Where will MBB be ranked?

Submitted by 1464 on

Speculation time.  I took a look at the AP polls this morning, and noticed how grossly underrated Michigan is at the current moment.  I know that the polls do not reflect the Iowa win or the Minnesota win over Wisconsin, but still... Iowa, OSU, and Wisconsin are all ranked higher.  Not to mention other 4 loss schools such as Kansas and Kentucky.  I'm of the impression that the B1G is far and away the best basketball conference, so should that not be reflected in the rankings?

So where do we end up next week, win or lose?

Even with a loss, should we not rise in the rankings?  Outside the B1G, UMass lost.  We should also jump some of the 2-4 loss teams, even with 5 losses, right?

With a win, are we in the top 10?  Beating 3-10-3 in a row?  I don't think a 10+ spot jump should be considered unrealistic.

bronxblue

January 25th, 2014 at 9:57 AM ^

It doesn't really matter, but I figure they'll rise regardless unless it is some crazy blowout loss, and even then they still went 2-1 against a tough stretch.

But at this point, just win these games and play for the conference title.  I'm actually a bit worried about the two Indiana schools following this run; that feels like a letdown loss especially at Assembly Hall.  Of course, that's probably just the pessimism talking.

Mr. Yost

January 25th, 2014 at 10:00 AM ^

...but who cares? It's basketball and it really doesn't matter like it does in football.

And Michigan isn't THAT underrated, we started high and went through some growing pains and fell out of the top 25. It's a lot harder to move up in basketball than it is in football. Manly because there are so many more games played.

In football you can move up during a Bye Week if 4-5 teams ahead of you lose (assuming they lose to teams that are either above your or well behind you). There is also a clearer distinction of who is good in football.

Basketball is different, top teams and go 1-1 during a week and if that loss is on the road vs. a quality team, they're not going to fall very far. Look at us, we didn't. We hung around the top 25 with the most losses of anyone in the top 25 for awhile.

In the end, it just doesn't matter and it's not even worrying about. It's not like we get a BCS bid if we're in the top 12 or we get into better position for a playoff at the end of the season. Rankings don't mean nearly as much.

The only time they mean anything is when you can add some type of historical context to it "highest road win vs. a ranked opponent" or "most weeks ranked #1 of any team all season." That kind of stuff means more than finishing the regular season #9 in the country.

ijohnb

January 25th, 2014 at 10:21 AM ^

said, at some point in any given season the "haves" and "have nots" are pretty much identified for the season as far as rankings go unless they have an epic collapse.  A prime example is Michigan last year, who really flat out faltered for almost the entire second have of the season but really never fell out of the Top 10 because they had cemented themselves in the club.

This is a game that will define whether the polsters consider Michigan a "have" or "have not" in terms of the rankings.  Win tonight and we spring into the Top 12-15 and remain around there unless we lose 3 straight or there is an injury.  Lose tonight and we still fall into the 20-25 range and remain there if we remain there if we stay reasonably consistent.  This win is likely the difference between a 3ish seed or a 6ish seed barring anything truly unforeseen.

Nitro

January 25th, 2014 at 10:22 AM ^

The rankings are major factor for the tournament committee when they determine seeding. It most certainly matters. A higher ranking also makes each of our games seem more important nationally, and this additional attention can help with recruiting. Again, while rankings may not be something you give much credence to personally, they most certainly matters to the team and the program.

ijohnb

January 25th, 2014 at 11:19 AM ^

Say they are not the only factor in seeding is accurate, to say they are not considered is absurd. Yes, somewhat "advanced" metrics have come into play, but there was a time when ranking and seed had almost a direct correlation. The polls matter. "The polls don't matter" is a false fad position typically used by those who see the unfortunate side of the polls more times than not.

Nitro

January 25th, 2014 at 10:42 AM ^

Also, I'm wondering about what's a "highest road win vs. a ranked opponent." I'm assuming we'd at least have to hot box the team bus on the drive over, but that's probably just a start if we're trying to be the highest ever historically. I'd imagine there must have been a pretty big mark set by one of the teams in the 60s/70s.

mclub

January 25th, 2014 at 10:00 AM ^

As fans, it is fun to speculate and I think this is a good question. How could you not have Michigan in the top 15 at the very least with a hypothetical win?

