NCAA Bracket Preview Show

[HolyBobpilgrimage]

13 hours ago, oly_10 said:

How can the BIG have 3 of the top 16 teams in this obviously down year? ?

Because...

*ahem*

 

"The top 3 are elite and the rest of the conference is in a down year (The bottom is trash)"

?

[HolyBobpilgrimage]

13 hours ago, jayschool said:

And the men's team is 4-4 on the road in conference. Three of the losses to top 12 teams. Fourth in overtime to an upper-half club.

 

Yeah, I know. We're no damn good. And Michigan is awesome!!

Is there a way I can vote with both a thanks and haha emoji?? 

[HolyBobpilgrimage]

13 hours ago, jimmykc said:

I will be the first to say that both KU and Duke are overrated here. Looks like past records may be considered by someone.

I guess we're in the know here, I don't know about you but with how much college hoops I've consumed this year... I think we've got an idea who's overrated and who to pick against and who to fear. Should be a fun March.?

[jimmykc]

Yes, it will be very difficult to maintain a decent bracket this year. The problem is there are no really "elite" teams, and small and mid-major programs also look a bit weak. At least twenty teams will have a legitimate shot to win the tourney depending on the draw and who gets on a hot streak. May be a good time to pick a "Cinderella" (cough, cough).

[HuskerFever]

5 hours ago, tcp said:

the reality is that I think right now we're a better basketball team objectively than Michigan. I trust that the committee will see it that way when this is over. 

 

If we're talking about what's provided on those team sheets for the selection committee, objectively I'd have to argue that Michigan has the better numbers.

 

And the way pundits have been leaning this entire season, they're in the tournament. So we're fighting for respect at this point. We might subjectively be a better team off paper, and we're going to need much more media attention or committee eyes on our games to make that case. All we can do at this point is continue to win and impress the committee.

[jayschool]

Being purely objective: 72-52.

[Ben Zobrist]

2 hours ago, jimmykc said:

Yes, it will be very difficult to maintain a decent bracket this year. The problem is there are no really "elite" teams, and small and mid-major programs also look a bit weak. At least twenty teams will have a legitimate shot to win the tourney depending on the draw and who gets on a hot streak. May be a good time to pick a "Cinderella" (cough, cough).

If we make it to the tournament, I really like our chances of beating anyone who doesn't have a dominant big man AND competent guard play (ie poor Happ is by himself). If you look at our losses, other than the early lose to St. Johns (we're almost a different team now), the only time we lose by double digits is when another team's center goes off, or at least scores 20 efficiently. I don't have the numbers on me right now, but Nick Ward, Isaac Haas, and the the Kansas center all had a hay day when they played us. 2 of those 3 games we lost by more than double digits. Anyone else feel the same way?

[Norm Peterson]

7 minutes ago, jayschool said:

Being purely objective: 72-52.

 

If my math is correct, that looks like a 20-point win.  That's blowout territory, if I remember correctly.

[TourneyBound]

1 minute ago, Ben Zobrist said:

If we make it to the tournament, I really like our chances of beating anyone who doesn't have a dominant big man AND competent guard play (ie poor Happ is by himself). If you look at our losses, other than the early lose to St. Johns (we're almost a different team now), the only time we lose by double digits is when another team's center goes off, or at least scores 20 efficiently. I don't have the numbers on me right now, but Nick Ward, Isaac Haas, and the the Kansas center all had a hay day when they played us. 2 of those 3 games we lost by more than double digits. Anyone else feel the same way?

or a big skilled 4 man like Tyler Cook from Iowa would be a concern for us in my opinion.

[HuskerFever]

9 minutes ago, Norm Peterson said:

 

If my math is correct, that looks like a 20-point win.  That's blowout territory, if I remember correctly.

 

But it was at home. And the Big Ten is down this year. So it really just counts as a neutral Pac-12 win, really. 

