GATORS IN THE NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP!

[OB33]

That doesn't matter. One is regular season, one is post season. Two totally different things. Last year in the NBA, the pistons were 3-1 against the heat in the regular season. In the playoffs, the heat were 4-2 against the pistons, so they advanced. What? That isn't fair, the pistons beat the heat more in the regular season! No that don't matter, the heat beat the pistons more in the post-season, which matters more. Even though throughout the whole year, they were 5-5, but the heat went on. They played better in the post season, so they deserved it. The heat only had to win 5 all together against the pistons to move on, but the pistons would have had to win 7. That isn't fair right? Yeah, it IS fair, because once the post season starts, the regular season doesn't matter anymore. If there would have been a rematch, it would be fair, because the regular season wouldn't matter anymore.

I understand and agree with your logic completely, what I disagree with is the notion that the Ohio State-Michigan game was just a regular season game. The stakes were clear. If you win, you're in, if you lose than the odds are not in your favor that you'll be able to get in. That sounds a lot more like a playoff game than a regular season game to me. There's nothing wrong with two teams having a rematch after a regular season matchup, but if two teams had a rematch once the playoffs started, that wouldn't be right. Going back to your Heat-Pistons analogy, had the Heat and Pistons had a rematch after the Eastern Conference Finals to determine the NBA Champion I think you and I could both agree that a rematch like that wouldn't be right, even if the Pistons were better than the Mavericks.

Now I'll agree that it's not fair that OSU ended up with home-field advantage based solely on scheduling and not on some sort of merit, but on the other hand to say that it would be impossible for Michigan to win would be naive. I seem to recall a certain #2 team being able to walk into Columbus under similar circumstances and walk out with the W.

Arguments aside, I know its easy for me to sit here and say that rematch isn't good sitting on the side that gets to play for the title regardless of whether or not there is a rematch, and while I'd like to believe that I'd still be opposed to a rematch even if OSU lost, I can understand why you and all Michigan fans would want a rematch. So please don't take this as me saying "Oh, Michigan is just bitter" because I'm not, Michigan has a legitimate claim to the #2 spot in the nation and they don't get a chance to play for it in part because university presidents can't come together and figure out a way to make a playoff system.

[infrared41]

please explain to me what a close game is then.

One example of a close game is where the winner is in doubt right up to the final gun. Was the outcome of the OSU/Michigan game ever really in doubt? The only argument I've heard is that if about 15 things had gone the other way then Michigan might have won. Now that's a convincing case for Michigan if I ever heard one. I mean screw Florida and their SEC championship. We all know it should be Michigan because they only lost by three in Columbus. WTF? Oddly enough, no one seems to want to talk about the things that, if they had gone Ohio State's way, would have led to a major blow out. But hey that doesn't matter because Mighty Michigan only lost by three. Dear God how could we all be so blind to think that Michigan doesn't deserve a mulligan against Ohio State.

And I am still waiting for a Michigan apologist come up with even a hint of an argument to answer why a close loss is better than 12 ugly wins. So while you're all still pondering that one I'll throw out another question for your consideration...

When did losing close on the road become the number one criteria for getting to the title game? All I keep hearing is "Michigan lost a close one at the shoe." Yeah...and? Michigan State lost a close one to Notre Dame so should we just count it as a win for the Spartans? UCLA lost a close one to Notre Dame too. Does that count as a UCLA win or a Notre Dame loss? Oh and I may as well throw this in too...Since Ohio State only beat Illinois by seven they aren't truly undefeated. The Buckeyes in reality only have 10 wins and 2 "bad wins" which in Michigan fan's world are actually losses.

Let's do the "Michigan" math.

Florida is in reality about 5-8.

Ohio State is actually 10-2.

Louisville is still undefeated since they lost a close one at Rutgers.

Notre Dame is now 8-4.

Auburn goes to 9-3.

LSU is back to 11-1.

Boise State is 1-11 (hey they didn't really play anyone.)

And Michigan is 12-0

So based on Wolverine logic the actual title game should be Michigan vs. LSU. Yeah I know Louisville is undefeated but they only won the Big East. It has to be about the "two best" teams meeting for the title. logic.

There. Happy now?

