T1B

>I am stoked about the season turned in by my Wolverines. I still believe we're no worse than #2, and should be after the NC game. Next year with Henne and Hart as seniors and a ton of offensive talent back will be fun.

>I would love to see the Big 10 either add a team or drop one. It would be better to play a full round robin or have a CCG to determine a Champion. Was it Purdue that played neither UM or OSU? One less MAC opponent and another conference game would suit me just fine.

>I think winning more than half of your games ought to be a pre-requisite of bowl eligibility. How many 6-6 teams are playing in Bowls this year...fucking travesty.

>Props to OU. The Sooners overcame so much adversity this year and still managed to win the Big 12. Racks to Stoops and the OU fellas on here, this is a season to be proud of.

>Wisconsin has had the quietest 11-1 season I can remember. They are untested for the most part, not playing OSU helps, but I think they'll give Arkansas a game.

>What the hell happened to Iowa? Who's bright idea is it to match Iowa against Texas? This may be the most lopsided matchup of the bowl roster.

>Why is it so widely accepted that the SEC is so dominant? I think they have some nice teams, but they have their share of doormats. I'm not sold on UF, Auburn doesn't impress, Tennessee...yawn, Arkansas...overrated. LSU may be the best team in the conference, and they have 2 losses.

>Why did the whole world stand in line to anoint USC as the team to face OSU in the NC game? They proved what Michigan fans knew all along. They weren't better than UM on Friday, and proved it on Saturday. For their troubles they get to play a virtual home game. Sometimes shit aint fair, but UM will get their chance to prove that they belonged.

>The BCS is a scham...Marcus. But really does it ever solve anything? As I've said, it only works if there are exactly 2 teams tied with the best record, do we need a system for that? I'm now fully on board with a playoff.

>How the hell are they playing 2 minor bowl games a week after New Years? This shit has gotten so far out of control.

Whats with the double up?

Feel free to delete one mods.

I still think that a big part of the SEC is the whole, SEC Mystique. I mean, yeah, they're all good football schools, and they all have very talented athletes, but they're not lighting the world on fire lately. Has there been an SEC school as good as OU since 2000? LSU is right there... Florida, maybe? Auburn, maybe? Tennessee? 'Bama? Arkansas? Has there been an SEC school as good as Ohio State since 2000? Or as good as USC?

They're getting about the amount of pub that they deserve.

The SEC is a LOT of hype with a bit of substance. They are usually well-coached and usually have superior talents to the non-SEC teams that they play... but, unlike with the Big 10, which is really the Big 11, but actually the Big 3, with the SEC I really WOULD buy the "beating each other up," argument. There's almost TOO much parity in that conference. There aren't any GREAT teams, but there aren't any (as many) doormats as in other conferences either...

Thank you for the props to OU Fan as well. It's been a roller-coaster season, to say the least. I remember listening to the Bomar stuff unfold as I was packing to move out of Norman and thinking, "crap, not now. I can't move with all of this happening." I guess that, like my move, turned out just fine.

the_ouskull

Why did the whole world stand in line to anoint USC as the team to face OSU in the NC game?

The obvious reason: stronger overall resume. USC beat better teams, and more of them. Same reason Florida ultimately got the nod over Michigan.

Michigan was let down by the sudden down year that overtook most of the Big 10. They scheduled too softly OOC. Combine those two factors with the loss in what was effectively the Big 10 CCG and Michigan left the door open to other one loss teams who beat their rivals, won their conference and had a stronger S.O.S.

That's exactly how it should work. We should always reward those teams who win their conference and who have a stronger S.O.S.

All your other points were dead on, especially about the Sooners.

WolverineSteve wrote:>I am stoked about the season turned in by my Wolverines. I still believe we're no worse than #2, and should be after the NC game. Next year with Henne and Hart as seniors and a ton of offensive talent back will be fun.

Props on your season. I'm already not looking forward to next year's Michigan-ND game. It figures to make this year's game look close by comparison.

>I would love to see the Big 10 either add a team or drop one. It would be better to play a full round robin or have a CCG to determine a Champion. Was it Purdue that played neither UM or OSU? One less MAC opponent and another conference game would suit me just fine.

I think you're probably stuck on 11 for the foreseeable future. An extra conference game . . . possible, but only if the NCAA stays with a 12-game schedule.

>I think winning more than half of your games ought to be a pre-requisite of bowl eligibility. How many 6-6 teams are playing in Bowls this year...fucking travesty.

Agreed (in general, more on that later), but it won't happen unless either the NCAA goes back to the 11-game schedule, or a few bowls bite the dust. Right now, with 119 1-A teams and 32 bowl games, a majority of 1-A teams are guaranteed to go bowling.

Having said the above, when a bid goes at-large, I don't think the 6/7 win rule should apply. The Motor City Bowl wound up with Middle Tennessee rather than Pitt or Kansas. Is a 7-win season out of the Sun Belt Conference more impressive than a 6-win season out of a BCS conference? I don't think so.

