2017-18 Bracketology


All the weeping and gnashing of teeth regarding Beilein’s scheduling and we’ve faced a whopping one sub 300 RPI team.


Season isn’t over and sure some of the worst teams we played will have their RPIs go down in conference play.


All the weeping and gnashing of teeth regarding Beilein’s scheduling and we’ve faced a whopping one sub 300 RPI team.

Yes, I know that’s the same comment. I think those teams are just so random that it’s pointless to be mad about them.


300 was never a cutoff; in the past the Selection Committee has used 200 RPI as a major cutoff — that’s likely now changed to Quadrant 4. In the past, when evaluating tournament resumes, any win against a team with a 200+ RPI was essential removed from a team’s record by the committee and any loss was considered awful+

We’ll see how the committee views things in the new analytics version, but it wouldn’t be surprising if Quadrant 4 takes over as the new 200+ RPI. If so, those are the opponents you want to limit on your schedule — 6 of them is a little high, 4 is probably a more reasonable target


New Lunardi bracket bumped Michigan to a 7


Not really sure how Florida gets a bump over us after beating a mediocre Arkansas team at home. Potentially Lunardi adjusting things after seeing the team sheets that were released?


FWIW you can scan quadrant records (these include projected games) over at Bart Torvik’s site…


The Big Ten teams seem to fall right around Michigan’s range depending on if you have 1,2,0 games against Rutgers/Iowa at home.


Death, taxes and terrible Lunardi brackets.

I would love just one reasonable explanation how he puts Michigan at 7 but MSU as a 2.


Doesn’t our team sheet imply the first 6 seed (as our avg of avgs is 20.67)?


Probably, I’m just trying to think of any logic that could support that move


Luckily Lunardi is one of the least accurate bracketology sites in terms of seeding…I follow the bracket matrix. That seems to be more accurate than anything else. Right now Michigan is the last #6 seed there.


Not sure where to start this debate, but would love and welcome a discussion on this. Complete this sentence:

“Michigan will go as far as ________ takes them in March” (insert player)

I realize it’s a team game, so this is extremely arbitrary and not a true barometer. But I think you can legitimately insert 4 names, and can even make arguments for 6 or 7 depending on your definition. And it’s made for some real nice debate on a group text I’m in.

For the record, I say Wagner


their Point Guard…


Agree fully, it’s Wagner for me too.


Wagner. When he plays his game, he adds an element that other teams don’t have. He can be the biggest mismatch on the floor. As we all know, he’s very inconsistent though. So we go as far as his consistency takes us.


Wagner needs to play well and will carry the team, but someone else needs to step up next to him.


Agreed. For context of the argument maybe they need a disclaimer such as:
“Consistent Wagner”
“Efficient Matthews”
“Blossoming Simpson”
“Senior MAAR”

  1. Consistent Wagner
  2. Efficient Matthews
  3. Senior MAAR
  4. Confident Simpson (He’s a different player when he doesn’t hesitate. He doesn’t have to turn into Walton or even that close to end of year Walton, but if he’s playing confident, that goes a long way.)


Sorry, but the weeping and gnashing was correct.

We have the 65th SOS after playing Purdue, Texas and UCLA at home plus OSU and MSU and NC on the road. We have one of the worst strength of schedule ratings for a Power 5 school. That’s all because of the absolute boat anchors we played in non conference.


Good win for LSU. Need them to get back in, and stay in, the RPI top 100.