Out of curiosity, how far do you should the committee have dropped Michigan in seeding to penalize them for losing Livers?
Rumor: Isaiah Livers out.
- Thread starter hailtoyourvictor
- Start date
Out of curiosity, how far do you should the committee have dropped Michigan in seeding to penalize them for losing Livers?
To be fair, I believe you said a sweet 16 would be a success after the injury. That's not indicative of a 1 seed.
They earned a one seed over the course of the season and dropping them to punish them for an injury doesn’t seem like it would’ve been too “fair”
It's not a punishment. I think dropping Michigan a seed would have been justified. At the time, they lost Livers and had lost 3 of their last 5 games.
And still had a top 4 resume. Like you said, “not a single bracket in bracket matrix had Michigan as less than a 1 seed”.
Seeing what happened to Virginia after losing Deandre Hunter in 2018, it’s definitely justifiable to drop 1-2 seed for teams dealing with injury woes. Of course michigan pulled itself together unlike UVA, but the ceiling of top seeds should be national champions and I just can’t find this ceiling in Michigan without livers.
Depending on how the committees take seeding into consideration. If I recall correctly, the 2010 Purdue team was supposed to be in the 2-line but lost Robbie Hummel their best player near the end of the regular season. They only got a 4 seed in the 2010 March madness, so this did happen sometimes.
You still think Michigan should have dropped as low as a 3 seed? You’re a real special one.
They had a top 4 resume and are one of the final 8 teams left in the country.
You also guaranteed a Michigan loss today and the won by 18.
Michigan had a top 4 resume and is one of the only 4 remaining 1/2 seeds.
And yet they should’ve dropped 1-2 seeds. Good lord.
I am not saying they should have dropped 1-2 seeds definitely, just stating that the committees have taken injuries and recent forms into considerations in seeding in the past. They are not consistent though, so this may or may not happen. But it’s fair for Michigan to be 1 or 2 seed, 3 will be too low.
Top 4 resume.
One of 4 remaining 1 and 2 seeds.
Michigan getting a top 4 seed was fair.
They did. But timing matters, too.
I'm not claiming they didn't deserve a 1 seed. But I wouldn't have been shocked to see them get a 2 seed. There were reasons to drop them.
Michigan getting top seed is fair, but dropping to 2 seed is also fair. You were the worst top seed entering the tournament anyway so if one of them could fall to 2 line, it would have to be Michigan. It depends on the committees though, and we have learned from the past that their choices can be inconsistent sometimes.
Based on the Big10's performance I would've dropped them to the 12 line or at least made sure they were below every Pac12 team.
No but seriously, I said early in the year that Michigan appeared to be a level above every other Big10 team. Then they lost some games and I gave up that position and grouped them in with the other top teams in the conference. Now it appears that original assessment was correct, they are clearly better than the garbage in the Big10.
This tournament has also shown just how crap CBB is this year. I can probably count on one hand the amount of really good teams I've seen in the tournament. With all that, in hindsight I would've dropped Michigan to a #2 seed just because of the injury. I like having precedent where teams lose seeding when key players get hurt right before the tournament. Makes for a better tournament in most cases.
To move Michigan down you have to move them behind somebody else and there isn’t a 2 seed that was more deserving based on resume.
you keep saying resume and ignoring the "key player injured on the eve of the tournament" aspect people like myself keep bringing up.
Obviously they wouldn't be moved off the seed because of their resume. They would be moved because of the key player injured on the eve of the tournament.
1. We had a top 4 resume. I’ll say it again because it matters.
2. We made it further without Livers than another 1 seed and 3 of the 2 seeds.
I don’t think it made sense to drop them. Glad the committee isn’t as fickle as you are.
1. No one is saying you didn't. But once again it is 100% completely irrelevant to this discussion.
2. great job, but this is also not relevant to any pre-tournament discussion on seeding
Not sure why this is so hard for you to understand. you like numbered points so let me help you out...
1. Michigan had a top 4 resume without a doubt
2. Michigan lost one of its top players on the eve of the tournament and also lost a close game to a #2 seed without Livers in the conf. tourney
3. Some of us would like a key injury like that to be factored into the seeding DESPITE a team's resume they put together WITH that key player.
4. Dropping them to #2 would've been more than reasonable given the above
5. Making it to the elite 8 by beating a 16, 8 and 4 doesn't change that belief.
For the record, I picked Michigan in the F4 and will win my bracket if Gonzaga beats Baylor in the final.
Capiche?
So they should’ve dropped below who? Alabama was the highest 2 seed. Michigan without Livers should have be penalized for the injury and dropped below Alabama who had an inferior resume and couldn’t make the Elite 8?
Convincing.
Michigan earned the 1 seed and nothing I’ve seen screams that Alabama is better than Michigan without Livers.
Lol. You do realize that this is the toughest path a #1 seed can play to get the the elite 8, right?
Alabama played a 15, a 10, and and 11 and couldn’t make it. We played a 16, 8, and 4 and made it.
Alabama was the top 2 seed. Do you think making Alabama a #1 seed despite having a worse resume than Michigan would’ve made the tournament more competitive?
Michigan made the E8 going through 16, 8, 4. Alabama didn’t make it despite playing 15, 10, 11.
I said per-tourney they should be a 2 seed. You are saying they beat a 16, 8 and 4 seed. I would also expect a 2 seed to be able to beat a 16, 8 and 4 seed.
Not really sure how that points to MY stupidity.
No way you went to Michigan.
Yes, monday morning hindsight doesn't change my opinion on this. And yes there have been instances in the past where a key player got injured and the team still did great. Oregon a few years ago and now Michigan. Doesn't change my opinion that seeding should be adjusted to account for key injuries on the eve of the tourney.
Prove me wrong.
The highest seed the Alabama, Ohio State, and Iowa beat combined was a 10 seed. None of them reached the Elite 8.
The point is there’s a valid argument to be made that Michigan, even without Livers, is still more talented than Alabama. You yourself had Michigan still going to the final four.
The point is that giving them a 1 seed doesn’t appear to be a necessity in terms of making the tournament more competitive, which you said should be the goal.
I already said that Monday morning hindsight means nothing. There will always be instances where a team has a key injury and still plays great ala Oregon and Michigan. But we also have situations like Cincinnati who was dropped from a 1 to a 2 because Kenyon Martin broke his foot. They went out in the 2nd round to #7 seed Tulsa.
I stand by the idea that teams should be dropped when they suffer a key injury. Other top teams playing like crap or proving to be worse than their seeding doesn't change that belief.
Do you think Alabama being a 1 seed would’ve made the tournament more competitive?
Do you think Alabama should've stayed a #2 seed if Petty was injured and out for the tournament?
On selection Sunday, I would've said yes. It's not fair to go back and use results after the fact to justify a position.
Similar threads
