The CardBoard
Michigan State schedule - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Michigan State schedule (/thread-6371.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5

Michigan State schedule - terry - 12-15-2013

Michigan State caught a real break in its conference schedule this year.

MSU missed the three strongest teams in the opposite division -- Ohio State (12-1), Wisconsin (9-3), and Penn State (7-5).

Instead, MSU played the three weakest teams in that division -- Indiana (5-7), Illinois (4-8), and Purdue (1-11).

MSU's non-conference schedule was not challenging. MSU played NotreDame and three weaklings -- Western Michigan (1-11), South Florida (2-10), and Youngstown State (FCS, 8-4).

MSU played 1 game against BCS top 25 teams (Ohio St.), compared to 5 for Stanford (Oregon, Arizona State twice, UCLA, U,S,C).

MSU played 1 game against Sagarin top 20 teams, compared to 6 for Stanford.

According to Sagarin, NotreDame was MSU's second toughest game, while NotreDame was Stanford's 7th toughest game.

Sagarin ranks MSU's strength of schedule #56, while Stanford's strength of schedule is ranked #4.

The Sagarin ratings for MSU's opponents:

11    Ohio State
25    NotreDame
28    Iowa
37    Michigan
50    Nebraska
51    Minnesota
55    Indiana
66    Northwestern
73    Illinois
111  Youngstown State
144  South Florida
155  Purdue
187  Western Michigan

By comparison, the Sagarin ratings for Stanford's opponents:

4    Oregon
8    Arizona State
8    Arizona State
12    Washington
13    UCLA
20    U,S,C
25    NotreDame
30    Washington State
32    Utah
36    Oregon State
87    San Jose State
121  Ca'l
156  Army

Re: Michigan State schedule - CornFed - 12-15-2013

Uh - - - how does one register respect points?  I love this post!

Re: Michigan State schedule - oman - 12-15-2013

Utah's SoS must have been sky high.

Re: Michigan State schedule - washingtonismoney - 12-15-2013

Summing it up with one number, here's the computers' opinions on the matter:

Sagarin:
Stanford: 4
MSU: 56

ESPN Championship Drive Ratings:
Stanford: 4
MSU: 48

Football Outsiders:
Stanford: 12
MSU: 58

SRS:
Stanford: 4
MSU: 63

(No, I don't know why computers seem to have settled on a mode of 4.)

(12-15-2013, 05:18 PM)oman link Wrote:Utah's SoS must have been sky high.

Yeah. SRS: 1; Football Outsiders: 6; Sagarin: 3; ESPN: 2

Basically, if it's Pac-12 in 2013, the computers love it.

Re: Michigan State schedule - Spiny_Norman - 12-15-2013

(12-15-2013, 04:56 PM)CornFed link Wrote:Uh - - - how does one register respect points?  I love this post!

CornFed, in the upper right of Terry's message, you will see a number (+4 as I type this) which represents the net respect points that the message has received from others.  Next to the number are two icons, an up arrow and a down arrow.  Click the up arrow to "like" or "respect" the post.

Re: Michigan State schedule - stupac2 - 12-15-2013

(12-15-2013, 08:37 PM)Spiny_Norman link Wrote:CornFed, in the upper right of Terry's message, you will see a number (+4 as I type this) which represents the net respect points that the message has received from others.  Next to the number are two icons, an up arrow and a down arrow.  Click the up arrow to "like" or "respect" the post.

You need a minimum number of posts before the arrows appear, I believe it's 10.

Re: Michigan State schedule - CornFed - 12-15-2013

That's hilarious.  I read Spiny's directions and was going nuts looking for the arrows.  Thank you, Stupac for your post as I will patiently wait my qualifying to pay respects.

Re: Michigan State schedule - Spartandawg - 12-15-2013

(12-15-2013, 04:35 PM)terry link Wrote:Michigan State caught a real break in its conference schedule this year.

MSU missed the three strongest teams in the opposite division -- Ohio State (12-1), Wisconsin (9-3), and Penn State (7-5).

Instead, MSU played the three weakest teams in that division -- Indiana (5-7), Illinois (4-8), and Purdue (1-11).

