Get your arguments for/against a Michigan rematch here.

[Dublin Mike]

I'm late to this party, but time is a rarity for me nowadays. On to the debate!

I am totally against this. If USC and/or Florida win out, no way should Michigan get a rematch. If every other team has 2 losses, so be it, but Michigan had their shot. And don't give me this "but it was a close game!" argument. If it was such a close game, then Michigan shouldn't have had to try an onside kick in the closing moments. The game was not as close as everyone likes to make it out to be. Sorry. It's true.

And don't tell me it's b/c I am SEC biased. That has nothing to do w/this argument. Truth be told, I would rather see USC playing OSU for the title. I think it would be a great game. (honestly though, I don't think anyone can beat OSU right now)

[The Pirate Bob]

I am against it as the teams stood this morning. But the way things are going, Michigan might be the only 1 loss team besides ND in another week. In which case, Michigan should be a unanimous choice. ND can't be chosen over Michigan. And we know that Boise State will never get a shot. Very very likely that USC and Florida could lose yet. But if one of them wins out, I would like to see one of them have a shot since they haven't played OSU yet.

[HibachiDG]

I think the best argument made is your last line. That you don't think anyone can beat OSU right now. I think that is the sentiment that a lot of people have. The thing that has me the most against the idea of a rematch is that if Michigan defeats Ohio State, I think it is more likely that the National Champion is not the best team in college football. Generally, that's the problem with any sort of playoff system and given one team clearly above everyone else, we have that problem develop with how the BCS is this season. Michigan is a good team and it is tough to beat a good team twice in a given season, but does that make the team that wins second in a split the better team?

Michigan aside, If Florida wins out, I think they should get the shot at Ohio State over USC. Florida was tested week in and week out a lot more than USC was and they both went through their Conferences with one loss. I think that the edge has to go to Florida because I think the SEC is top to bottom a much better Conference than the Pac-10.

Michigan not aside, the argument can be made that Michigan is the second best football team, that would be undefeated but for the game against Ohio State. I generally don't think that the win over Notre Dame was that impressive, but there are people out there that think ND is a 5-8 level caliber team and also that Wisconsin should hang around the Top Ten. If you believe those two things, then the Michigan as the second best team argument has a lot of credibility to it. I'm more willing to put USC or Florida into the game because I don't think Notre Dame and Wisconsin are as good as their rankings.

I'm more impressed with Florida's win over LSU than Michigan's win over Notre Dame and put the Florida win over Tennessee at about the same level. Defeating Georgia and South Carolina is in my mind more impressive than defeating a Wisconsin team. Then of course, if Florida defeats Arkansas, there is another key win for Florida. Given all of that, I think they will have better wins than Michigan does, even though Michigan lost to a better team. Florida has enough better wins that I think would put them over the top compared to Michigan.

Should Florida lose, I think it becomes much more difficult to judge Michigan and USC and as unfair as it might be, it might come down to who looked more impressive in beating up Notre Dame. If Florida loses in the SEC Title game and USC loses, then the hell with it anyway, put Michigan in it. I would, however, be very intrigued with a WVU/OSU game should WVU defeat Rutgers.

The fan side of me has kind of had to do a bit of fighting off of the logic side of me, because after that game, I certainly was left with wanting to see the two teams play again. I'm a fan of Big Ten football, that has the most to do with that. As a fan of the rivalry that doesn't give a damn about some of the things OSU/UM fans that don't want a rematch care about, I want to see it. I'm just not sure it would be the right thing to do.

[Dublin Mike]

Here is another problem I have with a rematch. Let's just say they do play. Michigan wins on a missed extra point. How do we do round three?

For all the people who are against a playoff, b/c "the conference championship games are the playoffs," Michigan lost their conference championship game. That eliminates them, right? Let the next round begin.

[Richard the Lionheart]

I'm in favor of letting Ohio State play USC, the Pac 10 champ, for the right to call themselves National Champions.

[Alex]

I think Florida or USC deserve it if they finish 1-loss. But if USC loses to Notre Dame and Florida loses to Arkansas, I don't think you can tell Michigan that Boise State, West Virginia, Rutgers or Louisville deserves to play in the title game over them.

This Florida team reminds me a little of the '02 Buckeyes in that they don't really win impressively but they usually find a way to pull out the win.

[themush]

If You Lose The Last Game Of The Regular Season..... How In The Hell Do You Still Get To Play For The National Championship??????

[Anthony]

If You Lose The Last Game Of The Regular Season..... How In The Hell Do You Still Get To Play For The National Championship??????



But if you lose the first game of the regular season, why the hell should you be playing for pride the rest of the year - which is exactly how it turns out unless some miracle happens and only one team in the whole country gets through the entire regular season undefeated, and thus has to play somebody who lost once in the mythical national championship game?

This very debate itself (about Michigan) is exactly why the NCAA needs to tell the pablum-pukers to put a sock in it and adopt a genuine playoff system in Division I-A college football. There are many ways of doing this, but my personal preference would be a 10-team postseason tournament (since the concept of how many "Top 10 finishes" a particular team, coach etc. has is such a firmly established tradition in college football) with the top six teams getting a bye into the quarterfinals.

