All I'll say is that I predict the majority of college football fans not from Alabama or SEC country don't want to see a rematch. Well ESPN does too, but they have a financial interest in the SEC. The SEC talking heads argued Michigan had no claim to a rematch with OSU in 2006 because Michigan didn't win their conference, so if Bama doesn't make it, the same argument should be used.
<< <i>All I'll say is that I predict the majority of college football fans not from Alabama or SEC country don't want to see a rematch. Well ESPN does too, but they have a financial interest in the SEC. The SEC talking heads argued Michigan had no claim to a rematch with OSU in 2006 because Michigan didn't win their conference, so if Bama doesn't make it, the same argument should be used. >>
I don't understand the internal logic behind the following:
1) LSU beats Alabama in Tuscaloosa. 2)Alabama beats LSU at a neutral site.
Therefore, Alabama is the national champion.
How can anyone argue that this sequence has even a shred of legitimacy? I mean really- who could take that seriously? If you're an Alabama player/fan/booster/whatever could you seriously consider yourself a national champion in this scenario?
<< <i>The idea that a national champion is not also the champion of their conference is tough to swallow. I'm sorry, but if Alabama can't make it the SEC championship, there is no room for anyone to argue that they belong in the BCS championship. This logic played out already in 2007 when LSU was put into the BCS championship ahead of UGA, when UGA wasn't in the SEC title game.
This year, If LSU beats both Ark and UGA, then for god's sake find another conference champion to pit against them. Alabama had their shot at LSU (AT HOME) and lost. I'd much rather see the Pac10 champ (if its Stanford), or even an unbeaten Houston team get a shot. >>
LSU would beat Houston by 50+ I saw Houston first hand against La Tech. Only thing to save them from getting the L is a late fumble by La Tech marching in for a late score and then Keenum hitting a bomb for Houston for a narrow 1 point victory. They have not played anyone let alone beating anyone. That being said LSU should not have to play Bama again, but with OU, OSU, Oregon and Clemson losing they seem to be the team with the best resume.
<< <i>All I'll say is that I predict the majority of college football fans not from Alabama or SEC country don't want to see a rematch. Well ESPN does too, but they have a financial interest in the SEC. The SEC talking heads argued Michigan had no claim to a rematch with OSU in 2006 because Michigan didn't win their conference, so if Bama doesn't make it, the same argument should be used. >>
In fairness, the truly compelling argument against an OSU/UM rematch is that UM wasn't very good. The Alabama/LSU situation is only slightly analogous, since both 'Bama and LSU are top-flight teams.
I'm from the south and I wanted to see an Ohio State/Michigan rematch that year. I thought it would have been a great game. Probably would have been better than the actual BCS game with Florida.
<< <i>All I'll say is that I predict the majority of college football fans not from Alabama or SEC country don't want to see a rematch. Well ESPN does too, but they have a financial interest in the SEC. The SEC talking heads argued Michigan had no claim to a rematch with OSU in 2006 because Michigan didn't win their conference, so if Bama doesn't make it, the same argument should be used. >>
In fairness, the truly compelling argument against an OSU/UM rematch is that UM wasn't very good. The Alabama/LSU situation is only slightly analogous, since both 'Bama and LSU are top-flight teams. >>
Michigan got spanked against USC in their bowl match up, so that could be said after the fact. Prior to that, they lost to #1 by 3 points, with a personal foul ending an opportunity to try to drive for the tie/win late. I think the perception was that they were pretty good.
<< <i>All I'll say is that I predict the majority of college football fans not from Alabama or SEC country don't want to see a rematch. Well ESPN does too, but they have a financial interest in the SEC. The SEC talking heads argued Michigan had no claim to a rematch with OSU in 2006 because Michigan didn't win their conference, so if Bama doesn't make it, the same argument should be used. >>
In fairness, the truly compelling argument against an OSU/UM rematch is that UM wasn't very good. The Alabama/LSU situation is only slightly analogous, since both 'Bama and LSU are top-flight teams. >>
Michigan got spanked against USC in their bowl match up, so that could be said after the fact. Prior to that, they lost to #1 by 3 points, with a personal foul ending an opportunity to try to drive for the tie/win late. I think the perception was that they were pretty good.
<< <i>
There are 'three point games', and then there are games that happen to end with a three point margin. Whatever the scoreboard said, UM was never in danger of actually winning that game. Or at least it never seemed to me like they were. And they only played two (maybe three) ranked teams before the OSU game. I remember watching that season unfold and thinking that UM would probably get cracked by just about any mid-table SEC squad.
The BCS is absolute nonsense. Do we want to identify the best team at years end or try to figure out which matchup will get good TV ratings? If we want to identify the best team why not have those who are knowledgeable take a vote? Perhaps the coaches or sportswriters. No need for a game. If we want the two best teams to play then it should be the two best teams regardless of what league they are in. As of now the top three in the BCS are all from the SEC. I understand all are in the same division. The SEC has a stranglehold on the Championship. Allowing a team that is inferior to Alabama or Arkansas to play in the game is just plain wrong. If teams from other leagues want a shot then get better players, coaches, etc. and prove you belong in the game. If the Championship is to be won on the field a playoff is necessary. Also if Alabama gets a rematch and wins a squeaker why not make it two of three? Most one or perhaps even some two loss teams not in the game will complain they are getting screwed. If LSU loses a close one to a team they previously have beaten I say they are being screwed.
I think the BCS is great. I would hate to see an end of the season playoff. I like it how every weekend in college football is a playoff.
I'm a traditionalist, and I say keep college football the way it is.
And anyone who can't see that Alabama and LSU are the two best teams in the country this year, then you're either anti-BCS, anti-SEC, or not a knowledgeable college football fan. These two teams are head and shoulders above the rest.
<< <i>All I'll say is that I predict the majority of college football fans not from Alabama or SEC country don't want to see a rematch. Well ESPN does too, but they have a financial interest in the SEC. The SEC talking heads argued Michigan had no claim to a rematch with OSU in 2006 because Michigan didn't win their conference, so if Bama doesn't make it, the same argument should be used. >>
In fairness, the truly compelling argument against an OSU/UM rematch is that UM wasn't very good. The Alabama/LSU situation is only slightly analogous, since both 'Bama and LSU are top-flight teams. >>
Michigan got spanked against USC in their bowl match up, so that could be said after the fact. Prior to that, they lost to #1 by 3 points, with a personal foul ending an opportunity to try to drive for the tie/win late. I think the perception was that they were pretty good.
<< <i>
There are 'three point games', and then there are games that happen to end with a three point margin. Whatever the scoreboard said, UM was never in danger of actually winning that game. Or at least it never seemed to me like they were. And they only played two (maybe three) ranked teams before the OSU game. I remember watching that season unfold and thinking that UM would probably get cracked by just about any mid-table SEC squad. >>
Really? Michigan dominated most of their games. They had a top 10 defense that was #1 against the run. They beat a Wisky team that ended up the season in the top 10, although they weren't rated high, if at all, when they played because Wisky was expected to stink. Again, if not for the helmet to helmet call on Michigan against Troy Smith on third down, Michigan gets the ball and is down three with a.chance to tie/win.
<And anyone who can't see that Alabama and LSU are the two best teams in the country this year then>
< you're either anti-BCS>--------maybe I'm guilty of this
<anti-SEC-> ----nope. I think they are the best conference but I would like to see a SEC vs other conference match up just the same
<or not a knowledgeable college football fan>---------wow. I just don't wish to see this this match up again. I saw it the first time.
<These two teams are head and shoulders above the rest>---------maybe. However, while I appreciate great defensives the first match between these two teams didn't exactly blow me away. Game of the century? It turned out it wasn't even the most exciting or memorable game of the month. The most memorable thing about the LSU-Bama game was the great interception on the goal line. Hard hits aside what was the next memorable play? A 77 yd punt? Missed FG's? I remain unimpressed by the QB play by both LSU and Alabama.
Odds are we will get a rematch and the Game of the Century II.
MJ
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
I follow LSU, but if we are fortunate enough to play Bama and they beat us in New Orleans, then they will be National Champions fair and square, rematch or not. Nobody offered the Patriots a rematch after the Super Bowl when they lost to the Giants after having beaten the Giants during the regular season. Same here. But first, we've got to beat an Arkansas team that has given us fits for years.
