Sorry for the mobile post, but Michigan moves to 24 from last weeks 26 position
landing spot. will be interesting to see how he does.
Sorry for the mobile post, but Michigan moves to 24 from last weeks 26 position
When/How did Auburn become good again?
Or they finally got a competent coach. Probably the sacks of money though.
They didn't. They just beat an overranked SEC team. Therefore, they have replaced that overranked SEC team as another overranked SEC team.
Missouri jumped from #25 to #5 in two weeks with victories over now-unranked Georgia and now-unranked Florida. It's an incredible load of bullshit.
Mizzou also lost their QB and still beat UF. That is a pretty good team they got in Columbia.
Mizzou may be good but are top 5 good? I don't know but I do know the media hype of how great the SEC is helps in their ranking.
UGA was better than most teams until their entire team got injured. Now, they aren't that good.
At one point in the midde of the 3rd quarter they had 56 total yards of offense. Yes, 56 total yards in the middle of the 3rd quarter.
Is absolute garbage and should have beaten Georgia the week before and did beat South Carolina this week. The SEC slurping is completely out of control.
If Georgia gets all their players that are injured back before the bowl game, some poor school is gonna get stomped. Missouri is waaaaaay over rated but thats life in the SeC. If bama plays in the NCG, I like the B1G vs SeC match ups because after bama the SeC looks extremely beatable this year.
One year older with good coaching.
See: Michigan 2014
who, aside from Cam Newton, was the main reason they won the title in 2010
It is largely confidence. In week one they looked timid. They believe they can win now. That really helps because they trust each bother a the coaches.
Winston is like Johnny Football, but better.
Fred Jackson, is that you?
And he isn't a douche
I'm wondering if there has ever been as many teams drop out of the top 10 as has the SEC from last week to this week. They had eight last week, now there are two.
They did not have 8 teams in the top 10 last week. They did have 8 teams in the top 25, I believe. And now they have 6.
I believe they had 3 in the top 10 last week, of which only Alabama stayed there, though Missouri catapulted in.
That seems like the spot a team that has a good record this time of year but that has significant issues should be. Winning MSU-Nebraska-Northwestern-Ohio would merit progressive increases.
SEC hype is crap!!! I know a few teams are really good but it's BS if you win a game or two in that conference the rankings jump you get and the hype surrounding your team you get. Florida is not a good team but if someone beats them they're the next big thing. I blame ESPN.
SEC went 6-3 in bowls last year, needing a last minute comeback to beat Michigan. They played close in a few of the wins. I wasn't overly impressed. I'd be surprised if they are much above .500 this year if Bama plays in the title.
You'll know it's an extreme case of overhype if at the end of the season there are several SEC teams with 3 or 4 conference losses that are still in the top 20.
I bet those 3 or 4 teams win their bowl games.
Possibly. But to use that to compare conferences is strange unless there is some sort of uniform matchmaking system whereby SEC #2 plays B1G #2, SEC #3 plays PAC12 #3, etc. If Georgia plays Boise and wins, color me unimpressed by the SEC dominance argument.
So does A & M and Mizzou beating SEC teams mean they are good or does it mean that outside of Alabama the SEC is just like other conferences?
Would be nice if they could remove the bias from these rankings and not rank teams until week 5.
would be nice if ESPN could actually show our highlights and not suck off the SEC. but hey the SEC has a massive distribution contract with ABC Disney and CBS. Money talks.
It's the latter. The middle of the SEC isn't much different from the middle of the BIG at this point. Georgia had two losses before yesterday and obviously was way too high.
Right because early rankings and current rankings after losing 6 starters to injuries should be consistent.
I'm sure you have a good point there somewhere. Mine was they were too high after two losses.
South Carolina is too high now based on their resume.
My point was that it is not the same team since they do not have the same players due to injury. Things will settle out and they will no doubt win their bowl game.
Okay we're sure they'll win their bowl game so keep them higher than they should be. Gotcha. Did they lose six starters between their second loss and yesterday? If so that's unfortunate (since no other teams have injuries) but I still don't know where you're disagreeing with me.
haters gonna hate. I am going to be pissed off when our Michigan football team goes undefeated the rest of the year and gets jipped out of a BCS bowl. #MaizeandBlueKoolAid
Won't happen. If Michigan keeps winning, including beating Ohio State twice they would definitely be in a BCS game. Pretty sure you were joking though on all counts so I'm captain obvious for a few moments.
