This Week in College Football 11/14 - 11/18

[naiwf 0]

OSU '02 only won because of that dirty hit on McGahee that shredded his knee. I don't remember the "Tee Martin tapdances on Peyton's head by winning the title that he couldn't" game though.

[Hogan Made Wrestling 0]

Let's not fall into a trap of "everyone is playing for the right to lose to Ohio State", given the string of WTF champions we've had in all the major sports the last few years

 

True enough but it seems every year there has been a clear #1 in the BCS and the whole debate has been over who gets to play them, whichever team does get sent jobs and the team everyone knew was the best ends up that way (see 1998, 2000, 2001).

Okay, the last two I agree with, but 1998? Between Tennessee in '98 and OSU in '02, I dunno who was the luckiest national champion of the BCS-era.

 

But Tennessee in 1998 was the only undefeated team and were the unanimous #1 going into the championship game, that's all I was saying. There was debate as to who was the next best team that should play them, but not their presence in the title game. And they won the game to be a clear, undisputed champion.

[Guest Princess Leena]

Tulane weeps.

[teke184 0]

USC was the luckiest in 2003, IMHO...

 

By playing Michigan in the Rose Bowl instead of Oklahoma or LSU, they were guaranteed a share of the title by just winning their game and had the sympathy vote going into 2004.

[Guest Felonies!]

Speaking of LSU, they shouldn't be above Boise State if they have two losses and Boise State has zero.

[cabbageboy 0]

I've ranted on LSU being so high in the BCS. 2 losses on the year and they are going to finish 3rd in the SEC west. This is not a BCS level team. Send em to the Peach Bowl.

 

Tulane was so lucky in 1998. I remember U of L was playing them and down something like 26-21, and had the ball inside the 5 yard line at the end of the game. And of course couldn't get the ball in for a TD, going 4 and out. It seems like every big U of L road game has been a strange repeat of that.

[Guest Princess Leena]

And that was the only Tulane contest that year that was remotely close. They were not a lucky undefeated team. Except their schedule did suck, and they had something like 8 home games.

[iggymcfly 0]

Thoughts on the thread:

 

1. Kotz, you're losing your mind. If you really think that a 2-point loss to the #28 team in the country is better than a 3-point loss to the #1 team in the country just because the decisive play came two minutes later in the game, I don't know what to say to you. I really don't. Let me try one more time:

 

USC LOST TO 7-4 OREGON STATE. THE SAME TEAM THAT LOST TO BOISE STATE 42-14. THE SAME TEAM THAT LOST TO UCLA 25-7. IT'S A VERY, VERY BAD LOSS FOR A NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP CONTENDER. MICHIGAN LOST TO OHIO STATE, THE 12-0 CONSENSUS #1 TEAM IN THE COUNTRY ON THE ROAD. THAT'S NOT A BAD LOSS. THAT'S A SITUATION WHERE NO ONE IN THE COUNTRY WOULD BE LIKELY TO GET THE VICTORY.

 

 

2. LSU's a pretty solid team. They've just played a tough schedule, and in my eyes the toughest in the country. They played Florida, Tennessee, Auburn and now have to play Arkansas all on the road. Every one of those teams was ranked in the Top 10 at the time of the game, and the Tigers had to play in a hostile environment each time.

 

For comparison's sake, USC has played zero teams on the road this year that were even ranked in the Top 25 at the time they played them. They did play Arkansas, but that's when McFadden was injured and they were running a different offense with a different QB. Arkansas was legitimately not a Top 25 team at the time USC played them. USC's toughest road game this year was actually against Oregon State, a team not even ranked in the Top 25, and surprise, surprise they lost. (Oops, that's point #1, not point #2, I think I'm getting off on a tangent.)

 

 

3. DH: it doesn't matter if all your points are unequivocally correct, no one will ever respect anything you say if you don't use at least reasonable punctuation. Your posts are incredibly hard to read and I find myself skipping over them even when I agree with the general point that your trying to make.

[Art Sandusky 0]

Playing the "Team A lost to Team B who lost to Team C which had Record D" card doesn't work. Michigan lost. No rematch.

[iggymcfly 0]

I'm not doing a logic chain or something. I'm just making the point that Oregon State's a very average team, and a two-point loss to them is in no way comparable to a close loss to #1, undefeated Ohio State in terms of quality.

