Crazy Confusing Michigan Postseason Guide
So the Playoff Committee put Michigan 5th, where the top four get a chance at a national championship and the top(-ish) 12 play in more prestigious bowls in and around New Year’s. Getting into the playoffs requires some help and sympathy. It’s good that two teams above us have a chance to lose, potentially dropping them back. It’s good that we beat teams 6, 7, and 8. It’s bad that two of those could be conference champions, including our own conference.
So where are we going? Probably the Orange, but if you’d like more detail here’s everything I could divine about Michigan’s potential destinations.
--------------------------------
What are the Rules?
- The Playoff Committee will decide on 4 teams to compete in the playoff. This year’s playoff games are the Fiesta and Peach Bowls.
- New Years Six obligations are filled in. Unless they’re in the above the B1G and Pac12 Championship Game winners play in the Rose Bowl, the SEC and Big XII winners play in the Sugar, the ACC winner plays in the Orange, and one “Group of Five” (Western Michigan most likely) team gets a spot somewhere between the Rose, Orange, Cotton and Sugar Bowls.
- [UPDATED, h/t user Alton] Bowl contracts are filled in, specifically the Rose Bowl gets a Big Ten and Pac Ten team, and the Sugar Bowl gets an SEC and Big XII team, assigned by the committee.
- At-large teams are filled in, with contracts, rematches, distance, and “most compelling matchups” in mind. For example the Orange Bowl gets first crack at a Big Ten or SEC #2. Unofficially, conference affiliations matter somewhat, e.g. the Rose Bowl would take a Pac#2/B1G#2 matchup and FSU or Louisville would be projected to the Orange.
- Old bowl process takes hold once the New Year’s Six are figured out.
--------------------------------
Where’s Michigan in the Playoff Race?
Behind: Alabama regardless, Ohio State, Washington if they win, Clemson if they win.
Worried about getting passed by: Wisconsin or Penn State if they win, Colorado if they win.
Probably not getting passed by: Oklahoma or Oklahoma State as Big XII champ. Florida as SEC Champ. VT as ACC Champ. Washington or Clemson if they lose. Loser of the Big Ten Championship Game. USC, FSU, Louisville, Auburn, Western Michigan, Navy.
They’re saying there’s a chance:
How conference championship weekend will affect the College Football Playoff: https://t.co/wKOJ16OdfR pic.twitter.com/waadEN3VUZ
— FiveThirtyEight (@FiveThirtyEight) November 30, 2016
With Michigan the 5th team right now however this seems incorrect, particularly in light of Kirby Hocutt saying the committee needed two hours to decide to put Washington over Michigan for the 4th spot. The actual distinction matters little since a conference championship win for Washington would overcome whatever slim margin Michigan is ahead by at the moment.
That appears to put Michigan’s chances entirely dependent on one or two schools above them losing a conference championship game, then riding a head-to-head victory over a conference champ into the top four.
Even a loss to Florida probably doesn’t drop Alabama out of the Top 4, and Ohio State is obviously in before we are. The best, but hardly only shot of Michigan moving up is Colorado beating Washington (a 45% shot according to Bill C.) and Michigan (over the B1G CG winner) taking the Pac 12’s spot. If Virginia Tech upsets Clemson (20%), this also opens the door for Michigan. If both happen, Michigan still needs a head-to-head win to matter more than a B1G or P12 championship.
How the committee rates winning your conference championship game versus head-to-head is a mystery. They said they don’t consider margin of victory, so blowing out Penn State is probably seen the same as a one-score victory over Wisconsin, let alone two last-play losses on the road.
My guess is they’ll let the de jure Big Ten Champion jump definitely-not-Big Ten Champion Michigan, but not Ohio State. Michigan could end up above Colorado if both Washington and Clemson lose, but that’s a scenario with three Big Ten teams in the playoffs. That may be correct, but the committee created to avoid another LSU-Alabama rematch that everybody hates would probably take the B1G and Pac champs and leave Michigan out.
Likelihood of it: 10 percent.
[After THE JUMP: some NY6 destinations and worst case scenario]
------------------------------------
Can Michigan Get to the Rose Bowl?
This one is tricky but doable. Because the Rose Bowl is obligated to take the B1G CG winner if they’re not in the four, Michigan’s path to Pasadena requires the B1G CG winner to make the playoffs. I’m not worried about the B1G CG loser since 2-loss Michigan > 3-loss team they already beat.
