December 4th, 2016 at 1:17 PM ^

washington's impressive victory coming at expense of the starting qb for colorado being hurt on third play


no mention of speight being hurt


kannell and galloway are douche bags


preaseason schedule doesn't matter


like 2006, if you don't play, you apparently get jumped, even by teams you beat by 39


if clemson and washington had lost, 5 bucks says oklahoma and psu would have jumped michigan, no way they put in 3 B1G teams


beat FSU


December 4th, 2016 at 12:36 PM ^

It's just like the NCAA basketball selection now. They count the late games more than the early ones. Michigan faded while PSU surged at the end. It sucks but that's what happened.


December 4th, 2016 at 12:37 PM ^

(1) Schedule as easy an out of conference as you want -- it doesn't matter.  (see:  Washington)
(2) Early- or mid-season losses DO NOT MATTER on head-to-head comparisons, there's always an excuse (see:  PSU 39pt loss)
(3) Don't lose to teams we should beat (Iowa).
I can agree with 1 of those 3.


December 4th, 2016 at 12:49 PM ^

Yeah, Head to Head is the big loser.  They will wash it away, especially if it is early / mid-season.

Kind of strange if you think about it.  Everything else is theory.  Head to head tells you who is better.  That's why you play games instead of running computer simulations.

Also, despite all the talk about "Best 4 no matter what", they are still skewed toward "Most deserving"  They like conference champions and / or strong OOC scheduling.

They are not trying to pick the 4 teams that would beat every other team.



December 4th, 2016 at 12:48 PM ^

1 is just flat wrong.  Washington was almost jumped by a team with two pretty bad losses (one by 39 pts and one to a 4-loss team) solely because of their weak OOC schedule.  If they played even a remotely challenging non-conf schedule, PSU wouldn't even be in the discussion for a CFP spot

I also don't know why people give a shit about us being 5 or 6, it means nothing.  5, 6 or 10, its the same thing, we don't make the playoffs

Moonlight Graham

December 4th, 2016 at 12:39 PM ^

Should have been 1 Alabama 2 Clemson 3 Washington 4 Penn State. Now that I see the final rankings, they don't look right. They rewarded UW for winning the PAC 12, as much as it pains me I think they should have done the same for Penn State along with their head to head win over OSU.

Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad


December 4th, 2016 at 12:53 PM ^

I'm not so sure about that.  There is no difference between 5 and 6 since both miss the playoffs.  Probaby easier for the committee to put the conf. champ higher since the impact is nil.  If a spot was in play, it wouldn't surprise me if the results were different.


December 4th, 2016 at 12:39 PM ^

Fuck you committee.  

Lesson to Michigan.  Schedule cupcakes in non-conference and schedule OSU at the beginning of the season.

OSU/UM at the end of the year made sense when the winner went to the Rose Bowl.  We now have to account for divisional tie-breaker rules and committee penalities for late season losses.  Never agree to Iowa at night from now.

Fuck this shit.

Best 4 is irrelevant.


December 4th, 2016 at 1:19 PM ^

Scheduling a tough non conference game--if won--can be an insurance policy against one in season fluke loss that prevents you from competing in conference championships. Or alternatively insurance against winning a conference with a loss but being accused of winning a soft conference. Personally I'm OK scheduling one tough non conference game, but the big ten divisions need to be rebalanced.

Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad


December 4th, 2016 at 1:36 PM ^

Big Ten divisions are a joke. Big Ten West will never field a competitive winner.  Iowa of last season was a paper tiger, then badly exposed by Stanford.

Big Ten West will always be a Wisconsin sideshow.  Look at this results / participants table for the B10 championship.  Michigan shut out in 6 years!  Makes one sick!

4 Appearances - Wisconsin

3 Appearances - MSU

and on and on it goes...


December 4th, 2016 at 12:40 PM ^

So now that a team got in without even going to their CCG, who is going to be first to go undefeated in their regular season, then decline going to their CCG in favor of keeping a guaranteed 100% win pct for their playoff bid resume?


December 4th, 2016 at 1:24 PM ^

Exactly. I mean if you're Alabama maybe you get in despite the conference championship game loss. But if you're an undefeated ranked 3-4, why not just decline the invitation? Do NCAA rules allow that? This would only make sense if #5 and #6 are idle and aren't going to possibly jump.

Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad