The argument for Michigan to stop scheduling tough OOC games

Submitted by Diagonal Blue on November 28th, 2018 at 3:05 PM

Raising this point again: if Michigan had scheduled a MAC team instead of Notre Dame, Michigan would still have an outside shot at making the CFP.

Until the committee changes its ways, don't schedule tough non-conference opponents. The risk of losing is not worth the reward.

— Drew Hallett (@DrewCHallett) November 28, 2018

Perkis-Size Me

November 28th, 2018 at 3:17 PM ^

After what I saw on Saturday, I don't think we'd deserve to make the playoff even if we came in 11-0. Our #1 defense gave up 55 points, taking away the blocked punt TD. It was a thorough beatdown. 

Barring catastrophe this weekend, you're going to have three undefeateds in the playoffs, and a one-loss conference champion from either the Big XII or Big 10. Oklahoma/OSU will have the additional win and the conference title, so they automatically have a leg up on Michigan even if we'd beaten ND earlier in the year. 

Take care of winning your own conference. That, to me, is far more important than what you schedule in OOC. The last few years have proven on multiple occasions that you can overcome an early season loss and make the playoff if you win out the rest of the way. If you go 12-1, with a conference title, and the lone loss being to a P5 OOC team, you can almost treat that lone loss like an exhibition game. 

ScooterTooter

November 28th, 2018 at 3:19 PM ^

Our defense was never #1. 

It was a very good defense. It had its flaws. It was also kind of lucky that a lot of the QBs we faced were injured (Martinez, Lewerke, McSorley). 

Got exposed at times or in certain areas even before the Ohio State game by Notre Dame, Northwestern, SMU, Rutgers and (in a big way) Indiana.

To be honest, that's what the eye test always said, but I think we all believed too much in the fancy stats. 

In a sense, Rashan Gary is the perfect avatar for this defense: Wildly hyped, very good, but ultimately disappointing. 

J.

November 28th, 2018 at 3:32 PM ^

There's a reason that people rely on the fancy stats -- they tell you a lot more than the eye test ever will.

Yes, the defense got eviscerated by OSU, but that doesn't mean that they weren't the best defense in the country for the first 11 games.  Ask Jimmy Franklin.  Ask Dantonio, if you can get him to be honest.  Ask Adrian Martinez.

J.

November 28th, 2018 at 3:45 PM ^

Sure, Brian Kelly would likely say the same thing.  Michigan throttled ND's offense after the first couple of drives.

The postgame win probability for the Notre Dame game was 60% -- for Michigan.  Notre Dame got lucky, which should surprise nobody given that the game was in South Bend.  (Not obscenely lucky, and they were obviously also a good team, but Michigan was the better team that day).

ScooterTooter

November 28th, 2018 at 4:53 PM ^

I mean, they weren't though. 

Wimbush, who was later benched, torched them for half a game. 

Clayton Thorson, who put up 18 pts on Rutgers, torched them for a half a game. 

SMU's fast, athletic receiver was a harbinger of things to come. 

Wisconsin ran the ball well and were held back by their coaches bizarre calls.

Michigan State's QB was hurt, as were most of their receivers.

Trace McSorely was hurt. 

Rutgers actually ran the ball well on Michigan

Indiana was pretty much Ohio State-lite.

There were plenty of holes in this defense. I don't think it was anywhere near the 2016 unit that held Ohio State's offense to 10 points and 250 yards in regulation in Columbus. 

2018's defense was really good, but they were more a top-15 unit as opposed to the #1 defense in the country. 

gruden

November 28th, 2018 at 3:57 PM ^

However, OSU was also exposed - repeatedly - yet they now have a better record, which also includes a thrashing of M.  The lesson seems to be that you can make mistakes and have some close calls, just know the games that really matter and come prepared for those. 

OSU fans, years from now, will barely remember the close call against Maryland and the slog against MSU.  They will, however, remember handing M their worse loss ever. 

Maybe the close calls and occasional lapses aren't too bad if you learn the right lessons from them.  And just win.

ijohnb

November 28th, 2018 at 3:17 PM ^

I hate the College Football Playoff.  Yes, I want to be in it, but I also hate it.  It is turning the entire college football season into one long selection show that only 4 teams out of 125 gets to actually enjoy.  Half empty stadiums after teams are eliminated from contention.  Players sitting out bowl games that they all used to play in.  Ess Eeh See love omnipresent and on steroids.  Fans no longer care about historically significant bowl games.

You can say it is just because Michigan lost if you want, but really, with Clemson and Bama, the rest of the country is playing for two remaining spots of relevance.  That is just not enough for this to work. 

