Nope. They set a school record for B10 road wins.
They have the talent to beat any team in the country, but I don't see them making the final four. Lucas is good, but I he's not a player that can completely take over a game (yet). I've been unimpressed with Morgan since his injury, and Roe is still developing. Their free throw shooting is a little suspect too. S16 or E8 for them.
The way the Big Ten is played, and how the refs call the games reall hurts State. They want to run up and down the court as fast as they can. When tournament play starts, they will be even better.
but for as much talent as they have they should be a better team.
Now that the regular season is over Michigan's wins over Duke and UCLA seem fraudulent. State is legitimate and will be at least elite 8. Izzo always does well in the tourney.
How do the wins over Duke and UCLA seem fradulent?
Son, that ain't fraud you smell, them's good ol' fashioned cowpies.
They are clearly the best team in a conference stocked with a lot of good but not great teams. That said I don't think they're quite in that upper echelon with UNC, UConn, Pitt, Oklahoma, etc.
I'm used to seeing such idiocy from Big East fans, but I'm surprised to see it here.
13-3 road/neutral record. 12-2 against RPI top 50, with the three sub-50 losses coming with either Morgan or Suton out. MSU is by no means a lock for the Final Four, obviously, and probably not one of the favorites to win it all, but they have to be considered on the short list of Final Four contenders.
final four?
they will be upset by the 3rd round.
Maybe they will get upset. But dude, take off the blinders, and the maize and blue goggles, and realize they're a good team. And that program has a recent history of making deep tourney runs
like I said, I've watched half of their games. They play down to their opponents; they've pulled off some wins that could have very easily been losses. On a neutral court against a team that suddenly gets hot, I don't think they advance.
So based on what I've watched I don't see them going very far; I feel that the probability of them being upset(in reality) is significantly greater than the probability derived from strictly looking at their record.
Tell you what, I'll bookmark this thread and we will revisit it in a couple weeks. I'll admit they were better than I thought they were if they make it past the 3rd round.
I think their athleticism has carried them most of the year... they easily outclass all other Big10 teams in that aspect in almost all 5 starters and the first 2 bench guys.
That said, I agree they don't possess the "killer instinct", or maybe the "top gear" needed to make a big run in the big show.
A solid, uptempo mid-major could hand it to them if they don't put them away... however that can happen to anyone come the Tourney...
"... they've pulled off some wins that could have very easily been losses." - but they weren't losses. Good teams tend to win these games, and bad teams lose them.
"On a neutral court against a team that suddenly gets hot, I don't think they advance." - I think that goes for just about every team in the tournament.
I'm as tired of MSU basketball as anyone, but I'll admit they have a damn strong team.
"I'll admit they were better than I thought they were if they make it past the 3rd round."
It's very generous of you to withhold judgment as to whether MSU is any good until they make the Elite 8. I appreciate that you don't think they are a national championship-type team, but withholding due credit until 3 NCAA Tourney wins is kinda like saying "I'll admit they were better than I thought once it patently obvious to the whole world."
Where is the idiocy? All of the posters here (except one) agreed that State is a top 16 team with loads of potential. A near-consensus like this is pretty rare in the MGoWorlds. It isn't "idiocy" to think the #8 team in the country and a probable 2 seed won't make the final four. The only (projected) final four team they've played beat them by 35. It is fair to have doubts.
Hey man I want to be in your bracket pool. Where do I sign up?
I'd be a little worried that their leading scorer is so inefficient at scoring (eFG% well below 50), but they're no fraud. They're not at the level of UNC, UConn, Pitt, but they should certainly make it past the first weekend of the tournament. They've been excellent on the road.
I don't smell anything fraudulent about State, only Ohio State.
Which like, duh.
They're a top ten team. Never doubt the Izzo.
Maybe next time when you run your point by someone, you should listen to their response. Glad you came out to Commune last night though.
I think Izzold has built a team to win the Big Ten conference, but will not fare as well when they play teams from conferences where the refs reward finesse instead of power. That is why they did so badly against ACC teams; they are a football team with basketball uniforms. That works in the Big Ten, but not in the Big East or ACC.
It is also why UM did so well against UCLA, Duke, and kept it close against UConn.
In the NCAA's, it depends on what kind of crew you get, but it is hard not to run into that one crew that bites you in the ass when you play as physically as MSU does.
That's weird. In the parallel universe I must live in (Planet Earth, third from the sun, the year is 2009) you could reasonably argue MSU has performed better in the post-season than during the Big 10 season, as evidenced by this :
MSU since 2000
3 regular season titles (00, 01, 09)
Final Four: 00, 01, 05
Elite Eight: 03
Sweet 16: 08
That's one final four, one sweet sixteen, and one elite eight in years they did not even win the Big 10 championship. And a National Title, but they won the Big 10 as well, so let's forget it happened. Yes, they were upset a couple times, but that's kinda bound to happen when you make the tourney every single damn year.
Your thinking of Purdue and Wisconsin.
are not good shooting team. Obviously they can rebound to compensate for their spotty shooting. If they face a team that can really rebound, MSU might be in big time trouble because they don't have Plan B when they can't rebound from missed shots.