[Alex]

College football is going to have problems no matter what system they use. There are always going to be teams that feel they are getting shafted by the system.

I don't understand the outcry for a play off. It diminishes the value of the regular season since you can lose a game or two and still get in and there's never going to be a system that satisfies eveyone. Why would Ohio State and Michigan, both 11-0 when facing each other, play their toughest game when they both know that they're in the play offs and have to be ready to play again in a couple weeks? The system we have now needs to be tweaked but a play off would be more detrimental to college football than the current muddled system is.

[KevinBeane]

Why would Ohio State and Michigan, both 11-0 when facing each other, play their toughest game when they both know that they're in the play offs and have to be ready to play again in a couple weeks?


I hear this argument, and I always think, "Here's a person who doesn't understand rivalries." Which I guess isn't surprising from a Penn State fan, hey-o!!! :o

I am completely unconvinced that a) a playoff (especially one with only a few teams, like 4 or 8) would diminish the value of a regular season, or b) even if it did, which it wouldn't, why it matters. As long as we have an equal number of important games, who cares whether it's in the context of the regular season of playoffs?

Oh right....it's because when the Colts, having clinched HFA all the way through the playoffs rest their starters on week 17, it made the NFL crash and burn and no one watches it any more. :rolleyes:

I will post my thoughts on an UM/OSU rematch later (I actually did already in another thread, but anyway...)

[HibachiDG]

I hear this argument, and I always think, "Here's a person who doesn't understand rivalries."

Ok, but what if you have the same situation, but the game is not between rivals?

I am completely unconvinced that a) a playoff (especially one with only a few teams, like 4 or 8) would diminish the value of a regular season,

Seriously? I mean, it's one thing to recognize that a playoff will diminish the regular season, but be outweighed by how awesome a playoff would be. I think it's rather naive to think that the regular season would not be diminished somewhat by a playoff system.

b) even if it did, which it wouldn't, why it matters. As long as we have an equal number of important games, who cares whether it's in the context of the regular season of playoffs?

The obvious reason is simple...the best team does not always win in a playoff.

Oh right....it's because when the Colts, having clinched HFA all the way through the playoffs rest their starters on week 17, it made the NFL crash and burn and no one watches it any more.

The NFL has had a playoff system for so long though. As well, you have teams in the NFL that lose anywhere from 2-6 games in the playoffs most times. The teams that would be in the college football playoff would range from 0-2, most likely.

[The Pirate Bob]

I would actually rather see Boise State vs OSU, than Michigan again.

[KevinBeane]

A. Ok, but what if you have the same situation, but the game is not between rivals?



B. Seriously? I mean, it's one thing to recognize that a playoff will diminish the regular season, but be outweighed by how awesome a playoff would be. I think it's rather naive to think that the regular season would not be diminished somewhat by a playoff system.



C. The obvious reason is simple...the best team does not always win in a playoff.



D. The NFL has had a playoff system for so long though. As well, you have teams in the NFL that lose anywhere from 2-6 games in the playoffs most times. The teams that would be in the college football playoff would range from 0-2, most likely.

A. Then those games would be just like when the same situation occurs in every other sport (except maybe not, see point D.). No biggie.

B. See A. The regular season of all sports (and again, they all have playoff systems except this one) is pretty good if you're a fan. It's reactionary, IMO, to think it would be different for major college football.

C. They don't always win in the regular season either. I don't understand your point.

D. ...which is exactly why the regular season games where a team just coasts because they are already clinched a playoff berth (and evidently don't care about any seeding disadvantage a loss would bring them) would be few and far between.

[The Irish]

NO rematch! Absolutly not. Michigan had the chance they blew it. Michigan did not win their confrence. I think USC should get if they overcome the Irish, even if Florida does win out. USC had a tougher schedule even the confrence they are in isn't that good. USC scheduled tougher non-confrence games then Florida did. USC's non-confrence was all 1-A. Florida's was mostly 1-AA.

[Alex]

I hear this argument, and I always think, "Here's a person who doesn't understand rivalries." Which I guess isn't surprising from a Penn State fan, hey-o!!! :o


:( That hurts, KB. It's sad. Very, very sad. I'm enjoying watching Pitt's football program die a slow death but at the same time I really wouldn't mind beating the crap out of them every year. Or at least West Virginia or Maryland.

[HibachiDG]

A. I don't think you have games of that magnitude in the regular season of any sport, though.

B. I currently think the college football regular season is much better than other sports. In terms of following the larger picture, most definitely and I think this is something that is across the board with college football. I don't think that any other regular season is as good and the only one close in popularity is the NFL and the NFL right now is tops not because of the quality of the regular season or the postseason, but because the NFL is on such a high right now.

C. They're more likely to be seen under the current system, than in a 8 or so team playoff.

D. But as college football currently is, you can't lose a game, or else you're just thrown into a mix of teams trying to claim a position at the top, with much less of an argument.

