College Football 2016

MikeIsGood · Post #181 » by **MikeIsGood** » Wed Nov 30, 2016 10:38 pm

No way. Im sticking with zero chance two non-conference championship teams from the same conference make the playoff. One alone is enough to make a mockery of the title game. Two would be way beyond absurd. 'We couldn't give two **** what your title game is.' Us beating PSU would give us enough to jump Michigan in the rankings.

Kerb Hohl · Post #182 » by **Kerb Hohl** » Wed Nov 30, 2016 10:43 pm

The issue I have is that the committee's eye test seems to involve looking at something like the Sagarin ratings, which correctly puts Michigan over us by about a touchdown. Would you argue with the Badgers being 7 point dogs on a neutral field against Michigan?

I do think that their hand may be forced to put the Badgers in over Michigan if Washington loses and the Badgers win just due to the whole conference championship thing...but they seem to always rank the "best" teams up top and kinda push W/L and big wins/bad losses aside a bit for the computer ratings. Just totally kinda guessing with that assumption.

MikeIsGood · Post #183 » by **MikeIsGood** » Wed Nov 30, 2016 11:34 pm

Kerb Hohl wrote:The issue I have is that the committee's eye test seems to involve looking at something like the Sagarin ratings, which correctly puts Michigan over us by about a touchdown. Would you argue with the Badgers being 7 point dogs on a neutral field against Michigan?

I do think that their hand may be forced to put the Badgers in over Michigan if Washington loses and the Badgers win just due to the whole conference championship thing...but they seem to always rank the "best" teams up top and kinda push W/L and big wins/bad losses aside a bit for the computer ratings. Just totally kinda guessing with that assumption.

No, and I totally get that. And I obviously get that UM beat us. But with as much as they talk about the conference championship, SOS, etc... I just cannot imagine them taking two teams that didn't play in the title game. If they do, might as well just throw out the championship game.

I feel like there's a fine line here. **** happens and sometimes teams who might be the best don't get to their conference championship, might not win, etc. Where is the line at which Michigan gets to still be in consideration vs. not? What if they had two losses, and the second was a game during which Peppers was hurt? What if they had three losses, but everyone really knew they were still the best team? I feel like there comes a point where you have to respect the process, and taking two teams from the same conference that didn't make the conference title game is not respecting the process.

BUCKnation · Post #184 » by **BUCKnation** » Wed Nov 30, 2016 11:44 pm

They beat us at home by a TD and lost to an Iowa side that Wisconsin had no issues with. I'd be pretty upset if Wisconsin didn't get in over Michigan given that scenario. If they went in with one loss then I wouldn't have a real issue with it.

Mags FTW · Post #185 » by **Mags FTW** » Wed Nov 30, 2016 11:48 pm

El Duderino wrote:
MikeIsGood wrote:
El Duderino wrote:
It doesn't matter if Washington wins or loses for Wisconsin because this committee will just put Michigan in if Washington loses, not the winner of the Big Ten title game winner.

Okay, I am 100% confident they aren't taking two non-championship game teams from the same conference. There's zero chance.

Zero chance is way to optimistic. The committee chair already said that the gap between Washington and Michigan was razor thin, meaning they almost put Michigan at four instead of Washington. Ohio St looks locked in.

So say Washington loses and Wisconsin beats Penn St. I think they put in Michigan above us given they won head to head. If Penn St wins, they won't put them in above Michigan who curb stomped Penn St when they played head to head.

Where things will get crazy is if say both Washington and Clemson lost. Then what? What actually has very little chance of happening is the committee putting in three B10 teams

Some people who recognize the quality of the B10 are for it, and would already do it.

Yesterday on PTI Tony K said he would put Bama, OSU, MU, and the winner of the title game in his playoff.

Mags FTW · Post #186 » by **Mags FTW** » Wed Nov 30, 2016 11:52 pm

Kerb Hohl wrote:The issue I have is that the committee's eye test seems to involve looking at something like the Sagarin ratings, which correctly puts Michigan over us by about a touchdown. Would you argue with the Badgers being 7 point dogs on a neutral field against Michigan?

