If the CFP is about the 4 best teams then it should be.

[PennStateNate]

Bama
Ohio St
Michigan
Big Ten winner

Bama is the best team, PSU/Wisky won the best conference. And OSU/Mich would hammer Clemson/Wash.

Only other team I consider right now is Colorado with the way their playing.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

UM has lost 2 of it's last 3 after living at home for 2 months to open the season. Don't get me wrong, they are a good team and to be honest outplayed OSU all day on Saturday, but made a few mistakes that cost them. My issue is if you lose 2 of your last 3 games you are on the outside looking in, period. UM finished 3rd in their division....that is the reality of where they are, but since it was a good game....they will still get the love. They lost to Iowa a week after we thrashed Iowa. OSU barely beat MSU and we thrashed them the next week. Somehow nobody seems to be talking about any of this which is fine. None of it matters though as PSU has to win the BT title to state their case. 2 top 10 wins, 9 straight wins, and a BT title is a pretty damn strong resume. Same for UW if they take care of PSU.

 

[NewYC]

Bama
Ohio St
Michigan
Big Ten winner

Bama is the best team, PSU/Wisky won the best conference. And OSU/Mich would hammer Clemson/Wash.

Only other team I consider right now is Colorado with the way their playing.

I don't think Michigan is near the top 4. They have only had to play a few road games with an incredibly set up schedule for them and they lost the only ones that were difficult; and they were in big time trouble against Indiana that would've made their end of season swoon even more catastrophic. They've gotten worse as the season has gone on. For me they aren't close to the top 4. the first half of the season, yes, now, not so much. Played well against OSU but lost. After Alabama it's really a toss up, but Michigan isn't in there.

 

[PennStateNate]

Michigan has besten #6, 7, and 9. In fact routed all 3.

you can't honestly tell me Washington or Clemson would beat Michigan.

 

[lionville]

Bama
Ohio St
Michigan
Big Ten winner

Bama is the best team, PSU/Wisky won the best conference. And OSU/Mich would hammer Clemson/Wash.

Only other team I consider right now is Colorado with the way their playing.

So a third place finisher in their division within their conference is one of the top 4 teams in the country. Doesn't pass the eye test.

 

[PennStateNate]

So a third place finisher in their division within their conference is one of the top 4 teams in the country. Doesn't pass the eye test.

They beaten 3 top 10 teams. Has does that not pass the eye test.

 

[NewYC]

Michigan has besten #6, 7, and 9. In fact routed all 3.

you can't honestly tell me Washington or Clemson would beat Michigan.

They definitely didn't route Wisconsin (not sure why you say that) and they were losing big to Colorado before their best player (the QB) went down with an injury.

 

[psuro]

Michigan has besten #6, 7, and 9. In fact routed all 3.

you can't honestly tell me Washington or Clemson would beat Michigan.

As long as the game was played anywhere but Ann Arbor, they may have a chance.

 

[PennStateNate]

They definitely didn't route Wisconsin (not sure why you say that) and they were losing big to Colorado before their best player (the QB) went down with an injury.

The combine score was 108-35. Wisky played them tough, but Michigan still won. Colorado had a first quarter lead and that was it.

 

[PennStateNate]

Now please tell me on a nuetral field. Who beats Michigan and Ohio State?

We can't stand them, but their both really good teams and played a pretty even game Saturday.

 

[Brad908]

The combine score was 108-35. Wisky played them tough, but Michigan still won. Colorado had a first quarter lead and that was it.

Colorado was up early in the third before their QB had to finally go off the field.

Why do you post if you have no idea what you're talking about?

 

[heckmans]

Michigan has besten #6, 7, and 9. In fact routed all 3.

you can't honestly tell me Washington or Clemson would beat Michigan.

Penn State was not ranked and was barely an average team when Mich played them.

 

[PennStateNate]

Colorado was up early in the third before their QB had to finally go off the field.

