ish

March 19th, 2018 at 11:28 AM ^

that was written by myron medcalf.  he seems like a nice enough guy but his MO is always to take the road less traveled.

TrueBlue2003

March 19th, 2018 at 12:48 PM ^

but these "reseeding" are almost always based on just the teams tourney games, completely ignoring the regular season.  So, fine.  Give us the 15th seed in this clickbait article but it's not a two game season, so it's a dumb exercise.  That's why we're favored over his 7th team.

MattisonMan

March 19th, 2018 at 11:49 AM ^

"It's not close to the dominant efforts from higher seeds on this list, but it's also short of Michigan's potential."

I mean that's a pretty fair take to me. Michigan has not played anywhere near its level from the BTT.

amr85

March 19th, 2018 at 11:32 AM ^

I can't disagree, based on the way we have played. The ending to our summary is accurate, the way we have played is no where near our potential.

I really think we will see a different team for the Sweet 16 and Elite 8 games. I don't see us continuing to play this poorly. Break out of the funk against A&M and then look out.

Space Coyote

March 19th, 2018 at 11:53 AM ^

New arena with new sight lines, plenty of opportunity to get back on track.

Not saying it will automatically happen, but the first two games don't really hold much weight for going forward, other than the potential concern about Michigan facing extended defenses (which we knew prior to the tournament).

I actually don't mind the article (Michigan played very poorly on offense and hit a buzzer beater to advance; we don't need to take offense to this). I don't mind the idea of the article (think it's an interesting way to summarize the events on the first weekend). But survive and advance, Michigan did that.

ak47

March 19th, 2018 at 11:37 AM ^

Based off the way teams have played over the their first two games his ranking is accurate because we played mediocre as hell and were frankly lucky to beat houston due to them missing 3 free throws in the final 25 seconds.

Based off a whole year of performance we would be 6th.  Both can be accurate statements

Waka

March 19th, 2018 at 11:44 AM ^

Correct. The problem I have with the article is that it reseeds teams solely on performance in the 2 tournament games, and completely ignores the other 4 months of data available. Recent performance should factor into a predictive model, but having it be the lone factor seems like a shitty way to handicap the teams remaining. 

oriental andrew

March 19th, 2018 at 12:05 PM ^

I doubt you'd be saying that if Michigan had been tearing it up thus far and were one of his top 2-3 teams. 

People like looking at time periods that suit their message. Since Feb whatever, Michigan is top 5 in defensive efficiency and top 5 overall in KenPom or whatever rating system. Since the tournament started, Michigan has been playing poorly on offense and with fire. 

Tournament performance is as good a measure to reseed as anything else. It's not so arbitrary like going back to the conference tournaments or the last month. 

MI Expat NY

March 19th, 2018 at 12:40 PM ^

Eh, if Michigan lit it up for two games and cruised to 20 point wints, a top  2-3 "reseeding" would at least make some sense with a overall body of work approach.  That would be the culmination of a 23-4 streak with six straight tournament wins, and shiny KenPom and RPI number, etc.  It wouldn't be unreasoble to think Michigan would be at the top of a group of similarly ranked teams. 

As it is, Villanova is probably the only team left that has put any separation from the rest of the top teams remaining.  There isn't a ton of difference between Duke, Kansas, Michigan, Gonzaga, Texas Tech, Purdue, West Virginia, Clemson, and Kentucky.  A&M, Nevada, FSU, Kansas State, Syracuse, and Loyola are clearly in the next group.  Any reseeding is probably fair as long as those groupings are maintained.  And if you want to use performance in the last two games as a basis at that point, it is not unreasonable.  

CLion

March 19th, 2018 at 11:45 AM ^

I think people are overstating how mediocre our games were because they weren't pretty. Covered the spread vs Montana with shutdown defense. Then we played a good Houston team even despite shooting poorly.

