#19 in AP poll

[QMany]

Most agree with SEC bias, but very few if any are pointing their finger at just how lousy the B1G is. Ohio State was supposed to be the darling this year getting into the playoff. They lay an egg against a very suspect Va Tech team. Michigan State played well through a lot of their game against Oregon, but they still ended up getting whooped. Our ranking is more indicative of the conference we're in than anything else.

The reigning SEC Division Champions also laid eggs against KSU and Indiana(!). Luckily for the SEC, only one of those teams had a kicker.

[cg_8]

Polls mean nothing now.

 

The only way any team from any conference can get respect in the polls is by winning.

 

Right now, teams drop like flies. All the SEC teams will start losing games, then some will lose 2. Just like every season. Baylor has to actually play someone better than SMU, ISU and other schools I can't even remember the names of. Oregon seems to always find a way to lose. They always look like the best team in the nation, but seem to find a way to lose. Maybe this is the year, but most likely not. FSU is certainly beatable.

 

The important thing is for us and all other teams to win and finish strong. Remember, Auburn came into last season completely unranked. They didn't even get into the AP poll until week 9 last year.

[junior4949]

 

Most agree with SEC bias, but very few if any are pointing their finger at just how lousy the B1G is. Ohio State was supposed to be the darling this year getting into the playoff. They lay an egg against a very suspect Va Tech team. Michigan State played well through a lot of their game against Oregon, but they still ended up getting whooped. Our ranking is more indicative of the conference we're in than anything else. At this juncture, I really care very little where we are ranked. We're playing as good of ball as we've probably played in over a decade. This is good enough for me. Winning will take care of everything else.

I can't argue that this isn't a factor. But, it makes no logical sense to rank a team based on how good the rest of the conference is.

 

At this juncture in the season, I believe it does. At the beginning of the season, most had us ranked #3 to #4 in the B1G. All those ahead of us have lost. This early in the season, we've played almost no one. Our ranking is more or less indicative of the perception of just how bad the B1G really is. Even a win against Michigan State will be scrutinized considering they'll be what 3-2 at that point? People may be more inclined to think Michigan State was just horribly overrated. The B1G really needed to do much better in the nonconference than they did to get much hype.

 

If we go through the season undefeated, this means Michigan State and Wisconsin have at least two and three losses. It's quite possible that the B1G has very few teams even ranked very high. Even by going undefeated and winning the B1G, we might be on the outside looking in considering the playoff primarily because of just how weak the B1G is. We're not only going to have to go undefeated to get into the playoff, but we're also going to have to do it in convincing style to get in.

[junior4949]

 

Most agree with SEC bias, but very few if any are pointing their finger at just how lousy the B1G is. Ohio State was supposed to be the darling this year getting into the playoff. They lay an egg against a very suspect Va Tech team. Michigan State played well through a lot of their game against Oregon, but they still ended up getting whooped. Our ranking is more indicative of the conference we're in than anything else.

The reigning SEC Division Champions also laid eggs against KSU and Indiana(!). Luckily for the SEC, only one of those teams had a kicker.

 

Auburn didn't lose. Snyder is an outstanding coach. Why anyone would ever play KSU and not expect a tough game is mind boggling. Look at how many years we had the benefit of the doubt considering the polls. We would have played for a NC in 96' had Texas derailed us in the Big 12 Championship game even though we got completely kicked to the curb earlier in the season by Arizona State. Up until last year, the SEC had won several NC's in a row. Of course they are going to get the benefit of the doubt.

[kchusker_chris]

 

I think everyone is sitting back waiting for a confirmation that this isn't another 4 loss team. Many of us are still in that same boat. A win over MSU and we'll jump significantly IMO. That should calm most of the doubters (myself included) and push us ahead of most of the 1 loss teams. Add to it a few top 15 losses this week and we should find ourselves somewhere in the range of 9-11. From 11, we shouldn't have any problem rising top top 4.

and this is why i am really trying to manage my expectations. we were set up so nicely to be perceived as a power when we lost to texas, right before the bcs poll came out.

 

it just seems like when everything would work out perfectly with that one big win, we kind of flop. so although i think we are talented enough to win, i have serious concerns about our ability to avoid a letdown when the stakes are so high. we just have not shown up in those program changing games.

 

if we do, i will believe this team is different and have turned a corner. heck, i will have diabetes from all the kool-aid i'll be downing.

