Updated NCAA Tournament Title Odds
a lot of people will be picking Michigan to make the Final Four...they will be be ''the sexy pick.''
Unfortunately one of those teams wears stripped uniforms, was at the Iowa game and seems to show up at random...
The team with the best odds is considered only 2 times more likely than Michigan to win the tournament. I am actually loving this week off; just reveling in Michigan's surge and repeat championship - stress free!
I’ve also watched nearly every Michigan game and their defense seems significantly better (again, I don’t have stats to support this). If the shots aren’t falling, I like their chances to win ugly.
In a one game tournament, I like Nova. But with the need to string together 6 good games, I’d put money on Michigan before Nova.
as a pick to win it all, I tune them out for lack of credibility. Are you even paying attention? Yes, they got good recruits and Bridges was great last year. I just haven't seen anything to suggest the product on the court can do it.
But, you tune someone out for lack of credibility if they pick a 29-4 team in a Power 5 conference to win it all?
Miiiiight be going a touch too far. I'm guessing your view is influenced by watching them most closely against UM, who is really freaking good and also a bad matchup for MSU.
I won't have MSU getting to the E8 in my brackets, but one doesn't have to squint too hard to see a team stocked with talent that went 29-4 and, at their best, ran UNC off the court, have a shot at a run.
No doubt they have the talent. I just haven't seen anything since November that would make me choose them over about ten other teams or put much value in the opinion of someone that would.
Most fragile and weak 29-4 in the history of NCAA basketball. You cant just say 29-4 without the context of a mid-major type schedule.
It's completely unjustifiable. If Maryland drops below 75th in RPI (fairly likely), MSU will have zero quadrant 1 road wins, and will be 2-4 against quadrant 1. No other team under consideration for a 2 or 3 seed is worse than 5-6 against quadrant 1. Their profile is roughly comparable to Gonzaga, which has about the same record, including the same record against quads 1-2 combined. Gonzaga also has three road wins that are better than MSU's Maryland win, and a neutral win over Ohio State that is arguably better than MSU's home win over Purdue. What Gonzaga doesn't have is the win over UNC. That said, I don't see how MSU is more than a couple spots above Gonzaga. They just don't have the quality in their resume to be a 2 seed.
and it certainly doesn't have to come from Bridges. It should come from Goins and Shilling's minutes. No reason those guys should play as much as they do.
They also should be playing their small lineup more often. The one they went to late against us with McQuaid at the 3, Bridges at the 4 and Jackson at the 5. McQuaid hit a couple threes, Bridges was able to take it to the hole without Ward/Schilling clogging the lane, and it allows Jackson to be more of a rim protector (kind of like how we put DJ at the five down the stretch last year to get our best shot blocker closer to the rim).
There are many obvious ways to use him more effectively, but Izzo is stuck in the 90s playing two bigs because he thinks rebounding is the most important thing in basketball.
But, you tune someone out for lack of credibility if they pick a 29-4 team in a Power 5 conference to win it all?
MSU is what, 2-4 against tournament-bound teams? That's all they're going to be facing from here on out.
That is exactly why that stat is meaningless. Do you really believe Villanova has a slightly-above-average defense?
Michigan averages 63.5 ppg allowed at an raw tempo of 66.2 possessions per game (not opponent- or overtime-adjusted, so they should mesh with the NCAA's). That's 0.959 ppp. Villanova allows 71.2 ppg at a raw tempo of 71.6 possessions per game. That's 0.995 ppp. In a typical Michigan 65-possession game, that works out to a 2-point advantage for Michigan, and that's without adjusting for opponents. Michigan has the better numbers, but the vast majority of the apparent difference is tempo.
since those aren't tempo-free, or opponent adjusted.
But better stats still support the claim that Michigan has a better defense than Nova.
Michigan is 6th in kenpom.
Nova is 26th which isn't bad but not elite and not at the level that national champs are usually playing. It is Nova's worst defense in 5 years and would be the worst defense to win a national title since Uconn's Kemba Walker team made an improbable run through tourney in 2010 (and that team still finished with a top 15 defense, it just didn't enter with a top 25 unit).
I would agree that Nova either needs to step it up a notch on defense, and I don't see that happening because they lack elite length and athleticism (which that Unconn team had, they just didn't bother to rebound much in the regular season), or hope to outscore opponents.
EDIT: sorry, started writing this before the other response was posted.
...top 2 seed and all of that...they do that Kansas flopping thing in the NCAA tourney, so I would never actually bet on Virginia in the NCAAs
that our odds are better than those for Kansas and Xavier, two consensus #1 seeds. In the case of Xavier - by a lot.
But I hate that we are behind Sparty in the eyes of Vegas oddsmakers. Have they not been watching these teams over the past two weeks? Lottery picks don't win games - great teams do. And upside from talent at this time of year just becomes underachieving mediocrity - Sparty's destiny, IMO.
Go Blue!
of your character from Caddyshack - "Never sell Sparty short - they are a tremendous slouch".
I'm at work right now. Can you wait until I get home?
I got Michigan 50/1 for $20
When odds like this are posted, does it imply that we actually have a 1 in 9 chance to win? Or do the expected wagers factor in as well?
Meaning, if more and more people bet on Michigan, our odds would increase, right (to level out the money)? How much does this this affect the listed odds?
