mfan_in_ohio

Michigan should be in the NCAA tournament.  For proof, let’s compare their resume to some other bubble teams. Warning: this is a REALLY long post.

First things first: who are those bubble teams?  Well, among power 5 conferences, you have Vanderbilt, Syracuse, and South Carolina; among mid-majors, you have San Diego State, St. Mary’s, Monmouth, Temple, and Wichita State.  Along with Michigan, that’s nine teams, with (currently) five spots available, four if UConn loses to Memphis.  So if we can show that Michigan is more deserving than at least five of these teams, they should be in. 

If you don’t want to read it all, here is a summary:

Last bye (for now): Wichita State.

Next three spots: St. Mary’s, Temple, Michigan

Bubble spot: Syracuse

First four out (for now): South Carolina, Vanderbilt, Monmouth, San Diego State

 

We are all familiar with Michigan’s resume at this point, but a quick recap:

· 4-11 against NCAA tournament locks, with the four wins against teams expected to be seeded in the 3-6 range in the NCAA tournament, and the loss to Connecticut being the only one of that group to a team expected to be seeded 8 or below.

· 0-1 against NIT-level competition, a loss at Ohio State

· 8-0 against teams 101-200

· 9-0 against teams 201+

 

We’ll start with Wichita State, a team that most bracketologists have in the field.  The Shockers (giggle) have a 23-8 record in a solid mid-major conference, with an RPI of 49.  While they have a very strong nonconference win at home against Utah (a probable 3-seed in the NCAA tournament), they lost their other three efforts against the RPI top 50.  In addition, they are only 3-4 against teams 51-100, and two of those three wins are against #93 Evansville.  To put it another way, Wichita State is 2-7 against the top 75 (NCAA/NIT teams), a good comparison point for Michigan, since all of our top 100 teams are in that range.  Finally, Wichita State has a “bad” loss, at #114 Illinois St. To sum up:

· Both teams have approximately the same winning percentage against both the RPI top 50 and against NCAA/NIT competition.  In both instances, Michigan’s opponents were, on average, of a slightly higher caliber, and they had a slightly better winning percentage.

· Michigan has a better “best” win, as Indiana and Utah are roughly equivalent, but Michigan’s win was at a neutral (road, really) site.

· Wichita State has a bad loss that Michigan doesn’t.

· Wichita State was the regular season champ in their conference (a conference which would have only had one bid had the Shockers won their tournament). 

Verdict: Without the loss to Illinois State, these two profiles are pretty even.  That loss should place them below Michigan, but I bet the committee has the Shockers higher (though not as high as Lunardi does). So we'll give Wichita State the nod.

 

Vanderbilt's resume is pretty similar to Wichita State's, but a little worse. The Commodores are 2-7 against RPI top 50 teams, versus Michigan’s 4-11.  Granted, all of their games are against the top 27, so their competition was (very slightly) more difficult.  Vanderbilt racked up five wins against three losses against NIT-level teams (and Stony Brook).  They also have three bad losses. They played five non-conference games against the RPI top 50, but lost them all.  Summary:

· Michigan has a better RPI, for what it’s worth, which isn’t much.

· Michigan has a better record overall, and a better record against top teams.

· Michigan has no bad losses, while Vanderbilt has three.

· The only thing Vanderbilt has going for it is a better record against NIT teams, which will bode well for them in the NIT.

Verdict: Michigan should be ahead of Vanderbilt.  19-13 in the SEC, with no big nonconference wins and three bad losses, doesn’t deserve a bid. 

 

Let’s stay with the SEC and discuss South Carolina.  The Cocks (more giggling) have a weird resume for a power 5 team.  They only have 2 games against NCAA locks: they were crushed at home by Kentucky and eked out a road win at Texas A&M.  They were undefeated in their nonconference schedule, but the best teams in that schedule were bubble team Tulsa and NIT-bound Hofstra.  The other 10 were composed of 4 against the RPI 101-200 and 6 against the RPI 201+.  The Gamecocks also have two losses in the RPI 101-200 and one to #221 Missouri, who went 3-15 in the SEC (for comparison, think Minnesota).  Summary:

· Michigan has a better RPI.

· South Carolina has a better record, but played a ridiculously weak nonconference schedule.

· South Carolina has the better “best” win, and is 5-4 against NIT teams (Florida, Hofstra, Vanderbilt, Georgia, Alabama)

· South Carolina has three bad losses, one of which is awful.

Verdict: South Carolina’s schedule is basically what you get if you take Vanderbilt’s schedule, take out all the losses to top 50 teams, and replace them with wins over tomato cans. I don’t think the Gamecocks deserve to be in the tournament based on their weak nonconference schedule. Had they beaten Missouri but lost to Texas A&M, they wouldn’t even be discussed.  I don’t think that a single game should take them from middling NIT team into the tournament, and Michigan has better proven the ability to compete with good teams and has no bad losses.  South Carolina is probably ahead of Vanderbilt based on head-to-head, but Michigan should be ahead of both.

 

Next: Monmouth.  The Hawks got a lot of hype early this year from some high-profile wins over UCLA, Georgetown, USC, and Notre Dame.  Unfortunately for Monmouth (and its entertaining bench), UCLA and Georgetown proved to be Penn State-level competition. This leaves their RPI just above Michigan’s, at #53. The Hawks are 2-2 against the RPI top 50, with all games against teams expected to be seeded around the 7-8 spot.  They are 1-2 against Iona, the only team they played in the RPI 51-100. Critically, however, they have three losses in the RPI 201+.  Those aren’t “bad” losses, they are “horrible” losses.  By comparison, the teams on Michigan’s schedule closest to those three losses were Houston Baptist (an 82-57 home win) and Charlotte (a 102-47 win in the Bahamas).  Summary:

· Monmouth has a better winning percentage than Michigan against the best teams on the Hawks’ schedule.

· Michigan is 4-7 against teams better than anyone Monmouth played.

· Monmouth’s three horrible losses should negate their best wins.

· Low- to mid-major teams with RPI’s above 50 never get into the tournament.  By comparison, Akron has an RPI of 36, and they’re not getting in either.

Verdict: I understand the Bilas types saying that Monmouth did what the committee would ask by scheduling good nonconference teams away from home.  However, the committee also asks teams not to lose to Army and Canisius.  Maybe Lunardi is right, and the committee will let them in, but I don’t think so.  Michigan should be ahead of Monmouth.

 

While we’re talking about mid majors with few big wins, let’s talk about St. Mary’s.  The Gaels boast a gaudy 26-5 record, but against a schedule that includes 18 RPI sub-200 teams, five of which were on their nonconference schedule (by comparison, Michigan’s oft-maligned nonconference schedule included six such teams).  The five losses include their only game against a top tournament team (California), going 2-1 against Gonzaga (who would have been a bubble team without the autobid), a split with NIT- or Vegas 16-bound BYU, and two bad losses, both to Pepperdine.  The problem that St. Mary’s has is that their best nonconference results are wins over UC Irvine, Stanford, and Grand Canyon. 

Verdict: Theirs is a hard resume to figure, and I like their resume better than Monmouth’s due to its lack of horrible losses.  Also, Monmouth played just as many 200+ teams as St. Mary's, but St. Mary's at least beat them all.  I’m going to put them just ahead of Michigan, and I think the First Four is a good place for a team like St. Mary’s that really hasn’t had a good enough chance to prove their worth.

