uferfan

December 4th, 2016 at 12:48 PM ^

I agree that loss timing matters, but I think we need to dump Florida off of the schedule now and switch them out with Portland State, since both teams appear to hold equal non-conference value.

Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

Maynard

December 4th, 2016 at 1:14 PM ^

I know this will probably get me crushed on here but I just don't understand why we have to have the backloaded schedule every year. Why the hell should we play Michigan State, Iowa, and Ohio State near the end of the year every time. I know why it happens (because it always has, tradition, yada, yada, yada) but obviously our schedule isn't working to our advantage. We needed to beat Iowa so I am not excusing us. I just am tired of the same backloaded way it gets done now when someone like Alabama can do it differently. And don't tell me, well Alabama plays Auburn that week every year and all that. Auburn isn't good every year.

Ghost of Fritz…

December 4th, 2016 at 12:49 PM ^

the best 4. 

The committee sent a message that conference championships are a big part of it.

Moving Clemson over OSU, and PSU over Michigan makes this clear.

Clemson looked not great against VT.  They did nothing to merit jumping OSU.

And Michigan is better than PSU by several touchdowns.

But they rewarded conference champs.

Will be interesting to the the analytical data driven polls.

Rafiki

December 4th, 2016 at 12:56 PM ^

They actually didn't send a clear message about conference championships....if they mattered psu would be in over osu. Especially since psu also beat osu head to head. What the committee really said this season is that if they like you preseason they aren't likely to change their mind. The committee has appeared intent on putting osu in the playoff. Osu didn't have to earn a spot this year they just had to not lose one.

SeattleWolverine

December 4th, 2016 at 1:04 PM ^

I see:

1 loss conference champion CLemson passes 1 loss non-champ OSU

2 loss conference champion PSU passes 2 loss Michigan that stomped them

1 loss OSU is in but 2 loss PSU is out.

My conclusion is that they are saying conference championships are important but not important enough to outweigh an extra loss. Though I am not quite sure how to reconclie that with UW at 4. Should have been UW at 3 and OSU at 4. But whatever. Probably the message there being to schedule someone in OOC as UW had no decent games and Clemson had @Auburn while OSU had @Oklahoma. So...yeah.

Rafiki

December 4th, 2016 at 1:20 PM ^

Your confusion about UW's ranking illustrates my point. They didn't send a clear message here other than if we believe you're in the top 4 and we can justify it then you're in. The winner doesn't fit the criteria the criteria fits the winner. There doesn't appear to be consistency across conferences. The most consistent thing across all the teams is not having more than 1 loss. That may be the clearest takeaway. That the committee doesn't want a 2 loss team in the playoffs. I believe osu is one of the best 4 teams so I get why they're #3 but the justifications for keeping them in should also knockout UW or put UM in. If it's SOS UW shouldn't be in. If it's the eye test, top 25 wins, and other factors UM should be in.

Bo4President

December 4th, 2016 at 12:50 PM ^

If the Big Ten scenario with PSU, Wisky, Mich and OSU were SEC teams????

All four of these teams would be in. Seriously! If not SEC commissioner would be bitching if not.

Sorry, venting.....

Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

mGrowOld

December 4th, 2016 at 12:52 PM ^

If we had Iowa we'd have been in.  That loss, coupled with PSU throttling them, kept us out.  Had we won that game it would've been Alabama, OSU, Clemson, Michigan.

We may have gotten screwed by the refs at Columbus but nobody's fault but ours for the loss at Iowa.  That's the one that stings.

uofmfan_13

December 4th, 2016 at 1:20 PM ^

Big Ten is run by OSU it seems.  Why does OSU get the home-and-away with UM and MSU but both UM and MSU have complete "AWAY" and "HOME" years in these series?  It is garbage.  They don't even pretend to be impartial.  There is no way that should be happening.  Those are the two biggest rivals for each team.  The fact that Michigan and Michigan State have to travel every other year for both rivalry games isn't right.  There is nothing equitable about this.

If "The Game" was in Ann Arbor this season, it is a completely different ending IMO.

UMForLife

December 4th, 2016 at 12:55 PM ^

The final ranking after all the bowl games is going to have M #2. Moral victory and all. F*** the committee and espn. Let us put up 50 on whoever we play and make everyone wonder what it could have been against Alabama. Hope OSU loses by 50.

Mongo

December 4th, 2016 at 1:05 PM ^

Order of importance:
#1 Total Wins
#2 Total Quality Wins vs Top 25
#3 Recency of Quality Wins (that peaking thing)
#4 Conference Championship
#5 SOS
#6 H2H result

Amazing to me that H2H appears to be dead last. This CFP process is no better than the BCS, maybe even more subjective and flawed given the black box available for each voter.

Blue Balls

December 4th, 2016 at 1:07 PM ^

What's the Vegas line on Alabama Washington -enough said. Galloway is such a tool-The selection committee darling is still Ohio State-The argument to put Ohio State in and leave Penn State out doesn't hold water without putting Michigan in over Washington-The safety at Iowa was a spike in Michigan's hope to make the final 4. Would rather see top eight teams in the playoffs -more teams would be excited and a lot of these bowl games would start to have meaning-more conferences would get a chance (Western Michigan).

Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

Pierre Despereaux

December 4th, 2016 at 1:10 PM ^

Going to wonder what this season could have been for a long, long time. It really feels like we're one of the top 4 teams in the country.

Just got to go out now and destroy our bowl matchup.