T1B

Mace, serious question here....

If USC beats UCLA and then they beat Ohio St will you at least then admit that USC was better than Michigan?

You've been so entrenched in your opinion regarding those two teams that it almost seems like you aren't even willing to wait and see what USC does on the field before you're willing to pronounce Michigan the better team. It seems like you're not even allowing for the possibility of teams getting better throughout the season. In your mind you buried USC when they still had at least three games to go, including their two rivalry games and their bowl game.

USC peaks in November and beyond. Happens every year under Carroll. When the games matter the most they ramp up their play and they become very tough to beat. For some reason though you seem to only want to count October on back...


What, are you a closet Cal fan??

Mace wrote:Face it, MGO, you're a tard and, no matter how many blowjobs you give out to remain a mod, you'll always be our little melon head.

Our?

You're speaking for the board now? The very sect that rarely hesitates to dig your dying hole a little deeper every time you attempt to run "smack?"

"tard"?

"blowjobs"?

"melon head"?

"mental retardation"?

Jesus, dude, pull yourself together, you literary gimp. Just try random key punching, or something. Anything. Here's an idea -- drop your shriveling old ballsack and let it hang toward the ground. Let it dangle there so gravity can make fun of you for awhile. Now, swing your antique junk around the room, and then stop, pointing toward some sort of object. Now, use that object to write-up something funny, or creative. Hell, something original, even if it sucks, just something original, to smack me with. If that doesn't work, then log off, and never, ever come back.

Mace wrote:Give it up, Shoalzie. MGO has annointed himself as the football God of the board simply because he's a mod here.

We're all entitled to our own opinion...but in Mgo's case, as long as it's the same as his. (I kid) I'll take the high road and not resort name-calling. He's always had a strong opinion on things even before being a mod...I wouldn't blame anything on him being drunk with mod power.

Mississippi Neck wrote:

Van wrote:Also, I get the common sense argument that losing to Oregon St is more of a detrimental loss than losing to Ohio St. Obviously. At least, on the surface...

Thing is, is it really? USC's entire season wasn't predicated on the Oregon St game. That's also not a rivalry game for USC; nor was it their final game of the season. Michigan on the other hand knew they HAD to have that Ohio St game. They had little else on their side in terms of an argument and it's their annual make-or-break-their-season rivalry game. USC didn't have to have the Oregon St game since they have such a stronger S.O.S. than Michigan and they still had their two rivalry games ahead of them.

So, yeah, I'm pretty damn certain that the Ohio St loss was in fact a more detrimental loss for Michigan than the Oregon St loss was for USC. All the polls, human or otherwise, unanimously support this seemingly incongruous point.

Van,

Your argument is a bit ackbasswards. So...losing to a less respected (and weaker opponent) can actually be better? Nah, I dont think so. USC's strength of schedule in comparison to Mich is a valid argument.

In this case, yes, it obviously was less detrimental. The timing of each game and the relative importance (or lack thereof) of each game dictates this conclusion. Obviously all the polls agree with this notion otherwise they'd be prioritizing USC's loss in Michigan's favor so much more than they are and Michigan would remain a solid #2.

They didn't. They decided Michigan's loss in their rivalry game left the door open for other one loss teams, even a one loss team whose loss came in October in Corvallis. Michigan's loss was very obviously more detrimental to their chances than USC's loss was to their chances. What other conclusion can we draw now, considering what's transpired in all the polls?

Van wrote:M Club, Michigan's win over ND wasn't markedly more impressive than USC's win over ND.

A 26 point win vs a 20 point win? That's not exactly an earth shattering difference. Michigan will claim that their win was in South Bend and USC will counter that their win came in a rivalry game late in the season when ND had their shit together and they were on a roll and playing for big stakes.

