Michigan 5th in latest CFP ranking
We still have a shot with a Washington or Clemson loss
http://michigan.247sports.com/Bolt/Fifth-College-Football-Playoff-ranki…
November 29th, 2016 at 7:14 PM ^
Wisconsin 6th, PSU 7th
November 29th, 2016 at 7:19 PM ^
November 29th, 2016 at 7:33 PM ^
If they don't care that much, and just look at it as another good game on your schedule, UM and the B10 winner will both have 2 losses, UM will have a head to head win, and much better wins overall.
November 29th, 2016 at 8:17 PM ^
November 29th, 2016 at 8:48 PM ^
November 29th, 2016 at 9:20 PM ^
November 29th, 2016 at 11:38 PM ^
Lol they definitely have a chance to get in. Ranked 5th, with the chairman of the cfp comittee saying that the margin between washington and Michigan is razor-thin. If Washington does lose, regardless of the outcome of PSU-Wisco, we will then have wins over 2 conference champions, and a 2OT loss on the road to the #2 team in the country. Plus Bama-Michigan ratings>>>Bama-PSU/Wisco blowout ratings.
November 30th, 2016 at 7:38 AM ^
The end of your comment is spot on. I think it helps that Bama killed msu last year. If you put psu or wiscy in that game the same thing is probably happening. Not with Michigan though.
November 30th, 2016 at 1:58 AM ^
November 29th, 2016 at 10:46 PM ^
I think it's more of a clear sign that they don't think the B1G's particular conference champions are better than UM et al.
November 29th, 2016 at 9:13 PM ^
I think Clemson will finish #2 with win but it's a moot point - they'll play OSU either way.
November 29th, 2016 at 11:02 PM ^
This goes against everything they've ever established with precedence or said publically. The strength of the conference as a whole does not matter in-and-of itself. Only a teams performance against the schedule it plays matters, so there is some correlation with the strength of the conference, but since not all teams play each team in their conference, they don't consider the strength of the conference at all. They repeat that mantra all the time.
And your insistence that OSU won't budge from #2 (which is probably correct) is the exact reason we certainly have a chance to stay ahead of the PSU-Wisconsin winner. Because it's about the whole resume and head to heads in addition to conference championships.
November 29th, 2016 at 11:21 PM ^
November 29th, 2016 at 11:57 PM ^
November 30th, 2016 at 4:59 PM ^
Iowa and MSU were in the conference championship last year and both got CRUSHED in their bowl games. They were not the 2 best teams in the conference.
The B1G needs to realign and divide the talent better between divisions!
November 30th, 2016 at 5:02 PM ^
...the alignment must not be the issue.
November 29th, 2016 at 7:34 PM ^
November 29th, 2016 at 8:07 PM ^
IMHO whomever gets the benefit of the #4 seed is going to get soundly beaten by Bama. I don't see any team below #3 making a competitive game with Bama. I think it would take an athletic QB like Jackson/Louisville to give them a good game, but Louisville has no chance to get in. Barrett & OSU or Watson & Clemson may be able to hang with them for a bit, but I don't see any o-line that can handle Bama's d-line, which means the QB has to be able to make plays on his own. UM, PSU, Wiscy, Washington don't seem to fit that bill.
November 29th, 2016 at 8:14 PM ^
November 29th, 2016 at 8:16 PM ^
November 29th, 2016 at 8:20 PM ^
they did not score.
November 29th, 2016 at 8:25 PM ^
November 29th, 2016 at 8:49 PM ^
November 29th, 2016 at 8:27 PM ^
Care to guess the last 4 QB's to beat Alabama?
2015 - Chad Kelly - 21 rushing yards
2014 - Cardale Jones - 43 rushing yards (at 2.5 ypc)
2014 - Bo Wallace - 32 rushing yards
2013 - Trevor Knight - 7 rushing yards
The rushing QB thing is a myth. You can beat them with a pro-style guy.
November 29th, 2016 at 8:31 PM ^
November 29th, 2016 at 8:47 PM ^
They're all in that "mobile pro-style" range of like ~30 yards per game. Granted, you have to worry about someone like that a bit more, but none of them were putting up Denard or Lamar numbers.
November 29th, 2016 at 10:34 PM ^
Did you happen to adjust for sacks? I'm wondering if these QBs accumulated a lot more yards running but sacks end up skewing things a bit.
Edit: Here's the sack adjusted rushing yards. Doesn't really change the story.
-
2015 - Chad Kelly - 33 rushing yards (+12)
-
2014 - Cardale Jones - 64 rushing yards (+21)
-
2014 - Bo Wallace - 37 rushing yards (+5)
-
2013 - Trevor Knight - 12 rushing yards (+5)
November 29th, 2016 at 8:57 PM ^
makes Michigan-Alabama a competitive game.
November 29th, 2016 at 9:19 PM ^
November 29th, 2016 at 9:36 PM ^
Our defense may be able to make it a low scoring game for a while, but our o-line would be dominated by Bama's d-line. We wouldn't be able to run. We'd have to throw, Speight would get pressured regularly, then we'd get turnovers, sacks, or negative plays. We'd have lots of 3-and-outs, which would put pressure on our defense, which would eventually wear down and get beat in the second half. That's just a casual fan's observation/opinion, but who knows...it's college football.