Getting one of them into the playoffs is the hard part. Leaping us is likely but I don’t think Penn State or Wisconsin are strong enough to pass any of the Top 4 without help (if they scoot PSU ahead of OSU that just puts the Buckeyes in the Rose Bowl) so again we’re rooting for Colorado to beat Washington or Clemson to lose to Virginia Tech.
A VT upset over Clemson would open a spot in the Top 4 for the B1G Champion without affecting the Pac 12—if Colorado wins too and takes Washington’s spot in the playoff, that would leave both Rose Bowl seats open and Michigan likely to grab one.
Colorado beating Washington could create its own problems. One: Colorado could swap spots with Washington, leaving the B1G champ in the Rose Bowl. Two: since one of the committee’s stated goals is to avoid regular season rematches, Colorado winning an auto-bid to the Rose Bowl could push Michigan out of it, though in that case it’ll likely be into the playoffs.
There’s another outside scenario where Washington wins but gets passed by the B1G CG winner. That would almost certainly put Michigan and Washington in the Rose Bowl, with a CFP field of OSU-Clemson-Bama-B1G Champ. But I doubt the 1-loss Huskies would drop behind a 2-loss Big Ten champ when 1-loss Ohio State is in the playoffs. And Ohio State getting left behind doesn’t help us.
Likelihood of Rose Bowl: 20 percent.
---------------------------------
So Michigan is Going to the Orange Bowl?
Here’s the most likely landing spot. If the Rose Bowl can’t (B1GCG winner doesn’t make the playoffs) or won’t (they pass us up, or Ohio State gets bumped from the playoff by the B1G and Pac Champs) take Michigan, the committee will then place the remaining conference champs in New Year’s Six slots, and fill in the last spots in the New Year’s Six behind them. The Orange Bowl, which also needs to fill a small number of Big Ten appearances, would be the more likely destination for Michigan in most scenarios. That Orange Bowl contract with the Big Ten supersedes the Cotton Bowl
Likelihood of Orange Bowl: 70 percent.
Could It Be the Cotton?
Doubtful given the above. This scenario involves Ohio State and the Big Ten champ getting locked out of the Playoff 4, putting Ohio State in the Orange.
---------------------------------
No, We’re Not Going to the Outback
The Outback is in technically in play, but it’s highly unlikely. It happens if conference championships suddenly become THE thing for the playoff selection committee, and some conference champions would have to pass Michigan to shove the Wolverines out of the 12 spots for New Year’s Six or Playoff bids.
There’s a slim chance it happens. Figure Bama and OSU are ahead of Michigan no matter what. WMU or Navy (as the group of five participant), and the winners of all the conference championship games get auto-bids. So there’s at least 7/12, possibly 8/12 (if Florida beats Bama) slots already taken in the NY6.
[UPDATED] Then the Orange, Sugar and Rose Bowls need to take ACC, SEC, B12, B1G, and Pac teams. This is where trouble happens. If Florida loses to Alabama the Sugar has to take an SEC team, so we’re back to 8/12. The Rose Bowl would also need to take a Pac Ten team if Washington or Colorado is in the playoffs. Figure that draws in either Washington (if they lose the Pac CG) or 3-loss USC. 9/12. And another ACC team to the Orange Bowl.
You still have to find two teams among the following who’d be ranked ahead of Michigan to fill an at-large position:
- 2-loss Clemson after loss in ACC CG
- 3-loss Colorado after losing the Pac 12 CG
- 2-loss Navy or WMU as a 2nd group of five bid
- 3-loss Wisconsin or Penn State after loss in B1G CG
- 3-loss Oklahoma or Oklahoma State after loss in B12 CG
- 3-loss FSU, Louisville, Auburn, and Stanford
The disaster scenario is one where the committee decides conference championships are the THING:
- Oklahoma State destroys Oklahoma 100-0, so impressing the committee (and so undermining Ohio State’s win over the Sooners) that Okie State joins Bama, Clemson, and Washington in the playoff four. (8 spots left)
- Navy earns the Group of Five bid over Western Michigan (7 spots left).
- The Big Ten champ goes to the Rose Bowl. (6 spots left)
- Ohio State gets pushed down to the Orange Bowl. (5 spots left)
- FSU, Auburn, West Virginia and USC draw into NY6 bowls to fill in for conference champs in those bowls. (1 spot left)
- Committee decides undefeated Western Michigan should pass Michigan for the last at-large spot.
It would be extraordinarily cruel to have all of these teams pass Michigan. On the off chance that something like that happened, Michigan wouldn’t go to the Citrus because we just went, meaning the Outback Bowl would be it.
December 1st, 2016 at 2:34 PM ^
Or not tuning in at all. That the fisrt round is on NYE really helps our cause. We can move the dial. Without us, it's going to be a bleak ratings game.
December 1st, 2016 at 11:28 AM ^
Ohio State jumped Baylor & TCU in the first CFP due to a Conference Championship Game. So the only precedence we have is that Conference Championships do matter. I could see Colorado, the B1G winner and even the Big 12 winner all jumping ahead of Michigan next weekend based on that precedence alone.
Are they leaving Michigan at 5 for this week for intrigue? Are they actually going to put Michigan in if just one of Washington or Clemson lose due to possible TV ratings of a Michigan vs. Alabama semifinal?
December 1st, 2016 at 11:36 AM ^
OSU jumped those teams by winning their conference championship game 59-0. I'd argue that that's evidence that whatever the committee might say publicly about "margin of victory," quality of victory matters.
If either the B1G or PAC championship this weekend is a beatdown like that was, the winner is probably in.
December 1st, 2016 at 12:24 PM ^
You have to go with what they said. The Margin did not matter and does not matter. I think the winner is in no matter what. Doesn't head to head only break ties? 11-2 is better than 10-2, thus there isn't even a tie to be broken. The precedent set above all of this is that if you have a better record, H2H does not matter. See Ohio St. vs. Penn St.
December 1st, 2016 at 12:46 PM ^
No you don't.
Are you going with the Big Ten's finding that the refs only missed one call in the Ohio St/Michigan game?
December 1st, 2016 at 1:31 PM ^
It doesn't matter whether you win by 50 or 40.
It does matter whether you win by 50 or 1.
There is no evidence to the contrary. They say "margin doesn't matter" but they do not say "quality doesn't matter" and it's absolutely clear from their behavior that it does. In fact one of the reasons they switched to the current system was so they could use subjective criteria like that. They don't want to encourage teams to run up the score, like many objective systems would do, but the old system of simply considering wins and losses without looking at the result more carefully was fatally flawed.
December 1st, 2016 at 11:38 AM ^
December 1st, 2016 at 12:12 PM ^
Did they really say that? I didn't watch the TV show. Or are you saying they are "saying" that with the current rankings?
December 1st, 2016 at 12:44 PM ^
It was fairly explicit. I didn't watch either, but per Mlive:
Per [College Football Playoff committee chair Kirby] Hocutt, precedent doesn't matter. Previous selection committees may have weighted conference championship wins as trump cards. But Hocutt was very clear that his committee doesn't care what the previous two have done. "Every year is unique and we start new every year," Hocutt said. "You have three new members on the selection committee this year so I'll say the chemistry this year has been terrific. All the members have been engaged with great participation. But every year is new and we do not look back at previous years."
[Emphasis mine.]
December 1st, 2016 at 2:37 PM ^
That works to our favor this year, but that's a stupid way to run it.
"We just make it up as we go, every year. Nobody knows what we are going to do, because we don't even know what we are going to do."
Great.
December 1st, 2016 at 3:42 PM ^
I don't read it like that. Instead, I take their comments to mean that each season plays out differently and therefore they need to be able to be flexible to make sure they get the four best teams into the playoff.
December 1st, 2016 at 5:45 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
December 1st, 2016 at 11:31 AM ^
The reasons I think this are a combination of better than even odds that Clemson and/or UW lose combined with what the committee chair was implying when discussing the UW/UM situation this week. While I don't think that the committee really cares (at least conciously) about $$$, they do care about the close correlate of $$$ which is competitiveness. Purely based on the eye test I don't see PSU (or Wisky for that matter) lasting more than a half with Alabama and I do think the Alabama MSU game from last year will influence their thinking. I would note that if either PSU or Wisky lays the wood (esp PSU) on the other that could tip things in their direction over UM
My guesses:
1) UW loses (50% chance): UM is in with 65% chance (35% chance of B1G winner)
2) Clemson loses (25% chance): UM is in with 65% chance (35% chance of B1G winner)
December 1st, 2016 at 11:32 AM ^
Should CU win, I would say the B1G Champ gets in over Michigan only if that CG winner OBLITERATES its opponent. I think either PSU or Wiscy will have to win big, and impressively, to jump UM. I'd say the same about CU jumping - if they completely demolish Washington, they'll have a legit shot at jumping the three in front of them, but only if the B1G CG is a clunker.
