PLayoff Rankings

Submitted by Bluenin on
Michigan 24 Sparty 17 F’ing joke!!

allintime23

November 15th, 2017 at 5:31 AM ^

When you make it known that losing games is huge and go on to rank 3 loss teams the system has failed. Especially teams that lose by 45. Hopefully there is some way we blow this all up. We all know how it ends anyway, Sabin.

TrueBlue2003

November 15th, 2017 at 5:02 PM ^

The committee has been fairly consistent in four years of giving more credit for quality wins than it dings for losses (and any quality, really).

In 2014, they largely (and correctly) devalued an early season loss by OSU to VT because OSU finished really strongly with a bunch of impressive quality wins.

In 2015, they devalued a loss by MSU to Nebraska (not a godo team) because MSU beat quality opponents in Michigan, OSU and Iowa.  Even though OSU was clearly the better team and have a "better" loss (to MSU vs to Nebraska), they went with the team that had more quality wins.

Same in 2016 with Clemson who had a pretty bad loss but won all their tough games.

If you're going to lose a game, lose to a bad team because you didn't cost yourself a chance at a quality win.  It seems counterintuitive but you get hurt more by losing to a good team because you take a loss AND you missed the opportunity for a quality win (and will get ranked behind that other quality team now if you're close in the rankings).

This was all a response to the BCS which put teams ahead of teams they lost to all the time, because computers are better at guaging the "quality" of a loss.  But that led to a ton of anger about teams making it in over teams they lost to (ex OU made it over Texas in 2008, despite Texas beating OU and only losing one game to Texas Tech).

AmayzNblue

November 15th, 2017 at 7:06 AM ^

The committee is considering the wins of teams more than their losses. Sparty beat a PSU team that was ranked in the top 10 at the time, while Michigan hasn’t beaten any team with a record above .500.

The problem is that the committee is also not (consistently) factoring in losses. Sparty beat UM in a rainstorm mud show, then got blown out by OSU. They only dropped less than 10 spots.

UM got blown out by PSU and dropped out of the top 25 altogether after being in the upper teens.

That logic doesn’t add up and is clearly inconsistent. This is what we should expect with a fully human committee

ak47

November 15th, 2017 at 9:18 AM ^

Yes the logic makes sense. When Michigan got blown out by psu they had zero wins to point to justify still being considered a top 25 team. When msu got blown out by osu they could point to Michigan, psu, and Iowa wins as data points that show they are a top 25 team. There is zero flaw with that logic.

AmayzNblue

November 15th, 2017 at 8:46 PM ^

Against Florida means nothing, their win against us means nothing. You can’t just twist it to your liking, but then again, that’s exactly what the committee is doing. I dont blame the committee, they’re just people. If any of us were making the decision, it would be flawed still. The better suggestion is what one poster made earlier in this thread: incorporate, humans, computer calculations, strength of Schedule calculations, etc altogether for a BCS type ranking with top 4 teams at the end. It reduces the room for flawed or biased rankings

YoOoBoMoLloRoHo

November 15th, 2017 at 7:46 AM ^

This year was never a playoff or championship year - the nadir of mature talent (especially in the OL and DL where maturity really matters) with the final two classes from the end of the Hoke era clearly limited our upside. Besides, the whole CFP model is a political, PR machine. Beat UW, Beat OSU. Get a year older and better - make a run in 2018 with a bunch of quality wins.

bluepalooza

November 15th, 2017 at 8:04 AM ^

But Michigan is where it belongs. Beat Wisconsin and should be 15. Beat OSU then 10. Really simple, beat two good teams. Do I believe score would be different if we played the first seven games over right now? Yes! Only game I think M still could lose is PSU. But M would destroy AF and Cinci and beat MSU soundly.

Mongo

November 15th, 2017 at 8:34 AM ^

expand the # teams to 8 or 16. Last week, two of the committee's top four teams were trounced, I mean totally embarassed. These bozos are just voting from am inherent bias and some horseshit group-think on what defines a quality win. Last year's committee was better, they lost some good members this year and replaced them with a bunch of buffoons.

Frigid

November 15th, 2017 at 8:35 AM ^

Against our schedule MSU would likely be 10-0. Our losses are MSU and PSU who they beat, and MSU already played their tough Western opponent.

You Only Live Twice

November 15th, 2017 at 10:25 AM ^

Against our schedule?  MSU would not have won that night game in good old Happy Valley.  Results there would probably have more resembled the showing in Columbus.

bluepalooza

November 15th, 2017 at 7:26 PM ^

showed up vs Northwestern and OSU.  I predicted they would go 1-4 in last 5.  I didn't expect them to beat PSU.  I thought they would lose to NW, PSU, OSU then split with the last two.  I still expect them to lose to one or both (Rutgers/MD).  If I had to pick one game they will lose, it would be Rutgers. Rutgers and Maryland will be playing to make their season.  MSU will be going through motions.

Perkis-Size Me

November 15th, 2017 at 8:44 AM ^

Choosing the 2 and 3 spots between Clemson and Miami are tough. A few weeks ago I would've said Clemson is without question the better team. Even after their Syracuse loss. But Miami just put two straight whoopins on VaTech and Notre Dame. Right now I'd probably put Miami as 2 and Clemson as 3, but Bama and Oklahoma as 1 and 4 are good. 

Honestly, as long as OSU doesn't sneak in I'm good. Would take a lot of chaos, and if any 2-loss team is getting in it's probably Auburn. But if some things fall apart, and teams like Auburn, Georgia, and Clemson all lose again, and OSU pastes everyone left on it's schedule, they could conceivably sneak in as the 4 seed. 

 

mgoblue0970

November 15th, 2017 at 9:29 AM ^

H2H is a tiebreaker generally.

MSU has 3 losses, M two.

Sigh... if Peters was in that game, I gotta think Michigan wins.  We just needed someone to manage it.  Sparty gets FIVE take aways and can only put up 14 points?!  Whatever.

mgoblue0970

November 15th, 2017 at 9:26 AM ^

Yep... no credibility in that poll dropping SpartyLOL 5 points after that tire fire of a game. 

Also, way to go Dantonio kicking that FG to channel your inner James Franklin.