Should Michigan get a shot at the National Championship game?

[OregonBuckeye]

That doesn't make any sense. If Michigan is the #2 team in the country, then that means USC and Florida are not. So how is it unfair to them that they are left out?

Who says they are? We've already proven that scUM is not the best team in the nation but how do we know USC or Florida aren't either? It's unfair to assume scUM is better than Florida or USC just because they had a "better" loss than those two teams. If everyone thinks scUM is the second best team in the nation then just give us the damn trophy because we've already beaten them.

 

[lvbuckeye]

It isn't an assertion. It's a question. Are you saying that there is no possibility that the two best teams in the nation can come from the same conference? How does OSU beating Michigan lead to the conclusion that one of the USC/Florida/WV/Arkie/UL group must be better than Michigan? Michigan can lose to OSU and still be the #2 team in the country

no one is making that assertion. of course M could be the second best team in the nation. HOWEVER;

if the NY Yankees are the best team in baseball, and the Red Sox are the second best, but they meet in the ALCS, then the Yankees would not meet the 2nd best team in the WS.

if Duke and UNC are the two best teams in basketball, and they meet in the Final Four, then the second best team does not play in the finals.

if the Colts and the Chargers are the two best teams in the NFL, and they meet in the AFC CG, then the second best team will not play in the Super Bowl.

does that make sense? M effectively removed themselves from consideration by losing a de facto national semifinal game...

of course there is also the line of thought that the two teams in the BCS championship game should both have a legitimate claim that they could be the best in the country. considering the fact that M is not the best team in its own conference, by reason of LOSING to Ohio State (which most certainly DOES have a legit claim to the #1 spot) it stands to reason that M can make no such claim.

 

[Oh8ch]

The problem is that we continue to pretend that who wins a game is a function of who has the better team, when at best it is a function of who has the better team on that day.

And THAT is a function of talent, coaching, preparation, game plan, experience, weather/field conditions, injuries, breaks, etc. Bottom line is that no team is the 'same team' two weeks in a row.

Arkansas lost to USC by a ton - but it ws a relatively young Arkansas in the first game of the year when their star RB was limited due to injuries.

Florida has been decimated with injuries and suspensions, yet their only loss was on the road to a team ranked #11 at the time in a game where they gave up 14 points on a blocked punt and a fumble return on the final play.

Even Texas saw their two losses come first against a very good team when McCoy was playing in his second game and again when he was injured.

Michigan, on the other hand, without Manningham has been anything but dominant against mediocre competition.

And for all this we are trying to compare teams who not only do not play one another but have no common opponents (neither Fla, USC or Ark have played any of the same teams OSU has played) across a season's body of work where not only is overall SOS different, but where one team may be asked to play two tough games in a row (such as Florida coming off LSU to play Auburn). Even bye weeks can be a factor. While bye weeks may seem like an advantage don't forget that JT is 1-4 after byes with his only win against Kent St (that is a coach with an 83% winning record going at a 20% clip based on this single factor). USC had a bye week before they lost to Oregon St.

Long and the short of it is our best chance for an accurate comparison is two teams playing head to head at full strength on a neutral field with few breaks and good field conditions. OSU and Michigan came as close to that as you can come in the regular season. Granted, the field was sloppy amd OSU was at home, but OSU won despite two unforced errors and won by more than the simple math indicates.

So my long winded point is that you can pretend Michigan is superior to Florida, USC and Arkansas but you can't prove it.

The only thing we know for sure is OSU already beat Michigan. Doing it again to see if we get a different result wont clarify anything.

 

[gracelhink]

In Pete Carro's interview he played the "share the wealth card" when asked if Michigan should be the choice for BCS title game. Something to the effect "I don't think its fair that one conference should get all the money with two teams in the title game." Will be interesting to see if this appeal to greed may disuade the coaches' or writer's thinking in the polls which contribute to the BCS standings. Obviously computers can not be swayed by greed factor can they?

 

[exhawg]

If USC, Florida, and Arkansas all lose in the next two weeks, then maybe.