The committee set this up for UM to get in with a Wash (or Clemson) loss, provided the two CG's are average games. Should a CG winner seperate themselves with style points, they can jump UM. But I don't see any of the four CG participants being able to seperate that loudly. It could happen, but I don't think so...
And there is no way in hell Bedlam will reign...
December 1st, 2016 at 12:02 PM ^
If you don't have enough data, don't publish it.
92% for Bama? Right there. Wrong. In what circumstance does Bama not play in it? Is there an 8% chance of them getting a post-season ban this week or something?
And Penn State at 21% vs. Michigan at 1%? Wroonnnnngggg
December 1st, 2016 at 12:10 PM ^
They don't have enough data, correct. The SEC was a weak conference so if Bama loses to Florida they could drop out of the top five. It's highly doubtful considering they have a 52-6 non-conference win over USC, but with humans in charge you can never be more than 92% about anything.
December 1st, 2016 at 12:18 PM ^
...because they're 99% sure that Michigan is out.
December 1st, 2016 at 12:34 PM ^
...I would not have that 99% number as gospel as both relied upon strong assumptions that were more pundit-y than anything.
December 1st, 2016 at 12:33 PM ^
As a unanimous #1 and the last undefeated P5 team, I don't even know that losing to Florida by 40 is enough to knock them out entirely. Even if they lose a close game to Florida they probably remain the 1-seed.
December 1st, 2016 at 12:36 PM ^
December 1st, 2016 at 1:10 PM ^
December 1st, 2016 at 12:08 PM ^
My stomach is gonna be turning during the entire Washington vs Colorado game and the Clemson vs VT game. I hate this so much.
December 1st, 2016 at 2:52 PM ^
Not me. I'm just the opposite.
I was lamenting that the season was de-facto over and there was nothing left to care about.
Now I get three bonus games out of the blue that are like play off elimination games - WU/CU, Clemson/VT, PSU/WISC.
This weekend suddenly matters. I got a dog in the hunt.
December 1st, 2016 at 12:23 PM ^
Besides the obvious disappointment of our two losses, I find myself oddly disappointed over OSU's loss to PSU (or any of PSU's other wins), because it makes things that much tougher for us to get in.
OSU in the B1G championship would have been best case scenario from Michigan's perspective if M can't be there - a 0 or 1-loss B1G champ OSU is a holy lock to make the playoffs, and at that point Michigan would be the clear #2 in the league (worst case Rose, or first dibs at a CFP spot if Clemson or Washington lose).
Hell, in the scenario where the B1G championship was 1 loss OSU vs 2 loss Wisconsin, you could even see an outside chance at Michigan jumping both with a Wisky win.
Incidentally this is why the Iowa loss is also especially infuriating.
December 1st, 2016 at 12:25 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
December 1st, 2016 at 6:45 PM ^
He had a 1% chance of getting in.
December 1st, 2016 at 12:30 PM ^
That the committee and TV networks would love to have Michigan and Harbaugh in, and the idea that they are yanking our chains because they just want a fan base the size of Michigans to feel they have a chance because it will drive viewership of the games (and the final CFP show assuming wash and/or Clemson lose.)
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
December 1st, 2016 at 12:33 PM ^
December 1st, 2016 at 12:35 PM ^
1.) Clemson or Washington loses
2.) B1G Championship is a close, low-scoring game.
I think if the B1G Champion wins their game convincingly, that team jumps us. Demolishing the opponent would do the trick of course, but it's not necessary IMO. Simply winning the game in a score like 14-13 wont do it. I think if we see PSU or UW win something along the lines of 28-14, they go ahead of us. My reasoning is that the committee said the difference between #4 through #7 spots is very small. And I think a lot of us lost sight of that with the committee's comments that OSU and PSU aren't even close and that the margin between UW and M is razor thin. At the end of the day though, we have no idea what the committee thinks of our resume versus the eventual B1G Champion with another quality win.
