The College Football Playoff

[Wander]

Because Michigan's losses are recent. Simple as that. If Penn State had won against Pitt but lost last week to Michigan State, they would have dropped out of the top ten. When Michigan lost to Iowa, they didn't drop at all. Like I said earlier, it (theoretically) depends when you win too. That's why USC is trending up right now. I mean, in Michigan's past 3 games, they're 1-2. I just can't see how such a cold streak merits a trip to the CFP.

I agree that a lot of people think this way, but I've never been a fan of it, and I think it's fading away now that we have a selection committee. IMO the only reason that Michigan is "cold" and that USC is "hot" is because USC had the good fortune of playing their hardest game as their first game, and Michigan played their hardest game as their last game.

USC is vastly overrated - they're definitely good, but not Top 5 like a lot of people are talking about.

[Troublemaker]

Just a hunch, but I think if Michigan has any chance at all, they'll need PSU to beat Wisconsin. Because Michigan beat PSU 49-10 and only beat Wisconsin 14-7. So I suspect Wisconsin would jump them but not PSU.

Hopefully Clemson and Washington win so it's all moot.

[ipatent]

We're conditioned by the old AP poll system to think losses late in the season should hurt more than earlier ones, and a loss of any type should cause a team to drop in the rankings.

If the goal is to pick the best four teams, why should #3 drop in the playoff calculations if it loses to #2 late in the season?

[Troublemaker]

Just a hunch, but I think if Michigan has any chance at all, they'll need PSU to beat Wisconsin. Because Michigan beat PSU 49-10 and only beat Wisconsin 14-7. So I suspect Wisconsin would jump them but not PSU.

Hopefully Clemson and Washington win so it's all moot.

However... apparently the selection committee chairman was interviewed, and things sound promising for Michigan.

Stewart MandelVerified account ‏@slmandel 3m3 minutes ago
Hocutt: Committee spent almost 2 hours (!) the last 2 days on Washington vs. Michigan. "A lot of committee members were really struggling."


Nick BaumgardnerVerified account ‏@nickbaumgardner 10m10 minutes ago
Hocutt: "The separation between Washington at No. 4 and Michigan at No. 5 is extremely small."


Nick BaumgardnerVerified account ‏@nickbaumgardner 8m8 minutes ago
And based on those comments, if Colorado beats Washington, it sure sounds like they're ready to put Michigan in the playoff.


Steve LorenzVerified account ‏@TremendousUM 11m11 minutes ago
Biggest takeaway from Hocutt: If Washington loses, Michigan is in. Sure seemed that way.

[crf30]

I agree that a lot of people think this way, but I've never been a fan of it, and I think it's fading away now that we have a selection committee. IMO the only reason that Michigan is "cold" and that USC is "hot" is because USC had the good fortune of playing their hardest game as their first game, and Michigan played their hardest game as their last game.

USC is vastly overrated - they're definitely good, but not Top 5 like a lot of people are talking about.

Then do you disagree with my earlier point that if Penn State had beaten Pitt (so they would have been an even stronger contender with only one loss) but then lost to Michigan State that they would have dropped out of the top ten?
I agree that USC is being slightly overrated, although if they would have played in their conference championship and won they would probably deserve a top ten spot.

We're conditioned by the old AP poll system to think losses late in the season should hurt more than earlier ones, and a loss of any type should cause a team to drop in the rankings.

If the goal is to pick the best four teams, why should #3 drop in the playoff calculations if it loses to #2 late in the season?

Then are we just ignoring that they lost to Iowa and didn't drop? (Granted that was the week a bunch of the top teams took a loss).
As I said above, PSU would have dropped in a similar scenario.

I guess to me, it seems like there are a predetermined set of teams that the committee thinks deserve it. And to be honest, yeah, Michigan is probably one of the top 4 teams in the country (I'd pick them over Washington for sure). But on any given day, any team can lose, and Michigan lost those games. Maybe 9 times out of 10 they would beat Iowa, but they lost. Just because we know they are clearly a better football team, doesn't mean they get a pass for not performing.

(Basketball analogy) We wouldn't get outraged when Duke doesn't win the ACC and as a result gets a 2-seed, would we? Even when we know that Duke is one of the top 4 teams in the country. We know they deserve the 2-seed because they didn't perform well to close out the season. Kind of like how we are number one in KenPom but not in the polls. Losses matter.

I just feel like we're throwing out too much of the actual content of the season based on the fact that we know these teams are more talented (or better based on whatever metric).

