Rematch?

[Eaglesfan27]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

Why did the best team lose to Oregon State?

I'm not sure about the difference between online folks and reality. I'd like to think I'm the same both places. Maybe it's easier to get mad at people online. A lot of what you said about your friends fits me, except for the part about a rematch not being as close. Sure, OSU made mistakes, but Michigan did as well. I think you never know how a game like that will turn out.

USC had 24 guys out with injuries for that game. They were on their 5th string FB. Key players were out for the stretch where they played poorly. They are getting healthier now (despite losing Moody to an injury)and will continue to show that they are a very good team.

[Eaglesfan27]

Dola -

I'd like to see any other team survive the number of injuries USC has had this season and have such a good record. I haven't seen it happen this year at least.

[Bobble]

Originally Posted by Leonidas

We don't know for certain Michigan is the second best team. We do know for certain they aren't the best team as they lost their one chance to prove that. So why should a team that has just proven it isn't the best team be given another chance to win the title? And why should Ohio State have to beat Michigan twice to win the title while Michigan would only need to do it once with a rematch?

Bingo.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by Eaglesfan27

Dola -

I'd like to see any other team survive the number of injuries USC has had this season and have such a good record. I haven't seen it happen this year at least.

Hrm, perhaps this shows us not that USC is such a great team themselves but that they play in a vastly overrated conference? I hear chants of "The Big-Ten sucks" all over the place, but there are 3 big ten teams in teh top 10 and 2 of them are the best two teams in the nation top to bottom.

Seems to me a team so utterly decimated by injuries that pulls out that many wins might not be playing against top calibur opponents. I'm just sayin.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by RendeR

Hrm, perhaps this shows us not that USC is such a great team themselves but that they play in a vastly overrated conference? I hear chants of "The Big-Ten sucks" all over the place, but there are 3 big ten teams in teh top 10 and 2 of them are the best two teams in the nation top to bottom.

Seems to me a team so utterly decimated by injuries that pulls out that many wins might not be playing against top calibur opponents. I'm just sayin.

You are in a class with VPI when it comes to illuminating football conversation.

[heybrad]

Originally Posted by RendeR

Hrm, perhaps this shows us not that USC is such a great team themselves but that they play in a vastly overrated conference? I hear chants of "The Big-Ten sucks" all over the place, but there are 3 big ten teams in teh top 10 and 2 of them are the best two teams in the nation top to bottom.

Seems to me a team so utterly decimated by injuries that pulls out that many wins might not be playing against top calibur opponents. I'm just sayin.

OK, so we won't know until they play, right? Michigan had that chance in their own conference. I'll buy your argument if you're making it for Florida or Arkansas, but not Michigan.

[Leonidas]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

Why did the best team lose to Oregon State?

And if you wanna use this line of reasoning then the only logical opponent for OSU would be Boise State as the only other team yet to lose to anybody.

[Ufer]

Originally Posted by Leonidas

We don't know for certain Michigan is the second best team. We do know for certain they aren't the best team as they lost their one chance to prove that. So why should a team that has just proven it isn't the best team be given another chance to win the title? And why should Ohio State have to beat Michigan twice to win the title while Michigan would only need to do it once with a rematch?

As for USC, while we know Michigan isn't the best team (since they blew that chance) we have no idea if USC is the best team or not. Assuming they win out, they should get the game as they have not played OSU yet.

And I'm finding a wierd phenomenon in all this. Online it seems all the UM folks are rationalizing or in flat out denial. Meanwhile all my friends and coworkers who are UM guys have told me they lost fair and square, were proud UM played so well, and didn't think a rematch would be as close since OSU made so many mistakes and still won the game. I wonder why so many UM folks online can't let this go while everyone I know in person has been extremely gracious about it.

Imo, this and other arguments I read here are valid arguments why USC should go. "Michigan's defense isn't that good, so they're not really the second best team" "The game was never really in doubt" "Chad Henne sucks". Like I said, if USC wins out and goes, I'm not too upset. But I'll go back to my first point, that to say Michigan is the second best team, but let's pick someone else because [insert your favorite theory here], is dishonest and subverts the whole purpose of the BCS.

And I think my comments about the game were pretty gracious. I do think OSU is the better team and the best team in college football, though I think if they played 10 times, Michigan would win 3 or 4 out of 10. But Michigan was not "lucky" to get back into the game. If not for the personal foul, which was 100% the right call, OSU fans would've been saying "I can't believe we might lose." As often happens when one team, especially the inferior team, falls behind, they take chances and increase the pressure which can result in the other team making big plays (like Pittman's long TD) but also turnovers and mistakes.

I also thought the old sloppy Bowl system was fine. It's a bunch of college kids playing a game.

[Eaglesfan27]

Originally Posted by RendeR

Hrm, perhaps this shows us not that USC is such a great team themselves but that they play in a vastly overrated conference? I hear chants of "The Big-Ten sucks" all over the place, but there are 3 big ten teams in teh top 10 and 2 of them are the best two teams in the nation top to bottom.

Seems to me a team so utterly decimated by injuries that pulls out that many wins might not be playing against top calibur opponents. I'm just sayin.

Or it shows that USC is such a great program in the last 5 or so years that they attract amazing athletes to provide as much as depth as possible with the limited number of scholarships, but that those amazing athletes take time to develop and get experience. Hence, some close games, and an unfortunate loss to Oregon State in which USC almost pulled off an amazing comeback. Cal has a top 5 CB in the country and a very good team, yet USC pulled away in the second half. As those young players have gotten experience and their older players have come back from injuries, the team has improved. If USC shreds ND's defense which I expect they will and they beat UCLA, there is no valid reason they shouldn't go to the Title Game.

[Butter]

Thought experiment type question:

What if USC were unbeaten right now, and then went on to lose to UCLA. Would they drop behind Michigan in the standings, assuming Michigan would've been #3 rather than #2 after their loss to OSU? That would be a loss about equal to Oregon State in "badness".

[Vinatieri for Prez]

My 2c. Michigan has beaten nobody really. They had their shot. Big 10 is overrated most years, including this one, by the media/polls. Calling two long runs on Michigan flukes is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. Yes, I would rather see Boise State than a rematch.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by Vinatieri for Prez

My 2c. Michigan has beaten nobody really. They had their shot. Big 10 is overrated most years, including this one, by the media/polls. Calling two long runs on Michigan flukes is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. Yes, I would rather see Boise State than a rematch.

To be fair, I don't think anyone called the two long runs flukes until it was said that the three turnovers were flukes.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by RendeR

Hrm, perhaps this shows us not that USC is such a great team themselves but that they play in a vastly overrated conference? I hear chants of "The Big-Ten sucks" all over the place, but there are 3 big ten teams in teh top 10 and 2 of them are the best two teams in the nation top to bottom.

That's because, in the Pac-10, everyone plays everyone. Plus, teams in the Pac-10 actually have a real non-conference schedule. USC plays everybody, Cal played Tennessee, Oregon played OK, OSU played Boise, Arizona played LSU, ...

So, I guess if a team like Cal scheduled Bowling Green, Buffalo, Western IL and SDSU in non-conference and were fortunate enough not to have to play USC (a la Wisconsin), they would probably be in the top 10 now as well. Of course, it wouldn't make them a better team.

Seems to me a team so utterly decimated by injuries that pulls out that many wins might not be playing against top calibur opponents. I'm just sayin.

The top 4 teams in the Pac-10 played (or will play) 7 nationally ranked non-conference teams. The top 4 in the Big 10 played 3. It could just be that the entire Big 10 is crud outside of Michigan and OSU and we just don't know because they didn't play anyone.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by Arles

The top 4 teams in the Pac-10 played (or will play) 7 nationally ranked non-conference teams. The top 4 in the Big 10 played 3. It could just be that the entire Big 10 is crud outside of Michigan and OSU and we just don't know because they didn't play anyone.

It could also be that the Big-Ten is of a higher calibur all around, save perhaps Illinois. Every other team had at least 4 wins. The top 5 teams had at least 8 wins. Interestingly enough if you look at a very good PSU squad, their 4 losses can againt MU, OSU, UW, and ND, not a disparaging season to have losses to top teir teams and only 1 of those was a blowout loss (ND, who in turn got destroyed by UM)

Minnesota Is another case, 6-6 doesn't look great, but then you see their losses: OSU, MU, UW, PSU, Perdue, and Cal and I'm hard pressed to consider that weak in any way.

I Won't argue Wisconsin, they played a weak ass schedule, and that is one knock in the whole overall argument I'm trying to make, if Wisconsin plays someone tough, do they play well or get boned? They were handled fairly easily by MU but it wasn't a blowout so I can't say losing to the second best team in the nation is too big a downer. Purdue with 8 wins played a solid schedule as well with one major hiccup in their loss to Iowa.

7 teams going to bowls out of 11 total also stamps the conference as solid quality wise. Is it the Big-Ten's fault that they play one another and ruin records accordingly?

[astrosfan64]

Originally Posted by Arles

That's because, in the Pac-10, everyone plays everyone. Plus, teams in the Pac-10 actually have a real non-conference schedule. USC plays everybody, Cal played Tennessee, Oregon played OK, OSU played Boise, Arizona played LSU, ...

So, I guess if a team like Cal scheduled Bowling Green, Buffalo, Western IL and SDSU in non-conference and were fortunate enough not to have to play USC (a la Wisconsin), they would probably be in the top 10 now as well. Of course, it wouldn't make them a better team.


The top 4 teams in the Pac-10 played (or will play) 7 nationally ranked non-conference teams. The top 4 in the Big 10 played 3. It could just be that the entire Big 10 is crud outside of Michigan and OSU and we just don't know because they didn't play anyone.

While your point has some merrit, it is also bit overblown.

Cal played 1 good out of conference team. Tennesee, which at the time wasn't considered the best SEC team.

USC played Arkansas which at the time was definately not considered a top SEC team.

Oregon playing Oklahoma is legitimate.

OSU played Boise umm.... non BCS teams now are considerded top games?

Arizona playing LSU is legitimate.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now lets look at the other conferences.

Big 10
Ohio State played Texas
Penn State played ND
Michigan played ND
Purdue played ND

SEC
The worst of the bunch --
Tenn played CAL
Arkansas played USC
LSU vs Arizona is a bit weak for LSU

The rest was garbage

Every conference is pretty much like the above pattern. You have a few teams that play a good team from another conference. Other then that, they schedule mid majors or bad teams from good conferences.

-------------------------------------------------------------

SEC is the most overrated.
Big East is most underrated.

Big 10 and PAC 10 are probably the two "best" conferences right now, with the Big East and Big 12 following right behind them.

[Eaglesfan27]

Originally Posted by astrosfan64

Cal played 1 good out of conference team. Tennesee, which at the time wasn't considered the best SEC team.

USC played Arkansas which at the time was definately not considered a top SEC team.

What they were considered is irrelevant. How good they turned out to be is what is important. Pre-season and early season rankings are meaningless. Arkansas has proven it is a good team by beating everyone else. USC's win over them is not diminished in any way by people not realized that Arkansas was talented.

Ditto for Cal and Tennessee to a lesser extent.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by RendeR

It could also be that the Big-Ten is of a higher calibur all around, save perhaps Illinois. Every other team had at least 4 wins. The top 5 teams had at least 8 wins. Interestingly enough if you look at a very good PSU squad, their 4 losses can againt MU, OSU, UW, and ND, not a disparaging season to have losses to top teir teams and only 1 of those was a blowout loss (ND, who in turn got destroyed by UM)

There are two ways to look at this - the Big 10 was a very good conference top to bottom. Or the Big 10 had two very good teams and a bunch of ave to below average teams. And, the problem I have is that there's really no way of telling which is true. Outside of Ohio State (texas, michigan) and michigan (Wisconsin, ND), there isn't a top 25 win in the conference.

So, out of 11 teams, that's 4 total top 25 wins by 2 teams (only 2 non conf). Look at the Pac 10, you have 4 teams combining for 7 top 25 wins (4 non conf). And you have two winnable remaining games against top 25 teams (OSU v Hawaii and USC v ND). The crazy thing is that even with all these extra nonconference wins, the pac-10 played fewer nonconference games than the big 10 (Pac-10 had 9 conf games per team, Big 10 had 8).

Minnesota Is another case, 6-6 doesn't look great, but then you see their losses: OSU, MU, UW, PSU, Perdue, and Cal and I'm hard pressed to consider that weak in any way.

Look at UCLA and Arizona. UCLA has 5 losses against Notre Dame, Oregon, Washington State, Wash and Cal (and a game against USC coming up). Arizona has 5 losses against LSU, USC, Wash, UCLA and Oregon State.

