Andy Katz discusses possible at large bid
Not that we really need another thread to discuss Michigan's bubble status, but I didn't see this posted anywhere else yet. Andy Katz mentions Michigan getting an at large bid in his latest "5 observations from the week" segment. Here's a link if you're interested.
February 21st, 2011 at 9:58 AM ^
no see?
February 21st, 2011 at 9:59 AM ^
Click the word 'Link'
February 21st, 2011 at 10:08 AM ^
Looks about right but nothing we don't already know. Two out of three will probably do it, assuming one B10 tournament win.
I say let's just get into these last two games and enjoy it. Great to be back in contention with a team on the rise...and a coach who is as good as any...notice howfew complaints we hear these days about questionable coacing moves/strategies? Our coach is a plus when we're on the floor and that is a very good feeling.
February 21st, 2011 at 10:14 AM ^
Minnesota and MSU would move the needle a bit, but doesn't improve our profile a whole lot. Even winning one BT tourney game would probably be a win against a team not getting in, like Northwestern, Iowa or Penn State.
So we need a win against a sure tournament team to feel good about our chances with only one BT tournament win and that's Wisconsin.
February 21st, 2011 at 10:25 AM ^
An MSU win would most likely lock them out, so that's one less bubble team to worry about if we can beat them.
February 21st, 2011 at 10:49 AM ^
If we beat MSU and Minn, we are probably not finishing any lower than 6th. If MSU beats Minn, then they have 10 losses. If Minn beats MSU, then MSU will have 9 losses and the winner and loser of the PSU @ Minn game will have 9 and 10 losses. Assuming Illinois loses to OSU and Purdue on the road and win their other two games, they'll have 9 losses.
In the case of a 4-way tie involving Ill, MSU, Mich, and Minn/PSU, Michigan would finish 4th or 5th in the conference and would play Ill in the first game of the tournament. Even if we lose that game, we should have a higher RPI than MSU and Minn. So, unless they only take 5 teams from the Big Ten, I'm guessing that we will get in.
February 21st, 2011 at 11:07 AM ^
Is there any acceptable scenario (i.e. we go 2-1) that we end up 6th? I think I'd almost rather be the 6 seed and get a game under our belts vs the 11 and then go up against the #3 seed instead of having a do or die game against the Illini. If we win the 11 game, which we should, we'll be about where people expected and a win against 3 seed would certainly cement us in the tourney - I'm not sure a win against Illinois would do that for us.
February 21st, 2011 at 11:19 AM ^
That depends what you mean by acceptable. If we beat MSU and Wisc, MSU and Ill finish 10-8, and Minn finishes 9-9, then we will finish 7th. That would only take MSU and Ill beating Purdue.
And, I don't think that beating Indiana again will help us out at all. If we are still just outside the bubble at Tourney time, we will need another win against a NCAA tourney team to move at all. At that point, I'll take a game against a team to whom we lost by 2 points on the road as opposed to a team that we will have lost against at home.
February 21st, 2011 at 11:29 AM ^
Will a win against the Illini be enough? I'd think that if we go 2-1 and beat Illinois we're still on the bubble if maybe not on the upper end of the bubble but if we beat Indiana and then beat, say, Wisconsin or Purdue we'd be shoe ins at that point. I guess I'm looking at it in terms of what's the best way to get 1 huge win and be good. We'd need to play well to beat Illinois and then we'd have to beat the #1 seed to be guaranteed a spot vs beating Indiana and then #3 - that sounds like an easier path.
February 21st, 2011 at 11:38 AM ^
If Michigan goes 2-1, is the #4 or #5 seed, and then beats the Illini, Michigan is pretty much a lock for the tournament. That would be three Top 50 RPI wins to end the season, with a potential Top 25 RPI win if we beat Wisconsin. WIth a .500 Big Ten record, 20 wins, and a trip to the conference tournament semi-finals (winning the 4-5 game puts you in the semis), Michigan would have the resume. I think the picture becomes much murkier if Michigan loses the 4-5 game. In that scenario, does 2-2 down the stretch (even with a win against Wisconsin) get us in? I'm not sure that it does
February 21st, 2011 at 11:39 AM ^
It depends on how you look at it. If you are guaranteeing a win against the 2-5 seed, then Wisc/Purdue is better. If you want the best shot at getting to the top 4 in the tournament, then Ill is better.
Another way to look at it is that beating Ill will put us at a solid 4th in the conference. There is no way that they are taking fewer than 5 teams, so even if Ill jumped us, We should still be taken ahead of MSU.
February 21st, 2011 at 11:09 AM ^
Wisc would be a big win but I wouldn't call it a must...yet. If you had to take 2 out of the final 3 it may be too early to decide which are best. If we lost to MSU or MInn we may have lost to a team we're on the bubble with...while beating Wisc is obviously a top-20 win.
Let's take them one at a time and enjoy the ride. I believe in JB and am not ruling out taking all three.
February 21st, 2011 at 1:59 PM ^
This is true because Minnesota is a road victory. I agree Wisconsin obviously would be best game to have, but those other two will definitely do as we are coming out of the top-ranked conference and would still have .500 record.
February 21st, 2011 at 10:30 AM ^
Of course, our final resume and the committee is all that matters.
And I do think as of this moment we are outskirts of the bad side of the bubble, but with a definite path to get in. (Beat Wiscy and we are cross the tracks into the good bubble neighborhood.)
February 21st, 2011 at 10:04 AM ^
...that we have the same chance of beating Wisconsin at home as we do beating Minnesota on the road (29%, link). To me, the latter feels more likely, but I'll be there to watch us try for the former.