[John in KY]

Correct, if that were the case then the winner of a "Big 10 Title Game" would go, and since your scenario has Michigan winning that game it would be OSU on the outside looking in from the Rose Bowl.

...and you're perfectly fine with a team that was ranked number 1 all season long not playing in the national title game because they have one loss on their record?

and there are so many "what ifs" i could throw out at you as well. for example. what if osu gets screwed on a bad call at the end of the game and loses by 1. Are you telling me they're not the best team in the country because they didn't win the conference title

(btw...don't read too far into that. while i am a michigan fan, i'm speaking hypothetically...like i have been throughout all posts i've put up. i'm using the teams that are the topics of conversation right now)

Under this scenario, yes. That is why the play the games, isn't it? If you set it up so that you have to win a conference championship to get the automatic bowl game/BCS bid, then you have to win it on the field. Even if the loss is due to a bad call, it is still a loss. Of course I realize that this is an apples-to-oranges comment, but that would have been like giving the Indy Colts a bye into the Super Bowl last year since they had the best record and were the best team in the regular season.

Also, rankings are very subjective; you could argue that Michigan played a tougher schedule than Ohio State - Michigan played Notre Dame as their "big" out-of-conference game but also played the #3 team in conference, Wisconsin while OSU only played a "big" out-of-conference game against Texas. Yet OSU was ranked #1 and Michigan #2 going into the game.

Since the system is now stacked so there are very few inter-conference matchups, the rankings are even more subjective.

[slightly shotgunned]

please explain to me what a close game is then.

One example of a close game is where the winner is in doubt right up to the final gun. Was the outcome of the OSU/Michigan game ever really in doubt? The only argument I've heard is that if about 15 things had gone the other way then Michigan might have won. Now that's a convincing case for Michigan if I ever heard one. I mean screw Florida and their SEC championship. We all know it should be Michigan because they only lost by three in Columbus. WTF? Oddly enough, no one seems to want to talk about the things that, if they had gone Ohio State's way, would have led to a major blow out. But hey that doesn't matter because Mighty Michigan only lost by three. Dear God how could we all be so blind to think that Michigan doesn't deserve a mulligan against Ohio State.

And I am still waiting for a Michigan apologist come up with even a hint of an argument to answer why a close loss is better than 12 ugly wins. So while you're all still pondering that one I'll throw out another question for your consideration...

When did losing close on the road become the number one criteria for getting to the title game? All I keep hearing is "Michigan lost a close one at the shoe." Yeah...and? Michigan State lost a close one to Notre Dame so should we just count it as a win for the Spartans? UCLA lost a close one to Notre Dame too. Does that count as a UCLA win or a Notre Dame loss? Oh and I may as well throw this in too...Since Ohio State only beat Illinois by seven they aren't truly undefeated. The Buckeyes in reality only have 10 wins and 2 "bad wins" which in Michigan fan's world are actually losses.

okay, i'll give you that a loss is still a loss.

but by your own admition, florida shouldn't get in either because they lost to auburn. there's my point. you can't say one team can't get in because of its loss , then allow another one-loss team to get in based on a conference championship game if not all conferences have an official conference championship game. having said that, if the big ten had an official conference championship and michigan didn't even play in it, then no they wouldn't go,and if they lost said official game, they wouldn't go.

and, if you were actually watching the game, yes the game was in doubt. if all it takes is one defensive stop at the end of the game then how could you say it wasn't. the entire second half was in doubt...but then, you'd have to not be an osu fan to see that. except that all the osu fans i've talked to and watched the game with, have called it a "close game"

...but that's off topic. my point is not "michigan should be in", its "there should be some way to determine a number 2 team so that we don't have debates like this."

[Epiphanic]

It seems to me that we already have the answer. One is the obvious one that is debated endlessly which would be a playoff. Let the kids decide it on the field. Since that is unlikely (impossible?) then we need to decide who should be #2 (or #1 in less fortunate years).

As circular as these debates get both sides revolve around one thing. Wins and losses. Many people think it's not fair that Florida, a 1-loss team, gets the nod over Michigan, another 1-loss team, on the basis essentially that Florida won their conference. As it stands I'm fine with a conference championship being a "tie-breaker" of sorts. Yet if we are all truly concerned with wins and losses we put the only undefeated teams in this year as we were fortunate enough to have only two in D1 football. Ohio State and Boise State.

