MBB: Michigan 80, Michigan State 75

[devildeac]

UM up 77-73 with 17 seconds to go at MSU. Probably nothing to see here. Carry on.

[duke4ever19]

That Michigan team is making our resume look even better.

[devildeac]

Final: Michigan (or M*chigan for Mr. Corey;)) 80, Sparty 75.

[SupaDave]

UM up 77-73 with 17 seconds to go at MSU. Probably nothing to see here. Carry on.

Lots to see! The rankings will have quite a different look on Monday...

[ElSid]

McGary might have been playing hurt early in the season? No offense to him, but taking a damaged player out of the line up might have helped them.

Sparty can't feel too bad, staying in the game with some key guys out. Both teams will be very tough in March.

Not the same Stauskas who came to Cameron.

[burnspbesq]

Not the same Stauskas who came to Cameron.

Jay Triano, the Canadian national team coach, has to be going crazy thinking about getting Stauskas, Tyler Ennis, Kevin Pangos, and Olivier Hanlan into the senior team. And then there's that Wiggins kid, who might be decent.

They're going to be a pain in the neck for the next decade or so.

[dukelifer]

Jay Triano, the Canadian national team coach, has to be going crazy thinking about getting Stauskas, Tyler Ennis, Kevin Pangos, and Olivier Hanlan into the senior team. And then there's that Wiggins kid, who might be decent.

They're going to be a pain in the neck for the next decade or so.

Stauskas can really shoot and has good size. He will play in the NBA. Ennis is impressive- very poised and knows how to get to the rim. Not sure of his outside shooting. Syracuse is not great but they will win most close games because if that kid. Wiggins is an odd player. Clearly he is gifted but not great at any one thing. Stauskas plays with swagger. Wiggins looks like he wants to hide. In the NBA you need to have supreme confidence or you will struggle. Not yet sold on him yet.

[weezie]

Both teams will be very tough in March.


I'm convinced the arizona wildcat is a very might foe indeed, whether or not they play that tough of a regular season schedule.
Of course, that's not a brilliant observation but sparty may not have the legs and wolverino doesn't have the coach.

[CDu]

That Michigan team is making our resume look even better.

Well, sort of. It's important to point out that:
- The Michigan team that played last night is an entirely different team than the one that we faced. Stauskas is again healthy (bad ankle for our game) and McGary is out.
- The Michigan State team that played last night is not nearly a top-10 caliber team. They were playing without two starters: Payne (sprained foot) and Dawson (broken hand). They were the Spartans' top two rebounders, two of their top-four scorers, and their only interior scorers.

On a team with as little depth as MSU, those are HUGE losses. That leaves them with Appling and Harris and no interior quality, so they weren't in position to punish Michigan's lack of quality inside.

This game really has no relationship to the game we played against Michigan a month and a half ago. It only makes our resume look better if you ignore that fact.

[duke4ever19]

Well, sort of. It's important to point out that:
- The Michigan team that played last night is an entirely different team than the one that we faced. Stauskas is again healthy (bad ankle for our game) and McGary is out.
- The Michigan State team that played last night is not nearly a top-10 caliber team. They were playing without two starters: Payne (sprained foot) and Dawson (broken hand). They were the Spartans' top two rebounders, two of their top-four scorers, and their only interior scorers.

On a team with as little depth as MSU, those are HUGE losses. That leaves them with Appling and Harris and no interior quality, so they weren't in position to punish Michigan's lack of quality inside.

This game really has no relationship to the game we played against Michigan a month and a half ago. It only makes our resume look better if you ignore that fact.

I think by March that team will be put on a list of "good wins" for Duke as the talking heads debate what seed we deserve.

[Ultrarunner]

Well, sort of. It's important to point out that:
- The Michigan team that played last night is an entirely different team than the one that we faced. Stauskas is again healthy (bad ankle for our game) and McGary is out.

This game really has no relationship to the game we played against Michigan a month and a half ago. It only makes our resume look better if you ignore that fact.

Well, yes and no. This Duke team might be a bit different from the one that Michigan played, too. Who's improved more? That's where it might get interesting.

[pfrduke]

Well, sort of. It's important to point out that:
- The Michigan team that played last night is an entirely different team than the one that we faced. Stauskas is again healthy (bad ankle for our game) and McGary is out.
- The Michigan State team that played last night is not nearly a top-10 caliber team. They were playing without two starters: Payne (sprained foot) and Dawson (broken hand). They were the Spartans' top two rebounders, two of their top-four scorers, and their only interior scorers.

On a team with as little depth as MSU, those are HUGE losses. That leaves them with Appling and Harris and no interior quality, so they weren't in position to punish Michigan's lack of quality inside.

This game really has no relationship to the game we played against Michigan a month and a half ago. It only makes our resume look better if you ignore that fact.

Regardless of whether or not the Michigan team we played was the "same" - something that's relatively impossible to assess, even if the roster remained identical - there's no dispute that our resume is helped by having a team we beat go on a winning streak, beat 3 top-10 opponents in a row, including 2 on the road. All of the caveats you mention are going to be largely forgotten by pundits and the committee in March (and, if anything, the presence of McGary in our game will likely be viewed more to our credit than our detriment). We thought, at the time, that a win over Michigan might not even be a win over a top 25 opponent by the end of the season - that concern is looking unnecessary now.

[bbosbbos]

Good question.

On the other hand, talking about MSU. It is a very interesting team this season. They do not have a very strong freshman class. 4 returned starters are well trained but talent level is relatively low. You may say Harris and Payne are as good as advised. The rest of the team is just average. MSU is good because of Izzo's coaching and team experience. Peak at the early season. With or without injuries, they do not have a high ceiling and stay at the same level. By position, there is not a good center after Nix's gone. PF Payne is a top player in the nation. Guard Harris is good. PG Appling is not consistent at all. The rest of the team? Bench? Just average. I see they go down in B1G with 4 more loses, @wisconsin,, @michigan, 2x Iowa. They will be a 5 L team and seeded as a weak #1 or strong #2, out before FF. I will be very happy if Duke plays MSU or Michigan in March. :p


Well, yes and no. This Duke team might be a bit different from the one that Michigan played, too. Who's improved more? That's where it might get interesting.

[vick]

Regardless of whether or not the Michigan team we played was the "same" - something that's relatively impossible to assess, even if the roster remained identical - there's no dispute that our resume is helped by having a team we beat go on a winning streak, beat 3 top-10 opponents in a row, including 2 on the road. All of the caveats you mention are going to be largely forgotten by pundits and the committee in March (and, if anything, the presence of McGary in our game will likely be viewed more to our credit than our detriment). We thought, at the time, that a win over Michigan might not even be a win over a top 25 opponent by the end of the season - that concern is looking unnecessary now.

Interestingly, we now have as many wins over top-25 Sagarin teams as anyone, with 4, equaling Arizona and Michigan.

[CDu]

I think by March that team will be put on a list of "good wins" for Duke as the talking heads debate what seed we deserve.

Sure. But this particular win just isn't one of them. MSU without Payne and Dawson isn't a very good team.


Well, yes and no. This Duke team might be a bit different from the one that Michigan played, too. Who's improved more? That's where it might get interesting.

I completely agree, but that's irrelevant to whether or not Michigan's win over a highly-depleted MSU team should have any effect on our resume.


Regardless of whether or not the Michigan team we played was the "same" - something that's relatively impossible to assess, even if the roster remained identical - there's no dispute that our resume is helped by having a team we beat go on a winning streak, beat 3 top-10 opponents in a row, including 2 on the road. All of the caveats you mention are going to be largely forgotten by pundits and the committee in March (and, if anything, the presence of McGary in our game will likely be viewed more to our credit than our detriment). We thought, at the time, that a win over Michigan might not even be a win over a top 25 opponent by the end of the season - that concern is looking unnecessary now.

My point is not that Michigan is not helping our resume with their recent stretch. My point was that this particular top-10 opponent they faced was not really a top-10 team. They probably weren't even top-25 quality. The win at Wisconsin win was very nice. The win over Iowa appears to be very nice. But this particular win doesn't tell us very much, unless all you care about is the name on the front of the jersey and not the names of the players actually playing.

You folks are focusing on the "is Michigan the same team that they were when they faced us?" and ignoring the more important part of my post: this MSU team that Michigan faced is not nearly the same team that had put together a top-10 resume.

[Wander]

Well, sort of. It's important to point out that:
- The Michigan team that played last night is an entirely different team than the one that we faced. Stauskas is again healthy (bad ankle for our game) and McGary is out.
- The Michigan State team that played last night is not nearly a top-10 caliber team. They were playing without two starters: Payne (sprained foot) and Dawson (broken hand). They were the Spartans' top two rebounders, two of their top-four scorers, and their only interior scorers.


As to the second point, I guess that's fair. I agree with most people here that this isn't going to play an important role in the selection committee's thought process, especially if Michigan wins the Big 10, and I sort of wish college basketball would stop taking injuries into account in any fashion, but fine. But the first point is totally lame. Stauskas played 34 minutes against us and McGary dropped 15 and 14 on us.

Besides, even if an injured Michigan State team is borderline top 25 quality, a true road win against a borderline top 25 opponent is a quality win.

[CDu]

As to the second point, I guess that's fair. I agree with most people here that this isn't going to play an important role in the selection committee's thought process, especially if Michigan wins the Big 10, and I sort of wish college basketball would stop taking injuries into account in any fashion, but fine.

You GUESS that's fair? Why do you wish they would stop taking injuries into account? How is that NOT relevant? If we played a game without Parker, Jefferson, Hood, Sulaimon, and Cook, would you not discount us losing that game? Would you consider that game relevant in assessing our chances of winning a subsequent game with everyone healthy? If so, I would call you crazy.

That's admittedly an extreme example of what I'm talking about with Michigan State just to illustrate the ridiculousness of a statement that injuries should be considered irrelevant. MSU was playing without either of their good frontcourt players. They are a very ordinary team without Payne and Dawson: they then have just Harris and Appling and a bunch of backup-quality players.


Besides, even if an injured Michigan State team is borderline top 25 quality, a true road win against a borderline top 25 opponent is a quality win.

That's the thing: I don't even think they're top-25 quality without those two guys. So I don't think it's really a quality win.

You are right that folks will (mistakenly) view this as a quality win come March. That doesn't make them correct.

The Wisconsin win was a high-quality win. The Iowa win was a high-quality win. This was just a "meh" win.

[TexHawk]

Stauskas can really shoot and has good size. He will play in the NBA. Ennis is impressive- very poised and knows how to get to the rim. Not sure of his outside shooting. Syracuse is not great but they will win most close games because if that kid. Wiggins is an odd player. Clearly he is gifted but not great at any one thing. Stauskas plays with swagger. Wiggins looks like he wants to hide. In the NBA you need to have supreme confidence or you will struggle. Not yet sold on him yet.

Just want to note that 5 of KU's last 7 games have been against teams in the Top 30 of AdjD. When finally given the chance to play a poor defensive team, Wiggins went for 27-5-5 last night. Most of the other top players in CBB have had a few TCU-like opponents to pad stats. And before you say that he's been beating up on poor teams in general... He has now scored over 20 points in six games, and four of those were against Top 25 teams (Duke, Colorado pre-injury, Florida, and Kansas State). That doesn't include his 17 pt, 19 rb game against Top 10 (at the time) Iowa State. Outside of a rather glaring 3 point performance against OSU last weekend, "hiding" isn't the word I would use.


Sorry, not every thread on here needs to turn into a "TexHawk defending Wiggins" thread. I clicked here because my wife went to MSU, and I was at the game last night. I think we would have taken a lot more away from that game if MSU had pulled it out without Payne/Dawson. Like, "MSU might be scary good". As it is, Michigan's record will probably have a * next to it for a little while. At least until the return game if those guys can play. I do like that MSU has a chance to build some depth. Costello was a gigantic stiff last year, and it looks now like he will be serviceable, possibly above-average by the time he graduates.

And for the 12th time in my marriage, I just pray that MSU is far far away from KU in the tournament bracket.

[Wander]

You GUESS that's fair? Why do you wish they would stop taking injuries into account? How is that NOT relevant? If we played a game without Parker, Jefferson, Hood, Sulaimon, and Cook, would you not discount us losing that game? Would you consider that game relevant in assessing our chances of winning a subsequent game with everyone healthy? If so, I would call you crazy.

That's admittedly an extreme example of what I'm talking about with Michigan State just to illustrate the ridiculousness of a statement that injuries should be considered irrelevant. MSU was playing without either of their good frontcourt players. They are a very ordinary team without Payne and Dawson: they then have just Harris and Appling and a bunch of backup-quality players.