Overall, every year I think I come closer and closer to thinking they should go to a playoff...mainly because of parity. Had the Big Ten been a bit better this season, I probably would have gotten to that point.

[DETMURDS]

Michigan's only loss was to the #1 team in the country, in their house,..beat Notre Dame by a greater margin than USC did, and did it at Notre Dame! I am of course a Michigan fan, but I cannot see the math of having anyone else playing in the National Championship game besides Michigan to be honest!

[Anthony]

Well there would be seeding to consider in the event of a playoff - and if it was a 10-team playoff you'd want to finish in the top six since then you would need to win only three playoff games to win the national title instead of four. You could also give the top four seeds the home-field advantage in the quarterfinals - but not in the semifinals or finals, which would be held at predetermined sites now used for the major bowl games (you could even go so far as to officially label one of the semifinal games the Rose Bowl, the other semifinal the Orange Bowl, and the championship game the Sugar Bowl, etc., with the sites rotating in successive years among these and three or four other sites such as the Fiesta Bowl, etc.).

But it's so stupid that if you lose on opening day, your season is over; the way they do it now they might as well increase the number of Dvision I-A teams to 128 and run the college football season like Wimbledon or any other Grand Slam tennis tournament - one loss and you go home until next season (or to the NFL, if you're lucky, if you're a senior).

[Dublin Mike]

I don't think that any other regular season is as good

The key word here is regular season. The post season is pretty crappy, and almost always is filled with controversy.

[Marc]

I was leaning toward a OSU/UM rematch after they played such a close game, but I think USC deserves it now after blowing out a ND team, despite ND being overrated. The Trojans have only one loss by two points and although it wasn't a "good" loss, I think they clearly didn't come to play. Barring a slip-up against UCLA, it'll be OSU vs. USC, a classic Pac-10/Big 10 battle between two giants. I, for one, will not be complaining!

[buckeyefan78]

I say the system in place (which those against the old system are accountable for) should put OSU-UM in the rematch even though I'm against it cuz it ain't my tradition and rules.

Personally, I'm fine with the way the season HAS ended (yes folks, the season is over...bowls are not affiliated with the NCAA). Ohio State beat Michigan, won their conference outright for the first time since 1984, and went undefeated. If only we could go to the Rose Bowl...sigh.

Playoffs? Ugh. Completely worthless, unnecessary, and have no bearing on anything important. I've debunked it a million times before. If Florida or whoever else want to call themselves national champs...I don't care. They can't take away what we've accomplished this year.

[Anthony]

Here is another problem I have with a rematch. Let's just say they do play. Michigan wins on a missed extra point. How do we do round three?

For all the people who are against a playoff, b/c "the conference championship games are the playoffs," Michigan lost their conference championship game. That eliminates them, right? Let the next round begin.



Well technically it was not a conference championship game in the sense that such games exist in the Big 12, SEC etc. - but your basic premise is nonetheless valid: If you're not the champion of our own conference, how can you possibly be the champion of the entire country?

But what about nobody playing Ohio State? It would seem to me that until a playoff system is in place - and I will never give up hope that it will happen someday - if only one "pure" Division I-A team goes undefeated during the regular season, they should win the national title automatically.

[vipendacsh]

see - USC ball's the biggest post

in my mind the only arguement that can be made is for usc
usc played a bcs team every week this season....neither wisc or mich can claim that. if, big if, nebraska wins against oklahoma, and if arkansas wins against florida; usc will have beaten four of the undisputably best BCS conference teams in the country. They beat the best team from the Pac-10(Cal), best SEC team(ark), best big-10 team(nebr) and the best independant(ND). neither wisc or mich can claim anything close to that much. nuff said.

[vipendacsh]

murds...you are a biased idiot if you cannot understand the arguement for usc. when a team plays a BCS conference team EVERY week, when they play the BEST teams from other conferences and their own they are the ****, their balls are the biggest. They put a team in front of them where they had a chance of losing every week. Not even Florida can claim to a harder schedule because they had weeks off like Eastern Michigan.

[vipendacsh]

there is no point in comparing two games from different teams e.g. nd/usc nd/mich. i hear "look at hwo michigan beat nd worse than usc did, they've got to be better," please, you cannot compare the two like that e.g. boise/oregon usc/oregon. making that claim on michigan as being better is like saying that if [boise beat oregon] and [oregon beat usc] then [boise would beat usc]. no one can rationally come to that conclusion.

there are intangibles like matchups, rest, state-of-mind, previous games that aren't brought into the equation....if usc beats ucla they're in. nuff said.

[vipendacsh]

not even ohio st. can claim a tougher schedule than usc

[tobynosker]

Originally Posted by vipendacsh
you cannot compare the two like that e.g. boise/oregon usc/oregon. making that claim on michigan as being better is like saying that if [boise beat oregon] and [oregon beat usc] then [boise would beat usc]. no one can rationally come to that conclusion.

Yet, prior to this post, you said that if Nebraska were to beat Oklahoma in the Big XII Championship Game, then USC would have beaten one of the undisputably best BCS conference teams (the Cornhuskers) in the country.

Nebraska is not even one of the best BCS conference teams in the Big XII, let alone the country, no matter what happens in Kansas City.


Originally Posted by Anthony
But it's so stupid that if you lose on opening day, your season is over

Exactly.

Then, how important does the regular season become when you know that you have no shot at winning a National Championship because you might have faultered in your first game out of the gate?





And, if every other sport operated the way that college football did, and just allowed the two-best teams at the end of the regular season to play for the championship, this is how it would have looked this past year:

MLB: New York Yankees vs. New York Mets
NBA: Detroit vs. San Antonio
NHL: Detroit vs. Ottawa
NFL: Indianapolis vs. Seattle

And did you notice that not one of those respective sports' actual champions would have had a shot at winning a championship?

[MountaineerDave]

Apologies for not showing up for awhile.

But, while I wait for WVU to get things going vs. Rutgers minus our #1A runner (Pat White), I want to say a couple things. Hope this is the right place for my comments.

Anyway:

Let it be known that I HATE Florida. I believe the SEC is overrated with everything I know about football and everything I have in my heart.

I think a rematch between Michigan & Ohio State would be a travesty. Michigan had their chance. OSU turned the ball over three times. Take away those turnovers, OSU scores 60 points, bc the Wolvies had no answers for Troy Smith and the OSU offense.

It's worth writing into college football law that a team that doesn't win its conference CAN'T play for the MNC.

Because Florida beat Arkansas in the SEC title game, winning their conference, and because Michigan a)lost to OSU already and b)didn't win their conferenced, the only teams in the nation who even have a legitimate argument to face OSU on Jan8 are the Universities of Florida and Louisville and maybe Wake Forest.

Because I don't think UofL is anywhere near good enough to challenge OSU, and Wake Forest is hampered by winning a decidedly bad conference, give the Gators their shot vs. OSU.

Besides, I'd quite enjoy watching Gators fans writhe in agony after OSU whips them up and down and all around the field.

Oh, quickly: way to go, UCLA. I didn't start rooting for them, but their toughness and their willingness and their crowd turned me. Way to go, Bruins.

[Dublin Mike]

Very good points Dave. And while I despise UF, I was rooting for them to win, if nothing else to possibly keep the OSU/Michigan rematch from happening. I have stated before, the 1st game wasn't as close as everyone likes to claim it was.

That being said, I couldn't watch the game. Every time I saw that damn "gator chomp" I wanted to puke.

[da12ken]

Wasn't as close? If the Michigan defender doesn't crack Troy Smith in the coconut, the Wolverines have a legitimate shot to win the game.

As far as records go, Florida and Michigan are both 11-1. Western Carolina doesn't count for anything. If you want to argue whether the Gators or the Wolverines played better against their respective schedules, then that's fine.

I would still vote for Michigan, simply because I think they are the second-best team in the land.

[HibachiDG]

And what do you think makes them the second best team in the land? That they lost to Ohio State?

The biggest problem I have with the whole Michigan rematch thing is probably that folks who think Michigan are number two in the land present very little substance as to why Michigan is number two in the land. And at the end of the day, basing it on "well, they were within 3 pts to OSU" is silly, because what if Florida were to play OSU even better than Michigan did and you just never get the chance to see if it is the case because you weren't basing the argument on much substance.

I personally thought Florida was a better team than Michigan before the Michigan/OSU game and that has only been solidified since then. Reality is, Michigan never really was close to winning that football game.

I kind of look at like, well, how many games do I think Michigan would have lost with Florida's schedule and Florida on Michigan's? Well, I have no doubts that Florida would be 11-1 with Michigan's schedule and have played OSU about as good as Michigan played them. Michigan on Florida's schedule? Oh, they without a doubt lose 2 games.

Florida was simply tested a lot more than Michigan. Florida has beaten two teams better than anyone that Michigan has beaten (LSU and Arkansas). Wisconsin is ranked up there, but I consider them an absolute dog of a football team. Notre Dame and Wisconsin are both 15-20 teams, realistically, but the way the schedules broke, they got a lot of favorable breaks there. However, Michigan takes a huge bump that should not be there because of the whole Wisconsin thing. But, those are the top 2 wins for each program. Florida has the edge in a walk.

From there? Tennessee, Georgia, South Carolina. Wins for Florida that are all better opponents than Michigan's third best win (Penn State).

All the way down until you get to the meaningless wins, Florida has better wins. Better Conference, much MUUUUUUUUUUUUCH tougher schedule.

But, I think everyone knows that, so they go back to the whole "well, I saw Michigan come pretty damn close to Ohio State, so I'm going to stick with them" argument. Which is fine...except we'll, uh, never know a damn thing about this season.

I mean, if Florida plays Ohio St and they get waxed, then we'll go "Yeah, Michigan probably was better than Florida...but still not as good as the Buckeyes" and if that happens and UM loses to USC, we'll go "yeah, on any given day, USC probably could have competed with OSU if they played their best, but were too streaky"...OR...we could find out completely different things.