February 21st, 2011 at 10:56 AM ^
KenPom's predictions are impervious to "streaks". IE, it's complete math-based, and ignores that Minnesota was playing much better at the start of the year, and has been an average-to-bad team since Al Nolen was hurt against us.
February 21st, 2011 at 2:28 PM ^
Wisconsin is only 2-4 in league play away from the Kohl Center. They can be had.
February 22nd, 2011 at 3:04 AM ^
Now that Hoffarber's been forced to take a bigger role Minnesota is as bad as anybody in the B10. If we can't beat them, even on the road, we'll have a hard time winning the other 2.
February 21st, 2011 at 10:13 AM ^
would certainly help things. Go Blue
February 21st, 2011 at 10:35 AM ^
Beating Wisconsin tomorrow would be EXTRAORDINARY!... particularly given that the game isn't until Wednesday.
Just giving you a hard time.
February 21st, 2011 at 1:58 PM ^
We will beat Wisconsin twice in two days. That will surely open some eyes on the commitee.
JB, do it.
February 21st, 2011 at 10:37 AM ^
Wednesday 6:30 EST. Would be a hell of a win for us. Morris and Morgan are going to have to play excellent on both ends of the court against Taylor and the big white guys they have down low for us to win.
February 21st, 2011 at 10:19 AM ^
It was 2 seasons ago when we got a BIG win at Minnesota. Let's just see if we can repeat that performance....
February 21st, 2011 at 10:36 AM ^
I recall that one distinctly. My brother-in-law, who is from Minneapolis, and for whom I have bought Gopher gifts a number of times, and I spent the entire game jawing on instant messenger. I love the Big Ten.
February 21st, 2011 at 10:40 AM ^
I think Minnesota's the most winnable game left on the schedule. Our best home performance vs. Wisconsin during Beilein's tenure (this will be the 4th) is a 12 point loss. We have just been terribly outmatched vs. them. I think Michigan State's going to be a pretty tough game with them looking for revenge but I'll take our chances to be in both the Minnesota and MSU game, I just don't feel great about Wisco...
February 21st, 2011 at 11:01 AM ^
"At the very least, Michigan could go into the Big Ten tournament needing one more quality win to secure a possible bid if it wins its two remaining home games."
So, wait, he thinks if we beat both Wisconsin and Michigan State we're still going to need ANOTHER quality win to get in? Man, I was more of the thought that if we did that we just needed to win the first round game we shouldn't lose and then just stay competitive in the 2nd round. Of course if we won 2 games in the BTT and the two home games I'd think it would be a slam dunk which is maybe what he's talking about?
February 21st, 2011 at 2:14 PM ^
2 home wins and a first round win in the BTT will likely be enough to just get in.
Our resume will be:
- 20 wins
- .500 in the Big 10, the top conference in the country
- A top 25 RPI win - Wisconsin
- Sweeps against 2 of our B10 bubble competitors - MSU, PSU.
- A late season hot streak, which the commitee loves even though they claim otherwise.
That is not a fabulous resume, but it is good enough to get in this year.
February 21st, 2011 at 11:29 AM ^
February 21st, 2011 at 2:30 PM ^
I like Andy Katz. He generally gives us a good shake.
On another note, how surreal is it that Tommy Amaker has Harvard on the brink of an NCAA bid when he always fell short here? I'm happy for him, but it's just odd.
February 21st, 2011 at 5:13 PM ^
a "probably in" perspective. I, for one, do not think M is getting a fair shake in the tourney discussion. OT with Kansas and the Orange, routing Clemson, pushing OSU twice. This is a good resume, and TH 2 is smooth along with (wait for it) the "Butterfly," Beat the Badgers and we should be talking about seeding as opposed to bubble. M Hoops = Back to stay. Lets all get on board.
February 21st, 2011 at 7:22 PM ^
Teams don't benefit from close losses. If you don't win, it doesn't matter how much you lost by. The only exception seems to be the other way. If a team gets "undressed" on national TV in one of the last few games, they seem to suffer in perception.
I would rather see Michigan in the NIT this year, and here's why:
The lowest seed to win the tournament in the last ten years was a two; the rest were ones. You can pretty much infer from the data that if you aren't one of the best eight teams, you aren't going to win the tournament. Then again, Michigan did win as a three seed in 1989, but that still means the committe thought they were at least the twelfth-best team in the country.
I love the Wolverines as much as anyone here, but I am not going to delude myself in to believing they are one of the eight or even twelve best teams in the NCAA right now. They would, however, definitely be one of the eight best teams in the NIT, and possibly the best at this point in the year. So, although making the NCAA is a nice accomplishment, I would rather see the Wolverines play in a tournament they would have a very good chance of winning.
But I won't complain if they make the NCAA.
February 21st, 2011 at 11:10 PM ^
February 22nd, 2011 at 8:50 AM ^
do benefit a team, especially when that team is young but clearly talented, and the close losses come in bunches and are clearly not flukes. Kansas and Ohio State on the road were nationally televised games when Michigan was in the game-really in the game, and not just on a fluke. Anybody that has watched Michigan play during the second half of the season knows that they have some players, and that this team will not an easy out for anybody in the tourney. Tater, you are very knowledgeable and I have enjoyed reading your posts on this Board, but rather have an NIT bid? That is a somewhat of desperate perspective with a team with this much young talent. You don't have to be loaded with senior and experience in college basketball to make a run at say Elite 8 contention. Michigan has a lot of talent on the floor. If f#%king Butler can do it, this team has the capability to do it.
These road wins are tough to come by the Big Ten, Michigan has three impressive ones, I really don't think any other Big Ten team aside from maybe the very top of the conference can make such a claim. I am expecting a M win against Wisconsin, and an impressive one at that. Go Blue Hoops. They are the real deal.