Member for

8 years 5 months
Points
238.00

Recent Comments

Date Title Body
12/04/2016 - 1:49pm Clemson also lost 1 fewer

Clemson also lost 1 fewer game than us, and won 2 more games than us (including a conference championship).

12/04/2016 - 1:47pm Yea true, the Iron Bowl is

Yea true, the Iron Bowl is never a tough game for them.

12/04/2016 - 12:47pm I might be missing something,

I might be missing something, but I thought they'd always said conference championships matter. It was just unclear whether this mattered more or less than head-to-head. Now we have our answer.

12/04/2016 - 2:36am Great, so thrilled we get to

Great, so thrilled we get to crush someone in an exhibition game.

Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

11/29/2016 - 8:55pm Colorado vs Oklahoma is

Colorado vs Oklahoma is debatable, plus our win over Colorado was at home and Ohio State won on the road at Oklahoma. Otherwise I agree.

Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

11/29/2016 - 8:42pm uhh but covering the spread

uhh but covering the spread as an underdog doesn't mean winning the game

Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

11/28/2016 - 11:35am Nevermind I see what you're

Nevermind I see what you're saying. But it's only 16 games for 2 teams. NFL is 19 or 20 games by that logic.

Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

11/28/2016 - 11:34am 8 teams would be 7 games.

8 teams would be 7 games.

Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

11/27/2016 - 9:52pm Honestly? Did we really

Honestly? Did we really clearly outplay them? They ended up with more yards and we had two fewer turnovers.

Yes, we outplayed them for a greater time period (the first three quarters), but we ceded a lot in the fourth and if their kicker doesn't miss both of two makeable FGs we lose in regulation. Fact is we gained virtually no yards in the fourth quarter and got outplayed once the that quarter started.

Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

11/27/2016 - 11:06am Where did anyone blame

Where did anyone blame Peppers for anything? He also didn't really live up to the hype creates on this blog, for what it's worth.

Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

11/27/2016 - 11:04am Not sure if intent was to

Not sure if intent was to blame him for pick six, which is absurd, but he definitely did botch that punt return right before it.

Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

11/27/2016 - 11:01am You question his size and

You question his size and speed for a safety in the NFL? You totally lost me at that point of the post, since this is definitely wrong.

Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

11/27/2016 - 10:56am to be fair, Hoke always had highly-rated recruiting classes

to be fair, Hoke always had highly-rated recruiting classes

Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

11/26/2016 - 4:16pm uhhh they scored 7 points in the third quarter

uhhh they scored 7 points in the third quarter

Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

11/05/2016 - 9:11am It was a rhetorical question,

It was a rhetorical question, was it not? Not to mention, the fact that the answer is a game from 10 years ago pretty much proves his point.

10/23/2016 - 9:48am Not if they lose to NW or

Not if they lose to NW or Nebraska.

10/23/2016 - 9:16am Probably because if Michigan

Probably because if Michigan lost a close road game to an 11-0 Ohio State, there's an outside chance they could still make the playoff. Probably not the case now that Ohio State has a loss.

06/01/2016 - 3:51am To be fair, he probably

To be fair, he probably didn't call him out by name because the tweet is already 140 characters. But yea, it's good tweet.

11/16/2015 - 4:13pm Really? Never been more

Really? Never been more evident than this year? 1-4 on the road last year, with the only win being the M00N game. 2-3 the year before, with a narrow win over *UConn* and a 3OT win over NW. This year, we're 3-1 with a narrow loss in the first game with a brand new QB, so I'd say that's definite improvement. 

Also, show me a college team that isn't worse on the road. 

11/11/2015 - 10:47am Regardless of whether we want

Regardless of whether we want this to be true, I'm pretty sure it's not. If ND wins out, beating Stanford in the process, I'm pretty sure they'll make it. At least over a 2-loss Michigan. We either need ND to lose or we need another path.

11/11/2015 - 10:18am Why are you so sure 1-loss

Why are you so sure 1-loss Baylor or Okie State will be above Michigan? TCU fell behind Michigan already, and Baylor's SoS isn't any harder. If Michigan beats the #3 and #5 teams, you really don't think the committee would have them jump 1-loss Big 12 teams? Because I certainly think it's possible.