But, if Michigan plays OSU, we find out absolutely nothing.

[DETMURDS]

Wasn't as close? If the Michigan defender doesn't crack Troy Smith in the coconut, the Wolverines have a legitimate shot to win the game.

As far as records go, Florida and Michigan are both 11-1. Western Carolina doesn't count for anything. If you want to argue whether the Gators or the Wolverines played better against their respective schedules, then that's fine.

I would still vote for Michigan, simply because I think they are the second-best team in the land.


ENOUGH SAID! Right on! C'mon, ...they lost to Auburn! This cracks me up because I am so correct!

[DETMURDS]

And what do you think makes them the second best team in the land? That they lost to Ohio State?

The biggest problem I have with the whole Michigan rematch thing is probably that folks who think Michigan are number two in the land present very little substance as to why Michigan is number two in the land. And at the end of the day, basing it on "well, they were within 3 pts to OSU" is silly, because what if Florida were to play OSU even better than Michigan did and you just never get the chance to see if it is the case because you weren't basing the argument on much substance.

I personally thought Florida was a better team than Michigan before the Michigan/OSU game and that has only been solidified since then. Reality is, Michigan never really was close to winning that football game.

I kind of look at like, well, how many games do I think Michigan would have lost with Florida's schedule and Florida on Michigan's? Well, I have no doubts that Florida would be 11-1 with Michigan's schedule and have played OSU about as good as Michigan played them. Michigan on Florida's schedule? Oh, they without a doubt lose 2 games.

Florida was simply tested a lot more than Michigan. Florida has beaten two teams better than anyone that Michigan has beaten (LSU and Arkansas). Wisconsin is ranked up there, but I consider them an absolute dog of a football team. Notre Dame and Wisconsin are both 15-20 teams, realistically, but the way the schedules broke, they got a lot of favorable breaks there. However, Michigan takes a huge bump that should not be there because of the whole Wisconsin thing. But, those are the top 2 wins for each program. Florida has the edge in a walk.

From there? Tennessee, Georgia, South Carolina. Wins for Florida that are all better opponents than Michigan's third best win (Penn State).

All the way down until you get to the meaningless wins, Florida has better wins. Better Conference, much MUUUUUUUUUUUUCH tougher schedule.

But, I think everyone knows that, so they go back to the whole "well, I saw Michigan come pretty damn close to Ohio State, so I'm going to stick with them" argument. Which is fine...except we'll, uh, never know a damn thing about this season.

I mean, if Florida plays Ohio St and they get waxed, then we'll go "Yeah, Michigan probably was better than Florida...but still not as good as the Buckeyes" and if that happens and UM loses to USC, we'll go "yeah, on any given day, USC probably could have competed with OSU if they played their best, but were too streaky"...OR...we could find out completely different things.

But, if Michigan plays OSU, we find out absolutely nothing.

So,...what if Florida lost, would we still find out nothing? Yes, Michigan finished 2nd in the Big 10, but they are still the 2nd best team in the country hands down! I'm out!

[HibachiDG]

Umm, I think I said if Florida lost, we'd be able to know more than Michigan would be the 2nd best team in the country.

ENOUGH SAID! Right on! C'mon, ...they lost to Auburn! This cracks me up because I am so correct!

But, that ignores who they beat. Are you saying that it would be IMPOSSIBLE for Michigan to lose AT Auburn a week after LSU and a week before Georgia? This to me is the silly thing about comparing JUST the losses rather than looking at everything.

In the end, though, I mean, this whole argument is going to come down to how you value who they played. Buckeye and I, for instance, would likely come to different conclusions about the strength of schedules because he thinks Wisconsin is the 3rd best team in the Nation and I think Wisconsin is a joke of a team that would go 4-4, at best, with a slate of 8 SEC games.

[DETMURDS]

Umm, I think I said if Florida lost, we'd be able to know more than Michigan would be the 2nd best team in the country.



But, that ignores who they beat. Are you saying that it would be IMPOSSIBLE for Michigan to lose AT Auburn a week after LSU and a week before Georgia? This to me is the silly thing about comparing JUST the losses rather than looking at everything.

In the end, though, I mean, this whole argument is going to come down to how you value who they played. Buckeye and I, for instance, would likely come to different conclusions about the strength of schedules because he thinks Wisconsin is the 3rd best team in the Nation and I think Wisconsin is a joke of a team that would go 4-4, at best, with a slate of 8 SEC games.

You know, I wish that the Michigan Wolverines got to play those SEC teams on a regular basis. I'm sure they would be shocked when they walked into the BIG HOUSE! The North already defeated the South in the last Civil War, and this is the United States, not the Confederate States,...so get with the history already! SERIOUSLY: C'mon,...I ask GOD to allow Michigan to play Florida in an upcoming Bowl Game! ...Hell, Michigan State beat them up just a couple years ago or so in a bowl didn't they? Michigan beat Alabama and Sean Alexander as well the last time they played an SEC team in a bowl game as well!? Right?