>Props to OU. The Sooners overcame so much adversity this year and still managed to win the Big 12. Racks to Stoops and the OU fellas on here, this is a season to be proud of.

Agreed, although I suspect the mentality at OU is similar to that at ND, at least from the respect that anything short of a national championship is ultimately a disappointment.

>Wisconsin has had the quietest 11-1 season I can remember. They are untested for the most part, not playing OSU helps, but I think they'll give Arkansas a game.

The success of Ohio State and Michigan eliminated all possibility of BCS contention for Wisconsin, and that goes a long way in explaining why Wisconsin's season was so quiet. I give Wisconsin a slight edge over Arkansas in the Capital One Bowl, to me that will be one of the more entertaining bowl matchups.

>What the hell happened to Iowa? Who's bright idea is it to match Iowa against Texas? This may be the most lopsided matchup of the bowl roster.

The bottom fell out on Iowa's season, no doubt. As to how they wound up in the Alamo Bowl -- strictly a hunch, but I suspect Purdue made it known that they preferred the Champ Sports Bowl to the Alamo for whatever reason, and for some reason, the Alamo preferred Iowa to Minnesota even though Minnesota was clearly the better team at season's end. This game has potential to get ugly in a hurry.

>The BCS is a scham...Marcus. But really does it ever solve anything? As I've said, it only works if there are exactly 2 teams tied with the best record, do we need a system for that? I'm now fully on board with a playoff.

Welcome to the club. Better late than never. :wink:

>How the hell are they playing 2 minor bowl games a week after New Years? This shit has gotten so far out of control.

Too many bowl games, and not enough time (although I might wind up in attendance at the International Bowl).

Van wrote:

Why did the whole world stand in line to anoint USC as the team to face OSU in the NC game?

The obvious reason: stronger overall resume. USC beat better teams, and more of them. Same reason Florida ultimately got the nod over Michigan.

Michigan was let down by the sudden down year that overtook most of the Big 10. They scheduled too softly OOC. Combine those two factors with the loss in what was effectively the Big 10 CCG and Michigan left the door open to other one loss teams who beat their rivals, won their conference and had a stronger S.O.S.

That's exactly how it should work. We should always reward those teams who win their conference and who have a stronger S.O.S.

So by that logic would the final four order have been OS, USC, FLA, then MICH had USC won?

I wasn't watching the numbers that closely that it was clear FLA, with a win last Saturday, was poised to leapfrog over Mich regardless of the USC /UCLA outcome.

MB, yeah, that almost certainly would've been the final order. Michigan was going to get leapfrogged by both USC and Florida if both those teams took care of their business.

Michigan just had too little on their resume to counter USC's and Florida's greater S.O.S. Michigan left themselves at the mercy of either ND or UCLA and either FSU or Arkansas. Only UCLA came through for them.

I'm not a huge CFB fan, but I keep an ear to it, and seem to recall michigan being referred to as a serious contender for a rematch against OS the week USC played ND, should USC lose that game. Seems surprising that no one would see that mich was pretty much dead in the water by then without a win against OS.

ABC and ESPN were saying it was Michigan, and then Michigan or USC, but that's just because those were the teams on their national broadcasts at the time. The more serious football outlets/analysts were all saying that a possible Perfect Storm was still brewing with a one loss Florida joining the mix and most of 'em were saying it was always going to come down to the Big 10 loser falling out (especially if it was Michigan) in favor of either a one loss USC or Florida...with USC being the one who was definitely going to get the nod there.

That's how it played out, exactly. First USC and then Florida leapfrogged Michigan, and USC would've remained at #2 if they'd taken care of business yesterday.

Even a one loss Arkansas would've leapfrogged Michigan into the title game, provided USC would be kind enough to first get out of their way. Had Arkansas looked good while beating LSU and Florida you can bet your ass that when USC went down to UCLA we'd now be talking about an Arkansas-Ohio St title game. With wins over Top 20 teams Auburn, Tennessee, LSU and Florida a one loss Arkansas' S.O.S. would've been devastating compared to Michigan's.

Bottom line, any one loss team out of the SEC was probably always going to leapfrog Michigan. Down years by Penn St, Michigan St and Iowa really killed Michigan's resume vs a one loss SEC team, especially in the absence of a good OOC schedule for Michigan. They simply didn't have all that much to offer by comparison, what with their only real quality wins coming againt ND and a thoroughly untested Wisconsin.

Makes sense. How often is the SOS ranking updated? weekly? Otherwise it would seem flawed, if it's just being based on predictive analysis.


What's the general feeling of people here about the BCS?

It's updated weekly, yeah, as part of the overall BCS formula.

The general feeling here about the BCS? I think it'd be fair to say that to a man here the BCS is reviled like little else in all of sport. I'm thinking even soccer is more respected here than the BCS.

That's good to hear. I've hated it since its inception. Don't see how the greedy NCAA won't go to a final four / eight / sixteen etc. type of playoff set up with all the potential for huge cash it would bring in, and the total lack of questions about who is #1.