MSU's non-conference schedule was not challenging. MSU played NotreDame and three weaklings -- Western Michigan (1-11), South Florida (2-10), and Youngstown State (FCS, 8-4).

MSU played 1 game against BCS top 25 teams (Ohio St.), compared to 5 for Stanford (Oregon, Arizona State twice, UCLA, U,S,C).

MSU played 1 game against Sagarin top 20 teams, compared to 6 for Stanford.

According to Sagarin, NotreDame was MSU's second toughest game, while NotreDame was Stanford's 7th toughest game.

Sagarin ranks MSU's strength of schedule #56, while Stanford's strength of schedule is ranked #4.

The Sagarin ratings for MSU's opponents:

11    Ohio State
25    NotreDame
28    Iowa
37    Michigan
50    Nebraska
51    Minnesota
55    Indiana
66    Northwestern
73    Illinois
111  Youngstown State
144  South Florida
155  Purdue
187  Western Michigan

By comparison, the Sagarin ratings for Stanford's opponents:

4    Oregon
8    Arizona State
8    Arizona State
12    Washington
13    UCLA
20    U,S,C
25    NotreDame
30    Washington State
32    Utah
36    Oregon State
87    San Jose State
121  Ca'l
156  Army


I'm surprised how incorrect the Sagarin rankings are.  Almost to the point of being offensive.  ???   

Re: Michigan State schedule - Gauss - 12-16-2013

(12-15-2013, 11:02 PM)Spartandawg link Wrote:I'm surprised how incorrect the Sagarin rankings are.  Almost to the point of being offensive.  ??? 

It depends on what you are trying to measure.
Sagarin does a decent job (not the best out of all computer rankings, but good enough) at ranking the merit of each team's record. The teams Ohio State beat and lost to constitute about the 10th best record of this year.

You, like most humans, probably see the rankings a bit like "if this team played this other, who would win in a neutral field?".
My main problem with this (apart from being even more difficult to measure than merit of a record) is that is not what most people end up using.

If people are trying to answer that question, then they are assigning too much value to fluke events. For instance, if two teams are evenly matched (as seen by the flow of game) but one ball bounce or ref call determines that team A wins (see ASU-Wisconsin), that should still count as a tie for the "who's the best team" question.

In reality, I think humans want a hybrid system that kind of answers the "who's the best team" question, but also assigns much more value to a win by a single point than a loss by a single point.

TLDR: people will always complain about rankings because they don't define them precisely.

Re: Michigan State schedule - DC - 12-16-2013

And yet, we were using next year's system one year early (this year), I bet we wouldn't be selected in the top 4 for the playoffs.

If true, that won't bode well for future years, and David Shaw will get very frustrated.

Re: Michigan State schedule - washingtonismoney - 12-16-2013

(12-15-2013, 11:02 PM)Spartandawg link Wrote:I'm surprised how incorrect the Sagarin rankings are.  Almost to the point of being offensive.  ??? 

If you have a problem with Sagarin's rankings, it doesn't explain why the other major computer ranking systems agree.

Re: Michigan State schedule - FarmBoy - 12-16-2013

Quote:I'm surprised how incorrect the Sagarin rankings are.  Almost to the point of being offensive.

Please explain how they are "incorrect"? Which of those B1G teams should be ranked higher than they are? And to WIM's point, those rankings are not far from other computer rankings. Is it a collusion of 1's and 0's against the B1G?

Re: Michigan State schedule - stupac2 - 12-16-2013

(12-16-2013, 06:37 AM)DC link Wrote:And yet, we were using next year's system one year early (this year), I bet we wouldn't be selected in the top 4 for the playoffs.

If true, that won't bode well for future years, and David Shaw will get very frustrated.

I understand why people think this, given how dumb the current system is, but I think we'd be in. I think that the committee is really going to value SOS and winning your conference.

Re: Michigan State schedule - FarmBoy - 12-16-2013

Quote:I think that the committee is really going to value SOS and winning your conference.

While I hope our team is a shoe-in, let's face it, I'll be glad if we're in a position to b***h and moan over being screwed over. It means we had a great season and are still relevant. Being one of the 4 best teams in the nation is an incredibly tough bar, when you consider the programs with vast resources and minimal non-football requirements for their players.