Swayze Howell Sheen

January 25th, 2014 at 10:10 AM ^

with win: #9

with loss: #17

unfortunately we'll only be able to evaluate one of my predictions.

 

I also predict a lot of people will say that this is a dumb thread and explain (in great detail) why that is the case.

 

Generic MGoBlogger

January 25th, 2014 at 10:16 AM ^

Let's not get ahead of ourselves..... This is college basketball we are talking about... I'm not saying we should set ourselves up for disappointment, but we should be ready for anything whether it's rankings or late season performance... I remember we all had to take ourselves away from the edge last season come mid February.

Billy Ray Valentine

January 25th, 2014 at 11:04 AM ^

I would trade a lower ranking for a B1G championship any day.  I know that's a mostly hollow statement because winning the B1G likely will mean a better ranking.  Still ... I don't care about what either the writers or other coaches/Associate to the Associate ADs think.

 

Looking forward, a win @ Staee, based on our compared future schedules, puts us in an excellent position to win our first outright B1G championship in almost 3(!) decades.  MSU has to play @ Iowa, @ Michigan, @ Wisconsin and @ OSU.  Michigan has to play @ Iowa and @ OSU.  I really like our chances if we hold serve at home.

 

Astute grasp of the obvious: tonight's game is huge -- maybe even "Championship" huge.

 

Sledgehammer

January 25th, 2014 at 10:48 AM ^

Why do people always post in these threads about not caring and only worrying about one game at a time? That only matters for the actual team, which I'm sure no one on here is a part of. We are fans and are supposed to speculate.

Nitro

January 25th, 2014 at 11:06 AM ^

Actually, threads get deleted and people get banned. This privately run message board doesn't afford constitutional rights, which are written as rights guaranteed by the government. I don't remember the exact grade in which I learned this.

Tater

January 25th, 2014 at 11:56 AM ^

Anyone who has ever seriously participated in a sport or gaming knows that you can only win the game you are playing now.  That knowledge usually makes a lot of the other speculation sound like the blathering of those who don't know wjhat it's like to compete.  

As for the actual p[ost, I kope that Michigan continues to improve faster than their rankings do.  Not only can they play the "no respect card, they can also benefit from the element of surprise when playing well.  

Purkinje

January 25th, 2014 at 11:27 AM ^

We'd sure as hell better be in the top 10 after we win tonight. Back to back to back wins over top 10 teams, including 2 on the road? If that's not top 10, nothing is.

umchicago

January 25th, 2014 at 11:50 AM ^

i've never understood the obsession of rankings during the season; especially for basketball.  that said, i thought it was somewhat important last year to be ranked #1 for awhile.  it got another monkey off the program's back.

this year, however, i couldn't care less as long as we are playing our best ball come season's end.

and beat sparty!

michelin

January 25th, 2014 at 12:07 PM ^

Sagarin has us ranked #10, the same as KenPom.  Iowa is the only 4-loss team above us.  Iowa’s higher average ranking is due to the fact that their losses were pretty close and they had several blow-out wins. 

Also, I believe that Sagarin (?KenPom too) does not consider the fact that our recent record is significantly better than Iowa's.  So, we may deserve an even higher ranking if one weighs recent wins more heavily than ones at the beginning of the season.

Even though many computer polls have this limitation, the human polls (AP, Coaches')  can be far worse. For example, UM had a slow start.   As one poster below noted, that “cemented” their position somewhat.   In scientific terms, this is called an “anchoring” bias.  Human pollsters take a team’s initial position as an "anchor" (even if based on a small number of games).  They then adjust the team's position upward or downward after wins or losses.  Typically, the adjustments are insufficient.  Such overly conservative revisions can lead to highly irrational rankings when a team starts poorly but finishes strong—as in the case of UM.