Hoping the Committee puts us at No. 4 tonight, No. 5 at least
- Thread starter St. Joe Blue 3
- Start date
Michigan should be 4 or 5 this week but once the champ games are played the committee will have ammunition to have penn st or washington jump ahead. For the record I say washington should be 4. Tonight you'll hear them say based on games played so far ....
We're No. 5 behind Washington. Lots has to fall into place for us to get in now, probably doubtful.
Washington should be #4. They will beat Colorado in my opinion.
The Iowa loss killed UM and it was a bad loss. Lost to a mediocre team.
I don't like the logic of UM only left the state once and won....MSU is on the road. End of story but UM did lose to Iowa.
Sad thing is that UM is one of the best 4 teams but they shouldn't get in because they really have the worst loss assuming no one else loses above them.
A simple question needs to asked. Would a top 4 team lose at Iowa?
RM
The Iowa loss killed UM and it was a bad loss. Lost to a mediocre team.
I don't like the logic of UM only left the state once and won....MSU is on the road. End of story but UM did lose to Iowa.
Sad thing is that UM is one of the best 4 teams but they shouldn't get in because they really have the worst loss assuming no one else loses above them.
A simple question needs to asked. Would a top 4 team lose at Iowa?
RM
Committee spokesperson said there is very little separation between Washington and Michigan. We probably need Washington and maybe Wisconsin to lose for us to get back in .... Clemson losing would work too, but not much chance.
I love Michigan as much as anyone, but does anyone think Michigan could beat Bama? I'd rather see them destroy FSU, than get crushed by Bama and give all the haters at ESPN ammunition going forward.
Glad you brought this up.
I mentioned a few weeks ago about having UM and it's offense go up against Alabama. UM can't run. UM can clearly defend against Alabama and probably keep them in the game but something tells me that Bama would really put the screws to the UM Offense.
It doesn't have a championship OL and running game. Just look at Iowa & OSU and throw in MSU for that matter. UM relies on Speight to generate offense and when they go away from that then they struggle against better defenses.
RM
Last edited:
You know I love Michigan but I really hate the idea of a playoff without our conference champion representing. It diminishes the importance of the conference championship in my opinion
It is strange when the talking heads put such importance on the conference championships. It's like the non-conference schedule doesn't matter then. Some of the ESPN guys didn't seem to care that Michigan housed Colorado head-to-head. The argument for Penn State also assumes that they just didn't lose to Pitt.
My argument has always been that a team shouldn't get into the playoffs ahead of their conference champion. I don't want football to become like basketball where conference championships are essentially meaningless. It's also my argument for keeping he playoffs to a max of six maybe eight
Conference championships are meaningless now because the conferences have been expanded so far that you don't play anywhere near all of the teams in your conference.
The fact that Penn State is playing in the B1GCG shows just how meaningless conference championships are, doesn't it? I mean, nobody would put Penn State in the playoff pretty much no matter what happens. You can't have one fluke win over OSU and yet get destroyed by Michigan and expect to have the respect of the college football world. It just doesn't work like that.
The playoff didn't degrade conference championships - expansion did.
I tend to agree but a big problem is that the schedules aren't equal. Did PSU play Wisconsin? I could make the argument that PSU played one tough game on the road and got whacked.
This is unfortunately going to happen all too frequently because teams have a bad night on occasion. I watched that game of PSU vs. OSU and it sure looked flukey to me. I didn't think PSU was better and remember that non call against PSU at the end?
Yeah...that is about right actually. Well said.
RM
Well, yeah, nobody said that being conference (or even division) champion was a prerequisite to getting into the playoffs.
If you can prove otherwise, I'd be interested in seeing it.
You do not have to win the conference...but it is heavily considered.
"Hence the reason CFP executive director Bill Hancock found himself again fielding questions about the significance of conference championship games during a CFP news conference Wednesday at Amalie Arena.
"They're big," Hancock said. "Because the conference championship is one of those key criteria that the committee will look at, and obviously we don't have that until the last week, but they're big. Everything that's gonna happen in the next three weeks is big, but those are really gonna be important this year."
"Hence the reason CFP executive director Bill Hancock found himself again fielding questions about the significance of conference championship games during a CFP news conference Wednesday at Amalie Arena.
"They're big," Hancock said. "Because the conference championship is one of those key criteria that the committee will look at, and obviously we don't have that until the last week, but they're big. Everything that's gonna happen in the next three weeks is big, but those are really gonna be important this year."
"Now, when we get to this point in a season, the one-loss teams and some two-loss teams are viewed by the committee as comparable, and then they begin to apply the tiebreakers," Hancock said.
"And obviously the one which we don't have 'till the last week (is) the conference championship one. The language in our protocol … the key sentence for me is, the committee has the flexibility to make a nonchampion one of the top four if they believe it's unequivocally one of the top four teams."
"And obviously the one which we don't have 'till the last week (is) the conference championship one. The language in our protocol … the key sentence for me is, the committee has the flexibility to make a nonchampion one of the top four if they believe it's unequivocally one of the top four teams."
Well, yeah, either Clemson or Washington need to lose. OSU doesn't play and Alabama would still be in with a loss, as much of a long shot as that is.
If the committee had ruled out Michigan at this point, they could have easily ranked them lower than 5th this week.
Yes, the Iowa loss was not a good loss.
You know, you can spin things a hundred different ways. Should a top 4 team lose to Pittsburgh, at home? Remember, NC State essentially had Clemson beat in DEATH VALLEY too outside of choke job by FG kicker. So in reality they should have 2 HOME losses.
If I were an "outsider" my complaint about letting M in would be the fact that they've lost 2 of their last 3. As Harbaugh would say, that's not playing championship football when it has become championship time.
In conjunction to comments about the conference championship being almighty, my biggest complaint about that is it COULD be rewarding a team who pulls a Baylor or in the past a Kansas State who played NOBODY.....and I mean NOBODY in the non-conference schedule, if they're able to navigate through their conference schedule as the champ. There has to be SOME accountability by scheduling 1 decent non-conference team to add to the mix when comparing to other potential playoff participants. You can kind of throw Washington into that category this year. I mean Rutgers, Idaho & Portland State. C'mon now!
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
Continuing effort to draw attention to big conference football scheduling.- Latest: maizenblue_follower
-
-
-
-