09-11-2016, 07:29 PM
We drop behind Michigan in the coaches' poll; we don't change in the AP (#7).
BC
BC
Coaches Poll #6; AP poll #7
We drop behind Michigan in the coaches' poll; we don't change in the AP (#7).
BC
BC
09-12-2016, 10:33 AM
Because beating a dreadful UCF team by 37 at home shows... what, exactly? I wonder if the coaches moving Michigan past us even realized Stanford was idle this past weekend.Â
Because beating a dreadful UCF team by 37 at home shows... what, exactly? I wonder if the coaches moving Michigan past us even realized Stanford was idle this past weekend.Â
09-12-2016, 11:34 AM
(09-12-2016, 10:33 AM)ColoradoTree link Wrote:Because beating a dreadful UCF team by 37 at home shows... what, exactly? I wonder if the coaches moving Michigan past us even realized Stanford was idle this past weekend.
Well, while it doesn't show us much, but it does eliminate a smidgen of uncertainty. Before the game was played, we might reasonably expect Michigan to beat UCF by a healthy margin. But there is a smaller but non-zero chance that they win a very tight game, and an even smaller but non-zero chance that they get upset. These things sometimes happen. Once the game is played, those small uncertainties are eliminated, so playing the game does show us a little bit, by eliminating the possibility that we would be asking questions about Michigan on the basis of a close win or *gasp* a loss.
But I agree, it doesn't tell us very much.
BC
(09-12-2016, 10:33 AM)ColoradoTree link Wrote:Because beating a dreadful UCF team by 37 at home shows... what, exactly? I wonder if the coaches moving Michigan past us even realized Stanford was idle this past weekend.
Well, while it doesn't show us much, but it does eliminate a smidgen of uncertainty. Before the game was played, we might reasonably expect Michigan to beat UCF by a healthy margin. But there is a smaller but non-zero chance that they win a very tight game, and an even smaller but non-zero chance that they get upset. These things sometimes happen. Once the game is played, those small uncertainties are eliminated, so playing the game does show us a little bit, by eliminating the possibility that we would be asking questions about Michigan on the basis of a close win or *gasp* a loss.
But I agree, it doesn't tell us very much.
BC
09-12-2016, 11:43 AM
in the UM-UCF game, two surprises. UCF was able to run the ball effectively against UM without any type of threat to pass. then, UM was not about to run the ball very effectively against UCF (but threw at will). not sure how this plays out long-term for UM. also, hopefully someone will buy Harbs a handkerchief
in the UM-UCF game, two surprises. UCF was able to run the ball effectively against UM without any type of threat to pass. then, UM was not about to run the ball very effectively against UCF (but threw at will). not sure how this plays out long-term for UM. also, hopefully someone will buy Harbs a handkerchief
09-12-2016, 11:52 AM
(09-12-2016, 11:43 AM)slide link Wrote:in the UM-UCF game, two surprises. UCF was able to run the ball effectively against UM without any type of threat to pass. then, UM was not about to run the ball very effectively against UCF (but threw at will). not sure how this plays out long-term for UM. also, hopefully someone will buy Harbaugh a handkerchief
Interesting.
I didn't see the game so you got me to look up the recaps/stats.
UCF ran the ball well enough on Michigan, and stopped the run well enough, that I am surprised the score was such a blow out. I guess losing two fumbles, missing two field goals, and turning over the ball on downs three times in Michigan territory will do that to you.
(09-12-2016, 11:43 AM)slide link Wrote:in the UM-UCF game, two surprises. UCF was able to run the ball effectively against UM without any type of threat to pass. then, UM was not about to run the ball very effectively against UCF (but threw at will). not sure how this plays out long-term for UM. also, hopefully someone will buy Harbaugh a handkerchief
Interesting.
I didn't see the game so you got me to look up the recaps/stats.
UCF ran the ball well enough on Michigan, and stopped the run well enough, that I am surprised the score was such a blow out. I guess losing two fumbles, missing two field goals, and turning over the ball on downs three times in Michigan territory will do that to you.
09-12-2016, 11:56 AM
(09-12-2016, 11:43 AM)slide link Wrote:in the UM-UCF game, two surprises. UCF was able to run the ball effectively against UM without any type of threat to pass. then, UM was not about to run the ball very effectively against UCF (but threw at will). not sure how this plays out long-term for UM. also, hopefully someone will buy Harbaugh a handkerchief
Didn't UCF mostly shut us down as well? IIRC McCaffrey was <2 ypc in that game.
(09-12-2016, 11:43 AM)slide link Wrote:in the UM-UCF game, two surprises. UCF was able to run the ball effectively against UM without any type of threat to pass. then, UM was not about to run the ball very effectively against UCF (but threw at will). not sure how this plays out long-term for UM. also, hopefully someone will buy Harbaugh a handkerchief
Didn't UCF mostly shut us down as well? IIRC McCaffrey was <2 ypc in that game.
(09-12-2016, 11:56 AM)stupac2 link Wrote:Didn't UCF mostly shut us down as well? IIRC McCaffrey was <2 ypc in that game.
Yes, UCF mostly shut down our running game.
McCaffrey had 20 carries for 58 yards, 2.9 yds/carry.
The team had 41 carries for 1130 yards, 3.1 yds/carry.
In fact, our per carry numbers weren't very good until game #4 vs OSU.
UCF did have a stout front, until they got injured and that collapsed like everything else on their team last year. I don't quite know what UCF returned. In the sbnation team preview for UCF, section 7 was titled, "A Total Rebuild Up Front" (defense).
http://www.sbnation.com/college-football...ule-roster
(09-12-2016, 11:56 AM)stupac2 link Wrote:Didn't UCF mostly shut us down as well? IIRC McCaffrey was <2 ypc in that game.
Yes, UCF mostly shut down our running game.
McCaffrey had 20 carries for 58 yards, 2.9 yds/carry.
The team had 41 carries for 1130 yards, 3.1 yds/carry.
In fact, our per carry numbers weren't very good until game #4 vs OSU.
UCF did have a stout front, until they got injured and that collapsed like everything else on their team last year. I don't quite know what UCF returned. In the sbnation team preview for UCF, section 7 was titled, "A Total Rebuild Up Front" (defense).
http://www.sbnation.com/college-football...ule-roster
09-12-2016, 12:16 PM
Note, the screen to Love for a TD goes down as a pass, though it was barely a forward pass.
BC
BC
Note, the screen to Love for a TD goes down as a pass, though it was barely a forward pass.
BC
BC
09-12-2016, 12:19 PM
We'll have a much better idea Saturday whether those rarefied rankings are warranted.
09-12-2016, 12:31 PM
At the risk of irritating those CardBoard denizens who don't like looking at individual pollsters' rankings, I'm going to do just that for the AP poll (though only for movement of multiple spots, since there were several who bumped us down one spot, and more than a few who bumped us up a spot). (FYI, Wilner kept us at 13, which seems fine in a bye week.)
At the low end, we moved up from #24 to #22 on Sam McKewon's ballot, which is nice progress, and Wilner kept us at 13, which is fine.Â
We moved up on the following ballots:Â
* Sam McKewon (Omaha World-Herald) (#24 to #22, with LSU and Oklahoma State dropping)
* Scott Wolf (LA Daily News) (#11 to #7, above TCU, Georgia, Wisconsin, and Michigan State)
We moved down on several pollsters' ballots, however:
* Matt Galloway (Topeka Capital-Journal) (#5 to #7, falling behind Houston and Ohio State)
* Matt McCoy (radio guy in Columbus, OH) (#5 to #7, falling behind Michigan and Ohio State)
* Bill Landis (Cleveland Plain-Dealer) (#9 to #13, falling behind Arkansas, Texas A&M, Louisville, and Washington)
* Michael Lev (Orange County Register) (#7 to #9, falling behind Louisville and Washington)
All in all, we stayed at #7, though we went from 1140 ranking points to 1137. Some action ahead of us, though:
1. Alabama (even; 1518 points to 1520 points; from 54 to 56 1st-place votes)
2. Florida State (up one spot; 1413 points to 1437 points; even at 4 1st-place votes)
3. Ohio State (up one spot; 1324 points to 1359 points)
4. Michigan (up one spot; 1261 points to 1298 points; even at 1 1st-place vote)
5. Clemson (down three spots; 1416 points to 1284 points; from 2 to 0 1st-place votes)
6. Houston (even; 1243 points to 1264 points)
7. Stanford (even; 1140 points to 1137 points)
8. Washington (even; 884 points to 983 points).Â
So, the gap widened a bit between Houston and Stanford, and the gap closed between Stanford and Washington, but we'll be just fine with a win.Â
They have to play real teams this weekend, though (for the most part). Houston plays at fellow Big 12 hopeful Cincinnati (which just beat Purdue). Florida State plays at #10 Louisville, so the winner of that game will likely be ahead of Stanford anyway. Alabama plays at #19 Ole Miss. Michigan hosts Colorado, so maybe? Ohio State travels to #14 Oklahoma. Clemson and Washington are the lone total cupcake games, hosting South Carolina State and Portland State, respectively.Â
At the low end, we moved up from #24 to #22 on Sam McKewon's ballot, which is nice progress, and Wilner kept us at 13, which is fine.Â
We moved up on the following ballots:Â
* Sam McKewon (Omaha World-Herald) (#24 to #22, with LSU and Oklahoma State dropping)
* Scott Wolf (LA Daily News) (#11 to #7, above TCU, Georgia, Wisconsin, and Michigan State)
We moved down on several pollsters' ballots, however:
* Matt Galloway (Topeka Capital-Journal) (#5 to #7, falling behind Houston and Ohio State)
* Matt McCoy (radio guy in Columbus, OH) (#5 to #7, falling behind Michigan and Ohio State)
* Bill Landis (Cleveland Plain-Dealer) (#9 to #13, falling behind Arkansas, Texas A&M, Louisville, and Washington)
* Michael Lev (Orange County Register) (#7 to #9, falling behind Louisville and Washington)
All in all, we stayed at #7, though we went from 1140 ranking points to 1137. Some action ahead of us, though:
1. Alabama (even; 1518 points to 1520 points; from 54 to 56 1st-place votes)
2. Florida State (up one spot; 1413 points to 1437 points; even at 4 1st-place votes)
3. Ohio State (up one spot; 1324 points to 1359 points)
4. Michigan (up one spot; 1261 points to 1298 points; even at 1 1st-place vote)
5. Clemson (down three spots; 1416 points to 1284 points; from 2 to 0 1st-place votes)
6. Houston (even; 1243 points to 1264 points)
7. Stanford (even; 1140 points to 1137 points)
8. Washington (even; 884 points to 983 points).Â
So, the gap widened a bit between Houston and Stanford, and the gap closed between Stanford and Washington, but we'll be just fine with a win.Â
They have to play real teams this weekend, though (for the most part). Houston plays at fellow Big 12 hopeful Cincinnati (which just beat Purdue). Florida State plays at #10 Louisville, so the winner of that game will likely be ahead of Stanford anyway. Alabama plays at #19 Ole Miss. Michigan hosts Colorado, so maybe? Ohio State travels to #14 Oklahoma. Clemson and Washington are the lone total cupcake games, hosting South Carolina State and Portland State, respectively.Â
At the risk of irritating those CardBoard denizens who don't like looking at individual pollsters' rankings, I'm going to do just that for the AP poll (though only for movement of multiple spots, since there were several who bumped us down one spot, and more than a few who bumped us up a spot). (FYI, Wilner kept us at 13, which seems fine in a bye week.)
