U of M thread (in the Lions Forum) :)

[Jamie H]

You didn't explain what Clemson had to with it.

I never said one thing about Clemson. What the hell are you talking about?

[froot loops]

Again if you think this is right and Va Tech and Michigan deserve to go to the Sugar Bowl over Boise, TCU, Arkansas and Kansas State then its apparent you like the BCS. Embrace it and loudly proclaim you like it because it helps you out. Do away with the window dressing of wanting a playoff.

[Jamie H]

U-M had a nice season ... State had a nice season ... a case can be made that State > U-M ... you can't make a logical case the other way.

Otherwise you would have.

So, you believe Nebraska is better than Michigan State, right? What about Notre Dame?

[SeattleLionsFan]

I love the bowl system. I'd like to skip the BCS nonsense f possible though.

[froot loops]

I explained what Clemson had to do with it.

I know, but he was quoting me and addressing Mass. We're not the same person.

[Masspartan]

just for the record ....

yes I'm very disappointed that State didn't close the deal and go the Rose Bowl ... it also leaves a bitter taste in my mouth that U-M (our biggest rival) was a benefactor of our losing the Championship game.

but I also have a bitter taste in my mouth about Bama going to the NC game, and State had nothing to do with that.

The bitter taste comes from a lack of logic and fairness involved with the process.

[froot loops]

I love the bowl system. I'd like to skip the BCS nonsense f possible though.

Then I'm not sure what you're with arguing with me about, unless you really think Virginia Tech deserves to go. Which they don't deserve.

[Masspartan]

So, you believe Nebraska is better than Michigan State, right? What about Notre Dame?

regarding Nebraska. I'll let you know if we lose to them 4 straight years ... 1 year can be an outlier. 4 indicates a pattern. They were better that day.

regarding Notre Dame. No I don't think they are better than we are and the overall records and recent history would indicate that State simply laid an egg that day. It happens.

[froot loops]

just for the record ....

yes I'm very disappointed that State didn't close the deal and go the Rose Bowl ... it also leaves a bitter taste in my mouth that U-M (our biggest rival) was a benefactor of our losing the Championship game.

but I also have a bitter taste in my mouth about Bama going to the NC game, and State had nothing to do with that.

The bitter taste comes from a lack of logic and fairness involved with the process.

just for the record

I'm saying that as long as the power players like Michigan and Alabama get the preferential treatment that they got this time, its not going to change. Why would it for them, its great to be them. There's no incentive to change.

[froot loops]

Correction, I should have said South Carolina instead of TCU

[Jamie H]

Again if you think this is right and Va Tech and Michigan deserve to go to the Sugar Bowl over Boise, TCU, Arkansas and Kansas State then its apparent you like the BCS. Embrace it and loudly proclaim you like it because it helps you out. Do away with the window dressing of wanting a playoff.

Are you interested in listening to anything being said, or are you just interested in putting words in everyone's mouth?

The BcS is lame. Everyone knows it is lame. But sitting around complaining about who is "deserving" when everyone KNOWS the system has nothing to do with who is "deserving" is just plain stupid.

We knew going in that the BcS picks the teams that it feels will make it the most money. It's an incredibly stupid way to pick bowl games, but that is how the BcS has done it for over a decade now. Why is everyone acting all surprised that the BcS has, once again, sucked? It ALWAYS SUCKS. Why do you thing I've always spelled BcS with the capital BS?

So now, here's another question. Clearly you think teams like Kansas State "deserve" to go to a BcS game more than Michigan because they are higher in the BcS standings. Yet at the same time, you think Michigan being higher in the standings than MSU is a travesty of biblical proportions. So which is it? Are the BcS standings the measuring stick or not? Either they should be used as the measuring stick or they are stupid and inaccurate. It can't be both.

Because if you aren't using the BcS standings, Michigan, K-State and Virginia Tech all look quite similar--they are all 2-loss teams from BcS confernces. And Arkansas is ineligible since they would be the 3rd SEC team in, so they are irrelevant to the argument. No one was picked over them except for LSU and Alabama, and since they lost to both LSU and Alabama I don't see how anyone can argue that.

[Masspartan]

you Froot ... I think you've clearly made your point ... which I agree with by the way.

Okay, time for bed. I was only staying up this late to see the logical sensible case that demonstates U-M > State in football. Guess I'll have to wait until tomorrow.

Thanks Deke for being a U-M fan and not abandoning logic. It is apparently inherently rare.

[Masspartan]

Are you interested in listening to anything being said, or are you just interested in putting words in everyone's mouth?

The BcS is lame. Everyone knows it is lame. But sitting around complaining about who is "deserving" when everyone KNOWS the system has nothing to do with who is "deserving" is just plain stupid.

We knew going in that the BcS picks the teams that it feels will make it the most money. It's an incredibly stupid way to pick bowl games, but that is how the BcS has done it for over a decade now. Why is everyone acting all surprised that the BcS has, once again, sucked? It ALWAYS SUCKS. Why do you thing I've always spelled BcS with the capital BS?

So now, here's another question. Clearly you think teams like Kansas State "deserve" to go to a BcS game more than Michigan because they are higher in the BcS standings. Yet at the same time, you think Michigan being higher in the standings than MSU is a travesty of biblical proportions. So which is it? Are the BcS standings the measuring stick or not? Either they should be used as the measuring stick or they are stupid and inaccurate. It can't be both.

Because if you aren't using the BcS standings, Michigan, K-State and Virginia Tech all look quite similar--they are all 2-loss teams from BcS confernces. And Arkansas is ineligible since they would be the 3rd SEC team in, so they are irrelevant to the argument. No one was picked over them except for LSU and Alabama, and since they lost to both LSU and Alabama I don't see how anyone can argue that.

I could be wrong ... but I've read their is a provision that says a 3rd team from a conference can get in if the others are in the championship game ... though that does seem unlikely.

[Jamie H]

regarding Nebraska. I'll let you know if we lose to them 4 straight years ... 1 year can be an outlier. 4 indicates a pattern. They were better that day.

LOL!! So let me get this straight. You are saying that MSU was clearly better than Michigan this year because in completely different years with a different coach, MSU beat Michigan. Yet Nebraska ISN"T clearly better than MSU, even thought the BLEW MSU out, because the two teams didn't happen to play last year????

I guess Oklahoma State isn't better than Oklahoma because Oklahoma won the last 8 meetings before the 34 point beatdown that Okie State put on them this year right?

I don't even think a drunk person would try to put up an argument this stupid.

[Jamie H]

I could be wrong ... but I've read their is a provision that says a 3rd team from a conference can get in if the others are in the championship game ... though that does seem unlikely.

That only happens if one conference has the #1 team, the #2 team, AND an auto-qualifier who isn't #1 or #2. So if LSU had lost to Georgia, but only fallen to #2, then Alabama (#1) would have played LSU (#2) and Georgia would have been the auto-qualifier and played in the Sugar Bowl.