COLLEGE FOOTBALL 2007

[Squeaks4]

I think the "Michigan had its chance" argument is pretty lame. It played the best team in the country at that team's stadium, under all of that pressure, and played it extremely close -- close enough that you could probably flip a coin to see who would win on a neutral field.

Who has Florida played that's been as dominant as OSU? I think there is no shame in losing to the best team. Florida didn't do that -- Florida lost to Auburn and barely beat USC at home. To me, they're not nearly as deserving as Michigan.

Again, the rankings reflect the seasonal accomplishment, not just one game.

Sure, Michigan played in Columbus well and won in Notre Dame, but they played in a conference that was top-heavy and statistically weaker than the SEC. Yeah, Michigan had an impressive 3-point loss to Ohio State, but Michigan also had a sloppy 8-point home win against 5-7 Ball State.

Florida's overall schedule is stronger than Michigan's. Florida won at Tennessee, beat Sugar Bowl-bound LSU, and beat a Top-10 team on a neutral field to win the SEC. Losing at #11 Auburn by 10 points (which should really be just a 4-point loss, since Auburn recovered a fumble and scored a TD when the game clock read 0:00) shouldn't penalize Florida so severely.

Please look here.

[HedleyLamarr]

I think the "Michigan had its chance" argument is pretty lame. It played the best team in the country at that team's stadium, under all of that pressure, and played it extremely close -- close enough that you could probably flip a coin to see who would win on a neutral field.

Who has Florida played that's been as dominant as OSU? I think there is no shame in losing to the best team. Florida didn't do that -- Florida lost to Auburn and barely beat USC at home. To me, they're not nearly as deserving as Michigan.

Again, the rankings reflect the seasonal accomplishment, not just one game.

Sure, Michigan played in Columbus well and won in Notre Dame, but they played in a conference that was top-heavy and statistically weaker than the SEC. Yeah, Michigan had an impressive 3-point loss to Ohio State, but Michigan also had a sloppy 8-point home win against 5-7 Ball State.

Florida's overall schedule is stronger than Michigan's. Florida won at Tennessee, beat Sugar Bowl-bound LSU, and beat a Top-10 team on a neutral field to win the SEC. Losing at #11 Auburn by 10 points (which should really be just a 4-point loss, since Auburn recovered a fumble and scored a TD when the game clock read 0:00) shouldn't penalize Florida so severely.

Please look here.

Thanks for the link.

Michigan went 0-1 vs. Top 10, and 3-1 vs. Top 30.

Florida went 2-0 vs. Top 10, and 5-1 vs. Top 30.

Michigan's top three wins: #12 Notre Dame, #15 Wisconsin, #23 Penn State

Florida's top three wins: #4 LSU, #10 Tennessee, #11 Arkansas

Looks like Florida is the much-more deserving team to play Ohio State than Michigan.

Massey ranks Florida's schedule tougher than Michigan's. (Southern Cal had the toughest schedule, by the way.)

Colley Matrix ranks Florida's schedule tougher than Michigan's. (CM also had Florida ranked #1 overall, with Ohio State #2)

[Squeaks4]

I think the "Michigan had its chance" argument is pretty lame. It played the best team in the country at that team's stadium, under all of that pressure, and played it extremely close -- close enough that you could probably flip a coin to see who would win on a neutral field.

Who has Florida played that's been as dominant as OSU? I think there is no shame in losing to the best team. Florida didn't do that -- Florida lost to Auburn and barely beat USC at home. To me, they're not nearly as deserving as Michigan.

Again, the rankings reflect the seasonal accomplishment, not just one game.

Sure, Michigan played in Columbus well and won in Notre Dame, but they played in a conference that was top-heavy and statistically weaker than the SEC. Yeah, Michigan had an impressive 3-point loss to Ohio State, but Michigan also had a sloppy 8-point home win against 5-7 Ball State.

Florida's overall schedule is stronger than Michigan's. Florida won at Tennessee, beat Sugar Bowl-bound LSU, and beat a Top-10 team on a neutral field to win the SEC. Losing at #11 Auburn by 10 points (which should really be just a 4-point loss, since Auburn recovered a fumble and scored a TD when the game clock read 0:00) shouldn't penalize Florida so severely.

