Where SHOULD we be Ranked?
I've seen a lot of rankings:
#8 [ESPN]
#8 [Sporting News]
#13 [SI]
#18 [Pre-Snap Read]
...and of course it's difficult to tell where we *should* be. But if we are to take preseason rankings as a combination of:
A. Indication of relative quality compared to other teams on the list
B. Indication of where we will end the season, considering factors exogenous to our level of quality, such as number of games played away and strength of schedule
...then where would you rank University of Michigan?
I tend to think the #6 and #8 rankings are a bit high. After all, we have a rough schedule that includes 5 games I consider "losable" [quasi-@Alabama, @Notre Dame, MSU, @Nebraska and @Ohio] and three more home games that we should win, but won't necessarily be easy [Air Force. Northwestern and Iowa].
I'm already on record predicting a 9-3 regular season, of either the 9-3 [7-1] or 9-3 [6-2] varieties. Because of that, I'm going to say the #13 ranking looks most realistic to me. We will be good enough to win some big, high-profile games, but I doubt 9-3 would be good enough to crack the top 10. Unless, of course, we make it to the Big 10 Championship, win it, and then beat the very good and highly ranked loser of USC/Oregon in the Rose Bowl.
What does everyone else think?
August 16th, 2012 at 5:33 PM ^
August 16th, 2012 at 3:53 PM ^
13, taking into consideration our schedule.
August 16th, 2012 at 4:16 PM ^
A preseason ranking is where you rank teams according to perceived ability. Schedule and where the eff you think they'll end up has nothing to do with it.
Fuck! I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.
August 16th, 2012 at 4:26 PM ^
Unfortunately, due to the way things are set up in college football, I'm not sure that the best teams are always accurately represented in polls. After all, there isn't as many head to head proving points in DIV-1 A as in other sports. Isn't that why there seems to be more debate in this sport more than any other?
In my opinion, one can create a preseason poll with a couple goals in mind: One, to create an order of the best teams in the country (period). This would seem to be your line of thinking, and there's nothing wrong with it.
A second reason, however, could be trying to predict where teams will end up at the end of the year. Again, where a team will end up has a lot to do with talent, but talent isn't everything--schedule also has a part in it. A season is like a marathon, and if you have more bumps in the road than your opponents, then you have a better chance of stumbling, regardless of your team's talent. (That analogy probably sucks, but whateva). So with that being said, it just depends on what your goal is with your list. If we're talking about option #2, I think bringing up scheduling is a valid part of the argument.
August 16th, 2012 at 4:28 PM ^
came off as attacking that poster I replied to. It was more a cry against the dumbass sports writers who do it.
August 16th, 2012 at 4:38 PM ^
This dynamic has always driven me nuts as well. I think it is less of a problem nowadays with all the main conferences having championship games and with the new selection committee. But in the old days, you would see teams get ranked higher in the pre-season polls just because they have easy schedules, which almost creates a self-fulfilling prophecy that they will finish higher: those teams are starting from a higher spot, have fewer chances to lose, and then if they do lose, they don't drop as low because of where they started. And the inverse is that teams which play a more difficult schedule are starting from further behind, have more chances to lose, and then fall even lower if they do lose.
August 16th, 2012 at 5:37 PM ^
August 16th, 2012 at 3:54 PM ^
Because we are winning a MNC. Duh
August 16th, 2012 at 3:54 PM ^
Pre-snap Read has it pretty close. The schedule is too tough to justify a top 10 ranking IMO.
August 16th, 2012 at 3:57 PM ^
I'd go with 12th
August 16th, 2012 at 6:28 PM ^
I would agree with this. Maybe the ball bounces our way and we finish higher, but I think this is pretty realistic. Top 20 for sure. Lots of question marks on both lines.
Edit: I do think however that we will be a better team than both Wisconsin and Nebraska this year and am in second thought suprised that we weren't higher. All things considered, I do think we are a top 15 team and am not mad at the idea of #12 in the country.
August 16th, 2012 at 9:20 PM ^
Next time I'll make sure to just regurgitate what everone else says and not have any of my own opinions.
August 16th, 2012 at 3:56 PM ^
Schedule is such a dumb factor for preseason rankings. If Michigan replaced the Bama game with Eastern Michigan how does that make us a better team? Our preseason ranking would go up since people would assume 1 more win on the year, but that doesnt affect the QUALITY of the team. If a team wins 9 games against the top-25 and loses 3 games agains Bama, LSU, and USC, why should that team be ranked lower than someone with an 11-1 record with a loss to a mediocre team and only a couple top-25 wins. Thats how it always shakes out and its not right.