Note that I am talking about the official purposes of selection and seeding, not personal opinions of the quality of a team.

If we were missing all five of our starters and lost to Georgia Tech or whoever, then yes, I would want us punished for losing that game. Here's why:

1. The selection committee knows about the Kyrie Irving injuries of the world and such, but do they know about the backup center for Montana State or whoever that was out at the beginning of conference play? I'm a little skeptical.
2. Sort of a subset to point 1, different teams publicize injuries to different levels. I don't want to reward the whiners of the sport like Roy Williams.
3. It's unfair to opponents of injured teams, who are effectively put into a no-win situation.
4. The selection committee giving passes for injuries effectively punishes teams with good depth. A small part of being a really good team is being able to still play well without an injured player.
5. Your line of reasoning applies equally well to suspended players, and it's not hard to come up with a realistic scenario where a team is effectively rewarded for Leslie McDonald or whoever breaking rules.

Again, of course if Duke was missing some starters and lost a game, and then had those starters return a few games later, it is perfectly reasonable to personally discount that loss in filling out your bracket or deciding how good you think the team is. But for the reasons I listed above, I think the fairest thing to do would be for the selection committee to count that loss anyway - which I think is exactly how every other team sport deals with this issue.

[duke4ever19]

Sure. But this particular win just isn't one of them. MSU without Payne and Dawson isn't a very good team.

Regardless of what you think or I think, our Michigian win will be a "good win" when tournament time comes around, if Michigan keeps playing relatively well.

The tournament committee will look at our wins and losses and how those teams faired vs other teams and give us a seeding. They simply don't have the time to dredge the minutiae that posters on this board relish (Yes, it is fun conversation for this blog, I'll admit.). You are giving the committee too much credit for being as detailed as you are about the Duke basketball team. They have 70-80 teams to consider.

Yes, there are hundreds of situations that occur during the season that we could argue strengthens or weakens a win vs a particular team (For instance: Was the team Duke played complete? Were they experiencing off-court drama ala UNC that maybe caused them to play distracted/less than their best? Were we playing our complete squad? Were there any illnesses that made our win less than it could be? etc etc.).

At the end of the day, yes, you are right... Michigan wasn't full strength. However, my point is that it simply will not matter. It will be considered a good win if Michigan continues to play well.

[CDu]

Note that I am talking about the official purposes of selection and seeding, not personal opinions of the quality of a team.

If we were missing all five of our starters and lost to Georgia Tech or whoever, then yes, I would want us punished for losing that game. Here's why:

1. The selection committee knows about the Kyrie Irving injuries of the world and such, but do they know about the backup center for Montana State or whoever that was out at the beginning of conference play? I'm a little skeptical.
2. Sort of a subset to point 1, different teams publicize injuries to different levels. I don't want to reward the whiners of the sport like Roy Williams.
3. It's unfair to opponents of injured teams, who are effectively put into a no-win situation.
4. The selection committee giving passes for injuries effectively punishes teams with good depth. A small part of being a really good team is being able to still play well without an injured player.
5. Your line of reasoning applies equally well to suspended players, and it's not hard to come up with a realistic scenario where a team is effectively rewarded for Leslie McDonald or whoever breaking rules.

Again, of course if Duke was missing some starters and lost a game, and then had those starters return a few games later, it is perfectly reasonable to personally discount that loss in filling out your bracket or deciding how good you think the team is. But for the reasons I listed above, I think the fairest thing to do would be for the selection committee to count that loss anyway - which I think is exactly how every other team sport deals with this issue.

1. That is basically irrelevant. Whether or not "Montana St or whoever" has their best player isn't likely to affect the end result. Injuries that DO substantially affect the likelihood of a win or loss matter, and they should be considered.
2. Again, not relevant. I don't care the reason for the absence. If the player is injured, if they got suspended, if a relative died, it all means the same thing: that player didn't play. I am willing to buy the "if they played, they are healthy" argument. I am NOT willing to extend that to players who didn't play.
3. It is no more unfair then crediting the opponent with the same quality win as a team that beat the same team but at full-strength, or (worse) crediting it as better than a close loss to that full-strength team. We don't complain that it is a no-win situation when we play a D-2 school. It is just reality that the amount of credit you should get be consistent with the quality of opponent that you face on the floor.
4. I want the team to be measured by what it is come tourney time. If that healthy, less deep team is better than a deeper team, that should be acknowledged (assuming both teams are healthy come tourney time). Unless you are going to make that team play shorthanded in the tourney, you shouldn't penalize them for being shorthanded for some game(s) earlier.
5. Yes, McDonald could qualify (depending on whether you think his return has helped, I guess). But again: it isn't rewarding anthing. It is acknowledging the reality that a key starter was missing. Teams should get credit only for what they actually faced; not what they could have faced.

I believe that ignoring clearly-significant absences is much worse than taking those absences into consideration. It really isn't that hard to take into account, and to not do so just seems unnecssarily lazy.

[CDu]

Regardless of what you think or I think, our Michigian win will be a "good win" when tournament time comes around, if Michigan keeps playing relatively well.

The tournament committee will look at our wins and losses and how those teams faired vs other teams and give us a seeding. They simply don't have the time to dredge the minutiae that posters on this board relish (Yes, it is fun conversation for this blog, I'll admit.). You are giving the committee too much credit for being as detailed as you are about the Duke basketball team. They have 70-80 teams to consider.

Yes, there are hundreds of situations that occur during the season that we could argue strengthens or weakens a win vs a particular team (For instance: Was the team Duke played complete? Were they experiencing off-court drama ala UNC that maybe caused them to play distracted/less than their best? Were we playing our complete squad? Were there any illnesses that made our win less than it could be? etc etc.).

At the end of the day, yes, you are right... Michigan wasn't full strength. However, my point is that it simply will not matter. It will be considered a good win if Michigan continues to play well.

Again, you are focusing on the Michigan side. I am talking about the MSU side. The win in question is not our win over Michigan. It is their win over MSU that I said wasn't quality. I fully agree that our win over Michigan is a quality win. But that was true even before the MSU game, and the win over a depleted MSU team shouldn't change the quality of our win.

And I am not saying what I think the committee will or won't do, but what they should do. They should not consider Michigan's win over a very depleted MSU team to be a quality win. Whether they will or not is another topic.

[Wander]

1. That is basically irrelevant. Whether or not "Montana St or whoever" has their best player isn't likely to affect the end result. Injuries that DO substantially affect the likelihood of a win or loss matter, and they should be considered.


