Michigan a 5 seed in ESPN/Lunardi's 2/24 bracketology
February 24th, 2020 at 10:37 AM ^
Anything less than a 5 will have us criminally underseeded at this point with Livers back. I'd run to the bank right now with a 5 in the West.
February 24th, 2020 at 10:43 AM ^
I know this may be a nitpick but I am sick of the West bracket. My hangover has already started for the 10:50 PM tip first round game. I'm ready for a noon BW3s special in the first round. I like the 5 seed but somewhere other than the west coast would be my preference.
February 24th, 2020 at 10:55 AM ^
The "region" of the bracket only matters if we make the Sweet 16. And arguably three of the four brackets (Midwest - Indianapolis, East - New York, West - LA) provide Michigan with some home court advantage due either to proximity (Indy) or a lot of alums (NY, LA).
As far as first-weekend brackets, Cleveland would obviously be great location-wise, but that would require getting either a 4/5 seed in the South (which is the least favorable region for the second weekend) or falling to a 7 seed in the Midwest (which hopefully won't happen). Albany (3/6 seed in the East or 3/6 seed in the South) would be fine, as would St. Louis (3/6 seed in the West or 3/6 seed in the Midwest). If we're on the 4/5 seed line, then we're in either Sacramento, Tampa, Spokane, or Cleveland for the first weekend. The first three aren't great location-wise, and as discussed, Cleveland leads to Houston on the second weekend, which isn't great either.
February 24th, 2020 at 10:58 AM ^
Agreed. 90% chance that Baylor gets the Houston region too. The way we’re playing we could beat anyone, but I hate that matchup. They’re like Rutgers on steroids with some actual skill at the guard positions.
February 24th, 2020 at 11:02 AM ^
That's right, I always get that confused.
Anyway, give us an early game for once. Or at least, not the late-late game.
February 24th, 2020 at 11:41 AM ^
Which seeds go to which sites...and which regions, aren't known yet.
February 24th, 2020 at 12:09 PM ^
Your entire second paragraph is inaccurate, and hasn't been correct for close to two decades now.
The first round sites are assigned according to the desires of the top seed in a half-bracket. If Michigan were the overall #1 seed (they won't be), they'd get the first choice of locations.
Due to the number of strong teams in the midwest, the higher Michigan climbs up the board, the more likely they are to open the tournament far from Ann Arbor, unless they can pass them all.
Crashing the Dance used to be the best source for figuring out who was going where, but they're still using RPI for some reason, so they're coming up with ridiculous values. However, you can still get a distance table here. Basically, you'd start at the top of the S curve and work your way down. If Michigan gets a 4 seed, they're probably opening in Spokane or Sacramento, because the west will need a fourth team after Gonzaga, SDSU, and the Pac-12 winner.
February 24th, 2020 at 12:49 PM ^
There are plenty of alums here in Sacramento. It’s a bigger city than you’d think (metro area is 2.5 million) and the Bay Area is close — all three major cities of the Bay are about a 1.5 hour drive from here. It would be a home game for Michigan.
February 24th, 2020 at 1:39 PM ^
I don't think Michigan actually gets a choice though, in the sense that the committee isn't literally asking the AD where they want to be (although I've proposed that this be the case). I think they just slot teams into the closest location while taking into account their other rules, right?
February 24th, 2020 at 2:06 PM ^
Starting a couple of years ago, they started asking potential #1 seeds which region they'd like. In general, though, you're right; they just assume you'd prefer to be closer.
February 24th, 2020 at 10:58 AM ^
What goes into the region selection? I imagine if you're a high seed, like a 1 or a 2, they try and put you in the region that geographically makes the most sense for your fanbase, but otherwise, are you just thrown in at random after your seed has been decided?
But yeah I agree, I'd rather not be waiting until 9:55 on a work night to see the team play. And if they end up in Spokane that is exactly what's going to happen.
February 24th, 2020 at 12:05 PM ^
If they end up in Spokane, good chance I'm driving over for it.
