Week Four (Useless) AP/Coaches Rankings
http://espn.go.com/college-football/rankings
Four Big Ten teams are in the Top 25:
AP/Coaches, change from Week 3
Michigan State: 11/11, +2/+2
Wisconsin: 19/17, +1/0
Ohio State: 23/18, +1/0
Nebraska: 24/22, NR/-1
The next highest Big Ten team is Penn State, who find themselves at 30/34 after starting 3-0.
September 14th, 2014 at 3:47 PM ^
MSU might back into the playoffs unfortunately even with 1 loss. Each week they are going to move up a spot or so as teams ahead of them beat up on each other. Nebraska might be the only ranked team they play the rest of the way until the Big 10 championship game.
They will lose all SOS battles but there is not a game on their schedule they won't be favored in. They have far and away the easiest schedule of anyone in the top 15. OSU is not going into EL and beating MSU... have to hope for a road f****** to PSU or Maryland I guess.
FSU can get in with 1 loss, Oregon can get in with 1 loss, the SEC champion will get in, and then MSU will be rooting against Oklahoma who has to play both OK State and Baylor. But they get them both at home. So I am a big Sooners fan the rest of the year. Issue is they dont have a championship game - so hoping MSU does not have a 11-1 Wisconsin (whose main competitors are Minnesota, Iowa, and Nebraska) in the Big 10 championship game.
The other option is a 2 loss SEC team i.e. the loser of the SEC championship game gets in over MSU. Or Baylor knocks out Oklahoma --- not sure a 1 loss Baylor gets in over MSU though.
Disclaimer: I am not rooting for MSU to win out for "conference pride". Eff it.
September 14th, 2014 at 3:51 PM ^
Yea, and I think this is going to be the type of year in which every team has a loss anyway.
September 14th, 2014 at 3:58 PM ^
MSU has a clear path through the Big Ten at the moment. In a perfect world, Michigan keeps improving in small increments every week and gives MSU a run.
Speaking of improvement, weren't you the one who had the signature about being EMO about the OL until they prove it on Saturdays? If so, have your thoughts changed at all?
September 14th, 2014 at 7:49 PM ^
In a perfect world, Michigan keeps improving in small increments every week and gives MSU a run.That should be:
In a perfect world, Michigan keeps improving in small increments every week and beats MSU.#fixedthat4u.
September 14th, 2014 at 7:51 PM ^
In a perfect world, Michgan trounces Sparty in EL, starting Sparty's regression to the mean. Sparty has had their fifteen minutes of fame. It's time for them to go back to being the pesky rivals whose raison d'etre is their hatred of Michigan.
September 14th, 2014 at 10:08 PM ^
Truth. In a perfect world, Michigan would never lose to MSU, ever. I was referring specifically to this season, but you and wolfman81 were perfectly justified in calling me out. I stand corrected on my wording.
September 14th, 2014 at 7:54 PM ^
Yes I was. I think if you put Chad Henne - any of the 4 years - behind this OL, with how bad the Big 10 is this is a 9-3 team as a floor. No offense to Devin - I dont think this offense needs big play ability. It needs the MSU offense of last year - solid, boring, very low turnovers. Again this accounts for how atrocious the Big 10 is in its current state.
The OL is "good enough" to be average in the Big 10 (not so much in other conferences)... and I think the pass blocking is already above last year although again there are very few DLs that are a challenge in this sad conference. MSU OSU and PSU - maybe Rutgers? I mean I am not fearing Indiana or Minnesota's DL. We've done enough vs Miami OH / App State (this year's UConn/Akron) to tell me its at least a tad above 2013 OLs. Bigger running holes and better pass blocking even v ND (Devin was not on the run for his life every play as in 2013) with time to improve to "below average". My view would be different in another conference.
My worries are falling now to the development of Gardner and if Green can show 80-100+ yard talent vs competent defenses. And the DB health/pass rush.
September 14th, 2014 at 8:20 PM ^
but not other conferences" I don't think the B1G's defensive fronts are significantly worse than other conferences. Sparty and Ohio are certainly respectable. Our own front seven is solid. Why do you make that claim?
September 14th, 2014 at 10:08 PM ^
I'll give you the ACC. I think a lot of Pac 12 and SEC front 7s would eat up most of the Big 10s front 7s. (Let's see how we handle Utah's front 7, considering Utah was a bottom 4 team in the Pac 12)
Big 12 I don't know - a lot of those teams dont play defense either. Hard to judge them.
If there are 5 power conferences I'd rate our "front 7s" as best case 3rd and worst case 5th (ACC / Big 10 / Big 12 can go debate it out who has the weakest defenses). Our crossover games vs the Big 5 don't say very good things.
