Michigan

• dokken

  I was watching commentators discussing whether Michigan is a tournament team or not. They go to the Good Wins/Bad Losses resume on the screen. Michigan's good wins were Michigan State (twice) and Harvard. Yes ....Harvard! They beat Harvard by 3, UCONN beat Harvard by 30! And we are now considering Michigan a tournament team? Is it that watered down? Does the Big Ten have to meet a quota? Harvard???? Why when they showed UCONN's Good Wins, Harvard doesn't appear on the list. Was Harvard not a good win for UCONN but a good win for Michigan?
• Azubuike24

  

  Michigan beat Clemson (another bubble team). They did beat Harvard, who is going to finish with an RPI in the top 40. Michigan also beat Oakland, who is going to win the Summit League. Also, Michigan swept Penn State and Michigan State, two other bubble teams from the same conference.
  
  Take a look at Michigan State and given the fact that Michigan swept them, tell me why they are even being discussed for an NCAA bid. Michigan State beat Oakland (same as Michigan) and had one other OOC win against the top 50 (Washington, who is on the ropes for an NCAA bid if they lose tonight at home against USC). Both Michigan and Michigan State have 9 wins against the RPI top 100.
  
  Two things: Reputation and Tom Izzo. Not their 2011 team capabilities or resume.
• ironman02

  Lunardi still has MSU as a "Last Four In".
  
  I just don't understand. They're 17-13!!!
• Cleveland Buck

  

  Those 3 wins are in top 50 of the RPI, which is what the committee looks at. They also look ar road performance. Michigan has also won on the road at Clemson (RPI 64), Michigan State (44), Penn State (59), and Minnesota (65). They also lost by 3 to Syracuse, in OT to Kansas, by 4 to Ohio State, and by 1 to Wisconsin, and only 1 bad loss at Indiana. They obviously wouldn't be overwhelmed playing in the NCAA tournament. WHo do you want in instead? Baylor who has 2 top 50 wins? Virginia Tech or Washington State who each have 2 top 50 wins and 3 100+ losses? Richmond with 1 top 50 win? Florida State with 2 top 50 wins and a loss to one of the worst teams in the country (Auburn)?
• Azubuike24

  

  They played a tough schedule...lost to almost everyone...and will skate in on reputation. Meanwhile, Lunardi has Georgia as his last team out. Now, I'm not saying Georgia is definitely better than Michigan State, but I'm wondering when you look at Georgia's resume why they get knocked for losing 10 games, and all of their losses being so-called "quality losses."
  
  Michigan State: 17-13, 9-9, RPI 46, SOS 8, 1 win vs RPI top 50 (Wisconsin), 4 losses vs teams outside RPI top 50 (Penn State, Michigan X 2, Iowa)
  
  Georgia: 20-10, 9-7, RPI 40, SOS 34, 2 wins vs RPI top 50 (Kentucky and UAB), 1 loss vs team outside RPI top 50 (Alabama)
  
  I don't really see the argument for Michigan State over Georgia except unless you consider preseason ranking and reputation.
• wildcats20

  

  They played a tough schedule...lost to almost everyone...and will skate in on reputation. Meanwhile, Lunardi has Georgia as his last team out. Now, I'm not saying Georgia is definitely better than Michigan State, but I'm wondering when you look at Georgia's resume why they get knocked for losing 10 games, and all of their losses being so-called "quality losses."
  
  Michigan State: 17-13, 9-9, RPI 46, SOS 8, 1 win vs RPI top 50 (Wisconsin), 4 losses vs teams outside RPI top 50 (Penn State, Michigan X 2, Iowa)
  Georgia: 20-10, 9-7, RPI 40, SOS 34, 2 wins vs RPI top 50 (Kentucky and UAB), 1 loss vs team outside RPI top 50 (Alabama)
  
  I don't really see the argument for Michigan State over Georgia except unless you consider preseason ranking and reputation.

  20 wins does it for me when comparing the 2.
• Cleveland Buck

  

  ironman02;700656 wrote:Lunardi still has MSU as a "Last Four In".
  
  I just don't understand. They're 17-13!!!

