Keep the BCS or adopt Div I-A playoff
hobart4281
Posts: 376 ✭
in Sports Talk
Here we go again...assuming USC beats UCLA, we will have no clear consensus as to who should be playing in the championship game versus Ohio State. Weigh in with your thoughts.
I'd like to see a playoff.........
I'd like to see a playoff.........
Collecting:
Dallas Cowboys
SuperBowl MVPs
Heisman Trophy Winers
Dallas Cowboys
SuperBowl MVPs
Heisman Trophy Winers
0
Comments
I heard talk of a possible rematch between Notre Dame and Michigan in the Rose Bowl. Tell me if that is fair! Why is it that Notre Dame can get a second chance to try and beat a team in a BCS bowl game, but Michigan can't?
For all those people out there that don't think Ohio State should have to beat Michigan a second time......I know there isn't a playoff system, but how many times in other sports...NCAA basketball, hockey, volleyball, baseball, NHL, NBA, MLB...........how many times in the course of a regular season do you think the losing team in the championship game had to face the winner during the regular season? It happens all the time! If Michigan is the second best team after the regular scheduled season, they should get a crack at the championship even though they already played the #1 team.
What if Ohio State and Michigan had faced one another the first game of the season, then both teams ran through the rest of their schedule undefeated and were ranked #1 and #2........GAME ON, correct? Yep!
Regular season hyped up games (such as last night and OSU v MICH) won't be as significant but it doesn't seem to hurt any other sport
The other bowls can remain as is.
College presidents complain about extending the season too long...but the IVY LEAGUE does it, so why not everyone else? Only D1-A, at all levels of organized football, doesn't have a playoff. I respect the history and tradition of the bowls and all, but I think if there was a will to change it in a way that incorporated the bowls, it could be done.
<< <i>I heard talk of a possible rematch between Notre Dame and Michigan in the Rose Bowl. Tell me if that is fair! Why is it that Notre Dame can get a second chance to try and beat a team in a BCS bowl game, but Michigan can't? >>
Because they're Notre Dame. Period.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
<< <i>Ohio State is the best team this year and it seems USC is the only remaining team that could give them a game. >>
Did you not see the OSU-Michigan game? Losing by three on the road isn't exactly not being "able to give them a game."
<< <i>The top 8 teams have been playing each other. If Michigan wants in ahead of other one loss teams beef up the schedule and get rid of the cupcakes. Compare the strength of schedules between SC and Michigan. Its not that Michigan is penalized for ending its season, its because SC's is and wasn't over and wins keep adding computer points. Auburn didn't get it because it played a Michigan like schedule a couple of years ago. >>
Ya see Mikey, that seems to be a misconception this season to some degree. Don't get me wrong, Michigan didn't play multiple studs but who does for the most part. Their schedule is currently ranked 13th by the BCS, so that's not too bad at all if you really consider it. There are only 3 teams in the top 15 with a tougher schedule ranking than them (USC, Cal, Tennessee), so they played a tougher schedule than most big teams. Michigan is hurting in the BCS polls because of the "human factor". The computers used in the BCS that dictate the value of a win/loss by the strength of a team you play and their schedule has Michigan ahead of USC (really seems to be the only factor that matters IMO) considering the fact that both teams have a schedule ranking in the top 20. Conversely, Ohio St is ranked 36th & Florida is 27th. The other computers which basically only factors the points a team scores has USC ahead because they scored more points during the season. But they also factor in the human polls. The human polls all have USC ahead of Michigan because as most of you said, you don't want to see a rematch and neither does most of the country. Why? Because they either like Florida or USC, they follow a different conference, hate good college football
BTW, I know it means little but look at the comparisons between Michigan and USC versus Notre Dame. This game is really only of the only ways to try to compare the teams. Again, it doesn't mean much at all but just interesting. These were written in an article by a sports guy on Yahoo.
Michigan had the edge over USC against Notre Dame in the following categories:
Points for: 47-44 (3).
Points against: 21-24 (3).
Total yards allowed: 273-404 (131).
Rushing yards allowed: 32-130 (98).
Passing yards allowed: 241-274 (33).
Turnovers forced: 5-1 (4).
Rushing yards: 148-139 (9)
USC, meanwhile held slight edges in just two categories:
Net offensive yards: 404-368 (36).
Passing yards: 265-220 (45).
Yahoo column
Consider also that Michigan also dominated Notre Dame at South Bend while USC played at home.
Back on to the point, a playoff wouldn't solve anything either. If you have eight teams, the ninth would be bytching about being left out. Make it 16, and 5 other bubble teams could make their arguement for being included. We would still be in the same situation. How does anyone not see that? In the end, the BCS and a playoff would both be junk unless they got rid of preconference games and simply had the conference winners put into a playoff.
Otherwise, how do we really know that a team like Boise St couldn't beat any of the teams mentioned?
As to the BCS in general, any system where you can finish the regular season ranked #3 in the nation and have absolutely no chance at a national championship is absurd. Even if #1 and #2 are both undefeated and #3 has one loss, it is still absurd. This year there is a pretty good chance we could have multiple teams finish with one loss with no undefeated ones. One gets to be champ for no other reason than because the BCS says so. Divison 1-A football is the only level of any major collegiate sport that does not have a playoff. They continue to shout education!!, education!! Oh gee, we would have a playoff, bu it t will take to much to much time from their academics if we have a playoff. Meanwhile, they have extended the season by a game and the bowl season by a week. If you kept the 12 game regular season and the Conference Championship games, you could still finish a 16 team playoff by New Years Day. In case anyone is keeping score that is 8 days sooner than the Bowl schedule ends. I cannot believe that School Presidents and ADs think they can pull the wool over our eyes with this education crap, when we all know the real reason they refuse to have a playoff. THE BOWL MONEY!!!!. It is time to get rid of the stupid assinine BCS and have a playoff. Wouldn't it be great to have a real national champ like in other sports.
<< <i>It will be the biggest fraud and insult to our intelligence that the BCS has birthed yet if Michigan gets into the championship game. Far mor so if they win. If Ohio State wins, people will say USC or Florida is better, and they should be NCAA champs. They will say their team would have beaten Ohio State if they played. It proves very little for Ohio State to beat a team a second time, particularly a conference foe they are so familiar with. If MIchigan wins, we will have a situation where Ohio State and Michigan will both be 12-1, and have beaten each other once. Michigan then gets to be National Champs because the game they won happens to be titled the National Championship Game? For what reason is Michigan then the national champ? They are for all intents and purposes dead even with Ohio State at that point. It is absurd and insulting to call them the Champs in that situation. In short, no matter who wins it will be a mess. Happened with
Florida/Florida St in '97 and we all survived it
As to the BCS in general, any system where you can finish the regular season ranked #3 in the nation and have absolutely no chance at a national championship is absurd. Even if #1 and #2 are both undefeated and #3 has one loss, it is still absurd. This year there is a pretty good chance we could have multiple teams finish with one loss with no undefeated ones. One gets to be champ for no other reason than because the BCS says so. Divison 1-A football is the only level of any major collegiate sport that does not have a playoff. They continue to shout education!!, education!! Oh gee, we would have a playoff, bu it t will take to much to much time from their academics if we have a playoff. Meanwhile, they have extended the season by a game and the bowl season by a week. If you kept the 12 game regular season and the Conference Championship games, you could still finish a 16 team playoff by New Years Day. In case anyone is keeping score that is 8 days sooner than the Bowl schedule ends. I cannot believe that School Presidents and ADs think they can pull the wool over our eyes with this education crap, when we all know the real reason they refuse to have a playoff. THE BOWL MONEY!!!!. It is time to get rid of the stupid assinine BCS and have a playoff. Wouldn't it be great to have a real national champ like in other sports. >>
LOL, biggest fraud? Insult to your intelligence? You're killin' me. Sounds like it's important to you (the new guy or alt???) if USC makes it in.
So a one-loss team like USC or Florida would say they should be champions because they would have beaten an undefeated Ohio St? Did someone put draino in your crack rock? If USC plays OSU and wins, can't Florida say they would have beaten either team if they win in their bowl game? Can't Michigan claim that they can beat Oregon St or Auburn and only lost to OSU because it was in Columbus?
Also, as mentioned above, the fact that Michigan could be crowned champion if they won after losing to a team earlier is what happens in many other sports as mentioned above. Using Michigan in the 1989 NCAA Basketball Touney, they beat their conference rival Illinois by 2 in the Final Four to reach the championship game. The same Illinois team that spanked them twice during the regular season. How can Michigan be better than a higher rated team that has a better record and beat them twice?