Michigan's implied percentage chance of winning is 10 percent (9:1 = 10%, 3:1 = 25%, 1:1 = 50%, etc.)
But if you add up every team's implied chance of winning, you will get something between 120 percent and 200 percent. The reason should be obvious--if the casino over-rates every single team, that means every single bet is a bad bet and every bet will tend to make money for the casino. So the amount of money being bet on Michigan is probably around 5% to 8%.
If 50 percent of the money is coming in on Michigan, of course they will lower Michigan's odds to whatever level it takes to smooth out the money coming in.
I was wondering if that was how the math works out, thanks for explaining!
So would it be fair to say that all this means is that people THINK we have a 10% chance to win, not that we actually HAVE a 10% chance? Or are these two things indistinguishable, with all the metrics (KenPom, RPI, etc) available?
Let's stipulate that nobody actually knows what Michigan's chances of winning are. "That's why they play the games," as they say. So instead of that, we will consider it "implied chance" or something like that.
What the 9:1 odds mean is that the casino is comfortable with the amount of money being bet on Michigan right now. They want to spread out their risk, so they win money no matter who wins the tournament. Let's say that 3 days go by and nobody bets on Michigan State. At that point, the casino will raise MSU's odds to something like (say) 12:1 or 15:1, so they are a more attractive bet. At the same time, if hundreds of people come in and bet on Michigan, they will quickly lower Michigan's odds--maybe to 5:1 or whatever--in order that they don't have too much risk on Michigan winning it all.
So the odds reflect a combination of the casino's opinion and the bettors' opinion. It's not an exact science, I would think, unlike setting a line on a single game between two teams.
So yeah, people--at least the people who place bets like this--think Michigan has about an 8% chance of winning.
in their efforts to get the odds as close as possible to what the market will bear because they don't want a situation where they're off and then have to adjust too much.
Everything you say is definitely correct, and the casinos models and the models of the biggest bettors that influence the market the most are usually pretty good in terms of getting close to the theoretical "true odds".
Those models are factoring in the fact that we've been statistically the best team in the country for the past month. That certainly means something.
Without commenting on our odds, I actually like Purdue in the tourney more than Sparty. We were able to counter Purdue's Haas + 4 shooters offense only on the third try. Teams who haven't faced it and only have between 1 and 6 days to prepare for it will have a difficult time. Sparty seems to just be a mess right now, not playing as a team, and I don't trust Izzo to right the ship.
are all final four caliber teams. MSU will have to fix a few things, but they have the time to do it.
This Purdue team feels so much like previous Purdue teams who have flamed out early in the tourney. Despite having two good post players and a bunch of shooters, they will live and die on Carson Edwards. While he did very well against Michigan twice this year, the BTT showed what happens when he doesn't have his Superman cape on. I can see them making the Sweet 16, but they are also equally as likely to lose on the first weekend.
If Vince Edwards is 100%. If he's 100%, I got them in my final four. If he isn't, they go out in the Sweet 16.
35-1 right before they beat state, also got Purdue at 25-1 at the same time. Very happy with those two wagers.
Before the brackets are released? Let's face it - the 95 year old guys setting up these things think the RPI is cutting edge fancy analytics so they lean heavily on that when deciding where to put teams. Which is why we get real wierd Kenpom match-ups and heavily over or under-weighted brackets.
Talk to me Sunday night around midnight (cause it's gonna take them that long to finish up releasing the whole thing) and we'll see where we are then. In 89 we started as a 3 seed but because of other teams losing we ended up playing the following to get to the final four
14 seeded Xavier
11 seeded South Alabama
2 seeded UNC
5 seeded Virginia
Not exactly a murderers row (with the exception of UNC which had knocked us out the previous three years in a row).
Then in the finals we beat a 1 seed in Illinois and then a 3 seed in Seton Hall. Not to diminish their run at all but they did get a favorable draw and then got favorable results from other teams to make the path a bit easier.
That Illinois team was really freaking good though.
That was the best basketball game I ever watched. Breathtaking.
1993 National Semifinal against Kentucky was the very, very best I've ever seen. Two giants throwing haymaker after haymaker at each other and neither able to put the other team away until the very end of OT.
I have contended to this day that we lost the national championship that night. We we pretty gassed going into the final while North Carolina made pretty quick work of Kansas and was relatively fresh.
And how bout that Terry Mills put back anyways?
I agree with the previous comments. Kentucky was a ferocious game and Illinois was also special. For the Illinois game, it was special since we were 0-2 in the regular season. I will always be greatly disappointed that Bill Frieder actually said in a pregame interview for the regular season game that he would bet that Illinois outrebounded Michigan. It may be correct but to say that aloud is ridiculous. In the Final Four when we were up 4-2 on Illinois but got some rebounds, both offensive and defensive, a friend of shouted, "This is great! We are kicking their asses." And we were. It was not like the regular season games (due to speech by Bo.) It was a great night.
Well, the same way the can set odds pre-season. Its just who they think are playing the best or look the best at the moment.
FWIW, they announced today they would have the whole bracket released within the first 15 or so minutes of the show.
They can set these odds because Vegas is not trying to predict a winner, they are trying to make money. They dont need the brackets, all they need is a good idea for how the public is going to bet the lines that they post.