I'm not talking about the small conference opponents of Michigan or Michigan State. There are 68 teams in the field. Do you really think the committee knows the injury situations of not just LIU Brooklyn, North Carolina A&T, James Madison... but all of their dozens of opponents? How do you know if somewhere along the way, LIU Brooklyn won a game it otherwise wouldn't have because their opponent was missing a key player? This could be the difference between a 15 seed and a 16 seed, or a real 16 seed and a BS play-in game for some team out there (or, equivalently, between Duke playing Lehigh versus a different team, for example).



4. I want the team to be measured by what it is come tourney time. If that healthy, less deep team is better than a deeper team, that should be acknowledged (assuming both teams are healthy come tourney time). Unless you are going to make that team play shorthanded in the tourney, you shouldn't penalize them for being shorthanded for some game(s) earlier.


This is probably the big difference - I want teams measured by what they actually did during the entirety of the regular season. Again, this is consistent with just about every other sport - if Derrick Rose were to announce he could play basketball in April, I wouldn't want the NBA to step in and award the Bulls the 3 seed in the East.



5. Yes, McDonald could qualify (depending on whether you think his return has helped, I guess). But again: it isn't rewarding anthing. It is acknowledging the reality that a key starter was missing. Teams should get credit only for what they actually faced; not what they could have faced.


It absolutely is rewarding something. If Marcus Paige is caught cheating on a test this afternoon and suspended against Clemson, and then Carolina loses the game in which they would otherwise be favored in, discounting the loss is effectively rewarding UNC for breaking rules. I understand that's not your intention, but that's the end result. Here's a question: let's say my above situation happens, and then UNC finished tied with FSU for the last bye spot in the ACC tournament, but FSU has the tiebreaker. Should the ACC step in and put UNC above FSU, because they probably would have finished one game ahead if they had all their players every conference game? And if your answer is "no, they shouldn't," then how is that different than doing the same thing on a national level?

[tommy]

Michigan State didn't lose that game because it was beaten in the paint, where Payne and Dawson are effective. They lost because they couldn't contain Stauskas, LaVert, and Walton on the perimeter and in transition. Costello played well inside, 9 points and 8 boards. They had 3 other guys in there banging too and the 4 of them combined for 19 points and 13 rebounds, outplaying UM's inside duo of Horford and Morgan. Of course they missed Payne and Dawson, but MSU played pretty well, the subs contributed, and their crowd was raucous. Definitely a quality win, and should be considered as such by the committee, for the Wolverines.

[duke4ever19]

They should not consider Michigan's win over a very depleted MSU team to be a quality win. Whether they will or not is another topic.

Ah, but you know as well as I know that they will consider it a good win when March rolls around. Who played or didn't play will only be a topic for MSU and UM bball fans to quarrel about on their respective forums. That is my point.

[CDu]

I'm not talking about the small conference opponents of Michigan or Michigan State. There are 68 teams in the field. Do you really think the committee knows the injury situations of not just LIU Brooklyn, North Carolina A&T, James Madison... but all of their dozens of opponents? How do you know if somewhere along the way, LIU Brooklyn won a game it otherwise wouldn't have because their opponent was missing a key player? This could be the difference between a 15 seed and a 16 seed, or a real 16 seed and a BS play-in game for some team out there (or, equivalently, between Duke playing Lehigh versus a different team, for example).

It would not be at all hard to flag games in which teams played without key players. I am no programming whiz, but I could easily write a program to go through each team's roster, identify the players that play X minutes per game, then go through a dataset of box scores and flag any games in which one of those key players did not play. One could easily include multiple flags (to account for the degree of missingness such as number of such players missing). It would take maybe a day or two for an intern or group of interns to compile the box score data from all 75-80 of the potential tourney teams into a data set.

From there, the committee would have the full resume of each team, including flags for games with teams missing key players. If you see a result and that result has a flag, you examine it. Otherwise, you move on. It would take so little additional effort and we'd have so much more accurate a reflection of teams' actual resumes. Would it be perfect? No. But it would be MUCH better than simply ignoring it and throwing the baby out with the bath water.

I'm less concerned about whether a team gets a #15 or a #16 seed. Ultimately, that difference is almost impossible to differentiate. I'm more concerned about one or two misrepresented "quality" wins bumping a team up from a #6 or #7 seed to a #3 or #4 seed, or vice versa with a team dropping because of a few losses without their key players. And that sort of thing can certainly happen if we just ignore injuries as though they didn't happen.


This is probably the big difference - I want teams measured by what they actually did during the entirety of the regular season. Again, this is consistent with just about every other sport - if Derrick Rose were to announce he could play basketball in April, I wouldn't want the NBA to step in and award the Bulls the 3 seed in the East.

But we already have a substantially different system in college basketball than any other sport. All of the other sports seed teams purely on record. College basketball seeds teams based on a committee voting on the merits of those teams. So unless you want to throw that system out and just take the teams with the best records, I'm not sure this is a reasonable argument.

If your goal is instead to get the best teams into the tournament (which is the point of the tournament committee), I would argue that it makes more since to actually try to assess who the best teams are based on what they actually did.


It absolutely is rewarding something. If Marcus Paige is caught cheating on a test this afternoon and suspended against Clemson, and then Carolina loses the game in which they would otherwise be favored in, discounting the loss is effectively rewarding UNC for breaking rules. I understand that's not your intention, but that's the end result. Here's a question: let's say my above situation happens, and then UNC finished tied with FSU for the last bye spot in the ACC tournament, but FSU has the tiebreaker. Should the ACC step in and put UNC above FSU, because they probably would have finished one game ahead if they had all their players every conference game? And if your answer is "no, they shouldn't," then how is that different than doing the same thing on a national level?

It is neither rewarding nor penalizing anything in that game. It would just be acknowledging reality. And again, what you are suggesting is penalizing other teams. Let's take your UNC/Clemson analogy. Say Paige is out 3 weeks, but returns to the lineup against FSU. In that game, he blows up for 35 and UNC wins. If Clemson beat a short-handed UNC and then got into the tournament over, say, FSU, in large part due to that game, how would that be fair? So you'd rather artificially reward Clemson and artificially penalize FSU just to avoid kind of (but not really) rewarding UNC?

And as I note above, your scenario is an apples and oranges comparison. ACC tourney seeding is done strictly on W/L results. There is no attempt made to assess the quality of the team. They just ignorantly rank teams based on record. So of course they won't adjust for injury. If you want to just seed NCAA tourney teams by record, fine. But if you're going to seed teams based on any qualitative judgement, then it would make sense to make that qualitative judgement as informed as possible. And that would include considering whether or not some key games were played without key players.

[CDu]

Michigan State didn't lose that game because it was beaten in the paint, where Payne and Dawson are effective. They lost because they couldn't contain Stauskas, LaVert, and Walton on the perimeter and in transition. Costello played well inside, 9 points and 8 boards. They had 3 other guys in there banging too and the 4 of them combined for 19 points and 13 rebounds, outplaying UM's inside duo of Horford and Morgan. Of course they missed Payne and Dawson, but MSU played pretty well, the subs contributed, and their crowd was raucous. Definitely a quality win, and should be considered as such by the committee, for the Wolverines.

Simply saying that they didn't lose the game inside is shortsighted analysis in this case. Payne and Dawson average 26.4 points and 16.6 rebounds per game by themselves. MSU as a team gets 35+ ppg and 25+ rpg from their frontcourt. And Payne and Dawson provide much better defense than Costello, Gauna, Kaminski, and Schilling. Getting 19 and 13 rebounds is a big step down from what they usually get from their frontcourt.

So while it may be true that they didn't lose the game inside, the absence of Payne and Dawson kept them from winning the game inside. That lack of balance makes them a mediocre team.

Did they play admirably without their interior players? Sure. That doesn't mean that the absence of Payne and Dawson wasn't the difference in that game.

And before someone suggests it: missing McGary is an entirely different situation. He's done for the year. Michigan will be judged on their resume which was largely created without him. And that will be a fairly accurate reflection because he won't be playing in the tourney.

And again, I am not suggesting our win over Michigan wasn't a quality win. It was. It was at the time, and it was before the MSU game, and it still is. I'm just saying that the win over MSU by Michigan wasn't really a high-quality win. It will probably get viewed as a high-quality win by the committee, mainly because they're somewhat lazy and inconsistent on things like this. That doesn't make it right.

[Wander]

Simply saying that they didn't lose the game inside is shortsighted analysis in this case. Payne and Dawson average 26.4 points and 16.6 rebounds per game by themselves. MSU as a team gets 35+ ppg and 25+ rpg from their frontcourt. And Payne and Dawson provide much better defense than Costello, Gauna, Kaminski, and Schilling. Getting 19 and 13 rebounds is a big step down from what they usually get from their frontcourt.

So while it may be true that they didn't lose the game inside, the absence of Payne and Dawson kept them from winning the game inside. That lack of balance makes them a mediocre team.

Did they play admirably without their interior players? Sure. That doesn't mean that the absence of Payne and Dawson wasn't the difference in that game.


Your and tommy's posts are a perfect example of the imperfection in injury considerations that I'm talking about. You're both intelligent basketball observers who completely disagree about the quality of the MSU win by Michigan, and I suspect you could have pages of posts debating it. I'd be on the side of: it's still a road win against one of the best coaches in the sport with a lottery pick guard, but that's not really the point. My point is that while there's no perfect way to deal with injuries, the idea of the committee giving passes for teams with missing players is far more imperfect than you think it is, and the unfairness it introduces is biased (on average) in favor of teams with higher profiles, teams with players that get suspensions, and teams with poor depth. I admit that my favored system of ignoring missing players also winds up being unfair to some teams, as your FSU/Clemson example illustrates, but it (again, on average) distributes the unfairness randomly in regards to the profile of the team, and in favor of teams without players who broke rules or have good depth. So given the two systems, I think it's more fair to err on the side of the imperfect system that uses game results than the imperfect system that uses thought experiments about how good Michigan State is without Payne and Dawson. I suspect our disagreement stems from just how imperfect we find that latter system.

[tommy]

Your and tommy's posts are a perfect example of the imperfection in injury considerations that I'm talking about. You're both intelligent basketball observers who completely disagree about the quality of the MSU win by Michigan, and I suspect you could have pages of posts debating it. I'd be on the side of: it's still a road win against one of the best coaches in the sport with a lottery pick guard, but that's not really the point. My point is that while there's no perfect way to deal with injuries, the idea of the committee giving passes for teams with missing players is far more imperfect than you think it is, and the unfairness it introduces is biased (on average) in favor of teams with higher profiles, teams with players that get suspensions, and teams with poor depth. I admit that my favored system of ignoring missing players also winds up being unfair to some teams, as your FSU/Clemson example illustrates, but it (again, on average) distributes the unfairness randomly in regards to the profile of the team, and in favor of teams without players who broke rules or have good depth. So given the two systems, I think it's more fair to err on the side of the imperfect system that uses game results than the imperfect system that uses thought experiments about how good Michigan State is without Payne and Dawson. I suspect our disagreement stems from just how imperfect we find that latter system.

Great post, Wander.

While I disagree with CDu on the quality of Michigan's win, I don't necessarily disagree -- in principle -- with his desire to have the committee assess the true quality of wins in assessing teams' resumes. Including the effect of injuries. I think they should try to do that when they can. But the problem as I see it is this: Let's say you're going to discount wins (or losses) when a key player doesn't play. There are so many other factors that can affect the ability of a player or team to play its best, factors that are much less identifiable and/or quantifiable to the committee, but in all fairness should be considered by them if they're going to be considering games missed due to injuries by key players.

Examples:

Key player is injured, but plays anyway. He plays well but the team loses. How to count it? Let's say same situation but he plays poorly and the team loses. How to count it?

Next: a situation like the Michigan-MSU game as discussed by among others, CDu and me. We disagree about the effect of the players missing the game. I think it really didn't hurt Michigan State that much, not enough to cost them the game due to the other guys stepping up pretty well and the manner in which the opponent attacked the Spartans and beat them. CDu disagrees, thinking their absence was decisive. How would the committee deal with such a disagreement in assessing the quality of Michigan's win?

Next: key player suffered a death in the family the night before the big game, plays anyway, and is terrible, almost assuredly because his mind is elsewhere. Discount the loss?
What about if his longtime girlfriend broke up with him the day of the game and he is abysmal on the floor, as his mind is elsewhere. The school somehow lets the committee know this information. Discount the loss?

How bout one that hits closer to home: The coach's brother, to whom he is extremely close, passes away unexpectedly in mid-season. The coach, by his own admission, is distracted, loses focus on the team and the first few games after the death, is "knocked back" and fails to prepare the team properly. Should any losses they suffer be discounted because the team in some respects was essentially missing its coach?

Now sure, you could draw lines and say "on-court stuff only" or "fully missed games only" in terms of discounting wins and losses. But those seem rather arbitrary. These other types of situations can affect the winning and losing of game(s) just as much as missing a game due to injury.

So I think by discounting wins and losses due to injuries like Payne's and Dawson's, you're introducing not only something highly subjective into the process, but you're asking for the introduction of a real slippery slope as well.

[CDu]

Your and tommy's posts are a perfect example of the imperfection in injury considerations that I'm talking about. You're both intelligent basketball observers who completely disagree about the quality of the MSU win by Michigan, and I suspect you could have pages of posts debating it. I'd be on the side of: it's still a road win against one of the best coaches in the sport with a lottery pick guard, but that's not really the point. My point is that while there's no perfect way to deal with injuries, the idea of the committee giving passes for teams with missing players is far more imperfect than you think it is, and the unfairness it introduces is biased (on average) in favor of teams with higher profiles, teams with players that get suspensions, and teams with poor depth. I admit that my favored system of ignoring missing players also winds up being unfair to some teams, as your FSU/Clemson example illustrates, but it (again, on average) distributes the unfairness randomly in regards to the profile of the team, and in favor of teams without players who broke rules or have good depth. So given the two systems, I think it's more fair to err on the side of the imperfect system that uses game results than the imperfect system that uses thought experiments about how good Michigan State is without Payne and Dawson. I suspect our disagreement stems from just how imperfect we find that latter system.

First of all, let me apologize for my use of the term "crazy" in an earlier post. That was inappropriate of me. You have presented your logic and, while I disagree with it, it is not crazy. So I'm sorry about that poor choice of words.

However, I disagree with your statement that my suggested approach is biased. I certainly don't see how, if it is applied to all potential tourney teams, it is biased in favor of teams with higher profiles. If you apply it to everybody, there is no systematic bias.

And if we're talking about a system of trying to get at the "true values", I'd argue that my system is less likely to have bias, whereas your system will systematically bias the results in favor of teams who play against teams without missing players.

I'd also note that it I would not consider it wise to penalize a team for doing the right thing and suspending players who violate rules. Your approach would further discourage teams from doing so. But that's a side discussion, for sure.

From there, I am happy to agree to disagree.

[CDu]

While I disagree with CDu on the quality of Michigan's win, I don't necessarily disagree -- in principle -- with his desire to have the committee assess the true quality of wins in assessing teams' resumes. Including the effect of injuries. I think they should try to do that when they can. But the problem as I see it is this: Let's say you're going to discount wins (or losses) when a key player doesn't play. There are so many other factors that can affect the ability of a player or team to play its best, factors that are much less identifiable and/or quantifiable to the committee, but in all fairness should be considered by them if they're going to be considering games missed due to injuries by key players.

Now sure, you could draw lines and say "on-court stuff only" or "fully missed games only" in terms of discounting wins and losses. But those seem rather arbitrary. These other types of situations can affect the winning and losing of game(s) just as much as missing a game due to injury.

Nothing arbitrary about it. Key players sitting out is an objective measure of "missingness." As you note, "presenteeism" (players/coaches in the game but not really all there) is just impossible to assess. A missing player is not. Ideally, I'd prefer that they consider "presenteeism" too, but that is simply too difficult. So I'll take what I can get.


So I think by discounting wins and losses due to injuries like Payne's and Dawson's, you're introducing not only something highly subjective into the process, but you're asking for the introduction of a real slippery slope as well.

But the entire process is a highly subjective process. There are some objective measures included in making those subjective decisions, but make no mistake that the seeding process is highly subjective.

Is there some added subjectivity to considering injuries? Sure. But there any qualitative assessment has inherent subjectivity. In this case, you're either making a subjective valuation while considering injuries or you're making a subjective valuation while ignoring injuries. Either way, the process is VERY subjective. And as such, I'd prefer that the committee make every effort to get the subjective process as close as possible to the true answer. And I think ignoring/discounting games in which key players are out gets us closer to the true answer than ignoring those injuries.

[Indoor66]

Nothing arbitrary about it. Key players sitting out is an objective measure of "missingness." As you note, "presenteeism" (players/coaches in the game but not really all there) is just impossible to assess. A missing player is not. Ideally, I'd prefer that they consider "presenteeism" too, but that is simply too difficult. So I'll take what I can get.



But the entire process is a highly subjective process. There are some objective measures included in making those subjective decisions, but make no mistake that the seeding process is highly subjective.

Is there some added subjectivity to considering injuries? Sure. But there any qualitative assessment has inherent subjectivity. In this case, you're either making a subjective valuation while considering injuries or you're making a subjective valuation while ignoring injuries. Either way, the process is VERY subjective. And as such, I'd prefer that the committee make every effort to get the subjective process as close as possible to the true answer. And I think ignoring/discounting games in which key players are out gets us closer to the true answer than ignoring those injuries.

I ask: Who defines key players? The coach or sports information director? The press or ESPN? Sagarin or Pomeroy? Message Boards?

The key player for a team may not be the star. He may be the "glue guy" or the guy doing the non-statistics measured dirty work. Which missing players count for this evaluation and which do not? Where does the information come from regarding a players personal situation - day to day?

I too see a slippery slope with this subjective addition to the selection committee's criteria for Selection Sunday.

[vick]

I ask: Who defines key players? The coach or sports information director? The press or ESPN? Sagarin or Pomeroy? Message Boards?

The key player for a team may not be the star. He may be the "glue guy" or the guy doing the non-statistics measured dirty work. Which missing players count for this evaluation and which do not? Where does the information come from regarding a players personal situation - day to day?

I too see a slippery slope with this subjective addition to the selection committee's criteria for Selection Sunday.

But it's a subjective process to begin with. For example, the committee appears to place a huge weight on performance in conference tournaments--why value those games so much more than games a week earlier? The stated goal (http://espn.go.com/photo/preview/!pdfs/120305/espn_05_principlesprocedures.pdf) of the process is to "select the 37 best teams." If you want it to have different goals, that's fine, but if you actually are trying to identify the best teams, why would you want the committee to remain willfully ignorant? Put differently, I think everyone would agree that if you are trying to pick the best teams, knowing whether a team beat UCLA or UC-Davis is valuable information. Why wouldn't it also be valuable to know if UCLA was missing its two best players?

