the just released schedules were a flat-out statement that the B10 doesn't believe SOS will matter in playoff selection
BCS computer rankings: Michigan #9
October 5th, 2011 at 3:40 PM
#1
BCS computer rankings: Michigan #9
Can't say these make much sense with Lsu #3, Illinois #10 and wisco not in the top 10.
http://yfrog.com/kh770rij
October 5th, 2011 at 3:43 PM | 
posted from iPhone
posted from iPhone
October 5th, 2011 at 4:25 PM |
Your tagline makes that
Your tagline makes that
Your tagline makes that comment very ironic.
Not that I loved Rich Rod less, but that I loved Michigan more.
October 5th, 2011 at 6:14 PM |
dont forget about
dont forget about
.
"The team..The team...The team"
October 5th, 2011 at 3:44 PM |
LSU at three isn't that much
LSU at three isn't that much
LSU at three isn't that much of a surprise, IMO. Alabama has been ridiculously good and could make a case for number one. Clemson at two is a big surprise though, they haven't done more than Oklahoma.
Go Blue!
October 5th, 2011 at 3:47 PM |
Clemson: surprising from a
Clemson: surprising from a
Clemson: surprising from a human perspective? Yes. surprising considering this is a computer, and they've already played 3 BCS opponents already? Not so much.
You can't count anything the computers do until they have enough data. 5 weeks of football isn't enough because the schedules are so unbalanced depending on conference. That's why we don't see BCS rankings until week 8 or so.
"Michigan isn't going to lose a game" - Fielding Yost, 1901
October 5th, 2011 at 4:39 PM |
Really?
Really?
In order of best wins
Oklahoma (4-0): Florida State, Missouri, Tulsa, Ball State
Clemson (5-0): Florida State, Auburn, Virginia Tech, Troy, Wofford
The only reason that Oklahoma is ahead of Clemson in the human polls is because one is called Oklahoma and one is called Clemson.
October 5th, 2011 at 5:03 PM |
Beating FSU by ten on the
Beating FSU by ten on the
Beating FSU by ten on the road was more impressive than taking them down by less at home the next week. You can call Auburn or VT/Missouri a wash, so I guess Clemson has one more BCS win, but Clemson also gave up 27 to Woffard at home. Oklahoma has won every game in a dominating fashion, they haven't had a final score closer than ten so far. It's more than the name brand.
Go Blue!
October 5th, 2011 at 9:15 PM |
Does it matter?
Does it matter?
5 weeks and all. If Oklahoma beats Texas it probably jumps Clemson.
October 5th, 2011 at 9:30 PM |
Well some years back all the
Well some years back all the
Well some years back all the BCS computers were forced to remove score as a consideration so it is no surprise that they have a hard time identifiying the best teams when there are still many unbeaten teams. The teams still try and roll up big scores to impress the humans so I'm not sure what was accomplished by crippling all the good computer algorithms.
October 5th, 2011 at 7:38 PM |
OU ahead of Clemson
OU ahead of Clemson
And you point is??????????
Born in Oklahoma
Raised in Ohio
Escaped to Meechigan
October 5th, 2011 at 3:46 PM |
Make sense to me
Make sense to me
The only thing Wisconsin's done is beat Nebraska at home. Nebraska sounds impressive, but has only beaten Washington. Meanwhile Michigan beat Notre Dame (who beat Michigan State) and WMU (win over Uconn and game vs Ill) and SDSU (wins over Army and Wash St) have winning records too.
If your criteria is resume rank w/o margin of victory (as the computers are tasked with doing) it makes great sense.
If your criteria is subjective opinion well....
October 6th, 2011 at 5:54 AM |
Western Illinois
Western Illinois
didn't western lose? Doesn't matter to the computers how close the score was.
WolverRoudy
October 5th, 2011 at 3:48 PM |
There's a top ten you don"t
There's a top ten you don"t
There's a top ten you don't see every day
"Ohio is like a giant turd that Michigan just can't pinch off"
October 5th, 2011 at 3:55 PM |
Probably because Wisconsin
Probably because Wisconsin
Probably because Wisconsin hasn't played anyone yet except for Nebraska. I'm not saying we have outside of ND, but Wisconsin not being in there isn't a total shocker IME.
