But it's OK.
I listened to Green on Saturday morning and that line, wailed by Michael Stipe, was stuck in my head throughout the game on Saturday. Lloyd Carr's last game in Michigan Stadium was not supposed to be a record-setting show of offensive ineptitude, but it was and that's OK. I wasn't overly upset watching the game. For one thing, I've gotten painfully used to Ohio State being the better team, especially on the offensive and defensive lines. (More on that in a moment.) For another, the injuries that Michigan suffered did present a convenient excuse. A healthy Chad Henne would have made the game closer, although it would not have necessarily changed the result. And finally, knowing that this was Lloyd's last home game made the occasion sad, but it blunted my anger because there was no fear that he would respond to failure by retrenching and demanding greater execution in a completely predictable offensive scheme.
So how did Michigan end up being held below 100 yards of offensive on Saturday. The faux-scientific phrase I kept using to friends on the phone, my wife, and my 14-month old son was "multi-systemic breakdown." Typically, the message board discussion after the game was "it's because of this and not that!" No, it was this and that. The offense collapsed because of a variety of factors, mostly related to complete domination of the line of scrimmage. Why did that happen? I'm glad you asked:
1. If you're a college football fan with Internet access, then you have probably heard Michigan fans complain about strength and conditioning coach Mike Gittelson. I don't pretend to understand weight lifting. My approach at the gym is typically to see what weights are available for the muscle group I've randomly chosen for that day and then to do them in no particular order. That said, Michigan is employing a weight training approach using more machine exercises and fewer power cleans and squats. Michigan's approach has been rejected by every major program other than Penn State. Swirl that around in your mouth so the full bouquet of "we do it just like Penn State" flavor can wash over your palate. When John Beilein was hired as the basketball coach, he immediately created his own weight training program for the basketball team and wanted Gittelson to have no involvement.
As a result, Michigan's offensive linemen typically look like sickly beached whales being pushed around by the tide. This might seem like an odd criticism in a year in which Jake Long is going to be the first lineman drafted, but Long has been excellent since his freshman year. How much development did he really require? Michigan's S&C program didn't fail Long or Adam Kraus, but it does fail players who need more help.
One other thought on S&C: Michigan's one good drive on Saturday was accomplished using a no-huddle offense in the first quarter and then UM didn't use it again until the game was over. I'd prefer not to think that Michigan's coaches are that dense, so is it possible that they went away from the no-huddle because the offensive linemen did not have the stamina to perform without 25 seconds off between plays?
2. Michigan's offensive line coach is Andy Moeller. You may recognize that last name as being very similar to that of former Michigan coach Gary Moeller. That's because Gary is Andy's father. What will follow next won't surprise you in the least. Andy Moeller has been Michigan's offensive line coach since 2002 and Michigan has not had a complete offensive line in that period. Michigan has had a weak right side for three years running. How does that happen at a major program? Is it really that hard to find a decent right guard? Michigan linemen just don't seem to get better. Fundamentally, Lloyd Carr went out with a whimper because he's loyal to a fault and he kept his friend (Mike Debord) and another friend's son (Moeller) on staff in critical positions. It's usually good to be loyal, but in Lloyd's case, loyalty became cronyism.
The contrast between Michigan's coaching and Georgia's was quite evident as I flipped between the two games on Saturday. Georgia started the season with a brand new offensive line full of underclassmen that caused one idiot to proclaim them the most overrated team in the country. Michigan started the season with three seniors (including a top five pick) and two sophomores on the line. By November, Georgia is ripping off huge rushing performances and protecting Matt Stafford on a weekly basis while Michigan couldn't run the ball on Wisconsin's dreadful run defense or protect a gimpy Chad Henne from being pillaged. When Georgia had issues on the offensive line, they went out and hired Stacy Searels, the excellent offensive line coach at LSU. When Michigan had issues on the offensive line, they left the former head coach's son in charge. QED.
3. Steve Schilling, a five-star recruit from Washington State, was a good bet to start as a true freshman in 2006, but he contracted mono and had to be redshirted. Not surprisingly, he lost a good deal of weight when he had mono. He was then injured and missed spring practice. When you think of Vernon Gholston throwing him around like a rag doll on Saturday, keep that fact in mind. Michigan has done a poor job of developing offensive linemen over the past several years, which forced them to rely on Schilling so much, but I'd be lying if I did point out a luck factor involved.
