Let's Do Some Bracketology
Zipping on up
God bless the Big Ten: back-to-back road wins against teams that are collectively 16-18 in conference play are not just Quad 1 victories, but Quad 1-A wins. Joe Lunardi was referring to Michigan as a seven-seed literally during the Purdue game. Today they're a 5*. Michigan is also on the five-line in Jerry Palm's bracket.
The BracketMatrix, which is often a lagging indicator but is pretty good on Tuesdays, has moved Michigan up to the last 5. There are a few different projections with Michigan on the four line already, and a couple of the dumber automated brackets are holding Michigan back. RealTimeRPI, which still exists for reasons I cannot fathom, barely has Michigan in the field, and KPI has them as an eight-seed.
You may remember that KPI is actually on the teamsheets because Mark Hollis thought it, like Tom Anastos, was a good idea. A couple years ago it was also badly lagging reality in re: Michigan, which caused me to point out that it was 112th of 113 qualifiers on the Matrix, a truly incredible record for something the committee actually has in the room with them. Good news and bad news for Kevin Pagua: KPI is now beating four BracketMatrix brackets. It is 134th out of 138.
Anyway. T-Ranketology—which projects the rest of the season, unlike the human bracketologists—has good news and bad news. The good news: Michigan's a four. The bad news is that Michigan slots in just behind MSU, which has pod implications discussed below. More good news: the Livers version of Michigan is about 4 points of efficiency margin better than the non-Livers version so projections are pessimistic until such time as a cartoon steamroller crushes Livers into atoms.
*[As per usual with Lunardi he sets up a bracket the committee will not implement since the #4 is Oregon, who Michigan played. It is uncanny the consistency with which he does this when bracketing Michigan. To be fair, Palm did the exact same thing. This may bother me more than it should.]
[After THE JUMP: hope you like six-way ties]
Seed Range Narrows
T-Ranketology has an exceptionally narrow range of seeds with somewhere between 5 and 9 games left in the season. A reasonable worst case scenario (beat Nebraska, lose the other four games with the BTT L against Indiana) still has them land at a 5. They top out as a 3 in any scenario short of winning out.
That might be optimistic since Michigan's currently a 5 according to humans.
Nitty-Gritty
Michigan in Q1 and Q2:
That is a lot of games near cutlines. I'm not sure Michigan's Q2 record is going to matter much since they'll have close to 20 Q1 games by the time the season's over. Q1 will, and Q1A will too.
Michigan's got a lot more to lose than gain from late-season NET jiggles. Currently they've got nine games (Creighton, MSU, @ Rutgers, @ Illinois, @ Purdue, Penn State, Iowa, Indiana, UNC) within six NET slots of dropping a quadrant, or dropping from 1A to 1. Only OSU, Illinois, and Purdue are close to moving up.
Note that the MSG Rutgers game is currently Q1 instead of Q2 because it was not at Crisler, so at least we're getting some mileage out of it.
Michigan's remaining regular season games are a pair of dead lock 1A games (@ OSU, @ Maryland), a borderline 1/2 game (Wisconsin is currently 30th in NET, right on the cutline), and, uh, Nebraska. Any game Michigan plays in the Big Ten tourney will be Q1 unless they get Indiana or one of the two terrible teams.
About that conference tourney
Michigan sits a game behind a five-way tie for second place, one that Kenpom projects will last the season:
While this isn't likely to happen it does demonstrate that attempting to project the conference tourney bracket is an utterly futile task. Nebraska and Northwestern are 13 and 14. Purdue and Minnesota are likely going to be playing them in round one. Maryland's probably winning the league. Everything else is a jumble.
A local pod: surprisingly achievable
PLAN: 1) get to Cleveland 2) reach Sweet 16 3) beat the Cavs' asses [Campredon]
There's only one opening-round pod particularly close to Michigan fanbase hotbeds, but it's pretty dang close: Cleveland. And Michigan's not too far away from landing there.