It would be hard to argue for ND, WV, or Louisville over scUM.

I agree with this. If any of those three teams don't lose another game they should get the NC game. Starting with USC, Florida, and Arkansas.

 

[Steve19]

For purely selfish reasons, no.

Here are the top ten programs in all-time winning percentage

TSUN, Notre Dame, Texas, Alabama, Ohio St.,Oklahoma, Nebraska, Southern California, Tennessee, Penn St.

I think we will pass Texas and Alabama this year to slide into #3.​

So, we have beaten numbers 1, 2, 3, and 10 within the last twelve months and during this string of wins. Even though the ND win will then be "over the horizon" so to speak when we play in the NC game, I would like to add a USC scalp to that list.
​

Moreover, if Tressel out-coaches Carroll, as I think he will, it will do a lot to keep kids focused on Ohio State in terms of recruiting.

So, TSUN in a rematch, no thank you. Second best or not, they had their shot.

 

[methomps]

Who says they are? We've already proven that scUM is not the best team in the nation but how do we know USC or Florida aren't either? It's unfair to assume scUM is better than Florida or USC just because they had a "better" loss than those two teams. If everyone thinks scUM is the second best team in the nation then just give us the damn trophy because we've already beaten them.

So it isn't fair to assume Michigan is better than UF or SC just because they had a "better" loss, but it is fair to exclude them without consideration just because their loss was to the best team while the UF and SC lost to lesser teams?

I'm not saying, "We must assume Michigan is the second best team because they had the better loss"

I am saying, "We must use the system they put in place to determine the #2 team. If the computer polls and the human polls think Michigan is #2, then we shouldn't purposefully exclude them in favor of the #3 team."

I'm saying that voters shouldn't say, "I really think Michigan is the #2 team in the country, but I don't want a rematch so I'll vote them lower."

no one is making that assertion. of course M could be the second best team in the nation. HOWEVER;

Well Tresselbeliever was doing a spectacular job of never answering the question.

if the NY Yankees are the best team in baseball, and the Red Sox are the second best, but they meet in the ALCS, then the Yankees would not meet the 2nd best team in the WS.

if Duke and UNC are the two best teams in basketball, and they meet in the Final Four, then the second best team does not play in the finals.

if the Colts and the Chargers are the two best teams in the NFL, and they meet in the AFC CG, then the second best team will not play in the Super Bowl.

All of these analogies are flawed. For one, the team that won in the regular season can still beat the other team in the playoffs. Also, the systems are completely different. If the Yankees sweep the Red Sox, it doesn't mean that Boston is ineligible for the wild card spot.

does that make sense? M effectively removed themselves from consideration by losing a de facto national semifinal game...

So if the game had been decided by 1 point on a clearly blown call?

of course there is also the line of thought that the two teams in the BCS championship game should both have a legitimate claim that they could be the best in the country. considering the fact that M is not the best team in its own conference, by reason of LOSING to Ohio State (which most certainly DOES have a legit claim to the #1 spot) it stands to reason that M can make no such claim.

Again, the BCS specifically considered whether to add a conference champ requirement after the 2001 season (and again after 2003). They declined to do so both times. The BCS concept is very simple: the two best teams play in the BCS NC game.

 

[lvbuckeye]

So it isn't fair to assume Michigan is better than UF or SC just because they had a "better" loss, but it is fair to exclude them without consideration just because their loss was to the best team while the UF and SC lost to lesser teams?

no. it isn't right to assume that Michigan is better than USC or Florida, but not just because their sole loss is to Ohio State. it isn't right because M has not played USC or Florida...

I'm not saying, "We must assume Michigan is the second best team because they had the better loss"

I am saying, "We must use the system they put in place to determine the #2 team. If the computer polls and the human polls think Michigan is #2, then we shouldn't purposefully exclude them in favor of the #3 team."

isn't this all based on personal opinion? there is no way to quantify whether any of those three teams is better than the other. as it stands, both USC and Florida have tougher schedules than M, and will have more quality WINS than M should they win out. there is no such thing as a 'good loss.' a loss is a loss is a loss. the arguement MUST be based on which teams have more quality wins.

I'm saying that voters shouldn't say, "I really think Michigan is the #2 team in the country, but I don't want a rematch so I'll vote them lower."

as if the voters haven't ever shifted their vote to manipulate the system before... Nebraska sharing the title in '97 ring any bells? they were #2 in both polls before the bowl game.

All of these analogies are flawed. For one, the team that won in the regular season can still beat the other team in the playoffs. Also, the systems are completely different. If the Yankees sweep the Red Sox, it doesn't mean that Boston is ineligible for the wild card spot.

we're not talking about the regular season. we're talking about playoffs. college football is the last sport in which the regular season is truely meaningful, because each game is a de facto playoff game.

So if the game had been decided by 1 point on a clearly blown call?

it was decided by three points, and the blown calls all went the way of the loser...

Again, the BCS specifically considered whether to add a conference champ requirement after the 2001 season (and again after 2003). They declined to do so both times. The BCS concept is very simple: the two best teams play in the BCS NC game.

i won't disagree with the concept. however, you are losing touch with history with this argument. do not forget that the 1996 rematch debacle between Florida and Florida State was a catalyst for the system we have today. the split title in '97 certainly helped, but you must remember that the BCS was created in part to prevent rematches. to whit:

5. After completion of the selection process as described in Paragraph Nos. 1-4, the Conferences and Notre Dame may, but are not required to, adjust the pairings taking into consideration the following:
A. whether the same team will be playing in the same bowl game for two consecutive years;
B. whether two teams that played against one another in the regular season will be paired against one another in a bowl game;
C. whether the same two teams will play against each other in a bowl game for two consecutive years; and
D. whether alternative pairings may have greater or lesser appeal to college football fans as measured by expected ticket sales for the bowls and by expected television interest, and the consequent financial impact on Fox and the bowls. link

aside: i find it interesting that you are favoring the rematch... would you not like to see if your Trojans can stack up with the Buckeyes?

 

[Oh8ch]

find it interesting that you are favoring the rematch... would you not like to see if your Trojans can stack up with the Buckeyes?

Would you like to see your toddler wrestle a pit bull? :)

 

[methomps]

no. it isn't right to assume that Michigan is better than USC or Florida, but not just because their sole loss is to Ohio State. it isn't right because M has not played USC or Florida...

But the thing is this: the "no rematch" crowd aren't even considering the question of who is the #2 team. All they're doing is eliminating Michigan without even looking at USC or Florida.

isn't this all based on personal opinion? there is no way to quantify whether any of those three teams is better than the other. as it stands, both USC and Florida have tougher schedules than M, and will have more quality WINS than M should they win out.

Michigan's SOS is better than Florida's. Link

there is no such thing as a 'good loss.' a loss is a loss is a loss. the arguement MUST be based on which teams have more quality wins.

If this is so, why does Michigan's loss eliminate them, as the "no rematch period" crowd is saying?

as if the voters haven't ever shifted their vote to manipulate the system before... Nebraska sharing the title in '97 ring any bells? they were #2 in both polls before the bowl game.

I find it humorous that a previous wrong to Michigan is being cited as justification for wronging them again.

we're not talking about the regular season. we're talking about playoffs. college football is the last sport in which the regular season is truely meaningful, because each game is a de facto playoff game.

You can dress it up however you want, but it isn't a playoff. USC and Florida lost, and they're back in it. Auburn never lost in 2004, and they didn't make it.

i won't disagree with the concept. however, you are losing touch with history with this argument. do not forget that the 1996 rematch debacle between Florida and Florida State was a catalyst for the system we have today. the split title in '97 certainly helped, but you must remember that the BCS was created in part to prevent rematches.