4. Michigan's running scheme is totally predictable. The zone stretch play that was so successful in 2006 was useless in 2007, mainly because opponents figured out to slant their linemen on the plays and shoot into gaps to blow plays up. Northwestern completely shut down Michigan's running game in late September by taking this approach. Michigan being Michigan, little changed. Michigan occasionally had good rushing games because Mike Hart is five feet and nine inches of awesome, but when Hart's ankle went out against Purdue in the second quarter on his 21st carry of the game, the running game went kaput.
5. Ohio State's defense is very good. That's not an excuse for Michigan gaining fewer yards against OSU than any other Buckeye opponent all season, but I need to avoid the fan tendency to assume that my team controls its own fate. Ohio State is strong in every defensive position group, but maybe this shouldn't surprise us since the Bucks had a very good defense in 2006 and then returned nine starters. In retrospect, the "Ohio State is rebuilding" meme from this past summer was complete crap because it assumed that skill position players are the only important players on the field. Ohio State returned almost the entire defense, as well as three starters on the offensive line and an excellent running back. Should we have all thought that the Bucks would collapse simply because they had a new quarterback (and I hesitate to call Boeckman "new" since he's about 37 years old) and new receivers?
Overall, Saturday was an illustration as to why Jim Tressel has asserted control in the Michigan-Ohio State rivalry: his teams are simply better on the lines. Michigan dominated prior to Tressel because Michigan almost always had better quarterbacks; Ohio State has dominated since then because Ohio State has better offensive lines. (Florida fans, please stop laughing uncontrollably. Let he who has not put on 40 pounds before a critical bowl game cast the first stone.) Ohio State had absolutely no passing threat whatsoever on Saturday, as Boeckman was spooked by the weather. Nevertheless, they won comfortably because they dominated Michigan on the line of scrimmage. Bo and Woody would have been proud.
(FYI: I feel bad being so negative on the day that Lloyd retires. For the record, I see Lloyd as a solid B+ coach and I'll have some nice things to say about him when I have a little distance from Saturday.)
Monday, November 19, 2007
Michael's Travels: Louisiana
Der Wife and I took a mini-vacation last week to Louisiana. We took in Baton Rouge on Saturday and then New Orleans on Sunday, Monday, and Tuesday morning. I had been to New Orleans on a number of previous occasions, but my blessed Yankee wife had not yet seen the City that Law Forgot. I give you photographic evidence:
Baton Rouge
I liked Tiger Stadium a lot, mainly because it still has a traditional feel on the exterior. Der Wife and I both had flashbacks to see a game at the Nou Camp when we walked it, probably because of the concrete structure and all of the internal ramps in the end zones. The game was fairly loud early, which I suppose is what you would expect for the team about to be elevated to #1 in the polls. The crowd petered out in the third quarter, as the game was uncompetitive. Strangely, LSU didn't look overly impressive, despite winning 58-10. The hallmark of this LSU team appears to be that they never look that great (except against Virginia Tech), but they keep winning (often big) and they are at or near the top of most statistical rankings.
The crowd probably also petered out because they had been drinking since noon and had more slabs of grilled meat to consume. I've been to a bunch of different college football venues and I've never seen anything like the tailgating scene at Baton Rouge. In terms of sheer volume, the entire campus was covered with tailgaters, as well as several massive parking lots near the stadium. There is a definite emphasis on tailgating at LSU, as opposed to going to restaurants or bars before the games. Some of the memorable sights:
1. An RV with a ceiling fan rigged out over the side to cover the sitting area.
2. A dance floor with a mixed-race crowd doing country line dancing.
3. A buffet set-up outside an RV complete with silver covered trays for the food.
4. A dog dressed up like a tiger:
Baton Rouge
I liked Tiger Stadium a lot, mainly because it still has a traditional feel on the exterior. Der Wife and I both had flashbacks to see a game at the Nou Camp when we walked it, probably because of the concrete structure and all of the internal ramps in the end zones. The game was fairly loud early, which I suppose is what you would expect for the team about to be elevated to #1 in the polls. The crowd petered out in the third quarter, as the game was uncompetitive. Strangely, LSU didn't look overly impressive, despite winning 58-10. The hallmark of this LSU team appears to be that they never look that great (except against Virginia Tech), but they keep winning (often big) and they are at or near the top of most statistical rankings.
