How Michigan is behind WVU is beyond me. We lost to Alabama in week one and to ND in a game that we practically gave away. More importantly we have an defense. Anyways... the rankings don't matter too much for us. We're after one goal and one goal only: B1G Champs all the way to Pasadena.
Week 9 BCS Rankings
Added to that, why/how is Texas ranked? I was semi-alright with it last week, since the WVU looked better, but now that WVU is dropping turds everywhere, how can they rank Texas?
Not to mention that Texas was handed that game against Okie State due to a terrible ruling by the officials (and replay booth). They should be 4-3 right now.
Texas is ranked because its Texas.
is the biggest mystery to me. I thought for sure they'd get dropped out of the rankings this week. Both Texas and WVU got their asses handed to them in both losses. The Big Ten rep is the reason for Michigan being ranked where they are... but I do NOT think those two teams should be ranked ahead of UM. Just annoying.
We also have beaten one team above .500. We beat air force, and they are ok and a wierd offense, and we beat umass who is awful, and we beat purdue who has proven in the last couple weeks to be pretty bad, and illinois who is trash, and just got by state who is 4-4 with a home loss to an iowa team that has a loss to central and hasn't beaten anyone outside the big 10 either. The big is trash this year and it is hurting us because nobody considers any of our wins impressive and honestly they aren't. You can only win the games you play, I know that and if we win out we will be in the top 10 and playing for the roses but we haven't done anything impressive yet either so i'm not sure why people think we deserve to be higher than any other two loss teams because our losses happened to be against slightly better teams.
could/should have beaten OSU in the Shoe. OSU is a top 10 team. How again has Purdue shown the last couple of weeks to be bad?
They are 0-3 in the Big Ten. They got blown out at home by us. They got blown out at home by Wisconsin. They gave up an 8-point lead to OSU and lost in OT. Not that any of that matters to computers because computers only use W/L. So, I'll go back to my original point: they are 0-3 in the Big Ten.
Towson hung around with lsu for a while in baton rouge, lsu is a top 10 team, is towson a good football team? I also think ohio st is overrated and pretty much every team they have played has hung around, its not like purdue was special in that regard, do you think cal is a good team? What about Indiana I heard they are awesome at football to because they almost beat ohio st
Oregon will be fine once they play someone.
Oregon will have to beat USC away and Stanford at home. Florida will have to beat FSU away and Alabama in the SEC championship. And Kansas St. will have to beat Texas at home (but have impressed against Oklahoma). The top four will have to separate themselves against tough competition, as you indicated.
There will be enough games against common opponents among the top four that it will sort itself out for the NC game:
- SEC: Alabama and Florida play each other, so only one will survive. There will NOT be another NC game any time soon with 2 teams from the same conference who already played each other. That was a disaster.
- Pac 12: It's Oregon or nobody.
- Big 12: It's KSU or nobody
- Independent: If ND goes undefeated, they will not automatically be in, despite the media's wishes. They will have common opponents with KSU (Oklahoma) and Oregon (USC, Stanford) to help determine if they really deserve it.
The real issue will be if Alabama, KSU, and Oregon are all undefeated. Alabama will be in because they will stay #1 and Ess Eee See and all that. Who gets to go between Oregon and KSU? There are no common opponent tiebreakers. That will be ugly.
Thats a very interesting question and I am not sure how that would turn out...but I'd doubt that we'll see it. As good as Oregon is they have tough regular season and then would have to slug out a PAC12 champ game to get their and although KSU doesn't have a champ game it is tough to get through a decent conference like that undefeated (see OkSt '11)
this: If ND were to go undefeated, could you envision them NOT playing in the BCS title game with their schedule? Michigan, MSU, Oklahoma, USC, Stanford, BYU, Miami, with rest BCS conference schools and Navy.
