Michigan finishes #17 in Postseason Coaches' Poll
Way too low if you ask me. This is why the AP Poll should have a post-tournament poll as well
But should be 15. Beat both Purdue and Wisconsin in the Big 10 tourny and got just as far as them in the NCAA tourny.
Great season though.
shouldn't you be rated in the top 16??? Not that it does matter, just sayin......
The NCAA tourny isnt an end all be all, but when it comes to breaking ties, I do think that you look at head to head.
Nova still should be a top 16 team even though it lost in the 2nd round. Single elimination does that sometimes.
I agree and would point out that a post-season poll in a sport that has a 64 team tournament is pointless, however, the poll is internally inconsistent. The NCAA tournament isn't and shouldn't be the end all be all of putting together a post-season rating, which is why it is fine having Louisville ahead of us. However, South Carolina jumping all the way to #6 shows the overwhelming value of at least getting to certain points of the tournament.
No. It means you won your first two games of a tournament, just like 15 other teams (maybe three if you were a play-in team).
14 considering we beat Louisville as well
#17 is hard to swallow when you should have beat the team that should have beat the team that won
/fanboy
It's hard to say they should have beaten UNC. UNC potentially gave the game away, twice, but then didn't.
Purdue and Louisville and other big teams we beat because we presented similar matchup problems the other way. UNC was the best team, we definitely would have been underdogs by 3-5 points, but we absolutely could have beaten them, and would have been highly unlikely to get blasted. Did you watch any of our games in the second half of the season? We were a top 10 team, did not come close to getting blasted, despite finishing with 15 STRAIGHT games against kenpom A or B tier difficulty. 11 of which were A tier diffulculty games and we went 8-3 with the three losses being OT, buzzer beater against and buzzer beater failed on our part.
A statement like this is just stupid and lazy.
The bigs for Purdue that UM exploited are a little different than the bigs UNC has.
he's not good? What's the excuse for how we abused Louisville in the second half?
Again, UNC is very good. A better team even. But we were very good too. We had plenty of guys that they would have struggled with. To assume a blasting is a given is just stupid.
Comparing Haas/Happ or anyone we use as a post or interior counter to Kennedy Meeks/Isaiah Hicks/ or even Tony Bradley is really fucking stupid. UNC won 30+ games by wearing people out with superior depth and survived bad shooting nights and ref riots (like last night) by rebounding and scoring in the post.
We wouldn't have an answer for Justin Jackson. I love Zach Irvin, but c'mon.
Berry II, as I said earlier, could be managed by Walton if we assume that Berry II's ankles are bad. But then UNC rolls in Nate Britt or Theo Pinson.
forgotten what you're even arguing. Yes, UNC is better and would be favored by 3-5 and would probably win 7/10 against us. But they'd only blast us once or twice in ten. Your statement that they would definitively blast us is a garbage hot take.
Walton would have been a mismatch for Berry who is not as good. Irvin wouldn't have beaten Jackson but he would have at least held his own. Jackson isn't much better, if at all, than Dillon Brooks and probably not as good as Miles Bridges and we did well agaisnt both. MAAR is better than Britt/Pinson.
The assersion that Meeks is on another planet than Happ/Haas/Swanigan/Louisville bigs or Jordan Bell or any of the other bigs that we either handled or at least made up for in other ways is again, a total hot take. Would they have eaten us up inside and on the boards? Absolutely. But Minnesota did that in the BTT and we still held a double digit lead much of the second half. Ok St. rebounded 52 percent (!!!) of their misses and lost to us. UNC would have blown us out in some aspects of the game but you're failing to consider other aspects. We would have spread the floor and hit threes and driven on their bigs/mismatched switches enough to keep it close or win 8-9 times out of 10.
Youre really gonna die on this sword huh? It'd be fine if you would just have a legit convo. But you keep making statements that no one else is making and complaining about them. No one said Meeks is "on another planet" from the other bigs UM went up against. I, and others, have said that UNC had a different type of bigs than you know, Wisconsin and Purdue. Whic h is true.
is that UNC would blast us. I assume blast means a fairly easy double digit win. We beat Purdue, Louisville, Minnesota, Wisconsin, etc. all with very different, and good to great bigs.
Yes, the UNC bigs are a litte different than the Purdue bigs. A little. They're better than but similar in style to the Minnesota bigs and Wisconsin bigs. They're different than but not necessarily that much better than the Louisville bigs. But they would have to be on a different planet than all of those guys for UNC to be that much better than teams we beat, right? For basically a 20 point swing agaisnt us. Especially when our guards are better. Being a little different doesn't go from losing to us to blasting us.
No one has yet made an argument that UNC is that much better than any of the teams we beat or narrowly lost to in the last two months. Kenpom, Vegas and all the smart money would have us udnerdogs by 5 or fewer points. On the distribution of probabilistic outcomes, a blasting is unlikely. All these unsupported arguments that deviate from a quantifiably tested prediction is just a hot take.
I heard McD's hot cakes are availabe all day now.
So..you're going to show your Kenpom/Vegas/Smart money analysis that refutes the hot takes terrorizing this thread. Save us from ourselves.
I doubt he's going to die but he sure is responding to points others made and he's making a good case...actually changing my mind on a theoretical matchup between these two teams at the same time.
We'd have beaten UNC last night, I think. That was hot garbage. If we were shooting good, not even lights out great, we'd have been up 10 at halftime and the 2nd half would've of course been a grind but, they were not making shots. Rebounding would've kept them in it.
Huh, i missed the part where I said he's not good. I said they are different types of bigs. Or where I said UNC would blast UM. Im hoping you just misunderstood what I was saying and I didnt articulate it enough, because otherwise, whoo boy.
Swanigan and Haas were exploited by Wagner and Wilson bc of the difference in the type of skill and athleticism they possess. Jackson, Hicks, Bradley are different players than Haas/Swanigan and UM might not have had as much success as they did in that aspect.
as a singular analogue to UNC. I said everyone said we wouldn't be able to hang with Purdue and Louisville and other teams that present matchup problems, but we did. They all have very different bigs. Our offense was so multi-dimensional that it showed there were few teams, if any, that could slow us down unless our open shots weren't falling (Oregon, and we still should have won). So my point was that it really didn't matter what was thrown at us, there wasn't a team that we couldn't hang with and beat.
I agree with you that the UNC bigs would have been a unique challenge. And given our track record of demolishing whatever defense was sent our way, we would be highly unlikely to be blasted.
Your enthusiasm is contagious. However, just repeating "WE'LL WIN BECAUSE WE'RE MICHIGAN FERGODSAKES" isn't compelling. If "blast" is hyperbole, then so be it. But we'd lose by a comfortable margin. I'm pretty sure most of the country would agree.
It's ok that you didn't watch UNC much this season. Maybe you have a life or something. But if you had seen the 2017 National Champions play more than just the previous few weeks you would likely agree that we couldn't match their size, athleticism or depth - as much as I wish we could.
Did I say we would win? Show me where I said that would be the expected result in a single game. If you think 3-5 is a comfortable margin, fine, I said that would be a reasonably expected margin in my first response. I certainly don't think that's a comfortable margin and assured victory, and not even close to a blasting. If you call that a blasting, then yes, that's hyperbole.
We'll *only* lose by 3-5 pts? In KenPom's realm, 3-5 point *underdog* is substational. Vegas, fwiw, views a 5 pt favorite as a confident indicator of outcome.
delete. duplicate post. sorry.
I'm gonna go with the simple fact that Meeks/Hichs and Bradley are 5* McD's whereas everyone else (save for Swanigan) is decidedly not. They would kill us. Am I the only person who watched us play interior defense and not rebound all season?
UNC would have struggled against it.
I watched Duke play North Carolina in all 3 games. Duke used Jasyon Tatum at the 4 and did damage from the perimeter. North Carolina's bigs don't like guarding taller, quicker players that can shoot 3s. (Frankly, no team enjoys having to guard stretch bigs.)
Jayson Tatum? The lottery pick? He's pretty good at basketball.
