Drew Sharp doesn't have us in top 25
Michigan remains #17 in AP and coaches poll
Of course not
What is funny is that he has an 0-1 Virginia Tech at 25, but a 1-0 Michigan that won by 50 not in it. I absolutely don't care about rankings at this point in the season, especially the AP and in particular, Drew Sharp, but that part is pretty funny.
I haven't a clue how he is able to stick around. I don't expect local media to be blantant homers but when you fail to put a clear top 25 team in the top 25, you either are blinded by hatred or know nothing about the sport.
In the case of Michigan, I wonder what the school did to make him hate them so much?
They keep him around because his articles are so asinine and inflammatory that they get plenty of clicks and comments. He really is an asshat, but unfortunately that's what gets you views.
Not that this should make a difference, but I wonder what horrible experience he must have had to be as anti-Michigan as he is.
I have been wondering this for years. What did Michigan do to him to make him develop such an unending hate toward and bias against his alma mater?
More ridiculously, he has Boise in. If you lose by 30+ in week one, you are not ranked week two.
I, for one, appreciate the effort. Now do a limerick involving Drew Dileo plz
Notre Dame just won't cover the slot.
Devin Gardner might take his best shot.
They're ignoring Drew Dileo?
That's gonna be silly-o.
The Irish don't know what Drew's got.
There once was a guy named Drew Dileo
Whose hands were so good they were sticky yo!
He said Go Blue! as he tied up his shoe
I'm a throwback to the era of Bo!
Well, considering how hard it is to see the screen with his head up his own ass, I'm amazed he even knew which teams he was putting on the ballot.
With an impressive showing and a victory on Saturday night in prime time we could see a huge jump in the rankings, seeing how the media (looking at you Lou) constantly slobbers over ND.
wouldn't you? Unfortunately what will happen is if UM wins they might move up to 14-10 area and ND falls to 20-17 area; if ND wins they'd move up to 7-4 area and UM drops to unranked.
I don't know if Michigan has a whole lot of room to talk about getting the benefit of the doubt from voters.
Over the last 24 seasons, we're the 6th most overrated program in preseason polls (relative to end of season rankings):
4) Florida State
7) Notre Dame
8) Miami (YTM)
I've seen that list before (and others like it) and you can almost replace "most overrated" with "best" as well. Because in order to be highly ranked, you need to be perceived to be good, which almost always means "was good last year or has been good for the last few years."
Look at that list. Every team save Clemson has won a national title during the period covered there, and those 10 schools comprise the top-15 or so best programs over that period as well.
The one school I would have expected to see on there is Georgia. It seems they are expected to be contenders every year, and although they're usually a very good team, it seems they don't typicaly live up to their billing.
I did a double take when I saw that list. That is actually some really good company.
And well said
The top 10 underrated list has some reasonable credentials also.
Top 10 underrated:
2) Boise State
3) Kansas State
5) Boston College
8) Michigan State
9) Georgia Tech
I love how SC dropped despite winning (and a handful of teams losing above them).
Awesome embed orobs.
Almost all the teams above won with the exception of Georgia. I didn't expect them to drop below Michigan. The team will rise next week if it beats Notre Dame.
I'm sorry, but how can anyone in the AP have Ohio above teams like Clemson and LSU? I can understand Michigan still at 17, but Ohio at 3? Come on, man.
Some voters may think that Buffalo was legitimate competition for Ohio. Time has a way of working these problems out. Ohio still won by a decent margin although they didn't look impressive.
Hard to find a loss on Ohio's schedule. In early season voting it makes more sense to vote based on expected finish then performance.
osu is closer to 4th than to 3rd (their AP ballots ranged from Asmussen to 10). For that matter, Michigan is closer to 16th (and there is a big dropoff in points in both polls going from Michigan to UCLA) - Michigan ranged from 11 to Drew Sharp on the AP. Asmussen from Chambana, IL, was the high voter for 3 different schools.
Early on, pollsters seem to think "Hey, Buffalo hung around with the #2 team in the country!", while at the end I figure most will say "Wow, OSU had trouble pulling away from a crappy MAC team."
Suprised Wisconsin moved up two spots. I know they won 45-0 nothing, but they looked pretty blah against a very bad UMass team.
Another unsurprising fact, the SEC seems overrated. I was not really impressed with TAMU, SC, or LSU. Georgia lost. Alabama is really the only elite team in that conference. With all this talk about Division 4 football, it seems like parity is way up. None of the big teams looked all that great against their snacky cakes, aside from us, Oregon, Wisconsin, and a few other teams.
