Predicting the performance of college basketball teams has become increasingly complex due to the introduction of NIL and the transfer portal, yet we continue to make forecasts.
Today, we revisited some of our earlier projections from both the preseason and during the season. How accurate were we?
Let’s rewind to May 2024. After Dusty May assembled his first roster at Ann Arbor, we surveyed our readers on their expectations for the 2024-25 season. It turns out we all underestimated the Wolverines’ prowess — 48 percent expected them to secure one NCAA Tournament win, 40 percent believed they would make the tournament without winning, nine percent thought they would barely miss the cut, and two percent anticipated a full rebuild.
Our failure to even consider a Sweet Sixteen appearance underscores how unexpectedly the season unfolded.
In August, we attempted to project a starting lineup and rotation. While we correctly identified the backcourt, we significantly overlooked the frontcourt dynamics.
[…] It would make sense for Donaldson and Jones to both start. Donaldson proved to be a valuable shot-creator at Auburn, and Jones brings tons of experience and excellent on-ball defense. Jones is the type of experienced guard every team could use, so he seems like one of the locks to start looking at this roster on paper.
Regarding Danny Wolf and Vlad Goldin’s on-court collaboration:
May and Michigan’s assistants did hint Goldin and Wolf could share the floor for stretches, but that pairing both being in the starting lineup seems unlikely. With Goldin as the starting center, I could see Wolf serving as the backup center who can earn more minutes if he makes his shots. In the second unit, he also has more of a chance to be a lead creator, which is a good thing for his long-term growth.
While we deserved partial credit for recognizing Wolf’s potential as a lead creator, he exceeded expectations as he started every game and quickly became Michigan’s top player.
Final Record: Projected 22-9 (14-6 in conference), Actual 22-9 (14-6)
Our midseason projection accurately reflected Michigan’s final record, but the path taken was somewhat unexpected. We managed to predict the outcomes of nine out of the 13 games correctly, with two instances of misjudgment where we anticipated losses that turned into wins (against Ohio State and Nebraska), and vice versa for two games we thought would be wins (against Michigan State and Maryland).
For our final prediction in mid-February, we referenced KenPom to assess how Michigan’s postseason might unfold. Despite Michigan receiving a lower seed than most similar historical teams, we accurately forecasted the potential postseason outcome:
March Madness is known for its unpredictability, and there’s plenty of it anticipated. Based on historical metrics for teams with a profile similar to Michigan’s current KenPom ratings, the expected ceiling this year seems to be a Sweet 16 run, while an early exit without a win is also a possibility. Surpassing those expectations would likely be a surprise.
Overall, considering the completely new roster and an expanded conference, our predictions were surprisingly solid.
