"We count the early games (November/December) just the same as we count the late games (February/March)"
That statement was just made right now unambiguously by the Committee Chair in an ESPN Interview.
That's insane.
What you do by the time it's February/March should count much more than what you did in November/December.
There is no recognition of improvement? There is no acknowledgement of failure to improve?
What's the point then?
I don't agree with that at all, especially for trying predict performance to seed a tournament.
March Michigan would wipe the floor with December Michigan. They are not the same team at all.
That's an arbitrary self-inflicted rule that they can and should change.
March 11th, 2018 at 10:45 PM ^
MSU is the favorite to win the championship according to all these talking heads?
I only watched the two games where we spanked them on their home court and at a neutral site in the B1G tourney?
I'm curious is they are that legit? - They only have 2 other losses the rest of the year, or are just getting the "Izzo is so great in March" narrative.
Basically, are we just a bad match up for them and they are legit or is it more of the Izzo media love fest.
they will lose bad.
No way MSU gets past Duke to get to a Kansas game.
MSU already lost once to Duke and I see no reason to believe it won't happen again. Duke was integrating a host of freshmen and still solidly won while MSU had everyone back plus Jaren Jackson, Jr.
March 11th, 2018 at 10:46 PM ^
March 11th, 2018 at 11:00 PM ^
As you mention UM twice - once on the road.
Neutral floor against Arizona who is 17th in RPI.
Neutral floor against Butler who is 36th in RPI.
At Marquette who is 56th in RPI.
At Maryland who is 74th in RPI.
Those all quandrant 1 wins. Their SOS is 45 and NCSOS is 82.
UM's non-conference SOS is 282.
March 11th, 2018 at 11:46 PM ^
Pretty lazy of me to not look at the Arizona game, but Michigan also won at Texas and home against UCLA, arguably more impressive than winning at Marquette and neutral against Butler.
March 12th, 2018 at 12:10 AM ^
The name of the school? Neither RPI nor Kenpom think UCLA or Texas is that much more impressive. Purdue also beat Louisville, but it wasn't a quandrant 1 win so I didn't put it in the other post.
UCLA: RPI 35, Kenpom 48
Texas: RPI 51, Kenpom 39.
Butler: RPI 37, Kenpom 25
Louisville: RPI 36, Kenpom 33
Marquette: RPI 56, Kenpom 53
Purdue's NCSOS is significantly better then UM. Purdue's NCSOS is ranked 82 and UM's is 282.
March 11th, 2018 at 10:49 PM ^
March 11th, 2018 at 11:44 PM ^
What'd Nebraska do to deserve to be in besides win a bunch of games against the bottom nine teams in the BIG? Beating UM at home is all they can hang their hat on. They were 1-3 against the top four BIG teams and beat up on the rest. One point loss to Kansas, but nothing else good in non-con.
March 12th, 2018 at 12:35 AM ^
With a neutral win against Carolina and a home against Purdue.
March 11th, 2018 at 10:56 PM ^
March 11th, 2018 at 10:56 PM ^
March 11th, 2018 at 10:56 PM ^
March 11th, 2018 at 10:56 PM ^
March 11th, 2018 at 10:56 PM ^
March 11th, 2018 at 10:56 PM ^
March 11th, 2018 at 11:00 PM ^
March 11th, 2018 at 11:00 PM ^
March 11th, 2018 at 11:07 PM ^
Are You Serious?
March 11th, 2018 at 11:10 PM ^
On espn all pick State to at least make the final 4. Dakich picked Ohio St, Purdue,and MSU to all make it with OSU winning it all!!! Wtf???
I know these aren't the brightest and Dakich especially is a MORAN, but I hope the disrespect fuels us..
March 11th, 2018 at 11:15 PM ^
IIRC, last season he picked us to win it all.
March 11th, 2018 at 11:32 PM ^
Before last season which turned out to be not too far off.. But to pick 3 big ten teams with no mention of the good guys was too much. Just say I'm being a homer bc nobody is taking him seriously anyway.