[jayschool]

21 minutes ago, Ben Zobrist said:

If we make it to the tournament, I really like our chances of beating anyone who doesn't have a dominant big man AND competent guard play (ie poor Happ is by himself). If you look at our losses, other than the early lose to St. Johns (we're almost a different team now), the only time we lose by double digits is when another team's center goes off, or at least scores 20 efficiently. I don't have the numbers on me right now, but Nick Ward, Isaac Haas, and the the Kansas center all had a hay day when they played us. 2 of those 3 games we lost by more than double digits. Anyone else feel the same way?

Or when we play a top 10 team on the road in the Big Ten. That's always a problem for us (and just about everybody else).

[hhcmatt]

24 minutes ago, ConkintheCorner said:

or a big skilled 4 man like Tyler Cook from Iowa would be a concern for us in my opinion.

 

When a team presents us with both a high scoring post and good 3pt shooting this year we are opting to take away the 3pt shooting.

[Silverbacked1]

It seems when a team we play scores more points than us we have trouble winning those games too. 

[tcp]

7 hours ago, HuskerFever said:

 

If we're talking about what's provided on those team sheets for the selection committee, objectively I'd have to argue that Michigan has the better numbers.

 

And the way pundits have been leaning this entire season, they're in the tournament. So we're fighting for respect at this point. We might subjectively be a better team off paper, and we're going to need much more media attention or committee eyes on our games to make that case. All we can do at this point is continue to win and impress the committee.

 

we're not, which is why i used the words I did. I'm suggesting that if someone were two watch the recent games of both teams, they'd likely conclude that at this time we're better than the Wolverines. That's pretty much all I said and all I meant. 

 

Will that happen? No idea. I ain't in the room. But if word on the street is correct--not to mention previous committees claiming to watch a ton of games from bubble teams--then I'll argue that we'll appear better than Michigan at this time. That might not hold up. And then I can revise my opinion if that changes. 

[royalfan]

I have little confidence that the committee watching games is a good thing for the bracket being correct.  I don't think they have much of a clue what to be watching for.  Probably get overly biased or not by shots going in.  

Edited February 12, 2018 by royalfan

[49r]

41 minutes ago, tcp said:

 

we're not, which is why i used the words I did. I'm suggesting that if someone were two watch the recent games of both teams, they'd likely conclude that at this time we're better than the Wolverines. That's pretty much all I said and all I meant. 

 

Will that happen? No idea. I ain't in the room. But if word on the street is correct--not to mention previous committees claiming to watch a ton of games from bubble teams--then I'll argue that we'll appear better than Michigan at this time. That might not hold up. And then I can revise my opinion if that changes. 

 

I'm not so sure of that.  Apart from their game against us, Michigan has played VERY solid ball.  Michigan has 13 wins out of their last 17 games with two of those losses vs Purdue - one of which they probably should have won at home.  Nebraska's a good, not great team but there's really nothing remarkable to the objective unbiased viewer (12-5 in the same stretch against a much softer schedule).  IMO, despite head to head results, Michigan is pretty clearly a better team than Nebraska.  It's not even that close really.

 

A better comparison, again in my opinion is Nebraska/Penn State.

[tcp]

3 hours ago, 49r said:

 

I'm not so sure of that.  Apart from their game against us, Michigan has played VERY solid ball.  Michigan has 13 wins out of their last 17 games with two of those losses vs Purdue - one of which they probably should have won at home.  Nebraska's a good, not great team but there's really nothing remarkable to the objective unbiased viewer (12-5 in the same stretch against a much softer schedule).  IMO, despite head to head results, Michigan is pretty clearly a better team than Nebraska.  It's not even that close really.

 

A better comparison, again in my opinion is Nebraska/Penn State.

 

Blutto Blutarsky: "What the hell is this, a Michigan board! Come on!"   Perfectly fair position. I've watched both play lately and I think we're better. But we'll see, won't we? Oh yes, we will see. (insert maniacal laugh here, but not too maniacal).