Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'College Basketball Board' started by WojoRising, Jan 10, 2019.
I'd take UM -8.5
@hailtoyourvictor is going to be pissed when this back fires.
where's the Purdue fan who insisted pre-season that Illinois was a tournament team and potential F4 sleeper?
We disowned him.
9 of the 11 losses for Illinois are by 10 points or fewer. According to KenPom, Illinois is 351st out of 353 teams in the luck category. They've lost quite a few close ones. They lost to Missouri by double digits, but it was a 2 point game with 7 minutes left. Nebraska is really the only team to beat Illinois comfortably.
Also, Michigan hasn't been torching teams lately like they did in November. Seeing how this game will be played in Champaign, I'd say 8.5 points is actually fair... Gun to my head forced to bet, I'd side with Michigan. But I wouldn't be overly confident in the spread.
Michigan is 15-0 and 13 of those games have been double digit wins, including their last 4 games. The spread should be more like -10.5.
Easy money but I don't bet on Michigan games.
Iowa State 84, Illinois 68
Nebraska 75, Illinois 60
Missouri 79, Illinois 63
10.5 spread might be more accurate. I just know blowouts on the road in conference play isn't very typical. Looks like I failed to account for the Iowa State game. So only 3 of the 11 losses were by more than 10 points. They're not a great team, obviously. But most of the time they can still be competitive.
As far as Michigan not torching teams, I still thinking that's an accurate statement. They were unbelievable in November. As close to perfection as you can get. I haven't seen them play since the Northwestern game (watched maybe 5 minutes of the IU game), so I can't really speak on their progression. However, look at the last 7 games:
Penn State, 68-55
Air Force, 71-50
Western Michigan, 70-62
South Carolina, 89-78
All of the games were at home, minus the Northwestern game. Also, all of the games were at least semi-competitive, save the Air Force and Binghamton games. Michigan should be favored in just about all the games from here on out with the exception of the game in East Lansing. But seeing how UM isn't winning by 20+ anymore - and Illinois usually plays teams moderately close, I think a 8.5 spread is reasonable. FWIW, Bart Torvik picks Michigan to win 72-63.
8.5 may not be as easy of a lock as the bet I made with you where you couldn't grasp that Michigan was still talented and returned an elite defense, but the spread should be higher. In fact, it is. The line moved to +9.5.
I may be foolish, and if I was a betting man I would take Illinois and the points. All due respect hail.
Nobody knew Iggy was going to be playing at an All-American level. That's what moved the needle more so than anything else. Also, Poole and Livers went from shooting 36-37% from 3 to roughly 47% this year. That's HUGE. It's not realistic to project a 10% increase - and as I said, the 3-point shooting was my biggest concern. I would also note that I was evaluating 70+ teams. Not going to spend hours analyzing each team. It was a lot of information to put together. Personally, I would rather hear how other people would rank their top 50, top 25, or whatever - more so than hearing, "You didn't put my team high enough."
Just for kicks in giggles, you want to double down? I'll say Michigan wins by 9 points or less. If I win, avatar bet is neutralized with both sides winning one bet. If I lose, I'll use whatever avatar you want for 2 months.
Hope Illinois wins. Michigan is due for a loss.
Even if you take Brazdeikas off the team right now Michigan would still be a top 25 team. Even if Poole and Livers shot 40% from three, Michigan would still be a top 25 team.
Yes, you were evaluating 70+ teams so I gave you the benefit of the doubt at first. I tried to explain to you why Michigan would likely be better than you were giving them credit for. They were returning three elite defenders (Simpson, Matthews, Teske), two other rotation players from the National Championship run (Poole, Livers), and a great recruiting class (Brazdeikas, Johns). I didn't expect you to be that familiar with Michigan's roster but you were stubborn and insistent when I tried to educate you a bit.
There was too much talent on this team for them to be outside of anyone's top 30, especially with Beilein as the coach.
And no thanks on the bet. I'm quite content with the bet I have locked already.
Illinois is garbage. Sadly.
Maybe not, but a bunch of people figured he would be much better than the "RSCI #74" ranking you were trumpeting in your thread.
I tried to tell you that you were underrating Brazdeikas by going by something that ranks him 74th. ESPN's scouting report nailed Brazdeikas on the head:
ESPN's scouting described him as a "college ready scorer" because:
"This lefty perimeter forward is a volume scorer who can get buckets in bunches. He's physically mature with a strong upper body and a combination of size and skill that allows him to be a consistent match-up problem. He's a good ball-handler who leads the break with ease and is at his best off the bounce where he can create offense and get himself to the free-throw line in high volume. He has an excellent right hand and is equally capable driving or passing with either hand."
Given how elite Michigan's defense already projected to be with Simpson/Matthews/Teske, it isn't shocking to see Brazdeikas slide right into our starting lineup with his scoring prowess.
I’m honestly just happy this got more than 2 replies
*that weren’t maliciously aimed at me
I never watched any film of him. And honestly it doesn't do me any good to differentiate between recruits when highlights obviously don't show the full context - and neither do all-star games. When I'm projecting team rankings, I'm simply taking the recruiting services at their face value. I factor in how the recruits are rated + returning players. I don't know who's undervalued, I don't know going to have an astronomical rise, I don't know who's going to plateau. The biggest thing with projecting rankings is the turnover rate is so incredibly high. Yes, I was wrong with quite a few rankings. It happens. Frankly the sport would be stale and boring if everything predicted came to fruition.
