TdK71

December 2nd, 2015 at 9:59 AM ^

And one of the regular caller's "Cowboy" from west Texas asked him how all this Fire the Coach stuff starts. Hoke said a couple of things like social media, big name boosters, and finally "Walmart" fans. the last one left me scratching my head...

I've lost a modicum of respect for the man based on the whole "Walmart" fans comment, I even would go as far as to say he almost said "Walverines".

Sour Grapes much Brady?

youn2948

December 1st, 2015 at 11:36 PM ^

I'm all for playing the best competition.  I'm also fine with playing in a lower bowl and cremating someone, like we did to Northwestern.  I hope that happens either way though.  Something along the lines of <50 rushing against us.

Ghost of Fritz…

December 1st, 2015 at 7:55 PM ^

Whether or not Michigan should be ahead of Utah is a rational debate. Aand it has nothing to do with the Michigan/NW issue.

Whether or not Michigan should be ahead of NW is beyond any rational debate.  To put NW ahead of M is wrong. 

M crushed NW on the field.  Shutout. 

Moreover, NW did not play MSU or OSU and thereby racked up wins against a weak schedule.

titanfan11

December 1st, 2015 at 8:13 PM ^

the eye test says Michigan is better than Northwestern, but...

Norhwestern is 10-2, beat Stanford, combined opponents' record of 81-63, 7-2 against bowl teams.

Michigan is 9-3, yes blew out Northwestern 38-0, combined opponents' record of 80-64, 5-3 against bowl teams.

 

Again, I think Michigan is the better team.  Maybe not 38 points better, but they would win a large percentage of games played between the two, regardless of the location.  But maybe the committee is looking at the numbers a lot more as they get further down the rankings?

Ghost of Fritz…

December 2nd, 2015 at 12:10 AM ^

supports the concept that the committee got it wrong by ranking NW over M because the committee was mislead by irrelevant numbers.

First, you say that M is better than NW.  I agree.

Then you cite some numbers that might suggest it is a debatable point.  But the numbers you mention are really weak evidence. If the committee relied on those numers, then the committee allowed itself to be fooled by barely irrelevant information.

Record against bowl teams:  It turns out that 5-7 teams are bowl teams.  Beating a 6-6 bowl team says little about whether you should be ranked 15th or 14th, or whatever.

Combined records of opponents:  Also of little relevance.  Good teams lose when they play top teams.  The relevant questions is:  How did NW and Michigan do against top teams?  

NW did beat Stanford.  But Stanford played terribly in week 1 on the road.  NW was blown out by M and Iowa.  And they did not play MSU or OSU. 

 

SharkyRVA

December 2nd, 2015 at 10:55 AM ^

Iowa has not played OSU, MSU, or Michigan.....  Maybe they should be ranked lower.  Bottom line is that rankings don't matter unless you are challenging for the top 4.  We will go to the same bowl game regardless of whether or not we are ranked ahead of NW and/or Utah. 

We didn't win the big ten and we lost to both our rivals.  I couldn't care less about our ranking.

M-Dog

December 2nd, 2015 at 1:01 PM ^

It's a sign of our progress . . . and a sign of the work we still need to do.

We stopped losing to teams we should beat, and we started crushing teams we should crush.

We still have not beaten teams we were supposed to lose to, nor been competitive with truly elite teams like OSU.

We're moving in the right direction, but there's still work to do. 

Leaders And Best

December 1st, 2015 at 7:22 PM ^

If Alabama beats Florida, Ole Miss will go to the Sugar Bowl. That would leave either Florida or LSU to fill the Citrus Bowl where Michigan is most likely headed.

OSU at #6. Could be a huge drop for the loser of the B1G Championship Game as the next highest ranked team will go to the Rose Bowl. I wonder if the committee would still leave the loser ahead of OSU.