Updated B-Ball Rankings and the Problem with Nevada

Submitted by xtramelanin on February 19th, 2019 at 10:43 AM

Mates,

The hoops rankings came out yesterday and we were bumped down a spot, sparty moved up one, Duke went to #1, and Tennessee went to #5.  LSU leaped from 19th to 13th and Iowa State made a move up, too.  Nova dropped 4 spots down to 17. 

We actually swapped spots with Nevada.  And to borrow a phrase, 'I got a problem with Nevada's ranking'.   They play in the Mountain West and their OOC schedule is meh at best.  Its not that they are a garbage team but seriously, they play Our Sisters of Walkers and Canes and the Holy School for the Clubfooted.  Give me a break.  They even have a #10 ranking in the power rankings.  That just can't be correct.

The rankings are here, and that number at the far right of each team is their ranking in the previous week:

1. Duke (58)23-2               2

2. Gonzaga (6)25-2          3

3. Virginia 22-2                  4

4. Kentucky 21-4                5

5. Tennessee 23-2             1

6. Nevada 24-1                  7

7. Michigan 23-3                6

8. North Carolina 20-5       8

9. Houston  25-1                 9

10. Michigan St.21-5       11

11. Marquette 21-4           10

12. Kansas 20-6               14

13. LSU 21-4                    19

14. Texas Tech 21-5         15

15. Purdue 18-7                12

16. Florida St .20-5           17

17. Villanova 20-6             13

18. Louisville 18-8            16

19. Iowa St.19-6              23

20. Virginia Tech 20-5      22

21. Iowa 20-5                    21

22. Wisconsin 17-8          20

23. Kansas St.19-6         18

24. Maryland 19-7           24

25. Buffalo 22-3                25

Anyway, 2 questions today:

1.  General thoughts on the rankings, for instance, us getting bumped down while sparty got bumped up one despite losing arguably their best player.

2.  What is up with Nevada's ranking, and where is the basketball justice in that inflated nonsense?

Your thoughts, please.   

XM

 

 

WorldwideTJRob

February 19th, 2019 at 10:58 AM ^

1. We did lose to the worst team in the B1G this past week so they had to penalize us. Sparty won both games this week, plus usually the weekly rankings don’t factor in injuries. Now when it comes time to seeding them, the committee may drop them down if they think their team is not as potent without Ward & Langford.

 

2. Nevada is legit! They have a number of high major transfers on that squad with a capable coach. The MW is not as good as a power conference, but come tourney time they’ll make a nice run.

FauxMo

February 19th, 2019 at 11:00 AM ^

Basketball rankings - to me, anyway - matter much, much, MUCH less than in football. Let Nevada have their higher ranking. I am pretty confident that if today was Selection Sunday, we'd get a higher seed than Nevada... 

Hei2man

February 19th, 2019 at 11:01 AM ^

For reference, here is each member of the AP top 10's records vs. AP top 25 opponents:

Michigan: 6-0
Houston: 2-0
Nevada: 1-0
Duke: 7-1
Michigan State: 6-1
Virginia: 6-2
Kentucky: 5-2
North Carolina: 5-3
Gonzaga: 1-2
Tennessee: 1-2

— Scott Bell (@sbell021) February 18, 2019

Ty Butterfield

February 19th, 2019 at 11:16 AM ^

Top 25 polls mean even less in basketball. Take care of your own business to get the best NCAA tournament seed possible. The last two seasons Michigan was unranked in the preseason coaches poll but finished ahead of Staee in the final coaches poll. 

Bodogblog

February 19th, 2019 at 11:21 AM ^

NET has Nevada #11, Kenpom has them #17, and Torvik has them #21.  They will fall behind Michigan assuming we beat MSU, Md on the road, have some B1G tourney wins. 

4th and Go For It

February 19th, 2019 at 11:21 AM ^

Extremely likely we are a 2 seed unless we go on an absolute tear to finish the season. Sweep the remaining games and win the BTT, then I think we've got a case for a 1 seed.

Duke is basically a lock for a one seed, and barring Virginia falling apart over the last few games, if they finish with two close losses to Duke and maybe one other L, they've got a better case than ours.

The other two 1 seeds are between Us, Kentucky, Tennesee, and Gonzaga assuming we all finish strong. Need to win out to jump to the top of that group. Nevada seems unlikley to earn a one seed as they've played no one and have a nearly 30 point loss on their resume.  (edit: I should say I think this is what we need in the eyes of the committee, not what i think is necessarily deserved.)

J.

February 19th, 2019 at 12:47 PM ^

Sweep the remaining games and win the BTT, then I think we've got a case for a 1 seed.

"A case?"

There is no scenario in which a 31-3, regular season and tournament champion of the highest-rated conference in the country is not a one seed. None.  The question is whether or not they get the overall #1 seed, which would depend upon what Duke does down the stretch.

Per KenPom, Michigan has less than a five percent chance of finishing the regular season without another loss, let alone winning an unprecedented third-straight Big Ten tournament title.  So I think these concerns may be putting the cart ahead of the horse a bit. :)

If Michigan or MSU sweeps the other and wins the regular season title, there's a good chance that team is a #1 just by making the BTT final.  If it's a split, or 2-1 including a BTT tournament win, either of those teams probably picks up a #1 seed by winning the BTT.

TrueBlue2003

February 19th, 2019 at 2:13 PM ^

Correct.

People forget that other teams are entering the tough parts of their schedules too.  Duke and UNC play twice more, Kentucky goes to Tennessee, Tennessee goes to LSU.  There are a lot more losses to be had by the top teams.

A 31-3 Michigan team would only possibly be behind the ACC tourney champ in the overall seedings and that's if the ACC tourney champ doesn't lose 2 more before that tournament - not a given - or UK/Tenn if one of them wins out as well (super unlikely).

bacon1431

February 19th, 2019 at 11:32 AM ^

Nevada is where they are because they were ranked top 10 at the beginning of the season. They don't have alot of quality wins, but they've also only lost 1 game. And that was a month and a half ago. We've lost three games in that span and one of them was a "bad" loss. Coaches/AP rankings don't matter except for when a random person is watching a random game on ESPN or Fox. Committee won't use it to evaluate. They're going to care more about NET. 

xtramelanin

February 19th, 2019 at 3:41 PM ^

i taught my mgowife how to hunt and fish, and she already knew how to ski.  good thing, too, since those were some of the activities of the honeymoon and now marriage.  she could not match me on booze though, but i'm not much of a drinker myself so no big deal.  

you did remind me of this old sign though...

Wanted Good Woman Sign Must Have Boat and Motor Vintage Antique Rep

LAmichigan

February 19th, 2019 at 11:43 AM ^

The rankings certainly do matter.  How many years did an undeserving MSU get a cakewalk bracket, end up in the Final Four, and then say, "Hey, we're coached by Mr. March"?

Hail-Storm

February 19th, 2019 at 12:03 PM ^

Last point about Sparty not getting bumped despite a hurt player.  They won their game on a huge run when the player was hurt.  It might mean they lose more down the road with him gone, but I am against teams being bumped because of a hurt player before the games are played.

I think Michigan should easily be above Nevada.  Seems weird.  Other teams above them are getting pushed up because of their competitive record.  Michigan has a bunch of great wins, and only two more losses, but isn't given the same reasoning for being pushed up.  In the end, I don't think it matters much.  Michigan is probably not a 1 seed, so I don't see a huge difference between the next 8 spots. Even then, it's hard to decipher what is a great seed.  Last year, Michigan played a bunch of lower seeds to the championship.  In 2013, they played a murderous row of contenders to make it.  March madness is crazy. And I love Beilein teams during that madness.

footballguy

February 19th, 2019 at 1:25 PM ^

I would bank on our bracket being a little less volatile this year. Last year was awesome and borderline hilarious, but we're going to have a harder path this year. But if we get a 1/2, we should have a solid path to the E8. 

