TrueBlue2003

November 29th, 2016 at 11:18 PM ^

your logic has severe holes in every post.

You insist they'll take OSU, but apparently that itself doesn't indicate the conference titles don't matter? But if they take both OSU and Michigan, that proves that conference titles don't matter?  That is ridiculous. You can't have it both ways.  You can't say claim conference titles matter but not in the case of OSU but it does in the case of Michigan.

The basis to choose Michigan is very, very simple (which you somehow ignore): head-to-head.  Michigan obviously doesn't have a chance if Clemson and Washington win.  But if Colorado wins, it'd be completely reasonable to keep Michigan ahead of two teams they handled during the regular season.  There is no less ambigious, more clear indicator than who won on the field to decide which two teams with similar resumes and the same number of losses is better.

I don't know that they'd do it that way.  But they absolutely would be justified in moving us up to 4th and keeping Wisconsin/PSU and Colorado 5th-6th.

Joined: 01/05/2010

MGoPoints: 38075

HAIL-YEA

November 29th, 2016 at 11:30 PM ^

champions are determined by a set of criteria that allows teams to completely ignore non-conference losses. You think the committee gives a shit that PSU's loss to Pitt was a non conference game just because the B1G ignores it? They are smart enough to know that Wisc is in this game by virtue of geographic location that put them in an easy division and PSU is in the game because the B1G is ignoriing 1 of their losses. UM has beaten them both and has a better resume, you think theyre going to ignore all that because the B1G is telling them these are the top 2 teams? I think the committee is serious when they say the 4 best teams and if Colorado beats Washington I think UM has a real good shot to be in.
 

Joined: 07/15/2009

MGoPoints: 10810

HAIL-YEA

November 29th, 2016 at 11:30 PM ^

champions are determined by a set of criteria that allows teams to completely ignore non-conference losses. You think the committee gives a shit that PSU's loss to Pitt was a non conference game just because the B1G ignores it? They are smart enough to know that Wisc is in this game by virtue of geographic location that put them in an easy division and PSU is in the game because the B1G is ignoriing 1 of their losses. UM has beaten them both and has a better resume, you think theyre going to ignore all that because the B1G is telling them these are the top 2 teams? I think the committee is serious when they say the 4 best teams and if Colorado beats Washington I think UM has a real good shot to be in.
 

Joined: 07/15/2009

MGoPoints: 10810

Blue Durham

November 29th, 2016 at 11:40 PM ^

yes, for the very same reason they chose Florida over Michigan in 2006. Other conferences are going to be represented. The Big Ten is not going to have 75% of the teams, and the argument of the importance of conference champions is made a mockery if 2 teams from a single conference are taken, neither of which are the conference champion.

Joined: 06/30/2008

MGoPoints: 6082

stephenrjking

November 29th, 2016 at 11:48 PM ^

"They" didn't choose Florida over Michigan. The BCS did, which was based on a combination of polls and computer rankings. 

I don't disagree that Michigan has a tough road. But you're digging yourself a deep hole here in the way you are arguing your points. And I think your logic is specious. The committee may not be doing a good job in how it evaluates the quality and worthiness of the teams, but that is what it is considering, not conference politics or tv ratings.

Joined: 03/15/2012

MGoPoints: 20143728

TIMMMAAY

November 30th, 2016 at 8:39 AM ^

You are making some very, very tenuous arguments that are directly contradicted by what the committee themselves have publically said. We still have at least two paths into the CFP, but we're relying on an upset loss from either Washington, or Clemson.

Joined: 09/08/2008

MGoPoints: 56284

ESNY

November 29th, 2016 at 8:51 PM ^

Beating Colorado, even in an ugly, flukey game, will solidify their lead over us.

I think they are setting the stage that we might stay above Wisconsin and almost certainly above PSU. They have exactly one good win (albeit a very good one) and that's it. Not another win over a ranked team.

We have three in the top 10 including two blowouts. Even with a win over wisco plus whatever bonus you give for conf title, they still don't measure up. At least Wisconsin beat LSU (however overrated they are) in OOC so they have that going for them. We have two losses on the road both on the last play of the game.

