UCLA 13, USC 9
Hooray!
I'm so happy for Coach Dorrell and the players. What a wonderful little morality play.
I'm so happy for Coach Dorrell and the players. What a wonderful little morality play.
posted by Todd Martin at 4:54 PM
posted by Todd Martin at 4:54 PM
17 Comments:
As long as it gets Michigan in the national championsip game, it's good with me. I'm not a Wolverine partisan, but I still can't believe that there's "analysts" collectiing immense salaries arguing against Michigan beause they already had their shot. Apply that logic in another sport. You know, argue that the Bears couldn't play the Patriots in the Super Bowl because they lost a close game on the other guys' field. So, I'm revolting against that piece of lunacy.
"They're just not very good"
They got better. But now its USC getting the top basketball recruit.
I have to say, I like Michigan more than any of the other top teams (I LOATHE Ohio State), but to say that they should play in the title game is ridiculous. To the guy above who used the NFL analogy: If the Bears were to play the Pats in the Super Bowl, nobody would argue, because both teams would have won their way there in the playoffs. Super Bowl matchups featuring teams that played during the season happen all the time. College football is different, since it is voters who choose who plays in the national title game. The system is completely different. And Michigan did already have its shot; they knew full well what was at stake when they played OSU, regardless of what stadium it took place at. It is not cliche to say that they already had their shot, because they unquestionably did, and they lost.
Also, I am a firm believer that if you don't win your conference, you have no business playing for the natioanl title. A few years ago, the BCS put Nebraska in the title game even though they had just been blown out in the Big 12 title game the same day, and everyone thought it was absurd. Not that I particularly like Florida, but I think they deserve to play for the national title if their main competition for that spot is Michigan (who lost what was essentially the de facto Big 10 title game).
I know it is ridiculous to bring up, but why does Boise State seem to have no claim to the other spot in the national title game? They're the only other team besides OSU who is undefeated; in what other sport does an undefeated team not have even a chance to win the championship?
I agree with Dave about Michigan. The NFL and college have very different systems. I'm not a big fan of the college system but one of its benefits is all the regular season games mean more. Of course a regular season game wouldn't eliminate a team in the NFL, but 12 teams make the playoffs, not 2. If one of the national title contenders has beaten another, the second team I think is fairly eliminated. Thus, I think Florida deserves the spot.
And as far as undefeated teams not having a chance to play for the championship in other sports, it seems to me soccer is an appropriate comparison. You have different levels of leagues there, just like in football, and only the teams in the top leagues play to be the best. Seems to me the same here. If Boise State were in a major conference, they wouldn't be undefeated, so it doesn't bug me at all that they aren't in the conversation for the national championship.
And if O.J. Mayo has a better college career than Kevin Love, I'll tattoo "O.J." across my forehead.
As long as title contenders are being thrown around...is there a reason Oklahoma doesn't deserve a shot at the national championship? Their lone loss was @ Oregon on shoddy officiating to say the least by 1 point. And they've managed to go on a hell of a winning streak at the end of the season without their best player. Now is the SEC better than the Big 12? Of course it is. But does Florida get to and win the SEC title game without Chris Leak? They don't even escape Tallahassee unscathed. A system full of injustices. The American way no? See ya in the Emerald Bowl Bruins. All alums are invited to Xavier Lee's coming out party. How does Cameroon outnumber LA 2 to 1? Who's doing the recruiting out there? Yall got some in state folk, but when you go out...Mustafa, now thats Gangsta.
You don't have to tattoo "OJ" on your forehead. "Not guilty" would do it more justice.
Boise State has no claim, as virtually no objective ranking system has them in the top four, let alone the top two. Click my name if you want a really exhaustive list of such systems.
OK, so if the aforementioned Bears and Patriots were in the NCAA next year, in the same conference, they couldn't meet in the national title game? It's about getting the two best teams in the national title game, period. If you think Florida is better than Michigan, fine. But the other agrument is prima facie absurd: "If the Bears were to play the Pats in the Super Bowl, nobody would argue, because both teams would have won their way there in the playoffs."
So has Michigan. It's actually much harder to earn a spot in a national championship game this way than in a crap shoot playoff format (see the last Super Bowl and World Series winners).
And Ohio State hasn't proven itself better than Michigan anyway, they won by three at home: that's essentially a tie.
Re: "And Ohio State hasn't proven itself better than Michigan anyway, they won by three at home: that's essentially a tie."
Actually, I would say that winning a #1 vs. #2 game against your biggest rival when both teams know the winner gets to play for the national championship is the very definition of proving yourself better. They won the game, I fail to see how that is "essentially a tie." OSU and Michigan alternate stadiums for their game every year, and this year it happened to be in Ohio St. There have been years in the past when Michigan beat OSU at Michigan, and I don't recall people making the "essentially a tie" argument then. If Michigan was the better team this year, they would have won the game; end of story.
It would be ridiculous if Michigan got to play for the national title. I honestly feel they're the second best team in the nation, but none of the arguments for them hold up.
-They already had their chance to get in. All they had to do was beat Ohio State. Win and they're in. It's as simple as that. Why does nobody look at it that way? If they won, there would be no argument against them. They lost.
-You can't compare it to other sports, because college football doesn't work the same as other sports. I bet if you eliminated several of the southern states from the 2004 election, that Kerry would have won. Unfortunately, it doesn't work like that. Division I-A college football doesn't work the same, and that takes Michigan out of the picture.
-The game wasn't as close as the score indicated. Ohio State gave up it's first points ALL SEASON off of turnovers, and once they took the lead, they never lost it. Let them play Michigan again, they win by two TDs, I guarantee it.
