A look back at the 8 seed

Submitted by WirlingDirvish on March 21st, 2011 at 1:13 PM

When we were selected as an 8 seed alot of people, myself included, thought that we were seeded to high. Based on the excellent diary Historical Performance of NCAA Seeds, we were supposed to win 0.65 games. We won 1 game so we performed as expected in terms of wins. The important thing is how the games we played went. Well we threw tennessee into a volcano! and took Duke down to the wire. Based only on the results, an argument could be made that we were seeded to low. I think that if we were the 7 seed we are still playing right now. We have shown that we can beat Penn State, and I think that we beat SDSU based on our play down the streach. What does everybody else think?


Everyone Murders

March 21st, 2011 at 1:19 PM ^

You might have a bit of a sample size problem by looking at Michigan's 2011 results in isolation.  But it's hard to not be optimistic* for next year with all the kids coming back, and the overall cohesion of the MBB team.  

*Some fans, of course, will try really hard and find a way to be pessimistic.


March 21st, 2011 at 1:18 PM ^

Based on the seed rules we cannot play a team from our conference in the first round so it would have to be Georgia or FSU. Both of whom I would not like to play. Especially FSU because they are gigantic. Playing Tennessee gave us a better chance to advance.


March 21st, 2011 at 1:28 PM ^

You also could have given PSU our eight and flipped the hypothetical M/Temple game seeds so we were the 7 and they were the 10. That puts us up against SDSU in the second round, which I think might have been worse than playing Duke. That also puts us against Kemba Walker in the third, and he is on fire right now. Had we beat Duke we would be playing Arizona, and that seems like the easier matchup than UConn.

I am proud beyond belief with this team, but the fact is that we had to perform in our second game, and we came up just short. Personally I don't feel a 7 would have helped, especially in our region.


March 21st, 2011 at 1:20 PM ^

I think the best judge of that would be a tournament game between Duke and SDSU. If Duke blows out SDSU then maybe but it's hard to be sure when different teams have different personnel, schemes, etc.

Simply saying that Michigan almost beat Duke and Duke is seeded higher than SDSU so Duke > Michigan > SDSU is a giant hypothetical leap.


March 21st, 2011 at 1:21 PM ^

So you state that we were seeded too high as an 8 seed, but then say we might still be playing as a 7 seed.  Yeah, we also might still be playing if we were given a 1 seed.  Kind of hard to argue anything by giving us a higher seed.  I think you meant to say 10/11 seed.


March 21st, 2011 at 1:43 PM ^

NCAA tourney seeds are not a prediction, although some people use them as such, and lose in their brackets.

They are a funcion of a team's season and resume.  Therefore once we get into the tourney, it no longer matters what you do after.

I think our season and resume, we were seeded too low, ie lowest being 1.  I thought we were seeded too low at the 8.  We should have been higher at 9,10,11.

The real issue is that if your from a major conference, You would rather be in the 10/11 seeds rather than the 8/9.  The 10/11 seeds get to play 6/7 seeds and there's not much difference between playing a 6/7 and 8/9.  However there's usually a huge difference from playing a 2/3 seed rather than the 1 seed in the 2nd round. 

I'd always rather be a 10 or 11 seed rather than 8/9.  It's an easier road to the sweet 16.

If you want conspiracy theory.  Gene Smith, OSU's AD was head of the committee.  He didn't want any Big Ten teams playing in the first round, play in games.  To do this, he had to fit Michigan, Illinois, MSU, and PSU all in the 8 through 10 lines.  Thus Michigan the team with the strongest resume of the group got bumped to the 8 line. 


March 21st, 2011 at 3:28 PM ^

It's flattering to be slotted as one of the top 32 teams, and we proved we earned it.  Considering Duke was the lowest 1 seed, we were the highest 8 (thus #29).  I would have preferred being an 11 or 12.  Playing a 5 and 4 or 6 and 3, I bet we'd still be alive.

The flattery of being an 8 was nice, but the 'reward' of getting to play a 1 seed sucked.

Next year when we're a top 4 seed, life will be better.


March 21st, 2011 at 9:03 PM ^

Forget LAST season.  It was great.  Now it's over.  Let's talk about next season...

Here's how I'm going to break this down: I'm going to do it in order of Big10 finish this/last season.  I'm going to list any top 5 scorers leaving.  I'm going to list the top 5 returning scorers.  And I'm going to list the incoming recruits' ratings.  Here we go.

