One of the BEST Defensive Lines in The Nation
September 16th, 2015 at 10:17 AM ^
Let's keep some perspective here. Oregon State is a bottom-feeder P5 team, and I am still not sold on Utah being even above average. I am stoked about the performance of the defense so far, though.
September 16th, 2015 at 10:34 AM ^
Utah is a top #25 team which by definition is above average.
I agree on Oregon State though. They may be just about average.
September 16th, 2015 at 10:42 AM ^
Oregon State is well below average. Come on.
September 16th, 2015 at 10:43 AM ^
...for a P5 team. They're probably in the fat part of the bell curve overall in D1.
September 16th, 2015 at 10:44 AM ^
That was the data set I was assuming, yes.
September 16th, 2015 at 10:53 AM ^
Why would that be a useful data set? Bottom dweller of the Power 5 teams is more telling than quite good compared to the rest of FBS teams. Hell, throw in FCS and DIII teams. Oregon State looks pretty damn good! They would crush everyone in DIII!
And Utah's ranking is still basically based on preseason expectations still. I thought they might be quite good, but we just don't know yet.
September 16th, 2015 at 11:02 AM ^
It's a useful data set because THAT'S WHAT THEY ARE RANKED AGAINST.
September 16th, 2015 at 11:07 AM ^
Rankings are BS. Oregon dropped 8 spots for losing close to a top 10 on the road.
According to you, if Oregon State is about average, Michigan last year was probably above average. By convention, that's simply not what most people think of as above average.
September 16th, 2015 at 11:34 AM ^
If Michigan ended the year last year ranked above 64th in the nation in FBS, then they were in fact above average.
I don't care if people can't understand what average is.
I live in America. People used to believe this place didn't exist. People are stupid.
September 16th, 2015 at 11:58 AM ^
September 16th, 2015 at 12:04 PM ^
September 16th, 2015 at 1:44 PM ^
Classic.
September 16th, 2015 at 3:11 PM ^
Well, if I'm being pedantic, ranking in the middle is not the same as being average. Average has nothing to do with ordinal position. That's the median.
The bell curve talk I've seen others throw out there doesn't really make sense when we're simply talking ordinal values, since that assumes normal distribution among teams. If we're not meaning average in a mathematical sense, Oregon State probably fits within the interquartile range, which is probably what everyone is arguing about here.
It sounds like this discussion is confusing average with mediocre.
If we're using systems that value teams, not simply order them, then we can reach a true average. I have no idea what that tail would look like, but the average team could be as high as 25-30 if you have a handful of super valuable teams and then a pack of low value teams.
It is possible that OSU could be ranked 64th in the order and still be below average. No idea if that is true, however.
September 16th, 2015 at 3:30 PM ^
In a normal distribution, which I assume a ranking of #1 to #164 is (no ties), mu is median and mean (average).
September 16th, 2015 at 9:13 PM ^
I'm amazed that you got so many upvotes. Average is a relative term. I never disagreed with you that if you compare OSU to the rest of the FBS, they're an average team. That's why I made the point that if you change the data set, what's average and what's not also changes. Wow. What a difficult concept.
But, when people are talking in general, they don't compare a power 5 team to all FBS teams. Literally NO ONE here on in the media or anywhere last year thought Michigan was an above average team. Did you? Tell me you were on here talking about how Michigan isn't that bad because they're above average and at least I'll give you a point for consistency. Were you here berating everyone for complaining about how much Michigan sucks because in fact they were an above average team? That would be totally tone-deaf.
September 16th, 2015 at 2:37 PM ^
September 16th, 2015 at 9:10 PM ^
No, it's not. I'm seriously amazed that people can't understand this. Is my height average? Well, that depends. Are you comparing me to all human beings? All men? All American men? Good God, people.
September 16th, 2015 at 7:27 PM ^
September 16th, 2015 at 9:08 PM ^
I obviously didn't mean all rankings ever. I pointed out a specific fact, which is that Oregon dropped 8 spots for losing to State. That was in the coaches poll. Ya know, the one where some student assistant throws it together on a Sunday night?
September 16th, 2015 at 10:54 AM ^
Wait, you were assuming Oregon State may be just about average FOR a P5 team? You must think they are pretty decent!
September 16th, 2015 at 11:00 AM ^
HUH?
No. I am assuming they are an average team based on all Div-1 (FBS) teams... because that's how they are rated.
September 16th, 2015 at 11:03 AM ^
OK, that's more reasonable. Just curious, though ... where can I find them rated in the middle of FBS teams?
September 16th, 2015 at 12:49 PM ^
For one, Sagarin's rating system:
http://sagarin.com/sports/cfsend.htm
He has them at 86 overall, 83 among FBS teams. This is slightly below average (out of 128 teams) but still squarely in the "fat part" of the bell curve.
September 16th, 2015 at 1:02 PM ^
Interesting. He has Michigan at #38, and MSU #21. Oregon at #15.
Ugh. Illinois at #28. Must be the early season lack of data.
September 16th, 2015 at 1:07 PM ^
FEI has Michigan #36, MSU #6, and Oregon #3. Oregon State at #83.
Illinois at #77. FEI FTW
September 16th, 2015 at 7:31 PM ^
Wait, Oregon is rated higher than the team they just lost to? If this was 2nd half of the season, then maybe, but after two games? FEI doesn't make any sense to me...
September 16th, 2015 at 3:06 PM ^
September 16th, 2015 at 9:24 PM ^
Check out http://www.masseyratings.com/cf/compare.htm - There you can find whatever story you like:
Our Schedule is so difficult!
