- Member for
- 4 years 45 weeks
- View recent blog entries
|6 weeks 4 days ago||Best thing||
Best thing ever to come out of Ohio. RIP.
|6 weeks 4 days ago||Naah..||
No way he gets left on the tarmac at IAH.
Houston Hobby (HOU) is much closer to campus. :-)
|6 weeks 6 days ago||Huh?||
I assume you mean pre-season games? Thar's hardly the same thing, given that teams aren't trying to win. I promise you, PSU was trying to beat not-a-rival-Pitt.
|6 weeks 6 days ago||Well...||
OSU was a fluke. Indiana was a close game -- PSU got a fumble return for a touchdown as Indiana was driving with a chance to tie the game. And they were down three touchdowns to Wisconsin. (Also, I think 39-0 vs. Rutgers counts as a close game... or just further proof that Michigan is exactly 39 points better than PSU).
They gave up 14 points to Maryalnd and 24 to Purdue. Purdue! (That game was close at half, actually).
But, sure, keep pushing this narrative.
|7 weeks 12 sec ago||...||
Holding Wisconsin to 17 offensive points is not the sign of a good defense. It's the sign of a terrible defense, which is what PSU has. Keep in mind how bad Wisconsin's offense is.
As for PSU: 49-10. Michigan has not lost by 39+ points since 1935 (40-0, vs. Minnesota). Eighty years! This isn't something that champion-level teams do, no matter how many linebackers were injured.
Anyone who believes that PSU is better than Michigan, more "deserving" than Michigan, or should be ranked higher than Michigan is essentially saying that the first couple of months of the schedule don't matter. We may as well just start the season in November.
If Team A beats Team B by 39 points -- or, hell, even 25 points -- Team A is better. Full stop. I don't care what the circumstances were; I don't care whom else they beat. The margin of error in college football is big, but it's not five+ possessions big.
|7 weeks 5 hours ago||Yes.||
Yes, I believe Michigan makes the playoff with a victory over Iowa, but I'm less sure of that now than I was before the conference championship games. PSU wouldn't have won the division -- OSU would have -- so there wouldn't have been an opportunity for them to move ahead of Michigan. Tthe only question is, does an 11-1 Michigan team with a three-point road loss to the #1 team in the country get in before a 12-1 Washington Pac-12 champion with a single quality win, in the Pac-12 championship game.
I would have said 'yes' before PSU and its 39-point loss to Michigan was ranked #5. Now, I'm not so sure that "conference champion" doesn't carry a ridiciulous amount of weight.
|7 weeks 20 hours ago||...||
Before I saw the rankings, I would have disagreed vehemently with this. With PSU jumping Michigan, maybe you're right that Washington would have done the same. But I think the committee would have looked at Washington's non-conference schedule of Idaho, Portland State, and Rutgers and decided that if they'd played a team with a pulse, they might not be 12-1 in the first place.
It sure would have been nice to find out, though. Damn Competent-Only-Against-Michigan Kirk Ferentz!
|7 weeks 20 hours ago||...||
I'd like to believe this, but I just can't. I don't think they spent that much time worrying about optics; I think they honestly believe that PSU has accomplished more than Michigan, thanks to winning the Big Ten championship game.
|7 weeks 20 hours ago||Ah...||
Ah, the naïve optimism of 12:04 PM. I was once like you... :-(
|7 weeks 20 hours ago||Oh BTW...||
Oh, BTW, Michigan had two first team All-Big Ten performers missing from their starting defense against Colorado (Charlton and Lewis). I suppose that didn't matter, but Liufau's injury did, right?
|7 weeks 20 hours ago||Gahhhhh||
49-10. 49-10! The last time Michigan lost by 39+ points was 40-0, to Minnesota, in 1935. Eighty years ago.
We're not talking about a three-point road loss here. PSU was utterly outclassed, and to suggest that they did anything the rest of the season to overcome that is asinine. If Michigan had done anything to suggest that the game was a fluke, fine. Michigan lost two games total by 1 point in regulation / 4 points total. PSU's one conference loss was by ~10 times as many points as Michigan's two losses.
