3/16 Bracketology

Submitted by Bambi on March 16th, 2014 at 11:50 AM

Joe Lunardi just released his 3/16 bracketology, and he has us as a 1 seed in the East. Villanova is the 2 there, along with Virginia as a 3 and a 2nd round matchup with either UMass or Oklahoma St.

According to Bracket Matrix, we are the last 1 seed with Villanova as the top 2 and every bracket being updated either today or yesterday.

Comments

Yeoman

March 16th, 2014 at 12:31 PM ^

The committee usually ignores the results of those last two Sunday games unless it's simply a matter of flipping the two teams. MSU and Michigan don't flip if MSU wins; neither do Kentucky/Florida if UK wins. If Michigan were playing Wisconsin they'd probably let the game decide who got which slot, but not now.

A lot of the work in making a bracket is satsifying all the conference constraints, making sure the first three teams are in different regions and there aren't any conference teams paired in the same half-region. When you flip two teams in the same conference everyone else stays the same, but when you flip teams from different conferences you have to more or less start over and redo the whole bracket. They could go into those last games with multiple brackets in place and choose one of them based on the results, but committees are slow beasts and that's not usually how it goes.

M-Dog

March 16th, 2014 at 1:37 PM ^

This is a very good synopsis, especially the point about flipping "like" teams from the same conference.  We don't flip with MSU.  But we would have flipped easily with Wisconsin.  

So, Wiscy played themselves out of a potential #1 seed by losing in the BTT semis, and may have handed it to us.  

If so, thanks for the gift, Bo Ryan.  It's a good think we always speak so highly of him here at Michigan. 

Yeoman

March 16th, 2014 at 1:58 PM ^

It's also possible that they played us out of a potential #1 seed.

If Michigan were playing Wisconsin the committee would know that one or the other would win today and could comfortably slot that winner into the one-slot. This way there's a chance Michigan would lose and it would be too late to move them out. If they don't think an 8-loss Michigan should get a one-seed they might not want to risk that possibility. The other options don't have a downside: they can flip VA and Duke, and Villanova and Louisville are done and can't lose again.

Undefined

March 16th, 2014 at 12:53 PM ^

I trust it to a point. Louisvilles SoS is marginally better than WSUs, If Wichita had five losses noone would be clamoring to give them a one seed. Yes, they have blown out a lot of the bad teams they have played, but I don't really feel like they've had to play outside their comfort zone this year.

Yeoman

March 16th, 2014 at 1:03 PM ^

Because SOS is an average. Wichita played a whole bunch of teams in the 100-200 range; Louisville played some excellent teams and some really terrible teams. SOS comes out the same but Louisville's expected record is worse.

Louisville lost their five games to teams (I"m using Massey because his database is easy to use) in the top 40 (21, 25, 26, 39, 39)

Wichita played only one team in the top 40, St. Louis at 33. The fourth-best team on Wichita's schedule was Tulsa, the fifth-best team was North Carolina Central. If Louisville had losses to Tulsa and North Carolina Central we wouldn't be arguing about a one seed.

bronxblue

March 16th, 2014 at 12:25 PM ^

They are a #3 in the Midwest according to Lunardi.  Their SOS is 97th, and even though they blitzed a couple of teams recently it wasn't necesssarily a murder's row (Rutgers, Houston, UConn twice).  And three of their 5 top 50 wins are against UConn, which definitely has diminishing returns.

An Angelo's Addict

March 16th, 2014 at 12:03 PM ^

I would rather be the 2 seed in the Midwest with Wichita State as the #1 seed. Something about OK State scares me as a second round matchup, but it is hard to argue against being a 1 seed. I think we are in a win win situation regardless!

KBLOW

March 16th, 2014 at 12:12 PM ^

I'm with you, except It's not a win-win if we face OK St. that early in the tournament.  Plus with this bracket the 2 seed looks to have it easier all the way through in the Midwest.  Still, it won't be a 100% accurate estimate of the bracket so hopefully WSU has to face OK St. as a potential second round matchup instead.

bronxblue

March 16th, 2014 at 1:17 PM ^

I get a sense that NM is going to be a bit better this year in the tourney.  They have a good road record, no bad losses, but I think the expectations are lowered a bit, which should help.  Also, they ran into a rough matchup last year against Harvard; I don't see Tulsa giving them as much trouble.

RobM_24

March 16th, 2014 at 12:10 PM ^

There is probably like a 1% chance that Lunardi would pick the exact seeds in our region, but Oklahoma State would be bad news. We have trouble with guards who like to take it into the paint, and Marcus Smart is probably the best guard in the country at doing just that. That would be a #1 seed and pairing that I would rather not have.

1974

March 16th, 2014 at 12:24 PM ^

This is a funny thing to be saying to someone with LA in his name, but I've often wondered what it is about SoCal guys and UMich.

Based on my *huge* sample (Jay and Bill Walton), I'm inclined to think that there's something coasties (those, anyway) don't like about flyover country.

bronxblue

March 16th, 2014 at 12:28 PM ^

I don't know his intentions, but UM does have some question marks around them.  Mediocre OOC record didn't help, and while they obviously play well in the conference the most recent run of wins have been far too close.  Sure UM is winning, but they aren't necessarily blazing a path to the tourney.

Yeoman

March 16th, 2014 at 12:45 PM ^

Michigan is

#11 kenpom

#8 sagarin predictor

#15 massey power

#9 rpi

Kenpom/sagarin/massey all agree on Arizona, Louisvile and Florida. Massey and kenpom say Wichita, Sagarin says Kansas. (Kenpom and Massey have Kansas at three-seed level; there's a big discrepancy there that I don't understand.)

It's certainly possible for a sane observer to agree with Bilas.

bronxblue

March 16th, 2014 at 1:14 PM ^

That was my feeling.  UM is fine, but this isn't some unstoppable basketball team.  And while the #1 seeds this year overall look somewhat weaker than in years past, I'm not disagreeing that a non-BTT winning UM team doesn't deserve a #1 seed.

umchicago

March 16th, 2014 at 12:26 PM ^

i think UM is better off losing to sparty today and getting a #2 seed in the midwest.  by winning they get a #1 seed in the east.

on the other hand, i guess it's a win/win situation.

Indonacious

March 16th, 2014 at 12:44 PM ^

This sucks? I suppose it speaks to how much we have progressed as a program that people are saying "this sucks" to the idea of getting a 1 seed. Also, I think a 1 with Nova as the 2 is better than a 2 with Wichita state because it's likely we will

Play easier times on the way to the elite 8 if we are lucky enough to get there.

M-Dog

March 16th, 2014 at 1:34 PM ^

Now that we are here, I want to beat the hell out of State and win the BTT.  We would be champions of both the regular season B1G and the BTT.  John Beilein would have replaced two of the three banners that were taken down.  It would go down as one of the most successful seasons in Michigan BB history. 

So, a win is money in the bank.  The NCAA tournament is a funny beast.  We could get knocked out early as a #1 seed or as a #2 seed.  It would suck, but we still would have 2 B1G conference titles, a BTT title, and a Final Four to our names over the last 3 years.  We'll take that.