Where SHOULD we be Ranked?

Submitted by Eye of the Tiger on

I've seen a lot of rankings:

 

#8 [USA Today/Coaches Poll]

#8 [ESPN]

#8 [Sporting News]

#13 [SI]

#18 [Pre-Snap Read]

...and of course it's difficult to tell where we *should* be. But if we are to take preseason rankings as a combination of:

A. Indication of relative quality compared to other teams on the list

B. Indication of where we will end the season, considering factors exogenous to our level of quality, such as number of games played away and strength of schedule 

...then where would you rank University of Michigan?

I tend to think the #6 and #8 rankings are a bit high. After all, we have a rough schedule that includes 5 games I consider "losable" [quasi-@Alabama, @Notre Dame, MSU, @Nebraska and @Ohio] and three more home games that we should win, but won't necessarily be easy [Air Force. Northwestern and Iowa]. 

I'm already on record predicting a 9-3 regular season, of either the 9-3 [7-1] or 9-3 [6-2] varieties. Because of that, I'm going to say the #13 ranking looks most realistic to me. We will be good enough to win some big, high-profile games, but I doubt 9-3 would be good enough to crack the top 10. Unless, of course, we make it to the Big 10 Championship, win it, and then beat the very good and highly ranked loser of USC/Oregon in the Rose Bowl. 

What does everyone else think?

 

Harperbole

August 16th, 2012 at 5:33 PM ^

I think that one of two things will likely happen.
A) We win B1G, are in top 7 than lose in rose bowl moving down a bit
B) We don't win B1G but make decent bowl and win moving up a bit

angry byrne

August 16th, 2012 at 4:26 PM ^

Unfortunately, due to the way things are set up in college football, I'm not sure that the best teams are always accurately represented in polls.  After all, there isn't as many head to head proving points in DIV-1 A as in other sports.  Isn't that why there seems to be more debate in this sport more than any other?  

In my opinion, one can create a preseason poll with a couple goals in mind:  One, to create an order of the best teams in the country (period).  This would seem to be your line of thinking, and there's nothing wrong with it.

A second reason, however, could be trying to predict where teams will end up at the end of the year.  Again, where a team will end up has a lot to do with talent, but talent isn't everything--schedule also has a part in it.  A season is like a marathon, and if you have more bumps in the road than your opponents, then you have a better chance of stumbling, regardless of your team's talent.  (That analogy probably sucks, but whateva).  So with that being said, it just depends on what your goal is with your list.  If we're talking about option #2, I think bringing up scheduling is a valid part of the argument.

EGD

August 16th, 2012 at 4:38 PM ^

This dynamic has always driven me nuts as well.  I think it is less of a problem nowadays with all the main conferences having championship games and with the new selection committee.  But in the old days, you would see teams get ranked higher in the pre-season polls just because they have easy schedules, which almost creates a self-fulfilling prophecy that they will finish higher: those teams are starting from a higher spot, have fewer chances to lose, and then if they do lose, they don't drop as low because of where they started.  And the inverse is that teams which play a more difficult schedule are starting from further behind, have more chances to lose, and then fall even lower if they do lose.

Harperbole

August 16th, 2012 at 5:37 PM ^

Spot on with the "self fulfilling prophecy" point even If it's not necessarily self fulfilling per se. Once we have a playoff it should be off limits for the selection committee to goof around with these things.

Rage

August 16th, 2012 at 6:28 PM ^

I would agree with this.  Maybe the ball bounces our way and we finish higher, but I think this is pretty realistic.  Top 20 for sure.  Lots of question marks on both lines.

Edit:  I do think however that we will be a better team than both Wisconsin and Nebraska this year and am in second thought suprised that we weren't higher.  All things considered, I do think we are a top 15 team and am not mad at the idea of #12 in the country.  

MGoDC

August 16th, 2012 at 3:56 PM ^

Schedule is such a dumb factor for preseason rankings. If Michigan replaced the Bama game with Eastern Michigan how does that make us a better team? Our preseason ranking would go up since people would assume 1 more win on the year, but that doesnt affect the QUALITY of the team. If a team wins 9 games against the top-25 and loses 3 games agains Bama, LSU, and USC, why should that team be ranked lower than someone with an 11-1 record with a loss to a mediocre team and only a couple top-25 wins. Thats how it always shakes out and its not right.

