Rankings (Michigan State is, Michigan isn't?)

Donate To GopherHole
S

SelectionSunday

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
24,740
Reaction score
4,932
Points
113
I know in the grand scheme of things rankings mean next to nothing, but can someone please explain to me why Michigan State is ranked and Michigan is not? We're far enough into the season now where we've learned a few things about teams.

At some point voters have to quit looking at past history and actually look at what's happening this season. What's happened this season is Michigan has defeated Duke and UCLA (both ranked), and one of its two losses is to Duke. Michigan State, also with 2 losses, has beaten no ranked teams and its best win to date is against a middle-of-the-road Big 12 team (Oklahoma State). I just wish some of these voters would take their vote more seriously.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/rankings
 

And Maryland blitzed MSU and barely beat Mich.

My best guess, other than the obvious, is that voters are taking into account Suton's injury.
 

Perhaps they're looking at history rather than what has happened this season. But it's tough to get a read on this Michigan team. MSU has had a significant injury which is in part due to their struggles, but the fact that there was that much of a drop off raises questions. I mean when you look at our team, we've never been full strength all season and yet we are still undefeated(albeit playing 'lesser' competition).

However, I think that once Suton is back and Izzo makes some adjustments, by the time Big Ten play starts MSU should be top 3. Michigan may be a "hot and cold" team this year. We'll just have to see.
 

I agree with you guys on Suton

And I still think MSU will finish ahead of Michigan in the Big 10, but shouldn't rankings be based on what you've done, not what you might be? If Suton comes back & Michigan State starts to roll, yes, then go ahead and rank 'em, but until then, make 'em earn it.
 

"I know in the grand scheme of things rankings mean next to nothing..."

SS

Not that these rankings mean anything - and I'm not sayin - but lets just say a certain team were to beat louisville and be one of a few unbeaten teams left in the country - where do you think a team like that would be ranked next week ?
 



I wouldn't be surprised at all if we still weren't ranked after beating Louisville. The whole problem with this whole poll process is the fact that we have these preseason polls. Then, when a team struggles to start, instead of just evaluating them as they are, they have to drop in rankings, so like if a team starts at #1, and lose three straight, they might still be ranked just cause they started at 1. I hate it, I don't think they should rank teams until like the third or fourth week. I feel the same way about football. Then you wouldn't have teams trying to work their way up the rankings because people ranked them low before a single game was even played.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom