If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
If you are having difficulty logging in, please REFRESH the page and clear your browser cache and try again.
If you still can't get logged in, please try using Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome, Firefox, Opera, or Safari to login. Also be sure you are using the latest version of your browser. Internet Explorer has not been updated in over seven years and will no longer work with the Forum software. Thanks
That makes sense, when we think of classy, you are the first to come to mind.
The problem is that spartie never thinks of classy...
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sM18sAZRnIU"]Denard's [UM] Facemask Twisted by Gholston [MSU] 10.15.11 - YouTube[/ame]
Embrace the BCS, the BCS is good for a Michigan fan, dipsense with the phony playoff talk.
Exactly who is giving phony playoff talk? The BcS is probably the worst postseason system in the history of organized sports. Sure you can always find an idiot or two that thinks it is great (like Mark May) but most fans know it sucks and want something better.
Embrace the BCS, the BCS is good for a Michigan fan, dipsense with the phony playoff talk.
If anything the Alabama/LSU rematch is much more irksome. The same people arguing that you needed to win your conference to be in a national championship game are now arguing that opposite side. And you guys are strangely silent. If the shoe was on the other foot, you can expect the Southern Hypocrites would be complaining.[/QUOTE]
Well yah. Claiming that a rematch would destroy college football in 2006 and then completely flip-flopping on it this year is the height of hypocrisy. But it was never about avoiding a rematch in 2006--it was just about doing whatever they had to to benefit an SEC school. The SEC doesn't really believe in following any rules to get what they want. They treat everything like politics, and they lie and cheat as hard as they can to get anything they want. And for some reason, the rest of college football lets them get away with it.
Hoke one of the 6 finalists for National Coach of the Year. Winning would be Icing on the cake. Being a finalist is giving credit for what he has done this year.
Well, when you consider that the entire MSU defensive game plan this year was to intentionally hurt Robinson, you can be pretty sure that you aren't going to hear much about how "classy" the Spartans are. But hey, when trying to break his neck didn't work, you eventually managed to knock him out of the game with a pro wrestling body-slam move, so you got what you wanted.
Under the old system you don't get to one of the 4 main bowls with that season.
Huh? In 1983, Michigan went to the Sugar Bowl with a 9-2 recorrd that included a 10 point loss to 7-5 Illinois.
In 1999, Michigan went to the Orange Bowl with a 9-2 record.
In fact, since 1980, Michigan has played in a BcS Bowl (Rose, Orange, Fiesta or Sugar) in EVERY season in which they had 2 losses or less. EVERY SEASON. Most of those were Rose Bowls, but the point is, a 2-loss season IS a season in which you can end up in a BcS level bowl, especially when the bowls want your team in general.
I would bet this is the lowest a 2-loss Michigan team has been in the polls in 40 years, mostly because after the utter embarassment of the Rodriguez regime, pollsters left us out of the initial polls, meaning we had to climb up from the bottom. Usually we start in the top 15 or so, so with 2-losses we easily crack the top 10. That's another reason the polls are so damn stupid. Where you start should be irrelevant. They shouldn't even take a poll until week 8 or so.
Under the old system there were two at large berths. Which school would Michigan have bumped out?
Well, since we are using silly hypotheticals from a system that hasn't been used since 1994, can I also assume that Michigan is still coached by Bo Schembechler and therefore wouldn't be coming off of the worst 3-year period in their history, and thus would be ranked closer to #6 or #8 like 2-loss Arkansas and K-State are?
Because of the last 3 years and where they started this year in the polls (e.g. not in them), Michigan is the lowest ranked 2-loss team from a BcS conference. That would have never happened back when the "old system" was in place.
BcS bowls routinely take 2-loss teams from BcS conferences. I don't know why you are acting like Michigan's inclusion is somehow a surprise, or even that noteworthy.
JamieH, take a chill pill. All I'm saying is currently under the old rules with the 4 main bowl games they wouldn't have made it this year. Back then there was two at large teams and they would have been filled by Alabama and Stanford. I'm not sure why you're focusing on the two loss aspect. Point me to a post in which I said anything about two losses.
BcS bowls routinely take 2-loss teams from BcS conferences. I don't know why you are acting like Michigan's inclusion is somehow a surprise, or even that noteworthy.
Its noteworthy in the fact that the Sugar Bowl took the two lowest rated teams ever picked for a BCS at large team and they skipped over 4 top 10 BCS teams. Thats why its a suprise. But its less of a suprise than Va. Tech. The Hokies have no business being there.
By the way, great job on all the stats. You've made a great case on why Michigan fans should love the BCS.
I'm sure they will be showing strong at the pizza bowl, or wherever they're going....
hahaha .... 4 straight years we've beat ur ass. 2011 Division champions. Co-big 10 champs last year and you smug lil phuck think your better because you got picked for a BCS game. lol. pathetic.
Tweet
Comment