The one thing you will notice is that most average and above Pac-10 teams normally have one good outside of the conference loss and even one decent OOC win against a different noconf team - Arizona (W-BYU, L-LSU), Cal (W-Min, L-Ten), UCLA (W-Utah, L-ND), WSU (L-Auburn), OSU (W-Haw?, L-BSU). Had those teams played a scedule like Wisconsin, Iowa, Indiana or even Penn State (Akron, Youngstown, Temple, ND), they could each be in the 7-10 win range instead of the 6-9 they figure to end up now.

I Won't argue Wisconsin, they played a weak ass schedule, and that is one knock in the whole overall argument I'm trying to make, if Wisconsin plays someone tough, do they play well or get boned? They were handled fairly easily by MU but it wasn't a blowout so I can't say losing to the second best team in the nation is too big a downer. Purdue with 8 wins played a solid schedule as well with one major hiccup in their loss to Iowa.

Purdue and Wisconsin have a total of 19 wins - zero are against top 25 teams. Heck, out of their combined 24 games, only 3 were against the top 25 (0-3). Against the top 30, they are 1-4 (the lone win being Wisconsin's win over Penn State). Plus, neither team even played the best team in their conference (Ohio State). They are both the best examples of "paper bowl teams" in the country. Each time these teams played a team with a pulse, they got beat. Thankfully, for them, those games were few and far between.

7 teams going to bowls out of 11 total also stamps the conference as solid quality wise. Is it the Big-Ten's fault that they play one another and ruin records accordingly?

Right now the Pac-10 figures to get either 6 or 7 as well (with one fewer team). And that's with their conference playing a much tougher non-conference road and with every conference team facing both USC and Cal (unlike the BYEs some Big 10 teams got against OSU and Michigan).

[MJ4H]

Doesn't the SEC have 9 bowl eligible teams? I'd have to check on that but it seems like I read that the other day.

edit: yes vandy, ole miss, and miss. state are the only ones with less than 6 wins.

[astrosfan64]

Originally Posted by Eaglesfan27

What they were considered is irrelevant. How good they turned out to be is what is important. Pre-season and early season rankings are meaningless. Arkansas has proven it is a good team by beating everyone else. USC's win over them is not diminished in any way by people not realized that Arkansas was talented.

Ditto for Cal and Tennessee to a lesser extent.

Eaglesfan:

It depends on the agrument.

If you make the argument that this conference didn't schedule anyone good, but this conference did schedule top opponents it matters who you "thought" you were scheduling.

Example: I'm USC, by choosing Arkansas as an opponent I'm NOT taking a top 10 to 20 team. I'm thinking, I'm getting a midlevel BCS team, that has ocassional really good seasons.

But now that Win is against a top 10 team and it gives the appearence that you went out of your way to schedule a tough opponenet.

Example 2: at the beginning of the season Ohio State vs Texas a bigger out of conference game then Arkansas vs USC?

I believe that "voters" punish teams that didn't schedule tough opponents out of conference. If that is a case, then they need to think about how "good" the team was supposed to be when they scheduled those games.

[Joe]

Originally Posted by RendeR

Minnesota Is another case, 6-6 doesn't look great, but then you see their losses: OSU, MU, UW, PSU, Perdue, and Cal and I'm hard pressed to consider that weak in any way.

Minnesota sucks. Half of their wins came against Kent State, Temple, and North Dakota State. In 4 games against top 25 teams, they were outscored 162-43.

[Eaglesfan27]

Originally Posted by astrosfan64

Eaglesfan:

It depends on the agrument.

If you make the argument that this conference didn't schedule anyone good, but this conference did schedule top opponents it matters who you "thought" you were scheduling.

Example: I'm USC, by choosing Arkansas as an opponent I'm NOT taking a top 10 to 20 team. I'm thinking, I'm getting a midlevel BCS team, that has ocassional really good seasons.

But now that Win is against a top 10 team and it gives the appearence that you went out of your way to schedule a tough opponenet.

Example 2: at the beginning of the season Ohio State vs Texas a bigger out of conference game then Arkansas vs USC?

I believe that "voters" punish teams that didn't schedule tough opponents out of conference. If that is a case, then they need to think about how "good" the team was supposed to be when they scheduled those games.

Arkansas has shown signs that they were going to improve (granted not this much improvement) for a few years. Therefore, you can't make the inference of what USC thought they were getting when they scheduled them. The fact of the matter is they crushed Arkansas and that is Arkansas' only loss and they have beat some very good teams. Therefore, that has to help one's view of USC.

[timmynausea]

I do give USC some credit for beating Arkansas, but the Hogs have come a long way since then, too. I think it's valid to say that a week 1 win over Arkansas is not equal to beating them at this point in the season.

Sometimes a young football team doesn't come together until a few games in. I remember a few years ago West Virginia got beat by Maryland 34-7 early in the year, and things couldn't have looked worse. By a month or so later, WVU had completely turned it around and destroyed #3 Virginia Tech 28-7.

Maybe it isn't quite that extreme with Arkansas, but I think it's clear that they are currently a much better team than the one USC faced a couple months ago.

[k0ruptr]

I just can't see USC who lost to Oregon St. who lost to a WAC(most likely 2 WAC teams) deserving to play in the BCS championship. If Florida wins the SEC championship, they deserve it before USC.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by k0ruptr

I just can't see USC who lost to Oregon St. who lost to a WAC(most likely 2 WAC teams) deserving to play in the BCS championship. If Florida wins the SEC championship, they deserve it before USC.

USC lose by two points on the road with 24 players on the injured list (including 7 starters that didn't play - two of whom were impact offensive players).

You can use your logic and state "I refuse to believe a national championship contender to be one that had a non-conference schedule full of directional schools". While USC was preparing for their late season non-conference match against Notre Dame, Florida was facing off against 2-9 Western Carolina of the powerhouse Southern conference.

When a team like USC plays all 12 games against BCS conference foes, 10 of which of Bowl eligible (4 in the top 25), chances are they will lose a tough game on the road against one of these teams. Maybe if they would have scheduled some powder puff directional schools as "pseudo-BYE" weeks, they could have rested some players and avoid some of their injuries. But, while Florida was coasting against such stalwarts as Southern Miss, Central Florida and the aforementioned Catamounts, USC was/will be battling top 25 foes Arkansas, Nebraska and Notre Dame.

But, if all this is too subjective, there are some analytical ways to look at it:

1. SOS: USC is #3, Florida #36
2. Top win: USC is #5, Florida is #9
3. Top 25 wins: USC has 3, Florida has 2
4. Top 25 non-conf wins: USC has 2, Florida has 0
5. Record vs. top 30: USC is 5-1, Florida is 2-1

Heck, despite playing a tougher schedule, USC even has a greater margin of victory (16.9) than Florida (16.6). Just about anyway you slice it, USC has had a better season when you look at the numbers.

[k0ruptr]

I guess (can't believe I'm saying this) but I'll be rooting for Notre Dame against USC then.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by k0ruptr

I guess (can't believe I'm saying this) but I'll be rooting for Notre Dame against USC then.

Heck, if ND beats USC, I'll hop right on the Florida bandwagon as I think they are the 2nd most deserving of a title shot. But, I don't see that happening.

[astrosfan64]

Originally Posted by Arles

Heck, if ND beats USC, I'll hop right on the Florida bandwagon as I think they are the 2nd most deserving of a title shot. But, I don't see that happening.

I think WV is more deserving then all of them. They lost 1 game to the number 5 rated team....because of 2 fluke fumbles when a guys arm went numb.

WV deserves a title shot.

[st.cronin]

How in God's name did Minnesota win 6 games this year? The times I saw them play they looked like the worst team in the country.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Oh, that answer's easy. 3 powder puff non-conference games and 3 against crappy Big 10 teams. This is standard fare for Big 10 teams. It's actually almost impossible not to win 5-6 games a season as a Big 10 team, no matter how lousy you are.

[Atocep]

This would be the perfect year to have the old computer ratings with margin of victory factored in instead of the toned down computer rankings we have now. There's too many teams that have some claim to the being #2 and its an endless circle of arguements as to which team is more deserving. Media and fans will always push for their team or a team from their conference if given the opportunity and this year is a great example.

In short, give me the top 2 computer rated teams with margin of victory factored in. Its the only way to come even remotely close to removing personal biases from the equation.

One thing that is especially funny about the OSU-Michigan game is they play a 42-39 game and its a classic. WVU-Lousiville play a high scoring game and its proof that the Big East shouldn't be taken seriously as a conference.