[CDu]

I ask: Who defines key players? The coach or sports information director? The press or ESPN? Sagarin or Pomeroy? Message Boards?

The key player for a team may not be the star. He may be the "glue guy" or the guy doing the non-statistics measured dirty work. Which missing players count for this evaluation and which do not? Where does the information come from regarding a players personal situation - day to day?

I too see a slippery slope with this subjective addition to the selection committee's criteria for Selection Sunday.

As vick and I have noted, the entire process of applying a quality to wins and losses is already very subjective. The entire process of rating the teams is subjective. This isn't a case of introducing subjectivity to the mix. That cat has long been (always been?) out of the bag.

As for definition, we can make that very objective. Set a threshold: any player who averages 20+ mpg would constitute a "key" player. Any game with such a player missing gets flagged. From there, a subjective determination must be made. But that at least gets us closer to the possibility of accurately assessing the quality of a win.

They are going to make a subjective assessment of the games anyway. Might as well make as informed a subjective assessment as possible.

[throatybeard]

This has gotten awfully messy. Allow me to dial it back.

I have great difficulty believing that the committee is on top of the minutiae of who had who in their lineup when they played them. I'm sure they're aware if Kenyon Martin's leg falls off shortly before the tournament. Who started in November, not as much.

Also, Michigan is 7-0 in the Conference of Midwestern Research Universities who cannot Count. 7-0. That looks good.

[tommy]

This has gotten awfully messy. Allow me to dial it back.

I have great difficulty believing that the committee is on top of the minutiae of who had who in their lineup when they played them. I'm sure they're aware if Kenyon Martin's leg falls off shortly before the tournament. Who started in November, not as much.

Also, Michigan is 7-0 in the Conference of Midwestern Research Universities who cannot Count. 7-0. That looks good.

Yeah, and their two toughest conference road games are out of the way already -- both in the win column. Barring a real reversal of fortune, this Michigan team is looking at a pretty darn high seed. Without McGary.

[ElSid]

I think the committee and the media have started to pay more attention to the minutiae of who was or wasn't with a team during wins and losses. Someone bothered to create the BPI.

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/7561413/bpi-college-basketball-power-index-explained

I don't think it's hard for the committee, once / if they understand the methodology, to reference something like this.

[uh_no]

I think the committee and the media have started to pay more attention to the minutiae of who was or wasn't with a team during wins and losses. Someone bothered to create the BPI.

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/7561413/bpi-college-basketball-power-index-explained

I don't think it's hard for the committee, once / if they understand the methodology, to reference something like this.

along with RPI, the committee is also given a few other rankings to reference if they choose, like BPI, kenpom, and sagarin.

[throatybeard]

Yes, there are more measures than there were in 1985.

But do you really think that, instead of spending most of their time on the last eight in, the committee is going to sit around arguing for seven minutes that Duke should be a 3 instead of a 2 based on which Michigan player did or did not play sometime in 2013? I just can't see it. There's opportunity cost, and they have to deal with the issues that cause them the most PR. Those are the ones, where the ones are, and the edge of the field.

I'll put it this way. If I were on the committee, it wouldn't even occur to me to check who was in or out of a lineup in the first 30 days of the season in any head-to-head matchup between likely at-larges.

[brevity]

I have great difficulty believing that the committee is on top of the minutiae of who had who in their lineup when they played them.

Exactly. I say this every year: however lazy you think the Selection Committee is, they are SO much lazier. They spend a lot of other people's money to do their job over a couple of days. Any one of us, alone, could put more thought into it and still finish in a few hours. A decently programmed Windows 95 computer could do it in less than an hour. The Robo-Bilas (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxgQNXOr_Ng) already did the 2014 bracket, in the time it took me to write this paragraph.

[throatybeard]

As long as we're talking SOS, resume, etc.

Our loss to Notre Dame is looking increasingly un-good.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

A little late to the party, but did want to chime in with my thoughts about whether UM's win translates into anything positive for Duke...

As far as resume goes, I suppose it's a positive. UM looks about as different from our early game as Duke does. But, most teams probably do. Great teams in March get better throughout the season. So, can UM's resurgence boost Duke potentially from a 3 seed to a 2? Or a 2 to a 1? Or a 4 to a 3? Sure, I guess so. I really don't stress about bracketology and life is too short to follow the ongoing seasons of Duke's November and December opponents (how's Vermont doing?).

Independent of what it does for the resume, it certainly does't change the way I feel about the team in retrospect. Again, life is too short. Let's look at it from the other side... let's suppose we beat Pitt tonight. I mean just take them out behind the woodshed and win by 30. I would love every minute of the game and be proud of our guys and stoked with optimism going into the Carrier Dome this weekend. Now, let's suppose after our win at Pitt, the wheels come off. Other coaches follow K's gameplan and Pitt doean't win another game for the rest of the season. They miss both the NCAA and the NIT and it is one of the most baffling storylines of the season. Do I then retroactively chide myself for being so pumped about whooping the #2 team in the ACC? No, of course not. Does the win go from a signature win on the NCAA resume to a footnote? I guess so.

I suppose I am fortunate to have spent three decades watching Duke bball that didn't involve much handwringing over selection Sunday and bubble teams.

Win games, go to the tourney.

Go Duke!

[CDu]

This has gotten awfully messy. Allow me to dial it back.

I have great difficulty believing that the committee is on top of the minutiae of who had who in their lineup when they played them. I'm sure they're aware if Kenyon Martin's leg falls off shortly before the tournament. Who started in November, not as much.

Also, Michigan is 7-0 in the Conference of Midwestern Research Universities who cannot Count. 7-0. That looks good.

I am not arguing what the committee will do. I am arguing what they should do.

Nor am I saying that Michigan doesn't look good. Just that this particular win against a depleted MSU team isn't very impressive.

[jv001]

Sometimes we don't know how teams will react to having players out for a game. I can remember Duke playing well without Boozer and Brand. I see how ND played against us when their best player was dismissed from the team, but I sure would like to have a do over against Clemson and ND:cool: GoDuke!

[WillJ]

I had viewed Michigan as the huge underdog against Louisville last year largely based on their team performance but also on my perception of their constitutent talent levels. Well, the team performance view was dead-on, but my underlying talent measures were way off. Michigan was loaded! Trey Burke and Tim Hardaway are tearing it up in the NBA, Stauskas, Glen Robinson, and even Caris Lavert are looking like decent pros, and of course they had McGary. Michigan had what now appear to be 5 or 6 future pros on their team....I'm not sure Louisville had any.