February 24th, 2020 at 2:50 PM ^
In terms of rounds 1-2, the top 16 seeds are assigned to the closest available location, in order. Based on this seeding, Kansas and Baylor should both go to Omaha, Gonzaga will be in Spokane, SDSU will be in Sacramento, Maryland and Duke will be in Greensboro, Dayton will be in Cleveland, FSU will wind up in Tampa. All of those are likely to happen regardless of what happens the next few weeks. Once you get to the 3 seed line, you have Creighton, who can't go to Omaha, so they end up in St. Louis with Louisville. Villanova and Seton Hall will go to Albany. On the 4 line, it looks like Kentucky is the top #4, so they get to go to Cleveland. Penn State is the next #4, so they are placed in the closest available spot, which is Tampa. The last two 4 seed spots are going to go to Spokane and Sacramento in some order. Other than Creighton, right now all of the top 13 seeds are getting their first choice for seeding location.
As for the region, I believe the committee places each team in the top four lines in their closest available regional site within each seed band, but will not place top 4 teams from the same conference in the same regional unless there are more than 4 of them. So Duke was the top #2 seed and was assigned to the East region, while FSU was the worst #2 and got sent out West. Louisville, as a #3, could not go to the East or West, so they get sent to the Midwest (which is closer anyway). If there had been a fourth ACC team in the top 4 seed lines, they would have to go the South because it's the only one left.
One of the results of this bracketing technique, when combined with the recent crappiness of the Pac-12, is that not only are at least two pods sent out west with schools that aren't from there, but the West region overall is frequently made of teams that are the worst in their seed band. In this bracket, based on Lunardi's seeding, you have the third #1, the worst #2, the worst #3, and the third or fourth #4. It's something we probably benefited from the last two years, but it's still a bit weird. I always end up picking the most upsets in the West region as a result.
February 24th, 2020 at 11:21 AM ^
well you're talking to a west coast alum living in Los Angeles so you're not going to sway my opinion on this. but I understand the sentiment from non-west coast fans.
February 24th, 2020 at 1:48 PM ^
We opened in Des Moines last year.
February 24th, 2020 at 3:05 PM ^
OTOH, it seems like the West bracket is usually weaker than the others. I'll deal with a late bedtime if we have better Final Four odds.
February 24th, 2020 at 7:06 PM ^
West has practically been a home court for Michigan...sorry for the inconvenience in your schedule.
February 24th, 2020 at 11:08 AM ^
WHAT WOULD YOU DO ONCE AT THE BANK???
such a cliffhanger
February 24th, 2020 at 11:24 AM ^
deposit that shit before someone takes it back!
February 24th, 2020 at 10:38 AM ^
Why do they insist on having us play a team we played earlier in the year again (Oregon)? Seems like this has been done before, or two years in a row of playing Montana in round one. Love how MSU gets Cleveland and we get Spokane... yuck.
February 24th, 2020 at 10:41 AM ^
Why look at bracketology matchups and complain? I just look at the seed and move on. So much is going to happen between now and selection Sunday. I equate this stuff to Mock drafts. Outside of roughly where someone/team is placed, who cares?
February 24th, 2020 at 11:17 AM ^
Its like mock drafts if you can grow 3 inches and decrease your 40 time in the next month. Its silly. If we win every game from now until the tourney we could be a 3 seed (think about the streak we would be on) if we lost most every game we could be on the 8/9 line. To pull anything from where we are now is just guessing.
February 24th, 2020 at 12:15 PM ^
"They" aren't insisting on anything. It's an unofficial guess made a month ahead of time. Individual bracketologists rarely get more than a handful of matchups exactly correct, especially this far in advance.
That said, there is no rule about avoiding non-conference rematches, or year-to-year rematches. There is a rule about avoiding conference rematches.
As for MSU being in Cleveland; if MSU finishes ahead of Michigan on the S-curve, they'll get the better pod. A 5-seed and below doesn't necessarily have any geographic preference.
February 24th, 2020 at 1:58 PM ^
If this was the actual seeding, it's more likely that we get Kentucky in Cleveland and MSU goes to Spokane, for a couple reasons:
1) to avoid a second-round rematch in both games
2) Better bracket integrity. We are the lower 5 seed right now, so we should get the higher 4 seed, which should be Kentucky based on what Lunardi has said.
February 24th, 2020 at 10:38 AM ^
Whatever. Wait until they win (at least) 4 out of the last 5, and enjoy a first round bye in the B1G tourney. That 5 line will seem quaint...
February 24th, 2020 at 10:39 AM ^
Another tough week, but such is life in the B1G these days. Keep playing well, get Livers some rest when we can.
Any update on Brooks yet?
February 24th, 2020 at 12:19 PM ^
Coach Howard said he still looks handsome... and we’re #19 in the new AP Poll!!
February 24th, 2020 at 10:48 AM ^
Well its certainly possible. Especially if the team stays healthy (big if). Only game left on its schedule that I'd be extremely hesitant to say Michigan wins is the @Maryland game.
Michigan will beat Nebraska, should beat Wisconsin at home, and while OSU is probably a toss-up, the difference this time will be that Michigan has Livers. And that automatically makes everyone that much better.
End the year at 21-10, maybe win a game or two in the BTT, and you're definitely looking at 5-seed territory. Somehow win out, including the BTT, and you may get as high as a three-seed.
February 24th, 2020 at 10:49 AM ^
Just the Run the table and grab a 3 seed.
February 24th, 2020 at 12:07 PM ^
*2 seed
Wins at OSU, Maryland, and a big ten tournament title would shoot us to the very top of a weak tournament bracket this year
February 24th, 2020 at 10:59 AM ^
This can't be right. Just a few weeks ago we were assured by all-knowing people here that Michigan had a 0% chance of making the tournament.
February 24th, 2020 at 11:05 AM ^
We were playing like shit, Livers looked to have pretty severely re-aggravated an injury, we had lost three consecutive home games, 6 out of 7 overall, and our senior leader point guard got suspended. And we have a first year coach. Yes, the season looks a lot better now than it did 3 weeks ago but now there is the added perspective benefit of it being not 3 weeks ago. We did not look like a tournament team as of the Ohio State game.
February 24th, 2020 at 11:14 AM ^
And yet we’ve been here before in recent years. You’d think people would learn from their errant overreaches in threads like the “Fire Beilein” series that preceded a B1G tournament title and sweet 16 run (there are literally still guys on the team from that year—people wrote off Simpson as a guy who would never contribute during that season, btw).
Obviously, patience is wise in college basketball fandom. And while Howard isn’t Beilein, he still has experienced players, something history has shown to be an asset in this sort of situation.
People who wrote off the season were wrong. Saying “but the situation has changed!” is a poor excuse, because people with any sort of memory should consider that the situation could change before they jump to conclusions.
February 24th, 2020 at 11:26 AM ^
People are classifying everybody who had different levels of reservation about this season at different times as one group, indistinguishable from each other. I was never part of the fire Beilein crowd nor did I think missing the tournament this year would have been the end of the world. But when we were 14-9 and 3-7 in the BIG after a stretch of home games, my opinion, gun to my head, was "eh probably not, need a bit of a win streak here if were going to make it." That is not the same crowd as "OMG Howard is a disaster." We were on the bubble and trending the wrong way, it wasn't wrong to call it that at that time, particularly after Livers went down a second time and Simpson got suspended.
February 24th, 2020 at 11:50 AM ^
Uh...what? Your opinion at the time you're referencing was not "eh probably not, need a bit of a win streak here if were going to make it." That would have been a reasonable, level-headed take. Yours was far from that.
February 24th, 2020 at 12:10 PM ^
Not true.
I thought Michigan was on the outside looking in on the bubble, that 9-11 in conference would likely be a play-in game, that they needed to win 5 of 6 beginning with the MSU game to be comfortably in, and that people who thought a losing record in conference would get them like a 7-8 seed were crazy. That was my take. And that is what they have done.
You can go ahead and revise history if you need to have a bad guy though, that's fine.
February 24th, 2020 at 12:11 PM ^
You suck.
February 24th, 2020 at 12:12 PM ^
You are going to need to be more specific.
