Good Mitch Albon article and a couple other solid columns...

WolverineSteve · Post by **WolverineSteve** » Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:45 pm

MITCH ALBOM: U-M wronged by BCS voters

December 4, 2006

Email this Print this BY MITCH ALBOM

FREE PRESS COLUMNIST
The system stinks.

That's the only conclusion we can agree upon. All else is chaos. Did Michigan get jobbed? Sure it did. There is no way, in a logical world, that a big time, second-ranked team, whose only loss is by three points to the top-ranked team, should fall behind anyone with at least one defeat in a poll. Anyone. Southern Cal. Florida. Anyone.

Instead, it happened twice in the past two weeks. First, USC beat Notre Dame, and a wave of hype, forced logic and selective memory made voters forget that USC struggled often this season and blew a game to mediocre Oregon State -- and instead they leapfrogged USC over Michigan for the No. 2 spot. The USC Trojans are the strongest contender! Look at them!

Then, over the weekend, USC was exposed, losing to unranked UCLA, and, oops, guess the hype was wrong. So instead of restoring No. 3 Michigan to where it belonged, a new wave of hype, forced logic and selective memory made voters leapfrog the Florida Gators over the Wolverines and into the national championship game next month. Hey, they're the strongest contender! Just look at them!

You can spin this thing any way you want. It was strictly about fresh versus familiar. In the end, Ohio State will play Florida on Jan. 8 in Glendale, Ariz., because people with votes want to see that game more than they want to see a rematch of Michigan-Ohio State. This was all about the line of thinking that says: "Give someone else a chance."

But if the system were about giving everyone a chance, they wouldn't call it a poll, they'd call it a donkey ride.

So much babbling

Which is not to say there hasn't been some donkey-like behavior. Consider Urban Meyer, the braying coach of the Gators. When asked by ESPN about Michigan on Saturday night, Meyer said: "They had their shot."

Thank you, Judge.

Meyer is not only rude, he's confused. Nowhere in the Bowl Championship Series system is "having their shot" supposed to determine anything. The system is supposed to rank teams, not manipulate them. It's supposed to set up a national championship game, not cast it.

Ask yourself this question: If we were in the fifth week of the season, and Michigan and Ohio State had played their game and were idle -- do you think Florida would have jumped up two spots to wedge between them by beating eighth-ranked Arkansas?

I don't.

In the final BCS tally, Michigan and Florida tied in the computer rankings, but the Gators finished No. 2 because they passed the Wolverines in the USA Today coaches and Harris Interactive polls. How did they pass 'em? Because numerous voters flip-flopped.

The truth is, Meyer is wrong. Michigan didn't have its shot. Not at a national championship game -- which is all the BCS is supposed to determine. And now it won't get its shot. Why? Because Florida is somehow a superior choice since it doesn't play in the same conference as Ohio State?

Meyer acts as if the SEC is Broadway and all the other conferences are summer stock. He talks as if you have to survive germ-warfare to win an SEC game (conveniently excusing his close scores against some lesser teams) while suggesting that other conference champs should be blowing out their opponents.

Hey, if Ohio State is as great as everyone says it is, and most of its victories are against the same Big Ten teams Michigan faces, why does it work FOR the Buckeyes and against the Wolverines?

That's fair?

"Florida belongs," Meyer told reporters Saturday night. "The other team had a shot. We went 12-1, and I think the country wants to see the Southeastern Conference champion against the Big Ten champion."

Well, it's nice to have Lord Meyer tell us what we want to see. Apparently "the country," in his view, doesn't include huge parts of the Midwest. His first name may be Urban, but it should be Parochial.

Yes, people can say the same thing about Michigan fans. And in Florida they probably are.

Before Sunday night, the Gators were No. 2 once before -- in the poll of Oct. 8 -- and they promptly lost. The Wolverines were No. 2 for almost a month.

Michigan, having not touched a football in two weeks, has to wonder why it was dropped -- while Florida was vaulted. Michigan has to wonder how losing on the road to the only team ranked ahead of it -- and losing by three points -- is somehow less worthy than Florida losing by 10 points to Auburn, a team not even in the final Top 10.

Playoff system needed

And with that, another rankings mess mars a college football season. Michigan's Lloyd Carr, who was far more graceful than Meyer, optimistically called it, on his TV show, "a great controversy."

But controversies are rarely great. And college kids are supposed to study math, not be victimized by it. Yes, the Wolverines will go to a Rose Bowl and there is nothing bad about that. But there is a reason sports that determine things by voting -- figure skating, gymnastics -- continually result in anger, bitterness and missed chances.

And it is why this system remains a joke, while the obvious solution keeps getting ignored.

