Rematch?

[M GO BLUE!!!]

I believe that Michigan was beat by Ohio State, so why should Ohio State have to face them again to prove that they are better?

Here's a question though... My favorite TCY seaso I played had Michigan and Ohio State both undefeated, but Michigan was #1 and Ohio State #2. It was a great game, but Michigan had a couple of key injuries in the game that only exposed a lack of depth (caused partially by previous injuries.) The game went to OT, with Ohio State winning on an interception return off my backup QB. I was surprised that the championship game ended up a rematch. (Michigan got healthy and DESTROYED Ohio State!) With that said, I could have been for a rematch IF the game went to OT... (I hate college OT)

[JS19]

Why not a rematch? If Michigan is the 2nd best team in the country, why shouldn't they have a shot at a national title?

[SuperGrover]

If USC runs the table they should be the unquestioned #2. Michigan is overrated IMHO and the rankings that factor in margin of victory seem to agree (in Sagarin's predictor, they were only #9 heading into this week).

If USC loses, it muddles the picture considerably. I would probably advocate for a rematch as I think Michigan is better than Florida and no one else is more deserving (Notre Dame? Please.).

It would be unfortunate if a rematch is held and Michigan were to win. Hopefully though that would kickstart a playoff campaign. Probably not though.

[cartman]

It wouldn't be unprecedented. 10 years ago Florida and Florida State has a rematch in the title game after a late season meeting.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Why not a rematch? If Michigan is the 2nd best team in the country, why shouldn't they have a shot at a national title?

"

[k0ruptr]

I think Michigan would destroy USC, therefore I voted rematch.

[M GO BLUE!!!]

Michigan is overrated IMHO and the rankings that factor in margin of victory seem to agree (in Sagarin's predictor, they were only #9 heading into this week).

Since the game was won by Ohio State, but was as close as it was, do you believe Ohio State is overrated too? If so, who is #1?

It would be unfortunate if a rematch is held and Michigan were to win. Hopefully though that would kickstart a playoff campaign. Probably not though.
I agree with the first line, but regarding a playoff I only think it would be a decent idea if it were a four-team playoff. If the top 16 go into a playoff, games like today mean little... I like games like this a great deal, and to relegate this to meaning little more than where the teams are seeded in a playoff would cheapen the experience to me.

[JS19]

I should add that I don't know half as much about college football as most here. I know whos good, whos not, and I usually only watch the "big" games during the yr. I'm not even fully aware of how the teams are ranked, something like how much they win by, and strength of schedule as far as I know. If that's the case, and assuming USC wins out, why would USC be rated over Michigan if they lost to Oregon State and Michigan lost to the #1 team by 3? I can probably answer my own question here, and i'm assuming USC had a much more difficult schedule, but I haven't checked so I have no clue.

[saldana]

i dont really have a favorite out of the two teams in question, so having watched that game today, i think Michigan was actually the better team....they made less mistakes, and if you go back and look at a number of the critical plays in the game, they werent made because of superior OSU players, but were because of piss poor, utterly pathetic field conditions at the Horseshoe.

if that game had been played on fieldturf or a better conditioned grass surface, Michigan would have won by two touchdowns.

i voted rematch

[cartman]

I should add that I don't know half as much about college football as most here. I know whos good, whos not, and I usually only watch the "big" games during the yr. I'm not even fully aware of how the teams are ranked, something like how much they win by, and strength of schedule as far as I know. If that's the case, and assuming USC wins out, why would USC be rated over Michigan if they lost to Oregon State and Michigan lost to the #1 team by 3? I can probably answer my own question here, and i'm assuming USC had a much more difficult schedule, but I haven't checked so I have no clue.

The BCS ranking is comprised of the USA Today poll, the Harris Poll, and a consortium of computer polls. Each of the three given 1/3rd weight. That means that human voters make up 2/3 of the poll. The computer polls are allowed to take into account strength of schedule, but they cannot take into account margin of victory.

[JS19]

The BCS ranking is comprised of the USA Today poll, the Harris Poll, and a consortium of computer polls. Each of the three given 1/3rd weight. That means that human voters make up 2/3 of the poll. The computer polls are allowed to take into account strength of schedule, but they cannot take into account margin of victory.

Thanks for clearing that up. I probably have no business getting into a discussion about this since I know nothing about it. My point is, if Michigan is the 2nd best team in the country, I feel they deserve a shot at a national title. But since there is no playoff system, I guess there's no way of knowing who the 2nd best team in the country is.

[Eaglesfan27]

If USC runs the table they should be the unquestioned #2. Michigan is overrated IMHO and the rankings that factor in margin of victory seem to agree (in Sagarin's predictor, they were only #9 heading into this week).

If USC loses, it muddles the picture considerably. I would probably advocate for a rematch as I think Michigan is better than Florida and no one else is more deserving (Notre Dame? Please.).

It would be unfortunate if a rematch is held and Michigan were to win. Hopefully though that would kickstart a playoff campaign. Probably not though.


Agreed.

USC had a lot of injuries when they were playing poorly, and they had a strong win tonight against a good Cal team. If they beat ND as I expect they will and beat UCLA, there is no reason they shouldn't play ahead of Michigan.

[General Mike]

It wouldn't be unprecedented. 10 years ago Florida and Florida State has a rematch in the title game after a late season meeting.

The System was different than. There was the Bowl Alliance or Bowl Coallition, I can't remember what name they were using than, but the Pac Ten and Big Ten weren't involved in it.

In the final regular season poll (post conference championship games), the Top 10 in the AP poll were:

1. Florida State (11-0)
2. Arizona State (11-0)
3. Florida (11-1)
4. Ohio State (10-1)
5. Brigham Young (13-1)
6. Nebraska (10-2)
7. Penn State (10-2)
8. Colorado (9-2)
9. Tennssee (9-2)
10. Virginia Tech (10-1)

The Coaches Poll was the same, except Tennessee and Virginia Tech were flipflopped

The Bowl matchups ended up being:

Rose Bowl - ASU vs OSU
Sugar Bowl - Florida vs FSU
Orange Bowl - Nebraska vs Virginia Tech
Fiesta Bowl - Penn State vs #20 Texas (8-4)
Cotton Bowl - BYU vs #14 Kansas State (9-2)

What team deserved to play FSU more than Florida? I can't put a 2 loss team ahead of them, and I can't put a 1 loss BYU or VT over them based on the schedules they played.

At least this year, there are gonna be 2 other 1 loss teams you can make a strong case for.

[timmynausea]

Michigan got a lot of breaks (3 OSU turnovers) and still lost. They got outgained by over 100 yards. Statistically, Illinois gave the Buckeyes a much better game.

On top of that, it wasn't a back and forth struggle. Michigan fought hard to make it a close game, but OSU was in control almost all day.

I just feel like Michigan had every opportunity and failed. Someone else should get a crack. Michigan could win a rematch, but it's just as likely that OSU would't make the mistakes and would win by 17 instead of 3.

I'd take a 1 loss USC or SEC champ over Michigan.

[Mantle2600]

i dont really have a favorite out of the two teams in question, so having watched that game today, i think Michigan was actually the better team....they made less mistakes, and if you go back and look at a number of the critical plays in the game, they werent made because of superior OSU players, but were because of piss poor, utterly pathetic field conditions at the Horseshoe.

if that game had been played on fieldturf or a better conditioned grass surface, Michigan would have won by two touchdowns.

i voted rematch

If the conditions were so poor, how come OSU overcame them and UM did'nt? Maybe cause OSU is the better team?

