Texas jumps Michigan in the polls?

[tnapucco]

OP meet plonk

your thread is dildos

 

[fordman84]

You do realize you can’t win the internet? You seem really fired up over this. Have you considered trying Xanax?

I'm not trying to win the internet. I'm successfully calling out your bullshit.

 

[belcherboy]

I'm not really all that mad about it, as I think Michigan is probably overrated right now anyway (when looking at how they played so far this season).

I just thought it was weird that you have two teams with identical records, in the first half of the season, Team A has one great win against a ranked team, and few decent wins against teams that are no longer ranked, and a loss to mediocre team. Team B lost to a top 5 team on the road, and beat the mediocre team that Team A lost to by 3 TD's. I just figured most people wouldn't rank Team A above Team B at this point in the season.

You guys are right, it's early season rankings and they really don't matter. If Michigan can get their stuff together and win the next three games, they should probably jump Texas. I don't think it will matter though, as neither team looks like they will be a playoff team anyway.

Thanks for straightening me out guys!

 

[Ron G]

So we should ignore 3 decent wins over 1 lost at the beginning of the season

Yes

 

[Texas Jefe]

First, it's way early and the polls are really kinda dumb. It's Alabama...then, we have a group of Georgia, OSU,Clemson….then we have, I don't know, maybe Notre Dame and everybody else clawing and scratchin

Second of all, it's football. You cant compare how one team handles an opponent right out of the gate, then how another team handles the same opponent a few weeks later. It just doesn't work. Does not work in high school, nor college, nor the NFL.

 

[BamaDude]

I definitely don't think Michigan deserves much credit for this season. They've been pretty mediocre through most of it. But, why would Texas jump Michigan in the polls?

Because they beat Oklahoma.

 

[nddulac]

Wait, "3 decent wins" should trump the results of a common opponent with only 6 weeks in the season? What constitutes a "decent win", and why does that erase a loss to a common opponent when comparing two teams?

So you have three data points that say that they are good, and one that says they are bad. So you pick the three as the outliers?

Seriously - that's ridiculous. You don't go ignoring helf the data in order to hold on the conclusions based on 1/6th of the data.

 

[Winged_Wheel88]

How the hell did Texas leapfrog over us and not end up #1?!

 

[belcherboy]

So you have three data points that say that they are good, and one that says they are bad. So you pick the three as the outliers?

Seriously - that's ridiculous. You don't go ignoring helf the data in order to hold on the conclusions based on 1/6th of the data.

But do all three data points really say that they are good at this point in the season? In those three data points, only one of them is currently ranked.

Also when comparing teams who haven’t played each other (what makes up most the rankings), what is the very best way to compare them? IMO, there is no better way than to look at common opponents....especially when one team won convincing against that common opponent while the other team lost.

 

[nddulac]

IMO, there is no better way than to look at common opponents....especially when one team won convincing against that common opponent while the other team lost.

That's fine. But it is just one piece of data. Just as it would be wrong to ignore the common opponents, it would be wrong to ignore any information garnered by examining how a team did in their other games. for example, Michigan does not have a win on its resume anywhere near as impressive as Texas' win over Oklahoma.

Further, it is important to recognize that teams evolve and change - due to injury, depth chart changes as younger players demonstrate an ability to step in, a billion other reasons. For example, both Michigan and Texas are better teams now than they showed in week 1. Maryland is not as good as it showed in week 1.

So the bottom line is that you have to look at all of the data - not just cherry pick the aspects that make your team look good.

 

[belcherboy]

That's fine. But it is just one piece of data. Just as it would be wrong to ignore the common opponents, it would be wrong to ignore any information garnered by examining how a team did in their other games.

Further, it is important to recognize that teams evolve and change - due to injury, depth chart changes as younger players demonstrate an ability to step in, a billion other reasons. For example, both Michigan and Texas are better teams now than they showed in week 1. Maryland is not as good as it showed in week 1.

So the bottom line is that you have to look at all of the data - not just cherry pick the aspects that make your team look good.

The thing is, Maryland, right now is a better win for Michigan than either USC and TCU for Texas. Maryland has the same record as the other two teams, and has a win against a top 10 team.

I think you overvalue the USC and TCU wins for Texas right now. They may prove to be good wins later on, but they haven't done anything this season that says they are good wins just yet. They both sit unranked at 3-2 records, with no big wins on their resume.

 

[nddulac]

I think you overvalue the USC and TCU wins for Texas right now. They may prove to be good wins later on, but they haven't done anything this season that says they are good wins just yet. They both sit unranked at 3-2 records, with no big wins on their resume.

I added the comment in edit, so you may not have seen it. But you can't forget Texas' win over Oklahoma. Michigan does not have a win that good in its pocket.

 

[belcherboy]

I added the comment in edit, so you may not have seen it. But you can't forget Texas' win over Oklahoma. Michigan does not have a win that good in its pocket.

I'm probably looking at it wrong, but here is my rationale:

I compare two teams...early in the season, with identical records (neither loss for either team was a blowout) and they have one common opponent. How they did against that common opponent is likely going be the overwhelming way I would determine which team I think is a better team...so far in the season. That comparison becomes more clear, in my opinion, when one team loses to the common opponent, while the other team beats the common opponent by 21 points. (I mean we are still fairly early in the season, as we have only played one saturday's worth of games in October...so week 1 wasn't that long ago)

Other games definitely play a role in my comparison, but the one thing that is "apples to apples" in this short amount of the season is common opponent. Just my opinion. I don't necessarily think Michigan is better than Texas, but do feel that the discrepancy in scoring between the games against a common opponent makes a big deal in my determination.

 

[nddulac]

Here is a side-by-side comparison of Michigan's and Texas' schedules so far, sorted by each opponent's ordinal ranking in the current Massey Composite ranking:

Michigan                Texas
  5 Notre Dame (L)        7 Oklahoma
 48 Maryland             33 Texas Christian
 58 Northwestern         41 Southern Cal
 67 Western Michigan     48 Maryland (L)
100 Southern Methodist   84 Kansas State
105 Nebraska            107 Tulsa

What jumps out to me is that Texas' wins over TCU and Southern Cal are comparable (but slightly better regarded) than Michigan's wins over Maryland and Northwestern. Same with Kansas State and Southern Methodist. Nebraska and Tusla are pretty much a wash. Obviously, Texas' loss to Maryland is damning compared to Michigan's loss to Notre Dame. However, Texas' win over Oklahoma really stands out as a feather in Bevo's figurative sombrero.

Obviously, the season is only halfway through and things will change dramatically. But this is why Texas is getting rated more favorably than Michigan despite the disparate outcomes vs. the lone common opponent.

 

[Hook'Em0608]

I would say Michigan and Texas are very comparable right now due to the quality of Texas wins and the quality of Michigan's loss. They should be ranked similarly.

 

[CaptainStubing]

If they could figure out how to beat Maryland, the writers would probably have them #1

 

[belcherboy]

I don’t know if Michigan will jump Texas in the rankings, but they should get a little closer.