GATORS IN THE NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP!

[ProvidenceRI]

I have no interest in any college football team, however let me throw this out there:

In football, the home football team wins the game, on average by 3 points. That being said, the logic is that the home football team has a 3 point advantage.

So, Michigan losing by 3 points to Ohio State, at Ohio State, really is a draw.

However, shame on Michigan for not playing a game for 2 weeks.

All the BCS needs is a playoff system that involves the winners of every conference. This is ridiculous. I could care less who wins, but I like to point out when people get screwed because nobody understands math and statistics.

[rams80]

So, Michigan losing by 3 points to Ohio State, at Ohio State, really is a draw.

However, shame on Michigan for not playing a game for 2 weeks.

The NCAA (with a few exceptions) only allows you 12 regular season games. The Big Ten Presidents also have a "tradition/policy" of not playing Regular Season games after Thanksgiving. So it's not entirely Michigan's fault here.

[See Red]

I propose this dispute be settled with a simulated game between Michigan and Florida in NCAA Football 07.

[infrared41]

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.

What you are failing to grasp is that we are dealing with subjective opinions here. I most certainly can say that Florida deserves to go and leave it at that. Frankly, there is no compelling reason for me to even offer evidence in support of my position because my position in the end is simply my opinion. It isn't wrong, it isn't right, it just is. The number of contortions you want to twist in to or the number of hypotheticals you care to toss out there to prove me wrong does not matter. When we get right down to the bare essentials here it's what I think and what you think. There's no right or wrong in this. You can't definitively prove your point and neither can I.

Saying someone "has to be right" in a subjective argument is silly and pointless. Saying someone can't state their opinion without proving it as fact in a totally subjective debate is simply ridiculous. If you are chasing definitive proof of who should or should not play Ohio State you are completely and utterly wasting your time. Sports message boards are not the place to go if you're looking to prove a thesis. If we had to prove our opinions in order to post here this place and every one like it would dry up pretty quickly.

With regard to the scenario you presented to me earlier, it would be a serious cluster . That's what I think. Sadly, I can't prove it but I am guessing most anyone would agree with me.

I don't take this personally at all. In fact, I am really enjoying this. No offense intended and none taken. It's all good.

[bterreson]

I propose this dispute be settled with a simulated game between Michigan and Florida in NCAA Football 07.

i will go set this up right now.

ill have the results back as soon as the game is done.

edit: alright the game is underway.. from past simulations on NCAA07 expect a final score of like.. 71-63. haha.

i also set it at a neutral site (Boise State) so there is no home field advantage for either team.

just a quick update

Flordia: 40

Michigan: 17

HALF

(it is a video game so anything can happen)

FINAL SCORE.

Flordia: 54

Michigan: 29

well there you have it. the bcs made the right choice.

[leedsunited]

What disgusts me is that Urban probably got the slot by bitching loud and hard about it.

Look to see this a LOT more in the future. And i'm gonna be sick.

[infrared41]

What disgusts me is that Urban probably got the slot by bitching loud and hard about it.

Look to see this a LOT more in the future. And i'm gonna be sick.

I don't think that was the sole reason but it certainly didn't hurt.

[See Red]

I propose this dispute be settled with a simulated game between Michigan and Florida in NCAA Football 07.

i will go set this up right now.

ill have the results back as soon as the game is done.

edit: alright the game is underway.. from past simulations on NCAA07 expect a final score of like.. 71-63. haha.

i also set it at a neutral site (Boise State) so there is no home field advantage for either team.

just a quick update

Flordia: 40

Michigan: 17

HALF

(it is a video game so anything can happen)

FINAL SCORE.

Flordia: 54

Michigan: 29

well there you have it. the bcs made the right choice.

Oddly enough, I was arguing for Michigan before, but now I see myself not minding the decision so much...

[andrewharrington]

I think both teams are deserving. I think both teams are pretty equally talented and coached. They have different styles, sure. Florida wins ugly, and Michigan loses pretty. Which is better? I don't know. Instead of looking at what a team did, people look at what a team didn't do, or almost did.

Sure, you can knock Michigan. They played a pretty flawless offensive game in Columbus: 350+ yards. No turnovers. A bunch of points. Ohio State gave them the ball three times, twice on their half of the field. Bottom line, the Wolverines still didn't win. Their vaunted defense got ripped by big play after big play. The Buckeyes should have won the game by 3 touchdowns, but they dropped a few passes, muffed a few snaps, had a bad bounce or two, etc.

Sure, you can knock Florida. They played pretty ugly throughout most of the season. Unnecessarily close games with pretty average Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Georgia, South Carolina, and Florida State teams. They gave up quite a few second half points after starting quickly out of the gates; they let teams hang around, and it bit them against Auburn.

Why is it every year that we have to talk about which team doesn't deserve to go? Why can't we talk about how great a season both these teams had? Why do we have to devalue one team to make a case for the other? One is an SEC champion, the other came darn close to being a Big Ten Champion, but ran into a roadblock in the home of the nation's best team. Both great teams, both deserving, it's just a shame it has to be settled like it is.

[infrared41]

One is an SEC champion, the other came darn close to being a Big Ten Champion

Florida wins ugly, and Michigan loses pretty. Which is better?

And that folks is exactly what I have been trying to point out all along. That's the case for Michigan in a nutshell.

[See Red]

One is an SEC champion, the other came darn close to being a Big Ten Champion

Florida wins ugly, and Michigan loses pretty. Which is better?

And that folks is exactly what I have been trying to point out all along. That's the case for Michigan in a nutshell.

How is that a valid point at all? They both finished with eleven wins and one loss in a system where who you lose to and how you lose is important. That argument is also essentially suggesting that Michigan's wins are prettier and their loss was too. No? Sounds like the better team to me.

[infrared41]

One is an SEC champion, the other came darn close to being a Big Ten Champion

Florida wins ugly, and Michigan loses pretty. Which is better?

And that folks is exactly what I have been trying to point out all along. That's the case for Michigan in a nutshell.

How is that a valid point at all? They both finished with eleven wins and one loss in a system where who you lose to and how you lose is important. That argument is also essentially suggesting that Michigan's wins are prettier and their loss was too. No? Sounds like the better team to me.

As I have said before, all wins and losses being equal the conference champion should get the bid. Michigan's best argument has been "we almost beat Ohio State" and "We came in second in the Big 10." Based on what my position has been all along, I'd say my point was valid. Is my point irrefutable? Hardly, but whose is when it comes to this debate?

At some point the hard facts have to play a role in the selection process. The hard facts are that Florida won The SEC and Michigan finished second in their conference. If the number one ranked team plays in a conference then every year there is always going to be a team that came in second to them. Why should Michigan get "bonus points" for finishing second to Ohio State when Florida actually won a tough conference?

Let's say for a second that Florida and Arkansas are both undefeated going into the SEC title game. Ohio State has one loss going into the Michigan game and Michigan is undefeated. The rankings have Florida, Arkansas, and Michigan in the top three and Ohio State is at four. Florida beats Arkansas and Ohio State beats Michigan. Of the one loss teams left in my scenario who would you give another shot at Florida? I am betting if my scenario was the one played out this year that no one outside Arkansas fans would be pimping for the Razorbacks to get another shot. That's why I believe the OSU-Michigan rivalry played as big a role in this mess as anything else did. If it were Wisconsin instead of Michigan this topic would have hit the graveyard days ago.

We can debate this until the cows come home for Cheerleading duty in Ann Arbor but the fact remains that Florida is headed for Glendale and in my humble opinion the BCS made the right choice by sending them there. It's just my opinion.