Astute tournament watchers have been complaining that opening-round sites have over-represented the West for years, forcing protected seeds to fly across the country when there are four pods in Pac-12 country and few teams to fill them. This is less of a problem this year with San Diego State and Gonzaga locked into protected seeds and Oregon currently holding down a 4 many places.
Meanwhile a regional in St. Louis is closer to Louisville and the only team in the MI/OH/IN/PA/KY/WV area that has clear priority over Michigan is Dayton. This means Michigan has a pretty decent shot at landing in Cleveland if they should nab a protected seed. Jerry Palm's bracket has Kentucky slotted there as a four seed; prior to PSU's loss to Indiana the Nittany Lions got that slot. Lunardi also puts Kentucky there.
Upshot:
- The last 4-seed is getting shipped to Spokane or Sacramento because there aren't enough West teams.
- If you're in the Midwest and you're in the top 14 on the S-curve you're getting Cleveland unless another nearby team also surges.
- Michigan is third or fourth in the pecking order behind Penn State, Kentucky, and maybe WVU.
A strong finish should get them there.
Gonna be some weak spots
Via twitter chart person Manuel Excel on twitter, Bracket Matrix seed lines by average Kenpom ranking:
click for big
The 5 line is currently better than the 3 or 4 lines; the 4 line is actually behind the 6 and 7 lines. Possible this gets sorted out during the stretch run; if this holds it could be a wild first weekend.
Conference view
Projections that the Big Ten would get twelve teams into the tournament have inevitably gone by the wayside. That's too many plates to keep spinning. The unlucky two teams who have failed to stay significantly above .500 are Purdue and Minnesota. Both still have a shot because their closing runs are laden with opportunity:
- Minnesota: Maryland, @ Wisconsin, @ Indiana, Nebraska
- Purdue: Indiana, @ Iowa, Rutgers
Both teams are .500 at the moment but not that far out of the field. T-Rank has them the #7 and #8 teams out. To climb out of the doldrums one or both probably has to get to three games above .500, which means either winning out or losing one down the stretch and then going on a run in the Big Ten tourney.
After Indiana's win over Penn State the teams on the right side of the bubble would have to go into outright tailspins to miss out. Any Big Ten team currently projected with a bid will get one unless they lose out. The four in at least hypothetical danger:
- Indiana: it might get hairy for IU if they lose out but even in that situation they're still 18-14 overall with a 6-10 Q1 record; Torvik has them as a Last Four Bye team.
- Rutgers is in a bit more danger and would be advised to win at least one more game, whether that's in the regular season or the Big Ten Tourney.
- Illinois is in if they beat Northwestern and probably in even if they lose out.
- Wisconsin is in if they beat Northwestern at home, and probably scrapes in even in a lose out scenario.
Everyone else is in.
Rooting guide
You should be distantly in favor of teams Michigan has played winning games, obviously. These teams are more important than others.
GO TEAM X WOO
- Purdue. They're 37th in NET. If they drop below 40 they cease being a Q1-A win. If they climb to 30th Michigan's home W against them goes from Q2 to Q1. (Yes: at Purdue is 1A and home vs Purdue is Q2.)
- Rutgers. 33rd in NET, so same 1A cutoff. Slight chance the MSG game could climb to 1-A if they go on a run.
- Oregon. Pretty close to being a 1-A game. Also a potential protected seed who will get put in the West, so their presence on the top four seedlines does not impact Michigan.
- Creighton. 1A but has to stick in the top 15 of NET to stay there. Currently 9th(!).
BOO I DISLIKE YOUR TEAM
- Penn State, Ohio State, Michigan State. Michigan has to be seeded in front of all three to get to Cleveland. OSU and MSU are currently above Michigan on the BracketMatrix despite not having as many Q1 wins and having near-identical records otherwise. Michigan is tightly bunched with all three on Torvik.
- Kentucky, West Virginia. The last four-seed is going to Spokane regardless but if either of these teams is ahead of Michigan at the bell they'd bump Michigan out of Cleveland.
February 25th, 2020 at 12:28 PM ^
MATH!