To follow up on the basketball analogy, one of the reasons no one bats an eye when we get a 2-seed is we know we can still win, and the better teams will (IF THEY PERFORM and win), be there at the end. So maybe they do just need to expand the CFP. But, yeah, the stakes do get raised in November. A lot of coaches say that all their games in November feel like playoff games. But in this case, the result didn't end up having the ramifications of a playoff loss for Michigan either time, and that doesn't seem correct.


Another point of discussion: Do you guys determine the significance of a game retroactively or based on what the stakes were in the at the time of the match-up? Is OSU's loss to unranked PSU or to #7 PSU? Is PSU's loss to unranked Pitt or to #24 Pitt? Did Michigan beat unranked Colorado or #8 Colorado?

[Wander]

Another point of discussion: Do you guys determine the significance of a game retroactively or based on what the stakes were in the at the time of the match-up? Is OSU's loss to unranked PSU or to #7 PSU? Is PSU's loss to unranked Pitt or to #24 Pitt? Did Michigan beat unranked Colorado or #8 Colorado?

Retroactively. I don't think the other way makes sense (barring injury situations you could come up with).

Michigan sitting at #5 above Wisconsin, Penn State, and Colorado is exactly what I expected. Good job to the committee for getting it right. Next week is the interesting one...

[gurufrisbee]

This whole discussion is off base from the beginning. The Big Can't Count shouldn't be considered for multiple bids, they should be debating whether they deserve any at all. The entire conference is overrated and a mirage. Should be Bama, Washington, Clemson, and Oklahoma.

And the real debate should be why Clemson would possibly be ranked above Washington.

[Olympic Fan]

Michigan is dead meat.

Sure, they look good vs. a bunch of teams close to them in the rankings (Washington, Colorado, Wisconsin, Penn State) but that's today.

Next Sunday, two of those three will have conference championships and Michigan won't. That's a huge factor. It's not the end-all, be-all -- Ohio State is in without a conference championship, but the chances of TWO non-champions in the four-team playoffs is non-existent. It's very much like two years ago when TCU was No. 3 in the next-to-last poll, won big on the final weekend, and finished No. 6 in the final poll -- passed by three schools that won conference championships.

Bama, Ohio State are locks for the final four.

Clemson and Washington are locks if they win their conference championship game.

If one of them loses, then the Wisconsin-Penn State winner slips in.

If both of them lose, then that opens the door for the Oklahoma-OSU winner.

There is NO scenario that could put Michigan -- the third-place team in their division of the Big Ten -- without its starting QB -- in the final four.

[Wander]

If both of them lose, then that opens the door for the Oklahoma-OSU winner.

Oklahoma and OSU are both officially out. Colorado is ranked ahead of both of them now, and Colorado plays a higher ranked team than Oklahoma/OSU next week, and Colorado would have a conference championship of a tougher conference. So it's impossible for Colorado to be jumped by Oklahoma and OSU if Washington loses.

[SCMatt33]

Oklahoma and OSU are both officially out. Colorado is ranked ahead of both of them now, and Colorado plays a higher ranked team than Oklahoma/OSU next week, and Colorado would have a conference championship of a tougher conference. So it's impossible for Colorado to be jumped by Oklahoma and OSU if Washington loses.

I don't think it's likely, but it's not impossible. Remember, how they play factors in as well. If there's a 60-0 type game for OU and Colorado wins 2-0 on a bad snap out of the end zone and the game is low scoring because of bad offense more than good defense, there might be a small chance of them getting the nod.

I also don't think it's impossible for Michigan to get in. If you're the committee and you're sitting there after Clemson and Washington both lose, and the Big 12 winner did nothing crazy to make you reconsider them, you have to fill two spots with either the big ten winner, Colorado, or Michigan. I don't see how you leave out the team that beat BOTH of the other two, especially if it's Penn State. In that case, Michigan not only beat both, but beat them by an average of 28 points. That would certainly meet my definition of "unequivocally better" to ignore conference titles.

[Wander]

I also don't think it's impossible for Michigan to get in. If you're the committee and you're sitting there after Clemson and Washington both lose, and the Big 12 winner did nothing crazy to make you reconsider them, you have to fill two spots with either the big ten winner, Colorado, or Michigan. I don't see how you leave out the team that beat BOTH of the other two, especially if it's Penn State. In that case, Michigan not only beat both, but beat them by an average of 28 points. That would certainly meet my definition of "unequivocally better" to ignore conference titles.

