ESPN Cooks up a CFP "Doomsday Scenario" that includes Michigan
I couldn't help but salivate at the thought of this scenario playing out (hopefully in our favor).
Doomed if: Michigan wins the Big Ten. It's not anywhere near over in the Big Ten, which still has three undefeated teams and the possibility of a three-way tie in the East Division. If Ohio State beats Michigan State -- hardly a far-fetched result -- and Michigan wins out, then there will be a three-way tie between them, with each having lost to one another. In that scenario, it could come down to which team is ranked highest by the selection committee on Dec. 1. Let's say it's Michigan, and the Wolverines knock off an undefeated Iowa team to win the title: The committee would like the Wolverines. But would it like them enough to put a two-loss Big Ten champ in the top four? Probably not if the other Power 5 conferences have produced an undefeated champ or one with one loss.
LET'S WIN OUT AND MAKE ALL THE COMMITEE GO CRAZY!
November 4th, 2015 at 12:04 PM ^
It's a long shot, but stranger things have happened.
November 4th, 2015 at 12:07 PM ^
No chance Alvarez and Osborne let a Big Ten Champ get left out after beating two undefeateds to close the season. Word is they have A LOT of influence.
November 4th, 2015 at 2:05 PM ^
I thought CFP committee members have to recuse themselves when voting on a team where there's a potential bias. Example, Osbrone and Alvarez can't vote for B1G teams, and Pat Haden couldn't vote on Pac-12 teams when he was still on the committee and etc.
November 4th, 2015 at 7:56 PM ^
AFAIK, that recusals are much more restricted than that. For Osborne, it would be Nebraska and Nebraska only. For Alvarez it would be Wisconsin and Wisconsin only.
November 4th, 2015 at 3:47 PM ^
Michigan isn't making the playoffs. The only scenario where M is able to pass MSU in the polls to get the big ten championship involve all the teams in front of msu staying in front of msu. So sure Clemson losing to a turd team could open the door but it would mean michigan state moving up a spot too. If msu only has a loss to osu on the road they will almost certainly finish the season like top 8 (they will move up in the next 2 weeks as big 12 and sec teams beat each other in front of them). Michigan getting into the top 8 will be tough with two losses. Our best bet is for MSU to stay as close as possible as to where they are now until osu and that means no major upsets we would need to get into the playoff.
I guess unless clemson loses to south carolina or in the acc championship game.
November 4th, 2015 at 12:08 PM ^
November 4th, 2015 at 12:09 PM ^
No, Colonel Sanders, you are wrong. It is CFP ranking.
November 4th, 2015 at 12:17 PM ^
What is that based on?
The Big Ten website says otherwise:
http://www.bigten.org/sports/m-footbl/archive/081011aaa.html
November 4th, 2015 at 12:21 PM ^
"5. The highest ranked team in the first College Football Playoff poll following the completion of Big Ten regular season conference play shall be the representative in the Big Ten Championship Game, unless the two highest ranked tied teams are ranked within one spot of each other in the College Football Playoff poll. In this case, the head-to-head results of the top two ranked tied teams shall determine the representative in the Big Ten Championship Game."
That is above overall winning percentage as far as I can tell. Maybe I am reading it wrong.
November 4th, 2015 at 12:26 PM ^
You are reading it wrong.
"1. The records of the three tied teams will be compared against each other."
Thus, the very first criteria is overall record.
The records of the three teams in that scenario has Michigan below MSU and OSU. According to the rules, therefore Michigan is dropped from the equation and the head-to-head tiebreaker is used between the remaining two teams. In this scenario, it would mean OSU going.
November 4th, 2015 at 12:29 PM ^
November 4th, 2015 at 3:33 PM ^
Stepping back away from the badly written step one, we all know that a common sense procedure would take the records of the tied teams against each other as the first tie-breaker.
Not having seen any official clarification, I'd think that the most likely explanation is that it is in fact poorly written (over an actual wacky tie-breaker scheme).
The first step would be much better expressed as
The records of the three tied teams in games against each other will be compared.
November 4th, 2015 at 3:40 PM ^
November 4th, 2015 at 3:52 PM ^
Not directly from the B1G (maybe the B1G doesn't want to put it in writing), but from a reporter stating he called the B1G
http://www.landgrantholyland.com/2015/10/20/9570373/big-ten-football-ti…
Tiebreaker 1. The records of the 3 tied teams compared against each other.
There was some debate among our staff as to what exactly this constituted. Historically, "the record" refers to conference play standings, as overall record shouldn't factor in until late in the process (particularly given the Big Ten recent emphasis on encouraging stronger out-of-conference scheduling). Another staff member argued it meant all games played.
We reached out to the Big Ten's league office, which clarified it referred, very literally, to the three team's records against one another. That would mean:
Ohio State 1-1
Michigan State 1-1
Michigan 1-1
November 4th, 2015 at 12:31 PM ^
that would the the records the three teams have against each other so the records in the games of M-MSU, M-OSU, OSU-MSU which would be a three way tie. So we would keep coming down to #5 which is CFP ranking
November 4th, 2015 at 12:40 PM ^
That refers to their games against each other.
Head to head is the first tiebreak in a two way tie. It makes no sense that it wouldn't even be considered in a three way tie.
November 4th, 2015 at 12:32 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
November 4th, 2015 at 1:15 PM ^
People need to understand that the B1G looks at conference record first and foremost. If it didn't mean conference record then the next step wouldn't be division record. Capiche?
Furthermore, step 6 addresses OVERALL record when it specifies that exempt games (FCS and such scrimmages) will not be used to determine winning %.
November 4th, 2015 at 3:59 PM ^
for teams tied in conference record doesn't do a whole lot.
For a more in-depth explanation, click here
November 4th, 2015 at 12:26 PM ^
Everything else would be even until that one. This is why everyone, including the fact-agnostic WWL is mentioning this doomsday scenario.
The one thing ESPN won't mention is that the CFP committee would drop Sparty like a rock if they lose by 2 TDs to OSU. They don't like them, and their best win was won on a fluke. That's why the doomsday scenario is real.
November 4th, 2015 at 12:27 PM ^
Am I taking crazy pills?
Rule 1 is overall record. It is not record in games between the tiebreaker teams. Michigan is not even in that category.
November 4th, 2015 at 12:30 PM ^
November 4th, 2015 at 12:34 PM ^
I don't know if you're taking crazy pills, but you're reading something that isn't there. It doesn't every say overall record. Look down at rule 6, which is win %. This is the overall record tiebreaker, essentially, because they all play 12 games.
November 4th, 2015 at 12:35 PM ^
November 4th, 2015 at 12:26 PM ^
As I mentioned elsewhere, the rule is just written poorly. #1 is meant to mean that the records of the three tied teams against each other will be compared. This was specifically discussed in a number of articles and on this board weeks ago. For reference, look at this article posted on BTN's website: http://btn.com/2015/10/20/dienhart-we-may-have-to-wait-on-big-ten-title…
November 4th, 2015 at 12:35 PM ^
Are we sure that Tom Dienhart is right? Is there an official B1G source on this? (Not saying you're wrong, just curious).
I think that is an incorrect reading of the plain language there. If that was the intent and the way the B1G will enact this, I would probably fire the lawyer who drafted that.
November 4th, 2015 at 12:36 PM ^
that's what was meant.
November 4th, 2015 at 12:37 PM ^
November 4th, 2015 at 12:48 PM ^
November 4th, 2015 at 12:54 PM ^
*You're.
Language and word choice, as noted in the constructive discussion above between berto714 and myself, is important.
November 5th, 2015 at 9:19 PM ^
November 6th, 2015 at 12:17 AM ^
November 9th, 2015 at 1:11 PM ^
I wouldn't say "wait." Some of us have more important things to do than post 49 different Anchorman gifs a day.
November 13th, 2015 at 12:47 PM ^
November 4th, 2015 at 12:40 PM ^
I agree it's poorly written, but just take a look at the first two rules combined and it'll give you a clue how to interpret it:
- The records of the three tied teams will be compared against each other.
- The records of the three tied teams will be compared within their division.
I've bolded the key language in the above. I think eveyrone will agree that the #2 tiebreaker means that they are comparing records within their division. Therefore the modifier to "records" is the last three words of the sentence - "within their division." We can assume that #1 should be interpreted the same way - therefore "against each other" is a modifier for "recrods." So it's saying they will compare the records against each other.
Also, as others have mentioned, think about this logically. Why wouldn't the records against each other for tied teams be the first tiebreaker? Of course this would be the case. If two teams are tied, head-to-head record is also the tiebreaker; logic follows that the same should be the case in a multi-way tie.
I agree though that this is written very poorly. If they wanted to compare overall record though, I think they would have used the word "overall" to modify record.
November 4th, 2015 at 12:50 PM ^
November 4th, 2015 at 1:43 PM ^
Also, if you keep reading the tie breaker rules, FOLLOWING the CFP tiebreaker is overall winning percentage, also known as overall record.
November 4th, 2015 at 12:09 PM ^
would have to lose to OSU and someone else. They didn't really spelll that out.
