All of UM's "good non-conference opponents" go down in first round

Submitted by azian6er on
So, after going through my bracket, it has become evident that I unknowingly advanced all of michigan's "tougher" non conference wins (Pitt, NC State, Kansas State). After the results thus far, obviously all three of those teams have lost: K state goes down to Lasalle in a close one (after Lasalle had already played a game) Pitt goes down to Witchita State in a non close game NC State goes down to a good Temple team. So, what does this tell us about our wins and how good we really were non conference? I understand that it is March and it could just be coincidence, however, I thought it was odd that all 3 of them lost. The one that really sticks out is K State. What do you guys think?

backtoblu

March 23rd, 2013 at 12:22 AM ^

Looking at history I had to limit myself from choosing Pitt to go THAT far, but I did have them winning this round and against Gonzaga.  Can't count on that team for anything.  ****.

WolvinLA2

March 22nd, 2013 at 6:59 PM ^

Well, I think what he is saying is that a number of the "good" teams we beat haven't turned out to be as good as people thought.  One way to measure the quality of a team is by the quality of the teams they beat.  If some of the best teams you beat turn out to be less good, you could deduce that your team is less good as well.  

It's not necessarily rock solid, but not that far fetched either.

mGrowOld

March 22nd, 2013 at 5:51 PM ^

Well in all fairness the NCAA selection committee thought our out of conference opponents were pretty good as evidenced by their seeding.  

My bracket is still alive though.  I've got Michigan, MSU, Indiana and OSU in the final four.  Obviously I went "all in" on the B1G.......lol.

B1G_Fan

March 22nd, 2013 at 6:42 PM ^

I have the same final four with OSU and Michigan in the championship game.

As for Michigan non conference opponents going down in the first round... so.

It was fairly evident through the season there was very little seperating the top of the food chain from the bottom. Seeding been done, if Michigans wins everything or loses on Saturday our schedule is meaningless.

azian6er

March 22nd, 2013 at 5:54 PM ^

To be honest it probably doesn't mean shit, however, what type of Michigan fan would I be without employing a little deductive reasoning and over analysis on a day that we don't play.

J.Madrox

March 22nd, 2013 at 6:35 PM ^

It does seem a bit strange that all three lost in the first round. But thankfully at this point in time the only teams wins that matter are Michigan's and the won in the first round. Hopefully when its all said and done Pitt, K.State and NC State can take solace in the fact that they all lost to the eventually National Champs during the regulard season.

taistreetsmyhero

March 22nd, 2013 at 6:45 PM ^

When we played Pitt, they seemed like they had potential to be good, but were underperforming. They played like that in the tourney.

When we played Kansas State, they looked awful. From that 1-game sample it was shocking to see them do well during the season. But hey look, they played awful in the tourney.

When we played NC State, they too showed flashes of why they were ranked so highly at the beginning of the season. In our game, they nearly came back. And guess what they did in the tourney:  fell behind early and almost came back. Still a loss!

Is that good?

Jonesy

March 22nd, 2013 at 6:58 PM ^

I picked them all to win the first round too, I believed the Ken Pom/RPI hype, I don't know why, I didn't think any of them were that great when we played them.  Wisconsin losing was a big shock to me, as fun as Marshall Henderson is he's not that good and Ole Miss, suprising SEC tourney aside, is also pretty bad.  I had Wisconsin going to the elite 8, woops!

WolvinLA2

March 22nd, 2013 at 7:19 PM ^

Well, when this post was made, that list included MSU and no one else.  Now it includes MSU and Illinois.  

The point is, every tournament team we played this season was favored to win their first round match up, however 4 of them did not.  And it doesn't say a lot about us that MSU beat Valpo.

tbeindit

March 22nd, 2013 at 7:12 PM ^

Two 8 seeds going down to 9 seeds is not exactly amazing to be honest.  Most of the time the 8 seeds are slightly favored, if at all.  Kansas State's loss was surprising, but not unprecedented.  If you thought these 3 teams were powerhouses and Final 4 material, then yeah, you should be surprised and disappointed, but they're still quality opponents.  None of these squads were top 10 teams and that was pretty clear before the tourney

Ty Butterfield

March 22nd, 2013 at 7:19 PM ^

At this point I don't think it really matters. I am more concerned with Michigan finding a way to  advance to the Sweet Sixteen for the first time in forever. Survive and advance.

Doc Brown

March 22nd, 2013 at 7:55 PM ^

I have a nice little weekend planned. The wife and I are going to Adventures in Homebrewing. Then I am bottling my beer. Then I will probably head over to the joe. I don't know if I will have enough time. 

bronxblue

March 22nd, 2013 at 8:34 PM ^

I did the same thing to an extent, but at the same time the NCAA tournament is a single-game data point versus a season of games.  KSU is better than La Salle, just not today. Pitt and Wichita St. are close, and that played out how we thought.  NC State lost to a good team in Temple; they were a mediocre ACC team with a ton of talent.  UM is still pretty good, and I think with different match-ups each of these squads could have made a run.

Gulogulo37

March 22nd, 2013 at 11:11 PM ^

It doesn't mean that much. It happens. If those games were all played again they'd likely have different results, except maybe NC State.

Don't put too much stock into it just because it's the tournament. FGCU didn't prove they're a top 10 team because they beat up on Georgetown.