But I want to win the regular season and BTT. The NCAA tournament is just so brutal (all 3 of our best runs under Beilein we're extended or ended on miraculous 3's), and we don't know who we are matched up with yet, so we can't look too far ahead. But we know the teams we have to beat to win the B1G titles, and I know we can win both, so I want to win both 

Hail-Storm

February 19th, 2019 at 3:42 PM ^

Yeah, last year was one of the craziest brackets I've ever seen, and the other half of the bracket played out pretty well.  Michigan will definitely play a harder path of teams this year.  It is amazing how many of their wins and losses have come on 1 shot.  Still wish they got that win against Oregon, because I remember thinking the team they would have played in the final four was a good matchup for Michigan.  Plus another FF for Beilein and Michigan in what is already an unbelievable run from 2013 until now.

StephenRKass

February 19th, 2019 at 12:17 PM ^

Mate,

I have no problem with the ranking. As said by others, we lost to PSU, and really stunk in the process. The fact that Nevada is ranked above Michigan generates clicks, that's all. How good Nevada is will be revealed when they face the likes of Duke, VA, TN, Michigan, North Carolina, MSU, Wisconsin, Gonzaga, Kentucky, Purdue, and a few others.

Actually, every team will be revealed in the Tournament. The only challenge is brackets. I don't care all that much where Michigan is ranked, as long as they aren't in the same bracket as Duke. Matchups are critical. I'd be 100% fine with Michigan being ranked behind Gonzaga and Nevada, and end up in the same bracket.

My question for you:  which teams this year would you like to avoid until as late as possible? I already mentioned Duke. Are there others you think Michigan would really struggle to beat? UVa? Tennessee? No one at all?

My hope, which may just be wishful thinking, is that Michigan finally regresses to the mean with 3 point shooting. If Iggy, Poole, Teske, and Matthews, even Simpson, are hitting threes at 35%, a ton of problems go away and we can beat anyone. However, it is important that ALL the starters, along with Livers, are hitting above 30%. This really keeps defenses honest. If defenses can cheat off of Teske, Simpson, and even Matthews, the lane will stay clogged. Conversely, if everyone is a threat, and has to be guarded, everything on the floor opens up.

Michigan is at 2 for adj. defense on Kenpom. That will win most games. But they are at 35 for adj. offense. If they can raised that to the 15 - 20 ranking, they'll beat almost everyone.

NittanyFan

February 19th, 2019 at 12:17 PM ^

Is Nevada really a problem?

(1) The weekly AP polls don't mean anything anyway.

(2) Kenpom has them at #17.  The advanced analytics view them as non-elite but also legitimately good.

(3) As long as they don't lose more than 1 more game going out, they'll be a #3-#5 seed in the NCAA.  Appropriate per their advanced analytics stats.  With that seed, barring an upset, they'll get a significant test in their 2nd round match-up.  They'll play someone like Virginia Tech or Wisconsin or Villanova or K-State (et cetera).

(4) E.g., we should find out pretty quickly in March how truly good they are.

TrueBlue2003

February 19th, 2019 at 12:59 PM ^

No, they're not a problem.  Like you said, they won't be seeded better than a 3 in the tournament, and Michigan would have to lose probably 4 more games (including BTT) to drop below them in seeding. 

If Michigan finishes 3-2 in the regular season, Michigan won't be worse than a 3 seed and they'll avoid having to play a 1 seed in the round of 8, should they get there which is the most important thing about seeding, in my mind.

JBlitz1

February 19th, 2019 at 12:20 PM ^

Heard today that MSU has been a better PPP rate on offense and defense without Ward in there (I get that there are reasons...), but at this point you can't really ding them for losing Ward.  They will have a chance to show how good (hopefully less good) they are the next few weeks

Seems like Houston has as much of a case as Nevada for any ranking Nevada gets at this point, but I don't think either is actually a top 10 team. Nevada's offensive output probably the difference

TrueBlue2003

February 19th, 2019 at 1:46 PM ^

This is like Michigan last year with Wagner and Teske.  Michigan was actually better with Teske on the floor for the last couple months of the season on a per possession basis.

MSU has a similar situation because their backup is a good player in his own right and better in some ways than the starter.

