Bracketology 2/22: Hanging on
We've moved up in CBS bracketology. Sort of.
Last time we were a co-11 seed in the First Four. Now we're a co-10 seed *waves tiny flag*.
They have us facing Seton Hall in a national championship rematch in Dayton at the First Four with the winner advancing the to the First Round to face 7 USC and a potential Second Round date with 2 North Carolina.
In bracket boy's of ESPN, we're the second to last bye and a 10 seed. We'd face 7 Wichita State in St. Louis and--if somehow we won that game--we'd face........
2 Xavier.....
February 22nd, 2016 at 11:06 AM ^
of last week, I thought the NW game and one in the BTT would be enough. I don't think that anymore. I am getting a little irritated about the Wisconsin-mania that is going on right now. They are 16-11 with two terrible losses and the CBS crew was talking about them like a lock yesterday.
February 22nd, 2016 at 11:11 AM ^
They are also 5-7 against the rpi top 100 to our like 2-7 and they have won 9 of 10 games. How you finish matters. We need 3 more wins to feel safe. 2 more wins and we are sweating heavily on selection sunday. 1 win and its the nit for us.
February 22nd, 2016 at 11:16 AM ^
http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaa/basketball/polls?poll=5
February 22nd, 2016 at 11:23 AM ^
February 22nd, 2016 at 11:28 AM ^
Vs top 25
Wisconsin is 2-4 (1-2 at home and 1-2 on the road)
Michigan is 2-6 (2-2 at home and 0-4 on the road)
Vs 26-50
Wisconsin is 2-1 (1-0 at home, 0-1 on road, 1-0 Neutral)
Michigan is 1-2 (0-1 at home, 1-1 Neutral)
Vs 51-100
Wisconsin is 4-1 (3-0 at home, 1-0 on road, 0-1 Neutral)
Michigan is 1-1! (1-1 away)
Wisconsin has 4 bad losses, Michigan has none, for what losses are worth. But this really just goes to show how awful Michigan's schedule is. Michigan's home games against top teams were against the better teams they would lose to regardless, while OSU was really the only shot at a solid road win (win vs top 100 team) that was realistic that they missed. There is no middle to the schedule, and it's killing Michigan because they can't pull off a quality road win.
February 22nd, 2016 at 11:56 AM ^
That does seem to be a key question as regards Michigan. May be kind of unfair as you said given how the schedule broke (no "middle of the schedule"), but that is an outage.
At Illinois (or Nebraska) as the "best road win" simply doesn't benchmark favorably vs. the other bubble-teams. Really makes the Wisconsin game huge.
FWIW, record vs. RPI Top 100 could go up notably if Penn State can get there. RPIForecast has Penn State's RPI at 96 going into the B1G tournament if they go 3-1 down the stretch. They're playing better of late and have home games vs. Nebraska, Northwestern and Illinois (and at Michigan State) remaining.
February 22nd, 2016 at 12:29 PM ^
yup. Wisconsin's SOS is 6th. UM's is 70th.
February 22nd, 2016 at 12:39 PM ^
that 4th Top 100 win for UM is NC State and they are ranked in the 90's. There's no guarantee they are in the Top 100 at the end of the year. There last 4 regular season games are: UNC, @Syracuse, BC, @ND. That's brutal.
We also need to root for NU and PSU. They are ranked 102 and 105. If UM is able to beat NU and NU and PSU could slip into the Top 100 those 3 wins would be huge.
February 22nd, 2016 at 1:29 PM ^
This is what I noticed too. Wisconsin has a bunch of those sorta-nice victories in the bottom part of the top-100 that UM never got; they played either really good teams or crap. This is a scheduling issue and it has been one for a bit with Beilein, but the love for Wisconsin seems largely based on them getting hot and winning some close games (1 point over MSU, 3 against IU, 6 against PSU). The win at MD is impressive, but the rest look a like UM's easy opening schedule.
