Joe Lunardi First Bracketology
He has us as 7 seed? Nebrasaka is a 6 seed, what is this? I don't think I'm being too optimistic here when I say I realistically see us at 2-4 max in the B1G, with a much better non-conf. schedule than Nebraska..
http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/bracketology
November 13th, 2014 at 1:57 PM ^
November 13th, 2014 at 10:55 PM ^
So who's Duke going to lose to in the 1st round of the NCAA tourney this time?
November 13th, 2014 at 1:59 PM ^
Michigan is viewed as being decimated by the NBA draft and bizarre transfers to Florida. In reality... oh shit, that is completey accurate. I think Michigan is seen as a team that could be dangerous if a lot of unknowns go very well, but certainly not a realistic contender with the amount of youth on the roster and lack of experienced bigs.
It is early though, why don't we let them complete the exhibition season before we starting calling on Lunardi for projections
November 13th, 2014 at 2:04 PM ^
I think this is a realistic take on our team. What the national media doesn't seem to see, though, is that our youth seem to develop very quickly under Beilein and have generally broken through by the tournament. I fully expect to have some frustrating games out of our bigs early on in the season with them being at least consistent and serviceable by the end. We will be relying on our guards to carry the team this year, though.
November 13th, 2014 at 2:09 PM ^
Players have developed in the past, probably will take a jump this season as well but its still an unknown. Can't make projections because we had burke blow up into a wooden winner and stauskas blow up to be "NOT JUST A SHOOTER". We dont know what we will get out of the center position and defense is another unknown.
November 13th, 2014 at 2:05 PM ^
But to be fair, how important can youth and inexperienced bigs be when Kentucky is a run-away #1 pick with 11 FR and SO and 4 of their 5 "bigs" are in that group?
IMO, it seems less about experience and more about perceived talent. UM fans believe in Coach B and his ability to continue to spot underrated talent and coach-up players...but that doesn't mean that we will be ranked accordingly.
November 13th, 2014 at 2:11 PM ^
it is a little more than that. Beilien is a really good evaluator of talent and he is getting more just flat out talent now more so than underrated talent, but Michigan is still not yet a team that can just roll the ball out and "out-talent" opposing teams. They are very much scheme dependent, and right now, nobody really knows whether the peices acquired can be plugged in so seamlessly like the last couple of classes.
What is really unfortunate, and not to be a downer, but we could have the exact same roster right now, without Stauskus, Morgan, Horford and GR3, but with Mitch, and I really think we would be a preseason top 5 team, maybe like 7 or 8 at a minimum. We would have been a #1 seed type of outfit.
November 13th, 2014 at 2:19 PM ^
That's just being realistic and also makes me pissed at the NCAA since they are so inconsistent with their policing and punishment. Would have been interesting to see what they would have done had a couple of Kentucky players done the same thing.
I agree Mitch should have been punished but one non-violent incident (although this probably happened more than that one time) leading to a one year suspension? I know I'm preaching to he choir here but you are right that this team is perceived way differently with Mitch on the roster.
C'est la vie.
November 13th, 2014 at 2:12 PM ^
But there's also a lot of actual data that says recruiting profile in basketball is very predictive of early success, much more so than football. And while I agree with you that Beilein can very much coach up talent, it takes time to coach up. I think this team could be very very good next year depending on if only LeVert leaves for the NBA. This year there will be growing pains. Most likely.
November 13th, 2014 at 2:14 PM ^
I see what you are trying to say, but UK is stacked, with both perceived and ACTUAL talent. I would have guessed we would be a 6 seed, but 7 is within error. Alot of questions, and I haven't seen a guaranteed impact player out of the freshman class...just guys who may become good with experience.
November 13th, 2014 at 4:19 PM ^
And Subs.
Crazy.
November 13th, 2014 at 5:13 PM ^
Also, Lunardi's prediction is realistic. This team is a 7-9 seed right now. Doesn't mean they won't be better than that come March.
November 13th, 2014 at 1:58 PM ^
I have nothing else to look forward to right now, my head's been in March since the Notre Dame game :(
November 13th, 2014 at 2:01 PM ^
Michigan has a very young team. There is a lot of variability with youth in basketball. I imagine the highs will be very high and the lows will have us thinking WTF?