The problem is, without Ward, depth becomes an issue.  MSU will be fine with Tillman out there but when Tillman isn't out there, then it's a potentially huge dropoff from what would have been Ward to a 3rd string guy.

Now that some other guy is going to have to play probably 10+ minutes a game, the dropoff in question is from Ward to that guy, not Ward to Tillman.

Perkis-Size Me

February 19th, 2019 at 12:33 PM ^

We lost to Penn State, friend. The bottom-feeding cellar dweller in this conference, and at points in that game last week, we were getting whooped. You can argue Ken-Pom fancy stats all you want. They're still 9-16.

Either way, I'm fine with the rankings being where they are. We're not good enough to be considered a 1-seed right now, and honestly unless we win out, including the BTT, I doubt we'll get high enough to be a 1-seed. Even then, it may not be enough depending on what everyone in front of us does. Duke and Gonzaga have all but locked up one-seeds at this point, so we'll want to see Tennessee and UK slip up somewhere between now and Selection Sunday. All I can really ask for is to not be put in the same region as Duke. Avoid them for as long as possible in the tournament. Frankly, I'd rather be a 3 or 4 and not in Duke's region, than be a 2-seed in Duke's region. Which unfortunately is exactly where Lunardi has us right now. 

I also think the pollsters definitely play the "what have you done for me lately" kind of game. Minus a few spurts here and there, Michigan hasn't really passed the proverbial "eye test" the last month or so. At least not on offense. Wins are wins, sure, and that's why they're #7 right now. But the most complete games they've played this side of 2019 have been against Indiana. And those wins really aren't all that impressive anymore. Much of their remaining wins have come with a very inconsistent offense that got bailed out by lights-out defense. 

Nevada had a bad loss, sure. But that loss was a month and a half ago, and they avenged it about a week ago. They've had a ton of time to make up ground. 

Dawggoblue

February 19th, 2019 at 1:04 PM ^

Gonzaga might be the real deal, but they should have to prove it more than 3 times a year and at least once against a tournament team in the 3 months leading up to tournament.

Gonzaga shouldn't get higher than a 3 seed based on scheduling alone.  Nevada shouldn't get higher than a 5.

Michigan could end up playing the same number of top 25 opponents in their conference tournament as Gonzaga did all season, but somehow Gonzaga with a losing record against said top 25 opponents is a 1 seed?  Not buying it.

4th phase

February 19th, 2019 at 1:34 PM ^

As has been pointed out on this site, the seedings should be based on results not predictions and computer models. Gonzaga doesn't deserve a 1 seed. I don't care they are blowing out terrible teams. They are living off their Duke win, which was only by 2 points. Easily could have gone the other way. Their next best wins are Washington and Illinois who won't make the tournament. 

Nevada is even worse but at least the committee realizes it and has them as a 4 currently.

TrueBlue2003

February 19th, 2019 at 2:00 PM ^

Eh, the WCC is better than people think.  St. Mary's and San Francisco are both top 50 teams and rank in all systems and metrics just about the same as Minnesota and Indiana.   So, they have several wins better than Illinois.  BYU is right around as good as PSU, Illinois, Northwestern, etc.  San Diego is a top 100 team.

Knock the schedule of Nevada all you want. Theirs is terrible, but Gonzaga has played enough Q1 games and dominated enough in many of them to warrant a 1 seed at this point, in my opinion.

Dawggoblue

February 19th, 2019 at 3:39 PM ^

Better than most people think?  It is a one bid conference assuming Gonzaga doesn't lose their tournament.  

Trying to prop up a conference by saying their 2nd best team isn't good enough to make the tournament doesn't really make their conference look any better.

Gonzaga is going to play 6-7 total Q1 games all year depending on what Creighton and BYU do at the end.  Could be as low as 5.

 

Duke 12

Virginia 13

Kentucky 14

Tennessee 11

Michigan St 16

Michigan 13

UNC 14

Kansas is freaking 18.  18!  

Gonzaga hasn't earned anything.  They are UCF.  Look at their tournament record in relation to their seeding.  Look at their record vs AP top 25.  They made one good run and everyone decided that was enough to let them slide with their yearly trash conference schedule.