Why do you post if you have no idea what you're talking about?

108-35, but that is close in your eyes.

 

[MtNittany]

To hear this game described after watching it, I'm wondering if I watched the wrong game? You'd think this was the greatest contest every waged in the history of sports. Where was the offense? tOSU's special teams sucked. scUM's QB decision making sucked. Not enough that espn has to dry hump tOSU all the way through Christmas, now we're getting the scUM "participation trophy" argument for them to be included as well.

 

[Brad908]

108-35, but that is close in your eyes.

You clearly have reading comprehension issues.

Your post contained a statement that Colorado only had a first quarter lead and I responded back saying they were up in the third before they had to put a freshman qb in. Your response back was completely irrelevant.

 

[PennStateNate]

You clearly have reading comprehension issues.

Who beats Michigan on a neutral field.

 

[psu2016]

Michigan has besten #6, 7, and 9. In fact routed all 3.

you can't honestly tell me Washington or Clemson would beat Michigan.

They beat Wisconsin by 14-7 at home. In what world is that routing them?

 

[Brad908]

Who beats Michigan on a neutral field.

Just admit you were wrong in saying Colorado only had a first quarter lead. It wasn't that big of a deal.

 

[heckmans]

Now please tell me on a nuetral field. Who beats Michigan and Ohio State?

We can't stand them, but their both really good teams and played a pretty even game Saturday.

This is not a F*#%*#G beauty pageant! Michigan finished 3rd in their division. How "good" a team is, is irrelevant. Champions WIN. Great teams WIN. National Champions are Great Teams. They lost. 2 of their last 3. 3rd in their division is all you need to know. 3rd in their division. Sorry, but you don't get a shot at a National Championship when you are 3rd in your division.

 

[AvgUser]

Michigan has beaten #6, 7, and 9. In fact routed all 3.

UM routed PSU, yes.

Did UM's 14-7 win over Wisconsin count as a route? If so, then PSU's flukey shellacking of OSU was a half-route.

 

[BoulderFish]

Bama
Ohio St
Michigan
Big Ten winner

Bama is the best team, PSU/Wisky won the best conference. And OSU/Mich would hammer Clemson/Wash.

Only other team I consider right now is Colorado with the way their playing.

If you're ignoring everything and simply going by "best," I agree with your top four. With Speight (sp?) healthy after a month of rest, Michigan is going to roll whomever they play in their bowl game.

In your "other teams considered," I would add USCw.

 

[BoulderFish]

I don't think Michigan is near the top 4. They have only had to play a few road games with an incredibly set up schedule for them and they lost the only ones that were difficult; and they were in big time trouble against Indiana that would've made their end of season swoon even more catastrophic. They've gotten worse as the season has gone on. For me they aren't close to the top 4. the first half of the season, yes, now, not so much. Played well against OSU but lost. After Alabama it's really a toss up, but Michigan isn't in there.

Without Speigth (sp?), I agree they're not near the top four. But with a healthy Speigth (which he clearly wasn't Saturday against OSU), they are. Even with Speigth being noticeably hobbled, they still controlled that game. OSU's had to pull out some "flukes" to get that W.

 

[demlion]

Now please tell me on a nuetral field. Who beats Michigan and Ohio State?

We can't stand them, but their both really good teams and played a pretty even game Saturday.

We could beat either one.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

Who beats Michigan on a neutral field.

Any of the top 7 could play with them to be honest on a neutral field. They are a good team, but they aren't Bama...nobody is.

 

[Spitfirex007]

Michigan has a D that is really good. And when their QB isn't making mistakes, they can move the ball. I personally think it would be a fantastic match up between them and Clemson

 

[demlion]

The whole "body of work" analysis is the dressed up, fancy cousin of the "eye test." The fact is that at the very time we were being told how Louisville passed the eye test, they were getting slammed for having no defense. The eye test rewards teams which win games 48-39, and discriminates against teams which win games 19-10.

