What a joke teams like Toledo and Louisiana Tech ranked ahead of Michigan. Makes no sense.
Week Eleven Polls Are Out
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).
Ah the classic "We're a bigger school, why aren't we ranked higher!" Argument. Works if you want to ignore resume's, sounds stupid any other time
Toledo has wins over Buffalo by 5 pts, Cinn by 6, E Mich by 5, Coastal Carolina by 10 and Wyoming by 3. They shouldn't be ranked ahead of us because nobody in their right mind believes they're a better team and we'd be a huge favorite if we were to play. Their SOS and how they've handled it (and therefore their "resume") is a joke.
They can't help the conference they're in. The fact is they've gone undefeated since Week 1, and not gotten embarrassed on National TV once and gotten their ass kicked in a must-win conference game.
And would we crush them? You're trumping how they've only beaten teams by a few points...have you watched our season at all? Our resume is a fucking joke. Yeah we had a tougher SOS, but that doesn't mean jack when you lose those games like we did. As far as our wins goes what do we have that's better than them? A close win over crappy Air Force, cupcake UMASS, crappy Purdue and Indiana, and a close win over a crappy MSU team. Our best win of the season is Minnesota. Saying that we should be ranked at this point is pure homerism
I never said we should be ranked. But if you have to fill up the top 25 with teams like Toledo?... I guess it's safe to assume. They can't help their schedule but they are responsible for how they handle it. Squeaking by terrible (not B1G-this-year-bad, but truely terrible) teams doesn't impress me even a little. You can slice up resume's a thousand different ways... You think we lose to Toldeo? If not and you think they should be ranked ahead of us then there's a serious flaw in your "resume-based-ranking". If you do then you'd be in a small minority I would think.
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.
You do realize that those are irrelevant, throw away facts, right? You do realize that you sound like the pot calling the kettle black?
Newsflash: This is not 2008. If we were to play Toledo on a neutral field in 2012, who would be favored?
You do realize that's one dumb arguement? What does 2008 have to do with this year?
Shouldn't be ranked where they are......only 3 of their 10 victories are over teams with a winning record and several of those wins against Cal, Indiana, UAB were crazy close.
Ohio and ND at 4 and 5 are hilarious IMO. At least ND has some decent wins though (as lucky as they've been to get them).
Get out of here troll. You sound like a Sparty.
If we played those teams head to head who would win? The answer is easy those teams would be low level Big Ten teams.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Because we have three losses and no big wins. Texas has two losses. There's only one 3-loss team in the rankings, and they're at 25. So that's why we're not ranked.
Sorry, I missed USC. But I can't argue that M is the superior team to USC.
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.
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)
5-5 MSU (could very easily be either 3-7 or 9-1)
IMHO, our only real valuable win was our least convincing, against MSU.
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.
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 )
Texas has baffled me all year.
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.
How can Texas Tech be ranked above us when they haven't beaten a currently ranked team and their three loses are worse than ours? Also the Nebraska loss has an asterisk.
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.
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.
I understand how voters or coaches might not, but Palmer works for ESPN. Its his job to know those things.
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.
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.
That doesn't make any sense to me either, and neither does USC still being ranked and South Carolina at #12.
We would have quality wins if Purdue and Sparty didn't become let downs. I see a lot of teams with good records in the poll but without playing quality opponents. It seems the voters get lazy and look at record too much.
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.
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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
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.
Miss St. should be now where near the top 25. Rutgers I don't think should be ranked either.
I'll get it up into the OP ASAP.
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.
Is a better conference than B1G. UCLA a mediocre team killed Nebraska, a team that may win the B1G. B1g best win is MSU win over a mediocre BSU that is clearly rebuilding. I am willing to bet that Oregon, USC, Oregon State and Stanford would go undefeated in B1G conference schedule because iB1G is a bad conference. You are overrating B1G that you can't see how we'll Pac 12 have been playing this year.
Except for maybe Oregon, probably not. The other schools would be 5-8 point favorites (give or take a few points for home field) against any of the top five or so schools in the B1G. Play a couple of games as a two or three-point favorite and three more favored by a TD and chances are good you'll lose one of them.
I think with Robinson healthy we'd be 50-50 or better to beat any of those except Oregon at a neutral site. SC is inconsistent and has a shaky defense. Stanford is basically Notre Dame but with a weaker secondary. Oregon St doesn't do anything special on either side of the ball.
Ohio U 24 - Penn St 14 (loss to a MAC School)
Virginia 17- Penn St 16 (loss to a 3-6 Virginia team)
ASU 45 - Illinois 14
Louisiana Tech 52 - Illinois 24
Ball St 41 - Indiana 39
Navy 31 - Indiana 30
Oregon St 10 - Wisconsin 7 (in addition Wisky barely squeaked by Northern Iowa by 5, UTEP by 11 and Utah St by 2.
Iowa St 9 - Iowa 6
Central Michigan 32 - Iowa 31
UCLA 36 - Nebraska 30
UM, MSU and Purdue all lost to ND.
Fair or unfair that's a lot of losses in non-conference play with no marquee wins to speak of in non-conference play. The Big Ten's fate was sealed before conference play even began.
Not a good showing, but the loses to UCLA, Oreg St, Louis Tech, and to a certain extent ASU are not bad losses, though they seemed like it at the time.
Sparty should be ranked in the top 5. They legit only lost one game this season and the other 4 they lost to the black and white stripped shirt guys.
SEC: 7 (1, 5, 7, 9, 11, 14, 23)
Pac 12: 5 (2, 12, 15, 19, 22)
BXII: 3 (3, 13, 17)
ACC: 2 (6, 8)
B1G: 2 (16, 21)
Big East: 2 (10, 20)
D1 IND: 1 (4)
WAC: 1 (18)
MWC: 1 (24)
MAC: 1 (25)
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)
D1 IND: 1 (4)
WAC: 1 (20)
MAC: 1 (23)
It seems like this always happens as we get deeper in the season, but the polls now share 23 teams regardless of position. They share the same seven SEC teams, the same five Pac-12 teams, three of the four Big XII teams, both ACC teams and both Big East teams as well as Louisiana Tech and ND. In another week or two, they could be almost perfect duplicates save for Ohio State.
I can live with that.
Polls don't matter. The goal is to win the B1G Championship and beat ohio.
This Is MICHIGAN.
I can point out the many flaws; OSU #5, Toledo and Usc still ranked and others, but using our record, SOS and this season as defense of Michigan being ranked is pure homerism and ignoring the reality.
OSU is undefeated. They haven't really beaten anyone significant, but they ARE undefeated.
Toledo has won seven in a row or more, meh ok.
USC, they're ranked because they are USC.
Please don't compare us to USC. Did you watch the game last night? They have more size and team speed than we do, they're receivers are faster than our dbs and our offensive line isn't exactly blowing open holes for Fitz.
Do you think for a second that we could have scored 51 on Oregon??? Let alone holding them to 62??? That would have been the ugliest game in UM history if we were to play Oregon right now.
We shouldn't be ranked because we have beaten no one. Many others shouldn't be either, but if we win out, we'll get a better bowl game than the bottom half of the polls. Take care of business and let's see what happens.
I'd be pretty upset with not being ranked with our only losses to #1, #4 and #18
How did Clemson claw their way back in to the top 10?
they've won 5 straight. Although they really haven't beaten anyone of note. Just by virture of them winning and other teams losing they get moved up.
Interesting to read the wide range of opinions on the polls on this board. Unsurprisingly, most of you feel that UM is not ranked high enough, I don't really have an opinion one way or the other. All I know is you lost 3 games to three tough teams, but at the same time, you can't really point to a statement win against a good team. So, I'm curious, both polls have UM ranked at #28, if you disagree with that ranking, where would YOU rank UM?
I'm not sure where I would rate M at this point, but I do agree with people above that it's pretty frustrating being 28th when Vegas would probably have us favored by 10+ on several teams above us here.
If I had to make a pick, I'd say within a spot either way of USC; they've looked better at times, but their three losses are worse than M's. The 21-25 spots always seem random to me, so I don't think it's a big deal either way.
Geeze you guys should listen to yourselves. All I keep hearing is this team doesn't deserve to be ranked and that team doesn't deserved to be ranked. You guys do realize there are 25 spots that have to be filled even if the teams aren't really that great?
Sagarin predictor ratings of teams in the AP poll but not in the Sagarin top 25:
- 34. Mississippi State
- 46. Rutgers
- 48. Louisville
- 49. Louisiana Tech
- 73. Toledo
Top 25 teams in the Sagarin predictor not in the AP poll:
- 13. Arizona State
- 18. Oklahoma State
- 19. BYU
- 21. Utah State
- 23. Michigan
Utah is #26, just to add to the regional flavoring here.
There does seem to be a systematic overvaluing of Big East and to a lesser extent the south in the human polls at the expense of the west (Toledo's part of this too, since their only supposedly big win was against Cincinnati) . We'll get a small interregional test when Utah State goes to La Tech in a couple of weeks; otherwise we pretty much have to wait for the bowls because it's conference play from here on out.
How is USC ranked with a 6-3 record and two losses in a row?
because they started number 1,
but they all have them ranked. So I don't think that's all of it.
Barkley and those receivers would pick our secondary apart over 60 minutes. Remember, the main reason our pass defense is ranked so high is because the only team that could pass well against us was Alabama. The rest of the teams we played couldn't complete a pass downfield because of accuracy, not spectacular D on our part.
Our secondary doesn't have the speed to keep up with big, fast wideouts. Against Nebraska, they had at least five opportunities to complete big pass plays, Martinez is simply a poor throwing Qb, that's why those passes weren't completed. Go look at the replay, those guys were wide open.
We're not bad on pass defense, we play in a conference with bad throwing QBs. All the QBs we have faced are in the bottom if not bottom 25% of all passers in the country. AS passing teams, Purdue is 69th, MSU 78th, Nebraska 80th, ND 90th and Minnesota 94th,
Our pass offense is 108 and Illinois, Umass and Air Force are worse.
Bottom line, we're not as good as we look.
Passing yardage is a terrible metric. Alabama's 81st, right behind Nebraska in passing yards--they don''t have to pass a lot because most of the time they're busy running the ball down people's throats. It's a choice, not a measure of skill. They're completing 67% of their passes for more than 9 YPA and they haven't thrown an interception all year. That's a bad passing team?
to watch people get all up in arms about the polls. Go back and look at the polls from previous years and you'll that the final polls end up looking like this:
one loss teams
two loss teams
three loss teams
Now there might be a 2 loss team ahead of one or two one loss teams and a 3 loss team ahead of a couple of 2 loss teams but that's how the polls end up. It's not rocket science and it's probably not right but that's how the polls end up. Your conference's reputation is made in the non-conference slate (and in the case of the SEC from dominating the BCS title game).