2017-18 Bracketology


#122

I’d be pretty happy with a 6th seed, but I am still worried we will get a seed or two lower than we should.


#123

You knew they were going to cool down. That Wiscy would make their run. I think that letting Happ get his points and guarding everyone else tough was the right strategy. And–curious whether others agree–I think that Beilein got to experiment quite a bit. Sometimes people get upset when he takes both MAAR and Z out at the same time (for example) people complain, and I agree the cohesion lapses. But when and where Beilein can give other players run in real-game conditions. . . helps down the line. In his own quiet way I think he’s more daring than is sometimes recognized.


#124

Based on this, 11.8% chance that we finish above Nebraska in BTT seeding


#125

I feel like a good performance in the conference tournament will mean a lot more for Michigan than it did last year. I think the committee was pretty much set on where they were going to have Michigan last year no matter what the results of the BTT were. This year the resumè will be complete a week before selection Sunday and a good run would mean the committee can be more flexible.


#126

Big Ten should have the NIT on lock. http://www.nycbuckets.com/current-nit-bracketology/

@CoryR: Winning the Big Ten Tournament could certainly have more time to marinate. Last year the whole Big Ten seemed to be pretty significantly underseeded though. That implies that the committee wasn’t impressed with the league overall. I don’t really expect the league to be overseeded this year because the conference might be even worse.


#127

Yeah, this probably isn’t happening given the tiebreaker. Honestly, the 5 seed would probably be better for Nebraska too.


#128

I was shocked last year when we were slotted as a #7 after beating Purdue, Minnesota and Wisconsin over 3 days on a neutral court. I think I was most salty about Minnesota still having a #5 seed and having a draw of Middle Tennessee State and then the Butler/Winthrop winner to make the sweet 16.


#129

Worked out okay.


#130

He did the math right, 11.8% factors in the tie breaker.


#131

Yeah, I’d say 12% = probably not happening :slight_smile:


#132

I’m just happy there are people on here who understand basic probability and statistics. I’m so sick of reading about small sample sizes when the writer has a questionable grasp of the subject. Present company not included.


#133

11-7 has been the benchmark for me since the B10 season started and we have a 77% of getting at least there. The OSU game sets up to be a huge one – best chance of winning and might impress the committee the most. Win the next two and the rest is gravy, the worst that happens being slipping to a 9 or 10 seed. And we might play looser the final two road games.


#134

This is the exact thought I had when I realized Mo was playing the 4.


#135

I was mostly salty because Hollis (or whomever, from the committee) said that we really played ourselves up with the B1G tournament run…from a 9 to a 7. As if, before the tournament, we deserved to be ranked the same as MSU and one line lower than NW, both of which were already over-ranked. The top of the conference got shafted and the second tier (Minny obviously gamed the system) were boosted, imo.


#136

Anyone else surprised that of the initial top 16 seeds, 14 were in the top 16 of RPI?

I’ll continue to bang the drum that I’m REALLY curious to see how the other metrics come into play this year. So far, looks to be very little.


#137

Those 14 were also in the top 16 of the “super average,” right? And 15 of the 16 were in the top 19 of the “quality avg.” The 2 (Zona and Oklahoma) who weren’t in the top 16 of the “super average” weren’t in the top 16 of the RPI, but had a lot of Group 1 and Group 2 wins. So it might be an indirect RPI effect but not a straight reliance on RPI in addition to the “super average.” But I’m not sure it told us much about how things will look farther down. I’d guess that “super average” + Group 1/2 wins will be important.


#138

I think it at least told us a little bit. Gonzaga is a great example to me. Top 10 in KenPom and Sagarin but were in #37 in RPI.


#139

Sure, but Rhode Island was 5th or something in RPI and wasn’t in there either.


#140

I’d say if we want to avoid the 8-9 line we need to go 3-1 here, picking up two quality wins against either OSU/Penn St./Maryland. Potentially 2 group 1 games in there. Beating Nebraska in BTT looks necessary as well. We need more quality wins. Only 4 right now really.

http://warrennolan.com/basketball/2018/team-sheet?team=Michigan


#141

That’s an easy omission though. Very weak resume quality compared to the other teams in discussion. They’re an easy outlier to identify when looking at RPI.

Kansas being a 6 shows how important the quadrants are going to be, which is all RPI based.