<< <i>As to the point about a playoff not being a good option because no matter what teams will be whining about not getting in. This is absurd. They have a 64 team playoff for Division ! basketball that nobody says is a bad idea. Schools always whine every single year about not getting in. This is a fact of any playoff system. Every team is not supposed to get into the playoffs. This is what makes it a playoff. A collegiate playoff system is not doing its job right if nobody is complaining about not getting in. You cannot please everybody. The reason schools complain about not getting in is the need for the human factor in deciding at-large bids. There are too many factors that must be considered that don't show up in the won-loss record to depend on record alone. The two most obvious being quality of opponents and conference. This is where RPI comes into play in Basketball If you have ever watched the Division 1-AA playoffs then you know that playoffs work and are much more exciting than bowl games where only one of them even counts for anything. Hell, if you have watched the NCAA Basketball tournament or any pro sport playoff you know this. Lastly, at least with a playoff you have to beat at least 3 of the top teams in the country to win it, 4 if it is a 16 team playoff. If there is a concern about money for teams not making the playoffs keep some of the bowls around for bowl eligible non-playoff teams. >>
Lets say we have 8 teams in a playoff. Consider a team like Boise St this year. Their not in the top 8, but they're undefeated. Do they deserve to be in? How can you guarantee that they couldn't beat all of these teams? In basketball, it works because they invite sooooo many teams that the teams that are on the bubble generally still suck. In football, 8 would not be enough this year in my opinion. So how many would be enough? 16? Then what happens when a 3 loss team wins it all, even though they lost to two of the undefeated teams in the tourney during the regular season but were never forced to face them in the playoff? Are they just the champions? How is that any different than putting Michigan in over USC? There is none.
<< <i>Whether its human or computer polls it is still subjective. It should be decided on the field. >>
Again, I'm sure we all agree with this but who's ranked in the top 8 (if 8 teams were allowed) would still be decided by some friggin writers or a computer. As I mentioned, a team like Boise St wouldn't be in the current top 8 at this point and any undefeated team ranked in the top 10 should be in IMO. So how would they eliminate this? My point is simply that there's always going to be some form of arguement as to why one team deserves it over another. Whether it be the current BCS format or a playoff, deciding who belongs where is always going to be debatable.
Either man up your schedule or beat Ohio State. If you had beaten another quality team then you would have a good argument. Don't throw Wisconsin at me as they played nobody and we don't have a clue how good they are. A team that doesn't play the cream puff game deserves to play in the game before a team that does, it really is just that simple.
<< <i>I say it should still be Michigan. Why should they drop just because their season ended a couple weeks earlier than everyone else? They finished off what they had to do and then lost their only game to the consensus #1 team in the nation. They were ranked up high all season for some reason! >>
ditto
<< <i>The top 8 teams have been playing each other. If Michigan wants in ahead of other one loss teams beef up the schedule and get rid of the cupcakes. Compare the strength of schedules between SC and Michigan. Its not that Michigan is penalized for ending its season, its because SC's is and wasn't over and wins keep adding computer points. >>
Yeah
cause you have to play all those tough teams that the Notre Dames did this year like
Stanford
UCLA
NAVY
North Carolina
Air Force
and
Army
now THAT is a smokin hot schedule just loaded with tough games!
and even their other games were mostly crap that just sounded good, like
Georgia Tech
Penn State
Michigan State
Purdue
so really the ONLY good teams they played this year were MICHIGAN and USC
and if I remember correctly they LOST both of of those games!
PLUS, the Notre Dames have no one to blame but themselves for their pathetic schedule, because they are not tied to a conference, like Michigan is.
<< <i>ND isn't in the picture so why bring it up, you can cry all you want about Michigan not going to the game unless UCLA beats SC, but blame it on yourselves, you had the chance to beat OSU and didn't, you played an easier schedule by your choice. Quit whining. Schedule someone out of conference in addition to ND that can compete with you. In the last 5 games we beat you 3 times so whine about that. >>
The truth of the matter is simply that as weak of a out-of-conference schedule as Michigan has, it's tougher than most of the teams in the top 30. Sure, they played the MAC a couple of times but at least they're Div1 and Central is even the West leader. They also played an SEC school. They may not have a good record, but they did give good games to Florida & Arkansas and even beat Georgia. A gamey team like Vanderbilt is still a better team than most of the other teams that the big schools schedule like UCF, Western Carolina, Louisiana-Lafayette, Louisiana-Monroe, Troy, Northern Illinois, etc... Michigan didn't schedule 3 top 10 teams, but who did?
Further, you say that Michigan shouldn't throw Wisconsin in there because they beat nobody worth mentioning, but the same could be said for Nebraska (USC opponent). The best team they beat is A&M which is pretty decent, but probably no better than Penn St which is the conference equivalent for Wisconsin.
Look, you had your chance at going to the national title game - and you lost. There's no do overs.
