|11/13/2018 - 10:42pm||There's absolutely a logical…||
There's absolutely a logical way to do it: they could decide that Alabama is one of the four best teams in the country, which is the entire criterion.
Look, they've steamrolled everybody they've played so far. Suppose Georgia wins on a fumbled punt or a kick six or some other improbability. They could absolutely decide that Alabama is one of the top four teams in the country, and they got unlucky in one game.
Conference championships are a red herring that only matter when it's convenient. Whether it's the first or the last game really shouldn't matter at all.
I happen to think Michigan probably gets in if this doomsday scenario occurs, but it wouldn't shock me at all if they picked Alabama either. That's why I continue to root for chaos. :). (It also wouldn't shock me if they left Notre Dame out and kept both Alabama and Michigan. That would be epic. :)
|11/13/2018 - 10:36pm||The College Football Playoff…||
The College Football Playoff committee has ultimate authority. They answer to nobody. Why the secrecy?
If they want to have an all-SEC final, because Paul Finebaum said so, why not just issue a Top 10 of Alabama, Georgia, LSU, Kentucky, Florida, Auburn, Tennessee, Clemson, Notre Dame, and Michigan?
Alternatively, even if LSU were 25, what would prevent them from keeping Alabama in the top 4 with a loss? They can't get fired. The Cotton Bowl isn't going to refuse to host the game they come up with. They don't need cover for any decision they make.
There's no conspiracy here. There's no need for one. The people on the committee really think LSU is the 7th best team in the country. Occam's razor, my friend. :)
|11/13/2018 - 10:28pm||OK, I think I finally get…||
OK, I think I finally get what you're trying to say -- a loss to a 12-0 Notre Dame team is more impressive than a loss to an 11-1 Notre Dame team, and if they're going to stay in front of Michigan anyway, you'd rather have the loss be more impressive.
That's way more work than I expect anyone on the committee is going to go into. If Notre Dame is judged ahead of Michigan, the loss to them is going to be a good loss -- and if Michigan jumps Notre Dame, then it won't matter. And I do think 12-1 Michigan is ahead of 11-1 Notre Dame -- but I don't think this level of detail would be the difference even if they're not.
|11/13/2018 - 10:16pm||What leapfrog? If Bama…||
What leapfrog? If Bama loses a game, is it really that much of a stretch for them only to drop to #3 or #4? In 2006, Michigan lost to OSU and didn't drop at all the first week; they moved down to #3 after one more USC win, then got jumped by Florida when USC lost and suddenly "rematches are bad and conference titles are good."
Is it really that unreasonable to think that a 12-1 Alabama is one of the best four teams in the country?
|11/13/2018 - 10:10pm||Your choices are to leave…||
Your choices are to leave out a 12-1 Alabama team with a drubbing of a top-10 team in their stadium -- but little else except a massively good eye test; a 12-1 Michigan team with (one hopes) a similar drubbing of a top 10 team in their stadium, plus a conference championship, a home shellacking of a ranked PSU team, a sweep of a (probably still) ranked Northwestern team, and a dominant win at MSU, which may or may not move the needle; or a 12-0 Notre Dame team with wins vs. Michigan at home, vs. Syracuse in Yankee Stadium, and at Northwestern.
There are cases to be made for each of them. If they will leave out a 13-0 UCF team -- and they will -- they could leave out a 12-0 Notre Dame team. I'm not saying it's likely, but I am saying that Notre Dame doesn't control its own destiny. (If you insist upon head-to-head as the end-all, be-all factor, replace Michigan winning out with Oklahoma or OSU or WVU or whomever floats your boat). Georgia, Alabama, and Clemson -- I think they do.
|11/13/2018 - 8:32pm||So are conspiracy theories. …||
So are conspiracy theories. And yet...
|11/13/2018 - 7:59pm||Clearly somebody didn't read…||
Clearly somebody didn't read the entire thread on Michigan's ranking vs. Notre Dame.
Perhaps my sarcasm was too subtle. Ok cool Hook 'em.
|11/13/2018 - 7:57pm||Georgia? I don't think that…||
Georgia? I don't think that's really in doubt, whether they're #4 or #5 at the moment. IMO, the teams that control their own destiny entirely are Alabama, Clemson, and Georgia; if any (or 2/3) of those win out, I think they're in. I don't believe Notre Dame or Michigan can say the same thing, because I think it's possible for either of those two to win out and get left out of the playoff if Georgia beats Alabama. Only two of Alabama, ND, or Michigan could go in that scenario (assuming Clemson and Georgia win out), and there are arguments for each ending up on the short end of the stick.
|11/13/2018 - 7:40pm||Of course "they" will,…||
Of course "they" will, whoever "they" are. They could just decide to re-rank their teams. There are no rules here.
I don't think the playoff committee is trying to screw Michigan or trying to get two SEC teams in. I think they're just trying to rank teams 1-25, which isn't all that easy a thing to do.
|11/13/2018 - 7:39pm||Think again about what you…||
Think again about what you're saying. It makes absolutely no sense.
Even if you're right, and a one-loss Notre Dame team isn't eliminated, and is still ahead of Michigan -- and you might be -- that's certainly not a worse scenario than having Notre Dame undefeated. At worst it's a push; at best, it's positive for Michigan.
Unless you're somehow arguing that Michigan is more likely to be ranked ahead of Notre Dame if Notre Dame is undefeated than they are if Notre Dame loses.
|11/13/2018 - 7:35pm||According to the wisdom of…||
According to the wisdom of the board, which says that they can never be ranked higher than Notre Dame as long as Notre Dame hasn't lost, they're absolutely punished for playing the game. If they hadn't played it, Notre Dame has no top wins, Michigan has a victory over an SEC doormat, and undefeated, #3 Michigan doesn't have to worry about Alabama / Georgia.
|11/13/2018 - 7:22pm||I'm confused. I had it good…||
I'm confused. I had it good authority that the committee wanted to put Georgia at #4.
|11/13/2018 - 7:06pm||Then you need to put UCF in…||
Then you need to put UCF in the playoff ahead of Michigan. To do otherwise is intellectually dishonest.
|11/13/2018 - 6:58pm||Which is why I trust…||
Which is why I trust computers to judge the results of the game over humans. People panic. The S&P+ formula cranks through and says Michigan had a 60% post-game win probability against Notre Dame. Play the game 10 times, in South Bend, with the same yardages, etc., and Michigan wins 6.
That's also why Michigan is a solid 7+ point favorite over Notre Dame on a neutral field right now. Michigan is a better team than Notre Dame, no matter the results in the first game of the season.
So many people are throwing out most of the data to focus on two data points: Notre Dame hasn't lost a game -- then again, UCF would be 9-1 with that schedule -- and Notre Dame beat Michigan. In 2015, MSU beat Michigan. Only Jemele Hill and her 500K mid-Michigan Jabroni followers believed that MSU was better than Michigan that year. You can't just say "team A beat team B; therefore, team A is better." That's not how life works.
|11/13/2018 - 6:49pm||This is nutty. If ND wins…||
This is nutty. If ND wins out, they're surely ahead of Michigan, but if they don't win out, they might be competing with Michigan, therefore you want them to win out? Is that really your argument?
|11/13/2018 - 5:38pm||If you think that Jim…||
If you think that Jim Brandstatter's problem is that he's unbiased, I'm not sure what to tell you.
|11/13/2018 - 5:36pm||Michigan didn't get away…||
Michigan didn't get away with anything. The rule was changed after that season to prohibit fumbling the ball out of bounds to preserve time. At the time, it was a smart play (extra remaining timeout aside).
|11/13/2018 - 5:22pm||If Michigan is punished for…||
If Michigan is punished for playing a game against Notre Dame, instead of keeping their game against Arkansas, you may as well blow the whole system up. It's already rare to get a quality out-of-conference matchup; teams -- including Michigan -- crow about their "one Power Five opponent," as if that's somehow enough.
If all they're going to do is rank teams by the number of losses -- Group of 5 excluded -- expect to see more and more cupcakes on the schedule going forward. This hyper-fixation on the number of losses, without ever considering the opponents, is slowly ruining college football.
|11/13/2018 - 4:07pm||Head to head means something…||
Head to head means something, but it doesn't mean everything.
Otherwise, I guess Akron is better than OSU -- Akron beat NW who beat Purdue who beat OSU.
If you throw out the records against the bottom-dwellers and just look at quality wins, ND has one or two and Michigan has somewhere between two and four. I mean, honestly, Northwestern is ND's second-best win.
|11/13/2018 - 4:04pm||Michigan will have had more…||
Michigan will have had more quality wins than Notre Dame. It's entirely possible that they're the ones who get left out.
I still maintain if they "wanted to" rank Georgia ahead of Michigan, they'd have gone ahead and done it last week. What's stopping them?
You may be right that Michigan gets left out, but it's not going to be due to some diabolical SEC conspiracy theory with the college football illuminati planning out a month's worth of polls just to get the result they want. If it happens, it's because they happened to pick those four teams that week, and it's not something that's going to cost me a bit of sleep.
