USC spanking UM: Vindication for the BCS?
ndleo
Posts: 4,136 ✭✭✭✭✭
in Sports Talk
While I would love a playoff as much as anyone, I think the Rose Bowl outcome vindicates the BCS putting Florida in the title game. The BCS isn't perfect, but it is a lot better than before and it does a good job of putting the two best team together.
It however does punish great 1-2 loss teams, like USC, that could probably do damage in a playoff system.
It however does punish great 1-2 loss teams, like USC, that could probably do damage in a playoff system.
Mike
0
Comments
Sincerely,
The rest of the country
<< <i>A completely different Michigan from the one that played Nov. 18th showed up yesterday. >>
No it isn't. It's the exact same team. OSU would have run the Wolverines off the field the same way USC did if their center could figure out how to snap the damn ball. Anyone who thought that was really 'a three point game' wasn't watching the same game I was, because it seemed obvious to me from the start that UM was totally outclassed by the Buckeyes.
<< <i>
<< <i>A completely different Michigan from the one that played Nov. 18th showed up yesterday. >>
No it isn't. It's the exact same team. OSU would have run the Wolverines off the field the same way USC did if their center could figure out how to snap the damn ball. Anyone who thought that was really 'a three point game' wasn't watching the same game I was, because it seemed obvious to me from the start that UM was totally outclassed by the Buckeyes. >>
Michigan was outplayed, but hardly outclassed against OSU. USC is another matter. They outclassed Michigan by simple play calling. All they did was continually put pressure on Henne and Michigans coaches failed to adjust. As mentioned, Carr doesn't seem to understand that a game plan often has to be changed. He stays with his sets and rarely strays from them during a game. Until he changes this mentality, they will always struggle against teams with similar (or more) talent.
Concerning speed, Michigan has a team that's as fast as any they have ever had defensively. They kept up with USC's offense for the most part in the first half. By the second half, Michigans defense likely got tired because they were on the field so often because Michigans offense failed to sustain any long drives to give them a break. Their offense basically lacks speed with the exception of Breaston and Manningham, but that's designed for Big 10 play as most teams run, run, run in the conference. Speed itself didn't kill Michigan. Again, their failure to adjust to all of the blitzing killed them. They usually didn't keep enough bodies back to equal what USC was sending. But then again, Michigan always falls short in the Rose Bowl. They do well in the others, but the Rose has been a thorn for Michigan since I was born.
Was this game vindication for the BCS? No. If Florida gets spanked, it means nothing at all. Michigan losing to USC doesn't mean that Florida is better than Michigan. Also, Florida moved ahead of Michigan after they beat Arkansas, which everybody thought was a big deal. But then Arkansas went out and dumped it to Wisconsin, an underrated team IMO that suffered its only loss to Michigan. Further, there still remains arguments for a team like Boise IMO. They went undefeated and actually beat a good team in their bowl.
In the end, the BCS is still a joke. It's better than what we used to have, but still could be much better. Outcomes like this year with Michigan only hurts college football, as some see the choices for the championship game are vindicated and they then fail to consider that the BCS isn't the best solution for deciding a champion.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>A completely different Michigan from the one that played Nov. 18th showed up yesterday. >>
No it isn't. It's the exact same team. OSU would have run the Wolverines off the field the same way USC did if their center could figure out how to snap the damn ball. Anyone who thought that was really 'a three point game' wasn't watching the same game I was, because it seemed obvious to me from the start that UM was totally outclassed by the Buckeyes. >>
Michigan was outplayed, but hardly outclassed against OSU. USC is another matter. They outclassed Michigan by simple play calling. All they did was continually put pressure on Henne and Michigans coaches failed to adjust. As mentioned, Carr doesn't seem to understand that a game plan often has to be changed. He stays with his sets and rarely strays from them during a game. Until he changes this mentality, they will always struggle against teams with similar (or more) talent.
Concerning speed, Michigan has a team that's as fast as any they have ever had defensively. They kept up with USC's offense for the most part in the first half. By the second half, Michigans defense likely got tired because they were on the field so often because Michigans offense failed to sustain any long drives to give them a break. Their offense basically lacks speed with the exception of Breaston and Manningham, but that's designed for Big 10 play as most teams run, run, run in the conference. Speed itself didn't kill Michigan. Again, their failure to adjust to all of the blitzing killed them. They usually didn't keep enough bodies back to equal what USC was sending. But then again, Michigan always falls short in the Rose Bowl. They do well in the others, but the Rose has been a thorn for Michigan since I was born.
