Now Stu, I did try my best to get you to turn to the dark side. But I will once again come back to Graceland and will finally throw in the towel on Colt Brennan after Hawaii lost to OSU. Your boy has my vote. I still think he should at least be invited among the 5 finalists. He really did have a once in a lifetime year.
"If we had a playoff UM would have a shot for a replay but we don't. UF won its Conference and has not lost to OSU. UM cannot say either one of those things." Strongest arguments yet Kp. These are the reasons there should be no rematch. Besides....if Michigan won by three in a rematch the collective heads of the nation's college football fans would explode and we wouldn't want that.
This stuff shouldn't be taken personally. I don't nor should you, that's why I suggested you lock it up. I just don't like coaches lobbying for the polls. I don't care if his name is Urban, Charlie Weiss, Stoops , Brown, or even Joe Paterno. I just don't believe in it. It cheapens the game. I expected UM to drop badly after the OSU game. I expected USC and FL, maybe even UL to jump them. When the pollsters still voted them # 2 , they made a statement that this was the 2nd best team in the country. Why ? Do you know what the difference is ( BTW Congrats to your Gators) between FL being 2nd and UM 3rd? ......01 That's 1 vote !! That could have been Tressel's vote. The computer ratings dropped UM from .960 to .930 last week. Why? Not one of their opponents played , so it was some compilation of their opponents opponents that led to such a huge drop.. It would be interesting to find out what made such a difference. This week UM's computer ratings goes up from .93 to .94 why ? Because UM's opponent CMU defeated a 9-3 Ohio team. Not much weight given there, not nearly as much as FL's .5 jump from .89 to .94. There's 2 issues here. 1. UM should not have been ranked # 2 after the OSU game if the pollsters didn't think they were worthy of it. 2. Coaches should not try to influence the voting. If you are going to insist that I purposely took a cheap shot at your coach or your team, then you should close down this thread, because I am not looking to pizz on your parade like Gip is trying to do to me on the Rutgers thread. You forget I stuck up for FL when your DT was smoking the herb only to be proven wrong. I think you are still taking this issue far too personally and fail to recognize that others don't see things the way you do. I never has a fight with you before and this is the last time I will comment on this subject. I have a nose for trouble ! Just close it down!
I didn't claim them as my creation. Someone on another thread posted Schlabach had this to say about Michigan and I didn't realize he was at ESPN. He use to be with the Atlanta Journal. I didn't feel the need to take the time to explain who he was. Oh well shoot me. Anyway they're just valid reasons why UM doesn't deserve another shot. I read this one somewhere else also... Florida is the SEC Champion. Michigan is the Champion of nothing.
Interesting that this controversy sheds a bit of light on why conferences like the Big-10/11 and PAC-10 would not embrace a +1 conference title game. Such a game would eliminate their claim that the top 2 teams in the nation are from one conference. Just for consideration .... if UMich and OSU got their rematch in a Big-10/11 title game ...... what would be the possible outcome in this 2006 season. #1, OSU wins and completely eliminates UMich's claim to a spot in the BCS title game. #2, UMich wins, eliminating a 1-loss OSU from the title picture and possibly eliminating UMich teams from consideration for the BCS title game as polls, etc could swing in favor of other undefeated or 1-loss teams, especially if USC had defeated UCLA. Oh well.
GF Top rated OSU has already defeated the no. 2 team twice this year. Just how many times do you want them to play the second best team? Of course some teams can just show up for the NC game and try to steal the title.
Very good point Gaterz. If the Big 10 had a title game there would be no controversy about a rematch...especially because the conference title game would be played at Ford Field in Detroit and not in Columbus or Ann Arbor. Why would anyone clamor for another neutral site game in Jan. between the two? Also, by losing such a game Michigan would face the very real possibility of being left out of the BCS picture all together. I think Wisconsin would have gone to The Rose bowl instead. Michigan should be ecstatic not to even win their conference and still play USC in the Rose bowl.
And just what should LSU be? The didn't even win their division and they're going to a BCS bowl while Ark. who won the division LSU is in isn't.
One must wonder if Carr would have been in favor of a rematch with OSU .... had UMich been able to go undefeated, handing OSU it's only regular season loss.
