U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Sports > College Football
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 12-01-2016, 01:14 PM
 
2,841 posts, read 1,786,139 times
Reputation: 1248

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by WRnative View Post
By the same token, Michigan has not lost at home. It defeated two top ten teams at home. Michigan beat number 7 Penn State by a whopping 49-10 at Michigan Stadium. Washington lost to number 11 USC at Husky Stadium. Michigan wins by this criterion big time.

Washington's best road win was over number 20 Utah.

Michigan lost on the road to non-ranked Iowa and to consensus number 2 Ohio State in double OT.

Iowa beat Nebraska at home, 40-10.

On balance, Michigan's resume remains far superior to Washington's at this point, so Washington should not have been ranked higher than Michigan in the most recent FBS rankings.

The Iowa loss obviously hangs heavily on Michigan, and obviously will be fatal if Washington defeats Colorado. However, by elevating Washington above Michigan, the FBS committee is awarding a team for scheduling a pathetically weak schedule. It's a bad precedent IMO. Washington's loss to number 11 USC at home is a more fatal flaw IMO than Michigan's two losses on the road, one against Ohio State in double OT, when Michigan's vastly superior home record is taken into account.

The total resume, including style points, should be the objective basis on which the FBS committee makes decisions.

To argue otherwise is what is truly ABSURD.

Without a convincing Washington win over Colorado, hopefully there is a possibility that Michigan jumps over the Huskies for the final play-off spot.

Could Michigan football jump Washington in CFP even if Huskies win?

Many football fans believe that Michigan would match up much better with Alabama than Washington, so it will be a shame if we're treated to the likely pounding that Alabama will inflict on Washington because the FBS committee so cavalierly overlooked strength of schedule.

Good points. They almost knocked off the #2 team in the country. Just two quick examples- I don't put as much stock in who you lose to- it didn't help Ohio St. with (1 loss mind you) get into the Playoff last season. And when OSU lost to .500 Va. Tech team in 2014 I didn't keep them out of the playoff.


IMO- Michigan doesn't have a LANDMARK resume to overcome THREE big factors against it.


-They have 2 losses.
-They played just 4 road games all year. They are 2-2 on the road. The have two wins against two teams that have a combined record of 5-19. Yes, 5-19.


I'll go a step further- they beat a depleted PSU team. They were losing at home to Colorado when CU's starting QB went down in the 3rd quarter.




But what really has my attention and I think there are several key items being discredited by Michigan supporters.


-They have lost 2 out of their last 3 games.
-Not only will they not play for a conference title they will finish 3rd in their division.
You mention "bad precedent" Can you imagine this precedent? In addition they will be the first team in the CFB Playoff with 2 losses.


You are suggesting maybe the most dangerous precedence...A two loss team over a one loss Power 5 conference champ. with no head to head but one common opponent whom they both will have beaten.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-01-2016, 02:08 PM
 
7,906 posts, read 4,900,633 times
Reputation: 4101
Quote:
Originally Posted by eastcoastbias View Post
You are suggesting maybe the most dangerous precedence...A two loss team over a one loss Power 5 conference champ. with no head to head but one common opponent whom they both will have beaten.
Washington is a Power 5 conference team with a pathetically weak schedule. What's so hard to understand?

Michigan is being penalized for being in a much tougher league this year, and no credit is being given for the fact that its independent schedule included a victory over a non-conference top 10 team.

The pro-Washington argument IMO would be impossible if Michigan hadn't lost to Iowa, so the Wolverines have wrecked an otherwise excellent cake with that one loss.

Yet Iowa today might easily defeat Utah, or even Washington, given its late season victories over Michigan and Nebraska, given your emphasis on adjusting for resurrections/early season woes.

Regardless, it's obvious that Washington is in if it beats Colorado, especially convincingly.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-01-2016, 02:16 PM
 
7,906 posts, read 4,900,633 times
Reputation: 4101
Quote:
Originally Posted by chadgates View Post
That would be vs 3-9 Michigan St.



That would be vs 9-3 Stanford


Maybe Michigan shouldn't have lost @ Ohio St and then they'd still be in.

