Week Eleven Polls Are Out
Let's see if we can do this without another Husker4Life type moment, shall we?
AP:
- Alabama (60)
- Oregon
- Kansas State
- Notre Dame
- Ohio State
- Georgia
- Florida
- Florida State
- LSU
- Clemson
- Louisville
- South Carolina
- Oregon State
- Oklahoma
- Texas A&M
- Stanford
- UCLA
- Nebraska
- Texas
- Louisiana Tech
- USC
- Mississippi State
- Toledo
- Rutgers
- Texas Tech
- Dropped from rankings: Boise State 19, West Virginia 23, Arizona 24
- Others receiving votes: Northern Illinois 64, Kent State 61, Michigan 53, TCU 38, Northwestern 32, Oklahoma State 27, Ohio 22, UCF 15, Boise State 11, Washington 9, Penn State 8, San Diego State 7, Tulsa 6, Arizona 5, Utah State 4, Fresno State 2
Coaches:
- Alabama (59)
- Oregon
- Kansas State
- Notre Dame
- Georgia
- Florida State
- Florida
- Clemson
- LSU
- Louisville
- South Carolina
- Oregon State
- Oklahoma
- Texas A&M
- Stanford
- Nebraska
- Texas
- Louisiana Tech
- UCLA
- Rutgers
- Northwestern
- USC
- Mississippi State
- Boise State
- Toledo
- Dropped from rankings: West Virginia 19, Texas Tech 20, Oklahoma State 24
- Others receiving votes: Northern Illinois 88, Texas Tech 68, Michigan 48, Oklahoma State 41, Cincinnati 38, TCU 37, Ohio 34, Kent State 32, Wisconsin 25, Utah State 13, UCF 12, West Virginia 7, San Diego State 7, Washington 4, Tulsa 4, Louisiana-Monroe 4, Fresno State 4, Arizona State 3, Middle Tennessee 2
November 4th, 2012 at 1:03 PM ^
November 4th, 2012 at 1:12 PM ^
Toledo has one loss to a previously ranked Arizona team (in OT), and clearly the MAC is fairly solid seeing as two other teams from the conference are ahead of Michigan in the poll (NIU and Kent State).
November 4th, 2012 at 1:15 PM ^
November 4th, 2012 at 2:02 PM ^
November 4th, 2012 at 2:18 PM ^
November 4th, 2012 at 2:37 PM ^
November 4th, 2012 at 2:43 PM ^
You do realize that Toledo won the most recent meeting between M and Toledo, right? You do realize that Toledo has an all time winning record against ranked BCS opponents? You do realize that you sound like a pompous, self-righteous ass.
November 4th, 2012 at 2:50 PM ^
November 4th, 2012 at 2:57 PM ^
Newsflash: This is not 2008. If we were to play Toledo on a neutral field in 2012, who would be favored?
November 4th, 2012 at 4:08 PM ^
You do realize that's one dumb arguement? What does 2008 have to do with this year?
November 4th, 2012 at 2:56 PM ^
November 4th, 2012 at 4:02 PM ^
November 4th, 2012 at 2:43 PM ^
November 4th, 2012 at 2:11 PM ^
November 4th, 2012 at 9:14 PM ^
but Toledo, Kent State, and Northern Illinois would be lucky to come within 20 points of us. NIU has beaten no one, and Toledo and Kent each have one win over an overrated Big East team. Kent also lost by 33 to Kentucky, whose only competition for "worst team in a BCS conference" is Colorado.
November 4th, 2012 at 10:25 PM ^
on a neutral field Michigan would be favored by:
- 14 over Toledo
- 13 over Kent State
- 5 over Northern Illinois
I'm realizing as I read through this thread that it's common to the verge of universal to construct an argument by cherry-picking a couple of games off a team's schedule that will confirm whatever the arguer has already decided. Probably the biggest advantage of the sophisiticated computer algorithms is that they're immune to that.
That, and that humans seem to be grossly oversensitive to who won or lost a game (of course the BCS computers have that fault in spades). When a kick passes a few inches inside a post instead of outside or a dodgy official replay upholds a touchdown that maybe wasn't--or any of a number of basically lucky incidents that can determine the result of a close game--that shouldn't change the expectations for that team in future games by a touchdown or more, but that seems to be the way people tend to look at things.
November 4th, 2012 at 1:14 PM ^
SEC: 7 (1, 5, 7, 9, 12, 15, 22)
Pac 12: 5 (2, 13, 16, 17, 21)
Big XII: 4 (3, 14, 19, 25)
B1G: 2 (5, 18)
ACC: 2 (8, 10)
Big East: 2 (11, 24)
MAC: 1 (23)
WAC: 1 (20)
D1 IND: 1 (4)
November 4th, 2012 at 1:24 PM ^
Besides maybe NTMSU (i.e. the SEC version of MSU) and Texas seeming to be ranked too high, I cannot really complain about this too much besides the usual Ess Eee Cee self-fulfilling prophecy at the top of the poll (i.e. highly ranked SEC teams beat each other and nobody moves much because OMG-SEC!). I think the NTMSU issue will play out on the field a la West Virginia, and Texas is irrelevant to what Michigan wants to do.