<< <i>I follow LSU, but if we are fortunate enough to play Bama and they beat us in New Orleans, then they will be National Champions fair and square, rematch or not. Nobody offered the Patriots a rematch after the Super Bowl when they lost to the Giants after having beaten the Giants during the regular season. Same here. But first, we've got to beat an Arkansas team that has given us fits for years. >>
And a Georgia team that beat you last time you played them in the dome.
<< <i>I think in 2007, LSU and UGa were probably the best two teams in the country. Georgia just had the bad luck of not winning the SEC East. I think they were actually ahead of LSU at the end of the regular season, but since LSU got to play an extra game, they beat the East champion, which gave them some more points to push them over Georgia. Had the Bulldogs played Ohio State, the results would likely have been about the same. This year, it so happens the top three teams in the country are in the same division of the same conference. So, only one of them can possibly represent the division. A little different scenario. >>
You have a great memory. That is exactly what happened. And if you back and read all the sports papers, they all said "You can't play in the national championship if you don't even play in your conferences title game". That was the argument USED AGAINST UGA in '07. But now, we're supposed to pretend that unspoken rule doesn't exist for Bama? Can't change the rules guys....
<< <i>Also, the Litlle Statebof Alabama has a chance of producing the third straight Heisman trophy recipient....small state....only 4.8 million people >>
But none of the Heisman Trophy winners were actually from the state of AL. One was from Texas, the other from Michigan. I live in Alabama now, I'm just sayin'
I don't think LSU has to beat Georgia. I believe that if LSU beats Arkansas, they will have wins against Oregon, West Virginia, Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Auburn, and more. Even with a loss against Georgia, I find it hard to believe that the BCS will find two teams with only one loss that has a better resume'.
<< <i>I don't think LSU has to beat Georgia. I believe that if LSU beats Arkansas, they will have wins against Oregon, West Virginia, Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Auburn, and more. Even with a loss against Georgia, I find it hard to believe that the BCS will find two teams with only one loss that has a better resume'. >>
A loss in week 1-4 is very easy to overcome. A loss in week 5-9 counts a bit more. A loss in your conference championship game will be front of mind for every voter. Alabama will be there with 1 loss, 1-loss OK State will possibly just have destroyed Oklahoma. And some people will still be wanting to see what Andrew Luck and a "real" Stanford offense can do against Bama's defense. Oh and don't forget undefeated Houston. This idea that there is a lack of alternatives is laughable. Most people don't want to see an AL/LSU rematch.
If I recall correctly, Michigan retained the number 2 spot in the BCS the week after their loss to OSU. Only after the debate grew over a rematch did USC first jump them the next week. But then, after their loss (USC) the next weekend, the voters put FLA over Michigan to help avoid the rematch. Everybody cried that a rematch wouldn't prove anything, so I simply argue the same point now. Unless every capable 1 loss team bites it over the next 2 weeks, one of them should be in the championship game.
<< <i>And to add one more point, Michigan lost to #1 OSU on the road in '06. Alabama lost at home. To me, there's a difference. >>
Your argument is predicated on the notion that the gap between #2 and #3 back in 2006 is the same as the gap in 2011. That's a fair opinion to hold, but I disagree. To my eye, Alabama and LSU are the two best teams in the country right now, with a number of teams (Oregon, Oklahoma, etc.) a distant third. Back in 2006 Michigan benefited from a typical Big 10 schedule filled with middle-of-the-road patsies, and rode that record to a #2 ranking. We are, obviously, just being subjective here. But let me ask you this: If the 2006 Michigan team had played the Gators 100 times on a neutral field, who would have won the majority of those games? I would bet the ranch on Florida. Substitute LSU, Auburn or maybe even WV and I take them as well.
Michigan rose to #2 for the same reason that UM and OSU ALWAYS rise to such a high ranking every year that they have a superior team; because they play in a lousy conference. These teams are almost never, ever on par with the SEC, and they benefit from having significantly easier schedules every year than the highly ranked SEC teams. Since the SEC is without question the best conference in the nation there teams should get the benefit of the doubt where teams from the Big 10 do not. To argue otherwise is to ignore the very real qualitative differences between these conferences.
<< <i>And to add one more point, Michigan lost to #1 OSU on the road in '06. Alabama lost at home. To me, there's a difference. >>
Your argument is predicated on the notion that the gap between #2 and #3 back in 2006 is the same as the gap in 2011. That's a fair opinion to hold, but I disagree. To my eye, Alabama and LSU are the two best teams in the country right now, with a number of teams (Oregon, Oklahoma, etc.) a distant third. Back in 2006 Michigan benefited from a typical Big 10 schedule filled with middle-of-the-road patsies, and rode that record to a #2 ranking. We are, obviously, just being subjective here. But let me ask you this: If the 2006 Michigan team had played the Gators 100 times on a neutral field, who would have won the majority of those games? I would bet the ranch on Florida. Substitute LSU, Auburn or maybe even WV and I take them as well.
Michigan rose to #2 for the same reason that UM and OSU ALWAYS rise to such a high ranking every year that they have a superior team; because they play in a lousy conference. These teams are almost never, ever on par with the SEC, and they benefit from having significantly easier schedules every year than the highly ranked SEC teams. Since the SEC is without question the best conference in the nation there teams should get the benefit of the doubt where teams from the Big 10 do not. To argue otherwise is to ignore the very real qualitative differences between these conferences. >>
While I agree with you on the majority of your points Boopotts Michigan perhaps surprisingly to most have done well against the SEC in bowl games. They seem to be the anomaly in the Big Ten vs SEC match ups. They are 5-2 vs the SEC in the current Big Ten vs SEC alignment/agreement during the BCS era.
FWIW, Alabama's SOL his year falls way outside the top 30. With that being said I hope they have a lot of juniors and sophomores leave for the NFL this year. They are on Michigan's schedule in 2012. Run for your life Denard. Gulp. MJ ( U of M guy)
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
<< <i>And to add one more point, Michigan lost to #1 OSU on the road in '06. Alabama lost at home. To me, there's a difference. >>
Your argument is predicated on the notion that the gap between #2 and #3 back in 2006 is the same as the gap in 2011. That's a fair opinion to hold, but I disagree. To my eye, Alabama and LSU are the two best teams in the country right now, with a number of teams (Oregon, Oklahoma, etc.) a distant third. Back in 2006 Michigan benefited from a typical Big 10 schedule filled with middle-of-the-road patsies, and rode that record to a #2 ranking. We are, obviously, just being subjective here. But let me ask you this: If the 2006 Michigan team had played the Gators 100 times on a neutral field, who would have won the majority of those games? I would bet the ranch on Florida. Substitute LSU, Auburn or maybe even WV and I take them as well.
Michigan rose to #2 for the same reason that UM and OSU ALWAYS rise to such a high ranking every year that they have a superior team; because they play in a lousy conference. These teams are almost never, ever on par with the SEC, and they benefit from having significantly easier schedules every year than the highly ranked SEC teams. Since the SEC is without question the best conference in the nation there teams should get the benefit of the doubt where teams from the Big 10 do not. To argue otherwise is to ignore the very real qualitative differences between these conferences. >>
FWIW, Michigan played FLA in 2007 and dominated them. If not for a couple of Hart fumbles in the red zone, that game is a blowout.
<< <i>And to add one more point, Michigan lost to #1 OSU on the road in '06. Alabama lost at home. To me, there's a difference. >>
Your argument is predicated on the notion that the gap between #2 and #3 back in 2006 is the same as the gap in 2011. That's a fair opinion to hold, but I disagree. To my eye, Alabama and LSU are the two best teams in the country right now, with a number of teams (Oregon, Oklahoma, etc.) a distant third. Back in 2006 Michigan benefited from a typical Big 10 schedule filled with middle-of-the-road patsies, and rode that record to a #2 ranking. We are, obviously, just being subjective here. But let me ask you this: If the 2006 Michigan team had played the Gators 100 times on a neutral field, who would have won the majority of those games? I would bet the ranch on Florida. Substitute LSU, Auburn or maybe even WV and I take them as well.
