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

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

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.

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.  

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.  

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. 

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.

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.