[dh86 0]

Thoughts on the thread:

 

1. Kotz, you're losing your mind. If you really think that a 2-point loss to the #28 team in the country is better than a 3-point loss to the #1 team in the country just because the decisive play came two minutes later in the game, I don't know what to say to you. I really don't. Let me try one more time:

 

USC LOST TO 7-4 OREGON STATE. THE SAME TEAM THAT LOST TO BOISE STATE 42-14. THE SAME TEAM THAT LOST TO UCLA 25-7. IT'S A VERY, VERY BAD LOSS FOR A NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP CONTENDER. MICHIGAN LOST TO OHIO STATE, THE 12-0 CONSENSUS #1 TEAM IN THE COUNTRY ON THE ROAD. THAT'S NOT A BAD LOSS. THAT'S A SITUATION WHERE NO ONE IN THE COUNTRY WOULD BE LIKELY TO GET THE VICTORY.

 

 

2. LSU's a pretty solid team. They've just played a tough schedule, and in my eyes the toughest in the country. They played Florida, Tennessee, Auburn and now have to play Arkansas all on the road. Every one of those teams was ranked in the Top 10 at the time of the game, and the Tigers had to play in a hostile environment each time.

 

For comparison's sake, USC has played zero teams on the road this year that were even ranked in the Top 25 at the time they played them. They did play Arkansas, but that's when McFadden was injured and they were running a different offense with a different QB. Arkansas was legitimately not a Top 25 team at the time USC played them. USC's toughest road game this year was actually against Oregon State, a team not even ranked in the Top 25, and surprise, surprise they lost. (Oops, that's point #1, not point #2, I think I'm getting off on a tangent.)

 

 

3. DH: it doesn't matter if all your points are unequivocally correct, no one will ever respect anything you say if you don't use at least reasonable punctuation. Your posts are incredibly hard to read and I find myself skipping over them even when I agree with the general point that your trying to make.

 

I will try to do that from now on. Sorry for the Dave Meltzer impersonation

[dh86 0]

where to start...where to start...ah fuck i'll go backwards....who cares who gives a flying fuck about a rematch?...I know if I wasnt a Michigan fan I would not be too into watching a rematch either BUT...the best teams are the best teams...rest of the paragraph is irrelevant I see...last years ND-USC game...also irrelevant...you happily left out ND beating the top team in the ACC I see....USC hasnt had a game scheduled against OSU yet so thats also irrelevant....arizona winning 4 straight thats also....well you see the pattern here...no northwestern did not have a chance against michigan...and if bowden has an annual swan dive...why even bring it up? lol......the Michigan hate is getting to you...I think you need a hug

Georgia Tech's the top team in the ACC before the conference has even been determined. Okay then. I think you need a fucking brain transplant, you goddamn illiterate homer.

 

oh shit I forgot the first part lol.....but you tell me young lady....a 2 point loss to oregon state is now= to a 3 point loss to ohio state...and after all the words you have typed..you have failed to type one thing (that im sure you'll do after the fact)...you have yet to say that USC is a better team than Michigan

 

thanks

I shouldn't have to say USC is a better team than Michigan because they are. How the fuck would it help any kind of argument to just throw out a "USC's better!" sentence? If they weren't, Michigan would have WON. Stop arguing on behalf of a loser and embarassing other Michigan fans here who can produce actual reasoned arguments.

 

You know how USC's loss was different from Michigan's? I'll tell you AGAIN:

 

USC was a failed two point conversion AS TIME EXPIRED from sending their game with Oregon State into overtime. Michigan was finished with two minutes left to play. That's the difference. Also, despite THREE takeaways, Michigan was still outgained by 106 yards, converted less than half of their third down opportunities, and had a disadvantage (three minutes, not so much of a big deal) in the time of possession. A GREAT team, the kind that it will take to beat Ohio State this year, a CHAMPIONSHIP caliber team, which is what the title game is about, would be able to actually make something happen out of those turnovers. Also, only four of their scoring drives started in their own territory. The other two started on Ohio State's 25 and 9 yard lines.

 

They lost, they're not going to the title game, get over it and stop trying to ruin what was a civil year of college talk here without Dama around. He's referenced because he was doing the same shit you are now except with Oklahoma instead.

I shouldn't have to say USC is a better team than Michigan because they are. How the fuck would it help any kind of argument to just throw out a "USC's better!" sentence?

 

I believe you just did

 

" A GREAT team, the kind that it will take to beat Ohio State this year, a CHAMPIONSHIP caliber team, which is what the title game is about, would be able to actually make something happen out of those turnovers. "

 

And losing to a 7-4 team makes USC a......

 

If they weren't, Michigan would have WON. Stop arguing on behalf of a loser and embarassing other Michigan fans here who can produce actual reasoned arguments.

 

Alright, so Michigan could not win at Columbus because they are not better than USC?

 

 

 

Okay.

(btw, where were all of this USC talk coming from you prior to their current toss up with Michigan?)

[dh86 0]

I'm not doing a logic chain or something. I'm just making the point that Oregon State's a very average team, and a two-point loss to them is in no way comparable to a close loss to #1, undefeated Ohio State in terms of quality.

