Was that enough?
The announcers tonight were acting like a win over Purdue would probably be enough to earn a NCAA bid. I've seen almost everyone suggesting that Michigan needed 2 more wins.
So were they just being positive because it makes the message more compelling on TV, or could this have been enough even if we lose our last two?
Purdue is the best opponent of the final 3 so maybe?
February 26th, 2009 at 11:20 PM ^
we should win out....just to be sure
February 26th, 2009 at 11:22 PM ^
good call, I'm on board with that!
February 26th, 2009 at 11:25 PM ^
There is an article on ESPN about bubble teams (it is insider or I would post a link).
Basically says Michigan needs to WIN OUT in the regular season to assure itself a bid in the tourney b/c we already have so many losses.
Now, take this either as: a) ridiculous or b) they mean going 3-1 in our last four (with a first round B10 tourney loss) would get us in.
Either way, I say we need to win 1 of the next 2 on the road, and win our first B10 game. Or else you shouldn't even hold your breath...
February 26th, 2009 at 11:23 PM ^
It wasn't anywhere near enough. Purdue being the best opponent of the final three just means that losing to the next two (Minny and Wisconsin) looks that much worse. Two losses followed by a first-round loss in the BTT, which likely would be to Northwestern or Iowa, would mean 17-14 and absolutely no tournament.
Must win at least one of the next two AND at the very least the first round game.
February 26th, 2009 at 11:25 PM ^
I don't think Wisconsin matters, but if they lose to a nosediving Minnesota (and fellow bubble) team for an 8-10 record, I can't see how they make it without 2 W's in the tourney (one being over Purdue again or State).
The interesting thing would be what if they beat Wisconsin, and then lose to Minnesota and then Northwestern or Iowa in the first game of B10 tourney? That's probably the most 50/50 proposition left on the table...
February 26th, 2009 at 11:26 PM ^
But it helps a hell of a lot.
February 26th, 2009 at 11:28 PM ^
We most likely need to win one more regular-season game, and avoid a first-round loss in the BTT.
February 26th, 2009 at 11:38 PM ^
Ok thanks....should have known that the announcers wouldn't really have a good clue.
February 26th, 2009 at 11:51 PM ^
I agree. One victory in the next two and one in the tournament should be enough.
February 26th, 2009 at 11:39 PM ^
All the announcers were doing is the old..."Step right up ladies and gentlemen...see the amazing bearded lady!" Sell, sell, and sell.
They want non Michigan/Purdue fans to feel good about staying up so late to watch this event.
With the amount of loses and whom we have loss too, the only way to guarantee the tourney is to win vs. Purdue/Wisconsin/Minnesota and one in the BTT, or go 2 of last 3 and win 2 BTT games. Otherwise it's NIT.
They were going to bat for us though! I'll take all we can get!
GO BLUE!!!
February 26th, 2009 at 11:40 PM ^
Hey, it helps. Take this momentum and energy to the last couple games and the BTT. It's not over.
February 26th, 2009 at 11:51 PM ^
I would say we need to win out AND a game in the BTT for the lone fact that a lot of these mid majors with impressive resumes will get an at large even if they don't win their conference tourneys. Happens every year and teams that should be sitting safely on the right side of the bubble get left out.
February 27th, 2009 at 12:35 AM ^
Butler, Gonzaga, Creighton, and Memphis are the only teams in one-bid leagues that would merit serious consideration as at-larges. Memphis hasn't lost in CUSA in years, so I don't think that's likely to be an issue. St. Mary's could throw a wrench into things in the WCC, but they might get an at-large anyway if Mills comes back. Really, the Horizon and MVC are the only chances for one-bid leagues to get a second if there's an upset.
As it happens, I think a split and not losing in the first round of the Big Ten tourney would probably do it for you. The road record isn't pretty (nor are the three losses to sub-50 RPI teams), but with wins over Purdue, Illinois, Duke, UCLA, and at either Wisconsin or Minnesota, I think that can be overlooked.
February 27th, 2009 at 12:06 AM ^
We needed another win over a ranked team seeing that the win over UCLA seems less and less impressive as they continue to lose. We do need at least one more though. Dropping these last two and then losing first round in the tournament would knock us out.
February 27th, 2009 at 12:58 AM ^
I have watched as they said we were in and then out when we lost so many road games and then in again when we beat Minn and then out again as we lost to Iowa and then if we can win these games we are back in Hell I don't know. nobody knows. The whole thing makes as much sense to me as the BCS. It is still based on human opinion which is obviously going to come with bias of some sort. I dread the first game of it if we do make it because we will no doubt be a 16 seed and that means we play a 1 seed. but if we make it for the first time in over 10 years i'll take it.
