So, is there any way at all that we can make it in with a win over Sparty and just one BTT win?
Who would that win in the BTT need to be over?
Our resume would be admittedly mixed - .500 in Big ten, 20 wins, 2 or 3 top 50 wins, no top 25 wins (lots of very close losses) - but we are talking about doing just enough to get in among 68 teams, not arguing for a 10 seed.
Is there a chance if this scenario plays out?
(Yes, I know the answer is "just take care of business in the BTT", but if it doesn't work out can we still get in with just a win over Sparty and one BTT win?)
BTW, I think we are in if we win our second BTT game, even if we lose to Sparty, because of who we will have to beat to win.
February 26th, 2011 at 7:48 PM ^
I think it all depends who that win is over. At least there are 3 extra slots this year.
February 26th, 2011 at 7:51 PM ^
With the B1G being the top conference, I would think any team .500 or over would get in.
February 26th, 2011 at 7:55 PM ^
the committee won't say, "well they were .500 in the best conference, they're in". The bubble is a fluid process. It depends on each individual resume compared with other teams. A lot depends on the upcoming 2 weeks as well. How many unexpected teams get in and make the bubble smaller, by winning a conference tournament.
February 26th, 2011 at 8:58 PM ^
The bubble is a fluid process.
This seems correct to me.
/science
February 26th, 2011 at 7:57 PM ^
That would give us two more shots at the tourney:
- Beat State and win in the first round of the BTT, or
- Lose to State, but win our second BTT game.
The way this team is playing, we have at least a 50/50 chance at every big game. (We absolutely must win our first round BTT game or it is all over.)
February 26th, 2011 at 8:01 PM ^
have failed to get in despite being .500 in conference. I agree that the Big 10 is a very strong conference this year, but the Committee wants to know you have beaten and can beat good teams. If Michigan doesn't beat a Purdue/WIsconsin type team in the Big 10 tourney, things will be pretty dicey.
February 26th, 2011 at 9:19 PM ^
They'll know we can beat great teams given what we did against WIS, KAN, OSU and SYR. I believe (and really hope) they do actually look at what happened in games instead of just the W/L outcome.
February 26th, 2011 at 9:16 PM ^
The two teams we didn't play twice in the B1G were PU and ILL so we had an easier run than most in the B1G. Too simple to just say that .500 in a top two league is good enough without looking at the entire picture.
February 26th, 2011 at 10:07 PM ^
February 26th, 2011 at 11:18 PM ^
Agreed. We have OSU, Wisconsin and Purdue and a lot of really average teams on top of that. Who said we were the best conference? They still play basketball out east, right?
February 26th, 2011 at 7:52 PM ^
Imagine if Michigan wins again Saturday, but MSU gets in and Michigan doesn't after sweeping them and having a similar record. Someone here posted a very good comment in the "feelgood" thread: Izzo has a lot of friends on the committee and they will do all they can to get him in, just on past performance.
If Michigan somehow sweeps MSU and MSU is allowed in, they would almost have to allow Michigan in. I think Michigan has to win on Saturday and follow it with at least two wins in the BTT to get in, but a gratuitous invitation to Izzo and MSU could quite possibly change things.
As much as I still think they would be better-served in the NIT, if Michigan does get in, nobody will be able to say they didn't earn it.
February 26th, 2011 at 8:01 PM ^
I thought the Izzo factor would work against us, but as you point out, the comittee may feel enough guilt to pull us in as well if they pick State. It actually would not be that hard to make the case for both of us.
The comittee loves JB as well, they just need a plausible enough excuse to invite him in.
February 26th, 2011 at 8:07 PM ^
February 26th, 2011 at 8:41 PM ^
UNC last year was terrible, not even close to a tourney team so coach prestige was irrelevant. I personally believe it will take a win State and at least 2 wins in the BTT. We are not as close to being in as a lot of you seem to think.
February 26th, 2011 at 9:21 PM ^
BTN just said Harvard is 43 in RPI.
February 26th, 2011 at 9:34 PM ^
Harvard who is also in the top 50. Who would have thought that game would help us?