Please look here.

Thanks for the link.

Michigan went 0-1 vs. Top 10, and 3-1 vs. Top 30.

Florida went 2-0 vs. Top 10, and 5-1 vs. Top 30.

Michigan's top three wins: #12 Notre Dame, #15 Wisconsin, #23 Penn State

Florida's top three wins: #4 LSU, #10 Tennessee, #11 Arkansas

Looks like Florida is the much-more deserving team to play Ohio State than Michigan.

Massey ranks Florida's schedule tougher than Michigan's. (Southern Cal had the toughest schedule, by the way.)

Colley Matrix ranks Florida's schedule tougher than Michigan's. (CM also had Florida ranked #1 overall, with Ohio State #2)

Yep,

Michigan beat 10-2 Notre Dame (by 26), and now ranked #6 11-1 Wisconsin (by 14)

Florida beat 10-2 LSU (by 13), 9-3 Tennessee (BY 1) and 10-3 Arkansas (by 10 although that is a little misleading)

Michigan lost to #1 Ohio St. by 3 at Ohio

Florida lost to #11 Auburn by 10 at Auburn

You really convinced me.

[HedleyLamarr]

Do you honestly believe that Wisconsin is the sixth-best team in the country? Wisconsin didn't win a game against a ranked team all year. Notre Dame doesn't have a win against a currently-ranked team. Suddenly, Michigan's big wins don't look so impressive. All they can hang their hat on is a loss. You don't make your case of playing in the Championship Game by saying "We only lost by 3!".

Michigan's 3-point loss to OSU is misleading. (OSU was leading by 10-14 points for most of the game) Florida's 10-point loss at Auburn is misleading, since Florida was trying to lateral a ball into the end zone, and Auburn returned it for a TD as the game ended.

The SEC, top-to-bottom, was a much stronger conference than the Big Ten.

[Juddley]

Do you honestly believe that Wisconsin is the sixth-best team in the country? Wisconsin didn't win a game against a ranked team all year. Notre Dame doesn't have a win against a currently-ranked team. Suddenly, Michigan's big wins don't look so impressive. All they can hang their hat on is a loss. You don't make your case of playing in the Championship Game by saying "We only lost by 3!".

Michigan's 3-point loss to OSU is misleading. (OSU was leading by 10-14 points for most of the game) Florida's 10-point loss at Auburn is misleading, since Florida was trying to lateral a ball into the end zone, and Auburn returned it for a TD as the game ended.

The SEC, top-to-bottom, was a much stronger conference than the Big Ten.

Hedley's right...The Wolverines loss in Columbus is misleading. Aside from its 7-0 lead to start the contest, Michigan was in position just one time to go ahead of the Buckeyes. Don't agree, then look at the play-by-play stats and come talk to me.

As for Florida not being a worthy opponent. I don't get too caught up in that. I'm an OSU grad and remember how many people gave us no shot against the Hurricanes in the '03 Fiesta Bowl. However, with a tough defense and a pass interference call that came way too late, the Bucks pulled off a national championship that I never thought I would live to see.

Don't write off the Gators yet as Ohio State isn't a strong defender of the run and I'm certain ol' Urban will throw out his "passing challenged wonderboy" Tim Tebow out there to push us around. This isn't as big a travesty as when the Cornhuskers made it to the title game over Oregon in 2001.

[rams80]

IDK...If Florida had a good running game, methinks they would have busted it out against said Auburn team that gave up something like 300 yards on the ground in its loss to Arkansas.

Ummm....no comment about the 2001 Rose Bowl.

I guess there could be a couple of bright sides to this...

1. We continue to inch closer to a playoff.

2. Florida getting smacked might provide a nice little STFU to the SEC apologists who trumpet their Conference's overwhelming superiority to the rest of college football.

3. Some MAC team will join the Big Ten so Illinois can now have someone to beat and the Big Ten can play the "13th game".