Also listening to the effectiveness of Tustin nairn.. Ugh. Tuned out the rest of what they were saying.
Let's go Bucknell!!
March 11th, 2018 at 11:18 PM ^
so I guess he had to. I don't see OSU going past the sweet 16 and they might not go that far.
OSU might not even make it out of the first round. They've got a touch matchup with a red hot SDSU team.
MSU has been less than impressive on the road/neutral court. I think they make it to the Sweet 16 and get bounced by Duke.
Purdue is strong, but they always seem to beef it in the tourney.
There's no way all three make the Final Four, and you could make a case for none of them making it. Dakich may as well light his bracket on fire right now and save himself some trouble later.
March 11th, 2018 at 11:14 PM ^
Multiple people who have looked at it have found basically no correlation between how a team performs in its last 10 games and how it will do in the tourney:
http://blog.bracketvoodoo.com/post/158321282577/momentum-is-a-myth
http://blog.minitab.com/blog/the-statistics-game/basketball-statistics-…
March 11th, 2018 at 11:25 PM ^
didn't see this when i posted about data below. makes sense someone has done the analysis...
March 11th, 2018 at 11:27 PM ^
It's one of the main reasons that a #16 has never beaten a #1. These one-bid conferences bit themselves in the rear by allowing teams to luck their way into the tournament, whereby they get slaughtered.
North Carolina Central is the 309th team in KenPom's rankings, went 9-7 in the MEAC regular season, but upset Hampton (KenPom 246) and gets to go to Dayton. I'm not saying 246th is good -- the MEAC, as usual, isn't very good -- but surely they'd be better representatives than NCC.
In the less-ridiculous category, the Sun Belt would rather have Louisiana (née UL-Lafayette), KenPom 66, than 15-seed Georgia State, KenPom 96. Either one would probably lose, but why wouldn't you want to put your best foot forward?
If they're interested in improving their NCAA chances, the small conferences should kill their conference tournaments. On the other hand, the conference tournaments are fun and dramatic, so they might prefer to keep the current system. It's just that they should know the cost, and I don't think they do.
March 12th, 2018 at 10:26 AM ^
But what's vastly more important is getting conference exposure for 2 hours on national television. It's literally the only time of year these smaller conferences will have that kind of free publicity.
A few of the conferences have tweaked the formatting to help protect their higher seeds, but they aren't getting rid of the tournaments. The money and exposure is far too valuable.
The fact the Ivy League has a tournament now tells you all you need to know.
March 11th, 2018 at 11:19 PM ^
Example- they may be clowns, but the Hiesman rules say it plain and clear, it is an award for this season, not for a career. And we’re good with that. (Because we came out on the good end)
But I don’t get the impression that there are actual delineated criteria for who goes where in the NCAA tournament.
At least it doesn’t seem like any of us can point to them, if they’re out there. Is there any truth to this conclusion?
March 11th, 2018 at 11:19 PM ^
I think they all should count but recent games should count more. If you start 3-8 but wind up finishing 21-11 you should be seeded above a team that started 8-3 and finished 21-11.
March 11th, 2018 at 11:47 PM ^
Honest question, why? Can you elaborate?
March 11th, 2018 at 11:21 PM ^
seems like some data could help here: how do teams with similar overall resumes, but with different streaks (losing early, losing late) do in the tourney?
let's answer with #s, not gut feelings.
March 11th, 2018 at 11:59 PM ^
Why should performance in the tourney have any bearing on whether a team deserves to be in the tourney? People keep making this assumption the goal is the best teams. Its not, its the teams that earned bids over the year, every game from start to finish.
And that is exactly how it should be, because picking who people subjectively think is a better team is a much worse process than picking which teams had a better season.
is just question begging. There's absolutely no reason the goal can't be to pick the teams that have the best shot at winning the tourney. That's exactly what I think the goal should be. Sort by Kenpom et al., admit the top 32.
March 11th, 2018 at 11:58 PM ^
March 12th, 2018 at 12:18 AM ^
It does if you are not just hot, but better.
