College Football - Week of 11/25

[goonys evil twin]

I just don't think Michigan played well enough to disserve another shot in the National title game. You, and a lot of other people disagree with me, though so who knows.

 

I don't what that has to do with anything. Michigan doesn't have to play well enough to deserve another shot. They need to be the 2nd best team in the country. And I think there is a strong case that they are. There certainly isn't a stronger case that anybody else is better.

[Chocolate Milk]

I just don't think Michigan played well enough to disserve another shot in the National title game. You, and a lot of other people disagree with me, though so who knows.

 

I don't what that has to do with anything. Michigan doesn't have to play well enough to deserve another shot. They need to be the 2nd best team in the country. And I think there is a strong case that they are. There certainly isn't a stronger case that anybody else is better.

 

I don't think they played well enough to remain the #2 team in the country. I don't understand where your confusion stems from.

 

I think you could make a strong case for Florida or USC as the second best team in the nation.

[CubColtPacer]

I just don't think Michigan played well enough to disserve another shot in the National title game. You, and a lot of other people disagree with me, though so who knows.

 

I don't what that has to do with anything. Michigan doesn't have to play well enough to deserve another shot. They need to be the 2nd best team in the country. And I think there is a strong case that they are. There certainly isn't a stronger case that anybody else is better.

 

You don't know what this has to do with anything? The human polls are based on people's perceptions of college football teams. I don't think Michigan should be the #2 team in the nation after last Sat. They hold a slim lead in the BCS over USC and some of that has to do with the fact that the human polls still have them #2. I would have Florida #2. That's what I'm saying.

 

I think you could make a strong case for Florida, Arkansas, and USC as the second best team in the nation.

 

They all have cases, but most of them are a little weaker then Michigan's. They all had several close games in addition to their loss, and Michigan did not. Michigan's victory came to the top team in the nation, and the other teams' losses did not. Michigan is the only team to beaten 2 top 10 teams. The only team that will have a great case if if USC wins out, because they will have so many quality wins and a great SOS.

[Chocolate Milk]

The only team that will have a great case if if USC wins out, because they will have so many quality wins and a great SOS.

 

USC should get kudos for scheduling such a tough out of conference schedule. Arkansas, Notre Dame, and Nebraska.

[CubColtPacer]

The only team that will have a great case if if USC wins out, because they will have so many quality wins and a great SOS.

 

USC should get kudos for scheduling such a tough out of conference schedule. Arkansas, Notre Dame, and Nebraska.

 

I definitely agree with that-to have your 4-5 worst games on your schedule be Pac 10 opponents, that's incredible.

[Chocolate Milk]

They all had several close games in addition to their loss, and Michigan did not.

 

Sure they did. Michigan had close games against Penn State and BALL STATE.

[CubColtPacer]

They all had several close games in addition to their loss, and Michigan did not.

 

Sure they did. Michigan had close games against Penn State and BALL STATE.

 

True, but only Ball State was the only close game. Even when Penn State got the ball with their 3rd QB, everyone knew they had no chance to really win the game. Even if you count this game, that's 2.

 

The others?

 

Florida-Tennessee, Georgia, Vanderbilt, South Carolina-and they struggled against inferior opponents in a couple other games (2 games left)

 

USC-Wash State, Washington, Arizona State (2 games left)

 

Arkansas-Vanderbilt, Alabama, South Carolina (2 games left)

 

Any of those 3 teams could have at least 1 more close game, and they already have more than Michigan.

 

I am not a fan of Michigan whatsover, but their case is the strongest right now. USC could have it if they impress in the next 2 games, and I don't see any way the other two teams make it in, similar to how I see no way to ND making it in with a similar resume.

[NewUserName]

They all had several close games in addition to their loss, and Michigan did not.

 

Sure they did. Michigan had close games against Penn State and BALL STATE.

 

The Penn St game wasnt close, only the score. If you look at the season objectively I would say that either Michigan or USC should be #2. Michigan does have the best overall resume but USC will improve theirs if they win out. I want to also give USC credit for playing a real non-conference schedule. If it was up to me I would give it to USC if they win out. If not I think its Michigan and its not even a close arguement.

 

Also I hate the arguement that Michigan had its shot. In reality everyone had their "shot". If any of the other teams were undefeated they would be playing in the NC game. So they had their shot. So Michigan should be punished for losing to the #1 team while others have lost to lower teams.

 

Edit: Also Penn St is a pretty good team. I havent looked at all the 4 loss teams but Penn St is probably the best. The 4 teams they have lost to have a combined 3 losses.

Edited November 20, 2006 by NewUserName

[goonys evil twin]

They all had several close games in addition to their loss, and Michigan did not.