Otherwise, UNC did ok against Duke while they won the ACC regular season (coin-flip in Cameron, near blow-out at Smith Center and a good lead in the ACC Championship before Duke got hot).
UNC struggled much of this tournament. They nearly lost in the second round to Arkansas, for instance. I doubt they'd have blown us out.
They benefitted from another blown call by the refs in that game. Berry got away with a blatant travel and charge call with 40 seconds left and UNC up one. That led to a layup and Arkansas never got any closer.
There was also a questionable air ball call before that. UNC partially blocked a 3-point attempt that went out of bounds and replays clearly showed the defender touching the ball. Apparently the refs didn't have the same camera TBS had because they didn't change the call.
The refs were equally active last night.
Hicks and Meeks both had 4 PF's. Luke Maye had 3. Fouls were 22-22.
Tomorrow's another day, brother.
So we were 5-4 against teams above us? Nice!
I had the same thought to tally wins and losses against the sixteen teams above us on this ranking and I was pleased with that quite honestly. I honestly wasn't sure where we would end up in any post tournament rankings - definitely in the teens, I thought, but no idea where exactly. I don't know that I have a specific complaint other than it would have been fun to see what happened if we overcame Oregon.
I thought OK State got a bit shafted. They only got votes but no ranking. That was a decent team which could have beaten many of the teams above them in the rankings.
They went 20-13 and lost in the round of 64. Although they ended up a Kenpom top 25 team, I can see why they weren't voted there.
Agreed
There should be a difference between advanced stats - which should tell you something about the ins and outs of a team's performance from one possession to the next, and ranking - which ought to reward actual on-court W/L results.
I LOVE advanced stats for basketball and football both. They tell you a lot more than just looking at final scores and standings, and add all kinds of depth to sports fandom. BUT the whole point of playing is to win. The teams that win ought to be rewarded for doing so. If not, quit keeping score and just track statistics.
If you are only counting the last 2 months of the season, it is too low. If you take the season as it's whole it's fine. Even if you feel we were underseeded as a 7 and deserved a 6 that denotes 24-27 going into the tournament. So we moved from "receiving other votes" pre NCAA to 17th.
Using my logic I'd argue South Carolina is also very overrated - they had a hot run at the end but a season that denoted mid teens to late teens.
Wouldn't Xavier have a beef to be ahead of us if you mostly only value the last 5-6 weeks of the season? etc
Also when people say "way too low" I like to hear what teams ahead of us should be behind UM. It is easy to say things in a vacuum without considering what else is out there. I can't make an argument for anyone really other than Louisville maybe and... South Carolina.
We won twice and lost once by a sliver in the tourney, 1 bucket either way and any of these games could have turned. So we could have gone to the Elite 8 just as easily as been knocked out in the first game vs OK ST, a 10 seed. Think it's more than fair.
A poll is supposed to rate where we are now, not over the course of a season.
Yes, now. When the course of the season has been run.
It should weight improvement If you are better in March than in January that is a good thing.
What's the point of all the practices and player development if improvement is not recognized?
Michigan is easily better than the 17th team in the country.
By any measure.
without any shred of doubt. In no way, shape or form, and by no metric are they ahead of us, even on a full season basis. Plus we just beat them by 15 on a neutral court rubber match. We should be ahead of Purdue, without much argument. You could make an argument to be ahead of Louisville and Baylor but I'm fine being behind them. The 13-15 range be about right so we're definitely not "way too low".
And no, Xavier had a horrible end to the regular season (lost 6 of 7!!) and were fortunate to run into the easiest portion of any bracket with three games against drastically overseeded teams in Marland (46th in kenpom), FSU (26th in kenpom) and Arizona (18th in kenpom). They barely deserve to be in a top 25 regardless of whether you use end of season performance or full body of work.
I guess I really don't care the exact number, but it obviously should have been somewhere between 11-15. If we had advanced to the Sweet 16 by beating a low-seeded team who earlier pulled an upset, then OK. We didn't. We beat a 2 seed (i.e. a top 8 team, at least). We also finished the year on what, a 12-2 run with a B1G title? Yeah, 17 is wrong.
Time for Lucille to bash some skulls?