I'll say it again. Add two games. Both on the same day. A four-team playoff. You take the Nos. 1-4 ranked teams and let them prove who belongs on the field for the championship.

Under that system, this year, Michigan would play Florida. And Meyer actually would have to coach his team past Carr's, instead of trying to do it with his mouth.

Such a playoff would only affect four schools each year. It could be done using two existing bowls. As for when do you schedule it? Well, considering the national championship this year is more than seven weeks after Ohio State's last on-field appearance ... I'm guessing they can find some time.

But don't hold your breath. It won't happen -- at least not soon. Instead, exhale that sigh that has been sighed for so many years in so many places since rankings were used in lieu of actual on-field battles. It was a popularity contest, in the end, what people wanted to see. And the new, exciting orange beat the same old maize and blue.

And if you're wondering what that has to do with football, you are not alone.

Contact MITCH ALBOM at 313-223-4581 or malbom@freepress.com.

Another good one...
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/columns/ ... FHeadlines

Lloyd being Lloyd...
http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaaf/news?slug ... &type=lgns

Killian · Post by **Killian** » Wed Dec 06, 2006 5:06 pm

You can make your argument for Florida all you want, but you can't make a good one against UofM

Cicero · Post by **Cicero** » Wed Dec 06, 2006 5:31 pm

Killian wrote:You can make your argument for Florida all you want, but you can't make a good one against UofM

Ding ding!

Bama, Georgia, S Car and FSU arent world beaters this year. Saying they have the toughest schedule just b/c they play more "Top Name" teams doesnt mean they have the toughest schedule if those teams sucked this year.

indyfrisco · Post by **indyfrisco** » Wed Dec 06, 2006 6:26 pm

Killian wrote:You can make your argument for Florida all you want, but you can't make a good one against UofM

I disagree. Michigan had 1 decent win all season against Wisconsin. The Big 10 was DOWN this year.

Florida beat LSU, Tennessee and Arkansas. ANy of those 3 could compete, and compete well, with Wisconsin.

Florida had the better season. The BCS got it right.

Screw_Michigan · Post by **Screw_Michigan** » Wed Dec 06, 2006 7:00 pm

anyone who cites a mitch albom column to support their take is a fucking idiot. you might have well quoted something out of tuesdays with morrie, it would have been about as relevant.

Killian · Post by **Killian** » Wed Dec 06, 2006 7:05 pm

IndyFrisco wrote:
Killian wrote:You can make your argument for Florida all you want, but you can't make a good one against UofM
I disagree. Michigan had 1 decent win all season against Wisconsin. The Big 10 was DOWN this year.

Florida beat LSU, Tennessee and Arkansas. ANy of those 3 could compete, and compete well, with Wisconsin.

Florida had the better season. The BCS got it right.

ND is as much of a quality team as Arkansas or Tennessee. We'll see if they are better than LSU.

Michigan's wins aren't as good as UF's, but it's loss isn't as bad. You'll get no disagreement from me about the Big 10 being down. In my opinion, so was the SEC.

See You Next Wednesday · Wed Dec 06, 2006 7:31 pm

Killian wrote:You can make your argument for Florida all you want, but you can't make a good one against UofM

Sure I can.

Ohio State 41
Michigan 38

Killian · Post by **Killian** » Wed Dec 06, 2006 8:27 pm

See You Next Wednesday wrote:
Killian wrote:You can make your argument for Florida all you want, but you can't make a good one against UofM
Sure I can.

Ohio State 41
Michigan 38

Fine, I'll make my argument against Florida:

Auburn 27
Florida 17

Michigan lost to the #1 team with the #3 ranked schedule. Florida lost to the #11 team with the #1 ranked schedule.

Terry in Crapchester · Wed Dec 06, 2006 8:37 pm

IndyFrisco wrote:
Killian wrote:You can make your argument for Florida all you want, but you can't make a good one against UofM
I disagree. Michigan had 1 decent win all season against Wisconsin. The Big 10 was DOWN this year.

Florida beat LSU, Tennessee and Arkansas. ANy of those 3 could compete, and compete well, with Wisconsin.

You completely discounted Notre Dame who, last I checked, is ranked ahead of 2 of the 3 "quality wins" you cited on behalf of Florida.

The BCS got it right.

You're missing the point, at least as far as I'm concerned. The BCS couldn't get it right this season. Nor, for that matter, could any other system which only allows two teams to play for a national championship. That's why we need a playoff.

indyfrisco · Post by **indyfrisco** » Wed Dec 06, 2006 9:03 pm

Terry and K,

I've given my 2 cents on ND in other threads which is why I didn't put them in my list.

Killian · Post by **Killian** » Wed Dec 06, 2006 9:04 pm

Jsc810 wrote:
Killian wrote:You'll get no disagreement from me about the Big 10 being down. In my opinion, so was the SEC.

Bowl season is here, we'll see soon.

Bowl Season won't be the end all, be all as to if a conference was down. It looks like the Big 10 has some favorable match-ups, and if they win the majority of them, it still won't mean that the Big 10 wasn't down.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Wed Dec 06, 2006 9:17 pm

That column doesn't ooze homerism or anything.

Yeah, fuck the SEC. Fuck the PAC 10. Fuck all those other conferences. Winning them doesn't mean shit...IT'S ALL ABOUT THE BIG 11, BABY!!!

At least win your conference, or STFU.

What if the two best NFL teams were both from the AFC? Should they say "fuck the NFC" and put the two teams from the AFC Championship in the SuperBowl? Makes about as much sense.

Killian · Post by **Killian** » Wed Dec 06, 2006 9:19 pm

Indy,

Tennessee returned virtually the same team this year that ND beat last season. Yeah, I know. Different seasons and all that other bullshit, but come on. ND isn't a quality team? Wisconsin is? Give me a break.

Shoalzie · Post by **Shoalzie** » Thu Dec 07, 2006 1:03 am

I've been listening to Detroit radio all week and listening to Michigan fans give the same tired excuses. The 'Michigan beat Vanderbilt by more points than Florida did' is probably the most cliche of their arguments. Yes, I'm a MichiganFan but I'm seperating myself from those who are too thick-headed to just give it up. No amount of bitching and belly-aching will change anything. If Michigan had won in Columbus, they would've been in the driver's seat like the Buckeyes were in after that game.

WolverineSteve · Post by **WolverineSteve** » Thu Dec 07, 2006 1:43 am

I'm from the "we had our chance" school. I didn't want a rematch either. What good would it do to beat OSU once and claim a NC? Fuck that. My point is if UM had been dropped in the polls the day after losing, it would've made sense. Losing and remaining #2 and then being jumped each of the next two weeks while remaining idle makes no sense. I have no problem with another team going to AZ, just don't sell it as the better team got in.

Screw- The next thing you write worth Albom's fruit of the looms will be the first.

Dins- Winning the conference is not required to get to the MNC game...OU out front should have told you. The other two colums were from unbiased news sources. Albom writes for the Detroit paper, a lot of hometown columnists lean toward homerism...tell me you knew.

Van · Post by **Van** » Thu Dec 07, 2006 4:03 am

It also makes no sense the way some Michigan fans apparently think the BCS rankings should come to a halt and then become frozen in place once Michigan plays their final regular season game. What, we're supposed to compare Michigan's twelve game resume to the ten game resumes other teams had at that point? We're just supposed to discount the end of season big games played by everybody else and just call it a done deal, just because Michigan's already finished?

Just can't believe that Michigan Fan and even nationally celebrated authors keep trotting out the patently absurd argument that once Michigan ended their regular season as #2 that ranking and a trip to the title game should've then been locked in stone. Look, Michigan Fan, a team who's idle can get leapfrogged by teams who add to their BCS scores by playing and beating highly ranked teams. It's not hard to understand and it's not even something new. It happens every goddamn year, all over the Top 25. For a guy like Mitch Albom, a guy who's been doing this forever, for a guy like that to act like this scenario is some sort of curious head scratcher of a new precedent being established is just comical.

Florida's resume before their games against Florida St and the SEC CCG against Arkansas? Sure, maybe that's not a strong enough resume to overtake 11-1 Michigan. However, go ahead and add those two wins along with a newly crowned SEC championship and now we're talking about a 12-1 SEC Champion Florida and hell yeah, that Florida team now has a strong enough resume to leapfrog the same Michigan team who remains the Big 10's second place team; a team who still only sports Top 25 wins over lightly regarded ND and Wisconsin.

This shit isn't rocket science so why does Michigan Fan keep offering up such a ridiculous argument? Do they really think that sieve will hold water?? It holds no water. Never has, never will. The BCS ranks the entire season from each team. Such judgements cannot take place until everybody finishes their season, not just Michigan.

Could this be any easier to comprehend??

indyfrisco · Post by **indyfrisco** » Thu Dec 07, 2006 4:10 am

Van wrote:It also makes no sense the way some Michigan fans apparently think the BCS rankings should come to a halt and then become frozen in place once Michigan plays their final regular season game. What, we're supposed to compare Michigan's twelve game resume to the ten game resumes other teams had at that point? We're just supposed to discount the end of season big games played by everybody else and just call it a done deal, just because Michigan's already finished?

That's one HELL of a point. Never thought of it that way.