Enjoy, and hopefully your team can win!

[da12ken]

The schedules between UM and Florida I'd consider a wash, or close to. It's very difficult to judge just how good (or bad) the SEC because they never play OOC away games. Regardless, I think both teams played difficult schedules and should be commended for them (except for the Western Carolina deal, but whatever).

I'd argue the vast majority of Michigan's wins were in a convincing fashion. Florida needed a bit of luck to win against Georgia, Vanderbilt, South Carolina and FSU. I'll take solid play over serendipity.

[themush]

Doug, I'm glad no... excited to hear a non SEC member here on the boards is backing the Gators. UF did everything any non SEC fan asked of them. We won the SECCG and USC lost thiers to UCLA...period. IF the BCS voters and computers put Michigan in the National Championship game then I only have one question to ask....... why even play that game in Columbus? Why not just wait and play it in Arizona?

[DETMURDS]

The schedules between UM and Florida I'd consider a wash, or close to. It's very difficult to judge just how good (or bad) the SEC because they never play OOC away games. Regardless, I think both teams played difficult schedules and should be commended for them (except for the Western Carolina deal, but whatever).

I'd argue the vast majority of Michigan's wins were in a convincing fashion. Florida needed a bit of luck to win against Georgia, Vanderbilt, South Carolina and FSU. I'll take solid play over serendipity.

Solid play,...those are the key words! Parity within a conference where every team knows what the other team does in gameplay means nothing either! Step up and play some real teams,...USC, and the PAC 10 has failed, ...don't anyone mention them anymore!

BIG 10 has 3 teams with only 2 losses,...who else does?

[DETMURDS]

Doug, I'm glad no... excited to hear a non SEC member here on the boards is backing the Gators. UF did everything any non SEC fan asked of them. We won the SECCG and USC lost thiers to UCLA...period. IF the BCS voters and computers put Michigan in the National Championship game then I only have one question to ask....... why even play that game in Columbus? Why not just wait and play it in Arizona?

Again, Ohio State is the #1 team in the country,...why would we have anyone who lost to another team that is ranked lower be there? Go Michigan,...M GO BLUE!

[themush]

Michigan lost their last regular season game and didn't win thier own conference... so how can anyone believe they should have a shot at the National Championship???

[DETMURDS]

Umm, I think I said if Florida lost, we'd be able to know more than Michigan would be the 2nd best team in the country.



But, that ignores who they beat. Are you saying that it would be IMPOSSIBLE for Michigan to lose AT Auburn a week after LSU and a week before Georgia? This to me is the silly thing about comparing JUST the losses rather than looking at everything.

In the end, though, I mean, this whole argument is going to come down to how you value who they played. Buckeye and I, for instance, would likely come to different conclusions about the strength of schedules because he thinks Wisconsin is the 3rd best team in the Nation and I think Wisconsin is a joke of a team that would go 4-4, at best, with a slate of 8 SEC games.

Hey Doug, ...Kinda hard to tell what you are saying by all your comments you have posted? Sorry if I miss-understand.

[DETMURDS]

Michigan lost their last regular season game and didn't win thier own conference... so how can anyone believe they should have a shot at the National Championship???


Again, who did they lose to, and who did the team you think belongs in the Nat. Championship lose to? See my point,....this is apples and oranges!

[themush]

No I don't see your point.

If you aren't good enough to win your conference how are you good enough to play for the National Championship?

[DETMURDS]

See my next post then and find out!

[da12ken]

If you aren't good enough to win your conference how are you good enough to play for the National Championship?

Because you've perceived (this is all perception after all) to be the second-best team in the country due to a combination of great talent, good coaching, media hype (of course) and consistent play.

[DETMURDS]

No I don't see your point.

If you aren't good enough to win your conference how are you good enough to play for the National Championship?

I'd just say that some conferences are better than others, like this one conference that has three teams with only 2 losses! Look at the BIG 10 and one will see! You won't even see this kind of stuff in the WAC!
Today 11:26 PM

[coachJ]

Well if we are going to go by who they lose to, it should be Ohio State vs Boise State in the Champ game, no question about it since they havent even lost to the #1 team in the nation. By your reasoning Detmurds, that is the national championship game.

[themush]

So... by your own arguement are you not saying the Big 10 is weaker the the SEC? Only a few teams come out of that conference with a few losses.... rather then playing in the SEC where any team may be beat on any given week?

[DETMURDS]

Well if we are going to go by who they lose to, it should be Ohio State vs Boise State in the Champ game, no question about it since they havent even lost to the #1 team in the nation. By your reasoning Detmurds, that is the national championship game.


Ok, did #2 lose today? YES! Who is #3? Michigan is the answer! What number is after #2? Enough said! If it is wrong, why are they ranked #3?

[DETMURDS]

So... by your own arguement are you not saying the Big 10 is weaker the the SEC? Only a few teams come out of that conference with a few losses.... rather then playing in the SEC where any team may be beat on any given week?

Ok, just see my last post if you are talking about my comments?

