Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

Georgia definitely controls its own destiny.  If they win out they are in and the question is if Alabama drops out.  I certainly wouldn't call Oklahoma irrelevant.  If they have a stretch like Michigan just had they are right in the conversation, plus they end with likely two games against West Virginia.  That's why I'm sayung Michigan would probably want a good looking OSU team on its resume, which in margin of victory is strong but in quality of opponent is very not strong.

I'm not convinced a 1-loss UGa would pass Michigan. And I suspect the odds of OU doing it are significantly more scarce.

I suppose any odds greater than 0.00 are incompatible with "controlling one's fate," in which case neither M, nor the Bama/Bulldog loser, nor OU controls its fate. Which means I have to technically agree with you despite disagreeing in spirit.

Ha, but ya know, now that I'm recalling something -- how vehemently you argued that OSU/PSU would unquestionably finish as the most important Big Ten game of the year (conversation dated to the week after M toppled UW) -- I have to be OK with the clash. Your grasp of the season-to-date and what's next is more questionable than in past season's.

I think of all the things, an Urban Meyer team not trying to run the ball is extremely unlikely.  Not saying they are going to try and pound it against Sparty, but I don't anticipate them abandoning the run game against anyone unless they are down by a big score.  
But still, the line is pretty average run blocking and I don't expect that to change.  They get their yards mostly by chucking it, and that will continue.  If the defense could sort itself out, they could have something.  But that seems like a pretty dreamy wish.

To clarify: I was not talking about quitting the run outright. I was distinguishing between (A) trying until it works (no matter what) and (B) trying just enough to say you did then going trough the air to win.

A comment about all of this "Urban has never successfully done the pocket passer thing" debate. That's obvious hogwash, right? Anyone remember Chris Leak?

Of course, that would seem to further argue for young Tate Martell packages in the red zone (just as Leak had with TrFr Tebow)

A comment about all of this "Urban has never successfully done the pocket passer thing" debate. That's obvious hogwash, right? Anyone remember Chris Leak?

Of course, that would seem to further argue for young Tate Martell packages in the red zone (just as Leak had with TrFr Tebow)

Leak was mobile enough, he wasn't a pocket statue like Brantley or Haskins. Urban also sprinkled in a lot of packages that featured Tebow both rushing and throwing in 2006. Especially on short yardage and red zone situations. Tebow scored 14 total TD's passing and rushing that year.

I suppose any odds greater than 0.00 are incompatible with "controlling one's fate," in which case neither M, nor the Bama/Bulldog loser, nor OU controls its fate. Which means I have to technically agree with you despite disagreeing in spirit.

FWIW:  When I use the term "controls their own destiny" this is the definition that I am almost always using (I try to point it out if I am using some other definition).  Thus, when I said a few weeks ago that I was not certain that Michigan controlled their own destiny I meant that I thought there was a non-zero chance that a 12-1 B1G Champion Michigan team *COULD* potentially be left out of the playoff because:

• An undefeated Bama would be ahead of them.  
• An undefeated Clemson would be ahead of them.  
• An undefeated Notre Dame would be ahead of them.  
• A one-loss SEC Champion UGA would be ahead of them.  
• A one-loss non-Champion Bama *MIGHT* be ahead of them.  
• A one-loss B12 Champion OU *Might* be ahead of them.  

FWIW:  When I use the term "controls their own destiny" this is the definition that I am almost always using (I try to point it out if I am using some other definition).  Thus, when I said a few weeks ago that I was not certain that Michigan controlled their own destiny I meant that I thought there was a non-zero chance that a 12-1 B1G Champion Michigan team *COULD* potentially be left out of the playoff because:

• An undefeated Bama would be ahead of them.  
• An undefeated Clemson would be ahead of them.  
• An undefeated Notre Dame would be ahead of them.  
• A one-loss SEC Champion UGA would be ahead of them.  
• A one-loss non-Champion Bama *MIGHT* be ahead of them.  
• A one-loss B12 Champion OU *Might* be ahead of them.  

And so long as we specify that, under this rigorous definition, fewer than 4 teams control their destiny for a 4-team playoff, I'm good with the claim that Michigan doesn't control its.
The next logical step for the conversation is which candidate has a plurality of the probability points to be the #4 team if the top three stay locked? And though the chances aren't 1.000 and may or may not even be 0.500, I'd say the highest probability is Michigan's.
And perhaps based on last week's rankings, the CFP committee agrees. Of course, their fickleness is famous ...

I don't think we are confusing these concepts. I just think we favor different stringencies. I think there's a 99+% chance that M is in if it wins out. By practical definition, that's controlling one's destiny. Yours is more mathematically rigorous, which I respect logically but find less useful.