The so-called "body of work" test is a very flexible device. Only sometimes, (when decrying UM, for example) is the old "late losses hurt more" a part of it. Or you have people who will say that UM is IN because of its body of work, without mentioning that they lost to a pretty average Iowa team that was just beaten soundly by PSU.. (Poster CJsE LITERALLY did this yesterday.) In fact he claimed UM beat Iowa. It is just an opinion without a basis. The "body of work" BS is in place to dress it up.

"Body of work" simply means "they played and beat better teams than (the team we are comparing them to) did." How does the "body of work" analysis play upon the following situations: 1) PSU beats Iowa 41-14 at PSU and ONE WEEK LATER beats UM at Iowa, 14-13. If you are saying UM is a good team because of its body of work, then UM's loss to Iowa MUST mean that our body of work gets bumped up, right? How about "they played a common opponent one week apart and PSU smoked them, while UM lost to them?" No part of the analysis. Same thing for MSU and OSU. A WEEK ago, MSU all but beat OSU. This week, we smoked the very same team. Body of weak-ass work theory? Not in evidence.

One can hope without believing it will happen that those in charge will recognize that if we beat a favored Wisky team at a neutral site--a team that took OSU to OT--then our body of work points go up.

I have no reason to think this could ever happen, but IF we should be so lucky as to get the chance to have Wisky helpless in the late 3d quarter, we need to pour it on and run it up as high as it can go, so that our "body of work" compares favorably. LOL. So much for not incenting margin of victory. Any time someone says, Team A struggled to beat team C, while team B blew team C out by 30, they are incenting margin of victory, which is expressly prohibited by the Protocol.

I am not fool enough to think the Committee will not do this. It would be nice to gather the evidence that they did it, though, just to confirm what a bunch of jive all of it is.

 

[NewYC]

The combine score was 108-35. Wisky played them tough, but Michigan still won. Colorado had a first quarter lead and that was it.

Again, the Wisconsin game was down to the wire-they took the lead in the 4th and Colorado was winning the entire first half until a few seconds before halftime and had a 21-7 lead until their QB (who was killing um) went down. We're watching different games.

 

[NewYC]

Without Speigth (sp?), I agree they're not near the top four. But with a healthy Speigth (which he clearly wasn't Saturday against OSU), they are. Even with Speigth being noticeably hobbled, they still controlled that game. OSU's had to pull out some "flukes" to get that W.

Flukes as in missing chip shot field goals? The second half was mostly OSU.

 

[Cpeplion]

Without Speigth (sp?), I agree they're not near the top four. But with a healthy Speigth (which he clearly wasn't Saturday against OSU), they are. Even with Speigth being noticeably hobbled, they still controlled that game. OSU's had to pull out some "flukes" to get that W.

Flukes like fumbling on the goal line or throwing a pick 6 or throwing another pick late in the game? If you're a better team you don't make those mistakes. Speight is a game manager not a playmaking qb. UM has regressed over the course of the season.

 

[Spitfirex007]

Again, the Wisconsin game was down to the wire-they took the lead in the 4th and Colorado was winning the entire first half until a few seconds before halftime and had a 21-7 lead until their QB (who was killing um) went down. We're watching different games.

Weren't we down 21-7 to Ohio State? I mean granted we didn't destroy them in the second half. But we made the adjustments needed. Just as Michigan did. Have you actually watched Colorado play? Very unimpressive team. Look decent. But being top 10 is a stretch for them

 

[Bob78]

The whole "body of work" analysis is the dressed up, fancy cousin of the "eye test." The fact is that at the very time we were being told how Louisville passed the eye test, they were getting slammed for having no defense. The eye test rewards teams which win games 48-39, and discriminates against teams which win games 19-10.

