header pic

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

The 'Old' CFN/Scout Crowd- Enjoy Civil discussion, game analytics, in depth player and coaching 'takes' and discussing topics surrounding the game. You can even have your own free board, all you have to do is ask!!!

Anyone is welcomed and encouraged to join our FREE site and to take part in our community- a community with you- the user, the fan, -and the person- will be protected from intrusive actions and with a clean place to interact.


Author

Topic: Indiana (2-6, 5-6) at #4 Michigan (8-0, 10-1) Post Game

 (Read 2104 times)

MichiFan87

  • Player
  • ****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 796
  • Liked:
Re: Indiana (2-5, 5-5) at #4 Michigan (7-0, 9-1) Game Week
« Reply #14 on: November 13, 2018, 12:04:14 AM »
I just don't see how Indiana matches up well at all against Michigan this year, especially with it being a home game, where Michigan has been particularly dominant.

Rutgers is their only BigTen opponent they've held under 30 points. Conversely, Maryland is the only BigTen team to break 20 against Michigan (7 of which were on a fluke kickoff return and the rest came against the backups in the 4th quarter), and Michigan has been scoring 40+ on all but the top defenses.

While there's no revenge motivation, since Michigan has won 22 in a row against the Hoosiers, they're going to want get a big lead to give the backups reps while the starters rest, especially for the QBs. Given that it's also not an entirely sure thing Michigan finishes in the top 4 even if they win out, continuing to dominate lesser competition is important.

42-13
“When your team is winning, be ready to be tough, because winning can make you soft. On the other hand, when your team is losing, stick by them. Keep believing”
― Bo Schembechler

ELA

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 12454
  • Liked:
Re: Indiana (2-5, 5-5) at #4 Michigan (7-0, 9-1) Game Week
« Reply #15 on: November 13, 2018, 12:16:59 AM »
I disagree.  I would argue one of the main reasons Michigan is the highest ranked one loss team  is that they are considered to have the most forgivable loss on the board.
But they'd probably be #3 if you replaced the Notre Dame loss with a win over EMU.  So yes, good losses are better than bad losses, but a better record, even with a bad SOS still trumps it.  See Washington 2016.

Anonymous Coward

  • All Star
  • ******
  • Posts: 3187
  • Liked:
Re: Indiana (2-5, 5-5) at #4 Michigan (7-0, 9-1) Game Week
« Reply #16 on: November 13, 2018, 03:40:48 AM »
Either way, they'd still have to beat OSU to get in. This only matters if you think a 12-1 M gets left out. I don't.

Anonymous Coward

  • All Star
  • ******
  • Posts: 3187
  • Liked:
Re: Indiana (2-5, 5-5) at #4 Michigan (7-0, 9-1) Game Week
« Reply #17 on: November 13, 2018, 03:43:01 AM »
FYI - this isn't homecoming. Maryland was.

Kris60

  • Starter
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 1799
  • Liked:
Re: Indiana (2-5, 5-5) at #4 Michigan (7-0, 9-1) Game Week
« Reply #18 on: November 13, 2018, 05:53:42 AM »
But they'd probably be #3 if you replaced the Notre Dame loss with a win over EMU.  So yes, good losses are better than bad losses, but a better record, even with a bad SOS still trumps it.  See Washington 2016.
I agree but it’s:
Good win > Bad win > Good loss > Bad loss
Those kind of games are high risk/high reward.  We could each keep providing examples to prove our point. The teams that win those challenging games put themselves in great positions and the teams that lose in tougher positions.  

ELA

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 12454
  • Liked:
Re: Indiana (2-5, 5-5) at #4 Michigan (7-0, 9-1) Game Week
« Reply #19 on: November 13, 2018, 01:45:17 PM »
I still think it's high risk, low reward.  Yes, you are better off winning them than not playing them, but not much better off than beating some chump, which you are guaranteed to win.  If Ohio State had played EMU instead of Oklahoma last year, they are in the playoff.

medinabuckeye1

  • All Star
  • ******
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 4253
  • Liked:
Re: Indiana (2-5, 5-5) at #4 Michigan (7-0, 9-1) Game Week
« Reply #20 on: November 13, 2018, 01:51:18 PM »
I still think it's high risk, low reward.  Yes, you are better off winning them than not playing them, but not much better off than beating some chump, which you are guaranteed to win.  If Ohio State had played EMU instead of Oklahoma last year, they are in the playoff.
True, but I think beating OU in 2016 got Ohio State into the playoff.  

ELA

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 12454
  • Liked:
Re: Indiana (2-5, 5-5) at #4 Michigan (7-0, 9-1) Game Week
« Reply #21 on: November 13, 2018, 01:54:38 PM »
True, but I think beating OU in 2016 got Ohio State into the playoff.  
Have they ever taken a 2 loss team?  I don't believe so, so I don't think it would matter.  Until the committee takes a team with more losses, because of a better overall resume, I'll refuse to believe scheduling tough has any benefit other than entertainment value.

Mdot21

  • Team Captain
  • *******
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 5430
  • Liked:
Re: Indiana (2-5, 5-5) at #4 Michigan (7-0, 9-1) Game Week
« Reply #22 on: November 13, 2018, 02:35:40 PM »
Have they ever taken a 2 loss team?  I don't believe so, so I don't think it would matter.  Until the committee takes a team with more losses, because of a better overall resume, I'll refuse to believe scheduling tough has any benefit other than entertainment value.
Yep. 


Anonymous Coward

  • All Star
  • ******
  • Posts: 3187
  • Liked:
Re: Indiana (2-5, 5-5) at #4 Michigan (7-0, 9-1) Game Week
« Reply #24 on: November 13, 2018, 05:15:43 PM »
Also wasn't aware of the apparent controversy immediately preceding the Big play, where LP Reid caught the ball and fumbled at the 45yl but Corso argued he deliberately tossed the ball OOB.

Anonymous Coward

  • All Star
  • ******
  • Posts: 3187
  • Liked:
Re: Indiana (2-5, 5-5) at #4 Michigan (7-0, 9-1) Game Week
« Reply #25 on: November 13, 2018, 05:20:57 PM »
I think it's a close call about M-ND (whether to play the game, strategically, as a scheduler). And err in its favor for tradition and fun. Maybe no one is saying otherwise, so my apologies if that sentence is stupidly obvious.

I also think it's already close between M-ND for quality of team in the committee's mind.
My interpretation of their policy is to go to 4 factors, including H2H, *only* in the event that two teams are so close that they cannot otherwise be picked between on bestness. I think that their recent rankings and scant comments indicate they are already at that stage and that if ND were to lose, to Syracuse, e.g., that ND would fall behind Michigan because they'd then see Michigan on an entire notch above ND that precedes the need for these 4 factors, including H2H.

Anonymous Coward

  • All Star
  • ******
  • Posts: 3187
  • Liked:
Re: Indiana (2-5, 5-5) at #4 Michigan (7-0, 9-1) Game Week
« Reply #26 on: November 13, 2018, 05:56:00 PM »
The committee has never yet taken a 2-loss team, nor has it taken a team whose one loss is a blowout. This is why I think it's silly to assume a SECCG-losing Bama would be taken over Michigan "because" last year's Bama was taken over OSU (who'd have broken both precedents with two losses and the blowout). That precedent cannot be relevant to 1-loss-to-ND Michigan.
If Bama loses that one and Michigan wins out, my gut is that Michigan is not guaranteed but favored to get in (for these reasons, the championship reason, and because if Bama loses, then it certainly can't be "the best ever," so the argument "How can you keep out the best ever?" eliminates itself) and both M and B will be sweating.


 

Support the Site!