How many wins will it take to go Dancing in B-Ball??
How many wins do you think it will take to go to the tourney for this team, and do you think they can do it?
Looking at their schedule it is hard. I've got to believe they will have an advantage against a lot of other bubble teams in regards to SOS, and if they could pull just one upset (I'm looking at you Michigan State at the end of the year) this team might have a chance.
However the most, I mean most, wins I can see out of them is 15/16. Now if they can win a couple in the Big ten Tourney maybe they could get to 17/18. What do you think, does 17 wins get this team a 10 seed?
December 1st, 2010 at 1:55 AM ^
They have been shut out before with 17/18 wins.
They really need to have a winning or even B10 record.
December 1st, 2010 at 2:07 AM ^
9-9 in the Big ten gets them roughly to 15/16 wins depending. 9-9 would be tough, doable, but very tough. That opening game against Purdue is huge. They really need it.
Honestly with this sched I think 17 wins might get them in.
December 1st, 2010 at 10:39 AM ^
9-9 gets them 15/16 wins? How do you see that? They should at the very least be 9-4 in non-conference (losses to Kansas and Utah), but should probably be 10-3. If they go 9-9 in conference they are looking at 19-20 wins (depending on the B10 tourney). 15/16 wins with a 9-9 conference record tells me they really screwed the pooch against some bad teams in December, which, let's hope not.
December 1st, 2010 at 2:15 AM ^
I've been up a lot the past few days doing work and once again I hallucinated what I wanted to see with this thread title. I read "How many wins will it take to go dancing w/ 8-Ball." Before I could come up with a snarky cocaine-related response, I clicked the thread and saw the contents. Looks like it's just about time for me to hang it up for the night.
December 1st, 2010 at 2:24 AM ^
Is 20 the number for you? If so its NIT, woo-hoo. I don't think we can get to 20.
December 1st, 2010 at 2:33 AM ^
Amaker hit 20 wins and didn't make the tournament. We need to have a winning record in the Big Ten, and we can't tank near the end of the year, cause the selection committee likes momentum. A couple signature wins would also help.
In all honesty, I hope I'm wrong, but I don't expect a NCAA bid this year. This team is so young, but I see a bright future ahead. I will be happy with NIT for this team.
December 1st, 2010 at 8:00 AM ^
20 wins in this year's Big Ten gets you in. I agree with the rest of your post. The team is young with excellent potential in upcoming seasons. This year, lets just hope that there is enough quality play to enjoy watching them, such as in last nights first half.
December 1st, 2010 at 3:37 AM ^
but i liked the win tonite. hopefully we finish .500 to get NIT. but i doubt that. but i like the future. like football, our best players or frosh and sophs.
December 1st, 2010 at 5:33 AM ^
They should be 10-2 going into the big ten season. Check out the the schedule, does anybody disagree? I say win 8 in the big ten and they get in. A conference tourney win locks it up in my opinion. BTW Evan Smotrycz is a big surprise. Thought he played great tonight!
GO BLUE!
December 1st, 2010 at 7:29 AM ^
Why is he a big suprise, he was our most highly touted recruit? We really need him to have a big year.
December 1st, 2010 at 8:06 AM ^
That's a pretty bold statement, because it assumes a victory over Kansas.
I'm as rosy-outlooked as the next guy, and I really like this young team, but I don't see us beating the Jayhawks.
December 1st, 2010 at 8:10 AM ^
They can get to 10-2 without Kansas. 10-2 would be their record before the conference started... then you thrown Kansas in. So it'd really be 10-3 non-conf, but 10-2 entering league play.
December 1st, 2010 at 9:11 AM ^
My mistake, I forgot that the KU game was a midseason non-conference tilt. Nice catch.
December 1st, 2010 at 9:49 AM ^
But Corcordia isn't a D-1 school, so I don't think that game will really "count" in the eyes of the selection committee and will be ignored in RPI calculations. So, I think in terms of "games that matter" they really could at best be 9-2 before the start of Big Ten play.
December 1st, 2010 at 6:33 AM ^
We already missed one opportunity with Syracuse. the Kansas game would be a huge victory, but I just can't see it happening. Maybe Clemson can help us out now and run the table the rest of the year. If that doesn't happen, I imagine it will take 19 or 20 wins which will include a run into at least the Big Ten tourney semi-finals or finals. 16 to 18? Not a chance.
December 1st, 2010 at 7:09 AM ^
December 1st, 2010 at 7:11 AM ^
Probably more than we're gonna get.
December 1st, 2010 at 7:36 AM ^
That is word for word what I thought when I read the OP's title. However, I'll enjoy watching this team throughout the year.
December 1st, 2010 at 7:42 AM ^
4 more than we have right now. The opening round, quarterfinals, semifinals, and championship game of the Big Ten Tourney. :)
December 1st, 2010 at 7:47 AM ^
Doesn't it also depend on the rest of the country and how other teams are doing?
We definitely will need to have a winning Big 10 record and some big upsets in order to get a 10 seed or lower. Winning a couple games in the Big 10 tourney will give a very good boost. I'd say at least 20 wins with a .500 or above Big 10 record. That should be enough to impress the selection committee.
December 1st, 2010 at 7:56 AM ^
don't get carried away...
see what i did there?
December 1st, 2010 at 7:57 AM ^
they will be dancing in 2012 fo shizzle, though.
December 1st, 2010 at 8:05 AM ^
Isn't December 1 a bit early to begin a Bubble Watch? Right now, I'm just looking forward to the rematch against Harvard on Saturday (aka, Amaker-Beilein II).
December 1st, 2010 at 9:37 AM ^
Yeah, I know Bracketology is already up and running, but that doesn't mean it should be.
December 1st, 2010 at 10:38 AM ^
Lunardi won't listen to me.
December 1st, 2010 at 10:53 AM ^
ESPN also produced this gem from the game write-up:
Instead, Michigan showed how far Brad Brownell's program still has to go against power teams.
Now, I like the direction of this team, but call me crazy for not thinking they are a power team...
December 1st, 2010 at 8:07 AM ^
The only way to make our great looking uniforms look stupid is by wearing that t-shirt underneath. I would love to see Beilein put the ban on those.
December 1st, 2010 at 8:37 AM ^
If the dude is going to go for 18 every night he can wear the yellow man one peice leatard under the uni for all I care.
Would a maize T be less offensive to your fashion sense?
December 1st, 2010 at 11:04 AM ^
...he can wear the yellow man one peice leotard as the uni...
5 for 5 in a half buys you a lot of leeway in my book.
December 1st, 2010 at 8:29 AM ^
Can you apply previous qualifications into the equation to get in? Didn't they expand the tourney so now those "odd man-out" bubble teams that were left out, will be "in" from now on? Essentially lowering threshold to make it.
December 1st, 2010 at 8:32 AM ^
we're gonna have to get to the 20 win number with our schedule and have a winning record in the big ten. To accomplish that, we're gonna have to win all of our games against the bottom feeders like Penn State, Indiana, Iowa, Northwestern, and Minny. And I don't know how many of you watched the other games this week, but the only two that look like somewhat of a push over are Indiana and Penn State. Northwestern is predicted to make the dance for the first time in school history! Other than that the big ten is looking really tough, so every win is going to come really hard.
Boys looked good last night, but making the dance is going to be a tall order this year.
GO BLUE!!
December 1st, 2010 at 8:37 AM ^
so they may take 7 teams?
I know that is a lot, but if the B10 does well in out of conf. games it could happen
that way an 18 win UofM team could get in
December 1st, 2010 at 10:20 AM ^
Northwestern and Minny aren't bottom feeders. They're a NCAA tourney contender. Indiana is borderline bottom feeder because of the rising young talent they have on the team.
Big Ten is tough and probably as many as 7 teams can get in(MSU, Purdue, OSU, Illini, Minny, Wisconsin, and maybe Northwestern).
December 1st, 2010 at 8:37 AM ^
20 has been the basic standard for a while now. I don't think we get there this year but based on how the team has performed so far, I am really excited to watch these guys play. I was worried that we would struggle to get to 10 wins. If they can play well and get 15 wins I will be really excited for 2011/12. We lose noone and add two explosive guards and maybe a big man. Combined with a resurgent football team next year should be epic.
December 1st, 2010 at 8:50 AM ^
Love the optimism.
I thought last night was a big win because it sets them up to be 9-2 before league play begins. A repeat of last year's 7-11 record in B10 would pretty much get them an NIT bid, which is what I still feel the ceiling is this year.
But, man, they looked so good last night, who knows?
Hypothetically, I think a .500 Big 10 record would put them in contention. Who knows what the rest of the bubble would look like, though.
9-2 before the league*, 9-9 in league, a loss to KU, that's 18-12. I dont know. They for sure would have to win 1-2 games in the Big 10 Tournament, I would think. A 9-9 record would make them a 6-7 seed in that field. Beat the 10th or last place team, spring an upset in the Quarterfinals.....thats 20 wins, a 20-13 record, Big 10 semifinalist, that could grab a bid.
But, let's be a little real. Enjoy the win. Enjoy watching the young team grow. Beat Harvard!
*Michigan plays a game next Tuesday against a team that I dont think will count on the legit record, but I forget the team's name. Thats why I say 9-2 and not 10-2 before Big 10 play begins. I've been wondering about this for a while, if that game counts or not.
