Final AP Rankings for Michigan Basketball Teams from 1984 to 1998

Submitted by Jake Blues on

Yesterday, MaizeHaze posted the highest AP ranking for each Michigan basketball team for seasons 1983-84 through 1997-98. In case anyone is interested, here are the final AP rankings, which provide a better indicator of the overall success of each team:

1984-85: #2

1985-86: #5

1986-87: NR

1987-88: #10

1988-89: #10

1989-90: #13

1990-91: NR

1991-92: #15

1992-93: #3

1993-94: #11

1994-95: NR

1995-96: NR

1996-97: NR

1997-98: #12

MGoBoard
Basketball

ijohnb

February 22nd, 2016 at 9:31 AM ^

be a mistake.  Perhaps the polsters thought Kentucky was SO good that they deserved to be ranked higher than us even after we beat them.

That 98 team was pretty good.  I thought they were going to make a deep run in the tourney but they ran into UCLA who remarkably shot 100% from the field in its two games against Michigan in the tourney in the 90s.

Joined: 09/21/2009

MGoPoints: 69986

Truthbtold

February 22nd, 2016 at 1:05 PM ^

When UM fans are posting articles about how good they were 20-30-75 years ago. It reminds us of how far Michigan has fallen. You will soon be number 1 in size of football staff, that is if your not already. Harbaugh needing to offer jobs to recruits parents and coaches in order to get their commitment. Bo would be ashamed.

Joined: 01/28/2016

MGoPoints: 292

LSAClassOf2000

February 22nd, 2016 at 9:32 AM ^

Total weeks ranked is an interesting number as well, in my opinion. During the period described here and in yesterday's post by MaizeHaze, the polls bear out over 247 total weeks of regular season basketball, during which we were ranked in 216 weeks. That's 87.44% of all regular season play during that stretch, which to me is rather impressive really. 

Not counting this season, that falls to 61 weeks ranked out 134 total weeks of regular season basketball for John Beilein, if I counted right. That's 45.52% of the regular season length. 

I don't know that it could be used as a measure of expectations though. It's more a general indicator of the perception of the team and a 10,000 foot view of performance. I think we probably need to keep in mind that the game evolves too, so the strength of any conclusions drawn here might not be so great. 

Joined: 01/07/2011

MGoPoints: 130531

ak47

February 22nd, 2016 at 10:15 AM ^

So sanctions and a bad hire have reset the expectations of the program to the point where mediocre is acceptable?  I'm not a person arguing to fire Beilein this year but anyone who isn't a little concerened is lying to themselves.  Beilein is 63 years old and this will be two straight years of relative mediocrity.  Who is the playmaker on next years team that makes us better than this year?  So its more likely that we will have 3 straight years of mediocrity and a 64 year old coach.  Michigan basketball is better than than mediocre historically.  

Nobody punted on the football program because of two bad coaches, why punt on the basketball program?

Joined: 05/05/2011

MGoPoints: 33614

ijohnb

February 22nd, 2016 at 10:24 AM ^

the first time really all season I saw how the offense was supposed to operate yesterday.  I think that Walton will continue being more assertive and Irvin will settle into the being a serviceable pick and role guy.  If Kam and Donnal continue to shoot like they did yesterday and can stretch the defense we may have something.

The defense is far more concerning than the offense to me.  We should and would have won that game if we could get a stop, any stop, ever.

I think we should hold out judgment on this particular stretch until we see Watson, Simpson and Teske.  I think we will know a lot about Beilein's immediate future after we get a look at what kind of players they are.

Joined: 09/21/2009

MGoPoints: 69986

2Blue4You

February 22nd, 2016 at 10:38 AM ^

Can someone fill me in on how we fit the scholarship players under the 12 scholly limit next year?  By my count you have Spike and Lavert coming off the books and adding 4 (Watson, Teske, Simpson, & Davis). 

Spike could come back as well.  

My concern is lack of elite recruiting off of the Final 4.  We weren't able to capitlize on our Fab5 class that came in 2012 with McGary basically giving us a great tournament, Stauskas, Robinson, and Lavert giving us a strong 13-14, and Spike filling in to keep last year's disaterous finish from being even more disasterous.  Hopefully the Jumpman will give us a boost and better inroads with elite prospects.  

Joined: 08/28/2008

MGoPoints: 4520

Raoul

February 22nd, 2016 at 10:24 AM ^

In 2010 Basketball-Reference.com posted their 31 Top College Basketball Programs of the Last 31 Years, covering 1980 to 2010 and based a power ranking (SRS). Michigan came in at #23, for a span years that included some of the best and worst periods in the program's history.

Many of the schools on this list are in the midst of their best days as we speak. Unfortunately for Michigan, the Wolverines aren't one of those teams. U-M did virtually all of their damage under two coaches -- Bill Frieder & Steve Fisher -- and over an 11-year span (1984-94). Frieder had built Michigan into a top-15 squad within 4 years of his hiring, and the team finished in the SRS top ten 4 times in 5 years from 1985-89.

