PDA

View Full Version : Question On The BCS Michigan/USC Situation



Agent51
12-02-2006, 10:23 AM
OK, I know this "rematch or not" debate has been brought uop before, but this thread isn't directly about that. I'm just wondering something. I watched a BCS show earlier and they were debating about Florida jumping Michigan and USC losing, so Florida goes to play OSU, and said it probably wouldn't happen, because Michigan's one loss came against #1 OSU and they only lost by 3 whereas Florida's 1 loss came to Auburn, who was ranked 11 at the time, and is even lower now, and they lost by 10. They were talking about how the victory margin (or in this case loss margin) matters too. Well going by that, shouldn't Michigan still be number 2? Michigan's 1 loss came to #1 OSU (who is still #1) and only by 3 points, USC's one loss came to Oregon State, which is currently 24th in the BCS and unranked in all other polls, by 2 points. OK, so lets just say, for arguments sake, that the Oregon State and OSU losses are equal (which they most certainly are not). That gives each team one close loss.

Going into the ND game, everyone was saying if USC wins, they are a lock (assuming they don't screw up at UCLA). Well, USC beat Notre Dame, but by 20, while Michigan beat Notre Dame by twenty-SIX. Now if the margin of victory counts too, and if you wanna try and make a loss to Oregon State equal to a loss to OHIO State, then Michigan should STILL be ranked ahead of USC, because they beat ND by more points. Especially because beating ND was the game that would make or break USC. Well if it was that important for USC, and Michigan beat them by more points, then it should hold just as much weight for them, and thus they deserve to be #2 because they had a more impressive loss (as impressive as a loss can be, lol) and they beat ND by more points.

Now I'm not trying to turn this into another "Ramtach or not" debatem I'm just curious as to HOW USC is ranked before Michigan? Especially given all the talk about how impoertant the ND game was, and if USC won they'd jump Michigan, but HOW, because Michigan beat ND by more points than USC did :confused:.

I HATE the BCS, when a team that lost to an unranked team and beat ND by 20 jumps a team that lost to the NUMBER ONE-ranked team (by only a FG) and beat those same Irish by 26, and now will play for the national title AGAIN, it's ridiculous. :shakeno:

Amars
12-02-2006, 11:17 AM
USC have beaten better team up and down their schedule. Also in November they are playing the best football then any team out there. They made their statement that they want to play for the national championship. Just my opinion. BCS is part computer part human poll.

Agent51
12-02-2006, 11:29 AM
USC have beaten better team up and down their schedule. Also in November they are playing the best football then any team out there. They made their statement that they want to play for the national championship. Just my opinion. BCS is part computer part human poll.

I hear ya, but the system is stupid, because Michigan, which would clearly beat USC or Florida (and has beaten ND) is being punished for not only losing late (even though it was the #1 team) and having no other games to try and make it up, but also for being in the same conference as the #1 team. It's just dumb and seems unfair, which is par for the course with the BCS.

kpcane
12-02-2006, 12:02 PM
I hear ya, but the system is stupid, because Michigan, which would clearly beat USC or Florida (and has beaten ND) is being punished for not only losing late (even though it was the #1 team) and having no other games to try and make it up, but also for being in the same conference as the #1 team. It's just dumb and seems unfair, which is par for the course with the BCS.

I think USC would beat Michigan right about now. Either way, it would be no cakewalk for either team.
What's funny is that Michigan fans, or people that want Michigan in the final game are saying they hate the BCS, and that a playoff should be instituted. Well, if there was a playoff, Michigan played Ohio State and lost...now it's time for the next best team to get a shot - USC.
You'll never find me in favor of two teams from the same conference playing for the national title especially when there is NO conference title game in that conference, and each's last game was against each other. Michigan had their chance and lost. As much as it pains me to say, it's not fair to Ohio State either.

Pennington's Rocket Arm
12-02-2006, 12:25 PM
they're ahead of michigan because they play two games after michigan's last game. pollsters care about what they've last seen.

Agent51
12-02-2006, 12:39 PM
I think USC would beat Michigan right about now. Either way, it would be no cakewalk for either team.
What's funny is that Michigan fans, or people that want Michigan in the final game are saying they hate the BCS, and that a playoff should be instituted. Well, if there was a playoff, Michigan played Ohio State and lost...now it's time for the next best team to get a shot - USC.
You'll never find me in favor of two teams from the same conference playing for the national title especially when there is NO conference title game in that conference, and each's last game was against each other. Michigan had their chance and lost. As much as it pains me to say, it's not fair to Ohio State either.

