Michigan Gets...

Off Topic
101

[quote]Hambone1818 wrote:
To the guy that put all the rankings up as proof that the SEC is so dominant: I think that’s EXACTLY the point I was making in my posts. The SEC started the season with 5 teams in the top 25, and as I said without a stong non-conference schedule those teams don’t really move much. They all destroy the lessers of the league (the Vandy’s and Miss. States of the world), and if they 1) lose to another top team in the conference they don’t drop much because said team is already ranked high; or 2) beat the other top team, thus increasing their ranking.

Another thing that I mentioned in a few posts is that the only true measuring stick comes in the bowls that these teams ‘earn’ the right to be in…the SEC routinely finishes with a sub-standard record in the bowls, indicating the conference, as a whole, is overrated.

And finally, as I mentioned before, I’m not saying the SEC isn’t a great conference, just that it tends to be overrated and for that reason ends up with teams too highly ranked and often times overmatched in their bowl games. Just one mans unbiased view. [/quote]

I understand what you are saying about us not having a great bowl season in the past couple years (which if I wasn’t actually drunk at this point I would research), but that still does not dispute the fact that the SEC is a much tougher conference then all the others. Have you taken into consideration the level of competition that each SEC team must face week in and week out? Have you thought about the physicallity which each SEC player must endure? And no doubt football is a rough sport no matter what conference you are in, but the speed, quickness and power which most SEC athletes have as compared to others schools. So what I am saying is that after playing a conference schedule in the SEC essentially your team is physically beat to hell. Could this be a reason why the SEC struggles from time to time in the Bowls (which I am not altogether certain of at this point b/c I have not looked into it)? Who knows. I don’t believe that the Big 10 or Pac-10 for that matter are tough conferences. The SEC through and through has much stronger teams which creates no push-over teams week in and week out. Now look at the teams in the Big 10. You basically have 3 teams at the top who are kicking the crap out of the lower 8 and then fighting amongst themselves for 1st, 2nd, and 3rd place. In the SEC, it is a battle every week. Look at Georgia this year. If you were to ask anyone in a million years if Kentucky or Vandy would beat UGA, they would tell you no way, but it happened!!! Then UGA turns around and kicks the shit out of Auburn. Come on man. Look at OSU’s schedule in week’s 5-10 they played Iowa, BGU, MSU, Indiana, Minn, Illinois, and N’western. Do you know what there combined overall records were? They all have a collective record of 31-53. Shit OSU shoulda just fucking went to Hawaii and camped out b/c they sure as hell didn’t play anybody. I am willing to bet you if OSU played in the SEC they would not be 8-0 in the conference. They may win the conference, but they sure as hell wouldn’t go undefeated. I am not saying OSU is not a good FB team, but I am saying that they have a much easier schedule than teams in the SEC.

Take your emotions and love for this issue (and for your team) out of the picture. Step back and look at this from an objective point of view. For those of you, that means look at the facts. Then you will see what every other SEC fan see’s, until then this is just going to be a childish pissing contest. Just look at the schedules and the teams that those in the SEC play and those in the Big 10 play.

102

[quote]obatiger11 wrote:
Take your emotions and love for this issue (and for your team) out of the picture. Step back and look at this from an objective point of view. For those of you, that means look at the facts. Then you will see what every other SEC fan see’s, until then this is just going to be a childish pissing contest. Just look at the schedules and the teams that those in the SEC play and those in the Big 10 play. [/quote]

Ummmmm, I’m a BC fan. Maybe this was targeted at the whole group who’s posted but with my quote up there…

Anyway, as I’ve said in just about every post, I’m not a fan of either conference and don’t like/dislike any of these teams. I just thought Michigan got screwed on this one and wanted to discuss.

103

Michigan got screwed?

I remember 2001 when CU won the Big 12", and blew out Nebraska the day after thanksgiving, marched into a “neutral” site in Texas and beat Texas.

Next thing I know, Nebraska goes to the national title game to play Miami without having won their DIVISION MUCH LESS THEIR CONFERENCE.

I will always hate the BCS for this.

As for Michigan getting “screwed”… yeah right. they already lost to OSU. Next opponent (why not show some SEC love?)

On a side note, what’s the deal with Notre Dame? Why do the polls have to kiss that ass so much? What a bunch of shit. They definately don’t deserve BCS action after getting anihilated by the only 2 top 25 teams they played.

nobody will ever be content with this shit. we just need to accept this as being better than the last system (split championships virtually every year). At least this way we have the opportunity to have 1 champion every 5 years and 2 all the others.

