El Jeffe

February 22nd, 2018 at 6:25 PM ^

Bada Ndboujee is an under the radar 3* DE prospect out of Prince Georges County. Family are Nigerian immigrants. Helluva motor on the kid. Great bend. Really expect big things out of him.

uncle leo

February 22nd, 2018 at 1:28 PM ^

If you don't want to talk about it or look at it, just leave it be.

It's almost March, and people like discussing this stuff. Just like mock drafts.

I swear, should I just have one of these responses on copy/paste protocol? 

buddha

February 22nd, 2018 at 1:59 PM ^

Why did you feel the need to type this? You do realize that you're on a sports blog dedicated to the University of Michigan, right? Maybe some of us actually enjoy discussing the brackets; albeit, still in flux. It's not a big deal, dude. Otherwise I have to go back to work, which I don't want to do.

Chillax.

ijohnb

February 22nd, 2018 at 1:35 PM ^

are not a 6 seed right now.  These prognostications are wrong.  Bracket Matrix is wrong.  If we beat Maryland and win one game in the BTT we are a five seed at the worst and possibly a four.

robbyt003

February 22nd, 2018 at 1:40 PM ^

If we beat Maryland, and are still the 5 in the BTT, then I think we need to win two in the BTT to get the 5 seed.  Losing to Nebraska on neutral court won't help.  I sure would LOVE to beat Sparty again though.

J.

February 22nd, 2018 at 1:51 PM ^

Michigan does not have a good tournament résumé.  They are a pretty good team -- not elite, but in the next tier below the elite teams and able to compete with anybody on a given night.  If the tournament started today, they'd be a 6 or a 7 seed, most likely.  You may not like that, but it's the most likely scenario based upon historical precedent.  Michigan has two good wins: @MSU and vs. OSU.  They have a couple of decent wins, including last night @PSU.  (For perspective, both Rider and Wisconsin also won at PSU).  Texas and UCLA are both falling off of a cliff, the Big Ten isn't good, and they didn't quite pull out either game agianst Purdue.

You're looking at the record and AP ranking more than the body of work.  Michigan might be one of the top 20 teams in the country, but that doesn't make them a top-5 seed until they have more meat to their résumé.

J.

February 22nd, 2018 at 2:44 PM ^

It's obvious that you disagree.  I provided an argument.  Until you do the same, it just appears to be homerism.  There's a reason that the Bracket Matrix does a pretty good job -- crowdsourcing mostly works.  Michigan has two good wins by the committe's standards; three if Texas holds on, but they're on the bubble and fading fast.  Michigan may well end up with two wins over tournament teams.  That is not a top-four or top-five profile.  They could conceviably win out and still end up as a 6, although they might get a 5 if Purdue is one of the wins.

In reply to by J.

ijohnb

February 22nd, 2018 at 3:03 PM ^

you can call it homerism.  That is fine.  I think that Michigan has performed better this season than they are being given credit for and that the final seedings will reflect that.  I would say that if you look around the nation, Michigan State is the overwhelming favorite to win the NC among pundits and we beat them comfortably at their place (their last loss so far on the season).  That may have been the most impressive win of any team in the nation all season.  Ohio State was a Top 10 team when we beat them.  Purdue is another very highly regarded team and anybody who watched those two games realized they were basically watching two evenly matched teams. 

We have won four straight, Maryland would make it 5, and would give us 4 conference road wins this season.  Beilein is very highly respected and the program has momentum with a conference tourney title and a sweet 16 bid last season.  We have played very good basketball nearly every time we have played in a nationally televised premium game.  And frankly, we have a kind of unusual, likeable team, that is fascinating to watch when we are playing well. 

I think that people are entirely too focused on quadrants and Ken Poms and RPIs and BDIs and Texas' strength of schedule.  I think we are watching a really solid well rounded basketball team that has improved consistently all season and is hitting impressive form at exactly the right time. 

I think that if we win against Maryland and win one game in the tournament we are a 5 seed.  I think if we beat Maryland and make it to the conference semi finals with a pretty good showing we are a 4 seed.  I think if we make the conference finals, we are within shouting distance of a 3 seed actually. 

J.

February 22nd, 2018 at 3:13 PM ^

I agree with everything that you said except for the next-to-last paragraph.  These factors -- the RPI, the quadrants (previously record vs. top 50, vs. 51-100, etc).   have been shown to be the most imporant in terms of the decisions the committee makes.  Crashing the Dance currently has Michigan as a 6 seed; their entire model is based on evaluating the way that the previous committees have selected and seeded teams and trying to replicate it.  (Following up on my comment below -- they have MSU as top the 3 seed, behind Texas Tech but ahead of Auburn and Cincinnati).

