Comments on: The Great Rankings Debate

By: JBlair52

JBlair52 — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 13:33:22 +0000

any word on the in-home w/ Zeigler?

did it go well? did he commit? is he coming to michigan?

By: JBlair52

JBlair52 — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 13:35:37 +0000

ooo an in-home w/ Zeigler. should be good!

By: James

James — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 13:34:14 +0000

I think people would whine less about Sagarin’s rankings if he threw out the 40s and 50s (or weighted them much less). Then you’d have Duke in the top 5, and UCLA probably #1. I don’t know how people suggest rating the major conferences bottom feeders vs mid majors in a list like this. Sure, Northwestern is conspicuous at #77, but has a team like George Washington (#97) really been consistently better than them over the years? A lot of the mid majors that have had decent decades probably were in the 200s in other decades.

Anyway, I think Sagarin’s list pretty interesting. He was probably presenting it as an unbiased reference, rather than gospel.

By: Mith

Mith — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 10:29:05 +0000

I agree and I’m good with that. #20ish translates to a 5-6 seed which sounds about right. And I would be thrilled with that kind of season.

By: Tom, Too.

Tom, Too. — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 01:45:30 +0000

I agree with JayRich….absolutely.

By: JayRich

JayRich — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 01:15:56 +0000

Parrish is one of my favorite writers because he “gets it”. He doesn’t buy into hype and he is realistic about where teams fall. This is where I see UM, somewhere close to #20, at the end of the year. I think they may rise in the standings before their big games but then they will fall during the Big Ten season anyways and end just inside the top 25.