Right. Now you are catching on. Florida was behind Michigan for seven weeks, and with UM idle, the Gators won a sloppy game and made a HUGE jump. The USC loss was bigger than the Florida win. That's my single problem...

Still wondering how the SEC fixed it.

Still wondering how the SEC fixed it.

When I get a full list of how the vote changed, I'll show you...

You seem to have missed my point by a mile. If the vote for #3 last week was even close, I'd have no argument. So, was it beating two loss Arkansas, or was it because USC lost? The answer is clear. The BCS did not do its job. Plain and simple. UM moved ahead of Florida after Auburn beat the Gators. UM stayed ahead of Florida after they lost to OSU. So it's the Arkansas game that convinced voters? Give me a freaking break...

 

Of course the USC loss matters neither Michigan or Florida would have an arguement if USC hadn't lost.

 

Why do you not count Florida's game against Arkansas? That was a top opponent while Michigan was at the house with one less game to play. Of course the Arkansas game matters.

Of course the USC loss matters neither Michigan or Florida would have an arguement if USC hadn't lost.

 

Why do you not count Florida's game against Arkansas? That was a top opponent while Michigan was at the house with one less game to play. Of course the Arkansas game matters.

I watched every second of the UF/Arkansas game. I didn't see anything that made them look better to me. It was a sloppy game with a bunch of mistakes by both sides. If that was enough to convince voters, the system is more broken than I thought. If they want to take teams that don't win their conference out of the mix, put it in the rules. Plain and simple...

When I get a full list of how the vote changed, I'll show you...

So the they were able to fix it this year by letting FL jump UM...but werent able to fix it with Auburn...humm:rolleyes:

I am by NO MEANS a Florida fan. But I just want someone to answere me this...Everybody keeps saying that UM should have been in the NC...WHY? What exactly makes everyone think that UM is better than UF? Simple question...facts would be preferred.

I am by NO MEANS a Florida fan. But I just want someone to answere me this...Everybody keeps saying that UM should have been in the NC...WHY? What exactly makes everyone think that UM is better than UF? Simple question...facts would be preferred.

Both teams have compelling arguments. UM has #3 SOS, UF #1. Both play in good conferences. Both have quality wins against ranked opponents, with UF having 1 more by virtue of the championship game in the SEC. UM has 1 loss to the #1 team in the nation, UF has 1 loss to the #9 team in the nation. Both on the road. Why I think UM should be in? They had been ahead of UF all year in the polls, and somehow, with a win against Ark. UF leapfrogged them. I don't think that happens if USC wins.

Why I think UM should be in? They had been ahead of UF all year in the polls

 

All this crying and THATS the best you can come up with. So it has nothing at all to do with on the field performance, SOS, OOC scheduling, or anything as petty as that.

 

UM deserves a SECOND shot at the NC game because they started out ranked higher. Fantastic!

 

Why even play the games. Lets just take the preseason polls and let #1 play #2 for the title. No need to waste all that money flying teams around to actually play each other!

The question is, if USC would have won, would Michigan be ranked ahead of Florida? I think yes.

The question is, if USC would have won, would Michigan be ranked ahead of Florida? I think yes.

 

No.. the question is who has proven themselves to be the better team.

No.. the question is who has proven themselves to be the better team.

 

:rolleyes:

 

Even though you avoided mine, I'll answer yours: Michigan.

I believe this is right on the money. Good article I would have to agree with him.

:rolleyes:

 

Even though you avoided mine, I'll answer yours: Michigan.

 

 

OK.. my answer to you? I did not think UF was the second best team before they played Arkansas. I thought Arkansas would win judging by both teams performance against Tennessee. Seeing that they beat Arkansas, it honestly changed my opinion. Keep in mind that I'm a UT and UK fan (yeah yeah, SEC homer blah blah), so I have NO love for UF and it would kill me to see them with BOTH the basketball AND football titles.

 

 

I give Michigan an edge for losing to OSU, but Michigan was +3 in TOs in that game, while UF was -2 in their loss. To me that says that Michigan lost a game they played their best in (and OSU didn't), while Florida lost a game they didn't play to their potential.

 

So I give UM a slight advantage on the loss, but I give Florida a much bigger advantage over the rest of the season. They played an undoubtedly tougher schedule and came out with the same record as Michigan.

 

So to me, an SEC champion Florida is a more legit #2 than a Big 10 runner up Michigan.

 

 

I certainly agree that a case can be made for Michigan, but a stronger case was made for Auburn a few years ago. And remember, Auburn plays in the Puppet-Master-of-the-BCS SEC and still didn't get the nod.

If you honestly think the win over Arkansas was enough to push them past Michigan then I can't respond here, because I simply don't agree.

 

I would be willing to bet that if USC won against UCLA, there is no way Florida jumps Michigan.

 

I firmly believe that it is a matter of avoiding the rematch. Which I actually don't have any problem with because I'm not a Michigan fan, I think people need to quit fooling themselves and just admit that it was the reason Michigan was jumped in the polls. They had their shot and didn't win, no rematch.--That's fine, but it should just be made a rule, like GT offered. Because if you are still saying it's for the #1 vs. #2 regardless then I think Michigan was wronged. However, with a rule saying no rematches for the title, then they would be justified. IMO

If you honestly think the win over Arkansas was enough to push them past Michigan then I can't respond here, because I simply don't agree.

 

I would be willing to bet that if USC won against UCLA, there is no way Florida jumps Michigan.

 

I firmly believe that it is a matter of avoiding the rematch. Which I actually don't have any problem with because I'm not a Michigan fan, I think people need to quit fooling themselves and just admit that it was the reason Michigan was jumped in the polls. They had their shot and didn't win, no rematch.--That's fine, but it should just be made a rule, like GT offered. Because if you are still saying it's for the #1 vs. #2 regardless then I think Michigan was wronged. However, with a rule saying no rematches for the title, then they would be justified. IMO

They have made it VERY clear it's an unwritten rule. Why else would EVERY voter that had USC at #2 and UM at #3 the week before put Florida over Michigan? Just put it on the books, and get along with it...