USC has dominated against very good teams, and took the #6 team in the land to the woodshed. They are a very deserving #2 and, avoiding a complete meltdown against UCLA, will take their rightful place against OSU for the national title.
<< <i>Are the michigan fans *still* whining?
Look, you had your chance at going to the national title game - and you lost. There's no do overs.
USC has dominated against very good teams, and took the #6 team in the land to the woodshed. They are a very deserving #2 and, avoiding a complete meltdown against UCLA, will take their rightful place against OSU for the national title. >>
I don't recall whining. I'm stating my points and making an arguement against others. I believe they call this a discussion. You may prefer to whine, incite and argue, but I find a discussion to be much more stimulating and satisfying to ones intelligence
USC had their chance to prove they could be an elite team, but then went out and got smacked by a team that doesn't instill fear in the country's superior teams. Any team that loses a game to a 4-loss team doesn't deserve to be considered for the national title. As far as the ND game, Michigan handily beat them as well and actually proved to be more dominant in their match up against them. Again, the fact that a large majority of voters feel that Michigan is actually better than USC but only voted for USC to see a different match up indicates USC really isn't in their "rightful place" in the championship game. The funny thing is, this same situation will probably arise next year and you will be crying to all of us saying that USC lost to a better team than whoever is going in, even if the other team played a perceived tougher schedule.
<< <i>Did you not see the OSU-Michigan game? Losing by three on the road isn't exactly not being "able to give them a game." >>
I did... OSU played a terrific game with the exception of some bad snaps that resulted in turn overs. Michigan never gave up and I think they have been given the respect they deserve in loosing a well played game. The OSU-Michigan game should be played in Columbus or Ann Arbor. Another conference deserves a chance and now Michigan needs to show it was worthy of a second chance by prevailing in the Rosebowl and they still can be the second ranked team at the end of the season.
The reality of naming a National NCAA Football Champion this day and age is that everyone is a critic... right or wrong... rarely is everyone satisfied in this process and that is just the way it is. If Michigan played OSU again and lost, then the Big Ten would have the usual suspects complaining about how unfair the process was... fine... let USC play OSU and let Florida or LSU play Michigan in the Rosebowl and let the Conference earn the respect it deserves.
FTR, the last three times Illinois beat Michigan it was at the Big House. Further, even Michigan has a winning record against OSU at Columbus... the only team in the Big Ten that does. My point is that the home field advantage is not what it once was in this rivalry.
I would rather have OSU and Michigan finish 1 and 2 at the end of the season and no question marks behind a 1 or 2 ranking for either team.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
<< <i>USC had their chance to prove they could be an elite team, but then went out and got smacked by a team that doesn't instill fear in the country's superior teams. Any team that loses a game to a 4-loss team doesn't deserve to be considered for the national title. As far as the ND game, Michigan handily beat them as well and actually proved to be more dominant in their match up against them. Again, the fact that a large majority of voters feel that Michigan is actually better than USC but only voted for USC to see a different match up indicates USC really isn't in their "rightful place" in the championship game. The funny thing is, this same situation will probably arise next year and you will be crying to all of us saying that USC lost to a better team than whoever is going in, even if the other team played a perceived tougher schedule.
>>
Oh here comes the crying.
If Michigan belonged in the title game, they'd have beaten OSU and EARNED their right to play for it.
As it is, they got beat, they will play in a very prominent BCS bowl, but they don't belong in the national title game.
You talk about USC losing to a 4 loss team, but fail to admit the number of cupcakes Michigan scheduled and beat. USC had the fourth toughest schedule in the country - hardly the cupcakes Michigan scheduled.
Why should a team be rewarded for losing a second chance to beat the same team for a national title? If they really deserved to be in that game, they would have BEATEN OSU, not LOST.
USC is going to give OSU everything they can handle and then some.
What was Oregon State's offensive total yards for the game? What was it for USC? I am not making excuses for USC BECAUSE THEY LOST FAIR AND SQUARE... My point is that fans expect perfection and that can not be delivered every week all the time. The USC program has had a terrific run over the past 3-4 years and it should not surprise anyone that they will likely be the team that plays Ohio State.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
<< <i>Oh here comes the crying.
If Michigan belonged in the title game, they'd have beaten OSU and EARNED their right to play for it.
As it is, they got beat, they will play in a very prominent BCS bowl, but they don't belong in the national title game.
You talk about USC losing to a 4 loss team, but fail to admit the number of cupcakes Michigan scheduled and beat. USC had the fourth toughest schedule in the country - hardly the cupcakes Michigan scheduled.
