Michigan as NCAA seeds
It's Selection Sunday!!!!
Here is every seed we've ever had in the NCAA Tournament and our record as them.
1 seed: 6-2
| Date | Opponent | Result | Round |
| 3/15/1985 | 16 Farleigh Dickinson | W 59-55 | First Round |
| 3/17/1985 | 8 Villanova | L 55-59 | Second Round |
| 3/19/1993 | 16 Coastal Carolina | W 84-53* | First Round* |
| 3/21/1993 | 9 UCLA | W 86-84 OT* | Second Round* |
| 3/26/1993 | 12 George Washington | W 72-64* | Sweet Sixteen* |
| 3/28/1993 | 7 Temple | W 77-72* | Elite Eight* |
| 4/3/1993 | 1 Kentucky | W 81-78 OT* | Final Four* |
| 4/5/1993 | 1 North Carolina | L 71-77* | National Championship* |
2 seed: 4-2
| Date | Opponent | Result | Round |
| 3/14/1986 | 15 Akron | W 70-64 | First Round |
| 3/16/1986 | 7 Iowa State | L 69-72 | Second Round |
| 3/20/2014 | 15 Wofford | W 57-40 | Second Round |
| 3/22/2014 | 7 Texas | W 79-65 | Third Round |
| 3/28/2014 | 11 Tennessee | W 73-71 | Sweet Sixteen |
| 3/30/2014 | 8 Kentucky | L 72-75 | Elite Eight |
3 seed: 13-4
| Date | Opponent | Result | Round |
| 3/17/1988 | 14 Boise State | W 63-58 | First Round |
| 3/19/1988 | 6 Florida | W 108-85 | Second Round |
| 3/25/1988 | 2 North Carolina | L 69-78 | Sweet Sixteen |
| 3/17/1989 | 14 Xavier | W 92-87 | First Round |
| 3/19/1989 | 6 South Alabama | W 91-82 | Second Round |
| 3/23/1989 | 2 North Carolina | W 92-87 | Sweet Sixteen |
| 3/25/1989 | 5 Virginia | W 102-65 | Elite Eight |
| 4/1/1989 | 1 Illinois | W 83-81 | Final Four |
| 4/3/1989 | 3 Seton Hall | W 80-79 OT | National Championship |
| 3/16/1990 | 14 Illinois State | W 76-70 | First Round |
| 3/18/1990 | 11 Loyola Marymount | L 115-149 | Second Round |
| 3/17/1994 | 14 Pepperdine | W 78-74 OT | First Round |
| 3/19/1994 | 6 Texas | W 84-79 | Second Round |
| 3/24/1994 | 10 Maryland | W 78-71 | Sweet Sixteen |
| 3/26/1994 | 1 Arkansas | L 68-76 | Elite Eight |
| 3/13/1998 | 14 Davidson | W 80-61* | First Round* |
| 3/15/1998 | 6 UCLA | L 82-85* | Second Round* |
4 seed: 5-2
| Date | Opponent | Result | Round |
| 3/16/2012 | 13 Ohio University | L 60-65 | Second Round |
| 3/21/2013 | 13 South Dakota State | W 71-56 | Second Round |
| 3/23/2013 | 5 VCU | W 78-53 | Third Round |
| 3/29/2013 | 1 Kansas | W 87-85 OT | Sweet Sixteen |
| 3/31/2013 | 3 Florida | W 79-59 | Elite Eight |
| 4/6/2013 | 4 Syracuse | W 61-56 | Final Four |
| 4/8/2013 | 1 Louisville | L 76-82 | National Championship |
5 seed: 0-0
6 seed: 5-1
| Date | Opponent | Result | Round |
| 3/20/1992 | 11 Temple | W 73-66 | First Round |
| 3/22/1992 | 14 East Tennessee State | W 102-90 | Second Round |
| 3/27/1992 | 2 Oklahoma State | W 75-72 | Sweet Sixteen |
| 3/29/1992 | 1 Ohio State | W 75-71 OT | Elite Eight |
| 4/4/1992 | 4 Cincinnati | W 76-72* | Final Four* |
| 4/6/1992 | 1 Duke | L 51-71* | National Championship* |
7 seed: 2-2
| Date | Opponent | Result | Round |
| 3/15/1996 | 10 Texas | L 76-80* | First Round* |
| 3/17/2017 | 10 Oklahoma State | W 92-91 | First Round |
| 3/19/2017 | 2 Louisville | W 73-69 | Second Round |
| 3/23/2017 | 3 Oregon | L 68-69 | Sweet Sixteen |
8 seed: 1-1
| Date | Opponent | Result | Round |
| 3/18/2011 | 9 Tennessee | W 75-45 | Second Round |
| 3/20/2011 | 1 Duke | L 71-73 | Third Round |
9 seed: 1-2
| Date | Opponent | Result | Round |
| 3/12/1987 | 8 Navy | W 97-82 | First Round |
| 3/14/1987 | 1 North Carolina | L 97-109 | Second Round |
| 3/16/1995 | 8 Western Kentucky | L 76-82 OT | First Round |
10 seed: 1-1
| Date | Opponent | Result | Round |
| 3/19/2009 | 7 Clemson | W 62-59 | First Round |
| 3/21/2009 | 2 Oklahoma | L 63-73 | Second Round |
11 seed: 1-1
| Date | Opponent | Result | Round |
| 3/16/2016 | 11 Tulsa | W 76-72 | First Four |
| 3/18/2016 | 6 Notre Dame | L 63-70 | First Round |
12 seed: 0-0
13 seed: 0-0
14 seed: 0-0
15 seed: 0-0
16 seed: 0-0
Should we make all of the same comments that we did yesterday in this exact same thread?
if so, then yes.