-Most importantly, Michigan didn't win the Big Ten. Think if Michigan got into the championship game, and then managed to win. A team that finished second in it's conference somehow would be the national champion. Doesn't that seem a little strange? This is where the disparity between I-A football and other formats is the most obvious. Yes, in other sports, you can have someone who didn't win their conference/division win it all, but there's usually fewer conferences competing for more spots (to scale, the NCAA tournament in basketball is the same, more conference winners, but 65 openings). Here, you have six conferences (plus Notre Dame, really), fighting for TWO spots. If Michigan got in, that would have been a snub to Florida, Oklahoma, USC, Louisville or Wake, who all won their conferences. I think that's something that's almost criminally overlooked.
Were the system different, I'd be all for Michigan getting in. This year is a prime example of why they should start a playoff system. Have the winners of all 11 conferences get in automatically (I don't care if the MAC, Sun Belt, et all would get crushed, winning your conference should mean something), and then the next five best teams also get in for 16. But the system is how it is, and with the system as it is, Michigan had it's chance and blew it.
p.s. O-H! I-O!
Being an Ohio State fan, I feel I should add, if they had lost to Michigan, I'd feel exactly the same. Tough shit, they lost. Had their chance, better luck next year.
We'll agree to disagree on this one but I'll leave you all with a few questions:
1) If USC had won, is there any doubt that Michigan would have been ranked 3rd/ahead of Florida?
2) This argument about UM not winning its conference would go out the window had UF lost. Does anyone really think Louisville would have gone to Glendale under that scenario or that any voter would be consistent in their use of that logic?
3) How many people remember that UF only beat South Carolina because SC's kicker missed a VERY makeable FG at the gun? And had that kick been good, would that make UF any less of a team?
4) Would anyone, including Las Vegas, favor UF over UM on a neutral field? Would anyone favor UF over LSU on a neutral field?
5) Since everyone concedes that OSU is the best team, doesn't that forge a strong argument against a playoff? (Since a playoff would decrease the chance of the best team being crowned champion).
1) No, there isn't. The only other possible scenario would be for LSU to jump them, which only would have happened if the poll voters had it out for Michigan. It doesn't mean UM SHOULD have gone to the National Championship, IMHO.
2) See point 1. Just because UM would go, doesn't mean it would be right. But it was going to take the perfect series of events for UM to make it. USC would likely go over Louisville anyways.
3) I hate when people use hypotheticals for games past. UF won, period. What if NE hadn't won the game on the tuck rule? What if the offcials weren't shitty in the Oklahoma/Oregon game? What if Mesa weren't terrible in Game 7 of the 97 world series? What if Dave Roberts hadn't stolen second? What if, what if, what if? In the end, UF won, one way or another. You can't take that away from them.
4) I concede this, I already said I think Michigan is the second best team in the nation. But I think the Yankees were the second best team in 2004, doesn't mean they should have played the Red Sox in the World Series. Would anyone have favored the Cardinals over them?
5) Not necessarily. What a playoff would do is further forge that, if Ohio State were the best (since they would be pretty strong favorites over pretty much any non-UM team), that they should have no problem getting to the championship, playoff or otherwise.
All this talk and not one arguement against Oklahoma. Interesting. I guess I'd be scared of playing a guy nobody in the sport can tackle too. There's no legitiment reason the Oklahoma situation wasn't rectified.
It was cheating by the officials and quite possibly the NCAA, which happened in the South Carolina / Clemson game (on a 4th down measurement an official purposely stepped in front of the chains and signaled first down as the clemson defense was celebrating a well earned stop. It is impossible to misread an on field measurement, I'm sorry. Perfect weather conditions they got screwed. There was no replay of the spot, none of those close up camera shots, nothing. Total screwjob. It was 28-14 when that happened. Clemson didn't score another point the rest of the game finishing with a 35-28 loss. Why try if the game is booked and you ain't goin over?) and is a hell of an excuse to raise Florida's strength of schedule and whatever other numbers bullshit that they would get for beating a now "stronger" South Carolina team. It's all a scam and about the money. Sports in this country aren't sport anymore, not even for college kids. Its all a business. What will provide the best storyline/entertainment? "OSU wins in basketball and football, that hasn't happened in a while let's go with that."
I can't say there isn't anything against Oklahoma being in there, I'd be just as much for that as Florida, really. But there is legitimate reason to not overturn the Oregon/Oklahoma game, because it was done and over with. They would have had to have taken care of it before the game was over, since they didn't, there was nothing more that could be done. There's dozens of games historically that "should" have been changed. Ask St. Louis fans after the '85 World Series. But once it's done, unfortunately, it's done.
And that's a mighty lofty theory you have there for the current status of sports. :P
Can we all agree that these computer rankings are garbage? Five of the computer polls have Boise State above Oklahoma and the one that doesn't has Virginia Tech ahead of LSU. WTF?!
I can't say there isn't anything against Oklahoma being in there, I'd be just as much for that as Florida, really. But there is ...
On one hand you're talking about a decisive call in an instance that changed a series and the mentality of the players it did not win them the championship. Not to mention on the other hand you're talking about human beings voting and not one takes a blown call of that degree into their decision making?
No one wants to hear his story.
We'll go with the kid who announced where he was going to college live on ESPN at a high school all star game in the Superdome. Not to mention the fury the head coach unleashed over the possibility of not going to a national championship game knowing full well his team was not undefeated.
If anyone on the West Coast is on the fence about viewing Raw tonight, do yourself a favor and seek out some alternate programming.
Post a Comment
<< Home