Wow, just slap Washington right in the face
- Thread starter GoBlue_since1985
- Start date
Only one set of these rankings matter. The rest are meaningless.
I'm half convinced of a "conspiracy theory" ----- ESPN asks for "something controversial" within the rankings and then all the ESPN talking heads can talk about it for the next 72 hours. What a great way to get TV ratings!
If Washington wins out, I simply cannot imagine them being left out of the playoff. No way.
I'm half convinced of a "conspiracy theory" ----- ESPN asks for "something controversial" within the rankings and then all the ESPN talking heads can talk about it for the next 72 hours. What a great way to get TV ratings!
If Washington wins out, I simply cannot imagine them being left out of the playoff. No way.
Yeah, but the chances they get in with one loss are a not good, I would think.
We know that almost certainly one or more of the four won't have perfect records, so vying for those one-loss spots is key.
I think a 1-loss Washington will be fine as well if they end up winning the PAC. I imagine the playoff committee will likely reward a team that wins their league and has 1-loss versus one that does not. But then, again I have no idea how these things play out. If Washington wins out, there is a 0% chance they are left out and A&M gets in instead. Essentially, I think what the rankings say though is that Texas A&M is the best 1-loss team so any other 1-loss team will now have to go for massive style points.
Anyone notice that Michigan now has wins over 3 Top-15 schools??? If I am not mistaken, that is better then anyone else in the Top 10 - or the Top 25 for that matter. Anyone that thinks our schedule has been cupcake is completely clueless.
Anyone notice that Michigan now has wins over 3 Top-15 schools??? If I am not mistaken, that is better then anyone else in the Top 10 - or the Top 25 for that matter. Anyone that thinks our schedule has been cupcake is completely clueless.
This is a good post --- I think the main message to be taken is "A&M ranks ahead of Louisville, and will rank ahead of Washington if UW falls into a similar position of being a 1-loss non-division, non-conference Champion."
I agree that Washington is in if they win out or are a 1-loss Pac-12 Champion.
But a loss to WSU is going to be a mortal wound. WSU is 5-0 in division and hosts Arizona, hosts Cal, and is at Colorado the next 3 weeks prior to hosting UW. Hold serve at home the next 2 weeks against sub-.500 teams and WSU makes the title game with a win over UW, no matter what happens in that Colorado game.
Who knows where a 1-loss non-division, non-conference Champion U-M would rank vs. A&M and Louisville, but that's a different topic.
Michigan is the only team with 3 wins over Top-15 teams. Clemson, OSU and Wisconsin all have 2. OSU got both of those wins on the road: Clemson got 1 on the road but also has a road win over #22 (FSU).
Last edited:
Isn't Louisville only lose against Clemson? I would argue that Clemson has a tougher schedule then Alabama. So a one loss Louisville looks better then a one loss Texas a&m. So why not make Louisville #4 if thats the idiotic reasoning that the committee is using?
ESPN+SEC=GAURANTEED SEC TEAM(S) IN THE PLAYOFFS
ESPN+SEC=GAURANTEED SEC TEAM(S) IN THE PLAYOFFS
Kind of shocked they don't have Ole Miss somewhere in the Top 5 or 6. Only 4 or 5 losses so far...
It's really a shame that Clemson hasn't lost yet. They look vulnerable.
Whatever, just win out and Michigan will be 2 or 3 at worst. I would prefer not to have to see Bama in the first game.
Whatever, just win out and Michigan will be 2 or 3 at worst. I would prefer not to have to see Bama in the first game.
Maybe that's why were #3.
1 plays 4
2 plays 3
Although that could change.
Bama still has to play lsu and Auburn.
Clemson could win out.
UM still has to play osu.
Penn State at #12 was a big surprise, wasn't it? I mean, it helps Michigan, so fine.
But I think it's odd that the committee only considers wins and losses and not the margin of victory. Penn State got a very fluky win over tOSU, which is why they're in the top 15. But then they have a game where Michigan blew their doors off by 39.
I think margin of victory should absolutely be considered, at least to an extent.
But I think it's odd that the committee only considers wins and losses and not the margin of victory. Penn State got a very fluky win over tOSU, which is why they're in the top 15. But then they have a game where Michigan blew their doors off by 39.
I think margin of victory should absolutely be considered, at least to an extent.
The committee has always said it's not about the body of work but what is the best team at this point in time. The reality is that PSU has actually been really good the past couple weeks. It is what's fresh in your mind that matters you know - I bet if we beat MSU by 21 points, we would be #2 instead of Clemson. Either way, I could care less what the rankings are for the next 4 weeks. I want to know what they are after the BIG championship game.
If you look carefully, you'll see that PSU's ranking is a buffer and the committee is buying what the BigTen is selling. PSU is a big "just in case" in the unlikely event both us and OSU fall apart. It also supports the argument that OSU's loss ain't so bad.
The rankings are a joke until championship Saturday. Was it 2 years ago when the committee kept changing their criteria and the big 8 team either Tcu or Baylor kept going from 4 to 5 depending on the week. Clemson should be 2 and michigan 3 but Washington has to be 4
Take the advanced analytics for what they're worth (I like them myself) --- but S&P+ has PSU at #15 and FEI has PSU at #19. Those metrics look at games on a play-by-play and drive-by-drive basis, so margin of victory (and "very fluky" wins) definitely get incorporated.
#12 is arguably a bit high, but I do think PSU is better than they're being given credit for. Michigan simply convincingly beat a good team. Nothing wrong with that (from the U-M POV).
Agree. That was about as fluky of a win that PSU got over OSU as you will ever see.
What about their win over tOSU, though? That fluke is the same as beating them by 20? Margin of victory really doesn't matter? I think that's crazy. That's my main point. I agree PSU is way better than I thought they'd be. Looking forward to their game against Iowa.
Those are fair points - but the advanced metrics do look at things pretty holistically. They look at the game at a more detailed level vs. simply the score. Part of why I like them. I do prefer the S&P+ algorithm. FWIW, S&P+ has Michigan #1 in the country, and FEI has Michigan at #3.
On a side note, I get that the narrative has become "PSU's win over OSU was very fluke-y" --- but I really don't think it was that fluke-y.
In total, OSU averaged 5.0 yards per play (413 yards on 83 plays), which was better than PSU's 4.6 yards per play (276 yards on 60 plays).
However, take out PSU's victory formation plays at the end (which they run out of a shotgun, for God knows what reason), and PSU's now at 5.1 yards per play (289 yards on 57 plays).
Take out the snap over the punter's head (which is arguably a fluke in itself: one in OSU's favor, of course), which gets counted as a "rush" by the punter for -30 yards, and PSU's now at 5.7 yards per play (319 yards on 56 plays).
OSU still had more absolute yards for the game as a whole, which obviously matters, but they were hardly dominant. And they couldn't get it done at the end. PSU prevented them from scoring on their final 5 possessions, and held OSU to 2.9 yards per play on those possessions.
PSU is behind OSU in every poll and computer metric. Which I can't argue with. But a ranking in the #12-#16 range seems correct to me.
I'm not trying to take too much away from the win. It was a great win for Penn State. I just think there needs to be more thought put into it other than "Team A beat Team B." Margin of victory is key, and I can't believe they don't look at it. Of course, the committee may just be saying that.
As far as the advanced stats, the committee doesn't look at those, do they? I think they're cool to look at, but there are some weird things there, too. Michigan special teams are either #1 (FEI) or #110 (S&P+). HAA!
I don't know if the committee looks at the advanced metrics. Perhaps a couple of the folks do, but I doubt most folk in the room do.
Regarding special teams --- that's a primary reason I don't like FEI. FEI takes a look at "average starting field position on offense" and compares that to "average starting field position on defense" --- and attributes all of the difference to special teams. Which doesn't make sense to me. Teams like U-M will often start a drive in good field position because of a good defense is regularly forcing 3-and-outs. Credit in that case should go to the defense.
U-M missed all those field goals, of course, against Wisconsin --- critical misses in U-M's closest game of the year. The U-M return game has been pretty good in 2016, but just from the POV of all those missed FG: a lower ranking for U-M special teams seems to make more sense. At the least, definitely not #1 in that aspect of the game.
dont forget the blocked kicks add to the #1 argument and kind of cancel out the missed fgs
also you cant look at margin of victory w/out also considering psu had big injuries on defense against us and had those players bsck for osu
and maybe the committee is also crediting our large margin of victory to our defense instead of holding it against psus offense
I never thought TA&M should be ranked #4 to begin with. They lost to a 4 win team.
