Fan rushes the field and runs into him, **** that fan. Same goes for any fan that makes contact with a player of any team.
If Meyer had gotten ****ed on as many calls as Harbaugh did he'd feel the same way. He's done it before.
Official 2016 NCAA Football Thread
- Thread starter Sinister04L
- Start date
Fan rushes the field and runs into him, **** that fan. Same goes for any fan that makes contact with a player of any team.
If Meyer had gotten ****ed on as many calls as Harbaugh did he'd feel the same way. He's done it before.
Being from WA state, I'm partial to home teams but I can't help but post this. A lot of the Husky Honks are saying they'd prefer the Rose Bowl because they think there's a chance to win meaning they don't want Top 4 (and getting boat-raced by Alabama). Pathetic. If you get the chance to win the National Championship, don't you give it both barrels regardless?
I agree if you get the chance to get the 4th slot take it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I don't have an issue with Peppers pushing a fan while rushing the field. Player safety is of the utmost importance. I'd be fearful of something happening while the home team's fans are rushing the field and would protect myself at all costs...period!
But no response about Peppers' stomping and spitting on Block O? Hmmmm. Respect your rival. That was BS.
And the refs didn't cost UM the game. Speight turned it over twice inside his own 30 (one went for a pick six) and once on the OSU goal line. Can't do that and expect to win, especially when given the gift of two missed chip-shot FGs. And when it counted, Michigan's offense clammed up, gaining 5 yards in the 4th quarter to OSU's 127. Michigan dominated the line of scrimmage for three quarters but didn't finish. OSU gashed them in the 4th and OT. And btw, that was a first down on 4th and 1 in the second OT.
Last edited:
What Peppers did was trivial. Did he actually even spit? I can't tell. Can you? Even if he did, ok? Not a big deal to me. OSU once tore down Michigan's banner. It's a heated rivalry, the best in football (maybe all sports) but that insignificant stuff doesn't matter. I don't remember OSU fans caring when Hall flipped off the stadium after he was ejected a few years ago either. Peppers had also been hearing it from OSU fans all year trash talking him as well. That didn't seem to bother you or any other OSU fans. Like I said, trivial stuff.
As for the game, Michigan made mistakes that were within their control. OSU made just as many mistakes that were within their control (interception, missed FG's, stupid fake punt). All that was a wash at the end of the game. What WASN'T within their control were the refs calling a completely biased game. No one outside of Buckeye Nation thinks otherwise. Several blatant, drive killing penalties committed by OSU that simply weren't called. Not to mention some terrible holding which led to some big gains. Not one call. ZERO. It was a joke. And that's not even including the spot. I don't think he made it, but it was close enough that I understood it not being overturned so it really didn't bother me too much.
What did bother me was all the other bullshit that happened. And as it turns out, 3 of the refs are from Ohio, 2 of them admitted OSU fans, both involved in the lack of calls, and the head ref had been previously fired by the Big10 for incompetence. Why were these clowns even on the field. One of them was actually barred from calling the game in '06 because of his potential bias towards OSU, but was somehow allowed to officiate this game?
Yes if Michigan hadn't done this or that and made 1 fewer mistake maybe the game is different, but at the end of the day both teams made mistakes. The difference is OSU was more easily able to overcome theirs with help.
I will agree with you on one point...B1G refs suck. Plain and simple, they are some of the worst in the country. When we played Sparty two weeks ago the holding was so blatant and so constant I could barely stand to watch. I'm wondering how much college football refs get paid and if there is an option to make them full-time as there is so much at stake. Its incredible to me that the NFL doesn't have full-time refs already, and the P5 conferences in college should definitely also have them. Crazy!
No doubt they suck. MSU DB's would grab, hold, interfere, do whatever they wanted knowing that it would rarely get called, if ever, and if it was called it wouldn't be called consistently. They were coached this way.
I read that refs and officials across the board averaged ~$37K/year, depending on the conference, sport, etc. I also read they can make up to $3K for 60 minutes of game time. So, not much. Full time officials would be nice. The Big10 can afford it.
I think he stays until Hurts leaves.
Check out the Louisville at Clemson game. Look at the Clemson hold on Louisvilles Hikutini on the 2nd to last play of the final Louisville drive. ACC refs are no better than the B1G refs.
http://www.sbnation.com/college-foo...ville-clemson-football-james-quick-first-down
Also, there was a ref in that game who has a daughter who recently graduated from Clemson. It is on his Facebook page as well as pictures from where he and his family were going to watch the Clemson and Alabama national championship game.
I don't think Michigan "deserves" to go to the CFP in the conventional sense because we didn't win the conference or even the division, however, I do think we're one of the best 4 teams in the country. As crazy as it sounds, it's all going to depend on who loses this weekend and what criteria the CFP committee uses to pick their top 4, and Michigan still has a shot to make it, however slim.
So, how does the committee decide? What is the actual criteria? I'm sure each member of the committee sees it somewhat differently. How much does winning your conference matter? How much does the strength of the conference matter? Is it more about the body of work? Quality wins vs losses? It's interesting that the SEC Commissioner had previously lobbied for the committee to pick "the 4 best teams" and did so assuming it would help lock in a 2nd SEC team since that conference had been so strong. Too bad for him that would benefit the Big10 this year.
My issue with the committee is consistency with criteria. It is important from year to year, and even week to week.
1.) Winning your conference HAS to mean something. It just has to. All athletes learn that from day 1, into high school, into college, and into the Pro's. If Penn State wins this weekend, how can you put OSU and UM into the top 4 when they didn't win their division, more less, their Conference. It doesn't mean everything, I get that. There is no way Virginia Tech would be a top 4 team if they upset Clemson (please), but that is an entirely different situation.
2.) Strength of conference HAS to mean something. Most people agree the top of the B1G is the strongest of any conference in the Country. So again, if that is the case, how do you leave out the Champion of that conference? That could be the argument for Wisconsin should they win.
3.) Strength of schedule and quality of wins HAS to mean something. This is what helps teams like Ohio State and Michigan with quality wins over teams like Oklahoma and Colorado.
4.) Losses HAVE to mean something. This is where my issue comes in with teams like Tennessee and even Michigan. Tennessee simply, does not deserve to be ranked. Period. Michigan is the ONLY team in the top 9 to have a loss to an un-ranked team (Iowa). However, Iowa should be ranked. But still, if the committee is so in love with Michigan, how can they not credit Iowa with beating them?
5.) Picking the best team (right now) HAS to mean something. The committee and media seem to love teams like USC who have improved as the season progressed. Well how about a team like Penn State? They currently have one of the longest winning streaks in the entire Country. PSU is a team that has steadily improved, and has looked solid all year when healthy. Yes, they lost on the road to Michigan, but that was back on September 24th, when they were playing 6th and 7th deep defensive players. Michigan has lost 2 of their last 3, including that "bad" loss to Iowa. The same Iowa team that Penn State beat 41-14 in the month of November.
Comparing some PSU, UM, and OSU wins in Conference play.
Vs. Rutgers (PSU by 39, UM by 78, OSU by 58) - Advantage UM
Vs. Indiana (PSU by 14, UM by 10, OSU by 21) - Advantage OSU
Vs. Maryland (PSU by 24, UM by 56, OSU by 59) - Advantage UM / OSU
Vs. Michigan State (PSU by 33, UM by 9, OSU by 1) - Advantage PSU
OSU did not play Iowa, Penn State beat them by 27, UM lost to them by 1.
OSU has a solid Conference win over Northwestern, UM with a win over Wisconsin (most impressive), and PSU with a win over Minnesota.
It is going to be interesting to see what happens this week. Either way, Penn State needs to take care of business. If they do, let the real fun begin.
1.) Winning your conference HAS to mean something. It just has to. All athletes learn that from day 1, into high school, into college, and into the Pro's. If Penn State wins this weekend, how can you put OSU and UM into the top 4 when they didn't win their division, more less, their Conference. It doesn't mean everything, I get that. There is no way Virginia Tech would be a top 4 team if they upset Clemson (please), but that is an entirely different situation.
2.) Strength of conference HAS to mean something. Most people agree the top of the B1G is the strongest of any conference in the Country. So again, if that is the case, how do you leave out the Champion of that conference? That could be the argument for Wisconsin should they win.
3.) Strength of schedule and quality of wins HAS to mean something. This is what helps teams like Ohio State and Michigan with quality wins over teams like Oklahoma and Colorado.
4.) Losses HAVE to mean something. This is where my issue comes in with teams like Tennessee and even Michigan. Tennessee simply, does not deserve to be ranked. Period. Michigan is the ONLY team in the top 9 to have a loss to an un-ranked team (Iowa). However, Iowa should be ranked. But still, if the committee is so in love with Michigan, how can they not credit Iowa with beating them?
5.) Picking the best team (right now) HAS to mean something. The committee and media seem to love teams like USC who have improved as the season progressed. Well how about a team like Penn State? They currently have one of the longest winning streaks in the entire Country. PSU is a team that has steadily improved, and has looked solid all year when healthy. Yes, they lost on the road to Michigan, but that was back on September 24th, when they were playing 6th and 7th deep defensive players. Michigan has lost 2 of their last 3, including that "bad" loss to Iowa. The same Iowa team that Penn State beat 41-14 in the month of November.