 

Up next: Temple.  The Owls are the regular-season champ of the American conference, a multi-bid league.  They should be in, right?  Well, they also went 6-6 in their non-conference schedule and got beat pretty bad by a Connecticut team that had just played a 4 OT game the day before.  Temple played six NCAA tournament teams in their non-conference schedule – and lost all six games. Their next best nonconference win was against Fairleigh Dickinson, a sub-200 RPI team.    While they finished with a 21-11 record (Michigan is 21-12), 14 of those games are against the RPI 201+, including six nonconference games.  They also split with NIT teams Tulsa and Houston, and RPI #136 Memphis.  Finally, they have a “horrible” loss at #217 East Carolina.  Summary:

· Temple has a better record against NCAA teams, but four of their 5 wins were against bubble-ish teams Cincinnati and UConn.  Against teams seeded 1-8 (and SMU), they are 1-6.  Michigan is 4-10 against the same group, for double the winning percentage. 

· Temple beat SMU and was 2-1 against UConn, while Michigan lost to both.

· Temple has a bad loss to Memphis and a horrible loss to East Carolina, while Michigan has none.

Verdict: This is close, but I give a slight edge to Temple.  This is a tough call, because Michigan has an excellent win over Texas and the near-road win against Indiana is at least as good as Temple’s home win over an SMU team that had recently lost its best player to a transfer.  Also, the teams have almost the exact same record, but Michigan’s schedule is significantly harder. However, Temple has a better record against top 50 and top 100 teams, and against tournament teams, and the bad losses might not negate that. 

 

Speaking of conference champs that lost in their tournament, Steve Fisher’s San Diego State appeared on the bubble with a loss to Fresno State.  The Aztecs are 1-4 against the top 50, with a neutral site win vs. Cal, and losses to Kansas, West Virginia, and Utah (all top teams) to go with a home loss against Arkansas-Little Rock (Sun Belt champ, RPI 46, seeded around 12^th if they win their tournament). They went 1-2 against Fresno State (RPI 66), won at #72 Long Beach State, and lost to #92 Grand Canyon at home.  San Diego State also has a bad loss at home against Boise State, and a truly horrible loss against RPI 302 San Diego.  That’s really bad, and easily the worst single loss by any bubble team. For comparison to teams on Michigan’s schedule, San Diego falls somewhere between Northern Kentucky and Bryant, and is worse than Rutgers.

· Michigan has a better record against the RPI top 50, and a better “best” win (Indiana > Cal).

· San Diego State is 2-3 against the RPI 51-100 (which is pretty weak for a bubble team). That puts their record against the top 100 at 3-7, and, unlike Michigan, half those games are against NIT-level competition.

· Their two bad losses include a truly horrible loss, while Michigan has no bad losses.

Verdict: The Aztecs should not be in the field.  Like South Carolina, they have just one win over a top 50 team, but they had 5 tries to do it, one of which was a home game against Arkansas-Little Rock in which they scored only 43 points.  Their record against the RPI 51-100 suggests that they would struggle in the NIT, and they have a horrible loss that negates their one good win. They shouldn’t be in, and, personally, I don’t think they should be close.

 

Lastly, Syracuse.  This is a team that most bracketologists are leaving out, but I am not so sure.  They are 5-9 against likely tournament teams (and Louisville), though five of those games are against near-bubble teams (including losing three to Pitt).  They are 3-1 against NIT-type competition, and have two bad losses (one of which was at home) and a horrible loss by double digits at #245 St. John’s (The Red Storm’s next best win was over #184 Wagner).  Summary:

· Their record against NCAA-level teams is roughly equal to Michigan’s.  They have more wins, but had the benefit of playing more bubble teams than Michigan did.

· 3-1 against the NIT is better than what Michigan mustered, though Michigan only had one road game in that group.

· The two bad losses and the one awful loss more than negate that advantage.

Verdict: Slight edge to Michigan, but it’s close. 

 

Overall, this bubble is a mess, and there will be people putting forth lots of combinations of these nine teams to fill the final four or five spots in the tournament.  As for me, here’s how I see it:

Last bye (for now): Wichita State.

Next three spots: St. Mary’s, Temple, Michigan

Bubble spot: Syracuse

First four out (for now): South Carolina, Vanderbilt, Monmouth, San Diego State

We'll know how wrong I am by 7 pm.