The only teams on their schedule that have a winning record are Navy, Stanford, USC, OK and us. Looking at Stanford's remaining schedule they could easily end up 7-5. If Oregon runs the table USC would be a 4 loss team. And the rest of those BCS teams are Pitt, WF, and BC. That is not that impressive. Oregon if they won out would have beaten USC twice, a highly ranked Oregon State team and the Arizona schools and Washington, all probably bowl teams. That's pretty comparable and they have been alot more impressive than ND. K-State would have the same win over OK, 5 conference road wins all over at least decent opposition. ND plays 4 road games all season, one of which is BC. The bump they could get in the computers from possibly beating OK and USC would be diminished by adding in WF, Pitt ,and BC.
Kansas state desearves to be 3, after they went to WVU and dominated the way they did.
Beat the Huskers.
Win big ten.
7-0 MAC team hanging in there
Where is Ohio State?...Oh yeah.
In fact, according to the PREDICTOR ratings UM should be a favorite (by 0.04) points even in Columbus. (after you subtract the ratings for the two teams and give +3 to Ohio for home field).
By the same method, UM should be a 3 point favorite at Nebraska.
The ranking doesn't really matter at this point in the season if you're out of the national championship hunt. If UM takes care of it's schedule it can expect to make the Rose Bowl trip in the top ten. A Rose Bowl victory will assure a top five or six finish, I would think.
Recent history tends to agree with that estimation when it comes to rankings anyway. With respect to the BCS rankings, in the 2010 Rose Bowl, the 7th and 8th ranked teams played, and the winner was 5th in the final standings. In the 2011 Rose Bowl, we had the 3rd and 5th ranked teams, with the winner finishing 3rd. This January, the 5th and 10th ranked teams played, and the winner was 4th in the final rankings. If you went back to 2008, the 5th and 8th ranked BCS teams played in the Rose Bowl, with the winner being 3rd in the final rankings. One of the interesting things is that in no case here was the Big Ten team the higher ranked team going into the game itself.
I don't get how the BCS ranks teams. I usually agree with the AP and USA Today polls, and they usually agree with each other, and the BCS poll usually disagrees vastly with both of them. More improtantly the BCS poll usually disagrees with me! What are they thinking? I thought a hybrid poll aimed at getting the best ranking would do better than we have in the past, but it feels like the BCS poll is routinely, and significantly worse than what we already had.
I don't understand how Georgia is #10, 2 loss South Carolina is #13, and Clemson is #18. Their only loss was a close game @ #4 Florida State. How is Florida State ranked under Georgia when FSU beat a top 10 team, but lost a close game on the road, when Georgia was absolutely dismantled by a now 2 loss South Carolina. Or how a team that's 5-1 is ranked well above a team that's 7-1 with similar wins and losses. They've had 2 more chances to lose. Ect, ect, ect.
It is a mid-season poll and means nothing. I wouldn't read too much into it.
It's them d*mn computers, I tells ya!
Seriously, though, the mysterious computer portion of the BCS formula (which is non-transparent and is, thus, bullsh*t) is the kicker that usually causes the strange results in the BCS poll. I have noticed a distinct bias for SEC (duh) and Big 12 teams (less duh) in the computer portion of the poll over the past few years.
Personally, I cannot wait until the BCS dies its well deserved death. The proposed playoff system won't be perfect, either, but it will still be an improvement over what we've got now.
How about this? Every game we win increases the chances for an Alabama-Notre Dame National Championship game. Our winning increases both school's strength of schedule calculations and improves the odds for this matchup to occur.
While we help Alabama with every win let's face it - if (when?) they win out and take the SEC they will definitely get one of the two slots. The Irish, however, need some additional love from the BCS computers and are probably our biggest fans right now.
They do not deserve a shot at the NC. Scraping each W with a crappy offense. They would be beaten easily by Bama, Florida, or Oregon.
"Screw the Irish"
Um....that's sort-of my point here. A team that virtually none of us like, that just told us to go F ourselves schedule-wise, that we literally handed a game to on a silver platter a few games ago, is the biggest beneficiary if we keep winning and moving up the polls.
So lets be like Michigan State and root against our own best interests just to spite someone else . . . um, no.