[Dev11]

I had viewed Michigan as the huge underdog against Louisville last year largely based on their team performance but also on my perception of their constitutent talent levels. Well, the team performance view was dead-on, but my underlying talent measures were way off. Michigan was loaded! Trey Burke and Tim Hardaway are tearing it up in the NBA, Stauskas, Glen Robinson, and even Caris Lavert are looking like decent pros, and of course they had McGary. Michigan had what now appear to be 5 or 6 future pros on their team....I'm not sure Louisville had any.

People said the 2010 title team had little future talent, and that team ended up having 6 players who at least got cups of coffee in the NBA. The talent, however, had mostly not matured at that time. Ryan, Mason, and Miles were nowhere near their ceilings yet. I wouldn't judge Michigan last year by Stauskas's play this year.

[WillJ]

People said the 2010 title team had little future talent, and that team ended up having 6 players who at least got cups of coffee in the NBA. The talent, however, had mostly not matured at that time. Ryan, Mason, and Miles were nowhere near their ceilings yet. I wouldn't judge Michigan last year by Stauskas's play this year.

Good points, and of course NCAA history is littered with cases where "untalented" senior teams beat "more talented" youthful teams.

[duke4ever19]

FYI (no judgments being made....just general development to add to this conversation)

Michigan just jumped from #21 all the way up to #10. This is based on their win vs Iowa and MSU.

On the other side, MSU dropped from #3 to #7 (4 spots) with their loss, despite being short-handed.

[tbyers11]

FYI (no judgments being made....just general development to add to this conversation)

Michigan just jumped from #21 all the way up to #10. Pollsters would know MSU was playing shorthanded, but rewarded UM in a big way (there's no way UM jumps this high based on the one win vs #10 Iowa.)

On the other side, MSU dropped from #3 to #7 (4 spots) with their loss, despite being short-handed.

I think you greatly overstate the knowledge of the vast majority of pollsters. Most are local reporters who know their school very well and their conference quite well. But I don't think most follow the national scene as closely as the diehard fan during the season. Here's the list (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/files/specials/interactives/_sports/top25_basketball/voters/men.html?SITE=AP).

For an example, do you think Izzy Gould of the Birmingham (AL) News (not to pick on Izzy, but he is on top of the list) follows Michigan St closely enough to know that Payne and Dawson were both out, especially since Dawson wasn't reported out until Thursday night? This weekend he prepped for the Bama-LSU game at 8pm Sat night and then filed his story quickly afterward to meet the deadline. Probably didn't watch much of ESPN's Gameday from East Lansing or SportsCenter. Then he spends some time Sunday with the family and looks to see how Michigan did during the 10 minutes he fills out his poll on Sunday night. Oooh, they beat Iowa and Michigan State on the road . He may glance at the box score but I doubt it because he has ~30 other teams to check in on during those 10 minutes.

Now some pollsters may spend a lot more time on their poll but for most I bet it is about 4th or 5th place in importance of things to do every weekend. I'm sure some keep a broad national view of the sport (I see Jeff Goodman is a voter), but I bet that most reasonably die-hard fans know more about the national landscape in the middle of January than the local reporters who make up most of the voters.

Also, when your "national" voters are Seth Davis, John Feinstein, and Dick Vitale your credibility isn't all that great in my book.

[duke4ever19]

I think you greatly overstate the knowledge of the vast majority of pollsters. Most are local reporters who know their school very well and their conference quite well. But I don't think most follow the national scene as closely as the diehard fan during the season. Here's the list (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/files/specials/interactives/_sports/top25_basketball/voters/men.html?SITE=AP).

For an example, do you think Izzy Gould of the Birmingham (AL) News (not to pick on Izzy, but he is on top of the list) follows Michigan St closely enough to know that Payne and Dawson were both out, especially since Dawson wasn't reported out until Thursday night? This weekend he prepped for the Bama-LSU game at 8pm Sat night and then filed his story quickly afterward to meet the deadline. Probably didn't watch much of ESPN's Gameday from East Lansing or SportsCenter. Then he spends some time Sunday with the family and looks to see how Michigan did during the 10 minutes he fills out his poll on Sunday night. Oooh, they beat Iowa and Michigan State on the road . He may glance at the box score but I doubt it because he has ~30 other teams to check in on during those 10 minutes.

Now some pollsters may spend a lot more time on their poll but for most I bet it is about 4th or 5th place in importance of things to do every weekend. I'm sure some keep a broad national view of the sport (I see Jeff Goodman is a voter), but I bet that most reasonably die-hard fans know more about the national landscape in the middle of January than the local reporters who make up most of the voters.

Also, when your "national" voters are Seth Davis, John Feinstein, and Dick Vitale your credibility isn't all that great in my book.

I don't overstate anything. In fact, we actually completely agree with each other.

My thought is that the tournament committee would recognize the UM win vs MSU as a "good win," and thus, by extension, our win vs UM would be seen as a "good win." It doesn't matter if the facts are that MSU was shorthanded. I am actually counting on both the pollsters and the tournament selection committee to be just as uninformed as I suspect them to be.

I really can't make it any more clear, but I know my view is easily lost in the myriad of posts on this subject.

[tbyers11]

I don't overstate anything. In fact, we actually completely agree with each other.

My thought is that the tournament committee would recognize the UM win vs MSU as a "good win," and thus, by extension, our win vs UM would be seen as a "good win." It doesn't matter if the facts are that MSU was shorthanded. I am actually counting on both the pollsters and the tournament selection committee to be just as uninformed as I suspect them to be.

I really can't make it any more clear, but I know my view is easily lost in the myriad of posts on this subject.

You are right. We are saying the same thing. I read your post quickly and was so fired up to rant against against the polls that I didn't realize that you were making the same point. Mea culpa. Let's beat full strength Pitt tonight so no one can argue how good our win is.

[Des Esseintes]

I am not arguing what the committee will do. I am arguing what they should do.

Nor am I saying that Michigan doesn't look good. Just that this particular win against a depleted MSU team isn't very impressive.

Michigan State is still very good (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/basketball/ncaa/men/gameflash/2014/01/28/89803/?eref=sihp#recap). Impressive road victory over Iowa.