[See Red]

Hedley's right...The Wolverines loss in Columbus is misleading. Aside from its 7-0 lead to start the contest, Michigan was in position just one time to go ahead of the Buckeyes. Don't agree, then look at the play-by-play stats and come talk to me.

That's all because of one dumb penalty. If not for the helmet-to-helmet contact on Troy Smith, Michigan gets the ball down three with an excellent chance to drive down the field and win.

[Epiphanic]

I'm reminded of a saying that my friend says all the time (it's seasonal too ):

If "if and buts" were candy and nuts, we'd all have a merry f-----g Christmas.

[Sport]

Hedley's right...The Wolverines loss in Columbus is misleading. Aside from its 7-0 lead to start the contest, Michigan was in position just one time to go ahead of the Buckeyes. Don't agree, then look at the play-by-play stats and come talk to me.

That's all because of one dumb penalty. If not for the helmet-to-helmet contact on Troy Smith, Michigan gets the ball down three with an excellent chance to drive down the field and win.

that's like saying without Ted Ginn's touchdown Michigan would have won. It happened, and there's nothing you can do. It happened when Troy Smith was 2 yards out of bounds, so even without helmet to helmet contact it was still a late hit. Whine about it all you want, but it was about as callable a penalty as you'll find. And what says that Michigan would have scored had this penalty not occured? They had 3 turnovers inside Ohio State's 20 and scored ten points, not very good. It was the most one-sided 3 point game I've ever seen.

You guys are complicating the scenario. Michigan isn't in the title game because of the simplest formula possible. They lost when they needed to win. If they had beat Ohio State they wouldn't need to worry about this. They played in Columbus you say? Tough Luck, last year they played in Ann Arbor and Ohio State won so it is not impossible for Michigan to win in Columbus. A rematch also brings up two situations. If Ohio State wins in a rematch then they prove something we already know and it's a big waste of time. If Michigan wins in a rematch then they get a phony national championship. Why is it fair that Michigan is allowed to go 1-1, while Ohio State has to go 2-0. Honestly I don't think the first game was close enough to warrant a rematch. Ohio State controlled the game after Michigan's first drive and Michigan's last touchdown was a score fluffer, a backdoor cover. The BCS got it right. It gave another team a shot at OSU, and it gave the champion of the best conference in the country a chance at a national title. Michigan people can't be upset at this. If you want to make it to the championship game, just go undefeated. It really is the easiest way.

[Epiphanic]

You hit it on the head mac2. I'm just feel the need to modify one statement.

If you want to make it to the championship game, just go undefeated and be a traditional power program.

Fixed.

[See Red]

You hit it on the head mac2. I'm just feel the need to modify one statement.

If you want to make it to the championship game, just go undefeated and be a traditional power program.

Fixed.

You don't have to be a traditional power program, but playing a team that's worth anything certainly helps. When you go undefeated and the only teams worth anything on your schedule are Oregon State and Hawaii at home, is it really all that impressive?

that's like saying without Ted Ginn's touchdown Michigan would have won. It happened, and there's nothing you can do. It happened when Troy Smith was 2 yards out of bounds, so even without helmet to helmet contact it was still a late hit. Whine about it all you want, but it was about as callable a penalty as you'll find. And what says that Michigan would have scored had this penalty not occured? They had 3 turnovers inside Ohio State's 20 and scored ten points, not very good. It was the most one-sided 3 point game I've ever seen.

How am I whining? I don't even have a dog in this fight.

I'm just saying that without one lapse in judgement, Michigan has a chance to win that football game. The hit on Troy Smith didn't force Ohio State into third and long and the hit on Troy Smith didn't force an incomplete pass. To say they never had a chance to win that game is ridiculous.

[BaltimoreFan]

I think the agrument for Michigan goes too much into one game. Personally I feel that a tougher schedule is much more important. Florida did lose to Auburn, but they played LSU the week before. A couple tough games in a row will most likely lead to a lose. Michigan on the other hand played Northwestern, Ball State, and Indiana in the games before OHio State. None of which were bowl eligible. Nothing in that stretch would tire them for the Ohio State game. Plus it was a rivalry game, teams always play tough against their rivals. It's the one game of the year the team wants a win against. Alot of times the game will be close even if the opponents are not. If your a Michigan fan not taking the tougher schedule into the argument, then you should be arguing for Boise State to be playing against OHio State.