104

All of this talk about which conferences are better is kind of ridiculous. Just like teams, conferences are going to have good years and bad years. Traditionally, the Big 10 and SEC both have very good conferences, as do the other 4 major conferences. This is why we consider them the major conferences.

The past few years, the SEC has been very good. They have consistently had somebody in contention for a National Title. LSU in '03, Auburn in '04, No NT hopes in '05 but 3 teams finished in top 10, and Florida this year.

Not many other conferences consistently have championship hopes like they do, recently. The Big 12 and Pac-10 have, but this is due to OU, Texas, and USC; the rest of their conferences haven’t been good at all. This year, the Big 10 has two or three very good teams, but OSU and Wisc didn’t even play each other. Wisconsin only played one ranked opponent, Mich, and lost. The rest of the Big 10 is very weak. This year the SEC seems to be better than the Big 10.

Right now, I think the Pac-10 is the most overrated and the Big East is very underrated. The Big 12 and ACC are getting the amount of respect they both deserve. This could all change next year.

Comparing Bowl records is kind of a moot point, as 6 or 7 games is hardly an adequate sample to compare conferences. Having said that, It will be very interesting to see how the SEC and Big 10 fair this year.
Florida/OSU should be a very good game.
LSU shouldn’t have much trouble with Notre Dame.
Arkansas and Wisconsin will also be close.
I don’t think Nebraska has a chance against Auburn, and Tennessee should be able to handle Penn St. Georgia is an incosistent team and has a tough game against VaTech, and South Carolina/Houston is anybody’s call. I think Alabama will beat Oklahoma State.
Michigan will probably beat an overrated USC, leading to yet more griping. Iowa doesn’t have much chance in essentially a home game against Texas. Purdue/Maryland and Minnesota/Texas Tech is anybody’s guess.

105

[quote]obatiger11 wrote:
Ok, all you SEC haters. Lets set the record straight. Have any of you dumbasses counted how many SEC schools are in the TOP 25 polls? You fuckers probably didn’t because you’re too busy crying over Michigan getting screwed–WELL DO THE MATH YOU DOUCHE.

…
[/quote]

I think you miss the point completely. Polls are a subjective rating system. When you look at records against out of conference opponents, common opponents, last years bowl games, etc. you will see the SEC is not all that mighty this year yet they are still rated highly.

I think we will see more mediocre performance from the SEC during the bowl games this year.

106

[quote]Hambone1818 wrote:
Alright, so lets see:

…
Alright, so that proved absolutely nobody’s point…that was a pretty sub-par half hour, in my opinion. [/quote]

Nice summary. Very mediocre bowl performance. SEC is as good as anyone else but not spectacular.

107

[quote]MODOK wrote:
Look, here’s what the SEC fans are really saying when we talk about our conference being tougher to play in. There is really no way to explain what college football means to southerners without living down here and being “in” it, but I will try.

…[/quote]

Basically you have nothing else to do except SEC football so in order to stay sane you have to fool yourselves into thinking it is better? :slight_smile:

108

[quote]Hambone1818 wrote:
obatiger11 wrote:
Take your emotions and love for this issue (and for your team) out of the picture. Step back and look at this from an objective point of view. For those of you, that means look at the facts. Then you will see what every other SEC fan see’s, until then this is just going to be a childish pissing contest. Just look at the schedules and the teams that those in the SEC play and those in the Big 10 play.

Ummmmm, I’m a BC fan. Maybe this was targeted at the whole group who’s posted but with my quote up there…

Anyway, as I’ve said in just about every post, I’m not a fan of either conference and don’t like/dislike any of these teams. I just thought Michigan got screwed on this one and wanted to discuss.
[/quote]

You are right I did quote you and then made a broad statement to pretty much anyone reading this thread (which were my original intentions). So, I offer my apologies. I just can’t agree with the notion that Michigan got screwed.

I think we all agree that there needs to be a playoff system.

109

SEC is a tougher conference that the Big 10. That really can’t be disputed. However, the top two teams in the Big 10–OSU & MIchigan—are better than any team in the SEC. There should really be no serious dispute about that either. OSU is much better and more well-rounded that Florida. And hasn’t played with the same sloppiness. Florida will have a poor showing against OSU. Michigan would’ve had a better one. Wisconsin and Penn may well win their games. Who cares?

110

[quote]orangecola wrote:
Screwed!
There is no way that florida deserves to play in that game over michigan.
This game is going to suck now because Ohio State is going to crush florida.
Instead of one week, Tressel is gonna get several weeks to put together one of his great game plans, which will be completely unecessary because on talent alone Ohio State is gonna piss on the gators.

There are not several deserving teams, there is one team, and that is michigan.

Congrats BCS, you fucked up another one. We need a god damn playoff system.
p.s. to all you “rematch haters”, go blow yourselves. I don’t care if you don’t want to see a rematch, the best team deserves to play in the title game. [/quote]

I hope you are kidding. The 1st game between Michigan and Ohio St. wasn’t even close. It was a double digit loss without the last second score. If you dont win your conference you don’t deserve to play in the national title game.

111

[quote]obatiger11 wrote:

I think we all agree that there needs to be a playoff system.
[/quote]

Yes, definitely.

[quote]obatiger11 wrote:
You are right I did quote you and then made a broad statement to pretty much anyone reading this thread (which were my original intentions). So, I offer my apologies. I just can’t agree with the notion that Michigan got screwed.
[/quote]

While, I don’t know if I could quite say Michigan got screwed, I think they are the better team, and the better team is not going to the Championship game BECAUSE we don’t have a playoff system. And the Big 10 doesn’t have a conference championship. And our season ends two weeks earlier. Michigan got INSTITUTIONALLY screwed. Someone often does and will continue to get INSTIUTIONALLY screwed because of the nature of the BCS.

112

Florida has 27 guys who were high school kids last year. Hell, the WHOLE TEAM is going to be standing there, during the first half, just staring at where they are. Watch what happens.

I’ve seen this before. OSU is going to literally crush those youngsters.

113

[quote]MODOK wrote:
How can anyone say that Michigan got screwed this year with a straight face, when the LAST GAME they played they lost to the Buckeyes? Explain how they have earned another shot at OSU…because they only lost by 3? If the BCS has ever worked, it worked this year. The OSU/UM game was as close to a playoff as we will have under this system. They had a shot, they lost…no mulligans.

The rest of the country outside the great lakes wants to see another team get a chance because maybe, just maybe those AREN’T the two best teams in the country. And since we can’t have a true playoff, let another deserving, proven conference champion play and see how they fair. [/quote]

All well and good, and as I said it’s just one man’s view. I have my reasons for wanting to see a rematch (because I believe they are the 2 best teams in the nation and I believe that’s the point of the BCS system) you have yours. However, regarding your second point: 100% wrong. If you’ve been watching ESPN at all over the last few days you would have seen the on-line nationwide poll (I think I remember seeing 20,000+ votes) they had showing virtually a 50-50 split (I think it ended up 51% for Florida, 49% for a rematch–with a margin for error of 2%), and Michigan actually getting support from more states, overall, than Florida.

114

[quote]CU AeroStallion wrote:
Michigan got screwed?

I remember 2001 when CU won the Big 12", and blew out Nebraska the day after thanksgiving, marched into a “neutral” site in Texas and beat Texas.

Next thing I know, Nebraska goes to the national title game to play Miami without having won their DIVISION MUCH LESS THEIR CONFERENCE.

I will always hate the BCS for this.

As for Michigan getting “screwed”… yeah right. they already lost to OSU. Next opponent (why not show some SEC love?)

On a side note, what’s the deal with Notre Dame? Why do the polls have to kiss that ass so much? What a bunch of shit. They definately don’t deserve BCS action after getting anihilated by the only 2 top 25 teams they played.

nobody will ever be content with this shit. we just need to accept this as being better than the last system (split championships virtually every year). At least this way we have the opportunity to have 1 champion every 5 years and 2 all the others.[/quote]

As a Nebraska fan, I have to agree with you. NU had no business playing Miami and it showed. The BCS is jacked up.

Almost as bad as CU and their “5th down year” :slight_smile:

I’m glad Florida gets a shot. I have heard that the SEC is not as tough as they usually are but that has to be the toughest conference overall.

115

[quote]Hambone1818 wrote:
MODOK wrote:
How can anyone say that Michigan got screwed this year with a straight face, when the LAST GAME they played they lost to the Buckeyes? Explain how they have earned another shot at OSU…because they only lost by 3? If the BCS has ever worked, it worked this year. The OSU/UM game was as close to a playoff as we will have under this system. They had a shot, they lost…no mulligans.

