Michigan as NCAA seeds

Submitted by Wolverine Devotee on March 11th, 2018 at 2:38 PM

It's Selection Sunday!!!!

Here is every seed we've ever had in the NCAA Tournament and our record as them.

 

1 seed: 6-2

Date Opponent Result Round
3/15/1985 16 Farleigh Dickinson W 59-55 First Round
3/17/1985 8 Villanova L 55-59 Second Round
3/19/1993 16 Coastal Carolina W 84-53* First Round*
3/21/1993 9 UCLA W 86-84 OT* Second Round*
3/26/1993 12 George Washington W 72-64* Sweet Sixteen*
3/28/1993 7 Temple W 77-72* Elite Eight*
4/3/1993 1 Kentucky W 81-78 OT* Final Four*
4/5/1993 1 North Carolina L 71-77* National Championship*

 

2 seed: 4-2

Date Opponent Result Round
3/14/1986 15 Akron W 70-64 First Round
3/16/1986 7 Iowa State L 69-72 Second Round
3/20/2014 15 Wofford W 57-40 Second Round
3/22/2014 7 Texas W 79-65 Third Round
3/28/2014 11 Tennessee W 73-71 Sweet Sixteen
3/30/2014 8 Kentucky L 72-75 Elite Eight

 

3 seed: 13-4

Date Opponent Result Round
3/17/1988 14 Boise State W 63-58 First Round
3/19/1988 6 Florida W 108-85 Second Round
3/25/1988 2 North Carolina L 69-78 Sweet Sixteen
3/17/1989 14 Xavier W 92-87 First Round
3/19/1989 6 South Alabama W 91-82 Second Round
3/23/1989 2 North Carolina W 92-87 Sweet Sixteen
3/25/1989 5 Virginia W 102-65 Elite Eight
4/1/1989 1 Illinois W 83-81 Final Four
4/3/1989 3 Seton Hall W 80-79 OT National Championship
3/16/1990 14 Illinois State W 76-70 First Round
3/18/1990 11 Loyola Marymount L 115-149 Second Round
3/17/1994 14 Pepperdine W 78-74 OT First Round
3/19/1994 6 Texas W 84-79 Second Round
3/24/1994 10 Maryland W 78-71 Sweet Sixteen
3/26/1994 1 Arkansas L 68-76 Elite Eight
3/13/1998 14 Davidson W 80-61* First Round*
3/15/1998 6 UCLA L 82-85* Second Round*

 

4 seed: 5-2

Date Opponent Result Round
3/16/2012 13 Ohio University L 60-65 Second Round
3/21/2013 13 South Dakota State W 71-56 Second Round
3/23/2013 5 VCU W 78-53 Third Round
3/29/2013 1 Kansas W 87-85 OT Sweet Sixteen
3/31/2013 3 Florida W 79-59 Elite Eight
4/6/2013 4 Syracuse W 61-56 Final Four
4/8/2013 1 Louisville L 76-82 National Championship

 

5 seed: 0-0


6 seed: 5-1

Date Opponent Result Round
3/20/1992 11 Temple W 73-66 First Round
3/22/1992 14 East Tennessee State W 102-90 Second Round
3/27/1992 2 Oklahoma State W 75-72 Sweet Sixteen
3/29/1992 1 Ohio State W 75-71 OT Elite Eight
4/4/1992 4 Cincinnati W 76-72* Final Four*
4/6/1992 1 Duke L 51-71* National Championship*

 

7 seed: 2-2

Date Opponent Result Round
3/15/1996 10 Texas L 76-80* First Round*
3/17/2017 10 Oklahoma State W 92-91 First Round
3/19/2017 2 Louisville W 73-69 Second Round
3/23/2017 3 Oregon L 68-69 Sweet Sixteen

 

8 seed: 1-1

Date Opponent Result Round
3/18/2011 9 Tennessee W 75-45 Second Round
3/20/2011 1 Duke L 71-73 Third Round

 

9 seed: 1-2

Date Opponent Result Round
3/12/1987 8 Navy W 97-82 First Round
3/14/1987 1 North Carolina L 97-109 Second Round
3/16/1995 8 Western Kentucky L 76-82 OT First Round

 

10 seed: 1-1

Date Opponent Result Round
3/19/2009 7 Clemson W 62-59 First Round
3/21/2009 2 Oklahoma L 63-73 Second Round

 

11 seed: 1-1

Date Opponent Result Round
3/16/2016 11 Tulsa W 76-72 First Four
3/18/2016 6 Notre Dame L 63-70 First Round


12 seed: 0-0
13 seed: 0-0
14 seed: 0-0
15 seed: 0-0
16 seed: 0-0

Comments

M-Dog

March 11th, 2018 at 3:03 PM ^

I remember every single one of these games.

When Michigan wins the Sweet Sixteen game, we tend to catch fire and keep advancing.

Also, we are money in the Final Four game.  We just don't lose there . . . a 6-1 record.  That one loss was in 1964, and we still won the 3rd place game which they had back then.

 

 

 

 

 

M-Dog

March 11th, 2018 at 3:13 PM ^

Same here.  