To argue a 2 loss Michigan is still deserving of 1 of the FOUR spots is absurd indeed.

IF we had an 8 team playoff then you could certainly argue for them being in, but with only 4 spots?

Gimme a break.


You simply cannot lose 2 games and then ***** about being left out. That is just reality.

You CAN lose two and still make it, but you need help in the form of other teams losing two.

Barring upsets this weekend Clemson and Washington will be 1 loss conference champs. No way to overcome that with two losses and no Conference title.
More patent ridiculousness.

You insist on muddling the fact that Michigan has defeated three top ten teams, and only lost to the consensus number 2 team on the road in double overtime.

Washington's record to date is pathetic by comparison and its strength of schedule is an embarrassment.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-01-2016, 02:34 PM
 
2,841 posts, read 1,786,139 times
Reputation: 1248
Quote:
Originally Posted by WRnative View Post
Washington is a Power 5 conference team with a pathetically weak schedule. What's so hard to understand?

Michigan is being penalized for being in a much tougher league this year, and no credit is being given for the fact that its independent schedule included a victory over a non-conference top 10 team.

The pro-Washington argument IMO would be impossible if Michigan hadn't lost to Iowa, so the Wolverines have wrecked an otherwise excellent cake with that one loss.

Yet Iowa today might easily defeat Utah, or even Washington, given its late season victories over Michigan and Nebraska, given your emphasis on adjusting for resurrections/early season woes.

Regardless, it's obvious that Washington is in if it beats Colorado, especially convincingly.


"Washington is a Power 5 conference team with a pathetically weak schedule. What's so hard to understand?"
It is the comparison you have to make...What is easy to understand One Loss Power 5 Champ (If they win) against a two loss #3 team in another Conference.


"Michigan is being penalized for being in a much tougher league this year"
They are being slightly penalized for having two losses. Although I'd say not penalized much at all because they are the Top rated 2 loss team. I have a more difficult time giving A) 2-2 road team with its two road wins coming against teams with a combined 5-19 record b) 1-2 in last three games c) #3 yes #3 in their division the benefit of the doubt.


"Yet Iowa today might easily defeat Utah"
Weak. Why operate on "might" theories.


"The pro-Washington argument IMO would be impossible if Michigan hadn't lost to Iowa"
I agree, but you are changing the facts. In your scenario they would have one loss and be tied for #1 in their division but lose on a tiebreaker to OSU. Much easier pill to swallow then being third and having an additional lose over a team you are competing for the last spot.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-01-2016, 03:57 PM
 
4,315 posts, read 2,539,827 times
Reputation: 7687
....NO.... two loss team deserves to be in the 4 team playoff !
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-01-2016, 05:01 PM
 
7,906 posts, read 4,900,633 times
Reputation: 4101
The prior two posts focus essentially on the number of losses.

So these posters are saying:

1) Power 5 teams should be rewarded for scheduling pathetically weak independent schedules.

2) The relative strength of the Power 5 conferences in any given year should be ignored.

So the argument is that a "one-loss" team with a relatively pathetic strength of schedule should make the play-offs over a 2-loss team with a comparatively brutal schedule.

https://www.teamrankings.com/college...ength-by-other

Again, Washington's strength of schedule is ranked 60th compared to 33 for Michigan. Not surprising that Michigan might have one more loss playing four of the top 10 teams, including the number 2 team, when Washington, before the PAC-12 championship game, has played none!

NCAAF Sagarin - NCAAF Football - USA TODAY

So much for the "best teams" argument.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-01-2016, 06:22 PM
 
529 posts, read 281,260 times
Reputation: 576
Quote:
Originally Posted by WRnative View Post
The prior two posts focus essentially on the number of losses.

So these posters are saying:

1) Power 5 teams should be rewarded for scheduling pathetically weak independent schedules.

2) The relative strength of the Power 5 conferences in any given year should be ignored.

So the argument is that a "one-loss" team with a relatively pathetic strength of schedule should make the play-offs over a 2-loss team with a comparatively brutal schedule.

https://www.teamrankings.com/college...ength-by-other

Again, Washington's strength of schedule is ranked 60th compared to 33 for Michigan. Not surprising that Michigan might have one more loss playing four of the top 10 teams, including the number 2 team, when Washington, before the PAC-12 championship game, has played none!

