NBA Interested in our beloved John Beilein:

NBA Interested in our beloved John Beilein:

Submitted by myblueheaven on May 15th, 2014 at 12:16 PM
It's good to know the NBA recognizes what a great coach Beilein has been for Michigan since his arrival! I remember when people thought that his system was not good enough for the B1G, and now it may be coveted on the highest level. Let's hope the big time recruits(ie Josh Jackson) began to see the light as well...Go Blue!!! Here is a link to the article... http://www.rantsports.com/nba/2014/05/13/nba-rumors-john-beilein-would-…

META: MGoBlog Appreciation Thread

META: MGoBlog Appreciation Thread

Submitted by Gulo Gulo Luscus on March 30th, 2014 at 10:05 PM

For a moment I wondered if I was alone in feeling pride above all else in the wake of that heartbreaking loss.  I should have known better.  From Ace's post-game to hundreds of comments on the board, the blog has shown a fantastic display of sportsmanship in fandom.  No moping, a shockingly minimal amount of attempted Sparty trolling, and an overflow of love and support for the team we put on the floor this season.

I've never visited RCMB (won't troll the squad but I'll troll the trolls), but I have a sneaking suspicion its not a pretty place right now.  Pat yourselves on the back MGoBlog, for living up to the inflated ideals of the "Michigan Man," if only for a day.  I enjoyed reading all of your input.  This is what makes the platform so unique and meaningful for all of us.

"Controversial call sends Michigan to Elite 8."

"Controversial call sends Michigan to Elite 8."

Submitted by 1974 on March 29th, 2014 at 9:42 AM

A Yahoo reporter has taken a side on the call. Enjoy:

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/ncaab-the-dagger/michigan-tennessee-sweet…

There's at least one funny "Volunteer" comment.

The reporter (Kaduk) is a former Wisconsin Badger and big Chicago sports fan:

http://kevinkaduk.tumblr.com/

Presumably not a Michigan fan? :)

The Incongruity {REDACTED} of the Two Seed

The Incongruity {REDACTED} of the Two Seed

Submitted by saveferris on March 19th, 2014 at 1:25 PM

My excuse to post the Trey Burke GIF

Last season, as the Michigan basketball team entered the NCAA Tourney as a four seed, we took a look at historically how the fours have fared in tournaments past. The analysis produced this incredibly scientific chart (since adjusted to include 2013 tourney results).

  1 Seed 2 Seed 3 Seed 4 Seed Other
Final Four Appearances 47 25 14 13 17
Percentage 41% 22% 12% 11% 14%*
Championships Won 18 4 4 1 2
Percentage 62% 14% 14% 3% 7%*

* - this 14% represents all Seeds higher than 4 that have made it to the Final Four, so while this number appears high, it's coming out of a much larger pool of participants.  When you factor in the total pool, only about 1% of Seeds higher than 5 make it to the final weekend, with only about 0.1% of those teams winning it all (1985 Villanova, 1988 Kansas)

 

Yes, the answer was discouraging and as it turned out, almost irrelevant as Michigan proceeded to go on an epic run that saw them become just the 3rd four seed ever to make it to the Finals and then came damn close to winning the whole shebang. Through that assessment though, we came across a strange statistical anomaly that this season proves presciently relevant.

  2 Seed
Final Four Appearances 25
Percentage 22%
Championships Won 4
Percentage 14%

 

What’s up with that? While 2 seeds make the Final Four at about half the rate of the one seeds, they win titles at less than a quarter of the rate as the ones. If you like nice, statistical symmetry, you’re probably experiencing one of those involuntary facial tics right about now. Why have 2 seeds historically fallen flat in the Final Four? Let’s have a look.

Diving deeper into the numbers the winning percentage for the Top 4 Seeds in the past 29 tournaments since 1985 for the Semi-Finals and Finals break down like this.

Semi-Finals      
  W L Pct.
1 Seed 27 20 57.4%
2 Seed 12 13 48.0%
3 Seed 9 5 64.3%
4 Seed 3 10 23.1%

 

Finals      
  W L Pct
1 Seed 18 9 66.7%
2 Seed 4 8 33.3%
3 Seed 4 5 44.4%
4 Seed 1 2 33.3%

 

So in the Semi-Finals, the 2 Seeds don’t do too poorly; batting around .500. Plus, of the thirteen 2 Seeds that didn’t advance to the Finals, 10 of them lost to a 3 seed or higher, so it’s not like there are upsets galore grinding them up. Still, when we look at their winning percentage in the Finals? Woof. 2 Seeds have not fared well in the title game of years past. The big reason for this seems obvious, 6 of those 8 losses came against a 1 Seed. The other two losses were delivered by a 3 Seed, which judging by the numbers we’re showing, the discrimination between 2 and 3 seems to be much finer than 1 and 2.

As for those lucky four winners, 3 of those wins all were earned by defeating a 3 Seed. Only one 2 Seed since 1985 has taken home the Championship by defeating a 1 Seed (1986 Louisville over Duke)

So the math here draws some pretty reasonable conclusions. First, the Final Four is averaging just under a 2 Seed per season, so that’s nice. Year-to-year, you can expect at least one 2 Seed to advance to the final weekend. Second, if you are a 2 Seed, hope that the tournament gods deliver you from the evil of the 1 Seed, because you just don’t beat them much. The good news for Michigan this year is that there seems to more parity amongst the Top 16, which means 1 Seeds could be ripe for falling. Of course, that parity affects the entire Top 16 equally, and Michigan’s path seems particularly difficult with Duke sitting out there at the 3 Seed.

Still, compared to last season, the data delivers better news. It’s much better to be a 2 Seed than a 4 Seed (LOLSparty), so here’s to hoping we get to enjoy another deep and entertaining tourney run.