College football is not the NFL where every team still has talented players, some schedules are so soft the wins are meaningless.
August 16th, 2012 at 3:59 PM ^
This this this.
Rankings shouldn't be affected by schedules -- of course, they ultimately are (in terms of wins/losses), but haven't you head nearly everyone say "This is a team that is better than in 2011 but will come out with more losses".
Subsituting a cupcake in for Alabama doesn't change the ability of our team.
August 16th, 2012 at 4:35 PM ^
Because at this time of year they are projections about future records, based upon talent AND what level of competition they play. Using your example, it is irrelevant whether this year's team is more talented than last year, because if we finish 10-3, we will assuredely be ranked lower at the end of year than we were last year (unless something weird happens and everyone has 3 losses). That is based on schedule.
August 17th, 2012 at 4:44 AM ^
August 16th, 2012 at 5:11 PM ^
...that would mean that ankings actually are objective attempts to determine relative quality, and they most clearly are not.
Like it or not, the team that is ranked #13 and beats EMU by 30 pts is going to fare better in the next set of rankings than the team that is ranked #13 and loses to #3 Alabama by 2 pts, even if losing to Alabama by 2 pts is a greater achievement than beating EMU by 30.
That's just how it is.
August 16th, 2012 at 4:50 PM ^
I would say in the 15 range. The schedule we have this year is going to be really tough, we have little depth on the OL and the DL is mostly unproven. I would agree that 9-3 is a realistic possibility this year and that would be a pretty decent season with these things considered.
Edit: Not taking schedule into account, like it should be, I would agree with Michigan being in the 6-8 range. We would definitely be higher than Arkansas and company, IMHO.
August 16th, 2012 at 3:59 PM ^
August 16th, 2012 at 6:29 PM ^
August 16th, 2012 at 4:01 PM ^
10th
August 16th, 2012 at 4:03 PM ^
Above Notre Dame.
August 16th, 2012 at 4:04 PM ^
August 16th, 2012 at 4:28 PM ^
Couldn't agree more with this... I'm pulling my hair out with all of the schedule comments.
A pre-season ranking is ranking the teams ability, not what their record might be. Let's take the USA Today Preseason Poll:
August 16th, 2012 at 6:51 PM ^
Cracks me up when people make statements like "A pre-season ranking is ranking the teams ability, not what their record might be
" -- Like there is a rule book somewhere.August 16th, 2012 at 6:56 PM ^
But isn't that what a ranking is? A qualitative list? If we ranked them based on their record it was just be "the standings."
Anyone can take a look at who has the best record, but we look at rankings to see beyond that.
August 17th, 2012 at 7:55 AM ^
To be clear, IMO a ranking should consider many factors. Certainly ability ought to be one of those factors, my point was that it should not be the only factor and there is certainly no "rule" has to how rankings ought to be done.
August 16th, 2012 at 5:15 PM ^
...losing difficult games will, whereas winning not difficult games won't. It may not be a great way of doing things, but you have to admit it has a huge effect.
I'd probably rather see a team that goes 9-3 with a tough schedule that played hard in its losses to higher ranked teams do better than one that goes 11-1 with an easier schedule. But does that happen? Not generally. the Boise States and TCUs of the world can complain that they were shut out, but their very easy schedules didn't stop them from being ranked above good teams from power conferences that played much more difficult schedules either.
August 16th, 2012 at 6:48 PM ^
Who would be ranked higher? A 9-4 team that played 12 games against teams in the top 20 losing 4 of those games or a 12-1 team that played one game against top 20 team?
My guess is the 12-1 team, even if the 9-4 team was the team to hand them there only loss and is arguable "better." Schedule matters in post season rankings, so why should it be ignored in pre-season rankings?
August 16th, 2012 at 6:51 PM ^
In your scenario, I think the 9-4 team would be ranked higher. That would be the craziest schedule ever, and a 12-1 team who didn't beat a single ranked team would not be ranked very high at all.
August 16th, 2012 at 4:07 PM ^
Anywhere in the 10-15 range, so I'll pick 12th. I also thing we'll go 9-3 or 10-2 in the regular season and win the division.