As for jumping 1-loss Iowa and OSU, I think the committee would almost have to jump us given that we would beat both of them in this scenario, and also would have won the Big 12. We'd also have one more game than OSU, so same wins.

It's not lkely, but it's certainly psosible I think.

11/11/2015 - 10:15am I'm pretty sure there are

I'm pretty sure there are scenarios where both ND could get in and a 2-loss Michigan team could get in, but that would only happen if the committee ranks Michigan above a bunch of 1-loss Big 12 teams. Which I think is reasonable given the fact that they are already ahead of a 1-loss TCU, and in this hypothetical situation Michigan would beat the #3 and #5 teams. So that means really, we just need the following to happen: OK State and Baylor each drop a game, ND beats Stanford, Stanford (or another team) beats Utah. Then there would be no 1-loss teams out of the Pac 12, and we'd just need the committee to rank us above the three 1-loss Big 12 teams.

11/04/2015 - 4:18pm Yea, this. In the

Yea, this. In the hypothetical outlined above, Michigan would have beaten undefeated Ohio State followed by undefeated Iowa to finish out the season. They'd also have an additional game (and win) over many of those one-loss teams (i.e. all Big 12 teams, ND, any other 1-loss teams that don't make their conference championship). So, despite having one more loss, they'd likely have the same number of wins.

All of this also ignores the possibility the the CFP committee looks at the MSU loss as kidn of a wash, given the fluky nature of the last play. They are, after all, trying to pick the four best teams, not the four best records.

11/04/2015 - 12:47pm It is badly worded. See my

It is badly worded. See my post above. Just look at the structure of tiebreakers 1 and 2, they are the same. The last three words of each clearly modifies records. The "against each other" is not modifying compared, it's modifying records. This is clearly also because none of the other tiebreaking points say "against each other." It's implied that they are comparing the records against each other, this "against each other" is meant to modify record.

11/04/2015 - 12:40pm I agree it's poorly written,

I agree it's poorly written, but just take a look at the first two rules combined and it'll give you a clue how to interpret it:

  1. The records of the three tied teams will be compared against each other.
  2. The records of the three tied teams will be compared within their division.

I've bolded the key language in the above. I think eveyrone will agree that the #2 tiebreaker means that they are comparing records within their division. Therefore the modifier to "records" is the last three words of the sentence - "within their division." We can assume that #1 should be interpreted the same way - therefore "against each other" is a modifier for "recrods." So it's saying they will compare the records against each other. 

Also, as others have mentioned, think about this logically. Why wouldn't the records against each other for tied teams be the first tiebreaker? Of course this would be the case. If two teams are tied, head-to-head record is also the tiebreaker; logic follows that the same should be the case in a multi-way tie.

I agree though that this is written very poorly. If they wanted to compare overall record though, I think they would have used the word "overall" to modify record.

11/04/2015 - 12:34pm I don't know if you're taking

I don't know if you're taking crazy pills, but you're reading something that isn't there. It doesn't every say overall record. Look down at rule 6, which is win %. This is the overall record tiebreaker, essentially, because they all play 12 games.

11/04/2015 - 12:26pm As I mentioned elsewhere, the

As I mentioned elsewhere, the rule is just written poorly. #1 is meant to mean that the records of the three tied teams against each other will be compared. This was specifically discussed in a number of articles and on this board weeks ago. For reference, look at this article posted on BTN's website: http://btn.com/2015/10/20/dienhart-we-may-have-to-wait-on-big-ten-title…

11/04/2015 - 12:24pm This is the correct

This is the correct interpretation. The rule definitely could have been written more clearly, but you are correct.

11/04/2015 - 12:23pm To be fair, it's hard because

To be fair, it's hard because the rules were written incredibly poorly. Instead of saying "The records of the three tied teams will be compared against each other" they should have said "The records of the three tied teams against each other will be compared."

11/04/2015 - 12:20pm Sigh. This been discussed ad

Sigh. This been discussed ad nauseum here and elsewhere. The rule is poorly written, but it means that their records against one another are compared. They'd all be 1-1 against each other.