That's why you have a committee in the first place. To see that teams like Michigan defend better, drive the lane better, space the floor better, adjust to switches better . . .
To see that they have improved.
Michigan didn't just string a bunch of late wins together because of a hot streak of luck or the schedule. They got better and the wins followed accordingly.
You can't just go by rote record in seeding the tournament because too many teams don't play each other. The committee has to make some observations and judgements as to quality of resumes.
Pretty much everything you said is the polar opposite of what the committee actually does, both in theory and in practice. They've consistently said that they don't use the eye test -- they watch basketball, but they rely on the accomplishments on the court.
You're trying to find the best team (which, indcidentally, you don't need results for -- as the better team often loses -- and you don't need a committee for, as there are some very good predictive algorithms).
The committee is not trying to do that. They haven't been asked to do that. They're not bad at it -- you're just comparing apples to oranges. They are looking for the most deserving teams, and "deserving" includes being able to win in November too. Oh, and not losing in a cavernous "home" arena to a dreadful Northwestern team playing 45 minutes from campus.
I suspect you're taking this point of view because Michigan has been good in March recently.
It was the Oklahoma thing that set me off.
It was blatant.
It was like "Huh? What's even the point of a committee?"
The Oklahoma thing is absolutely shameless.
So..., since you evidently know what the committee actually does, my guess is that you are a committee member, an NCAA insider, or, the most probable guess—you have no actual knowledge of what the committee does except for what you read on the internet and watch on TV.
And BTW, the tournament's metric for who the best team is, game-by-game, is going to be who has the most points at the end of the game. Results will be needed.
March 12th, 2018 at 10:17 AM ^
The lack of understanding exhibited by your last comment makes up for the lack of wit exhibited by your first comment.
The NCAA tournament may be the single best example of the fact that the better team doesn't always win. We wouldn't have so many upsets -- and the tournament would be a lot less interesting -- if the better team always won.
March 12th, 2018 at 11:08 AM ^
You are missing the point Mortimer. The team that is standing at the end of tournament will be, by very definition, the BEST team.
It's not like football, where old guys who for the most part could never play, sit around, watch games, and apply some kind of fan-based eye test to decide who are the teams worthy of entry in the 4-team playoff. In basketball, there are enough teams in the tournament (68) to say the trophy is decided ON THE COURT (or on the field as it were).
I'm glad you're laughing; it's the best medicine for you.
March 12th, 2018 at 11:23 AM ^
I don't think you're likely ever going to understand this, but you're completely wrong.
The team that wins the tournament is the champion. They get to wear the rings and hang the banner. But they may not be the best team. The 19-1 Patriots were better than the 14-6 Giants. I wioudn't have thought that was particularly controversial, but I'm having to adjust my standards.
I hear what you are saying, and you have half a point; however, you can call the 19-1 Patriots the "better" team in your subjective view of who is "better", but the goal of any team in athletics is to win the championship, not to be subjectively considered the "best" team by observers.
The Giants were the best team that year. Look it up.
Rather than adjusting your standards, open your thinking a little.
Like so many things in life, it's all about the politics, rather than a more rational look at things such as you suggest above.
For whatever their reasons, the politics of the committee favored UNC, MSU, Duke, and some others, and so those schools got what they wanted because "early games count just as much."
"It's all about the kids" is disproven time and time again by almost anything connected to the NCAA,
March 12th, 2018 at 12:26 AM ^
March 12th, 2018 at 12:27 AM ^
at their best at tournament time, not the Maui Classic winners. I also don't care for how much conference strength is confered by these early games.
Particularly with all these freshmen that play now. Teams completely change over the course of a season.
It'd be a better system if you scattered the nonconference games throughout the year.
If the games played in the season's first month are going to count, then make them count. If not, call them preseason and start keeping score in February. Sure, improvement is better than no improvement, but it's hardly insane to base your tourney field on who had the best season of play as opposed to who is the most likely to make a run through the bracket.
I love how consistently Beilein's teams improve. But I'm also willing to tip my hat to coaches who have their squads ready to go in game 1. That, too, is quality coaching.