 

Sure they did. Michigan had close games against Penn State and BALL STATE.

 

The Penn St game wasnt close, only the score. If you look at the season objectively I would say that either Michigan or USC should be #2. Michigan does have the best overall resume but USC will improve theirs if they win out. I want to also give USC credit for playing a real non-conference schedule. If it was up to me I would give it to USC if they win out. If not I think its Michigan and its not even a close arguement.

 

Also I hate the arguement that Michigan had its shot. In reality everyone had their "shot". If any of the other teams were undefeated they would be playing in the NC game. So they had their shot. So Michigan should be punished for losing to the #1 team while others have lost to lower teams.

 

that's my issue. People seem to be more concerned about not setting up a rematch instead of making sure it's 1 vs 2.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

If USC wins out i have no problem with them playing OSU for the title. The other teams im not so sure about being more deserving yet. The intention of the BCS is to have the 2 best teams play for a NCG, it should be irrelevant if that game is a rematch.

 

I disagree. I think if Arkansas runs the table in the SEC (or Florida wins the SEC title) they should go in over USC. Yes, Arkansas lost to USC, I know, but the SEC is a better conference that the Pac-10 and USC lost to an unranked team.

 

I don't think the difference is near enough to make up for the fact that USC went to Arkansas and kicked the crap out of them. Same thing for ND/Michigan.

 

Exactly. If this same argument was being made for ND/Michigan (assuming Michigan had hypothetically lost to an unranked team of course) people would be blowing their stacks in defense of the Wolverines.

 

If USC wins out, they should go. If Florida wins out, I'd say they should go. If Arkansas win out and USC doesn't, they should go. If none of those happen then UM can play the rematch.

 

I could get behind that, but what if Florida and USC win out?

USC would go IMO. Both teams would've beaten Arkansas, but USC also would have beaten ND and Cal, which easily trumps Florida's next most impressive wins over Tennessee and LSU IMO.

 

Just to play devil's advocate, let's say LSU beats Arkansas. Is Florida's win over LSU better than USC's over Notre Dame? I think you could pretty easily argue LSU is a better win(side note: USC and Florida were both at home for those games, so no difference there). Then you have Tennessee v. Cal. Both have 3 losses, and Tennessee ripped Cal to shreds; plus Florida won at Tennessee while USC beat Cal at home. Other factors in Florida's favor include having a "better" loss and playing in a stronger conference.

[SouthSideRyan]

If USC wins out i have no problem with them playing OSU for the title. The other teams im not so sure about being more deserving yet. The intention of the BCS is to have the 2 best teams play for a NCG, it should be irrelevant if that game is a rematch.

 

I disagree. I think if Arkansas runs the table in the SEC (or Florida wins the SEC title) they should go in over USC. Yes, Arkansas lost to USC, I know, but the SEC is a better conference that the Pac-10 and USC lost to an unranked team.

 

This is pure madness. USC BEAT ARKANSAS. I don't see any scenario where 2 teams have the same record, little to no difference in schedules, and 1 team beat the other on the football field, how in the hell does the team that lost by 36 AT HOME get to play instead of the team who won?

[soccer10k]

If USC wins out they are more deserving than UM of playing in the National Title game.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

The Big 12 says that the holding call against Mizzou on 4th and goal from the 1 was bogus, and the guilty party never actually made contact with the contested "holdee".

 

Link

 

Unbelievable.

[Butterscup1679666578]

The Big 12 says that the holding call against Mizzou on 4th and goal from the 1 was bogus, and the guilty party never actually made contact with the contested "holdee".

 

Link

 

Unbelievable.

 

Laaaaaaaaaaame.

[Andy]

If USC wins out i have no problem with them playing OSU for the title. The other teams im not so sure about being more deserving yet. The intention of the BCS is to have the 2 best teams play for a NCG, it should be irrelevant if that game is a rematch.

 

I disagree. I think if Arkansas runs the table in the SEC (or Florida wins the SEC title) they should go in over USC. Yes, Arkansas lost to USC, I know, but the SEC is a better conference that the Pac-10 and USC lost to an unranked team.

 

I don't think the difference is near enough to make up for the fact that USC went to Arkansas and kicked the crap out of them. Same thing for ND/Michigan.

 

Exactly. If this same argument was being made for ND/Michigan (assuming Michigan had hypothetically lost to an unranked team of course) people would be blowing their stacks in defense of the Wolverines.

 

If USC wins out, they should go. If Florida wins out, I'd say they should go. If Arkansas win out and USC doesn't, they should go. If none of those happen then UM can play the rematch.