If Michigan wins out this season, they're going to be playing in the Rose Bowl.
Here's how the votes fell -
13th - 1 vote
14th - 1 vote
16th - 1 vote
18th - 1 vote
19th - 3 votes
20th - 3 votes
21st - 5 votes
22nd - 6 votes
23rd - 7 votes
24th - 6 votes
25th - 5 votes
unranked - 21 votes
Among those who did rank us, that average ranking came in at 21.76, which is 0.53 positions better than last week. The grand mean of Michigan's 477 votes is 16.836 - the median ranking is 17 and the mode is still 16, although by a hair. There have been 64 votes for Michigan at 16th, and now there are 63 "unranked" votes.
At this point in the season, no two-loss team should be in the top 15. Especially when those losses are against average at best SEC competition in Mississippi State and Ole Miss (well, Ole Miss is probably above average...but still. They controlled the majority of the game.)
Perception becomes reality with that conference. Missouri and A&M are directly benefitting from it, even though one could aregue that maybe the SEC isn't as good as everyone thought because you have two teams enter the conference and immediately become successful? I mean, Missouri and A&M weren't exactly world-beaters before they got to the SEC.
Jameis Winston needs to win the heisman.
Mariota is better, but nobody watches Oregon's games since they end at 2AM.
The other thing is that no one can tell how good Oregon's indvidual players actually are due to their system.
That and everyone's retinas are burned out from staring at the helmet/uniform combos they trot out there each week.
In the coaches poll Auburn is 17 vs 11 in the AP. Some major differences between the 2 polls
OK is 12 vs 17
OK St. is 13 vs 19
I'm going with the coaches on the rankings. Auburn jumping 13 spots is bs. They almost lost to three of the mediocre/weak teams on their schedule. By AP voter logic, we should be at least 5 spots higher. But narrative.
I can see part of how the SEC does so well, since everyone is ranked in the preseason, every win is worth like 10 AP spots. Missouri beat an injury-riddled Georgia and an offensively-inept Florida and lept 20 spots in 2 weeks!
Mizzou beat Indiana by 2 TDs. Ergo, they are the number 5 team in the country.
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.
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
They almost lost to AKRON!
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.
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.
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.
The SEC had the worst inter-AQ out of conference record this year. It has already changed.
Looking at the top five:
'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.
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.
Clemson and FSU are in the top ten. I agree VT isn't at their level - they're probably fourth best in the ACC. But based on the list of out-of-conference games for the top 5, that's better than anyone else. The Hokies aren't a great team. But I think Bama destroying them is more impressive than anything anyone else in the country has done.
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.
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.
I'm a skeptic of the SEC East, including Mizzou. I'll give you Bama out west, and I'll even say A&M on most days - but I think Ohio can hang with them, and Wiscy can hang with Auburn. The SEC's top team is very strong, and their next couple are probably on par with our strongest. But Mizzou and LSU are riding the coattails of a strong top tier. Not saying they're not good - but I am doubting that they're better than our best.
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.
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.
Your data is the transitive property. Don't pretend that you are being objective and he is not.
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.
And the need for "significant sample size."
Though I agree after hte top the SEC is overrated on accomplishments.
I meant to put data in scare quotes. You know "data".
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.
Because Alabama Oregon and Florida State played head to head? You are equally biased just in a different direction. List the objective standard for ranking teams and we can discuss the data that supports that ranking.
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.
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.
Texas tech in the top 10 hahahahahahaha.
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?
during the PSU game then we would be sitting in the top ten now by default.
The way I look at it, there are only three teams that don't really have flaws. Everyone else has their issues, whether it's a suspect defense, shaky special teams, weak schedule, etc. But it only seems like Michigan's flaws have hampered them when it comes to the polls.
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.
Because it is a ranking and not a standing. If one loss to a bad team is better than two losses to great teams then you have a standing. That works great when every team plays each other such as in divisions. Voters seem to vote based on who they feel is better or worse based upon what they have seen on the field. It is subjective because it is designed that way.
There is bias for Michigan to even be ranked in the top 25. They have 1 decent win and have looked terrible in many games. Name another team in the top 25 Michigan would beat. Don't kid yourself.
We need to just keep winning.
http://espn.go.com/college-football/rankings/_/poll/5 Harris Poll. Michigan is ranked 22nd
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.
Clemson at 3rd or 4th? Really? After getting their asses kicked by Florida State yesterday.
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.
That no SEC team makes it to the title game