If Michigan takes care of its business from here on out and takes down OSU, I really don't care what the rankings are until after the B1G championship game.
November 4th, 2012 at 6:30 PM ^
I kind of hoped the Alabama game this year would have killed off the "self-fulfilling SEC prophecy" argument.
They're pretty good. Anyone that can play a competitive game with them is pretty good too. That loss last night moved LSU up in my estimation, not down.
November 4th, 2012 at 1:28 PM ^
BIG TEEHHNNNN
November 4th, 2012 at 1:05 PM ^
It's a little frustrating that we're unranked when our three losses are to the #1 team (at a neutral site), #4 team (on the road) and #18 team (on the road and when our QB got hurt). Though I suppose the converse is that we may not have any truly good wins.
November 4th, 2012 at 1:35 PM ^
Yes, UM does not have any good wins...neither does USC, but they are still ranked. USC's three losses are to the #2 ranked team (at home), #16 ranked team (on the road) and an unranked team (on the road) while their best win this season is over 5-4 Washington in a game where Washington was -3 in TO margin. I am NOT arguing for UM to be included in the polls btw, I am just disgusted to see USC still ranked.
November 4th, 2012 at 1:50 PM ^
That's entirely an artifact of their being ranked so highly at the beginning of the season—#1 in the AP and #3 in USA Today—of Barkley being considered at one point to be a serious Heisman contender, and the fact that their only loss through their first seven games was a close loss to a top-20 Stanford team. By contrast, we got bitch-slapped on opening day, and then lost an ugly game to ND in week four.
November 4th, 2012 at 1:40 PM ^
November 4th, 2012 at 1:46 PM ^
November 5th, 2012 at 11:26 AM ^
If you examine Michigan and USC closely, they're not as far off from each other as you might think. Don't let preseason hype could your judgment...USC is simply not as good as they were hyped to be. Stanford dominated them defensively, much like Bama and ND did to Michigan. Oregon torched them on offense, and the only team to do that to M was Bama so far. Shoot, they lost to Arizona, who you could argue is a worse team than Nebraska, and Michigan had mitigating circumstances to their Nebraska loss (namely, argh Denard elbow)
USC's best win was...Washington, by just 10 points? I'm not even sure, they've only beaten unranked teams! That sounds like Michigan quite frankly...M's best win is easily MSU, but they're unranked too.
I'm not necessarily saying Michigan is the better team, I'm just saying there's a legitimate argument to be made. Especially if you just look at resumes.
November 4th, 2012 at 1:42 PM ^
Nobody here has any reason to bitch about our place in the polls, considering that we've beaten:
5-4 Air Force (who lost to Army, who lost to EMU)
0-9 UMass
3-6 Purdue
2-7 Illinois
5-5 MSU (could very easily be either 3-7 or 9-1)
5-4 Minnesota
IMHO, our only real valuable win was our least convincing, against MSU.
November 4th, 2012 at 1:50 PM ^
I agree completely.
As I stated in my screed against USC's inclusion, UM has no place being in the polls. I am just mystified at some of the teams who are still included with USC and MSU (SEC version) being the two most glaring examples.
November 4th, 2012 at 1:05 PM ^
May I ask why in the hell is Oklahoma State and Texas even ranked. Who have they beaten and more importantly who have they played? (I know Ok State played at K-State last night )
November 4th, 2012 at 1:10 PM ^
November 4th, 2012 at 1:12 PM ^
November 4th, 2012 at 9:29 PM ^
The Big 12's second tier teams (Texas, T. Tech, Ok St, TCU, WVU, maybe Iowa St) have basically just beaten up on each other. None have seriously threatened Oklahoma or K-St. Texas actually has the best case of any of them. They destroyed Ole Miss on the road, and apart from disintegrating against Oklahoma their only loss is by 3 to WVU.
November 4th, 2012 at 1:06 PM ^
November 4th, 2012 at 1:18 PM ^
Seems like people don't even care how teams win or why teams may lose.
In the pre-game analysis of the Neb-MSU game yesterday I think it was Jesse Palmer who was praising Neb for limiting Michigan's offense to so many rushing yards and creating 3 interceptions. No further clarifications given by Palmer or rebuttal from the other person on camera.
November 4th, 2012 at 1:24 PM ^
How many games are played every week? Of course commentators, coaches, analysts, voters, etc don't pay close attention to all 120+ teams. Michigan is an unranked 3-loss team, just because we all understand the how/why/where details of those losses, I'm not surprised that people unaffliated with UM or the Big10 don't.
Could you give a thorough assessment of how Mississippi State's season is going? Or what their roster looks like? How about Kent State or UCF?