Both arguments have merit. Whatever. 47-21 vs 44-24 is the bottom line. However one slices it it's pretty much a wash.

yeah, we will claim our win came in south bend while yours in came in la. i'll also point out that umich/nd is an intense rivalry, probably more so than usc/nd. you can also go ahead an claim nd had their shit together after impressive wins against north carolina and the service academies. they were, after all, struggling coming into the michigan game after wins against georgia tech and penn st.

and my main point about umich's win against nd being more impressive than usc's was how giddy the media's been over last night's game. ohhhhh, did you see what usc did to notre dame? they're def better than umich..

Also, I get the common sense argument that losing to Oregon St is more of a detrimental loss than losing to Ohio St. Obviously. At least, on the surface...

Thing is, was it really, in this instance? USC's entire season wasn't predicated on the Oregon St game. That's also not a rivalry game for USC; nor was it their final game of the season. Michigan on the other hand knew they HAD to have that Ohio St game. They had little else on their side in terms of an argument and it's their annual make-or-break-their-season rivalry game. USC didn't have to have the Oregon St game since they have such a stronger S.O.S. than Michigan and they still had their two rivalry games ahead of them.

i don't buy this argument at all. it's easy to say umich had to have the game against osu while usc had to have the game against notre dame, but in the end, one team is osu and the other is notre dame. usc also has to have their game against ucla next week, and i suppose the bruins are on a bit of a roll... are they going to be part of yr argument for rivalry-game mentality?

usc had to have the osu game as much as any other and are simply fortunate enough of the undefeateds fell by the wayside.

So, yeah, I'm pretty damn certain that the Ohio St loss was in fact a more detrimental loss for Michigan than the Oregon St loss was for USC. All the polls, human or otherwise, unanimously support this seemingly incongruous point.

the ohio st loss is more detrimental in terms of where it leaves us, but what i meant by detrimental is plainly obvious: losing to ohio state is more understandable than losing to oregon state.

M Club wrote:losing to ohio state is more understandable than losing to oregon state.

Not less detrimental, just more understandable. Gotcha. On that then we agree.

The bottom line between these two teams is that Michigan could not afford to lose to Ohio St and USC could not afford to lose to either ND or UCLA. Those are the most severely damaging (detrimental) losses either team could incur.

A loss in any of those games means Michigan or USC is likely out of the hunt for the national title. Conversely, Michigan or USC could likely withstand just about any other loss during the season and still at least have a chance.

Michigan proved the former and USC is proving the latter.

stuckinia wrote:

Adelpiero wrote:Overrated

Virginia Tech

Maybe.

But this Hokie D is the best (statistically) in the nation. They got bitch-slapped by GT. They believed their own Thursday night hype against BC. Branden Ore will be a top 10 RB next year. 10-2 in a rebuilding year is impressive. The offense returned only 2 players from last year, a WR and FB. The O-line and QB are young weaknesses, but the strength of the D can more than make up for the weaknesses. The Hokies may not win their bowl game, but they are going to play a tough, close game.

I forgot to mention 3 straight 10-win seasons and 14 straight bowl appearances for a chump team in a redneck town.

Van wrote:. The timing of each game and the relative importance (or lack thereof) of each game dictates this conclusion. Obviously all the polls agree with this notion otherwise they'd be prioritizing USC's loss in Michigan's favor so much more than they are and Michigan would remain a solid #2.

No, the timing of the game and both squad's strength of schedule dictate the conclusion. The importance of the game doesn't mean shit to the BCS guys. Your rivalry loss theory doesnt hold water. I don't see that listed in the BCS component.

Mace wrote:IF USC beats OSU, then I'll admit that they are the BCS champs but, no, I won't necessarily admit that they are better than Michigan.

Great. All I needed to know. I had a feeling about your intractable bias blinding you beyond redemption or even reasonable thought and now you've confirmed it beyond any shadow of a doubt.

Come hell or high water Michigan is not only the second best team in the land, they're better than USC. No...matter...what.

Sincerely,
Mace

You, sir, are officially an idiot.

Van wrote:...

If USC beats UCLA and then they beat Ohio St will you at least then admit that USC was better than Michigan?

I'll go you one better and say USC is the best team in the country if they beat Ohio State

Oh, and to answer your other question Mace, Michigan would claim the #2 position again...

...if...

...they thump their Rose Bowl opponent and...

...Florida again looks lackluster in their bowl game and...

...USC gets thumped by Ohio St. Yup. Then you're #2 again, without a doubt. You could even add another qualifier: If Florida loses to Arkansas then you won't even have to watch the SEC winner's Sugar Bowl performance. A victorious Michigan in their bowl game beats out the winner of any two loss SEC bowl game winner.

If USC beats Ohio St though, even it's just by a safety in the 17th O.T., they deserve to be called "better than Michigan"...even by YOU. They played a tougher schedule all year long and they beat the same #1 in a title game that Michigan failed to beat in a regular season rivalry match up.

If USC beats Ohio St it's case closed for Michigan.

Mississippi Neck wrote:

Van wrote:...

If USC beats UCLA and then they beat Ohio St will you at least then admit that USC was better than Michigan?

I'll go you one better and say USC is the best team in the country if they beat Ohio State

How very generous and downright open minded of you!

if osu beats usc by way of that same ot safety, umich would obviously get #2. just pointing out that usc would have two losses and umich is playing notre dame...

M Club wrote:if osu beats usc by way of that same ot safety, umich would obviously get #2. just pointing out that usc would have two losses and umich is playing notre dame...

Not necessarily...

If Michigan gets saddled with ND in the Rose Bowl and they don't look good beating ND then a one loss Florida could still jump them for #2 after first beating Arkansas in the SEC CCG and then adding an impressive win against somebody like LSU in the Sugar Bowl...

I'm not even positive that Florida couldn't jump Michigan for #3 even before the bowl season arrives, merely by adding a thorough destruction of Arkansas in the SEC CCG to their resume.

i was responding mostly to this:

Mace wrote:......If USC gets beaten by OSU and Michigan wins their BCS game.....will Michigan be #2 then?

umich will be fine at #2. for one thing, any win over notre dame = good win, so says the media; and secondly, the same media would love to write about osu and umich at #1 and #2.

Still, it would depend on the type of win they manage over ND and it'd also depend on how Florida looks against Arkansas and, possibly, LSU. Regardless of what happens with OSU-USC the possibility definitely still exists for Florida to jump Michigan for the final #2 ranking.

Van wrote: Sincerely,
Mace

You, sir, are officially an idiot.

Gee Van, what tipped you off?

Was it when he ran Special Olympics smack...twice in the same thread?

Or was it the multiple "melonhead" blasts that keyed you in?

That's not how it works, Mace. You've GOT to know that by now, as long as you've been watching football...

The argument right now for you is between USC and Michigan. Your LONE argument in favor of Michigan is that despite their lack of Quality Wins and their relatively weak S.O.S. they played OSU tough in their one loss. EVERYBODY ELSE is saying c'mon, USC and Florida didn't get to PLAY OSU so they don't get to hang their hats on a "quality loss". Nope, they actually have to go by their Quality Wins.

But then, like magic, whaddya know, USC might actually get to play OSU in their very next game following OSU's defeat of Michigan!!

Now, see, Mace, most reasonable people already realize that a one loss USC showed more than a one loss Michigan throughout this season. Let USC go ahead and erase Michigan's LONE argument now by also defeating OSU too??

Doesn't matter how they do it. It's a national championship game. Any ol' win will do. If USC manages to beat OSU in the very next game following OSU's defeat of Michigan that's ALL anybody would need in order for them to admit that yeah, USC proved their point over Michigan.

Anybody, that is, but you. In order for USC to overcome Michigan's "quality loss" even a garden variety USC victory over OSU still won't be enough!! Nope, you still need USC to beat OSU with style points (!!) before you'll finally and grudgingly give in!

Mace, that's truly fucking astounding and yes, there's no other way to describe it: That makes you an idiot.

Thanks for the, umm, well wishes. I definitely like USC's chances more than Michigan's.

Wait...

"Did he mean Michigan's chances before they played Ohio St the first time, or Michigan's chances to play Ohio St again and this time beat 'em?"

Both. Either.

Van wrote:

Mississippi Neck wrote:

Van wrote:...

If USC beats UCLA and then they beat Ohio St will you at least then admit that USC was better than Michigan?

I'll go you one better and say USC is the best team in the country if they beat Ohio State

How very generous and downright open minded of you!

Simply pointing out the idiocy of your question. Of course, USC is better than Michigan if they beat OSU, something Michigan didnt do.

Now run that by rational minds again about losing to Oregon State is ok, losing to OSU is worse because after all its a rivalry game...now thats funny.

Mississippi Neck, follow along in the thread...

The only reason I asked such an idiotic question was to see if there was any circumstance under which Mace would admit USC is better than Michigan...even including a USC victory over Ohio St???

Yeah, YOU see that it's an idiotic premise and I see that it's an idiotic premise. Of COURSE USC must be considered better than Michigan if they beat Ohio St. Well, duh!

Well, Mace says nope, not even then, not unless USC beats Ohio St...and does so in a convincing enough fashion! USC has to not only beat OSU, nope, they have to beat 'em with style!! A mere win won't be enough. That's what Mace said. I just wanted to see if he'd actually say it, and he did.

As for the other, we were talking about what was more detrimental, USC's loss to Oregon St or Michigan's loss to Ohio St. Without any doubt whatsoever Michigan's loss to Ohio St obviously hurt them (ie, was more detrimental to their chances) than was USC's loss to Oregon St. There can be no arguing this because the rankings bear this out in spades.

Now, if you want to argue which loss was more understandable, which was M Club's clarification, then yeah, Michigan's loss was definitely more understandable. Judged in a vacuum Michigan's loss was a more noble loss. Judged in the context of their season though it was more detrimental to their chances since there was no overcoming it in the BCS rankings. USC was able to overcome their loss so their loss wasn't as detrimental.

Definitions, is all.

Agreed.

stuckinia wrote:

stuckinia wrote:

Adelpiero wrote:Overrated

Virginia Tech

Maybe.

But this Hokie D is the best (statistically) in the nation. They got bitch-slapped by GT. They believed their own Thursday night hype against BC. Branden Ore will be a top 10 RB next year. 10-2 in a rebuilding year is impressive. The offense returned only 2 players from last year, a WR and FB. The O-line and QB are young weaknesses, but the strength of the D can more than make up for the weaknesses. The Hokies may not win their bowl game, but they are going to play a tough, close game.

I forgot to mention 3 straight 10-win seasons and 14 straight bowl appearances for a chump team in a redneck town.

you left off the countless arrests, thuggery at its finest. a true win at all cost program. no integrity at Va tech, beamer proved that with Vick. a fucking disgrace, dont worry, Fullmer is trying to take the top spot of no class programs.

If USC gets beaten by OSU and Michigan wins their BCS game.....will Michigan be #2 then?

That is exactly where they should be and it would perfectly reflect the season, putting both of these one loss teams 1-2 and with the victor of the head to head on top. Anyone that thinks they should play again still is whahawhack!

Michigan should not be awarded a title for splitting wth OSU and OSU should not have to play Michigan again. To validate themselves, playing an SC or Florida should be exactly what they have to do because it better proves their dominance throughout the country and what better way to do it than give them a program that has been showing its dominance over the past 4 years?

Does Michigan have the better loss? Of course but who has more wins over ranked teams? Duh. You can't just conveniently forget about that. SC just took out 3 top 25 teams (each better than the previous), in a row, in November.

Their loss to Oreon State? I actually just thought of something and went to check it, yup, it came after a bye. Why am I not surprised? How many of you gamblers out there have been raped betting on teams coming off a bye because you think they're rested? Yea, me too. I stopped betting on teams coming off byes long ago but maybe it is just my curse, like betting on games involving Michigan teams.

(just an observation)

UCLA is coming off a bye this week.

:-)

Style points don't matter in the title game. That's do or die, plain and simple. You either win and win the title or you lose and that's that. A title game where USC gets to play the very team that handed Michigan their ace in the hole, their quality loss?? Uh, yeah, a USC victory there and Michigan has no claim whatsoever. They pack up their bags, tip their hats to USC and humbly accept their #2 or #3 final ranking.

If a unanimous #2 USC beats a unanimous #1 Ohio St in any manner whatosever in the title game then that simple fact will trump all argument.

How you can manage to miss this most basic axiom of sports, holy fuck but you're old, fat, slow and stupid.

'Cept for that nagging little point that Michigan and OSU already did meet head to head...

Face it, Mace. If USC manages what Michigan couldn't by beating OSU (on top of already having played the tougher schedule) and you still don't sack up and admit that USC is better than Michigan the nic "Mace" will become a new verb around here.

We all know what it means to bradhusker somebody.

We all know what it means to m2 somebody.

Cicero, Jon? Same deal.

Thing is, at least all those verbs have an element of humor attached to them. To be accused of Macing somebody though, man, that'll be the lowest of the low. It'll mean you have zero nad and not only are you a stupid whiny bitch but even worse, you're the ultimate poor sport.

This place? We have to be willing to man up and give teams (and each other) their due. "Yeah, you get the ranking, but you're not better, not even after beating Ohio St!" is NOT giving USC their due. Can't believe that's you, Mace. Swear to god, all these years here, that's never been you.

Knock it off.

Mace wrote:Michigan has a better team than USC, is the real #2 team in the country right now

Just wondering, Mace, I can understand your statement that Michigan is "better" than USC. Not that I agree, but it's a qualitative statement and definitely a matter of opinion, and everybody is entitled to one.

But by what measure are they "the real #2 team"? There is a certain definitive quantitativeness to that statement. By placing a number on it you're implying some sort of measurement. Please explain exactly what makes them the "real #2 team", because by all apparent and accepted measurements (BCS, polls) they are not.

Maybe you ought to get together with SunCoastSooner (OK is really a one-loss team) and think about this one.

Well, it's no real surprise the rest of the board is finally coming around, and realizing what a complete fucking idiot Mace truly is.

How's the girl's t-ball team coming along, big guy?

Whatever, Mace. If USC beats UCLA and then Ohio St just do me the favor of going on the board afterwards to again say you still don't think USC is better than Michigan. That way the entire board will delight in pounding your skull in and I won't need to lift another finger.

Just sorta wondering though...

Using Mace Logic, does Michigan rise to #1 if USC beats Ohio St? I'd say they'd have to 'cause Michigan's still better than USC, right, and USC beat Ohio St, so USC's better than Ohio St, and if Michigan is better than USC AND the teams USC beat then Michigan must be considered the best team on planet earth.

Nuh uh. Not if USC beats 'em. At least, not unless USC beats 'em by thirty.

-Maced

Do you really require that one team play the other before you can make the decision that one team is better than the other??

Really? Even though each team only plays twelve games per season, plus a bowl game? With well over one hundred D1-A teams out there that sure leaves a lot of questions then for you, doesn't it? Not even a full fledged playoffs would manage to sate the curiosity of such an indecisive mind. No matter how hard you try there will always be teams which didn't get to face each other.

For example, by your logic you've got Michigan as the second best team in the country right now. (Not ranked second, but the second best team.) How can you say this when Michigan hasn't played Baylor? Doesn't Kentucky get a say in this? What about Florida? None of these teams played Michigan and none of 'em played Ohio St. So, how do we know that they aren't better than either/both Michigan and Ohio St?

Ridiculous, Maced. We're never going to be able to settle every single possibility on the field, head to head. So, we go to Plan B, which in this case would be to compare records, schedules and results against common opponents.

For the sake of argument let's assume USC beats UCLA and then both USC and Michigan win their bowl games.

-Records: USC and Michigan will both sport identical 12-1 records. Advantage: That's a wash.

-Schedules: USC's and Michigan's schedules were not equal in difficulty. Not even close. Any objective criteria will show that USC played the tougher schedule while compiling that equal record. The gap here will grow even larger once USC adds #1 Ohio St to their S.O.S., at which point USC's S.O.S. will almost certainly be ranked a solid #1 again. Advantage: USC

-Results Against Common Opponents: USC and Michigan will've played two common opponents, ND and Ohio St. Michigan went 1-1 in those two games, USC went 2-0. Advantage: USC

Now, even if you wish to add an additional category, "Quality Losses", Michigan will still only pick up an advantage in one category, and a highly specious one at that since we judge teams on their wins and not their losses. Additionally, USC will entirely negate that one categorical Michigan advantage anyway by beating the very team which gave Michigan their one categorical advantage.

With a win over Ohio St USC may also find themselves in the unique position of being the only team to ever beat three BCS conference champs in the same season: SEC, Big XII and Big 10. (If it should happen it'd be a record that'll never be broken and with the way teams are so reluctant to schedule tough games OOC it'll also likely never even be duplicated. Most likely only USC themselves or ND, a team with no conference affiliation, could ever hope to duplicate such a feat.)

So, no matter how you wish to measure it this one loss USC team who won their bowl game must be considered better than this one loss Michigan team who also won their bowl game. In the absence of a head to head match up there is simply no other conclusion a sane person could reach. USC would have all the objective criteria in their favor so there's no cogent argument left for Michigan Fan to make.

By all means though, please, if you still think you can do something with this then go ahead and have at it...

Cart...horse Van...USC is 2-0 vs Common opponets with Michigan??? ND and ??? I know they should play tOSU so you are already counting a win...ok

just askin

buckeye_in_sc wrote:Cart...horse Van...USC is 2-0 vs Common opponets with Michigan??? ND and ??? I know they should play tOSU so you are already counting a win...ok

just askin

Read what I wrote again...

Yes, USC would be 2-0 vs common opponents with Michigan IF USC beats Ohio St...

All throughout this debate I've made sure to say "if" and/or I've added all the requisite qualifiers about a million times.

Anyway, since you missed it, I prefaced the above quote you C&P'd with...

Van wrote:For the sake of argument let's assume that USC beats UCLA and then both USC and Michigan go on to win their bowl games.

This whole debate with Mace is predicated on his saying Michigan will still be better than USC even if USC beats Ohio St. So, I'm painting the picture of each team's resume post bowl season, including a USC win over Ohio St. He and I aren't arguing over whether USC will beat Ohio St. I'm already on record as predicting they won't. No, he and I are arguing whether Michigan should be considered better than USC even if USC beats Ohio St.

Van wrote:Do you really require that one team play the other before you can make the decision that one team is better than the other??

Yeah that whole thing called "playoffs" among the best teams is a pretty crazy concept.

With well over one hundred D1-A teams out there that sure leaves a lot of questions then for you, doesn't it? Not even a full fledged playoffs would manage to sate the curiosity of such an indecisive mind. No matter how hard you try there will always be teams which didn't get to face each other.

It's simply amazing how the NFL can manage it -- a miracle in fact. As Mgo said, based on the "system" that CF has, everyone knows Indy has really been the best team in the NFL these last several years. Top teams deciding it on the field? Insanity!




While the backin' and forthin' insults between you guys in this thread has been entertaining, the fact that these meaningless arguments continue to be waged in here and in countless other message boards and talk radio based on SOS, common opponents, numerology, what-if scenarios and Ouija boards shows what a fucking complete joke the "system" is in determining a NC in CF.

RF, you're missing the point...

Maced is saying teams need to play each other directly or else he won't be able to tell who's better. So, even if one team wins the playoffs and wins the title he won't necessarily be convinced that team is better than some other team they didn't play along the way to running through the playoffs.

No playoffs system can assure that every team gets a match up against every other team.

Besides, in this CF season the playoffs in effect began for Michigan and Ohio St when they played each other. Ohio St won and moved on and Michigan lost and fell out of the title game hunt. The "playoffs" continue and culminate for Ohio St when they meet USC and even in a formal playoff system there's no guarantee that USC and Michigan would've met along the way to a final pitting USC and Ohio St.

But that’s just the thing, RF. Everybody’s talking about it. Something about “every knock is a boost” comes to mind.

apparently my good natured attempt at humor and levity went awry...carry on

Van wrote:RF, you're missing the point...

No playoffs system can assure that every team gets a match up against every other team.

I missed the point?

You're kidding, right?

Sorry if I offended your numerology interests.

And yes, some teams actually have rematches, in the NFL~ gasp ~ with the other team winning. Shocking, I know.

That's the thing about playoffs. They're crazy like that!



Damn, dude. Snap out of it for at least a few seconds.

Van wrote:Maced is saying teams need to play each other directly or else he won't be able to tell who's better.

Maced wrote:Not what I said at all, dipshit. Those are your words, not mine.

Oh really??

Maced wrote:I actually said that there is no way to really know which team is better without a head to head matchup.

You suck at this. Really, you do.

Moving on...

Maced wrote:Who's to say that the "playoff" didn't begin when USC played Oregon State?

Every poll out there, including the BCS poll, that's who. USC didn't lose their opportunity to play in the title game when they lost to Oregon St, did they?

Michigan did, didn't they?

van wrote:This whole debate with Mace is predicated on his saying Michigan will still be better than USC even if USC beats Ohio St. So, I'm painting the picture of each team's resume post bowl season, including a USC win over Ohio St.

I did not definitively say that I would declare Michigan the better team even if USC beats OSU.....that is a complete misrepresentation of my comments and a fucking lie. I said that I would defer judgment until we actually see the game and that I wouldn't necessarily declare USC the better team just because they pull out a win.

Right. USC can't just win the title game against the consensus #1, nope, your ridiculous melon requires that they win with style points. That's your stance and that's what makes you a buffoon. There isn't a single other person here who will deny USC (or Ohio St) their due following a victory in that game, no matter how the win occurs. Be the consensus #2 and beat the consensus #1, you're the best. Win as the consensus #1, you're the best. Either way you're better than anybody else, including the team the consensus #1 already beat. No more ifs, ands or buts. Doesn't matter that USC didn't play Michigan. The necessity for that match up ended when Michigan fell to Ohio St and USC earned the right to play Ohio St themselves for all the marbles.

Maced wrote:

Well, here's EXACTLY what I said........

IF USC beats OSU, then I'll admit that they are the BCS champs but, no, I won't necessarily admit that they are better than Michigan. Let's see how the game goes first. Michigan lost in a hostile environment, not on a neutral field and....well, like I said, let's wait to see how the game turns out. If USC rolls OSU, then yes, I'll admit they're better than Michigan but, to this point in the season, I haven't seen it.

Exactly. In your demented world a mere win wouldn't be enough. You require USC to win a fucking title game convincingly (!!) over the #1 team in the nation, the very team who already knocked out Michigan by beating them. USC has to ROLL Ohio freaking St before you'll give them their due!!! THAT is your stance and THAT is the stance of a buffoon. Whether by 1 point or by 41 points, it doesn't matter, Maced. A win of ANY sort would mean they were able to accomplish the very thing Michigan failed to do. Championship games don't require style points because there are no further games to be played. There will be no further match ups with which to compare results. So, in a title game, separate from any other game during the season, style points go out the window. That's it. It's a fight to the death. All that matters is that you're the one who's still standing when the final whistle blows. If you are, hey, you're the best, 'cause everybody else is dead!!

Getting your panties all in a bunch over those statements, and fabricating statements that you now attribute to me, only proves you to be a fucking idiot and a liar. Not a surprise to anyone who's been reading your tripe over the years.

Mace

I fabricated nothing, cuntbubble. I'm using your own quotes, over and over. There your words are, in black and white:

"#3 is BETTER in my opinion than the winner of the title game, UNLESS the winner is Ohio St or UNLESS USC ROLLS Ohio St! Just beating Ohio St won't be enough for USC, not for me."

Maced, your own words make it plain to see, for anybody....

You're...an........IDIOT!