If you keep Boise State out of the championship game because they "didn't play anyone," then we bring subjective judgements into the formulation. This year the subjective judgements went in the favor of Florida. When there are more than 2 teams with the same record then someone is going to have an argument why they should get chosen. You need some sort of tiebreaker.

[infrared41]

but by your own admition, florida shouldn't get in either because they lost to auburn. there's my point.

No, what I am saying is that, all losses being equal, Florida should get the nod based on the fact that they won the SEC. My point has always been that the only argument anyone seems to have in Michigan's favor is that they lost a close game.

I guess I should rephrase what I mean when I say the game wasn't close. The score was close but I don't think Michigan ever looked like they were every bit as good as Ohio State. No matter what Michigan did Ohio State easily answered it. The second best team in the country shouldn't get three takeaways, score 39 points, and still lose. Despite the score Ohio State was clearly the superior team. Michigan caught a lot of breaks in that game and that's what kept them in it. That's why I say the game was never as close as the score indicated. Michigan fans are quick to point out the "if this and that happens we win" scenarios but they won't allow that the Buckeyes were just a couple of "this and thats" away from a blow out win. If we going to allow "woulda, coulda, shoulda" then it has to work both ways. My woulda, coulda, shoulda, is that Ohio State should have won that game about 49-17.

In the final analysis I think Florida is simply a better team than Michigan. That's the gist of my argument for Florida.

If you keep Boise State out of the championship game because they "didn't play anyone,"

If you look through some of my previous posts you'll find that I have said the only "fair" solution is for Boise State to play Ohio State.

[slightly shotgunned]

but by your own admition, florida shouldn't get in either because they lost to auburn. there's my point.

No, what I am saying is that, all losses being equal, Florida should get the nod based on the fact that they won the SEC. My point has always been that the only argument anyone seems to have in Michigan's favor is that they lost a close game.

In the final analysis I think Florida is simply a better team than Michigan. That's the gist of my argument for Florida.

so you are saying that you agree with style points because if all losses are equal then all wins have to be equal as well. and what happens if florida goes undefeated until the sec title game and loses to a team with two losses like LSU(again this is a hypothetical situation). now who gets in.

but how can you say that with any degree of certainty if michigan never plays florida? and consider this scenario. say vanderbilt, northwestern, baylor, and stanford all go undefeated, win their conference championships, have similar schedule strengths, and never play each other. who's number 1 here?

[Epiphanic]

Questioning the validity of the poll rankings is exactly the reason for a playoff system. Slightly shotgunned, if you're willing to question who's #X (as it seems with your previous post) how can you say for certain that Michigan deserves it more than Florida (or vice versa)? With your line of argument you can't really say for certain who is #2 (excluding Boise State) and thus don't really have an argument for who should (or shouldn't) be in the national title game.

It's a little counter-intuitive, but it's interesting.

[slightly shotgunned]

Questioning the validity of the poll rankings is exactly the reason for a playoff system. Slightly shotgunned, if you're willing to question who's #X (as it seems with your previous post) how can you say for certain that Michigan deserves it more than Florida (or vice versa)? With your line of argument you can't really say for certain who is #2 (excluding Boise State) and thus don't really have an argument for who should (or shouldn't) be in the national title game.

It's a little counter-intuitive, but it's interesting.

because i'm for a playoff system, i'm not sure if you're saying that i'm right or that i'm wrong.

[twi]

I'm in favor of a playoff, but for argument's sake I'll post something my buds and I were discussing last night:

Wouldn't it be just as hard, or harder, to determine who the 8 or 16 or whatever teams are for the playoff? I think you'd get the same arguments, except the debate would be over #s 8 and 9 instead of 2 and 3. Who would determine which of the multitude of 2 and 3 loss teams get in? I see a common solution presented to this problem as the BCS system still, but I don't see how that helps, it just shifts the problem point down the ladder. Even in a system where every conference champion goes + X number of at larges to make an even bracket has this problem.

[infrared41]

so you are saying that you agree with style points because if all losses are equal then all wins have to be equal as well.