I'm not saying that this is an OK way for the college football world to operate, but it is very much the reality. People with very limited knowledge outside their immediate circumstances are responsible for ranking and voting.
November 4th, 2012 at 1:29 PM ^
I understand how voters or coaches might not, but Palmer works for ESPN. Its his job to know those things.
November 4th, 2012 at 1:37 PM ^
Well, Palmer is an idiot; I don't think anyone is going to argue with you about that.
But a couple of things to remember. First, as much as we maybe don't want to admit it, Michigan is irrelevant to the national football landscape at this point. "Good losses" or not, national analysts don't care about Michigan's situation. Second, Denard injury or no, Nebraska's defense did in fact shut down Michigan's offense, including the RBs (we know that the RBs have struggled all year, but that's the exact nuanced understanding of our season I wouldn't expect someone like Palmer to follow at this point). Bellomy may have played a very bad game, but Nebraska really took full advantage of the circumstances.
Short version: Palmer sucks, but it doesn't really change my original point. Michigan isn't important enough for analysts to pay attention to them.
November 4th, 2012 at 8:40 PM ^
*Yet.
November 4th, 2012 at 1:42 PM ^
My assessment of Mississippi State's season: 7 wins over tomato cans (Jackson St., Troy, MTSU, South Alabama, Auburn, Kentucky and Tennessee), 2 blowout losses to good teams. There are probably 30-35 teams in BCS conferences that would have an identical 7-2 record had they played MSU(NTMSU)'s schedule. It is an absolute travesty that they are still ranked.
November 4th, 2012 at 1:20 PM ^
That doesn't make any sense to me either, and neither does USC still being ranked and South Carolina at #12.
November 4th, 2012 at 1:10 PM ^
November 4th, 2012 at 7:29 PM ^
Man with that logic, ND would be #1 if every team on their schedule didn't take a dump in their pants this year.
Of course they see W/L, thats indicator #1. Then they see OMGZ OREGON LIT IT UP WITH 60 POINTS ON USC! Failing to also mention that USC hung 50+ on that same Oregon team. When Oregons coach is saying his key to victory was "to hold serve." (Actual Kelly quote), you have to wonder how the "team" would make out against a real defense.
You can chide ND all you want. But all those breaks you guys got last year as you rolled to your magical Sugar Bowl victory, are falling on ND now. Defense wins championships, Basketfootball does not. Oregons recent BCS failures indicate this with scores of 22-19 and 26-17, both losses to good defenses.
November 4th, 2012 at 7:52 PM ^
Try to remember your implication here that SC doesn't have a "real defense" in your postgame discussion of your game with them.
November 5th, 2012 at 10:01 AM ^
Oklahoma had a real defense as well.
November 4th, 2012 at 1:16 PM ^
Maybe we deserve to be ranked ahead of some of the teams, but let's face it we aren't that good this year. I mean, it's not like we're clamoring for a spot in the top 5.
WE DESERVE TO BE RANKED 23!!! I DEMAND AN INVESTIGATION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
November 4th, 2012 at 1:22 PM ^
but Michigan did start the year at #8 and with anyone else's schedule from the Big Ten along with a healthy Denard we may just be in the Top 5.
November 4th, 2012 at 1:18 PM ^
Miss St. should be now where near the top 25. Rutgers I don't think should be ranked either.
November 4th, 2012 at 1:33 PM ^
I'll get it up into the OP ASAP.
November 4th, 2012 at 1:35 PM ^
The presence of 5 teams from the Pac 12 in the poll is an ABSOLUTE TRAVESTY. That conference is legitimately the worst conference in the country, below the MAC even. USC is CRIMINALLY OVERRANKED. Their best win is a horrible Washington team.. How are they still in the polls despite two consecutive losses, one of which to an Arizona team that got blown out by UCLA. UCLA!!! WHAT???
Any teams that have beaten USC so far have no legitimacy besides Oregon. And now UCLA is ranked JUST for beating Arizona by a lot? What? Their best win was against Nebraska, which, btw, was played AT UCLA AT night, which equates to playing at like 3 AM for the Nebraska players... huge home team advantage. Now Stanford... Stanford's only win? A criminally overranked USC team. I can't believe how ridiculous the hype is regarding the Pac 12, all because voters are. I have been saying this same thing for weeks and weeks and it seems like I'm the only one to be taking notice of this.
People continue to say "The Big 10 might be the worst conference", but WHY? Can anyone explain it to me? Because we had a ton of coaching changes over the offseason and needed some time to find an identity? The Big 10 in its current state is far far far better than how it was when we started the season. (And I will say that the SEC is much better this year than it has been in the recent past.. scary!)
My conference order:
SEC > Big 12 > Big 10 > ACC > Pac 12 > Big East
And don't try to argue with me by saying "The Pac 12 has 5 ranked teams so they're better". No, rankings are completely and utterly false and based off of preseason polls which are based on hype and hype only.