If Poole's shot doesn't fall, is Houston also ranked 15? Doubt it.

joeyb

March 19th, 2018 at 12:44 PM ^

Not really. Using Torvik for only games in the tournament

http://barttorvik.com/trankslice.php?year=2018&sort=&conlimit=&begin=20…

Here would be the ranking:

  1. Clemson
  2. Villanova
  3. Duke
  4. Texas A&M
  5. West Virginia
  6. Florida St.
  7. Purdue
  8. Michigan
  9. Kentucky
  10. Nevada
  11. Syracuse
  12. Kansas
  13. Kansas St.
  14. Gonzaga
  15. Texas Tech
  16. Loyola Chicago

The problem is that you forget that Houston was the toughest 6 seed. Texas Tech played the same seeds as us, with us having the harder 6 seed, and we performed 4 points better than them and 2 points worse in the respective games. Gonzaga scraped by OSU AND UNCG. Loyola needed TWO buzzer beaters to win. Yet, all of them are ranked above Michigan in the article.

The other problem with this is that it doesn't take into account any of the regular season data. We're also dealing with a very small sample size because we're trying to look at "trends" from the tournament. If you take into account the last 10 games (compromise between only tournament and full season), the list would look like this:

  1. Duke
  2. Villanova
  3. Michigan
  4. Kentucky
  5. Kansas
  6. Gonzaga
  7. West Virginia
  8. Clemson
  9. Purdue
  10. Kansas St.
  11. Texas Tech
  12. Loyola
  13. Texas A&M
  14. Syracuse
  15. Nevada
  16. Florida St.

And you can all look at Kenpom or whichever metric you favor for the full season. The point is that the list is based on nothing but feelings. Michigan didn't perform nearly as poorly compared to realistic expectations as most seem to think. Obviously, we still need to play better if we expect to be Texas A&M, but we'd still be expected to beat half the remaining field playing how we've been playing.

MI Expat NY

March 19th, 2018 at 11:41 AM ^

The article is pretty hilarious.  He says this:

Before Selection Sunday, Virginia had lost just twice, and it earned the No. 1 overall seed. A UMBC squad that lost to Albany by 44 points in America East league play deserved one of the four worst seeds in the NCAA tournament. An uncanny upset did not change that.

Yet, he reseeds and Michigan comes out at 15 apparently because we did not play well for two games.  The whole article is a contradiction.  It reads as a seeding based on how teams played over two games, but then talks about how initial seeding was still correct even with the results of the first two games.  Can't be both!

CalifExile

March 19th, 2018 at 1:15 PM ^

Seeding is based on available information. The original seeding was based on the information available before the tournament started. (Although you can quarrel with UVA's seeding because it didn't account for the loss of their freshman star). Now, after seeing the results of the tournament so far, you have new information and make judgements accordingly.

The author recognizes that UMBC's win was a fluke which almost certainly wouldn't be repeated even if they played UVA 49 more times. Upsets happen. That's why they call it gambling.

jmblue

March 19th, 2018 at 11:45 AM ^

We played by far the best 14 seed in Montana (per Kenpom/Torvik) and won by 14.  Then we played Houston, one of one of the 10 hottest teams in the country (per Torvik).  That's worth keeping in mind.

  

CLion

March 19th, 2018 at 11:56 AM ^

Yeah, if Houston wins that game where do they get ranked? Bet it wouldn't be 15th, and well, we just beat that team, and we didn't even shoot well.

Let's put it this way, if I were an opposing coach, Michigan is certainly not in the top half of remaining teams I would want to play.

lhglrkwg

March 19th, 2018 at 11:49 AM ^

Put Kentucky at #5 after they struggled with Davidson and UB. Brilliant

(and before someone says 'Kentuck beat Buffalo by 20', they were only up 5 midway thru the 2nd half before pulling away very late)

Waka

March 19th, 2018 at 1:50 PM ^

This guy also tweeted out this gem: "I know a Final Four run is always special, but does Kentucky really want to get there .... against this competition in the South?"

I'm just gonna skip any future article by this bum. ESPN could get 10 year olds to generate better content than this clown.

samdrussBLUE

March 19th, 2018 at 11:54 AM ^

If they are only taking into account the tournament games played, then this isn't unreasonable. We haven't played great, well below our average and trend the 6 weeks prior.

stephenrjking

March 19th, 2018 at 11:55 AM ^

This is one of those articles whose relevance depends solely upon whether or not they butter up your favorite team or not. So he wasn't impressed by Michigan's first two games; big deal. A lot of other people weren't, either. Either Michigan comes out and impresses in LA, or they go home and it doesn't matter.

This will be settled on the court. 

