Thank you. After devastating losses, I tend turn off ESPN, avoid the newspaper, and stay away from this blog (whoops). I prefer to spend the week pretending I live in a less painful world, a world in which I care less about the efforts of a bunch of kids playing football in the upper midwest. This post helps immensely to put things back in perspective -- thank you so much for deciding to start that Michigan blog back in 2004.
In the wise words of this weeks Punt:
We spent a decade riding the ups and downs that came from oscillating between good and bad. We forgot the ups and downs that come from oscillating between good and great. We forgot what it was like to have 7-5 be deemed the Year of Infinite Pain. And we're afraid of backsliding. We're in a place now where we tend to see bad games not as the doom, but rather as the harbinger.
Thank you. After devastating losses, I tend turn off ESPN, avoid the newspaper, and stay away from this blog (whoops). I prefer to spend the week pretending I live in a less painful world, a world in which I care less about the efforts of a bunch of kids playing football in the upper midwest. This post helps immensely to put things back in perspective -- thank you so much for deciding to start that Michigan blog back in 2004.
In the wise words of this weeks Punt:
We spent a decade riding the ups and downs that came from oscillating between good and bad. We forgot the ups and downs that come from oscillating between good and great. We forgot what it was like to have 7-5 be deemed the Year of Infinite Pain. And we're afraid of backsliding. We're in a place now where we tend to see bad games not as the doom, but rather as the harbinger.
The committee really made their bed with this one. At this rate, they are already going to be leaving out a "deserving" conference champ as we have three teams fighting for two spots. One if Clemson wins (as they should).
If Colorado wins, imagine the committee having to choose a one final team between Colorado (8) coming off a win against Washington (4) OR Penn State (7) coming off a win against Wisco (6). Both would have two top-ten wins. Both would have blow out losses to Michigan. Both would have another top 25 loss. There is no clear criteria which favors one of those teams more than the other -- it would be splitting hairs. So it might force them to pick the team that doesn't make a complete mockery of their selection criteria.
There's just no possible way for them to "value conference championships above all else". So let's let them compromise and pick Michigan.
I'm in the camp that OSU is as in as 'Bama at this point. Let's also say that Clemson wins and gets a seat at the table. But let's let Colorado beat Washington. At this point, the committee has to realistically pick between three teams: Colorado, winner of Wisco/PSU, and Michigan. The issue, of course, if you're in the "conference championships above all" camp, is how to choose between two 11-2 major conference champs with exceedingly similar resumes [a top ten win*, a smattering of top 25 wins, a loss to Michigan]?
One of the conferences is bound to rage justifiably about the irreconcilable decision that valued one champion over the another. It would be an unavoidable contradiction in and of itself. And yet, as we all know, there is a convenient solution to the problem: select the Michigan team that beat both conference champions and was denied a seat at the table by the slimmest of margins**.
And that's what lets me sleep at night.
*PSU would have two, but that is, at least, partially cancelled out by a loss to Pitt
Recent Comments
Thank you. After devastating losses, I tend turn off ESPN, avoid the newspaper, and stay away from this blog (whoops). I prefer to spend the week pretending I live in a less painful world, a world in which I care less about the efforts of a bunch of kids playing football in the upper midwest. This post helps immensely to put things back in perspective -- thank you so much for deciding to start that Michigan blog back in 2004.
In the wise words of this weeks Punt:
We spent a decade riding the ups and downs that came from oscillating between good and bad. We forgot the ups and downs that come from oscillating between good and great. We forgot what it was like to have 7-5 be deemed the Year of Infinite Pain. And we're afraid of backsliding. We're in a place now where we tend to see bad games not as the doom, but rather as the harbinger.5-2 does not an existential crisis make.
Thank you. After devastating losses, I tend turn off ESPN, avoid the newspaper, and stay away from this blog (whoops). I prefer to spend the week pretending I live in a less painful world, a world in which I care less about the efforts of a bunch of kids playing football in the upper midwest. This post helps immensely to put things back in perspective -- thank you so much for deciding to start that Michigan blog back in 2004.
In the wise words of this weeks Punt:
We spent a decade riding the ups and downs that came from oscillating between good and bad. We forgot the ups and downs that come from oscillating between good and great. We forgot what it was like to have 7-5 be deemed the Year of Infinite Pain. And we're afraid of backsliding. We're in a place now where we tend to see bad games not as the doom, but rather as the harbinger.5-2 does not an existential crisis make.
The committee really made their bed with this one. At this rate, they are already going to be leaving out a "deserving" conference champ as we have three teams fighting for two spots. One if Clemson wins (as they should).
If Colorado wins, imagine the committee having to choose a one final team between Colorado (8) coming off a win against Washington (4) OR Penn State (7) coming off a win against Wisco (6). Both would have two top-ten wins. Both would have blow out losses to Michigan. Both would have another top 25 loss. There is no clear criteria which favors one of those teams more than the other -- it would be splitting hairs. So it might force them to pick the team that doesn't make a complete mockery of their selection criteria.
There's just no possible way for them to "value conference championships above all else". So let's let them compromise and pick Michigan.
I'm in the camp that OSU is as in as 'Bama at this point. Let's also say that Clemson wins and gets a seat at the table. But let's let Colorado beat Washington. At this point, the committee has to realistically pick between three teams: Colorado, winner of Wisco/PSU, and Michigan. The issue, of course, if you're in the "conference championships above all" camp, is how to choose between two 11-2 major conference champs with exceedingly similar resumes [a top ten win*, a smattering of top 25 wins, a loss to Michigan]?
One of the conferences is bound to rage justifiably about the irreconcilable decision that valued one champion over the another. It would be an unavoidable contradiction in and of itself. And yet, as we all know, there is a convenient solution to the problem: select the Michigan team that beat both conference champions and was denied a seat at the table by the slimmest of margins**.
And that's what lets me sleep at night.
*PSU would have two, but that is, at least, partially cancelled out by a loss to Pitt
**Approximately 8 inches
Don't give them too much credit, given that we don't have a vet school or an ag school, we don't really have a horse in that race.
20-16 Michigan
20-16 Michigan
http://www.news.com.au/sport/american-sports/australian-college-punter-…