The crowd probably also petered out because they had been drinking since noon and had more slabs of grilled meat to consume. I've been to a bunch of different college football venues and I've never seen anything like the tailgating scene at Baton Rouge. In terms of sheer volume, the entire campus was covered with tailgaters, as well as several massive parking lots near the stadium. There is a definite emphasis on tailgating at LSU, as opposed to going to restaurants or bars before the games. Some of the memorable sights:
1. An RV with a ceiling fan rigged out over the side to cover the sitting area.
2. A dance floor with a mixed-race crowd doing country line dancing.
3. A buffet set-up outside an RV complete with silver covered trays for the food.
4. A dog dressed up like a tiger:
New Orleans
I can't get enough of New Orleans. Between the eating, the drinking, the architecture, and the people, it's one of the great cities in the country (despite the best efforts of the federal government to the contrary). I had forgotten how friendly the natives are, but just about everyone wanted to talk to us and they almost invariably brought up Katrina. It certainly is not a "suffer in silence" culture.
The pride that natives have in New Orleans comes out in their love for the Saints. Just about every man, woman, and child on the streets on Sunday had a Saints jersey on his/her back. They have the same losing tradition as the Falcons. They have a love for college football that predates the arrival of the NFL, just as Georgians do. They have a domed stadium in a good climate, just like the Falcons do. And with all that context, they certainly love their team more than Atlantans do. Here are my best explanations:
1. Atlanta, unlike New Orleans, has a major transplant factor. People in Louisiana often stay in Louisiana and there isn't an influx of business and resettled Yankees like there is in Atlanta. Thus, it's much more likely that people in New Orleans will pull in the same direction, sports-wise.
2. People in New Orleans have a major esprit de corps right now because of Katrina.
3. The Saints went to the NFC Championship Game last year, while the Falcons are at a nadir after Vickkampf.
I suppose the moral of the story is that I'm very good a justifying the fact that fan support waxes and wanes in this town for the pro sports collectives.
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
My Top 25
| Rank | Team | Delta |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | LSU |  1 |
| 2 | Oregon | 1 |
| 3 | Kansas | 1 |
| 4 | Oklahoma | 1 |
| 5 | Missouri | 1 |
| 6 | West Virginia | 1 |
| 7 | Arizona State | 1 |
| 8 | Ohio State |  7 |
| 9 | Georgia | 5 |
| 10 | Southern Cal | 1 |
| 11 | Cincinnati | 13 |
| 12 | Florida | -- |
| 13 | Kentucky | 6 |
| 14 | Illinois | 12 |
| 15 | Clemson | 11 |
| 16 | South Florida | 4 |
| 17 | Virginia Tech | 1 |
| 18 | Tennessee | 8 |
| 19 | Virginia | 6 |
| 20 | Texas | 3 |
| 21 | Boise State | -- |
| 22 | Michigan | 9 |
| 23 | Boston College | 7 |
| 24 | Connecticut | 14 |
| 25 | Auburn | 16 |
Dropped Out: Alabama (#15), Arkansas (#22), Wake Forest (#23).
Thursday, November 08, 2007
The Greatest 2-2 Start Ever
When I first looked at the Hawks' opening five games this year - Dallas and Phoenix at home, Detroit, New Jersey, and Boston on the road - I had visions of all my optimism about the team getting crushed in a 1-4 or 0-5 start. So needless to say, I'm pretty tickled to look at the standings today and see the Hawks headed to Boston at 2-2 after beating Phoenix last night. The best part is that the Hawks haven't been winning fluky one- and two-point decisions. They beat Dallas and Phoenix by a combined 16 points and lost an absolute heartbreaker to Detroit (to the extent that any game in an 82-game marathon can be a heartbreaker). The Hawks have had two home games so far and both have been lively sell-outs. Shockingly enough, fans in Atlanta will support a team going in the right direction.
A few thoughts on the game last night:
1. I'm waiting for Terence Moore to take back his statement last year that the Hawks do not have sufficient depth of talent. Through four games, there have been new heroes just about every night. Josh Childress was dreadful in the opener, but last night, he was instant energy and he killed Phoenix on the glass. Al Horford was forgettable against New Jersey, but he pulled down 15 rebounds last night and helped the Hawks dominate in the paint. Josh Smith was bad in the opener (after the first quarter) and excellent last night. Joe Johnson was excellent in the opener and sub-par last night (3/17 from the field, although he did dish out ten assists). The point is that there are a lot of good players on the team, giving the Hawks a lot of different possibilities for a hot hand on a given night. Contrast the Hawks' depth to the luxury tax/cheap owner-imposed lack of depth for the Suns. With Stoudemire out, here were the Suns' reserves (after sixth man Leandro Barbosa): Sean Marks, Marcus Banks, Brian Skinner, Eric Piatkowski, Alando Tucker, and D.J. Strawberry. What is this team going to look like in April if its starters have to play 40 minutes per night for 82 games?
2. The Hawks destroyed Phoenix on the glass, just as they did Dallas. Does that say that the Hawks are going to have an identity as a great rebounding team or is that a commentary on Dallas and Phoenix (without Amare) being soft?
3. I know that Steve Nash is an all-star and all, but the Hawks didn't do much to disabuse me of the notion that they struggle to defend the point guard position last night, as Nash went for 34 points on 19 shots. Interestingly, Josh Smith proved to be the best defender against Nash, as he turned him over twice late in the fourth quarter when the Hawks iced the game. Combined with Marvin Williams defending Chauncey Billups on the last possession against Detroit, you get the sense that Mike Woodson knows that his guards aren't his best defenders and that Smith and Williams are needed to defend opposing point guards on crunch possessions. (I don't think that Williams was on Billups on a switch, but I could be wrong.)
4. Marvin Williams through four games: 71 points on 43 shots. Suck it, Chris Paul! Two years ago, I sooner would have penned an ode to Jim Leyritz than right that last sentence.
5. Shelden Williams isn't getting any time, despite the fact that Zaza is out. Hmmm.
A few thoughts on the game last night:
1. I'm waiting for Terence Moore to take back his statement last year that the Hawks do not have sufficient depth of talent. Through four games, there have been new heroes just about every night. Josh Childress was dreadful in the opener, but last night, he was instant energy and he killed Phoenix on the glass. Al Horford was forgettable against New Jersey, but he pulled down 15 rebounds last night and helped the Hawks dominate in the paint. Josh Smith was bad in the opener (after the first quarter) and excellent last night. Joe Johnson was excellent in the opener and sub-par last night (3/17 from the field, although he did dish out ten assists). The point is that there are a lot of good players on the team, giving the Hawks a lot of different possibilities for a hot hand on a given night. Contrast the Hawks' depth to the luxury tax/cheap owner-imposed lack of depth for the Suns. With Stoudemire out, here were the Suns' reserves (after sixth man Leandro Barbosa): Sean Marks, Marcus Banks, Brian Skinner, Eric Piatkowski, Alando Tucker, and D.J. Strawberry. What is this team going to look like in April if its starters have to play 40 minutes per night for 82 games?
2. The Hawks destroyed Phoenix on the glass, just as they did Dallas. Does that say that the Hawks are going to have an identity as a great rebounding team or is that a commentary on Dallas and Phoenix (without Amare) being soft?
3. I know that Steve Nash is an all-star and all, but the Hawks didn't do much to disabuse me of the notion that they struggle to defend the point guard position last night, as Nash went for 34 points on 19 shots. Interestingly, Josh Smith proved to be the best defender against Nash, as he turned him over twice late in the fourth quarter when the Hawks iced the game. Combined with Marvin Williams defending Chauncey Billups on the last possession against Detroit, you get the sense that Mike Woodson knows that his guards aren't his best defenders and that Smith and Williams are needed to defend opposing point guards on crunch possessions. (I don't think that Williams was on Billups on a switch, but I could be wrong.)
