DCAlum

March 7th, 2014 at 11:48 AM ^

Especially since Bracket Matrix usually has a bias towards previous days/weeks, since it incorporates the most recent bracket from all of them (which sometimes includes brackets from a while ago). Since we are on the rise and they are falling, we may have more of a lead on Duke/Syracuse than it even appears here.

sum1valiant

March 7th, 2014 at 1:43 PM ^

I somewhat agreed with you prior to looking into it, but it seems that previous years suggest that it does matter, and rather significantly.  

Two seeds have gone onto play in the Final Four ten times in the last ten years, whereas three seeds have only gone six times.  Two seeds have an overal tournament winning percentage of 70.2%, compared to three seeeds at 64%. Since 1985, two seeds have advanced past the first weekend 46.7% of the time, compared to three seeds at 22.8% of the time.  

 

MichiganExile

March 7th, 2014 at 3:20 PM ^

That's all well and good but the mantra that prior results do not guarantee future performance still holds true here. Getting a 2 or 3 seed in this case is mostly about possible matchups prior to the sweet sixteen (keep in mind if chalk holds true the 2 and 3 are facing off in the sweet sixteen anyway and the winner will end up playing the 1 thereafter). So really what it comes down to is what team Michigan would rather face in the sweet sixteen. According to this bracket matrix the 2 and 3 seeds are as follows 

2's:

Villanova

Wisconsin 

Virginia 

Michigan

3's:

Syracuse 

Duke 

Creighton

Iowa State

 

As it stands Michigan would face one of the 3 seeds. Any of them look particularly terrifying? If Michigan slipped to 3 that means one of those 4 moves up to a 2. Are Villanova, Wisconsin, or Virginia any more worrisome than the teams currently slated as 3 seeds? The difference between a 2 and a 3 in this instance is minimal if non-existent. 

alum96

March 7th, 2014 at 12:07 PM ^

I'd rather have a favorable location like Milwaukee or Buffalo as a 3, than San Diego or whatever as a 2.  These teams (2 seed/3 seed) play each other in the sweet 16 and face similar opening weekend competition.  There is really no difference.... its all about the matchups.   In ranking its like saying the 6th ranked team in the country is playing the 9th - its a tossup.

tommya14

March 7th, 2014 at 12:28 PM ^

Buffalo as the committe starts with 1 seeds and places them as close to home as possible for 1st 2 games. If Michigan 2 seed, Wisconsin would probably be ahead of Michigan and be placed there and Michigan would have to stay ahead of Creighton for other Milwaukee spot.  St Louis is looking like WSU and Kansas.  Buffalo is Syracuse and Villanova.  If Michigan is ahead of Syracuse it would be interesting as Buffalo is closer than Milwaukee to see where Michigan would end up.

jmblue

March 7th, 2014 at 3:25 PM ^

Keep in mind, though, that in '96 we weren't really expected to do much in the tourney (we were a #7 seed and had lost Traylor for the season in the rollover accident), so it's maybe not that surprising that our fans didn't turn out in large numbers.

This year could well be different.  If I were a Michigan fan in Chicago, I'd jump at the chance to go see us in Milwaukee.

 

Richard75

March 9th, 2014 at 10:56 AM ^

Good point, jmblue, but also remember who else will be in Milwaukee: the Badgers. Even though we won't be in their region, they almost certainly will get to play there.

If UW is there, it'll be an overwhelmingly Badger crowd, and thus an anti-Mich one. Whether that would bother our players is another story, but there's certainly no upside to it.

bballislife22

March 7th, 2014 at 12:22 PM ^

UConn is consistently popping up as a 6 or a 7 in most brackets. I don't want them in our region. They are extremely dangerous, both Boatright and especially Napier are very good and capable of taking over games.

