Writers want a rematch, Coaches do not.

[HandsomeHarley]

holy shirt!!! michigan is still no. 2 in the BCS?!?!

It should be. It had a sizeable lead over USC heading in. Michigan wouldn't drop enough in the polls to lose points. But if USC wins its last two it can probably make up that distance in strength of schedule.

What it ought to boil down to is this: Michigan lost a close game on the road to the NO. 1 TEAM IN THE NATION.

Southern Cal lost to a nobody.

This is a perfect example of why NOBODY should get to vote on who wins a forking national title.

 

[Johnny Dangerously]

The BCS is a compromise, a middle ground between deciding a championship with polls (Harris, USA Today, computer rankings) and deciding it on the field (one game based on the rankings). As with many compromises, it leaves a lot to be desired.

 

[Michael_ Gee]

Johnny, I don't think so. I-AA has like five conferences, not including the Ivy, which isn't in the playoffs. Basically, there's no West Coast presence at all. Border ends at Idaho.

 

[Oz]

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.

But then Michigan couldn't have honored Bo with nonstop arm tackles in a 42-39 loss.

 

[Johnny Dangerously]

Johnny, I don't think so. I-AA has like five conferences, not including the Ivy, which isn't in the playoffs. Basically, there's no West Coast presence at all. Border ends at Idaho.

Michael,

I deleted my post so I could do the research, but I see your point now. I think there are at least 100 teams in I-AA, and about 117 or so in I-A, but as you correctly point out, not all I-AA teams participate in the playoffs.

 

[Mystery_Meat]

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.

But then Michigan couldn't have honored Bo with nonstop arm tackles in a 42-39 loss.

Beats the tribute Miami gave its fallen teammate: losses to Maryland and Virginia and a bowl-less holidays for the first time in ever.

 

[Oz]

True. Point is, in a lot fo ways, Michigan played its best game this season. They took their best shot and came up short.

Time to move on and see whether another deserving team would do any better than Michigan, which played like the national title was on the line Saturday.

 

[BTExpress]

What it ought to boil down to is this: Michigan lost a close game on the road to the NO. 1 TEAM IN THE NATION.
Southern Cal lost to a nobody.

But USC has beaten several somebodys.

Michigan has beaten one. And the somebody Michigan beat may not be all that good at all. Heck, ND's only decent win came against Georgia Tech, for crying out loud.

If the Rutgers case proves anything, it's that your VICTORIES carry much more weight than your losses (of lack thereof).

You can avoid losses by avoiding heavyweights.

To score impressive wins, you have to play heavyweights.

 

[outofplace]

Oz, you don't think the home field made a difference?

I'm not hellbent on seeing a rematch, either, but given the other options ... it's the lesser of evils in terms of producing an interesting game.

For those who wondered what Pete Carroll would do in six weeks of prep for OSU, yeah, that worked out real well for the Great Charlie Weiss last year. Given six weeks, any coach with vastly superior talent to the guy on the other side is usually going to win. (Larry Coker being an obvious exception). Michigan is the only team that comes close to matching Ohio State's talent level.

Actually, there are plenty of examples of teams with inferior talent finding a way to win with the prep time. Penn State over an incredibly loaded and heavily favored Miami team in 1987 comes to mind.

 

[Oz]

Oz, you don't think the home field made a difference?

I'm not hellbent on seeing a rematch, either, but given the other options ... it's the lesser of evils in terms of producing an interesting game.

So should schedule a best-of-three series for cases like this? One at home, one on the road, one neutral field in case the first two don't decide it? Tressel is 5-1 against the Wolverines, and I'm pretty sure not all of those games came at the Horseshoe.

Besides, using this argument, you would also have to give USC the benefit of the doubt losing at Oregon State (which I'm guessing you would never do), so you're trying to have it both ways here.

 

[Johnny Dangerously]

Speaking of I-AA, the bracket includes three four-loss teams and a five-loss team, the first time a I-AA playoff has had any four-loss teams since 1995 (Idaho). And I think all of us remember what McNeese State did to the Vandals that year ...

Speaking of McNeese State, the Cowboys are one of the four-loss teams in this year's bracket. Reward? Road trip to play the Griz.

I only hope they are staying at Ruby's Reserve Street Inn, with the iconic red-lips logo and the little wooden box of chocolates on the bed upon check-in. Ah, memories.

Let it snow, let it snow, let it mud snow.

 

[BTExpress]

Michigan is the only team that comes close to matching Ohio State's talent level.

Michigan lost 5 games last year.

Where did all this talent come from? Two dozen freshmen? : : :

They are a good team. NOTHING more.