College Football - Week 13 (Thanksgiving Week)

[Andy]

Top 25 games

------------------------

(3) Arkansas at (1) LSU (2:30 pm Friday, CBS)

(2) Alabama at (24) Auburn (3:30 pm, CBS)

(5) Virginia Tech at Virginia (3:30 pm, ABC/ESPN2)

(22) Notre Dame at (6) Stanford (8 pm, ABC)

Wyoming at (7) Boise State (2 pm, The Mountain)

(8) Houston at Tulsa (12 pm Friday, FSN/CSN)

Iowa State at (9) Oklahoma (12 pm, FX)

Oregon State at (10) Oregon (3:30 pm, ABC/ESPN2)

UCLA at (10*) USC (10 pm, FSN/CSN)

(17) Clemson at (12) South Carolina (7:45 pm, ESPN)

(13) Georgia at (23) Georgia Tech (12 pm, ESPN)

(14) Michigan State at Northwestern (12 pm, BTN)

Ohio State at (15) Michigan (12 pm, ABC)

(19) Penn State at (16) Wisconsin (3:30 pm, ESPN)

(18) Baylor vs Texas Tech – in Arlington, TX (7 pm, FSN/CSN)

Iowa at (21) Nebraska (12 pm Friday, ABC)

(25) Texas at Texas A&M (8 pm Thursday, ESPN)

 

(* denotes AP ranking; ineligible for BCS)

 

Games of interest

------------------------

Eastern Michigan at Northern Illinois (11 am Friday, ESPNU)

Louisville at South Florida (12 pm Friday, ESPN2)

Toledo at Ball State (2 pm Friday, ESPN3)

 

Tennessee at Kentucky (12 pm, SEC Network)

Kansas vs Missouri – in Kansas City (3:30 pm, FSN/CSN)

Purdue at Indiana (3:30 pm, BTN – Regional)

Illinois at Minnesota (3:30 pm, BTN – Regional)

Duke at North Carolina (3:30 pm, ESPN3)

Ole Miss at Mississippi State (7 pm, ESPNU)

Florida State at Florida (7 pm, ESPN2)

 

Other nationally available games

---------------------------------------

Miami (OH) at Ohio (7 pm Tuesday, ESPN2)

 

Kent State at Temple (12 pm Friday, ESPN3)

Bowling Green at Buffalo (12 pm Friday, ESPN3)

Akron at Western Michigan (1 pm Friday, ESPN3)

Boston College at Miami (3:30 pm Friday, ABC)

Colorado at Utah (3:30 pm Friday, FSN/CSN)

Pittsburgh at West Virginia (7 pm Friday, ESPN)

UTEP at Central Florida (7 pm Friday, CBS College)

California at Arizona State (10:15 pm Friday, ESPN)

 

Cincinnati at Syracuse (12 pm, Big East Network)

Rutgers at Connecticut (12 pm, ESPN2)

Rice at SMU (12 pm, FSN/CSN)

Maryland at NC State (12:30 pm, ACC Network)

Troy at Western Kentucky (12:30 pm, ESPN3)

Nevada at Utah State (2 pm, ESPN3)

East Carolina at Marshall (3:30 pm, CBS College)

Vanderbilt at Wake Forest (3:30 pm, ESPNU)

New Mexico State at Louisiana Tech (4 pm, ESPN3)

Washington State at Washington (7:30 pm, Versus)

Tulane at Hawaii (11 pm, ESPN3)

[Butterscup1679666578]

I've been calling a loss to Kansas for awhile. Do it, douches.

[Derwood]

if you told me back in August that Penn State would be playing for a berth in the B1G title game on the final day of the season, I would've been thrilled.

[bcl412]

I would really love it if Iowa takes down Nebraska in Lincoln.

[shnsajax]

Texas is going to lose.

[Old Style]

Texas is going to lose.

They better or I may get arrested trying to kill Mike Sherman.

[UMFan83]

Nice, Michigan ends up at 15th in the BCS. Need to jump one more spot to be eligible. With Georgia playing LSU/BAMA/ARK in the SEC title game, it seems likely that GA is the team UM jumps (unless of course they lose to Ohio St). However, Wisconsin and Clemson are right behind them, and with Wisconsin possibly having wins over Penn State and Michigan State over the next 2 weeks, and Clemson with possible wins over VA and VT, they could both jump Michigan with ease. It should be interesting.

[CubColtPacer]

Nice, Michigan ends up at 15th in the BCS. Need to jump one more spot to be eligible. With Georgia playing LSU/BAMA/ARK in the SEC title game, it seems likely that GA is the team UM jumps (unless of course they lose to Ohio St). However, Wisconsin and Clemson are right behind them, and with Wisconsin possibly having wins over Penn State and Michigan State over the next 2 weeks, and Clemson with possible wins over VA and VT, they could both jump Michigan with ease. It should be interesting.

 

Michigan should be eligible with a win. They'll jump Georgia if they lose the SEC championship game. If Wisconsin jumps them, that also means Michigan will jump Michigan State since Wisconsin will have to beat them. Clemson and South Carolina play, so only one of them at most will be ahead of Michigan at the end of the season (and if Clemson beats South Carolina and loses to Va Tech, Michigan could be ahead of both of them). Baylor is the only real concern who could jump them. And there are still upsets (such as Tulsa beating Houston) that will allow Michigan to jump some unexpected teams. I'd put the odds at only 5-10% that Michigan wouldn't be eligible with a win over Ohio State.

[Tracer Bullet]

wait, so MSU and UM could finish 10-2. But MSU could lose in the big ten title game and fall below UM - a team with the same regular season record, that they beat in the regular season, and didn't play in the title game. In doing so, MSU doesn't get a BCS game and UM does? That can't be right, can it?

[Guest]

wait, so MSU and UM could finish 10-2. But MSU could lose in the big ten title game and fall below UM - a team with the same regular season record, that they beat in the regular season, and didn't play in the title game. In doing so, MSU doesn't get a BCS game and UM does? That can't be right, can it?

 

You wouldn't think so, but yes, it's happened before.

[CubColtPacer]

wait, so MSU and UM could finish 10-2. But MSU could lose in the big ten title game and fall below UM - a team with the same regular season record, that they beat in the regular season, and didn't play in the title game. In doing so, MSU doesn't get a BCS game and UM does? That can't be right, can it?

 

Absolutely. Right now, Michigan and Michigan State's resume is virtually identical. Michigan has had the slightly harder schedule and Michigan State has the head to head win (although I don't put much stock in that, since there are so many times in college football where A beats B beats C who beats A). Michigan is already ahead in the computer rankings. If Michigan State plays another similar team and loses, should they not get penalized even a little bit for that? Because even a little bit of a penalty would put them clearly behind Michigan.

[Guest]

Here's a fun comparison of one loss teams

 

Team A: 48th SOS, 1-1 v. Sagarin Top 30

Team B: 57th SOS, 0-1 v. Top 30

Team C: 45th SOS, 2-1 v. Top 30

Team D: 49th SOS, 2-1 v. Top 30

 

These teams are Arkansas, Stanford, Boise, and Virginia Tech, can you tell which is which?

[Formerly Snayke]

Here's a fun comparison of one loss teams

 

Team A: 48th SOS, 1-1 v. Sagarin Top 30

Team B: 57th SOS, 0-1 v. Top 30

Team C: 45th SOS, 2-1 v. Top 30

Team D: 49th SOS, 2-1 v. Top 30

 

These teams are Arkansas, Stanford, Boise, and Virginia Tech, can you tell which is which?

 

My guess is Virginia Tech is Team B and Boise is Team C.

[Tracer Bullet]

wait, so MSU and UM could finish 10-2. But MSU could lose in the big ten title game and fall below UM - a team with the same regular season record, that they beat in the regular season, and didn't play in the title game. In doing so, MSU doesn't get a BCS game and UM does? That can't be right, can it?

