OSU/MSU ranked #1 and #2 in new AP Poll

Submitted by Mr. Yost on
(###) Number of first place votes
 
1 Ohio State
Ohio State (42)
Record: 3-0
PV Rank
1
Points
1,490
2 Michigan State
Record: 3-0
4
1,415
3 TCU
Record: 3-0
3
1,345
3 Mississippi
Record: 3-0
15
1,345
5 Baylor
Record: 2-0
5
1,213
6 Notre Dame
8
1,183
7 Georgia
Record: 3-0
7
1,162
8 LSU
LSU (1)
Record: 2-0
13
1,088
9 UCLA
Record: 3-0
10
981
10 Florida State
Record: 3-0
9
953
11 Clemson
Record: 3-0
11
903
12 Alabama
Record: 2-1
2
882
13 Oregon
Record: 2-1
12
855
14 Texas A&M
Record: 3-0
17
798
15 Oklahoma
Record: 3-0
16
782
16 Arizona
Record: 3-0
20
488
17 Northwestern
Record: 3-0
23
469
18 Utah
Record: 3-0
21
439
19 USC
Record: 2-1
6
367
20 Georgia Tech
Record: 2-1
14
352
21 Stanford
Record: 2-1
41
288
22 Wisconsin
Record: 2-1
24
174
22 Brigham Young
19
174
24 Oklahoma State
Record: 3-0
25
149
25 Missouri
Record: 3-0
22
135

Others Receiving Votes:

Mississippi St. 52, West Virginia 48, Tennessee 45, California 38, Toledo 36, Arizona St. 25, Houston 22, Auburn 20, Temple 20, Texas Tech 20, Boise St. 17, Miami 13, Iowa 10, Kansas St. 8, Florida 7, NC State 5, Minnesota 4, Virginia Tech 4, Memphis 1

 
MGoBoard
Football

rufftime

September 21st, 2015 at 9:15 AM ^

funny but you seem to miss the point. The point is MSU is accused of skipping a good team like OSU when UofM itself has been skipping a good team for years...like a team that is good enough to go the Rose Bowl several times while UofM avoids having to play them.

Joined: 06/07/2015

MGoPoints: -64

McSomething

September 21st, 2015 at 10:29 AM ^

The 10 seasons before the split into divisions Michigan played MSU, OSU, and Wisconsin in the same season 8 times. MSU played Michigan, OSU, and Wisconsin in the same season only 4 times. Though, 3 of those instances had the games all consecutively. Since the split MSU has been scheduled to play all 3 twice, Michigan has yet to play Wisconsin since the split, but Nebraska could easily be adddd to the mix of this conversation as well (for both teams), and the original ridiculous alignment and subsequent re-alignment jumbling schedules has to be taken into account. Also MSU's split conference title before the addition of Nebraska came with a schedule without playing Ohio State. And in 2013 they got to avoid both Ohio State and Wisconsin. Until they played the Buckeyes in the title game, that is. MSU's conference schedule that season was Iowa (5-3), Indiana (3-5), Purdue (0-8), Illinois (1-7), Michigan (3-5), Nebraska (5-3), Northwestern (1-7), and Minnesota (4-4). The teams they did not play were Ohio State (8-0), Penn State (4-4), and Wisconsin (6-2). MSU got to play all the weakest teams while avoiding clearly the two strongest beyond themselves. So this isn't an apples to apples discussion.

Joined: 09/29/2010

MGoPoints: 36843

McSomething

September 21st, 2015 at 10:37 AM ^

I was not a big fan of adding Nebraska to the conference and splitting into two divisions. Mainly because these schedule issues were inevitable. I only half jokingly believe the Big Ten should say "screw it" and jump to 20 teams, with two 10 team divisions. That way the conference name isn't a total misnomer (from a certain point of view), and the split could be the original 10 and then everyone else. But that alignment (considering the "not originals" division would be very widespread) feels almost like a "because get off my lawn!" viewpoint. But I really don't care.

