Jay Bilas On Michigan's Tournament Chances
After the game, ESPN went to studio and our favorite sucker of dead donkey dicks said that even with the win against Indiana that MICHIGAN does not deserve to be in the dance. He said that all of our losses are by more than 10 points and that he has issues with that. Well, he could just be honest and say that he hates MICHIGAN, but he would rather just be on the receiving end of the dead donkey.
I thought that was a Coldplay song.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
I wish I could still downvote
to the voting function? Everyone must know it but me
EDIT: apparently became that guy for a different reason
Wesley Willis approves of this thread.
And so do I.
Rock over, London
Rock on, Chicago
RIP Wesley!
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
Bilas has another reason for keeping Michigan out. It's a terrible reason, but it has nothing to do with disliking Michigan specifically. This Tweet is from two days ago:
All At-Large decisions should be made by the Committee at the end of the regular season. Champ Week should be about Automatic Bids only.
— Jay Bilas (@JayBilas) March 9, 2016
I love when people try to argue that more data isn't better.
But we have so many imbalanced conference schedules, that you need the conference tournaments to better evaluate teams.
When the Big Ten had 11 teams, you'd play eight teams twice and only two once.
When it went to 12 teams, you'd play seven teams twice and four once.
Now you play five teams twice and eight once. Our BTT games against Northwestern and Indiana were just the second meetings with both of them.
I would like to hear his rationale. Maybe I could understand something like, championship game results shouldn't matter, as they're often third game in three nights affairs and don't represent the conditions of the regular season or NCAA tournament. But there is no reason to claim that the first or second games played by teams in conference tournaments don't tell you every bit as much about the participants as any random regular season game.
at least the portion he expounded during halftime of our game, is that power five teams on the bubble benefit during conference tournaments because they're generally playing teams with high RPIs, while mid-major bubble teams usually see their RPIs decline even while winning in their conference tournaments. Mid-major teams need to build their resumes on the basis of their non-conference schedules.
I don't know enough about RPI calculation and its relationship to the Big Dance selection process to evaluate his argument. He should have shown some charts!
For one thing, the committee does not need to use RPI rankings and have a history of not doing so. Sometimes they ignore large disparities in rank. That's something Bilas is very well aware of. He goes through the resumes every year. For another, he's simply proposing that the system should be rigged in favor of small cnference teams by ignoring overall records. Lastly, bubble teams from big conferences are both more likely to help and to hurt themselves in conference tournaments. By playing better teams, they are more likely to get knocked out early and go off the bubble.
22 wins and they just upset the uncontested B1G champ. 0 losses to bad teams. Keep your day job.
Too many bad losses?
Sure sounds like feelingsball. What, if we're not a 1 seed, we don't deserve to get in?
Compare our resume to the bottom teams that analysts say are definitely in.
We're not talking about Michigan being ranked in the top 25. We're talking about getting into the field of 68. The bar to clear isn't nearly as high as you seem to think. Most bubble teams have losing records against good opponents. That's why they're bubble teams.
which of those are bad losses? losing badly (by 10+) and a bad loss are totally different, at least in the eyes of the committee. Losing to a 200+ RPI team is a bad loss, losing by 12-13 to a 1 or 2 seed isn't really that bad.
That's not a response to my post. That's a response to some other post that doesn't exist.
Look at the other bubble teams (although I don't think Michigan is a bubble team at this point, it's more a question of seeding at this point)--Monmouth has lost to Canisius, Army, Manhattan, and twice to Iona. Their resume is hot garbage on a stick. N.C. State and Clemson both blew Pitt out of the gym.
Michigan's resume is just plain better than the teams that people like Bilas and Lunardi have in over them.
"Bad losses" are those that come against bad teams. We have none of those.
We had some bad games, but they were all against strong opponents.
How about not losing ten games by double digits? I want them in the tourney as much as anyone else but let's keep a grip on reality too. If they don't make it in that is why and it will be justified.
You really think that's going to matter? Why don't any of you naysayers look at how we fare compared to the other "bubble" teams? Keeping us out is a snub.
this troll.
Jay is a douche.
I really like Bilas as a CC but he still has an axe to grind over the Amaker ending in Ann Arbor, his commentary on the Manny Harris elbow at Purdue still grinds my gears.
listens to Coldplay and Nickleback, with a tOSU sweatervest on, while drinking a ZIMA, with his pinky out. F--- Jay Bilas and OSU!!!
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
I could see Michigan getting in, and I could see them not. Going 10-8 in the Big Ten doesn't help and the head-to-head loss to Wisconsin could end up being costly. WIsconsin has a 12-6 Big Ten record with the head-to-head win over Michigan, but they have a few worse losses, and a win over MSU. So I could see Wisconsin getting the nod over Michigan. Michigan doesn't have a really bad loss and they have a few really good wins. At this point, I think if Michigan goes to the next round of the Big Ten tourny, they'd be in, but right now, it would not surprise me either way, it's 50-50.
I know Wisconsin is in, I didn't mean for it to sound like it was either Michigan or Wisconsin that would go to the tourny. I was just comparing them to Michigan. Wisconsin, at least now, is the last Big Ten team that is "locked" into the tourny (according to ESPN Bubble watch), so I was just comparing them to Michigan in terms of making an argument for and against Michigan getting into the tourny. They have similar records and obivously played many of the same opponents. So if you compare the two of them you can see how a case can be made for why Michigan should be in, or not, which is why I think Michigan getting in right now is 50-50.
Wisconsin has nothing to do with our chances, and it's not really an intraconference competition anyway. There are no quotas of bids per conference, or anything like that.
Well if there was a rule where each confrence was only allowed a certain number of teams or guranteed a certain number of automatic spot then comparing Michigan to Wisconsin would apply. But that isn't how this works. Wisconsin has already done enough to not be compared to Michigan. Michigan will be compared to teams not in the B1G for an invite to the tournament.
I understand that, I'm not on the committee, so I am allowed to compare the two of them if I want to. I'm saying Michigan's chances as of now are 50-50 and I, by myself, as a non-committee member, compared them to the last Big Ten team that is a "lock" to make the tourny. And based on what I see when comparing them, they are similar, which is why I think it is a close call. I'm aware Michigan will be compared to other bubble teams and not Wisconsin, but if you compare the two schools, assuming you are not a committee member, of course, then it is hard to say why Wisconsin is considered a "lock" and Michigan right now is considered one of the "First Four Out". Sorry for comparing Michigan's resume to that of a team that is a lock to make the tourny and not comparing them to fringe bubble teams....I guess
Much of your post makes a lot of sense, but your basic premise does not. If Michigan's resume is as good as Wisconsin's, as you suggest, how does that hurt? Wouldn't having a resume as good as another at large team be a good thing?
That this board is populated by college graduates when a thread starteer is some guy's fantasy about sex with animals.
Edit, wrong thread