[Craptacular]

I can see arguments for USC, Florida, or Arkansas if USC loses, but there is no way in hell that Notre Dame has a case.

edit: I forgot to mention that I think Michigan has as good of or a better case than any of them, but was simply commenting on the other possibilities.

[Deattribution]

Michigan got a lot of breaks (3 OSU turnovers) and still lost.

Correct. Take out the two fumbles by the center/qb duo and this isn't even a close game. The INT was atleast forced, so I won't dispute that.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

I have no interest in a rematch for any reason. Been there, done that. I would like to see another team get their shot. Michigan blew theirs. No redo's.

[saldana]

If the conditions were so poor, how come OSU overcame them and UM did'nt? Maybe cause OSU is the better team?

or maybe because OSU knew how shitty their own field was, and UM didnt?????:confused: :rolleyes: Did you even watch the game? even the referees were wiping out all over the place.

[Ben E Lou]

Anything that helps prevents a scenario where someone like Boise St. or WV or Rutgers or Louisville gets in is fine with me.

[astrosfan64]

Anything that helps prevents a scenario where someone like Boise St. or WV or Rutgers or Louisville gets in is fine with me.

LOL skydog is so bitter because the SEC is probably the worst BCS conference this year.

[Joe]

LOL skydog is so bitter because the SEC is probably the worst BCS conference this year.

Except the SEC had 4 teams in the top 15 this week.

[rowech]

1. USC assuming they don't lose
2. SEC champ if they only have one loss
3. Michigan gets their second shot.

That's the order it should go.

[RPI-Fan]

Ok so what makes USC so much better than ND?

Why is it that USC beating ND makes them clear-cut #2, but ND beating USC doesn't do anything?

[JHandley]

Ok so what makes USC so much better than ND?

Why is it that USC beating ND makes them clear-cut #2, but ND beating USC doesn't do anything?

Michigan 47 - Notre Dame 21. At South Bend.

[PSUColonel]

I would definately entertain the idea of a rematch, simply because i do beleive these teo are the best 2 teams in the nation. Here is my question though: what if in a rematch title game Michigan defeated OSU? Who is number one?

[cthomer5000]

I would definately entertain the idea of a rematch, simply because i do beleive these teo are the best 2 teams in the nation. Here is my question though: what if in a rematch title game Michigan defeated OSU? Who is number one?

Is that a serious question?

[Joe]

I would definately entertain the idea of a rematch, simply because i do beleive these teo are the best 2 teams in the nation. Here is my question though: what if in a rematch title game Michigan defeated OSU? Who is number one?

yeah

[rowech]

I would definately entertain the idea of a rematch, simply because i do beleive these teo are the best 2 teams in the nation. Here is my question though: what if in a rematch title game Michigan defeated OSU? Who is number one?

Michigan because they won the neutral site game.

[RPI-Fan]

Michigan 47 - Notre Dame 21. At South Bend.

How does that relate to USC? Who has USC beaten that makes them the clear-cut #2?

[RPI-Fan]

Michigan because they won the neutral site game.

That isn't really true. If The Game had been in Ann Arbor and OSU won, but the BCS still matched up OSU & UM in the championship game, and Michigan won, they'd be the national champion.

[JHandley]

How does that relate to USC? Who has USC beaten that makes them the clear-cut #2?

Because you can't put ND ahead of Michigan when Michigan has already humiliated ND at their own house. If Notre Dame had been able to atleast stay in the game against Michigan, then maybe, just maybe they have a legitimate beef. But, they got whooped and were run out of the building.

[RPI-Fan]

Because you can't put ND ahead of Michigan when Michigan has already humiliated ND at their own house. If Notre Dame had been able to atleast stay in the game against Michigan, then maybe, just maybe they have a legitimate beef. But, they got whooped and were run out of the building.

USC lost to Oregon State!!!!! I just don't get what makes them so much better than ND? In my opinion, you have to consider them equal to ND at this point, which means that USC and ND are either BOTH ahead of Michigan or NEITHER of them is ahead of UM.

[Balldog]

I don't see why some people think Michigan would beat OSU if they had a rematch, Michigan played as good as they could and it wasn't good enough. If you can't win with a +3 turnover margin, how else could you win? Ohio State turned the ball over more than they have all year, including two bad snaps.

It will be either USC/ND or the SEC winner vs. OSU. In reality college football has a playoff, an eleven (twelve) game playoff. You win out and you are in about 90% of the time, if you lose 1 game you put it in the hands of the voters. You have no one to blame but yourselves.

[JonInMiddleGA]

USC lost to Oregon State!!!!! I just don't get what makes them so much better than ND?

Umm ... lemme see here.

USC: Wins over Arkansas, Nebraska, and Cal
Notre Dame: Wins over Ga Tech and, umm, uh ... hmm.

I think it's quite possible that ND beats USC. The Trojans have a knack for looking beatable while the Irish could certainly have one of those days & get on a roll.

But until that happens, USC has done quite a bit more than ND so far this year.

[JHandley]

USC lost to Oregon State!!!!! I just don't get what makes them so much better than ND? In my opinion, you have to consider them equal to ND at this point, which means that USC and ND are either BOTH ahead of Michigan or NEITHER of them is ahead of UM.

Yep, you're right. Neither are ahead of UM. No doubt about that in my mind and I can't understand why it's a question in anyone's mind. Notre Dame has zero claim to be put in the National Championship game after losing head to head to Michigan. I don't think USC deserves it either, but you're asking why USC gets in if they win and ND doesn't if they lose. Notre Dame doesn't because they lost badly at home to Michigan.

[GoldenEagle]

Michigan had their chance and did not win. It is time to give someone else a shot.

[molson]

I would definately entertain the idea of a rematch, simply because i do beleive these teo are the best 2 teams in the nation. Here is my question though: what if in a rematch title game Michigan defeated OSU? Who is number one?

I think it's a fair point. If there's a rematch, then you essentially had a two game playoff series. Ohio State has to sweep to win the championship, Michigan only has to split. Despite what people have been saying there IS a difference between playing an opponent twice, at different points of a season, and playing the same opponent back to back. A rematch scenario just isn't fair to Ohio State, at least if Michigan isn't a clear and obvious #2, which they aren't if USC wins out.

[flounder]

The French judge says USC if they win out, but the Romanian judge says Michigan gets a rematch.

[kcchief19]

Michigan only falls to No. 3 in the USA Today poll. Depending on how other things shakeout, it if Notre Dame beats USC a rematch looks very possible.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Speaking of the USA Today poll, some of our FOFC'ers will doubtless be happy to see Hawaii ranked at #25.

[Galaxy]

Let me ask this, if this game was played in early to mid-October, would it make a difference?

[Galaxy]

Except the SEC had 4 teams in the top 15 this week.

Don't confused the troll with facts.

[Celeval]

USC won their conference. OSU won their conference. The SEC winner will have won their conference. ND - they're screwed up to begin with. Michigan lost their conference. Sorry.

[molson]

Let me ask this, if this game was played in early to mid-October, would it make a difference?

Yes, because a team changes throughout the season. The more recently you beat a team, the more the "head to head" component of ranking teams should matter. (And it's interesting that the same people that think Michigan should have another shot at Ohio State are the same people saying that a 1-loss Notre Dame can't possibly be ranked ahead of Michigan because of that head to head result).

And we also have to step back and try to determine the criteria for playing in the national championship game. It isn't simply "the best two teams". It's some combination of the best teams, the teams that had the best seasons, and the teams that are playing the best at the end. If it were truly "the best two teams", we wouldn't put so much stock on individual game results.

[MJ4H]

Yes, because a team changes throughout the season. The more recently you beat a team, the more the "head to head" component of ranking teams should matter. (And it's interesting that the same people that think Michigan should have another shot at Ohio State are the same people saying that a 1-loss Notre Dame can't possibly be ranked ahead of Michigan because of that head to head result).