The score is prettied up greatly by the fact that Alabama had
- A punt return TD
- A kickoff return TD
- A pick-6 TD
Not that those are not worthwhile, but Alabama only gained 206 yards on offensive against a declining Virginia Tech team. Virginia Tech actually outgained them 212-206!
Maybe it's early season whatever, but Alabama looked very beatable
If Georgia loses a close game to South Carolina (say 28-27) this weekend they will be 0-2 but they will have only lost to the #4 and #6 team in the country by a total of (in my example) 4 points.
Will they still be in the Top 25?
SHOULD they still be in the Top 25?
Right now, I think 11th is a good spot for Georgia. Will the voters be able to have an 0-2 team in the Top 25 though? Questionable.
In week 3, they'll crush North Texas. In week 4 they could lose to LSU the #9 team. Can a 1-3 team be in the Top 25?
No, I don't think they should. We have no basis to know how good Clemson and SC are. SC won in a similar fashion to OSU, where the scoreboard didn't indicate the level of play. UNC blew coverage a few times to lead to quick strikes. Tajh Boyd looks the part, but there is such a small sample size that you can't claim that Georgia were to lose to two top 5 schools. I'll bet a nickle that SC and Clemson won't both be in the final top 5.
Lose to SC next week, I see them checking in around 20th-22nd. If they lose to LSU, they will be either 25th, or receiving votes. I think if they are 1-3, they will win their next three games (Vandy Tenn and Mizzou) and probably get ranked somewhere in there, to the point that they are ranked somewhere around 20-22 again goin into the Florida game.
I agree with your prediction that with a loss next week they will be ranked in the 20s. I don't think the voters will put a 1-3 team in the polls. They'll be near the bottom of receiving votes.
I also don't really think they should be ranked a 1-3. Good teams need to win some of those games. Losing all 3 might be a sign they aren't Top 25 material.
Now, after beating Vandy, Tenn and Mizzou with a 4-3 record and those specific losses, they'll definitely be ranked again.
I'm on the Georgia side with you this week, so hopefully this is all just a thought exercise.
This is why early polls are meaningless and only serve to insert bias. First polls should be released after week 6 at the earliest.
This is why early polls are fun. There's a lot of potential movement and more things to discuss. The last few weeks, the positions are somewhat locked in place and can't change very far. Boring!
If the voters could be trusted to ignore their previous ballots then the early season polls have no downside. The problem is that too many voters take their previous poll and make minor adjustments. I would rather fix this problem than eliminate early polls (although it is the much harder solution).
If Georgia loses a close one at home after losing close one at Clemson I think they will still be in the Top 25. If Georgia beats N. Texas then loses a close one to LSU I think they will be out.
I don't give a shit who you lose to or how close it was. 0-2 teams (even 0-1 teams) should not even be in the "Others receiving votes" bucket. Thats why early season polls are bullshit and its unfathomable that they are used to determine post-season bowl matchups.
Here is the distribution of the individual AP votes:
|RANK||NO. OF VOTES|
These polls should really include a clause that states that if a voter has too many votes that deviate greatly from the standard, that they will be disallowed from voting. Either vote with knowledge and sportsmanship, or GTFO (eg. Sharp and Fulmer).
Drew Sharp is such an idiot. But everyone already knows this.
Is there an easy way to get the vote distribution for each team, or did you do it manually (can't find good link)?
Sounds about right. At the end of the day, we simply just beat up on a MAC team who's starting QB had zero prior experience. Next week is our real gut-check game. I like our odds going into Saturday night, as I'm still not convinced that Rees is anything special. But the interior of the O-Line, as well as Fitz/Green are really going to have to earn their keep that night.
If we can knock off ND, we should be ranked somewhere right outside the top 10 next week. Probably 11-13.
I am not sure why people keep writing off Rees. He is not a bad QB. I know T. Gordon should be back but I am still not sold on the secondary. Rees could easily put up decent numbers against Michigan.
If he was really that good he would've beaten Golson out for the starting job rather than winning it by default. Also keep in mind that he put these numbers up against Temple. Not exactly decent competition.
Not saying Gardner is necessarily any better at this point. In fact, the argument could be made that Rees is better, due to his experience and with Gardner still looking somewhat inconsistent, but I'm interested to see how he plays against us without having Michael Floyd to bail him out.
This game is going to be much more heavily influenced on defense, anyway.
Rees is no Heisman contender, but he has the experience and ability to be very effective, especially if he has time to throw.
Irish, South Carolina, Florida, Texas, and Texas A& M under perform their rankings by the end of the year
I agree, and add Nebraska, MSU, and OSU.
ESPN, STFU about Jameis Winston. He looked really good, but I'm sure there was an all-office meeting today in Bristol highlighting how they can work Winston into every piece they do, including Wimbledon and any NASCAR events.
In his first start, he was 25/27 356 yds 4 TDS 0 INTs & 1 rushing TD. Plus it was technically against BCS competition. No one else put up numbers like that against anyone this weekend
If he was at Michigan we'd be wondering if we'll win 4 national titles in a row or just 3. I think this is a worthy hype train
Yep. It's not like ESPN spent the whole weekend talking about him; there's been some attention, but the hype he'll get now is deserved. If he continues to put up stats like that, he'll continue to get attention, and nobody could be blamed for that. If he doesn't, it will fade.
Remember how nuts the country was for Denard after that first Notre Dame game? He had started two games. He was amazing. There were gobs of hype (Mark May said, "Just give him the Heisman now").
He faded, the attention faded, though (rightfully) never fully left. It worked out.
Gino Smith last year is another.
I'm not doubting the ridiculousness of his numbers, he did not put a single football in a spot that he didn't want it. It was amazing. My annoyance is at ESPN's modus operandi. Jump from one big story to another, kill it to death, then find the next big thing. You miss the subtletly of the sports world by driving that truck. Plus, any bright moments are mitigated by the fact that you know they will beat the story to death. There's no reason that Tebow should be maligned, but he is, and the reason is that ESPN is a sports parasite. Cling to host, get maximum value, kill the host.
Is vastly overrated. Time will tell .
In the last two years Northwestern has been the standard-bearer for B1G non-conference results. They have played BCS teams and won. Not great teams, and not great-looking victories, but they are wins and they count. If you think winning your season-opener on the road against a BCS team should be a cakewalk, you haven't been paying attention.
And you probably didn't watch Michigan football during the Lloyd Carr era, when Michigan always struggled in non-conf road games and usually lost them.
Yeah, I started out agreeing with you, but then I engaged in an ungraceful change of direction not dissimilar to a defender trying not to get killed by Jabrill Peppers.
Michigan holding at 17 isn't too surprising. I'm a little surprised that MSU fell completely out of the poll, but I guess that's the downside to playing a Friday night game that lets the whole nation see that your offense is terrible.
Not surprised but the coaches' poll is nuts ranking the Huskers ahead of the 'Cats. I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have ranked the Huskers at all - certainly no way I'd put them #19.
Mouse over "BY VOTER" and then select the voter you wish to see.
Only one person left us of the ballot *glares at Drew Sharp*.
He should not be allowed to vote. His ballot is a disgrace. Did you look at the rest of his votes?
#17 ranking is okay. BTW, we were ranked #17 in 1997 as well, and we know how that turned out.
Somewhere around 14-15 would seem to be more appropriate. There's no reason why Florida and Texas deserve to be higher than Michigan right now. They've been consistently unremarkable and are coasting on reputation.
Then again, one could say the same about B10 teams. But still.
I'm really scratching my head at Neb jumping NU in the coaches poll, or even being in the TOP 25 period.
These early season polls are rediculous, but whats even worse is that your ranking before you ever play a game can effect your final ranking. Clemson should be number one. They played and beat the best competition so far.
Not that this matters that much because he is kind of a clown (although can be entertaining), but Ray Bentley, from the Doc and Bentley morning show here in West Michigan on 107.3 FM, has Michigan at #5. Kind of a surprise since he's always come off as kind of a UM hater in my view.
Michigan hasn't proved much yet so no obvious reason for them to rise and no need to complain about the rankings. If we take care of business against ND then I think Michigan moves up considerably and the real wrangling about where we belong can commence.
#17 is just fine for now. If we beat Notre Dame, will likely continue to win and watch other teams drop from now until Thanksgiving weekend. Anyone that's watched the rest of the Big 10 teams play probably thinks we're better than sparty, Nebraska, Penn State... even Northwestern. We ought to win those games. If we start 2-0, we'll probably be 11-0 going into the ohio game, and ranked in the top five (except by Sharp, who will have us at #24.)
I have the sneaking suspicion that the one first place vote that ohio got was from Urbz.
We just need to take care of our business on the field. Everything else will follow.
Maybe I'm too optimistic, but I believe that the team will have a convincing victory against ND.