February 27th, 2009 at 10:01 AM ^
At absolute worst we'd be a 13 seed as an at-large and it's much more likely to be an 11 or 12.
I think we need to win one of the last two and 1 in the BTT - that'd put us at 20 wins and even in the conference with two big wins over UCLA and Duke - that should be enough...
February 27th, 2009 at 10:27 AM ^
"I dread the first game of it if we do make it because we will no doubt be a 16 seed and that means we play a 1 seed."
There is no way for me to put this delicately- that is the stupidest thing I have read in many, many years. Your name is no longer foreverbluemaize, your name is now foreverthesarahpalinofbasketball.
Seriously, if you want to be treated with respect, then treat the rest of us with respect by not saying the stupidest and most ignorant things possible. Please.
February 27th, 2009 at 10:44 AM ^
"stupidest"
haha, i don't know if you were being serious or not, but that gave me a good laugh.
February 27th, 2009 at 11:02 AM ^
Wow, that response was unnecessary and not even a very accurate appraisal. Saying that an at-large team will be a #16 seed displays ignorance (i.e., unfamiliarity) of the situation, but not necessarily stupidity. It is possible to be highly intelligent and still ignorant of many things.
February 27th, 2009 at 11:07 AM ^
for instance, I went to the University of Michigan (Michigan. University, of. Ann Arbor. In Michigan.) but have no idea how to perform routine car maintenance.
Of course, that's why I don't talk about fixing cars.
February 27th, 2009 at 11:22 AM ^
Wait, are you saying that taking it to a mechanic is having no idea of how to perform routine car maintenance? Oh well, I guess I'm in your boat then.
February 27th, 2009 at 12:06 PM ^
mechanic good for BIG problem but EXPENSIVE for EASY thing
February 27th, 2009 at 12:31 PM ^
I contend that you have to be stupid to be so ignorant as to display it. In other words, smart people are (usually) able to recognize when they're out of their depth, and so tend to STFU about things they don't know. "Know what you don't know" is a mark of intelligence.
There is ignorance, and then there is willful ignorance, and IMO the comment crossed into the latter territory. Being ignorant of the tourney seeding process is one thing. Being ignorant of it and nonetheless spewing crap about it is another.
It's rude to subject others to one's willful ignorance, IMO.
February 27th, 2009 at 1:44 AM ^
forever -- should Michigan make the tourney, they would likely be a 9 or 10 seed. The seeds lower than that typically go to single bid conference schools that win their conference championship.
February 27th, 2009 at 1:57 AM ^
Before this game, Michigan was considered about the 10th team OUT of the tournament (see Bracket Project cumulative)... that means they need to have a better last few games (including this Purdue victory) than 8-9 other teams (let's not forget the teams just behind them too, however) AND a team already projected to be in the tournament.
Don't you think a few of those 10 teams are going to manage a win over a ranked team, at home? I would imagine at least 1 will win every game left.
I think they need to sweep the final two (to improve road record) and win 1 or 2 in the Big 10. A split in the final two combined with a quarterfinal victory over MSU might do it, though.
February 27th, 2009 at 10:38 AM ^
After the Purdue game, our RPI shot up from 55 to 46, and our strength-of-schedule to 11. We just made up a lot of ground. We don't need to sweep the next two, just get a split.
February 27th, 2009 at 3:41 AM ^
The conventional wisdom has been 9-9 in conference and one BTT win gets us in. Obviously there is a lot of grey area w/ bubble teams and the required resume, b/c its yet to be determined just how many at large bids get stolen by mid-majors.
That being said, this what I think will happen most likely.
Win both MIN,WISC and any amount of BTT wins(atleast 1) = IN
Win both MIN, WISC and lose in 1st round of BTT = IN
- this one is really really a tough call and very unlikely to happen... but i think I would put us in if I was on the comittee ( 10-9 in conference play w/ home wins over Duke,PUR,Illinois,Minn,a neutral over UCLA and roadies over MINN and WISC sounds pretty good)
Win WISC, lose MIN, win 1 or more BTT game = IN
Win MIN, lose WISC, win 1 or more BTT game = IN
- i think those last 2 scenarios hold as long as we dont get absolutely housed in the second round
Lose both WISC, MIN, win 1 BTT game = OUT
Lose both WISC, MIN, win 2 BTT games: = MAYBE
- this one depends on the quality of the two wins.