Michigna played OSU and lost....IN THE REGULAR SEASON, so they playoff counterpoint is moot, they'd still have another shot.

Also, USC wouldn't beat michigan right about now, just because they beat ND by 20 doesn't mean much, ND has ZERO secondary play and USC's only threat was passing. Also, who else has USC played that has a michigan-calibur defense? We had this same arguement last year, when everyone said the title game would be a cakewalk for USC because Texas' D was overrated since they play in the weak offense Big 12. Well, what happened? The unstoppable Reggie Bush was shut down, and Texas won that game. Why? Because USC's offense is overrated since they play in a weak defensive conference. I just don't think USC is as great as everyone claims. Put em in teh SEC with those defenses and that game speed and then talk to me about how great they are, until then, their offense in the defensively weak Pac-10 doesn't impress me.


they're ahead of michigan because they play two games after michigan's last game. pollsters care about what they've last seen.

That's pretty much what I was saying is the unfair part. USC jumps them because Michigan lost their last game and has no chance to make it up while USC still gets to "wow" people with their "super" offense. It's a dumb system, and it punishes good teams for finishing early, and for being in the same conference as another good team.

Crowder52
12-02-2006, 01:14 PM
I hear ya, but the system is stupid, because Michigan, which would clearly beat USC or Florida (and has beaten ND) is being punished for not only losing late (even though it was the #1 team) and having no other games to try and make it up, but also for being in the same conference as the #1 team. It's just dumb and seems unfair, which is par for the course with the BCS.

I would think either Michigan-USC or Michigan-UF would be a great game. I'm not sure how you say Michigan would "clearly" beat either of those two teams.

Amars
12-02-2006, 01:25 PM
well in the end the BCS is what we have and we just have to live with the results. I would like a playoff system but that means the reg season will suck unless they bring SOS back into the equation. Ohio vs. UF and USC vs Mich. The winner face eachother for the NC. That will be great and will be bigger then the nfl playoffs. +1 playoffs seems to be the best scenario.

Crowder52
12-02-2006, 01:25 PM
Michigna played OSU and lost....IN THE REGULAR SEASON, so they playoff counterpoint is moot, they'd still have another shot.

Also, USC wouldn't beat michigan right about now, just because they beat ND by 20 doesn't mean much, ND has ZERO secondary play and USC's only threat was passing. Also, who else has USC played that has a michigan-calibur defense? We had this same arguement last year, when everyone said the title game would be a cakewalk for USC because Texas' D was overrated since they play in the weak offense Big 12. Well, what happened? The unstoppable Reggie Bush was shut down, and Texas won that game. Why? Because USC's offense is overrated since they play in a weak defensive conference. I just don't think USC is as great as everyone claims. Put em in teh SEC with those defenses and that game speed and then talk to me about how great they are, until then, their offense in the defensively weak Pac-10 doesn't impress me.

A Michigan caliber defense? Would that be the same caliber that gave up 42 points and over 500 yards to Ohio State despite the Buckeyes turning it over 3 times?

And about that argument that Texas' D was overrated last year...it was. You want to know what happened? USC's offense (which you called overrated) went for 574 yards of total offense and 38 points. You make it sound like Texas shut the Trojans down, which isn't even remotely accurate. I guess they shut Reggie Bush down, if you consider 13 carries for 82 yards (6.3 YPC) and a TD "shut down." People didn't underestimate the Texas defense, they underestimated the Texas offense.

AirFishOne
12-02-2006, 02:07 PM
I said it last year, Ive never seen a NC game where the loser totaly dominated the winner.

USC offense totaly ran over the Texas D, the only bad thing was the 4th down.

Vince Young, not Texas, won that game

ganooch
12-02-2006, 03:42 PM
Another thing against Michigan in a rematch is that Michigan did not even win their conference. Albeit they lost to Ohio State, if you do not win your conference you have no business playing for the title.

kpcane
12-02-2006, 07:31 PM
Michigna played OSU and lost....IN THE REGULAR SEASON, so they playoff counterpoint is moot, they'd still have another shot.