College football is not the NFL where every team still has talented players, some schedules are so soft the wins are meaningless.

Soulfire21

August 16th, 2012 at 3:59 PM ^

This this this.

Rankings shouldn't be affected by schedules -- of course, they ultimately are (in terms of wins/losses), but haven't you head nearly everyone say "This is a team that is better than in 2011 but will come out with more losses".

Subsituting a cupcake in for Alabama doesn't change the ability of our team.

wolverine1987

August 16th, 2012 at 4:35 PM ^

Because at this time of year they are projections about future records, based upon talent AND what level of competition they play. Using your example, it is irrelevant whether this year's team is more talented than last year, because if we finish 10-3, we will assuredely be ranked lower at the end of year than we were last year (unless something weird happens and everyone has 3 losses). That is based on schedule.

Waveman

August 17th, 2012 at 4:44 AM ^

It's fine to say that you're ranking teams based on what you expect final rankings to be, and using them to show how smart you are, but that's not how these polls get used. People use preseason rankings to judge the value of wins or losses in early season games, which impacts final rankings. It makes absolutely no sense to give a team more credit for beating a team with an easier schedule than beating a team with a harder schedule.

Eye of the Tiger

August 16th, 2012 at 5:11 PM ^

...that would mean that ankings actually are objective attempts to determine relative quality, and they most clearly are not.

Like it or not, the team that is ranked #13 and beats EMU by 30 pts is going to fare better in the next set of rankings than the team that is ranked #13 and loses to #3 Alabama by 2 pts, even if losing to Alabama by 2 pts is a greater achievement than beating EMU by 30. 

That's just how it is. 

Wolverine0056

August 16th, 2012 at 4:50 PM ^

I would say in the 15 range. The schedule we have this year is going to be really tough, we have little depth on the OL and the DL is mostly unproven. I would agree that 9-3 is a realistic possibility this year and that would be a pretty decent season with these things considered.

Edit: Not taking schedule into account, like it should be, I would agree with Michigan being in the 6-8 range. We would definitely be higher than Arkansas and company, IMHO.

WolvinLA2

August 16th, 2012 at 4:04 PM ^

I hate it when people use a schedule to dictate where a team should be ranked. Let's say Alabama's entire football team becomes in eligible tomorrow - does our team get better? Having a tough schedule shouldn't keep a team from having a ranking they deserve. If you think Michigan is the 8th best team in the country, what difference does it make who they play?

mrkid

August 16th, 2012 at 4:28 PM ^

Couldn't agree more with this... I'm pulling my hair out with all of the schedule comments.

A pre-season ranking is ranking the teams ability, not what their record might be. Let's take the USA Today Preseason Poll:

 

1.LSU
2.Alabama
3. Southern California
4. Oklahoma
5. Oregon
6.Georgia
7. Florida State
8.Michigan
9. South Carolina
10. Arkansas
11. West Virginia
12. Wisconsin
13. Michigan State
14. Clemson
15. Texas
 
Do we think Michigan is worse than SC, Arkansas (John L!) and West Virginia? I don't. I think 8 is about right. I actually agree with Yahoo! more with #6. I think we're better than Georgia.
 
I would put us #7. Move Florida St. up to #6, and drop Georgia to #8.

Eye of the Tiger

August 16th, 2012 at 5:15 PM ^

...losing difficult games will, whereas winning not difficult games won't. It may not be a great way of doing things, but you have to admit it has a huge effect.

I'd probably rather see a team that goes 9-3 with a tough schedule that played hard in its losses to higher ranked teams do better than one that goes 11-1 with an easier schedule. But does that happen? Not generally. the Boise States and TCUs of the world can complain that they were shut out, but their very easy schedules didn't stop them from being ranked above good teams from power conferences that played much more difficult schedules either.

Red is Blue

August 16th, 2012 at 6:48 PM ^

Who would be ranked higher?  A 9-4 team that played 12 games against teams in the top 20 losing 4 of those games or a 12-1 team that played one game against top 20 team? 