Michigan rose to #2 for the same reason that UM and OSU ALWAYS rise to such a high ranking every year that they have a superior team; because they play in a lousy conference. These teams are almost never, ever on par with the SEC, and they benefit from having significantly easier schedules every year than the highly ranked SEC teams. Since the SEC is without question the best conference in the nation there teams should get the benefit of the doubt where teams from the Big 10 do not. To argue otherwise is to ignore the very real qualitative differences between these conferences. >>
FWIW, Michigan played FLA in 2007 and dominated them. If not for a couple of Hart fumbles in the red zone, that game is a blowout. >>
And the 2006 UM/OSU game is a blowout if OSU doesn't turn the ball over three times.
<< <i>And to add one more point, Michigan lost to #1 OSU on the road in '06. Alabama lost at home. To me, there's a difference. >>
Your argument is predicated on the notion that the gap between #2 and #3 back in 2006 is the same as the gap in 2011. That's a fair opinion to hold, but I disagree. To my eye, Alabama and LSU are the two best teams in the country right now, with a number of teams (Oregon, Oklahoma, etc.) a distant third. Back in 2006 Michigan benefited from a typical Big 10 schedule filled with middle-of-the-road patsies, and rode that record to a #2 ranking. We are, obviously, just being subjective here. But let me ask you this: If the 2006 Michigan team had played the Gators 100 times on a neutral field, who would have won the majority of those games? I would bet the ranch on Florida. Substitute LSU, Auburn or maybe even WV and I take them as well.
Michigan rose to #2 for the same reason that UM and OSU ALWAYS rise to such a high ranking every year that they have a superior team; because they play in a lousy conference. These teams are almost never, ever on par with the SEC, and they benefit from having significantly easier schedules every year than the highly ranked SEC teams. Since the SEC is without question the best conference in the nation there teams should get the benefit of the doubt where teams from the Big 10 do not. To argue otherwise is to ignore the very real qualitative differences between these conferences. >>
FWIW, Michigan played FLA in 2007 and dominated them. If not for a couple of Hart fumbles in the red zone, that game is a blowout. >>
And the 2006 UM/OSU game is a blowout if OSU doesn't turn the ball over three times. >>
We could argue points back and fourth all day long, but remember this. As I mentioned, Michigan retained the #2 spot in the BCS after they lost to OSU. That means that most voters believed Michigan was still the second best team after that game. If you remember the outcry following that fact and the bellyaching by the SEC and Urban Meyer, then the voters seemed to try to appease public opinion and vote anybody over Michigan.
<< <i>And to add one more point, Michigan lost to #1 OSU on the road in '06. Alabama lost at home. To me, there's a difference. >>
Your argument is predicated on the notion that the gap between #2 and #3 back in 2006 is the same as the gap in 2011. That's a fair opinion to hold, but I disagree. To my eye, Alabama and LSU are the two best teams in the country right now, with a number of teams (Oregon, Oklahoma, etc.) a distant third. Back in 2006 Michigan benefited from a typical Big 10 schedule filled with middle-of-the-road patsies, and rode that record to a #2 ranking. We are, obviously, just being subjective here. But let me ask you this: If the 2006 Michigan team had played the Gators 100 times on a neutral field, who would have won the majority of those games? I would bet the ranch on Florida. Substitute LSU, Auburn or maybe even WV and I take them as well.
Michigan rose to #2 for the same reason that UM and OSU ALWAYS rise to such a high ranking every year that they have a superior team; because they play in a lousy conference. These teams are almost never, ever on par with the SEC, and they benefit from having significantly easier schedules every year than the highly ranked SEC teams. Since the SEC is without question the best conference in the nation there teams should get the benefit of the doubt where teams from the Big 10 do not. To argue otherwise is to ignore the very real qualitative differences between these conferences. >>
FWIW, Michigan played FLA in 2007 and dominated them. If not for a couple of Hart fumbles in the red zone, that game is a blowout. >>
And the 2006 UM/OSU game is a blowout if OSU doesn't turn the ball over three times. >>
We could argue points back and fourth all day long, but remember this. As I mentioned, Michigan retained the #2 spot in the BCS after they lost to OSU. That means that most voters believed Michigan was still the second best team after that game. If you remember the outcry following that fact and the bellyaching by the SEC and Urban Meyer, then the voters seemed to try to appease public opinion and vote anybody over Michigan. >>
You also have to remember this: After the OSU game, Michigan was done. Their schedule was complete. Florida still had TWO games left. One was a victory against Florida State (which was not one of FSU's better teams). Florida still had the SEC Championship to play the following week. This gave them one more opportunity for a win. That win turned out to be a solid win against the #8 team in the country (Arkansas). So, that meant Florida had won two games, including a HUGE win over Arkansas since Michigan's loss to OSU. I believe that USC would also have jumped Michigan if they hadn't choked away their last game against UCLA. Voters probably looked at the whole thing on December 3rd and they hadn't seen Michigan win a football game since November 11th. Michigan went into the Ohio State game with wins over Northwestern, Ball State, and Indiana. If you want to impress the voters, that's not the way to do it. Their out of conference schedule was Vanderbilt, Central Michigan, Notre Dame (a legitimate tough game at the time), and Ball State. Frankly, that sort of schedule along with the Big Ten's weak schedule anyway doesn't cut it. The Wolverines tried the same thing in 2007, but they didn't realize that App State was better than advertised, and so was Oregon. If these Big Ten teams want to be considered for a National Championship, what they need to do is take on some big teams on the road out of conference. I'll give OSU credit. They scheduled Texas out of conference. I guess we will see how far Michigan has come early next year when they play Bama in the opener in Arlington, Texas. You want to make a statement? That's the way to do it. Beat Bama. Ain't gonna happen....
<< <i>If you want to impress the voters, that's not the way to do it. Their out of conference schedule was Vanderbilt, Central Michigan, Notre Dame (a legitimate tough game at the time), and Ball State. Frankly, that sort of schedule along with the Big Ten's weak schedule anyway doesn't cut it. The Wolverines tried the same thing in 2007, but they didn't realize that App State was better than advertised, and so was Oregon. If these Big Ten teams want to be considered for a National Championship, what they need to do is take on some big teams on the road out of conference. I'll give OSU credit. They scheduled Texas out of conference. I guess we will see how far Michigan has come early next year when they play Bama in the opener in Arlington, Texas. You want to make a statement? That's the way to do it. Beat Bama. Ain't gonna happen.... >>
I could not agree more- and I say this as someone who is a fan of a Big 10 school (MSU) and who lives about eight miles from Michigan Stadium.
Michigan picked a great year to schedule Bama. Bama will lose a lot on defense next year and will NOT be the same team. Mark Barron the top DB will graduate. DeQuan Menzie will also graduate. Their top LB Courtney Upshaw will graduate. Both starting WR's Maze and Hanks and the starting TE Smelley will all graduate. AND to top it all off, there is a good chance that Trent Richardson goes pro after this season.
In short, Bama will be rebuilding in 2012. (Yes, even Bama rebuilds sometimes)
Trent Richardson, Dre Kirkpatrick, Barrett Jones, and Dante Hightower can go pro next year, plus all of our seniors. I say at least three of the four go pro. Jones may stay, but he already has his degree.
Next year could be a rebuilding year, or just re-loading.
<< <i>You also have to remember this: After the OSU game, Michigan was done. Their schedule was complete. Florida still had TWO games left. One was a victory against Florida State (which was not one of FSU's better teams). Florida still had the SEC Championship to play the following week. This gave them one more opportunity for a win. That win turned out to be a solid win against the #8 team in the country (Arkansas). So, that meant Florida had won two games, including a HUGE win over Arkansas since Michigan's loss to OSU. I believe that USC would also have jumped Michigan if they hadn't choked away their last game against UCLA. Voters probably looked at the whole thing on December 3rd and they hadn't seen Michigan win a football game since November 11th. Michigan went into the Ohio State game with wins over Northwestern, Ball State, and Indiana. If you want to impress the voters, that's not the way to do it. Their out of conference schedule was Vanderbilt, Central Michigan, Notre Dame (a legitimate tough game at the time), and Ball State. Frankly, that sort of schedule along with the Big Ten's weak schedule anyway doesn't cut it. The Wolverines tried the same thing in 2007, but they didn't realize that App State was better than advertised, and so was Oregon. If these Big Ten teams want to be considered for a National Championship, what they need to do is take on some big teams on the road out of conference. I'll give OSU credit. They scheduled Texas out of conference. I guess we will see how far Michigan has come early next year when they play Bama in the opener in Arlington, Texas. You want to make a statement? That's the way to do it. Beat Bama. Ain't gonna happen.... >>
USC did jump Michigan a week later, but then dropped again after losing the following week. Lots of writers/voters said that America wasn't interested in a rematch, and were likely right, so their vote would reflect that. Anyways, you can't really talk about OOC schedules being reflective as the SEC seems to schedule tons of terrible teams every year, Bama, for instance, did play a solid PSU team this year. Aside from that, they have matchups with Kent State, North Texas, and Georgia Southern. That's hardly a OOC schedule that screams "challenging", to say the least.
<< <i>Michigan picked a great year to schedule Bama. Bama will lose a lot on defense next year and will NOT be the same team. Mark Barron the top DB will graduate. DeQuan Menzie will also graduate. Their top LB Courtney Upshaw will graduate. Both starting WR's Maze and Hanks and the starting TE Smelley will all graduate. AND to top it all off, there is a good chance that Trent Richardson goes pro after this season.
In short, Bama will be rebuilding in 2012. (Yes, even Bama rebuilds sometimes) >>
Michigan is also rebuilding, although they have exceeded expectations to this point in the season. Their improvement on D is remarkable, thanks to Mattison and Co. That being said, this team is running an offense they wont be running in 2 years. They have players not suited for the style they want to play now with the new coaching staff. Things will be challenging for another year or two, but I'm optimistic about their direction. This team will be good after a couple of recruiting classes. They have a good one slotted for next year and already a couple of great 2013 commits, but time will tell.
Anywho, everyone have a great Thanksgiving. Eat lots and hope that the Lions can at least manage enough of a challenge to help you keep your food down.
<< <i>You also have to remember this: After the OSU game, Michigan was done. Their schedule was complete. Florida still had TWO games left. One was a victory against Florida State (which was not one of FSU's better teams). Florida still had the SEC Championship to play the following week. This gave them one more opportunity for a win. That win turned out to be a solid win against the #8 team in the country (Arkansas). So, that meant Florida had won two games, including a HUGE win over Arkansas since Michigan's loss to OSU. I believe that USC would also have jumped Michigan if they hadn't choked away their last game against UCLA. Voters probably looked at the whole thing on December 3rd and they hadn't seen Michigan win a football game since November 11th. Michigan went into the Ohio State game with wins over Northwestern, Ball State, and Indiana. If you want to impress the voters, that's not the way to do it. Their out of conference schedule was Vanderbilt, Central Michigan, Notre Dame (a legitimate tough game at the time), and Ball State. Frankly, that sort of schedule along with the Big Ten's weak schedule anyway doesn't cut it. The Wolverines tried the same thing in 2007, but they didn't realize that App State was better than advertised, and so was Oregon. If these Big Ten teams want to be considered for a National Championship, what they need to do is take on some big teams on the road out of conference. I'll give OSU credit. They scheduled Texas out of conference. I guess we will see how far Michigan has come early next year when they play Bama in the opener in Arlington, Texas. You want to make a statement? That's the way to do it. Beat Bama. Ain't gonna happen.... >>
USC did jump Michigan a week later, but then dropped again after losing the following week. Lots of writers/voters said that America wasn't interested in a rematch, and were likely right, so their vote would reflect that. Anyways, you can't really talk about OOC schedules being reflective as the SEC seems to schedule tons of terrible teams every year, Bama, for instance, did play a solid PSU team this year. Aside from that, they have matchups with Kent State, North Texas, and Georgia Southern. That's hardly a OOC schedule that screams "challenging", to say the least.
<< <i>Michigan picked a great year to schedule Bama. Bama will lose a lot on defense next year and will NOT be the same team. Mark Barron the top DB will graduate. DeQuan Menzie will also graduate. Their top LB Courtney Upshaw will graduate. Both starting WR's Maze and Hanks and the starting TE Smelley will all graduate. AND to top it all off, there is a good chance that Trent Richardson goes pro after this season.
In short, Bama will be rebuilding in 2012. (Yes, even Bama rebuilds sometimes) >>
Michigan is also rebuilding, although they have exceeded expectations to this point in the season. Their improvement on D is remarkable, thanks to Mattison and Co. That being said, this team is running an offense they wont be running in 2 years. They have players not suited for the style they want to play now with the new coaching staff. Things will be challenging for another year or two, but I'm optimistic about their direction. This team will be good after a couple of recruiting classes. They have a good one slotted for next year and already a couple of great 2013 commits, but time will tell.
Anywho, everyone have a great Thanksgiving. Eat lots and hope that the Lions can at least manage enough of a challenge to help you keep your food down. >>
C'mon, man- I mean you're obviously smarter than this. I'm not sure what you mean by 'reflective', but you can't compare SEC and Big 10 OOC schedules because the SECs in-conference schedule is so much more brutal than anything these Big 10 teams face. The point made by the OP is that the Big 10 schools need stronger OOC schedules because the conference schedule is generally weak. This obviously doesn't apply to the SEC.
<< <i>C'mon, man- I mean you're obviously smarter than this. I'm not sure what you mean by 'reflective', but you can't compare SEC and Big 10 OOC schedules because the SECs in-conference schedule is so much more brutal than anything these Big 10 teams face. The point made by the OP is that the Big 10 schools need stronger OOC schedules because the conference schedule is generally weak. This obviously doesn't apply to the SEC. >>
Teams have come to the realization that there's no such thing as a "good loss" anymore. One loss eliminates most teams from championship contention. That being said, teams don't want to risk a loss anymore and most don't schedule any more than one challenging game OOC. As for the weakness of the Big 10, the teams have no control over how the other teams in the conference play. If the conference is perceived as weak (and I agree that the Big 10 is this year), there's usually nothing done to dispel that perception if they don't play anybody strong OOC. The SEC has it made. Everybody thinks that their conference is head and shoulders above everyone. Their champion gets to walk into the championship game every year. Whether I agree with the sentiment or not, the fact is that they don't have to play anyone else to bolster the perception that they have a strong conference. I get that. I think that the SEC is strong. I think they're the best conference in the country. I simply disagree with many about how much better they are than some of the other conferences. I look at some of the struggles that they have OOC and it makes me question the perception that they are so strong.
Wisconsin is playing against Penn State for the right to play Michigan State for the Big Ten title. Whoever the best team is, I would put them on a par with South Carolina for fifth best in the SEC. LSU, Alabama, Arkansas, and Georgia would beat the Big Ten champion on a neutral field 7-9 times out of 10. My daughter teaches at UW. I WANT them to be successful. But the only way the Big Ten can change their image is this: A) WIN big bowl games. Not the Outback Bowl. BIG games. Beat SEC teams on the road. Michigan will not play a road game out of conference except for Notre Dame. Have the Wolverines go into Gainesville and beat the Gators. Have the Spartans go into Fayetteville and handle the Hogs. Heck, have the Cornhuskers go into Starkville and beat Mississippi State. Do that, and you get our respect.
<< <i>Wisconsin is playing against Penn State for the right to play Michigan State for the Big Ten title. Whoever the best team is, I would put them on a par with South Carolina for fifth best in the SEC. LSU, Alabama, Arkansas, and Georgia would beat the Big Ten champion on a neutral field 7-9 times out of 10. My daughter teaches at UW. I WANT them to be successful. But the only way the Big Ten can change their image is this: A) WIN big bowl games. Not the Outback Bowl. BIG games. Beat SEC teams on the road. Michigan will not play a road game out of conference except for Notre Dame. Have the Wolverines go into Gainesville and beat the Gators. Have the Spartans go into Fayetteville and handle the Hogs. Heck, have the Cornhuskers go into Starkville and beat Mississippi State. Do that, and you get our respect. >>
You see, you kind of make my point. Wisky is much better than S. Carolina IMO. It's unlikely that Wisky gives up 37 to E. Carolina, struggles to beat Navy, or lets Citadel stay in the game for a half. S. Carolina isn't that good, period. I'm not saying that Wisky is as good as Alabama or LSU, but not many teams are. But the rest of the SEC is beatable.