Christicks

March 19th, 2018 at 11:55 AM ^

The law of averages suggests our shitty 3-point shooting is going to come to an end soon and it better be in the next game because that's exactly what we need to beat TAMU.

mgobleu

March 19th, 2018 at 11:56 AM ^

I do believe the initial seeds took into account, like... the whole season, and not just the last two games, but thanks for playing.

For all the media had done to massage Houston's balls over the past week, you'd think a team would get credit for beating them, buzzer beater or no. I doubt if Gray made the shot instead of Poole you'd hear anything about Michigan playing like crap and being off their game; it'd just be "oh how great is Houston!"

I really hope Michigan takes the week's rest, the momentum from a couple gutty wins, and shade like this article and shuts some people up against A&M.

Gentleman Squirrels

March 19th, 2018 at 11:58 AM ^

The article is titled incorrectly. Re-seeding the sweet 16 is just wrong. If he says ranking the sweet 16 based on the first weekend of games, I'm fine with that ranking. We are lucky to survive, but that doesn't mean we are suddenly one of the worst teams left. 

Sideline

March 19th, 2018 at 12:06 PM ^

Houston was the better team for 59 minutes and some change... I’m sorry, were we not tied for most of that game? Were we all watching the same game as this guy? To claim we underperformed is one thing, to say Houston outplayed us for the entire game minus this miraculous shot is completely false. They played with us, and were a better team for nearly half the game, however, not the better team for 59+ minutes. If they were the better team for 99% of a game, they’d win that game.

Whole Milk

March 19th, 2018 at 12:09 PM ^

Every article this guy does is like this. He wants to throw some things on a screen to get a reaction. He has no consistency to what he rights, but wants to write whatever the hot take of the moment is. Thankfully, this doesn't matter one iota. 

trustBlue

March 19th, 2018 at 12:11 PM ^

I'm not really clear on what this article is trying to do, tbh. Is it supposed to be seeding teams based on performance over the first two rounds, or just an attempt at re-seeding who is left?

On the face, its summary on Michigan is pretty accurate: 

"Yet, the Wolverines squeezed by a dangerous 6-seed on a buzzer-beater, and its best player struggled against a Big Sky champion. It's not close to the dominant efforts from higher seeds on this list, but it's also short of Michigan's potential."

If we are re-seeding the Sweet 16 teams based solely on their performance over the first two games of the tournament, Michigan would have to be near the bottom. 

However if we are re-seeding the teams based on who they really are and how they have played over the course of the season, then putting Michigan after Loyola-Chicago, Nevada, and Texas Tech is pure comedy.

Soulfire21

March 19th, 2018 at 12:14 PM ^

Based on the Montana and Houston games, I'm not sure how anyone could disagree. We didn't look anything like we did in the BTT.

As I understand it, this is re-seeding teams based on their first weekend performance, which, as we all saw, wasn't particularly great for us.

Perkis-Size Me

March 19th, 2018 at 12:19 PM ^

If the seeding is based on how we performed in our last two games, its hard to disagree. Didn't play very well, and by the grace of Jordan Poole we're still playing. 

That being said, those two games don't matter anymore. Style points don't mean shit in the tournament. Whether you win big or win ugly, all you've got to do is win and move on.

mgobaran

March 19th, 2018 at 12:30 PM ^

Mediocre offense and dominant defense doesn't mean we have played poorly. One asset of our team hasn't played at 100%. Both of our opponents were underseeded, and we beat who was in front of us. Better than what 52 others team who played last week could say. I'm not saying we are the best, but 2nd worst?? Nah.

Kansas St. won an 8/9 game and got to beat a 16 seed in the 2nd round by scoring 50 points. Kentucky went the distance close with 12 seed Davidson and beat a 13 seed, yippee! Loyola has been impressive. Nevada as well, though 10th seed Texas was down some guys, and won in a Mo Bamba-less OT. Beating Cincinnati is impressive, but it takes a good bit of luck to overcome a 22 point deficit. Gonzaga barely beat UNCG (~10 spots lower than Montana on kenpom). Beating OSU = Beating Houston. A&M beat providence by 4, and a great win over UNC. Duke got Iona and Rhode Island, yawn. Syracuse is doing well, but is a limited team getting by overseeded teams with zone defense. Congrats. Clemson and Kansas have been good enough. Villanova, Purdue and Texas Tech has done what they are supposed to, but how is that any different from Michigan? WVU has played very well.