September 15th, 2014 at 3:31 AM ^
I think that impression is an artefact of tempo.
Here's the average defensive FEI for the five power conferences last year (negative is good, zero is FBS-average, and these numbers are tempo- and schedule-adjusted):
- PAC -.285
- B12 -.256
- SEC -.190
- B1G -.136
- ACC -.112
The worst defense in the Big 12 was ISU at #76. Each of the other five conferences had at least two teams worse than that; the SEC had three.
The SEC's usually at the top of this list but they had a really bad defensive year last year, collectively. They didn't have anyone in the top 6 (every conference had a team rank ahead of the SEC's best) and Kentucky was the worst power-conference defense in the country.
September 14th, 2014 at 10:12 PM ^
Good to know I wasn't thinking of someone else.
I agree that right now the OL is good enough. My hope is that they keep taking small steps forward so that by the end of the season they are an above average unit. Next week will be a big test. I like what I've seen so far.
September 14th, 2014 at 4:20 PM ^
Where MSU or anyone is ranked right now means nothing and where they may move in the polls means nothing as far as the playoff is concerned.
September 14th, 2014 at 7:56 PM ^
September 14th, 2014 at 8:12 PM ^
that's because of the 14 B1G teams only Rutgers has a win over a team from the power 5 .
September 14th, 2014 at 4:51 PM ^
that anyone thinks they can say a whole lot about the final-year standings. It's not uncommon to have all learned discussion in towads the end of the season overturned between Thanksgiving and mid December---see for instance the end of 2007.
About the only thing you can say is that all Big Ten teams are very likely going to lose a tiebreaker and has the best chance to get passed over by a team with an extra loss.
In addition, I've seen much better teams than Michigan State lose inexplicable games. All discussion that starts with them running the table is, to me, conditioned on an event with a probability below 50%.
September 14th, 2014 at 3:48 PM ^
Here's how the Big Ten shakes out in Sagarin's ratings -
Overall rank / Team / Overall Rating
8) Michigan State, 90.25
10) Wisconsin, 88.10
18) Ohio State, 84.31
26) Nebraska, 80.43
39) Penn State, 76.81
49) Michigan, 74.83
54) Northwestern, 72.72
56) Indiana, 71.73
58) Iowa, 71.28
60) Maryland, 71.21
69) Minnesota, 69.01
82) Illinois, 66.18
90) Rutgers, 64.51
118) Purdue, 59.18
September 14th, 2014 at 4:24 PM ^
Northwestern is 0-2
Indiana just lost to Bowling Green
Iowa lost to Iowa State and nearly to Ball State.
Nebraska nearly lost to McNeese State.
Maryland should be much higher. As should Rutgers. There should be a divide between Michigan and every team below us (outside of Maryland and probably Rutgers) much larger than there is.
Wisconsin should be even with Michigan and PSU.
MSU, not enough data, probably accurate though. OSU, not enough data. Possibly good to possibly bad.
And now that I've said all of that, I'm not saying that Michigan should be higher on the list, I'm saying that it's ridiculous that he clumped us with the teams he has.
September 14th, 2014 at 4:47 PM ^
the data to be "fully connected" or not. Prior to being "fully connected", his rankings would be based on a preseason ranking, the weight of which would decline each week until he could jettison it when the data became "fully connected".
I'm pretty sure at this stage of the season, the data is not "fully connected".
September 14th, 2014 at 5:28 PM ^
It just couldn't stop me from pointing out how bad it is regarding the Big Ten.
September 14th, 2014 at 5:06 PM ^
and gave ND a serious run for their money last night. Well for at least a half.
September 14th, 2014 at 3:48 PM ^
September 14th, 2014 at 3:54 PM ^
If Nussmeier can get Devin to settle down and be a baller, we have a good chance to beat Michigan State.
I am rooting for the Big Ten to be better than the fourth best conference. If MS and O win, so what? As long as we start beating them.
Note: I attended UM when Bo was here. That set my expectations high.
September 14th, 2014 at 3:59 PM ^
I'm weirdly optimistic about the run defense so far. Historically, mich vs msu matchups are often decided by the team who has more rushing yards. If this rush defense is legit, I have hope that the rest of the team will improve enough to be a pretty good matchup against msu.
September 14th, 2014 at 4:50 PM ^
The key being that while we may hold MSU to 2.0 ypc, MSU may still hold us to 1.0 ypc
September 14th, 2014 at 4:25 PM ^
September 14th, 2014 at 6:07 PM ^
Yes. For now.
At some point the conference will improve. I hope I live to see it.
September 14th, 2014 at 5:20 PM ^
September 14th, 2014 at 5:52 PM ^
What I'm drinking? It's called "The Kool-Aid".