Why should a team be rewarded for losing a second chance to beat the same team for a national title? If they really deserved to be in that game, they would have BEATEN OSU, not LOST.
USC is going to give OSU everything they can handle and then some. >>
Nope, no crying either. I don't need to get into the childish tantrums some find themselves in here (no offense
Again, Michigan may have not had the toughest schedule in the country but it was not the easiest either. The 13th rated schedule isn't an accurate indication of their schedules difficulty, but it does provide insight into others scheduling and shows that Michigan scheduled in the same fashion most school do these days. Further, all of the teams that they played shouldn't be referred to as cupcakes. Cupcakes generally would be teams from 1AA conferences or even traditionally extremely terrible teams from 1A conferences. Michigan played ND, Vanderbilt, Central Michigan & Ball St. Vandy has a bad record, but does play in a major conference and played tough against some good teams like Florida and Arkansas and beat Georgia. Central only plays in the MAC, but they are the west leader and only lost by 7 to Boston College (AP, USA Today #25). If these teams are cupcakes, than Southern Cal also lost to a cupcake.
So I will say that any team who has lost to a cupcake, like Southern Cal has, shouldn't play for a championship IMO.
<< <i>
<< <i>Oh here comes the crying.
If Michigan belonged in the title game, they'd have beaten OSU and EARNED their right to play for it.
As it is, they got beat, they will play in a very prominent BCS bowl, but they don't belong in the national title game.
You talk about USC losing to a 4 loss team, but fail to admit the number of cupcakes Michigan scheduled and beat. USC had the fourth toughest schedule in the country - hardly the cupcakes Michigan scheduled.
Why should a team be rewarded for losing a second chance to beat the same team for a national title? If they really deserved to be in that game, they would have BEATEN OSU, not LOST.
USC is going to give OSU everything they can handle and then some. >>
Nope, no crying either. I don't need to get into the childish tantrums some find themselves in here (no offense
Again, Michigan may have not had the toughest schedule in the country but it was not the easiest either. The 13th rated schedule isn't an accurate indication of their schedules difficulty, but it does provide insight into others scheduling and shows that Michigan scheduled in the same fashion most school do these days. Further, all of the teams that they played shouldn't be referred to as cupcakes. Cupcakes generally would be teams from 1AA conferences or even traditionally extremely terrible teams from 1A conferences. Michigan played ND, Vanderbilt, Central Michigan & Ball St. Vandy has a bad record, but does play in a major conference and played tough against some good teams like Florida and Arkansas and beat Georgia. Central only plays in the MAC, but they are the west leader and only lost by 7 to Boston College (AP, USA Today #25). If these teams are cupcakes, than Southern Cal also lost to a cupcake.
So I will say that any team who has lost to a cupcake, like Southern Cal has, shouldn't play for a championship IMO. >>
There's really two ways to look at this. Either you're for the team that has the 'better' loss, in which case you're for Michigan, or you're for the team that had to travel the tougher road to get to 11-1, in which case you're for USC. In reality USC and Michigan (and OSU, and Florida, as far as that goes) are two similarly talented teams, so it really doesn't matter who gets to play OSU for the 'championship'.
Notre Dame is way out of the picture. They lost to Michigan and they lost to USC and played nobody in between. Not worth mentioning!
LSU is out because they already lost to Florida, played a weak non-conference schedule and aren't even in their conference championship game.
Florida still has a chance if they win the SEC, but throwing in a I-AA at the end of your season doesn't help anything.
USC.........USC is the love child of college football the last few years. They won some good games this year, struggled against the bad opponents and lost to an unranked Oregon State. When four of the crappiest teams in your conference, that don't even have winning records put up 20 or more points on you....there's a problem. Looking back, your only true "big" win of the year was against Arkansas.
Michigan........Michigan went all the way through their schedule undefeated and then ran into the #1 ranked team in the nation and gave them all they could handle. The problem is that this game took place the last game of the season. If it was in week one, they would be ranked #1 and #2 right now awaiting a rematch.
It shouldn't matter that the Ohio State vs Michigan game was the last week of the season. That was the regular scheduled season.....and now it's time for the two best teams to take the field in the post season National Championship. Forget the fact that they just played. The rankings aren't for one game, they are for the season as a whole. They earned those spots. If Michigan wins this one, split the Championship....it's been done before. I can guarantee that if it had been two different teams at #1 and #2 that played the last game of the season......let's just say USC and Notre Dame.....the rematch would be scheduled already.