February 25th, 2020 at 12:39 PM ^
This is a great overview but there's still the human component-- the seeding and selection process isn't as robotic as the hockey one (but getting closer). A strong finish by Michigan with Livers in the lineup may give the "eyeball test" members of the committee reason to keep Michigan a higher seed than what BracketMatrix projects.
February 25th, 2020 at 12:44 PM ^
Well, also, the Bracket Matrix is best understood as crowd-sourcing of human-generated results. It's not nearly as meaningful as the Pairwise is.
I suspect Michigan's ceiling is a 2, but that they need to win out to achieve it. I don't think a ten-loss team gets a 2 seed, even with a Big Ten tournament victory. A 3 seed seems the best realistic scenario, and that probably still requires them to go 3-1 in the regular season and make the Big Ten title game.
February 25th, 2020 at 1:24 PM ^
Agreed-- human influenced cap is probably a 3 seed (which is consistent with how recent committees have treated contending teams that win conference records). And that's a win-out w/ BTT championship scenario.
February 25th, 2020 at 7:33 PM ^
UNC got a 2 seed in 2018 despite a 25-10 record including 11-7 in ACC and a loss in the ACC title game.
Not at all out of the question for Michigan to win every game and lose to Maryland in the BTT title game (which usually doesn't factor in since it's so late on selection Sunday) and end up on the 2 line.
February 25th, 2020 at 7:51 PM ^
You're right; I'd remembered that team, but forgot that they had 10 losses; I'd thought it was 9. It probably comes down to how other teams fare down the stretch, but, yes, I could see Michigan as a 2 with one further loss, either at Maryland (but win the BTT by avenging that loss) or in the Big Ten title game.
February 25th, 2020 at 12:40 PM ^
So you're saying that I need to root against an Osu and MSU AND Kentucky? I think I could manage that!
February 25th, 2020 at 1:16 PM ^
I like these kind of advanced stats!
February 25th, 2020 at 12:41 PM ^
The committee would absolutely put Michigan as a 5 and Oregon as a 4 in the same bracket. Here are the principles and procedures: https://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-men/article/2018-10-19/how-field-68-teams-picked-march-madness . The specific rule you want is under "Additional Considerations":
If possible, rematches of non-conference regular-season games should be avoided in the First Four and first round.
They do not project winners, so they will not necessarily try to avoid a second-round rematch. (There are just too many possible permutations when you consider the number of non-conference games).
February 25th, 2020 at 12:55 PM ^
Given the brackets that are out there, though, it's an easy thing to avoid. ESPN has 4 Kentucky vs. 5 MSU, and 4 Oregon vs. 5 Michigan. It makes too much sense to swap us with Sparty to avoid the rematch. I think Lunardi did it this way because MSU is above us in the seed band so he gave them the closer available site, but they should get matched up with Oregon because it makes the matchups closer to what a true S-curve would be.
That said, though, you're right that they definitely won't go out of their way to avoid a second round rematch.
February 25th, 2020 at 1:15 PM ^
So, long story short, we are probably playing Montana again in the first round sometime after 10 PM, right?
February 25th, 2020 at 3:05 PM ^
+1, but seriously, I expect us to get prime time slots and major coverage from the networks because Juwan’s return to the tournament as a coach has to be one of the top 5 storylines.
February 25th, 2020 at 7:16 PM ^
o/u is set at 90.5
February 25th, 2020 at 7:36 PM ^
Yeah, they had MSU and Minnesota play in the second round last year despite being in the same conference.
They don't care beyond the first round.
February 25th, 2020 at 7:46 PM ^
There is a separate set of rules for conference opponents; except where necessary due to there being too many teams, they will prevent in-conference second-round matchups between teams that played twice during the season.
So, suppose that Michigan ends up winning the Big Ten and gets a 3 seed, and they don't play Indiana during the Big Ten tournament. If Indiana is an 11 seed, they would be eligible to be placed in the same pod as Michigan (and thus be a potential second-round opponent), because they would only have played once during the year. However, if Iowa is a 6 seed, they could not be in Michigan's pod, because Michigan and Iowa played twice.