Wisconsin is a good team- just not a lucky team. To suggest they are on par with the a team that is 5th in the SEC does not pass the straight face test.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Who have the Badgers beaten? They have played only two ranked teams. Nebraska (they won big) and Michigan State (they lost on that crazy play). They also lost to an unranked OSU team. Their first six games included Nebraska, and a schedule of juggernauts including Oregon State, UNLV, South Dakota, Northern Illinois, and Indiana. After the losses to OSU and MSU, they beat such luminaries as Purdue, Minnesota, and Illinois. I don't think South Carolina would have done any worse. I don't think Wisconsin would be any better against the Gamec***s' schedule. USC avoided LSU and Alabama on the schedule, but they did beat Georgia. They lost to Auburn and Arkansas in competitive games. I think those two teams are fairly comparable. Apparently the BCS disagrees with me. They rank the Gamec***s as much better than any team from the Big Ten.
I see Wisconsin playing a great game against LSU, Alabama and Arkansas- Do they win? I don't know and neither do you. The Badgers have speed, a decent defense and if it were not for two fluke plays - luck can trump greatness- they would be unbeaten.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
I just do not see South Carolina as being the best team if it were in the Big Ten- I think if South Carolina had the opportunity to choose some of its Bowl opponents in recent years, they would have selected another conference
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
I think we still have lots to learn yet about Arkansas and especially Georgia. U of G lost both of their games at home to the best teams on their schedule up to this point. Their SOS is at best 42nd in the nation to this point.
Arkansas has home wins against Troy, Missouri State, New Mexico and Tennessee. They have road wins against Vanderbilt and Mississippi. They have only played three road games the entire season and were stomped by Alabama in one of them. There real quality win at home was against South Carolina. They also beat a decent Texas A&M team and Auburn team at home. I'm anxious to see them play LSU. Maybe they are really good, even great.
MJ
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
I can only go by what I see and what I read. The 2011 current strength of schedule rankings place Bama and LSU at 1 and 2 in difficulty. The only Big Ten team in the Top 25 is Nebraska at #20. Wisconsin is at #49. South Carolina is #22. Not my numbers. These are the real numbers. The Power Rankings show Michigan State as the best team in the Big Ten, slightly behind South Carolina. Not my opinion, just the opinions of experts and computers. So, I reiterate, if the Big Ten wants to be taken seriously, they must play challenging games outside of their conference. For Wisconsin, their most challenging non-conference game was Northern Illinois. For South Carolina, it will be against Clemson. Clemson vs Northern Illinois. Do we see a disparity there? Michigan State got hammered by Notre Dame in its biggest non-conference game. Other than that they won against Youngstown State, Florida Atlantic, and Central Michigan. Again, I give Ohio State credit. They at least went on the road to take on Miami. Although, my guess is that when they scheduled it, they thought it was Miami of Ohio...
South Carolina- Clemson is a huge rivalry and will be played for the foreseeable future and so is Michigan State and ND. I believe Michigan State has won the 4-5 straight against ND.
I will agree that the Big Ten needs to schedule some better non conference games and frankly I see no reason why there can not be a Big 10- SEC challenge similar to what the Big 10 and ACC do in basketball.
As for the computers and rankings figuring schedule strength, I remain sceptical.
I suspect we can compare notes at the end of the season and hopefully South Carolina gets a Big Ten team in a Bowl-
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
It seems that some other conferences, including the SEC, have scheduled some very questionable games as well- Non conference games need to mean something again
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
One reason many elite teams play patsies is they want more home games to increase revenue. Many lower tier teams accept being humuliated on the field for what is for them a good payday. If the better teams played each other they would be scheduleing more away games where the possibility of a loss is increased and could also mean a smaller payday not only for that game but in the bowl game at the end of the year.
Comments
<< <i>All I'll say is that I predict the majority of college football fans not from Alabama or SEC country don't want to see a rematch. Well ESPN does too, but they have a financial interest in the SEC. The SEC talking heads argued Michigan had no claim to a rematch with OSU in 2006 because Michigan didn't win their conference, so if Bama doesn't make it, the same argument should be used. >>
I don't understand the internal logic behind the following:
1) LSU beats Alabama in Tuscaloosa.
2)Alabama beats LSU at a neutral site.
Therefore, Alabama is the national champion.
How can anyone argue that this sequence has even a shred of legitimacy? I mean really- who could take that seriously? If you're an Alabama player/fan/booster/whatever could you seriously consider yourself a national champion in this scenario?
<< <i>The idea that a national champion is not also the champion of their conference is tough to swallow. I'm sorry, but if Alabama can't make it the SEC championship, there is no room for anyone to argue that they belong in the BCS championship. This logic played out already in 2007 when LSU was put into the BCS championship ahead of UGA, when UGA wasn't in the SEC title game.
This year, If LSU beats both Ark and UGA, then for god's sake find another conference champion to pit against them. Alabama had their shot at LSU (AT HOME) and lost. I'd much rather see the Pac10 champ (if its Stanford), or even an unbeaten Houston team get a shot. >>
LSU would beat Houston by 50+ I saw Houston first hand against La Tech. Only thing to save them from getting the L is a late fumble by La Tech marching in for a late score and then Keenum hitting a bomb for Houston for a narrow 1 point victory. They have not played anyone let alone beating anyone. That being said LSU should not have to play Bama again, but with OU, OSU, Oregon and Clemson losing they seem to be the team with the best resume.
At this time, there is no playoff. We have what we have.
To claim that there is no legitamcy with a national championship won during the BCS era is a farce.
By all means, put a playoff in place. Til then, go Bama!
<< <i>All I'll say is that I predict the majority of college football fans not from Alabama or SEC country don't want to see a rematch. Well ESPN does too, but they have a financial interest in the SEC. The SEC talking heads argued Michigan had no claim to a rematch with OSU in 2006 because Michigan didn't win their conference, so if Bama doesn't make it, the same argument should be used. >>
In fairness, the truly compelling argument against an OSU/UM rematch is that UM wasn't very good. The Alabama/LSU situation is only slightly analogous, since both 'Bama and LSU are top-flight teams.
<< <i>
<< <i>All I'll say is that I predict the majority of college football fans not from Alabama or SEC country don't want to see a rematch. Well ESPN does too, but they have a financial interest in the SEC. The SEC talking heads argued Michigan had no claim to a rematch with OSU in 2006 because Michigan didn't win their conference, so if Bama doesn't make it, the same argument should be used. >>
In fairness, the truly compelling argument against an OSU/UM rematch is that UM wasn't very good. The Alabama/LSU situation is only slightly analogous, since both 'Bama and LSU are top-flight teams. >>
Michigan got spanked against USC in their bowl match up, so that could be said after the fact. Prior to that, they lost to #1 by 3 points, with a personal foul ending an opportunity to try to drive for the tie/win late. I think the perception was that they were pretty good.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>All I'll say is that I predict the majority of college football fans not from Alabama or SEC country don't want to see a rematch. Well ESPN does too, but they have a financial interest in the SEC. The SEC talking heads argued Michigan had no claim to a rematch with OSU in 2006 because Michigan didn't win their conference, so if Bama doesn't make it, the same argument should be used. >>
In fairness, the truly compelling argument against an OSU/UM rematch is that UM wasn't very good. The Alabama/LSU situation is only slightly analogous, since both 'Bama and LSU are top-flight teams. >>
Michigan got spanked against USC in their bowl match up, so that could be said after the fact. Prior to that, they lost to #1 by 3 points, with a personal foul ending an opportunity to try to drive for the tie/win late. I think the perception was that they were pretty good.
<< <i>
There are 'three point games', and then there are games that happen to end with a three point margin. Whatever the scoreboard said, UM was never in danger of actually winning that game. Or at least it never seemed to me like they were. And they only played two (maybe three) ranked teams before the OSU game. I remember watching that season unfold and thinking that UM would probably get cracked by just about any mid-table SEC squad.
http://www.unisquare.com/store/brick/
Ralph
I'm a traditionalist, and I say keep college football the way it is.