November 29th, 2016 at 10:06 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
November 29th, 2016 at 11:05 PM ^
say just about the exact same thing in reverse.
November 29th, 2016 at 11:43 PM ^
No, he's right. We saw our D wear out against OSU. We've seen our offense grind to a halt not only against Ohio State but also against Iowa and, to a lesser extent, against Wisconsin.
Alabama hasn't given up a touchdown in a month.
That includes mega-games against LSU and Auburn. Gripe about their offenses if you want, but Bama hasn't given up a TD to anybody since October.
We have a terrific team with the best defense we've seen in a generation. Alabama looks like an all-time team.
And their offense is pretty good, btw. They have the O-Line we wish we had.
If we somehow played them it would take a miracle to win. Not impossible, but unlikely.
November 30th, 2016 at 1:14 AM ^
wouldn't be favored. They definitely would be. But our defense could and should wreak nearly as much havoc on their offense. I'm not sure our defense necessarily "wore out" as much as we got conservative as Brian mentioned in his article. But yes, OSU plays with tempo (much moreso than Bama) and OSU was playing at home which definitely helps in the energy dept. Even still, we did not give up a TD to one of the best offenses in the country at their place (I'm not counting the 5 yard drive) in regulation.
I do think Bama's defense would cause all kinds of problems for us, but it's not inevitable that we turn it over excessively. Protect the ball, hit some quick passes and a deep ball or two and we're in business. You've seen what Harbaugh can do to an elite SEC defense with a month to prepare.
I just don't think it'd require a miracle unless you think overcoming 70/30, maybe 80/20 odds is a miracle (miracles to me are like 5 percent chance or less).
November 29th, 2016 at 10:43 PM ^
November 30th, 2016 at 7:10 AM ^
Yes, although UM has a better defense than both of those teams, they matchup better with Bama. Both Clemson and OSU have offenses that don't require as good of a performance from their o-line, in part because of their team speed and in part because of the mobility of their QBs. Our offense requires good play by our o-line to be effective, which is why for parts of or entire games against Wiscy, Iowa, and OSU we didn't move the ball at all. Against Bama our o-line would get mauled. Clemson and OSU wouldn't have as much of a problem getting first downs as we would. Their weaknesses on defense would be mitigated because Bama isn't great offensively. It's just a better matchup in my opinion
November 29th, 2016 at 8:55 PM ^
If the committee were going to go with PSU or Wiscy, they should be ranked above Michigan right now.
They' re not. So I don't think they would be much of a factor.
November 29th, 2016 at 9:02 PM ^
so I don't know what the committee members said.
But I would guess (not saying this is right, just what I can imagine them saying) they put Michigan at 5 because they just lost a tight rivalry game on the road in 2OT, while Washington thumped their rival. They conveniently put Wisconsin and Penn State right behind them, saying "Yeah, you lost to Michigan." But whoever wins will jump Michigan into the playoffs if Washington or Clemson lose, and if the top 4 hold remains, they can leave Mchigan at 5 to possibly set a precendent.
November 29th, 2016 at 9:22 PM ^
I watched as much as I could stomach. Danny Kannell was the elad cheerleader of the three against M. They were all saying that M beat them early and that PSU was missing a lot of significant contributors. Also that M lost 2 of 3 while both PSU and UW are on 8 game streks (6 for UW). One guy said M only beat CU because Luifau got hurt - which is when I gagged and turned it off...
Three of the four hosts were against M, while the 4th said M was still alive with an outside shot. The few minutes I listened to were foul tasting...
November 29th, 2016 at 10:56 PM ^
was almost all pro-Michigan.
I like them better.
November 30th, 2016 at 12:02 AM ^
November 30th, 2016 at 5:21 AM ^
Rece Davis made a point to say we had only one road win outside the state of Michigan and that bothers him. Considering how Saturday went, I find that statement to be bullshit and it really pissed me off. Then Galloway just made me want to just shut it off.
November 30th, 2016 at 1:43 AM ^
November 29th, 2016 at 9:28 PM ^
Why? The rankings are a right now choice, but psu and wiscy have another game to make a statement so next weeks can look different. He specefically said the gap from 4 to 7 was small. The 4 criteria are head to head, sos, common opponents and conference champion.
One of psu/wisconsin will have the conference champion mark, michigan will have the head to head vs either. Michigan has sos over psu for sure, its close with wiscosin but probably that to. In terms of common opponents Michigan beat maryland and rutgers by more, psu beat iowa, indiana, msu and osu by more with a possibility of wisconsin. On those 4 criteria with psu it would be 2-2, probably 3-1 for Michigan compared to wisconsin but a closer head to head win is a complicating factor.
November 29th, 2016 at 10:34 PM ^
November 29th, 2016 at 11:27 PM ^
Kirby Hocutt (chairman of the committee) said the margin between Washington and MICHIGAN (NOT Colorado) is "razor thin".
LINK: https://www.mlive.com/wolverines/index.ssf/2016/11/michigans_shot_at_playoff_seem.html
November 29th, 2016 at 7:36 PM ^
November 29th, 2016 at 8:11 PM ^
November 29th, 2016 at 8:34 PM ^
November 29th, 2016 at 9:40 PM ^