February 25th, 2020 at 12:42 PM ^
I get using T-Rank for all of this, because Torvik is generally very good/well respected and it's a free/easy place to go mess around with projections like done in the article. I don't know that there's a better alternative for projections like this. That being said T-Rank is 117/133 on Bracket Matrix, so any projections it gives should be taken with a major grain of salt. Odds are it's not going to be too close to reality.
Also going to Cleveland may not be possible even if we jump all those teams. Kansas will want Omaha and Creighton can't play in Omaha (since they play their home games there and that's not allowed for first round games), so they'd have to take St. Louis. At this point Creighton is ahead of Louisville on the seed line (and seems likely to stay after last night's loss for Louisville and given how the 2 teams have been playing), so it comes down to whether Baylor wants Omaha or St. Louis. They're basically equidistant but Baylor might choose St. Louis to avoid being stuck with Kansas fans rooting against them in the same arena. If Baylor chooses St. Louis, Louisville will take Cleveland (unless we jump Louisville which is unlikely as of now but not impossible).
February 25th, 2020 at 4:33 PM ^
I have stated it similarly in another thread, but if Cleveland is not possible, Sacramento would be a great destination for the fans (I live there, so please note my bias). Plenty of N. California alums, a strong basketball fan base with find and enduring memories of the Webber-led Kings, a walkable and manageable city with a lot to do, proximity to Tahoe, etc. Hopefully we’d get an afternoon/early evening game here to avoid the 10:50 ET start.
February 25th, 2020 at 7:42 PM ^
Agree with this. Tons of alums in CA. I'd prob make the trip up from LA. I haven't been to Sacramento and this would be a great reason to make the trip.
February 25th, 2020 at 12:46 PM ^
STATISTICS!
February 25th, 2020 at 12:53 PM ^
How does Michigan record without Livers factor into this analysis? Should we expect a 1 seed bump from the committee to account for games he missed? Assuming Michigan stays on its current trajectory?
Palm seemed to indicate at best it would be a one seed line bump
February 25th, 2020 at 12:58 PM ^
Gotta think Michigan is ahead of MSU right now given the h2h split and the superior Q1 record (with all other quadrants being mostly the same).
OSU has almost identical resume as MSU but with their win at M, I'd think they have the edge. Michigan would have to win at OSU to pull ahead there.
PSU is an interesting case. They have a better "resume" than any of the other three with better Q1 and Q1 + Q2 records. Their NET is dragged down by weak SoS and MOV / efficiency numbers so would be interesting to see how much weight committee puts in the metrics vs the resume. Would think based on road wins over M and MSU they'd be head of those two teams right now given their resume.
February 25th, 2020 at 1:58 PM ^
But you forgot the key element that the Media and probably the selection committee are so far up Izzo's ass come March that they get a seed line bump.
February 25th, 2020 at 2:48 PM ^
Sadly, Michigan is assuredly behind MSU on the current S-curve. The reason is simple: MSU is 13 in the NET, and Michigan is 22. Why? Because MSU's 2-6 Q1A / 3-2 Q1B / 5-1 Q2 / 8-0 Q3/4, best win at #16 Seton Hall, second-best at #35 Illinois, is apparently superior to Michigan's 5-4 Q1A / 2-4 Q1B / 4-1 Q2 / 7-0 Q3/4, with two wins better than MSU's best, and two more better than their second-best. (FWIW: KenPom and Torvik both have MSU ahead of Michigan also).
TL/DR: MSU has kept it close against good teams and blown out bad teams to a greater degree than Michigan has.
February 25th, 2020 at 7:49 PM ^
I think you might be right, but this is, as you point out, a classic resume vs. predictive metrics argument.
Impossible to look at the quadrant W/L resume and not prefer Michigan, so yeah, then it becomes a question of whether the committee likes MSU superior NET, Kenpom and BPI which are solely propped up by some blowout wins.
But if the committee also factors in a small bump for the fact Livers was out for a while including MSU's win over M, that could be the difference.