At the low end, we moved up from #24 to #22 on Sam McKewon's ballot, which is nice progress, and Wilner kept us at 13, which is fine.Â
We moved up on the following ballots:Â
* Sam McKewon (Omaha World-Herald) (#24 to #22, with LSU and Oklahoma State dropping)
* Scott Wolf (LA Daily News) (#11 to #7, above TCU, Georgia, Wisconsin, and Michigan State)
We moved down on several pollsters' ballots, however:
* Matt Galloway (Topeka Capital-Journal) (#5 to #7, falling behind Houston and Ohio State)
* Matt McCoy (radio guy in Columbus, OH) (#5 to #7, falling behind Michigan and Ohio State)
* Bill Landis (Cleveland Plain-Dealer) (#9 to #13, falling behind Arkansas, Texas A&M, Louisville, and Washington)
* Michael Lev (Orange County Register) (#7 to #9, falling behind Louisville and Washington)
All in all, we stayed at #7, though we went from 1140 ranking points to 1137. Some action ahead of us, though:
1. Alabama (even; 1518 points to 1520 points; from 54 to 56 1st-place votes)
2. Florida State (up one spot; 1413 points to 1437 points; even at 4 1st-place votes)
3. Ohio State (up one spot; 1324 points to 1359 points)
4. Michigan (up one spot; 1261 points to 1298 points; even at 1 1st-place vote)
5. Clemson (down three spots; 1416 points to 1284 points; from 2 to 0 1st-place votes)
6. Houston (even; 1243 points to 1264 points)
7. Stanford (even; 1140 points to 1137 points)
8. Washington (even; 884 points to 983 points).Â
So, the gap widened a bit between Houston and Stanford, and the gap closed between Stanford and Washington, but we'll be just fine with a win.Â
They have to play real teams this weekend, though (for the most part). Houston plays at fellow Big 12 hopeful Cincinnati (which just beat Purdue). Florida State plays at #10 Louisville, so the winner of that game will likely be ahead of Stanford anyway. Alabama plays at #19 Ole Miss. Michigan hosts Colorado, so maybe? Ohio State travels to #14 Oklahoma. Clemson and Washington are the lone total cupcake games, hosting South Carolina State and Portland State, respectively.Â
At the low end, we moved up from #24 to #22 on Sam McKewon's ballot, which is nice progress, and Wilner kept us at 13, which is fine.Â
We moved up on the following ballots:Â
* Sam McKewon (Omaha World-Herald) (#24 to #22, with LSU and Oklahoma State dropping)
* Scott Wolf (LA Daily News) (#11 to #7, above TCU, Georgia, Wisconsin, and Michigan State)
We moved down on several pollsters' ballots, however:
* Matt Galloway (Topeka Capital-Journal) (#5 to #7, falling behind Houston and Ohio State)
* Matt McCoy (radio guy in Columbus, OH) (#5 to #7, falling behind Michigan and Ohio State)
* Bill Landis (Cleveland Plain-Dealer) (#9 to #13, falling behind Arkansas, Texas A&M, Louisville, and Washington)
* Michael Lev (Orange County Register) (#7 to #9, falling behind Louisville and Washington)
All in all, we stayed at #7, though we went from 1140 ranking points to 1137. Some action ahead of us, though:
1. Alabama (even; 1518 points to 1520 points; from 54 to 56 1st-place votes)
2. Florida State (up one spot; 1413 points to 1437 points; even at 4 1st-place votes)
3. Ohio State (up one spot; 1324 points to 1359 points)
4. Michigan (up one spot; 1261 points to 1298 points; even at 1 1st-place vote)
5. Clemson (down three spots; 1416 points to 1284 points; from 2 to 0 1st-place votes)
6. Houston (even; 1243 points to 1264 points)
7. Stanford (even; 1140 points to 1137 points)
8. Washington (even; 884 points to 983 points).Â
So, the gap widened a bit between Houston and Stanford, and the gap closed between Stanford and Washington, but we'll be just fine with a win.Â
They have to play real teams this weekend, though (for the most part). Houston plays at fellow Big 12 hopeful Cincinnati (which just beat Purdue). Florida State plays at #10 Louisville, so the winner of that game will likely be ahead of Stanford anyway. Alabama plays at #19 Ole Miss. Michigan hosts Colorado, so maybe? Ohio State travels to #14 Oklahoma. Clemson and Washington are the lone total cupcake games, hosting South Carolina State and Portland State, respectively.Â
09-12-2016, 12:45 PM
(09-12-2016, 12:09 PM)CTcard link Wrote:The team had 41 carries for 1130 yards
How did we NOT win a NC! :)
(09-12-2016, 12:09 PM)CTcard link Wrote:The team had 41 carries for 1130 yards
How did we NOT win a NC! :)
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »