Who do you take in the tourney: a team that went 3-10 in the top 50 with 3 top 25 wins and worst losses to number 55 and 76 or do you take one that went 2-2 vs top 50 with wins vs 35 and 43. Went 2-2 vs teams ranked 50-100 winning vs 95 and 96 and losing to 96 twice. They also lost to teams ranked 220 209 and 229. The second is projected in and first is not. You guys all know who the first is.
Michigan fails every eye test possible. I wish that wasn’t true but it really. Just look at the past month and a half. Look like a bunch of bums out there.
But which of the two do you take based on resume I’ll reveal the other once more answers come. I’d say Michigan has the better resume and the other is getting an at large bid based on joe Lunardi and what he said 30 minutes ago
No eye test involved, I’d have to go Michigan.
I’d agree with that the resume is easy. I’ll say who the other is at some point tomorrow but the eye test too Michigan still looks better then this team. Not being biased at all.
I know people have disagreed with me, but only 2 teams with less than 4 “top-100” wins have ever made the NCAAT in its history. Combine that with how we have performed in these final 10 games, the eye test, our SOS numbers, and the fact we actually only have 19 D1 wins… I would take the other team.
Yeah. The more I look at other teams, we need a few wins to be considered. Plus, we don’t look like a good team and haven’t for quite awhile now. Maybe we could win the NIT?
The other team is the Monmouth Hawks. If they get in it is very undeserved if you asked me.
If you would actually choose Monmouth over Michigan for the tournament, then you must be a self-loathing fan. Have you looked at Monmouth’s resume? I have no idea why they are considered a lock, relative to Michigan.
That’s not to say that I think Michigsn deserves a bid. I haven’t really examined the bubble situation. My point is that Michigan’s resume is better than Monmouth’s.
Joe Lunardi says that Monmouth is a lock and when Seth Greenberg said how do you take them over Michigan, Ohio St, Florida, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, etc. he said road wins. Seth Greenberg thought it would be a disgrace if they make it in. They have 17 wins away from home but 2 came from top 50 teams 2 teams ranked from 80-100 3 from teams ranked 102-140 and the last 10 from teams ranked 150 and up. That was the argument made by Joe Lunardi. They are definitely not deserving of a bid.
How about this one – Michigan vs. team with:
1-3 top 50 record (win against #8)
3-4 51-100 record (wins against #68 and 2 against #94)
1 loss to a +100 team (117)
Avg RPI win 188 (Michigan’s is 183)
Avg RPI loss 59 (Michigan’s is 26)
If Michigan beats NU and Indiana they are in. If they lose to NU they are out.
If they win beat NU and lose to Indiana it’ll be interesting. I’ve seen people throw around stats about top 100 wins or even top 50 wins. But I’d like to see how many teams with three top 25 wins (and one of those is neutral court) and no top 100 losses (and indeed if OSU beats Penn State they might not have a loss outside the top-75) get left out. And they have three wins in RPI top 110. It worked out rough for Michigan that the B1G this year was basically all top-25 teams or below top-100 teams except OSU and we didn’t get them at home and blew our shot on the road.
Finally, with respect to the “eye test,” you have to compare it with other teams on the bubble. Cuse just lost to FSU (a sub .500 ACC team) and has lost 4 of 5. USC has lost 4 of 5 and 6 of 8. St. Joe’s has lost 3 or 5 (to Duquesne, St. Bonnie, and Davidson). Michigan hasn’t looked so awful in comparison being up on the road at half against Wiscy, or tied in the final minutes @ MD, or beating a NU team that has won a few games lately. Not that these are great achievements, but, again, you want to compare things against like things.
Anyway, it sucks to have to be making these sorts of analyses and arguments, but if Michigan beats NU they have a better chance than some think. Who knows. It’d be nice to win a couple games and not have to worry about it. I wonder if PSU beating OSU on a neutral court could sneak them into the top 100.
Let’s leave no doubt and win 2 in the BTT. Give this fan base some hope for the future.
You all make some great arguments. I also do not believe Monmouth should be in (even though @Georgetown and @UCLA are solid wins). Michigan fans will find out how the committee uses the idea of “no bad losses”.
I believe a win over NU gets us into one of the Tuesday games.
A win over NU and IU not only gets us in, but keeps us out of the Tuesday games.
Georgetown and UCLA are solid wins? Do you consider Illinois, Nebraska, and Penn State to be solid wins? If so, Northwestern must be a good win.
I do. For a program like Monmouth, on the road at UCLA and at Georgetown early in the year are pretty decent wins.
I did think our win at Nebraska was good at the time because they were playing pretty well.
Georgetown and UCLA are ranked in top 70 ken pom.
Penn St 136
There really is no comparison between the GTown/UCLA wins and the 3 wins of Michigan on road/neutral court.
Kenpom ranks mean absolutely nothing. It is all RPI. That is what the committee goes by and that is what I put in the blind resume up top.
Then compare them using this.
compare that to Michigan and tell me how you think Michigan compares
I’d say wins vs Purdue Maryland and Texas are better then Notre Dame and USC. Losses to Canisius Army and Manhattan are worse then losses to UCONN and Ohio St
Then why does one team have an RPI of 51 and the other 67? Is this all based on your opinion and not on what the numbers are telling you?