And anyone who can't see that Alabama and LSU are the two best teams in the country this year, then you're either
anti-BCS, anti-SEC, or not a knowledgeable college football fan. These two teams are head and shoulders above the rest.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>All I'll say is that I predict the majority of college football fans not from Alabama or SEC country don't want to see a rematch. Well ESPN does too, but they have a financial interest in the SEC. The SEC talking heads argued Michigan had no claim to a rematch with OSU in 2006 because Michigan didn't win their conference, so if Bama doesn't make it, the same argument should be used. >>
In fairness, the truly compelling argument against an OSU/UM rematch is that UM wasn't very good. The Alabama/LSU situation is only slightly analogous, since both 'Bama and LSU are top-flight teams. >>
Michigan got spanked against USC in their bowl match up, so that could be said after the fact. Prior to that, they lost to #1 by 3 points, with a personal foul ending an opportunity to try to drive for the tie/win late. I think the perception was that they were pretty good.
<< <i>
There are 'three point games', and then there are games that happen to end with a three point margin. Whatever the scoreboard said, UM was never in danger of actually winning that game. Or at least it never seemed to me like they were. And they only played two (maybe three) ranked teams before the OSU game. I remember watching that season unfold and thinking that UM would probably get cracked by just about any mid-table SEC squad. >>
Really? Michigan dominated most of their games. They had a top 10 defense that was #1 against the run. They beat a Wisky team that ended up the season in the top 10, although they weren't rated high, if at all, when they played because Wisky was expected to stink. Again, if not for the helmet to helmet call on Michigan against Troy Smith on third down, Michigan gets the ball and is down three with a.chance to tie/win.
< you're either anti-BCS>--------maybe I'm guilty of this
<anti-SEC-> ----nope. I think they are the best conference but I would like to see a SEC vs other conference match up just the same
<or not a knowledgeable college football fan>---------wow. I just don't wish to see this this match up again. I saw it the first time.
<These two teams are head and shoulders above the rest>---------maybe. However, while I appreciate great defensives the first match between these two teams didn't exactly blow me away. Game of the century? It turned out it wasn't even the most exciting or memorable game of the month. The most memorable thing about the LSU-Bama game was the great interception on the goal line. Hard hits aside what was the next memorable play? A 77 yd punt? Missed FG's? I remain unimpressed by the QB play by both LSU and Alabama.
Odds are we will get a rematch and the Game of the Century II.
MJ
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
<< <i>I follow LSU, but if we are fortunate enough to play Bama and they beat us in New Orleans, then they will be National Champions fair and square, rematch or not. Nobody offered the Patriots a rematch after the Super Bowl when they lost to the Giants after having beaten the Giants during the regular season. Same here. But first, we've got to beat an Arkansas team that has given us fits for years. >>
And a Georgia team that beat you last time you played them in the dome.
Always buying Bobby Cox inserts. PM me.
<< <i>I think in 2007, LSU and UGa were probably the best two teams in the country. Georgia just had the bad luck of not winning the SEC East. I think they were actually ahead of LSU at the end of the regular season, but since LSU got to play an extra game, they beat the East champion, which gave them some more points to push them over Georgia. Had the Bulldogs played Ohio State, the results would likely have been about the same. This year, it so happens the top three teams in the country are in the same division of the same conference. So, only one of them can possibly represent the division. A little different scenario. >>
You have a great memory. That is exactly what happened. And if you back and read all the sports papers, they all said "You can't play in the national championship if you don't even play in your conferences title game". That was the argument USED AGAINST UGA in '07. But now, we're supposed to pretend that unspoken rule doesn't exist for Bama? Can't change the rules guys....
Always buying Bobby Cox inserts. PM me.
<< <i>Also, the Litlle Statebof Alabama has a chance of producing the third straight Heisman trophy recipient....small state....only 4.8 million people >>
But none of the Heisman Trophy winners were actually from the state of AL. One was from Texas, the other from Michigan. I live in Alabama now, I'm just sayin'
Always buying Bobby Cox inserts. PM me.
<< <i>I don't think LSU has to beat Georgia. I believe that if LSU beats Arkansas, they will have wins against Oregon, West Virginia, Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Auburn, and more. Even with a loss against Georgia, I find it hard to believe that the BCS will find two teams with only one loss that has a better resume'. >>
A loss in week 1-4 is very easy to overcome. A loss in week 5-9 counts a bit more. A loss in your conference championship game will be front of mind for every voter. Alabama will be there with 1 loss, 1-loss OK State will possibly just have destroyed Oklahoma. And some people will still be wanting to see what Andrew Luck and a "real" Stanford offense can do against Bama's defense. Oh and don't forget undefeated Houston. This idea that there is a lack of alternatives is laughable. Most people don't want to see an AL/LSU rematch.
Always buying Bobby Cox inserts. PM me.
<< <i>And to add one more point, Michigan lost to #1 OSU on the road in '06. Alabama lost at home. To me, there's a difference. >>
Your argument is predicated on the notion that the gap between #2 and #3 back in 2006 is the same as the gap in 2011. That's a fair opinion to hold, but I disagree. To my eye, Alabama and LSU are the two best teams in the country right now, with a number of teams (Oregon, Oklahoma, etc.) a distant third. Back in 2006 Michigan benefited from a typical Big 10 schedule filled with middle-of-the-road patsies, and rode that record to a #2 ranking. We are, obviously, just being subjective here. But let me ask you this: If the 2006 Michigan team had played the Gators 100 times on a neutral field, who would have won the majority of those games? I would bet the ranch on Florida. Substitute LSU, Auburn or maybe even WV and I take them as well.
Michigan rose to #2 for the same reason that UM and OSU ALWAYS rise to such a high ranking every year that they have a superior team; because they play in a lousy conference. These teams are almost never, ever on par with the SEC, and they benefit from having significantly easier schedules every year than the highly ranked SEC teams. Since the SEC is without question the best conference in the nation there teams should get the benefit of the doubt where teams from the Big 10 do not. To argue otherwise is to ignore the very real qualitative differences between these conferences.
<< <i>
<< <i>And to add one more point, Michigan lost to #1 OSU on the road in '06. Alabama lost at home. To me, there's a difference. >>
Your argument is predicated on the notion that the gap between #2 and #3 back in 2006 is the same as the gap in 2011. That's a fair opinion to hold, but I disagree. To my eye, Alabama and LSU are the two best teams in the country right now, with a number of teams (Oregon, Oklahoma, etc.) a distant third. Back in 2006 Michigan benefited from a typical Big 10 schedule filled with middle-of-the-road patsies, and rode that record to a #2 ranking. We are, obviously, just being subjective here. But let me ask you this: If the 2006 Michigan team had played the Gators 100 times on a neutral field, who would have won the majority of those games? I would bet the ranch on Florida. Substitute LSU, Auburn or maybe even WV and I take them as well.
Michigan rose to #2 for the same reason that UM and OSU ALWAYS rise to such a high ranking every year that they have a superior team; because they play in a lousy conference. These teams are almost never, ever on par with the SEC, and they benefit from having significantly easier schedules every year than the highly ranked SEC teams. Since the SEC is without question the best conference in the nation there teams should get the benefit of the doubt where teams from the Big 10 do not. To argue otherwise is to ignore the very real qualitative differences between these conferences. >>
While I agree with you on the majority of your points Boopotts Michigan perhaps surprisingly to most have done well against the SEC in bowl games. They seem to be the anomaly in the Big Ten vs SEC match ups. They are 5-2 vs the SEC in the current Big Ten vs SEC alignment/agreement during the BCS era.
FWIW, Alabama's SOL his year falls way outside the top 30. With that being said I hope they have a lot of juniors and sophomores leave for the NFL this year. They are on Michigan's schedule in 2012. Run for your life Denard. Gulp. MJ ( U of M guy)
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
<< <i>
<< <i>And to add one more point, Michigan lost to #1 OSU on the road in '06. Alabama lost at home. To me, there's a difference. >>
Your argument is predicated on the notion that the gap between #2 and #3 back in 2006 is the same as the gap in 2011. That's a fair opinion to hold, but I disagree. To my eye, Alabama and LSU are the two best teams in the country right now, with a number of teams (Oregon, Oklahoma, etc.) a distant third. Back in 2006 Michigan benefited from a typical Big 10 schedule filled with middle-of-the-road patsies, and rode that record to a #2 ranking. We are, obviously, just being subjective here. But let me ask you this: If the 2006 Michigan team had played the Gators 100 times on a neutral field, who would have won the majority of those games? I would bet the ranch on Florida. Substitute LSU, Auburn or maybe even WV and I take them as well.
