March Madness: Will Michigan make the tournament?

[bmw]

I know the selection show is just hours away, but what are your predictions here? ESPN has them projected to be in, but CBS has them projected to be the very first team out.

My gut says they don't make it. At 17-14, has a 14-loss team EVER received an at-large bid into the tournament?

However, Xavier (the last team in per CBS) is only 1 win better and have lost 8 of their last 10 games. That matchup alone, I would go with Michigan in and Xavier out.

[Matt]

They don't deserve it, but I think they'll be in.

[MotorCityRadioFreak]

Yep. Don’t deserve it and will probably be in the play in game and knocked out promptly. Might be thumped too.

[MotorCityRadioFreak]

Davidson got knocked off by Richmond. That may bump Michigan out.

[Matt]

Michigan is in as an 11 seed, just like UCLA last year.

[bmw]

That seed is unbelievable to me. That means they're not even in the last 4 in. Actually not even bottom 6 in, I think, given the multiple 12-seeds.

[Matt]

They clearly got a lot of credit for some of the big wins. This is a team that could replicate UCLA's run of last year or lose the first or second game. Gun to my head, they beat Colorado State and lose to Tennessee.

[MotorCityRadioFreak]

I really thought because of what happened with Juwan Howard that would also hurt them.
Rough road even if they beat CSU, Tennessee is in the wings.

[Honeyman]

USA TODAY:

Over-seeded
1. Michigan as a No. 11 seed. The Wolverines (17-14, 11-9 Big Ten) arguably didn't deserve to be in the field of 68. At worst they should've been in the play-in game and swapped with Big Ten foe Indiana, who beat Michigan in the Big Ten tourney. The selection committee is wildly inconsistent with whether it values Quadrant 1 wins (Rutgers had six) or NET score (Michigan's was in the 30s). Clearly, they were valuing the latter in this case.

[Matt]

USA TODAY:

Over-seeded
1. Michigan as a No. 11 seed. The Wolverines (17-14, 11-9 Big Ten) arguably didn't deserve to be in the field of 68. At worst they should've been in the play-in game and swapped with Big Ten foe Indiana, who beat Michigan in the Big Ten tourney. The selection committee is wildly inconsistent with whether it values Quadrant 1 wins (Rutgers had six) or NET score (Michigan's was in the 30s). Clearly, they were valuing the latter in this case.

Hmmm:

Despite all that, the Wolverines joined a short list of teams who didn’t finish at least four games over .500 to earn an at-large bid since 2000: Georgia (2001) and Michigan State (2021). While Michigan’s overall record wasn’t the greatest, its resume had more good than bad, like a No. 34 NET ranking, five Quad 1 wins and a top-10 schedule.

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/sport ... 024345001/

Something about glass houses...

[bmw]

Taking a closer look today at the bubble teams, I think that Texas A&M absolutely got robbed. They won 8 of their last 10 including 3 of 4 against Top 25 teams and finished with an overall record of 23-12.

Michigan, on the other hand, won 5 of their last 10, including 2 of 6 against Top 25 teams and finished with an overall record of 17-14.

Then, not only did Michigan make the tournament not being even one of the bottom 4 teams to get in, but Texas A&M was named the FOURTH replacement team, meaning that the selection committee determined that not only was Michigan the better team, but that there were at least SEVEN teams separating Michigan from A&M.

I never complain about the selection committee, but this one just reeks.

[Matt]

B1G is significantly better than the SEC...