Look, if they were deserving of a national title shot, they'd have WON instead of losing to OSU.
I don't understand the fascination with rewarding a program for losing the last game of the season. How often do teams lose their last game of the year and then get a spot in the national title game?
<< <i>Oh boy, the Michigan talk continues.
Look, if they were deserving of a national title shot, they'd have WON instead of losing to OSU. >>
Again, I say the same thing about USC. If they were deserving, they would have beaten OSU.
<< <i>I don't understand the fascination with rewarding a program for losing the last game of the season. >>
Why should it matter at what point in a season a team loses? Their toughest game was the last game, so the fact that they lost then is just scheduling. USC lost mid-season to an average team at best. Most argue that USC played a tougher out-of-conference schedule than did Michigan (and I don't disagree), but Michigan faced currently higher ranked conference foes than did USC and that gets discounted. Currently Ohio St and Wisconsin are ranked higher in all of the polls than anybody USC has faced the entire year, in or out of conference. Shouldn't that also be worth mentioning? In the end, there's no rewarding Michigan here. They had a better loss and played 2 higher ranked opponents than USC did all year. They dominated in nearly every game they should have, except for a close points outcome with BSU.
<< <i>How often do teams lose their last game of the year and then get a spot in the national title game? >>
Redirect. How often do the #1 & #2 teams play eachother to finish the regular season?
<< <i>How often do teams lose their last game of the year and then get a spot in the national title game? >>
Most recently in 2001 with Nebraska
<<I don't understand the fascination with rewarding a program for losing the last game of the season. How often do teams lose their last game of the year and then get a spot in the national title game?>>
I reply with this.........How often do teams lose to an unranked Oregon State team and get a spot in the national title game?
How often do teams allow a 5-7 Washington team to get down to the 15 yard line to set up the winnng score as time expires and get into a national title game?
How often do teams need an interception near the end zone on the last play of the game to hold on against a 6-6 Washington State team and get into a national title game?
How often do teams need a last minute touchdown to beat a 7-5 Arizona State team and get into a national title game?
How often do you get to play a 1-10 Stanford team that has ten wins combined over the last three years and get into a national title game?
A more deserving team would be one that went undefeated the entire season and only lost in the last game by three points to the BCS #1 undefeated team in the land. Over the course of the year they beat the BCS #7 by 14 points, the BCS #10 by 26 points, the first place MAC team by 24 points, their in-state rival by 18 points and all the rest of their opponents by at least 14 points each. I could also add that they led the nation in rush defense, only allowing 500 yards ALL YEAR. They also were second in time of possession. They controlled games, they didn't struggle to just hang on!
So if you still want to believe that a USC team like this is worthy of playing for a National Championship, you keep supporting them. They may very well win against Ohio State, but the crime here is letting them sneak in front of a more deserving team. If the BCS is going to be like this, they may as well skip the entire season and play the championship with their preseason picks!!!
<< <i>
<< <i>How often do teams lose their last game of the year and then get a spot in the national title game? >>
Redirect. How often do the #1 & #2 teams play eachother to finish the regular season? >>
Your lack of an answer tells me all I need to know.
Thank you.
Redirect. How often do the #1 & #2 teams play eachother to finish the regular season? >>
It would have happened this year if Ohio State would have lost to Michigan.
Who knows how many times #1 and #2 played the last game of the regular season....all I know is that it happened this year. In fact, it should have solidified Michigan's hold on the #2 spot because it was an all out battle and only a three point loss where you scored 39 points on the home team's field. To me, that would seem like a no brainer to keep them at #2 instead of bumping USC up. After all, you just took the #1 team for 39 points on their own field and USC beats a Notre Dame at home......the same teams you rolled earlier this season on their own field. Doesn't make any sense to me.
If Michigan deserved a spot in the title game, they'd have beaten OSU. Pretty simple actually. They knew what was on the line, they knew if they lost they'd be out of the hunt, especially if USC beat ND.
There's nothing anyone can say to convince me (or the people that really matter - the voters) to say michigan deserves a do over.
<< <i>There's nothing anyone can say to convince me (or the people that really matter - the voters) to say michigan deserves a do over. >>
Then there's no point in you discussing this matter any further.
You have made up your mind and won't change it regardless of what others say.
May I suggest you look at debates with more of an open mind in the future.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>How often do teams lose their last game of the year and then get a spot in the national title game? >>
Redirect. How often do the #1 & #2 teams play eachother to finish the regular season? >>
Your lack of an answer tells me all I need to know.