Was this game vindication for the BCS? No. If Florida gets spanked, it means nothing at all. Michigan losing to USC doesn't mean that Florida is better than Michigan. Also, Florida moved ahead of Michigan after they beat Arkansas, which everybody thought was a big deal. But then Arkansas went out and dumped it to Wisconsin, an underrated team IMO that suffered its only loss to Michigan. Further, there still remains arguments for a team like Boise IMO. They went undefeated and actually beat a good team in their bowl.
In the end, the BCS is still a joke. It's better than what we used to have, but still could be much better. Outcomes like this year with Michigan only hurts college football, as some see the choices for the championship game are vindicated and they then fail to consider that the BCS isn't the best solution for deciding a champion. >>
At no point in the OSU game the UM appear capable of slowing down Troy Smith and co. They basically moved the ball at will, and if it hadn't been for those two fluky turnovers the final margin would have been in the 14 pt. range, just as it was against USC.
<< <i>At no point in the OSU game the UM appear capable of slowing down Troy Smith and co. They basically moved the ball at will, and if it hadn't been for those two fluky turnovers the final margin would have been in the 14 pt. range, just as it was against USC. >>
By the same measure, OSU didn't put a stop to Michigans offense even though they only allowed around 10 pts a game during the season. And the turnovers are part of the game, so you cannot discount them. Again, I felt the helmet contact call on Smith was "fluky" considering what is allowed in nearly every other game these days. Without that "fluky" call, OSU could have possibly lost the game. I'm not going to say that Michigan wasn't outplayed, merely because their "dominating" run defense couldn't stop $hit. But they did stay in the game and would have had a chance late to take the lead if it hadn't been for the penalty.
Michigan showed no signs of life in the USC game. I'm a big Michigan fan, but I'm not blind and can admit that they were outplayed and outcoached in every aspect. I wont try to make excuses like others throughout the media have either about how Michigan may have played down because of their disappointment about not making it to the championship game. That's BS. If the players aren't happy about playing in the Rose Bowl and trying to prove any critics wrong, they don't deserve to be playing Division 1 College Football. They failed to make an argument about the championship game and were completely outplayed by USC, which is all that needs to be said.
<< <i>
<< <i>At no point in the OSU game the UM appear capable of slowing down Troy Smith and co. They basically moved the ball at will, and if it hadn't been for those two fluky turnovers the final margin would have been in the 14 pt. range, just as it was against USC. >>
By the same measure, OSU didn't put a stop to Michigans offense even though they only allowed around 10 pts a game during the season. And the turnovers are part of the game, so you cannot discount them. Again, I felt the helmet contact call on Smith was "fluky" considering what is allowed in nearly every other game these days. Without that "fluky" call, OSU could have possibly lost the game. I'm not going to say that Michigan wasn't outplayed, merely because their "dominating" run defense couldn't stop $hit. But they did stay in the game and would have had a chance late to take the lead if it hadn't been for the penalty.
Michigan showed no signs of life in the USC game. I'm a big Michigan fan, but I'm not blind and can admit that they were outplayed and outcoached in every aspect. I wont try to make excuses like others throughout the media have either about how Michigan may have played down because of their disappointment about not making it to the championship game. That's BS. If the players aren't happy about playing in the Rose Bowl and trying to prove any critics wrong, they don't deserve to be playing Division 1 College Football. They failed to make an argument about the championship game and were completely outplayed by USC, which is all that needs to be said. >>
I agree that the helmet call was suspect.
To the extent that a turnover is the result of a random error-- and I would consider those two turnovers to fall into this catagory--then it shouldn't be considered as part of the equation when you're comparing the overall performance of the two teams. Consider: If you or I are playing center, it's possible that we would have 5 or 6 bad snaps in the course of a game. Thus, our team may lose even though our team is significantly better than our opponent at 21 of the 22 positions.
If you play that OSU game 100 times I bet OSU wins 70 of them; roughly what I would expect USC to do against UM. It's all guesswork, obviously, so I'm not really committed to that position, but I do feel pretty strongly that UM is a definite notch below the Buckeyes this year.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>At no point in the OSU game the UM appear capable of slowing down Troy Smith and co. They basically moved the ball at will, and if it hadn't been for those two fluky turnovers the final margin would have been in the 14 pt. range, just as it was against USC. >>
By the same measure, OSU didn't put a stop to Michigans offense even though they only allowed around 10 pts a game during the season. And the turnovers are part of the game, so you cannot discount them. Again, I felt the helmet contact call on Smith was "fluky" considering what is allowed in nearly every other game these days. Without that "fluky" call, OSU could have possibly lost the game. I'm not going to say that Michigan wasn't outplayed, merely because their "dominating" run defense couldn't stop $hit. But they did stay in the game and would have had a chance late to take the lead if it hadn't been for the penalty.