February 25th, 2020 at 1:12 PM ^
Really impressive for the team to have themselves back into the position they are in now. To rebound the way they have from 3-7 in conference mark bodes well for Juwan Howard's tenure. I was getting concerned that March was just going to be MSU-mania around here. Those years suck.
February 25th, 2020 at 1:29 PM ^
The "missing Livers" thing will be a big item to the committee. As long as he stays healthy and the team keeps performing at this current torrid level, the stats will be "adjusted" by the committee in order to get the matchups they want or think they should have based upon a full strength Michigan.
February 25th, 2020 at 1:41 PM ^
Is there data that location matters in tournament performance? I'm always more concerned about who's in the bracket as opposed to where the games are.
February 26th, 2020 at 12:03 PM ^
Good question. I think it has been shown that teams within a certain radius, maybe a couple hundred miles of campus, perform better than expected for a neutral site.
What seems to be as important for Michigan isn't so much distance but once they get outside of a couple hundred miles away, it then becomes a matter of where alums are location.
Michigan has won like 10 straight games at Madison Square garden. Even though it's 1000 miles from AA, there's a ton of alums in NYC and they get great support there and I'd think that has an impact.
Two years ago at Staples, the regional was like 75% Michigan fans and we dubbed it Crisler West. So despite being 2000 miles away from home, it was electric in support of Michigan.
The West regional is back at Staples this year, so even though that would be three years in a row in Southern California, I'd rather be there than Houston against Baylor. Just saw the East Regional is at MSG so that'd be awesome too.
February 25th, 2020 at 2:17 PM ^
March Madness is already the best tournament in sports. March Madness with Michigan in it and playing well is my favorite sporting event ever (including World Cup, Olympics, etc).
February 25th, 2020 at 5:55 PM ^
Agree. Warmer weather, longer days and this.
February 25th, 2020 at 2:26 PM ^
If we can finish between a 3 and 6 seed, I can’t see how anyone here would be disappointed in that. Considering where we were a few weeks ago at 2-6 in the conference, this team has responded in a big way. I still think with Livers this is a top 10 team. And given that there are a lack of dominant teams, we will have as good a shot as anybody to make a run.
February 25th, 2020 at 2:41 PM ^
You forgot to include Indiana in your rooting guide. Like we want Indiana to make the tourney so they don't fire Miller and then hire Beilein. The better Indiana does without knocking Purdue off Q1 the better.
February 25th, 2020 at 2:58 PM ^
Joe Lunardi still having a job as a prognosticator is sorta crazy. His chief accomplishment is knowing someone in the selection room who feeds him the brackets 2 hours before they're announced so he can update his bracket appropriately.
Michigan feels like a 4/5 seed right now, and that's a great spot to be in because it doesn't feel like there are any really dominant teams out there (even KU) and a strong 5 seeding may be better than, say, a weak 4 seeding.
February 25th, 2020 at 3:32 PM ^
Hoping Michigan is sent to either the East or West regions--making either the Staples Center or Madison Square Garden our home away from home for Sweet Sixteen action.
February 25th, 2020 at 4:18 PM ^
As a poor soul forced to live in Ohio, our worst case scenario would be getting pod-dropped in Cleveland with OSU playing just before or just after. The hate for us in this state is real and ugly. It would basically be a defacto road game.
would be just our luck too.
February 25th, 2020 at 4:19 PM ^
If Livers really does get crushed into atoms, it’ll really test our notion that he’s the ultimate glue guy.
February 25th, 2020 at 7:27 PM ^
"This may bother me more than it should."
No, it's entirely reasonable. Being a "bracketologist" is an almost cartoonishly niche job, you should be expected to, at minimum, know the rules of the literal only thing on earth you have to know.
February 26th, 2020 at 12:33 AM ^
Yeah I was thinking futzing around with things to make sure you don't just get the seeds but also avoid matchups that are unlikely to happen sounds like a lot of work without getting that much more out of it. But...it's his job. Does Lunardi even do anything else? Cartoonishly niche is spot on.
Comments