In my opinion, it's pretty misleading to judge "pre-sanctions" Michigan on the span starting in 1984 because that's a peak period. Over the years, the program has had high points and low points. Historically, Michigan would probably be ranked higher than #23, but it would also not be top ten. Somewhere in the mid-teens would be my guess.

For comparson, other Big Ten teams in those top 31 programs: #5 Illinois; #7 Indiana; #11 Maryland; #12 MSU; #16 Purdue; #17 Iowa; #25 OSU.

Joined: 09/29/2009

MGoPoints: 13957

Raoul

February 22nd, 2016 at 10:43 AM ^

Illinois has a historically strong basketball program. During the 31 years covered by that ranking, they had the highest winning percentage in the Big Ten. They made the NCAA tournament 23 times during that period.

Joined: 09/29/2009

MGoPoints: 13957

Raoul

February 22nd, 2016 at 1:05 PM ^

All-time, I would've guessed Indiana for top winning percentage among Big Ten teams, but it's actually Illinois.

  • Illinois .645
  • Indiana .639
  • Purdue .636
  • OSU .613
  • MSU .603
  • Michigan .602

Joined: 09/29/2009

MGoPoints: 13957

lilpenny1316

February 22nd, 2016 at 10:34 AM ^

Also, of those seasons that have us NR (5), we made it to the NCAA tournament in three of those years.  NIT the other two years.  Considering that includes a NC and two other Final Four appearances + Elite Eight, I believe only Indiana could match our resume during that period. 

It also would not be shameful to include the team that won the 1984 NIT.  Back then, the NCAA tournament field was smaller and the NIT was a more prestigious tournament.  In the current format, a fourth place team from the B1G would always make it to the NCAA tournament.

Joined: 11/19/2009

MGoPoints: 61741

Blue Durham

February 22nd, 2016 at 10:57 AM ^

These years encompass most of Bill Frieder's and all of Steve Fisher's coaching careers at Michigan.  While both put a lot of talent on the court and perfomed very well during the regular season, when it came to the post season, they had vastly different results.

Year  Michigan Rank  Post Season results

BILL FRIEDER

1984-85: #2 (#1 seed; barely beat #16 seed Farleigh-Dickenson, lost to #8 seed and eventual champion, Villanova)

1985-86: #5 (#2 seed; beat #15 seed Alcorn St., lost to #7 seed Iowa St.)

1986-87: NR (#9 seed; beat #8 seed Navy, lost to #1 seed UNC)

1987-88: #10 (#3 seed; beat #14 seed Boise St., beat #6 seed Florida, lost to #2 seed UNC)

__________________

STEVE FISHER

1988-89: #10 (#3 seed; champions)

1989-90: #13 (#3 seed; beat #14 seed Illinois St., lost to #11 Loyola Marymount)

1990-91: NR (NIT first round loss)

1991-92: #15 (#6 seed; runner up to #1 seed Duke)

1992-93: #3 (#1 seed; runner up to #1 seed UNC)

1993-94: #11 (#3 seed; beat #14 seed Pepperdine, beat #10 Maryland; beat #6 Texas; lost to #1 seed and eventual champion Arkansas)

1994-95: NR (#9 seed; lost to #8 seed Western Kentucky)

1995-96: NR (#7 seed; lost to #10 seed Texas)

1996-97: NR (NIT champions)

Based on seed, ranking, and talent level, Bill Frieder's teams consistently under-performed in the post season, whereas Fisher's teams over performed.

It should be noted that Steve Fisher has taken San Diego State to the NCAA that last 6 years, and advanced to the sweet 16 twice.

Joined: 06/30/2008

MGoPoints: 6082

jethro34

February 22nd, 2016 at 11:05 AM ^

I think there was probably an assumption based on previous classes that if Irvin and or/Walton would have continued to progres, one or both could have gone early. Even Dawkins hype had some thinking about his potential. Those most frustrating thing about this team is how good they could be if everyone had taken steps forward. Seems like only MAAR and Donnal have improved while everyone else has either been stagnant or regressing. It's as if Hoke was guest coaching 2/3 of the team. Obviously everyone is frustrated that our seniors don't play, considering one is a gritty and efficient leader and the other was a preseason All-American.

Joined: 01/28/2011

MGoPoints: 2346

umichshea

February 22nd, 2016 at 12:20 PM ^

This is not surprising. In the early 2000's SI posted their Top 25 teams of all time and MI was in it. The people acting like we shouldn't expect better than what we are seeing the last couple of years have to be 20 somethings that have a lens of basketball that starts with Ellerbe.



Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

Joined: 11/11/2014

MGoPoints: 1190