February 22nd, 2016 at 10:20 PM ^
February 22nd, 2016 at 11:34 AM ^
Thanks, I think the stat yesterday was record vs top 50 and I misremembered as top 100.
February 22nd, 2016 at 11:19 AM ^
February 22nd, 2016 at 11:20 AM ^
Two wins gives Michigan what are typically check marks for making the tournament (20 wins vs D-I, above .500 mark in conference play), but I think Michigan is just killed by the absolutely terrible schedule. The fact that Michigan is 3-8 vs top 50 RPI isn't terrible, but that they've only played two games (1-1) vs 51-100 kills them, because those are quality games that Michigan is absolutely missing.
Still no bad losses, but few quality wins because of the way the schedule sets up. At times, this team looks like a team that could easily be a top 7 seed. At times, it looks like they don't belong in the tournament. A win vs Northwestern and in the first round of the BTT would mean no bad losses, which is something most teams can't say, even the top teams.
It's really going to come down to not just how Michigan performs (Northwestern plus one may be enough), but how the other bubble teams perform. I look at teams that are as high as an 8 and especially 9s and I see teams that Michigan has valid arguments that they are better than. But the eye test with Michigan is so up and down, because with each signiture win they have a signiture blow out loss; they stick with Maryland and look the part of a team, but look like referee butt against OSU, so who knows.
February 22nd, 2016 at 11:37 AM ^
Your point is 100% accurate about not playing many teams in the 51-100 RPI hurting us. There are few data points to compare us against other teams in the 7-11 seed range. With the exception of squeaking out big wins against Maryland and Purdue, we've won games we should have and lost games we should have. Unfortunately a lot of those losses we weren't even competitive. I think this paints us as a boring team to the committee and if I'm trying to put together the bracket I may opt for a more high-variance team that could pull some upsets instead of a team like Michigan who seems to be maxed out winning one, maybe two games with hot shooting.
February 22nd, 2016 at 11:38 AM ^
That's what worries me the most, though the lack of quality wins hurts too. There have been too many games in which Michigan has looked, as you say, like referee butt.
February 22nd, 2016 at 11:07 AM ^
Possible. There were more than a few 12 -15 loss teams in the bracket last year.
Like 13 loss Indiana was a 10 seed and 12 loss Purdue a 9 seed.
February 22nd, 2016 at 11:08 AM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
February 22nd, 2016 at 11:10 AM ^
position right now reminds me a lot of 2011. We got a huge road W at Minnesota that year that really put us on the good side of the bubble. It would be really nice to get one of those in Madison.
February 22nd, 2016 at 11:13 AM ^
a rematch with Xavier. With a few days to plan, Beilein takes those bastards down.
February 22nd, 2016 at 11:15 AM ^
February 22nd, 2016 at 11:21 AM ^
with any kind of inside game is the kind of team we don't want to see early in the tournament. I really don't think the opponent matters much in this regard. If we shoot great from deep we will have a chance. If we don't we won't. Pretty much that simple I think.
February 22nd, 2016 at 11:33 AM ^
In B1G play, the teams with the best big man play are teams that Michigan has played up to. Maryland and Purdue and Iowa are teams you would have expected Michigan to really struggle against, particularly with how they played in the non-conference; but they actually played those teams tough. MSU was really the only bad performance in B1G play against the better bigs in the league.
Though it's not like in any of those games Michigan really shut down the bigs, so I don't know, may just be a coincidence.
February 22nd, 2016 at 11:43 AM ^
kind of what I am saying. I think Michigan is an odd team in the regard that, with few exceptions, it does not really matter who the other team is or how they play. Michigan is two teams. They are either the team that makes ALL the threes or they are the team that misses ALL the threes. If team 1 shows up they can beat anybody, if team 2 shows up they have no shot. That is what made the Purdue game so weird. Michigan has not won a game like that since the Novak era.
February 22nd, 2016 at 1:14 PM ^
solely because it would be late in the NCAA tournament
February 23rd, 2016 at 12:21 PM ^
to differ.
February 22nd, 2016 at 11:40 AM ^
It seems to me our bigger matchup issues are against teams who have strong, tough, guard defense, which Xavier does. Teams that do that eliminate any drives or cutting and that leaves a lot of standing around the perimeter.
February 22nd, 2016 at 11:40 AM ^
Errant Double post
February 22nd, 2016 at 2:48 PM ^
I think a rematch with Xavier could be interesting, given Donnal's improved play and Robinson's increased comfort and role since that schelacking. Granted, no Caris who was our only real offense, then, but we are a somewhat different team than then. I still don't love it as a matchup, but I think we would do better than the first time.
February 23rd, 2016 at 12:22 PM ^
of little faith. . .
February 22nd, 2016 at 11:16 AM ^
February 22nd, 2016 at 11:18 AM ^
February 22nd, 2016 at 11:21 AM ^
Less confusing. First Four is better. It won't get me to watch, but at least the announcers can stop apologizing for calling it the wrong thing.
February 22nd, 2016 at 1:38 PM ^
they are obligated to refer to it as "the first round" this year and the Thursday-Friday games as "the second round." I think I remember hearing that, for some reason, they have to continue referring to it that way this year and then they will change in 2017.
February 22nd, 2016 at 11:24 AM ^
They've been calling them that since 2011.....
They brought back the First and Second Round names this year and scrapped the Second and Third Round names that they had when they expanded to 68 in 2011.
I kinda liked those names because when some douche says you're gonna lose in the First Round you could tell them you're already in the Second Round.
The whole notion of the NCAA awarding 64 "byes" was kind of ridiculous, though. Nobody called the First Four its given-round name.
Just like no one calls the Sweet Sixteen the "Regional Semifinal".
February 22nd, 2016 at 12:17 PM ^
And I like when they call the Final Four the National Semifinals. I know it sounds lame, but it makes the event sound even bigger to me. My first trip to the Sweet 16/Elite Eight was in 1989 and the program had this big basketball in the shape of the 'Murica and there was a picture of each arena hosting that weekend. Such a big country and we were down to only four sites hosting games that weekend.
I still have that program in my man cave, so I guess I'll post a picture of it if a related March Madness thread gets posted.
February 22nd, 2016 at 11:19 AM ^
February 22nd, 2016 at 1:28 PM ^
February 22nd, 2016 at 11:54 AM ^
If it comes down to a Big or ACC team for a last selection in the Big winning the BIG/ACC challenge ever little plus helps...I feel like a win against NW and a win against one of WISC or Iowa will get us in...Iowa at home will be very difficult if Iowa is still in the title chase which it looks like it will...
February 22nd, 2016 at 11:58 AM ^
ALL remaining games are in MUST WIN territory at this point. That includes at least 1 win in the BTT to secure a bid. Hold on toyur butts people...it's about to get real!
February 22nd, 2016 at 12:27 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
February 22nd, 2016 at 12:42 PM ^
Wisconsin could be a play-in game for the moment. We would officially go through the regular season with no "bad" losses and nabbing a road win over Wisconsin would make us 6-4 in our last 10 games. If we beat Iowa, our last 10 record would still be 6-4, but would include a couple wins over ranked teams.
Hopefully Iowa and Purdue can also beat Wisconsin to raise our profile a bit and knock Wisconsin back down.
February 22nd, 2016 at 12:48 PM ^
Agree - huge game. Two teams on the bubble. Assuming UM beats NU, whoever wins the UM/Wisky game will have taken a big step towards the tourney.
February 22nd, 2016 at 1:47 PM ^
February 22nd, 2016 at 2:13 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
February 22nd, 2016 at 10:19 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
February 25th, 2016 at 10:01 AM ^
February 25th, 2016 at 10:02 AM ^
What should I title my threads? Please make your thread titles as informative as possible: "Justin Feagin" is bad. "Justin Feagin leaving the team?" is good.