11-2 RECORD, NO TOP 25 RANKING...

[Eric]

I am no ranking specialist by any means. I like to explore all aspects of college football rankings though, especially computer rankings. Looking at Sagarins' rankings, he has Michigan State at #31. WOW!

I know the Spartans lost one of the regular season games by a huge margin, and they were blown to bits in the bowl game. But an 11-2 record and a #31 ranking.

What gives?

They just had a mediocre schedule:

Good wins - Wisconsin, Notre Dame
Decent wins - Northwestern, Illinois, Penn State, Michigan

And by "decent" I'm being a tad generous

[Eric]

I can agree with that, but he had Utah just out of the top 25 with the Utes at #26. Michigan State lost to two very good teams. I know that Utah did also, but wouldn't coming from a tougher conference (Big Ten) mean something?

You would assume the same would go for Utah, but I don't think that highly of Sagarin's computer.

[Spence]

I can agree with that, but he had Utah just out of the top 25 with the Utes at #26. Michigan State lost to two very good teams. I know that Utah did also, but wouldn't coming from a tougher conference (Big Ten) mean something?

The big ten wasn't that good this year.

[RazorHawk]

Michigan State was very fortunate to beat a poor Purdue team and had some other close games against relatively weak opponents. They also got blown out by Iowa and Alabama.

However, with a 10-2 record in a BCS conference, I too believe they should be top 25. Not sure how meaningful just being in the top 25 is though.

FYI, I had them only drop to 16th in my poll, so I guess I agree with you.

[billybud]

Michigan State didn't look like a top 25 team to me...in the bowl.

Sagarin has Michigan State behind Ohio State, Wisconsin, and Iowa in the Big Ten...about right. If you look at who Sagarin has above Michigan State...most of them are defensible if you asked the question.."would you take them over Michigan State?"...a couple are puzzling.

[donovan]

Rankings, seems to me, become subjective, mostly because we want them that way, even those that favor some computer ranking. The problem is, there is no consensus of opinion what the final poll represents. Is it the best teams at the end of the year? Is is a reflection of the overall performance throughout the year? Is it a bowl reward, those that did the best in the bowls against formidable opponents get higher rankings without the season counting so much? Is it conference strength with an assumption that determines whatever it is we are trying to determine? I think the criteria is kept loosey goosey on purpose, allows the money to makes changes when needed. Regardless, we know we can have this discussion all over again next year.

[billybud]

It is a mixture...and how it is mixed is individual perception.

How a team has done against other good teams (the wins vs the quality of the schedule), how a team plays against good teams from other conferences, and bowl play all play in.

Michigan State was so beaten in the bowl (42 point margin) that it impacts public perception. Big Ten guys might see it as an aberration that sometimes happens while SEC guys see it as affirmation of SEC strength. Most of us plug in information and come up with varying conclusions based on our personal beliefs and bias.

Michigan getting clobbered 52-14 by Miss State in the bowl added to some folk's perception....Michigan got a bad draw. Michigan was 3-5 in the B-10 while Miss. State was 4-4 in the SEC (but a better than .500 team in most conferences). Miss. State lost to powerful teams...LSU, Alabama, Auburn, Arkansas.

[ktffan]

I am no ranking specialist by any means. I like to explore all aspects of college football rankings though, especially computer rankings. Looking at Sagarins' rankings, he has Michigan State at #31. WOW!

I know the Spartans lost one of the regular season games by a huge margin, and they were blown to bits in the bowl game. But an 11-2 record and a #31 ranking.

What gives?

Sagarin's rankings use margin of victory. Michigan State almost lost to a bunch of bad teams. His ELO_CHESS is forced to ignore MOV and MSU did much better there. But Sagarin is saying Michigan State wasn't that good and he's right.

[ktffan]

I can agree with that, but he had Utah just out of the top 25 with the Utes at #26. Michigan State lost to two very good teams. I know that Utah did also, but wouldn't coming from a tougher conference (Big Ten) mean something?

The big ten wasn't that good this year.

Better than the MWC according to Sagarin, which would be the pertainant measure in this case.

[Spence]

I can agree with that, but he had Utah just out of the top 25 with the Utes at #26. Michigan State lost to two very good teams. I know that Utah did also, but wouldn't coming from a tougher conference (Big Ten) mean something?

The big ten wasn't that good this year.

Better than the MWC according to Sagarin, which would be the pertainant measure in this case.

I would agree with that. Michigan State not playing Ohio State kicked their butt in SOS.

[Derek]

Rankings, seems to me, become subjective, mostly because we want them that way, even those that favor some computer ranking. The problem is, there is no consensus of opinion what the final poll represents. Is it the best teams at the end of the year? Is is a reflection of the overall performance throughout the year? Is it a bowl reward, those that did the best in the bowls against formidable opponents get higher rankings without the season counting so much? Is it conference strength with an assumption that determines whatever it is we are trying to determine? I think the criteria is kept loosey goosey on purpose, allows the money to makes changes when needed. Regardless, we know we can have this discussion all over again next year.

I agree. Just remember that SOS will come up when your in Atlanta.

[donovan]

Rankings, seems to me, become subjective, mostly because we want them that way, even those that favor some computer ranking. The problem is, there is no consensus of opinion what the final poll represents. Is it the best teams at the end of the year? Is is a reflection of the overall performance throughout the year? Is it a bowl reward, those that did the best in the bowls against formidable opponents get higher rankings without the season counting so much? Is it conference strength with an assumption that determines whatever it is we are trying to determine? I think the criteria is kept loosey goosey on purpose, allows the money to makes changes when needed. Regardless, we know we can have this discussion all over again next year.

I agree. Just remember that SOS will come up when your in Atlanta.

I know and I don't think you have one bit of a reason to be apologetic.