Shouldn’t but doesn’t mean they wouldn’t. NCAA started putting teams closer to these sites to improve attendance and demand for tickets and increase their bottom line. Putting Michigan or MSU in Detroit is just good business for them, even if they have to deal with backlash.
1 Like
Granted other teams can move up or down, but MSU was a 3 seed and ranked 11th when the committee released their rankings. Those rankings came out the day after the Purdue win by 3 at home. Since then MSU won at @NW in a close game, but everyone else they played wasn’t even close to a tournament team. They had a chance to improve their resume against Michigan and didn’t. Have they really improved from the 11th team in the country to a top 8 team in the committees eyes? Or have other teams fallen off that much that were in front of them? Doesn’t seem like they’re a 2 seed by any stretch.
2 Likes
Bracketville, the guy I mentioned in an earlier post that wasn’t sure if we could get to a 3 seed, now has us as a 3 seed! https://bracketville.wordpress.com/bracketology/
He has us 12 on the S-Curve though so we could very likely drop down. He has MSU as a 2 seed so I’m sure many of you will discount his opinion entirely haha.
1 Like
Scroll up 
1 Like
Why does everyone get so caught up on seeding? Match-ups/potential future opponents are far, far more important, in my opinion. Obviously that is something out of the team’s control, but how far teams go in March is largely dictated by who they play and how they match up with those teams. I would much rather face a team with a plodding Center even if they were a 1 seed than a more switch-capable team such as Cincinnati, whose currently looking like a 2 seed.
3 Likes
Part of the reason people are caught up in seeding, this year, is because Detroit is in play. I want to go to the games! 
7 Likes
Cincinnati’s offense is also almost entirely predicated on offensive rebounds.
I just don’t want Duke, I also don’t really want Carolina but I woudn’t mind playing them again as we’ve gotten a whole lot better since then.
Also the biggest thing with getting a 3 seed would be avoiding a 13 or 12 in the first round. Those teams look scary this year, as they normally are.
2 Likes
Yeah, once you start playing 14 seeds there is generally a big drop off in the quality of first round opponents.
I’m happy to see us in the role of giant killer.
I’m praying that Xavier is in our bracket
1 Like
Agree with this point, though. Would definitely be helpful to have a home court advantage.
1 Like
Here are the team sheets as of Sunday. Obviously it will change, but notice our KPI.
https://extra.ncaa.org/solutions/rpi/Stats Library/March 4, 2018 Team Sheets.pdf
And here is the KPI stuff. We did move to 20th. The team sheet shows 23.
I think this will be the metric that will hold us back. My guess a 4 seed. I think the only way we get to a three is if Clemson, Tennessee or Wichita get upset early in their tournaments. And/or the committee looks at the last month of our work, but normally they look at the whole body of work.
Personally, there are a couple teams I would prefer playing the second game of the weekend, but beyond that preference not afraid to play anyone.
KPI includes non-D1 games which is what is killing UM I believe.
2 Likes
Huh, I assumed that UM was low in KPI because it considers “pace of game.”
Pace-adjusted metrics are good for Michigan since we run low-pace games. But I don’t believe that KPI takes into account MOV at all?
Ah, I guess that’s what they mean by pace of game, I thought in my quick read of the KPI stuff it was already calculating margin on a per-possession basis.
Really flipping weird. I reviewed KPI’s outcome values. Our win vs CMU is better than home wins over Rutgers and Illinois. Our UCLA win is not as good as our wins over N-Nebraska, A-Penn St.and A-Maryland. The Non D-1 win is not our worst win. Alabama A&M is our worst win with a factor of 0, Chaminade was .0001. Again, the Big Ten is not getting any love here so it is what it is. All the non-conference losses early by all members really screwed the entire conference.
1 Like
KPI just doesn’t like the Big Ten in general this year. But I highly doubt one advanced metric out of the 3 I believe they are considering will have affect our seed.
It’ll never happen but it would be fun to have some February non-conference matchups that mean something. Kind of like what they used to do with the mid-majors (drawing a blank for some reason on the name) but with real matchups. Would be a way to hype the tournament, seeding, bubble teams, etc… Marketing wise I think it could be a home run but I don’t see a lot of coaches of high profile schools doing it. Everyone is in a similar boat but teams are way different in December than they are right now.
1 Like
KPI will definitely impact our seed because it is such an aberration.
Sagarin -11
RPI -13
Kenpom - 9
SOR - 7, but I think it is 5 now
KPI - 20
BPI - 14
Committee looks at them as such RPI+SOR+KPI avg = 13.7.20=13.33, then they compare to BPI+Sag+Kenpom avg = 11.33
If our KPI was the average of all the others excluding SOR because that is an aberration the other way our KPI would be 12. So a recalculated avg would be 10.67. Hence our two averages would be 10.67 & 11.33, which is a solid 3 Seed. Currently the two are 13.33 and 11.33, thus worst 3 best 4. probability.
Now all these numbers can change, but the KPI is the one to watch.