Michigan Should Only Play Top-5 Teams

There are some teams that notoriously play down to the level of their competition. Michigan's taken it in the exact opposite direction this season. The Wolverines have played incredibly well when pitted against teams ranked in the top five -- splitting with Duke, beating UCLA and now taking No. 1 Connecticut to the brink of a major, major upset on Saturday in Storrs.

Depending on where you check your lines, Michigan was around a 17-point underdog heading into this one. But the Wolverines actually led by eight in the first half and still had a four-point cushion with 14 minutes left. UConn, thanks mainly to the efforts of the monstrous Hasheem Thabeet, whose father has to be a redwood tree or something, finally stole the lead and held on for a 69-61 win.

Still, the outcome has to do more for Michigan than the Huskies.

Playing in Storrs against a team that looked to have huge advantages all over the court, it was the absolute classic nothing-to-lose scenario for John Beilein's bunch. Barring a 40-point loss, or an injury to Manny Harris or DeShawn Sims, Michigan could simply watch its RPI bump up and get some national TV exposure against a sensational team. And the seemingly overmatched Wolverines played like the looser, more focused bunch for much of the game. Michigan kept things at its tempo, let Stu Douglass heat up outside to the tune of 20 points and kept Connecticut from getting out in transition.

Eventually Thabeet's size and UConn's athleticism got the best of Michigan. You can chalk up the lackluster effort to an odd mid-February game in the midst of the Big East gauntlet -- and that's probably a decent argument -- but the Huskies looked somewhat flustered against Michigan's zone, and bogged down in the half-court.

Michigan, meanwhile, suddenly looks like the group that climbed into the top 25 a few weeks back. That's good news because the Wolverines' season may come down to how they fair on Tuesday against arch-rival Michigan State and next Saturday at Northwestern.

UConn is back in Big East action on Wednesday when Syracuse's comes a-callin'. The Huskies survived on Saturday, and that's all they needed to do in the race for a No. 1 seed.

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

2-07-2009 @ 10:15PM

JC said...

To be fair, this game was only close because Michigan hit so many threes. Some of those were 2-3 steps behind the 3-point line or desperation heaves at the end of the shot clock.

Michigan got most of their points in the paint early and only hit two mid-range jump shots all day. They took 29 threes and hit 9, that's not the recipe for sustained success. UConn outrebounded them at an almost 2:1 clip and had 7 blocks.

Yes, the game was definitely very close, but I feel that if you lined these teams up tomorrow, UConn would win by 15 or more.

2-07-2009 @ 11:11PM

Don said...

You just contradicted yourself JC by saying that 3-pointers kept UofM in, but they only shot 9 of 29. Give some credit to Michigan. They outplayed UConn. If the officials called the game the same way for Thabeet that they do for everyone else, he would have been sitting on the bench with 3 fouls mid way through the first half and Michigan would have won this game!

2-08-2009 @ 1:21AM

If they called the game fairly for Thabeet, he'd shoot 20 more free throws a game. He gets absolutely mauled in the paint sometimes but the refs let it slide because he's so big, he can absorb it.

And they outplayed UConn? How do you figure? They got outrebounded by almost double, shot 30% from the field and only hit two non-three point jump shots.

What they were able to do was effectively limit UConn's running game and Price and Dyson couldn't really get it going that way, but it's disingenous to say they outplayed UConn.

Also, it's not a contradiction to say Michigan's three-point shooting kept them in it but to also point out that 9-for-29 is a poor percentage. That's 31%. Not good. They hit some threes that quelled UConn runs and kept them within shouting distance late in the game, but if they average 31% from three for the season, they will lose more often than they win.

2-08-2009 @ 1:38AM

umcorky said...

How is this not a contradiction? You're saying that Michigan didn't rebound and didn't shoot well -- yet they were ahead at No. 1 UConn in the second half. Clearly, Michigan was doing something right, it wasn't luck.

And as far as Thabeet goes, the guy is an absolute hack. I used to hear this same arguments about Shaq and they were the same crap then. It doesn't matter what size you are, if you throw your body into guys on defense, use your elbows to create space on offense and lean over backs on rebounds, those are fouls. It shouldn't matter that he's bigger than everyone. A foul is a foul. Those two they called on Thabeet late in the game, they could have called on every possession, both offensively and defensively.

2-08-2009 @ 3:10AM

It's not a contradiction. Michigan didn't rebound well. How can you say they did when the rebound margin was UConn +23 and when Adrien and Thabeet alone out-rebounded Michigan?

Also, just look at the half breakdowns: Michigan got a lot of easy layups and hit their threes in the first half and took a one-point lead into halftime (13-28 from the floor, 5-13 from three). The second half, they were 4-16 from three and only 9-29 from the floor. UConn shot poorly in the first half (11-30 from the floor, 4-11 from three) but decided to work the ball inside and in the second half they were 11-22 from the floor and 2-3 from downtown.

Things Michigan did well:
- Limit UConn's transition opportunities
- Attack the paint early to open up three-point attempts
- Make three-pointers (if your name was Stu Douglass)
- Go into halftime with the lead

Things Michigan didn't do well
- Rebound
- Make three-pointers (if your name wasn't Stu Douglass. In fact, Manny Harris had the only non-Stu Douglass three of the second half)
- Convert UConn turnovers into points (7 points off 17 turnovers)

I'm not trying to say Michigan was lucky. They definitely did some things well. They've had some very, very good wins this season and they hit UConn in the mouth today. However, in the second half, UConn's guards stopped trying to go three-for-three with Michigan and they started attacking the rim, getting to the line and making short jumpers and that's how they were able to win this game. Not to mention, Michigan only had four offensive rebounds in the second half. When you shoot a low percentage and don't get second-chance points, it's going to be hard to maintain a lead.

2-08-2009 @ 3:42PM

dane1995 said...

saying a team looked good in a loss is like saying at someone's wake that they looked "really good ". a loss is a loss, and in michigan's case, multiple losses are multiple losses. woulda...coulda....shoulda...