 

Absolutely. Right now, Michigan and Michigan State's resume is virtually identical. Michigan has had the slightly harder schedule and Michigan State has the head to head win (although I don't put much stock in that, since there are so many times in college football where A beats B beats C who beats A). Michigan is already ahead in the computer rankings. If Michigan State plays another similar team and loses, should they not get penalized even a little bit for that? Because even a little bit of a penalty would put them clearly behind Michigan.

 

Was there some mitigating factor in the head to head game? I agree with discounting the A-B-C games (happened this year with these 2 and ND) but why discount h2h? Both were full strength and I don't recall some fluke event that made UM lose. As between two teams in the same division, the one that won the h2h game and plays in the title game should get the nod over a team they beat (that therefore didn't play on the title game).

[jersey cubs fan]

wait, so MSU and UM could finish 10-2. But MSU could lose in the big ten title game and fall below UM - a team with the same regular season record, that they beat in the regular season, and didn't play in the title game. In doing so, MSU doesn't get a BCS game and UM does? That can't be right, can it?

 

Absolutely. Right now, Michigan and Michigan State's resume is virtually identical. Michigan has had the slightly harder schedule and Michigan State has the head to head win (although I don't put much stock in that, since there are so many times in college football where A beats B beats C who beats A). Michigan is already ahead in the computer rankings. If Michigan State plays another similar team and loses, should they not get penalized even a little bit for that? Because even a little bit of a penalty would put them clearly behind Michigan.

 

No, they shouldn't, but they will. W

 

hy do you justify discounting head to head by talking about something completely unrelated?

[UMFan83]

I understand the argument. That's the downside of a conference title game however. I respect the argument that H2H trumps all but if you really dive into their resumes it looks closer than you'd think. Michigan beat 2 teams that blew MSU out this year, while MSU also beat the other team Michigan lost to. Both teams basically have 2 quality wins, Neb and ND for UM and UM and Wisconsin for MSU. Looking at the H2H game, although I will admit MSU clearly outplayed Michigan, UM was in the red zone hoping to tie late in the 4th quarter on the road in that game, so the game was closer than the final score indicated IMO.

 

Anyways like I said, I respect the H2H trumps all argument so if that's your belief, it's understandable. But the resumes are very close, and with the season ending in a loss for MSU, it pushes MSU behind Michigan.

[CubColtPacer]

wait, so MSU and UM could finish 10-2. But MSU could lose in the big ten title game and fall below UM - a team with the same regular season record, that they beat in the regular season, and didn't play in the title game. In doing so, MSU doesn't get a BCS game and UM does? That can't be right, can it?

 

Absolutely. Right now, Michigan and Michigan State's resume is virtually identical. Michigan has had the slightly harder schedule and Michigan State has the head to head win (although I don't put much stock in that, since there are so many times in college football where A beats B beats C who beats A). Michigan is already ahead in the computer rankings. If Michigan State plays another similar team and loses, should they not get penalized even a little bit for that? Because even a little bit of a penalty would put them clearly behind Michigan.

 

No, they shouldn't, but they will. W

 

hy do you justify discounting head to head by talking about something completely unrelated?

 

Because it applies in this situation. If the season plays out like this:

 

Michigan 10-2

Michigan State 10-3

Nebraska 9-3

 

Who should be ranked in front of the others? Head to head doesn't matter in this case because they all beat each other.

 

A championship game gives a team another chance to prove itself. It beefs up their strength of schedule. But it also gives them another chance to lose. With the benefits come risks as well.

[treebird]

A championship game gives a team another chance to prove itself. It beefs up their strength of schedule. But it also gives them another chance to lose. With the benefits come risks as well.

 

doesn't that mean msu should refuse to play in the championship game them? why risk falling behind umich?

[CubColtPacer]

A championship game gives a team another chance to prove itself. It beefs up their strength of schedule. But it also gives them another chance to lose. With the benefits come risks as well.

 

doesn't that mean msu should refuse to play in the championship game them? why risk falling behind umich?

 

Because if they win they get an automatic bid. And Michigan State would be unlikely to get picked as an at-large anyway even if they were ahead of Michigan.