 

Losses to the Buckeyes and the Beavers are like comparing losses to the Colts and 49ers.

[Guest Felonies!]

This is why I'll never ever grasp any argument that the college game is purer than the NFL. Clearly, the "any given Sunday" principle doesn't apply to Saturdays. How is one loss a damning indictment of Southern California's entire football season? How is an undefeated season less valuable than a 9-2 season? The one thing we're supposed to be able to count on in sports is that success is determined objectively. This is a beauty pageant with marching bands.

[dh86 0]

This is why I'll never ever grasp any argument that the college game is purer than the NFL. Clearly, the "any given Sunday" principle doesn't apply to Saturdays. How is one loss a damning indictment of Southern California's entire football season? How is an undefeated season less valuable than a 9-2 season? The one thing we're supposed to be able to count on in sports is that success is determined objectively. This is a beauty pageant with marching bands.

 

College Football does not have a playoff so one loss obviously will stand way out on a team's season. Especially if it is their only loss.

[CanadianChris 0]

This is why I'll never ever grasp any argument that the college game is purer than the NFL. Clearly, the "any given Sunday" principle doesn't apply to Saturdays. How is one loss a damning indictment of Southern California's entire football season? How is an undefeated season less valuable than a 9-2 season? The one thing we're supposed to be able to count on in sports is that success is determined objectively. This is a beauty pageant with marching bands.

 

College Football does not have a playoff

You just proved Czech's point.

[Guest Felonies!]

Who needs a legitimate postseason process when you can determine games by what Mack Brown tells other coaches to do? Failing that, we can give Notre Dame a boost because of the name of their school.

[MFer 0]

Alright, I've listened to all the radio stations, looked at all the websites, and watched all the TV stations. Out of all the experts I've listened to, I have not heard ONE person say that UM/OSU was not a great game. None of that "Michigan was never really in the game" talk. In fact, some people have given Michigan credit for coming back from 14 points down in one of the toughest envionments in the country to give themselves a chance to win. These are people that know what they're talking about. Almost every one of those experts believes that UM is the #2 team. When I look at the polls asking about a rematch, I see no greater than a 55-45 split. So roughly half the country thinks there should be a rematch. These are not just UM fans talking. It seems to me as if there are a lot of people NOT associated with Michigan who support the notion that UM is the second best team and should get the rematch.

 

My own personal thoughts: Well a couple ppl on here have already hammered the "Michigan's loss is better than USC's loss" point home so I won't get into that. I believe the "I don't want to see a rematch" excuse lends the least amount of credence. Comparing college football to a different college sport, how many times have we seen, say, Duke/UNC in basketball play each other 3-4 different times in a season? A better example would be G-Town/Nova in '85 b/c they actually met in the finals after facing each other earlier. In boxing, who didn't want to see Ali/Frazier again? "But college football's different!" Well all of those other sports are different from each other too. Sorry, but rematches are a part of sports. "But what about Florida/Florida State in '96?" Um, I fail to see what something that happened a decade ago has to with the present(BTW, I hate when ppl make predictions based on past events). The "winning the conference" argument is a little silly to me too. So the Steelers shouldn't have had the opportunity to win the Super Bowl b/c they didn't win their division? How many Wild Card teams have won the World Series in recent years? Has every NBA and NHL champion in history won their division? "But the rules in those leagues allow non-divsion winners to have the opportunity to win a champioship!" Well, last I checked, there was no rule stating that you have to win your conference to play in the BCS title game. Is it not possible for the two best teams to be in the same conference? Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding was that the purpose of the BCS was to pit the 2 best teams against each other. Based on both teams' body of work, I believe Michigan has a better resume than USC. Forget the losses since they've been discussed ad nauseum, let's look at the wins. The big thing for me is that Michigan has 2 wins over BCS top-ten teams while USC has 1. "But Michigan beat a Wisconsin team that didn't have P.J. Hill most of the game!" Well, USC beat an Arkansas team that had a banged up Darren McFadden and was not starting Mitch Mustain(and now Casey Dick) at that point. Plus it was the first game of the year. "But Michigan had a close game with Ball State at home!" Well every team has at least one letdown during the year. Remember, in that same week, Ohio State only beat Illinois by 7. Now USC had THREE close games against the likes of Washington, Washington State, and Arizona State, with two of those games occuring at home. Hey, this is just my opinion, but I know I'm far from the only person to have Michigan ahead of USC. If USC runs the table and ends up at #2, fine. But at this point, I feel that UM is a better team than USC.

[Art Sandusky 0]

(btw, where were all of this USC talk coming from you prior to their current toss up with Michigan?)