Yes, we lost by 7 at the Big House. Move it to a neutral field, its closer. Factor in they lost their starting QB, and its anywhere from a pick to dogs by 3.

mnstinks · Post #187 » by **mnstinks** » Thu Dec 1, 2016 6:42 pm

Current rankings...Michigan beat #6, #7, #8
Wisconsin beat #21

Don't understand why Badger fans are thinking they should be ranked ahead of UM

Kerb Hohl · Post #188 » by **Kerb Hohl** » Thu Dec 1, 2016 7:50 pm

Mags FTW wrote:
Kerb Hohl wrote:The issue I have is that the committee's eye test seems to involve looking at something like the Sagarin ratings, which correctly puts Michigan over us by about a touchdown. Would you argue with the Badgers being 7 point dogs on a neutral field against Michigan?

Yes, we lost by 7 at the Big House. Move it to a neutral field, its closer. Factor in they lost their starting QB, and its anywhere from a pick to dogs by 3.

That's not what any site (Sagarin, TeamRankings, etc) says. Michigan's kicker missed a bunch of FGs or they probably win by 13-16. It should be 7, maybe up to 10 on a neutral field. These ranking systems are pretty damn accurate in what the spreads end up being.

El Duderino · Post #189 » by **El Duderino** » Thu Dec 1, 2016 9:14 pm

mnstinks wrote:Current rankings...Michigan beat #6, #7, #8
Wisconsin beat #21

Don't understand why Badger fans are thinking they should be ranked ahead of UM

That's what is in favor of Michigan. They whipped Penn St and beat both of Wisconsin and Colorado. So if any of those teams were to win their conference championship game, Michigan can say that they beat that team and all three of them. And were a different spot by an inch in OT from beating Ohio St.

FWIW, even though i'm a Badgers fan, i'd put my money on Michigan if we played them on a neutral field. They outplayed us by more than a TD in that win. Three missed field goals kept it a one score game. A caveat i'd make is that i think Wisconsin would have a better chance vs Michigan on a neutral field if Houston played the whole game. Hornibrook was horrible against Michigan. His lack of mobility and weak arm played into Michigan's strength on defense.

Post #190 » by **ReasonablySober** » Sat Dec 3, 2016 1:28 am

GO BUFFS.

midranger · Post #191 » by **midranger** » Sat Dec 3, 2016 2:29 am

I always hear the "3 missed FG" added to the Michigan calculus. Well, we would have tied them if our QB doesn't miss a chip shot throw to a wide open peavy.

So... we tied them.

The score is what it is.

Post #192 » by **MickeyDavis** » Sat Dec 3, 2016 2:29 am

Well that was easy

midranger · Post #193 » by **midranger** » Sat Dec 3, 2016 2:29 am

Also, every PAC12 team other than Washington is horrible. Absolutely horrible

Mags FTW · Post #194 » by **Mags FTW** » Sat Dec 3, 2016 2:30 am

Not a good start.

We might have to win by 30 tomorrow.

ACGB · Post #195 » by **ACGB** » Sat Dec 3, 2016 2:57 am

So if Colorado wins and Wisconsin wins does everyone think we're for sure in the playoff?

Post #196 » by **MickeyDavis** » Sat Dec 3, 2016 2:58 am

Tie game.

Post #197 » by **MickeyDavis** » Sat Dec 3, 2016 2:59 am

ACGB wrote:So if Colorado wins and Wisconsin wins does everyone think we're for sure in the playoff?

Colorado's beat down by Michigan would keep them out imo

Post #198 » by **ReasonablySober** » Sat Dec 3, 2016 3:14 am

Not a pick and their dude is hurt.

MartyConlonOnTheRun · Post #199 » by **MartyConlonOnTheRun** » Sat Dec 3, 2016 3:33 am

At this rate, Montez won't last the half. He's taking on some hits.

Also, UW only beats Colorado with a freshman qb by a field go or something, does that change anything?

Mags FTW · Post #200 » by **Mags FTW** » Sat Dec 3, 2016 4:06 am

MartyConlonOnTheRun wrote:At this rate, Montez won't last the half. He's taking on some hits.

Also, UW only beats Colorado with a freshman qb by a field go or something, does that change anything?

Maybe if we blew out PSU we would have a shot at jumping them. Today I finally discovered how weak their non-conference schedule was. Just pitiful.