 

I could get behind that, but what if Florida and USC win out?

USC would go IMO. Both teams would've beaten Arkansas, but USC also would have beaten ND and Cal, which easily trumps Florida's next most impressive wins over Tennessee and LSU IMO.

 

Just to play devil's advocate, let's say LSU beats Arkansas. Is Florida's win over LSU better than USC's over Notre Dame? I think you could pretty easily argue LSU is a better win(side note: USC and Florida were both at home for those games, so no difference there). Then you have Tennessee v. Cal. Both have 3 losses, and Tennessee ripped Cal to shreds; plus Florida won at Tennessee while USC beat Cal at home. Other factors in Florida's favor include having a "better" loss and playing in a stronger conference.

That's an interesting argument and I think it would come down to how good USC looked against ND vs. how good LSU looked against Arkansas.

[cubweiser03]

If USC wins out they are more deserving than UM of playing in the National Title game.

 

If that happens you wont hear an arguement from me. Im definetly not sold on Florida, Arkansas im less negative towards but they have 2 tough ones coming up. Their loss to USC is really nasty looking though.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

The Big 12 says that the holding call against Mizzou on 4th and goal from the 1 was bogus, and the guilty party never actually made contact with the contested "holdee".

 

Link

 

Unbelievable.

 

Laaaaaaaaaaame.

 

I had heard that Pinkel was pissed about the call, but never realized how much. His weekly presser quotes are basically "we won but it was taken away from us".

[Derwood]

Woody Page (of all people) had a good argument against a UM/OSU rematch. Basically, he said that Michigan has had their shot and OSU proved to be better. Now it's time to let someone else try. Why give Michigan two chances while giving another team none?

[cubweiser03]

Woody Page (of all people) had a good argument against a UM/OSU rematch. Basically, he said that Michigan has had their shot and OSU proved to be better. Now it's time to let someone else try. Why give Michigan two chances while giving another team none?

 

Michigan did have their chance at being undefeated and beating OSU, so if they dont make it they dont have anyone else to blame but themseleves. But if the intent of the BCS NCG is to have the 2 best teams play then its irrelevant if that game playerd earlier in the year is a rematch. This arguement as well is Woody's is double edge sword. And as someone said earlier, they've had their chance and lost at least once as well as Michigan, why would Michigan be penalized for already having played OSU. Its an intersting debate.

[Guest]

Woody Page (of all people) had a good argument against a UM/OSU rematch. Basically, he said that Michigan has had their shot and OSU proved to be better. Now it's time to let someone else try. Why give Michigan two chances while giving another team none?

 

I was thinking this earlier too - that its kind of unfair to OSU to have to beat Michigan twice but if Michigan wins the second time, they get the national championship. The only good counter-argument is that the second meeting would be at a neutral site.

 

no way should Arkansas go ahead of USC.

[da bears]

The Big 12 says that the holding call against Mizzou on 4th and goal from the 1 was bogus, and the guilty party never actually made contact with the contested "holdee".

 

Link

 

Unbelievable.

 

That makes me very, very, very angry and bitter. Once again, Big 12 refs are some of the worst in college football.

 

On second though, why even release the damn press release? What difference does it make other than to piss everybody off? Unless they're gonna change the score (which they aren't), why let the fans know that their team got cheated out of a win? And by the way, instead of possibly going to the Alamo Bowl, which would have been good progress for Mizzou, we're probably headed to the Toilet Bowl. Thanks a lot Big 12 refs.

[snoodmonger]

That sucks, though I'm still at a loss as to how that game was close. ISU has been bad this year.

[Butterscup1679666578]

That sucks, though I'm still at a loss as to how that game was close. ISU has been bad this year.

 

Mizzou Meltdown - A time in a game or a span of games where a Missouri Tigers sports team completely and inexplicably falls apart.

[da bears]

That sucks, though I'm still at a loss as to how that game was close. ISU has been bad this year.

 

Mizzou Meltdown - A time in a game or a span of games where a Missouri Tigers sports team completely and inexplicably falls apart.

 

Exactly. Mizzou deserved to lose, but not by the hands of the refs.

[SouthSideRyan]

Woody Page (of all people) had a good argument against a UM/OSU rematch. Basically, he said that Michigan has had their shot and OSU proved to be better. Now it's time to let someone else try. Why give Michigan two chances while giving another team none?

 

So let's say Notre Dame beats USC, and Florida and Arkansas lose their games. Does ND really deserve to go ahead of Michigan just because they didn't play OSU during the regular season??

 

In theory it make sense, but there's far too much noise in a college football season to use something like that as a guideline.