When USC loses to UCLA, who should face Ohio State: Florida or Michigan?

Coaches and I think the Harris poll have USC ahead, AP doesn't count in the BCS standings. Writers are free to give a title to whomever they want. The jump for USC comes from the computer rankings with USC's SOS improving after playing and beating ND.

If. as expected, the Trojans get the NC bid after a win next week against UCLA and beat Ohio State I think that comfortably jumps them over the Wolverines.

 

USC beat Ohio State, who beat Michigan.

Don't see how it gets any more complicated than that.

If you are trying to determine the best team out of the three, I'd say that's a pretty good indicator.

 

It will leave us with the Trojans having a big crystal football and the Wolverines cursing that their run defense didn't show up when it mattered most.

 

I'm not saying you're wrong (though I think you are), I'm just saying that the system won't agree with you and there won't be a split title.

The only way to somewhat objectively compare two teams who haven't played head-to-head is through common opponents.

You can't bring Oregon State into the argument because Michigan didn't play Oregon State. Who's to say the Wolverines wouldn't have lost to the Beavers?

Because OSU played Michigan in the last game of the season, it is reasonable to figure that the OSU team USC is facing is similar to the one the Wolverines lost to. So if USC beats the same team that Michigan lost to, it's difficult to rationalize how Michigan and USC might split the title.

It's a shame we have to award national titles based on the transitive property. But in this system, it's all we've got.

 

They shouldn't, but the W is the thing here, not the location.

 

Exactly. Again, every one of these conversations is held with the understanding that the system is inherently fucked up. Within the existing parameters, the best argument one can make is USC>Ohio State>Michigan.

EDIT: Especially considering the fact that Ohio State was obviously the best team on the field in that Mich-OSU game, regardless of the final score.

 

Michigan didn't play Oregon State. The common opponents would be Notre Dame, which they both spanked, and Ohio State. I think that holds a lot more weight. If all other things are equal, I can see bringing the best loss into the equation. But in this case USC would have a better record against common opponents.

 

Florida has no business being in a national title game. Even if the Gators do beat UA, they would get run off the field against either USC, Michigan or OSU.

 

How about this, folks: Let's say whoever plays Ohio State beats them. And Boise State stands alone as the only undefeated team in the country. If the Broncos are the only undefeated team in the nation, how can they not be in the champs? I understand that they play in the WAC, but I guarantee no major BCS school has the sack to schedule them, with the exception of Georgia last year. But if BYU could win in 1984, why not Boise State now? Every year, we see why a playoff is needed. This would be another example.

 

Boise State isn't in the running. See Marshall, 1999.

Anyone who truly believes that Boise State deserves consideration for the national title isn't qualified to give an opinion on college football.

Again, it's an imperfect world, and no BCS contender in its right mind would schedule Boise State. But that's the system, and Boise State should be thankful that the BCS committee will be guilted into throwing an at-large bid the Broncos' way.

Those Marshall teams a few years back would dominate this Boise State team in my opinion.

 

Have you even seen them play or are you just blowing shit out of your ass? I saw those Marshall teams. I've seen this BSU team. I think they're even. And how do we know that BSU isn't worthy? Nobody's got the balls to play them. Without a playoff we don't know.

 

BSU's qualified. No way do they drop in the polls tomorrow. The big conferences can kiss the smurf turfers blue asses.