jmblue

February 5th, 2018 at 1:07 PM ^

Fortunately, John Beilein is very good in the first round of tournament games, be it the Big Ten Tournament (10-0!), NCAA Tournament (either 8-1 or 7-2* at Michigan/WVU) or NIT (2-0 at WVU, 4-1 overall).

 

*(Depends on whether you count the play-in game in 2016 as the first round or not).

TrueBlue2003

February 5th, 2018 at 4:17 PM ^

Beilien is at getting to the round of 32.

He's 7-2 in the round of 64.  That's very good.

He's 1-0 in at-large play-in games. I'm not totally ignoring it, but to lump that in with "first round games" which are usually round of 64 games is misleading and doesn't count in the context of a conversation about our chances of advancing as a 5-seed (which is what this is).

jmblue

February 5th, 2018 at 4:34 PM ^

If we exclude the play-in game, the 7-2 mark itself should be broken down further:

0-1 in the round of 64 after a play-in game (when our opponent had twice the rest time as us)

7-1 in the round of 64 without a play-in first

In any event, when a Beilein-coached team is in a postseason tournament, assume it will progress beyond the first game it plays.

BigBlue02

February 5th, 2018 at 5:14 PM ^

This is silly. The poster you responded to wasn’t going into how good Beilein is at getting to the round of 32, he was going into how good Beilein is at 1st round games. That is why he included the B10 tournament and the NIT.

The play-in game is the first round of the tournament and counts as a 1st round win. I’m not sure why you needed to argue against a point that the poster wasn’t making

TrueBlue2003

February 5th, 2018 at 5:40 PM ^

to a poster that made a comment about the dangers of being a 5 seed in the NCAA tournament. That was the context.

ALSO, he made the comment about whether a play-in game "counts" and I merely made the argument that I don't think it does count in the context of whether a 5 seed is danger or not.

John Beilein coached teams are very good in the first rounds of tournaments.  Hence I would feel great about a 5 seed.  I think we can all agree on that.

Perkis-Size Me

February 5th, 2018 at 2:24 PM ^

How could we possibly be ranked as a 10 seed right now? That's bubble territory, and for now this team is firmly off the bubble. If we wanted to end up as a 10 seed, we'd have to limp down the stretch and win only maybe 1-2 more games, and bow out the first week of the BTT. 

Not impossible for that to happen, but certainly not probable. Winning games ugly is still winning. I'd much rather have an ugly win than a good loss. 

ijohnb

February 5th, 2018 at 2:34 PM ^

60.  Compare that to teams under us in the AP like NC and Kentucky, SOS 4 and 8 respectively.  Two, possibly three, losses to non-tourney teams is no good either.

We are not a 10 right now, though.  If the season ended today, I don't think we would be any lower than a 7.

TrueBlue2003

February 5th, 2018 at 3:25 PM ^

There's no doubt a few teams behind us in the AP deserve better seeds than we do (UNC for sure, probably Miami, mayyybe UK and a couple others).  But in trying to defend a 10 (!!) seed, you'd have to make an argument for 36 teams being seeded ahead of us.

That's a pretty difficult argument to make.  Even with our SoS anchors, we're 31 in RPI.  We're 25 in kenpom. 17th in SOR. I can't even imagine a sound methodology for ranking us in the 37-40 range.

jmblue

February 5th, 2018 at 4:19 PM ^

Right now we are #24 on KenPom.  Seven of the 23 teams ranked above us have a worse SOS, and four others are just barely ahead (54, 55, 57, 59).  So our own SOS (60) is not at all an outlier, and shouldn't be that big of a factor.

FauxMo

February 5th, 2018 at 2:49 PM ^

Guys, guys, guys, you are arguing about nothing. I went in and did a little hardcore data analysis. Based on UM's rankings beginning in week one (whenever we were unranked and received no votes, I ranked us #50), we won't have to be a 5 seed. In fact, we will be ranked #1 by week 19, in just 5 short weeks. You can relax. You're welcome. And SCIENCE!!!

rc15

February 5th, 2018 at 1:05 PM ^

You're just expecting this team to get to the Sweet 16? With how inconsistent this team has been this year, I think they need as high of a seed as possible so if they play poorly in the first couple of rounds, there is still a chance.

If they play like they did against Purdue or MSU, they can take down a 1 or 2 seed. And you don't even know for sure that the 1-seed won't have been upset by then...

