No doubt we have a really strong resume` rounding out here over the BTT…but with the 1-2 seeds pretty much locked up…it’s real crowded on the 3-4 line. Some of the teams with 4-6 Q1 wins that we appear to measure up well with have gaudy Q2 records, like Cincy at 8-0 or Wichita St. at 10-2.
I typically argue against those who take issue with UM’s scheduling…but the huge number of non-conference bottom feeders along with the lowly Big Ten gives us more Q4 wins/games than any other comparable team. This may end up biting us when it comes to getting a 3…as painful as that is for me to admit.
Cinci, Clemson, MSU, WSU, Zona all have 3 or 4 quadrant 1 wins. TT and Tenn have 6. If UM wins today, it would have 7. UM’s “super average” (and RPI) is already higher than some of those teams, and if it beats PU may be higher than most of them. UM would have 12 road/neutral wins, while some of those teams have 6, 7, or 9.
Of course, some of those teams still have conference tournaments and could get more wins, but they could also suffer bad losses. Maybe UM won’t be a 3 seed even if they win (my guess would be a 4), but as other things stand right now it wouldn’t particularly surprise me.
Do you have any idea what logic Bart uses for his prediction for seeds? It’s obviously not just a re-hash of his rankings (we’d be higher if so), and he’s generally been the most optimistic prediction.
This seems key to me. If we beat Purdue, we will have won 8 in a row, including 3 against top-4 seeds (OSU, MSU, Purdue). I think we would be a 3 seed, if the tournament selection happened tonight. But the other teams in our echelon will have more games to move up or down.
But I also wouldn’t be surprised if a down year in the B1G, a narrative that has been omnipresent this year, would be enough to keep us at a 4. I just dont understand how MSU could be ahead of us; and definitely not ahead of Purdue. I think if NW didn’t choke the choke-iest of games against MSU, it wouldn’t even be a discussion. Ugh, thanks a lot, Chris.
So Torvik shows what’s happened to the last 15 or so teams who his formulas deemed to have the most similar resume’s to Michigan. Nutshell - none were as low as a 4.
What worries me if that these other teams have plenty of Q1 chances come up as well… also on neutral courts… but the Torvik analysis is compelling. How about we just take care of business today and agree that seals up the 4 seed and puts a 3 in play Go Blue!
I believe he uses some sort of logic weighting different metrics to try and predict how the committee will make their picks based on how they’ve acted in the past. I’m sure if you tweeted him, he’d let you know which factors he considers most important to the committees decision making.
Go Blue!
