This is maaaaybe premature there, ESPN. Maryland #1 FWIW.
- Member for
- 5 years 20 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.
|12 weeks 1 day 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.
|13 weeks 5 hours 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.
|13 weeks 5 hours 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.
|13 weeks 5 hours 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.
|13 weeks 6 days 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.
|14 weeks 3 hours 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.
|14 weeks 3 hours 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.
|14 weeks 3 hours 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.
|14 weeks 3 hours 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/
|14 weeks 3 hours ago||This is the correct||
This is the correct interpretation. The rule definitely could have been written more clearly, but you are correct.
|14 weeks 3 hours 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."
|14 weeks 3 hours ago||Sigh. This been discussed ad||
Sigh. This been discussed ad nauseum here and elsewhere. The rule is poorly written, but it means that their records against one another are compared. They'd all be 1-1 against each other.
|14 weeks 2 days ago||Upvoted for Taco Bell.||
Upvoted for Taco Bell.
|14 weeks 6 days ago||Somewhat misleading headline||
Should read "Jourdan Lewis Says He's Staying." As much as we want this to be a true, a lot can change between now and the draft, especially if he gets a first-round draft grade.
|15 weeks 5 days ago||This. I lived a block away||
This. I lived a block away from this in law school when it opened. I definitely gained weight that semester.
|15 weeks 5 days ago||It seemed to me like Webber||
It seemed to me like Webber was doing an interview to talk about the class he was teaching. Not sure how that's a "dueling interview." The entire point of this post was pointing out that Webber was tryign to AVOID talking about Jalen.
|16 weeks 19 hours ago||Just because people are||
Just because people are willing to do work for a certain amount doesn't mean it's morally OK.
|16 weeks 22 hours ago||Losing to Indiana even seems||
Losing to Indiana even seems like a possibility, doesn't it? They did almost lose to Purdue, after all, and Indiana has the firepower to exploit their poor secondary. Much crazier things have happened (unfortunately, one of those things just happened this past weekend).
|16 weeks 23 hours ago||Pretty sure some of the||
Pretty sure some of the statistical models put it at around 50% that they'll lose at least 2 games, so definitely not highly unlikely.
|16 weeks 23 hours ago||No, it's not. That's the||
No, it's not. That's the entire point of the link in OP's post. Tiebreaker is playoff rank.
|16 weeks 1 day ago||Really? Urban has passion for||
Really? Urban has passion for the game too, you know. And also Bo had passion for the game, and even he was only 5-4-1 in the Ten Year War.
|16 weeks 2 days ago||This has to be a troll,||
This has to be a troll, right? I mean, first downs aren't even a good stat because you could gain 30 yards on one play and it would only be one first down, and the other team could then gain three 10-yard first downs, and they're winning 3-to-1 on first downs. Does that mean they are better though? Obviously not.
Not to mention, starting field position obviously makes a difference in yardage gained. You can't just ignore special teams yards as if they didn't happen, becuase they did, in fact, happen.
|16 weeks 3 days ago||Eh, for the most part this is||
Eh, for the most part this is right, other than the tackling the guy. There was still time on the clock until he crosses the goal line so if he's tackled at say the 10 or 20 they have a good shot at making a FG
|16 weeks 3 days ago||Really? They would have kicked a 57 yard FG?||
Really? They would have kicked a 57 yard FG?
|17 weeks 2 days ago||They're #7, but yea, it woukd be a big win.||
They're #7, but yea, it woukd be a big win.
|17 weeks 6 days ago||Not sure why this got negged||
Not sure why this got negged by anyone...
|17 weeks 6 days ago||Is it definitely true that||
Is it definitely true that the scholarship money would be treated as taxable income though? For other, non-athlete students who receive scholarships, if they get a job working for the university on the side, does their scholarship then also become taxable? My gut says no, but I don't actually know. Would love it if someone here could weigh in, because in this example if the non-athlete student employee isn't taxed on their scholarship I don't know why an athlete would be.
|18 weeks 5 days ago||Uh no. Not a massive||
Uh no. Not a massive overreaction. Let's all point and laugh at you for not understanding forecasting.
|18 weeks 6 days ago||Ohio State, the defending||
Ohio State, the defending national champs, are FAR FROM elite? Am I missing something?
|20 weeks 3 days ago||Not sure I follow logic here.||
Not sure I follow logic here. It would back up coin flip if it were a neutral site, but it's in the Big House so it would support Michigan being a favorite. 4 points for homefield makes sense.