Writers want a rematch, Coaches do not.

You looking in the mirror again?

Yeah, I'm sure the guy who is in the "Schembechler wasn't THAT great" camp is a Michigan fan.

Putz.

 

Hey, newbie rube, fetch everyone a beer and shut the fuck up.

 

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

Again, logic that paves the way for a loss to an inferior team to be not as damaging as a 3-point defeat at the home of the top team in the nation.

I love the heights of dumbfuckery this board is capable of.

 

Rematches almost always disappoint, especially when the first game/bout/whatever is as outstanding as was Ohio St.-Michigan. That's the point Fox is aware of above all else. Also, the person who said the rematch would penalize Ohio St. for winning made a valid observation.
Assume USC runs table. Their record of quality wins would include smoking Arkansas, beating Cal, Nebraska, and Notre Dame. Balance that against one bad upset loss. Now we have Michigan, which has quality wins that amount to smoking ND on the road and beating Wisconsin. Balance that against a high-quality road loss to OSU.
That's CLOSE ENOUGH to a wash to make SC the preferred choice for the championship game to avoid the rematch.

 

So, how do you account for Notre Dame in this equation? Are they permanemntly eliminated for the sin of not having a conference to win? Or do they get the advantage of not being eliminated in such a case. And yes, a rule that can eliminate other teams from contention but could never apply to the Golden Domers is an advantage for Notre Dame, no matter how small.

 

I hate this freakin' cockeyed popularity contest of a system.

It's about as good as figure skating or gymnastics judges crowning a "champion."

At minimum, they should play the four BCS bowl games and then take the top two ranked teams after than in the championship game a week later. Hell, they are spreading it out anyway, might as well let eight of the best teams play (well, with the BCS, maybe five or six of the best teams) and see what dust settles.

But we really should have a 16-team playoff. There is a lot more parity in college football than people are willing to acknowledge.

Other than Ohio State, Michigan and Wisconsin the Big Ten is mediocre or worse. But a Big Ten team gets credit for beating other Big Ten teams. Yet a Big East school beats Illinois or Indiana or Michigan State and people turn their noses up.

So those teams are good when Ohio State or Michigan play them but they are crap when out-of-conference teams play them?

Screw the bowls. A playoff not only would be a better way to crown a champ, it would force teams to play better schedules to make the playoffs.

 

You know what would have solved everything? If Michigan had forfeited. If they said "we can't play, we're too broken up over Bo dying" and never taken the field, then they'd still have their one loss, but we wouldn't be discounting them for the title game. Best thing they could have done was not played Ohio State in the regular season at all.

 

A playoff would need to include 16 teams to have a minimum of fairness in the selection process. There are many fewer schools in Div I-AA, and that's how many are in its playoff.
Everyone wants a playoff. My mind boggles at how much money it'd haul away for everyone involved. Sooner or later, visionary greed will win out over short-sighted greed, and we'll get one.
That's why I was encouraged when Fox got the BCS. Mr. Murdoch is good at visionary greed.

 

Wow! That is pure brilliance!

We should have Professor Sherman set the Way-Back Machine to last week and then cause that to happen. I bet you'll win a Nobel Prize for Football on that idea alone!

 

Yeah, and I bet if I had a time machine and a coat hanger and gotten to your mom in time, I might have gotten a Nobel Peace Prize.

 

Michael, while you are on the right track, I think 16 is too many. Which 3-loss teams would you include? I'm not so sure that many of the 2-loss teams are deserving.

A great way to speed up a playoff is to offer the winner of USC v. Notre Dame to the BCS Championship... if Notre Dame wins, they lose by 4 or 5 touchdowns and everyone is happy because everyone loves to see the Domers lose. This would also be an impetus for a playoff because everyone will scream that Notre Dame doesn't belong there.

Of course, if USC beats ND, this throws a wrench into this Nobel Prize for Football idea.

 

Judging the one-loss teams on the basis of how "good" their losses are is past ludicrous. If everything else is equal, I can see using it as a tiebreaking factor. But to make it the chief criteria is like picking a Miss America based on who has the cutest scar from their breast implants.