- Member for
- 6 years 27 weeks
- View recent blog entries
- The records of the three tied teams will be compared against each other.
- The records of the three tied teams will be compared within their division.
|16 weeks 9 hours ago||Clemson also lost 1 fewer||
Clemson also lost 1 fewer game than us, and won 2 more games than us (including a conference championship).
|16 weeks 9 hours ago||Yea true, the Iron Bowl is||
Yea true, the Iron Bowl is never a tough game for them.
|16 weeks 10 hours ago||I might be missing something,||
I might be missing something, but I thought they'd always said conference championships matter. It was just unclear whether this mattered more or less than head-to-head. Now we have our answer.
|16 weeks 20 hours ago||Great, so thrilled we get to||
Great, so thrilled we get to crush someone in an exhibition game.
|16 weeks 20 hours ago||I don't know how he feels, but I kind of feel that way.||
I don't know how he feels, but I kind of feel that way.
|16 weeks 5 days ago||Colorado vs Oklahoma is||
Colorado vs Oklahoma is debatable, plus our win over Colorado was at home and Ohio State won on the road at Oklahoma. Otherwise I agree.
|16 weeks 5 days ago||uhh but covering the spread||
uhh but covering the spread as an underdog doesn't mean winning the game
|16 weeks 6 days ago||Nevermind I see what you're||
Nevermind I see what you're saying. But it's only 16 games for 2 teams. NFL is 19 or 20 games by that logic.
|16 weeks 6 days ago||8 teams would be 7 games.||
8 teams would be 7 games.
|17 weeks 1 hour ago||Honestly? Did we really||
Honestly? Did we really clearly outplay them? They ended up with more yards and we had two fewer turnovers.
|17 weeks 12 hours ago||Where did anyone blame||
Where did anyone blame Peppers for anything? He also didn't really live up to the hype creates on this blog, for what it's worth.
|17 weeks 12 hours ago||Not sure if intent was to||
Not sure if intent was to blame him for pick six, which is absurd, but he definitely did botch that punt return right before it.
|17 weeks 12 hours ago||You question his size and||
You question his size and speed for a safety in the NFL? You totally lost me at that point of the post, since this is definitely wrong.
|17 weeks 12 hours ago||to be fair, Hoke always had highly-rated recruiting classes||
to be fair, Hoke always had highly-rated recruiting classes
|17 weeks 1 day ago||uhhh they scored 7 points in the third quarter||
uhhh they scored 7 points in the third quarter
|20 weeks 1 day ago||It was a rhetorical question,||
It was a rhetorical question, was it not? Not to mention, the fact that the answer is a game from 10 years ago pretty much proves his point.
|22 weeks 14 hours ago||Not if they lose to NW or||
Not if they lose to NW or Nebraska.
|22 weeks 14 hours ago||Probably because if Michigan||
Probably because if Michigan lost a close road game to an 11-0 Ohio State, there's an outside chance they could still make the playoff. Probably not the case now that Ohio State has a loss.
|42 weeks 4 days ago||To be fair, he probably||
To be fair, he probably didn't call him out by name because the tweet is already 140 characters. But yea, it's good tweet.
|1 year 18 weeks ago||Really? Never been more||
Really? Never been more evident than this year? 1-4 on the road last year, with the only win being the M00N game. 2-3 the year before, with a narrow win over *UConn* and a 3OT win over NW. This year, we're 3-1 with a narrow loss in the first game with a brand new QB, so I'd say that's definite improvement.
Also, show me a college team that isn't worse on the road.
|1 year 19 weeks ago||Regardless of whether we want||
Regardless of whether we want this to be true, I'm pretty sure it's not. If ND wins out, beating Stanford in the process, I'm pretty sure they'll make it. At least over a 2-loss Michigan. We either need ND to lose or we need another path.
|1 year 19 weeks ago||Why are you so sure 1-loss||
Why are you so sure 1-loss Baylor or Okie State will be above Michigan? TCU fell behind Michigan already, and Baylor's SoS isn't any harder. If Michigan beats the #3 and #5 teams, you really don't think the committee would have them jump 1-loss Big 12 teams? Because I certainly think it's possible.