 

The Mad Hatter

November 28th, 2018 at 3:21 PM ^

I agree.  I thought I would like it, but as it turns out it's pretty damn boring when you have the same 6 teams playing in it every year.  Unless you're one of those teams.

So they either need to expand the playoff to 6 or 8 teams, or we need to finish building the Michigan Death Star as soon as possible.

 

ijohnb

November 28th, 2018 at 3:37 PM ^

We are going to continue to be very good but the Death Star is just not happening.  So, here we sit, in the same fucking division as the actual Death Star that we play every single year, the last game of the season, with a home-away schedule that is essentially permanently aligned so that every single time both teams are good and experienced we play away at their insane stadium.

So, doctor.  You want to know why I ran?

ScooterTooter

November 28th, 2018 at 3:17 PM ^

Don't let a guy who was benched for being wildly mediocre torch you for a half and this wouldn't be an issue. 

In fact, Michigan would have even more of a shout at being in the playoff. 

maizenbluenc

November 28th, 2018 at 3:18 PM ^

Disagree: I think that ND game gave the players a wake up call - which paid off in the Wisconsin - MSU - PSU slog. Three patsies would not have provided the same impetus to improve.

It would have been nice to have a patsy first, then ND. One of the reasons oldsters hate ND so much is the season is over if you lose the first weekend every year, and ND always had a game before us, and we didn't.

ak47

November 28th, 2018 at 3:18 PM ^

This is an incorrect take. We would not be ranked any higher. We would have likely been ranked third instead of 4th going into the game and would still be ranked 7th coming out of it. The ND game has had no bearing on our chances 

The Mad Hatter

November 28th, 2018 at 3:18 PM ^

I'd be happy if we would just stop scheduling goddamn Indiana the week before The Game!  Every fucking year they give us a game and highlight our weaknesses.

Take a page from the SEC's book and schedule a baby seal for that week.  It doesn't hurt Alabama's playoff chances.

 

LickReach

November 28th, 2018 at 3:18 PM ^

Championship teams win big games on the road.  We did not this year.  We are exactly where we should be and while it stings it is a reality.  Three OOC cupcakes helps us remain the winningest[sic] program of all time.  rutger is a fourth win.  Three middling B1G schools add up to 7 wins year in and out (at least under this coach).  The last 5 (ND, OSU, MSU, Wiscy, PSU) separate a season from average to great.  The years we win the tough road games (PSU in 97 for example) usually turn into special seasons.  I do not agree with scheduling more cupcakes because, being honest, it is not going to benefit the program.  We will never hit the elite level without big tests in September, October, and November every year (caveat being 2019 when we have nothing in Sept, ND Oct 26 and MSU/OSU in November)

mGrowOld

November 28th, 2018 at 3:18 PM ^

Hallett is 100% right which is why the teams that are going make the final four dont do it.  But hey we're MICHIGAN DAMMIT and if we could have a schedule of all away games against the Kansas City Chiefs, the New England Patriots and the New Orleans Saints well then sign us up because that would prove just how rough and tumble we are.  That we dont back down from anybody and even if it means fucking ourselves out of chance at the final four....well that's a small price to pay to show the world we're not cowards.   We'll take em all on....hell...make us play with 9 players, that would be even more awesome.

What we have done to ourselves in putting Notre Dame back on the schedule in the same home/away rotation is so fucking stupid if I heard OSU or MSU were behind the move I'd believe it.  NO WAY would any school with aspirations to a national title ever do anything as dumb as we've done to ourselves.

We'd be 11-1 right now (cause we'd have beaten Arkansas) and probably sitting at #5 because we'd have been at #3 undefeated before the OSU game.   We fucked ourselves.

SHIT.

Ziff72

November 28th, 2018 at 3:27 PM ^

False.  

1.  At 5 we still wouldn't make it.

2. Clemson scheduled Auburn.   Georgia played ND last year.  ND scheduled us.   Bama usually schedules 1 hard game.  That's not how teams in the playoff are doing it.

3. Schedule and wins matter if it's close.   Check OSU.   TCU was shit.  If they had played a Washington or a similar team in their Non con game they might be ahead of Oklahoma right now.

LickReach

November 28th, 2018 at 5:17 PM ^

I think due to our implosion in 2014 and coach envy of Harbaugh, teams are going to put their *all* into beating us by any means necessary because they believe it can happen.  By that rationale Hallett is right we don't need the challenge since we are getting everyone's A++ effort.  The problem is that ND is not going anywhere and 2020 we get a Pac 12 team (away to start) and Arkansas which might wind up not a pushover.  Even if we are not winning games we at least need to start rising to the competition because it's what our current coach wants.    