Michigan rose to #2 for the same reason that UM and OSU ALWAYS rise to such a high ranking every year that they have a superior team; because they play in a lousy conference. These teams are almost never, ever on par with the SEC, and they benefit from having significantly easier schedules every year than the highly ranked SEC teams. Since the SEC is without question the best conference in the nation there teams should get the benefit of the doubt where teams from the Big 10 do not. To argue otherwise is to ignore the very real qualitative differences between these conferences. >>
FWIW, Michigan played FLA in 2007 and dominated them. If not for a couple of Hart fumbles in the red zone, that game is a blowout.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>And to add one more point, Michigan lost to #1 OSU on the road in '06. Alabama lost at home. To me, there's a difference. >>
Your argument is predicated on the notion that the gap between #2 and #3 back in 2006 is the same as the gap in 2011. That's a fair opinion to hold, but I disagree. To my eye, Alabama and LSU are the two best teams in the country right now, with a number of teams (Oregon, Oklahoma, etc.) a distant third. Back in 2006 Michigan benefited from a typical Big 10 schedule filled with middle-of-the-road patsies, and rode that record to a #2 ranking. We are, obviously, just being subjective here. But let me ask you this: If the 2006 Michigan team had played the Gators 100 times on a neutral field, who would have won the majority of those games? I would bet the ranch on Florida. Substitute LSU, Auburn or maybe even WV and I take them as well.
Michigan rose to #2 for the same reason that UM and OSU ALWAYS rise to such a high ranking every year that they have a superior team; because they play in a lousy conference. These teams are almost never, ever on par with the SEC, and they benefit from having significantly easier schedules every year than the highly ranked SEC teams. Since the SEC is without question the best conference in the nation there teams should get the benefit of the doubt where teams from the Big 10 do not. To argue otherwise is to ignore the very real qualitative differences between these conferences. >>
FWIW, Michigan played FLA in 2007 and dominated them. If not for a couple of Hart fumbles in the red zone, that game is a blowout. >>
And the 2006 UM/OSU game is a blowout if OSU doesn't turn the ball over three times.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>And to add one more point, Michigan lost to #1 OSU on the road in '06. Alabama lost at home. To me, there's a difference. >>
Your argument is predicated on the notion that the gap between #2 and #3 back in 2006 is the same as the gap in 2011. That's a fair opinion to hold, but I disagree. To my eye, Alabama and LSU are the two best teams in the country right now, with a number of teams (Oregon, Oklahoma, etc.) a distant third. Back in 2006 Michigan benefited from a typical Big 10 schedule filled with middle-of-the-road patsies, and rode that record to a #2 ranking. We are, obviously, just being subjective here. But let me ask you this: If the 2006 Michigan team had played the Gators 100 times on a neutral field, who would have won the majority of those games? I would bet the ranch on Florida. Substitute LSU, Auburn or maybe even WV and I take them as well.
Michigan rose to #2 for the same reason that UM and OSU ALWAYS rise to such a high ranking every year that they have a superior team; because they play in a lousy conference. These teams are almost never, ever on par with the SEC, and they benefit from having significantly easier schedules every year than the highly ranked SEC teams. Since the SEC is without question the best conference in the nation there teams should get the benefit of the doubt where teams from the Big 10 do not. To argue otherwise is to ignore the very real qualitative differences between these conferences. >>
FWIW, Michigan played FLA in 2007 and dominated them. If not for a couple of Hart fumbles in the red zone, that game is a blowout. >>
And the 2006 UM/OSU game is a blowout if OSU doesn't turn the ball over three times. >>
We could argue points back and fourth all day long, but remember this. As I mentioned, Michigan retained the #2 spot in the BCS after they lost to OSU. That means that most voters believed Michigan was still the second best team after that game. If you remember the outcry following that fact and the bellyaching by the SEC and Urban Meyer, then the voters seemed to try to appease public opinion and vote anybody over Michigan.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>And to add one more point, Michigan lost to #1 OSU on the road in '06. Alabama lost at home. To me, there's a difference. >>
Your argument is predicated on the notion that the gap between #2 and #3 back in 2006 is the same as the gap in 2011. That's a fair opinion to hold, but I disagree. To my eye, Alabama and LSU are the two best teams in the country right now, with a number of teams (Oregon, Oklahoma, etc.) a distant third. Back in 2006 Michigan benefited from a typical Big 10 schedule filled with middle-of-the-road patsies, and rode that record to a #2 ranking. We are, obviously, just being subjective here. But let me ask you this: If the 2006 Michigan team had played the Gators 100 times on a neutral field, who would have won the majority of those games? I would bet the ranch on Florida. Substitute LSU, Auburn or maybe even WV and I take them as well.
Michigan rose to #2 for the same reason that UM and OSU ALWAYS rise to such a high ranking every year that they have a superior team; because they play in a lousy conference. These teams are almost never, ever on par with the SEC, and they benefit from having significantly easier schedules every year than the highly ranked SEC teams. Since the SEC is without question the best conference in the nation there teams should get the benefit of the doubt where teams from the Big 10 do not. To argue otherwise is to ignore the very real qualitative differences between these conferences. >>
FWIW, Michigan played FLA in 2007 and dominated them. If not for a couple of Hart fumbles in the red zone, that game is a blowout. >>
And the 2006 UM/OSU game is a blowout if OSU doesn't turn the ball over three times. >>
We could argue points back and fourth all day long, but remember this. As I mentioned, Michigan retained the #2 spot in the BCS after they lost to OSU. That means that most voters believed Michigan was still the second best team after that game. If you remember the outcry following that fact and the bellyaching by the SEC and Urban Meyer, then the voters seemed to try to appease public opinion and vote anybody over Michigan. >>
Fair enough- point taken.
<< <i>If you want to impress the voters, that's not the way to do it. Their out of conference schedule was Vanderbilt, Central Michigan, Notre Dame (a legitimate tough game at the time), and Ball State. Frankly, that sort of schedule along with the Big Ten's weak schedule anyway doesn't cut it. The Wolverines tried the same thing in 2007, but they didn't realize that App State was better than advertised, and so was Oregon. If these Big Ten teams want to be considered for a National Championship, what they need to do is take on some big teams on the road out of conference. I'll give OSU credit. They scheduled Texas out of conference. I guess we will see how far Michigan has come early next year when they play Bama in the opener in Arlington, Texas. You want to make a statement? That's the way to do it. Beat Bama. Ain't gonna happen.... >>
I could not agree more- and I say this as someone who is a fan of a Big 10 school (MSU) and who lives about eight miles from Michigan Stadium.
In short, Bama will be rebuilding in 2012. (Yes, even Bama rebuilds sometimes)
Always buying Bobby Cox inserts. PM me.
Next year could be a rebuilding year, or just re-loading.
Just kidding............................
<< <i>You also have to remember this: After the OSU game, Michigan was done. Their schedule was complete. Florida still had TWO games left. One was a victory against Florida State (which was not one of FSU's better teams). Florida still had the SEC Championship to play the following week. This gave them one more opportunity for a win. That win turned out to be a solid win against the #8 team in the country (Arkansas). So, that meant Florida had won two games, including a HUGE win over Arkansas since Michigan's loss to OSU. I believe that USC would also have jumped Michigan if they hadn't choked away their last game against UCLA. Voters probably looked at the whole thing on December 3rd and they hadn't seen Michigan win a football game since November 11th. Michigan went into the Ohio State game with wins over Northwestern, Ball State, and Indiana. If you want to impress the voters, that's not the way to do it. Their out of conference schedule was Vanderbilt, Central Michigan, Notre Dame (a legitimate tough game at the time), and Ball State. Frankly, that sort of schedule along with the Big Ten's weak schedule anyway doesn't cut it. The Wolverines tried the same thing in 2007, but they didn't realize that App State was better than advertised, and so was Oregon. If these Big Ten teams want to be considered for a National Championship, what they need to do is take on some big teams on the road out of conference. I'll give OSU credit. They scheduled Texas out of conference. I guess we will see how far Michigan has come early next year when they play Bama in the opener in Arlington, Texas. You want to make a statement? That's the way to do it. Beat Bama. Ain't gonna happen.... >>
USC did jump Michigan a week later, but then dropped again after losing the following week. Lots of writers/voters said that America wasn't interested in a rematch, and were likely right, so their vote would reflect that. Anyways, you can't really talk about OOC schedules being reflective as the SEC seems to schedule tons of terrible teams every year, Bama, for instance, did play a solid PSU team this year. Aside from that, they have matchups with Kent State, North Texas, and Georgia Southern. That's hardly a OOC schedule that screams "challenging", to say the least.