PSU won by 3 at home vs. OSU. Michigan lost by 3 on the road at OSU. OSU was better than PSU on the road but lost on the scoreboard; Michigan was better than OSU on the road but lost on the scoreboard. No matter how you look at it, Michigan was a better team than PSU this year. (I'd even argue they were a better team than OSU -- if you take a team to overtime in their stadium, you've overcome the home-field advantage, suggesting you're about a field goal better than they are).
The order in which the games are scheduled should make no difference whatsoever. Besides, does anybody really believe that PSU would beat Michigan this Saturday on a neutral field? It might not be a 39-point victory again, but I'd expect Michigan to be favored by 10. And, I'd lay the points.
Seeing this result -- and the identical result from the CFP people -- really shakes whatever little confidence I had in the entire system. Am I really supposed to believe that a Washington loss -- which they were well on their way to until Colorado thought it'd be fun to start turning the ball over as often as possible -- would have put PSU in the playoff? Why even bother playing until November 1?
|7 weeks 2 days ago||And...||
And yet.. UW punted instead of trying a Hail Mary.
This game is a crime against football, and the idea that UW is one of the best four teams in the country is laughable.
|7 weeks 5 days ago||Eh...||
The Iowa loss was one point, on the road, at night, with an injured quarterback, to a team that then went out and throttled a decent Nebraska squad.
Michigan beat PSU by 39 points. 39! If PSU moves ahead of Michigan, it will be the ultimate proof that head-to-head is meaningless. That wasn't an ambiguous result. Wisconsin, I could see passing Michigan with a decisive win, but PSU? No way.
|7 weeks 5 days ago||Right...||
For all of the crap that the committee has taken, it's clear to me that they're treating this responsibility more seriously than the poll voters ever did.
When Michigan got passed by Florida in the final 2006 regular season AP, Harris, and Coaches polls, it was unusual -- although not unprecedented. Typically, people would just take their previous ballot and drop down teams who lost. Barring an absolute beatdown against a top opponent -- e.g., 34-8 over PSU in 1997 -- you generally couldn't jump up much with a win; you just slid past some number of the teams ahead of you who lost.
The committee does not seem to be taking that approach. While I think OSU's spot is secure, and Alabama is in provided they don't lose by 90 with season-ending injuries to 12 starters, I think they will re-evaluate things this week, and there is a real shot that the Big Ten champion could pass Michigan with an impressive victory.
I'll be (holding my nose and) cheering for PSU, because 49-10. As I posted in another thread, Michigan hasn't lost by 39+ points since 1935. It's very much not an "it happens" kind of event. It's not reasonable to compare those two teams and conclude that PSU is better, even if they do end up with an extra win. I think a decisive Wisconsin victory is likely enough to elevate them past Michigan.
|7 weeks 5 days ago||This.||
And as a Steelers / Michigan fan (my dad grew up in Pittsburgh), it was torturous. Since Stewart never really did anything that impressive in a Pittsburgh uniform, especially as a quarterback, whenever the TV network wanted to show his potential, they had one go-to clip. And somehow, all of the times I saw that stupid play, Westbrook never dropped the damned ball...
|7 weeks 5 days ago||...||
The committee is already in that situation -- the primary effect of the conference championship game is to provide one extra opportunity to lose. Ohio State is a virtual lock for a spot specifically because Iowa beat Michigan. If that hadn't happened, OSU could have been in position to lose to Wisconsin this weekend and get shut out of a spot.
Furthermore, your argument already makes that point, because if the Pac 12 didn't have a championship game, and UW is marginally ahead of Michigan today, UW woudn't have to worry about losing to CU and potentially getting passed by Michigan.
FWIW, if UW wins in a fluke fashion, it's absolutely possible that Michigan passes them. It's clear that the committee has taken the fluky nature of Michigan's losses into account, or they wouldn't be sitting at #5 in the first place.
|7 weeks 6 days ago||39 Points!||
39 Points! 39 Points!
Do you know the last time Michigan lost a game by 39+ points?
November 16, 1935. 40-0 vs. a Minnesota team completing its second consecutive national championship season. 1935! Prior to that, 1892 vs. Cornell (44-0), and 1883 vs. Yale (64-0).
(The worst loss of the modern era is Rich Rod's final stand, 52-14 vs. Mississippi State, after the team had given up on him).