4. Marvin Williams through four games: 71 points on 43 shots. Suck it, Chris Paul! Two years ago, I sooner would have penned an ode to Jim Leyritz than right that last sentence.
5. Shelden Williams isn't getting any time, despite the fact that Zaza is out. Hmmm.
Wednesday, November 07, 2007
Is LSU Really Lucky?
Before Mayhem dashed to commercial at 7:33 this morning after their opening to Tony Barnhart's segment (brought to you by BMW of South Atlanta, just north of your expectations!), Mike Bell and Barnhart were joking that they need to go to Las Vegas with Les Miles because Miles is really lucky right now. Since I'm already in the position of defending everything the guy does on the chance that he ends up as the next head man in Ann Arbor, I'm going to dispute the notion that Miles and LSU have been lucky. I am also doing so because I enjoy taking positions that can be supported by facts and logic.
On the evidence, there's not much of a case to be made that LSU has been lucky this year. The Tigers have been in four close games and won three of them, which isn't especially reflective of luck. They most certainly aren't Virginia (winners of five of six games decided by one score), Ohio State '02 (winners of all seven games they played decided by one score), or Georgia '02 (winners of five of six games they played decided by one score). Moreover, if you look at LSU's four close games, you can't point to any of them as being instances in which the lesser team won. Here are the yardage and first down totals from the four games:
LSU - 391 yards, 25 first downs
Florida - 314 yards, 19 first downs
LSU - 403 yards, 22 first downs
Kentucky - 375 yards, 26 first downs
LSU - 488 yards, 23 first downs
Auburn - 296 yards, 16 first downs
LSU - 475 yards, 21 first downs
Alabama - 254 yards, 20 first downs
If anything, LSU's opponents, especially Auburn and Alabama, were lucky to be in their games against the Tigers. LSU has won the yardage battle in all four games and has had more first downs in three of the four games (with the one exception being the game that LSU lost). The better argument is that LSU was unlucky to be in close games because the fluky factors (turnovers, special teams returns, their kicker having the worst night of his career, etc.). There is an argument to be made that special teams and turnovers are not necessarily random. I'll buy that special teams aren't random, but LSU's special teams aren't bad at all. The case is weaker that turnovers are not random. Phil Steele says that they are random and he's never wrong about anything. Yardage and first downs are better indica of a team's merit and LSU kicks ass in those departments.
Finally, take a gander at LSU's statistical rankings. They're in the top ten in every defensive category and in the top 25 in scoring offense and total offense. Bearing in mind that LSU has played a very difficult schedule, do they really look like a lucky team? I didn't think so.
Finally, let's compare LSU's yards per play gained and allowed against the other contenders for the national title:
LSU - 5.93 gained, 3.67 allowed, 2.26 margin
Oregon - 6.61 gained, 5.4 allowed, 1.21 margin
Oklahoma - 6.56 gained, 4.43 allowed, 2.13 margin
Missouri - 6.42 gained, 5.02 allowed, 1.4 margin
Kansas - 6.35 gained, 4.19 allowed, 2.16 margin
West Virginia - 6.7 gained, 4.17 allowed, 2.53 margin
Ohio State - 5.96 gained, 3.56 allowed, 2.4 margin
Since LSU has played a demonstrably tougher schedule than any of these teams, save Oregon, it can't be said that LSU is lucky to be where they are. Only West Virginia and Ohio State are ahead of LSU in yards per play margin and they haven't come close to LSU in terms of quality of opponents. The best conclusion from this comparison, by the way, is that Oregon and (to a slightly lesser extent) Missouri are poseurs as national title contenders because of their defenses.
(PS - I did this dance last year and reached the startling conclusion that Notre Dame was a fraud. Actually, in retrospect, the analysis was fairly useful, as it flagged Florida as being in the class of the top contenders and it spied USC's weakness.)
And one other thought: how does Tony Barnhart confidently state out of one corner of his mouth that "if [LSU] play[s] Ohio State, the Tigers will win" (call me crazy, but Barnhart is never this assertive except when he's playing to his audience and mocking the Big Ten) and out of the other corner of his mouth deride LSU as lucky? If LSU is lucky and therefore not as good as their record, then how can it be such a certainty that they would beat Ohio State?
