Jim Rome makes a point. Seriously.

#1
milohimself

milohimself

RIP CITY
Joined
Sep 18, 2004
Messages
48,891
Likes
29
#1
Concerning the possibility of the OSU-Michigan nat'l title game.

Why should Ohio State have to beat their rivals twice in two months to win the naitonal title? Moreover, why should Michigan win the national title if they merely split two games with Ohio State this season?
 
#2
#2
milohimself said:
Concerning the possibility of the OSU-Michigan nat'l title game.

Why should Ohio State have to beat their rivals twice in two months to win the naitonal title? Moreover, why should Michigan win the national title if they merely split two games with Ohio State this season?
Click to expand...
People are trying to make the argument that Michigan has already had their chance at OSU and lost. However, Michigan's chance was on the road at one of the louder stadiums in college football and they only lost by 3. Home field definitely had an impact on the outcome of the game, and that is something that they wouldn't have to face in a bowl game. I think that on a neutral field the game could very easily go the other way.
 
#3
#3
The game was the game... Michigan did have their chance. If Michigan and Ohio State split two games, what makes one a national champ over the other? Home field in one of the games? Please.
 
#4
#4
utvol0427 said:
People are trying to make the argument that Michigan has already had their chance at OSU and lost. However, Michigan's chance was on the road at one of the louder stadiums in college football and they only lost by 3. Home field definitely had an impact on the outcome of the game, and that is something that they wouldn't have to face in a bowl game. I think that on a neutral field the game could very easily go the other way.
Click to expand...

Air Force barely lost to UT on the road. Are you saying they would beat us if we played at a neutral site?
 
#5
#5
Personaly I don't buy the "playing on the road" whines. When you play in the Big 10 your use to playing in front of at least 80,000 screaming fans every road game. I think Michigan should play against State again because they are the second best team in the country peroid.
 
#6
#6
Rocky Top said:
Personaly I don't buy the "playing on the road" whines. When you play in the Big 10 your use to playing in front of at least 80,000 screaming fans every road game. I think Michigan should play against State again because they are the second best team in the country peroid.
Click to expand...
Which presents that inherent problem with the BCS line of thinking. The best two tems in the country play eachother in the national title, and whoever wins that game is the sole national champion. But if it is Michigan... They are declared sole national champs for splitting two games with tOSU. What the crap is that? IMO, if USC loses and they play eachother again, I don't have a problem with it (after all, the BCS title game is 1 vs. 2). However, if Michigan were to win that game, it would only be fair to have a split naitonal championship. The series was split, so is the title.
 
#7
#7
milohimself said:
Which presents that inherent problem with the BCS line of thinking. The best two tems in the country play eachother in the national title, and whoever wins that game is the sole national champion. But if it is Michigan... They are declared sole national champs for splitting two games with tOSU. What the crap is that? IMO, if USC loses and they play eachother again, I don't have a problem with it (after all, the BCS title game is 1 vs. 2). However, if Michigan were to win that game, it would only be fair to have a split naitonal championship. The series was split, so is the title.
Click to expand...

That why we need a playoff system for the top 4 teams in the final BCS poll.
 
#8
#8
utvol0427 said:
People are trying to make the argument that Michigan has already had their chance at OSU and lost. However, Michigan's chance was on the road at one of the louder stadiums in college football and they only lost by 3. Home field definitely had an impact on the outcome of the game, and that is something that they wouldn't have to face in a bowl game. I think that on a neutral field the game could very easily go the other way.
Click to expand...
IMO, Michigan lost and they are no do overs in college football. I mean the bottom line is they lost and its not OSU's fault their schedule rotated to playing Michigan at home this year. If they play again then this is one guy that want watch, some one else needs a chance.:twocents:
 
#9
#9
Like I've said many times over, I wouldn't mind seeing Michigan play tOSU again. That was a very close game and clearly they are the two best teams in the nation right now. If the game was won by more than 7 points by either team, there would have been no chance of a re-do. But since it was a 3 point gap, then I think they should play again for the NC. Michigan wins, split it. It's been done before, but not in a headtohead NC right?
 
