Week 13 college football thread: Don’t It Make My Buckeyes Blue?

Paul Keels is phenomenal.

 

In answering your contention that Michigan played a soft OOC schedule. So did LSU. So does almost everyone who thinks they can win a national title, because as you said there is nothing to gain by loading up on hard OOC opponents. USC might be an exception.

 

At the start of the season, Michigan State looked to be a quality game. And Penn State was ranked in the top 10 when Michigan beat them and they're still ranked #11. I'll concede the OOC schedule was weak -- and bailing out of the UCLA home and home to ensure an additional home date set them up for all sorts of well-earned derision about their schedule. But when it comes down to it, the Big Ten East is not normally as weak as it turned out to be this year (usually having to play MSU, Penn State and Ohio State would be running the gauntlet) and nobody predicted Sparty would be this bad.

I don't see how you would give a one-loss Clemson the edge over a hypothetical one-loss Michigan -- not when Michigan's best win (Penn State, currently #11) was an absolute ass-kicking and Clemson's best win (FSU, currently #16) was one where they held on, winning by one score and almost giving it up in the 4th quarter. And I don't see how you would give a one-loss USC team the edge either. Illinois was Michigan's only close game. USC technically has two wins over top 25 teams -- both ranked below Penn State and both games were close.

In short, I'm wondering where these other teams are that actually played such brutal schedules by comparison after you drill down.

 

I'd listen to the argument that one-loss USC is better than one-loss Michigan but I think just the eye test along with resume shows Michigan is better than Clemson.

 

I didn't say Michigan played a soft OOC schedule.

I said they played a soft schedule --- period. Partly because of OOC opponents, but mostly because of a soft conference, which isn't the case with LSU. If Michigan happens to beat Ohio State, they will get a three-loss team in the B1G title game. If they lose to Ohio State, Penn State will be their only top-25 victory.

That's the case TODAY. The USC argument assumes they will beat ANOTHER ranked team in Notre Dame, and ANOTHER one in the conference title game. That's what would put them over a one-loss Michigan. They still have to go out and do it. Michigan supporters are already trying to put them in the playoff assuming a loss in their only game of consequence.

 

If it's a one-loss Clemson vs. a one-loss Michigan, one of those two would be a P5 champion, and the other wouldn't. Not saying that's the right decision, mind you, but that's your "how" right there.

 

If KJ Jefferson didn't get hurt last week, Georgia prob would face a three-loss team in the SEC championship. Yes, I think Georgia is the No. 1 team and SEC
the best conference.

 

If that's what the committee wants to do, it can certainly invoke that distinction.
If it does that, the panel will be saying it considers Michigan and Clemson to be otherwise "comparable." I think that's the term.

 

Sorry that I misunderstood you.

The FF should be Georgia, Ohio State, TCU and USC, provided they all win out. Three undefeated conference champions, and a one-loss by one point P5 conference champion.

 

Sounds about right.

Of course, TCU and USC will lose, at which point I say make it a two-team playoff.

 

Virginia-Va Tech off.