First of all, everybody needs to take a step back from the ledge. Yes, it sucks to lose to Michigan. Yes, I have concerns about this team reaching its potential. Yes, it sucks to have to stew about the BTT for a week and wring our hands about seeding and placement. I get it. BUT, the season IS NOT OVER. Let’s pull back a bit from talk about who is going pro and next year’s team. We will have plenty of time to debate that in the weeks to come. It’s March, we have a HOF coach and at least 2 lottery picks. Not too many teams can say that.
Second, I am one of the biggest culprits for this, but I think we also need to chill out a bit about MSU’s seed and whether we will be playing in Detroit. This one is hard for me, but I will try. It reminds me A LOT about the whole Outback Bowl debacle a few month ago. At the end of the day, we might not get what we want (a 2-seed in Detroit or the OutHouse Bowl) but sometimes you get what you need (a good Bowl match-up or a favorable NCAA tournament draw). NO ONE can predict MSU’s next opponent or location. But, there are a few things that maybe we can discuss.
So, let’s talk about potential match-ups. The one thing that I think we can all agree upon is MSU will almost certainly be either a 2-seed or a 3-seed. At this point, I don’t see much point in talking about MSU’s possible 1st or even 2nd round match-ups. There are simply too many potential variables and possible outcomes. But, we can certainly plan on facing a 14- or 15-seed in the first round and if we win a 7/10-seed or likely a 6-seed in the second round.
If MSU is in Detroit, a team like Wright State would be quite likely due to the geography, but it is hard to say. In the 2nd round, some possible teams in this part of the S curve are Houston, TCU, Miami, Texas A&M, Arkansas, and Nevada. We will see. MSU needs to beat any team on this list to avoid the season being viewed as an absolute failure and disappointment. Harsh? Maybe, but it is hard to see it any other way. Nevada is the team on that list that would give me the most pause, and that match-up seems more likely if MSU is not in Detroit.
I think the potential Sweet 16 match-ups potentially bear a bit more discussion, for a couple of reasons. I know, this is looking ahead. Deal with it. First, since we are fairly sure MSU will be a 2 or 3-seed, it is pretty likely that MSU would face another 2-seed or 3-seed in the S16 (if MSU makes it that far), and the number of potential opponents is not that high. Second, other than Round 5 in the Final Four, the Sweet 16 round is the round Izzo has “struggled” with the most. Izzo is “only” 9-4 (69%) in that round but is at 75% or better for the other 3 non-Final Four rounds.
In the S-curve, there are 8 total teams that are either 2-seed and 3-seed. 3 of those teams are projected to be Big Ten teams (Purdue, MSU, and UofM). The bracketing principles require that those three teams be placed in different regions, so there will almost certainly not be a Big Ten rematch unless it happens in the Final Four. Two of the other 8 teams right now are projected to be UNC and Duke, teams MSU already played this year. Keep in mind also that 7 of Izzo’s 19 tournament losses have been to one of those two schools. Even though MSU already beat UNC this year, I would prefer not to see them again that early. The other potential S16 opponents (based on the current S-curve) are Cincinnati, Auburn, and Tennessee. I am not sure about you, but I would MUCH rather see one of these teams. But, considering that MSU seems to be trending more as a 3-seed than a 2-seed, and UNC/Duke are trending as a 2-seed, the potential NC-based ACC rematch in the S16 is the most likely outcome.
That said, if we consider the true S-curve, it might also give us a taste of how the bracket might be assembled. Right now, MSU is hovering in the “low 2 / high 3” part of the curve. Using the strict S-curve, this would line MSU up with the overall #1 seed, which currently is almost certainly Virginia, who will be placed in the South (Atlanta). Even if UVA were to loss in the ACC tournament, I think they still might get the overall #1 seed. In this scenario, whether MSU was the #2 seed or the #3, UNC and Duke will not be in the same region, because the committee is “required” to separate the top 2-3 teams in each conference in different regions. In this case, MSU would almost certainly be paired with either Cincinnati (who would also love to be in Atlanta, I would guess) or the SEC Champ (Auburn or Tennessee). Quite honestly, this might be the best scenario for MSU, upsets notwithstanding.
The other options are less desirable. If Villanova wins the Big East, as expected, they will be either the #1 or #2 overall seed. Based on MSU’s position on the S curve, it is also fairly likely that MSU would wind up in this region (The East Region in Boston) as a relatively weak 2 / strong 3. The bad news is that an ACC team is highly likely to wind up in this region due to the proximity to the ACC and the lack of another ACC team already placed there. If Duke does not win the ACC tournament, I could easily see them placed here. If Duke were to win the ACC tournament, it seems likely to me that they might elevate to the #1 seed in the West, and UNC would wind up in the East as the 2-seed or maybe a 3-seed if they flame out in the ACC tournament.
The other possible set of scenarios would be to consider what might happen if Kansas and/or Xavier were to lose in their conference tournaments. Xavier, especially, seems vulnerable to falling off the 1-line considering they need to go through Villanova, but Kansas would take their 8th loss if they fail to win the Big 12 tournament, and I don’t see that as 1-seed resume worthy either. (I think 7 losses is the most ever for a 1-seed.) In general, I would that this as a good sign, as I would much rather face Kansas or Xavier (as 2-seeds) in the Sweet 16 than Duke or UNC. But, Kansas and Xavier would also be great candidates to ship out West as 2-seeds, and the most likely 3-seed in the West is Michigan, based on their position as the weakest 3-seed, which will very likely wind up out West. I don’t think MSU Is likely to be in the West region unless the committee has then way higher (around 5-6) or way lower (11 or 12) on the S curve than the consensus right now.
The final possibility, of course, is that MSU winds up in the Midwest Region (Omaha) as either the 2-seed or (more likely) the 3-seed. The 1-seed here is most likely either Kansas or Xavier, which means the 2-seed will likely be either Duke or UNC. Once again, dislike.
Thoughts?
Second, I am one of the biggest culprits for this, but I think we also need to chill out a bit about MSU’s seed and whether we will be playing in Detroit. This one is hard for me, but I will try. It reminds me A LOT about the whole Outback Bowl debacle a few month ago. At the end of the day, we might not get what we want (a 2-seed in Detroit or the OutHouse Bowl) but sometimes you get what you need (a good Bowl match-up or a favorable NCAA tournament draw). NO ONE can predict MSU’s next opponent or location. But, there are a few things that maybe we can discuss.
So, let’s talk about potential match-ups. The one thing that I think we can all agree upon is MSU will almost certainly be either a 2-seed or a 3-seed. At this point, I don’t see much point in talking about MSU’s possible 1st or even 2nd round match-ups. There are simply too many potential variables and possible outcomes. But, we can certainly plan on facing a 14- or 15-seed in the first round and if we win a 7/10-seed or likely a 6-seed in the second round.
If MSU is in Detroit, a team like Wright State would be quite likely due to the geography, but it is hard to say. In the 2nd round, some possible teams in this part of the S curve are Houston, TCU, Miami, Texas A&M, Arkansas, and Nevada. We will see. MSU needs to beat any team on this list to avoid the season being viewed as an absolute failure and disappointment. Harsh? Maybe, but it is hard to see it any other way. Nevada is the team on that list that would give me the most pause, and that match-up seems more likely if MSU is not in Detroit.
I think the potential Sweet 16 match-ups potentially bear a bit more discussion, for a couple of reasons. I know, this is looking ahead. Deal with it. First, since we are fairly sure MSU will be a 2 or 3-seed, it is pretty likely that MSU would face another 2-seed or 3-seed in the S16 (if MSU makes it that far), and the number of potential opponents is not that high. Second, other than Round 5 in the Final Four, the Sweet 16 round is the round Izzo has “struggled” with the most. Izzo is “only” 9-4 (69%) in that round but is at 75% or better for the other 3 non-Final Four rounds.
In the S-curve, there are 8 total teams that are either 2-seed and 3-seed. 3 of those teams are projected to be Big Ten teams (Purdue, MSU, and UofM). The bracketing principles require that those three teams be placed in different regions, so there will almost certainly not be a Big Ten rematch unless it happens in the Final Four. Two of the other 8 teams right now are projected to be UNC and Duke, teams MSU already played this year. Keep in mind also that 7 of Izzo’s 19 tournament losses have been to one of those two schools. Even though MSU already beat UNC this year, I would prefer not to see them again that early. The other potential S16 opponents (based on the current S-curve) are Cincinnati, Auburn, and Tennessee. I am not sure about you, but I would MUCH rather see one of these teams. But, considering that MSU seems to be trending more as a 3-seed than a 2-seed, and UNC/Duke are trending as a 2-seed, the potential NC-based ACC rematch in the S16 is the most likely outcome.
That said, if we consider the true S-curve, it might also give us a taste of how the bracket might be assembled. Right now, MSU is hovering in the “low 2 / high 3” part of the curve. Using the strict S-curve, this would line MSU up with the overall #1 seed, which currently is almost certainly Virginia, who will be placed in the South (Atlanta). Even if UVA were to loss in the ACC tournament, I think they still might get the overall #1 seed. In this scenario, whether MSU was the #2 seed or the #3, UNC and Duke will not be in the same region, because the committee is “required” to separate the top 2-3 teams in each conference in different regions. In this case, MSU would almost certainly be paired with either Cincinnati (who would also love to be in Atlanta, I would guess) or the SEC Champ (Auburn or Tennessee). Quite honestly, this might be the best scenario for MSU, upsets notwithstanding.
The other options are less desirable. If Villanova wins the Big East, as expected, they will be either the #1 or #2 overall seed. Based on MSU’s position on the S curve, it is also fairly likely that MSU would wind up in this region (The East Region in Boston) as a relatively weak 2 / strong 3. The bad news is that an ACC team is highly likely to wind up in this region due to the proximity to the ACC and the lack of another ACC team already placed there. If Duke does not win the ACC tournament, I could easily see them placed here. If Duke were to win the ACC tournament, it seems likely to me that they might elevate to the #1 seed in the West, and UNC would wind up in the East as the 2-seed or maybe a 3-seed if they flame out in the ACC tournament.
The other possible set of scenarios would be to consider what might happen if Kansas and/or Xavier were to lose in their conference tournaments. Xavier, especially, seems vulnerable to falling off the 1-line considering they need to go through Villanova, but Kansas would take their 8th loss if they fail to win the Big 12 tournament, and I don’t see that as 1-seed resume worthy either. (I think 7 losses is the most ever for a 1-seed.) In general, I would that this as a good sign, as I would much rather face Kansas or Xavier (as 2-seeds) in the Sweet 16 than Duke or UNC. But, Kansas and Xavier would also be great candidates to ship out West as 2-seeds, and the most likely 3-seed in the West is Michigan, based on their position as the weakest 3-seed, which will very likely wind up out West. I don’t think MSU Is likely to be in the West region unless the committee has then way higher (around 5-6) or way lower (11 or 12) on the S curve than the consensus right now.
The final possibility, of course, is that MSU winds up in the Midwest Region (Omaha) as either the 2-seed or (more likely) the 3-seed. The 1-seed here is most likely either Kansas or Xavier, which means the 2-seed will likely be either Duke or UNC. Once again, dislike.
Thoughts?