The rest of the country outside the great lakes wants to see another team get a chance because maybe, just maybe those AREN’T the two best teams in the country. And since we can’t have a true playoff, let another deserving, proven conference champion play and see how they fair.

All well and good, and as I said it’s just one man’s view. I have my reasons for wanting to see a rematch (because I believe they are the 2 best teams in the nation and I believe that’s the point of the BCS system) you have yours. However, regarding your second point: 100% wrong. If you’ve been watching ESPN at all over the last few days you would have seen the on-line nationwide poll (I think I remember seeing 20,000+ votes) they had showing virtually a 50-50 split (I think it ended up 51% for Florida, 49% for a rematch–with a margin for error of 2%), and Michigan actually getting support from more states, overall, than Florida.

[/quote]

Absolutely right. Far from all the country outside the Great Lakes region wanted to see Florida in the Championship game.

116

[quote]MODOK wrote:
If the BCS has ever worked, it worked this year. [/quote]

The BCS has never worked and never WILL work for the reasons I said.

117

Michigan got screwed. Probably some sort of kharma balance from thinking they actually had a right to “share” in the National Championship in 97.

Caucasians please!

118

[quote]MODOK wrote:
Hambone1818 wrote:
MODOK wrote:
How can anyone say that Michigan got screwed this year with a straight face, when the LAST GAME they played they lost to the Buckeyes? Explain how they have earned another shot at OSU…because they only lost by 3? If the BCS has ever worked, it worked this year. The OSU/UM game was as close to a playoff as we will have under this system. They had a shot, they lost…no mulligans.

The rest of the country outside the great lakes wants to see another team get a chance because maybe, just maybe those AREN’T the two best teams in the country. And since we can’t have a true playoff, let another deserving, proven conference champion play and see how they fair.

All well and good, and as I said it’s just one man’s view. I have my reasons for wanting to see a rematch (because I believe they are the 2 best teams in the nation and I believe that’s the point of the BCS system) you have yours. However, regarding your second point: 100% wrong. If you’ve been watching ESPN at all over the last few days you would have seen the on-line nationwide poll (I think I remember seeing 20,000+ votes) they had showing virtually a 50-50 split (I think it ended up 51% for Florida, 49% for a rematch–with a margin for error of 2%), and Michigan actually getting support from more states, overall, than Florida.

Back when I was in school 51% was a majority. I’ll be the first to say that UF isn’t the best team the SEC has fielded lately by a long shot, but its a long shot better than watching a rematch of a game that JUST happened. IF UM hadn’t scored that late td, we wouldn’t even be having this conversation. But since it was a 3 point game, they deserve another shot? I’d venture to say, if there were a 10 or 12 team playoff, the champion probably wouldn’t be ANY of these 3 teams we are talking about.

But it sure would be fun to watch. Thats something we can only dream about though.

[/quote]

Semantics dude, if FLA hadn’t recovered that fumble in the endzone we wouldn’t be having this conversation either.

b.

119

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
MODOK wrote:
If the BCS has ever worked, it worked this year.

The BCS has never worked and never WILL work for the reasons I said.[/quote]

That is incorrect. The BCS is a better system than any playoff system would be. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. This topic was brought up earlier and I spent some time looking at all the years the BCS has been effect and compared it to how a playoff would’ve been. This is what I wrote:

One of the biggest problems with a playoff system is that every year, the makeup of the top 10 or 15 teams changes.

Let’s look at each individual year and see playoff vs. BCS (I’m going 2000 and after since that’s the “modern” BCS).

2000- Oklahoma was clearly the #1 team. After that you had a tangled mess. Florida State and Miami were clearly #2 and #3 (although obviously there was and should have been huge debate about who should’ve been #2). A 4-team playoff couldn’t have worked as there were 3 teams who legimately could’ve been #4 and even #7 Florida had a possible claim. An 8-team playoff would’ve worked well here, since there was a pretty big seperation between #8 Nebraska and #9 Kansas State. A 12-team playoff (although in my opinion it’s way too long for a playoff system) wouldn’t have had much controversy either.