And we also have to step back and try to determine the criteria for playing in the national championship game. It isn't simply "the best two teams". It's some combination of the best teams, the teams that had the best seasons, and the teams that are playing the best at the end. If it were truly "the best two teams", we wouldn't put so much stock on individual game results.

Very good post, especially the second paragraph.

[JHandley]

Yes, because a team changes throughout the season. The more recently you beat a team, the more the "head to head" component of ranking teams should matter. (And it's interesting that the same people that think Michigan should have another shot at Ohio State are the same people saying that a 1-loss Notre Dame can't possibly be ranked ahead of Michigan because of that head to head result).

And we also have to step back and try to determine the criteria for playing in the national championship game. It isn't simply "the best two teams". It's some combination of the best teams, the teams that had the best seasons, and the teams that are playing the best at the end. If it were truly "the best two teams", we wouldn't put so much stock on individual game results.

You had me until the last part. I went to Michigan, so I understand my view is biased. But, all the arguements against Michigan getting a rematch are valid. We didn't win the Big Ten, we had our chance, it was a great game yesterday that they won so forcing them to beat us twice is a raw deal.

The NC game is the two best teams playing for all the marbles and here is where my bias comes in. Michigan and Ohio State are the two best teams. I would rather see the SEC champ play Ohio State than either Michigan or USC. The SEC champ has a much better arguement than USC, but if the SEC champ has two losses, it's going to be hard for them to get the votes to get in.

[JHandley]

Dola -

Also, I don't think anyone is saying that Michigan should be ranked ahead of Ohio State. But, the people pushing ND are saying that ND should be ranked ahead of Michigan.

[JHandley]

AP (not incluced in the BCS formula) has Michigan #2

[kcchief19]

Michigan remains No. 2 in the new BCS.

Wow.

[k0ruptr]

yep. #2 in BCS but because of the small difference, and the fact that USC has to play Notre Dame. All USC has to do is beat the Irish, and its USC - Ohio St for the BCS championship.

Thats a game I will not watch. I have no interest in seeing Ohio St. win by 3 touch downs.

[Easy Mac]

USC lost to Oregon State!!!!! I just don't get what makes them so much better than ND? In my opinion, you have to consider them equal to ND at this point, which means that USC and ND are either BOTH ahead of Michigan or NEITHER of them is ahead of UM.

Boise State beat Oregon State 42-14. Ergo, an undefeated Boise State is better than a 1-loss USC team. Their average margin of victory was 23 points, so even using their weak schedule, you can't say they weren't decidedly better than their competition.

[timmynausea]

Unless USC blows ND away or something else dramatic shakes up the polls, it looks like the rematch is on. As a fan, on top of the fact that they already played, the matchup is extra boring because I think of Michigan and Ohio State as about the same. No matter what happens a Big Ten team from the Midwest will win the national championship. Whether it is OSU or Michigan is of little importance to me.

When the FSU-Florida matchup was set, there was a little more intrigue as they are in different conferences and another unbeaten, Arizona State, was still out there as well to add to the possibilities.

There really is almost no reason for me to watch a rematch title game.

[dime]

osu wants no part of michigan again, that is for sure...they gave up 40 points at home despite several chad henne overthrows, an embarassing home-turf advantage and a questionable penalty that saved their final drive.

this is moot though, because usc will crush notre dame and that will look impressive enough to place them in the 2 spot. if notre dame's preseason ranking was where wisconsin's was, they'd be ranked 11th right now. instead they are considered a top 5 team.

ucla could certainly beat usc, though...which would probably put florida in the title game. what a joke this season has been.

[st.cronin]

A rematch would make yesterday's game an exhibition. The whole process is pretty stupid though, so I guess it doesn't matter.

[TurnerONU22]

michgan wants no part of osu again, that is for sure...they gave up 42 points, despite winning the turnover margin by 3, Mike Hart running for 150, and a questionable penalty that made the game closer than it should have been.
.

See, it works both ways

EDIT: After being at the game yesterday, I still don't know if Michgan should get a rematch or not. I agree if USC wins out, then they should get the chance, but I don't think that any other team (besides OSU) is as good as Michigan.

[JonInMiddleGA]

http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaaf/news?slug=ap-thegame-ratings&prov=ap&type=lgns

Michigan-Ohio St. pulls in biggest TV audience in 13 years
November 19, 2006

BRISTOL, Conn. (AP) -- Top-ranked Ohio State's victory over No. 2 Michigan drew the biggest television audience for any regular-season game in 13 years.

ABC's broadcast pulled in a 13.4 rating, which translates to 14.96 million households and 21.77 million viewers. That's the biggest audience and rating for a regular-season college football network telecast since Florida State at Notre Dame on Nov. 13, 1993.

The figures for Saturday's game are according to Nielsen Media Research.

This was the second time this season ABC has televised a No. 1 vs. No. 2 matchup. On Sept. 9, Ohio State beat second-ranked Texas. That game averaged an 8.2 rating, and was seen in 9.1 million households.

[Joe]

Michigan-Ohio St. pulls in biggest TV audience in 13 years



So I guess we'll get a rematch.

[dime]

See, it works both ways

EDIT: After being at the game yesterday, I still don't know if Michgan should get a rematch or not. I agree if USC wins out, then they should get the chance, but I don't think that any other team (besides OSU) is as good as Michigan.


You're missing the point. Michigan would LOVE to play ohio state again because it'd be a title shot. Ohio State knows that a neutral site game with michigan would be a toss-up, they'd rather play some SEC team or USC (who'd score 40 on them also, but would give up 50).

[Eaglesfan27]

yep. #2 in BCS but because of the small difference, and the fact that USC has to play Notre Dame. All USC has to do is beat the Irish, and its USC - Ohio St for the BCS championship.

Thats a game I will not watch. I have no interest in seeing Ohio St. win by 3 touch downs.

No way does USC lose to Ohio State by 3 TD's. I'll take that bet with anyone.

I'm not saying they'll beat Ohio State but they are getting healthier and they are a much better team than they showed in the middle of the season.

[Balldog]

You're missing the point. Michigan would LOVE to play ohio state again because it'd be a title shot. Ohio State knows that a neutral site game with michigan would be a toss-up, they'd rather play some SEC team or USC (who'd score 40 on them also, but would give up 50).

Don't go putting words in OSU's mouth.

[JHandley]

I don't know, EaglesFan27, OSU 28-7 sounds entirely possible to me.

[RendeR]

#1 Ohio State doesn't care WHO gets into the title game because they know they'll beat anyone that shows up, including a Mishitgin team that couldn't win a game that they did everything right in and OSU did everyting wrong in on a field that slowed down both teams.

#2 Notre dame fans need to accept that no-one beyond themselves actually believes that ND has any right to be in the top 10 let alone the title game.

#3 For those who thought yesterdays game was SO close and SO tight, BS, without the benefit of 3 turnovers this game is a blowout by the 3rd quarter and everyone turns on Lawrence Welk's musical hour before the 4th begins.

As for who I believe should be in the title game? I don't care. See #1 above, the Buckeyes are easily the best team in college football this season, they will handle any team that gets the other bid in the title game.


My dime.

[RendeR]

No way does USC lose to Ohio State by 3 TD's. I'll take that bet with anyone.

I'm not saying they'll beat Ohio State but they are getting healthier and they are a much better team than they showed in the middle of the season.


Did you watch the game with Cal last night? USC looks VERY beatable, I could easily see an embarrassment for USC in the title game, and at best a 10 point loss.