[themush]

If the Gators get screwed out of the NC game, then alot has to be done to "re-vamp" the BCS...again.

[da12ken]

I think the +1 system could fix most problems. The BSC system should be like it was last year. In the event there is a clear-cut champion (TexaS), case-closed. If there is a controversy (2003, possibly this year), then there should be an additional BCS championship game. Why the hell was there a BCS Championship game made this year? It doesn't solve anything and just added another bowl game to the mix. What it should do is determine the national champion in event the initial four BCS matchups don't produce a unanimous #1.

And the Gators aren't the only team to be screwed by the BCS. USC and Auburn have got gripes too. Then again, about half of the country could probably come up with legitimate complaints.

[Anthony]

You're all proving, beyond any doubt, that the only solution is a genuine postseason tournament, qualifying somewhere from eight to 16 teams (personally I believe 10 or 12 would be best, because it would allow the best teams to win one fewer playoff game to win the title).

And puh-lease - don't hand me this tripe about how it would keep the kids out of class too long. Between the post-season conference tournaments and the NCAAs, the players on the teams that reach the Final Four in basketball are out of class for twice as long as the two teams who would play for the national championship in football would be (or is it OK to let the basketball kids stay out of class longer because it is believed, for one reason or another, that they're less likely to graduate anyway?).

I'm tired of the hypocrisy.

[da12ken]

Frankly, I'm against a playoff system because it would so drastically change the landscape and tradition of college football. Basically the bowl games (the ones people actually care about; Rose, Sugar, Cotton, etc. etc.) would be rendered useless. In a playoff system they're just another notch on the national championship belt. Furthermore, a 16-18 game season (or however long it is) would pretty much make put every major collegiate football record in jeopardy.

College football did all right before the BCS system. I don't see why it couldn't work under the old system.

[Anthony]

Frankly, I'm against a playoff system because it would so drastically change the landscape and tradition of college football. Basically the bowl games (the ones people actually care about; Rose, Sugar, Cotton, etc. etc.) would be rendered useless. In a playoff system they're just another notch on the national championship belt. Furthermore, a 16-18 game season (or however long it is) would pretty much make put every major collegiate football record in jeopardy.

College football did all right before the BCS system. I don't see why it couldn't work under the old system.


The bowl games could easily be intergrated into a playoff system, by rotating the championship game, the two semifinal games, and the four quarterfinal games among seven traditional sites - and for that matter even formally calling them the Rose Bowl, Sugar Bowl, Orange Bowl etc.

And to oppose a playoff system on the grounds of what it would do to all-time records is pretty weak; all you would have to do is re-express the categories (such as rushing yards, etc.) on an average-per-game basis.

[HibachiDG]

Hey Doug, ...Kinda hard to tell what you are saying by all your comments you have posted? Sorry if I miss-understand.

Basically, what I'm trying to say is that Florida has more quality wins than Michigan does, by a wide margin and I think that makes up for Michigan's close lose to OSU. Essentially, I feel that if you just look at all the wins the teams have and how the teams have played all season, it is perfectly conceivable that Florida would give OSU as good or better of a game than Michigan gave the Buckeyes.

If what I said confused you, it might be the line about people weighing the schedules differently. For instance, ken thinks the SEC is weaker than I do, I disagree, but if he thinks that, then it would make sense that he would call the schedules a wash.

With as many Big Ten and SEC games I've seen this season, I think it's absolutely silly, but if he thinks that, then it makes sense for him to put Michigan in the title game. That's all I'm saying. I personally love the Big Ten and often overlook the SEC myself when they might be better than they are, but I just can not do it this season. Hell, I will usually argue Big Ten as the better Conference to SEC folks even if I don't quite believe it. This year, I just can't bring myself to do it. The Big Ten is sooooooo bad. You can pull out the 3 teams only have 2 losses line, but that works against you. The only reason Wisconsin has 1 loss is because the Big Ten is atrocious.

Enjoy, and hopefully your team can win!

If you're assuming Florida would be my team over Michigan, let me just say that the only teams I would root for in college football over Michigan are PSU and Michigan State. I lived in Ann Arbor for a couple of years and the first college football game I attended with attendance over 100k was in Michigan. If I were to talk about the game that I want to see as a fan ONLY then I would talk about wanting to see Michigan get the rematch.

EDIT...the best thing that could come from Michigan getting passed over is that it happened in the CCG week. So. uh, Big Ten Championship next season? Soldier Field? Uh...do it.

[Dublin Mike]

Wasn't as close? If the Michigan defender doesn't crack Troy Smith in the coconut, the Wolverines have a legitimate shot to win the game.

.

Ken, I still argue that if you have to attempt an onside kick to have any shot of winning the game, it isn't as close as the score says.

[MountaineerDave]

So, who decides the teams in a playoff? The same folks we despise so much each week when the polls come out?

Isn't the debate about who's number one (or should be playing for the title) infinitely more interesting than the debate that inevitably rises regarding who gets left out of a playoff, ostensibly teams #15-18 (in a 16 team playoff)?
To me it is.