October 5th, 2011 at 3:57 PM |
Must be the new shitty Iphone
Must be the new shitty Iphone
Must be the new shitty Iphone doing these rankings.
October 5th, 2011 at 4:20 PM |
What?
What?
What does that even mean?
October 5th, 2011 at 4:21 PM |
My guess?
My guess?
Go Blue!
October 5th, 2011 at 9:21 PM |
My statement is like a Da
My statement is like a Da
My statement is like a Da Vinci code. It's complex and yes, provocative.
October 5th, 2011 at 3:58 PM |
Our 'average rank' is 10.3
Our 'average rank' is 10.3
...but our actual rank is 9.
What does that mean do you suppose? I could understand it if it were the result of a poll (this would happen if teams ranked higher than us had a few serious haters), but I don't understand what it means coming out of a computer algorithm.
October 5th, 2011 at 4:05 PM |
It's a number of polls. I
It's a number of polls. I
It's a number of polls. I don't know how many there are, but they get all the computers together and then throw out the top and bottom rankings Olympic style, so there could definitely be a difference between mean and median or whatever they use to lump the polls together.
Go Blue!
October 5th, 2011 at 5:28 PM |
Yup that's it
Yup that's it
Thanks
October 6th, 2011 at 2:57 AM |
It's actually simpler than a
It's actually simpler than a
It's actually simpler than a mean/median issue. 10.3 is just the 9th best mean ranking.
RIP my avatar, June 14, 1998 - October 26, 2012.
October 5th, 2011 at 4:04 PM |
Also
Also
I can't find this info corroborated anywhere on-line: BCS not until Week 8, thus sayeth ESPN.
Unless we know what the BCS algorithm is, and someone is trying to simulate it??
Where did this guy's chart come from, anyway?
October 5th, 2011 at 4:17 PM |
He is ESPN's BCS expert
He is ESPN's BCS expert
Though he doesn't "know" the exact algorithm he is pretty good at predicting what the results are week to week. I would guess if the BCS results came out this week they would be pretty close to what he shows.
October 5th, 2011 at 4:29 PM |
Algorithm
Algorithm
There is no BCS algorithm per se, the BCS just uses 6 different "computer" ratings that are published every week, and compiles them. There is no need to devise any secret formulae; all 6 of these "computer" ratings are available on the internet (or in USA Today) for anybody who wants to look at them.
October 5th, 2011 at 5:27 PM |
"Average these six guys" IS an algorithm
"Average these six guys" IS an algorithm
Just a pretty straightforward one
October 5th, 2011 at 4:07 PM |
I'm about to spontaneously combust
I'm about to spontaneously combust
Need more kool-aid to take the edge off
When your team is winning, be ready to be tough, because winning can make you soft. On the other hand, when your team is losing, stick by them. Keep believing. -Bo
October 5th, 2011 at 4:10 PM |
Wisconsin
Wisconsin
The Badgers OOC schedule may haunt them if they remain in the BCS hunt all year. With LSU/Bama a lock if undefeated, Wisconsin may have trouble getting into the #2 spot over another undefeated BCS school.
Denard is my homeboy.
University of Michigan Class of 2014
October 5th, 2011 at 4:28 PM |
Are you serious? We should be #1!
Are you serious? We should be #1!
Undefeated, baby!!!
/only half-sarcastic
Yep, that's Simba made out of a pineapple.
October 5th, 2011 at 4:30 PM |
as long as things haven't changed
as long as things haven't changed
the BCS computer ratings are defined in 2010 as:
Six computer rankings will be used: Jeff Sagarin, Anderson & Hester, Richard Billingsley, Colley Matrix, Kenneth Massey and Dr. Peter Wolfe. Points will be assigned in inverse order of ranking from 1-25. A team's highest and lowest computer ranking will be discarded in calculating its computer rankings average. The four remaining computer scores will be averaged and the total will be calculated as a percentage of 100.
That is, unless BCS and/or ESPN and/or one of the computer program screws up the calculation.
October 5th, 2011 at 5:25 PM |
Hmmmmm
Hmmmmm
That explains the 9 ranking despite the average ranking of 10.3 (some one of those guys must really dislike Stanford and Wisconsin....)