My gut tells me that the public did not want a rematch, period and the prevailing sentiment of give someone else a chance seems to be the deciding factor. I can't say that I disagree. No matter how deserving the Stripeheads were....and indeed they were and I continue to believe they are the country's 2nd best team. Many talk about strength of schedule, quality wins, etc and give the nod to the Gators. I've always believed a win is a win is a win. More telling to me has always been who did you lose to? If we flip the ledger and look at who they lost to, M has to get that nod. The Gators lost to #10 and beat everybody else. The Stripeheads lost only to #1 and beat everybody else.....is Auburn capable of beating M? We can only speculate but we know that in fact they can beat the Gators. I see the spread has opened at 7.5 Buckeye favorite....Gipper asked the question, what would the spread be in a Mich-OSU rematch at a neutral site? As I recall, that was about the spread for the OSU-Mich game in Columbus and we didn't cover. Logic would dictate then that the spread for a game on a neutral site would be less and perhaps less than the 3 point actual outcome. Taking the next step, it seems logical to suggest then that M would be favored over the Gators and indeed I think they'd probably go off as at least 3 point favorite on a neutral site.....that said, the people have spoken, didn't want a rematch and want somebody else to have a shot at the Buckeyes! I agree......best of luck to the Gators! Many, many kudos to Bobda for his ever gracious postings.....many, many of us - including myself - could take a lesson. If similar circumstances presented themselves, I for damn sure would struggle to follow his lead....
It were two reasons whay I could tell the 10 points were not yours, Tailback. One, the writing style was coherent. Two, the real author did not blame George Bush for being the true reason for the BCS mess.
AJ, this will be my last word also. Perhaps I should not take it personally, however I would submit to you that if you had put your first post as you put your last one and titled the topic a bit differently I would not have. But when you call telling the truth as Meyer and Florida fans see things as cheap lobbying and say he should be suspended I think you should expect some Gator fans to take offense. If I remember the past correctly you have risen to the defense of JoPa on a few ocassions. That's all I did. And I respect your right to think a coach shouldn't talk for his team, I just don't agree. But hey, it's been and interesting conversation and I'm still trying to follow Stu's advice and get my sense of humor back. :wink: :wink:
"1. UM should not have been ranked # 2 after the OSU game if the pollsters didn't think they were worthy of it." Precisely! This is where things went wrong in the first place. Can't think of too many times when one team loses in the top 5 while everyone else wins that weekend and somehow the team that lost loses no ground to the other top 5 members who won. That was strange to begin with and I think the voters reneged on that initial sentiment.
Attaboy! Now if y'all will quit bashing us for not having a stupid (and that's what they are as far as this opinionated guy is concerned) championship game, I can die a happy man. Your conferences wanted them...you got them...and now you can't decide whether or not to bitch 'cause they screw up everything (which they do) or act superior because you have them and our conferences did not decide to sell out for the money so we "have it easier". Do you really think that the lord high poobahs of the SEC decided to have them to make it tougher for your top teams?...No, it's the money. I'll be the first to admit the difficulties that a conference championship presents to y'all, but this is, I think, pretty ridiculous... Having two teams that might be able to lay claim to the top two spots is undoubtedly a once in a century proposition and I doubt that trying to get two teams into the BCS Championship game was very high on the list of reasons that our esteemed leaders declined to not have one. I think I need to quit this Big 10/SEC stuff too, 'cuz Bill's gonna hafta waste a post telling me to get my sense of humor back. :roll:
Stu I agree with your comments as to why the braintrust of the Big-10/11 didn't choose to go with the conference championship game back in the mi-90s ....... as that would be allowing those guys far to much credit. However, having seen how the SEC and Big-12 teams eliminate one another with their games .... I'm sure the b-wigs of the Big-10/11 see the flexibilty and benefit of not having the conference championship ... a/k/a elimination from the BCS .... game. Just look at what happened to Arkansas. Are they really less deserving of a BCS spot than ND? If I recall correctly each won 10 games. ND lost 2 games ...to the #3 and #5 BCS teams. Arkansas lost 3 games .... to the #2, #4, and #5 BCS teams. Why should Arkansas not get a BCS berth ..... because it was required to play in a conference title game and lost to the team currently ranked #2?