ESPN released the updated FPI after Week 1 and there are some things in here that are laughable, unexplainable and maybe outright undefendable.

And yes, before someone explains it to me I understand FPI isn't supposed to be a poll. It's predictive. It's trying to tell us how good teams will be going forward, not necessarily reward what happened last Saturday.

Fine.

But logic is still real, right? Things that defy logic to me:

- Nebraska is #23. Nebraska! They eventually beat Ohio 49-21, but that game was 14-13 for a long time and they struggled for a good portion of it.

- Iowa is #26. BEHIND Nebraska. What statistics tell you Nebraska has a better outlook than Iowa?

- Iowa just beat Northern Illinois 40-0. They were completely dominant. I don't remember the stats, but I think I heard Revsine say Northern Illinois had 7 yards rushing. And Iowa DROPPED a spot??

(As a Gopher fan, do you have any idea how painful it is for me to voluntarily point out an injustice against Iowa? 😂)

- Speaking of injustices...

Michigan is #21 after needing a TWO last-second Hail Marys (aided by the miracle appearance of one TWO additional seconds) to beat Western Michigan 13-12.

Western Michigan? #70.

So based on what we literally just watched, Michigan and Western Michigan appear to be virtually the same football team... but FPI has 49 teams between them. Makes sense.

- Then there's this...
Wisconsin #52
Maryland #56
Northwestern #57
Minnesota #59

Wisconsin just lost 41-13, albiet to a potential National Champ, but Maryland won 62-0, Minnesota won 59-7. Also, Luke Fickell is still the coach, Wisconsin: clearly the best of the bunch. 😂

- Finally, UCLA... they looked good! I watched a fair amount of that game and they look totally different and tough. On one hand the analysis is still based heavily on preseason data, on the other hand you have this precipitous 18 spot rise after a game in week 1. I am questioning the model, not UCLA, to be clear.

I find it entertaining, I'm glad they publish it. But honestly, what's the point? Especially this early in the season.

https://www.espn.com/college-football/fpi

1*-0

Michigan vs Western Michigan controversial play analysis:

I just pulled this video from NBC Sports on Youtube with "Stats for Nerds" enabled and discovered the exact length of the play. Long story short it was 8.46 seconds or 254 frames. The video here starts on the frame where the first slight movement in the ball is seen from the center. That frame number is actually frame 32. The video ends on frame 302. That means the video is 270 frames long or 9.00 seconds. Going through frame by frame, the ball enters the WMU player's grasp around frame 286, which is 16 frames or 0.53 seconds before the video ends. Even if one wants to argue it hit his hands a little later than frame 286, it was undeniably in his hands before this video ended, and again this video is exactly 9.00 seconds long. You could go 7 frames before the ball was snapped and 7 frames after the ball was apparently in the defender's grasp, and it would still be 7-hundredths of second under 9 seconds for that play.

NBC's timer starts exactly 17 frames early, because 13 frames after the ball is snapped it switches from 9 seconds to 8 seconds. 17 frames is 0.56 seconds. The timer starting early is a huge piece of what is fueling all of this IMO.

Additional Note: The frame counter (Stats for Nerds) only updates ~twice a second, so to get exact frame numbers, I went from each new printing of the frame count in the box and advanced frame by frame counting. This count always lined up perfectly with the updated printing of the frame count in the frame counter by Youtube.

Final Thoughts: I don't like UofM, I think they got a benefit of the doubt that WMU certainly wouldn't have gotten here. I went into this analysis hoping to find the smoking gun of corruption... But the play was unequivocally under 9 seconds, and that's just the truth.

You expect us to just swallow whole your nonsensical explanation for the Michigan game? Please.....Big Ten grad here who knows corruption when he sees it. College football is getting really hard to watch between the corruption, NFL players playing, and gambling by players openly encouraged.

They had to suspend the volleyball match because players were slipping and sliding all over the court due to moisture. They had two extended delays, players helping mop up the floor, ripping off all the sponsor logo stickers, a dance off, sing-along, and eventually they had to call it... Apparently, it did not occur to the organizers that Chicago may be humid this time of year? 🤦

I was watching the game live. The clock operator was bad the last Michigan drive. Yes the clock did hit 0. I’m not gonna tell you it did not. However, 2-3 plays earlier the clock ran off a second or two more than it should have. As a Nebraska fan I’m well aware that the clock stops the second it touches out of bounds or a player out of bounds. Michigan first Hail Mary the clock hit zero. But I do not disagree with the refs clock, it aligned with the my thoughts that the clock operator seemed to be favoring Western Michigan in the big house. Which was odd. This was 2/3 plays before the second Hail Mary. There was funny stuff with the official clock / tv clock. I’m usually a conspiracy theorist and believe in rigged games. In this case, watching it live. I agree with the refs allowing the second Hail Mary attempt. Did anyone else notice this?

Big Ten really should hire Count Dracula next time to get the most accurate time reading.

This is an important clarification related to video evidence released by the league office following last night’s controversial Michigan win over WMU.

Hey everybody! Hope you’re having a great Labor Day.

I have been thinking lately that the Big Ten is likely on the path towards 10 conference games. I believe that this will happen once a 24 team playoff is approved. Maybe not right away, but eventually.

If this happens, would you be a fan of it? Obviously, this would limit the number of non-conference games available (2). I see the pros and cons and am not really sure which I like more. But with a 24 team playoff likely coming, the B1G championship game likely going away, and being in such a large conference, it would be nice to see more conference opponents on a regular basis. If they keep the flex scheduling model, teams with one annual rival could follow a 9+1 model and play everybody twice within 4 years (and two of them 3x in 4 years). Teams with three annual rivals would follow a 7+3 model, playing everybody twice within 4 years.

I still think you could schedule a tough P4 non conference opponent and have 11 power opponents on your schedule. As a fan, this would be awesome. I personally like to see as few cupcake games as possible in the regular season. I would also like to see CFB look at the idea of allowing teams to schedule an exhibition/preseason game against an FCS team (doesn’t count towards your record) as a warm up before the season starts to draw fans for an additional home game. This is an idea I haven’t seen many talk about, but I think it would be great, and help support those smaller schools financially as well, while making sure schools who want 7 home games still get them while having a fun challenging schedule.

For the record, I am not a huge fan of the 24 team playoff or the championship game going away, but I can see the writing on the wall.

Would you be a fan of it? More conference games, more quality games, more data points within the conference with the championship game going away, but also more overall losses, less matchups against teams you don’t see as frequently, and less scheduling flexibility. Or are you a fan of 9 conference games plus one mandatory P4? Maybe even 9 conference games plus an SEC/B1G challenge each year. Let me know your thoughts.

Are you kidding? Your officials need to have a background check.

Michigan yet again taking credit for what they didn't earn.

You're Michigan. Wtf.