Five thoughts on Michigan hiring Juwan Howard

Michigan Basketball
237

The SEC as a conference made a concerted effort to game the RPI rankings the final 2-3yrs it was in place. And it worked in terms of them getting more teams in the tournament than the conference deserved.

I think Coach Beilein was more concerned with player development in the non-conference schedule, so he created a slate that worked best for his teaching mechanisms, at the expense of RPI benefits. Remember Coach Beilein greatly improved the upper ends of Michigan’s non-conference schedule — regularly agreeing to home-and-home’s with Kansas, UCLA, Arkansas, SCar, etc. He balanced that with a run of charmin soft glorified practices.

Personally, I would have liked to have seen a little more gaming of the RPI. But it is impossible to measure how much of the February/March improvements were because of Beilein’s scheduling/practices balance.

2 Likes
238

At the end of the day, can anyone point to a year where a “worse than deserved” RPI actually tangibly hurt our end of year results?

I can’t.

At the end of the day, the end of the college basketball season comes down to winning games on the court (not always true in football).

2 Likes
239

I don’t recall us playing Kansas in a home and home unless my memory is really letting me down right now. Do you mean Arizona?

240

The 3 seed in ‘18 off a 13win conference season & B1G tourney title seemed rough at the time. The 7 seed in ‘17 off a B1G tourney win. The 4 seed in 2013 seemed harsh based on the full season resume, even with late struggles. The tournament runs in 2013 and 2018 turned out fine, but the seed lines awarded were interesting. RPI and number of games vs 200+ RPI opponents were cited as factors those years.

2 Likes
241

We played Kansas at Crisler in 2011 and lost in overtime. I was at that one. I can’t recall the away game though.

242

2009-10 season at KU
2010-11 season at home (pushed the game to OT before falling)

2 Likes
243

Haha I was only 10 when that first game was played at Kansas. I also assumed we were talking more about recent history as that seems like when this argument of SOS and how the committee uses it became more of a topic of discussion. I could be wrong though, I might just be too young to remember haha.

244

You know you’re old when 2009-10 and 2010-11 are not considered recent history! :rofl:

15 Likes
245

I chuckled at that, too.

2 Likes
246

It’s not really the trend in the NBA or college hoops. I guess it depends on your definition of success. You really need good-to great shooters to win championships!

247

With teams on the weakest end of the spectrum, it’s pretty much impossible to know before the season starts just where they’re going to finish the season (which is what ultimately matters). We can SAY we would rather play teams that are 200-250, rather than 300+, but how do we pick them that accurately? At the level those teams play, one key player either breaking out or getting hurt can make a huge difference.

248

You can play teams from conferences who’s teams usually end up from 150-250 vs 250-350

2 Likes
249

And look at which of them return most players.

1 Like
250

Are schedules set before or after most transfers are complete? I imagine it could get complicated to target a team projected as 150-200 only to see the best player later transfer out.

1 Like
251

It is a bit more predictable than that, but it helps to utilize someone like KenPom who can do projections. The NET obviously changes things a bit and I’m not sure to what extent honestly, been a bit of a hectic offseason.

There are leagues where basically every team will be around 300 level ,for example. That’s why you will hear people say avoid the SWAC or the MEAC. On the other hand, sometimes those are the cheapest teams you can play on the exact day that you need a game.

The SEC implemented a rule a few years back after a year where basically no one had a good enough resume to make the tourney. They said you have to schedule 175 or better teams based on a three-year rolling RPI. It seems to have made some impact, but the league also just seems to be a bit better too.

Beilein clearly thought that his team would do enough in high profile games that the benefit he gained from working on things and preparing his team against a terrible team was a net benefit for the program compared to the downside of the SOS hit.

4 Likes
252

Thanks for the explanation. This helps clarify the discussion for me.

253

Looking at last year’s sked I see these teams as the list of those that the schedule didn’t dictate for us (correct me if I am wrong):

Norfolk State
Holy Cross
GW
Providence
Chatanoooga
South Carolina
Western Michigan
Air Force
Binghamton

We also played Villanova. Villanova and SC can probably be struck from the list that anyone would dispute. (Home and homes; teams of repute, etc.) The two I remember serious complaining about, I think, were Binghamton and Norfolk State.

For those more knowledgeable than me–which of these were utterly reasonable for us to play? Does the list of those that we really shouldn’t have played amount to more than one or two? How much latitude would we have had for those dates, I wonder? How much budget for the buys?

I know this isn’t a game you can play with absolute exactitude, but I’m trying to chunk it down to whether the controversy is a tempest in a teapot or something you can really exert much control–let alone philosophical control–over.

I think that Michigan is usually scheduling one to three years out?

As Dylan pointed out two days ago, your odds of LOSING to a team increase as you move up the ladder. As Dylan also points out, Beilein–I assume Juwan, too–WANTED some games (“guarantees”) to see his team really flowing, to give marginal guys playing time, etc. Remember that one complaint last year was also that bench guys didn’t see the floor ENOUGH.

How, if you were scheduling, would you shoehorn this debate into a larger picture in which you, in Beilein’s shoes, were mitering together a team of relatively unheralded players who traditionally only came to really play well a good way into the season?

Again, is this something that in the end we can debate much? What are the real bits to isolate to debate?

1 Like
254

For ooc games against teams ranked 100-225 vs teams ranked 225-350, how many more seats in Crisler can we fill (eg 5000?) and what incremental price increase would be appropriate on all non-student seats? Would the per game incremental increase in stadium revenue be $100,000+ ?

Do our players enjoy playing a game more against a team ranked 150 with a large attendance or a team ranked 300 with a half filled Stadium?

1 Like
255

Norfolk, HC, GW, and Providence were all part of the HoF Tip-Off, unless you still qualify those as ones that the schedule didn’t dictate for us by way of ‘signing up’ for the tournament.

1 Like
256

I think you’re overestimating the appeal of games against teams ranked around 150. Do enough fans really care if it’s Houston Baptist (281) or Abilene Christian (150) to make a difference?

If you’re going to draw extra fans to games against opponents of that level, they need to be familiar names with some appeal. Local schools like WMU, EMU, Oakland, etc fit the bill. They come with the downside of rosters filled with players who dreamt of playing for Michigan and they often play way above their ranking. Subpar major conferences teams do too, but I’d assume they’re harder to schedule. They’re looking for guaranteed wins or home and homes.

They sold around 11,000 season tickets last year. Raising the bottom of the schedule wouldn’t have much impact on the revenue, probably more on the number of empty seats

6 Likes