Now that the dust has started to settle and the 2015-2016 roster has coalesced into a more or less final form, I wonder what people are predicting for the conference this year (top to bottom) and specifically, what a Michigan fan can reasonably expect. Are we firmly in tier two? If so, how do we likely rate against teams like Wisconsin and OSU? Illinois?
Indiana, Maryland, MSU all look solid to me.
I think Wisconsin takes a step back after losing so much.
OSU has too much youth so I’m not sure what to make of them.
I think we SHOULD be in the top 5 of the conference and I think Walton/Levert matchup with any other backcourt.
Expect to be about 4th or 5th with little opportunity to crack into the upper echelon and win the title.
In my opinion:
Tier 1
Michigan St.
Maryland
Tier 2
Indiana
Michigan
Purdue
Tier 3
Ohio St.
Wisconsin
Illinois
Iowa
Tier 4
Northwestern
Penn St.
Minnesota
Rutgers
Nebraska
Tier 1 - MSU, Maryland - depth and talent for both these squads. Will be interesting to see what happens with Dawson gone. He was a great defender. Valentine will finally be “the man” and I think he’ll be up for it, unfortunately. Maryland should be pretty good. Especially if Stone can step up immediately.
Tier 1.5 - Indiana - I want to put them in tier 1 based on talent, but Crean is an idiot
Tier 2 - Michigan, Ohio St, Purdue, Wisconsin - questions marks for all these squads, but most have talent and solid coaching. OSU has issues at the 1 and 5. Purdue will play good d and be just good enough on offense. Michigan has almost everybody plus those MIA coming back. I will assume Wisconsin will be good until they prove otherwise.
Tier 3 - Iowa, Illinois, N’W - I really like how N"W was playing at the end of the year. Iowa and Illinois have the talent to be in that second tier. But they have coaches that will hold them back.
Tier 4 - PSU, Minnesota - some talent, lots of holes. Not that I think these guys are wretched, but the rest are just better.
Tier Hell - Rutgers, Nebraska - these guys will just be awful
if somebody besides Irvin can step up and man the 4 effectively then mich will be an extremely dangerous team that should easily be top tier Even if they play small I think they will be as good as any team in the conf. I just like them a lot more if Irvin is at the 3.
I’m not sold on Maryland and won’t be until I see them play. They had a lot of seniors specially dez wells they relied on heavily. Lot of potential for them though
The way they look now, Michigan is definitely a second tier team, 3-5 if we stay relatively healthy. The lack of any decent big men and any interior defense puts a serious ceiling on us. Maryland and MSU both have elite big men stepping in, as well as all-conference caliber guards, and that will put them solidly ahead of us. We have a very good and deep backcourt, though, and if Dawkins blows up and Irvin continues his trend from the end of last season, I don’t see anyone else who has clearly better overall talent than us.
Final record maybe 11-7/12-6 if things break our way, maybe a 5-7 seed in the tournament.
Seems like we pretty much have a consensus – only thing is that as Michigan partisans we may overrate them by a rung or two, which would put them perilously close to bubble territory. An NIT bid after last year would definitely not be cool.
I actually think McCaffery is a pretty good coach. Agree about Crean, Groce, and Pitino, though. None of them make their teams better, Of those three, at least Groce means well.
Only major point of disagreement is that I don’t know how Wisconsin pulls it off this year. Koenig is serviceable and Hayes is really good, but that’s basically it. I can definitely see them missing the tournament for once. No amount of berating the refs at Kohl will make up for the loss of Frank and Dekker (and thankfully Gasser’s gone too).
Illinois would be my question mark. Talented team but the program has an anchor attached to it.
Koenig is serviceable
Koenig is much better than serviceable - I think he will definitely be a pro.
I don’t know – I wouldn’t underestimate the ability of Frank and Dekker to make a decent PG look like a star. He definitely can knock down open shots, but he won’t take over a game and single-handedly bring the Ws. IMO, Walton is a far better PG.
I see the B1G 2015-2016 like this:
- MSU
- Maryland
- IU
4 - 6 in any order: Michigan, Ohio State, Purdue
7 - 9 in any order: Illinois, Iowa, Wisconsin* (despite Bo Ryan never finishing worse than 4th in the B1G regular season I don’t see how he can finish that way this year)
10 - 12 in any order: Minnesota, Northwestern, Penn State
- Nebraska
- Rutgers
Seems like we pretty much have a consensus -- only thing is that as Michigan partisans we may overrate them by a rung or two, which would put them perilously close to bubble territory. An NIT bid after last year would definitely not be cool.I actually think McCaffery is a pretty good coach. Agree about Crean, Groce, and Pitino, though. None of them make their teams better, Of those three, at least Groce means well.
Only major point of disagreement is that I don’t know how Wisconsin pulls it off this year. Koenig is serviceable and Hayes is really good, but that’s basically it. I can definitely see them missing the tournament for once. No amount of berating the refs at Kohl will make up for the loss of Frank and Dekker (and thankfully Gasser’s gone too).
Illinois would be my question mark. Talented team but the program has an anchor attached to it.
Our opinions line up with the opinions on the national board. Also, being a top 5 team in the Big Ten is nowhere near the bubble.
I am not sold on anyone being clear top tier teams.
I would say Maryland looks to be a top team, after that the rest of 2-5 will likely be separated by 1-2 games. The schedule will play a big factor in determining that.
I also think Wisconsin will be severely underrated. Bo Ryan has been the most consistent coach in the league.
The schedule breakdown posted awhile back was very favorably for us to have a top 4 finish.
Also, the mindset of this team will be a bit of a redemption tour. A lot of teams were jumping around like idiots after barely beating our injury riddled team. Don’t for a second think these guys will forget any of that and I expect serious, serious payback.
Seems like we pretty much have a consensus -- only thing is that as Michigan partisans we may overrate them by a rung or two, which would put them perilously close to bubble territory. An NIT bid after last year would definitely not be cool.
Don’t forget, we were 8-10 in the Big Ten last year with 4 OT losses, despite having our two best guards out for most of that season. Even WITH the injuries we were just two baskets away from being 10-8 in the conference, which would probably have gotten us in. With Walton and LeVert back healthy (we hope), Robinson and Wilson added, and Dawkins, MAAR, Doyle and Chatman improved (we hope), it would be a big surprise if Beilein can’t do better than 10-8.
We finished the season strong. Take away only Bielfeldt (maybe) and add LeVert, Walton, Wilson, Robinson and Wagner. We are right there with Maryland, MSU and IU.
MSU returns only Valentine, Forbes and Costello from their Meaningful core. We won’t be dependent on freshmen for the first time in years.
I think a lot of people here are working under the assumption that UM is the only team improving. IU, Purdue, Maryland will all improve as well. I think we are going to end up anywhere from 4-7 in conference play. Pretty much the same expectations as last year with a bit higher ceiling due to experience and development. Rebounding, as always, is going to be the issue that prevents us from being a serious threat to win the conference. Clean that up and the sky is the limit
I tend to agree with Matt. Rebounding and defence will likely remain significant issues holding the team back. A few other observations:
- Indiana and Maryland are really talented, deep and balanced. I think the favourite has to be one of those two.
-Despite a great front court, MSU should be somewhat limited by its lack of a decent PG; I suspect they will really miss Trice. - In terms of games to watch, I really think Michigan needs to protect its home court against an inferior Wisconsin team – that should be a an important barometer of development and coaching.
I don’t think there is a team that stands out to me as being head and shoulders above the rest the way Wisconsin was this year.
If I had to predict, I’d say Indiana, MSU, Maryland, Michigan, OSU, Wisconsin, and Purdue in that order, with Illinois possibly making the tourney too. I think any of the top 6 could win the conference, but my prediction reflects the teams I think have the best odds. I think MSU has the most raw talent and tourney upside, but also the potential for chemistry problems.
I pretty much agree with the consensus here that we’ll be in the hunt, but too many unknowns to really feel confident saying that we can win it next year.
One big difference between this year and last will be that we spent so much of the early part of the year playing guys because we wanted them to be “the guy” at their position, but they weren’t ready yet. Just look at the distribution of minutes from early on versus later in the season between Donnal, Doyle, Chatman, Dawkins, and MAAR. This year we’ll have a much better sense of what guys are capable of right away.
What excites me is that despite major minutes early in the season from guys that were not ready yet, we were still very competitive with good teams like Oregon and Villanova simply because of a healthy Walton, LeVert, and Irvin.
Now they are healthy again and instead of 30+ mins a game going to guys who aren’t ready (Donnal and Chatman), they will go to guys who have demonstrated competence throughout a Big Ten season (Dawkins and MAAR). So my thoughts aren’t just based on a hope that guys will get better, it is the fact that major minutes will now go to guys who have demonstrated competence. Thus, even if Dawkins and MAAR do not improve that much, the team will be much better than last year.
That’s a major plus in my book. Can’t wait for the season to start!
While we probably won’t be a very good rebounding team next year, it’s simply and demonstrably false that we have to be in order to a have a reasonable chance to win the conference. In 2012, we finished tied for first in the conference with a significantly negative rebounding margin (-3.5). In 2013 we finished 12-6, just a tip-in out of first with a -1.1 rebounding margin. In 2014, we finished first in the Big Ten by three full games with a -0.1 rebounding margin.
So why would anyone who knows anything about basketball claim in the face of simple facts that being a worse than average rebounding team would hold us back from challenging for the conference title? Rebounding simply isn’t THAT critical a statistic. Average performance in that area can be compensated for in others, just as with pretty much all statistics. You can emphasize rebounding more if you want to, but not necessarily without affecting other statistics negatively.