Very optimistic about basketball next year
This year is a race to the NIT imho, but it also builds for next year. I haven't ruled out NCAA but Uconn is a must-win and we have to pretty much run the B10 schedule now. With injuries and underachievers the B10 schedule doesn't look as tough as it once did. I think the only 2 assured teams in the NCAA are Wisc and MSU. Purdue is in unless they continue to collapse like the rest of the B10 teams seem to be doing this year.
Last night when Manny was getting a "rest" we saw what I think is the future of M basketball. With Manny out, they ran 100% of JB's offense which is basically a 4-out with the big at high post. When Vogrich was in with Stu, Novak, Morris, and Simms the floor spacing opened up. This is exactly what JB's offense is supposed to do.
Each game I see Morris I get more excited about him as PG and think that very soon he'll be starting and Stu will move to shooting guard. This is a winner because Morris is a much better PG and a bigger, more active defender. Stu is a spot-shooter than can drop 3's at will when he doesn't have to run point.
My only question is who will play the part of big next year. I think Simms is gone and Gumby is definetly out. Can we find a euro-style big that fits JB's system in the guys on the bench or that we are recruiting?
January 15th, 2010 at 11:04 AM ^
In my opinion, the NCAA Tournament is already out of the question. Even if they won all remaining games, I still believe they would only be a bubble team.
January 15th, 2010 at 11:12 AM ^
i would argue that if M finished the season on a 15-game win streak, including 6 wins over current top-25 teams, as inconceivable as that may be, that would put us past the bubble.
we'd be 24-7 with only 2 big ten losses. not a bad resume.
January 15th, 2010 at 11:19 AM ^
You are probably right. But, even in that situation if we lost one game to MSU and another random game, I believe we would be on the outside looking in.
January 15th, 2010 at 11:36 AM ^
You are insane.
January 15th, 2010 at 1:07 PM ^
Yeah, I guess it probably would have been wise for me to look at the remaining schedule and rankings before making that comment.
January 15th, 2010 at 11:38 AM ^
Obviously this is not going to happen, but do you have any clue what you're talking about? This team is currently 9-7 (3-2) with 13 conference and 1 non-conference game remaining. Your scenario (lose to MSU and one more) would be a final record of 21-9 (14-4). Without even considering that a 14-4 Big Ten record would put them in contention for a Big Ten title, do you really think a 21-9 team would be a bubble team??
Here is what I think. The tournament is unlikely, but not impossible. Beating UConn on Sunday is a MUST, bringing the non-conference record to 7-5 with one quality win. In this situation, an 11-7 big ten record would put us on the bubble at 18-12 total. 18-12 doesn't look that pretty but the Big Ten is a tough conference and we would likely be finishing in the top 4 or 5 with an 11-7 conference record. A win in the big ten tournament would probably do it from there (finishing 11-7 would almost probably have us as the 4 or 5 seed in the conference tourney so one win would be a quality victory). Can we beat UConn and get to 11-7 in Big Ten play? Probably not. But to say that it's completely over and there's no chance isn't true. And to say that going 12-2 in the final 14 would make us a BUBBLE team is just ridiculous.
January 15th, 2010 at 12:18 PM ^
With a 22-9 record, the BTT Championship (which is AQ) and wins over OSU, UW, Purdue, Ill, UConn, and a 13-5 conference record? With the B10 winning the B10/ACC, it is widely considered as the best or second best conference in the country. I think we have a decent chance with a win over UConn, a 11-7 or better conference record and making it to the final of the BTT (20-13 overall record).
January 15th, 2010 at 1:41 PM ^
if we only lost 4 games in the big ten we would be in the top tier of the big ten and most definitely be in the tourney. You need more Jay Bilas in your life.
January 15th, 2010 at 11:30 AM ^
are you kidding? we'd be a 3 seed at worst with that record. Am I on crazy pills?
January 15th, 2010 at 11:36 AM ^
Nope, you're not crazy. Even if we did lose 2 games, we would still easily get in with 22 wins. I don't think we will do this, but anything over 21 wins gets us in (IME).
January 15th, 2010 at 11:11 AM ^
That's the only thing that gets us in and at best we're a bubble. So, we agree. 4 teams from the B10 go this year imho, so we have a long road to be one of those 4 and it starts with UConn.
January 15th, 2010 at 11:14 AM ^
the Big Ten Tourney.
But seriously......
January 15th, 2010 at 11:29 AM ^
Of course you realize, that is completely insane. When was the last time a team from a major conference with only 7 losses on the season didn't make the tournament? I would be floored if it had ever happened.
January 15th, 2010 at 11:05 AM ^
Let's be realistic here. Losing Sims and Harris (most likely) will be very painful. It's going to take at least 2 years to get back to the level this team is right now without them on the roster. They account for something like 60% of the offensive production. I like your optimism, but realistically I believe next year will be more painful than this. The only wild card will be if Harris stays. The team would still be desperately needing a legitimate "big" though.