I've said USC, Florida, and Texas (not anymore but at the time I said it they hadn't taken a second loss) were better than Michigan since the first BCS rankings came out. Seeing as the title picture has narrowed a great deal since then and it's either going to be USC or Michigan playing in the championship, I'm arguing for a USC/OSU matchup. If my Vols were involved I'd argue for them, but they aren't. I'm far from being any kind of Trojans mark, but I can't see any practical case for a rematch in Glendale. Say Ohio State wins again. What would it prove? Say Michigan wins. Sure they beat the #1 team in the land but it was on their second try. Also, should USC beat Notre Dame this weekend it would mean they (Michigan) made it into the title game by the narrowest of margins and a similar situation to the 2002 season would emerge if USC and Michigan won their respective games. Shit, that year was such a clusterfuck that the AP disowned itself from the BCS system.

 

Bringing comparisons to other sports into the discussion is meaningless because D-IA doesn't have a playoff system and there's no such thing as "boxing season." It's why late November has produced these kinds of arguments since 1998. This particular argument is moot anyway since a win over Notre Dame will almost certainly put USC in the title game. It's a rare instance where I'm glad Notre Dame is overhyped, because they're getting blown out or at least soundly defeated on Saturday night. Like, two touchdowns or more. USC/ND and Texas/USC last year were good examples of games that were worthy of rematches if the same situation had developed somehow.

 

Right now everyone's looking at the three point final margin and still in the hype frenzy, but the game wasn't nearly as epic as it's being made out to be. The atmosphere and setting were unrivaled, yes. Michigan did very well to remain competitive deep into the fourth quarter, but they freakin' lost. They're a great football team and more than worthy of a Rose Bowl berth, and heaven help whoever they play because they're going to be pissed.

 

People trying to downplay not winning your conference as being inconsequential are laughable. When Nebraska and Oklahoma went to the title game without winning their conference holy hell was raised. Now it's okay because the team that didn't win its own conference this time happened to have a pretty good game despite a losing effort?

 

All of this sound and fury is going to be moot by late Saturday night as Brady Quinn is picking USC's cleats out of his teeth in the locker room, so I'm going to (foolishly, no doubt) put my faith in the system and hope it works to give us a real national championship game of USC/OSU. I'm done with this until next week.

[snuffbox 0]

Would Wisco be ranked even higher now if they had been in Iowa's (as they clearly should have been) spot from the beginning of the season?

[MFer 0]

-The general reasoning is that Michigan winning a rematch would result in them being national champs b/c it was on a neutral field.

 

-My argument about other sports is based more on the principle that losing to an opponent should not prevent said person/team for competing for whatever title b/c it would be a rematch.

 

-What I wouldn't mind seeing is Michigan/USC in the Rose Bowl while Florida/Arkansas plays Ohio State but it probably won't work out that way.

 

-I will support USC being in the championship game if they win impressively against Notre Dame and UCLA, which is no guarantee.

[CanadianChris 0]

Would Wisco be ranked even higher now if they had been in Iowa's (as they clearly should have been) spot from the beginning of the season?

I doubt it, since their schedule was really soft and they lost the only game they played against a strong opponent. Maybe a spot or two higher, but that's it.

[Art Sandusky 0]

-The general reasoning is that Michigan winning a rematch would result in them being national champs b/c it was on a neutral field.

 

-My argument about other sports is based more on the principle that losing to an opponent should not prevent said person/team for competing for whatever title b/c it would be a rematch.

 

-What I wouldn't mind seeing is Michigan/USC in the Rose Bowl while Florida/Arkansas plays Ohio State but it probably won't work out that way.

 

-I will support USC being in the championship game if they win impressively against Notre Dame and UCLA, which is no guarantee.

Hey, I forgot all about the UCLA game. Whoops.

 

Arkansas would put up a spirited fight, but Ohio State would trounce 'em. I still expect them to lose to LSU anyway and look at talk of them being in the title game as lip service. Florida would present a much better matchup but I'm not sure I'd like the Gators' chances. Michigan and a USC team that wins out would both be the best possible opponents. I'd like to be an SEC homer and argue for Florida if they don't lose another game, but I really can't. I'm still bitter about Auburn in 2004.

[Guest Princess Leena]

Blah, blah... I fucking hate the BCS. This shit will never stop.

 

Harley, give us more I-AA updates.

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

All of this sound and fury is going to be moot by late Saturday night as Brady Quinn is picking USC's cleats out of his teeth in the locker room...

this is my favorite quote from you... EVER. In fact it's so good that it's going in the sig.

[cabbageboy 0]

Am I missing something about Florida? This is a team that barely staggered past Vandy and needed miracle blocked kicks to beat South Carolina. Ohio St. would roll them...FL can't score enough.