Saturday’s championship (and 3rd place) games caused a couple of changes to the final Pairwise rankings.  Michigan had already locked up the #2 overall seed, but there were still a few spots up for grabs entering play on Saturday, and in a couple instances, teams could have ended up as high as #3 overall, and as low as #10 or #11.  Here are Saturday’s results:

CCHA championship: Western Michigan beat Michigan

CCHA 3rd place: Miami beat BG

Atlantic Hockey championship: Air Force beat RIT

ECAC championship: Union beat Harvard

ECAC 3rd place: Cornell beat Colgate

Hockey East championship: BC beat Maine

WCHA championship: North Dakota beat Denver

As a result of these…er...results, here are the final Pairwise rankings:

1. Boston College
2. Michigan
3. Union
4. North Dakota
5. Miami
6. Ferris State
7. Minn.-Duluth
8. Minnesota
9. Boston University
10. Maine
11. Denver
12. Mass.-Lowell
13. Cornell
14. Western Michigan
15. Michigan State
16. Air Force

The bracketing starts by placing the top four teams in the closest regional, then doing the #2, #3, and #4 seeds so that there are no intraconference matchups in the first round, and to try and have “bracket integrity,” meaning the first round has 1 vs. 16, 2 vs. 15, etc. and the second round would have 1 vs. 8, 2 vs. 7, etc.  The two things that can draw things away from bracket integrity are 1) host schools, which in this case means Minnesota, which must be placed in St. Paul, and 2) attendance considerations, so that a couple of 2 or 3 seeds might be switched to ensure better attendance at regionals, and to prevent things like an Eastern regional from having mostly Western teams.  With that in mind, here is the bracket I have come up with:

Worcester, MA

1. Boston College

16. Air Force

7. Minn.-Duluth

9. Boston University 10. Maine

 

St. Paul, MN

4. North Dakota

14. Western Michigan

8. Minnesota

10. Maine   9. Boston University

 

Green Bay, WI

2. Michigan

13. Cornell

6. Ferris State

11. Denver

 

Bridgeport, CT

3. Union

15. Michigan State

5. Miami

12. Mass.-Lowell

 EDIT: switched BU and Maine to keep the 8-9 and 7-10 matchups in the first round.

This is pretty much the bracket I posted yesterday, but with Western and State switched as a result of Western winning the CCHA.   It is also possible that Michigan (along with Cornell) could get put in St. Paul for better bracket integrity.  That would basically switch the Michigan-Cornell game with the North Dakota-Western game.  I really don’t think this will happen though, since you’d be giving the #2 seed a more distant regional, a more difficult than expected first round game, and a host school in the second round.  That’s a trifecta of screwing that I don’t think even the NCAA selection committee is capable of.  Plus, the attendance setup is probably better with Michigan in Green Bay and North Dakota in St. Paul.   

The Cornell matchup is pretty much a given in the first round.  I mentioned this in comments to another post this morning, but that is a pretty tough matchup.  Cornell has six shutouts on the year (including their game Saturday), and simply don’t give up a lot of goals (only gave up more than three goals six times all year).  They have also had 10 of their last 20 games go to overtime, so be prepared for a close, white-knuckle finish. 

So there is my bracket prediction.  We’ll find out how right I am tomorrow at noon on ESPNU when the brackets are announced.  Go Blue!

The hockey team is now roughly halfway through the 2011-12 season.  I thought this would be a good time for a recap of the first half, along with a (very) early look at the pairwise rankings heading toward NCAA Tournament selection time.   By the way, thanks to MGoBlog for already having a "way too early to be doing this" tag. 

