Sagarin ratings: UM #3 in nation: #1 in B1G
UM was also #3 on Dec 3.. Then Clemson rose above us in the national rankings. OSU fell below us after getting spanked by Clemson.
Why is UM ranked above OSU? Many posters here have already answered this question. 4 of OSU’s wins were by 4 points or less in regulation, while their losses were more than ten times the margin of UM’s (OSU 17 points, UM < 1.7).
Also, the advantage of UM over OSU is likely even greater. Why” Sagarin considers only the final score, not whether that score was reached in OT or regulation.
Yet, consider what happens to Sagarin’s game rating if we subtract (add) a ridiculously small one point for a double OT win (or loss). UM beats OSU both in the game and in the season’s overall W-L record.
Sagarin also does not consider the advantage (disadvantage) of an in-state (vs. distant) bowl game. But suppose that advantage is a mere one half of Sagarin’s correction (say, 1.05 points). Then UM’s home-field corrected record is
13-0.
Not bad. In fact, it’s pretty amazing considering that UM had late season injuries to the starting QB, the best TE in the country, and their all-everything LB-PR-RB-Safety Heisman finalist.
B1G rankings
1. UM
2. OSU
3. PSU (pretty far below, so a win over #11 USC unlikely to change B1G ranking)
4. Wisc (even further below)
5. Iowa
6. Minn
7. NW
8. Neb
9. Ind
10. MSU
11. Md
12. Ill
13. Pur
14. Rutgers
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/ncaaf/sagarin/
January 1st, 2017 at 12:45 PM ^
January 1st, 2017 at 12:47 PM ^
January 1st, 2017 at 1:10 PM ^
January 1st, 2017 at 12:47 PM ^
January 1st, 2017 at 12:51 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
January 1st, 2017 at 12:56 PM ^
January 1st, 2017 at 2:34 PM ^
January 1st, 2017 at 3:58 PM ^
Did you mean "right now" as in the moment you posted this, or as in the moment I read this?
I am confused.
January 1st, 2017 at 12:47 PM ^
Did I do it right?
January 1st, 2017 at 12:48 PM ^
January 1st, 2017 at 1:03 PM ^
Yet, most great teams seem to make their own luck. 3 losses all in the last few minutes of the game. That's not bad luck, that's simply being unable to close. Hopefully Harbaugh is recruiting guys with a closer's mentality.
January 1st, 2017 at 2:09 PM ^
Closers mentality and not being of relation to Kyle Kalis.
January 1st, 2017 at 2:17 PM ^
January 1st, 2017 at 4:05 PM ^
So you are saying that teams that are lucky aren't lucky because they are lucky, they are lucky because they made themselves lucky? And unlucky teams are not unlucky, they are just deficient in making themselves lucky?
You might want to look up "luck" before you pursue this idea any further.
If you are correct and the problem with Michigan isn't luck or talent, but, rather, the inability to close, then Michigan is fucked. Because the common feature of the last two years of close losses (inability to close, as you argue) is Harbaugh.
January 1st, 2017 at 12:49 PM ^
Being ranked over OSU is logical enough. We tied them in regulation on the road. That would imply that we'd be slightly better on a netural field. The two teams both went 10-2 otherwise.
January 1st, 2017 at 12:58 PM ^
On a neutral field with unbiased refs we beat OSU by 10 points minimum. And after USC destroys PSU tomorrow there will be no doubt who the best team in the B1G was this season.
January 1st, 2017 at 2:22 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
January 1st, 2017 at 12:49 PM ^
Do we get the Sagarin trophy?
January 1st, 2017 at 12:52 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
January 1st, 2017 at 12:49 PM ^
Banner?
/s
January 1st, 2017 at 12:50 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
January 1st, 2017 at 1:05 PM ^
except for the in-state home field and OT corrections, which were highly conservative. If you disagree with these corrections, tell us why.
January 1st, 2017 at 1:43 PM ^
January 1st, 2017 at 1:47 PM ^
But Sagarin already considers that. And I think his view adds something to the discussion.
January 1st, 2017 at 12:52 PM ^
January 1st, 2017 at 1:36 PM ^
January 1st, 2017 at 12:53 PM ^
January 1st, 2017 at 1:07 PM ^
Still would rather have a better W-L record, but it confirms what most around here know--that M really was a top level team this year and better than the W-L record.
W-L records usually don't perfectly reflect the quality of a team.
M 2016 >>> M 2105, despite the same W-L record.
There was real progress from year 1 to year 2 of the Harbaugh era, even if the W-L record is the same. It matters that the trend arrow is pointed in the right direction.
January 1st, 2017 at 2:25 PM ^
Top level teams don't lose 3 of their last 4. Defense was elite. OL, WR, QB - not good enough to be considered a top level team.
January 1st, 2017 at 3:07 PM ^
January 1st, 2017 at 4:38 PM ^
Even after a 1 point loss to FSU, Michigan is probably still no. 6.
Defense was elite. Offense was not elite, but was still very good. O-line was the main problem. O-line issues did not matter against most teams. It mattered against teams with very good d-lines.
You going to rank OSU above Michigan? Really? Who else?
January 1st, 2017 at 2:50 PM ^
January 2nd, 2017 at 9:49 AM ^
With hindsight, 10-3 is not as good as this team should have achieved.
Underachieved in a flukey/not flukey way. Non-dominant o-line prevented putting leads away late in the 4th of each loss. Stars mis-aligned for opponents in various way late in all 3 losses
Regardless, the 2016 team was better than the 2015 team. Arrow pointed in the right direction. Sagrin formula refects that.
Would anyone really prefer an 'overachievng' 10-3 2016 team that got the lucky bounces/calls late in a couple of close wins, but was top to bottom actually worse team than the 10-3 2015 team? Doubt it.
January 1st, 2017 at 12:54 PM ^
January 1st, 2017 at 2:20 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
January 1st, 2017 at 7:42 PM ^
January 1st, 2017 at 12:54 PM ^
January 1st, 2017 at 12:58 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
January 1st, 2017 at 12:58 PM ^
January 1st, 2017 at 1:22 PM ^
It's nice to read.
But my eyes alone are telling me that this program is on an upward trajectory, overtaking B1G competition. OSU is still recruiting fantastically, but at this point, so are we. In fact, I would argue that statistically-speaking, we are recruiting as good as/tied with the best.
Though we are graduating many this offseason, the talent is such that the old way of seeing redshirts as precious commodities is going away. Which means that we're hitting a point that means that year-in, year-out, we field competitive teams. Reloaders, not rebuilders.
The Sargarins just reassure me that we not only have talent, but we can NOW develop it. And thereby recruit even more talent, allowing us to field players strictly on meritocracy, not years of eligibility left. It's great to see.
So, yes, we were better than the W-L record. There is significant culture change in the program that transcends any individual player, so even with a younger team next year, expect good things. We can develop talent, and younger kids will contribute immediately and more significantly.
January 1st, 2017 at 2:15 PM ^
Yeah OSU has highly ranked classes year after year but comeon man. Are they really that successful? Apart from Curtis Samuel, who would you take off of that team that is awesome and respectable personality wise that doesn't look like a jackass? Booker looks like an alright guy and pretty talented. Majority are just punks who have better than average talent. Not really too many untouchables out there.
January 1st, 2017 at 1:20 PM ^
Apologize for double post. Please delete.
January 1st, 2017 at 1:22 PM ^
January 1st, 2017 at 1:40 PM ^
I wouldn't say punching bag. Clearly we all know what happened in Columbu$. We are getting there. I am tired of saying "next year" but the improvement is clearly there. We haven't played like that in that shit hole since 2006.