It would be hard to argue PSU over us unless you say "conf title"



Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

Joined: 11/06/2008

MGoPoints: 12310

ColeIsCorky

November 29th, 2016 at 10:48 PM ^

I don't know. I'm kind of in agreement with him. The only reason I don't think it would be a logical argument to compare the margin of victories between the two teams is because Colorado's QB was hurt during the game, which ultimately led to a larger margin of victory. Otherwise I think that if Washington really struggles but pulls off a victory or even a semi-controversial victory then the committee just might move Washington down a spot. It sounds like they are really nitpicking between Washington and Michigan and will be watching the PAC12 championship with extremely close attention.

Joined: 11/15/2016

MGoPoints: 4627

TrueBlue2003

November 30th, 2016 at 1:26 AM ^

They lost their QB for less than half of the game.  We were missing our TWO best defensive players, both all-conference first teamers and likely All-Americans in Jourdan Lewis and Taco Charlton.  If they played the whole game, the margin would have been far greater.  We win the injury adjustment there.  The committee would be wise to consider that.

Joined: 01/05/2010

MGoPoints: 38075

OC Alum91

November 29th, 2016 at 8:48 PM ^

committee also considers games versus common opponents. psu beat Iowa 41-14, and also OSU, both of whom beat us. we would have head to head vs. PSU, but they would have conference champ. with Wiscy we both beat PSU (championship game), lost to OSU. they beat Iowa 17-9, whom we lost to. they beat LSU, us Colorado, hopefully Pac 12 champ. so I think our only chance,is if Wiscy wins and Colorado wins, I can't see us jumping PSU. I can't see them taking 3 big ten teams.

Joined: 02/05/2015

MGoPoints: 1528

uofmchris

November 29th, 2016 at 7:42 PM ^

If you watched the ESPN CFP Ranking show, your mindset would be different.

I was on your side of argument, until they interviewed one of the chairman of the selection committee (Kirby something..)

He mentioned that the committee is ''Looking for the four BEST teams - conference title or not" at least 5 or 6 times, and was pretty uncomfortable saying it. That leads me to believe that the committee this year isnt weighing everything on coference titles or not... 

Cherry on the top was that he admitted the gap between Washington at #4 and Michingan at #5 was VERY CLOSE. Once again, this tells me a lot of the committee probably was in defense of Michigan not dropping too much.

All in all... There is a tiny little crack of hope in which Michigan will still make the playoffs.

We will see how things play out on the field. 

 

Joined: 01/13/2013

MGoPoints: 2058

RedGreene

November 29th, 2016 at 8:46 PM ^

Knock off the bullshit and quit pretending to be a Michigan fan you ignorant piece of shit. Do you really think people on this blog are too stupid to look at your history and see that you're a fucking troll? There are rival fans who post here and are treated well for the most part. You, on the other hand, deserve to be treated like the mouth breathing troll you are if you're too much of a pussy to claim your own team.

Joined: 07/02/2009

MGoPoints: -109

SimplyComplex

November 29th, 2016 at 8:11 PM ^

The committee chairman seemed awkward and uncomfortable about the conference championship questions but was firm about the gap between Washington/Michigan. I think another key is whether we need Wisconsin or Penn State to win.

Joined: 09/28/2011

MGoPoints: 903

FLwolvfan22

November 29th, 2016 at 9:57 PM ^

The NCAA has watched the NFL ratings drop like a stone so you know they gave guidance to the committee too "make sure you tell them we're going with the four best teams"  In other words they don't want to see Washington Bama or Bama Wisconsin. They get another Bama Sparty sh*tshow and their ad revenues for next year will be in the toilet.

Joined: 03/03/2012

MGoPoints: 6707

TheCool

November 29th, 2016 at 8:33 PM ^

So many say this even though the committee has stated it's not a relevant consideration. They also repeated ad nauseum that their job is to select the 4 best teams. If 3 are from 1 conference, so be it. But, neither PSU or Wisconsin should jump Michigan. Michigan did beat both of them so why would it be so impressive when either team wins, except if it's a blow out?

