rob f

May 10th, 2019 at 3:13 AM ^

Exactly what I was thinking, don't know why somebody downvoted you for posting that.

Yes, this weekend's series at home vs IU is absolutely huge.  We can essentially end the race by winning the series; a sweep, I believe, clinches the title.

Alton

May 10th, 2019 at 8:54 AM ^

Actually, we need 3 to clinch.

Michigan is 14-3, Minnesota and Iowa are 11-7 with 6 games each remaining.  If Michigan goes 2-4, they end up 16-7.  Minnesota and Iowa each have a chance to end up 17-7 if they go on a 6-game winning streak.  Michigan's rainout against MSU back in March could come back to bite them.

But yes, Michigan is playing for an NCAA seed.  Ending the season (say) 45-13 with regular-season and conference tournament championships would make Michigan pretty hard to ignore for a regional hosting bid.  Even if Michigan doesn't get that 1-seed in the regionals, they still want to avoid playing at the top 1-seeds like UCLA, Louisville, Vanderbilt and Arkansas in the regionals.

ChalmersE

May 10th, 2019 at 9:41 AM ^

Getting a one seed is going to be tough because of a subpar RPI (currently 38) although they do have a win over UCLA, who's ranked one by most of the polls. Interestingly and disturbingly, some of the polls have Iowa, Minnesota, and/or Indiana ranked ahead of Michigan because of that RPI. That's another reason taking the weekend series from Indiana is very important for seeding purposes. That weekend series when they were swept by Texas Tech is haunting their chances for a high seed in the tourney. 

Alton

May 10th, 2019 at 9:58 AM ^

Oh, absolutely.  I was predicating my 1-seed on something like 5-2 the rest of the season plus 4-0 in the Big Ten tournament.  With games against Indiana (x3), Kentucky, and Nebraska (x3), plus the opportunity to beat Iowa and/or Illinois in the tournament, that could get Michigan into the top 16.

Especially if it comes down to a team that ended up dominating the Big Ten vs a team that finished 6th or 7th in the SEC, there is still a chance.

Yes, they look at "record vs top 50" as a key indicator when seeding the top 16.  You need a winning record, and right now Michigan is 2-5.  So if Michigan ends the regular season (all top 50 teams) 5-2, that makes them 7-7 vs top 50.  A couple of wins in the conference tournament and...well.  You never know.

Ugh, that 3-game set at Texas Tech, right after spending a week and a half in California, was probably not the best scheduling decision.  Tired pitchers + tired team + a connecting flight to the middle of nowhere = formula for a bad weekend.

Reggie Dunlop

May 10th, 2019 at 10:44 AM ^

Riddle me this:

Michigan has a three-game conference series in late March against MSU. They also had a one-off "non-conference" game against MSU this week.

One of the March conference games is rained out, so Michigan is going to finish the season one game short of the conference slate everybody else had, which screws up standings and whatever else as they battle for the conference championship.

How many idiots does it take to cancel the "non-conference" May 7th MSU game and replace it the same day on the schedule with the make up of the postponed "conference" MSU game?  How was this not the first thing they came up with?  You're playing 3 out of 4 regardless, why wouldn't you take zero effort and just nominally call it a conference make-up game, lose the meaningless non-conference tilt and at least ensure the conference standings are intact. Nobody thought of this? My head hurts.

Alton

May 10th, 2019 at 11:09 AM ^

I'm 100% with you.  But...the Big Ten has rules.

Back in the 1970s, a couple of teams manipulated rainouts and backed out of agreed-upon makeup games to try to game the standings.  So, as a result, the conference made a rule:  once the visiting team has left their campus, a scheduled series must be completed within 2 days of the first scheduled game of the series.

In other words, a Friday-Saturday-Sunday series must be completed by midnight Sunday.  No makeups permitted, ever.

I guess it's a good thing to have a universal rule about rainouts and makeups, but in this particular case the rule was shown to be kind of ridiculous.