My bad. Realized this right after I posted.
I remember every single one of these games.
When Michigan wins the Sweet Sixteen game, we tend to catch fire and keep advancing.
Also, we are money in the Final Four game. We just don't lose there . . . a 6-1 record. That one loss was in 1964, and we still won the 3rd place game which they had back then.
I'd be curious to know what the decision making was to stop the 3rd place game. If I recall, the NIT still has one. I actually wouldn't mind that coming back.
Same here.
A lot of people are lukewarm on the idea, but for an NCAA that will come up with a "First Four" play-in round just to milk some extra attention and revenue . . . a third place game at the Final Four on Sunday as a warm-up to the NC seems like a natural attention and revenue getter.
Unless you have to play in it. Or buy a ticket to it.
"Congratulations, you've gotten agonizingly close to your dream, only to fall short. Here, go be the warm-up act for the game you really wanted to get into."
I agree that the NCAA would do it to milk a few more dollars out of the tournament.
In terms of the teams playing, I think it would be absolutely miserable to play in that game. It's not like the olympics where 3rd place is still meaningful. There is only one national champion and everyone else's season ends in disappointment. Wichita State and Syracuse would have liked to have had another crack at the teams that just beat them I'm sure, but to play each other in a meaningless game just after their season was essentially ended doesn't sound appealing
In my personal experience playing in and watching tournaments at the youth and high school level, the 3rd place game (if there is one) lacks intensity and just seems forced. Selfishly I would like to watch some good teams play basketball during that lull, but the competitiveness would be down and I do not think the product would be very good.
I really don't see the point.
We got a silver runner up trophy in 2013 yet hang a Final Four banner. It sounds and looks much better than a National Finalist banner being up there.
Yeah, I thought that but I didn't want to type it. But it's true.
We've had the misfortune to run up against some historically good programs in the NC:
'65 - UCLA at peak Wooden,
'76 - Undefeated Indiana,
'92 - Duke's back to back team,
'93 - Deam Smith at his peak (though this was the one game we really should have won),
'13 - A Louisville team that was clearly bought and paid for (but we should have won this game too).
The only "ordinary" team that we faced - '89 Seton Hall - we won.
Thank goodness we won that game in OT, or we would feel like the Buffalo Bills of CBB.
Interesting that we've never been a 5 seed. Surprised by that. I do like both of our records as a 3 or a 4 seed for sure!
We had a great team and ran into that team of destiny/buzzsaw
That was their style all year. And with the passing of hank the bank, they were a team of destiny.
45 second shot clock back then. The 35-second clock was introduced in the '93-94 season.
Loyola Marymount's offense was just bonkers. They averaged 122 points per game. They made 40% of their threes as a team.
One of their stars, Hank Gathers, died on March 4th during a game. They thrived despite that as an 11 seed, reaching the elite eight and falling to UNLV. Jeff Fryer hit 11 of 15 threes against us. Just tip your hat to that.
I remember an interview with Loyola Marymounts coach (Im thinking SI article) who thought that he could get to 200 at some point. A normal game for them was 100 possessions with the ball. And you got to remember it was an era where most games were in the 90s and alot over 100. UNLV was a prolific scoring team as well.
Please edit the 8-seed box and get rid of that stupid "second round" designation for what is really the first round.
They did that back then so they could pimp the play-in games as the "first round".
Like "Legends and Leaders", people weren't having it. So they finally got smart and went back to a true first round designation and called the play-in games "First Four" which at least makes some sense.
What, you don't look at the tournament as a standard 128-team bracket with 60 byes?
I tried to do as I was told - they actually said what you said in not so many words - but I just could not kid myself.
Dumb spin on dumb idea . . . is dumb.
I mean, that's exactly what the tournament is, with the only truly odd thing being that the byes don't go to the top 60, but rather the top 36 or so, then skip four, and then the next 24 or so. You can fill it up on a 128-team bracket and it works.
It's dumb, but it works. :-)
64 was a perfect number, and I say that despite Michigan being a First Four team a few years ago. If you don't finish within the top 32 at-large teams, better luck next year. (Also: Michigan deserved better than the First Four that year anyway).
The next number that makes any amount of sense is 96, and that's only if the 32 byes go to the 32 automatic bids -- that would make some of these conference championship games, where both teams are already in, much more compelling. But I'd prefer 64 to 96 by a factor of about a million to one.
''surely this team isn't about to lose''...but it was all playing to the level of competition and turning on that next gear...esp. that UCLA game
didn't play against the loser of the NC game (being on the other side of the bracket), it should face the NC game loser on Tuesday for the golden
trophy.
The coach of the losing team gets fired.
UM Fan From Sydney would probably downvote his own child's birthday.
It's like expecting dung beetles to not roll balls of poop. It's what they do.
Sad time for all of those guys in the mid-90s. So much wasted talent.
Give Beilein those guys and they're winning Big Ten titles every year, going deep into the tournament if not cutting down nets.