A lot of people are lukewarm on the idea, but for an NCAA that will come up with a "First Four" play-in round just to milk some extra attention and revenue . . . a third place game at the Final Four on Sunday as a warm-up to the NC seems like a natural attention and revenue getter.

 

M-Dog

March 11th, 2018 at 3:30 PM ^

Times have changed.  We have Midnight Madness and regional NCAA games held in football stadiums.  College sports are much bigger now.
 
A third place game, while not of the stature of the NC or even Final Four games, would still be a big national event.  Especially if you had it on Sunday when there is a lull between Final Four games and the NC.  Keep the Madness going while everyone is still juiced up.
 
There are only two teams that would play in it and they would almost never be the same teams from year to year.  It's only two games in a row, not four like is common in the Conference tournaments.
 
Ask Wichita State and Syracuse in 2013 if they would not have liked to keep playing after their very close Final Four losses. 
 
Of course they would. 
 

Toe Meets Leather

March 11th, 2018 at 3:50 PM ^

I agree that the NCAA would do it to milk a few more dollars out of the tournament.

In terms of the teams playing, I think it would be absolutely miserable to play in that game. It's not like the olympics where 3rd place is still meaningful. There is only one national champion and everyone else's season ends in disappointment. Wichita State and Syracuse would have liked to have had another crack at the teams that just beat them I'm sure, but to play each other in a meaningless game just after their season was essentially ended doesn't sound appealing

In my personal experience playing in and watching tournaments at the youth and high school level, the 3rd place game (if there is one) lacks intensity and just seems forced. Selfishly I would like to watch some good teams play basketball during that lull, but the competitiveness would be down and I do not think the product would be very good. 

M-Dog

March 11th, 2018 at 3:49 PM ^

Yeah, I thought that but I didn't want to type it.  But it's true.

We've had the misfortune to run up against some historically good programs in the NC: 

'65 - UCLA at peak Wooden,

'76 - Undefeated Indiana,

'92 - Duke's back to back team,

'93 - Deam Smith at his peak (though this was the one game we really should have won),

'13 - A Louisville team that was clearly bought and paid for (but we should have won this game too).

The only "ordinary" team that we faced - '89 Seton Hall - we won.

Thank goodness we won that game in OT, or we would feel like the Buffalo Bills of CBB.

 

 

WindyCityBlue

March 11th, 2018 at 4:00 PM ^

And they were on fire. When they got the ball, they basically ran down the court and shot the bell right away. They passed the ball maybe once or twice per possession. The shot clock rarely got below 25 seconds (35 second shot clock back then).

That was their style all year. And with the passing of hank the bank, they were a team of destiny.

BuckNekked

March 11th, 2018 at 4:22 PM ^

I remember an interview with Loyola Marymounts coach (Im thinking SI article) who thought that he could get to 200 at some point. A normal game for them was 100 possessions with the ball. And you got to remember it was an era where most games were in the 90s and alot over 100. UNLV was a prolific scoring team as well.

 

M-Dog

March 11th, 2018 at 3:09 PM ^

Please edit the 8-seed box and get rid of that stupid "second round" designation for what is really the first round. 

They did that back then so they could pimp the play-in games as the "first round".

Like "Legends and Leaders", people weren't having it.  So they finally got smart and went back to a true first round designation and called the play-in games "First Four" which at least makes some sense.

 

M-Dog

March 11th, 2018 at 3:26 PM ^

I tried to do as I was told - they actually said what you said in not so many words - but I just could not kid myself.

Dumb spin on dumb idea . . . is dumb.

 

J.

March 11th, 2018 at 4:40 PM ^

I mean, that's exactly what the tournament is, with the only truly odd thing being that the byes don't go to the top 60, but rather the top 36 or so, then skip four, and then the next 24 or so.  You can fill it up on a 128-team bracket and it works.

It's dumb, but it works. :-)

64 was a perfect number, and I say that despite Michigan being a First Four team a few years ago.  If you don't finish within the top 32 at-large teams, better luck next year.  (Also: Michigan deserved better than the First Four that year anyway).

The next number that makes any amount of sense is 96, and that's only if the 32 byes go to the 32 automatic bids -- that would make some of these conference championship games, where both teams are already in, much more compelling.  But I'd prefer 64 to 96 by a factor of about a million to one.

Chitown Kev

March 11th, 2018 at 4:27 PM ^

''surely this team isn't about to lose''...but it was all playing to the level of competition and turning on that next gear...esp. that UCLA game

Muttley

March 11th, 2018 at 4:34 PM ^

didn't play against the loser of the NC game (being on the other side of the bracket), it should face the NC game loser on Tuesday for the golden
FarmhouseBlnJmboSteakKnfS4SHF16
trophy.

The coach of the losing team gets fired.

UofM626

March 11th, 2018 at 4:54 PM ^

NAT CHAMP GAMES! And it kills me still to this day. Watching us loose to Loyola Marymount that year really still stings. I thought that team could go all the way. I was a senior in high school - whoooo time has flown by.