October 5th, 2011 at 4:30 PM |
Wisconsin should be #1. Not
Wisconsin should be #1. Not
Wisconsin should be #1. Not everyone can schedule powerhouses like South Dakota and Northern Illinois.
October 5th, 2011 at 4:38 PM |
F**k you, Coach.
F**k you, Coach.
We could beat Alabama, even with Berry and Charles out.
October 5th, 2011 at 4:42 PM |
Sigh...
Sigh...
Small sample sizes for statistical methods of ranking teams = Very weird rankings that shouldn't be taken remotely seriously especially when said rankings cannot even consider margin of victory
October 5th, 2011 at 4:47 PM |
Yes but...
Yes but...
are these really that "weird", I mean, any moreso than the coaches poll?
If the biggest problem is Wisconsin ranked 12 instead of 5 and Michigan 9 instead of 11 based on slightly different critera - I think that's OK.
October 5th, 2011 at 4:42 PM |
minnesota is not that bad
minnesota is not that bad
They lost to USC by less than a field goal on the road...
So Minnesota is bad, definitely. But we played our best game of the year against them, and when was the last time we shutout anyone by 58 points?
My point is that we have improved every week, and had notre dame been against this past weekend we would have blown them out of the water too.
This Michigan team is for real, Greg Mattinson is a freaking genius and we will be a better team than Wisconsin by the time we get to the conference championship.
Now with Rocket-arm passing action!
October 5th, 2011 at 4:46 PM |
Dont care...
Dont care...
I dont care about any of these rankings. Just keep winning.
The Team! The Team! The Team!
Go Blue!
October 5th, 2011 at 5:30 PM |
""
""
"None of it matters." - Brady Hoke
October 5th, 2011 at 5:34 PM |
craziness
October 5th, 2011 at 5:59 PM |
Wisconsin
Wisconsin
It would be absolutely delicious if they run the table and get left out because of SOS. Serves them right for perpetually scheduling bobdybag state.
October 5th, 2011 at 6:31 PM |
Number 9, Number 9
Number 9, Number 9
October 5th, 2011 at 6:54 PM |
As others have said these
As others have said these
As others have said these next two weeks are crucial. I do think that whatever happens they will be competitive games which is satisfying on one level.
Here's hoping for a bright future. This team does try hard and I will continue to support them.
October 5th, 2011 at 7:11 PM |
Oh God, Not Now
Oh God, Not Now
5-0 is the brink of fatal collapse for us. The damn computers are executing a jinx algorithm.
October 5th, 2011 at 8:01 PM |
how many times do we have to say
how many times do we have to say
that there is no jinx. RR simply had a system that had gaping flaws that were exposed further into the season. we've all moved on from that. this is a different system, different team
"This is an elite job, and will continue to be an elite job. This is Michigan ferodsakes!"
October 5th, 2011 at 7:19 PM |
no sympathy for Wisconsin
no sympathy for Wisconsin
Wisconsin has no business being ranked in the BCS top 10 with their cupcake non-conference schedule.
October 5th, 2011 at 7:20 PM |
no sympathy for Wisconsin
no sympathy for Wisconsin
Wisconsin has no business being ranked in the top 10 with their cupcake non-conference schedule
October 5th, 2011 at 7:48 PM |
Imagine if there were no
Imagine if there were no
Imagine if there were no human polls until week 5. Would it be a surprise that Clemson is ranked #2? Maybe, but not too much considering who they have beat so far. Their #2 seems shocking since they weren't ranked high to start the year by the coaches. This is the only aspect I like about computers being involved...they don't have a bias based on the previous weeks ranking. Other than that why are computers having input in who are the best 2 teams?
October 5th, 2011 at 9:36 PM |
It's clearly too high a
It's clearly too high a
It's clearly too high a ranking. Computers lack eyeballs. We've all seen the difference between Michigan and LSU or Alabama. And Wiscy.
There's quite a gap. We're not a top ten team, and maybe not even a top 20 team. But we're improving, and that's the good part.
Still, I expect when all is said and done this season, that Michigan will be ranked no higher than 15, and even that will be a stretch. There are simply too many difficult games ahead.
WTF?
This might be arrogant, and if it is, it is, but we're Michigan