The so-called "body of work" test is a very flexible device. Only sometimes, (when decrying UM, for example) does the old "late losses hurt more" a part of it. Or you have people who will say that UM is IN because of its body of work, without mentioning that they lost to a pretty average Iowa team that was just beaten soundly by PSU.. (Poster CJsE LITERALLY did this yesterday.) In fact he claimed UM beat Iowa. It is just an opinion without a basis. The "body of work" BS is in place to dress it up.

"Body of work" simply means "they played and beat better teams than (the team we are comparing them to) did." How does the "body of work" analysis play upon the following situations: 1) PSU beats Iowa 41-14 at PSU and ONE WEEK LATER beats UM at Iowa, 14-13. If you are saying UM is a good team because of its body of work, then UM's loss to Iowa MUST mean that our body of work gets bumped up, right? How about "they played a common opponent one week apart and PSU smoked them, while UM lost to them?" No part of the analysis. Same thing for MSU and OSU. A WEEK ago, MSU all but beat OSU. This week, we smoked the very same team. Body of weak-ass work theory? Not in evidence.

One can hope without believing it will happen that those in charge will recognize that if we beat a favored Wisky team at a neutral site--a team that took OSU to OT--then our body of work points go up.

I have no reason to think this could ever happen, but IF we should be so lucky as to get the chance to have Wisky helpless in the late 3d quarter, we need to pour it on and run it up as high as it can go, so that our "body of work" compares favorably. LOL. So much for not incenting margin of victory. Any time someone says, Team A struggled to beat team C, while team B blew team C out by 30, they are incenting margin of victory, which is expressly prohibited by the Protocol.

I am not fool enough to think the Committee will not do this. It would be nice to gather the evidence that they did it, though, just to confirm what a bunch of jive all of it is.

Nicely laid out and explained.

Imo, Four teams forces the resume / body of work vs. trending, and the margin of victories - or losses - need to be ignored, and as you said, the protocol calls for that. Certainly the transitive property needs to be ignored.
Therefore, imo, four teams potentially leads to bigger mistakes being made by the selection committee. Maybe it has not happened yet, but this season could be the big ugly test case for that. I am in favor of going to 6 or 8 teams asap.

Given our past history of being overlooked for important MNC consideration (hello 1994 and friends), I am skeptical that we will be on the golden ticket side of the equation if it comes down to that. It's a new era and all that, so I hope those past happenings are long gone. (Unless there is some lingering mindset about.... nah. Perish the thought!)

 

[Mal-The-Werewolf]

if they're just going to say 4 best teams every year then just put Ohio st & bama in at the beginning of the season. They'll have the most talent each year and will pass the eye test when they play well. When they don't play well (see 17-16 against 3 win Michigan state) we'll make excuses for them since they have so much talent. Championships count for something otherwise. Unless records are so disparate like if Florida beats Bama this weekend. But if psu wins you have 2 B1G teams to compare with 11 wins each, 1 is a conference champ and beat the other one too.

Look I thought osu was #2 last year but they lost to msu. Tough.

 

[heckmans]

The whole "body of work" analysis is the dressed up, fancy cousin of the "eye test." The fact is that at the very time we were being told how Louisville passed the eye test, they were getting slammed for having no defense. The eye test rewards teams which win games 48-39, and discriminates against teams which win games 19-10.

The so-called "body of work" test is a very flexible device. Only sometimes, (when decrying UM, for example) does the old "late losses hurt more" a part of it. Or you have people who will say that UM is IN because of its body of work, without mentioning that they lost to a pretty average Iowa team that was just beaten soundly by PSU.. (Poster CJsE LITERALLY did this yesterday.) In fact he claimed UM beat Iowa. It is just an opinion without a basis. The "body of work" BS is in place to dress it up.