February 26th, 2011 at 9:31 PM ^
...with all this talk about M being better off in the NIT. It's just ludicrous. Not a single player or coach on the team would rather play in the NIT and any true fan wouldn't either.
The argument that it would be more helpful to the team makes no sense either. How much are we really going to get out of a few more games at home against decent competition? This team has a chance to make a run next year and the experience gained from playing the NCAA tourney on neutral courts on the big stage is much more important. Plus, you shouldn't assume we are looking at a one and done. Remember that if we squeak in, we play a "play-in" game against another bubble team that wil be very winnable and not much different than NIT competition. Then if we win that, we'll have winnable matchup against a 6 seed. So it's a very real possibilty that we'd play 3 games in the tourney.
Even if we don't have a play-in game, we'll have a winnable game in the first round at least, making 2 games just as likely as 3 or 4 in the NIT. That extra game or two in the NIT is not going to put us in a better position next year than an NCAA berth. If you're actually rooting for the NIT, you can't be a serious fan.
February 26th, 2011 at 11:18 PM ^
except the "better served in the NIT" comment.
Been there, done that. A couple of more games do not outweigh the exposure of an NCAA bid. Period.
February 26th, 2011 at 11:23 PM ^
Agreed. The common denominator all NIT teams have? They weren't good enough to be in the Big Dance.
February 26th, 2011 at 7:53 PM ^
I sure wouldn't rule it out. I'm just gonna take it one game at a time (and give 110%) and let the chips fall where they may. Just beat Sparty.
February 26th, 2011 at 7:55 PM ^
9-9 in, by all consensus, one of the toughest conferences, 20 wins, they're in in that scenario. I also think the committee would look very favorably at the last 12ish games and the close loses to very good teams.
February 26th, 2011 at 9:06 PM ^
i can't find any information about it, but i think i heard jay bilas say that committee members are no longer supposed to consider late season momentum as a criterion. does anyone know anything about that?
it's possible that i didn't hear him correctly, so take that for what it's worth.
February 26th, 2011 at 9:39 PM ^
That makes very little sense. While I'll agree that a win is a win, part of what makes the tourney so exciting is the best teams playing their best basketball at that time of the year.
February 26th, 2011 at 9:54 PM ^
But don't believe for a minute that it won't make a difference. It shows improvement. It shows that this team IS ready for the Tournament, even though it was not at the beginning of the year.
They will notice. They just won't say it out loud like they used to.
February 26th, 2011 at 10:14 PM ^
criteria for two reasons:
1) 10 is a totally arbitrary number. If a team was 4-6 in their last ten but won the four before that they'd be 8-6 in their last 14. The first makes it seem like they played poorly down the stretch, the second makes it seem like they played fairly well.
2) It doesn't take into account the balance of the schedule. If a team is in a tough conference and plays a lot of the better teams toward the end and goes 4-6 does it mean they played worse? Most likely not. That usually hurt us in the Amaker days. We always had an easier start to the big ten season, did well, then had to play a bunch of hard games down the stretch. We ended up .500 in the conference still but if you just looked at the record in the last 10 without considering opponents, it would appear as if the team got worse when it didn't. Looking at "last 10" would help mid-majors who play bad conf opponents.
For the record, I'm not sure if the committee ever considered "last 10" but Lunardi and all the bubble experts always cited it, and I hated that.
I do think the committee should still analyze how a team improves and plays toward the end of the season. M has had an easier schedule to end the big ten season but they've played beyond expectations even considering the competition. They've covered the vegas and kenpom lines in 9 of the last 10 games, I believe. Since those lines are set based on past performance that means we've been getting better. Plus, if you have eyeballs you can tell we are playing tourney level ball right now. I hope the committee sees that.
February 26th, 2011 at 7:56 PM ^
Yes. Finishing the BTT at .500 gives us a better thn even chance of making it.
February 26th, 2011 at 7:57 PM ^
Either Penn State or Minnesota (prob. Penn State) should end up in the top 50, since they are both close and they play each other next weekend. We'd also have two against MSU, one against Harvard, and probably one against Illinois if we are to win one in the BTT. Our additional loss would probably be to OSU. That gets us in.
