JHumich

January 5th, 2018 at 11:13 AM ^

It's obviously determined entirely by an algorithm. You can see that the rankings correlate exactly to the team's score.

You can read more than you ever wanted to know about the philosophy and mathematics behind the algorithm at https://goo.gl/uT7Mwg

Executive summary: it's a BCS-era attempt to provide a completely internally consistent model that uses W-L records but does not take into account margin of victory, because that was forbidden for those computer models.

It's helpful to know that at least one careful model, by taking into account the records of every team in order to assess the true value of a single team, says that our particular wins and losses against our particular opponents was the 25th best performance so far this year.

What is bothering us, however, is that in the condition in which we ended the year, we were capable of losing to almost anyone.

JHumich

January 5th, 2018 at 3:57 PM ^

Iowa also beat an ISU team that beat Oklahoma and TCU to end up #26 in these rankings.

I don't mind what I see in their results. Group of 5 schools get group of fived. They'll whine about that, but it's fair. They were even kind to Central Florida.

Obviously, it's identifying that the B1G has demonstrated itself pretty great this year, and whoever wins the championship will almost certainly end up #1. 

The runner up, and OSU/PSU/Wisconsin will round out the top 5.  That's just about right, I think.

I think I'll be checking atomicfootball rankings throughout the season next year.

Honest Abe

January 5th, 2018 at 10:05 AM ^

I think after 9/1 people will realize that the Harbaugh engine is finally pumping on all cylinders and they better get the fuck out of the way. No i dont think currently at this moment they are very good. Sorry for
Confusion.

SeattleWolverine

January 5th, 2018 at 10:39 AM ^

You're setting yourself up for disappointment. The offense next year may be something like solid or respectable or top 30. But there is no way the dysfunctional offense we saw on Monday loses Cole and in one offseason becomes "pumping on all cylinders" at the start of the 2018 season. Especially given the virtual certainty of a first year new offensive staff. And what is still a relatively young roster on both sides of the ball with basically 2 to 4 seniors on offense. It'll get fixed but it's highly unlikely to happen that fast.

 

I know people are really fucking tired of kicking the can down the road but the roster plus the schedules do point towards 2019 as the year when pumping on all cylinders may happen. 

SeattleWolverine

January 5th, 2018 at 1:21 PM ^

Seems pretty optimistic but I'm admittedly a pessimist. To me, you're taking a 5 loss team and swapping out a game against an atrocious Florida team with a road game @Notre Dame and swap out @Purdue for @NW. You get PSU and WI at home but have OSU and MSU on the road. This is still a young roster with a new QB (maybe) and coaching staff turnover that may wind up being half the staff. I expect we'll be a significantly better team but we've got a lot of improvement to do to be a CFP contender. So much depends on Patterson obviously who is new to the program and isn't even officially eligible yet. Then, even if you have no upsets, and you assume Nebraska still sucks and we beat them, you still have to win 6 out of 7 out of @ND, WI, PSU, @MSU, @NW, @OSU and a probable rematch with WI in B1G championship to come up with the 1 loss record and conference championship that is usually necessary to get to the CFP. Yep, it could happen but that's an extremely favorable outcome. Also probably necessitates winning in Columbus since a loss to them makes any tiebreaker path pretty challenging. 

 

And even then, are we talking about just making the CFP and being MSU 2015 CFP good, or Washington/OSU 2016 good, or are we talking about being able to beat Alabama? Because those are two different levels of quality. 

1VaBlue1

January 5th, 2018 at 9:49 AM ^

This is a final poll for 2017!  There is no way in hell Michigan is the 21st best team in the country for the 2017 season.  No way!!!  I've never heard of Atomic Football before, and I know why...

k1400

January 5th, 2018 at 10:38 AM ^

Can someone tell me what the "lower-higher" column means?  I poked around briefly on the website and didn't come up with it.

And yeah....that ranking doesn't survive the eyeball test.

kaz

January 5th, 2018 at 10:53 AM ^

It's the number of opponents that were ranked lower than the team and the number of opponents that were ranked higher.