You're twisting my argument to fit your position. What I said was all losses being equal then Florida gets the nod for winning their conference. It's really quite simple. The SEC is regarded as one of the toughest conferences in college football. When two one loss teams are being considered for the title game I'll take the one that won their conference over the one that "only lost by three." That's it. Florida gets the tiebreaker because they won the SEC.

We can speculate and hypothesize your other scenarios all day long but in the end it won't make your argument or mine. We can't use "what if's" to prove the "what are's." The "what are's" are simple. When it was all said and done it came down to Florida and Michigan. What "could have" happened isn't the issue. What did happen is. Again, all losses being equal and the debate being solely between Florida and Michigan, Florida gets the nod based on their conference championship. That's as clear as I can make it.

[slightly shotgunned]

I'm in favor of a playoff, but for argument's sake I'll post something my buds and I were discussing last night:

Wouldn't it be just as hard, or harder, to determine who the 8 or 16 or whatever teams are for the playoff? I think you'd get the same arguments, except the debate would be over #s 8 and 9 instead of 2 and 3. Who would determine which of the multitude of 2 and 3 loss teams get in? I see a common solution presented to this problem as the BCS system still, but I don't see how that helps, it just shifts the problem point down the ladder. Even in a system where every conference champion goes + X number of at larges to make an even bracket has this problem.

...well. since i'm not a fan of the current system i can't say 'do it the way its done now' ...let me get back to you on that though. its a really good question.

[slightly shotgunned]

so you are saying that you agree with style points because if all losses are equal then all wins have to be equal as well.

You're twisting my argument to fit your position. What I said was all losses being equal then Florida gets the nod for winning their conference. It's really quite simple. The SEC is regarded as one of the toughest conferences in college football. When two one loss teams are being considered for the title game I'll take the one that won their conference over the one that "only lost by three." That's it. Florida gets the tiebreaker because they won the SEC.

We can speculate and hypothesize your other scenarios all day long but in the end it won't make your argument of mine. We can't use "what if's" to prove the "what are's." The "what are's" are simple. When it was all said an done it came down to Florida and Michigan. What "could have" happened isn't the issue. What did happen is. Again, all losses being equal and the debate being solely between Florida and Michigan, Florida gets the nod based on their conference championship. That's as clear as I can make it.

ok...since you're not really answering any of my questions and running back to the 'florida-michigan' conflict that's going on right now, let me clear some things up for you(and anyone esle that is curious).

1. i am a michigan fan

2. i am OVER the fact that michigan won't be in the title game. i knew they weren't getting in as soon as the game with osu was over and i realized what it would take for michigan to get in. usc's loss did give me some hope...until i flipped to the florida/arkansas game.

3. i don't have a problem with florida playing in the title game and i don't believe that michigan is somehow getting "screwed" by the bcs. florida is a good team and they've had a great year. winning the sec title is no small accomplishment by any stretch of the imagination and they deserve to be where they are. OVER michigan. end of story.

4. i do NOT like the bcs. all of my posts, my scenarios, my 'what ifs' have been in contention of the system, not its most recent outcome. i don't like a system that takes a handful of teams, says, 'these are the only teams capable of winning a championship' and goes out of its way (IMO) to make that statement true.

5. the michigan/osu rivalry for me, ends each year with the michigan/osu game is limited to the players on the field. reason being, i'm a michigan fan that was raised near cincinnati. so all my friends (with a few exceptions for my tennessee, florida, and michigan state fans...of which there are exactly 3...one of each) are osu fans, who btw, don't at all agree with your assessment of the game.

*not really a point i had to make, but i thought i'd throw it out there.

6. i would like to stop discussing the florida-michigan conflict now. while its great to put names to the imaginary situations i'm coming up with, too many people are caught up in them. so i would like to put them to rest. now. from this moment, unless otherwise stated, all references to michigan, florida, osu, usc, lsu, or any other school is for the sole purpose of the argument that the bcs system should be changed to allow the players a chance to prove who the best teams in the nations are, instead of a computer.

