Lunardi now has us in Michigan regional

Still a 3 seed but with the Maize and Blue as the 1. They’ve lost a couple lately, including yesterday to Sparty, so not coming in on a huge roll. However, eventual NCs have often lost in their conference tournament (including us in 94) so huge rolls are overrated. And I say that knowing we are on one, but a loss in Nashville doesn’t bother me. It just hits reset for a new roll.

Nice to be worrying about who you’d face in the Elite Eight, instead of getting in at all.

3 Likes

Is he often correct on where people go? I know he is very close on who gets in but wonder about the accuracy of which bracket. Nice to be back in the National scope of things!

He might be more correct this year than most because geography doesn’t matter this year, whereas in a normal tournament higher seeds are often put close to home regardless of where they fall on the S curve.

However, that pick doesn’t exactly match the S curve. Michigan is his 3 and we’re at 9. On the straight S curve, 3 and 9 don’t go in the same regional. I don’t see anything else he would be adjusting for; we’re in a different bracket than Alabama and Michigan can meet Iowa in the Elite Eight under normal bracketing rules.

Straight S curve, assuming that he’s right and we’re the 9th best team, would put us in Gonzaga’s regional. So I like this change.

completely agree with your last sentence. man, we were so spoiled from about '77 through '98 or so!

and I’d MUCH rather play Meeechigan than Baylor or the Zags. Heck, I’d be happy playing ANY of them, since it appears that would be in the Elite 8, but I’d like our chances better against UM.

GHG

We played Michigan in the 94 tourney.

Yup, and their star player that year was Juwan Howard. Who is now their coach.

This topic was automatically closed after 30 days. New replies are no longer allowed.