Midseason 2018 Polls and Ratings
Now that we have reached the halfway point of the 2018 season, I thought it would be a good time to look at where Michigan stacks up in some of the computer ratings.
AP Poll #12: http://collegefootball.ap.org/poll
Coaches Poll #13: http://sportspolls.usatoday.com/ncaa/football/polls/coaches-poll/
F/+ #9: http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/fplus
S&P+ #5: http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/ncaa
FEI #16: http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/fei
Massey Ratings #9: http://www.masseyratings.com/cf/fbs/ratings
Sagarin Ratings #7 (#7 in Predictor): http://www.usatoday.com/sports/ncaaf/sagarin/
ESPN FPI #6: http://espn.go.com/college-football/statistics/teamratings
SRS #5: https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/years/2018-ratings.html
Michigan's team statistical profile:
Football Study Hall: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vQ2e9xV7-ClihFVJ3kla0ZDxzFCQ7-WXvQRur-nK6gOzo333PqSetw52kEGgbXKb6viGZSbYuJugvRR/pubhtml
ESPN FPI: http://www.espn.com/college-football/team/fpi?id=130&year=2018
Massey Ratings: https://www.masseyratings.com/team.php?t=4741&s=300937
Michigan is underrated in the polls relative to their computer ratings. ESPN FPI and S&P+ both forecast Michigan to finish 9-3 as the highest likely outcome for the season. FEI (based on opponent-adjusted possesion efficiency i.e. per drive instead of per play) is the lowest on Michigan right now. The S&P+ and FEI offense and defense ratings will be released starting after Week 7.
October 9th, 2018 at 12:32 PM ^
Win out and we'll be in the top 4 come playoff time, simple as that
October 9th, 2018 at 12:46 PM ^
I 99% agree with this. If Alabama and Georgia are undefeated going into the SEC championship game, I worry about the loser getting into the CFP over a 1-loss B10 champ.
Undefeated Clemson, undefeated ND, SEC Champ are definitely in.
If we win out, we will have a better resume than 1-loss Washington and 1-loss Oklahoma/Texas.
edit: It would require Clemson winning out (47%), Georgia winning out (15%), ND winning out (38%), Michigan winning out (5%), and Alabama winning the rest of their regular season (55%)... 0.07% chance all that happens at this point, and then it'd be 50/50 if we get in, so I'm not going to worry about yet it LOL
October 9th, 2018 at 12:54 PM ^
Clemson is going to get some recency bias. I worry that, even if we win out (I know, long way to go) and Clemson loses but wins the ACC title game, the final playoff poll will be:
1. Alabama v. 4. Clemson
2. Notre Dame v. 3. Georgia
October 9th, 2018 at 12:57 PM ^
There is absolutely no way Clemson gets in with a loss. None. Their schedule is so weak that they may finish the season without having played a single team that finished the season ranked.
October 9th, 2018 at 1:02 PM ^
Good to know. I forget how weak the ACC is now with the FSU nosedive.
October 9th, 2018 at 1:07 PM ^
It would also be somewhat letting in 2 ACC teams, when it is probably the weakest or second weakest P5 conference this year. I would love it if an undefeated ND doesn't make it in. Make them actually join a conference, or by default they should be given a loss for not playing in a conference championship game.
October 9th, 2018 at 1:19 PM ^
In addition, Michigan would be on a 12 game winning streak with its only loss coming on the road to a Top 4 team (by seven points). Clemson's resume couldn't stack up with that.
October 9th, 2018 at 2:02 PM ^
The committee are consistent with putting out the 4 best teams, not the 4 most deserving teams. Bama got in because they are the 4 best teams in the country and won it all which justified the committee's decision.
October 9th, 2018 at 3:07 PM ^
Anyone here think MSU was better than OSU in 2015? I don't care about the head-to-head...
MSU was an 8-4 team that managed to get lucky and go 12-1. But their record and B10 championship meant they deserved to be in.
October 9th, 2018 at 1:00 PM ^
If recency bias has any effect, no way a Georgia team that just lost to Alabama gets in over us. They had their chance last year too.