I put together a list with over 500+ players on it. I liked my rankings. I thought they were reasonable considering the context. I mean, I had quite a few teams in my top 50 that didn't even make the NIT last year: Indiana, St.John's, Minnesota, and Iowa State. Those squads are all doing fairly well.
Maybe. I suppose it's possible. Their shooting percentages would certainly be a lot worse. Without Iggy and with Poole/Livers at 40%, your new averages are pretty ho-hum.
Now you’re taking away Iggy AND Poole? Lol. I’m saying without one or the other Michigan is still a top 25 team. Michigan has a lot of talent. I tried to tell you. I didn’t think they’d be a top 5 team but having them outside the top 25 was laughable when you consider the roster and coach.
And @dukedevilz you’re missing the point as it pertains to Iggy’s ranking. Two of the most prominent sites (Scout and Rivals) had Brazdeikas as a 5 star. How many other players that are 5 stars on multiple sites are outside of the top 70 in RSCI and as low as 99 on another site? I tried to point out to you that his rsci wasnt a good indicator of his actual ranking because not all sites evaluate foreign players the same. You disregarded that.
The guy put together the most impressive pre-season ranking anybody has ever brought to this board and you’ve been so hung up on the Michigan snub ever since. Lol. That’s funny.
He got one wrong. He wasn’t the only one who didn’t see Michigan doing what they’re doing.
It wasn’t that he didn’t see Michigan doing what they are doing. It’s that he had them as an unreasonably low outlier in his rankings and then defended it hard when I tried to point out that we have a pretty damn good roster.
I think he had Michigan has his 5th or 6th best Big Ten team. Do you realize how utterly stupid that is and was?
You make it easy to pull for Illinois tonight.
No. I don’t pay attention to Michigan basketball.
You and dukedevilz have that in common
What about the loss to Iowa State?
They are....It just won't be tonight.
I got in at 9.5!!!!
****ing Illinois mucking it up at the end
Down 12 fouling with a minute left lol
Good call OP
Shit was ridiculous. Almost started a fight
Usually I’d agree with you on this, but when you’re leading ball handler (Zavier Simpson) is a 56% FT shooter, followed by Matthews at 62% and the team just entered the bonus (6 fouls), in my opinion it’s not that ridiculous. Just look last night, UCLA was down 9 with 55 seconds left and forced it to OT.
For the record, the RSCI excluded a top 100 Rivals ranking for Iggy. See for yourself ( https://sites.google.com/site/rscihoops/home/2018-final ). And while Iggy is listed as 5-star prospect, he doesn't have a national ranking by his name. So somehow he slipped through the cracks there. Also, Scout (recently merged with 247) listed Iggy as a 4-star recruit. I'm not going to double check that. The amount of time I spent on Michigan was probably about 1% of the total body of work. Given that Michigan lost 3 of their top 5 players and they didn't appear to be bringing in freshmen that would move the needle, I honestly don't think my projection was that unreasonable.
Most people had Michigan in the 18-23 range. I saw them a little lower simply because outside shooting, at least on paper, appeared that it could be a serious weakness. Also, I pointed out that Iggy struggled shooting from 3 in the EYBL - he shot 26.6% from 3 (21 for 79). Poole/Livers increased by almost 10% and Iggy is suddenly a very reliable shoter? Some guys will get better, that's a given. But the odds of having 3 guys on the same team significantly improve from 3 is simply something I could never project.
I can't believe you're so hung up on this, though. I was saying Michigan was a top 5 team as early as November. And I even ranked them #1 in one of my rankings. Time to move on, bud.
I already saw for myself that his Rivals 5* ranking wasn't being included in the RSCI and tried to point that out to you back in October. Didn't listen? Scout's pre-merger 5* wasn't included either and ESPN's 88 grade (42-48 this year) wasn't included.
Verbal commits - 61
ESPN - none ..........(42-48)
247 - 41
Scout - none .............(5*)
Rivals - none ...........(5*)
= 74th overall final RSCI ranking
I spent a handful of posts during this discussion a few months ago telling you how unreliable that overall RSCI ranking is for Brazdeikas. It wasn't so much that he was underranked, it's that the data wasn't lining up with the final ranking.
"But the odds of having 3 guys on the same team significantly improve from 3 is simply something I could never project. "
If anyone was projecting that, then they would have projected Michigan as a top 5 team. No one projected that and I'm not laughing at you because you didn't foresee Michigan being a top 5-10 team. I'm laughing at you for looking at how talented the roster was and thinking they were legitimately outside of the top 30. The defense was always going to be elite and odds were that someone between Matthews/Simpson/Poole/Iggy/Livers/Johns would step up offensively enough to justify a top 25 ranking to everyone but you.
Michigan is good. We all know that. No one is saying they aren't. Preseason team rankings that CBS had showed Michigan as #21, and espn from June 2018 didn't have them top 25. What does it mean? That they were wrong.
Get over it man. Michigan is legit. Who gives a fat baby's a** where the experts had them before the season started.
I think the #21 ranking was fair. Most people/places had them around 15-25. Ranking them 34th was dumb and as long as that guy continues to defend that ranking I will continue to call it dumb.