 

Conference championship games have to carry risk or else the conferences with conference championships would have an inherent advantage over those who don't.

[Tracer Bullet]

A - h2h doesn't trump all. But you have 2 teams with identical records and they're in the same division of their conference. You can't punish a team that gets to the conferene title game by knocking them behind a team they beat and finished ahead of in the division.

 

B - why is Nebraska relevant? We're talking about MSU and UM. What they did against Nebraska or any other team isn't part of a h2h discussion.

 

C - the title game matters. It should be relevant in picking between MSU and some other at large candidate from outside the big ten. I could even see it being relevant in MSU v a big ten team in the other division. But MSU shouldn't fall behind a team in their own division who is sitting idle bc they got beat by MSU.

[CubColtPacer]

A - h2h doesn't trump all. But you have 2 teams with identical records and they're in the same division of their conference. You can't punish a team that gets to the conferene title game by knocking them behind a team they beat and finished ahead of in the division.

 

B - why is Nebraska relevant? We're talking about MSU and UM. What they did against Nebraska or any other team isn't part of a h2h discussion.

 

C - the title game matters. It should be relevant in picking between MSU and some other at large candidate from outside the big ten. I could even see it being relevant in MSU v a big ten team in the other division. But MSU shouldn't fall behind a team in their own division who is sitting idle bc they got beat by MSU.

 

Ok, let's do the same comparison with Michigan, Michigan State, and Notre Dame. Let's assume all 3 win their final game and then Michigan State loses to Wisconsin in the title game.

 

Is it fair to rank a 3 loss Notre Dame team ahead of a 2 loss Michigan team that beat them? No. Is it fair to rank a 3 loss Michigan State team ahead of a 3 loss Notre Dame team that beat them? No. And you say it is also unfair to rank Michigan ahead of Michigan State in that scenario. All 3 of those cannot exist together. So how do you rank those teams?

 

That's the problem with using head to head. It never is just about ranking two teams against each other. Sure, if you limit it to just Michigan and Michigan State then it seems unfair. But when you expand it to making an actual ranking of all the teams, there is no fair way to rank Michigan State, Michigan, Notre Dame, and Nebraska in a top 25 poll using head to head. There is always going to be some head to head matchup you have to ignore to make it work. So you have to go by total resume.

 

BTW, if Michigan State does lose in the title game, it won't matter if the voters keep them right in front of Michigan or not. Michigan would be so far ahead of them in the computer rankings at that point that they would move ahead of them in the BCS standings.

[E.J.]

Michigan still has to beat Ohio for any of this to be relevant. No easy task considering we've lost 10 games in a row to the Buckeyes.

[CubColtPacer]

Michigan still has to beat Ohio for any of this to be relevant. No easy task considering we've lost 10 games in a row to the Buckeyes.

 

If Michigan doesn't beat Ohio State, things get really interesting for that last at-large spot. A 3 loss Oklahoma? Kansas State? Baylor? Boise State? Va Tech if Clemson beats them? Maybe even ND if everything breaks right? I can't see how any other Big 10 team would be eligible in that scenario. Nobody in the Big East will be eligible, and the Pac 12 and SEC would already have teams in. I have no idea who would get in.

[Tracer Bullet]

A - h2h doesn't trump all. But you have 2 teams with identical records and they're in the same division of their conference. You can't punish a team that gets to the conferene title game by knocking them behind a team they beat and finished ahead of in the division.

 

B - why is Nebraska relevant? We're talking about MSU and UM. What they did against Nebraska or any other team isn't part of a h2h discussion.

 

C - the title game matters. It should be relevant in picking between MSU and some other at large candidate from outside the big ten. I could even see it being relevant in MSU v a big ten team in the other division. But MSU shouldn't fall behind a team in their own division who is sitting idle bc they got beat by MSU.

 

Ok, let's do the same comparison with Michigan, Michigan State, and Notre Dame. Let's assume all 3 win their final game and then Michigan State loses to Wisconsin in the title game.