Should be a fun season.
November 13th, 2014 at 2:04 PM ^
November 13th, 2014 at 2:52 PM ^
I don't see how this is disrespective Beilein. It's a guy's opinion based on the talent and experience we have on hand. Probably sees it as having lost some key talent (GRIII, Stauskas, McGary, Morgan, Horford) with young talent to replace, but lacking in key areas, i.e., the frontcourt. Michigan WILL be weaker in the post than last year, practically a given. The question is whether Caris can truly become elite and the youngsters can fill the gaps left by GRIII and Morgan/Horford (and, to an extent, McGary).
November 13th, 2014 at 4:07 PM ^
You really think this is disrepectful, WD? Lunardi has been surprisingly accurate in his pre-season assessments of Michigan.
Last November, he projected us as a 3 seed. We were a 2 in March.
November 2012, he projected us a 3 seed. We were a 4.
November 2011, he projected us as a 5 seed. We were a 4.
If Lunardi tells me we're a 7 seed, I think that's gotta be pretty reasonable.
November 13th, 2014 at 4:42 PM ^
Disrespect? Take the fan goggles off and take a look from the outside. We have unproven talent in the 3-5 spots. It's not like we're Kentucky with 14 HS All Americans on the roster. Now, in March we may have a 3rd B1G title in as many years, but right now this is a growing season with lots of potential. We did lose our entire starting 5 and much of our bench in the last 2 drafts/transfers/graduation. So no disrespect to you, but this is a spot on look as of right now.
November 13th, 2014 at 2:06 PM ^
November 13th, 2014 at 2:06 PM ^
Completely fair and it doesnt really matter anyway. Of course for pundits and fans its fun the talk about but the games do the real talking.
November 13th, 2014 at 2:07 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
November 13th, 2014 at 2:09 PM ^
Eh, doesn't seem unreasonable at this point I think. There's just going to be so many freshman getting so many minutes. And unlike 2012-2013 season, they won't be all top-100 players with two five stars. Plus, it's basketball, so there is enough opportunities to show why they should be seeded higher unlike football where your starting spot is seems very important.
November 13th, 2014 at 2:12 PM ^
For the last several years, I have been curious about why people who follow college basketball think that Joe Lunardi is any good at all at picking the tournament participants, their seeds, or their placement in the bracket.
Other than the fact that he is employed by ESPN, does he have any credentials? He certainly doesn't have a body of work to justify the amount of attention that is paid to him.
November 13th, 2014 at 2:28 PM ^
Lunardi has the best job in the world. He really only has to work a few months of the year, and nobody pays much attention to his work until the last month. And even then, he doesn't have to be accurate.
Sign me up.
November 13th, 2014 at 2:28 PM ^
He has good sources on the committee that clue him in late so he looks pretty good, I think is the conventional wisdom. Right now, he's just guessing, basically.
November 13th, 2014 at 2:49 PM ^
He may or may not have sources on the committee--I have no idea, and it's probably pretty easy to claim that you do. The committee turns over every 4 years (2-3 new members a year), so I guess he's good at finding new sources, or claiming that he does.
But one would expect somebody with sources to do a much better job than he does. CBS Sports does better, Fox Sports does better, teamrankings dot com does better, and about 50 other websites out there do better than Mr. Lunardi, year after year. Better at picking the teams, better at picking their seeds.
But Mr. Lunardi is the expert everybody cites. Why? Because his letterhead says "ESPN" on it. No other reason.
Sorry for the rant, but this does actually annoy me. It's like the "ESPN Gameday" thread on this board every football Saturday: if we stop pretending that ESPN is important, people might realize how awful it is.
November 13th, 2014 at 4:42 PM ^
It will sound totally strange, but we lived this controversy in the office pool last year through a test that a couple of us wanted to do - someone submitted a bracket from TeamRankings' algorithm (which will generate one for you) and was 3rd overall by the point formula we used. The person whose picks were straight Lunardi (we ran this experiment when we were supposed to be running actual experiments - priorities, right?) came in far lower than that.
November 13th, 2014 at 5:21 PM ^
No way Digger Phelps or Dick Vitale would have any idea what an algorithm is.
November 13th, 2014 at 2:15 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
November 13th, 2014 at 2:21 PM ^
Honestly, seems about right. Michigan is going to be fine, but at some point your whole team isn't going to keep pumping out first-rounders ever year as sophomores, and this is a young team with absolute unknowns (on the college stage) at center. I don't think a 7 seed is out of line right now, with one game under their belt.
That said, Texas as a 4 seed seems a bit high, and OSU as a 5th seed seems based quite a bit on potential, but overall this basically tracks the top 25. So all my complaints about that ranking kinda apply here as well.
November 13th, 2014 at 2:22 PM ^
MICH could finish anywhere between a 1 seed and a 12 seed.
November 13th, 2014 at 2:23 PM ^
UK will be ranked #1 the entirety of the season. Very good chance they go undefeated and are mentioned as one of the great teams in college hoops history (with UCLA of early 70's and the 1976 IU team). Barring injury I fully expect them to hang banner #9.
November 13th, 2014 at 2:33 PM ^
Kentucky Troll!!!
November 14th, 2014 at 7:22 AM ^
UM grad here. Class of 1988. So save your "troll" comment for someone else. Sorry if the truth hurts but UK has NINE (9) McDonald's AA's on this team. That's 3 more than the entire Big Ten conference.
November 13th, 2014 at 2:55 PM ^
I fully expect them to take down said banner in five years, when Calipari leaves yet another program on probation.
November 13th, 2014 at 2:32 PM ^
OMFG stop....JUST STOP. This might be one of the most asinine things I have ever read.
November 13th, 2014 at 2:39 PM ^
It's like having a preseason top 68 instead of a top 25. 100% speculation.
Michigan will likely start rough and improve as the year goes on.
November 13th, 2014 at 2:40 PM ^
The nice thing is that our young team will get to experience good competition which will allow them to grow. Big Ten basketball is fantastic and arguably the best in the country even though yes the breaks haven't gone the right way to get a national champion.
Big Ten.
November 13th, 2014 at 2:43 PM ^
We are young and will struggle in the bigman department. Are bigs are clay right now but come March will be carved of wood under Coach B. I say holla at us in March
November 13th, 2014 at 2:43 PM ^
It's not that far off, we're replacing a lot. Lots of youth, lots of question marks. Do I think we'll end up better than that? Absolutely, but it's not a terrible starting point.
November 13th, 2014 at 2:46 PM ^
Lunardi has Duke winning it all. Shocker.
November 13th, 2014 at 2:52 PM ^
This is about as useful as a poopy-flavored lollipop.
November 13th, 2014 at 2:53 PM ^
One of the things that grates on me is the different treatement b/n Michigan and Michigan State, where Izzo is given a pass.
In comparing Michigan vs. Michigan State this year vs. last year, you have to decide which Michigan State team are you using.* is it the team when it was at its healthiest or is it the MSU team we saw on average last year?
If healthiest: Maybe MSU was slightly better than Michigan last year, but Sparty lost more.
If average: Michigan and MSU lost about the same in terms of minutes, points, etc, but Michigan was better than MSU last year.
In either case, Michigan has more in terms of returning talent and incoming newbies. MSU has no advantage over Michigan in terms of coaching.
* In the same way, if you're pointing to Mitch as a loss you have to acknowledge that he didn't play at all in the Big Ten.
November 13th, 2014 at 2:56 PM ^
I love how we're now upset about a 7 seed, when a few years ago just seeing us in a pre-season bracketology made us giddy.
November 13th, 2014 at 3:03 PM ^
I love that people actually give two shits about something as monumentally stupid as a dude's prediction on where we will be seeded who doesnt have a vote on the selection committee; eactly one game into the season and about 4.5 months away from the actual selection
November 13th, 2014 at 3:27 PM ^
Well it's that or think about football. Which is like a billion times worse than freaking out about pre-season bracketology.
November 13th, 2014 at 4:25 PM ^
Projections are like OSU fans..... they mean nothing