As for jumping 1-loss Iowa and OSU, I think the committee would almost have to jump us given that we would beat both of them in this scenario, and also would have won the Big 12. We'd also have one more game than OSU, so same wins.
It's not lkely, but it's certainly psosible I think.
|1 year 19 weeks ago||I'm pretty sure there are||
I'm pretty sure there are scenarios where both ND could get in and a 2-loss Michigan team could get in, but that would only happen if the committee ranks Michigan above a bunch of 1-loss Big 12 teams. Which I think is reasonable given the fact that they are already ahead of a 1-loss TCU, and in this hypothetical situation Michigan would beat the #3 and #5 teams. So that means really, we just need the following to happen: OK State and Baylor each drop a game, ND beats Stanford, Stanford (or another team) beats Utah. Then there would be no 1-loss teams out of the Pac 12, and we'd just need the committee to rank us above the three 1-loss Big 12 teams.
|1 year 20 weeks ago||Yea, this. In the||
Yea, this. In the hypothetical outlined above, Michigan would have beaten undefeated Ohio State followed by undefeated Iowa to finish out the season. They'd also have an additional game (and win) over many of those one-loss teams (i.e. all Big 12 teams, ND, any other 1-loss teams that don't make their conference championship). So, despite having one more loss, they'd likely have the same number of wins.
All of this also ignores the possibility the the CFP committee looks at the MSU loss as kidn of a wash, given the fluky nature of the last play. They are, after all, trying to pick the four best teams, not the four best records.
|1 year 20 weeks ago||It is badly worded. See my||
It is badly worded. See my post above. Just look at the structure of tiebreakers 1 and 2, they are the same. The last three words of each clearly modifies records. The "against each other" is not modifying compared, it's modifying records. This is clearly also because none of the other tiebreaking points say "against each other." It's implied that they are comparing the records against each other, this "against each other" is meant to modify record.
|1 year 20 weeks ago||I agree it's poorly written,||
I agree it's poorly written, but just take a look at the first two rules combined and it'll give you a clue how to interpret it:
I've bolded the key language in the above. I think eveyrone will agree that the #2 tiebreaker means that they are comparing records within their division. Therefore the modifier to "records" is the last three words of the sentence - "within their division." We can assume that #1 should be interpreted the same way - therefore "against each other" is a modifier for "recrods." So it's saying they will compare the records against each other.
Also, as others have mentioned, think about this logically. Why wouldn't the records against each other for tied teams be the first tiebreaker? Of course this would be the case. If two teams are tied, head-to-head record is also the tiebreaker; logic follows that the same should be the case in a multi-way tie.
I agree though that this is written very poorly. If they wanted to compare overall record though, I think they would have used the word "overall" to modify record.
|1 year 20 weeks ago||I don't know if you're taking||
I don't know if you're taking crazy pills, but you're reading something that isn't there. It doesn't every say overall record. Look down at rule 6, which is win %. This is the overall record tiebreaker, essentially, because they all play 12 games.
|1 year 20 weeks ago||As I mentioned elsewhere, the||
As I mentioned elsewhere, the rule is just written poorly. #1 is meant to mean that the records of the three tied teams against each other will be compared. This was specifically discussed in a number of articles and on this board weeks ago. For reference, look at this article posted on BTN's website: http://btn.com/2015/10/20/dienhart-we-may-have-to-wait-on-big-ten-title-game-matchup-this-year/
|1 year 20 weeks ago||This is the correct||
This is the correct interpretation. The rule definitely could have been written more clearly, but you are correct.
|1 year 20 weeks ago||To be fair, it's hard because||
To be fair, it's hard because the rules were written incredibly poorly. Instead of saying "The records of the three tied teams will be compared against each other" they should have said "The records of the three tied teams against each other will be compared."