Noon Games Open Thread

Submitted by JWG Wolverine on November 11th, 2017 at 12:14 PM

Time for the Noon Games. Obviously MSU/OSU and Rutgers/PSU are our focus, but here are all the games on the viewing guide M-Dog made this morning (thanks for doing that!) until we head into the afternoon, when it's time to beat some turtle!

Go Blue and enjoy your Saturday!

Saturday, November 11

 

Comments

schreibee

November 11th, 2017 at 12:46 PM ^

Gol dang it, I'm older than a lot of you.
I was alive when Woody said he went for 2 because they don't let you go for 3;
I was in the Big House for the upset in '69;
I viscerally remember that day the Big 10 voted osu into the Rose over us.
I'm just not sure I can root for them with such slim possible benefits.
Don't look like it's gonna matter much whether I root for them or not at this point tho...
Ouch sparty ;-)

RedRum

November 11th, 2017 at 12:51 PM ^

It is mathetically possibe but all but improbable that UM goes to the Big Ten Championship. That being said, a loss to MSU will put Columbus into such a tissy, I will love the entertainment.  As i've said before, Urban is not emotionally equiped to have a down season. I look forward to OSU losing to MSU then UM and watching Columbus implode.

cthomas

November 11th, 2017 at 1:35 PM ^

First post. Let me ask why MSU needs a second loss for us to win the division. I’m not saying the following analysis is correct but I’d be curious to hear what’s wrong with it.

Suppose we win out (big if), OSU beats MSU (looking highly likely), and Penn State loses one of its remaining games (very unlikely but let’s assume).

Penn State would have three conference losses and be out of the picture. We would’ve tied with OSU and MSU with two conference losses each. The rule says that “[i]f three teams are tied,” you start by looking at “[t]he records of the three tied teams,” not in the division (a later step), but rather presumably as a whole.

This knocks out MSU thanks to their out of conference loss to Notre Dame. The rule goes on to say that “[i]f only two teams remain tied after any step,” which would be the case here after you filter for total record, “the winner of the game between the two tied teams” wins the division, which on our assumptions would be us, since we have to beat Ohio State to get to this scenario.

Again, I’m happy to be corrected on this. Just curious.

Go Blue

sbblue

November 11th, 2017 at 1:59 PM ^

MSU does not need to lose twice. It wouldn't even come down to a tie between two teams if involved in a 3-way tie with MSU and OSU. Both OSU and MSU would be out based on total record (both teams have a non-conference loss). Of course, the problem is that PSU won't lose again (and Michigan will)

maquih

November 11th, 2017 at 2:11 PM ^

No idea where you got those rules, out of conference games have absolutely no bearing on tiebreakers AFAIK.

http://www.bigten.org/sports/m-footbl/archive/081011aaa.html

First thing is conference record obviously.  

Then the first tiebreaker is the record among teams that are tied. (If we beat ohio then all three would be 1-1)

Next tiebreaker is division record, and since we lost to penn state we are in big trouble there with two east division losses while ohio and msu would have only one each. (we lost to msu and penn state while ohio and msu would have only lost to us and ohio respectively)

And the rest is still highly up in the air depending how 4th 5th place etc fall out.  

cthomas

November 11th, 2017 at 2:18 PM ^

Step one is: “The records of the three tied teams will be compared against each other.” I read this as saying you have to compare the teams’ records. Are you reading it as meaning that you look at only head-to-head games? If that were the intended meaning it seems to me they would have inverted the phrases and said “The records of the three tied teams against each other will be compared.” Maybe it’s ambiguous and I don’t know how it has been applied in the past, but I think the head-to-head reading is more strained.

maquih

November 11th, 2017 at 2:15 PM ^

That's not how rivalries work.  Michigan State, being fellow Michiganders are our brother, even little brother if you will.   Would you ever root against your little brother against some douchebag from ohio???

ohio is the ultimate enemy, it goes back to the Toledo War.  Yes people took up arms and killed each other fighting over Toledo.  That's why ohio will always be enemy number one.  It doesn't matter if we lost 100 games in a row, the end all be all of Michigan football is to win the Game.  I honestly don't even care that much about a national title, I'd much rather go 1-11 beating ohio than win the national championship with one loss to ohio.  Every single year, I would sign that deal and lock it in for the next century if I could.

LSAClassOf2000

November 11th, 2017 at 12:19 PM ^

At least on this first series, Ohio State has elected to call from the "Plays That Work" spreadsheet, which is quite the change from last week. 

...and just there, Mike Weber finds a gigantic hole in the MSU backfield and off he goes. 

BlueMk1690

November 11th, 2017 at 12:24 PM ^

disliked each other. You'd think with a few high stakes games between them over the last few years, there'd be an element of rivalry there (like say between Michigan and PSU) ..but it always feels like they handle losing to each other pretty well ("At least it's not against Michigan").

creelymonk10

November 11th, 2017 at 12:24 PM ^

MSU may finally be in the position we usually are with OSU, with OSU playing like shit the week before against an inferior team (lately MSU), only to turn it on the next week against us and realize they have a great running game.