On the evidence, there's not much of a case to be made that LSU has been lucky this year. The Tigers have been in four close games and won three of them, which isn't especially reflective of luck. They most certainly aren't Virginia (winners of five of six games decided by one score), Ohio State '02 (winners of all seven games they played decided by one score), or Georgia '02 (winners of five of six games they played decided by one score). Moreover, if you look at LSU's four close games, you can't point to any of them as being instances in which the lesser team won. Here are the yardage and first down totals from the four games:
LSU - 391 yards, 25 first downs
Florida - 314 yards, 19 first downs
LSU - 403 yards, 22 first downs
Kentucky - 375 yards, 26 first downs
LSU - 488 yards, 23 first downs
Auburn - 296 yards, 16 first downs
LSU - 475 yards, 21 first downs
Alabama - 254 yards, 20 first downs
If anything, LSU's opponents, especially Auburn and Alabama, were lucky to be in their games against the Tigers. LSU has won the yardage battle in all four games and has had more first downs in three of the four games (with the one exception being the game that LSU lost). The better argument is that LSU was unlucky to be in close games because the fluky factors (turnovers, special teams returns, their kicker having the worst night of his career, etc.). There is an argument to be made that special teams and turnovers are not necessarily random. I'll buy that special teams aren't random, but LSU's special teams aren't bad at all. The case is weaker that turnovers are not random. Phil Steele says that they are random and he's never wrong about anything. Yardage and first downs are better indica of a team's merit and LSU kicks ass in those departments.
Finally, take a gander at LSU's statistical rankings. They're in the top ten in every defensive category and in the top 25 in scoring offense and total offense. Bearing in mind that LSU has played a very difficult schedule, do they really look like a lucky team? I didn't think so.
Finally, let's compare LSU's yards per play gained and allowed against the other contenders for the national title:
LSU - 5.93 gained, 3.67 allowed, 2.26 margin
Oregon - 6.61 gained, 5.4 allowed, 1.21 margin
Oklahoma - 6.56 gained, 4.43 allowed, 2.13 margin
Missouri - 6.42 gained, 5.02 allowed, 1.4 margin
Kansas - 6.35 gained, 4.19 allowed, 2.16 margin
West Virginia - 6.7 gained, 4.17 allowed, 2.53 margin
Ohio State - 5.96 gained, 3.56 allowed, 2.4 margin
Since LSU has played a demonstrably tougher schedule than any of these teams, save Oregon, it can't be said that LSU is lucky to be where they are. Only West Virginia and Ohio State are ahead of LSU in yards per play margin and they haven't come close to LSU in terms of quality of opponents. The best conclusion from this comparison, by the way, is that Oregon and (to a slightly lesser extent) Missouri are poseurs as national title contenders because of their defenses.
(PS - I did this dance last year and reached the startling conclusion that Notre Dame was a fraud. Actually, in retrospect, the analysis was fairly useful, as it flagged Florida as being in the class of the top contenders and it spied USC's weakness.)
And one other thought: how does Tony Barnhart confidently state out of one corner of his mouth that "if [LSU] play[s] Ohio State, the Tigers will win" (call me crazy, but Barnhart is never this assertive except when he's playing to his audience and mocking the Big Ten) and out of the other corner of his mouth deride LSU as lucky? If LSU is lucky and therefore not as good as their record, then how can it be such a certainty that they would beat Ohio State?
Tuesday, November 06, 2007
Tony Barnhart Needs my Sidebar
Mr. College Football on Ohio State:
Ohio State's record in the last 20 years before the Michigan game: 15-4-1
And the record of those four Ohio State teams that lost the week before Michigan: 8-4, 7-5, 6-6, and 6-4-1.
And while we're on Barnhart, I'm not wild about this take on Oregon's offense, either:
The LSU defense that surrendered 34 points to Alabama, 24 to offensively challenged Auburn, 24 to Florida, and 27 in regulation to Kentucky? I think Oregon could score some points. Whether they could stop LSU from moving the ball at will is another matter entirely.
I’ve always said that the best time to play Ohio State is the week before Michigan. Don’t be surprised if Ohio State gets a scare from the Zooker.
Ohio State's record in the last 20 years before the Michigan game: 15-4-1
And the record of those four Ohio State teams that lost the week before Michigan: 8-4, 7-5, 6-6, and 6-4-1.
And while we're on Barnhart, I'm not wild about this take on Oregon's offense, either:
The question is: How would this team match up against LSU’s defense? If Ohio State stumbles in the next two weeks, we just might find that out.
The LSU defense that surrendered 34 points to Alabama, 24 to offensively challenged Auburn, 24 to Florida, and 27 in regulation to Kentucky? I think Oregon could score some points. Whether they could stop LSU from moving the ball at will is another matter entirely.
My Top 25 Has Given Up
| Rank | Team | Delta |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ohio State | 25 |
| 2 | LSU | 24 |
| 3 | Oregon | 23 |
| 4 | Kansas | 22 |
| 5 | Oklahoma | 21 |
| 6 | Missouri | 20 |
| 7 | West Virginia | 19 |
| 8 | Arizona State | 18 |
| 9 | Auburn | 17 |
| 10 | Connecticut | 16 |
| 11 | Southern Cal | 15 |
| 12 | Florida | 14 |
| 13 | Michigan | 13 |
| 14 | Georgia | 12 |
| 15 | Alabama | 11 |
| 16 | Boston College | 10 |
| 17 | Texas | 9 |
| 18 | Virginia Tech | 8 |
| 19 | Kentucky | 7 |
| 20 | South Florida | 6 |
| 21 | Boise State | 5 |
| 22 | Arkansas | 4 |
| 23 | Wake Forest | 3 |
| 24 | Cincinnati | 2 |
| 25 | Virginia | 1 |
FYI, the Delta in my ratings is screwed up because I was swamped at work last week and didn't get a ballot in.
I wanted to be the guy who ranked LSU #1 for the entire season, but as I wrote on Saturday night, this LSU team is living right now more on reputation and the effects of its domination of Virginia Tech and South Carolina than it is on actual performance on the field right now. The defense seems to be less than the sum of its parts and Matt Flynn does not exactly inspire confidence. I bet they struggle at Oxford in two weeks. That said, I also bet that they look good against Arkansas and then really good in the SEC Championship Game. If I were an LSU fan, Florida would be the one team that would scare me in Atlanta because they could compel LSU to play a shootout. Kentucky doesn't have the depth to be excellent in December and I'm not sold on either Georgia or Tennessee standing much of a chance if LSU is really paying attention.
The bottom of my ballot was a difficult proposition. As I went through the list of teams alphabetically, I kept putting teams into the poll and saying "they'll be #25" so by the end, I had about eight candidates for that spot. I leaned on the Sagarin Predictor rankings pretty heavily, although I should have had the guts to put Texas Tech (Sagarin #15) ahead of Virginia (Sagarin #50) in the #25 spot. Consider Virginia's ranking this week to be the equivalent of Spurrier ranking Duke at #25 before each season.
If you want an example of the imperfection of human rankings, when I put Arkansas in the poll, all I was thinking about in my mind was Darren McFadden's Bo/Herschel impersonation on his 80-yard touchdown run on Saturday night. I forgot about Arkansas's suspect defense, their negligible passing game, and the fact that they haven't beaten a top 30 team all year. All my mind could see was Humanity Advanced and that thought went directly to my keyboard. Speaking of the flaws of mortal man, here are some teams that are rated significantly higher by humans than by Sagarin's Predictor and vice versa:
Test Group One
Boston College - 8 AP, 24 Sagarin
Georgia - 10 AP, 28 Sagarin
Virginia Tech - 11 AP, 29 Sagarin
Hawaii - 14 AP, 32 Sagarin
Virginia - 23 AP, 50 Sagarin
Test Group Two
Florida - 17 AP, 7 Sagarin
Auburn - 18 AP, 11 Sagarin
Cincinnati - 27 AP, 13 Sagarin
Arkansas - 31 AP, 12 Sagarin
South Florida - 33 AP, 14 Sagarin
Texas Tech - unranked AP, 15 Sagarin
Kansas State - unranked AP, 17 Sagarin
Pay attention to how these teams perform over the last month of the season. We'll have a nice, unscientific mini-test as to how humans perform as compared to one particular computer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)