"Body of work" simply means "they played and beat better teams than (the team we are comparing them to) did." How does the "body of work" analysis play upon the following situations: 1) PSU beats Iowa 41-14 at PSU and ONE WEEK LATER beats UM at Iowa, 14-13. If you are saying UM is a good team because of its body of work, then UM's loss to Iowa MUST mean that our body of work gets bumped up, right? How about "they played a common opponent one week apart and PSU smoked them, while UM lost to them?" No part of the analysis. Same thing for MSU and OSU. A WEEK ago, MSU all but beat OSU. This week, we smoked the very same team. Body of weak-ass work theory? Not in evidence.

One can hope without believing it will happen that those in charge will recognize that if we beat a favored Wisky team at a neutral site--a team that took OSU to OT--then our body of work points go up.

I have no reason to think this could ever happen, but IF we should be so lucky as to get the chance to have Wisky helpless in the late 3d quarter, we need to pour it on and run it up as high as it can go, so that our "body of work" compares favorably. LOL. So much for not incenting margin of victory. Any time someone says, Team A struggled to beat team C, while team B blew team C out by 30, they are incenting margin of victory, which is expressly prohibited by the Protocol.

I am not fool enough to think the Committee will not do this. It would be nice to gather the evidence that they did it, though, just to confirm what a bunch of jive all of it is.

Agree. To get in the playoff, the B1G Champion will need both Washington and Clemson to lose in their Championship games. That would really paint the committee into a corner. They would be faced with putting 3 B1G teams in the payoff or putting in Clemson/UW over the B1G Champ... or they would have to somehow jump Wisky/PSU over Mich after winning the B1G to "correct" the disparity.

This would all be corrected by a simple philosophy.
Let the conferences figure out how to determine their champions.
The playoff would be the 4 highest ranked Conference Champs.

Let's prioritize winning over "The Look Test" and "Body of Work"

 

[demlion]

Ohio State's offense is one-dimensional. They seem to have Barret up the middle as their only reliable play at this point. Given how weak their O-line is in pass protection, there is not much hope for them in the playoff, anyway.

 

[lionroar88]

Michigan is not getting into the playoff unless BOTH Clemson, Washington lose, and then the committee would have to put them in over Wisc/PSU or Oklahoma...

 

[MoyerJones]

it's really just media driven drama and favoritism. If you are going to go with a "playoff", then go with the teams that got the job done at the end of the year.

Unless the Big12 decides to have a championship, the easiest solution (this year) is to take the winner of B1G, ACC, PAC, SEC.

Don't talk about separation of ranked teams until the we see what actually happens.

Don't they remember what happened last year?

The media should be saying "tough luck" to UM and tOSU right now. The reason is that on the "body of work", eye test, SOS, etc doesn't acknowledge that the margin between #4-12 (or whatever) is very narrow. Conference championships should mean something absolute for playoff or else don't have them.

I'd be totally fine with FL, VTech, Wisky, and Colorado in the final four, as opposed to listening to a bunch of guys with skinny ties saying "body of work" 50 times an hour.

 

[demlion]

it's really just media driven drama and favoritism. If you are going to go with a "playoff", then go with the teams that got the job done at the end of the year.

Unless the Big12 decides to have a championship, the easiest solution (this year) is to take the winner of B1G, ACC, PAC, SEC.

Don't talk about separation of ranked teams until the we see what actually happens.

Don't they remember what happened last year?

The media should be saying "tough luck" to UM and tOSU right now. The reason is that on the "body of work", eye test, SOS, etc doesn't acknowledge that the margin between #4-12 (or whatever) is very narrow. Conference championships should mean something absolute for playoff or else don't have them.

I'd be totally fine with FL, VTech, Wisky, and Colorado in the final four, as opposed to listening to a bunch of guys with skinny ties saying "body of work" 50 times an hour.

CFB is funny,too, in that they get some time off, and some teams get better and some teams get stale. One of the best things about PSU going to bowls thru this time when the NCAA F'ed us over is that you get all that extra practice in. MSU, for example, will be sitting at home and not practicing for the next few weeks. Big difference for a young team to get that game practice in.