#10
#10
VOLatile said:
Like I've said many times over, I wouldn't mind seeing Michigan play tOSU again. That was a very close game and clearly they are the two best teams in the nation right now. If the game was won by more than 7 points by either team, there would have been no chance of a re-do. But since it was a 3 point gap, then I think they should play again for the NC. Michigan wins, split it. It's been done before, but not in a headtohead NC right?
Click to expand...

I don't think they are as clearly above the rest as you claim.
 
#12
#12
milohimself said:
Concerning the possibility of the OSU-Michigan nat'l title game.

Why should Ohio State have to beat their rivals twice in two months to win the naitonal title? Moreover, why should Michigan win the national title if they merely split two games with Ohio State this season?
Click to expand...

I'm going to beat this horse one more time. Show me a system where just because you beat someone in the regular season, you are exempt from playing them in the post-season.

Further, show me a system where if you beat a team in the regular season but they beat you in the post-season (champ game) then you are still a 1/2 winner of the champ or have any claim to it.

Look at D1-AA (playoffs). It's likely that App State will play Furman in the playoffs eventhough App beat Furman and they are both in the same conference. Further, if Furman wins it doesn't matter that App beat them in the regular season. Furman moves on or wins the championship.

I realize the BCS isn't a full playoff system but it is a 2 team playoff. The winner is the defacto BCS champion.

I don't want the rematch but this argument about Michigan "getting their chance" just doesn't hold water. That rule rarely if ever applies.
 
#13
#13
volinbham said:
I'm going to beat this horse one more time. Show me a system where just because you beat someone in the regular season, you are exempt from playing them in the post-season.

Further, show me a system where if you beat a team in the regular season but they beat you in the post-season (champ game) then you are still a 1/2 winner of the champ or have any claim to it.

Look at D1-AA (playoffs). It's likely that App State will play Furman in the playoffs eventhough App beat Furman and they are both in the same conference. Further, if Furman wins it doesn't matter that App beat them in the regular season. Furman moves on or wins the championship.

I realize the BCS isn't a full playoff system but it is a 2 team playoff. The winner is the defacto BCS champion.

I don't want the rematch but this argument about Michigan "getting their chance" just doesn't hold water. That rule rarely if ever applies.
Click to expand...
Exactly. The funny thing is that the people saying that Michigan has already had their chance are the same people crying for a playoff. If there was a playoff then Michigan would be getting another chance, which these people don't feel that they deserve.
 
#14
#14
milohimself said:
The game was the game... Michigan did have their chance. If Michigan and Ohio State split two games, what makes one a national champ over the other? Home field in one of the games? Please.
Click to expand...
Again, using that logic, then Florida, Arkansas, USC, WVU, Louisville, Rutgers, etc. have already had their chance also. Maybe it wasn't against Tosu, however, they lost just the same. Why punish Michigan more severely than the other teams simply because they lost to the #1 team in the country?

Also, I will stand against anything Jim Rome says.
 
#15
#15
therealUT said:
Again, using that logic, then Florida, Arkansas, USC, WVU, Louisville, Rutgers, etc. have already had their chance also. Maybe it wasn't against Tosu, however, they lost just the same. Why punish Michigan more severely than the other teams simply because they lost to the #1 team in the country?quote]
Another person who actually makes sense:rock: .
Click to expand...
 
#16
#16
volinbham said:
I'm going to beat this horse one more time. Show me a system where just because you beat someone in the regular season, you are exempt from playing them in the post-season.

Further, show me a system where if you beat a team in the regular season but they beat you in the post-season (champ game) then you are still a 1/2 winner of the champ or have any claim to it.

Look at D1-AA (playoffs). It's likely that App State will play Furman in the playoffs eventhough App beat Furman and they are both in the same conference. Further, if Furman wins it doesn't matter that App beat them in the regular season. Furman moves on or wins the championship.