I disagree. Nothing in the BCS setup prevents rematches. It simply pits the two best teams as determined by a given formula.

to whit:

5. After completion of the selection process as described in Paragraph Nos. 1-4, the Conferences and Notre Dame may, but are not required to, adjust the pairings taking into consideration the following:
A. whether the same team will be playing in the same bowl game for two consecutive years;
B. whether two teams that played against one another in the regular season will be paired against one another in a bowl game;
C. whether the same two teams will play against each other in a bowl game for two consecutive years; and
D. whether alternative pairings may have greater or lesser appeal to college football fans as measured by expected ticket sales for the bowls and by expected television interest, and the consequent financial impact on Fox and the bowls. link

This relates to the selection process for the other 4 BCS bowls. Besides, maybe it should be Michigan v. USC if you look at A.

aside: i find it interesting that you are favoring the rematch... would you not like to see if your Trojans can stack up with the Buckeyes?

I don't favor a rematch. I just don't think the idea should factor into the selection process at all.

 

[BuckeyeBill]

We are treating this whole discussion as if there is ultimately a "choice" to be made. The only choice is the way polls shake out. And I definitely do not want people changing their vote to achieve a desired outcome. (Of course, polls are 90% bullshit anyway, and coaches do that all the time. I just don't want it explicitly encouraged. It messes with my fantasy of general fairness). The bottom line is the BCS and the conferences are not going to change the agreement before January to move scUM out of the NC if that is the way it shakes out. Personally, I suspect USC or Florida are going to get the job done and this whole discussion can quickly fade away. Let's hope, because a rematch is just plain stupid. And I still think we get the win...

 

[buck e]

This might be getting a little nitpicky, but if you go to the BCS website, it does not state that the purpose of the BCS is to match the two best teams in the country. It says that the purpose is to determine a national champion by matching the number one and two teams in the BCS standings. There is also a reference to a desire to create attractive bowl matchups. Its almost worded to be deliberately vague.

Much like the MVP in baseball, or the Heisman Trophy in football, the definition is open to interpretation. If a voter feels that Michigan is the second best team, but decides to drop them down to 5th or 6th (the back of the line so to speak) because they had their chance, there is absolutely nothing wrong with doing it and does not go against the spirit or stated purpose of the BCS. So to all those media hacks that say "if you believe Michigan is the second best team, then they should play for the national title"... I would say, that's not exactly true.

Just my two cents.

 

[methomps]

This might be getting a little nitpicky, but if you go to the BCS website, it does not state that the purpose of the BCS is to match the two best teams in the country. It says that the purpose is to determine a national champion by matching the number one and two teams in the BCS standings. There is also a reference to a desire to create attractive bowl matchups. Its almost worded to be deliberately vague.

You can go down that road if you want, but it only leads to Notre Dame getting undeserved bids to the BCS NC game.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

I thought - mistakenly, apparently - that after the 2001 and 2003 Big XII non-champions going to the title game they instituted the rule that if you dont win your conference, you're out of luck rule.

I'm inclined to give some other 1 loss team a shot (other than Mich, that is) Mich had it in their own control, an opportunity to get to the title game and play for the NC on the field, and they didn't get it done. It's really just that simple to me. What's the difference between Florida, USC and Michigan? Michigan had there chance against the clear number 1 and didn't get it done. It's a two horse race, USC and Florida. If both of them lose, then I think you have to maybe reconsider Michigan, although whatever 1 loss Big Least team remains should probably get a look as well - as distateful as that result is.

Anyway, it doesn't much matter. It's fun to talk about, and it's one of the reasons why the BCS works (That being, here we are talking about it on a holiday, and a solid 2 weeks before any NC game becomes a reality). The system will do whatever it ends up doing. If USC wins out, they'll pass Michigan. Florida has a good chance of passing Michigan as well. And if they both win out, and both pass Michigan, either SC or Florida fans are gonna pitch a fit.

 

[buck e]

You can go down that road if you want, but it only leads to Notre Dame getting undeserved bids to the BCS NC game.

I see your point, but even with that interpretation, I think the road would only involve USC, Florida, Arkansas and Michigan, in that order. Notre Dame is not in the discussion... no matter how you look at the BCS.