  
  Their resume isn't as solid as Michigan's, but it is still better than most of the bubble teams, and the committee does value SOS. That's why they are still right there.
• Cleveland Buck

  

  Azubuike24;700668 wrote:They played a tough schedule...lost to almost everyone...and will skate in on reputation. Meanwhile, Lunardi has Georgia as his last team out. Now, I'm not saying Georgia is definitely better than Michigan State, but I'm wondering when you look at Georgia's resume why they get knocked for losing 10 games, and all of their losses being so-called "quality losses."
  
  Michigan State: 17-13, 9-9, RPI 46, SOS 8, 1 win vs RPI top 50 (Wisconsin), 4 losses vs teams outside RPI top 50 (Penn State, Michigan X 2, Iowa)
  
  Georgia: 20-10, 9-7, RPI 40, SOS 34, 2 wins vs RPI top 50 (Kentucky and UAB), 1 loss vs team outside RPI top 50 (Alabama)
  
  I don't really see the argument for Michigan State over Georgia except unless you consider preseason ranking and reputation.

  
  Well, I would think Georgia will be in. Look at Michigan State against some of the other bubble teams and you will see why they are still hanging around. And there isn't a big difference between 13 losses and 10 losses when you look at who each team has played. You also can't discount games against 51-100. Michigan State is 9-12 against the top 100, Georgia is 5-10. Michigan State has only played 9 games all year against teams ranked above 100 in the RPI, where Georgia has played 15. If you give MSU 6 more games against bad teams they would have well over 20 wins and this wouldn't even be a discussion.
• sportswizuhrd

  Cleveland Buck;700663 wrote:Those 3 wins are in top 50 of the RPI, which is what the committee looks at. They also look ar road performance. Michigan has also won on the road at Clemson (RPI 64), Michigan State (44), Penn State (59), and Minnesota (65). They also lost by 3 to Syracuse, in OT to Kansas, by 4 to Ohio State, and by 1 to Wisconsin, and only 1 bad loss at Indiana. They obviously wouldn't be overwhelmed playing in the NCAA tournament. WHo do you want in instead? Baylor who has 2 top 50 wins? Virginia Tech or Washington State who each have 2 top 50 wins and 3 100+ losses? Richmond with 1 top 50 win? Florida State with 2 top 50 wins and a loss to one of the worst teams in the country (Auburn)?

  Colorado ?...19-12/8-8 5 wins over top 50 RPI teams and 3 wins inside the top 25. How much does the L's to Iowa State and Oklahoma effect them.
• Azubuike24

  

  IMO, with this weak bubble, Michigan State and Georgia are both deserving if we are discussing teams like Baylor (7-9 in the Big 12), Washington State (9-9 in a crappy Pac-10) and Alabama (8-6 in non-conference and 4 losses to teams with RPI's lower than 120).
  
  Now, some credence should be put on how you are playing now. Alabama is a totally different (and much better team) than the one that lost in November and December to St. Peter's, Iowa and Providence. They should get consideration for trending positive. Michigan State on the other hand, is definitely trending backwards, but they certainly have better numbers across the board than Baylor (trending very backwards) and Washington State (were never trending forward).
  
  As someone said, the extra 3 at-large teams makes the Tournament more interesting, but it also makes the bubble weaker.
• Azubuike24

  

  Colorado emerged from the Big 12 jumbled mess (Colorado, Baylor, Nebraska, Oklahoma State, Kansas State, Missouri) and will probably get in, as will Kansas State and Missouri. Colorado deserves to be in. The other three, especially Nebraska and Baylor played their way out in the final 2 weeks.
• ironman02

  Cleveland Buck;700671 wrote:Their resume isn't as solid as Michigan's, but it is still better than most of the bubble teams, and the committee does value SOS. That's why they are still right there.

  
  Yeah, you're right. When looking at the numbers, MSU is probably just as good as any of the other teams that are in contention. I guess I was putting a little too much emphasis on the 13 losses. As Azubuike said, they're definitely trending backward though. They better not lose early in the Big Ten Tournament.
• Cleveland Buck

  

  sportswizuhrd;700677 wrote:Colorado ?...19-12/8-8 5 wins over top 50 RPI teams and 3 wins inside the top 25. How much does the L's to Iowa State and Oklahoma effect them.