Hail-Storm

February 5th, 2018 at 1:18 PM ^

I don't have an expectation.  I'm just stating that my preference would be a 3 or 6 seed, as those are the best spots to avoid a 1 seed. And being the top 6 seed would give the best opportunity to face the lowest 2 seed, if they make it that far.  I'm just playing the odds, and best odds in the tournament are to avoid 1 seeds.  Beilein teams tend to do well and are hard for teams to game plan on short turn arounds.  I think the best chance to make a sweet 16 is a 6 seed at this point. Obviously they still need to win the games.  1 seeds need to win their games too. 

ijohnb

February 5th, 2018 at 2:05 PM ^

see your reasoning there, however, I think that within the range of realistic seeds for us, a 5 seed would be preferable to a 6.  The reason being, sometimes, really good teams can slip late in the regular season due to a few losses and end up as a flukish 3 seed.  Take Duke right now, they are really good but are slumping and still have to play Carolina twice.  Before you know it, Duke is a 3 seed and you have to play them in the second round.  That kind of thing happens.

Rarely is there a 4 seed that has really high end talent that slips that far.  For the most part, 4 seeds are not particularly scary.  Michigan in 2013 was kind of the exception to that, we were a 4 seed with 1 seed personnel.  That almost never happens, but it is not that uncommon in the 3 seed spot.

So, I see what you are saying, but I would take a 5 seed over a 6 seed even though it means in all likelihood seeing a 1 seed in the Sweet 16 (if we got that far). 

 

Mr Miggle

February 5th, 2018 at 3:34 PM ^

to play the lowest 2 seed? The strongest 3 seed is usually put in with the lowest 2 seed. If you want to continue that pattern out, you'd see the weakest 6 seed in that group. It's moot, though, since as you move down the seedings are affected more by conference affiliation and geography. Also, 6 seeds are in line to play 3 seeds in round 2. 

 

 

 

Whole Milk

February 5th, 2018 at 2:10 PM ^

I don't understand the inconsistency argument. This team is 12-3 since early december with two of the losses coming at the last second to the best team in the country and one bad loss on the road. Unless you are Virginia, Nova, or Purdue, you are not finding a team that is more consistent in college basketball, it just isn't happening. Every team goes through their fair share of bad games except for the absolute elite teams. For example:

- Duke has lost 4 of their last 12 including bad losses to both Boston College and St. John's. They are the #9 team in the country.

- Texas Tech is the #7 team and lost 3 out of 4 last month including two 20 point defeats. 

- North Carolina just lost 3 in a row.

- Kansas has lost three games at home this year and that never happens.

- Arizona is the best team in the Pac 12 and they have five losses, including getting beaten by Purdue by 25 points(!).

The point is, the current landscape of college basketball has three elite teams, and then everyone else, all who are flawed and can be inconsistent. That gives 13 spots available for the sweet 16, why not us?

rc15

February 5th, 2018 at 2:33 PM ^

I'm not saying this team can't make the Sweet 16, that should at least be the goal. But he was ignoring the first 2 rounds to talk about an eventual Sweet 16 opponent. If you play weaker teams in the first 2 rounds, you have a better chance of getting there.

And yes, even though the results haven't been that inconsitent, the level of play has. Against MSU and Purdue (both times) we played like a top 5 team. Against Minnesota, Rutgers, Northwestern, Maryland, and Nebraska, we didn't play like a top 50 team even though we won all but 1 of those games. Those games have all been painful to watch becuase of how sloppy the play was.

Whole Milk

February 5th, 2018 at 2:40 PM ^

Oh, I understand now. Sorry for the misinterpretation. And I get what you are saying about the team playing inconsistent, I am not refuting that. My point however is that there are very few teams who are consistent. I'll take this team that seems to play up to their competition any day of the week. When playing really good teams, Michigan looks like they belong, and that certainly is something to put faith behind.

L'Carpetron Do…

February 6th, 2018 at 9:27 AM ^

Great analysis and I especially agree about 'then everyone else...so why not us?'  I like that attitude and I think the atmosphere is ripe for a team like Michigan to make a sneaky-deep run. It definitely seems like an odd and unusual landscape in college basketball right now. 

But I would argue that Michigan's on-court product has been inconsistent. They've been winning but have looked absolutely terrible at times against Minnesota, NW and Maryland (and of course that loss to Nebraska).  

It's kind of amazing that this team is finding ways to win even while not playing well.  This something they never did in the past.  I would love to see them start playing well. I say this all the time, but if they play with focus, the way they did against Purdue, they can beat a lot of teams. 

L'Carpetron Do…

February 6th, 2018 at 9:58 AM ^

Also - there are only three elite teams right now, and with the exception of Nova's 2016 championship run, they're all pretty bad tournament teams. Nova usually folds, Purdue usually can't get it together in  March and Virginia is very meh in the tournament.  Doors open, boys.  (if State wins this year I will barf everywhere in disgust)