NCAAF Sagarin - NCAAF Football - USA TODAY

So much for the "best teams" argument.

And LSU has the #2 SOS lost all of their games by 10 or less and all against teams in the top 15.
Iowa isn't even ranked at all. Their best road win was by 15 against 8-4 Texas A&M which is far superior to Michigan's best road win by 9 points against 3-9 Michigan St.

So I guess LSU deserves one of the 4 spots also.


And since you point to Sagarin, note that he ranks the PAC 12 North division 2nd only behind the SEC West.
B1G East is 3rd.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-01-2016, 06:39 PM
 
3,723 posts, read 3,890,179 times
Reputation: 2785
There isn't an argument - if Washington wins the Pac 12 title, they are in the playoffs. There's no way we're going to see a team go 12-1, win the conference title of a Power 5 conference and miss the playoffs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-01-2016, 07:00 PM
 
4,315 posts, read 2,539,827 times
Reputation: 7687
Quote:
Originally Posted by WRnative View Post
The prior two posts focus essentially on the number of losses.

So these posters are saying:

1) Power 5 teams should be rewarded for scheduling pathetically weak independent schedules.

2) The relative strength of the Power 5 conferences in any given year should be ignored.

So the argument is that a "one-loss" team with a relatively pathetic strength of schedule should make the play-offs over a 2-loss team with a comparatively brutal schedule.

https://www.teamrankings.com/college...ength-by-other

Again, Washington's strength of schedule is ranked 60th compared to 33 for Michigan. Not surprising that Michigan might have one more loss playing four of the top 10 teams, including the number 2 team, when Washington, before the PAC-12 championship game, has played none!

NCAAF Sagarin - NCAAF Football - USA TODAY

So much for the "best teams" argument.
#1........?????????????????????

Michigan's ---TWO---losses were to conference foes
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-02-2016, 08:13 AM
 
2,841 posts, read 1,786,139 times
Reputation: 1248
Quote:
Originally Posted by WRnative View Post
The prior two posts focus essentially on the number of losses.

So these posters are saying:

1) Power 5 teams should be rewarded for scheduling pathetically weak independent schedules.

2) The relative strength of the Power 5 conferences in any given year should be ignored.

So the argument is that a "one-loss" team with a relatively pathetic strength of schedule should make the play-offs over a 2-loss team with a comparatively brutal schedule.

https://www.teamrankings.com/college...ength-by-other

Again, Washington's strength of schedule is ranked 60th compared to 33 for Michigan. Not surprising that Michigan might have one more loss playing four of the top 10 teams, including the number 2 team, when Washington, before the PAC-12 championship game, has played none!

NCAAF Sagarin - NCAAF Football - USA TODAY

So much for the "best teams" argument.
How could the number of losses not be important?


So what does your "best teams" argument center around???
Alabama is unbeaten
Ohio St., Clemson, Washington are all one loss Power 5 conference teams. Clemson and Washington are playing for their conference title.
Ohio State may have the best resume Wins over 5,6,8. Add 9 win teams Nebraska 62-3 and Tulsa won 48-3
Michigan may have the best Loss.
Penn St. may have the best Win.
Clemson and Michigan (Pitt. and Iowa) seem to have the worst losses
USC arguably passes the eye test AT THIS POINT this year- I'd argue Alabama does.


Let's talk about Michigan's Schedule
They played Colorado, Wisconsin, Penn St. at home early in the year. They were losing 28-24 to Colorado when their starting QB went down. They play Penn St. when Penn St. dressed and started walk-on Frosh Linebackers, Barkley's had bad ankle that game too.


Hawaii, Rutgers, Illinois, Central Fla.


They left the state of Michigan ONE TIME prior to their game with Iowa in November. That one time was against Rutgers.


They lost to Iowa- not a great loss when you consider Iowa lost to FCS team NDSU (granted NDSU is a great FCS team). They of course lost to Ohio St.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Sports > College Football
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top