  
  You want Colorado in over Michigan? Colorado got handled by Harvard. They also lost to New Mexico. They are 6-9 vs. the top 100 with 3 losses to 100+ teams. Are good wins more important than bad losses? They have also played a weak schedule (71 SOS).
• sportswizuhrd

  Cleveland Buck;700684 wrote:You want Colorado in over Michigan? Colorado got handled by Harvard. They also lost to New Mexico. They are 6-9 vs. the top 100 with 3 losses to 100+ teams. Are good wins more important than bad losses? They have also played a weak schedule (71 SOS).

  Weak attempt at a stretch by me.
• Cleveland Buck

  

  Hey, I think Colorado should be right there, maybe even in, but not over Michigan.
• bo shemmy3337

  They also look at who is hot right now, Michigan has won most of there last 11 games and they have "good losses". There is 68 teams for god sake, They deserve a bid IMO. MSU does not though as 17 wins is simply not enough, I do not care who you played.
• Cleveland Buck

  

  bo shemmy3337;700725 wrote:They also look at who is hot right now, Michigan has won most of there last 11 games and they have "good losses". There is 68 teams for god sake, They deserve a bid IMO. MSU does not though as 17 wins is simply not enough, I do not care who you played.

  
  They don't look at who is hot right now, at least they aren't supposed to anymore, though I'm sure some of them will still consider it.
• dave

  I think I'm the only Michigan bball fan on here and even I don't think they should get in. They've proven time and time again this season they aren't quite there. If they could have finished off OSU, Kansas, or Wisconsin at home that would have been enough. The Big 10 is weak this year, beating PSU, MSU, etc shouldn't be enough.
• sleeper

  

  I'm still in the camp that MSU should not be in the tournament. Sure, they have a lot of "quality losses" but man, they need some quality wins too.
• WebFire

  dave;700739 wrote:I think I'm the only Michigan bball fan on here and even I don't think they should get in. They've proven time and time again this season they aren't quite there. If they could have finished off OSU, Kansas, or Wisconsin at home that would have been enough. The Big 10 is weak this year, beating PSU, MSU, etc shouldn't be enough.

  
  Some picked Michigan to be dead last in the B1G this year. I'm just glad they are even in the discussion!
• slingshot4ever

  They should be in. Lunardi has them in a play in game for a 12 seed against BC to play Arizona
• centralbucksfan

  Azubuike24;700678 wrote:IMO, with this weak bubble, Michigan State and Georgia are both deserving if we are discussing teams like Baylor (7-9 in the Big 12), Washington State (9-9 in a crappy Pac-10) and Alabama (8-6 in non-conference and 4 losses to teams with RPI's lower than 120).
  
  Now, some credence should be put on how you are playing now. Alabama is a totally different (and much better team) than the one that lost in November and December to St. Peter's, Iowa and Providence. They should get consideration for trending positive. .

  
  Crappy Pac10? I agree...but what do you think Alabama is in? A crappy west of the SEC. Trending up? They have lost 2 of last 3..one of those a 27pt drubbing by Florida, the other a loss to Miss, an NIT bound team.
  I agree, MSU is and has been on a downward trend. And I also agree, AT BEST they are a bubble team. And I agree, with at least one win in the Big Ten Tourney, they will probably get in on reputation. They got in NCAA at 18-12 a handful of years back.
• gerb131

  

  Michigan is good for a win in the NCAA tourney and MSU if they make it I wouldn't want to play them.
• Swamp Fox

  Perhaps we should forget all of the nonsense about who actually deserves to be in the field, and divide the haves and have nots by the more important factor. Who will make more money for the NCAA? In short, which team's fans "travel" better? In a borderline decision, always go with the money. If it should come down to a coin flip, the time honored adage seems appropriate here. Namely..."Money talks and the other substance walks." I have already censored my post to not upset younger readers.
• Azubuike24

  

  Alabama trending up from an 8-6 start was my point...
  
  The SEC is pretty bad...the PAC 10 is dreadful. The SEC and ACC is pretty bad but the PAC 10 is on another level. The Colonial, Conference USA, Mountain West and Atlantic 10 are better than the PAC 10.