Don't Freak Out About National Rankings
As we near the end of the football season, there will be much wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth concerning where M ended up in national rankings in various categories (offense, defense, etc.).
Before getting too excited (good or bad) keep this in mind:
The difference between being ranked in the top 25 and being ranked below #80 is usually just +/- 10%.
For example: Total offense: #55 = 390 Yards/Game. Subtract 10% and you get to 351 and rank #82. Add 10% and you get to 429 and rank #23.
My point? It does not really take a huge improvement on the field to change the national rankings. Is it unreasonable to expect M could get 10% better next year?
Also, the national rankings include the FCS teams as well as the BCS teams. This has a tendency to muck the works also.
For example: 6 of the top 10 ranked teams in Total Offense are NOT from the BCS.
December 2nd, 2009 at 4:14 PM ^
recruiting rankings are based in large part on nfl projections. rich rods offensive recruits rarely project as great nfl players. as a result, his classes are usually underrated.
December 2nd, 2009 at 4:17 PM ^
or did you legitimately just not even bother to read the post?
December 2nd, 2009 at 4:19 PM ^
Is this sarcasm or did you just missed the point of the thread, I don't believe he ever mentioned recruiting anywhere...
Edit: damn someone beat me to the punch!
December 2nd, 2009 at 4:50 PM ^
You say that the difference between being in the top 25 and below #80 is usually +/-10%. By the numbers you provided, that 23rd ranked team is 22.2% better in total offense compared to that 82nd ranked team.
December 2nd, 2009 at 4:57 PM ^
Well, if you take the difference between +10 and -10 you get a total range of 20%.
I used the "median" FBS team (ranked around 60) as my basis. If they were just 10% better, they move to the top 20 percentile. If they are just 10% worse, they drop to the lower 30 percentile.