There’s no question who the number one team in the country is this year, heading into the BCS championship game. Far more time and energy will be spent arguing over whether or not the BCS was correct in choosing Florida as the #2. You can all relax. I’ve figured it out, and there is no doubt in my mind on this one.
The BCS got it right.
Unlike a lot of Notre Dame fans, I don’t have a true hatred of UM. At least not in the way that I despise USC, or the way that I hate Miami, or loathe Florida State. I’m aware of the history of the ND/UM series, and some of the conflict that arose in the early years of it. I think living in the Southern California area for all of my life, with my earliest memories of ND football being the mid/late 80’s is the cause of this. Most of my energy was spent hating other teams during these formative years of my football watching life. For whatever reason, I don’t have a deep felt, healthy hatred of UM. I don’t like them. I just don’t hate them the way all good Notre Dame fans are supposed to. So I don’t think I am overly biased in arriving at my conclusion that Florida is more deserving pick than Michigan for the National Title game this year.
First, let me go on record by saying the BCS sucks. It’s wonderful that a system was designed to try and solve a non determinstic problem to begin with, using an algorithm that likely no one understands (well, at least, I don’t fully understand and I don’t think the average fan does either). Pile a bunch of data and mumbo jumbo into a machine and *POOF* out pops the answer to all of our problems. Completely ridiculous, and I don’t believe it’s less biased than the system it replaced, given it uses the polls for its calculations. On top of that, the mystery of the selection process makes the whole thing that much more unsettling.
But, I digress. For the time being, anyway, the craptacular BCS computers got it right.
Florida SHOULD go to the National Championship game, and I haven’t heard a valid reason why they do not deserve to be there over Michigan. In general, I think the argument for Michigan goes something like this.
1) Anyone can see that they’re better than Florida. Just watch the games. Michigan’s only loss came to the #1 team in the country and Florida played too many close games. They’re doing it with smoke and mirrors.
2) I want to see a rematch. I think UM is capable of beating OSU if they play again.
This seems to me like a very subjective way to put a team in the title game. How do we know that Michigan is a better team than Florida? How do we know Florida is doing it only with smoke and mirrors after defeating #8 Arkansas in the SEC championship game?
The more popular argument, I believe, is that Florida played too many close games to be more deserving than Michigan. However, at a quick glance, Florida also played a more challenging schedule than Michigan, their only loss coming to an Auburn team that finished the regular season in the top ten. They certainly were very lucky with South Carolina, but South Carolina also played teams like Arkansas, Auburn, and Tennessee close, and defeated Clemson — a media darling just a few weeks ago. South Carolina is no USC (the SoCal version), but they’re no Ball State either.
In addition to this, Michigan struggled with some subpar teams as well. They looked unimpressive in a win over PSU, and even had a bit of a scare versus a Ball State team who lost to such powerhouses as Indiana, ND State, Northern Illinois, Western Michigan, and Central Michigan. Michigan also had fewer victories over impressive teams. They blew out a Notre Dame team, which has shown over the past few years, that this is not such a remarkable feat. They also defeated Wisconsin. This is the mighty team that is so superior to Florida?
Their biggest claim to the NC game seems to be their three point loss to OSU. What a remarkable argument. People are actually saying Michigan deserves to be in the championship because they lost a game. A game I feel they were physically outmatched in. I walked away from my TV feeling as if OSU was the clear #1. I think they would win in a rematch. After going up 7-0 at the beginning of the game, UM never again found themselves with a lead. Generally, in a classic game as this was deemed to be, you’ll find some lead changes. Instead, UM went down 28-14 at half, hung on, and then scored a touchdown in the final two minutes to make the score look a little closer. Sorry, I don’t look at that and think “yeah, these guys deserve a rematch!” A good game for sure, but far from a great comeback. They spent 3 quarters playing catch up… and never caught up.
But all of this is just talk. Football is a game about matchups, and outcomes are decided on the field, not by examining strength of schedules and statistics. Otherwise, how do you explain the USC loss to UCLA? Sure, these can give us an IDEA about who is good and who is not, but ultimately, it comes down to a day, a place, and how two teams match up against each other.
I view it like this. Florida and Michigan finished with the same record playing reasonable schedules, which were more difficult than what either Louisville or Wisconsin faced (we’ll ignore for a moment, that in my opinion, Florida played a more difficult schedule than UM). Michigan has already lost to the team they feel they deserve to play. Florida and UM have not faced off head to head, so we cannot with any great certainty say one is superior to the other. Given those simple facts, how can anyone say Florida does not deserve the opportunity? Perhaps UM is the better team. But without a playoff system, there’s no real way to say that for certain. How can anyone say Florida does not deserve this opportunity when they have a reasonable argument to be there, and UM already lost to the other team? Moreover, how was USC’s jump over UM justified and Florida’s not? Prior to UCLA, not only had USC’s one loss come to an unranked team, but they were very unimpressive against juggernauts such as Arizona, Washington, and Washington St.! The justification in their hopping of UM in the polls seemed to be based on nothing else but reputation of past years. If USC deserved a shot over UM, then Florida most certainly does as well.
So with that, I say, good job, BCS. You got it right in 2006. Now please go away.
I guess Notre Dame should never get a chance at the BCS title game. Since they can never be a “conference champion”. Some day when they go 11-1 and their only loss is to an undefeated 12-0 USC team ranked number one and they dominated eveyone one else they played they should not get a re-match because they didn’t win a conference.
Yea to Andy! Ditto! & GO IRISH!
My understanding is that the BCS is supposed to put the two best teams in the country against each other. I understand that is subjuective. Every person who has a vote in the three main polls (AP, Coaches, and Harris) had Michigan 2nd (a couple even had them 1st, but even as a Michigan fan I would have had OSU 1st). How does the number two team fall to 4,5,6, or even 8 by losing to the number one team in the country on the road by three points. The BCS is not designed to put conference champions together or “people who havn’t had a shot” but the two best teams (this is not a playoff remember, when you lose should not matter, only how you lose and WHO YOU LOSE TO). Michigan was behind all season for a total of 17 minutes and 15 seconds before the Ohio State game. Florida flew by the seat of their pants for a good portion of the year. Sqeaking by Vanderbilt, having to block three kicks to beat S. Carolina, and scheduleing that division 1-AA powerhouse W. Carolina. Yes Michigan’s score looked bad agianst Ball State but that’s because they didn’t practice in pads that week and had their 2nd string defence in the ENTIRE 2nd half(it was supposed to be a bye week before the NCAA gave everyone a 12the game). Look what they did the following week to Indiana (21-3 at the half and a 34-3 final score. Had Michigan lost to Ohio State in the first game of the year and then rattled off 11 strait wins we would not be having this debate (except for the the ALMIGHTY SEC slappies). Why do I keep hearing that Florida played a stronger schedule. Florida played more bowl teams (last I checked 6-6 got you into one of the 800 bowls these days). I’m tired of hearing that the SEC is the best conference in the country (according to who, the SEC). Last I checked their best out of conference win was agianst a three loss Cal team. I’m not saying the Big ten is better but that’s because I’m not as arrogent as SEC fans who claim that the SEC is the best. Since the powers that be don’t want a playoff I suggest we go back to the old Bowls. OSU would play USC in the Rose Bowl and Michigan would play Florida in the Sugar. In that format OSU, Florida, and Michigan would go into their bowl games with a chance at the “Mythical” national title. My dream is that Michigan beats USC in the Rose Bowl (and I think they will), Ohio State destroys Florida in one of the most lop sided “BCS” title games in history (which I think it will be) and every college football fan in the country (and all of those flip flopping poll voters) realize that they did not put the two best teams in the country together). For good measure I would love to see Wisconsin beat Arkansas (which I think they will) and Notre Dame beat LSU (which I don’t think they’ll do but I did say dream) and have the “garbage” Big Ten sit 1-2-3 in the fial polls.
What no one explains is why EVERYONE would have been PERFECTLY HAPPY with Southern Cal leapfrogging Michigan to #2 and playing Ohio State for the national title, but it is such a crime when Florida does it. The whole “had USC beaten UCLA, would Florida have jumped Michigan, I don’t think so” argument is a canard, and so is the “why not Wisconsin/Louisville/Oklahoma” argument. The same arguments against Florida right now would be just as good against USC, and USC would not have the counterargument of having played a tougher schedule (they didn’t play a single team with more than 3 losses) or having a loss to a top 10 team (hard to do since they didn’t play one). Look, this UCLA game was not some fluke. UCLA had a bye week and were able to use it to expose flaws that USC has exhibited all year long, even in their wins. Everyone who would have been just fine with USC in the national title game but thinks it is so horrible that Florida is playing is just an SEC hater, period. Ever notice how the only time there is a full – blown BCS controversy is when either A) an SEC team gets into the title game or B) when a PAC – 10 team either doesn’t get into the title game or get an at – large spot. It is hilarious that there are far more folks angry at a Michigan team who was physically manhandled by Ohio State and even after changing coordinators STILL have no answer for Troy Smith not getting a rematch of a game that they JUST LOST than there were people angry over Auburn not getting to the title game or getting to share the 2004 title after playing more games against the BCS top 15 than Oklahoma and USC combined. Did Michigan deserve to go to the title game? Of course. But so did Florida, just like Oregon deserved to go in 2001, USC in 2003, and Auburn in 2004. Of all the BCS whiners, Michigan’s case is by far the weakest. Bottom line: Michigan fans forfeited any right to complain over Florida jumping them by not complaining when USC did.
Why do I not hear the hatred for Michigan using this line of reasoning, when ND was blasted for even mentioning the same scenario last year with USC?
Funny! I love how the media (and fans) allow one team to slide and then blast another. Like how people are quoted saying that ND should not be in a BCS game. That the Irish are the worst BCS team…over Boise State! (Sorry! I must admit, I have never watched Boise State play this year. I don’t get ESPN 8, the Ocho!)
If the Irish loose the Sugar Bowl, people will say, “See! The Irish are not a BCS team!” However, 50 % of the BCS teams will loose. I guess ND is expected to loose, and then not allowed to at the same time.
SEC…the toughest conference in the country!
Until there is a playoff system, it can only be said that the SEC has the most teams ranked high in the opinion polls. Nothing more. Until you have the best (seemingly best) teams from all conferences going head-to-head in a playoff, who can state that they truly are the toughest, or the best?
By that logic, Payton Manning should have had at least 3 Super Bowl rings now. The Steelers would have never won last year (being the worst seeded team in AFC).
Maestro:
Let everyone prove it on the field…home field or away. Remember, Anyone, anywhere, anytime? Stop whining about field conditions!
“Not likely. Just because all the players had to contend with the same surface did not make this an even contest.”
How does both teams playing on the same surface make the game uneven?! I completely fail to see the logic in that.
“Why did it appear that many more Mighican players slipped and fell?”
Maybe because UM is made up of a bunch of spazzes. Seriously, who cares? The OSU players were playing on the same surface!
This just reminds me of the “long grass” b!tching from USC fans last year. It’s an excuse and nothing more. “Oh, Reggie and the ‘SC squad are super-fast so long grass slows them down 25% more than a slow Notre Dame team. It’s not fair!” Whatever. UM lost, game over. Maybe they should recruit athletes who don’t fall on their a$$ in the rain. Or, they could try equipping their players with little rocket packs, so they hover slightly above the field. If their feet aren’t in contact with the ground they can’t unfairly slip ever again.
As for rematches, I’ll save that for another tirade. 🙂
I agree, except for one thing. Apart from the weather, and given its overall importance to sports’ history, the Ohio State-Michigan football game should have been played on pristine grounds. Instead, the participants had to contend with a slippery surface due to newly laid sod. Did we see a great game? Yes. Did we see the real Michigan game? Not likely. Just because all the players had to contend with the same surface did not make this an even contest. Otherwise, why did it appear that many more Mighican players slipped and fell? It would have been nice to have seen a rematch on a proper playing field. As a result, Michigan not only lost the number one spot, but also the number two. Now football fans everywhere have also lost a great rematch.
The BCS can’t get anything wrong OR right. It’s just a money-making scheme for the universities who participate. I’m a Florida fan, and I think the fairest thing would have been to just flip a coin. I personally favor going back to the old bowl system. It gave us great rivalries and traditions. It was all about football, and not just about the money. If college sports is really about “building character” and leadership and all the stuff the ADs talk about when they are selling their sport, then crowning an undisputed champion shouldn’t be so important. Bring back the old bowl system.
jad1414
If you’re referring to Michigan (No. two at the time) losing to OSU the consensus #1 team and the fact they play in the same conference in your statement know this; Florida lost to a mediocre Auburn team and the last I looked they both belong to the same SEC. Therefore by your statement FLorida isn’t the best in its conference…. Your thoughts are null and void. Try again!
if USC would have beat UCLA would Michigan then be number 4 having not played since the OSU game? I think not. The BCS system is flawed and should be eliminated. Someone is left out every year, let’s face it, they just don’t want 2 big Ten teams in the national championship. To say the BCS is decided by computer is wrong, it is still decided by what people think and I believe that the circle of voters is a lot smaller then any of us think, in fact the outcome maybe just one or two people, they just want us to believe otherwise.
If you can’t win your conference, you should not have a shot at the Title, even if you finish 2nd in your conference to the #1 team. Just wait, Fla. may win, and if they do, the BSC looks pretty damn smart.
If the argument is that Florida deserves a “shot”, I can think of a handfull of teams that should join the argument; Boise State went 12-0 and won their conference. Oklahoma technically should only have 1 loss and won the Big 12; they haven’t had a “shot” at OSU yet and Wake forest? ACC champs who also haven’t had a “shot” at Ohio State; and let’s not forget Louisville or even Wisconsin, both 1 loss teams who haven’t been given a “shot.”
The thing that gets me is, Michigan was ranked number 2 after they fell in Columbus, and at some point between then and now, voters basically implied that they have gotten worse 2 consecutive weeks without playing a game. If USC would have pulled out a victory do you really think Florida would have surpassed Michigan into the third spot?
Did the BCS get it right? I’m not so sure. No if you’re talking “Better, Best”. Not that I’d like to see a rematch of UM vs OSU but for reasons against a rematch, I clearly didn’t see the same game you did on Nov. 18. UM made the most mistakes and lost the game by having those mistakes but as for “the comeback” I felt the better team in the second half was UM. Was the game a classic? Revisit it in a few years and see what you say then. As for Florida? Who else would the BCS pick? Do they deserve to be there over UM? Not really! Florida lost to an average Auburn team regardless of where they ended up in the final BCS; UM lost to a very good team in OSU. UM played an average schedule and Florida played a tougher schedule but not by that much. Playing Western something is how much better than Ball St.? Or this year the Gators vs Seminoles or UM vs PSU? PSU is a much better game. The way the schedules went, not a lot of difference really. So the arguement that a tougher schedule was had by Florida, not really.
Now how about this grotesque thing everyone is calling “Style Points”? What is that? I think most of you media guys get caught up in junk hype like that and get lost in it not focusing on what’s happening on the field of play on any given Saturday. Having watched UF and UM all fall it was clear the better team is Michigan for the number two team. I’m always unsure why a loss to a number one team is worse than having a loss to a lower seeded team. Now if you just want to see a different foe for the number one team to play, then I’ll buy into that but please stop handing out stats like candy to orphans and saying we should believe.
Keith Jackson (commentator for ABC) had it right when he said “… have the bowl games and then have a short playoff…”. “Not this money grab by the BCS people.”