...hopefully that clears some things up. if not let me know.

having said all of that.

first, do you have an answer for the scenario or not?

second, i'm not twisting your argument around at all. you said: "When two one loss teams are being considered for the title game I'll take the one that won their conference over the one that 'only lost by three.'" it seems to me that if all losses are equal and all wins are not, then some wins carry more weight than others. and if some wins carry more weight than others to some people, those people are supporters of style points. is that right, or have i twisted your argument beyond your own recognition?

[infrared41]

so you are saying that you agree with style points because if all losses are equal then all wins have to be equal as well.

You're twisting my argument to fit your position. What I said was all losses being equal then Florida gets the nod for winning their conference. It's really quite simple. The SEC is regarded as one of the toughest conferences in college football. When two one loss teams are being considered for the title game I'll take the one that won their conference over the one that "only lost by three." That's it. Florida gets the tiebreaker because they won the SEC.

We can speculate and hypothesize your other scenarios all day long but in the end it won't make your argument of mine. We can't use "what if's" to prove the "what are's." The "what are's" are simple. When it was all said an done it came down to Florida and Michigan. What "could have" happened isn't the issue. What did happen is. Again, all losses being equal and the debate being solely between Florida and Michigan, Florida gets the nod based on their conference championship. That's as clear as I can make it.

ok...since you're not really answering any of my questions and running back to the 'florida-michigan' conflict that's going on right now, let me clear some things up for you(and anyone esle that is curious).

1. i am a michigan fan

2. i am OVER the fact that michigan won't be in the title game. i knew they weren't getting in as soon as the game with osu was over and i realized what it would take for michigan to get in. usc's loss did give me some hope...until i flipped to the florida/arkansas game.

3. i don't have a problem with florida playing in the title game and i don't believe that michigan is somehow getting "screwed" by the bcs. florida is a good team and they've had a great year. winning the sec title is no small accomplishment by any stretch of the imagination and they deserve to be where they are. OVER michigan. end of story.

4. i do NOT like the bcs. all of my posts, my scenarios, my 'what ifs' have been in contention of the system, not its most recent outcome. i don't like a system that takes a handful of teams, says, 'these are the only teams capable of winning a championship' and goes out of its way (IMO) to make that statement true.

5. the michigan/osu rivalry for me, ends each year with the michigan/osu game is limited to the players on the field. reason being, i'm a michigan fan that was raised near cincinnati. so all my friends (with a few exceptions for my tennessee, florida, and michigan state fans...of which there are exactly 3...one of each) are osu fans, who btw, don't at all agree with your assessment of the game.

*not really a point i had to make, but i thought i'd throw it out there.

6. i would like to stop discussing the florida-michigan conflict now. while its great to put names to the imaginary situations i'm coming up with, too many people are caught up in them. so i would like to put them to rest. now. from this moment, unless otherwise stated, all references to michigan, florida, osu, usc, lsu, or any other school is for the sole purpose of the argument that the bcs system should be changed to allow the players a chance to prove who the best teams in the nations are, instead of a computer.

...hopefully that clears some things up. if not let me know.

having said all of that.

first, do you have an answer for the scenario or not?

second, i'm not twisting your argument around at all. you said: "When two one loss teams are being considered for the title game I'll take the one that won their conference over the one that 'only lost by three.'" it seems to me that if all losses are equal and all wins are not, then some wins carry more weight than others. and if some wins carry more weight than others to some people, those people are supporters of style points. is that right, or have i twisted your argument beyond your own recognition?

I have no problem with your position. I am however left to wonder why you are using my position as a jumping off point for your own argument since the two are clearly not connected. Again you seem to be missing the point I am making. I think you need to take your cause to someone who is a.) against it, and b.) interested in debating it. I have never at any point said that The BCS is not flawed. My point is and remains that between Florida and Michigan the choice is easily Florida. Any conclusions you have come to that are outside my stated position are the result of errors in your own logic.

Regarding your scenario, I suppose I could come up with an answer for you but I doubt that any answer I give would be the correct one.