It's almost like a baseball game where a pitcher is dominant for 7 innings and expects the game to be over when he goes to the bench.

Van · Post by **Van** » Thu Dec 07, 2006 4:29 am

IndyFrisco wrote:
Van wrote:It also makes no sense the way some Michigan fans apparently think the BCS rankings should come to a halt and then become frozen in place once Michigan plays their final regular season game. What, we're supposed to compare Michigan's twelve game resume to the ten game resumes other teams had at that point? We're just supposed to discount the end of season big games played by everybody else and just call it a done deal, just because Michigan's already finished?
That's one HELL of a point. Never thought of it that way.

It's almost like a baseball game where a pitcher is dominant for 7 innings and expects the game to be over when he goes to the bench.

Or, like a couple of other analogies I've already used...

-We don't conclude a golf tournament just because some guy took a one stroke lead into the clubhouse, not when other golfers are still out on the course and they're only one shot off the lead as they head to the 16th hole.

-A guy stands pat on his hand. He's got a great hand. His opponent however draws two more cards and ends up with a winning hand.

Shoalzie · Post by **Shoalzie** » Thu Dec 07, 2006 4:29 am

Van wrote:Florida's resume before their games against Florida St and the SEC CCG against Arkansas? Sure, maybe that's not a strong enough resume to overtake 11-1 Michigan. However, go ahead and add those two wins along with a newly crowned SEC championship and now we're talking about a 12-1 SEC Champion Florida and hell yeah, that Florida team now has a strong enough resume to leapfrog the same Michigan team who remains the Big 10's second place team; a team who still only sports Top 25 wins over lightly regarded ND and Wisconsin.

The Florida State win definitely wasn't impressive enough to jump them over Michigan and I have my doubts that just a regular season win over Arkansas might not have done it either but the fact they wrapped up that conference title had to be the deciding factor in them going past Michigan. You look at the situation of when USC jumped Michigan...they arguably had the best non-conference slate of all of the contenders on top of potentially being a conference champion had they won the next week against UCLA. Them beating Notre Dame would match Michigan's win...the Wolverines' win over the Irish was probably a little more impressive but both were convincing results...USC had the better resume heading into the UCLA game. USC was already in a position to be #2 team in the BCmesS with just having clinched at least a share of the Pac-10 title.

Van · Post by **Van** » Thu Dec 07, 2006 4:40 am

Both USC and Florida deserved to jump Michigan when they did...

USC had four wins over Top 25 teams, a stronger overall S.O.S. and a conference championship. Florida had three wins over Top 25 teams, a stronger S.O.S. and a conference championship.

Michigan had two Top 25 wins, a weaker S.O.S. (including an absolutely horrific OOC schedule that totally paled in comparison to USC's) and they didn't win their own conference. Michigan's ONLY argument is a good loss and that just ain't gonna cut it, not against those other resumes. In order for Michigan's resume to've held up they had to have it come down to themselves, ND, Boise St and a one loss Big East winner. Their resume was never going to hold up against those of a one loss USC or a one loss SEC champion.

buckeye_in_sc · Post by **buckeye_in_sc** » Thu Dec 07, 2006 1:01 pm

^^^^^^^^^^

Michigan played ND out of conference...say what you want but that is the same ND that SC fan includes in their 4 wins over Top 25 OOC teams... no? and say all you want about the overhyped SEC but as any logical person would say you can't make your conference be good...the middle of the Big 10 this year was horrific...had Iowa gone 8-4 and say Minny had another win perhaps that shores up that middle but the SEC I think (IN MY OPINION) was over hyped from Day 1...the same argument of beating each other up with SEC teams is allowed especially when FLA struggles with Vandy and South carolina, and teams like Ole Miss scare the piss out of Auburn, LSU, etc...but when applied to other conferences it is non applicable...let's not forget LSU was down 14 to Ole Miss in the 4th quarter or they would be a 3 loss team...granted they got the W but shit...and FLA's OOC of Central FLA and Western Carolina is laughable at best...again FLA reminds me of the 2002 Buckeyes...winning close games and not always a pretty offense...Kharma much? To this Buckeye fan hell yes...don't think the parallels are right there with the same type of team as Miami in 2002 (this years tOSU) and FLA doing the same thing tOSU did in 2002...has L45B says Kharma...

I kind of agree with the thought that when Michigan lost they stayed at #2...again if that were the case why not move them to #4 at that point...that would have solved all this bickering bullshit...but the pollsters kept them #2 for a week and then even when SC jumped them SC's lead over Michigan was not huge...in fact even with a close SC win over UCLA you could make a case that some voters may have swapped there as well...