Head-to-head isn't everything. There may be an argument that Wisconsin is a better team than Michigan -- a one score game is within the margin of error. But there is no argument whatsoever that PSU is a better team than Michigan, and if PSU advances to the playoff and Michigan does not, it will be an utter travesty.
|7 weeks 6 days ago||Wow||
Wow, when Doc Graham is calling you out, you should really feel ashamed.
Best be gettin' on home, Doc. Alicia will begin to think you've got a girlfriend...
|7 weeks 6 days ago||Is it like rain...||
on your wedding day? Or a free ride when you've already paid?
|7 weeks 6 days ago||I hope||
I hope you're wrong. Weak non-conference schedules are an embarrassment to college football. I'd much rather see Michigan take on the toughest possible opponents than see them defeat Rutgers by 78.
Wait, what do you mean, Rutgers is a division game???
|8 weeks 1 hour ago||...||
Don't. Or, at least, proofread it first. :-) You're repeating "could you" in the second sentence, and the third is a sentence fragement -- that's where I stopped reading. Delany's assistant will do the same.
|8 weeks 1 hour ago||This.||
This is pretty much how I felt after the National Championship game in basketball too. It felt weirdly good to feel so bad about the outcome.
|8 weeks 1 hour ago||...||
Go Blue in Eugene...
|8 weeks 1 hour ago||Actually...||
In 2011, I was saying "Why is it OK to have an LSU / Alabama rematch, but in 2006, it would have been horrible to have a Michigan / OSU rematch?"
|8 weeks 2 hours ago||...||
If the mandate is to select the four best teams, select the four best teams. If it's to select the four best conference champions, do that.
The thing that drives me nuts about college football is that the goal lines move. In 2006, it was vitally important to win your conference. In 2011 (Alabama vs. LSU), it was not. This year, who knows? Committees are rarely the best way to decide anything; in fact, their most effective quailty is that they allow people to defect blame.
If I were commissioner of college football, the first thing I would do is implement schedule reform, so that Alabama would never play Chattanooga again, nor would Washington play Rutgers, Idaho, and Portland State. In one year. As their entire out-of-conference schedule. (To be fair, Michigan wouldn't be able to schedule 8 home games, either). The second thing I would do is implement an objective qualification metric for the playoff. The only controversy that ever comes up when selecting the NFL playoff participants is seeding -- e.g., when the 7-9 Seattle Seahawks got a home game. The reason is simple: in the NFL, everybody knows how you qualify for the playoffs. There's nothing to argue about.
|8 weeks 2 hours ago||Hmmm...||
Time to make it less objective, I think. Michigan can't finish in the top 4 of this ranking. ;)
|8 weeks 2 hours ago||And yet...||
I have a sinking feeling that there will be one spot left, and OSU will be selected on account of having one fewer loss and the head-to-head "victory."
In other words, I worry that there will be a compromise between most deserving and best. I definitely agree that there aren't four better teams in college football this year than Michigan. My list is exactly one team long, as it appears yours is.
|8 weeks 2 hours ago||3rd and 4th?||
Wisconsin is pretty clearly the third-best team in the Big Ten, but are you sure PSU is the fourth? They didn't play Nebraska, and only beat Minnesota by 3 at home. Also, they lost in Ann Arbor by _39_ points.
|8 weeks 3 hours ago||Snarktician.||
|8 weeks 3 hours ago||Sorry, no.||
You're suffering from recency bias. The kicker was 16/19 on the year, which is a much better estimate of his ability than 0/2. Furthermore, never once have I seen any proof of the efficacy of icing the kicker -- until I see someone run the stats on it, I consider it an urban myth.
Besides, if we're only talking about a single timeout, he could have used it after third down. Meyer may be an aggressive coach, but there's no way he was going for the touchdown from 6+ yards away, regardless of the amount of time on the clock.
This was a mistake on Harbaugh's part, full stop. Worse, it was a repeated mistake -- he did almost exactly the same thing against Iowa. The difference was that Beathard had (allegedly) picked up the first down on his scramble, so Iowa would merely have needed to take another knee. However, there's always the possibility of a mishandled snap, and even one more kneeldown adds a yard or two to the length of the ensuing kick.
Here's hoping that someone with a working knowledge of game theory can put a bug in Jim's ear and incite him to attack better decision making with an enthusiasm unknown to mankind.