December 1st, 2010 at 9:45 AM ^
I'm not an expert, but I believe the rule is the game counts unless it's labeled as an exhibition (Concordia isn't labeled like that on the schedule.)
M-Hockey's annual game with the US U-18 team doesn't count because it's labeled as an exhibition on the schedule.
December 1st, 2010 at 9:55 AM ^
The game against Concordia will count as a regular season game, but I'm almost positive--as I noted in a post above--that the selection committee will ignore that game and it won't figure into RPI calculations. So that game should be ignored when calculating how many wins Michigan might need to get into the tournament.
December 1st, 2010 at 10:04 AM ^
It counts as a win but it doesn't count towards RPI
December 1st, 2010 at 9:57 AM ^
Before the season started, I thought they would be right around 14. Now, though, I am thinking NIT. I am also in the mode of just enjoying the growth of a young team. Sometimes they will surprise us both ways: pulling off an upset or losing to someone they "should beat." But I am very impressed so far with how they have played.
They are learning every day. It seems like Smotrycz, in particular, is growing really fast. It's fun to see Michigan finally have some length and actually be on the favorable side of a height mismatch or two. It's been great to see Morgan turn into a "presence" inside, and will be fun to watch Horford continue to grow into his body. Morris is showing why he was so highly-rated coming out of HS. Novak and Douglass, even though they are only juniors, are providing very good upperclass leadership.
I loved watching Manny and Peedi, and am thankful to them for helping start the process of getting Michigan back on the map, but this team is more fun to watch because everyone gets involved. The team tended to stand around too much and wait for Manny and Peedi to bail them out last year; we aren't seeing anything close to that this year. If someone does stand around, there is enough depth to remove him from the game and make it a "teachable moment."
I do, unlike many, now see the possibility of an NCAA berth. It will require them to grow faster than a team normally would, and an NIT berth is a lot more likely, but it is possible for this team to accelerate its growth curve.
It should be a fun ride. I hope most of the fanbase remembers to be nice when they hit a few bumps in the road.
December 1st, 2010 at 11:04 AM ^
Yeah, I can certainly envision them competing for a bid. But, the Big 10 is such a meat grinder this year. Best its been in years, with some really experienced teams. I just think their youth will put them on the wrong side of the bubble. But, they can make a run at it for sure.
I LOLed a couple times last night listening to the announcers talk about size, wing spand, depth, and playing options......and they were talking about Michigan, not our foe!
Should be a fun winter watching them grow.
December 1st, 2010 at 9:34 AM ^
How many wins does Beilein need for Rodriguez to keep his job?
December 1st, 2010 at 9:51 AM ^
A key difference between Amaker's 20-win season and today is the strength of the conference. Michigan can end up with the same amount of wins as an Amaker year but if they do knock off some of the conference bigs along the way (OSU, MSU, Illinois) it will go a long way to help their cause
December 1st, 2010 at 9:59 AM ^
Most Realistic Scenario (Although it's not particularly realistic at all)
We can pretty safely assume that we're better than Penn State and Iowa. Luckily we play both twice. That would be four Big Ten wins right there. We also play Indiana twice. If we're going to make the tourney, we're going to be better than Indiana (which I'm not sure we are). Ideally we get 2 wins from Indiana to get us to 6 Big Ten wins. We would then need to win all three home games against the middle of the Big Ten (Wisconsin, Minnesota, Northwestern--all likely tourney teams) and steal ONE game against the upper echelon (Purdue, MSU, Illinois, OSU) or Kansas. That gives us seven chances. That would give us 10 wins in the strongest conference in the country. This should get us in, assuming Syracuse is a tourney team, UTEP is at least halfway decent, and Clemson is at least middle-of-the-road in the ACC.
I think there are also ways we get in with 9 wins, but we probably have to beat 2 of the aforementioned upper echelon/Kansas and/or Clemson ends up being an elite ACC team.
December 1st, 2010 at 10:52 AM ^
I wouldn't consider Purdue an upper echelon team this year.
December 1st, 2010 at 10:02 AM ^
from what i have seen so far..... i am very very excited about the future of this program. these freshmen, look GREAT... GREAT.... and they play very sound. i think we'll make the tourney this year.
December 1st, 2010 at 10:02 AM ^
Nernaska can't get here soon enough
December 1st, 2010 at 11:11 AM ^
Before the season began, I was afraid that the NIT might be out of reach; I'm very happy to just have a solid team to watch this year, regardless of whether they make it a couple notches above expectations and go dancing.
In terms of expectations over longer time horizons, I'm really excited about this squad. Smotrycz, Morgan, and a filled-out Horford look like they can make our frontcourt a legitmate strength, and I think we've got the pieces on the current team and in Burke and Brundidge to have a very good backcourt, as well.