November 4th, 2015 at 12:12 PM ^
If MSU gets thumped by OSU, they would most likely fall behind a Michigan team that wins out in the CFP Ranking, so then it would come down to who is ranked higher between Michigan and OSU.
November 4th, 2015 at 12:17 PM ^
NFTXT
November 4th, 2015 at 12:21 PM ^
The scenario is if Michigan wins the Big Ten at 11-2. They would need OSU to beat MSU and then Michigan has to beat OSU and wind up the higher rated team by the selection committee to go to the Big Ten championship game where they would beat Iowa to win the Big Ten. An 11-2 Big Ten champ Michigan probably isn't getting in the playoff.
The hard part will be that you'd have to have faith that the committee would put a 12'ish ranked Michigan over a recently beaten top 3'ish Ohio State to wind up being the team that goes to the Big Ten championship game.
November 4th, 2015 at 12:36 PM ^
would be higher than 12, by my calculations of upcoming games and likely outcomes. If Michigan wins out they will be likely around 10 by the time they play Ohio State who will likely be 2 if they win out by that time. But it still won't be close enough. The only way we could cause mass confusion is if we blew Ohio State out and it became non-sensical to rank them above us or even within a spot of us. If that occured, yeah, that would cause chaos. If we win a close game against OSU after they beat State, the committee will drop them to 5 or 6 but still a spot clear of us and then use the Ohio State v. Iowa BIG championship game as the de facto playoff qualifier.
We needed to open higher than 17 for it to be realistic for us. If the committee would have shown Michigan much love and ranked us 12 or 13 to begin with then we would be in play. 17 is too far back for a two loss team. The goal now for fans should be a New Years 6 because the playoff is not going to be part of the deal.
Really, the moral to the story that is unfolding is that the BIG divisions are horribly divided and this is going to continue to happen. Penn State will eventually get really good again too and it will even be worse. The BIG needs to look at that and fast, because Iowa? Seriously Iowa?
November 4th, 2015 at 1:49 PM ^
FUCK penn state.
November 4th, 2015 at 2:05 PM ^
I guess?
November 4th, 2015 at 1:10 PM ^
...Michigan would jump a few teams from that conference if they keep on winning. Their path to being within five slots of OSU by Nov. 28 is pretty clear. And beating the defending champs would probably allow them to jump some 1-loss teams as well.
November 4th, 2015 at 4:48 PM ^
If you are the committee, why take the grief for ranking a two loss team over a one loss team this early?
Games that will or may help Michigan's ranking:
• Six B12 round robin games by Nov 28
• #6 Baylor 7-0
• #8 TCU 8-0
• #14 OkSt 8-0
• #15 Okla 7-1
• SEC cannibalism by Nov 28
• #2 LSU 7-0 @ #4 Bama 7-1
• #2 LSU 7-0 @ #18 OleMS 7-2
• #2 LSU 7-0 v #19 TAMU 6-2
• #4 Bama 7-1 @ #20 MsSt 6-2
• PAC12
• #4 Utah 7-1 v #23 UCLA 6-2 11/21
• ACC
• #1 Clem 8-0 v #16 FSU 7-1 11/07
• Undefeated #13 Memphis
• #13 Memph 8-0 v Navy 6-1 11/07
• #13 Memph 8-0 @ #25 Hous 8-0 11/14
• #13 Memph 8-0 @ #22 Temp 7-1 11/21
• Cannibalistic OOC games by Nov 28
• #5 ND 7-1 @ #11 Stanf 7-1 11/28
• #10 Fla 7-1 v #16 FSU 7-1 11/21
November 4th, 2015 at 2:52 PM ^
If there are 3 teams tied atop a B1G division, the section of the tiebreaker rule at issue says to look at the CFP rankings and take the highest ranked team; BUT, if the two highest rated teams of the 3 are within 1 ranking of each other, then you drop the 3rd in line, and apply the balance of the rules as if 1 of the 3 teams had been equivalently eliminated under any of the other rules. In other words, if UM wins out, OSU beats MSU and losed to UM, we have a 3-way tie at 7-1 in the division among UM, OSU and MSU, conceptually, OSU could be the highest ranked of the 3, followed by UM and MSU. In this scenario, if OSU is ranked only 1 higher than UM, the tiebreaker rules would drop MSU, and then move on to the portion of the rules that determines the division champion as between 2 tied teams, that is head-to-head, which, in the scenario described, UM would win. Bottom line, UM needs to win out, be ranked 1st or 2nd of the 3 tied teams, and if 2nd, it needs to be 2nd to OSU and within 1 ranking of OSU.