Given the reaction to my posts and your comment it is apparent I have NOT made my point very clear here. I am not espousing we start losing in an effort to hurt ND's chances in the BCS - rather I was attempting to show the irony in both Alabama's & ND's benefiting from our success.
Oh, like rain on your wedding day.
While you are correct in that you guys winning helps us in the end, ND needs Florida to lose. If Florida loses ND will automatically claim #1 by most, if not all the computers. Sadly this won't come until the SEC championship game which means unless Bama craps the bed against the Mad Hatter, one of those 2 will be in the NCG. Best case is LSU beats Bama and then beats Florida in the SEC Championship.
Or Georgia or FSU can pull the shocker and LSU beats Bama. Looking at KStates schedule, I can't see anyone that can beat them now that they have beaten OU. Oregon has a harder road with games against USC, Stanford and in Corvalis. Culminating in probably playing USC again in the Pac12 Championship. If they win out, they deserve their spot.
Question for BCS experts. Michigan is 20 in the Harris Poll, 20 in the USA Today Poll, and 19 in the average computer rankings, so how do they end up at 22?
Because fuck logic.
Because the computer rankings really get screwy outside of the top eight or so. For example, Mississippi State is ranked #8 in one computer poll, but #20 in another. Ohio (YTO) is #13 in one poll, but unranked in three others. Similar for Boise State. Michigan just happens to be one of few teams where the average of their computer rankings is actually similar to that of the human polls, but so many others see a significant difference between the humans and the computers that this sort of thing happens.
FSU's computer ranking is .000. Haha. Thats what you get playing in the ACC and also schedule 1AA teams.
but FSU's computer score is .170.
Massy's the only computer ranking they miss out on--they're 41st there.
Thats an improvement over the previous weeks then.
It was .000
Most of BCS gets a zero--you have to be in the top 25 of one of the systems to score. 90-95 teams aren't.
FSU's one of the biggest victims of the BCS requirement that the computers ignore all information other than wins and losses. In Massey's actual ratings, for example, they're 23rd, but they're 42nd in his BCS rating. Western Kentucky is 22nd in his BCS rating but 35th in his actual ratings. Is there anyone, even in Kentucky, that thinks WKU is the stronger team? Massey thinks FSU is ten points better despite between 20 spots lower in his BCS system.
No one, and especially not their creators, thinks these BCS computer systems are worth anything as an evaluation of team strength. They're hamstrung.
True but most of the BCS is not ranked 14 with .000 computer average.
The BCS formula doesn't use the placement in the human polls; it uses the polling points received. In both polls Michigan's very close to the teams behind them but there's a gap to the team ahead. Here's the Harris:
16. South Carolina 1109
17. Texas Tech 1074
18. Stanford 929
19. Boise St. 762
20. Michigan 490
21. Texas A&M 465
22. West Virginia 363
They don't get much for being ahead of A&M and WVU in the human polls, but they get the full detriment of their places behind them in the computers.
not the ordering of the teams. Michigan's computer numbers are 0.22 (after dropping the high and low and averaging the remaining 4 in a reverse ordering). 0.22 is equivalent to 20.5th place for the computers (as noted on CBS Sports' BCS table). To go from the 0.22 to the "place" ranking, multiply by 25 and then subract from 26.
Do that same calculation for Harris and our polling vote total puts us in 21.74th place; Coaches poll puts us in 21.525th place. So the two human polls essentially have us at 22nd, and the other 1/3 vote for 21st place is not enough to pull it up. Teams are not evenly spaced along the continuum from 1st place to 25th place (or out to 35th place with folks also getting votes), due to the mix of voting.
Maybe they should play the starters for a full 3 quarters and run up the score a little more so the computers can be convinced.
The computer algorithms used for the BCS are prohibited from using final scores as an input--they're restricted to wins/losses only.