February 24th, 2020 at 12:37 PM ^
That was indeed your take, minus a lot of childish name-calling, faux outrage, and dead-certainty that they weren't getting in the tournament. I believe you referred to anyone who thought they still had a chance as a f*cking idiot, for example.
You can go ahead and revise history if you don't want to just learn from it though, that's fine.
February 24th, 2020 at 12:54 PM ^
Listen man, I had a pessimistic take on the team during the period you are talking about, but I have never in my entire life on this blog called somebody a "f*cking idiot." I didn't call anybody any names, and I never said anything about a "dead certainty" that they were not getting into the tournament.
Yes, I was down on the team's chances and you can judge me for that if you want, this is a level of play that I didn't see them returning to this season, that's fair. But I honestly think you are thinking of poster Outside the Box (Maizen). None of my takes were anything close to what you indicate above.
February 24th, 2020 at 1:03 PM ^
If that's the case, I offer you my sincerest of apologies.
February 24th, 2020 at 1:10 PM ^
I thought we were in trouble and was probably 60-40 that we would end up outside of the field but I don't call anybody names or anything like that, I've never been like that about any topic.
Whatever, in any case, the team has outperformed what I thought they were capable of in the last few weeks. So yes, to the extent that I opined that the tournament was looking like a long shot I was wrong. The team looks great right now.
February 24th, 2020 at 11:54 AM ^
3 weeks ago I was sure we would miss the tournament. But it had nothing to do with Howard, and everything to do with thinking our best player was done for the year. Hell, the last time we had such a bizarre and unknown injury was Caris, and he did not come back. So history should have assured me we were boned.
I guess I can kind of see a little of the Beilein team coming into form with the emergence of Davis and Johns as huge bench assets. But I still think without Livers, we are closer to the outside of the tourney than a 5 seed. Even a game like Rutgers that we won without him, I don't know that it plays the same way if he never comes back to energize the team.
February 24th, 2020 at 11:34 AM ^
We should not need the "added perspective benefit of it being not 3 weeks ago" to know that the outlook could change quickly. That is the frustration with the-sky-is-falling crowd. It is all about what have you done for me lately, and nothing else. Perspective goes out the window.
The schedule was about to get easier. That first-year coach certainly proved something by beating Creighton and dismantling Gonzaga (the coaching complaints were severely overstated even when Michigan was losing). Simpson's suspension was never expected to be long-term, though it's funny because some folks also were petitioning for DDJ to start anyway. And there was some well-documented bad luck and some bad breaks that cost at least a game or two.
Every fanbase does this, I suppose, but still.
February 24th, 2020 at 11:49 AM ^
And yet, still, you could use this as a lesson in not being so stridently, obnoxiously confident about your opinions going forward. That way, next time, you won't have so much egg on your face.
February 24th, 2020 at 12:15 PM ^
I have not changed my opinion. They were on pace to miss the tournament. Rutgers and Purdue had collectively lost one home game between the two of them, Michigan was projected to lose those games, along with Michigan State at home. Michigan has over-performed in the last three weeks to put themselves where they are. I am very happy that they have, but those weren't games they were expected to win.
February 24th, 2020 at 12:39 PM ^
.....so it seems you're choosing not to learn anything from this, then. That's a bold strategy.
February 24th, 2020 at 11:12 AM ^
Those all knowing morons will come back if we lose one game. You just have to learn to ignore stupid
February 24th, 2020 at 11:17 AM ^
Yeah, because everyone knew that UM would get hot, when things were pretty bleak 3.5 weeks ago.
February 24th, 2020 at 4:52 PM ^
This is the primary benefit of computer rankings like Pomeroy's or Torvik's (except when using Torvik's partial-season results, which should generally be ignored unless there's a specific reason to pick a certain date to cleave the season): it gets rid of the ridiculous recency bias you're exhibiting here.
Michigan was never as bad as they looked when they were losing, and they were never as good as they looked when they were winning. They've been in the 11-30 range on KenPom all year, with about 19-21 projected wins. That's solid at-large territory.
Could things have continued to get worse? Sure, and they might have, with Livers out. But, even without Livers, the team is a bubble team. Things weren't nearly as bleak as people thought.