I didn't want a rematch and I think Wolverinie and Shoalzie have represented that fact well...what does it prove had Michigan won...I mean nothing. Also on the conference champion debate...Nebraska did it in 2001 and OU in 2003 so there were two times when this happened...Listening to Herbstreit on a Charlotte station yesterday (he calls in 1x per week and talks for about 5 - 10 minutes) when pressed on the conference champion debate he said a simple clause that you had to be conference champion after the Nebraska debacle would have solved this issue...I tend to agree...

Eh...right now all this bickering and shit by the national media will hopefully die down once 1 of the fucking 32 bowl games kick off...

just my $.02

Killian · Post by **Killian** » Thu Dec 07, 2006 2:38 pm

Van, those would be great analogies (poker and golf) if there were people who voted on who had a better hand or who led the golf tournament when it ended.

And if you want to start throwing in OOC schedules, look at Florida's. Off the top of my head, Southern Miss, a directional Louisana school, 1-AA Western Carolina and FSU.

Had USC won, do you believe Florida would have jumped Michigan into 3rd in the final BCS poll? Hell no. Voters didn't vote Florida 2nd because they felt they were the second best team, they voted them their because they didn't want a rematch.

And for as shitty as the Big 10 is precieved, aren't all the Big 10 teams that are playing SEC schools favored going into the bowl games? Seems like objective people view the Big 10, at worst, as on a level playing field with the SEC.

Everyone wants to throw out the "Michigan didn't win it's conference". Even if the Big 10 picked up a 12th team, Michigan still wouldn't have won their conference this year because UofM and OSU will be in the same division to ensure that rivalry ensues.

The simple question is this, and if the voters had been honest and used this to pick the 2nd best team, I think the vote would have been very different:

Who would win on a neutral field, Florida or Michigan?

Van · Post by **Van** » Thu Dec 07, 2006 3:13 pm

According to their resumes, which is all we have to go by, Florida would win on a neutral field. Both teams played shockingly bad OOC schedules but taken as a whole Michigan still only had two wins over Top 25 teams while Florida had three, plus an SEC championship. Somebody's gotta lose out there and there's no decent argument to be made that it should've been Florida and not Michigan who lost out on the title game. ND, Wisconsin and second place in a weak Big 10 is not a strong enough argument to overcome LSU, Tennessee, Arkansas and an SEC championship.

This whole notion that Michigan should've gotten dropped to #4 following their loss to OSU is flawed. No, they shouldn't have, not then, not necessarily. At that point they were 11-1 while USC was only 9-1 with games against ND and UCLA still to go. Florida still had games coming up against Florida St and Arkansas. It makes perfect sense that Michigan stayed put at #2 for the time being, only to get leapfrogged later after those other teams completed their schedules.

Shoalzie · Post by **Shoalzie** » Thu Dec 07, 2006 3:32 pm

Given the weakness of Michigan's depth in the secondary and the mixed bag of formations and plays in Meyer's playbook...I can see the Gators giving Michigan plenty of fits. I don't think Florida's defense is any better than Ohio State and Arkansas was able to make plays on their defense...it was turnovers that derailed them last Saturday. Henne doesn't throw a lot of picks and Hart doesn't fumble the ball...I'd see a scorefest between those two on a neutral field.

Killian · Post by **Killian** » Thu Dec 07, 2006 3:34 pm

Van, fuck that "according to their resume's" bullshit. It's not all we hav to go by. You've seen both teams play, who do you think would win between Florida and UofM? It's your opinion. And if USC hadn't lost, is it your opinion that the voters would have moved Florida past UofM, or kept them in the same place?

And forget my point about the Big 10 being favored. Arkansas is a 1 point favorite against Wisconsin, and Tennessee is a 4.5 fav against PSU.

Van · Post by **Van** » Thu Dec 07, 2006 4:04 pm

Killian, my opinion is that I'd expect Urban Meyer to outcoach Lloyd Carr and I'd expect Chris Leak to make a couple more key plays than Chad Henne. I don't think Florida is necessarily better than Michigan but I do think they deserved the nod, absolutely, and I think Florida would either find a way to win that game or Michigan would find a way to lose it.

Looking at Michigan's recent bowl record and their record against Ohio St I'm simply not a big fan of Lloyd Carr as a big game coach. Conversely, looking at how quickly and forcefully Meyer has resurrected Florida I am impressed with that guy. I think the two teams are closely enough matched in talent that Florida would find a way to win due to Leak being more of a "wild card" type play maker and Meyer being a better big game coach.

Also, Florida's speed advantage becomes more of an issue for Michigan in a neutral site bowl game situation. Take Michigan out of the bitter cold of the Upper Midwest and speed becomes more of a factor.

