Final AP Rankings for Michigan Basketball Teams from 1984 to 1998
Yesterday, MaizeHaze posted the highest AP ranking for each Michigan basketball team for seasons 1983-84 through 1997-98. In case anyone is interested, here are the final AP rankings, which provide a better indicator of the overall success of each team:
1984-85: #2
1985-86: #5
1986-87: NR
1987-88: #10
1988-89: #10
1989-90: #13
1990-91: NR
1991-92: #15
1992-93: #3
1993-94: #11
1994-95: NR
1995-96: NR
1996-97: NR
1997-98: #12
February 22nd, 2016 at 8:57 AM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
February 22nd, 2016 at 9:31 AM ^
be a mistake. Perhaps the polsters thought Kentucky was SO good that they deserved to be ranked higher than us even after we beat them.
That 98 team was pretty good. I thought they were going to make a deep run in the tourney but they ran into UCLA who remarkably shot 100% from the field in its two games against Michigan in the tourney in the 90s.
February 22nd, 2016 at 9:59 AM ^
February 22nd, 2016 at 10:15 AM ^
that game. Loyola went 67 for 60 from the field including an astonishing 16 for 11 from three. Remarkably efficient.
February 22nd, 2016 at 10:59 AM ^
Bo Kimble just hit another left handed free throw.
February 22nd, 2016 at 11:08 AM ^
February 22nd, 2016 at 11:25 AM ^
Craziest game in NCAA basketball history.
Box score proving that they shot 113% from the field.
WE SCORED 115 and LOST BY 34 POINTS!
February 22nd, 2016 at 9:59 AM ^
February 22nd, 2016 at 10:23 AM ^
I think this is the final AP poll, which is done before the NCAA tournament. I don't think there ever has been a poll after the tournament.
February 22nd, 2016 at 1:05 PM ^
February 22nd, 2016 at 8:58 AM ^
I assume this does not include the Tournament? B/c '89 would be #1, '92 #2, and '93 #2.
February 22nd, 2016 at 8:59 AM ^
This looks like final regular season AP poll.
February 22nd, 2016 at 9:04 AM ^
Yes, AP polls stop after the regular season.
February 22nd, 2016 at 9:32 AM ^
Total weeks ranked is an interesting number as well, in my opinion. During the period described here and in yesterday's post by MaizeHaze, the polls bear out over 247 total weeks of regular season basketball, during which we were ranked in 216 weeks. That's 87.44% of all regular season play during that stretch, which to me is rather impressive really.
Not counting this season, that falls to 61 weeks ranked out 134 total weeks of regular season basketball for John Beilein, if I counted right. That's 45.52% of the regular season length.
I don't know that it could be used as a measure of expectations though. It's more a general indicator of the perception of the team and a 10,000 foot view of performance. I think we probably need to keep in mind that the game evolves too, so the strength of any conclusions drawn here might not be so great.
February 22nd, 2016 at 9:55 AM ^
What about '99-'09?
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
Just a guess.
February 22nd, 2016 at 10:04 AM ^
February 22nd, 2016 at 6:05 PM ^
Hard to believe they were stuck in the NIT with that many votes. I do believe UNLV missed the tournament one year and they were ranked in the last AP poll so it's not unprecedented.
February 22nd, 2016 at 10:15 AM ^
So sanctions and a bad hire have reset the expectations of the program to the point where mediocre is acceptable? I'm not a person arguing to fire Beilein this year but anyone who isn't a little concerened is lying to themselves. Beilein is 63 years old and this will be two straight years of relative mediocrity. Who is the playmaker on next years team that makes us better than this year? So its more likely that we will have 3 straight years of mediocrity and a 64 year old coach. Michigan basketball is better than than mediocre historically.
Nobody punted on the football program because of two bad coaches, why punt on the basketball program?
February 22nd, 2016 at 10:24 AM ^
the first time really all season I saw how the offense was supposed to operate yesterday. I think that Walton will continue being more assertive and Irvin will settle into the being a serviceable pick and role guy. If Kam and Donnal continue to shoot like they did yesterday and can stretch the defense we may have something.
The defense is far more concerning than the offense to me. We should and would have won that game if we could get a stop, any stop, ever.
I think we should hold out judgment on this particular stretch until we see Watson, Simpson and Teske. I think we will know a lot about Beilein's immediate future after we get a look at what kind of players they are.
February 22nd, 2016 at 10:36 AM ^
And the UCONN and Xavier and SMU and Indiana and MSU. etc. showed how it normally looks when playing talented teams.
February 22nd, 2016 at 10:38 AM ^
Can someone fill me in on how we fit the scholarship players under the 12 scholly limit next year? By my count you have Spike and Lavert coming off the books and adding 4 (Watson, Teske, Simpson, & Davis).
Spike could come back as well.
My concern is lack of elite recruiting off of the Final 4. We weren't able to capitlize on our Fab5 class that came in 2012 with McGary basically giving us a great tournament, Stauskas, Robinson, and Lavert giving us a strong 13-14, and Spike filling in to keep last year's disaterous finish from being even more disasterous. Hopefully the Jumpman will give us a boost and better inroads with elite prospects.