Michigan showed no signs of life in the USC game. I'm a big Michigan fan, but I'm not blind and can admit that they were outplayed and outcoached in every aspect. I wont try to make excuses like others throughout the media have either about how Michigan may have played down because of their disappointment about not making it to the championship game. That's BS. If the players aren't happy about playing in the Rose Bowl and trying to prove any critics wrong, they don't deserve to be playing Division 1 College Football. They failed to make an argument about the championship game and were completely outplayed by USC, which is all that needs to be said. >>
I agree that the helmet call was suspect.
To the extent that a turnover is the result of a random error-- and I would consider those two turnovers to fall into this catagory--then it shouldn't be considered as part of the equation when you're comparing the overall performance of the two teams. Consider: If you or I are playing center, it's possible that we would have 5 or 6 bad snaps in the course of a game. Thus, our team may lose even though our team is significantly better than our opponent at 21 of the 22 positions.
If you play that OSU game 100 times I bet OSU wins 70 of them; roughly what I would expect USC to do against UM. It's all guesswork, obviously, so I'm not really committed to that position, but I do feel pretty strongly that UM is a definite notch below the Buckeyes this year. >>
I wont argue the 70/30 scenario, but I put most of that difference on Carr. I honestly believe that Michigan has the better players, but the fact that Carr can't work up a solid game plan against big teams is their downfall. I think Lloyd is a solid coach, but by no means is he a great coach. College football has changed and he has failed to adapt. Michigan will be a contender every year based on talent alone, but will only truly compete for a championship when they decide that "3 yards and a cloud of dust" is the game of yesteryear.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>At no point in the OSU game the UM appear capable of slowing down Troy Smith and co. They basically moved the ball at will, and if it hadn't been for those two fluky turnovers the final margin would have been in the 14 pt. range, just as it was against USC. >>
By the same measure, OSU didn't put a stop to Michigans offense even though they only allowed around 10 pts a game during the season. And the turnovers are part of the game, so you cannot discount them. Again, I felt the helmet contact call on Smith was "fluky" considering what is allowed in nearly every other game these days. Without that "fluky" call, OSU could have possibly lost the game. I'm not going to say that Michigan wasn't outplayed, merely because their "dominating" run defense couldn't stop $hit. But they did stay in the game and would have had a chance late to take the lead if it hadn't been for the penalty.
Michigan showed no signs of life in the USC game. I'm a big Michigan fan, but I'm not blind and can admit that they were outplayed and outcoached in every aspect. I wont try to make excuses like others throughout the media have either about how Michigan may have played down because of their disappointment about not making it to the championship game. That's BS. If the players aren't happy about playing in the Rose Bowl and trying to prove any critics wrong, they don't deserve to be playing Division 1 College Football. They failed to make an argument about the championship game and were completely outplayed by USC, which is all that needs to be said. >>
I agree that the helmet call was suspect.
To the extent that a turnover is the result of a random error-- and I would consider those two turnovers to fall into this catagory--then it shouldn't be considered as part of the equation when you're comparing the overall performance of the two teams. Consider: If you or I are playing center, it's possible that we would have 5 or 6 bad snaps in the course of a game. Thus, our team may lose even though our team is significantly better than our opponent at 21 of the 22 positions.
If you play that OSU game 100 times I bet OSU wins 70 of them; roughly what I would expect USC to do against UM. It's all guesswork, obviously, so I'm not really committed to that position, but I do feel pretty strongly that UM is a definite notch below the Buckeyes this year. >>
I wont argue the 70/30 scenario, but I put most of that difference on Carr. I honestly believe that Michigan has the better players, but the fact that Carr can't work up a solid game plan against big teams is their downfall. I think Lloyd is a solid coach, but by no means is he a great coach. College football has changed and he has failed to adapt. Michigan will be a contender every year based on talent alone, but will only truly compete for a championship when they decide that "3 yards and a cloud of dust" is the game of yesteryear. >>
Well put. 'The Vest' coaches circles around him every year, and it's hard to see that changing. And the fact that Michigan routinely has one of the top 10 recruiting classes and still never gets a player picked in the top 10 of the NFL draft tells you there's also a problem in Ann Arbor with player development.
<< <i>Well put. 'The Vest' coaches circles around him every year, and it's hard to see that changing. And the fact that Michigan routinely has one of the top 10 recruiting classes and still never gets a player picked in the top 10 of the NFL draft tells you there's also a problem in Ann Arbor with player development. >>
There's no denying that considering the numbers. Personally, I have met Lloyd and think he's a great guy. But that doesn't translate onto the field, so I believe it's time to start looking for a new coach.