SIAP: CFP Chairman calls last week's loss 'impressive,' explains why we have a shot

Submitted by Mr. Elbel on
http://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/cfp-chairmans-remarks-sh… CFP Chair Kirby Hocutt explains why we're ranked #5, how close we were to being ranked #4, and why we still have a shot at the playoff. Very interesting article. I didn't think we had a legitimate shot at the playoff until I read this given the TCU precedent set 2 years ago, now I'm not so sure. Great read. (I'm posting on a browser on my phone so I'm sure my formatting is crap. Sorry bout that.) Here's your money quotes: "So how close are Wisconsin and Penn State to Washington and Michigan? Hocutt's answer boiled down to this: "But I think the separation from four to seven is not a wide margin of separation, but specifically between Washington and Michigan, it's razor thin."" ...""We talked about Michigan's additional loss to an unranked team [Iowa] sitting there on their resume," Hocutt said. "So again, can't look forward and anticipate what may or may not happen this weekend, but Michigan does have an impressive resume in the eyes of the selection committee.""

ST3

November 30th, 2016 at 10:03 AM ^

They'd take that in a heartbeat. Two storied programs, large fanbases. The '79 Sugar Bowl between those two teams is remembered as one of the greatest games of all time. If PSU beats Wisconsin by double digits, I have no doubt they jump us.

ST3

November 30th, 2016 at 11:04 AM ^

they have their starting linebackers now, and we still don't have Newsome and Clark. They beat Iowa by 27 and MSU by 33 and they beat OSU. Take off the homer glasses for a minute and try to see things through an unbiased viewpoint. A case can be made that they are playing much better now than when we faced them earlier in the season. Meanwhile, we've lost 2 of our last 3 games. Granted, by a sum total of 1 point in regulation. I don't know what the committe is going to do. I'd rather manage expectations now and be pleasantly surprised on Sunday than bitterly disappointed.

carolina blue

November 30th, 2016 at 9:57 AM ^

Penn state's case:
Victories over two top ten teams (obviously including a win over Wisconsin) one of which is over a top 2. a clearly better team than the injury riddled one that got beat by Michigan early in the year. The two losses were both against ranked teams on the road (which mich cannot claim as Iowa is unranked)

two common opponents with Michigan are ones they beat, one very convincingly, and both of which Michigan lost to.

Penn state's case is potentially stronger than Wisconsin's.



Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

A Lot of Milk

November 30th, 2016 at 10:42 AM ^

You can't compare losses when one of the teams they lost to is Michigan. 49-10 should tell you everything you need to know. Also, PSU over OSU was a home night game on a flukey blocked fg, Michigan played OSU in Columbus into double overtime with shit officiating. Not to mention a win over Colorado. Penn St nonconference? Loss to Pitt, win over Kent State, (barely) a win over Temple. Real impressive

Primo

November 30th, 2016 at 10:48 AM ^

I can't knock this logic but I think the committee wants to put together the best possible slate and that includes M. Nobody in their right mind thinks Bama-PSU will be anything other than a redux of the Sparty-Bama game last year. Why schedule that if you don't have to? And that's just it...they don't have to. They can justify putting us in over them. Easily.



Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

ST3

November 30th, 2016 at 11:26 AM ^

From: http://www.collegefootballplayoff.com/selection-committee-faqs

A very interesting discussion:

The committee selects the teams using a process that distinguishes among otherwise comparable teams by considering conference championships won, strength of schedule, head-to-head competition, comparative outcomes of common opponents (without incenting margin of victory)...

So the fact that we beat PSU by 39 DOES matter, but the fact that they beat Iowa by 27 does NOT matter, it only matters that they beat them and we lost to them. Interesting.

MadMatt

November 30th, 2016 at 10:21 AM ^

I agree, and there is one other thing no one has mentioned.  Does the college football community really want Penn State return to national prominence in the Playoffs this soon?  Leave aside the questions about whether they would actually be one of the 4 best teams even with a win over Wisconsin.  Do college football fans want to see Penn State go from sanctions being lifted after one of the most hideous scandals in sports to playing for a National Championship in two seasons?  Doesn't that imply that winning outweighs any bad behavior?