This is what I came here to say. This is also a breath-takingly stupid rule. I mean I get not wanting to encourage Bret Bielemaing, but the idea that Ohio's win over Purde and ours (to take one example) represent equivalent accompishments or team quality is absurd. As Sargin says point spread is the only thing that actually matters in evaluating a team's quality.
I wonder if the rule is even necessary. I don't know how the other systems work but Massey discounts large spreads. You might see teams getting an advantage running up the score with a late TD in the final minute to win by 10 instead of 3, but you would gain very little running up the score in a blowout.
Basically and very roughly, what he does is determine the probability that you were actually no better than the other team but won by luck. Once you've demonstrated clear superiority you get full credit for the win, and that's all you get. 42-0 or 56-0, there's almost no difference.
Man, college football teams in general suck this year.
This is why the 4 team Playoff is going to use a Selection Committee. Not everything is neatly programmable into a computer. A Selection Committee would see the merit of Oregon in a way that mere stats don't project.
matter to this team period. Its win the Big Ten or play in Orlando or Tampa
Not necessarily, if we win out and lose to WIsconsin in Indy there would be a really good chance that we'd be in the top 14 making us BCS eligible.
Edit: Wisconsin would also have to win out to make the BTCG a matchup between two highly ranked teams.
Polls don't matter.
The goal is to win the B1G Championship and beat ohio.
This Is MICHIGAN.
The only reason I'm following the BCS rankings is to see if we'd have to play the Ducks in Pasadena.
Please god no. That would be ugly. I think we'd stand a chance against USC/OSU(ntOSU)/Stanford, but Oregon would not be fun.
I do think Oregon should be #2, I think they're a better/more complete team than Florida and Kansas State, but by comparison to Florida and Kansas State, Oregon hasn't beaten anyone of any real substance yet. Granted, Oregon still has plenty of chances to beef up its resume when they play Stanford, USC and Oregon State, not to mention likely USC again in the championship game, but right now, Florida and KSU have played and beaten the tougher opponents.
I feel pretty good about Oregon making their way to #2, though. Florida will not beat Alabama in the championship game, and KSU, even if they go undefeated, doesn't have to play in a champuonship game. Here's to hoping Oregon stays undefeated. I have no desire to play them in the Rose Bowl, assuming we make it there.
Is legit. They have an outstanding defense and are well-coached.
This is their best team since Lou Holtz coached there because they have the capacity to keep other teams, perhaps even more talented teams, out of the end zone. Reminds me of the 2002 Ohio team.
(let's not talk about how Alabama won a national championship despite not winning their conference championship)
What's everyone's thoughts on Ohio the University's bowl placements if they run the table. They have a nice non-conference win @ Penn St.
Little Caesar's Bowl against a 6-6 B1G team. If they lose more than one game or lose badly to Kent State, they'll be in the godaddy bowl against the #2 team from the Sun Belt (WKU?)
Even if they run the table convincingly there's no way they can qualify for a BCS bowl. Despite playing Penn State they're 173rd in strength of schedule at Sagarin. Think about that for a minute...there are only 124 FBS teams.
What's Boise St's SOS?
77. For context, that's worse than any B1G team (Penn St. is 71)--it would be a typical ACC schedule.
Teams in the BCS top 25 with worse SOS than Boise:
- Florida St. 96
- Rutgers 98
- Louisville 105
- Mississippi St. 119
- Ohio 173
Whoever Ohio plays in a bowl, they'll likely be an underdog. The only B1G team Sagarin or Massey would favor them against is Illinois. Illinois's not going to a bowl.
That's if OU goes to a bowl at all. It's maybe also worth noting that the Sagarin predictor currently has them sixth-best in the MAC. They've struggled lately against, really, really bad teams (like UMass).
Oregon should be ranked #2, but I can see the argument for Florida, they've been beating everyone put in front of them. They topped LSU which I didn't expect and then made South Carolina look really bad. I knew when UF hired Muschamp, that it was a good hire, but his second season is making this look like the second best coaching hire in that time frame. The first being Dave Brandon's hiring of Brady Hoke!