Preseason rankings are always a reaction . . . to what?

by Steve Hendershot on Aug 22, 2009 1:27 PM CDT in Michigan State Spartans Football Comment 7 comments

By now you've learned the unexciting news: the Spartans aren't quite ranked in the preseason Associated Press poll. Steve Grinczel is mystified, citing the common wisdom that these rankings are based largely on the teams' performance in the prior season. He points out that MSU beat several teams last year that are ranked ahead of State now—Notre Dame and Iowa among them—and wonders why.

Well, that's easy. Javon Ringer.

From a national perspective, last season the Spartans were all about Javon Ringer. When the perception of your team is closely tied to one player, and then that guy is gone . . . well, I doubt Davidson will be getting preseason Top 25 votes in basketball, either. Not that comparing Steph Curry's impact to Ringer's is fair, nor is comparing Davidson's stature as a hoops program to MSU football. But you take the Ringer hype, combine it with the loss of a senior QB, Brian Hoyer, and you see why people nationally figure State will be down a bit.

Of course, by paying closer attention we have our reasons to be wildly optimistic as well. And it's encouraging that the Big Ten media ~~coaches~~ picked us third, because I assume they're paying closer attention than the national experts who are trying to keep tabs on 120 teams. But it does get me to wondering: how important was Ringer to MSU? It's easy to remember him limping through the latter part of last season, heroic but not lightning-quick. But now that he's playing well for the Titans, I can also recall the guy who was pretty much good for at least one home-run burst per game before he got hurt.

Is there any validity to the idea that #23 was a singular force behind MSU's successful 2008, and that maybe we'll regress without him?

0 recs | Comment 7 comments |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I don't know...

…but the running back stats from camp aren’t encouraging. Seems also if any of the returning backs had ANY sort of potential they would have seen more carries last season, especially after Ringer was more obviously hurt.

by DP99 on Aug 22, 2009 1:35 PM CDT reply actions

Hmmm...

If MSU is so closely associated with Ringer, why didn’t Iowa suffer the same fate with the loss of Shonn Greene? Yet, they are ranked 22nd.

by GBBound on Aug 23, 2009 6:11 AM CDT reply actions

I don't think so...

I don’t want to minimize the importance of Ringer, but we were 9th in the Big Ten in rushing and he only averaged 4.2 YPC. I wouldn’t be shocked if our RB’s combine to have a similar average. I think the fact that we return 16 starters (plus our PK and punter), should have an upgrade at whoever ends up replacing Hoyer, as well as a top 20 recruting class gives this team the ability to potentially be better then last years squad.

by Stones1981 on Aug 23, 2009 9:09 PM CDT reply actions

I might still be hung over from last night...

I think your referencing of MSU being picked 3rd in the conference was actually from the media, not from the coaches. Not 100% sure about that, because I haven’t seen a coaches ranking list, but I remember from media days that the 3rd place ranking was from the media.

Semantics aside, your logic seems right on here. My concern is that given MSU’s rushing rankings from last year (provided by Stones1981 above), any downgrade in performance can’t bode well. At first, my thought was that MSUs offense was driven by the running game, and that maybe this year we would have a more balanced attack. But even though MSU’s offense was driven by rushing, it was still pretty balanced, so it may mean too much pressure on the passing game. Perhaps?

by Spartan-Football on Aug 23, 2009 10:17 PM CDT reply actions

you're right

Good catch — it was the media, not the coaches. Thanks.

by Steve Hendershot on Aug 24, 2009 1:51 PM CDT up reply actions

Rushing-driven offense?

I don’t think MSU was a truly rushing-driven offense in that the overall run-pass balance was only 56%-44% run-pass. In addition, the balance is skewed once you break out by game situation. I’ve been doing some analysis which I will post later.

I think the more likely reason for the lower opinion of MSU this year is the belief that MSU over-achieved last year and was not as good as their record (similarly, the 2007 team was, better than their record, so this year should regress to the mean). What these commentators are failing to account for is the ease of Michigan State’s schedule, so MSU should be a “surprise” team this year. I say: let ’em underestimate MSU.

by CPT Hoolie on Aug 24, 2009 11:56 AM CDT reply actions