February 22nd, 2016 at 10:46 AM ^
The limit is thirteen scholarships, so they're only oversigned by one.
Coach Beilein said they have a plan if they remain oversigned, but I don't think anyone knows what that is. People have speculated that Davis would go to a prep school, but I believe he's denied that.
February 22nd, 2016 at 10:24 AM ^
In 2010 Basketball-Reference.com posted their 31 Top College Basketball Programs of the Last 31 Years, covering 1980 to 2010 and based a power ranking (SRS). Michigan came in at #23, for a span years that included some of the best and worst periods in the program's history.
Many of the schools on this list are in the midst of their best days as we speak. Unfortunately for Michigan, the Wolverines aren't one of those teams. U-M did virtually all of their damage under two coaches -- Bill Frieder & Steve Fisher -- and over an 11-year span (1984-94). Frieder had built Michigan into a top-15 squad within 4 years of his hiring, and the team finished in the SRS top ten 4 times in 5 years from 1985-89.
In my opinion, it's pretty misleading to judge "pre-sanctions" Michigan on the span starting in 1984 because that's a peak period. Over the years, the program has had high points and low points. Historically, Michigan would probably be ranked higher than #23, but it would also not be top ten. Somewhere in the mid-teens would be my guess.
For comparson, other Big Ten teams in those top 31 programs: #5 Illinois; #7 Indiana; #11 Maryland; #12 MSU; #16 Purdue; #17 Iowa; #25 OSU.
February 22nd, 2016 at 10:43 AM ^
Illinois has a historically strong basketball program. During the 31 years covered by that ranking, they had the highest winning percentage in the Big Ten. They made the NCAA tournament 23 times during that period.
February 22nd, 2016 at 11:13 AM ^
Yeah, Illinois' mediocrity over the past 10 years belies their historical success (#14 all-time in wins and #12 in win percentage).
February 22nd, 2016 at 1:05 PM ^
All-time, I would've guessed Indiana for top winning percentage among Big Ten teams, but it's actually Illinois.
- Illinois .645
- Indiana .639
- Purdue .636
- OSU .613
- MSU .603
- Michigan .602
February 22nd, 2016 at 10:22 AM ^
Sports-Reference is an amazing site for this kind of thing. Their team index page has the team's record, tournament results, and AP polls from preseason, the highest ranking, and the final ranking.
February 22nd, 2016 at 10:34 AM ^
Also, of those seasons that have us NR (5), we made it to the NCAA tournament in three of those years. NIT the other two years. Considering that includes a NC and two other Final Four appearances + Elite Eight, I believe only Indiana could match our resume during that period.
It also would not be shameful to include the team that won the 1984 NIT. Back then, the NCAA tournament field was smaller and the NIT was a more prestigious tournament. In the current format, a fourth place team from the B1G would always make it to the NCAA tournament.
February 22nd, 2016 at 10:57 AM ^
These years encompass most of Bill Frieder's and all of Steve Fisher's coaching careers at Michigan. While both put a lot of talent on the court and perfomed very well during the regular season, when it came to the post season, they had vastly different results.
Year Michigan Rank Post Season results
BILL FRIEDER
1984-85: #2 (#1 seed; barely beat #16 seed Farleigh-Dickenson, lost to #8 seed and eventual champion, Villanova)
1985-86: #5 (#2 seed; beat #15 seed Alcorn St., lost to #7 seed Iowa St.)
1986-87: NR (#9 seed; beat #8 seed Navy, lost to #1 seed UNC)
1987-88: #10 (#3 seed; beat #14 seed Boise St., beat #6 seed Florida, lost to #2 seed UNC)
__________________
STEVE FISHER
1988-89: #10 (#3 seed; champions)
1989-90: #13 (#3 seed; beat #14 seed Illinois St., lost to #11 Loyola Marymount)
1990-91: NR (NIT first round loss)
1991-92: #15 (#6 seed; runner up to #1 seed Duke)
1992-93: #3 (#1 seed; runner up to #1 seed UNC)
1993-94: #11 (#3 seed; beat #14 seed Pepperdine, beat #10 Maryland; beat #6 Texas; lost to #1 seed and eventual champion Arkansas)
1994-95: NR (#9 seed; lost to #8 seed Western Kentucky)
1995-96: NR (#7 seed; lost to #10 seed Texas)
1996-97: NR (NIT champions)
Based on seed, ranking, and talent level, Bill Frieder's teams consistently under-performed in the post season, whereas Fisher's teams over performed.
It should be noted that Steve Fisher has taken San Diego State to the NCAA that last 6 years, and advanced to the sweet 16 twice.
February 22nd, 2016 at 6:08 PM ^
I thought that team was more talented than the 1989 outfit. Thought Fisher and his wise use of timeouts in the UNC game kept us in it until we pulled away in the last minute.
February 22nd, 2016 at 11:05 AM ^
February 22nd, 2016 at 12:20 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
February 22nd, 2016 at 4:22 PM ^
Michigan was REALLY GOOD back then