My guess is the 12-1 team, even if the 9-4 team was the team to hand them there only loss and is arguable "better."  Schedule matters in post season rankings, so why should it be ignored in pre-season rankings?

evenyoubrutus

August 16th, 2012 at 4:09 PM ^

I remember in the latter Lloyd years, it seemed like when we started out in the top 10, we would lose those "Lloyd Letdown" games early to teams we shouldn't lose (no way! Did that ever happen?) but when we started lower (I.E. 2006) we ended up having a superb season.  I don't like this at all, actually.  Please rank us 25.

GoBlueNorth

August 16th, 2012 at 4:17 PM ^

I have long had us going 9-3 but with all of the ????? about how good we'll be and how bad others might be I just don't know.  Looking at our toss up games we could go anywhere beween 8-4 or 11-1 (no way we beat Bama unless they are totally unprepared).  I say 9-3 ranked 13th-15th.  Find it odd that the two services SI and Pre-Snap have MSU ranked higher.  This is the one game that I want us to win maybe even as much as The Game this year.  As for the division champs........Toss Up games......gotta win those.

michfan4borw

August 16th, 2012 at 4:52 PM ^

he will have only had one game of experience on the road--at Central Michigan.  Man, I hope the big house is rocking on the 20th.  I think both defenses are better than the offenses they will face that game, fwiw. 

ijohnb

August 16th, 2012 at 4:20 PM ^

we are overrated.  Sorry, but I do.  We are replacing possibly the best two players on the defense, we really don't have a receiving core to speak of, pretty thin on the offensive line and a question mark in terms of the availability of our primary back for the first part of the season.  To see us ranked 8th in some polls, I just don't know man.

OmarDontScare

August 16th, 2012 at 5:49 PM ^

You do realize that college football players only have 4 years of eligibility, right? All of the teams have to replace key guys every year.

WolvinLA2

August 16th, 2012 at 6:31 PM ^

First of all, it's receiving corps.  All of our receivers have cores. 

Secondly, we really don't lose that much.  Yeah, we lose Martin and RVB, they were good players.  But we played the Sugar Bowl without Heininger, and our D was great, we return Roh and our entire back 7.  On O, we return 3.5 starters on the OL, all but one WR (plus DG?), our starting QB and starting RB.  Our 2012 recruiting class was very good, including a few instant impact guys. 

This is all following an 11-2 season.  Are there more than 7 teams with a better pitch than that?

MileHighWolverine

August 16th, 2012 at 7:37 PM ^

What worries me is that our back 7 probably isn't as impactful on the game as RVB and Martin were last year. Improved offense is what I'm counting on to carry the day but I'm nervous as the O was really streaky last year and could barely move the ball against better teams (VT, etc.) w/o a prayer bomb to Hemmingway. I'm hoping they take a leap this year....we'll need it. 

cooler 517

August 16th, 2012 at 4:22 PM ^

We'll either be ranked #3 or #16 in 3 weeks. I believe pre-season polls are supposed to rank the top teams, not predict thier final record or take into account schedules. I just hope we're ranked higher than Bama in 17 days!!!

StephenRKass

August 16th, 2012 at 4:35 PM ^

Some years and teams are easier to rank than others. There are too many variables from my perspective. But if the following all fall into place, I could see us as high as five:

  • If the team stays healthy, especially the OL & QB;
  • If Mattison and the position coaches continue to improve the defense;
  • If Denard stays in the pocket, and stops throwing air balls off his back foot;
  • If Devin Gardner and Darboh develop as great WR options;
  • If we continue to get a huge number of turnovers;

If all these things happen, we could have an incredible year. Problem is, I don't see all these things happening.

 

Perkis-Size Me

August 16th, 2012 at 4:38 PM ^

Somewhere between 15-20. Too many questions on both lines, no proven tight ends, and no proven depth at WR behind Gallon and Roundtree. The situation gets scary if Roundtree is out in week 1.

Too high of an initial ranking, but I get the fact that its for the Alabama game and preseason hype.

ChiBlueBoy

August 16th, 2012 at 4:40 PM ^

We shouldn't be ranked, nor should anyone else. Preseason rankings prejudice later rankings, and humans don't like to change their opinions once locked in by actions (such as voting). I don't think any official polls should come out until at least a few weeks into the season. If someone making a buck with MSM wants to release some poll, fine, but we all should ignore it.

I also agree with above comments that SOS should not impact rankings except to the extent that they help in determining "good" and "bad" losses and wins.