AP Poll: UM at #24 (#23 In Coaches' Poll)
Sorry for the mobile post, but Michigan moves to 24 from last weeks 26 position
http://collegefootball.ap.org/poll/2013/9
October 20th, 2013 at 1:13 PM ^
Had Gibbons hit one of those FG or we did not have the epic collapse on PSU's final drive and were still unbeaten we would be in the top 10? Never want to lose, but we would have been one of the most overrated top 10 teams I could remember...probably pegged as a 3-6 point under dog going to East Lansing. If nothing else the loss helped to temper expectations.
October 20th, 2013 at 1:32 PM ^
I don't care, I'll take being an overrated top 10 team over being an "appropriately-ranked" one-loss team 100 times out of 100.
October 20th, 2013 at 1:37 PM ^
Just thinking how crazy it would be for a top 10 team to be pegged as the underdog against an unranked team.
October 20th, 2013 at 1:38 PM ^
Massey has us as 7 point underdogs with a 29% expected win chance. Our other opponents are as follows -
Nebraska 60% (W) - 38 to 35
Northwestern 50% (W) - 35 to 34
Iowa 47% (L) - 31 to 33
Ohio State 34% (L) - 37 to 42
October 20th, 2013 at 1:21 PM ^
October 20th, 2013 at 1:24 PM ^
This is the craziest poll I have ever seen. The SEC has 3 2-loss teams while 6-1 Oregon State and MSU can't crack the top 25. Missouri jumping to #5 is nuts but so are 9 losses by top 25 teams in one weekend.
October 20th, 2013 at 1:32 PM ^
were in the Big Ten and had beaten Ohio and Michigan, it would be viewed as evidence of what a terrible conference it is, with no top teams. But since Mizzou is in the SEC, its wins are viewed as evidence that "Hey, there's yet another awesome SEC team now" instead of "Hey, Florida and Georgia may not be good this year." It's a self-fulfilling prophecy, but one we will be stuck with until the BIG starts winning bowl games.
October 20th, 2013 at 1:43 PM ^
October 20th, 2013 at 1:51 PM ^
When the conferences play each other (early season games and bowls) the SEC wins a lot more than they lose...until that changes, you can't really argue against the rankings.
October 20th, 2013 at 2:02 PM ^
October 20th, 2013 at 2:19 PM ^
'Bama >> VT (top of the ACC)
Oregon >> Tenn (middle of SEC East)
FSU...(I guess >>Clemson> UGA?)
Ohio >> Cal
Mizzou > Indiana
Bama's win is undoubtedly impressive, but everything else mainly just makes the SEC East look not so much. That last conclusion would lead me to favor putting undefeated TT or Baylor ahead of Mizzou.
But the real questions come lower - why is LSU just outside the top ten with no impressive wins and losses to untangled Georgia and Mississippi? I guess if you consider Auburn a top ten team that makes sense, on the strength of their win at A&M. Why is SCar ranked with losses to Georgia and Tennessee? They have no impressive wins to write about.
Obviously I'm just looking at a few teams, but the "SEC is strong because of out if conference games" argument seems to go as far as Alabama, but doesn't extend to the rest of the conference.
October 20th, 2013 at 3:11 PM ^
There is a huge gap in the ACC between first FSU and Clemson and then Clemson in the rest. VT is a mid pack team in any other conference. They almost loste to ECU, Marshall (3 OTs) and barely beat UNC and GT. They are not a quality win by any stetch of th imagination.
October 20th, 2013 at 4:50 PM ^
October 20th, 2013 at 1:55 PM ^
The poll shows significant bias in favor of the SEC, the same bias which has helped them "win" so many BS titles in a row.
Objectively, the SEC is weak this year. They've fared poorly against other major conferences. Most notably, Tennessee was demolished 59-14 by Oregon. Is this an example of just one weak SEC team? No. Tennessee has been competitive against every SEC team since then, even the top teams. The lost to Florida by only 14, lost to Georgia by only 3 and beat South Carolina by 2. Now look at Auburn, an upper tier SEC team. They barely escaped with a 7 point win against Washington State, a team which has lost by 38 to Stanford, 28 to Oregon State and 24 to Oregon ( the margin was 38 until Oregon put in scrubs and allowed two very late TD's).
I know transitivity doesn't work well in college football and I know it's hard to judge by a single game or a few games. But aren't the polls supposed to be objective? Using objective criteria, I would rank Oregon #1, Florida State #2 and Alabama #3. If these 3 teams are undefeated at the end of the year, current data indicates Alabama should be left out of the title game. But they won't be. That is exactly why the SEC has been so "dominant." It has been the best conference many years but not as "dominant" as the biased BS suggests.
October 20th, 2013 at 2:06 PM ^
Give me a break. It's like watching a different sport. There are a couple of Pac 12 and ACC teams that can hack it, but there is not one team in our conference that looks half as fast and physical as 5-6 SEC teams. There is a polling bias because they deserve it.