[st.cronin]

I don't know, EaglesFan27, OSU 28-7 sounds entirely possible to me.

Possible, yes. Likely, I think not. USC is a very good team.

[RendeR]

You're missing the point. Michigan would LOVE to play ohio state again because it'd be a title shot. Ohio State knows that a neutral site game with michigan would be a toss-up, they'd rather play some SEC team or USC (who'd score 40 on them also, but would give up 50).


Total horse-hockey. Toss up? My ass. Without a repeat 3+ turnover game it wouldn't even be a contest. People seem to think this game was actually in question, without OSU giving Michigan MULTIPLE chances with the ball deep in their territory this game would have been a snooze fest with OSU winning by 3td's or more.

[Eaglesfan27]

I don't know, EaglesFan27, OSU 28-7 sounds entirely possible to me.


No way. Booty, Smith, and Jarrett will put up a lot more than 7 points on that secondary.

Cal's corners are better than Ohio State's.

[Hammer755]

As a Buckeye fan, I'd much rather face Southern Cal, Florida, or Notre Dame for the title. As a football fan, OSU and Michigan have proven to be the best two teams in the country and ultimately, that's what the championship game should be, conference winner or not.

I honestly don't understand how some people can feel that a team who doesn't win a conference can't play for the title. Do these same people feel that wild cards should be barred from the Super Bowl or the World Series?

[cthomer5000]

Simple question, would Notre Dame beating USC basically be enough to ensure a rematch? Or is it more complicated than that? I'm not sure how the numbers will shake out over the coming weeks based on who people are still to play, etc...

[st.cronin]

Simple question, would Notre Dame beating USC basically be enough to ensure a rematch? Or is it more complicated than that? I'm not sure how the numbers will shake out over the coming weeks based on who people are still to play, etc...

I think that if Florida wins out, they would be next in line if USC loses. I think USC and Florida both need to lose to ensure a rematch.

[cthomer5000]

Second question... can a conference send 3 teams to the BCS if 2 are in the title game? Basically, is Wisconsin praying for a rematch so they can go to the Rose Bowl?

I think I recall some rule about not being able to send 3 teams or some such...

[Honolulu_Blue]

Total horse-hockey. Toss up? My ass. Without a repeat 3+ turnover game it wouldn't even be a contest. People seem to think this game was actually in question, without OSU giving Michigan MULTIPLE chances with the ball deep in their territory this game would have been a snooze fest with OSU winning by 3td's or more.

He has the right of it. People are deluding themselves if they think that was a close game. It wasn't. The three-point difference at the end and people's desire for the game to be a "classic" is clouding their judgment. The game was never really in doubt after OSU scored that touchdown at the end of the first half. It was not that close of a game. Certainly not a "toss up".

[cartman]

Second question... can a conference send 3 teams to the BCS if 2 are in the title game? Basically, is Wisconsin praying for a rematch so they can go to the Rose Bowl?

I think I recall some rule about not being able to send 3 teams or some such...

A conference is limited to sending two teams to BCS bowls. Texas got bit by this a few years ago when they were ranked #5, and OU lost to Kansas State in the Big 12 Championship game. K-State got the Big 12 automatic bid, and OU still went on to play in the BCS Title game. Texas had to settle for the Holiday Bowl.

[Joe]

Second question... can a conference send 3 teams to the BCS if 2 are in the title game? Basically, is Wisconsin praying for a rematch so they can go to the Rose Bowl?

I think I recall some rule about not being able to send 3 teams or some such...

It doesnt matter if they are in the championship or other BCS bowls. Conferences may only send 2 teams.

[HerRealName]

As an OSU fan, I'd rather face Michigan again than USC but I think it should go in this order:

1. USC if they win out
2. Arkansas/UF if one finishes with one loss
3. UM

I think USC's secondary would be a tougher match up for Troy Smith and the WRs than UM's DBs. USC's WRs would give OSU's secondary problems just like Manningham and Arrington last night. Carroll is also a hell of a good coach and would have a few wrinkles ready for Ohio State.

[st.cronin]

As an OSU fan, I'd rather face Michigan again than USC but I think it should go in this order:

1. USC if they win out
2. Arkansas/UF if one finishes with one loss
3. Boise State
4. Anybody with a winning record other than Michigan
5. UM


Fixed

[Eaglesfan27]

As an OSU fan, I'd rather face Michigan again than USC but I think it should go in this order:

1. USC if they win out
2. Arkansas/UF if one finishes with one loss
3. UM

I think USC's secondary would be a tougher match up for Troy Smith and the WRs than UM's DBs. USC's WRs would give OSU's secondary problems just like Manningham and Arrington last night. Carroll is also a hell of a good coach and would have a few wrinkles ready for Ohio State.

Agree with all of this.

[HerRealName]

I don't think WVU gets enough credit either. If they even had an average defense, I'd put them right up there. I'd really enjoy a UM-WVU Rose Bowl if USC does go to the Championship game. That running game against UM's run defense would be an amazing match-up. I think UM would have too much offense for WVU but I'd love to see the other half of the game.

[SFL Cat]

Michigan because they won the neutral site game.

Actually if there was a rematch and Michigan won, but didn't dominate...i.e. another 3 point or so spread, I could see OSU and Michigan as co-national champs.

[JPhillips]

You're missing the point. Michigan would LOVE to play ohio state again because it'd be a title shot. Ohio State knows that a neutral site game with michigan would be a toss-up, they'd rather play some SEC team or USC (who'd score 40 on them also, but would give up 50).

Is that you Mike Hart?

[dime]

Total horse-hockey. Toss up? My ass. Without a repeat 3+ turnover game it wouldn't even be a contest. People seem to think this game was actually in question, without OSU giving Michigan MULTIPLE chances with the ball deep in their territory this game would have been a snooze fest with OSU winning by 3td's or more.

okay...so if it weren't for the OSU turnovers, which for some reason don't count...it wouldn't have been a close game.

let me try this out. if it weren't for OSU getting two fluke 60 yard TD runs right up the middle (which I will assume also don't count)...Michigan would have won easily. how am I doing?

[dime]

a neutral site game with michigan would be a toss-up

bolded for those of us with comprehension problems...

[Butter]

Simple question, would Notre Dame beating USC basically be enough to ensure a rematch? Or is it more complicated than that? I'm not sure how the numbers will shake out over the coming weeks based on who people are still to play, etc...

It's slightly more complicated than that. Florida COULD completely destroy both FSU and Arkansas and move up to #2 in the human polls. If they did that, they most likely would get the title shot. Short of that, we're looking at 2 USC wins = title game, a USC loss = UM in the title game.

Which would be completely ridiculous. That's why we need a playoff. This BCS formula tweaking every year just keeps getting it wrong. Removing SOS and quality win points have gifted #2 to Michigan. With them, USC would be a solid #2 right now rather than a hopeful #3.

[Ufer]

Here's something I don't get. Sports-media, who vote, saying Michigan is clearly #2 but Michigan shouldn't go to the Fiesta Bowl. I might not agree, but I can see arguments that USC is really #2 if they beat ND (or Florida if they beat Arkansas), so USC goes.

I thought the purpose of the BCS was to get rid of the crazy old system and try as best as we can to get the 2 best teams, or the 2 who had the best seasons, in the championship game. Now the media tries to introduce other personal rationalizations like "no rematches" (but I bet they'd have put Texas in the Fiesta if Texas had beaten K-State) or "no teams that don't win their conference" or "no teams with blue shirts" or whatever. And why not rematches? Happens in every other sport and in football at every other level.

Seems simple: If you think Michigan is second best, Michigan goes.

