Writers want a rematch, Coaches do not.

To decide whether somebody has beaten a somebody, doesn't somebody first have to declare somebody a somebody? How do we know you are a somebody without somebody to compare it to?

What if that somebody isn't as big a somebody as you think, because almost always there's a nobody that you can find that beat a somebody who beat a somebody who beat a somebody.

(My head just imploded.)

 

There is no way in fucking hell this ends well.

 

Or maybe they just got better? Or underachieved last year?
Players' value changes over time, especially at the college level when they are still developing.
To take a wierd example, take Michigan safety Ryan Mundy. This kid was one of the top 10 defensive backs in the country out of high school, good enough to play quite a bit as a sophomore.
Then he stopped getting better and by Saturday it ended up being a costly loss for Michigan when an injury forced him into the lineup. He got out of position on at least one Ohio State touchdown.

 

When all else fails, throw out the "you just hate my team/my conference" Hail Mary.

Frankly, to hate a team one has to actually give a shit about them.

I just laugh when I see these absolute statements like "nobody else is as close in talent" and "OSU would beat everybody else by three scores."

"Michigan has the nation's best defense" was another absolute I heard about, oh, three days ago.

 

Because you addressed road games, not the opponent in those road games. You should be more specific in your arguments.

You're right, Michigan beat five teams with losing records and two with .500 records, which leaves Notre Dame, Wisconsin, Penn State ... and Central Michigan. Impressive.

I would rather let the teams play. We will find out soon enough.

 

Actually, bringing up the Steelers winning the title probably won't help your cause much with a few people on this board...

 

Yes, but this "system" isn't in place to determine the best I-A college football team.

It's in place to keep the "haves" from having to split money with the "have-nots" and to keep the bowl games in place.

 

Fixed your post.

 

Thanks. But I don't think it's cynical at all -- merely accurate.

 

My point is, the powers-that-be did not set out to find the best -- or even a reasonable -- way to determine the best college football team in the country.

They set out to find a way to appease the grumbling fans and media while and give lip service to creating a "champion" while not only keeping their share of the power and money (as opposed to sharing equally with all I-A schools) but increasing it.

And we still buy it and discuss it like it's legit.

Pretty brazen and brilliant for all that.

OK, that was a little cynical.

 

Did we all watch the same game Saturday? The game I watched was close because Ohio State handed Michigan the ball three times, including botched snaps cuz the center had a cast, which has happened all of zero times in history. Michigan gave up huge plays all day. It was an embarrassing effort, frankly, and I haven't the foggiest idea why that would earn Michigan a rematch. Then again…look at the other teams.

Hey - it has be obvious we're in a year in which a playoff would actually do some good. There are 8-10 teams right around each other, and we're peddling a myth to pretend Michigan and Ohio State were somehow better than the rest. The bowl games always tell a good story, and it would be instructive to pit these two teams against teams outside their conference. To let them play again would be a total sham.

 

Someone was arguing about teams getting better, so I was just looking at Oregon State's schedule and it sure seems to me that they are improving.
After a none than stellar start the Beavers have won 5 of 6 and are sitting third in the PAC-10 with one game left - against Oregon in the Civil War. So, it is not like they are exactly a piece of shit team like Stanford or something.
Also, I find it amusing that people think USC doesn't have the talent Ohio State does and that they would get beat by three scores. Also, all the dick-sucking over Tressel is funny because Pete Carroll has been the best college coach in the land the last four years.
USC's defense is better than Michigan's and would not give up 42 points to the Buckeyes and that is that.