Joined: 07/13/2011

MGoPoints: 7115

bamf16

November 29th, 2016 at 9:44 PM ^

It's because the NCAA has developed in invitational system and tried to call it a playoff.  It's an invitational, not a playoff.

 

And I'm wondering if the chairman was so adamant about not basing everything on conference titles for Michigan to get in, or to justify OSU at #2.

 

Personally, I know we need Washington or Clemson to lose.  I'm just not sure if we want PSU to win (weaker wins so far this year, but beat OSU) or if we want Wisconsin to win (better resume than PSU but easier to justify taking Michigan and Ohio State since both beat Wisconsin.)

 

And there is that pesky realty that Michigan's dropped 2 of 3.  Granted, they were on the raod in the last play of the game and we all know the extenuating circumstances surrounding Saturday's debacle.  But that doesn't help the resume either.

Joined: 01/05/2014

MGoPoints: -100000

931 S State

November 29th, 2016 at 10:06 PM ^

The NCAA cannot get a proper post season becuase they don't control it; the conferences do.  The conferences have controlled the money and the system since the Bowl Coalition, and then the BCS, and now to the CFP.  The NCAA has always been on the outside looking in and the P5 want to keep it that way.  The real reason we don't have an 8 team playoff is because the only bargaining chip the NCAA has is that they could claim adding extra games is detrimental to the lives of student-athletes. 

NCAA makes 90% of it's operating budget from March Madness.  The get jack from the CFP and the CFP wants to keep it that way.

Joined: 09/01/2009

MGoPoints: 1964

2morrow

November 29th, 2016 at 9:17 PM ^

Having listened to the college playoff show tonight, it is clear they are trying to pick the 4 best teams and I really think that they think Michigan is one of those. They have a big problem with Washington's strength of schedule. I think if Washington even looks crappy, the top 4 could be:

1. Alabama   2. Clemson   3. Ohio State   4. Michigan

Based on what they were saying tonight, I think the committee clearly considers Michigan better than WI or PSU, regardless of what happens in the B1G Championship Game.

Joined: 06/27/2015

MGoPoints: 506

huntmich

November 30th, 2016 at 12:35 AM ^

Razor thin margin between Michigan and Washington, declaring conference championships only one of four metrics and not saying how heavily that metric is weighed, calling Michigan's loss in Columbus "impressive"(fucking weird). All the pundits are saying a Clemson or Washington loss means michigan squeaks in. I'm not sure that sounds fair to me but I'd take it.

Joined: 10/18/2015

MGoPoints: 18173

B1G_Fan

November 30th, 2016 at 10:55 AM ^

Considering Michigan beat both teams in the big ten championship game I don't see that happening. There is a reason why we haven't dropped below Wisconsin after losing 2 of our last 3 games.

I think one of the pluses we have going for us is kind of like the same thing going for Oklohoma state. The play off comittee has all but said they dont really count their loss to CMU as a loss since the last play never should happend. I'm sure most of them watched the game and know Michigan was playing against a lot more than 11 players in a hostile enviorment. If Clemson or Washington, I'd say Michigan is in. If Ohio state gets in without a conference championship and they truly want the 4 best teams, Michigan has to be in there period

Joined: 10/11/2012

MGoPoints: 3411

UPMichigan

November 29th, 2016 at 9:18 PM ^

I'm inclined to agree with this but the current #5 team lost by a total of 4 points on the last play of both games. Pretty deserving when your THAT close to perfection (12-0) and your missing the #4 spot vs. a #7 team with a 39-point thumping on the resume.

Joined: 01/09/2010

MGoPoints: 18950

huntmich

November 30th, 2016 at 12:37 AM ^

The counter argument to this is that the 9th ranked team has a lesser beef. If you expanded it to 64 teams (for the sake of argument) no one would give a shit what #65 had to say about their record. When it was 2 teams, the #3 team had a good argument to make why they should be in. 8 is the perfect number, in my opinion. I've always thought that. And I think that's where it ends up in 10 years.

Joined: 10/18/2015

MGoPoints: 18173