2006 BCS talk

[Boogahz]

I just thought I would start up a thread separate from the MI v OSU game thread for talk about the BCS picture. I wanted to throw a story I read today about Boise State playing in the title game for a few laughs too.

http://www.statesman.com/sports/content ... ptcol.html

How about Boise State in BCS title game?
After all, Broncos and Buckeyes are the only unbeaten teams.
Tuesday, November 28, 2006

There are only five shopping days left before the Bowl Championship Series bids are announced. Have you bought your earplugs yet?

Here are some hints which institute of higher football should face Ohio State in the BCS championship game.

The school colors are orange and blue. It had a puny non-conference schedule. Its entire running game doesn't consist of quarterback draws.

That eliminates the Florida Gators. We are left with America's most under-respected team. Ladies and gentlemen, give it up for the Boise State Broncos.

Go ahead. Laugh, roll your eyes, make potato jokes. But big things can come out of Idaho.

Philo Farnsworth came out of Rigby, Idaho, and he invented television. Without him we wouldn't even be having this debate because TV gives the BCS a zillion dollars not to have a playoff.

Notre Dame's badminton team gets on TV more than the Broncos, yet Boise State has built a dynasty. It's 39-1 since joining the Western Athletic Conference. More importantly, it has a couple of numbers none of the other contenders can match: 12-0.

As in undefeated. As in untied. As in try to undermine that, you snotty big-conference boys.

"Let them play six in a row against the SEC and see if they're still undefeated," Clemson coach Tommy Bowden said. Yo, coach, get back to us when your team stops blowing 28-14 leads to South Carolina.

The Broncos haven't done that. They thumped their archrival, the dreaded Nevada Wolf Pack.

They have the best running back in America, sophomore Ian Johnson. He leads the nation in touchdowns (24), has more yards (1,613) than anyone but Garrett Wolfe and Steve Slaton and is averaging 6.5 per pop.

Jared Zabransky will go down as the finest quarterback in NCAA history whose last name begins with a Z. And no school has as distinctive a field as the famed blue turf at Bronco Stadium.

These points are highly subjective, but so is everything else in the BCS verbal brawl. Was Michigan's win over Notre Dame more impressive than Southern Cal's? Gators scoff at a Michigan-Ohio State rematch, but they all were for a sequel when Florida beat FSU for the 1996 national championship.

USC fans think Boise is on Neptune, but the Trojans' lone loss was to Oregon State. And guess who demolished those Beavers 42-14? Boise State did.

"They were very good," Oregon State coach Mike Riley said. "I think anybody on any given day would have a hard time with Boise."

How sweet would it be if that day came on Jan. 8 against Ohio State? OK, so it's not going to happen unless USC and Florida lose on Saturday, LSU goes on probation and Michigan secedes from the Union.

But since we have to have the argument, the Broncos deserve to be in the conversation. Just listen to their fight song:

Go Orange

Go big Blue

Fight! Fight!

B-S-U

If those aren't the perfect initials for this entire debate, my name is Philo Farnsworth.

David Whitley writes for the Orlando Sentinel.

[Sylvus]

I feel like Boise State would get crushed by anyone who is being mentioned in talk for the National Championship game. They'll end up playing the Big 12 winner in the Fiesta Bowl.

I'm not certain that I think Michigan should get a rematch for the National Championship, but if you're looking at the best two teams should play for it, I think you can't immediately discount them. This article seemed to have a simple and clear argument for it.

http://everygamecounts.blogspot.com/200 ... n-yet.html

I have come to a resolution of sorts. In regards to NCAA Football, the BCS, crowning a national championship etc., there are many, many arguments. Many. And none of them are right. However, none of them are wrong.

Doesn’t make sense? No kidding, neither does anything else this time of year. Arguments can be made for a handful of teams to line up and face Ohio State for the national championship this year. How in the world can anything be right?

In my opinion, the team most deserving to play Ohio State is Michigan. They have but one loss, to Ohio State. And therein lies the problem. Because, Michigan already had their chance. They had the chance to beat Ohio State, let someone else take a shot. But if you look at “quality” of losses, Michigan has the best of the one-loss teams. They lost to the number one ranked team. So, how can you justify another one-loss team being more deserving when their loss is to a lesser opponent?

Florida played a tough SEC schedule, but they have not looked overly impressive. Not that looking overly impressive should discount them. But do you think a team that struggled to beat one of the worst Florida State teams in my lifetime is playing better than Michigan, or USC? And they still have to play Arkansas.

Speaking of USC, now they looked good, very good in handling the Irish from Notre Dame. And they have looked good for a while now. Including a season-opening beat down of Arkansas, granted a very different Arkansas team but still. But, which is more impressive, beating Notre Dame in your house, or in theirs? Michigan spanked Notre Dame in South Bend.

So in my head, anything USC and Florida has done, Michigan has done better. It makes as much sense as anything else I’ve heard.

Our win vs. ND was better than USC's, our loss is better than USC's. Was Arkansas really a different team when USC played them? I haven't seen a lot of Arkansas' games this year. Winning 50-14 (or whatever it was) either leads me to believe that USC is that much better than a team that was virtually dominating the SEC, yet performing similarly to Michigan, which shouldn't give them too much of an edge and should lower Florida's relative strength unless they beat Arkansas by a large margin; or if it was a different Arkansas team than basically ran the table, then it should lower USC's relative strength and a Florida win on Saturday should almost jump them over USC (though they did struggle with some weaker teams).

They should just get on with a playoff already. You could do it with 4 teams, provided USC and UF win this weekend, have it on neutral ground, and eliminate all talk of people getting robbed. It'd solve the LSU problem from 2003 or so.

[Tyek]

But if you look at “quality” of losses, Michigan has the best of the one-loss teams. They lost to the number one ranked team. So, how can you justify another one-loss team being more deserving when their loss is to a lesser opponent?

I still think that a team should win their conference to get a shot at the National Championship. I also think that Michigan essentially got their chance. I would think the same thing about Notre Dame if they were the only other team with one loss, Michigan already beat them, end of story. (Although that totally blows up my must win conference arguement.)

[Sylvus]

I'll start it off by saying I'm completely biased, so apply this to whichever conference you think is the strongest. What if the two best teams in the country are in the same conference? It can and probably has happened in the past. Ignore Boise State for a minute, say Florida and USC both lose this weekend, and Michigan is the only one-loss team. What then?

Again, I don't even know if I want a rematch, but I do think the BCS is inherently flawed and I wish there were some sort of playoff system. I'd be all for Football extending another month...

[Sabek]

One good thing I have seen regarding rematch vs no-rematch is that USC lost early and has improved a great deal since the loss.
The downside to a rematch is that where USC has improved there really wont be much improvement in Michigan or OSU since they last played.
So essentially it will just be watching the same game over.

So where Michigan took their best shot at the end of the season when everyone should be playing their best and lost. USC lost but has improved since then so it will be a "new" game.

[masteen]

Arky has pulled a complete turnaround from that opening day drubbing they took from USC. I'm honestly not sure my Gators can beat them this weekend.

ANY playoff system would be better than this shit. It would be awesome to see UF(4) v. OSU(1) and UM(3) v. USC(2) games feed a more legitimate title game.

Why is Notre Dame even ranked anyway? They played exactly TWO good teams, and got blown the fuck out both times.

[Zamtuk]

A top 4 team playoff would be an excellent alternative to this. However, you can already tell that number 5 and 6 would be bitching up a storm for being 'snubbed'. I'll admit, I'm also very biased this year, as I think it doesn't matter who we play, we'll probably win. Though, I really don't want to play UM again.

[Denadeb]

This year is kinda of screwed anyway. You have two teams with two losses that basicly are due to poor calls made by the refs. One being OU and the other being LSU. I know bad calls happen but these were some of the worst I have ever seen and they even had a chance to fix the bad calls cause of replay and still got it fucked up. Now don't get me wrong I'm not saying either team is better than any of the rest I just think its screwed up they lost their chance at it cause of the refs. I will admit I'm biased towards LSU but I'm also realistic. I think an 8 team playoff would be better than just 4 because some years you have some really good teams that just screw up one week late in the season and fall out of the top 4.

As for Arkansas being a diffrent team than earlier in the year they are. When they played USC they had a lot of thier stars out of the game due to injurys. The out come may have been the same but I would have to think it would have been much much closer of a game.

[Kelshara]

I strongly believe if OSU and UM play again OSU will win by a larger margin than they did. And no I am not a huge OSU fan at all. I also think the way USC are playing right now they would beat UM. I personally think USC deserves the shot if they win on Saturday. Oh yeah and I'll throw a curve ball into the whole discussion:

LSU is friggin scary, hands down the best 2-loss team and I would NOT want to face them if there was a play-off.

[Winnow]

An Eight Team playoff would work well and the seven games could involve the top seven bowls. A three week playoff isn't that long and would draw a huge audience like the NCAA Basketball tourney, unlike the varied ratings the bowls get now.

It's all about greed and money which is why I'm shocked the system isn't in place yet except for the bickering among the lessor bowls that wouldn't be involved.

[Sueven]

I think USC deserves it, assuming they beat UCLA. USC played a total of three non-conference games, against Arkansas, Nebraska, and Notre Dame. All three of those teams are ranked. Arkansas and Nebraska will be playing in conference championship games, and Notre Dame will be in a BCS bowl (although I couldn't tell you why). The rest of their schedule was Pac-10. The Oregon State loss is not that bad-- OSU is pretty good, the loss was by 2 points, and USC has improved since.

Michigan's loss is to a better team, but is also more recent and more accurately reflects the team Michigan is than does USC's loss to Oregon State. Michigan's out of conference schedule consists of Vanderbilt, Central Michigan, Notre Dame, and Ball State. The only competitive team there is Notre Dame, and that's no advantage over USC.

Michigan has two wins over teams that are currently ranked (Wisconsin and Notre Dame). USC has four (Notre Dame, Arkansas, Nebraska, California).

Michigan and Florida are closer. Florida also played a shit nonconference schedule, with slumping FSU the only notable opponent. But if Florida wins the SEC, they'll have beaten three teams that'll finish ranked (Tennessee, LSU, Arkansas), and they haven't lost to Ohio State already. I'd probably give the spot to Florida, with the conference title being the tiebreaker.

Beyond those two, Michigan probably deserves it, although I think arguments for Louisville and Boise State could be worth listening to. Wisconsin has a good record but 0 quality wins, LSU might be as good as anybody but has two losses. I'd like to see all those teams in the BCS, it's too bad Wisconsin can't go. They'd be better than Notre Dame.

[Sylvus]

I pretty much agree with your assessment of USC. I was merely presenting a reasonable argument that I read, but if USC beats UCLA this weekend I will be in 100% agreement that they should face OSU in the National Championship.

Michigan's loss is to a better team, but is also more recent and more accurately reflects the team Michigan is than does USC's loss to Oregon State.

I disagree with that statement, however, as well as the belief (albeit not yours, Sueven) that in a rematch Michigan would lose by more than than it did in the first game (though losing by 3, your only real options are winning or losing by more). Our loss was like 3 weeks after USC's, so I don't know if I'd call it that much more recent. By the same argument, does that diminish USC's win over Arkansas since it was the first week of the seasosn?

I also disagree that a loss in as hostile an environment as any team can face, with terrible turf conditions, the day after the face of Michigan Football (as well as being mentor/teacher/friend/father to most of the Michigan staff and players) passed away and as they're getting on the bus to go to Columbus can be considered indicative of how we would do in a rematch. You can say I'm making excuses if you like, but if you play that game again on a different field, the total score isn't going to be half of what it was on Nov. 18. I'm not saying I guarantee Michigan wins, Ohio State outplayed us and deserved that win. I'm just saying something is wrong when those two defenses allow 900 yards and 81 total points.

I think this article was pretty interesting, and probably speaks the truth. I also agree with his three points at the beginning. I'm not saying we were robbed or anything, I just think that Michigan matches up as well as anyone with Ohio State, and if you replayed that game 10 times on a different field, I don't Ohio State is sure to win more than 50% of them.

It's astonishing to me that all the commentary about the Michigan-Ohio State game has missed what seems clearly to be the dominant factor of the game: the shoddy field conditions, which crippled both defenses.

Before anybody accuses me of simple Michigan homer-ism, let me concede a couple points:

1. Ohio State made its best effort to create a playable field
2. Ohio State outplayed Michigan and won fairly
3. There are plenty of good reasons to avoid a rematch in the title game - for one, it's impossible to know with any precision which two teams are best, so providing an interesting match-up ought to be an important consideration, and rematches are generally less interesting.

Nonetheless, the most popular argument against a rematch is that Michigan "had its chance." That argument loses much of its force if you consider just how badly the field distorted the game November 18.

For those who don't know, Ohio State had had to completely re-sod its field twice this year, including once in November. The latest re-sodding obviously did not take root, which should not be a surprise for the Midwest in November, and the result was a loose carpet of grass that provided very little traction. It was a lot like running on a rug that sits on a hardwood floor. You can run straight pretty well, but if you try to change direction quickly you're likely to fall.

Why did this hurt the defense? Because offensive players know when they're going to cut, and they can get their bodies under control before planting. Defensive players, who have to react instantaneously, can't keep up. The result was a farce. Neither team could cover anybody. Neither defensive line could get any penetration against the run, or generate any pass rush. (If neither lineman can move quickly, the result is a stalemate, which benefits the offense.)

Most sports reporters and fans missed the full extent of this distortion for a simple reason; it produced lots of scoring, and most sports fans think high scoring means a great game. But the results make it pretty clear that the scoring was grotesquely inflated by the field. These were pretty universally regarded as the two best defenses in college football. Yet Ohio State scored more points against Michigan than it did against all but three opponents. Michigan scored more offensive points against Ohio State than it did against anybody. Mike Hart averaged more per carry against OSU than he did against all but two opponents. And so on. That wasn't a football game, it was a video game.

There were some ways in which offensive players were hurt. Chad Henne overthrew a sure touchdown pass to Mario Manningham because Manningham couldn't get out of his break at normal speed. It's probably no coincidence that the shifty Anthony Gonzalez, OSU's leading receiver, had less yardage than straight-line speed demon Ted Ginn.

Did the field benefit Ohio State vis a vis Michigan? I think it probably did, though you could argue the point. The Buckeyes had more experience playing on a shoddy field (and Michigan's 11 point second half margin would suggest that getting used to the field helped.) Turning the game into a shootout probably suited OSU's style more comfortably than Michigan's.

But the point is not which team benefited over the other. The point is that the game itself was massively distorted by the field conditions. For a comparison, in 1950 Michigan and Ohio State played a famous game in a blizzard, and Michigan won 9-3, with a blocked punt for a touchdown, despite not gaining a first down. As Ohio State's alumni magazine recalled, "The snow, wind, and insecure footing made the game a mockery - an imitation of football only by a stretch of the imagination."

Now, the terrible Ohio State field last Saturday did not distort the game as much as the 1950 blizzard did, but it distorted it quite a bit. The fact was simply obscured because it was the defenses rather than the offenses that primarily suffered. Michigan certainly deserved to win the Snow Bowl in 1950, but you can't say the game proved a lot about its superiority to Ohio State.

The same is true, to a lesser but still very significant degree, of last weekend's Turf Bowl. If Michigan and Ohio State were to play on a decent field, the game would like nothing like the one that took place on November 18. Ohio State would have an even chance - perhaps a slightly better than even chance - of winning. But there would not be anything like 81 points or 900 yards of offense. It would be, in other words, a far more fair contest of which team is better.

I bolded most of the parts that I wholeheartedly agree with, he makes some other claims that may be too biased in Michigan's favor. If you believe the main claim of that article, that the poor field conditions hurt the defense more than the offense, then I think it stands to reason that Michigan was affected more, as our Defense was our biggest strength and OSU's offense was theirs. I'm only putting that out there for people to think about, I still believe USC should play OSU, and Michigan should go to the Rose Bowl. Then, when OSU blows USC out, and Michigan beats LSU or whoever we get, I can come back here and say that we should have had a rematch.

[Deward]

I'll throw my two cents in here. I hate both OSU and Mich. I'm a Wisconsin fan (and Colorado but not admitting it this year).

I enjoyed the Mich-OSU game immensely but I don't think Mich ever really had a chance in that game. It seemed to me like OSU was just toying with them. Whenever it got close, OSU would put more points on the board. The Mich defense really had no answer for OSU. Another meeting between the two would not be anywhere near as close.

I really am not impressed by USC either though. They played well enough this year to win but their only real blowout was against an overrated Notre Dame. A USC-OSU game is going to be a cakewalk for OSU. I would say a final in that game would be somewhere around 45-21 in OSU's favor.

I really don't see anyone in the country beating OSU right now. I personally would love to see a playoff for the top 8 teams. Div 1 is the only team that doesn't have one and it all comes down to money.

[Zamtuk]

The field conditions were fucking nasty, I will absolutely agree to that, as I had no problem scooping some up for a keepsake. And while, I would have liked to have seen both teams play defensive ball, I can't say it effected one team more than the other. Sure, you let a shitload of rushing yards tally up on you, but Henne didn't throw an INT. Rare for both him and us not to pick one. Most the talk around here, which I don't necessarily agree with, was that if we didn't create stupid turnovers (fumbles should be partly attributed to the field conditions) it would have been an all out ass raping. As the article said, it did take a lot off of UM's defense, but it took Gonzo out of our offense, save that one drive he got the TD, which was coincedently the only drive he was thrown the ball in.

[noel]

To paraphrase Jim Rome: I always hope someone gets jammed up in all of this because that's the only way the system's going to change. The bigger the team and the higher the stakes, the greater the pressure to change the system.

On a personal note: I can't wait to hear comments when the University of Spoiled Children (and coaching Jesus) destroys Overrated State University.

[Sirensa]

USC fans think Boise is on Neptune, but the Trojans' lone loss was to Oregon State. And guess who demolished those Beavers 42-14? Boise State did.

Booyah! Go Boise State!

IMO, until BCS figures out a play-off system, it's as fair as anything else the BCS does to let the undefeated little guy play the undefeated big guy.

[Sylvus]

Now that I think about it, I'm all for OSU playing Boise State. After they have to add a third digit to Ohio State's side of the scoreboard, I'll never have to hear talk about an undefeated team from a piddly little conference deserving a shot at the title ever again.

[masteen]

OSU's latest SOS from the NCAA puts them at 39. They played more patsies than any other legit team in the country, and compiled stats accordingly. I am honestly not sure if Michigan's defense was just overrated or if OSU is really that good, fuck maybe it could have been the field.

Florida gets criticised for playing one Div-AA, which didn't affect our SOS AT ALL, but somehow matters a lot to the goddamn voters.

I'm so sick of these discussions, year after year. We need a fucking playoff.

[Boogahz]

The thing is, one Div I-AA team is not supposed to affect the BCS formula. It DOES affect how voters vote in the polls which DO affect the BCS formula. It's kind of screwy that way.

[Ashur]

Stewart Mandel - SI wrote

It's always about who will fill more seats.

Good set of Q and A on how the bowl games get decided. Even though his analysis of the best teams is off from time to time, his insight on this is pretty good.

The goal of the BCS isn't to pick the best teams, but to showcase the ones that will sell advertising and fill seats generating revenue for the conferences. This is why a two-loss team like ND will get an at-large pick over a 0 loss team like Boise State by any major bowl organizer. Golden Domers have a huge following. Boise WHO?

The rankings that also go into it are the input of computers and writers/analysts on how the teams stack up. No one really knows how any match will rack up, the same teams could play each other and get different results. Just because A beats B and B beats C doesn't mean A will beat C any given day, that's an assumption.

I'd LOVE playoffs, but playoffs don't favor the conference commisioners, which is why we're stuck with this bastardized hybrid BCS system to determine eligibility.

I'm hoping OSU plays USC, personally, which seems the most likely.

Sylvus, yeah the grass sucked, sorry. OSU played on the same grass though, it's not like that King of the Hill episode where Hank Hill and his buddies groomed the field in a specific way to fuck over the team Arlen High was playing. Would you have cried foul if it snowed/rained and created similar shitty conditions? It's water under the bridge. Deal.

[masteen]

I agree Ashur, but it's circular logic. The NCAA bball tourney is huge no matter who plays in the final. Even if a small team has a "Cinderella season" and makes a big run, people will get behind them because everyone loves a winner.

[Ashur]

Hey, like I said. I'd love to see playoffs.

[Sueven]

I disagree with that statement, however, as well as the belief (albeit not yours, Sueven) that in a rematch Michigan would lose by more than than it did in the first game (though losing by 3, your only real options are winning or losing by more). Our loss was like 3 weeks after USC's, so I don't know if I'd call it that much more recent. By the same argument, does that diminish USC's win over Arkansas since it was the first week of the seasosn?

Well, the bottom line is that the Ohio State game was the last game Michigan played, so that's what we've got. USC just blew through Oregon, Cal, and Notre Dame. I don't find it hard to intuit that the Michigan of OhioSU is closer to the current Michigan than the USC of OregonSU is to the current USC.

And yes, this argument does diminish USC's win over Arkansas.

Also, let's be careful not to overstate how close the Michigan / Ohio State game was. Michigan never held a lead after the midway point of the first quarter. The dynamic of the game was: Ohio State scores to make it a 2 score game, Michigan scores to make it a 1 score game, Ohio State scores to make it a 2 score game, and on and on. The score was 42-31 before Michigan scored a late-game touchdown. The outcome was never seriously in doubt at the end of the game because Michigan was in a situation where they had to score, recover an onside kick and score again to even have a chance. There was only one instance in the 4th quarter where Michigan had the ball with a chance to take the lead. That was quite early in the 4th quarter, and they went 3 and out. While the game was close, and it was obvious that the teams are not that far apart, it seemed clear that Ohio State was just a little bit better. Maybe that can be excused by the homefield advantage, I don't know, but let's be honest and acknowledge that the history of the rivalry, the rankings of the teams, and the stakes riding on the outcome were far more important than the fact that the game was so close and the teams were so even in raising the status of the game.

That said, I agree that your argument is reasonable as well. It certainly does seem like the quality of the opponents to which you lose is a pretty important factor in how good you are.

[noel]

If the scores I'm seeing hold, it's looking like FSU vs. OSU.

UCLA has played a hell of a game, and USC has just looked flat all day long.

Edit: What a great game. I guess they're praying for an Arkansas upset in Ann Arbor...

[Kelshara]

That could possibly be the best defensive game I have seen by UCLA. Amazing. Hoping for Florida now so I can hear more crying from whiny UM fans.

[Sylvus]

Have I been whining? I thought I was providing reasonable arguments.

Go Razorbacks!

I'd provide the reasons why I don't think Florida should go, even with a win, but I'm busy watching this game, so I'll just wait for them to lose.

Oh, and fucking great work, Bruins!

[Kelshara]

You've been a little whiny But far from the worse UM fan I know of. Most have been extremely whiny yes.

[noel]

Florida might win this game, but this being a case for them to go to the national championship is laughable at best.

After today, I am in full agreement with the people that said Michigan was the #2 team in the country. Before today I was 60/40 in favor of USC as the #2 team ahead of Michigan.

[Kelshara]

Well refs are doing their best in handing the game to Arkansas right now. Cheapest pass interference call ever.

[noel]

Yeah that call sucked.

Another call that sucked today was the unnecessary roughness call on the Trojan who hit Cowan right as he went out of bounds on the sideline in the fourth quarter of the USC/UCLA game. Not that it would've made a difference, but the call still sucked.

[Kelshara]

Grats Florida. I will say it again: I do believe they deserve a shot at OSU.

[Sabek]

I would love to see Florida play OSU because they will get crushed.
Florida lives by these gimicky freaking plays that are either a loss/int or big gain.
OSU defense will eat that up and ask for seconds.

[Tyek]

Finally something good about being a UCLA fan. I can smile for once.

[Kelshara]

Anyone watching Rutgers vs WVU? Pretty damn impressive to be honest.

[Cartalas]

Florida deserves a shot, Michigan had theirs and blew it.

[noel]

Am I the only one who just wants to see a good football game? Florida v. OSU isn't going to be a good game. They'll get crushed and it'll be boring. Michigan v. OSU will be a good game... again.

[Soreali]

Well I'm disappointed now ... Rutgers should have had that game..and upholding that TD pass for WVU was crap.. My friend is a DT for RU (#60) so I was really rooting for him this year because he graduates in May. That and he's a fucking beast...Oh well.. off to the Texas Bowl they go! (wooohooo..)

[masteen]

I think the Gators' season speaks for itself. Most bowl bound opponents. Most top 25 defenses. Best opponent win percentage. SEC champions.

[Winnow]

Boise State!

[Raistin]

I was all for a all big 10 game. But now I want Florida to play Ohio. Only to laugh so fucking hard at them being crushed and this bullshit SEC is the best!

[Zamtuk]

I think the Gators' season speaks for itself. Most bowl bound opponents. Most top 25 defenses. Best opponent win percentage. SEC champions.

This is the exact reason I want us to play UF. That way, after the 10+ point loss we hand them, we can collectively tell Meyer, Tuberville and the rest of the SEC to shut the fuck up.

[Kelshara]

Am I the only one who just wants to see a good football game? Florida v. OSU isn't going to be a good game. They'll get crushed and it'll be boring. Michigan v. OSU will be a good game... again.

I strongly believe OSU will win by more if they play UM again. OSU played an unusually sloppy game for them and pretty much gave away 14 points. That said, I do believe OSU would punch Florida in the mouth and run over them. The Gators injuries certainly wont help either. This makes me a bit sad in a way because I really like Chris Leak.

Personally, I think the best game would be OSU vs LSU.

Oh and yes, Rutgers got robbed vs WVU. Man that ref needs glasses.

[Sylvus]

What kind of fucking retard tries to field a punt at the 6 yard line, let alone running backwards and over his shoulder. I can't remember the last time I saw one guy completely annihilate his team's momentum by doing something that stupid. After scoring 21 unanswered points, forcing a punt and making Florida burn their last timeout with 4 minutes left in the third, and that clown ignores like the #1 rule in punt returning. What a maroon.

Florida's SOS is good, but besides last night, they haven't beaten a Division 1 opponent by more than 7 points in two months. And that includes playing Vanderbilt (who outgained Florida) and the worst Florida State team I've ever seen, as well as squeaking out a win on 2 blocked kicks against South Carolina. It just seems like they rely too much on trick plays and dumb luck to save games for them. I'm sure there will be a homer counter-argument for Florida (just like my homer argument against), and unfortunately I think Florida will get the #2 ranking if only because Michigan hasn't played in 3 weeks and people will vote for Florida just because they haven't played Ohio State yet this year. Here's to hoping for a Florida-Notre Dame Sugar Bowl.

And speaking of South Carolina, Spurrier wins one game vs. a quality opponent and gets a 5 year contract extension and a $500k raise? Sign me up for that job.

[masteen]

SC played a schedule just slightly less tough then your precious Wolverines. Getting them to a bowl is quite an accomplishment.

[Sylvus]

What in THE fuck are you talking about?

South Carolina beat Mississippi St., Wofford, Florida Atlantic, Kentucky, Vanderbilt, Middle Tennessee St. and Clemson. A couple of those are 7-5 teams in the Sun Belt conference. At least one of them is a 1-AA team. Two of Mississippi State's three wins are UAB and Jackyl St. (Jackyl St.?? Seriously?) The only "good" team on that list is Clemson, and writing that makes me laugh. They definitely deserve to be in a bowl.

[Sylvus]

How the fuck does USC lose to two unranked teams and still end up #5?

[Zamtuk]

carroll can suck a mean dick.

[Sueven]

Well, they're ranked #8 in the AP and #7 in the coaches. So the answer to your question is "the computers like them" (or maybe "Harris likes them," I didn't look up Harris).

Why might the computers like them, you ask? Well, perhaps because they beat the #11, #12, #20 and #22 teams in the nation. Oh, and Oregon State is ranked now, so they only lost to one unranked team.

The teams that are ranked 5, 6, and 7 in the AP beat the following:

#5 Louisville: Beat the #13 team.
#6 Wisconsin: Did not beat a single ranked team.
#7 Oklahoma: Beat the #21 and the #22 team.

So I guess the answer to your question is: By having a better season than the teams ranked below them.

[Tyek]

and the other loss was to a rival, as so many of you pointed out in previous posts, is a much more difficult victory regardless of rankings or record.

[masteen]

What in THE fuck are you talking about?

South Carolina beat Mississippi St., Wofford, Florida Atlantic, Kentucky, Vanderbilt, Middle Tennessee St. and Clemson. A couple of those are 7-5 teams in the Sun Belt conference. At least one of them is a 1-AA team. Two of Mississippi State's three wins are UAB and Jackyl St. (Jackyl St.?? Seriously?) The only "good" team on that list is Clemson, and writing that makes me laugh. They definitely deserve to be in a bowl.

They deserve a bowl as much as Penn State, and certainly are more deserving than FSU.