The fairness question that is broached by non-BCS conferences then also becomes an issue: how do those conferences benefit from a playoff? Not at all, because they never get to participate.

What of the regular schedule? Everyone, then, not just the SEC and Ohio State, start filling their schedules with patsies to clear their ways into playoff contention.

While it's not the concern of the fan, the fact of the matter is that it IS the concern of college presidents, but how does the conference deal with the matter of splitting the rewards of a playoff loser among its other constituents? Also, while folks bother with trying to tie bowls into a playoff system, or suggest that somehow the bowls wouldn't be degraded by a playoff, a touch of realism suggests otherwise. And while we could definitely use fewer bowl games (are there really 56 teams that we want to watch in a bowl later this month? no, but that's what we get... unless it's actually 58, somehow... i've done no research, you're right), a playoff kills practically ALL the bowl games. That strikes me as an unacceptable side effect of a playoff system. The Big 10 isn't going to have 6 or 7 teams in a playoff system EVER, which means they lose bowl revenue. And losing revenue at the conference level is what university opposition to a playoff system is all about.

[DETMURDS]

Basically, what I'm trying to say is that Florida has more quality wins than Michigan does, by a wide margin and I think that makes up for Michigan's close lose to OSU. Essentially, I feel that if you just look at all the wins the teams have and how the teams have played all season, it is perfectly conceivable that Florida would give OSU as good or better of a game than Michigan gave the Buckeyes.

If what I said confused you, it might be the line about people weighing the schedules differently. For instance, ken thinks the SEC is weaker than I do, I disagree, but if he thinks that, then it would make sense that he would call the schedules a wash.

With as many Big Ten and SEC games I've seen this season, I think it's absolutely silly, but if he thinks that, then it makes sense for him to put Michigan in the title game. That's all I'm saying. I personally love the Big Ten and often overlook the SEC myself when they might be better than they are, but I just can not do it this season. Hell, I will usually argue Big Ten as the better Conference to SEC folks even if I don't quite believe it. This year, I just can't bring myself to do it. The Big Ten is sooooooo bad. You can pull out the 3 teams only have 2 losses line, but that works against you. The only reason Wisconsin has 1 loss is because the Big Ten is atrocious.



If you're assuming Florida would be my team over Michigan, let me just say that the only teams I would root for in college football over Michigan are PSU and Michigan State. I lived in Ann Arbor for a couple of years and the first college football game I attended with attendance over 100k was in Michigan. If I were to talk about the game that I want to see as a fan ONLY then I would talk about wanting to see Michigan get the rematch.

EDIT...the best thing that could come from Michigan getting passed over is that it happened in the CCG week. So. uh, Big Ten Championship next season? Soldier Field? Uh...do it.

Ok, I will agree that Florida has more quality wins, but the team that they lost to is not quit the quality team that Michigan lost to. I truly beleive that Michigan is the real #2 team in the country at this point.

I guess we all have to wait and see what happens anyhow.

[da12ken]

The bowl games could easily be intergrated into a playoff system, by rotating the championship game, the two semifinal games, and the four quarterfinal games among seven traditional sites - and for that matter even formally calling them the Rose Bowl, Sugar Bowl, Orange Bowl etc.

And to oppose a playoff system on the grounds of what it would do to all-time records is pretty weak; all you would have to do is re-express the categories (such as rushing yards, etc.) on an average-per-game basis.

Sure the bowl games are integrated, but it totally destroys whether prestige and tradition they represented. If a team wins the Rose Bowl and Orangel Bowl, but lose the BCS Championship game then its season is considered a disappointment. What's that say about the new Rose and Orange Bowls?

The records remark was further going along the lines of changing the traditions of college football, not so much for the record themselves. And no one would ever express records on average-per-game in any sport. Other McGwire would easily be the all-time home run leader.

EDIT: Well, I went a bit overboard on the average-per-game thing. ERA in baseball and points in the NBA are per-game, but people still want hard numbers for the vast majority of stats instead of ratios.

[buckeyefan78]

Sure the bowl games are integrated, but it totally destroys whether prestige and tradition they represented. If a team wins the Rose Bowl and Orangel Bowl, but lose the BCS Championship game then its season is considered a disappointment. What's that say about the new Rose and Orange Bowls?

This is another interesting angle that the pro-playoff/bcs people don't seem to understand.

The bowls are not under the jurisdiction of the NCAA. In fact, the NCAA only started counting bowl records in with their records back in 2002.

We have to remember the Rose Bowl had a $16 million payout (twice that of the Orange) the year before the BCS began. Now it's all shared cuz...? So before you communists (:D ) homogenized college football with this nonsense, the bowl games were operating as very well-defined separate entities.

I find the BCS funny cuz not only is it going to produce controversy this year (OSU-UM or OSU-Florida), it will screw our other bowls up too. If the bowls were allowed to have the same wiggle room they had before we wouldn't have the terrible matchups we are going to get in the other big bowls. And for what? Another disputed MNC? So stupid.