- OSU is #1 on many rankings, 1.96 mean (1.0 median)
- MSU is #1 on Billingsley (one of the former BCS polls) - 9.55 mean
- BYU is #2 on Hatch (they're #1 on Colley Matrix, another former BCS poll, but it doesn't match what is on the composite page) - mean 26.92
- Utah is #2 on Loudsound - 25.96 mean
- Oregon State ... is not #1 or #2 anywhere - they're between #71 and #116 on the various systems, mean of 88.27
Northwestern is ranked #21 to #80, Minnesota ranges from #18 to #65; they're both right about 40 in the composite mean.
Michigan shows up #20 to #77 on various systems, but the mean, 46.73, is 7 spots lower than Northwestern or Minnesota
Or, most of our remaining opponents are awful!
Future opponents with mean rankings below Michigan
- PSU 59.33
- Rutgers 74.42
- Indiana 75.71
- Maryland 84.42
- UNLV 117.42
It is early, and some of these ranking systems need time to have enough data to be "better." Some, like the former BCS system from Wolfe, won't publish anything until mid-October.
September 16th, 2015 at 11:04 AM ^
Would they be average?
September 16th, 2015 at 10:47 AM ^
Only if you assume every P5 team is better than just about every non-P5 team. Which isn't the case. Don't oversimplify it.
September 16th, 2015 at 11:01 AM ^
I have to since some of you have a hard time reading.
September 16th, 2015 at 11:15 AM ^
Do the math. Bottom of P5 (which I think it's fair to say Oregon State is at least fairly close to) would be 64, right in the middle of FBS 128 teams. The comment either assumes that Oregon State is far from the worst P5 team - which seems quite generous - or that no more than a precious few non-P5 teams can hang with the worst of P5, which is simply not true.
September 16th, 2015 at 11:31 AM ^
I am not sure you understand what average means.
I wrote that Oregon State is average in a data set of all FBS teams...
You wrote that Oregon State would be around 64th out of 128 teams...
YES.
September 16th, 2015 at 11:55 AM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
September 16th, 2015 at 12:47 PM ^
sentence. That appears to be what someone who just criticized others' reading skills just did.
September 16th, 2015 at 12:39 PM ^
September 16th, 2015 at 1:25 PM ^
My apologies. You write poorly.
"Fairly fair to fairly say fairly" did me in.
September 16th, 2015 at 3:10 PM ^
September 16th, 2015 at 3:05 PM ^
I think in a general sense you're right on where they stand, but average isn't being ranked 64th. We don't really have a grasp of the average football team (though I know FEI, FPI, Sagarin, etc. try to do this). Debating over what average means in this case is silly. They're middling, mediocre, around the median etc. Pick your synonym. Average is a meaningless term here, unless you mean 64 is the average of set 1, 2, 3 .... 128, which I don't think is what the discussion is really about. I don't really care that you called it average anyway, for what it's worth.
September 16th, 2015 at 12:33 PM ^
How is your assumption that Oregon State is worse than every other P5 team any more reasonable? Do teams like Kansas, Iowa State, Wake Forest, Rutgers, Indiana, Purdue, Maryland, Penn State, Vanderbilt, Colorado and Washington State not exist? I doubt Oregon State is the worst team when bunched with that group. And I doubt you could find 12 non-P5 teams that are clearly better than that group.
I think he's fine saying Oreogn State is an average FBS team. May be number 64, may be a bit higher or a bit lower, but probably average when considering every FBS team. That doesn't mean much when Michigan plays only one game against a team that's clearly worse than average and at least 6 teams that are clearly above average.
September 16th, 2015 at 1:07 PM ^
Oregon State is a bottom 10 (of 60) P5 team. Along with a lot of those teams you listed.
I'd make my bottom group something like Indiana, Oregon State, Wake Forest, Colorado, Iowa State, Kansas, Vanderbilt. That's 7. Throw in rutgers, Wash State, and Purdue and you prob have a solid bottom 10. Maybe Vanderbilt.
That was a very bad P5 team.
And P5 teams should be Michigan's control group - not FBS. What Tulane, Idaho, Ball State, and South Alabama do should be of no concern. There are a handful of non P5s who are good every year but saying we should look at the whole landscape of FBS due to those 4-6 teams is a bit silly.
Michigan needs to be in the top 29 to be "above average" among P5s. That is prob right about where they will be.
September 16th, 2015 at 1:45 PM ^
September 16th, 2015 at 2:26 PM ^
How is your assumption that Oregon State is worse than every other P5 team any more reasonable?
We're talking about defensive line here - so lets look at Oregon St. offense:
Offensive S&P+: #122 of 128
The only teams in D1 with worse offenses than Oregon St?
Illinois
Kent St.
Charlotte
Hawaii
Miami (OH)
North Texas
September 16th, 2015 at 11:07 AM ^
I don't think he is and I think he's making the right point. Most P5 teams are better than Group of 5 teams, therefore one should expect a bad P5 team to still be about average when one considers the entirety.
For example, I would expect Oregon St. to lose to Boise St., but I would expect them to beat or at least be competitive with the rest of the teams in the Mountain West and beat most of them handily. So if we look at the entirety of the teams in D1 football, yes, Oregon St. is probably about average.
September 16th, 2015 at 11:21 AM ^
If you wouldn't pick at least 80-90 teams to beat that squad on a neutral field, I don't know what to tell you. Weber State was 2-10 in FCS last year (think babyseal Delaware State) and Oregon State beat them by a lackluster margin at home. The Beavs are bad. There is nothing wrong with saying it.
September 16th, 2015 at 11:35 AM ^
September 16th, 2015 at 11:54 AM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
September 16th, 2015 at 12:43 PM ^
September 16th, 2015 at 3:54 PM ^
September 16th, 2015 at 9:04 PM ^