Clearly I'm a U-M fan, but I won't be too upset if we play in the Rose Bowl...unless they select ND to play OSU.

Great game. True, Ohio State dominated much of the game, but Michigan made key plays necessary to get back in it, and while Tressel outcoached Carr again, Michigan made adjustments and put more pressure on OSU in the second half. Very well officiated game. Troy Smith is a stud.

[saldana]

I thought the purpose of the BCS was to get rid of the crazy old system and try as best as we can to get the 2 best teams, or the 2 who had the best seasons, in the championship game. Now the media tries to introduce other personal rationalizations like "no rematches" (but I bet they'd have put Texas in the Fiesta if Texas had beaten K-State) or "no teams that don't win their conference" or "no teams with blue shirts" or whatever. And why not rematches? Happens in every other sport and in football at every other level.



this is an excellent point...if this were a basketball discussion, and Duke and UNC played a great, double overtime, buzzerbeater to decide game at Cameron during the season, and that was North Carolina's only loss of the season, all anyone would talk about for the rest of the season and the tournament would be how great it could be if they met again for the title. it would be a huge disappointment to all the talking heads if one of them lost in the tourney and UAB made it instead.

[Arles]

The difference in college football is that there are no playoffs. So, many feel that it's better to let a 1-loss team like USC or Florida (with a similar SOS) have a crack at OSU instead of Michigan getting a second crack at them. Michigan had it's chance to make the title game and it lost on the field. Florida or USC have not had that chance yet.

[RendeR]

okay...so if it weren't for the OSU turnovers, which for some reason don't count...it wouldn't have been a close game.

let me try this out. if it weren't for OSU getting two fluke 60 yard TD runs right up the middle (which I will assume also don't count)...Michigan would have won easily. how am I doing?


1 big run for a TD is a fluke, 2 is your D-line and linebackers sucking ass and getting beaten badly by a more powerful O-line. Stop trying to rationalize this, the game was NEVER really in question, without those turnovers the blue-badgers wouldn't have had a shot at a 14 point loss let alone 3.

[RendeR]

a neutral site game with michigan would be a toss-up

bolded for those of us with comprehension problems...


Why would a neutral site game make ANY difference in the outcome? The crowd noise would be just as bad, or are you still whining about the bad turf that BOTH teams had to deal with?

The only comprehension problems seem to be from those who think the Ann-Arbor Corn-rodents were actually IN that game?

Honestly, the Buckeyes will win the title because they are plainly and imply the best team in college football this season, period. I respect the Wolverines program, they consistantly put out a top 10 calibur effort year in and year out, but this year they are outclassed. I'm actually hoping for a rematch more now just to shut all this tripe up from those who are trying to find some validation for why their defense went to hell and their QB sucked wind after his first drive.

[Passacaglia]

1 big run for a TD is a fluke, 2 is your D-line and linebackers sucking ass and getting beaten badly by a more powerful O-line. Stop trying to rationalize this, the game was NEVER really in question, without those turnovers the blue-badgers wouldn't have had a shot at a 14 point loss let alone 3.

Are you still drunk from your celebration? A big run for a TD isn't about the D-line and linebackers -- it's about the secondary. Also, to say the game was never really in question is completely absurd -- if there was no late hit on Troy Smith when we stopped them on 3rd and 15, then the touchdown we scored would have tied it. You can say we might not have got the TD because Ohio State wouldn't be playing prevent, but to say the game was never in question was absurd.

Then again, to say the game was NEVER really in question is absurd anyway -- was the outcome known before the game started? Before the season started? Before football existed? But that's more semantics then anything else, I suppose.

Anyway, I've tried to avoid posting in this thread because I figure everyone knows my bias -- glad to see that hasn't stopped you!

[Passacaglia]

On the lighter side -- did any of you guys watch the game in Detroit? I thought it was hilarious how, after the game, Channel 7 cut to their reporter in Columbus. I thought he would talk to some of the Michigan guys, but he was talking to the Ohio State guys still on the field. The best interview he could get was Roy Hall (backup OSU receiver) and he asked him in about three different ways, his thoughts on a rematch...do you want a rematch, do you think Michigan deserves a rematch, do you think there will be a rematch, etc., and each time, Hall's answer was something along the lines of "I don't care, I'm just glad we won and we're going."

[Passacaglia]

Why would a neutral site game make ANY difference in the outcome? The crowd noise would be just as bad, or are you still whining about the bad turf that BOTH teams had to deal with?


I don't think you understand how crowd noise works.

[Bobble]

I thought the BCS was designed to determine who the one BEST team was, to get rid of split national titles. Michigan had their shot, played very well and lost. Someone else's turn. Otherwise if Michigan gets it's rematch and wins, Ohio State should get an old fashioned split national title.

All a rematch does for me is make that great game we all saw meaningless. That would suck.

[Passacaglia]

I thought the BCS was designed to determine who the one BEST team was, to get rid of split national titles. Michigan had their shot, played very well and lost. Someone else's turn. Otherwise if Michigan gets it's rematch and wins, Ohio State should get an old fashioned split national title.

All a rematch does for me is make that great game we all saw meaningless. That would suck.

So would you rather see an Ohio State - Boise State title game? I mean, everyone else had their shot and lost, right?

For the record, I agree with you about the possibility of the game being meaningless. But that's just what happens when everyone gets worked up over national titles, as opposed to conference titles. If college football were the way I'd like it to be, Ohio State would get to play in the Rose Bowl, and Michigan wouldn't. End of story. Let the pollsters do their thing, and no one would give a damn.

[RendeR]

Oh lord, talk about semantics...

Let me state the same opinion another way, maybe it will be more PC for you Pass...

This game was never as close as the score would indicate, Ohio State was clearly the better team as it won handily giving up a cheap score late after overcoming multiple turnovers and handling Michigan's vaunted defense with relative ease. Michigann had no real answer for the tOSU air attack and gave up 2 long runs for touchdowns to a pair of adequate but far from superior rb's.

better?

[st.cronin]

So would you rather see an Ohio State - Boise State title game? I mean, everyone else had their shot and lost, right?

For the record, I agree with you about the possibility of the game being meaningless. But that's just what happens when everyone gets worked up over national titles, as opposed to conference titles. If college football were the way I'd like it to be, Ohio State would get to play in the Rose Bowl, and Michigan wouldn't. End of story. Let the pollsters do their thing, and no one would give a damn.

Wow, I agree 100%.

[Leonidas]

We don't know for certain Michigan is the second best team. We do know for certain they aren't the best team as they lost their one chance to prove that. So why should a team that has just proven it isn't the best team be given another chance to win the title? And why should Ohio State have to beat Michigan twice to win the title while Michigan would only need to do it once with a rematch?

As for USC, while we know Michigan isn't the best team (since they blew that chance) we have no idea if USC is the best team or not. Assuming they win out, they should get the game as they have not played OSU yet.

And I'm finding a wierd phenomenon in all this. Online it seems all the UM folks are rationalizing or in flat out denial. Meanwhile all my friends and coworkers who are UM guys have told me they lost fair and square, were proud UM played so well, and didn't think a rematch would be as close since OSU made so many mistakes and still won the game. I wonder why so many UM folks online can't let this go while everyone I know in person has been extremely gracious about it.

[Passacaglia]

Oh lord, talk about semantics...

Let me state the same opinion another way, maybe it will be more PC for you Pass...

This game was never as close as the score would indicate, Ohio State was clearly the better team as it won handily giving up a cheap score late after overcoming multiple turnovers and handling Michigan's vaunted defense with relative ease. Michigann had no real answer for the tOSU air attack and gave up 2 long runs for touchdowns to a pair of adequate but far from superior rb's.

better?

For the most part, although you used 'never' pretty poorly again. Plus, I'm agree with dime, who pointed out that you're willing to overlook the turnovers, as if they don't make Ohio State a worse team. The two big runs were kind of flukes, but also likely something Tressel saw, that we routinely leave the middle of the field open on 2nd and short. I'm probably missing the point, though, since to me, the important thing is that Ohio State won.

[ChiMatt]

I don't know why Michigan is even in the discussion for the title game. Who have they beaten? Just a good, not great, Notre Dame team and Wisconsin that is average at best. The Big Ten is awful this year and should not have two teams in the title game as a reward.

[Passacaglia]

We don't know for certain Michigan is the second best team. We do know for certain they aren't the best team as they lost their one chance to prove that. So why should a team that has just proven it isn't the best team be given another chance to win the title? And why should Ohio State have to beat Michigan twice to win the title while Michigan would only need to do it once with a rematch?

As for USC, while we know Michigan isn't the best team (since they blew that chance) we have no idea if USC is the best team or not. Assuming they win out, they should get the game as they have not played OSU yet.

And I'm finding a wierd phenomenon in all this. Online it seems all the UM folks are rationalizing or in flat out denial. Meanwhile all my friends and coworkers who are UM guys have told me they lost fair and square, were proud UM played so well, and didn't think a rematch would be as close since OSU made so many mistakes and still won the game. I wonder why so many UM folks online can't let this go while everyone I know in person has been extremely gracious about it.

Why did the best team lose to Oregon State?

I'm not sure about the difference between online folks and reality. I'd like to think I'm the same both places. Maybe it's easier to get mad at people online. A lot of what you said about your friends fits me, except for the part about a rematch not being as close. Sure, OSU made mistakes, but Michigan did as well. I think you never know how a game like that will turn out.

[heybrad]

Why did the best team lose to Oregon State?

Doesn't matter to me. Michigan didn't win their conference. USC will win their conference.

[Eaglesfan27]

Why did the best team lose to Oregon State?

I'm not sure about the difference between online folks and reality. I'd like to think I'm the same both places. Maybe it's easier to get mad at people online. A lot of what you said about your friends fits me, except for the part about a rematch not being as close. Sure, OSU made mistakes, but Michigan did as well. I think you never know how a game like that will turn out.


USC had 24 guys out with injuries for that game. They were on their 5th string FB. Key players were out for the stretch where they played poorly. They are getting healthier now (despite losing Moody to an injury)and will continue to show that they are a very good team.

[Eaglesfan27]

Dola -

I'd like to see any other team survive the number of injuries USC has had this season and have such a good record. I haven't seen it happen this year at least.

[Bobble]

We don't know for certain Michigan is the second best team. We do know for certain they aren't the best team as they lost their one chance to prove that. So why should a team that has just proven it isn't the best team be given another chance to win the title? And why should Ohio State have to beat Michigan twice to win the title while Michigan would only need to do it once with a rematch?

Bingo.

[RendeR]

Dola -

I'd like to see any other team survive the number of injuries USC has had this season and have such a good record. I haven't seen it happen this year at least.


Hrm, perhaps this shows us not that USC is such a great team themselves but that they play in a vastly overrated conference? I hear chants of "The Big-Ten sucks" all over the place, but there are 3 big ten teams in teh top 10 and 2 of them are the best two teams in the nation top to bottom.

Seems to me a team so utterly decimated by injuries that pulls out that many wins might not be playing against top calibur opponents. I'm just sayin.

[st.cronin]

Hrm, perhaps this shows us not that USC is such a great team themselves but that they play in a vastly overrated conference? I hear chants of "The Big-Ten sucks" all over the place, but there are 3 big ten teams in teh top 10 and 2 of them are the best two teams in the nation top to bottom.

Seems to me a team so utterly decimated by injuries that pulls out that many wins might not be playing against top calibur opponents. I'm just sayin.

You are in a class with VPI when it comes to illuminating football conversation.

[heybrad]

Hrm, perhaps this shows us not that USC is such a great team themselves but that they play in a vastly overrated conference? I hear chants of "The Big-Ten sucks" all over the place, but there are 3 big ten teams in teh top 10 and 2 of them are the best two teams in the nation top to bottom.

Seems to me a team so utterly decimated by injuries that pulls out that many wins might not be playing against top calibur opponents. I'm just sayin.
OK, so we won't know until they play, right? Michigan had that chance in their own conference. I'll buy your argument if you're making it for Florida or Arkansas, but not Michigan.

[Leonidas]

Why did the best team lose to Oregon State?
And if you wanna use this line of reasoning then the only logical opponent for OSU would be Boise State as the only other team yet to lose to anybody.

[Ufer]

We don't know for certain Michigan is the second best team. We do know for certain they aren't the best team as they lost their one chance to prove that. So why should a team that has just proven it isn't the best team be given another chance to win the title? And why should Ohio State have to beat Michigan twice to win the title while Michigan would only need to do it once with a rematch?

As for USC, while we know Michigan isn't the best team (since they blew that chance) we have no idea if USC is the best team or not. Assuming they win out, they should get the game as they have not played OSU yet.

And I'm finding a wierd phenomenon in all this. Online it seems all the UM folks are rationalizing or in flat out denial. Meanwhile all my friends and coworkers who are UM guys have told me they lost fair and square, were proud UM played so well, and didn't think a rematch would be as close since OSU made so many mistakes and still won the game. I wonder why so many UM folks online can't let this go while everyone I know in person has been extremely gracious about it.

Imo, this and other arguments I read here are valid arguments why USC should go. "Michigan's defense isn't that good, so they're not really the second best team" "The game was never really in doubt" "Chad Henne sucks". Like I said, if USC wins out and goes, I'm not too upset. But I'll go back to my first point, that to say Michigan is the second best team, but let's pick someone else because [insert your favorite theory here], is dishonest and subverts the whole purpose of the BCS.

And I think my comments about the game were pretty gracious. I do think OSU is the better team and the best team in college football, though I think if they played 10 times, Michigan would win 3 or 4 out of 10. But Michigan was not "lucky" to get back into the game. If not for the personal foul, which was 100% the right call, OSU fans would've been saying "I can't believe we might lose." As often happens when one team, especially the inferior team, falls behind, they take chances and increase the pressure which can result in the other team making big plays (like Pittman's long TD) but also turnovers and mistakes.

I also thought the old sloppy Bowl system was fine. It's a bunch of college kids playing a game.

[Eaglesfan27]

Hrm, perhaps this shows us not that USC is such a great team themselves but that they play in a vastly overrated conference? I hear chants of "The Big-Ten sucks" all over the place, but there are 3 big ten teams in teh top 10 and 2 of them are the best two teams in the nation top to bottom.

Seems to me a team so utterly decimated by injuries that pulls out that many wins might not be playing against top calibur opponents. I'm just sayin.

Or it shows that USC is such a great program in the last 5 or so years that they attract amazing athletes to provide as much as depth as possible with the limited number of scholarships, but that those amazing athletes take time to develop and get experience. Hence, some close games, and an unfortunate loss to Oregon State in which USC almost pulled off an amazing comeback. Cal has a top 5 CB in the country and a very good team, yet USC pulled away in the second half. As those young players have gotten experience and their older players have come back from injuries, the team has improved. If USC shreds ND's defense which I expect they will and they beat UCLA, there is no valid reason they shouldn't go to the Title Game.

[Butter]

Thought experiment type question:

What if USC were unbeaten right now, and then went on to lose to UCLA. Would they drop behind Michigan in the standings, assuming Michigan would've been #3 rather than #2 after their loss to OSU? That would be a loss about equal to Oregon State in "badness".