 

Is it fair to rank a 3 loss Notre Dame team ahead of a 2 loss Michigan team that beat them? No. Is it fair to rank a 3 loss Michigan State team ahead of a 3 loss Notre Dame team that beat them? No. And you say it is also unfair to rank Michigan ahead of Michigan State in that scenario. All 3 of those cannot exist together. So how do you rank those teams?

 

That's the problem with using head to head. It never is just about ranking two teams against each other. Sure, if you limit it to just Michigan and Michigan State then it seems unfair. But when you expand it to making an actual ranking of all the teams, there is no fair way to rank Michigan State, Michigan, Notre Dame, and Nebraska in a top 25 poll using head to head. There is always going to be some head to head matchup you have to ignore to make it work. So you have to go by total resume.

 

BTW, if Michigan State does lose in the title game, it won't matter if the voters keep them right in front of Michigan or not. Michigan would be so far ahead of them in the computer rankings at that point that they would move ahead of them in the BCS standings.

 

Don't fight the hypo.

 

The reason you can narrow this discussion to 2 teams is bc that's the question: Team A won the teams' division, beat Team B h2h, and only has 3 losses bc they played in the title game. As between those 2, which should be ranked higher/be eligible for a bcs bowl?

 

It doesn't work with ND bc they aren't in the same division and don't have a conference title game. UM only has fewer losses than MSU (in our hypo) bc MSU won h2h and thus played in a "bonus" game while UM sat at home.

 

Doesn't seem fair to punish the team that lost what is basically a 1-game playoff for the benefit of the team that didn't even play in the playoff.

[CubColtPacer]

A - h2h doesn't trump all. But you have 2 teams with identical records and they're in the same division of their conference. You can't punish a team that gets to the conferene title game by knocking them behind a team they beat and finished ahead of in the division.

 

B - why is Nebraska relevant? We're talking about MSU and UM. What they did against Nebraska or any other team isn't part of a h2h discussion.

 

C - the title game matters. It should be relevant in picking between MSU and some other at large candidate from outside the big ten. I could even see it being relevant in MSU v a big ten team in the other division. But MSU shouldn't fall behind a team in their own division who is sitting idle bc they got beat by MSU.

 

Ok, let's do the same comparison with Michigan, Michigan State, and Notre Dame. Let's assume all 3 win their final game and then Michigan State loses to Wisconsin in the title game.

 

Is it fair to rank a 3 loss Notre Dame team ahead of a 2 loss Michigan team that beat them? No. Is it fair to rank a 3 loss Michigan State team ahead of a 3 loss Notre Dame team that beat them? No. And you say it is also unfair to rank Michigan ahead of Michigan State in that scenario. All 3 of those cannot exist together. So how do you rank those teams?

 

That's the problem with using head to head. It never is just about ranking two teams against each other. Sure, if you limit it to just Michigan and Michigan State then it seems unfair. But when you expand it to making an actual ranking of all the teams, there is no fair way to rank Michigan State, Michigan, Notre Dame, and Nebraska in a top 25 poll using head to head. There is always going to be some head to head matchup you have to ignore to make it work. So you have to go by total resume.

 

BTW, if Michigan State does lose in the title game, it won't matter if the voters keep them right in front of Michigan or not. Michigan would be so far ahead of them in the computer rankings at that point that they would move ahead of them in the BCS standings.

 

Don't fight the hypo.

 

The reason you can narrow this discussion to 2 teams is bc that's the question: Team A won the teams' division, beat Team B h2h, and only has 3 losses bc they played in the title game. As between those 2, which should be ranked higher/be eligible for a bcs bowl?

 

It doesn't work with ND bc they aren't in the same division and don't have a conference title game. UM only has fewer losses than MSU (in our hypo) bc MSU won h2h and thus played in a "bonus" game while UM sat at home.

 

Doesn't seem fair to punish the team that lost what is basically a 1-game playoff for the benefit of the team that didn't even play in the playoff.

 

I would agree it doesn't seem fair, but it's the most fair way to do it. Ranking a 3 loss Michigan State team over a 2 loss Michigan team creates much bigger problems than the ones it solves.