I actually think the exact opposite. MSU is deep and talented. They could win the whole thing if they catch a couple breaks.
no chance
exposed them. As would UConn, Pitt, Louisville, and Oklahoma. And they would probably face one of them before the Final Four, and lose.
Potentially losing to the 4-5 best teams in the country is not getting "exposed."
I think everyone agrees that MSU is a sweet 16 team for sure, maybe farther if they play well, how the hell is that fraudulent?
To put it another way, not being one of the 4 best teams in the country makes them a fraud?
This is a pretty weak line of argument.
He's saying that the #8 team in the country not being as good as the top 5 = "exposed".
I love how people look at Michigan's chances in the Big Ten tournament optimistically, saying that they could get to the championship game even though they are vastly undersized and rely heavily on low-percentage shots, yet Michigan State, a team that has proven themselves with a near-perfect Big Ten road record, is full of holes and must be fraudulent because they...what? Play exceptional defense? Have a high level of size and talent? Lost to North Carolina, arguably the most talented team in the country? They are a good team with a good coach, there is nothing fraudulent about them
you don't see us making claims of going to the Final Four though.
Michigan, on a good day, could beat anyone. Flip a coin, twice. Did you manage to get two heads in a row? Congratulations, you're in the Sweet Sixteen.
are 50:50 like a coin toss?
How many "good days" does Michigan have in a season?
Does a "good day" against Purdue still amount to a win if the opponent is UNC?
I can think of two good days; UCLA and Duke.
Has Michigan been able to string two together? No. Is it possible?
I think if there was any environment that it would be made manifest, this would be it.
You can say the same thing about basically every team in the tournament; given the right environment, anyone can make a run. This tournament is full of great teams. The reason that Michigan is on the bubble is because they have had fewer "good days" and more "bad days" than 30 or 40 other teams. It is much less likely that Michigan will win two NCAA tournament games, which would have to be victories over teams with higher seeds, than for Michigan State to win three NCAA tournament games, which would all be victories over teams ranked lower than them assuming they are a 2 seed.
I think that the problem most people have with your argument is that you don't define fraudulent. Assuming their #2 seed holds, Michigan State is expected to get to the Elite Eight, which is where most of the people in this thread believe they will end up. I don't know why you think that they have to get to the Final Four to not be considered a fraudulent team
"It is much less likely that Michigan will win two NCAA tournament games, which would have to be victories over teams with higher seeds, than for Michigan State to win three NCAA tournament games, which would all be victories over teams ranked lower than them assuming they are a 2 seed."
I disagree. From the games I have watched, I feel that kurtosis is about to show itself, which is probably how I should have phrased my original post;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurtosis
I hope we are going to see something with a high level of improbability.
Go Blue, long live the Fat Tail.
State has played a tough schedule and only lost 5 games. That number would likely be 4 had Goran Suton not been injured against Maryland. He's no All-American, but he makes a big difference when he's on the floor, and it may have been enough to beat the Terps.
They'll make the sweet 16, probably the Elite 8, possibly the Final Four. That said, even if they lose in the sweet 16, I don't think that makes them under achievers. Unless you're one of the top top teams, the sweet 16 is an achievement.
I also think that MSU is a fraud. Where is this recent history of runs in the tourney? They've had 1 final four in the past 7 seasons, along with 3 first round exits and 1 second round exit. In all of these games but 2002 they were the higher seed.
How many of those teams lost only three games (only one of which was on the road) in a conference this good? We are not talking about the last seven years, we are talking about this year's Michigan State team, which is really good. Nobody thinks that they are good enough to win the whole thing, but they absolutely have the ability to get deep into the tournament
They are a sweet 16 team at best.
Right, which would prove that they aren't a fraud. A sweet 16 appearance is an achievement and would be considered a successful season for Sparty.
Technically, if you are a #2 seed (which MSU probably will be), the bracket projects you to advance to the regional final. Losing in the Sweet 16 would constitute mild underachievement.
MSU will probably need to win the B10 tourney to get a 2 seed, but maybe not. If your team is Big Ten champs and makes the sweet 16, I can't see that as too much of a bust season.
Not really. A Big Ten Championship and an appearance in the Sweet 16 would be a damn good season for MSU. I would expect them to be ranked in the preseason top 5 next year and a favorite to reach the Final Four.
To be clear, I'd take a season like that anyday. But based strictly on seeding, a #2 seed is supposed to reach the regional final. Every game before that is against a lower-seeded team.
Technically, you're right. However, their likely defeater would be the 3-seed, and losing to a team one seed below you on a neutral court is an upset by definition only, and certainly not considered much of a let down.
I didn't say sweet 16 is a bust. However, I hardly consider that "Deep" into the tournament.
they could have beaten out GVSU for a few "sleeper" recruits from the West Side of the state, I would pencil them in for a Final 4 birth.
Nicely done.
I thought it was absurd for some to demand that MSU make the Elite Eight to consider MSU to be a quality team this year. Not only did MSU meet those demands but (win or lose--game still going on as I type), I 'd say they surpassed them.