[Vinatieri for Prez]

My 2c. Michigan has beaten nobody really. They had their shot. Big 10 is overrated most years, including this one, by the media/polls. Calling two long runs on Michigan flukes is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. Yes, I would rather see Boise State than a rematch.

[Passacaglia]

My 2c. Michigan has beaten nobody really. They had their shot. Big 10 is overrated most years, including this one, by the media/polls. Calling two long runs on Michigan flukes is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. Yes, I would rather see Boise State than a rematch.

To be fair, I don't think anyone called the two long runs flukes until it was said that the three turnovers were flukes.

[Arles]

Hrm, perhaps this shows us not that USC is such a great team themselves but that they play in a vastly overrated conference? I hear chants of "The Big-Ten sucks" all over the place, but there are 3 big ten teams in teh top 10 and 2 of them are the best two teams in the nation top to bottom.
That's because, in the Pac-10, everyone plays everyone. Plus, teams in the Pac-10 actually have a real non-conference schedule. USC plays everybody, Cal played Tennessee, Oregon played OK, OSU played Boise, Arizona played LSU, ...

So, I guess if a team like Cal scheduled Bowling Green, Buffalo, Western IL and SDSU in non-conference and were fortunate enough not to have to play USC (a la Wisconsin), they would probably be in the top 10 now as well. Of course, it wouldn't make them a better team.

Seems to me a team so utterly decimated by injuries that pulls out that many wins might not be playing against top calibur opponents. I'm just sayin.
The top 4 teams in the Pac-10 played (or will play) 7 nationally ranked non-conference teams. The top 4 in the Big 10 played 3. It could just be that the entire Big 10 is crud outside of Michigan and OSU and we just don't know because they didn't play anyone.

[RendeR]

The top 4 teams in the Pac-10 played (or will play) 7 nationally ranked non-conference teams. The top 4 in the Big 10 played 3. It could just be that the entire Big 10 is crud outside of Michigan and OSU and we just don't know because they didn't play anyone.



It could also be that the Big-Ten is of a higher calibur all around, save perhaps Illinois. Every other team had at least 4 wins. The top 5 teams had at least 8 wins. Interestingly enough if you look at a very good PSU squad, their 4 losses can againt MU, OSU, UW, and ND, not a disparaging season to have losses to top teir teams and only 1 of those was a blowout loss (ND, who in turn got destroyed by UM)

Minnesota Is another case, 6-6 doesn't look great, but then you see their losses: OSU, MU, UW, PSU, Perdue, and Cal and I'm hard pressed to consider that weak in any way.

I Won't argue Wisconsin, they played a weak ass schedule, and that is one knock in the whole overall argument I'm trying to make, if Wisconsin plays someone tough, do they play well or get boned? They were handled fairly easily by MU but it wasn't a blowout so I can't say losing to the second best team in the nation is too big a downer. Purdue with 8 wins played a solid schedule as well with one major hiccup in their loss to Iowa.

7 teams going to bowls out of 11 total also stamps the conference as solid quality wise. Is it the Big-Ten's fault that they play one another and ruin records accordingly?

[astrosfan64]

That's because, in the Pac-10, everyone plays everyone. Plus, teams in the Pac-10 actually have a real non-conference schedule. USC plays everybody, Cal played Tennessee, Oregon played OK, OSU played Boise, Arizona played LSU, ...

So, I guess if a team like Cal scheduled Bowling Green, Buffalo, Western IL and SDSU in non-conference and were fortunate enough not to have to play USC (a la Wisconsin), they would probably be in the top 10 now as well. Of course, it wouldn't make them a better team.


The top 4 teams in the Pac-10 played (or will play) 7 nationally ranked non-conference teams. The top 4 in the Big 10 played 3. It could just be that the entire Big 10 is crud outside of Michigan and OSU and we just don't know because they didn't play anyone.

While your point has some merrit, it is also bit overblown.

Cal played 1 good out of conference team. Tennesee, which at the time wasn't considered the best SEC team.

USC played Arkansas which at the time was definately not considered a top SEC team.

Oregon playing Oklahoma is legitimate.

OSU played Boise umm.... non BCS teams now are considerded top games?

Arizona playing LSU is legitimate.

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

Now lets look at the other conferences.

Big 10
Ohio State played Texas
Penn State played ND
Michigan played ND
Purdue played ND

SEC
The worst of the bunch --
Tenn played CAL
Arkansas played USC
LSU vs Arizona is a bit weak for LSU

The rest was garbage

Every conference is pretty much like the above pattern. You have a few teams that play a good team from another conference. Other then that, they schedule mid majors or bad teams from good conferences.

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

SEC is the most overrated.
Big East is most underrated.

Big 10 and PAC 10 are probably the two "best" conferences right now, with the Big East and Big 12 following right behind them.

[Eaglesfan27]

Cal played 1 good out of conference team. Tennesee, which at the time wasn't considered the best SEC team.

USC played Arkansas which at the time was definately not considered a top SEC team.




What they were considered is irrelevant. How good they turned out to be is what is important. Pre-season and early season rankings are meaningless. Arkansas has proven it is a good team by beating everyone else. USC's win over them is not diminished in any way by people not realized that Arkansas was talented.

Ditto for Cal and Tennessee to a lesser extent.

[Arles]

It could also be that the Big-Ten is of a higher calibur all around, save perhaps Illinois. Every other team had at least 4 wins. The top 5 teams had at least 8 wins. Interestingly enough if you look at a very good PSU squad, their 4 losses can againt MU, OSU, UW, and ND, not a disparaging season to have losses to top teir teams and only 1 of those was a blowout loss (ND, who in turn got destroyed by UM)
There are two ways to look at this - the Big 10 was a very good conference top to bottom. Or the Big 10 had two very good teams and a bunch of ave to below average teams. And, the problem I have is that there's really no way of telling which is true. Outside of Ohio State (texas, michigan) and michigan (Wisconsin, ND), there isn't a top 25 win in the conference.

So, out of 11 teams, that's 4 total top 25 wins by 2 teams (only 2 non conf). Look at the Pac 10, you have 4 teams combining for 7 top 25 wins (4 non conf). And you have two winnable remaining games against top 25 teams (OSU v Hawaii and USC v ND). The crazy thing is that even with all these extra nonconference wins, the pac-10 played fewer nonconference games than the big 10 (Pac-10 had 9 conf games per team, Big 10 had 8).

Minnesota Is another case, 6-6 doesn't look great, but then you see their losses: OSU, MU, UW, PSU, Perdue, and Cal and I'm hard pressed to consider that weak in any way.
Look at UCLA and Arizona. UCLA has 5 losses against Notre Dame, Oregon, Washington State, Wash and Cal (and a game against USC coming up). Arizona has 5 losses against LSU, USC, Wash, UCLA and Oregon State.

The one thing you will notice is that most average and above Pac-10 teams normally have one good outside of the conference loss and even one decent OOC win against a different noconf team - Arizona (W-BYU, L-LSU), Cal (W-Min, L-Ten), UCLA (W-Utah, L-ND), WSU (L-Auburn), OSU (W-Haw?, L-BSU). Had those teams played a scedule like Wisconsin, Iowa, Indiana or even Penn State (Akron, Youngstown, Temple, ND), they could each be in the 7-10 win range instead of the 6-9 they figure to end up now.