- if we just squeak by in either game, probably not
- if we win atleast one, preferrably the 2nd round game convincingly, then i think we may be in the tourney
Lose both WISC, MIN, win 3 or more BTT games = IN
... tell me what you think about each situation.
February 27th, 2009 at 10:13 AM ^
Is Jay Bilas on the committee? haha. Seriously tho I think that lines up exactly with what I've been thinking. The only thing I'd worry about is the lose 2 win 2. I'd say it's less to do with how we win and more to do with how we lose the semi-final game. If we lose in a heartbreaker it'll look like we belong - if we get blown out it'll look like the quarter final was a fluke (even tho wins over UCLA, Duke, Purdue and Illinois when they were red hot should show we aren't a fluke).
In addition to all of that what do you think our seed would be? I'd say each one of the above scenarios put us between 11 and 12, the last one might net us a 10 and I think if we *knock on wood* managed to win the whole thing we'd be looking at an 8 or a 9. Personally I'd prefer a lower seed so we wouldn't be forced to play a #1 seed in the second round. I think an 11 seed would set up favorably for a Sweet 16 run to be quite honest (or a first round exit depending on how well we shoot and if the refs decide to call fouls when Manny is driving).
February 27th, 2009 at 8:30 AM ^
Calling it enough would mean we are in if we get no more wins the rest of the way. Yeah. No.
The win does inject Michigan back into legit discussion, though. They need to split these road games, for sure.
Up thread, JokieshTacoPants hit on a key fact: the number of teams ahead, even or just behind UM in this pecking order. Make no mistake, the Iowa loss is being considered a stigma on the resume.
I'm not sure a split in these two games and win against IU/Iowa/NW in the first round will be enough to pass teams. We need to root for carnage elsewhere on the bubble.
I think the math changed from 3 to 4 wins as a result of the Iowa game. We got one win. But, we might need to win a Big 10 quarterfinal game if we can gt both this week.
We'll see. There are a lot of teams to root against and this next week will be an interesting one from a scoreboard watching perpective.
For example, Temple lost last night to lowly LaSalle. Most factored Temple ahead of UM. When I saw that result, I was nearly as stoked with the Michigan score.
If Michigan can get a few more out-of-town scoreboard results like that, then I would feel more comfy with the original math of 9-9 in the Big 10, plus just 1 win in the tourney.
Still, Michigan is playing relevant hoops in March again. That's progress.
February 27th, 2009 at 11:06 AM ^
I think the only reason that we only need one of the next two plus not blowing it in the first round of the tourney is that the next two are both road games against a likely tourney team (Wisco) and a fellow traveler on the bubble (Minny). Either one would be a good win, and would finally get us a road win worth a damn. I know Northwestern isn't terrible, but it's still Northwestern and I'm not so sure that name still won't carry some weight in making the committee think that win isn't worth much.
They won't be able to say the same about a win at Wisconsin or Minnesota.
But yeah, the more carnage on the bubble the better. And we need to be rooting hard for Butler, Gonzaga, Memphis and for Creighton either to tank its last regular season games or to win the MVC tourney. I don't think Davidson is a worry anymore, they'll have to win the SoCon tourney to get in now.
February 27th, 2009 at 11:12 AM ^
I agree with the general consensus. Minor point - our loss to Iowa helped push the Hawkeyes into the top 100 in the RPI, so our loss to them does not look as bad. We have no losses outside of the top 100, with 10 wins vs. top 100 and 5 vs. the top 50. That sets us apart from most of the other bubble teams. There were some other good results last night - UAB home loss to Memphis, USC loss to Calif., Temple home loss to LaSalle, Arizona loss to WSU. It would have been nice if W Va could have won at Cinci or UVA hung on at home against Miami (that Miami).
February 27th, 2009 at 12:03 PM ^
We may need to reconsider that UCLA win - it is a nice win, but UCLA clearly has not been as good as advertised, and I wonder if the committee looks back at that win (along with Duke) as less relevant given the more recent games. That's why that Purdue win was huge - beating a top-20 team at the end of the season proved this team can still compete with the big boys. That's why I think bubble teams in conferences like the ACC and Big East tend to get at-large bids easier than other conferences - they have so many highly-ranked teams (debatable in some cases) that any bubble team has a chance to get that "statement" game any given night. Even their losses look more impressive because they are to "name" teams. Look at VT - they beat a top-15 team in Clemson, and even losing to UNC and Duke won't hurt that much because they are "name" losses. So for Michigan to keep up, they need to win at least 2 of the next 3 games, and that 1 loss definitely cannot come in the BTT.