Comparing some PSU, UM, and OSU wins in Conference play.
Vs. Rutgers (PSU by 39, UM by 78, OSU by 58) - Advantage UM
Vs. Indiana (PSU by 14, UM by 10, OSU by 21) - Advantage OSU
Vs. Maryland (PSU by 24, UM by 56, OSU by 59) - Advantage UM / OSU
Vs. Michigan State (PSU by 33, UM by 9, OSU by 1) - Advantage PSU
OSU did not play Iowa, Penn State beat them by 27, UM lost to them by 1.
OSU has a solid Conference win over Northwestern, UM with a win over Wisconsin (most impressive), and PSU with a win over Minnesota.
It is going to be interesting to see what happens this week. Either way, Penn State needs to take care of business. If they do, let the real fun begin.
I don't disagree with any of your points, but my understanding is that the committee will only take into consideration championships won, head to head, and common opponents if the overall resumes of two teams is "too close to call." The committee has said that OSU (and UM for that matter) both have resumes that distance themselves from PSU and Wisconsin. I saw a stat on ESPN today that said OSU and UM both have 3 wins over ranked teams, which is 1 more than PSU and Wisconsin combined, and as a matter of fact, all three of each of their wins are against teams in the top 9! Whether you agree or disagree with this logic, that's the way the committee looks at it.
I also find it interesting that USC is getting so much love as a 3 loss team because they are so "hot" yet PSU doesn't seem to be getting as much. Technically, PSU has a better signature win (OSU) than USC (Washington). I've heard experts say no one wants to play USC right now...Ok, I don't know many teams in the top 10 that would fear USC. I think PSU is just as "hot" as USC, maybe even more so. Why does USC get more love than PSU? I'm just glad my Buckeyes are sitting at #2 and don't play this week. I think they're in (regardless of if it is logical or not!).
I agree with most of what you say.
Winning your conference absolutely should mean something, BUT, I think other factors should be considered as well. Strength of the conference, or like you pointed out, upset victories in the championship game, etc. It's not cut and dry like it is in the NFL where teams advance strictly on records. Since college is still just a voting poll (despite them trying to pass it off as a true playoff) there will always be other factors to consider. If the NFL used the same format, would a 7-9 division winner make it into the playoff over a good team with a winning record, like what happened a few years ago? Of course not. Even though they earned that spot over teams that were obviously much better.
I read yesterday that the CFP Commissioner had previously stated twice that "they will choose the best 4 teams." Pretty ambiguous. Several teams have legitimate claims from different angles to be in that top 4.
Michigan's argument is we beat 3 current top 10 teams, and lost to #2 in 2OT on the road after some questionable calls. The big hit against us is the loss to Iowa (which like you said, should be ranked, and are ranked by both the AP and Coaches poll). If we win that game there's pretty much no discussion, we're in. The other hit is we didn't win the conference, however, we did beat both teams playing for the conference championship. As a sportswriter pointed out yesterday, if PSU wins against Wisconsin they may jump past Michigan, but won't pass OSU. How can they pass a team that beat them by 39 points but not pass a team they beat? Talk about a cluster **** LOL.
At the end of the day, if the CFP committee picks a solid conference champ over Michigan I won't be upset. I think we got hosed at OSU but if we beat Iowa that loss doesn't matter. It'll be interesting to see how it all plays out, especially if Washington and/or Clemson get upset!
The USC nutswinging is absurd. Teams in the top 10 scared to play them? I'd love for Michigan to play them and let them see what a real defense would do to them.
Disagree all you want, but Penn state is getting ****ed. If they win the big 10, and don't make it to the top 4(which I don't think they will) that just goes to show, in my opinion, that the 4 team committee system doesn't work. I still think it should be 8.
I think it should be 8 as well, and take as much of the "opinion" out of it as possible. 5 Power5 conferences, so the 5 champs are in. Then invite 3 wild cards based on SET CRITERIA (SOS, head to head, overall record, etc.). What a playoff we would have with:
Bama (SEC champ)
Clemson (ACC champ)
PSU/Wisconsin (B1G champ)
OU/Okie St (Big 12 champ)
Washington/CO (PAC champ)
Wild cards: OSU, Michigan, loser of B1G (still some subjectivity with wild cards, but the 5 champs earn their way in by playing for it on the field)
Agreed. As an outsider looking in, LSU fan, if PSU wins the B1G Championship game they should leap frog OSU and be #4 IMHO. So it would be Bama, Clemson, Washington, and PSU for the championship. This was the bitch about Bama getting in for 2011. As an LSU fan we wanted to play anyone but Bama again.
8 teams with the number one and two getting a bye.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You can't do that, then you'd have 5 teams in the 2nd round.
Users who are viewing this thread