So, if you want to say "they playing better basketball than most 6 seeds would play," I agree -- after all, the AP has them as essentially a 5 seed at #17, and that's before last night.  But to expect the committee to take these other factors into account, when they historically haven't -- I think you may be setting yourself up for disappointment.  Michigan will be held back by their weak schedule, the unusually bad Big Ten, their relatively bad losses (for a top-4 seed, I mean), and their lack of top wins.  I could see them winning out and staying on the 6 line, depending upon the particular draw they get (e.g., a lot of upsets in the Big Ten Tournament).  The only way I can see them getting to a 3 is if the other teams around them simply collapse.  I'll be cheering for it, but I'm not really expecting it. :)

And, due to the other factors you'll mention, they'll be the team that no top seed wants to see in their bracket, and I'll be hoping for another Sweet 16 or better run. :)

Go Blue!

In reply to by J.

TrueBlue2003

February 22nd, 2018 at 4:46 PM ^

Michigan has three "great" wins i.e. Q1 wins which are the best kind of wins by their standards: @MSU, @Texas, and OSU.

Whatever you want to think about Texas, by any metric they're a top 50ish team and when you play a team that good on the road, it's like playing a top 20 team at home.  Teams that failed to win at Texas: TCU, Texas Tech and Oklahoma.

Michigan has four more "good" wins, i.e. Q2 wins which are also being cited as quality wins by the committee: UCLA, Maryland, @PSU, @Wisconsin.

They have no "bad" losses.

I agree with you that Michigan is a 6 seed right now (and like Bracket Matrix, I think they're closer to a 5 than a 7), and I'm not sure what you're definition of a "good" tournament resume is but one that is knocking on the doorstep of a 5 seed is very good for this team, considering what we lost this year.

We may be a program that perennially reloads as a sweet 16ish team.

 

J.

February 22nd, 2018 at 2:47 PM ^

Should have said "UCLA already fell off of a cliff."  They're 19-8, 10-5 in a weak Pac 12; out of those six wins, only the Arizona win is any good.  And they have losses vs. Colorado and @Oregon State.  They're 47 in RPI and 54 on KenPom.  Texas is 57 in RPI and 41 on KenPom.  Both are last-four-in territory in the Bracket Matrix -- aka squarely on the bubble.

It's possible for Michigan to be a good team but not to get a good seed because the tournament is attempting to find the best at-large résumés, not the best at-large teams.  There's a significant difference.

bronxblue

February 22nd, 2018 at 7:19 PM ^

Wins, including on the road, over bubble teams are typically treated as good wins. And even if we are arguing semantics, Rhode Island has three wins over Q1 teams per RPI, and they are on the 5 line. OSU, another five line, has 4. Michigan also has 4. So there is no exact science to it, or else Michigan last year wouldn't have been a 7 seed with an RPI around 30 and MSU a high 9 at 50.

Michigan's resume isn't great, but basketball games aren't won by the resume. Michigan's RPI right now is 23, and Oklahoma's is 32. And yet, OU is probably out of the tourney and Michigan is sitting there comfortably because OU is scuttling now and Michigan is rising, though on paper Michigan probably looks a bit weaker.

J.

February 22nd, 2018 at 3:04 PM ^

Probably about a 3 seed, I'd say.  They don't have a much better résumé than Michigan, although UNC (Neutral) and vs. Purdue are pretty good wins.

Now, they might get a 2 seed due to the sheer number of wins and lack of any bad losses at all.  (vs. Michigan is their "worst" loss).  But I'd give them a 3 seed, behind UVa, Villanova, Duke, Kansas, UNC (more meat on the resume despite the awful loss), Purdue, Auburn, Xavier, and the Cincy/Wichita State winner (last game of the regular season).  Not necessarily in that order -- I was just looking at teams around them on the Matrix to make sure I didn't just give a seed without comparing them to other teams. :)

Harlans Haze

February 22nd, 2018 at 10:18 PM ^

osu Kentucky Clemson and Rhode island.I would put Michigan's resume up against all those. Clemson is only one that's obviously better. With a chance to rack up 2 to 4 (optimistically) more wins, it's easy to conceive they could jump 5 or 6 teams. There are several teams "ranked" higher than Michigan, but whose resumes are pretty weak. Cincy best win is over ucla. They are vulnerable to fall.

uncle leo

February 22nd, 2018 at 1:49 PM ^

I don't think Michigan is a good matchup for UVA. Michigan has this tendency to go into self-made droughts this season, and UVA's the type of team that could hold them to damn near 10 minutes without a bucket.

I think Michigan would be better served against a team like Xavier or Kansas as the 1. Teams that don't have lock-down D and you can get into a track meet with them.