULATOR, ASAP.

champswest

March 2nd, 2014 at 2:31 PM ^

earlier, when they were really struggling.

The B1G network just showed a bracket if the games were to start today.  We would be the #1 seed and play the winner of Indiana/Illinois (our last two opponents).

Jobu

March 2nd, 2014 at 8:02 PM ^

Pretty cool that we are about to do something for the first time since before I was born. '89 nation represent! Go Blue let's beat the Illini!

Kilgore Trout

March 3rd, 2014 at 12:07 PM ^

Small quibble, but I think the #1 seed is guaranteed unless State falls out of third, which is really unlikely (they'd have to lose out while Iowa or Nebraska won out). In a two way tie with Wisconsin, UM would get the #1 seed because, as pointed out in item 2b below, 2-0 against MSU is better than 1-0.

TWO-TEAM TIE

1. Results of head-to-head competition during the regular season.

2. Each team's record vs. the team occupying the highest position in the final regular season standings (or in the case of a tie for the championship, the next highest position in the regular season standings) continuing down through the standings until one team gains an advantage.

  • A. When arriving at another pair of tied teams while comparing records, use each team's record against the collective tied teams as a group (prior to their own tie-breaking procedures), rather than the performance against the individual tied teams.
  • B. When comparing records against a single team or a group of teams, the higher winning percentage shall prevail, even if the number of games played against the team or group is unequal (i.e., 2-0 is better than 3-1); in the case of tied percentages vs. the team or group of 1.000 or .000 the following shall apply: 2-0 is better than 1-0; 0-1 is better than 0-2.

3. Won-loss percentage of all Division I opponents.

4. Coin toss conducted by the Commissioner or designee

J.

March 4th, 2014 at 9:19 AM ^

Those appear to be the 2008 tiebreaking procedures.  It looks like they were changed in 2012.  I'm not able to find the 2014 procedures specifically listed on the Big Ten website, but here are the 2013 rules:

http://www.bigten.org/sports/m-baskbl/spec-rel/110512aac.html

A. Two-team tie:



1. Results of head-to-head competition during the regular-season.



2. Each team's record vs. the team occupying the highest position in the final regular-season standings (or in the case of a tie for the championship, the next highest position in the regular-season standings), continuing down through the standings until one team gains an advantage.



a. When arriving at another pair of tied teams while comparing records, use each team's record against the collective tied teams as a group (prior to their own tie-breaking procedures), rather than the performance against the individual tied teams.



b. When comparing records against a single team or a group of teams, the higher winning percentage shall prevail, even if the number of games played against the team or group are unequal (i.e., 2-0 is better than 3-1, but 2-0 is not better than 1-0).