This is, however, why people's suggestions to cheer for OSU are preposterous. There is a known procedure for wining the Big Ten, so concentrate on that -- and if an OSU loss makes that more likely -- which it does -- then that's what you should want. The playoff is a beauty pageant.
|11/13/2018 - 3:19pm||The adjusted method seems to…||
The adjusted method seems to be a better fit for the committee's thinking, honestly, with the exception that I expect Michigan to stay ahead of Georgia based mostly on inertia. Still, when you're saying "this makes Auburn and South Carolina look better," I think -- yep, so does the committee. :)
|11/12/2018 - 9:46pm||There is no home field in…||
There is no home field in the country that's worth 7 points. Not even Death Valley at night.
|11/12/2018 - 1:55pm||What about a mini…||
What about a mini-Brandstatter?
|11/11/2018 - 7:08pm||Like when you used to climb…||
Like when you used to climb the rope in gym class?
|11/11/2018 - 7:37am||There were some Rutgers*…||
There were some Rutgers* fans on the way out of the stadium yesterday who made this point: “We scored as many as Penn State — we’re just as good as Penn State.” Apparently PSU @ Rutgers is this coming Saturday and they were looking for reasons to be optimistic. I assured them we’d all be rooting for them. :)
* They ran for as many yards as Michigan yesterday, on fewer carries. As far as I’m concerned, they earned their ‘s’, at least until their next loss to Buffalo. :)
|11/10/2018 - 2:14pm||Boy, when the screen pass…||
Boy, when the screen pass doesn’t work, OSU doesn’t have much offense. They’re sure good at punting, though.
|11/10/2018 - 2:11pm||Actually, I think he’s…||
Actually, I think he’s considerably better than Lolwerke... but that’s a pretty low bar. He’s also a freshman; in a couple of years, he could be decent.
|11/10/2018 - 9:02am||Alabama will not get into…||
Alabama will not get into the playoff with two losses unless every other candidate has two losses also (except UCF — 2-loss Alabama probably gets in ahead of undefeated UCF). The only exception I can think of is if they have two losses and win the SEC, in which case Georgia gets left out and so there’s no danger to Michigan.
So, yes, it’s perfectly reasonable to root against the Tide through the Auburn game — but if they finish the regular season 12-0, you’d really like to see them go 13-0.
|11/09/2018 - 10:43pm||Rutger is the cupcake.||
Rutger is the cupcake.
|11/09/2018 - 4:55pm||In gratitude, and hoping the…||
I mean... I don't even...
I have a feeling good Col. Rutgers can distinguish between a joke at the expense of the football team and a joke at his personal legacy.
Suffice it to say that we hold Col. Rutgers in the highest regard and think that he'd probably move the line by 4 points if he were to suit up tomorrow. Despite his having been deceased for 188 years.
|11/09/2018 - 1:42pm||You're giving the committee…||
You're giving the committee members way too much credit if you think they'd parse the games that closely.
|11/09/2018 - 12:56pm||Eh, we're not D'antini. If…||
Eh, we're not D'antini. If Michigan needs an OSU victory in order to accomplish something -- e.g., a Big Ten basketball championship -- so be it.
Mind you, I'd never root for OSU. I'd just root against their opponent. ;)
The same holds true this weekend. This idea of "we want OSU to look as good as possible" is asinine; doubly so when you consider that an OSU loss tomorrow means Michigan -- assuming they don't crap the bed in The Birthplace™ -- can win the Big Ten east with a victory on Senior Day against a team that hasn't won in Ann Arbor since Jim Harbaugh was three.
In a perfect world, MSU and OSU could tie, which is like both teams losing. Since there are no more ties, I'll root harder against OSU this weekend than I will against MSU.
|11/09/2018 - 10:34am||search for a few words from…||
search for a few words from the title and you can read it via the link from the search engine.
|11/08/2018 - 5:23pm||No, there's a point minimum…||
No, there's a point minimum for voting. It's somewhere around 1000, I believe. It was 100 on the old site.
|11/08/2018 - 3:38pm||No. Lining up and kicking …||
No. Lining up and kicking a field goal into your own uprights would constitute a safety, not an opposition field goal. So, 57-2. :)
|11/08/2018 - 3:22pm||eh, it's a nervous bird.||
eh, it's a nervous bird.
|11/08/2018 - 1:33pm||Sure -- when Michigan has…||
Sure -- when Michigan has won four consecutive Big Ten titles.
When it's been 14 years since the last one, I want the division wrapped up ASAP. No chance of referee malfeasance, weird fumble luck, etc. Make OSU irrelevant. Party at the Big House on Senior Day when the victory locks up the East, and don't look back.
|11/08/2018 - 12:30pm||I don't think it's a line I…||
I don't think it's a line I could bet. I don't see how you can give 40 points to a I-A team. Rutger has scholarship athletes too, after all. :) But this Michigan team is absolutely capable of hanging half a hundred on this Rutger team, so I'd rather just sit it out.
If you were going to bet this game, I think it's the O/U at 48. Unless you expect some kind of 42-14 cover -- and I don't see how Rutger scores 14 when PSU and MSU could each only score 7 -- you're most likely to win your bet at something like 35-3 or 38-7. So, if you're right, I think the under comes through.
In fact, I'd almost go so far as to say that if you're going to take Rutger +40, you almost certainly want to parlay it with the under -- and I never parlay. It's just very difficult for me to imagine Rutger +40 and the over both coming through.
|11/08/2018 - 12:25pm||I think Milton is a package…||
I think Milton is a package QB this year, and I don't see any reason to waste one of his four games on Rutger. I think they'll put him in for a scripted set of plays at OSU, and that would give him two games left -- the Big Ten championship game and a playoff / bowl game, or two playoff games.
|11/08/2018 - 4:50am||Mistaken OP
Rutger has no S…
|11/08/2018 - 4:48am||So... you really think that…||
So... you really think that the 14-team SEC can name a meaningful conference champion with its eight-game regular season schedule?
Remember when the Big Ten used to have co-champions all the time -- even undefeated co-champions occasionally?
This is that writ large.
|11/08/2018 - 4:46am||Good point.
Heck, let's do…
Heck, let's do the same thing in college basketball. You knew who the four best teams were last year -- Virginia, Kansas, Villanova, and Xavier. To say otherwise is playing dumb and you just like to argue. Why not just seed them directly into the Final Four?
|11/08/2018 - 4:43am||Because nobody liked the BCS…||
Because nobody liked the BCS and there was much clamoring for a system that used people that would pay attention to the games instead of pollsters who abdicated the responsibility and unpublished computer rankings that could be doing almost anything.
|11/08/2018 - 4:42am||I've long thought a 24-team…||
I've long thought a 24-team playoff is the correct size. In my ideal world, there are objective criteria, but in the real world, it's probably 12 conference champions and 12 at-large bids, selected and seeded by the type of committee that would use the RPI. (Yes, there are only 10 conferences now, but I'd expect 2 to be formed once it became obvious that the G5 conferences should divest teams in order to get additional automatic spots).
If they want to have 25 other bowl games, fine. There are 3 smaller end-of-season basketball tournaments and the world doesn't end.
|11/08/2018 - 4:36am||Surely you can see the…||
Surely you can see the difference between a 7-point win with a sub-50% postgame win expectancy and a 39-point win that included a sad field goal.
There was nobody outside of the state of Pennsylvania who believed that 2016 PSU was better than OSU or Michigan, despite beating OSU.
|11/08/2018 - 4:29am||Correct -- I said as much…||
Correct -- I said as much earlier. They didn't set out planning this, the way that SEC teams do. However, that's still the result. If Notre Dame and its fans don't like being told that their schedule's soft, they should go ahead and join a conference. If Notre Dame were going to play Clemson in the ACC title game, that would be a pretty good opportunity for them to pick up a second marquee win.
The more we look at quality wins instead of losses, the more we're setting out to reward teams for scheduling tough out-of-conference games instead of avoiding them. I don't mean to ignore losses entirely -- OSU's loss to Purdue is deservedly painful. But you need to look at the gestalt of the schedule, not merely the number of losses.
|11/07/2018 - 9:46pm||Look, I agree, but this…||
Look, I agree, but this practice of ranking teams based upon a combination of conference affiliation and number of losses simply has to stop.
All you're doing is rewarding ND for playing a garbage schedule.
College football is better when there are more marquee out-of-conference games. We should all be rewarding teams for playing tougher schedules, because it makes the game better, even if it means that a team gets into the playoff ahead of one they beat.
I fully believe Michigan is more deserving of a playoff spot at this point, because they have two wins, one of which was on the road, as opposed to Notre Dame's one win, which was at home. I simply do not care about games against crap competition.
If all you care about is the fewest losses, then everyone should schedule like Washington State, and what fun is that?
|11/07/2018 - 7:24pm||So, one quality win is all…||
So, one quality win is all it takes?
Notre Dame didn't set out to have a garbage schedule -- except when they chose to sort-of-join the ACC. However, they managed to have a garbage schedule anyway. That needs to mean something, or we're going to have the complete and utter death of interesting non-conference games.
|11/07/2018 - 7:23pm||I fail to see the logic in…||
I fail to see the logic in throwing out the vast majority of data about two teams in favor of one particular datum.
Was MSU better than Michigan in 2015?
Is Eastern really better than Purdue, and Purdue really better than OSU?
|11/07/2018 - 6:54pm||So is UCF.||
So is UCF.