[slightly shotgunned]

I have no problem with your position. I am however left to wonder why you are using my position as a jumping off point for your own argument since the two are clearly not connected. Again you seem to be missing the point I am making. I think you need to take your cause to someone who is a.) against it, and b.) interested in debating it. I have never at any point said that The BCS is not flawed. My point is and remains that between Florida and Michigan the choice is easily Florida. Any conclusions you have come to that are outside my stated position are the result of errors in your own logic.

actually, what i did was combine two points into one without telling anyone that i had done so. you get that when your replies are rushed. the bcs system being flawed was one point that i've made elsewhere and really has no bearing in this thread, i understand that. but with my style points argument, i was trying to point out that the people that say 'florida is clearly a better team' can't really prove that since florida and michigan have never played each other and those people, when questioned about it, mention the sec title and nothing else. not what would happen between michigan and florida on the field, not what would happen if the game were played in the swamp or the big house or a neutral site, all anyone says is 'well florida won the sec, michigan didn't win the big ten.' but how does that prove beyond all doubt that florida is a better team?

NOW, since my position has nothing to do with whos playing this year, like i've said many MANY times before. you have to do a little thinking outside of the box you seem to be so comfortable in. i know its hard, but try. why shouldn't florida have to prove, on the field, that it is a better team than michigan? how are you so sure that they are a better team if they've never played each other?

Any conclusions you have come to that are outside my stated position are the result of errors in your own logic.

Regarding your scenario, I suppose I could come up with an answer for you but I doubt that any answer I give would be the correct one.

look, don't take this argument so personally. i'm not attacking you i'm questioning you. the difference is that you have the ability to be right, but you have to be right. you can't just say, 'well, because they won their conference championship so they have to be' because that's not concrete. steelers didn't even win their division last year, cincy did: just to give you an example of why that's not an argument you'd be able to win. there are too many cases against your logic so you'll have to do better than that.

but...if you can't that's cool too. i understand. i'll follow your advice and take my argument to people better suited.

[HatManTC]

so have you two figured out which one can piss the furthest yet?

[rams80]

I'm in favor of a playoff, but for argument's sake I'll post something my buds and I were discussing last night:

Wouldn't it be just as hard, or harder, to determine who the 8 or 16 or whatever teams are for the playoff? I think you'd get the same arguments, except the debate would be over #s 8 and 9 instead of 2 and 3. Who would determine which of the multitude of 2 and 3 loss teams get in? I see a common solution presented to this problem as the BCS system still, but I don't see how that helps, it just shifts the problem point down the ladder. Even in a system where every conference champion goes + X number of at larges to make an even bracket has this problem.

You have a point...

My counterpoint would be that if this is at all like March Madness, the further you get down the ladder, the more irrelevent the whining really is and the quicker it is forgotten. (I think with a 16 team field, the debates would be forgotten 5 minutes into the first game). The honest reasoning would be to #17 "You didn't win your conference, and there are 5 teams in that category that we the committee/computers/people think are better than you. If it makes you feel any better, you can still play in the Mt. Dew Xtreme Bowl.

Also I'm not surprised a Buckeye fan is arguing for Florida...I would want to play an inferior team in the National Title Game as well.

[HatManTC]

My counterpoint would be that if this is at all like March Madness, the further you get down the ladder, the more irrelevent the whining really is and the quicker it is forgotten. (I think with a 16 team field, the debates would be forgotten 5 minutes into the first game). The honest reasoning would be to #17 "You didn't win your conference, and there are 5 teams in that category that we the committee/computers/people think are better than you. If it makes you feel any better, you can still play in the Mt. Dew Xtreme Bowl.

Also I'm not surprised a Buckeye fan is arguing for Florida...I would want to play an inferior team in the National Title Game as well.

exactly, keep the rest of the bowls. use the top 8 or 16 teams and have a playoff.

[Telemundo219]

Why can't anybody realize that there is no "REAL"way to determine what team is rightfully capable a certain rating because of,as "John in KY" said, rankings being subjective. If anyone should have the right to play Ohio State it should be Boise State because regardless of who they played they were underfeated. But because the "Voters", "Sports Media" or "BCS"don't beleive Boise Stae is "capable" of being on Ohio State's level, they won't get any chance. It's just a bunch of crap that's going to keep happening until the sports world find a valid way of rankings teams, not based on repititation, but on skill, which is almost IMPOSSIBLE.

[slightly shotgunned]

so have you two figured out which one can piss the furthest yet?

i'm still working on my arch.