January 15th, 2010 at 11:29 AM ^
Don't get me wrong, I love aspects of DeShawn's game, I think his desire gets unfairly attacked way too often, and I'm glad to have gotten to watch him play the past four years. But he's an average rebounder, and he's simply not a good defender. He's got the strength to body up on most collegiate 4-5s and the length to challenge most of their shots, but his weakside awareness is terrible - I don't know how many times this year I've seen a wing drive baseline with DeShawn standing in the paint and get all the way to the rim before there's any reaction at all. We'll definitely struggle to find scoring next year, but I really don't see much of a drop-off at all in interior defense. In fact, the possibility of starting >1 player 6'6" or taller has me optimistic for an improvement on this front.
January 15th, 2010 at 7:08 PM ^
but watching him this year; I think it would be wise for him to stay another year.
January 15th, 2010 at 11:12 AM ^
It'll definitely be interesting to see what the team looks like next year. The thing about losing Sims is that while he can be a fantastic scorer (he's honestly got one of the most impressive 17-foot turnarounds I can remember seeing), he's really a pretty average defender and rebounder. With that in mind, I don't think it's out of the question that some combination of McLimans, Morgan, Metrics, and maybe Horford can give us everything he does defensively and on the glass while combining for maybe 15-20 points per game. Granted, none of these guys have played a minute of college ball, so my optimism might be a little unwarranted...
In the backcourt, I'm also really excited about Morris on both ends of the floor. I'm really curious to see if we go bigger next year, moving Novak to the three, or whether we keep on playing essentially a four guard lineup. I'd love to see what Zack can do matched up against guys basically his own size - my guess is that there's going to be a lot of bloody wings around the Big Ten next year.
January 15th, 2010 at 11:23 AM ^
"whether we keep on playing essentially a four guard lineup"
That's basically the 4-out system that JB runs. That's why I think we got to see the future last night and I was more optimistic after seeing it. We'll never play "traditional" basketball and win while JB is where. He's all about spacing, movement, and passing on offense rather than banging down low.
"With that in mind, I don't think it's out of the question that some combination of McLimans, Morgan, Metrics, and maybe Horford can give us everything he does defensively and on the glass while combining for maybe 15-20 points per game."
That's the names that I honestly am not very familiar with.
January 15th, 2010 at 11:37 AM ^
In fairness to your unfamiliarity with names, "Metrics" isn't a real one - it refers to Evan Smotrycz, a highly-regarded 3-4 coming in next year. He's not a great athlete, but he's very skilled offensively and has good size at 6'8". McLimans is in a similar mold in terms of size, athleticism, and skillset and is redshirting this year, while Morgan is also redshirting and is more of a classic five, though he's pretty small for the position at 6'6"-6'7". Horford is the younger brother of Al and is post recruit in the 2010 class. I don't know much about him - he's not terribly highly recruited, but he's apparently been playing well this year and has good height at I think 6'9"-6'10".
I understand about the 4-out on offense, but this system works a lot better if some of those guys have real height. What I'm hoping for is that McLimans/Smotrycz can claim a large chunk of the minutes at a perimeter-oriented four and let Novak match up against wings on defense.
January 15th, 2010 at 11:47 AM ^
Just some more info on Horford for those who arent following.
Per Rivals, he is a 3-star, but they list him at 6/9, 190 lbs. He's around 220 lbs right now. And, having a monster senior season. Michigan is the clear leader. If only signing day was today. He also has offers from Bama, Dayton, Minnesota, Florida, Miami Fla and several other smaller programs like CMU and Providence. UK might eventually get into the mix. Dammit.
Anyway, given his season, his added bulk and a lot more interest now than, say, even over the summer........this is like Metrics. His rankings could jet up higher. Maybe eventually a 4-star and into the top 150? We'll see, but his ranking is a fluid situation and trending up
January 15th, 2010 at 1:50 PM ^
also heard that Horford may not be done growing height wise as well. With Cronin gone, he would be really great to add to this class.
January 15th, 2010 at 12:03 PM ^
Thanks for the info (and the fairness). I haven't followed BB recruiting as much as I probably should.
January 15th, 2010 at 11:14 AM ^
I am an optimist... too much of one. With that said, I think a UConn loss and a 12-6 Big 10 record gets us in (no matter what is done in the conference tourney).
With a UConn win, we can afford to go 11-7 and we're in.
Either way, that's a 18-12 record and in the top 3rd of a legit conference. At 17-13, I think with our inability to beat mid-level teams from legit conferences (Marquette, 'Bama, BC) will be enough to send us to the NIT.
So, currently at 3-2, finishing 12-6 is possible when you consider @Purdue, @Wisco and @Sparty losses. That gives us only one other loss (need to upset one of @Minn, @OSU).