Isn't this what College Football is all about? We have to admit that no matter which side you're on, the debate has been rigorous and enjoyable. The BCS may be screwed up but the "Sports in General" Board is functioning perfectly.

[slightly shotgunned]

One is an SEC champion, the other came darn close to being a Big Ten Champion

Florida wins ugly, and Michigan loses pretty. Which is better?

And that folks is exactly what I have been trying to point out all along. That's the case for Michigan in a nutshell.

How is that a valid point at all? They both finished with eleven wins and one loss in a system where who you lose to and how you lose is important. That argument is also essentially suggesting that Michigan's wins are prettier and their loss was too. No? Sounds like the better team to me.

As I have said before, all wins and losses being equal the conference champion should get the bid.

and what i've been trying to say to you is that conference championships aren't a factor if all wins and all losses are equal.

btw...i never thought i'd actually enjoy myself in a debate. and though this response is much MUCH later than your comment, i'd have to say this is pretty enjoyable. its no fun when everyone around you just agrees with your points.

[infrared41]

and what i've been trying to say to you is that conference championships aren't a factor if all wins and all losses are equal.

OK. Then what do you use to decide?

I'm not saying that quality wins shouldn't count for something but in the case of Florida and Michigan they are pretty even at best but I'd give Florida the nod in that category too. When I say all wins and losses being equal I don't mean a win over a 1-AA opponent should count the same as a win over a ranked team. I am referring to Michigan and Florida specifically. When it's between Michigan and Florida I think the SEC title gives Florida the edge in deciding who plays for the National Championship. Florida won a tough conference while Michigan finished second in their conference. That's gotta count for something. My position is based solely on these two teams for this season. This time Florida had the better case.

[slightly shotgunned]

and what i've been trying to say to you is that conference championships aren't a factor if all wins and all losses are equal.

OK. Then what do you use to decide?

who you've lost to.

why? because you've got to beat the teams you're supposed to beat if you want to be a champion. it can be ugly (like michigan's win over ball state) or it can be "pretty" (like florida's blowout of central florida), but as long as it gets done, it doesn't matter. now when florida was the #2 team in the country back in october they lost to a lower ranked team...albeit an 11th ranked auburn team, but a lower ranked team. that shouldn't happen. michigan, on the other hand goes out and beats everyone ranked lower than them. the one loss they have comes to #1 ranked ohio state (which i'm sure makes you very happy ). now i know what you're probably thinking, here goes the "they only lost by 3" excuse. not really. its a "you're not supposed to beat the number 1 team in the country on their home field regardless of where you're ranked" point instead. it doesn't matter how much you lose by or how much you win by, only that you win or that you lose and the fact of the matter is that when florida faced a lower ranked team, they lost. you can't say that about michigan.

*having said all of that, if usc was playing in the national title game I'd be even MORE than i am now since oregon state wasn't ranked when they beat usc, but usc was still able to be mentioned as a contender...

now, about the sec title game and why i have such a problem with it being counted.

the sec conference championship was an extra game and isn't included in their conference win-loss record. florida's conference record is 7-1 not 8-1. i don't believe that an extra game (regardless of what the game was for) should give you an edge in anything. one team plays 12 games, one team plays 13 and that 13th game gets them into a national title game. i don't agree with that at all. now, as i said before, if the big ten had an OFFICIAL conference championship game (that was an extra game like most other conferences) and michigan didn't even play in it, i'd be fine with florida getting in. but they don't.

[Squeaks4]

Here is my question...if Florida would of lost to a UCF or Kentucky but still won their conference, should they still be in the National Championship game?

[slightly shotgunned]

Here is my question...if Florida would of lost to a UCF or Kentucky but still won their conference, should they still be in the National Championship game?

some people would disagree, but i'd say no, but the bcs (the only opinion that matters) would have said yes.

had usc won the pac 10, we'd be arguing about them. i agree with infrared though, the only "fair" team to place in the title game is boise state. two unbeaten teams in the title game.