Seriously, Coach Hoke has made some noticeable improvements, and I'm trying to be optimistic. And when John Harbaugh comes in and takes over, we should be all ready to make our move for the playoffs.
September 14th, 2014 at 6:26 PM ^
The Kool-Aid is lip-smacking good, and I believe Michigan will be somewhere on this chart by the end of the season. In the meantime, I will have to remember how to find BTN (channel 413 in Brooklyn) because it is the only network that will show our games :-(
September 14th, 2014 at 4:02 PM ^
college football.
That being said, a lot of teams in the top ten have managed to look bad. It'll be an interesting year.
September 14th, 2014 at 4:18 PM ^
People say "I think this is finally Ole Miss' year! I predict them to win the SEC!" then they lose by 30 to every decent SEC team. I see no reason for that to change this year
Look for them to start 4-0 and then get summarily crushed in 4 of their next 5 by Alabama, TAMU, LSU, then Auburn
September 14th, 2014 at 4:32 PM ^
I was watching them against Vandy last week, and I was not impressed with them at all.
September 14th, 2014 at 4:28 PM ^
Ole Miss has a brutal schedule this year. They play 5 teams from Oct. 4th-Nov. 1st, and as of right now 4 of them are in the top 10 (Alabama, LSU, TAMU, and Auburn). I'm guessing those teams will prevent Ole Miss from making the playoff this year. On the other hand, if they get through that schedule and the Selection Committee still thinks they deserve to be in the playoff, chances are they will have earned it.
September 14th, 2014 at 4:39 PM ^
That would be the point.
I sent multiple emails to Freeze and he never replied despite the fact that he asked us to email him.
/no, I never emailed Freeze. But yeah, they are cheating. And I have other qualms with that school.
//edit also, congrats on the first post.
September 14th, 2014 at 4:16 PM ^
We don't deserve a playoff spot
September 14th, 2014 at 8:27 PM ^
"The B1G is basically a glorified MAC at this point"
Setting us aside (in the interest of impartiality), please name a MAC team that compares favorably to Ohio, MSU, Nebraska, or Wisconsin
September 14th, 2014 at 10:15 PM ^
the 'glorified' part was implying we do have some top level teams. Past MSU, Wisconsin and OSU...
- Nebraska nearly lost to an FCS team
- Indiana has lost to Bowling Green
- Purdue has lost to Central
- Iowa needed a 4th quarter rally to beat Ball State
- Northwestern lost to Northern Illinois
- Penn State needed a last second FG to avoid losing to UCF
- Illinois needed a 4th quarter rally to beat WKU
Yeah, we have a few top 25ish teams. But the bottom half of the B1G is basically interchangeable with the MAC
September 14th, 2014 at 10:07 PM ^
September 14th, 2014 at 4:24 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
September 14th, 2014 at 4:48 PM ^
Alabama, Auburn, LSU, TAM, Ole Miss, Miss ST.
I mean one of these teams is going to finish 6th in that division. Every one of them would obliterate 11/14th's of the BIG
September 14th, 2014 at 5:41 PM ^
Ole Miss and Miss St. are untested and overrated. A&M again has defensive issues that make them able to beat anyone and lose games you think they shouldn't.
September 14th, 2014 at 5:10 PM ^
September 14th, 2014 at 5:10 PM ^
I watched a bunch of MSU fans yesterday laugh and high-five over Indiana losing to Bowling Green. They must be the dumbest fanbase on the planet. The chip on their shoulder and its resulting spite toward everything else in the world apparently outweighs their desire to make the playoffs. Yup, keep laughing at the B1G getting embarrassed, guys. Just remember to shut up when you're passed over by a two-loss SEC runner-up.
September 14th, 2014 at 5:22 PM ^
September 14th, 2014 at 5:42 PM ^
or Oregon. If Oregon doesn't win the Pac12 and is at 1 or 2 losses they should definitely jump MSU.
September 14th, 2014 at 5:46 PM ^
September 14th, 2014 at 6:37 PM ^
September 15th, 2014 at 11:38 AM ^
See here is where you are wrong.
They will all play each other and, yes a teamm will lose and drop 3 spots. The losing team will beat another of these top 10 teams later, gainging those 3 spots back. This is why it is nearly impossible to knock an SEC team out of the top 10.
Perfect case in point, South Carolina get's humiliated at home by Texas A&M and drops from 9 to 22-23, then beats Georgia and jumps up to 13th
September 14th, 2014 at 10:44 PM ^
Sparty should lose at least one more game. They will probably be favored in all of their remaining contests but there are enough loseable games that they will most likely drop at least one somewhere along the way.
My sense is their defense is excellent yet not as elite as last season's. They can be had.