February 26th, 2011 at 8:13 PM ^
so that top 50 win is going to go away.
February 26th, 2011 at 8:21 PM ^
They're still 46 after the loss. They need to win out, but they probably can do that.
February 26th, 2011 at 10:44 PM ^
You just can't count on an Amaker team to come through late in the season.
February 26th, 2011 at 8:01 PM ^
February 27th, 2011 at 12:20 AM ^
February 26th, 2011 at 8:04 PM ^
Seems to me like 9-9 and the Big Ten semis should get us in. That fucking backboard really hurts now though.
February 26th, 2011 at 8:05 PM ^
I do think that if it comes down to MSU and UM for the last B1G spot, Sparty gets in if they are close, season sweep or not. MSU just had the name recognition and more Top wins. I hope I'm wrong here, but I have a bad feeling that nobody wants to be the committee members who ended Izzo's streak.
February 26th, 2011 at 8:09 PM ^
Tennessee just suffered a terrible home loss to Mississippi State.
February 26th, 2011 at 8:16 PM ^
I think it's possible. If we beat Sparty, we'll most likely be in the 4-5 BTT game, so we'll get an opportunity to play a quality opponent (probably Illinois) in our first conference tourney game. And then our next game would be against the #1 seed, which is a no-lose situation. Per Dylan at umhoops, our RPI is up to 54, so we'll likely climb into the top 50 with a win next Saturday and move higher still with a Friday BTT win.
February 26th, 2011 at 8:37 PM ^
Care to defend or are you only interested in continuing your hissy fit from earlier?
February 26th, 2011 at 10:20 PM ^
You decide.
February 26th, 2011 at 10:12 PM ^
I have no idea how you accumulated about 1000 points in a little over a month, then proceeded to complain and hissy-fit the past few days.
February 26th, 2011 at 10:17 PM ^
People upvoted my posts a lot when I first started but then everyone got angry at me because of something I said on NSD.
February 26th, 2011 at 8:20 PM ^
Everyone has expressed legitimate reasons for Mich to get in---but we won't.
Our RPI is currently 60+, Lunardi doesn't even include us among the "bubble" teams (and his record has been pretty good), 11 teams will get in from the Big East (which doesn't leave alot of spots), and we simply do not have enough quality wins--I don't believe near-wins against premier teams will count for much.
Regarding State, besides having a higher RPI, they will get in based upon their historic resume. That's just reality. It is the same reason we get better (football) bowl games than the Spartans when we have similar or even a worse record. And that irritates the Spartan fans.
February 26th, 2011 at 8:22 PM ^
but the RPI is up to 54 after today. Beat MSU and win in the 5-4 game and it will likely be in the 40s.
February 26th, 2011 at 8:25 PM ^
Our RPI is currently 54 after today's win. I agree that MSU will probably get in, but that doesn't really matter. They're not the only team we're going up against for a bubble spot - and there are three more bubble spots this year than before. If anything, it may help us because we'll have a sweep of them if we win Saturday.
February 26th, 2011 at 8:52 PM ^
where do you find the updated RPI?
February 26th, 2011 at 9:17 PM ^
http://warrennolan.com/basketball/2011/schedule/Michigan
(We've actually gone down to 57. It constantly fluctuates.)
February 26th, 2011 at 10:45 PM ^
Many thanks!
February 26th, 2011 at 8:25 PM ^
our RPI currently sits at 54, and that certainly looks a lot better than the #66 spot we started the day at. Bottom line, beat State and we probably are sitting within the top 50 in terms of RPI. I find it hard to believe the committee would be able to deny us with a top 50 RPI and a .500 winning % in conference play assuming we win at least 1 game in the Conference Tournament, and play competitive/win the second game.
February 26th, 2011 at 8:31 PM ^
The football to basketball analogy is inaccurate. Bowl games are pretty meaningless in the grand scheme of things unless it's the national title game. Bowls pick teams for revenue potential. That's not the way the tournament works. Teams don't get into the tournament with subpar resumes. If State gets in, it will because they have some good wins and and a top 10 SOS.