As for whether Florida would've also leapfrogged Michigan had USC remained at #2 with a win over UCLA? To be honest, I haven't studied the system breakdown enough to really discern how much of it was based on voter preference and how much the 'puter rankings changed following each additional win by USC and Florida. My guess is that once USC was ensconsed in the title game there would've been no need to push Florida past Michigan because it wouldn't have made any difference at that point to either of thier bowl aspirations. Florida would've been a lock for the Sugar at either #3 or #4 and Michigan was going to be a lock for the Rose at either #3 or #4 so why bother?

Like I said though, I'm just guessing. I don't know that the 'puter portion of the polls wouldn't have automatically kicked Florida over Michigan once Florida won the SEC championship. I do know that it would be damn difficult for the human polls not to do so. How are we supposed to tell Urban Meyer that Michigan was more deserving? What argument that's worth a crap could've been made in Michigan's favor?

"They were #2! They were idle! They CAN'T get leapfroggred!"

Nope, that one's a non starter. Teams who are idle get passed ALL THE TIME.

"They lost to Ohio St, and it was close!"

So? Florida didn't get to play Ohio St and Florida's only loss came on a bad call on the road, in conference, to a very highly ranked team in a rivalry game.

Both teams played garbage OOC so that's mostly a wash. In the end Florida's greater S.O.S. and their SEC conference championship and their greater number of Quality Wins would always trump any Michigan argument, if in fact it should come down to an argument between those two. I just don't know that there'd be any argument if there's no incentive either way regarding who's merely #3 and who's #4?

Goober McTuber · Post by **Goober McTuber** » Thu Dec 07, 2006 4:13 pm

Van wrote:Also, Florida's speed advantage becomes more of an issue for Michigan in a neutral site bowl game situation. Take Michigan out of the bitter cold of the Upper Midwest and speed becomes more of a factor.

Horseshit. The upper Midwest has had no bitter cold to speak of until this week.

Again, according to Sagarin, Michigan’s SOS is 13, Florida’s is 19.

Killian · Post by **Killian** » Thu Dec 07, 2006 4:29 pm

No offense, but the "speed" argument is fucking stupid. You honestly think that every player in the midwest is just a plodding oaf?

So you're admitting that the voters didn't vote Florida to #2 because they were better than UofM, but because they didn't want to see Michigan and OSU play again? If their rankings didn't matter if USC won, why would it matter if USC lost?

I guess I'm not sold on Urban Meyer as a big game coach. Last year didn't show me much, and he had too many close wins where the other team lost the game. LSU turned the ball over 5 times, FSU is down, South Carolina had 3 kickes blocked and Arkansas gave them a fumble for a TD.

And Chris Leak make more plays? I guess he would have to make one, first.

Van · Post by **Van** » Thu Dec 07, 2006 4:44 pm

Goober McTuber wrote:
Van wrote:Also, Florida's speed advantage becomes more of an issue for Michigan in a neutral site bowl game situation. Take Michigan out of the bitter cold of the Upper Midwest and speed becomes more of a factor.
Horseshit. The upper Midwest has had no bitter cold to speak of until this week.

Again, according to Sagarin, Michigan’s SOS is 13, Florida’s is 19.

Maybe not by Michigan's standards but by Gainesville's standard (or New Orleans' or Glendale, Az's standards, ie, the only two locales where those two teams could've possibly met this season for a neutral field game), yeah, the Uppr Midwest has already experienced bitter cold.

Sagarin?? Sagarin's S.O.S. isn't the only poll used to determine S.O.S. Other polls have Florida's S.O.S. at #1 and #2.

Besides...Christ, Goober, why do you think Michigan's 'puter based S.O.S. is even as high as it is, regardless of which poll we use?? Because of Ohio St being on their schedule, that's why! Michigan isn't about to get credit for playing #1, not when they lost the game. Compare Florida's S.O.S. and Michigan's and only use their wins, as the pollsters rightfully would, and Florida's S.O.S. is much better.

Don't even try to argue that Michigan's S.O.S. compares to Florida's.

Van · Post by **Van** » Thu Dec 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Killian wrote:No offense, but the "speed" argument is fucking stupid. You honestly think that every player in the midwest is just a plodding oaf?

Of course not, but do you honestly believe Florida doesn't have more overall team speed, and that such an advantage doesn't come more into play in a warm weather game? That would be fucking stupid. Michigan's been hurt by this problem time and time again in warm weather bowl games down through the years.

So you're admitting that the voters didn't vote Florida to #2 because they were better than UofM, but because they didn't want to see Michigan and OSU play again?