It's pretty remarkable that Michigan has wins over all three teams it's competing against. That can't be ignored and could easily cancel out the "conference championship" factor. I don't know if it would, but as you say it is definitely not impossible.

[vick]

It's pretty remarkable that Michigan has wins over all three teams it's competing against. That can't be ignored and could easily cancel out the "conference championship" factor. I don't know if it would, but as you say it is definitely not impossible.

For what it's worth, the selection committee head said yesterday that they don't consider any of the four criteria to differentiate "comparable" teams (championships, strength of schedule, head-to-head, and record against comparable opponents) to be more important than the others. I find it hard to believe Wisconsin wouldn't jump Michigan with a win (harder schedule, close game head-to-head), but there might be some wiggle room with Penn State. I'd still bet against it, but having second thoughts about considering them "dead."

[sagegrouse]

Fool's Errand: It hasn't been said here, but I have argued it for years about the basketball Tournament Selection Committee. There aren't enough interconference games to confidently assess the relative strengths of the five Power Conferences; moreover, those that do occur tend to be early in the season.

The Big Ten cum Fourteen appears to have played only 12 games against the "P5 plus Notre Dame," going 8-4. On the other hand, there are 63 conference games, so there is a ton of data on relative strengths inside the Big Ten. The teams collectively had some nice wins against Colorado, Oklahoma and LSU, but all were early in the season and home games, to boot. The Big Ten also had two losses to Div. I-AA schools (ND State and Illinois State) and was only 1-3 versus the ACC.

I would urge the CFP Selection Committee to show some humility and recognize that it is just guessing about relative strengths of conferences. Accordingly, it should give greater weight to geographic (or conference) diversity. I think that's what the committee will do, but we'll find out in a few days.

[Wander]

For what it's worth, the selection committee head said yesterday that they don't consider any of the four criteria to differentiate "comparable" teams (championships, strength of schedule, head-to-head, and record against comparable opponents) to be more important than the others. I find it hard to believe Wisconsin wouldn't jump Michigan with a win (harder schedule, close game head-to-head), but there might be some wiggle room with Penn State. I'd still bet against it, but having second thoughts about considering them "dead."

Yup - Michigan should be rooting for Penn State. I'm also not sure if Michigan would get the nod over Penn State, but it's an easier argument than Wisconsin, and it's certainly not the case that Michigan is completely dead.

[Troublemaker]

Yeah, if it boils down to Michigan vs PSU for the last spot, I'll predict that the humans will choose Michigan (whether they should or not). 49-10 will speak loudly.

Maybe Washington and Clemson will both win, and it'll be easy and non-controversial to select the 4 teams.

I agree with sage's post, btw.

[crf30]

I think a major factor that we haven't discussed and isn't necessarily a criteria is quality wins vs. bad losses. Because Michigan's loss to Iowa is certainly the worst loss that any of the contending teams have.

[Wander]

I think a major factor that we haven't discussed and isn't necessarily a criteria is quality wins vs. bad losses. Because Michigan's loss to Iowa is certainly the worst loss that any of the contending teams have.

It's a good point, but Michigan's loss to Iowa is the same in quality as Penn State's loss to Pitt. Which again goes back to Michigan needing to root for Penn State instead of Wisconsin (and for Clemson or Washington to lose, obviously).

[tbyers11]

It's a good point, but Michigan's loss to Iowa is the same in quality as Penn State's loss to Pitt. Which again goes back to Michigan needing to root for Penn State instead of Wisconsin (and for Clemson or Washington to lose, obviously).

Or Clemson's loss to Pitt should they lose to VT. Although losing to VT would be about the same quality of loss as well.

I agree with those that think it is all neat and tidy if Clemson and Washington win. If either of them (or both lose) then you've got a free-for-all between the losing school(s), Michigan and the Wisconsin/PSU winner

[ipatent]

I don't think it's likely, but it's not impossible. Remember, how they play factors in as well. If there's a 60-0 type game for OU and Colorado wins 2-0 on a bad snap out of the end zone and the game is low scoring because of bad offense more than good defense, there might be a small chance of them getting the nod.

The guidelines specifically forbid incenting margin of victory, but in a close call it is bound to have some effect.

[crf30]

The guidelines specifically forbid incenting margin of victory, but in a close call it is bound to have some effect.

I thought it forbade considering margin of victory when comparing common opponent games. Could be wrong though.