So we were ranked higher than 9 opponents and lower than 4.  But we finished 8-5  So in our case we know we didn't beat anyone higher ranked, so we lost all 4 of our games to higher ranked teams and one to a lower ranked team

kaz

January 5th, 2018 at 11:05 AM ^

I said we shouldn't be ranked, I'm not just being a homer.  But I think we should be ranked ahead of SC.

Even with a full meltdown, it still took incredible luck for them to come back.  Every mistake happened to burn us as badly as possible at the worst possible time.  In the first half to keep us with 3's over sevens.  Then Higden fumbles who never fumbles and DPJ who learned from his earlier season mistake has it bounce off his facemask when he was just trying to catch it.

With just the fumble and pick inside the 10, if we had 10 points from that we still win the game.

It was like that all year.  Our O sucked for sure, but karma just bitch slapped us over and over as well

SirJack II

January 5th, 2018 at 11:09 AM ^

No, they beat us, fair and square, in the best measure we have for deciding whether team A is better than team B: having team A and team B play a football game. The same holds true for this year's Sparty game, although to many here that game seems to be dismissed as an act of God. 

kaz

January 5th, 2018 at 12:31 PM ^

Troy is better than LSU ...

I didn't object to the outcome of the game.  They beat us.  I just said they required us to melt down and that wouldn't have been enough had they not also gotten repeated luck breaks as well.  That doesn't make South Carolina better.

I think if we replayed the game, we'd likely win.  I don't think that with MSU.  We haven't fixed our offensive woes.  MSU has a much better D than USC.  BTW, I didn't bring up MSU, you did.

You disagree with that?  

 

Adductor Magnus

January 5th, 2018 at 12:43 PM ^

Honestly, the chokes and meltdowns aren't anything new. In 2012 against ND and OSU. 2013 against OSU. 2015 against MSU. 2016 against Iowa, OSU, and FSU. All the 2017 losses except Penn State. We're a good team where lots of talent will go onto the NFL, but we're in a phase where we just can't win these major games. 

Frigid

January 5th, 2018 at 11:05 AM ^

"The Hybrid Rating consists of a simple linear combination of our Win-Loss Based Rating and our Score-Based Rating. The latter component uses only scores, schedule, and venue (home/away) data. The only subjective input is the relative weight given to the two components. Individually, the component ratings themselves have no subjective inputs. Note that we do not separately publish the Score-Based Rating, but it is the basis for our score and win predictions, and we hope at some point in the future to publish in complete detail the methods employed in generating them."

Bigly yuge

January 5th, 2018 at 12:26 PM ^

To be ranked you gotta at least beat one or two teams with a winning record. Our 2017 team was so below average that we failed to beat a single team with a winning record. Whoever created this top 25 is clueless.

Adductor Magnus

January 5th, 2018 at 12:51 PM ^

This team just has bad luck in big games. It hung with OSU, Wisconsin, and MSU, and should have ran away with it against South Carolina, but then finds some way to lose through either injuries or chokes/meltdowns. A regular team could have won 2 of those 4 games, and a clutch team could have won all 4 games.

Adductor Magnus

January 5th, 2018 at 7:05 PM ^

MSU also has a young team, went 10-3 and beat UM, Penn State, and Washington State, and has a QB who can be quite good next year.

Last year should have been the year for us with all that talent and experience, but nothing to show for it. Yes, if certain plays or calls went our way, we'd have been perfect but that's all it is: an "if" statement. I'm done with all of these near-victories after the past five or six years.

Michifornia

January 5th, 2018 at 3:02 PM ^

This team had way too much talent and "should" be one of the top 25 teams in the country.  With the defense we put on the field and the athletes on offense, this should not even be a discussion.  Alas, but it is.  But no reason to look back.  2018 BABY!!!

GO BLUE!!

kaz

January 5th, 2018 at 4:31 PM ^

The irony is that for first and second year players, they did too well on this standard.  Because so many played so well, they're deemed a disapointment.  If they hadn't played so well at many positions, people would get that they are frosh's and soph's.  But because so many exceeded that, people are disappointed in them.  

I just don't agree with it.  The physical bodies of 4th and 5th year players with an extra 3 years in the gym and weight room are just more advanced.  Particularly late in games.  And when did we typically fall behind?

But we agree on next year, we're getting there, Go Blue!