No, I didn't say that at all. I "admitted" nothing of the sort. Re-read my response and don't attempt to put words in my wouth. I said I'm guessing that the pollsters might not've bothered if it was only going to be a choice between #''s 3 and #4 and not the all important choice between #'s 2 and 3. I also said that with an SEC championship under their belts the 'puter rankings might've automatically bumped Florida over Michigan, regardless.

If their rankings didn't matter if USC won, why would it matter if USC lost?

I didn't say it would, I offered a guess at how it might've mattered. I also offered a guess that the 'puters would've jumped Florida anyway. As to why would it matter if USC won? Well, duh. We're then talking about the title game match up and not just a meaningless ranking number on a sheet of paper. We're talking about an argument that needs to take place, vs one that doesn't. #3 vs #4, who cares? Nothing changes for either team, whichever ranking they get.

#2 vs #3? Yeah, we're going to need to suss that one out.

I guess I'm not sold on Urban Meyer as a big game coach.

Compared to Tressell or Carroll, neither am I. Compared to Carr, yeah, I am.

Last year didn't show me much, and he had too many close wins where the other team lost the game. LSU turned the ball over 5 times, FSU is down, South Carolina had 3 kickes blocked and Arkansas gave them a fumble for a TD.

All true, but then what did Michigan do this year that was any better? They nearly lost at home to Ball St and they lost their rivalry game and they haven't won a big game in years under Carr.

And Chris Leak make more plays? I guess he would have to make one, first.

I think he'd make more than Henne in that match up. I think Meyer would put him in a position to do so, moreso than Carr would with Henne. That's it.

buckeye_in_sc · Post by **buckeye_in_sc** » Thu Dec 07, 2006 5:00 pm

Ted Ginn, Mario Manningham and Anthony Gonzalez are slow!

Sin,

Midwestern Speed...

give me a fucking break already on the speed argument...that is so overhyped and overblown it is pathetic...players are going all over today so the SEC hasn't cornered the market on speed...

In fact I would put Ginn and Gonzalez up against damn near anyone...

Also I know for a fact FLA's #1 rb until he got hurt was from FUCKING CINCINATTI OH so I guess they got the ONE guy in Ohio who had speed???

the speed argument is almost lamer than my conference is better than yours or M2OOOL posts...

Van · Post by **Van** » Thu Dec 07, 2006 8:04 pm

There is definitely a regional style of play that tends to be predicated on the local climate. There's no doubt that traditionally the west coast and Florida schools emphasize a more wide open, explosive offensive attack while the upper midwest and northeastern programs tend to feature more conservative smash mouth football.

Obviously all top level programs will have some speed but in terms of an across the board emphasis the warm weather teams tend to recruit and effectively utilize speed more than cold climate teams.

Those are general truths. Confine it though to this specific match up, Florida vs Michigan this season, and I still think it's fair to say that the general scouting consensus would be that Florida has more overall team speed than Michigan. I also think it's fair to say that Michigan would have a much more drastic advantage playing Florida in the frozen north than Florida would have over Michigan if the game were held under mild conditions.

I don't think Florida's speed advantage over Michigan is anything drastic. It's not like USC's was over ND, for instance. I still think the biggest difference maker here would be Urban Meyer vs Lloyd Carr, and the way each guy would manage to utilize their weapons in a big game.

Pure conjecture though, obviously.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Thu Dec 07, 2006 8:21 pm

Van wrote:There's no doubt that traditionally the west coast and Florida schools emphasize a more wide open, explosive offensive attack while the upper midwest and northeastern programs tend to feature more conservative smash mouth football.

Oh, you mean there's a reason why Oregon, Oregon State, and Washington traditionally use offenses that send a bunch of recievers on very short routes?

Who woulda thunk it?

Goober McTuber · Post by **Goober McTuber** » Thu Dec 07, 2006 9:53 pm

Van wrote:Sagarin?? Sagarin's S.O.S. isn't the only poll used to determine S.O.S. Other polls have Florida's S.O.S. at #1 and #2.

Besides...Christ, Goober, why do you think Michigan's 'puter based S.O.S. is even as high as it is, regardless of which poll we use?? Because of Ohio St being on their schedule, that's why! Michigan isn't about to get credit for playing #1, not when they lost the game. Compare Florida's S.O.S. and Michigan's and only use their wins, as the pollsters rightfully would, and Florida's S.O.S. is much better.

Don't even try to argue that Michigan's S.O.S. compares to Florida's.

Van,

You keep throwing out your opinion that Florida’s SOS is stronger than Michigan’s, but that’s all it is, an opinion. You have no way to back it up, and I'm not buying it. I do understand why you want to pull out teams someone lost to from determining SOS. It makes USC’s look that much better when you don’t factor in the two slugs they lost to.