August 16th, 2012 at 4:09 PM ^
I remember in the latter Lloyd years, it seemed like when we started out in the top 10, we would lose those "Lloyd Letdown" games early to teams we shouldn't lose (no way! Did that ever happen?) but when we started lower (I.E. 2006) we ended up having a superb season. I don't like this at all, actually. Please rank us 25.
August 16th, 2012 at 4:10 PM ^
I think between 9-14 is good. So I'll go with 12.
August 16th, 2012 at 4:17 PM ^
I have long had us going 9-3 but with all of the ????? about how good we'll be and how bad others might be I just don't know. Looking at our toss up games we could go anywhere beween 8-4 or 11-1 (no way we beat Bama unless they are totally unprepared). I say 9-3 ranked 13th-15th. Find it odd that the two services SI and Pre-Snap have MSU ranked higher. This is the one game that I want us to win maybe even as much as The Game this year. As for the division champs........Toss Up games......gotta win those.
August 16th, 2012 at 4:52 PM ^
he will have only had one game of experience on the road--at Central Michigan. Man, I hope the big house is rocking on the 20th. I think both defenses are better than the offenses they will face that game, fwiw.
August 16th, 2012 at 4:20 PM ^
we are overrated. Sorry, but I do. We are replacing possibly the best two players on the defense, we really don't have a receiving core to speak of, pretty thin on the offensive line and a question mark in terms of the availability of our primary back for the first part of the season. To see us ranked 8th in some polls, I just don't know man.
August 16th, 2012 at 5:49 PM ^
August 16th, 2012 at 6:31 PM ^
First of all, it's receiving corps. All of our receivers have cores.
Secondly, we really don't lose that much. Yeah, we lose Martin and RVB, they were good players. But we played the Sugar Bowl without Heininger, and our D was great, we return Roh and our entire back 7. On O, we return 3.5 starters on the OL, all but one WR (plus DG?), our starting QB and starting RB. Our 2012 recruiting class was very good, including a few instant impact guys.
This is all following an 11-2 season. Are there more than 7 teams with a better pitch than that?
August 16th, 2012 at 7:37 PM ^
What worries me is that our back 7 probably isn't as impactful on the game as RVB and Martin were last year. Improved offense is what I'm counting on to carry the day but I'm nervous as the O was really streaky last year and could barely move the ball against better teams (VT, etc.) w/o a prayer bomb to Hemmingway. I'm hoping they take a leap this year....we'll need it.
August 16th, 2012 at 7:58 PM ^
RVB was a solid player last year, but he was far from irreplaceable, and it seems like people are just writing Roh off at that spot. I think he'll be very good in RVB's stead.
August 16th, 2012 at 4:21 PM ^
I will tell you after I see some games played. I hate preseason rankings.
August 16th, 2012 at 4:22 PM ^
August 16th, 2012 at 4:32 PM ^
I think the USA Today Poll has it right with us at #8 though I would swap with Arkansas with Florida St.
August 16th, 2012 at 4:34 PM ^
We'll actually be pretty good this year. It's amazing how many of you can't grasp that simple fact.
August 16th, 2012 at 4:35 PM ^
Some years and teams are easier to rank than others. There are too many variables from my perspective. But if the following all fall into place, I could see us as high as five:
- If the team stays healthy, especially the OL & QB;
- If Mattison and the position coaches continue to improve the defense;
- If Denard stays in the pocket, and stops throwing air balls off his back foot;
- If Devin Gardner and Darboh develop as great WR options;
- If we continue to get a huge number of turnovers;
If all these things happen, we could have an incredible year. Problem is, I don't see all these things happening.
August 16th, 2012 at 4:38 PM ^
Somewhere between 15-20. Too many questions on both lines, no proven tight ends, and no proven depth at WR behind Gallon and Roundtree. The situation gets scary if Roundtree is out in week 1.
Too high of an initial ranking, but I get the fact that its for the Alabama game and preseason hype.
August 16th, 2012 at 4:40 PM ^
We shouldn't be ranked, nor should anyone else. Preseason rankings prejudice later rankings, and humans don't like to change their opinions once locked in by actions (such as voting). I don't think any official polls should come out until at least a few weeks into the season. If someone making a buck with MSM wants to release some poll, fine, but we all should ignore it.
I also agree with above comments that SOS should not impact rankings except to the extent that they help in determining "good" and "bad" losses and wins.
August 16th, 2012 at 4:41 PM ^
Those Yahoo rankings are for basketball.
For the football team, 15th looks about right.
August 16th, 2012 at 6:42 PM ^
Will get rid