October 20th, 2013 at 2:26 PM ^
Also - Michigan's very flawed team last year was eleven seconds away from beating a top ten SCar outfit. Give the 'Cocks credit for winning, but I don't think the gap is as big as we think it is.
October 20th, 2013 at 2:47 PM ^
I give you data. And you give what? Just pure conjecture? Give ME a break.
According to the data, the PAC 12 is the best conference this year. And the SEC is #2. According to the data, the top two teams are not in the SEC. Bias inherently means UNDESERVED favoritism. If the results on the field supported the lofty SEC rankings, THEN they would deserve it. Otherwise, we'll just have another year where the SEC is annointed BS champion without proving it or earning it on the field.
As for the Big Ten, I never claimed that it was on a par with the SEC. The Big Ten is pretty weak this year and OSU is overranked based on their performance so far. The conference rankings, based on actual performance this year, would place the PAC 12 at the top with the SEC #2. Beyond that, it's hard to tell.
And the results on the field do not support your contention that teams from other conferences, including the Big Ten, can't compete with the SEC. Bowl results tell us the Big Ten CAN compete. I would bet that both OSU and Wisconsin could compete with the very best of the SEC, including Alabama.
October 20th, 2013 at 3:09 PM ^
October 20th, 2013 at 3:55 PM ^
I gave head to head results as well as transitive data.
FYI, I can't "pretend" data. It is what it is.
So if there's other data, please present it.
Otherwise, the debate is over.
October 20th, 2013 at 6:07 PM ^
October 20th, 2013 at 6:24 PM ^
Sample size is an issue which is why we use ranking and not standings to begin with.
As far as the multiyear success, the SEC lost over twice as many players to the NFL as any other conference. Unless that changes significantly people will see it as a generally stronger conference top to bottom even though the top half are the ones generating the picks.
October 20th, 2013 at 6:14 PM ^
October 20th, 2013 at 3:17 PM ^
5-6 SEC teams. Give me a break. Auburn beat Texas A&M and barely beat WSU. That would be a top 6 SEC team almost losing to a bottom tier Pac12 team. Tenn beat Georgia and has been in all ther games, yet Oregon destroyed them. That would be a mid pack SEC team getting embarassed off the field by Oregon. S.Carolina came very close to losing to UCF. That would be the same UCF team that PSU almost beat.
October 20th, 2013 at 2:07 PM ^
Just keep winning, and the rankings will take care of themselves. At this point, a better guide is usually the Sagarin rankings than either of the polls.
October 20th, 2013 at 2:07 PM ^
I'm surprised Georgia isn't in the top 10 still! And where's the unstoppable juggernaut that is Tennessee? What about Ole Miss and Vanderbilt? Obviously the top ranked teams losing doesnt meant that they're bad teams... The lower ones are just superior right?
October 20th, 2013 at 2:36 PM ^
during the PSU game then we would be sitting in the top ten now by default.
October 20th, 2013 at 4:06 PM ^
People argue that you can't use transitive property when debating on why one team is ranked they are and another team is lower, but isn't that what's being used to explain why Michigan is ranked where they are? Michigan fell in the polls because they struggled against Akron and Uconn. Other teams ran for X amount of yards against them but we didn't. Other teams beat them by X amount of points but we didn't. Etc.
I understand that certain teams have losses against "stronger" competition but I just can't see why two-loss teams are still in the top 15 while a 5-1 Michigan squad has to struggle just to remain in the top 25.
October 20th, 2013 at 6:11 PM ^
October 20th, 2013 at 9:25 PM ^
October 20th, 2013 at 4:40 PM ^
We need to just keep winning.
October 20th, 2013 at 5:35 PM ^
http://espn.go.com/college-football/rankings/_/poll/5 Harris Poll. Michigan is ranked 22nd
October 20th, 2013 at 7:46 PM ^
I think Oregon and FSU are better than anyone in the SEC. I see Alabama and Clemson very close as 3rd and 4th, Stanford is 5th, OSU is 6th, then maybe the some of the other SEC teams. I think LSU is still pretty strong. But, T A&M, Florida, & Mizzou are really overrated. Ole Miss may be just as good. They have a lot of good teams, but only one great team (Bama), and even they are not as strong as they have been the past few years. I wouldn't be surprised to see an SEC-less NCG assuming FSU and Oregon win out.
October 20th, 2013 at 8:08 PM ^
Clemson at 3rd or 4th? Really? After getting their asses kicked by Florida State yesterday.
October 21st, 2013 at 8:18 PM ^
I saw that as FSU is awesome rather than Clemson is not that good. Clemson beat Georgia before their injuries. Clemson was just as good in terms of size and skill and just got beat by a better team. After seeing both Bama & Clemson play multiple times I think it would be a close game between the two. I also don't think Bama can keep up with either Oregon or FSU.
October 20th, 2013 at 8:08 PM ^