Thank you. >>
LOL, I don't have an answer to the question off the top of my head to yours, although I do know it's happened more frequently than #1 & #2 playing eachother at the end of the year in a conference game.
<< <i>I'll say it again.
If Michigan deserved a spot in the title game, they'd have beaten OSU. Pretty simple actually. They knew what was on the line, they knew if they lost they'd be out of the hunt, especially if USC beat ND.
There's nothing anyone can say to convince me (or the people that really matter - the voters) to say michigan deserves a do over. >>
You do realize what you're saying sounds silly, right? You're saying Michigan never got a chance to lose this season and play for the title, yet USC did? As I mentioned before, this weekend it was mentioned on FSN that the voters who responded from either the AP, USA Today or both polls did say by an overwhelming margin (over 80%) that they believed that Michigan should be #2, but they simply voted for USC because they wanted to see a different match up. Doesn't sound like a resounding vote for being the second best team, but I guess a guy like you thinks it's good enough.
Guess I'm not really sure why I even bother responding to you. It's kind of similar to trying to convince JS & skippy (possibly 2 of your alts) that FSU is a bad team well after they have lost their 4th game of the season.
Go UCLA
<< <i>LOL, I don't have an answer to the question off the top of my head to yours, although I do know it's happened more frequently than #1 & #2 playing eachother at the end of the year in a conference game. >>
To my knowledge (I'll say it again since it obviously got lost), last #2 to lose their last game only to play in the National Championship was Nebraska in 2001. Lost the Big 12 Championship and then to Miami for the BCS.
<< <i>but they simply voted for USC because they wanted to see a different match up. >>
That's the problem with the BCS; it's about ratings, not the best 2 teams.
Had USC not lost to the Beavers, we wouldn't be having this discussion because they would clearly be the #2 team. But since they lost early in the year to an unranked opponent, that makes them better than a team who's only loss was to the #1 team (by 3 and on the road)? Taking out any judgement (ie MICH had their chance, USC lost earlier, no rematches), how can anyone say that USC is the second best team in the nation?
It just isn't right but it's all that we got. For now......
They took the #6 team to the shed, absolutely destroying them. They've held their last 4 opponents to a combined score of less than 50. They've whooped up on Arkansas, beat Nebraska, beat Cal, beat Oregon.
They have as complete a resume as Michigan (if not more so), and they didn't schedule the cupcake out of conference games that Michigan did.
<< <i>Who's to say USC *isn't* the second best team in the nation?
They took the #6 team to the shed, absolutely destroying them. They've held their last 4 opponents to a combined score of less than 50. They've whooped up on Arkansas, beat Nebraska, beat Cal, beat Oregon.
They have as complete a resume as Michigan (if not more so), and they didn't schedule the cupcake out of conference games that Michigan did. >>
Michigan stomped ND and more impressively, including at South Bend... so that's not something in SC's favor IMO. Michigan also only had one of their victories within a touchdown (7 points) or less. Michigan played poor conference foes as USC did, but dominated them all and won by at least 14 points. They didn't lose to a chump cupcake team like SC. They've played 2 teams currently in the BCS top 7 while USC hasn't beaten or played one that's currently there.
Last week I was rooting for ND and this week I guess I'm left cheering for UCLA. I'm starting to feel like you Ax, cheering for teams all over the map.
As a Buckeye fan, I wouldn't mind seeing Michigan in the title game. It would be a Buckeye's dream to beat Michigan twice in the same year, including a title game. I am actually more concern about Dwayne Jarrett, Booty and USC's experience playing in their 3rd straight title game, than a Michigan team who was clearly out-played and was kept in the game by OSU mistakes. Unlike Michigan who can't win with +3 turnover, USC will probably turn those into 17 or 21 points.
What you have to ask yourself is, if Michigan plays USC, who do you think will win? Not what they have done up to this point, but who is the better team right now?
Bottom line, a playoff system will solve all of this, but I'm not holding my breath.
<< <i>Would all this have mattered if OSU didn't give up a lame TD + 2pt conversation when the game was over with 3+minutes left, and if the final score was 42-31? We all watched the game. You can't seriously tell me that you feel Michigan matched up well against OSU. The ideal situation (for general fans) is to have USC and Michigan play a semi-final game (and OSU plays Florida)
As a Buckeye fan, I wouldn't mind seeing Michigan in the title game. It would be a Buckeye's dream to beat Michigan twice in the same year, including a title game. I am actually more concern about Dwayne Jarrett, Booty and USC's experience playing in their 3rd straight title game, than a Michigan team who was clearly out-played and was kept in the game by OSU mistakes. Unlike Michigan who can't win with +3 turnover, USC will probably turn those into 17 or 21 points.
