Jordan Poole Freshman Year Highlight Video

Jordan Poole Freshman Year Highlight Video

Submitted by Indy Pete - Go Blue on July 4th, 2018 at 2:11 PM

Jordan Poole had an impressive highlight to minutes played ratio as a freshman.  On this 4th of July, have yourself a little Poole party and watch this video made by my superfan son (who is now 12!)  Happy 4th to all and GO red, white, and BLUE!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJhSStFLqjA

Michigan a very good bet this year

Michigan a very good bet this year

Submitted by Dailysportseditor on March 6th, 2018 at 3:18 PM

Michigan basketball has been a good bet this year, literally.  VegasInsider and OddsShark websites list Michigan with 22 wins ATS this season, tied for most in the country with Nebraska.

 

http://www.vegasinsider.com/college-basketball/against-the-spread/

https://www.oddsshark.com/ncaab/ats-standings

2015 Final Four contrasting approaches

2015 Final Four contrasting approaches

Submitted by champswest on May 3rd, 2015 at 4:54 PM

There is more than one way to skin a cat or get to a Final Four. One way is to use the Duke/Kentucky/Kansas/UNC way of grabbing as many top 35 guys (or as in the case of Kentucky, top 25 guys) and then throw them out there for a year or two and try to out talent other teams and then move on to the next class of five stars as this year’s team heads to the NBA.  Or, you can use the MSU/Wisconsin/UCONN method of signing guys ranked in the 100-200 range (or as in the case of Wisconsin, 200+) and try to develop them over a 4-5 year period to become a well-oiled machine that can beat you with their system and efficiency. Of course, all coaches try to get as good of players as they can (you are trying, Wisconsin, right?), but somehow they seem hard to come by.

With that in mind, I looked at this past season’s final four teams (I threw in Michigan in case anyone was wondering how we compare).  I listed each team’s players in order of average minutes played per game, with the number of average minutes played appearing in the column representing the recruiting class that they were in.  I totaled the minutes by class for each team so that we could easily see how many minutes each team was getting from freshmen, sophomores, juniors and seniors. Because Kentucky went 10 deep, I included the top 10 players for each team. In the first column, I included each player’s 247 Sports Composite Ranking.

 

Duke

         

247 Sports

Fr.

Soph

Jr

Sr

RS Sr

Rank

Player

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

33

Cook

     

35.9

 

7

T. Jones

33.1

       

1

Okafor

30.7

       

13

Winslow

28.8

       

30

Jefferson

   

22.2

   

37

M. Jones

 

20.3

     

13

Saulaimon

   

19.3

   

26

Ojeleye

 

10.5

     

62

Plumlee

     

9.4

 

25

Allen

8.1

       

247

Total

100.7

30.8

41.5

45.3

0

             
 

Wisconsin

         

247 Sports

 

Fr.

Soph

Jr

Sr

RS Sr

Rank

Player

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

218

Kaminsky

     

32.6

 

145

Hayes

 

32.5

     

207

Gasser

     

 

32.1

12

Dekker

   

29.8

   

111

Koenig

 

27.6

     

201

Jackson

     

27.4

 

200

Dukan

     

 

16.6

239

Showalter

   

7.7

   

230

Brown

 

6.8

     

254

Dearring

 

2.8

     

1,817

Total

0

69.7

37.5

60

48.7

             
 

Kentucky

         

247 Sports

 

Fr.

Soph

Jr

Sr

RS Sr

Rank

Player

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

6

Arron Harrison

 

25.8

     

5

Andrew Harrison

 

25.4

     

43

Cauley-Stein

   

25.4

   

19

Ulis

22.9

       

10

Lyles

21.9

       

22

Booker

21.8

       

5

Towns

20.7

       

8

Polythress

   

20.3

   

10

Johnson

 

17.3

     

18

Lee

 

11.7

     

146

Total

87.3

80.2

45.7

0

0

             
 

Michigan State

       

247 Sports

 

Fr.

Soph

Jr

Sr

RS Sr

Rank

Player

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

105

Valentine

   

32.8

   

188

Trice

     

32.6

 

17

Dawson

     

29.8

 

290+

Forbes

   

27.1

 

 

92

Costello

   

20.1

   

104

Nairn

19.1

       

137

Schilling

 

17.4

     

149

Bess

11.4

       

219

Clark

11.1

       

290

Ellis

 

8.9

     

1,591

Total

41.6

26.3

80

62.4

0

             
 

Michigan

         

247 Sports

 

Fr.

Soph

Jr

Sr

RS Sr

Rank

Player

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

28

Irvin

 

36.1

     

215

LeVert

   

35.8

   

44

Walton

 

33.3

     

171

Albrecht

   

31.4

   

326

Dawkins

19.9

       

203

Doyle

18.7

       

385

Abdur-Rahkman

17.7

       

27

Chatman

15.3

       

253+

Bielfeldt

     

13.6

 

86

Donnal

 

11.3

     

1,738

Total

71.6

80.7

67.2

13.6

0

             
   

Fr.