My guess is that if the B1G Champion scores 20 points or more and wins by 14 points or more (i.e. final score of 21-7), were out regardless of who wins.
December 1st, 2016 at 12:45 PM ^
If CU Wins, I will forgive them for the Hail Mary which still stings. More than the OSU loss this year, as irrational as that may be.
December 1st, 2016 at 12:55 PM ^
Are you merely raising it as a distant and incredibly unlikely possibility or is there some kind of real risk that Western Michigan passes 2-loss Michigan in the rankings? I am not crazy to think there is a .0000001% chance of that occurring, right?
December 1st, 2016 at 1:07 PM ^
December 1st, 2016 at 1:15 PM ^
December 1st, 2016 at 1:25 PM ^
Massey has Washington a 1/2 point favorite over Ohio State on a neutral field, one point over Michigan.
If you start from the assumption that the PAC 12 sucks, that's likely to be your conclusion as well. But there's not much evidence for that assumption. Sagarin's the most negative of the rating systems on the conference and he still has them in a virtual tie with the SEC for best conference.
December 1st, 2016 at 4:49 PM ^
This morning Sam Webb stated that the toughest nonconf opponent Washington had was Rutgers. (Who were able to score on W at their house).
December 1st, 2016 at 2:19 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
December 1st, 2016 at 3:13 PM ^
The short argument is that Michigan's loss to OSU should carry very little wieght because the game was so poorly officiated that it was gift to OSU. That loss keeps Michigan from playing in the BTCC and proving that they are in fact a top four team, but if we set aside Michigan's loss to OSU should we not also set aside OSU's win?
If the resulting score of The Game wasn't a fair measure of the quailty of the teams, then treat it as a TIE. Drop both OSU and Michigan out of the top three or maybe four slots treat thenm as tied for what every slot they land in and reevaluate after the championships are played.
My personal opinion is that, barring a bizarre situation where the conference champ is 8-5 off a fluke win over a much stronger opponent, a team should have to win their conference to make the playoffs. For that reason I have a hard time putting Michigan in the playoffs, as much as I'd love to see them get a shot at a national championship. But, that also means that,for the same reason, I don't want to see OSU in the playoffs. Except in the most unusual circumstances, there is grave peril in devaluing winning a conference championship. As much as we might want that outcome this year, I can see many future situations where we'd regret the precedent.
I'd love to have the playoff committee drop OSU out of the top four specifically because the determined that the poor quality of the officiating had an overwhelming impact on the outcome, and recommend that all conferences work with the NCAA over the off season to significantly improve officiating.
December 1st, 2016 at 5:21 PM ^
The tricky part here for the committee seems to be....putting M in before a conference champ. Even tho we beat both. I just don't see them putting us at 4. Which btw....puts us up against bama. Dang. I resigned myself to the "whatever happens...happens" mantra.
Just win the bowl game. And clean house in recruiting. Let's keep this train ROLLING.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
December 1st, 2016 at 6:06 PM ^
December 2nd, 2016 at 11:54 AM ^
Why would Wisconsin get the bid ahead of U-M? Wisconsin would have more losses than Michigan, plus a head-to-head loss. Wisconsin is already behind Michigan in the rankings; a loss in the B1G CG (no matter how close) isn't going to vault them over us.
Also, losing to PSU would make Wisconsin 0-3 against the top 10. Michigan is 3-1. It's a bit much to say that losing to Iowa (which at 8-4 is no embarrassment) should outweigh all of the above.
So the Orange would take a lower-ranked Wisconsin over us because...we went to the Orange Bowl 17 years ago?
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
December 1st, 2016 at 8:53 PM ^
December 1st, 2016 at 9:11 PM ^
If Washington or Clemson lose, then Michigan has a 50/50 chance to claim that 4th place. I think we are a lock if the B1G champion wins a close and ugly game. Our chances are better if PSU wins, provided Clemson or Washington lose.
December 2nd, 2016 at 12:30 PM ^
--3 B1G teams get in
--2 B1G also-rans get in, while the conference champion doesn't
The former would enrage 3 of the Power 5 conferences. The latter would signal that conference championships don't matter. If you're the committee, why would you go down either of these roads if you don't have to?
The logical move for them is to split the difference between the four-best-teams school of thought (by taking OSU) and honoring conference champions (by taking 2 of 4 among the ACC, Big 12, B1G and Pac-12 winners).
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
Comments