October 9th, 2018 at 1:03 PM ^
The SEC bias is pretty strong, though.
October 9th, 2018 at 2:26 PM ^
Speaking of SEC bias, I know the FPI uses recruiting rankings in their preseason predictions. Does anyone know if the recruiting factor is eliminated later in the season and replaced by only using game data?
If recruiting remains part of the formula, there is a very real SEC bias. It is well known that SEC schools are consistently and systematically overrated in the recruiting rankings. Many studies prove it.
But if the committee is relying on the FPI based Strength of Record, which I understand to be one of the top metrics they use, there is a big problem with using ESPNs own biased and flawed recruiting rankings.
October 9th, 2018 at 1:03 PM ^
Plus, putting us in at 4 would be a great show for the Harbaugh haters to say “see, he can’t win the big game” because we would lose to Bama.
October 9th, 2018 at 1:09 PM ^
Alabama should not have been in the playoff last year. What is the point of a conference championship game if it doesn't determine the best team in your conference? Might as well get rid of those games if we are going to have more than one team from each conference. Championship games are useless if that is the case.
October 9th, 2018 at 1:17 PM ^
The reality is that conference championship games ARE useless. They simply are money grabs framed as a way to determine the best team. There are too many teams and too much imbalance of schedules for these games to actually be fair. Look at 2016 Wisconsin. Lost to Michigan, OSU, and PSU: all of the best teams in the East, and they STILL made the Big Ten title game. Michigan would literally win the big ten west every single year they beat Wisconsin. Conference title games are jokes because divisions and division schedules are jokes
October 9th, 2018 at 2:02 PM ^
Need to get rid of the conference title games and replace them with the first round of an 8-team playoff. The 4 winning teams are then re-seeded by the CFP committee into the final 4 which would take place as scheduled during the end of the bowl season.
The 8-team matchups would be determined by the CFP committee and played in regional domed NFL stadiums ... great neutral venues where weather can't influence the outcome.
Likely more revenue in this setup ... and the 8-team TV revenue would be shared with the leagues to offset the lost title game revenue. TV contract for this playoff format would be huge$$$ compared to 5 crappy league title games.
October 9th, 2018 at 2:36 PM ^
Reduce the regular season to 11 games and decide conference champions on the basis of their regular season schedule. Go to a 16-team playoff. Revenue from the first round of 8 games is shared with all Division 1 schools to compensate for loss of 1 game on schedule. Sure, there will be a few teams on the outside looking in like always, but if you are the 17th ranked team in the nation you know you were never going to win the national title anyways.
ALL worthy teams will be included in a 16-team playoff (nobody can claim they got jobbed).
They already do a 16-team playoff in D2 and D3.
The round of 16 and round of 8 weekends would generate incredible excitement and huge TV ratings, as opposed to conference championship games which usually seem like exhibition games especially when there is no playoff implication.
October 9th, 2018 at 4:18 PM ^
I would love to see a "December Madness" with a 16 team playoff.
October 9th, 2018 at 2:49 PM ^
Hear, hear!!!
October 9th, 2018 at 2:18 PM ^
I would argue that they are NOT useless. Alabama should have won their division in their conference last year. Since they didn't take care of business, they didn't even make their conference title game. Should not have made playoffs. Need to take care of business in the regular season, otherwise, what's the point of playing any regular season games at all.
October 9th, 2018 at 1:21 PM ^
The SEC also shouldn't be rewarded for having their 2 best teams never play each other. Georgia vs. Alabama was scheduled in 2015, then is not until 2020, and not again through at least 2025.
October 9th, 2018 at 1:49 PM ^
Wait, are you saying that OSU shouldn't have been in the playoff during 2016 (see, outcome).
I'm okay with that.
October 9th, 2018 at 2:04 PM ^
Should not been there yet they won it all?
Sometimes, there's case where the top 4 teams can have two teams from the same conference. You're looking for the 4 best teams, not the 4 most deserving teams because team that deserves to be in can be worse than the team that doesn't have a conference championship to their resume.
October 9th, 2018 at 3:04 PM ^
If the 'best' teams biffed a regular season game and didn't even win their conference, they don't deserve to be in. What's the point of regular season otherwise?
October 9th, 2018 at 3:37 PM ^
The eye test and the advanced stats pretty much had Bama as the four best team. It's not about the most deserving spot, it's about the best team.
Bama may not deserve to be in the playoff based on resume (while everyone ignore that they blew out every team they played in the regular season which matters), but they are the four best team in the country. They proved the committee right. Bama was the best team all year long and just had a bad game against Auburn which is a rivalry game.
October 9th, 2018 at 4:45 PM ^
They didn't blow out Miss St., A&M, or LSU (and arguably not FSU) so it wasn't every team they played.
And yes, they were probably one of the best four teams in terms of talent, coaching, likelihood to win the title, etc.
But that was the case before the season even started. Before any games were played. So if you're just going to base it solely on that, what's the point of playing games?
Auburn won the Iron Bowl and it meant absolutely nothing as it turned out. That's a shame that a big game like that was rendered meaningless. Auburn should have kept their rivals out of it with that win.
I think there has to be the right balance between "best" and "deserving" and it was bad for college football and the best regular season in sports for Alabama to be selected to the playoff last year.
October 9th, 2018 at 4:58 PM ^
Why was it bad that Bama to be selected to the playoff last year when they won it all? If any, it would've been bad for CFP if Bama lost in the semi-final.
October 9th, 2018 at 5:00 PM ^
Why was it bad that Bama to be selected to the playoff last year when they won it all? If any, it would've been bad for CFP if Bama lost in the semi-final.
A&M and LSU game wasn't as close as the score indicated. The outcome was never in doubt. The only game that was close was the Mississippi State. Other than that, Bama dominated in every game.
October 9th, 2018 at 7:06 PM ^
Because it diminished the importance of their rivalry game, the regular season and conference titles in general.
If the four most talented teams that recruited the best and have the highest chances, per Vegas, get to go to the Playoff, regular season wins and losses matter a lot less.
College football has the best regular season in sports. That's what makes it so great. That is being eroded.
Had the committee kept Alabama out, there would have been zero argument at the end of the playoff that the wrong team was crowned champ.
The winner (probably Georgia) would be unanimously considered the best team last year and there would be no argument. They won the conference that Alabama plays in by beating the team that had just beaten Alabama relatively easily.
October 9th, 2018 at 8:32 PM ^
Except that Bama won it all so they were the best team in the country and always has been.
October 9th, 2018 at 1:40 PM ^
In any year ND gets in, it becomes exceedingly unlikely that that any team that finished runner up in a conference will get in.
They just will not lock out the winner of 3 of the 5 power conferences to let in the SEC runner up (assuming ND is selected).
And if this ever could happen, they would not lock out Michigan as Big Ten champ this year, given that M has a very hard schedule.
October 9th, 2018 at 2:56 PM ^
Very true, and this is before you get to the point that Michigan could end up being Notre Dame's only win over a team that finished the season ranked. The committee would have a hard time both justifying Notre Dame making the playoffs on account of going undefeated and leaving out a 1-loss Michigan team that would be the Irish's only quality win.
October 9th, 2018 at 1:11 PM ^
We know that the SEC champion will get in. If ND goes undefeated (pretty likely at this point based on advanced stats) they will get in.
My question is whether the committee will take 2 SEC teams and ND. That would leave 3 P5 conferences out of the playoff picture. I don’t know if they are willing to do that.
Another consideration is UCF. If they go undefeated 2 years in a row, do they deserve a shot? If they aren’t taken after being undefeated for 2 years, what will it take for a G5 team to make the playoff?
October 9th, 2018 at 1:24 PM ^
I don't care if they go undefeated 20 years in a row. Last year's results doesn't matter. They will have only beat Pitt for P5 teams, that doesn't deserve to get you into the CFP.
Next year they will at least play Stanford. But still, wins over Stanford, Pitt, and G5 teams shouldn't get you in.
edit: USF and Cincinnati both have a better SOR right now and should be ranked higher than UCF for G5 teams
October 9th, 2018 at 1:40 PM ^
Beating more than two (I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt that they would have beat NC, had they been able to play) power 5 teams would certainly be a good start. They just don't play enough quality opponents to have an argument. If they want to play with the big boys when it matters, they need to be there when the game starts
October 9th, 2018 at 1:57 PM ^
If you're a G5 team and want a chance, they need to be willing to do 1-off visits to top caliber P5 teams. If they scheduled an away game vs. any of the historic top 20 teams, plus another mediocre P5 team, and go undefeated, I would be okay letting them in over a 1-loss P5 champ of a weak conference.
October 9th, 2018 at 2:05 PM ^
Thing is they are willing to schedule with a top P5 teams but the top P5 teams won't do it because they don't want a possible loss to a quality G5 teams. That's a big problem with top G5 teams who are looking to schedule big time team because an upset will knock P5 team out of the playoff.
I know a few people who works at a G5 schools and they said they had problems with trying to schedule top P5 schools. B1G, ACC, Pac-12, SEC, and Big 12 don't want to play them in fear of losing to them.
It's a different case for Basketball where top P5 schools are more willing to play them as long as it's at their venue.
October 9th, 2018 at 2:44 PM ^
That's BS. Maybe for scheduling home-and-home's, but if UCF wanted to play for free on the road, I'm guessing top P5 teams would be lining up to schedule them. They don't want to because they know they're not a top 10 team and wouldn't be able to claim their stupid undefeated national championships.
UCF had a chance in 2016, they didn't beat us. If they had gone undefeated that year, they might've had a claim at being in the CFP.
WMU probably had the schedule this year to have a chance with UM and Syracuse if they had gone undefeated.
SMU had the schedule this year to make it to the CFP. @UM, @TCU.
Even Maryland isn't big enough of a name to get a home-and-home with Texas. But Texas was willing to do a home-and neutral (Washington Redskins home field).
October 9th, 2018 at 3:40 PM ^
Maryland isn't a G5 team, they're a P5 team. There's not much of a penalty for a P5 school to schedule a bad P5 team as opposed to scheduling good G5 team. That's a sad reality.
I guarantee you that Michigan ducked a lot of quality G5 teams because they rather face a baby seal or bad P5 schools as opposed to facing a good G5 team.
I also know for a fact that UCF last year has been looking for a top P5 team and is willing to travel without P5 school paying to play them. They said no thank you. UCF proved that they belong by beating Auburn on a stadium that is an essentially home game for Auburn.
October 9th, 2018 at 3:54 PM ^
I know they are. But they are a bottom P5 team so they had to be willing to sacrifice.
Would you be happy if Michigan agreed to a home-and-home with Kansas? Oregon State? Vanderbilt? No, because that would be wasting a could be home game to get a non-big name team to come play at the Big House. Same for any G5 team.
You don't schedule teams for next year, you schedule teams 2+ years out. Anyone would've agreed to play UCF at home 3 or 4 years ago (we did). The fact that they didn't schedule harder teams then is hurting them now.
October 9th, 2018 at 3:59 PM ^
You're blaming UCF for not scheduling harder teams because top teams aren't willing to play them? What the hell are you talking about? It's not on UCF for not being able to schedule top teams.
I, for one, really don't give a shit if Michigan schedule cupcakes because strength of schedule do not matter for CFP. Just go undefeated and they're in regardless. What incentive does the top P5 teams have for scheduling teams like UCF who are ranked? Zero.
October 9th, 2018 at 4:06 PM ^
Did WMU have a hard time scheduling teams after going to the Cotton Bowl? No.
UCF hasn't been a historically good G5 team. They were good last year. They went 6-7 the year before. They went 0-12 the year before that. Teams would've been willing to sign up to play them then. Big name teams have their non-conference schedules filled for at least the next two years, so no, Bama isn't gonna say "Let's cancel our game against Louisville so we can play against UCF next year."
October 9th, 2018 at 5:02 PM ^
Now you're moving the goalpost of your argument.
Big name teams won't schedule good G5 team because there's no point of doing it.