Soph

Jr

Sr

RS Sr

   

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

247

Duke

100.7

30.8

41.5

45.3

0

1,817

Wisconsin

0

69.7

37.5

60

48.7

146

Kentucky

87.3

80.2

45.7

0

0

1,591

Michigan State

41.6

26.3

80

62.4

0

1,738

Michigan 

71.6

80.7

67.2

13.6

0

Duke got nearly 101 minutes from freshmen, Kentucky got over 87 and Wisconsin got zero.  On the other hand, Wisconsin Seniors contributed 109 minutes compared to Duke’s 45 and Kentucky’s zero.  If you compare the first and second year players against the upper classmen, Duke is 132/87, Kentucky is 168/46, Wisconsin is 70/146 and MSU is 68/142. 

If you compared Wisconsin’s player rankings against Kentucky and Duke, you might expect a 30-point Badger loss.  The fact that Wisconsin defeated the Wildcats and played the Blue Devils right down to the wire, speaks well for Bo Ryan’s system (and UCONN last year). On the other hand, Kentucky did go 38-1 and Duke won it all, both using more of the 5 star approach. For further contrast, note the total of each team’s player ranking. Kentucky’s total is only 146. MSU had 5 players with an individual ranking number higher than 146, Michigan had 6 and Wisconsin had 7.

Although these four coaches seem to be using different philosophies, they all have been successful.  MSU, Duke and Wisconsin have been in all of the last 16 tournaments, while Kentucky has been in 14.  Between them, they have 24 Elite Eight appearances, 17 Final Four appearances and 8 Championship Game appearances in those last 16 tournaments.

Sagarin B1G ratings: In BB, UM #1, in FB UM still >Ohio.

Sagarin B1G ratings: In BB, UM #1, in FB UM still >Ohio.

Submitted by michelin on November 25th, 2012 at 12:19 PM

According to the Sagarin ratings, which predict actual game outcomes:*

IN BB, UM is #1 in the B1G.  In the nation, UM is #3,  IND #4, and Ohio is not in the top 10.*

IN FB, on a neutral field UM would still be favored over Ohio (by 0.15 pts).   Why? UM’s nonconference opponents included the two teams now favored to be in the national title game.  By contrast, Ohio’s “marquee” nonconference game this year supposedly was Cal, which is now not even in the top 70 nationally.  Moreover, Ohio’s  other wins were often very narrow.  In fact, even for the UM game, they were only +2 pts after subtracting 3pts for home field (not even considering the injury to UM’s starting QB). 

What then should we make of Ohio’s claim that they could win the AP national title?  That claim should be laughable to any educated voter.  In fact, Ohio is not even ranked in the top 20 nationally by Sagarin (they are #24, whereas UM is #22).  Also, Ohio will not be tested in a competitive bowl or conference championship.  Indeed, in the latter, on a neutral field, they would be  favored by less than half a point vs WISC, 2.5 pts vs NW and they would be underdogs to both NEB and UM.

Interestingly, ND's delusions of grandeur also should be tempered.  Although human pollsters will no doubt put them #1, would ND actually be favored to beat all the other teams according unbiased Sagarin PREDICTOR ratings?  No, not at this point. Why?  ND had many narrow wins, even over marginal teams and teams expected to be huge challenges--like USC--turned out not to be so great.  Thus, by Sagarin's ratings, while ALA is #1 and Oregon #2, ND is only #3  Both ALA and OR both would be favored over ND by large margins on a neutral field.  In addition, unlike ALA but like Ohio, ND will not be tested in a conference championship game.

 

*I report only those ratings that predict actual game outcomes.  For BB I take the average of ELO and PREDICTOR ratings.   For FB, I report only PREDICTOR ratings (not the ELO-CHESS, which is used by the BCS but does not consider margin of victory or predict actual game outcomes).

 

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin.htm

Predictions for UM basketball

Predictions for UM basketball

Submitted by ChesterBlue on December 28th, 2010 at 12:53 AM

The Hoops team has played well during the pre Big Ten schedule.  Granted the preseason expectations were very low and the team has easily exceeded those expectations.

Can they maintain this level of play in the Big Ten? 

I'm going to be an optimist and say:

Morris will be able to see over the smaller PG in the BTen and drive and dish and ave.14p/6a/3r game in BT

Smotrcyz and Hardaway will be up and down and have nearly identical stats...each averaging  8/2/2

Outside shooting will be improved over last year....shoot  34% from 3pt  & 45% from 2pt

Defense will continue play as a unit and be effective most of the time...hold opp to 41% fg%
 
Win turnover battle, lose rebounding battle

8 wins -10 losses IN THE BIG TEN regular season

1 win in BT tourney

Make the NCAA