Do you think all of the conferences will have them before long?

I'm pretty sure that the Big 10/11 has said no about a dozen times, and I'm pretty sure they'll continue to say no. Some things aren't all about money for everyone. Amazing that 2 of the most storied conferences, the Big 10 and Pac 10 don't have a championship game.

Do you think all of the conferences will have them before long?

No, you have to be at least a 12 team conference to have them. It's the only reason the ACC came back and took BC. The BE isn't going to be a 12 team conference, and I don't see the Pac-10 or Big 11 moving up any time soon.

And that's my only beef on this. Add a Conference Champ clause, and I'm good. Without it, I have a hard time buying they bag of crap they lit on :fire: on my front step tonight...

You know me, I have a lot more beef than that with this. :lol: But that's the gist of it. Give us the rules, we play by the rules, and then you change the rules? The good part about this is that neither the Big 10 or the University of Michigan will take this lying down. Ultimately, it may take a slight of a program of this magnitude to get the ball rolling towards a playoff system.

No, you have to be at least a 12 team conference to have them. It's the only reason the ACC came back and took BC. The BE isn't going to be a 12 team conference, and I don't see the Pac-10 or Big 11 moving up any time soon.

 

 

I think the same thing but was just asking.

In my opinion the voters thought this: No matter who was picked, UM or UF, someone was getting shafted. The worst case scenario is that UM loses to O$U again and UF beats USC, thats just like the last time with Auburn and they don't want that to happen. UM had their shot at O$U. If UF plays O$U and loses and Michigan wins, its still a contraversy, but less so since they already played once. I guess they picked the least of the two contraversies.

So you're in the minority if my math is correct

 

So then by this theory...

 

And nobody other than UM/Big11 homers want to see a rematch.

 

.....There are a whole lot more Big 11/UM "homers" worldwide than we ever imagined, right?

Florida's opponents have the highest winning % in the nation.

 

They've lost 1 game all year long (just like Michigan & USC, among others.)

 

Their 1 loss was to Auburn, who I believe was #2 at the time.

 

Pretty difficult to argue with, if you ask me.

Quick question, for everyone saying the BCS failed because it didn't put the two best teams in the Championship. How do you know for sure UM is definitely one of the top 2 teams in the country. I mean if you look at it on paper UF definitely deserves to go in over UM. I mean yeah UM whooped my ND team, but so did USC. I know ND is in a BCS bowl, but they have lost two games by over 20, so I not sure they should be in a BCS bowl, and I am a ND fan saying that. Im not going to complain because Im glad to see my team in a BCS bowl stilll. But anyways that win over ND doesn't look as impressive now since another team drilled them too. So the only other good win they had this year was over Wisconsin, whos ranking is pretty misleading because if they played OSU they would have got drilled and not have been ranked as high as they are. So the only game they have all year to hang their hats on is a close game to OSU, where for the most part they were losing all game long.

 

So I dont see where anyone can say that UM is DEFINITELY the second best team in the country, and that the BCS got it wrong...

 

I know the matchup I am looking forward to seeing the most is the UM vs. USC game. And it wont be till after these two games to decide if the BCS got it wrong or not, because we got to wait and see how UF does against UM and how UM does against another actual good opponent. But right now there is nothing to show that UM is DEFINITELY the second best team in the country and should be in the title game...

Florida's opponents have the highest winning % in the nation.

 

They've lost 1 game all year long (just like Michigan & USC, among others.)

 

Their 1 loss was to Auburn, who I believe was #2 at the time.

 

Pretty difficult to argue with, if you ask me.

Michigan's opponents have the 3rd highest winning% in the country.

 

They also lost one game

 

Their 1 loss was to Ohio St., who was, and still is #1, and it was in Columbus.

 

So you are 2 spots better in SOS and were 1 spot better(at the time), and 11 spots better in the end. I'd say the resume's are pretty close.

So I dont see where anyone can say that UM is DEFINITELY the second best team in the country, and that the BCS got it wrong...

 

I know the matchup I am looking forward to seeing the most is the UM vs. USC game. And it wont be till after these two games to decide if the BCS got it wrong or not, because we got to wait and see how UF does against UM and how UM does against another actual good opponent. But right now there is nothing to show that UM is DEFINITELY the second best team in the country and should be in the title game...

I'll answer a question with a simple question. At what point this season did UM pass UF in the polls? If these coaches thought Florida was better, why not vote that way two weeks ago? Am I expected to believe it was what I watched Florida do against FSU and Arkansas? I'm not sure how much more clear I can be on this. Florida is NOT better than Michigan because they beat Arkansas. They were voted better because USC lost to UCLA. Give me a no 2nd place clause for the title and I'm good. The system says the plan is to have the two best in the game play for the trophy. If that's the case, why did votes change because USC lost? USC wins, and UM is playing LSU in the Rose for #2. No way around it...

Their 1 loss was to Ohio St., who was, and still is #1, and it was in Columbus.

 

And only by a field goal. :thumb:

I'll answer a question with a simple question. At what point this season did UM pass UF in the polls? If these coaches thought Florida was better, why not vote that way two weeks ago? Am I expected to believe it was what I watched Florida do against FSU and Arkansas? I'm not sure how much more clear I can be on this. Florida is NOT better than Michigan because they beat Arkansas. They were voted better because USC lost to UCLA. Give me a no 2nd place clause for the title and I'm good. The system says the plan is to have the two best in the game play for the trophy. If that's the case, why did votes change because USC lost? USC wins, and UM is playing LSU in the Rose for #2. No way around it...

Check out the Forde article I posted in another thread. He seems to have many of the same problems we have, a good read.

I'll answer a question with a simple question. At what point this season did UM pass UF in the polls? If these coaches thought Florida was better, why not vote that way two weeks ago? Am I expected to believe it was what I watched Florida do against FSU and Arkansas? I'm not sure how much more clear I can be on this. Florida is NOT better than Michigan because they beat Arkansas. They were voted better because USC lost to UCLA. Give me a no 2nd place clause for the title and I'm good. The system says the plan is to have the two best in the game play for the trophy. If that's the case, why did votes change because USC lost? USC wins, and UM is playing LSU in the Rose for #2. No way around it...

 

UM had 1445 points in last weeks coaches poll and they had 1444 points in this one, so for the most part the same people who thought UM was #2 in the country still thought they was #2. And so your right if USC won they would be in the title game and not UF, because they would have considered them the better team that UF. But since they lost it now came down to those voters who ahd USC as #2 to actually decide who they thought was better between UM and UF. Also Im sure probably some of these guys in the polls before this last one did already have UF in front of UM and had UF as three, so after the USC loss they just change their vote on UF from a 3 to a 2. Also in these two weeks these voters got to see UF twice and really got the chance to consider them, I mean yeah they beat a FSU team that is not that good, but it is still a huge rivalry game which rivalry games are hard to win, and you can just ask USC how hard it is. And then they go and win their conference championship with a nice quality win over a good Arkansas team.

 

So at the end of the year, more than during the actual season the voters really get to look at the whole body of work and compare the teams more than any time during the year on who they think is better. So its pretty easy to see how UF now got these votes over UM, because if the voters really compared the two, UF would have a stronger resume than UM. I mean also the computer where UM had been strong at all year, had now UF tied with UM, so it wasn't just the humans. Im also sure your right that their was a few people who voted this way because they didn't want to see a rematch, but I bet alot of them really just after comparing the two teams really think UF is the #2 team over UM.

 

Really after the bowls is over we really will see who should have been the #2 team, because if UF gets killed and UM wins then we will know that the BCS got it wrong. Which would be a shame because this would just be another year the BCS did it wrong, but as of right now I think the BCS got it right, even though I admit a couple of weeks ago I wouldn't have thought this...

UM had 1445 points in last weeks coaches poll and they had 1444 points in this one, so for the most part the same people who thought UM was #2 in the country still thought they was #2. And so your right if USC won they would be in the title game and not UF, because they would have considered them the better team that UF. But since they lost it now came down to those voters who ahd USC as #2 to actually decide who they thought was better between UM and UF. Also Im sure probably some of these guys in the polls before this last one did already have UF in front of UM and had UF as three, so after the USC loss they just change their vote on UF from a 3 to a 2. Also in these two weeks these voters got to see UF twice and really got the chance to consider them, I mean yeah they beat a FSU team that is not that good, but it is still a huge rivalry game which rivalry games are hard to win, and you can just ask USC how hard it is. And then they go and win their conference championship with a nice quality win over a good Arkansas team.

 

So at the end of the year, more than during the actual season the voters really get to look at the whole body of work and compare the teams more than any time during the year on who they think is better. So its pretty easy to see how UF now got these votes over UM, because if the voters really compared the two, UF would have a stronger resume than UM. I mean also the computer where UM had been strong at all year, had now UF tied with UM, so it wasn't just the humans. Im also sure your right that their was a few people who voted this way because they didn't want to see a rematch, but I bet alot of them really just after comparing the two teams really think UF is the #2 team over UM.

 

Really after the bowls is over we really will see who should have been the #2 team, because if UF gets killed and UM wins then we will know that the BCS got it wrong. Which would be a shame because this would just be another year the BCS did it wrong, but as of right now I think the BCS got it right, even though I admit a couple of weeks ago I wouldn't have thought this...

They voted Florida #4 and UM #3. The Arkansas win is the single fact for Florida jumping UM. Call a spade a spade or stop...

Florida gets in because there should be no rematch games for a title. Yet the last Florida title was a rematch for a game they lost the first time???

 

Arizona State was undefeated that year and they had to go to the Rose Bowl to play Ohio State. Florida was ranked like 3 or so going into that game. Ohio State upset Arizona State and Florida was the best team in the nation that wasn't in the Big 10 or Pac 10. Florida State lost to Florida so the Gators jumped some people in with losses in the bowls.

 

Yes it was a rematch but it shouldn't of been. This is basically the reason the BCS was invented. In 1997 when Michigan was undefeated and they had to go to the Rose Bowl and Nebraska was undefeated and could not go to the Rose Bowl and they both went undefeated and were co national champs. The Rose Bowl caused a lot of problems before the BCS.