LSAClassOf2000

March 7th, 2014 at 12:33 PM ^

Here is the projected composition of the tournament by conference from TeamRankings, if anyone is interested:

Conference
Projected Bids
Big 12 6.5
Big Ten 5.7
Pac-12 5.5
Atlantic 10 5.2
ACC 5
American 4.9
Big East 3.9
SEC 3.1
Mountain West 2.4
WCC 2.1
CUSA 1.7
MAC 1.3
MVC 1.3
Horizon League 1.2
Summit 1.1
MAAC 1
Ohio Valley 1
Sun Belt 1
CAA 1
Southland 1
WAC 1
Patriot 1
Ivy 1
Atlantic Sun 1
America East 1
Big West 1
MEAC 1
Northeast 1
SWAC 1
Southern 1
Big South 1
Big Sky 1
Independents 0

 

Dawggoblue

March 7th, 2014 at 12:39 PM ^

In the same Bracket as the 2 seed and 7 seed.  That can't happen.

 

Also one of the play in games is 11 seed, not both 12.

Yeoman

March 9th, 2014 at 8:22 PM ^

"Also one of the play in games is 11 seed, not both 12."

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong but I think there's no rule about that. If possible the last four at-large teams are placed in play-in games--depending on where the conference champions end up seeded those games could be 11s or 12s.

BlueCE

March 7th, 2014 at 1:25 PM ^

If we pass Duke/Cuse and they become the top 3 seed in our brackets it does not matter given that if we don't pass them then they would be the bottom 2 seeds and also in our bracket... but at least as a 2 we would have a couple of a bit easier matches before we clash with them.

Alton

March 7th, 2014 at 1:56 PM ^

If we use the rankings linked here for the #1-#16 teams, you get regionals that are something like this...

EAST (at New York):  1. Kansas, 2. Villanova, 3. Syracuse, 4. Michigan State

SOUTH (at Memphis):  1. Florida, 2. Virginia, 3. Iowa State, 4. Cincinnati

MIDWEST (at Indianapolis):  1. Wichita State, 2. Wisconsin, 3. Creighton, 4. North Carolina

WEST (at Anaheim):  1. Arizona, 2. Michigan, 3. Duke, 4. San Diego State

Not a strict S-Curve, because we have to avoid having regionals with 2 teams from the same conference in the top 4.  But these are pretty well balanced by seed (assuming bracketmatrix's seeds) and by region.

Alton

March 7th, 2014 at 2:26 PM ^

What I think they will actually do is if the Big Ten tournament champion is Michigan or Wisconsin, they will put the winner in the Indianapolis regional and the loser in the Anaheim regional.  It makes more sense than what I have here (which was just based on bracketmatrix having Wisconsin at #6 and Michigan at #8).

That's generally what they have done in the past--they try not to ship conference tournament champions out west, but instead use it as a "punishment" for teams from major conferences who do poorly in the last week.

Avon Barksdale

March 7th, 2014 at 2:57 PM ^

I have no evidence, nor have I studied it, but I would think being the first #3 seed would almost be better than being the fourth #2 seed. Wouldn't that generally keep you closer to home and give you a more favorable matchup vs a weaker #1?

creelymonk10

March 7th, 2014 at 3:29 PM ^

Usually the best #3 seed will be in the same bracket as the worst #2 seed, so you're going to play the same #1 seed either way (the strongest #1 by the way). The best advantage is playing a 15 and a 7 or 10 seed as opposed to playing a 14 and a 6 or 11 seed.

mfan_in_ohio

March 7th, 2014 at 5:08 PM ^

1-4 seeds are placed in the closest available region. So one region could have the #1, 5, 9, and 13 overall seeds if they were from different conferences. The west, apart from Arizona, might get the worst team in the other bands because San Diego State is the only other top 20 team in that region.

BlueCube

March 10th, 2014 at 10:24 AM ^

has Michigan as the 2nd #2 seed at 2.37. Wisconsin is above them still at 2.01. Virginia dropped below Michigan at 2.46. I have to believe Michigan and Wisconsin could flip positions when more updates are done.

The last #1 seed is Villanova at 1.27. Even with the lag in some of the updates, I doubt Michigan catches them barring a tournament disaster by Villanova.