2001- A similar situation. Miami was the clear #1 and after that it was a clusterfuck. A 4-team playoff would’ve worked perfectly as there was a big seperation between #'s 2,3 and 4 Nebraska, Colorado and Oregon and #5 Florida. An 8-team playoff would’ve been pretty disastrous. 10-2 Maryland was ranked #6 in both polls but #10 in the BCS. In the BCS rankings, there is virtually no seperation between #8 Illinois and #11 Oklahoma. A 12-team playoff would’ve been tough as well as Washington State was #13 in both polls, but ahead in computer average and only had 2 losses, compared to #12 LSU, who was behind in the computers and had three losses in a fairly weak SEC, although they did win the SEC championship game.

2002- A 1v2 championship was the obvious choice here. 4-team playoff could not possibly have worked since Georgia, USC and Iowa were all so close. An 8-team playoff couldn’t have worked either #'s6-10 all had 2 losses and even 3-loss Michigan, with the nation’s 2nd hardest schedule could’ve laid a claim. 12 teams probably would’ve worked as #13 Colorado was a bit back with 4 losses.

2003- Ah, the shared championship. Obviously a 1v2 championship didn’t work (although I guess with the shared championship, you might say it did). A 4-team playoff would’ve worked perfectly, as Michigan was clearly the #4 team in the country this year. 8-teams wouldn’t have worked at all. BCS #7 FSU was #9 in one poll. BCS #10 KSU was #8 in one poll. A total of 5 teams were ranked 7th, 8th or 9th in the two major pollls. 12 teams couldn’t have worked. Miami was #14 and 15 in the two polls, but 11th in the BCS and had a valid claim to the top 8 with a 6.00 computer ranking! Would it have been fair to leapfrog them over Iowa (13th and 12th) or Purdue (12th and 13th)? And how about 1-loss teams like Boise State or TCU, would it have been fair to include 3-loss teams like Georgia and KSU (both clearly ranked higher) over them?

2004- The infamous Auburn year. To be honest, I think the way it turned out was the best way to do it. Auburn was #3 in both polls and 3rd in every computer ranking. There wasn’t one official system that ranked them ahead of USC or Oklahoma. However, if you would’ve gone to a 4-team, there would’ve been incredible debate between Cal and Texas, and even undefeated Utah. An 8-team playoff could’n’t have worked- Louisville was #7 and #8 in the polls, but #13 in the computer rankings. Boise State was #9 in both polls, but only had 1 loss and was 7th in the computer rankings. Virginia Tech was #9 in both polls and 9th in the computer rankings, but 8th in the BCS. If you went to 12 teams, how could you have chosen between Michigan and Iowa? Iowa had one less loss and a higher computer ranking (12th to 17th), but Michigan beat them head-to-head, won the Big 10 outright and was ranked 12th in the USA Today/ESPN poll, while Iowa was 12th in the AP Poll.

2005- Obviously 1v2 was the answer here. A 4-team playoff would’ve worked well here also. An 8-team playoff would’ve been disastrous with the choice between Georgia, Virginia Tech, Miami, Auburn, and maybe even LSU and WVU. 12-teams would’ve worked well.

So in 6 years, a 2-team championship was the best choice twice, a 4-team playoff would’ve been the best choice twice, an 8-team playoff would’ve been the best choice once, and one year was just an overall clusterfuck, and I think 1v2 was the best choice in that year.

And therein lies why I think the BCS is better than a playoff system. The BCS isn’t great by a long shot, but playoffs would definitly be worse, in my opinon.

There is no possible way to avoid controversy, just by the nature of sports. Right now, college football is a sport unlike any others. It is the only sport where a team is judged on the ENTIRE season and not just the playoffs. Implementing a playoff system would drastically change this concept and, in my opinion, really destory the uniqueness of college football.

As it is right now, a college football national championship is something that’s really pretty unique. It basically takes a perfect season.

Imagine a 3-loss Arkansas team rebounding from those last couple of losses, getting hot and winning the finals over an undefeated Ohio State team. Do they deserve the national championship? In my opinion, no, they don’t.

For college football, BCS is a far superior system to a playoff.

120

[quote]MODOK wrote:

Back when I was in school 51% was a majority. [/quote]

So now you’re changing your stance? Because in your last post, the one I replied to, this is exactly what you said:

“The rest of the country outside the great lakes wants to see another team get a chance because maybe, just maybe those AREN’T the two best teams in the country.”

So I was responding to that, and while you may have been thinking ‘majority’ your post stated that the rest of the country other than the Big 10 region wanted to see Florida. Big, big difference. Nice try, though.