What you have to ask yourself is, if Michigan plays USC, who do you think will win? Not what they have done up to this point, but who is the better team right now?
Bottom line, a playoff system will solve all of this, but I'm not holding my breath. >>
Would it all have mattered if they didn't make a BS helmet to helmet contact call on a QB out of the pocket on 3rd down and 15? Michigan was down by 4 at that point (around 6 minutes left) and could have driven for the winning score. It's all specualtion, but both teams were not exactly stopping eachother so it certainly was possible. Michigan played from behind, but never more than 14. They still had a chance to take the lead near the end of the game if it wasn't for a stupid call.
And it will seem silly, but I'll ask myself...
Self? Yes? Do you think that Michigan or USC would win if they played? Hmmmm self, good question. I would have to say Michigan.
<< <i>BS helmet to helmet contact >>
<< <i>Text >>
<< <i>TextWould it all have mattered if they didn't make a BS helmet to helmet contact call on a QB out of the pocket on 3rd down and 15? Michigan was down by 4 at that point (around 6 minutes left) and could have driven for the winning score. It's all specualtion, but both teams were not exactly stopping eachother so it certainly was possible. Michigan played from behind, but never more than 14. They still had a chance to take the lead near the end of the game if it wasn't for a stupid call. >>
Could of, would of, should of..................how quickly those who call out the helmet to helmet penalty seem to forget that Michigan was given a HUGE break when OSU was called for roughing the long snapper on a punt. It was a weak call but the rule is in place to protect the player-->just like the helmet to helmet rule.
Dallas Cowboys
SuperBowl MVPs
Heisman Trophy Winers
<< <i>Could of, would of, should of..................how quickly those who call out the helmet to helmet penalty seem to forget that Michigan was given a HUGE break when OSU was called for roughing the long snapper on a punt. It was a weak call but the rule is in place to protect the player-->just like the helmet to helmet rule. >>
The rule is the rule and I'm not denying the fact that there was contact. The NCAA said that they were considering rules changes after the game though because the intent of the rules was to protect the QB from helmet-to-helmet contact within the pocket, not outside of it. The fact that a player cannot tackle the QB running the ball in the same manner that they can any other player is absurd, but it's just another way that the rules makers are F'ing up the game.
And don't get me wrong, not being able to hit the snapper is a silly rule as well. What game is football becomming? Please, not baseball 2.
Yea, and the rougher the snapper penalty was funny too. I have never heard of that before, I guess it's like a WR pick. It happens all the time but rarely get called.
According to the National Collegiate Athletic Association's 2005 Football Rules and Interpretations: "No player shall use his helmet (including the face mask) to butt or ram an opponent or attempt to punish him. There shall be no spearing. No player shall strike a runner with the crown or the top of his helmet...."
The NCAA also required a poster to be placed in every locker room to remind players of the rule. It's a shame they had to do this, but they don't teach tackling this way and never have. No one but the kid can claim to know what his intent was when he hit Smith, but sadly if you are a Michigan fan it might have cost you a National Championship. The kids are very aware of this rule.
<< <i>I may be wrong on this, but I thought that helmet to helmet rule applies to any hit on anyone at anytime. I thought anytime you lead with a helmet is a 15-yarder. Not sure. It doesn't make any sense that it's not ok to hit a QB (or anyone) in the head if he's in the pocket, but it's ok to do it out of pocket.
Yea, and the rougher the snapper penalty was funny too. I have never heard of that before, I guess it's like a WR pick. It happens all the time but rarely get called. >>
There must be intent to injure or harm, unless it's the QB and then apparently you cannot do it at all anywhere on the field. There's always helmet to helmet contact during the process of a game. It's nearly impossible to avoid it in many circumstances. The protection of the QB is still a mystery to me. I think many receivers are just as, if not more vulnerable than a QB during the course of a game.
Anywho, the official I saw on TV had said that the NCAA had adopted this rule with the intent of protecting the QB inside the pocket, but the rule doesn't specify this. The NCAA has considered amending the rule to include this terminology, but has yet to do so. In the end, a QB shouldn't be treated differently than any other player outside of the pocket.
<< <i>There must be intent to injure or harm, unless it's the QB and then apparently you cannot do it at all anywhere on the field >>
Could you provide us with a link or cut/paste job of where you obtained this info?
No offense DM, but it sure sounds like sour grapes. A shot like that will be called everytime, no matter what team/player.