 

The Texas game (2010) really was a prognostication to the the next 3 years of Pelini's tenure. It was a brief glimpse into the future for Husker fans. At the time it wasn't seen for what it really was. The first crack in the foundation. A failure to execute that would carry on, from season to season with those r-freshman and sophomores, until they all graduated, transferred, quit or just disappeared on the depth chart.

 

I don't see that crack in this team - at least not yet (see, I'm still a skeptic right now no matter how hard I try). Definitely not in a defense that locks down after spotting 7 every game (which rightfully deserves it's own thread). The mistakes are there on offense, but I don't feel like they are catastrophic as I have in the past. An interception, a fumble - the team doesn't melt...doesn't check out for 5 minutes, doesn't let the momentum shift. Past years this team has road the wave of momentum - whether that was to comeback wins or epic collapses - whenever that wave started to build, they'd surf it in to the 4th quarter - win or lose. I can't imagine that tendency is entirely gone, but it hasn't really shown itself yet.

[StPaulHusker]

It only matters who is #1-#4 from the end of October to Dec 1

[irafreak]

 

 

 

 

Human polls are fraught with bias and fuzzy logic-- no denying that. Bias is what human beings do best. But I don't see any particular SEC bias being manifested in the current AP poll to any large degree. If you look at the unbiased systems (systems that do not give any input/weight to conference, "prestige", tradition, etc., only results: http://www.masseyratings.com/cf/compare.htm), there are five SEC teams in the top 10. Georgia is the only SEC team that is, in comparison, notably overrated in the AP (13th vs. 18th). Most of the top 25 SEC teams are actually lower in the AP than in the computers.

 

The most overrated teams in the AP (vs. unbiased) are Wisconsin (Big 10, 17th vs. 24th), Ohio St. (Big 10, 20th vs. 27th) and East Carolina (American, 22nd vs. 29th), all seven spots higher in the AP poll.

 

FWIW - TCU and Nebraska are currently the most underrated. Nebraska is 12th in the computers.

Where do the computer rankings come from? How do they figure so many SEC teams are top 10 when nobody's really played much of anybody yet?

 

 

I'm not sure specifically what you're asking. They use the scores of the 300 or so FBS games played so far. Some computer rankings don't publish until October when they have a more sufficient set of data to connect all teams. There are a solid 50 or so publishing now. Obviously the more games we get, the better connected teams become and the better these systems can assess where they stand in relation.

 

I'm asking where they come up with the numbers on why a win over one team is better than a win over another? If it's strength of schedule (Team A is 4-1 and has played 5 teams with a combined record of 15-10 and Team B is 4-1 and has played 5 teams with a combined record of 14-11) It's still just based on outcomes that are going to change.

 

That said the computer/coaches system still has a week 1 poll. FSU had over 1500 1st place votes in the coaches poll in week one. How did a computer determine that? Florida state's combined opponent record was 0-1 same as every other team that won their opening game...

 

 

I'm assuming they use things like... what was the team's record the previous year? How do teams with that record usually perform the following year? Did any of their coaches leave? What percentage of their players are returning? What percentage of their point-scorers are returning?

 

So how could this NOT be affected by bias? I'm kinda having this discussion in two threads right now but computer ranking systems are programmed by people based on what THEY think is relevant. Not trying to be argumentative here I just disagree that computer rankings are unbiased when they are made by biased individuals....

[irafreak]

Most agree with SEC bias, but very few if any are pointing their finger at just how lousy the B1G is. Ohio State was supposed to be the darling this year getting into the playoff. They lay an egg against a very suspect Va Tech team. Michigan State played well through a lot of their game against Oregon, but they still ended up getting whooped. Our ranking is more indicative of the conference we're in than anything else. At this juncture, I really care very little where we are ranked. We're playing as good of ball as we've probably played in over a decade. This is good enough for me. Winning will take care of everything else.

If oregon whooped msu then msu whooped us last year. I watched the majority of oregon msu (work grrrr) but there was a point in that game where it looked like msu was going to open the flood gates...had msu found their rhythm in the 3rd quarter instead of second, oregon doesn't have the same opportunity to make the great adjustments they did (coulda woulda shoulda I know) just saying the "whooping" of msu is exaggerated just like msu beating us soundly last year was exaggerated since we saw how many of those turnovers were unforced errors at absolutely horrible times and places...