I'm also hopeful that a "committee" approach will create a more rigorous process than just "well, team A has 2 losses, so we obviously can't consider them over team's B, C and D who only have 1 loss." But in the end, there will be a lot of pressure on the committee members to avoid being too controversial and giving an appearance of favortism. If they chose Stanford over Michigan St, for example, you can imagine the outcry of people claiming O. Luck, C Rice, T Will.ing.ham and any other person with Stanford connections had used undue pressure.

Re: Michigan State schedule - yvonne - 12-16-2013

Committee consideration:

1. Does the team have a loss? Y (go to 4) N (go to 2)
2. Is the team in the SEC? Y (go to 4) N (go to 3)
3. Is the team a conference champion? Y (go to 4) N (go to 5)
4. Play in playoff
5. Don't play in playoff

Re: Michigan State schedule - 2 for 2028 - 12-16-2013

(12-16-2013, 10:59 AM)FarmBoy link Wrote:
Quote:I think that the committee is really going to value SOS and winning your conference.

While I hope our team is a shoe-in, let's face it, I'll be glad if we're in a position to b***h and moan over being screwed over. It means we had a great season and are still relevant. Being one of the 4 best teams in the nation is an incredibly tough bar, when you consider the programs with vast resources and minimal non-football requirements for their players.

I'm also hopeful that a "committee" approach will create a more rigorous process than just "well, team A has 2 losses, so we obviously can't consider them over team's B, C and D who only have 1 loss." But in the end, there will be a lot of pressure on the committee members to avoid being too controversial and giving an appearance of favortism. If they chose Stanford over Michigan St, for example, you can imagine the outcry of people claiming O. Luck, C Rice, T Will.ing.ham and any other person with Stanford connections had used undue pressure.

Rice and Willingham will have to recuse themselves if (when) Stanford is discussed.

Re: Michigan State schedule - FarmBoy - 12-16-2013

Quote:Rice and His Royal Ungratefulness will have to recuse themselves if (when) Stanford is discussed.

That's nice, and I'm sure it works well in NCAA BB where there are 64/68 teams. But when there are only 4, teams 5-8 (and beyond) will cry bloody murder no matter how fair the process appears.

Re: Michigan State schedule - stupac2 - 12-16-2013

(12-16-2013, 11:45 AM)FarmBoy link Wrote:That's nice, and I'm sure it works well in NCAA BB where there are 64/68 teams. But when there are only 4, teams 5-8 (and beyond) will cry bloody murder no matter how fair the process appears.

So? The fact that it's inevitable also means you can just ignore it.

Re: Michigan State schedule - FarmBoy - 12-16-2013

Quote:So? The fact that it's inevitable also means you can just ignore it.

We shall see. I suspect peer pressure and the desire to be viewed favorably in the media will be power forces with the committee, especially in the early years. I remember in the early 2000's the NCAA committee picked a Georgia team with a barely above 0.500 record based on their SOS and they were raked over the coals for it. But I think that Georgia team won a game or two in the tourney and somewhat vindicated it. It will take a track record of picking good teams to gain credibiltiy to make the unpopular choices.

Re: Michigan State schedule - stupac2 - 12-16-2013

(12-16-2013, 11:52 AM)FarmBoy link Wrote:We shall see. I suspect peer pressure and the desire to be viewed favorably in the media will be power forces with the committee, especially in the early years. I remember in the early 2000's the NCAA committee picked a Georgia team with a barely above 0.500 record based on their SOS and they were raked over the coals for it. But I think that Georgia team won a game or two in the tourney and somewhat vindicated it. It will take a track record of picking good teams to gain credibiltiy to make the unpopular choices.

What you're missing is that there is no such thing as a popular choice. Take this year, who do you put in? No matter what you do it'll cause controversy. The only way to eliminate controversy is to have a mechanistic system (like the NFL) where there's no human decision-making whatsoever. But no one wants that in CFB! They want the dog and pony show. They want the controversy. It makes good TV.

I think that the committee knows all this (these people aren't naifs) and won't care. They'll pick the teams they think are the best and the echo chamber will do its thing and it won't matter.

Then again, I'm clearly an optimist in a sea of pessimists on this topic. We'll almost certainly know more once they meet in the offseason.