I realize the BCS isn't a full playoff system but it is a 2 team playoff. The winner is the defacto BCS champion.

I don't want the rematch but this argument about Michigan "getting their chance" just doesn't hold water. That rule rarely if ever applies.
Click to expand...
I'm not fully behind Rome's point... And I'm fine if Michigan plays in the national title. They are (pending USC's final games) probably the second best team in the country. That's the way the BCS is set up.

But I'm going off of what I believe college football to be all about... This. This debate. It's not about doing the best in a playoff, it's not about doing the best in only your bowl game. It's about who is the best all season. The national champs ought to be the team who has had the best overall season.

Now, if you've got a situation like last year, where USC and Texas were clearly the two best teams in the country, then yes the BCS title game becomes a one game playoff.
 
#18
#18
milohimself said:
However, if Michigan were to win that game, it would only be fair to have a split naitonal championship. The series was split, so is the title.
Click to expand...
In 96, Florida was MNC in both polls, even though they had a season split with FSU, they lost to FSU in the regular season finale, then blew them out in the Sugar Bowl. Should that have also been a split MNC?
 
#19
#19
utvol0427 said:
Exactly. The funny thing is that the people saying that Michigan has already had their chance are the same people crying for a playoff. If there was a playoff then Michigan would be getting another chance, which these people don't feel that they deserve.
Click to expand...
No, the people crying for a playoff, like me, are the ones who are sick of everyone else saying that Michigan would kill Florida, or kill USC, or Oklahoma would kill Auburn, like thay have some crystal ball and actually know something. They don't know jack! Nobody has a friggin clue who would win those games and that is why they should decide it on the field.

Michigan, West Virginia, the winner of USC/ND, and the winner of the SECCG ALL deserve a chance to play TOSU for the MNC. There is no surefire way to say that one is more deserving than the other three, which is why we need a playoff.
 
#21
#21
if it weren't for that stupid UM defensive player's helmet to helmet hit and subsequent penalty, the discussion would be whether or not OSU should be getting another shot.

in other words, round and round we go. the BCS, as usual, will get things about 90% right.

I'm becoming more in favor of a +1 system rather than an outright playoff.
 
#22
#22
milohimself said:
Concerning the possibility of the OSU-Michigan nat'l title game.

Why should Ohio State have to beat their rivals twice in two months to win the naitonal title? Moreover, why should Michigan win the national title if they merely split two games with Ohio State this season?
Click to expand...

I see where your coming from. But in all honesty I can't see anybody else playing the buckeyes that even has a chance to beat them. Michigan is still clearly the number two team in the country in my book. Neither USC or Florida has what it takes to keep up with Ohio State.
 
#23
#23
My opinion is that in most cases a team that doesn't even win their conference championship shouldn't be playing for a national championship, since there are only two teams involved in competing for the BCS football championship. That's just my opinion, but we'll just have to agree to disagree.

With the current system, since the BCS championship is supposed to match #1 vs. #2, Michigan might be the 2nd best team, and therefore deserve a chance to play in a BCS championship game.

........That being said, if it happens, I don't agree with it. With the current BCS system, there are only two teams that get a chance at a national championship. People forget that even with Michigan's great season, they will still be getting into the BCS as an at-large team. I know it's happened before, but it just doesn't make sense to me - WITH ONLY TWO TEAMS INVOLVED, HOW CAN A TEAM THAT DOESN'T EVEN WIN THEIR CONFERENCE CHAMPIONSHIP GET A SHOT AT A NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP? (unless the champions from the other conferences have more losses than the at-large team)

I'm for a playoff, and if there were an eight team playoff, then by all means put Michigan in there, but not with only two teams.

If USC, Florida, or Arkansas, win their conference and have only one loss, then I think they should get a shot instead of Michigan, because they won their conference (league), and that should mean something.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top