Van · Post by **Van** » Thu Dec 07, 2006 10:22 pm

USC isn't in the discussion so don't bother. (It was also never even in question that USC's S.O.S. was better than Michigan's.)

It's not my opinion that Florida has more wins than Michigan over Top 25 competition. It's a fact. It's also not my opinion that Florida's S.O.S. is more highly ranked than Michigan's in most every poll, even despite Michigan's being artificially high due to their loss against OSU.

M Club · Post by **M Club** » Fri Dec 08, 2006 7:42 am

yr current state of a team's resume is complete horseshite. you really think fat fuck sportswriters who admittedly don't watch the teams they rate and coaches who pass their voting responsibilities on to student managers really thought michigan was better than florida after the osu game only b/c umich had played one more game at that point? yr intellectualizing of the situation - while understandable if yr merely looking to drag out this debate - disregards the obvious: that no one thinks florida is better than michigan and demonstrated that by dropping umich one spot after the osu loss to #3, ahead of florida. it was safe and accurate then b/c no one in their right mind thought usc would lose to either notre dame (and if you really thought nd had a chance than yr a liar) or ucla, but then they did and now that everyone's shitting their keks over a possible rematch they drop some post ergo propter hoc about sos that makes me think michigan must've played osu and 11 mac teams. osu has artificially inflated umich's sos? kind of like penn state's four losses to osu (#1), umich (#3), wisco (#7), and notre dame (#11) artificially deflated it. i just clicked through some of the computer rankings and umich actually has a better sos in one of them. that's near impossible if i just took you at yr word, van, all this mumbling about florida's sos being soooo much stronger than michigan's.

the bottom line is that it wasn't the computer polls that did umich in (since they were tied), but rather the same voters who berated florida all season long for their smoke and mirrors of a season. while mitch albom is a complete douche, his observation about manipulating the rankings and casting the national championship is dead on.

that said, i'm fine with florida playing osu. i figured there were two one-loss teams and there a 50/50 chance either team to go. i just think it's totally asinine for supporters of both teams to point out totally incongrous variables and claim case closed. i also think it's comlete ass to say southern teams tend to recruit speed more than northern teams b/c it fits better with their style. do you watch football or just generalize? by the by, lloyd carr can't coach in big games. he's seriously only 2 - 328 against top-100 teams. or 16-7 against top tens (and 6-6 against osu). and umich really has difficulty playing in hot weather. it's never warm in anne arbour. it's usually about -82 on opening day. and he didn't beat florida in florida a couple years back, either. i will grant that he's lost that last three. nebraska was unexusable, but usc's fake-national champion and vince young aren't exactly indictments against his coaching abilities.

buckeye_in_sc · Post by **buckeye_in_sc** » Fri Dec 08, 2006 2:26 pm

well said M Club...especially considering against Texas in the Rose...it was a last second FG that won it for Texas...people seem to forget that...

Killian · Post by **Killian** » Fri Dec 08, 2006 2:47 pm

The only SEC team that I can remember Michigan losing to is Tennessee. Granted, it was a gorilla raping, but they beat Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Vanderbilt, and Auburn all within the last 7-8 years.

Goober McTuber · Post by **Goober McTuber** » Fri Dec 08, 2006 3:40 pm

Van wrote:It's not my opinion that Florida has more wins than Michigan over Top 25 competition. It's a fact. It's also not my opinion that Florida's S.O.S. is more highly ranked than Michigan's in most every poll, even despite Michigan's being artificially high due to their loss against OSU.

You want to back that up with some links?

Van · Post by **Van** » Fri Dec 08, 2006 7:58 pm

Goober McTuber wrote:
Van wrote:It's not my opinion that Florida has more wins than Michigan over Top 25 competition. It's a fact. It's also not my opinion that Florida's S.O.S. is more highly ranked than Michigan's in most every poll, even despite Michigan's being artificially high due to their loss against OSU.
You want to back that up with some links?

http://teamrankings.com/ncf/27powerratings.php3 (This one's crazy...)

http://www.collegefootballpoll.com/curr ... kings.html

http://www.andersonsports.com/football/ACF_frnk.html

http://www.mratings.com/rate.php?lg=cf

Somebody here also recently posted a bunch of S.O.S. rankings and Florida's was higher than Michigan's in nearly all of 'em. I'm getting tired of searching through all this crap though so if somebody else can link that thread, great...

The S.O.S. argument here is flawed anyway where Michigan is concerned, specifically. Are we really supposed to care about the S.O.S. boost Michigan got from Ohio St being on their schedule?? If somebody wanted to do a S.O.S. ranking simply based on each team's wins then everything would look very different and Michigan's ranking would certainly plummet more than Florida's.