College Football - Week 13 (Thanksgiving Week)

[shnsajax]

lol a&m

 

The SEC should be interesting for them.

We have the talent to be decent in the SEC. Unfortunately our head coach has a knack for turning Top 10 talent into a .500 team.

 

It's not going to be easy replacing a QB, and maybe 2 WR and 2 RB. I like Matt Davis and Trey Williams a lot, you just got to make sure they don't decommit. You might as well replace your AD with Sherman as well. Giving him that extension was stupid after last season.

[UMFan83]

If MSU loses the title game, absolutely. They will have played a weaker schedule and have a worse record against that schedule. Michigan State will have a fluke win over Wisconsin and a win over Michigan. Michigan has a fluke win over ND and a win over Nebraska. Both teams struggled in some of their other games (Michigan against Ohio State, MSU against Minnesota). Michigan has lost their 2 games by a combined 22 points while MSU lost their two games by 39 points combined. If MSU loses to Wisconsin, that will tip the scales in Michigan's favor. If MSU wins that game, that would tip the scales in MSU's favor (but obviously that would be irrelevant because they would have the automatic bid anyway).

 

Why are you ignoring the fact that Michigan isn't any good? Michigan is going to get housed if they get to a BCS game.

 

Outside of LSU/Alabama and OSU I think Michigan would compete with just about any other team in the country.

 

Stanford, USC and Oregon would slaughter them, although obviously USC won't get the chance. I think Arkansas and Georgia would handle them. What is their most impressive win, against an overrated Nebraska team?

 

That overrated Nebraska team blew out Michigan State. If they really are overrated (I'm not disagreeing necessarily), I might say that getting blown out in Nebraska is as bad of a loss an losing a close game in Iowa. Probably questionable logic there but it makes sense in my head.

[Guest]

Michigan's OOC opponents were ranked 53rd, 77th, and 118th by Sagarin, with a combined 20-13 record. MSU's were ranked 121st, 139th, and 182nd, with a 10-24 record(6 of those wins being FCS Youngstown State). That's your difference right there.

 

I don't think it's a meaningful distinction when comparing the teams.

 

I'm not saying it to say that Michigan deserves something over MSU, I'm saying it to explain the SOS ranking. When the uncommon 25% of your schedule is only mediocre compared to completely awful, it's going to make a difference.

 

As for whether that justifies UM over MSU, I don't really know. In such a short season, I don't think it's really proper to throw out cumulative metrics like SOS for the sake of one comparison, but with the head to head results and being in the same conference it's hard not to. I think I more or less fall on the side that neither team has the right to complain about being left out for the other.

[UMFan83]

Reading this is funny. If the numbers don't support your opinion you mock them and call them a crock. Got it.

 

Bottom line is, according to sagrin ratings, Michigan State played FOUR games against teams that were worse than the worst team Michigan played, and those happen to be 4 of the 5 non-common games between the 2 teams. That doesnt change the fact that Michigan State beat 2 teams (#13 Wisconsin and #19 Michigan) that were better than any team Michigan played all year, but it's silly to look at the 2 schedules an say definitively that one was clearly better than the other IMO

 

Top 25 teams played

UM: 3

MSU: 4

 

25-75 teams played:

UM: 6

MSU: 3

 

75-100 teams played:

UM: 2

MSU: 1

 

100+ teams played:

UM: 1

MSU: 4

[jersey cubs fan]

Reading this is funny. If the numbers don't support your opinion you mock them and call them a crock. Got it.

 

Not all numbers are accurate. Anybody can put up a ranking system and say what they want about the SOS. Ultimately, if what pushes the thing in one team's favor is that their weakest opponents weren't as weak as the other guy's weakest opponents it doesn't really mean anything in terms of who has the better resume.

[UMFan83]

I think I more or less fall on the side that neither team has the right to complain about being left out for the other.

 

Yes, this is how I feel. I understand the pro-MSU people are making, but it's not enough to sway me one way or another. 2 loss teams shouldn't feel robbed when they don't make a BCS Bowl IMO. It's a really fortunate set of circumstances that has lead to UM even being considered.

 

And as for being penalized for not winning te conference title game, the reward is a guaranteed to play in the premier non-championship BCS bowl for the Big Ten. If you don't want to be penalized a shot at a BCS bowl for losing the title game, don't lose 2 games coming into the game.

[NewUserName]

As a MSU fan I really do not have an issue with not making a BCS game if we lose this Saturday, even if Michigan makes one. Of course I understand that the best teams do not always make the better bowl games, it has always been that way and probably always will.

[Tracer Bullet]

Reading this is funny. If the numbers don't support your opinion you mock them and call them a crock. Got it.

 

Bottom line is, according to sagrin ratings, Michigan State played FOUR games against teams that were worse than the worst team Michigan played, and those happen to be 4 of the 5 non-common games between the 2 teams. That doesnt change the fact that Michigan State beat 2 teams (#13 Wisconsin and #19 Michigan) that were better than any team Michigan played all year, but it's silly to look at the 2 schedules an say definitively that one was clearly better than the other IMO

 

Top 25 teams played

UM: 3

MSU: 4

 

25-75 teams played:

UM: 6

MSU: 3

 

75-100 teams played:

UM: 2

MSU: 1

 

100+ teams played:

UM: 1

MSU: 4

 

It's called independent analysis. I prefer to look at situations and make my own conclusions rather than blindly accept someone else's opinion. Maybe that's a foreign concept to you.

 

And which 3 top 25 teams did UM play? I only see MSU and Nebraska.

[UMFan83]

Reading this is funny. If the numbers don't support your opinion you mock them and call them a crock. Got it.

 

Not all numbers are accurate. Anybody can put up a ranking system and say what they want about the SOS. Ultimately, if what pushes the thing in one team's favor is that their weakest opponents weren't as weak as the other guy's weakest opponents it doesn't really mean anything in terms of who has the better resume.

 

No but when ones non common opponents are significantly better than another's it has an impact.

 

UM: Purdue (72), @ Illinois (55), SD State (53), Western Michigan (77), Eastern Michigan (118)

MSU: Wisconsin (13), Youngstown State (121), Florida Atlantic (182), Central Michigan (139), Indiana (142)

 

Michigan and Michigan State were non common opponents for each other but they are literally 19th and 20th in the rankings so well throw them out.

 

MSU gets a huge boost for playing, and beating, Wisconsin. That can't be emphasized enough. But they also get penalized for playing 4 teams that Michigan didn't play that are almost impossible to lose to. If Michigan really isn't that good like you say, they should get a boost by virtue of playing and beating halfway decent teams that thy stood a chance at losing too. Every single team in the Big Ten lost games to teams in that 55-77 range so you can't just dismiss them as slightly less worse patsies.

 

IMO The schedules are fairly equal. If MSU has an advantage, it's too small to really mean anything.

[Tracer Bullet]

If you don't want to be penalized a shot at a BCS bowl for losing the title game, don't lose 2 games coming into the game.

 

Amazing.

 

Instead lose 2 games and sit at home while a team that spanked you risks it's BCS berth.

[UMFan83]

Reading this is funny. If the numbers don't support your opinion you mock them and call them a crock. Got it.

 

Bottom line is, according to sagrin ratings, Michigan State played FOUR games against teams that were worse than the worst team Michigan played, and those happen to be 4 of the 5 non-common games between the 2 teams. That doesnt change the fact that Michigan State beat 2 teams (#13 Wisconsin and #19 Michigan) that were better than any team Michigan played all year, but it's silly to look at the 2 schedules an say definitively that one was clearly better than the other IMO

 

Top 25 teams played

UM: 3

MSU: 4

 

25-75 teams played:

UM: 6

MSU: 3

 

75-100 teams played:

UM: 2

MSU: 1

 

100+ teams played:

UM: 1

MSU: 4

 

It's called independent analysis. I prefer to look at situations and make my own conclusions rather than blindly accept someone else's opinion. Maybe that's a foreign concept to you.

 

And which 3 top 25 teams did UM play? I only see MSU and Nebraska.

 

#24 Notre Dame.

 

That's fine that you don't want to blindly accept someone else's work but there tends to be bias when you are analyzing to fit your argument. To dismiss 78 independent SOS measures as crocks because they don't fit your argument is rather silly.

[jersey cubs fan]

#24 Notre Dame.

 

 

Does not compute

[UMFan83]

If you don't want to be penalized a shot at a BCS bowl for losing the title game, don't lose 2 games coming into the game.

 

Amazing.

 

Instead lose 2 games and sit at home while a team that spanked you risks it's BCS berth.

 

Do you understand the part where I said that 2 loss teams shouldn't complain about not getting a BCS bid. That means none of them, including Michigan. Most years neither Michigan nor Michigan State would even be in the discussion. So if they want a shot at a BCS bowl, go into the conference title game with 1 loss. The reward is a guaranteed BCS bowl and the penalty is having to sweat out the selection process.

[UMFan83]

#24 Notre Dame.

 

 

Does not compute

 

Using Sagrin ratings which were updated yesterday

[UMFan83]

Did you know? The 2007 Illinois Fighting Illini are the only 3 loss team to ever be selected as an At-Large BCS team.

[Tracer Bullet]

ND isn't ranked.

 

I dismiss them bc the conclusion looks pretty bad (esp the one that has MSU 40+ spots lower). No coach in the country would say MSU played an easier schedule, esp not after playing Wisconsin twice. As CCP wrote, SDSU is in the position of being difficult to judge - they lost to teams that were clearly better, they beat really bad teams, but they did nothing to say they were significantly better than a couple dozen other programs. So basing BCS berths off the difference between them and some other cupcake school when the other factors (h2h, MSU playing the 2nd best team twice when UM played then 0 times, UM has the worse loss, and UM's 3 hardest games at home when MSU played each of those 3 teams on the road) support a different conclusion.

 

But I guess if the numbers support your argument, they must be right.

[Guest]

It's a 12 game season with 75 teams of note playing against a total of 120 teams, there's not going to be a method of evaluation that passes the eye test for every circumstance.

[jersey cubs fan]

#24 Notre Dame.

 

 

Does not compute

 

Using Sagrin ratings which were updated yesterday

 

I get that, I just think sagarin must be pretty crazy for having ND that high.

[Tracer Bullet]

It's a 12 game season with 75 teams of note playing against a total of 120 teams, there's not going to be a method of evaluation that passes the eye test for every circumstance.

 

Of course. But we have a better sense of the top 40 or so teams. Once you get below a certain point, how bad the opponent is doesn't make a great deal of difference to great teams.

 

If the only difference were the OOC crap teams, it would be easier to take. But every other factor suggests MSU played a harder schedule.

[Tracer Bullet]

#24 Notre Dame.

 

 

Does not compute

 

Using Sagrin ratings which were updated yesterday

 

I get that, I just think sagarin must be pretty crazy for having ND that high.

 

Nah. They lost to 3 ranked teams and didn't get blown off the field by anyone. The first 2 losses were flukey and they were better in November than early in the year. If they win their bowl (probably against FSU) they'll finish in the top 20.

[jersey cubs fan]

Nah. They lost to 3 ranked teams and didn't get blown off the field by anyone.

 

Huh? They lost by 14 at home to USC, and 14 again to Stanford (and were down 21-0 with the game over at halftime).

 

They were better late in the season because that is when they schedule all their garbage games.

[Warpticon]

Well done taking a 10 or 11-win team (and just as importantly, a 10 or 11-win schedule) and coaching them to 8, Mr. Kelly. Three different QBs started halves this year without any injury involved. Ugh.

 

ND was not a 10-11 win team. Jeepers.

 

I think there's definitely an argument that they were, considering they won 8 and essentially gave the first two games away.

[UMFan83]

ND isn't ranked.

 

I dismiss them bc the conclusion looks pretty bad (esp the one that has MSU 40+ spots lower). No coach in the country would say MSU played an easier schedule, esp not after playing Wisconsin twice. As CCP wrote, SDSU is in the position of being difficult to judge - they lost to teams that were clearly better, they beat really bad teams, but they did nothing to say they were significantly better than a couple dozen other programs. So basing BCS berths off the difference between them and some other cupcake school when the other factors (h2h, MSU playing the 2nd best team twice when UM played then 0 times, UM has the worse loss, and UM's 3 hardest games at home when MSU played each of those 3 teams on the road) support a different conclusion.

 

But I guess if the numbers support your argument, they must be right.

 

Didn't say they did. I said the SOS are nearly even, maybe MSU with a slight edge, but not enough to mean much. Playing Wisconsin twice is impressive. Playing Florida Atlantic and Indiana is not. Do they balance each other out? Of course not. But they do hurt MSU's SOS. SDSU, regardless of their being unproven, is much much much better than every single non common opponent for MSU besides Wisconsin. Same with Purdue, same with Illinois, same with Western Michigan, same with probably even Minnesota.

 

I would agree that there comes a point where it doesnt matter if you are 75th or 175th, there is just about no way MSU or UM will lose to them. So I would respect the argument that it doesnt mater if Western Michigan is 77th and Florida Atlantic is 182nd, there is no way either was going to beat MSU or UM, so the difference between 77th and 182nd isnt much here. But even if you take teams above 75th, UM has played 9 vs. 7 for MSU.

 

It's honestly really hard to put one schedule significantly higher over another IMO.

[Tracer Bullet]

Nah. They lost to 3 ranked teams and didn't get blown off the field by anyone.

 

Huh? They lost by 14 at home to USC, and 14 again to Stanford (and were down 21-0 with the game over at halftime).

 

They were better late in the season because that is when they schedule all their garbage games.

 

They were a fumbled snap from tying the USC game and it turned into a 14-point swing. They put a lid on Stanford at the half and Hendrix was moving the ball well. I didn't say they were going to win but ND was competitive in both.

 

And your last sentence is nonsensical.

[jersey cubs fan]

Nah. They lost to 3 ranked teams and didn't get blown off the field by anyone.

 

Huh? They lost by 14 at home to USC, and 14 again to Stanford (and were down 21-0 with the game over at halftime).

 

They were better late in the season because that is when they schedule all their garbage games.

 

They were a fumbled snap from tying the USC game and it turned into a 14-point swing. They put a lid on Stanford at the half and Hendrix was moving the ball well. I didn't say they were going to win but ND was competitive in both.

 

And your last sentence is nonsensical.

 

It seemed to me that most of their second half games were their pointless matchups with teams like Navy and Boston College. You claimed they were better late than early but I don't think winning games against ACC also rans means you were playing better.