October 9th, 2018 at 5:36 PM ^
Money is always the reason. Playing good teams helps sell season ticket packages.
Maybe UCF is such a good P5 team that they need to pay teams to play them at their place. Are you telling me MSU doesn’t accept $2 million to play a home game vs UCF? Instead of having to do a home-and-home against ASU?
Oregon, Mississippi St, Utah, Wisconsin and Iowa off the top of my head are all consistant top 25 P5 teams I can’t see turning down a home game vs UCF for free.
October 9th, 2018 at 6:18 PM ^
Then why is Stanford playing UCF next year? Should we tell Stanford that UCF might be good, or do you think they already know?
October 9th, 2018 at 2:18 PM ^
You're assuming that the SEC runner-up is only going to be a one-loss team, and the SEC East is looking pretty tough. Georgia still has @LSU (#13), Florida (#14), @Kentucky (#18), Auburn (#21), and Georgia Tech to play before the end of their season. That's a stretch that looks tougher than the one we're facing over the next 4 weeks.
October 9th, 2018 at 2:35 PM ^
I would say a G5 team wanting to make the playoffs needs to schedule their non-con like they're a P5 team stuck in the G5. We all know P5 teams play 1 or 2 cupcakes in the non-con, but the G5 contenders like UCF, USF, etc. basically play 6-8 cupcakes a year. Given that they cannot change that, I would say they need to be playing 3-4 P5 teams in their non-con even if they're crappy ones.
While it's unfair for a G5 team to basically be perpetually locked out of the CFP, it's also enormously unfair for the P5 teams in the 5-10 ranking range to be penalized for playing difficult schedules. Michigan and a whole host of other P5 teams would go undefeated vs. UCF's schedule.
Having said all that, UCF's schedule is pretty solid with games vs. UNC and Pitt. If they don't get in as an undefeated this year, you're basically saying G5 teams won't ever make the 4 team playoff
October 9th, 2018 at 2:57 PM ^
UNC and Pitt are not representative of quality P5 opponents. And let me correct this statement: "Michigan and a whole host of other P5 teams would go undefeated vs. UCF's schedule." I'll change it to this: 'Michigan and a whole host of other P5 teams would go undefeated by hamblasting everyone on UCF's schedule.'
October 9th, 2018 at 2:13 PM ^
If a 12-0 UGA loses to Bama in the SEC title game, they probably won't end up ahead of a 12-1 Michigan team, anyway.
They'll have both lost to very good playoff teams, Michigan on the road, so they won't be able to argue a "better" loss unless the committee dings M for losing to a Wimbush-led ND team. But even having a comparable loss would require UGA to keep close with Bama.
Michigan will have better wins, a likely tougher SoS and SoR, and a conference title. Unlikely M would get left out in favor of a non-champ EVEN IF UGA is 12-1 and Clemson goes undefeated.
October 9th, 2018 at 1:47 PM ^
More than likely true, but not a guarantee. The SEC champ is in, no questions asked. If Georgia and Alabama both go into the SEC title game undefeated, the loser could still claim the 4 spot. If Clemson goes undefeated, which they probably will, they're in. If ND goes undefeated, which at this point they probably will, they're in.
PAC-12 is probably out. Washington's lone loss isn't looking so good now that Auburn has dropped a ton. A Big XII champ with one loss might get in depending on who it is (Texas' loss to Maryland will look pretty bad by the end of the year). But the SEC has the potential to ruin it for the Big 10 and Big XII if the loser of SEC title game comes out 12-1. Especially if that team is Alabama. Do they get the benefit of the doubt for the second year in a row? Would the committee dare leave them out?
This is all assuming that we'd beat OSU and win the Big Ten title. An undefeated OSU gets in, no questions asked. But I'd also love to see what happens if you end the year with five unbeatens. Certainly possible between Alabama/Georgia, OSU, Clemson, ND, and West Virginia. I think West Virginia will lose somewhere, but what if they don't? One of these teams will get shafted.
And I bet in that situation, ND will be sitting there at the end of the season wishing they'd joined a conference.