Guess tentative ap/coaches rankings come monday
AP: 2 (Drew Sharp ranks us 3412th)
Coaches: 1
Seriously: Probably about 12ish in each
Pfffft
You can say that again.
Sharp will probably vote Sparty higher than Michigan, then write an inane column trying to justify it. We all know his M.O.
How soon does he lose his vote in the AP Polls? IMO, not soooooooooooon enough!
Pfffft
Thank you.
Playing for seeding rather than ranking at this point, but these losses should help. Just keep winning.
We'll be 12. Will jump Cinci, Creighton, Saint Louis, and Iowa State in the AP Poll and Kentucky in the Coaches poll.
This was a brutal week for top25 teams. ESPN's AP poll is outdated for some reason, but here's what they're showing for the coaches' poll from the week...
#4 Louisville lost
#5 Syracuse lost
#6 Kansas is in a tight game right now
#8 St. Louis lost twice
#10 Creighton lost
#12 Cincinnati lost
#15 Kentucky lost twice
[Michigan is #16 in this poll.]
#17 Iowa State lost
#18 Michigan State lost
#19 Iowa lost twice
#20 Ohio State lost
#22 Memphis lost
#23 Texas lost
#25 Oklahoma lost
By my count, the non-Michigan top 25 teams are 21-16 this week.
They've lost their last two games, but the last one before today was last Saturday. Their only loss since the most recent rankings were released came in today's game against UConn.
Affect.
Just based on records, which is not how they vote necessarily but might make for a decent approximation, we were the highest-ranked 7-loss team in the last poll for both the AP and Coaches poll, as I recall. Enough teams may have joined the 6-8 loss club, however, that it might give us a bump to perhaps 12th or so in both. That's also a guess based on the number of teams with comparable records that had a rougher week than we did.
In Kenpom's rating's, we're numner 14. Below Iowa. Below Ohio State. To be honest, I really don't understand his ratings in the least . . .
And I concur with the general sentiment that we'll probably be around 11-12. We should jump 9, 10, 11, and 15. Doubt they drop Louisville below us, because Rick Pitino . . .
It's math. It often conflicts with what we observe, which is partially the point.
It's also predictive, not evaluative. It's supposed to show how teams stack up going forward, not how good they've been so far.
I think I prefer the 1st one
Fine, rankings don't matter, but what does matter is seeing teams competing for the same seeds as us lose. A lot of those teams are ranked right around us. So, no, rankings don't technically matter, but they're pretty informative.
eligible for a BCS bowl like the 2011 team. It's hard to move up a lot, unless you win every game.
So the strategy (win, every week) is true in each and every week. So it's not dependent on rankings in any particular week.
You originally said: "Rankings in basketball only matter if you're #1, in the top 25, or on the bubble."
Why can I not equally convincingly say "Rankings in football only matter if you're #1/#2 for MNC, in the top 14/16 for BCS, or ranked higher than the team you're tied with for a conference championship"?
Rankings are nice, but what about NCAA seed? I'd love to see us finish strong and win the Big 10 Tourney. I assume we'd be a one or two seed with that?
They really don't.
Man you have had one helluva day. Congrats on that btw.
somewhere there is a sparty talking to him/herself about how Michigan State is the best college basketball team this year, and how they should be ranked 1st with an automatic bye to the sweet sixteen.
I actually don't mind Rexrode now that he's not working for the LSJ.
Now, the guy who's an insufferable homer douchebag schlub? That would be Graham Couch.