[Epiphanic]

I know this gets into speculation, but the reasoning for my "traditional power program" comment is thus: Had Rutgers gone undefeated, would they have gotten in? It probaby would have been too close to call. That would have been a bigger tragedy than Boise State not getting in under the current system. An undefeated team from a BCS conference not getting in?

Polls should be a reflection upon the season up to that point, and to some level they are. However, they are more a reflection of pre-season rankings with last weeks result. That stacks the deck heavily against cinderella stories such as Rutgers.

An interesting hypothetical I think.

[jkrdevil]

You hit it on the head mac2. I'm just feel the need to modify one statement.

If you want to make it to the championship game, just go undefeated and be a traditional power program.

Fixed.

You don't have to be a traditional power program, but playing a team that's worth anything certainly helps. When you go undefeated and the only teams worth anything on your schedule are Oregon State and Hawaii at home, is it really all that impressive?

But in order to get those games you have to be a traditional power. The good BCS conference teams won't schedule good mid-major teams like Boise State because of the great fear of an upset. There was an article around the Louisville-West Virginia game about all the SEC teams that ducked Louisville and they are a BCS conference school. Instead the bigger schools schedule a team like Western Carolina who is a 2-9 (0-7 in their conference) DI-AA school, because they know that will be an easy win. So now a team like Boise's schedule is used against them when the bigger school refused to play them. How the hell is that fair?

The system is fixed so that a non-traditional school almost cannot build up to be a power. It's a joke. This is why there needs to be a playoff where all DI-A conference champions automatically make it, with some wild cards in addition. Either that or if you are going to keep the current system or a smaller playoff take the scheduling out of the schools hand and make it where the NCAA determines out of Conference Matchups and you can only play DI-A schools.

[HatManTC]

nm

[-(dp)-]

I think the agrument for Michigan goes too much into one game. Personally I feel that a tougher schedule is much more important. Florida did lose to Auburn, but they played LSU the week before. A couple tough games in a row will most likely lead to a lose. Michigan on the other hand played Northwestern, Ball State, and Indiana in the games before OHio State. None of which were bowl eligible. Nothing in that stretch would tire them for the Ohio State game. Plus it was a rivalry game, teams always play tough against their rivals. It's the one game of the year the team wants a win against. Alot of times the game will be close even if the opponents are not. If your a Michigan fan not taking the tougher schedule into the argument, then you should be arguing for Boise State to be playing against OHio State.

Wow. Yeah, Michigan only stayed close to Ohio State because it was a rivalry game huh? You sound stupid. Michigan didn't lose a bunch of games, then play good against Ohio State. They were both undefeated going into the game, both 11-0, so how can you say that it was only close because it was a rivalry? Really, I think Michigan is the better team. Florida does deserve a chance, but so does Michigan. People only voted for Florida because they didn't want to see a rematch, not because Florida is a better team.

[WJMorris3]

Just throwing a silly what-if out there... What if Wisconsin had not lost to Michigan, but had beaten them instead? Would people be clamoring for a Wisconsin-OSU game then? I mean, even with that win, Wisconsin would not have won their conference -- OSU still would have. It would be unfair to allow two teams from the same conference into the national title game.

[KevinMcD]

If both were undefeated yes they should both be in the game.

[WJMorris3]

If both were undefeated yes they should both be in the game.

See, undefeated maybe, but I still note that you should need to win your conference championship to have a shot at the national title. Thus, OSU and Florida still.

[KevinMcD]

If both were undefeated yes they should both be in the game.

See, undefeated maybe, but I still note that you should need to win your conference championship to have a shot at the national title. Thus, OSU and Florida still.

But would OSU have won the conference if Wiscosin beat Michigan. They both would have been 8-0. So it would be a split title right? So technically both would have "won" a part of the title.