I Won't argue Wisconsin, they played a weak ass schedule, and that is one knock in the whole overall argument I'm trying to make, if Wisconsin plays someone tough, do they play well or get boned? They were handled fairly easily by MU but it wasn't a blowout so I can't say losing to the second best team in the nation is too big a downer. Purdue with 8 wins played a solid schedule as well with one major hiccup in their loss to Iowa.
Purdue and Wisconsin have a total of 19 wins - zero are against top 25 teams. Heck, out of their combined 24 games, only 3 were against the top 25 (0-3). Against the top 30, they are 1-4 (the lone win being Wisconsin's win over Penn State). Plus, neither team even played the best team in their conference (Ohio State). They are both the best examples of "paper bowl teams" in the country. Each time these teams played a team with a pulse, they got beat. Thankfully, for them, those games were few and far between.

7 teams going to bowls out of 11 total also stamps the conference as solid quality wise. Is it the Big-Ten's fault that they play one another and ruin records accordingly?
Right now the Pac-10 figures to get either 6 or 7 as well (with one fewer team). And that's with their conference playing a much tougher non-conference road and with every conference team facing both USC and Cal (unlike the BYEs some Big 10 teams got against OSU and Michigan).

[MJ4H]

Doesn't the SEC have 9 bowl eligible teams? I'd have to check on that but it seems like I read that the other day.

edit: yes vandy, ole miss, and miss. state are the only ones with less than 6 wins.

[astrosfan64]

What they were considered is irrelevant. How good they turned out to be is what is important. Pre-season and early season rankings are meaningless. Arkansas has proven it is a good team by beating everyone else. USC's win over them is not diminished in any way by people not realized that Arkansas was talented.

Ditto for Cal and Tennessee to a lesser extent.

Eaglesfan:

It depends on the agrument.

If you make the argument that this conference didn't schedule anyone good, but this conference did schedule top opponents it matters who you "thought" you were scheduling.

Example: I'm USC, by choosing Arkansas as an opponent I'm NOT taking a top 10 to 20 team. I'm thinking, I'm getting a midlevel BCS team, that has ocassional really good seasons.

But now that Win is against a top 10 team and it gives the appearence that you went out of your way to schedule a tough opponenet.

Example 2: at the beginning of the season Ohio State vs Texas a bigger out of conference game then Arkansas vs USC?

I believe that "voters" punish teams that didn't schedule tough opponents out of conference. If that is a case, then they need to think about how "good" the team was supposed to be when they scheduled those games.

[Joe]

Minnesota Is another case, 6-6 doesn't look great, but then you see their losses: OSU, MU, UW, PSU, Perdue, and Cal and I'm hard pressed to consider that weak in any way.


Minnesota sucks. Half of their wins came against Kent State, Temple, and North Dakota State. In 4 games against top 25 teams, they were outscored 162-43.

[Eaglesfan27]

Eaglesfan:

It depends on the agrument.

If you make the argument that this conference didn't schedule anyone good, but this conference did schedule top opponents it matters who you "thought" you were scheduling.

Example: I'm USC, by choosing Arkansas as an opponent I'm NOT taking a top 10 to 20 team. I'm thinking, I'm getting a midlevel BCS team, that has ocassional really good seasons.

But now that Win is against a top 10 team and it gives the appearence that you went out of your way to schedule a tough opponenet.

Example 2: at the beginning of the season Ohio State vs Texas a bigger out of conference game then Arkansas vs USC?

I believe that "voters" punish teams that didn't schedule tough opponents out of conference. If that is a case, then they need to think about how "good" the team was supposed to be when they scheduled those games.


Arkansas has shown signs that they were going to improve (granted not this much improvement) for a few years. Therefore, you can't make the inference of what USC thought they were getting when they scheduled them. The fact of the matter is they crushed Arkansas and that is Arkansas' only loss and they have beat some very good teams. Therefore, that has to help one's view of USC.

[timmynausea]

I do give USC some credit for beating Arkansas, but the Hogs have come a long way since then, too. I think it's valid to say that a week 1 win over Arkansas is not equal to beating them at this point in the season.

Sometimes a young football team doesn't come together until a few games in. I remember a few years ago West Virginia got beat by Maryland 34-7 early in the year, and things couldn't have looked worse. By a month or so later, WVU had completely turned it around and destroyed #3 Virginia Tech 28-7.

Maybe it isn't quite that extreme with Arkansas, but I think it's clear that they are currently a much better team than the one USC faced a couple months ago.

[k0ruptr]

I just can't see USC who lost to Oregon St. who lost to a WAC(most likely 2 WAC teams) deserving to play in the BCS championship. If Florida wins the SEC championship, they deserve it before USC.

[Arles]

I just can't see USC who lost to Oregon St. who lost to a WAC(most likely 2 WAC teams) deserving to play in the BCS championship. If Florida wins the SEC championship, they deserve it before USC.
USC lose by two points on the road with 24 players on the injured list (including 7 starters that didn't play - two of whom were impact offensive players).

You can use your logic and state "I refuse to believe a national championship contender to be one that had a non-conference schedule full of directional schools". While USC was preparing for their late season non-conference match against Notre Dame, Florida was facing off against 2-9 Western Carolina of the powerhouse Southern conference.

When a team like USC plays all 12 games against BCS conference foes, 10 of which of Bowl eligible (4 in the top 25), chances are they will lose a tough game on the road against one of these teams. Maybe if they would have scheduled some powder puff directional schools as "pseudo-BYE" weeks, they could have rested some players and avoid some of their injuries. But, while Florida was coasting against such stalwarts as Southern Miss, Central Florida and the aforementioned Catamounts, USC was/will be battling top 25 foes Arkansas, Nebraska and Notre Dame.

But, if all this is too subjective, there are some analytical ways to look at it:

1. SOS: USC is #3, Florida #36
2. Top win: USC is #5, Florida is #9
3. Top 25 wins: USC has 3, Florida has 2
4. Top 25 non-conf wins: USC has 2, Florida has 0
5. Record vs. top 30: USC is 5-1, Florida is 2-1

Heck, despite playing a tougher schedule, USC even has a greater margin of victory (16.9) than Florida (16.6). Just about anyway you slice it, USC has had a better season when you look at the numbers.

[k0ruptr]

I guess (can't believe I'm saying this) but I'll be rooting for Notre Dame against USC then.

[Arles]

I guess (can't believe I'm saying this) but I'll be rooting for Notre Dame against USC then.
Heck, if ND beats USC, I'll hop right on the Florida bandwagon as I think they are the 2nd most deserving of a title shot. But, I don't see that happening.

[astrosfan64]

Heck, if ND beats USC, I'll hop right on the Florida bandwagon as I think they are the 2nd most deserving of a title shot. But, I don't see that happening.

I think WV is more deserving then all of them. They lost 1 game to the number 5 rated team....because of 2 fluke fumbles when a guys arm went numb.

WV deserves a title shot.

[st.cronin]

How in God's name did Minnesota win 6 games this year? The times I saw them play they looked like the worst team in the country.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Oh, that answer's easy. 3 powder puff non-conference games and 3 against crappy Big 10 teams. This is standard fare for Big 10 teams. It's actually almost impossible not to win 5-6 games a season as a Big 10 team, no matter how lousy you are.

[Atocep]

This would be the perfect year to have the old computer ratings with margin of victory factored in instead of the toned down computer rankings we have now. There's too many teams that have some claim to the being #2 and its an endless circle of arguements as to which team is more deserving. Media and fans will always push for their team or a team from their conference if given the opportunity and this year is a great example.

In short, give me the top 2 computer rated teams with margin of victory factored in. Its the only way to come even remotely close to removing personal biases from the equation.

One thing that is especially funny about the OSU-Michigan game is they play a 42-39 game and its a classic. WVU-Lousiville play a high scoring game and its proof that the Big East shouldn't be taken seriously as a conference.