Also, USC wouldn't beat michigan right about now, just because they beat ND by 20 doesn't mean much, ND has ZERO secondary play and USC's only threat was passing. Also, who else has USC played that has a michigan-calibur defense? We had this same arguement last year, when everyone said the title game would be a cakewalk for USC because Texas' D was overrated since they play in the weak offense Big 12. Well, what happened? The unstoppable Reggie Bush was shut down, and Texas won that game. Why? Because USC's offense is overrated since they play in a weak defensive conference. I just don't think USC is as great as everyone claims. Put em in teh SEC with those defenses and that game speed and then talk to me about how great they are, until then, their offense in the defensively weak Pac-10 doesn't impress me.


I don't know who was saying it'd be a cakewalk for USC, but I never did. Reggie Bush wasn't shut down. He had 82 yards rushing and 6.3 yards/attempt. LenDale added 124 more rushing yards. And Matt Leinart threw for 365 yards. So to recap - the 'overrated' USC offense put up 365 yards passing, and 209 yards rushing against Texas' D. A great defense does not give up 574 yards of offense to anybody.

As for the playoff counterpoint being moot - let me ask you what you define as a playoff. To me - it's the last game of the season, win or go home. That's what Michigan faced, and they lost. Why should Michigan only have to beat Ohio State once for the national title, when Ohio State has already beaten them once?

Roman529
12-02-2006, 07:40 PM
UCLA only down by 2......9-7 in the 2nd half. :eek:

Roman529
12-02-2006, 08:25 PM
I guess helmet to helmet hits are legal in college. USC's Malauga just nailed UCLA's QB in the head and no flag. :confused:

Agent51
12-03-2006, 01:55 PM
I don't know who was saying it'd be a cakewalk for USC, but I never did. Reggie Bush wasn't shut down. He had 82 yards rushing and 6.3 yards/attempt. LenDale added 124 more rushing yards. And Matt Leinart threw for 365 yards. So to recap - the 'overrated' USC offense put up 365 yards passing, and 209 yards rushing against Texas' D. A great defense does not give up 574 yards of offense to anybody.

As for the playoff counterpoint being moot - let me ask you what you define as a playoff. To me - it's the last game of the season, win or go home. That's what Michigan faced, and they lost. Why should Michigan only have to beat Ohio State once for the national title, when Ohio State has already beaten them once?

Reggie Bush only getting 82 yards, compared to what he did all season, was shutting him down.

And the last game of the regular season isn't a playoff, what are you talking about? TYhe playoff starts AFTER the regular season, just like the NFL, so Michigan losing the last game of the REGULAR season has nothing to do with a playoff. A playoff would take X amount of teams and be run when the regular season ends with the winner meeting for the national title. Plenty of NFL playoff teams lose their last regular season game, it has nothing to do with the playoffs, so again, your point makes no sense, Michigan lost the playoff already because Ohio State beat them in the last game of the regular season :confused:

Jimmy James
12-03-2006, 02:04 PM
Another thing against Michigan in a rematch is that Michigan did not even win their conference. Albeit they lost to Ohio State, if you do not win your conference you have no business playing for the title.

Just curious here...do you feel the same way about the Steelers winning the Super Bowl last year? They didn't even win their division.

Agent51
12-03-2006, 02:16 PM
Just curious here...do you feel the same way about the Steelers winning the Super Bowl last year? They didn't even win their division.

Exactly. It's not MICHIGAN'S fault they are in the same division as the #1 ranked team. The national championship should be played between the two best teams in college football, regardless of whether or not they happen to be in the same division or not.

Pennington's Rocket Arm
12-03-2006, 02:17 PM
except there's no playoff.

unifiedtheory
12-03-2006, 02:19 PM
As much as I like USC, I am always happy when the BCS gets to look stupid and things are a mess.

One day, MAYBE one day they wil solve this by having a damn playoff.

Crowder52
12-03-2006, 02:53 PM
Exactly. It's not MICHIGAN'S fault they are in the same division as the #1 ranked team. The national championship should be played between the two best teams in college football, regardless of whether or not they happen to be in the same division or not.

Actually it is Michigan's fault. If they beat Ohio St, then they wouldn't be #1.

Stitches
12-03-2006, 03:14 PM
Actually it is Michigan's fault. If they beat Ohio St, then they wouldn't be #1.

Had michigan won though, chances are, OSU would have got a rematch.

Crowder52
12-03-2006, 03:20 PM
Had michigan won though, chances are, OSU would have got a rematch.

It's certainly possible, although we are seeing the backlash against a rematch scenario right now. UF could have made a similar jump over OSU, given their weak schedule.

finswin56
12-03-2006, 03:23 PM
Had michigan won though, chances are, OSU would have got a rematch.I seriously doubt that. Losing at home would have been the end of the line for OSU.