<< <i>Michigan picked a great year to schedule Bama. Bama will lose a lot on defense next year and will NOT be the same team. Mark Barron the top DB will graduate. DeQuan Menzie will also graduate. Their top LB Courtney Upshaw will graduate. Both starting WR's Maze and Hanks and the starting TE Smelley will all graduate. AND to top it all off, there is a good chance that Trent Richardson goes pro after this season.
In short, Bama will be rebuilding in 2012. (Yes, even Bama rebuilds sometimes) >>
Michigan is also rebuilding, although they have exceeded expectations to this point in the season. Their improvement on D is remarkable, thanks to Mattison and Co. That being said, this team is running an offense they wont be running in 2 years. They have players not suited for the style they want to play now with the new coaching staff. Things will be challenging for another year or two, but I'm optimistic about their direction. This team will be good after a couple of recruiting classes. They have a good one slotted for next year and already a couple of great 2013 commits, but time will tell.
Anywho, everyone have a great Thanksgiving. Eat lots and hope that the Lions can at least manage enough of a challenge to help you keep your food down.
<< <i>
<< <i>You also have to remember this: After the OSU game, Michigan was done. Their schedule was complete. Florida still had TWO games left. One was a victory against Florida State (which was not one of FSU's better teams). Florida still had the SEC Championship to play the following week. This gave them one more opportunity for a win. That win turned out to be a solid win against the #8 team in the country (Arkansas). So, that meant Florida had won two games, including a HUGE win over Arkansas since Michigan's loss to OSU. I believe that USC would also have jumped Michigan if they hadn't choked away their last game against UCLA. Voters probably looked at the whole thing on December 3rd and they hadn't seen Michigan win a football game since November 11th. Michigan went into the Ohio State game with wins over Northwestern, Ball State, and Indiana. If you want to impress the voters, that's not the way to do it. Their out of conference schedule was Vanderbilt, Central Michigan, Notre Dame (a legitimate tough game at the time), and Ball State. Frankly, that sort of schedule along with the Big Ten's weak schedule anyway doesn't cut it. The Wolverines tried the same thing in 2007, but they didn't realize that App State was better than advertised, and so was Oregon. If these Big Ten teams want to be considered for a National Championship, what they need to do is take on some big teams on the road out of conference. I'll give OSU credit. They scheduled Texas out of conference. I guess we will see how far Michigan has come early next year when they play Bama in the opener in Arlington, Texas. You want to make a statement? That's the way to do it. Beat Bama. Ain't gonna happen.... >>
USC did jump Michigan a week later, but then dropped again after losing the following week. Lots of writers/voters said that America wasn't interested in a rematch, and were likely right, so their vote would reflect that. Anyways, you can't really talk about OOC schedules being reflective as the SEC seems to schedule tons of terrible teams every year, Bama, for instance, did play a solid PSU team this year. Aside from that, they have matchups with Kent State, North Texas, and Georgia Southern. That's hardly a OOC schedule that screams "challenging", to say the least.
<< <i>Michigan picked a great year to schedule Bama. Bama will lose a lot on defense next year and will NOT be the same team. Mark Barron the top DB will graduate. DeQuan Menzie will also graduate. Their top LB Courtney Upshaw will graduate. Both starting WR's Maze and Hanks and the starting TE Smelley will all graduate. AND to top it all off, there is a good chance that Trent Richardson goes pro after this season.
In short, Bama will be rebuilding in 2012. (Yes, even Bama rebuilds sometimes) >>
Michigan is also rebuilding, although they have exceeded expectations to this point in the season. Their improvement on D is remarkable, thanks to Mattison and Co. That being said, this team is running an offense they wont be running in 2 years. They have players not suited for the style they want to play now with the new coaching staff. Things will be challenging for another year or two, but I'm optimistic about their direction. This team will be good after a couple of recruiting classes. They have a good one slotted for next year and already a couple of great 2013 commits, but time will tell.
Anywho, everyone have a great Thanksgiving. Eat lots and hope that the Lions can at least manage enough of a challenge to help you keep your food down.
C'mon, man- I mean you're obviously smarter than this. I'm not sure what you mean by 'reflective', but you can't compare SEC and Big 10 OOC schedules because the SECs in-conference schedule is so much more brutal than anything these Big 10 teams face. The point made by the OP is that the Big 10 schools need stronger OOC schedules because the conference schedule is generally weak. This obviously doesn't apply to the SEC.
<< <i>C'mon, man- I mean you're obviously smarter than this. I'm not sure what you mean by 'reflective', but you can't compare SEC and Big 10 OOC schedules because the SECs in-conference schedule is so much more brutal than anything these Big 10 teams face. The point made by the OP is that the Big 10 schools need stronger OOC schedules because the conference schedule is generally weak. This obviously doesn't apply to the SEC. >>
Teams have come to the realization that there's no such thing as a "good loss" anymore. One loss eliminates most teams from championship contention. That being said, teams don't want to risk a loss anymore and most don't schedule any more than one challenging game OOC. As for the weakness of the Big 10, the teams have no control over how the other teams in the conference play. If the conference is perceived as weak (and I agree that the Big 10 is this year), there's usually nothing done to dispel that perception if they don't play anybody strong OOC. The SEC has it made. Everybody thinks that their conference is head and shoulders above everyone. Their champion gets to walk into the championship game every year. Whether I agree with the sentiment or not, the fact is that they don't have to play anyone else to bolster the perception that they have a strong conference. I get that. I think that the SEC is strong. I think they're the best conference in the country. I simply disagree with many about how much better they are than some of the other conferences. I look at some of the struggles that they have OOC and it makes me question the perception that they are so strong.
<< <i>Wisconsin is playing against Penn State for the right to play Michigan State for the Big Ten title. Whoever the best team is, I would put them on a par with South Carolina for fifth best in the SEC. LSU, Alabama, Arkansas, and Georgia would beat the Big Ten champion on a neutral field 7-9 times out of 10. My daughter teaches at UW. I WANT them to be successful. But the only way the Big Ten can change their image is this: A) WIN big bowl games. Not the Outback Bowl. BIG games.
You see, you kind of make my point. Wisky is much better than S. Carolina IMO. It's unlikely that Wisky gives up 37 to E. Carolina, struggles to beat Navy, or lets Citadel stay in the game for a half. S. Carolina isn't that good, period. I'm not saying that Wisky is as good as Alabama or LSU, but not many teams are. But the rest of the SEC is beatable.
Wisconsin is a good team- just not a lucky team. To suggest they are on par with the a team that is 5th in the SEC does not pass the straight face test.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Arkansas has home wins against Troy, Missouri State, New Mexico and Tennessee. They have road wins against Vanderbilt and Mississippi. They have only played three road games the entire season and were stomped by Alabama in one of them. There real quality win at home was against South Carolina. They also beat a decent Texas A&M team and Auburn team at home. I'm anxious to see them play LSU. Maybe they are really good, even great.
MJ
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
I will agree that the Big Ten needs to schedule some better non conference games and frankly I see no reason why there can not be a Big 10- SEC challenge similar to what the Big 10 and ACC do in basketball.
As for the computers and rankings figuring schedule strength, I remain sceptical.
I suspect we can compare notes at the end of the season and hopefully South Carolina gets a Big Ten team in a Bowl-
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
http://www.unisquare.com/store/brick/
Ralph