Writers want a rematch, Coaches do not.

And we KNOW that Oregon FUCKING State is better than USC.

 

When I look at those schedules, what gets me is that Michigan played five losing teams and another two that are 6-6. That leaves victories against Notre Dame, Wisconsin, Penn State ... and Central Michigan.

Then I see USC beat the SEC West champ by 36, the Big 12 North champ by 18, Oregon by 25, Cal by 14 and see that they've played exactly two losing teams, and I like USC more than I do Michigan, which already got its chance.

 

Oz, that's an outstanding post.

The jackass that backs Michigan states, "USC was ordinary" during a stretch, yet fails to recall that Testical Tech had the Wolverines on the ropes.

Like Sportsgirl was the first to point out, Michigan couldn't win their own conference. They certainly don't deserve a shot at the National Championship.

All these people who are on their knees with their mouths open in front of Michigan have yet to explain why the following scenario makes sense:
- #2 Michigan must beat #1 Ohio State 1 out of two to be named National Champioin.
- #1 One Ohio State must beat #2 Michigan Twice to be named National Champion

Perhaps being sent back to Logic 101 is in order.

 

Thoughtful reply replaced with the following:

Go fuck yourself, you self-righteous waste of an orgasm. Life's too short to deal with assholes like you.

 

Two points:

1. Look at it from Ohio State's point of view: They prepared for the Michigan game, schemed for it, did everything they could to win THAT GAME. Who knows what kinds of things they incorporated to pierce that so-called Wolverine defense. And now . . . with Michigan allowed to see exactly how OSU did it and given 6 weeks to prepare . . . OSU has to do it AGAIN??????

Not fair by any stretch of the imagination. You Michigan fanboys are so consumed with what's fair to Michigan that you completely dismiss what's fair to Ohio State.

2. "But the two best teams MUST play. WAAAAAAAH!" :'( :'( :'( :'(

No. They. Do. Not.

The 49ers and Cowboys were the NFL's two best teams best throughout the 90s. They played . . . but never played in a Super Bowl. Their yearly matchups were the semifinals, which is what OSU-Michigan was: two teams from a similiar conference meeting to decide who gets to play in the title game.

Florida and Tennessee were the SEC's two best teams for most of the 90s. They played . . . but never played in a SEC Championship game. Instead, UF (or Tennessee) faced the West champion, which usually was the third- or fourth-best team in the conference.

 

Mr. Olson, it's sportschick, not sportsgirl. Thankyouverymuch.

 

I couldn't care less about Michigan, but I do want to see the best game possible. The national title game should involve the two best teams in America, even if it's not the two teams with the best records or longest winning streaks. I'm not saying "fuck the world, give us the rematch NOW", but I'm also not saying "fuck Michigan, their three-point loss means they're no longer title worthy".

So do you advocate splitting I-A into east and west conferences and having the two teams with the best records in them play for the title? If you have one shot at a national title game, you want to get it right. SF-Dallas could never be the Super Bowl because they were both in the NFC. There's no such roadblock here.

 

Before we drink the Kool Aid from Boise State, let's remember they have a tough game coming up at Nevada this weekend, and it's still uncertain how effective Ian Johnson will be, if he even plays at all.

 

Mr. Johnson will play. He was allegedly cleared to play this week (I have a hard time believing that, but that was what the story was).

 

When you can set it up for the best two teams to play, they should.

I just don't think you can eliminate a hellacious controversy for sure unless you put Boise State in there, as pathetic as that idea is.

 

Yeah, Meat....

We're MICHIGAN homers.

LOL

Morons.

 

Illinois hung with the Buckeyes. Do they deserve consideration?