JPC

November 28th, 2018 at 3:20 PM ^

We didn't need to schedule a MAC team. We already had a shit SEC scheduled. We paid them a bunch of cash to go away, so we could play ND away and lose. 

People will be PISSED if Harbaugh goes 0-2 against ND after making Warde bend over backward to get them on the schedule. 

GoBlueinEugene

November 28th, 2018 at 3:20 PM ^

I dislike this type of reasoning, as if we just change one variable and everything stays the same. 

Maybe our loss to ND was the gut check we needed to string together a 10 game win streak. 

We don't have a shot at the CFP because we lost to OSU, not because we scheduled ND. 

We schedule MAC teams, someone complains that we're scheduling cupcakes. We schedule ND, someone complains that we're making it unnecessarily harder on ourselves. 

We have home-and-homes against Washington, UCLA, Texas, and Oklahoma in future years. As a fan of Michigan and of college football in general, those matchups are going to be fucking awesome. Yes, they will be difficult games. Should we cancel those games? 

All that said... the OSU/MSU away-away schedule needs to change now. 

LSA84

November 28th, 2018 at 3:20 PM ^

Whether or not it's a good argument, it's sort of irrelevant, given that Harbaugh wanted to renew the ND rivalry, and Warde accommodated him.  It's on.  And some years ND will be really good like this year, and some years it won't be.

 

Ziff72

November 28th, 2018 at 3:22 PM ^

This argument is false and stupid.   The only reason we were ahead of Washington St and Oklahoma who had the same record was the quality of our loss.   The committee factors in SOS.

J.

November 28th, 2018 at 3:36 PM ^

Well, right, but if Michigan had defeated UTSA, they might have gone into the OSU game 11-0.  Or, they might have been 9-2, because it's often true that you learn more in losses than in wins, and you definitely learn more against a good opponent than a bad one.

Jimmyisgod

November 28th, 2018 at 3:27 PM ^

The problem is that you make your schedule several years out, and between now and then the system will likely change.  Schedule bunnies for 2024 and beyond and the might redo the playoff selection process with a massive focus on strength of schedule OOC.  I know for a few years it meant a ton, MSU got in because they played Oregon, Oklahoma got in because they played Ohio State.  The last couple it appears OOC means nothing and undefeated is way more important.

It's hard to say what will matter in a few years.

Maize N' Ute

November 28th, 2018 at 3:27 PM ^

At first, I was going to neg this because it comes off as an excuse.  However, Clemson and Bama played absolutely nobody OOC.  If Bama loses on Saturday, I bet they're still in the playoffs.  Ditto Clemson.  Why?

The committee said they wanted to see teams play tough opponents and win their conferences.  They haven't stayed committed to that stance. So the point, while being silly, is very much justified.

tkokena1

November 28th, 2018 at 3:27 PM ^

We have guaranteed games every year with OSU, PSU, MSU, and either Wisconsin, Nebraska, or Iowa. That is 4 tough games every year (as long as those programs hold on to what they have been over the last 5 years and Frost brings Nebraska back).

When we schedule an OOC opponent like ND we give ourselves 5 tough games our of 12 - almost half the schedule. Why? They are a rival but a game vs. them does not matter to our end goal of winning the Big Ten. So why not prop up our team on a national stage by guaranteeing 1 more win? 

We have a difficult schedule just playing in the Big Ten - teams like Indiana, Maryland, Purdue, Minnesota are no cake walks. They're not good but they are every bit as good as the middle of the pack teams in the ACC, Big 12, and PAC-12. We don't need to make our schedule tougher by scheduling tough OOC opponents. 

FlexUM

November 28th, 2018 at 3:27 PM ^

The analysis is pretty simple if you rend goal is playoff. You can lose a game and get in if you are a name like Michigan. In this current age of the playoff it is probably better to play 3 OOC "easier" games. 

Better to basically guarantee you win all the OOC games and allow yourself to be able to lose a conference game. 

Next year for instance if UM didn't play ND it would be better. They will likely lose either @ Wisconsin or @ PSU. Just because...they will. That could be their "one loss" buffer. You drop just one of those and you are probably ok. 

Also, the thought process of "if  you can't win all those games you don't deserve to be in the playoff" is absolute nonsense. At times, due to the grind of a schedule, the better team drops a game. In the grind of a long season that just happens so in the playoff age better to have more guaranteed wins if you are in a tough conference and a big name team like UM.