[washingtonismoney]

Irrespective of Michigan's quality, I'm not sure this team is a cut above previous Dawkins squads.

Here are KenPom's thoughts:
2013-14 (44)
2012-13 (44)
2011-12 (36)
2010-11 (98)

(Keep in mind that Dawkins's teams have tended to fade by the end of the year; I've been optimistic many times based on KenPom's rankings heading into conference play only for the Cardinal to lose its luster.)

ESPN's also introduced a "basketball power index", presumably based on similar principles as its football and soccer power indices:

2013-14 (45)
2012-13 (41)
2011-12 (58)

The problem, from a overall program perspective, is that the forties are a bubble range --  and of course a team could go on a hot streak and make it into the tournament without being better from a fundamental perspective. And if we want the team to get back to where it was during the Montgomery years, that can't happen; it's clear that Dawkins can't lift the team beyond an average level.

[washingtonismoney]

Irrespective of Michigan's quality, I'm not sure this team is a cut above previous Dawkins squads.

Here are KenPom's thoughts:
2013-14 (44)
2012-13 (44)
2011-12 (36)
2010-11 (98)

(Keep in mind that Dawkins's teams have tended to fade by the end of the year; I've been optimistic many times based on KenPom's rankings heading into conference play only for the Cardinal to lose its luster.)

ESPN's also introduced a "basketball power index", presumably based on similar principles as its football and soccer power indices:

2013-14 (45)
2012-13 (41)
2011-12 (58)

The problem, from a overall program perspective, is that the forties are a bubble range --  and of course a team could go on a hot streak and make it into the tournament without being better from a fundamental perspective. And if we want the team to get back to where it was during the Montgomery years, that can't happen; it's clear that Dawkins can't lift the team beyond an average level.