That means every home game (including Sparty and Illini, Wisco) is a must-win, and obviously both Iowa games, Minn, PSU at home. And a revenge win at NW.
It's possible. right?
January 15th, 2010 at 11:23 AM ^
Manny Harris won't be a 1st rounder.. it'd be advisable for him to stay and improve his defense, and mid/long range shot. At this point, his stock is actually plummeting..
I wouldn't count on him forgoing his senior season..
January 15th, 2010 at 11:23 AM ^
I agree with your tourney math. I think they still have a shot at an at large at 17-13, but they would have to advance into the Big 10 semifinals or even the finals. Not necessarily win it, but spend the weekend getting two big wins. 19-14 after a 2-1 Big 10 tourney. I can see that happening.
But, 18-12 and dont lose the first Big10 Tourney game. I think that puts them in good position when its all said and done.
It seems to be a pretty weak year for the bubble. A good Big 10 record might be all it takes to stand out. Selection Sunday is still 2 months away so there is plenty of time for Michigan.
January 15th, 2010 at 11:26 AM ^
I don't think we get in without 20 wins, but NIT championship looks much more achievable with jtmc's numbers. Selfishly I wouldn't be disappointed with NIT because I can be at most or all of those games depending on finances and vacation days.
January 15th, 2010 at 11:46 AM ^
I went to the championship game in 2006, when U-M played South Carolina. I wasn't an M student, I was going to school in the city at the time, but because I was a student in general, I got a courtside seat for $10.
I mean, there are better things, but the NIT isn't so bad.
January 15th, 2010 at 11:52 AM ^
I see where you are coming from vis a vis needing 20 wins.
I feel the Bubble is weak right now. If it stays that way, I dont think 20 wins is the magic number and a win over UConn and 11 Big 10 wins could do it, short of the 20 win mark.
But, if other teams step up over the next month or so and the Bubble becomes stronger, then we'll have to revisit the math.
January 15th, 2010 at 11:29 AM ^
But MAN, am I still smarting about NW/IU...
January 15th, 2010 at 11:41 AM ^
Just one of those games, let alone both, changes the outlook and math for the rest of the season. The NW loss still stings.
The NW loss was the first time all season I began giving up on their tourney chances.
January 15th, 2010 at 11:43 AM ^
Going 4-1 in those first five "easy" Big 10 games was a must. Losing on the road to either PSU or IU I could have lived with. But the loss at home to NW, and the way they lost, that's what really "grinds my gears."
January 15th, 2010 at 11:29 AM ^
His name is Sims.
January 15th, 2010 at 11:32 AM ^
I agree with Steve in PA.
I am not in the group that we're going to suck just because Manny and Sims will be gone.
A big key is this recruiting class. If JB can close and get both Ziegler and Horford, I think you can make the case the roster will be more talented from top to bottom than it is now.
It will be young and unproven, though. So there will be growing pains next season, but they will still contend for a bid.
A 2011-12 team with Novak, Stu and LLP as seniors; morris, vogrich as juniors; McLimas and Morgan as RS Sophs and Ziegler, Metrics, Horford and Hardaway Jr as Sophs.....thats about as talented, experienced and deep this program will have been in years.
So, getting Horford and Ziegler in the fold are the key factors here. How about this factoid: If UM gets Ziegler, then per Rivals, in consecutive recruiting classes, UM will have brought in the best PG, SG and SF in the Big 10 during those years. With recruiting depth behind them.
I like the future of UM Hoops. Keep the faith, people
January 15th, 2010 at 11:38 AM ^
When the taller players who are currently freshmen or recruits mature well, the team will look a lot better. You cannot seriously compete in the Big Ten without height.
Since I have an eye for the absurd, I would love to see an allstar game where the best pros under 6-4 play a regular college all-star team. That would be the best opportunity for a short team to beat a team with resonable height.
As for UM, other than hot streaks, it isn't going to happen until they have legit players with height.
January 15th, 2010 at 12:45 PM ^
Michigan is losing at least one and probably both of its top scorers. I don't think there will be anyone on the team next year taller than 6'5" that has played a minute of college basketball. I think the team takes a step back next year, which is why this year is especially painful.
January 15th, 2010 at 1:24 PM ^
The offense did seem to run smoother with better spacing without Harris on the floor last night. I wonder if the younger players deferring to him causes the offense to sputter at times. When the offense is flowing with him in the game (NCAA first round vs. Clemson) they become a very difficult team to stop.
Darius Morris is improving very quickly, giving hope that next year's drop-off won't be nearly as severe as some project. A lot of that depends on the capability of Metrics and hopefully Horford coming in and contributing.
Still holding out hope for this year...a boy can dream
January 15th, 2011 at 12:12 PM ^
Especially ones where I got it right...with the exception of NIT championship. We are playing JB's ball this year, but we're doing without a eurostyle bigman. Morgan is getting it done in the traditional big role.