Before we get started though...here are my 2010/2011 Big Ten Preseason Rankings: 1) Michigan, 2) Ohio State, 3) Illinois, 4) Wisconsin, 5) Purdue, 6)

Ohio State(16-2):
...loses: J. Sullinger-Fr.(17.1ppg-1st), J. Diebler-Sr.(12.6ppg-3rd), D. Lighty-Sr.(12.1ppg-4th), W. Buford-Jr.(14.6ppg-2nd)?
...returns: D. Thomas-Fr.(7.7ppg-5th), A. Craft-Fr.(7.1ppg-6th), J. Sibert-Fr.(2.1ppg-8th), J. Weatherspoon-Fr.(1.8ppg-9th), L. Smith-Fr.(1.2ppg)
...gains: 4 4-star recruits, 1 3-star recruit.
*...thoughts: OSU's going to be losing 3 of it's 4 top scorers, and maybe even all 4 of them if Buford (a projected mid 1st rd pick) leaves.  Craft returns at point guard.  Thomas was a 5-star recruit a year ago.  Sibert was a 4-star recruit a year ago.  Smith and Weatherspoon were both 3-star recruits a year ago.  Lots of talent coming in, obviously, but no supers-studs.  I think it's pretty safe to say that they'll be nowhere near the same talent-wise, and that 1st place in the Big10 is up for grabs.  

...loses: J. Johnson-Sr.(20.5ppg-1st), E. Moore-Sr.(18.0ppg-2nd)
...returns: L. Jackson-Jr.(8.0ppg-3rd), R. Smith-Jr.(6.2ppg-4th), D. Byrd-So.(5.2ppg-5th), K. Barlow-So.(5.1ppg-6th), T. Johnson-Fr.(4.9ppg-7th)
...gains: 2 3-star recruits
*...thoughts: Purdue loses their top two scorers and their almost 40 points a game to graduation, and is bringing in a bad recruiting class.  D. Byrd and T. Johnson were 4-star recruits, L. Jackson, R. Smith and K. Barlow were 3-star recruits.  Very, very safe to say that they'll be nowhere near where they were last year.  (Robbie Hummel is done for good now, right?)

...loses: J. Leuer-Sr.(18.7ppg-1st), K. Nankivil-Sr.(9.7ppg-3rd)
...returns: J. Taylor-Jr.(18.0ppg-2nd), J. Gasser-Fr.(5.9ppg-4th), M. Bruesewitz-So.(4.5ppg-5th), R. Evans-So.(2.9ppg-7th), J. Berggren-So.(2.5ppg-8th)
...gains:  4 3-star recruits.
*...thoughts: Wisconsin is losing 2 of it's 3 highest scorers, and bringing in nothing but three stars.  Berggen was a 4-star recruit.  Taylor, Gasser, and Bruesewitz were 3-star recruits.  And Evans was a 2-star recruit.  Once again, very safe to say that this team will be nowhere near where it was.

...loses: none
...returns: D. Morris-So.(15.0ppg-1st), T. Hardaway-Fr.(13.9ppg-2nd), J. Morgan-Fr.(9.4ppg-3rd), Z. Novak-Jr.(8.9ppg-4th), S. Douglass-Jr.(7.1ppg-5th)
...gains: 1 4-star recruit, 1 (probably 2) 3-star recruit
*...thoughts:  The entire team is back, literally (aside from a couple student-managers).  Based - in part - on Morris and Morgan's improvements from year 1 to 2, I'm expecting to see big improvements from T. Hardaway, E. Smotrycz and J. Horford (and also from Morris and Morgan themselves, of course).  Then I think that the addition of a couple of freshman guards that can really penetrate (and - probably - a second true big man) is going to have a much bigger impact on this team than most seem to be predicting.  Mix that in with Novak, Douglass and Vogrich all continuing to round out their overall games and becoming even more consistent outside shooters...and I think that we've got a pre-season pick to win the Big-10 title on our hands.

...loses: D. McCamey-Sr.(14.6ppg-1st), M. Davis-Sr.(12.5ppg-2nd), M. Tisdale-Sr.(10ppg-3rd)
...returns: B. Paul-So.(9ppg-4th), D. Richardson-So.(8.4ppg-5th), J. Richmond-Fr.(7.6ppg-6th), M. Leonard-Fr.(2.1ppg-8th), T. Griffey-So.(1.6ppg-9th)
...gains: 4 4-star recruits, 1 3-star recruit.
*...thoughts:  Illinois is going to be hit hard, losing all of their top three scorers.  But there's still going to be a lot of talent on the roster.  There's the 4 incoming 4-star recruits, of course.  And then there's Paul, Richardson, Richmond, and Leonard who were all 4-star recruits themselves, and Griffey was a 3-star.  It's going to be a very young and inexperienced team, but very talented too.  Bruce Weber's a horrible coach that's never been able to do anything with talent anyways though...so I'd still rate them behind Michigan and OSU, but probably ahead or at least right with Wisconsin and Purdue.

Penn State(9-9):

Michigan State(9-9):