 

First half recap

Michigan got off to a strong start, at one point holding down the #1 ranking in the polls with a 4-0 record following easy wins over Niagara, Bentley (twice), and St. Lawrence.  A trip to Northern, resulting in a loss and a shootout win, put a quick end to that.  After winning three of four against Ferris and Western, Michigan went on a massive losing streak, with one point in the next seven games, before a 1-0 OT win in Alaska.  After getting four of a possible six points two weeks ago against MSU, Michigan now sits 8th in the CCHA with 19 points in 14 games, and has a lot of work to do to get back into the NCAA tournament mix.  The defense has been mediocre at best, and Jon Merrill's absence has really hurt.  All signs are pointing to Merrill being reinstated for next weekend's matchup against the Lakers, but we'll have to wait and see.

 

Current Pairwise Rankings

For the uninitiated, the pairwise rankings compare every team to every other team in four categories: RPI; record against “Teams Under Consideration (TUCs)”, which means teams with an RPI over .500, as long as both teams have played at least 10 TUCs, not counting each other.; record against common opponents, and head-to-head.  Winning one of the first three categories gets you one point, and you get one point for each head-to-head win over your opponent.  Any ties are broken by the RPI ranking.  The pairwise rankings have accurately predicted the NCAA field for something like ten years, so they are a very useful and important tool. 

As an example of how the pairwise rankings work, let’s compare Michigan to Miami right now. 

• Michigan has an RPI of 0.5374 to Miami’s 0.5264.  Point Michigan.
• Michigan is 5-7-2 against TUCs other than Miami.  Miami is 7-9-0, for a slightly better winning percentage.  Point Miami.
• Michigan is 3-4-1 against common opponents.  Miami is 3-5-0 against those opponents.  By a very slim margin, point Michigan.
• Miami has one head-to-head win over Michigan.  Point Miami. 

This puts the comparison at 2-2.  Michigan wins the overall comparison by virtue of having the higher RPI score.

Every team is compared to every other team in the top half (essentially) of the RPI standings, and the teams are ranked based on the number of comparisons won.  Right now, Michigan sits 17^thin those rankings.  I think that based on the really awful stretch Michigan had in November, many would have felt that they would be further down the list, but the CCHA teams are ranked very high in the Pairwise right now based on their incredibly high RPIs.  In fact, 9 CCHA teams are in the top 19 in the Pairwise as of this writing.  Right now, with very few teams outside of the CCHA having ten games against TUCs, this is a heavily RPI-driven ranking.  That will change as the season goes on, and in a bad way for Michigan unless they pick up some big wins down the stretch.

 

Why is the CCHA doing so well in the pairwise rankings? 

It turns out that nonconference games have a huge impact on the Pairwise for a couple reasons.  First, having a conference do well overall in its nonconference slate has a big impact on the RPI, because it improves every conference team’s strength of schedule.  The CCHA is 40-12-5 out of conference so far this year, for a winning percentage of 0.746.  Even terrible Bowling Green, who is 1-11-2 in conference, went 5-0-1 in nonconference play, which helps everyone else in the conference. Secondly, when comparing teams from different conferences, the common opponents part of the Pairwise is usually based on a very small number of games.  For example, if we compare Michigan to a Hockey East team such as Merrimack, the common opponents are Boston College, Northeastern, St. Lawrence, and Union (Merrimack won’t play St. Lawrence until Friday, and neither has played BC, but both will). Right now, Michigan is 1-2 against those teams, while Merrimack is 2-1-1 against them (mostly against Northeastern).  Had Michigan beaten either Union or Northeastern, it would have made a huge difference.  As it stands, beating BC in the GLI would be a huge help in comparisons against all the Hockey East teams, since they will mostly have bad records against BC.

 

Second half preview

We start with the GLI, and a matchup with #3 Boston College, followed by either MSU or a surprisingly competent Michigan Tech team.  The next six series are all against CCHA teams that are in the top 20 in the pairwise, including four (Ohio, Notre Dame, Northern Michigan, and MSU) that are currently in the top 10. The season ends with a two-game set at Bowling Green. 