Joined: 09/29/2010

MGoPoints: 36843

rufftime

September 21st, 2015 at 11:06 AM ^

Wow...if you want to go back far enough into history as to who has played whom more....then you could argue, for example, that UofM has played Ohio State and Wisconisn more often than Michigan State, but Michigan State has played Notre Dame and Penn State more often than Michigan... another point is that MSU is NOT deliberately trying to avoid Ohio State (in recent years), just like Michigan, for all I know, is not deliberately trying to avoid Wisconsin (in recent years).  If you want to pick a team or teams and compare who played whom more often there are tons of ways to do it.  My point is, the commentator on the topic (that i was responding to)picked a time frame where MSU has played Ohio State less often then Michigan and I picked a time frame when Michigan has played Wisconsin less often than MSU....then you picked a time frame when Michigan played Wisconsin and OSU more often than Michigan State....then I could pick a team or teams in a time frame where MSU played them more often than Michigan...one could go back and forth for a long time.   But i didn't start the silly comparison in this thread, the guy I was responding to did.  I'm am just showing it works both ways. 

Joined: 06/07/2015

MGoPoints: -64

McSomething

September 21st, 2015 at 11:39 AM ^

I'm not arguing they are deliberately avoiding anyone, so please don't try to insert that strawman into the argument. And when discussing conference schedules Notre Dame is literally irrelevant. Now you're right, you could find conference teams MSU has played more than Michigan has, but chances are you'd be mentioning the likes of Purdue. Congrats, that would be strengthening my point, because the teams I mentioned (Ohio State and Wisconsin) are almost always at the top of the standings. Purdue is, well, Purdue.

Joined: 09/29/2010

MGoPoints: 36843

McSomething

September 21st, 2015 at 1:14 PM ^

If you admit nobody wad saying that, why bring it up in the first place, other than to have a strawman to argue against, like I said? Your point just isn't as strong as you'd like to think. I never said the situations aren't at all comparable, just that they aren't apples to apples. It's more apples to oranges, both are fruit but the comparisons pretty much end there. Yes, both teams have avoided conference foes for a period of time. Yes, both have been able to avoid top end teams. MSU just seems to do it with noticably higher regularity. Why you're arguing otherwise is really beyond me.

Joined: 09/29/2010

MGoPoints: 36843

McSomething

September 20th, 2015 at 8:54 PM ^

It could, but doesn't always, mean the team that won still might not be as good as thought. MSU, who is supposed to be known for tough defense, has shown very little ability to stop anyone on offense t9 this point. And their offense, while having scored more than enough to be undefeated, has also shown quite the penchant for gift wrapping turnovers to defenses that aren't exactly stellar. Now whether the turnovers are actually taken (Oregon dropped way too many easy interceptions) and made into points is another matter. Not saying MSU is bad by any stretch, just that they are still suspect. But frankly, pretty much everyone is at this point.

Joined: 09/29/2010

MGoPoints: 36843

GotBlueOnMyMind

September 20th, 2015 at 3:15 PM ^

They hung 43 on Alabama by getting 5 turnovers, 2 of which were fumbled kick returns, and getting one of the luckiest bounces ever for a TD. Alabama played like garbage, and generally shut down Ole Miss' "legit" offense, outside of one big blown coverage, getting put in terrible positions by the offense and special teams, and a ridiculous bounce.



Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

Joined: 03/01/2012

MGoPoints: 2349

I Like Burgers

September 20th, 2015 at 3:06 PM ^

While the LSU game is Ole Miss's toughest game left, they have a pretty stout run defense, a solid secondary, and Brandon Harris can't throw for shit.  Yeah Fournette is awesome, but tough to have a one-sided offense when facing a good defense.

And LSU doesn't have a defense that's much better or worse than Alabama.  Not sure if LSU can score the 30-40 its going to need to beat Ole Miss at home.

FWIW, ESPN's FPI metric (which had Ole Miss #1 and beating Alabama last week) has Ole Miss at 71.5% to beat LSU).

Joined: 10/06/2012

MGoPoints: 30575

LSA Superstar

September 20th, 2015 at 2:35 PM ^

I'm sure that if MSU loses by three against OSU on the road, they will politely decline a playoff spot, lest the gruesome and unimaginable spectre of a CHAMPIONSHIP REMATCH besmirch our cherished sport.

Joined: 10/03/2009

MGoPoints: 3323