Sagarin ratings: UM #3 in nation: #1 in B1G

Submitted by michelin on

UM was also #3 on Dec 3..  Then Clemson rose above us in the national rankings.  OSU fell below us after getting spanked by Clemson.

Why is UM ranked above OSU?   Many posters here have already answered this question. 4 of OSU’s  wins were by  4 points or less in regulation, while their losses were more than ten times the margin of UM’s (OSU 17 points,  UM < 1.7).

Also, the advantage of UM over OSU is likely even greater.  Why”  Sagarin considers only the final score, not  whether that score was reached in OT or regulation.

Yet, consider what happens to Sagarin’s game rating if we subtract (add) a ridiculously small one point for  a double  OT win (or loss).  UM beats OSU both in the game and in the season’s overall W-L record.

Sagarin also does not consider the advantage (disadvantage) of an in-state (vs. distant) bowl game.  But suppose that advantage is a mere one half of Sagarin’s correction (say, 1.05 points).  Then UM’s home-field corrected record is

 13-0. 

Not bad.  In fact, it’s pretty amazing considering that UM had late season injuries to the starting QB, the best TE in the country, and their all-everything LB-PR-RB-Safety  Heisman finalist.

 

B1G rankings

1.       UM

2.       OSU

3.       PSU (pretty far below, so a win over #11 USC unlikely to change B1G ranking)

4.       Wisc (even further below)

5.       Iowa

6.       Minn

7.       NW

8.       Neb

9.       Ind

10.   MSU

11.   Md

12.   Ill

13.   Pur

14.   Rutgers

 

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/ncaaf/sagarin/

 

MGoBoard
Football
football
OSU
Sagarin
B1G
Ratings

bacon

January 1st, 2017 at 12:48 PM ^

All our losses we're decided within the last few plays of the game. They didn't go our way, but we might be playing Bama for the title if they had. Winning in college football takes talent and luck. We didn't have both.

Joined: 01/04/2009

MGoPoints: 18646

bluestaffah

January 1st, 2017 at 2:17 PM ^

Clearly his time at Michigan didn't turn out how we would have liked, but come on. He apparently is a great guy and did everything within his ability to be the best that he could be. He along with the other upperclassmen suffered from terrible coaching and weren't able to recover in the time allotted with the new staff. He gave us his best and that is all we can ask of someone.

Joined: 09/24/2013

MGoPoints: 3445

grumbler

January 1st, 2017 at 4:05 PM ^

So you are saying that teams that are lucky aren't lucky because they are lucky, they are lucky because they made themselves lucky?  And unlucky teams are not unlucky, they are just deficient in making themselves lucky?

You might want to look up "luck" before you pursue this idea any further.

If you are correct and the problem with Michigan isn't luck or talent, but, rather, the inability to close, then Michigan is fucked.  Because the common feature of the last two years of close losses (inability to close, as you argue) is Harbaugh.

Joined: 08/17/2011

MGoPoints: 14099

jmblue

January 1st, 2017 at 12:49 PM ^

Being ranked over OSU is logical enough.  We tied them in regulation on the road.  That would imply that we'd be slightly better on a netural field.  The two teams both went 10-2 otherwise.

 

Joined: 11/07/2008

MGoPoints: 102738

Ghost of Fritz…

January 1st, 2017 at 1:07 PM ^

Still would rather have a better W-L record, but it confirms what most around here know--that M really was a top level team this year and better than the W-L record. 

W-L records usually don't perfectly reflect the quality of a team.

M 2016 >>> M 2105, despite the same W-L record.

There was real progress from year 1 to year 2 of the Harbaugh era, even if the W-L record is the same.  It matters that the trend arrow is pointed in the right direction.

 

 

Joined: 10/04/2014

MGoPoints: 23879

BlueHills

January 1st, 2017 at 3:07 PM ^

I think the main problem was with the O Line. That impacts QB and RB performance. Remember, we lost a starting O-lineman, and the subsequent drop off in play was noticeable. An effective O Line is the product of years of training and development, not to mention the right coaching and team culture. It's not surprising that we lost some close games where we simply couldn't control the line of scrimmage on offense. It will get better as time goes on.

Joined: 10/31/2010

MGoPoints: 7468

Ghost of Fritz…

January 1st, 2017 at 4:38 PM ^

Even after a 1 point loss to FSU, Michigan is probably still no. 6. 

Defense was elite.  Offense was not elite, but was still very good.  O-line was the main problem.  O-line issues did not matter against most teams.  It mattered against teams with very good d-lines.

You going to rank OSU above Michigan?  Really?  Who else? 

 

 

Joined: 10/04/2014

MGoPoints: 23879

Ghost of Fritz…

January 2nd, 2017 at 9:49 AM ^

With hindsight, 10-3 is not as good as this team should have achieved. 

Underachieved in a flukey/not flukey way.  Non-dominant o-line prevented putting leads away late in the 4th of each loss.  Stars mis-aligned for opponents in various way late in all 3 losses

Regardless, the 2016 team was better than the 2015 team.  Arrow pointed in the right direction.  Sagrin formula refects that.

Would anyone really prefer an 'overachievng' 10-3 2016 team that got the lucky bounces/calls late in a couple of close wins, but was top to bottom actually worse team than the 10-3 2015 team?  Doubt it. 

 

Joined: 10/04/2014

MGoPoints: 23879

BlowGoo

January 1st, 2017 at 1:22 PM ^

It's nice to read.

But my eyes alone are telling me that this program is on an upward trajectory, overtaking B1G competition. OSU is still recruiting fantastically, but at this point, so are we. In fact, I would argue that statistically-speaking, we are recruiting as good as/tied with the best.

Though we are graduating many this offseason, the talent is such that the old way of seeing redshirts as precious commodities is going away. Which means that we're hitting a point that means that year-in, year-out, we field competitive teams. Reloaders, not rebuilders.

The Sargarins just reassure me that we not only have talent, but we can NOW develop it. And thereby recruit even more talent, allowing us to field players strictly on meritocracy, not years of eligibility left.  It's great to see.

So, yes, we were better than the W-L record. There is significant culture change in the program that transcends any individual player, so even with a younger team next year, expect good things. We can develop talent, and younger kids will contribute immediately and more significantly.

Joined: 10/16/2011

MGoPoints: 7078

The Fan in Fargo

January 1st, 2017 at 2:15 PM ^

Yeah OSU has highly ranked classes year after year but comeon man. Are they really that successful? Apart from Curtis Samuel, who would you take off of that team that is awesome and respectable personality wise that doesn't look like a jackass? Booker looks like an alright guy and pretty talented. Majority are just punks who have better than average talent. Not really too many untouchables out there. 

Joined: 09/04/2016

MGoPoints: 1877