This is both good and bad.  Obviously, the schedule down the stretch is pretty brutal, with the Ohio and ND series on the road, and the MSU series as an away/neutral split.  The good news is that this gives Michigan a huge opportunity to work its way back into the mix for an NCAA spot and a higher conference standing. 

 

How does Michigan get back to the NCAA tournament?

Well, winning the CCHA tournament would be nice, but I’m not holding my breath.  Michigan is going to have a fairly strong RPI for its record no matter how the season ends up; what could hold Michigan back is their sub-.500 record against TUCs, and their losses to Union and Northeastern, which (along with some other losses to CCHA teams) are hurting them in the common opponents comparison in the pairwise rankings.  With only the GLI remaining outside the conference, Michigan is going to have to rely largely on improving its record against TUCs.  The good news is that there are still plenty of those left on the schedule.  With at least 13 regular-season games against TUCs, plus a couple in the playoffs, Michigan should have 15-17 more games against TUCs.  Right now, Michigan has a record of 5-8-3 against TUCs.  That winning percentage is not going to be good enough, especially given Michigan’s poor record against out-of-conference opponents.  They’re going to have to get that TUC record up to at least .500, and probably higher. 

To start with, Michigan needs at least a split in the GLI.   A loss to BC won’t hurt too badly, but a win would be huge.  After that, assuming a sweep against BG to end the season, Michigan is going to have to go through that 12-game CCHA stretch following the GLI with at least a .500 record, and it might be necessary to go as much as 8-4.  While the RPI numbers are going to be good for Michigan, the TUC record is going to hurt them down the road if they don’t win more than half of their games the rest of the way.

A lot of things can change between now and March, aside from Michigan's performance.  Every game over the next two months is critical, and it's going to be an exciting ride as Michigan tries to extend its consecutive tournament appearance streak. 

So everyone seems to think that Michigan is going to face Houston in the Sugar Bowl.  Of course, in order for that to happen, Michigan has to finish in the top 14 of the final BCS standings.  The current BCS standings come out at 8:15 pm tonight.  This has been an overanalyzed topic on the MGoBoard, but there are some interesting and somewhat overlooked things that could happen next week to affect Michigan's BCS hopes.  The consensus round these parts has been that if LSU beats Georgia, we should be in the top 14 and thus selected to the Sugar Bowl.  However, even if that happens, there are some other teams that we should be concerned about:

1. Michigan State.  If they lose to Wisconsin in a close game, it is not unreasonable to think that they might stay above us.  Yes, they have 3 losses to our 2, but they beat us by two touchdowns.  They have moved up to 9th (barely) in the Coaches poll and are 11th in the Harris poll.  The computers have us (just) ahead of MSU, so if they drop to one spot ahead of us in the polls, the BCS rankings will probably have us ahead of them. For State to stay in the top 14, they'd have to only drop a couple of spots after a loss.  A State win in the B1G championship game, while deeply unsatisfying to my fandom, would actually benefit Michigan, as Wisconsin would almost definitely drop below us, and with MSU as one of our opponents, it would help our computer rankings.  It would still, however, make me nauseated.

2.  Baylor.  This is the one that really scares me.  The computers LOVE the Big 12.  Two of the computer rankings had Baylor 7th overall last week, even with losses to Kansas St. and Texas A&M.  My guess is that Baylor and Michigan will almost be exactly tied in this week's rankings, with Michigan having a slight edge.  The good news is that they might have dropped a little in the computer rankings, as their win over Texas Tech will not help them as much as South Carolina's win over Clemson, for example.  That same game helped Michigan to move in front of Clemson in several computer polls.  In any case, Baylor's game next weekend against Texas may decide Michigan's bowl fate.