11/02/2015 - 11:43am Upvoted for Taco Bell.

Upvoted for Taco Bell.

10/29/2015 - 10:13am Somewhat misleading headline

Should read "Jourdan Lewis Says He's Staying." As much as we want this to be a true, a lot can change between now and the draft, especially if he gets a first-round draft grade.

10/23/2015 - 2:54pm This. I lived a block away

This. I lived a block away from this in law school when it opened. I definitely gained weight that semester.

10/23/2015 - 10:41am It seemed to me like Webber

It seemed to me like Webber was doing an interview to talk about the class he was teaching. Not sure how that's a "dueling interview." The entire point of this post was pointing out that Webber was tryign to AVOID talking about Jalen.

10/20/2015 - 9:51pm Just because people are

Just because people are willing to do work for a certain amount doesn't mean it's morally OK.

Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

10/20/2015 - 6:45pm Losing to Indiana even seems

Losing to Indiana even seems like a possibility, doesn't it? They did almost lose to Purdue, after all, and Indiana has the firepower to exploit their poor secondary. Much crazier things have happened (unfortunately, one of those things just happened this past weekend).

10/20/2015 - 5:34pm Pretty sure some of the

Pretty sure some of the statistical models put it at around 50% that they'll lose at least 2 games, so definitely not highly unlikely.

10/20/2015 - 5:30pm No, it's not. That's the

No, it's not. That's the entire point of the link in OP's post. Tiebreaker is playoff rank.

10/20/2015 - 10:08am Really? Urban has passion for

Really? Urban has passion for the game too, you know. And also Bo had passion for the game, and even he was only 5-4-1 in the Ten Year War.

10/19/2015 - 1:16pm This has to be a troll,

This has to be a troll, right? I mean, first downs aren't even a good stat because you could gain 30 yards on one play and it would only be one first down, and the other team could then gain three 10-yard first downs, and they're winning 3-to-1 on first downs. Does that mean they are better though? Obviously not.

Not to mention, starting field position obviously makes a difference in yardage gained. You can't just ignore special teams yards as if they didn't happen, becuase they did, in fact, happen.

10/18/2015 - 11:13am Eh, for the most part this is

Eh, for the most part this is right, other than the tackling the guy. There was still time on the clock until he crosses the goal line so if he's tackled at say the 10 or 20 they have a good shot at making a FG

Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

10/18/2015 - 12:17am Really? They would have kicked a 57 yard FG?

Really? They would have kicked a 57 yard FG?

Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

10/11/2015 - 9:41pm They're #7, but yea, it woukd be a big win.

They're #7, but yea, it woukd be a big win.

Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

10/08/2015 - 11:54am Not sure why this got negged

Not sure why this got negged by anyone...

10/08/2015 - 11:53am Is it definitely true that

Is it definitely true that the scholarship money would be treated as taxable income though? For other, non-athlete students who receive scholarships, if they get a job working for the university on the side, does their scholarship then also become taxable? My gut says no, but I don't actually know. Would love it if someone here could weigh in, because in this example if the non-athlete student employee isn't taxed on their scholarship I don't know why an athlete would be.

10/02/2015 - 4:48am Uh no. Not a massive

Uh no. Not a massive overreaction. Let's all point and laugh at you for not understanding forecasting.

Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

10/01/2015 - 4:57pm Ohio State, the defending

Ohio State, the defending national champs, are FAR FROM elite? Am I missing something?

Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

09/20/2015 - 4:54pm Not sure I follow logic here.

Not sure I follow logic here. It would back up coin flip if it were a neutral site, but it's in the Big House so it would support Michigan being a favorite. 4 points for homefield makes sense.

08/03/2015 - 11:31am I don't think he ever said

I don't think he ever said they were more delusional than us. He just said delusional fanbases clearly plays into this, which is pretty much an undeniable fact.

03/13/2015 - 10:55am They didn't make the

They didn't make the championship game last year. Otherwise, yea, I agree with you. They'll be trying to make a statement. They still have a shot at a 1 seed, so they're not gonna be caught sleeping.