If that's the case, then this race is over. Michigan's spot in the human polls will not change.

 

Maybe if USC beats ND by about 50 points, but that is not likely.

UM is behind USC in the human polls. It's all about the % of the vote...

UM is behind USC in the human polls. It's all about the % of the vote...

 

Never mind...I forgot about the AP not being involved anymore.

 

OK, now that I've looked over everything, I'll stick with my original thought. If USC wins out, they will be the #2 BCS team. And they should be.

 

If USC loses, then I think Michigan will be #2. And they should be.

 

I don't think Florida, Arkansas, ND or anyone else should jump the Wolverines.

Just wanted to point out if we had a 4-team playoff as some had suggested, we would be discussing the unfairness of leaving one of the following out....Michigan, Notre Dame, Florida, USC along with Ohio State being in the playoffs.

 

Along with the discussion of shouldn't WVU/UL, Arkansas, Wisconsin, Boise State and Texas be in too.

Exactly. Even if it was an 8 team playoff you'd have some deserving 1 loss team staying at home. You are always going to have to have a system that quantifies who is the "best" and who is the "best of the rest", regardless if there is a playoff system or not. And with a 4 team playoff, you'd just end up with the rematch, so I really don't see the point..........

I personally did not think Michigan played to a level that they deserve a rematch. They benefitted from OSU giving them HUGE, HUGE breaks that they did not force. Two snap fumbles and a penalty that sustained the drive to pull them within the final score. OSU does not make these mistakes that Michigan did not force and the game is not close.

 

But, alas, I fear there will be a rematch as Notre Dame will beat USC and Florida will not be able to catch up to Michigan in the BCS poll.

I understand what you are saying, and maybe even agree with some of it. However, I think the question that should be asked is "Is UM the 2nd best team in the country?" If the answer is yes, then they are in the title game, period. But explain to me how USC losing to Oregon St. is "playing to a level that makes them deserving" of being in the National Title game? That sword cuts both ways...........

I understand what you are saying, and maybe even agree with some of it. However, I think the question that should be asked is "Is UM the 2nd best team in the country?" If the answer is yes, then they are in the title game, period. But explain to me how USC losing to Oregon St. is "playing to a level that makes them deserving" of being in the National Title game? That sword cuts both ways...........

I look at it more as who deserves the next chance to knock off the #1 team. UM had their chance. USC, Florida, Notre Dame, etc have not had their chance.

I look at it more as who deserves the next chance to knock off the #1 team. UM had their chance. USC, Florida, Notre Dame, etc have not had their chance.

All those teams had to do was win all their games...

All those teams had to do was win all their games...

 

Same w/ Michigan.

I look at it more as who deserves the next chance to knock off the #1 team. UM had their chance. USC, Florida, Notre Dame, etc have not had their chance.

You want chances? Schedule them in the regular season. The entire purpose of the BCS system vs. the old system was to pit the two best teams in the National Title game. Make me a compelling case that someone "deserves" it more than UM. And no, "you had your chance" isn't a valid argument. As far as that goes, I'm turning that one back around from here on out. YOU had your chance to schedule them in the regular season and didn't. UM should not be penalized for playing a the best team in the land and losing. You know what that breaks down into? Let's dissolve the conferences, everyone play the weakest schedule possible, and see how many undefeated teams we can have so that everyone can have something to complain about.

All those teams had to do was win all their games...

 

All UM had to do was win all their games as well and they didn't do that, but they get to still get to maybe go to the title game...

 

IMO honestly this wouldn't be fair for OSU to have to play UM again, because they shouldn't have to beat the same team two games IN A ROW to be named National Champions. If UM goes in and wins the rematch by say 3, then why should they be named National Champions when OSU just beat them in the last game they just played. I say unless they plan on making this the best out of 3 matchup between these two teams, then there shouldn't be a rematch IMO. But I guess I should wait to see what happens in the next two weeks first, and maybe my opinion will change...

Same w/ Michigan.

So you penalize a team because they have the #1 team in the land on their schedule? That makes sense.......

WOW!! Where was UK ranked in the top 25????

 

 

Frances

 

I'm brokenhearted. I post what has to be one of the most ridiculous questions in the history of BGP, and I didn't even get a rise out of you guys.

 

Tough crowd.

 

 

Frances

All UM had to do was win all their games as well and they didn't do that, but they get to still get to maybe go to the title game...

 

IMO honestly this wouldn't be fair for OSU to have to play UM again, because they shouldn't have to beat the same team two games IN A ROW to be named National Champions. If UM goes in and wins the rematch by say 3, then why should they be named National Champions when OSU just beat them in the last game they just played. I say unless they plan on making this the best out of 3 matchup between these two teams, then there shouldn't be a rematch IMO. But I guess I should wait to see what happens in the next two weeks first, and maybe my opinion will change...

I don't know where this notion of "fair" has come from, but it really bothers me. First off, "fair" is doing what the system is designed to do, put the 2 best teams in the championship game. End of story. Second, do you think Florida complained about how unfair it was that they had to beat somebody(I can't remember the team and I'm too lazy to look it up) 3 TIMES in a season to win the national title? What's fair is that the best two teams play for the title. What is unfair is to say that the best two teams in the country can NEVER be from the same conference.

You want chances? Schedule them in the regular season. The entire purpose of the BCS system vs. the old system was to pit the two best teams in the National Title game. Make me a compelling case that someone "deserves" it more than UM. And no, "you had your chance" isn't a valid argument. As far as that goes, I'm turning that one back around from here on out. YOU had your chance to schedule them in the regular season and didn't. UM should not be penalized for playing a the best team in the land and losing. You know what that breaks down into? Let's dissolve the conferences, everyone play the weakest schedule possible, and see how many undefeated teams we can have so that everyone can have something to complain about.

 

First how do we know that UM definitely is the 2nd best team in the country. They beat one good outside of conference team, and a decent team in Wisconsin in their conference, but other than that the rest of the teams in the conference were not that good this year at all...You say make a case for who would deserve it more than UM, then well here you go. USC if they win out will have wins against Ark,Neb,Oregon,ND,Cal and I think I am forgetting some team that was also a ranked team that they have beat. So yeah there you go, if USC wins out they are definitely if anything just as deserving if not more to play in that title game as UM is...

I'm brokenhearted. I post what has to be one of the most ridiculous questions in the history of BGP, and I didn't even get a rise out of you guys.

 

Tough crowd.

 

 

Frances

I have a bit of residue bitterness left over from this weekend, and my rage completely blinded me to that question. All I can see is red.....:cry:

First how do we know that UM definitely is the 2nd best team in the country. They beat one good outside of conference team, and a decent team in Wisconsin in their conference, but other than that the rest of the teams in the conference were not that good this year at all...You say make a case for who would deserve it more than UM, then well here you go. USC if they win out will have wins against Ark,Neb,Oregon,ND,Cal and I think I am forgetting some team that was also a ranked team that they have beat. So yeah there you go, if USC wins out they are definitely if anything just as deserving if not more to play in that title game as UM is...

I will say that USC certainly has the best argument. They have played what some would consider a tougher schedule. I'm not a believer in the Pac 10 hype, and I don't buy Cal or Oregon. Nebraska is a middle of the road team flying high off a good season last year. If they were in the Big 10 I'd compare them with Iowa. But rankings are rankings, and I will concede the schedule point. But you cannot base it solely on "look who we beat", without looking at who the two teams lost to. IMO those two things kind of cancel each other out, if you will. So then it comes down to common opponents. If USC wins convincingly against ND, they should be in, with no argument from me. If it's a close game, UM is in.