I really wish that winning or losing weren’t so completely subject to the vagaries of terrible ref calls and home cooking. These are the conditions, but it really does erode my belief in the whole enterprise a little bit. Happily, they play on somewhat more neutral courts once the Big Dance starts. . .
MSU’s “traditional” resume is a joke compared to the other top seeds. They’re fully being buoyed by their other metrics.
Which, if that’s the case, I have no problem with whatsoever. The committee just better damn well do the same for Michigan and other teams if that is a bigger criteria this year.
I am never 100% pleased with the officiating in the NCAA tournament, but every season I always acknowledge that it far exceeds what Michigan endured in conference that year.
Way too early, but what the heck:
5-1 -> 5 seed (+ game in the BTT would give us a chance at a 4).
4-2 -> maybe a 6-7
3-3 -> 8-9
2-4 -> 10-11
A couple quick things: (1) some of it depends on what wins we get. Beating OSU or @MD gets us more than @Wiscy or Iowa. (2) Our computer numbers are pretty good – our average is 23. This could dip if we lose a bunch of games, but if we lose several close ones then it shouldn’t drop too much. If the “average of average” number is going to be something used like predicted earlier this year, this could help us.
Huh? What part of Michigan’s season has been so subject to terrible ref calls and home cooking? I know the Purdue review was tough, but Michigan has also won games late it is all just part of it.
Nowhere did I say that Michigan has been particularly hard done by this year; but. . . we’ve gone over this ground plenty. Mgoblog has a nice preamble to their analysis of tonight’s matchup that takes in the crazy odds home and away, etc. I’m pretty convinced it’s a financial issue–they keep costs down by running these guys ragged. The crazy may even out, but rigorous it isn’t. (Hilarious to crunch so many of the numbers in this game and then have so many outcomes devolve upon the whims of or deficiencies of the officiating.)
Just looked up what you are talking about. Yes, home and away point spreads are very different. No it isn’t all because of a the whim of a referee. It is harder to win on the road for a number of reasons. That’s why road games are weighted more in NCAA selection or any ranking model. So I guess I disagree with Brian more than I disagree with you (at least as much).
Yeah lol, I don’t know if Brian wasn’t thinking when he was typing that or what, but to say that home court advantage is solely based on refs is sorta strange IMO.
He wasn’t saying that, nor was I–hope I didn’t infer it. But I do think in almost any close game you can readily single out a little pile of calls that might have gone the other way that determined the outcome. And I think this IS subject to the vagaries of officiating. That said, I would also admit that that’s part of the fun of the game. But. . . games could be adjudicated much better, IMO.
Sure seems like he did.
Because of this huge swing in game outcomes based on little more that referee whims, Michigan’s finishing stretch is coin flip central. Michigan has a win probability between 43 and 60% in five of their six remaining games, with a home game against Iowa (84%) the lone exception.
And you did.
I really wish that winning or losing weren’t so completely subject to the vagaries of terrible ref calls and home cooking.
Yep, he did. And I did. Should have said ref calls and home advantage–two things–into which the former certainly figures. My larger point, that poor reffing undermines the games, and wants making more rigorous, still stands.
John Gasaway is doing the Bubble Watch on espn now. Here’s what he says about UM:
“The Wolverines are in very good shape in terms of their tournament profile, due largely, though not entirely, to their win at Michigan State on Jan. 13. (That win at Texas on Dec. 12 also is aging fairly well.) Nevertheless, there’s room for improvement on the seed line and, in fact, if the season ended today, Michigan might face a top seed in the round of 32. Next up, however, is a tough and rather thankless stretch on the road, with visits to Northwestern and Wisconsin.”
One note, UM seems to have a high “strength of record (SOR),” – 18 – which “is a measure of a team’s accomplishment based on how difficult its win-loss record is to achieve.” I have no idea how this is calculated, but it does appear on the NCAA teamsheets. Also on there is “KPI,” which seems to be a metric developed at MSU and probably rewards not getting called for fouls and slapping the floor, though I can’t be sure.
Useful page here that includes all of the team sheet data (the various ranks and the quadrant records).
Michigan is ranked 29th by the average of the two averages.
Kind of sums up a lot of our previous thoughts, but nice opinion article on the new selection process:
Also of note, believe they’re revealing the initial top 16 during halftime of our game Sunday.
Calling it now, Michigan will be in the 8/9 game against Missouri with Porter back.
That would be the worst… only hope is that he is rusty
According to selection committee, top 16 teams are:
- Texas Tech
- North Carolina
I’m sure MSU fans will be pissed and they are very likely a top 5 team in the country, but this is the seed that their resume speaks to with only 2 top 50 wins. Playing Purdue, oSU and Michigan only once hurts them