I repeat, I am not a Penn State basher.  I think the criticism of them by some of the people in this Michigan board has been excessive.  I went to high school in central PA, and my sister and several of my friends are Penn State alumni.  But, I honestly think that when the committee sits down to do its job, there will be an "EUWW!  Too soon!" moment if they think about selecting Penn State.

azian6er

November 30th, 2016 at 9:04 AM ^

The razor thin language is telling. Say Washington beats Colorado by a touchdown. They could STILL put us ahead of them considering the "outcomes of similar opponents" metric as we beat Colorado by double digits.

Honey Badger

November 30th, 2016 at 9:12 AM ^

It will be interesting to see how the committee manages conference champ verses head-to-head. Conference champ is great, but if Michigan beat a team (Penn, CO, Wisconsin), isn't Michigan a better team?

mGrowOld

November 30th, 2016 at 9:24 AM ^

I can tell you that the fairly large group of OSU fans/alumni I know are absolutely NOT wanting us to make it in this year if it means they have to play us again.   While they all "know" the game was officiated absolutely fairly and above board in all areas they do acknowledge that we dont seem to see it that way and our motivation on a rematch might be a smidge higher than normal.

If we make it in I want to play them again so bad it hurts.  I have a feeling that would be the single most motivated Michigan team we've ever seen given how badly they got jobbed last weekend.

We can hope.

UNCWolverine

November 30th, 2016 at 9:27 AM ^

These would be the "money" lines I'd want to hear. "They basically beat OSU on the road save for an absurdly officiated game" "The distance between 5 and 6/7 is large and won't be affected by the big ten "championship" game because Michigan doubled up both yardage and first downs collectively against those teams" "There is no doubt Michigan is one of the top 4 teams this year" That's wassup.

Like It's 19BBY

November 30th, 2016 at 9:27 AM ^

"Impressive LOSS" coming from the CFP committee is interesting. Bcuz a loss is a loss when talking about the playoffs. Maybe there's quite a few on the committee who also think we got jobbed.



Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

geewhiz99

November 30th, 2016 at 9:28 AM ^

The Irony would be if Washington loses and the final four becomes Alabama, OSU, Clemson, Michigan. Michigan beats Alabama while Ohio State beats Clemson. The Championship game would then be Michigan vs OSU - neutral field, neutral refs, bright lights, etc. I can only dream!

Boner Stabone

November 30th, 2016 at 9:35 AM ^

Wisconsin is not getting in over us.  They lost to us head to head and they play in the weaker of the 2 divisions of the B1G.  If we are in their division we are playing in Indy this weekend.

redjugador24

November 30th, 2016 at 10:53 AM ^

There's no way Penn St. goes before us because of the beating we put on them, but I'm not as confident about Wisconsin since it was only a 7 pt win at home.  True, they played in the weaker division of the B1G, but they are currently #6, would have a win over #7 to boost them, and one of their losses (to us) was a close game on the road early in the season.  That scares me.

State Street

November 30th, 2016 at 9:39 AM ^

They are just making this shit up as they go along.  The CFP knows the stakes this year.  They and ESPN cannot suffer through an Alabama/MSU type blowout while losing 25% of the eyballs.  Saban v. Harbaugh.  New Year's Eve.  Make it happen.

Sopwith

November 30th, 2016 at 9:56 AM ^

This whole thing is totally ad hoc. Brian has been assuming the committee was to be taken at its (earlier) word that conference championships mean something, but there's no principle or, at least, organized process flow to make the decisions. I think at this point, they just want the most compelling matchups, and that's it.

lilpenny1316

November 30th, 2016 at 9:42 AM ^

I believe they're watching all the games this weekend together.  If Washington looks like the same team that faced USC, even in victory, and Alabama looks like the same team that faced USC, would the committee review our games against top 10 competition to see who would have the better shot against Bama?  Bama would be the definite #1 team with no more regular season games to play, so it's guaranteed that they would face the #4 team.

MGoViso

November 30th, 2016 at 9:54 AM ^

Two thoughts.

1) The Iowa loss stings more than ever. Beat Iowa and lose to OSU, and OSU plays for and likely wins the Big 10 championship, and then Michigan's only loss is a ridiculously close game against the #2 team, a conference champion. Then I think it is easy to defend U-M at #4.

2) I think PSU beating Wisconsin is best for U-M, because then Alvarez has no way to lobby UW in, and U-M's win over PSU was impressive enough to justify keeping U-M ahead of PSU. If UW wins, then I don't think it's so wrong to argue that UW only lost by a single TD (yardage margin notwithstanding) on the road against U-M, so it's easier for UW to jump U-M.

Rooting for PSU will make me sick, but I think it's best for Michigan.