[VA Husker Fan]

 

So how could this NOT be affected by bias? I'm kinda having this discussion in two threads right now but computer ranking systems are programmed by people based on what THEY think is relevant. Not trying to be argumentative here I just disagree that computer rankings are unbiased when they are made by biased individuals....

 

 

I'm asking where they come up with the numbers on why a win over one team is better than a win over another? If it's strength of schedule (Team A is 4-1 and has played 5 teams with a combined record of 15-10 and Team B is 4-1 and has played 5 teams with a combined record of 14-11) It's still just based on outcomes that are going to change.

 

That said the computer/coaches system still has a week 1 poll. FSU had over 1500 1st place votes in the coaches poll in week one. How did a computer determine that? Florida state's combined opponent record was 0-1 same as every other team that won their opening game...

 

I'm assuming they use things like... what was the team's record the previous year? How do teams with that record usually perform the following year? Did any of their coaches leave? What percentage of their players are returning? What percentage of their point-scorers are returning?

 

 

The computer rankings aren't changed or adjusted to favor a certain team or conference. You are right that the people programming have a bias in weighting how much point difference matters, home vs away factor, late season losses vs early season losses, W-L record of your opponents and their opponents (strength of schedule), and any other factors that differentiate teams. But they don't go in mid season and say, you know what, I'm going to tweak my program so that the Missouri loss to Indiana doesn't really mean much. At least none that have any kind of respectability through the years.

 

A person could go in and write a program that puts a much higher emphasis on passing yards over rushing yards if they wanted to favor Texas Tech over Nebraska, for example, knowing that as the season plays out it should benefit Tech, but I'm doubtful any do that either.

 

I still wonder why you are even arguing about computer ratings. You never did acknowledge my comment that these have absolutely nothing to do with the coaches poll as you seemed to think they did. There is no BCS so while the computer ratings may be made available to the selection committee I doubt they'll pay much attention to anything computer related other than SOS. 12-13 games just isn't really enough data for them to be all that accurate.

[Thanks_Tom RR]

 

Okay, so we are already ranked #19 and need to beat a Top 10 team and have multiple other teams need to lose for us to sniff the Top 15.

 

No, that's not what I said. With a win we are in the top 15-- not sniffing. With a little help we are at 11. That's comparable to where MSU landed after their big win.

But we are already #19 and would more to 6-0. Miss St was unranked, beat #8 LSU, and is now #12, with no other quality wins. Also, Indiana beats a top 20 Mizzou and remained unranked (they also had one lose).

 

Just doesn't add up to me, unless you are talking about perception vs substance.

[JTrain]

 

So how could this NOT be affected by bias? I'm kinda having this discussion in two threads right now but computer ranking systems are programmed by people based on what THEY think is relevant. Not trying to be argumentative here I just disagree that computer rankings are unbiased when they are made by biased individuals....

 

 

By unbiased, they mean that the computer does not know which team is which. Nebraska might as well be "Team 74" and Indiana "Team 91". No one's opinion on any team, conference, coach, player, tradition, etc. nor any outside info such as other polls play any part. The formula is set in stone prior to the season and the results are simply input and the ratings output. Of course what each system values (margin of victory, offense, defense, strength of schedule, etc) differs from system to system.

 

Here is some good further info from one major system: http://www.masseyratings.com/faq.php

 

To answer your question about the early rankings: Many computer rankings do not publish until late September or early October when they have sufficiently connected data. For those that have earlier releases, they may use data from the previous season at first, but gradually filter it out until they are based purely on this year's results (usually by mid-October).

[Husker no ka oi]

Up to17th in the Amway rankings. Lol

[Atbone95]

Hypothetically... we beat Michigan St. I see us jumping into top 15 easy. Anyone else? Or does this go down as the, Nebraska wins but only because MSU must have had a bad night and we move up two spots...

[BIGREDIOWAN]

Hypothetically... we beat Michigan St. I see us jumping into top 15 easy. Anyone else? Or does this go down as the, Nebraska wins but only because MSU must have had a bad night and we move up two spots...

Probably that, we'll get no respect until towards the end of the season if we are undefeated, beat Wisky and then maybe we'll get into the Top 10. The pollsters don't respect us.

[Blackshirts007]

If we win I think we jump to Around 12