3.  Oklahoma.  An Oklahoma win over Ok. St. keeps both in the  top 14.  I have no doubt that the Sugar Bowl would take us over the Cowboys, but we'd have to make the top 14 for that to matter.  An Oklahoma loss should drop them past Michigan in the human polls, but they were 6th in the computer polls last week.  A loss to Ok. St. (#2 in the computers last week) is not going to hurt them too much, and they'll probably stay in the top 10 in the computer rankings.  That means they'd have to drop to at least about 17th in the human polls to fall past Michigan.  I don't know if that will happen.

The overall math is this: We will be 16th in tonight's rankings.  We need two teams to drop past us with no teams moving ahead of us. (or three drop and one moves ahead of us.) We need the following to happen:

1. Georgia loss to LSU.  A Georgia win eliminates the Sugar Bowl slot.  Nobody, not even Mark Richt's mother, thinks this will happen. 

2.  The B1G loser to drop at least 4 spots in the human polls.  That should happen, but hope for a blowout either way (run it up, Bielema).

3a.  Texas beats Baylor.  A Baylor win probably puts them ahead of Michigan and leaves us at 15th in the BCS, which means we can't be selected over other eligible teams.

3b.  Oklahoma loses badly enough to Ok. St. that the human polls drop them to about 18th, allowing Michigan to slide ahead of them in the BCS. 

3c. UCLA beats Oregon. The Pac-12 championship game should be irrelevant, as UCLA won't beat Oregon, but if they do, Oregon should drop out of the top 15 in the BCS. That would be great, as it would pretty much lock up a spot in the top 14 for Michigan, and it would give the B1G a winnable Rose Bowl.  Go Bruins!

We also should hope that Virginia Tech beats Clemson.  A Clemson win is dangerous because it hurts us in the computer polls, and it gives a bowl game the opportunity to take Virginia Tech as an at-large instead of Michigan (unlikely, but possible).  I don't think Clemson overtakes Michigan in the human polls with three losses, but it would probably be close.

The BCS standings come out at 8:15.  What to watch for: the gap between Michigan and Baylor, and both teams' positions in the computer rankings.  I expect Michigan to be at almost exactly 0.400 overall (probably a little above), and Baylor to be just a little below 0.400.  If the gap is big enough, it could be hard for Baylor to overcome even with a win over Texas, especially if Baylor gets pushed down by other teams in the computer polls.  Last week the computers had them at 0.550; hopefully they have dropped from this spot.

Edit: There has been a lot of consternation in this thread and the others that have popped up tonight about Baylor.  Basically, the fear is that a Baylor win over Texas bumps them ahead of Michigan.  I should know, since I said it above.  Having seen the updated standings, I don't think it will happen.  A Baylor win is not going to help them in the human polls.  We all know that the voters have a tendency to "ladder" their votes, meaning that teams usually only drop when they lose, or if a team behind them has an impressive win.  Beating Texas is not that impressive; a lot of other teams have done it too.  So Baylor should stay two spots behind us in the human polls even with a win (assuming TCU beats a 2-9 UNLV team at home).  In the computer polls, Baylor can only move up about one spot (ahead of South Carolina) if Houston, Boise, Va. Tech and Oregon win (as they should).  The Michigan-Baylor gap is 0.04, which corresponds to exactly one spot on average between the three polls.  Since Baylor can't move up in the human polls, and can move up at most a spot and a half in the computers, that gap should only narrow to about half of what it is now.  Also, either Georgia or the B1G loser should drop between Michigan and Baylor in the human polls, which should increase the gap.  In short, I think the Baylor-Texas game shouldn't matter.  We should just need LSU to win, and the voters to drop the B1G loser below us.

 

[Ed-M: Bumped because I'm still laughing]

Upper Peninsula can’t be sure it’s staying in Michigan

BY MARK SNYDER
DETROIT FREE PRESS SPORTS WRITER

The Upper Peninsula said all the right things.

It said it would “definitely” be back next year.  After all, it is geologically attached where it is, and already has the Mackinac Bridge connecting it to the rest of Michigan.

But the UP will investigate other options.

Once caught in the middle of a Michigan-Ohio recruiting war over Toledo (who later proved to be one of the largest busts in history), the UP was lured away from Wisconsin with the promise of being part of an actual state.  Things in Wisconsin have changed since then, however, and the UP may find the attraction of a living, breathing NFL team, as well as Bret Bielema’s musky man-scent, to be too powerful to resist. 

The UP has been a valuable asset to Michigan.  Once a source of lumber for paper mills and the iron that eventually fed Detroit’s automobile industry, the UP has recently put together an impressive collection of Indian casinos and even taken a Hollywood turn in “Escanaba in da Moonlight.”

However, the presence of Mackinac Island on its southeastern border has become an irritant.  The overwhelming odor of horse feces and fudge can be a powerful repellent, and may push the UP toward the greener pastures of Green Bay.

The UP said Sunday it will be back.  It was understandably emotional.  It has since been unreachable for comment, as the invention of the telephone has not yet progressed that far north. 

I believe, as of now, it will return to Michigan.  When it makes the decision official, Michiganders can exhale.

Until then, even the UP can't be certain itself.

Contact Mark Snyder: [email protected].

Editor's note: A previous headline on this story named the Upper Peninsula a part of Canada. This version is correct.

 

 

Note: this diary has changed quite a bit since it was originally posted.  The Michigan win over Notre Dame made a huge difference in their final position, as did the WCHA, CCHA, and Hockey East championships. 

 

Saturday's important results

Michigan 4, Notre Dame 2

BC 5, Merrimack 3

Miami 5, Western 2

North Dakota 3, Denver 2 in OT

 

Pairwise rankings

1.Yale

2.North Dakota

3.Boston College

4.Miami

5.Michigan

6.Merrimack

7.Denver

8.Union

9.Minn-Duluth

10.Western Michigan

11.Notre Dame

12.Nebraska-Omaha

13.New Hampshire

14.Colorado College

15.Rensselaer

16.Air Force

Air Force won their conference tournament, so they get the autobid and 16th spot.

Now what?

UNH has dropped to a #4 seed. Since they stay in Manchester as the host school, and the committee does not want intraconference first round matchups, BC would probably be the #1 in St. Louis.  Here is how the brackets should look:

Bridgeport

1. Yale

16. Air Force

8. Union

9. Minn.-Duluth

Manchester

4. Miami

13. UNH

6. Merrimack

11. Notre Dame

Green Bay

2. North Dakota

15. Rensselaer

7. Denver

10. Western Michigan

St. Louis

3.  Boston College

14. Colorado College

5. Michigan

12. Nebraska-Omaha

This bracket has no intraconference matchups in the first round.  It also limits travel as much as possible, and at least gets a team or two that might draw fans in St. Louis. Merrimack gets placed in Manchester to at least have a team other than UNH that will fill those seats. The original location would have been Michigan and Miami in Manchester, with BC and Merrimack in St. Louis.  That seems stupid.

The most likely way for this bracket to change is if the committee decides not to put both Denver and North Dakota in the same region.  The Michigan-UNO pairing would get switched with the Denver-Western pairing in that case.  I don't think they'll do that, however, because it might absolutely kill the attendance in St. Louis.  At least Michigan has the fan base to bring people to St. Louis, and Nebraska-Omaha is within driving distance.  Denver and Western probably don't draw people to St. Louis.  They could also switch Denver and Merrimack, but that would mean a regional in New Hampshire with three "western" teams, and you could have a lot of empty arenas, which the NCAA abhors.  Also, there is more bracket integrity with the above setup.

The only way that this bracket could see substantial change is if the committee bumps UNH up to a 3 seed, switching them with UNO.  This would be way against their stated principles, but it would allow them to put BC and UNH in the Manchester regional without playing each other, and have Miami host in St. Louis.  Michigan would probably get sent to Manchester in that unlikely scenario.

Selection Sunday is tomorrow at 11:30 am on ESPN2, when we'll find out for real.  Go Blue!