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

[Masspartan]

There is no doubt that State had a tougher schedule and if you can't admit that than you are bigger moron then most of the aa's.

Both had their share of patsies, and there is little doubt that the State patsies were worse than the U-M patsies ... but they are patsies and easy wins ... ok, well except for Appalachian State.

All you have to do is objectively look at the schedule ... obviously an impossible task for your maze ragin ass. I don't care what some computer says, it's plain as fucking day.

[whodean]

Why do the computers say otherwise?

[Masspartan]

MSU folks seem to want to ignore the effect that playing teams like 1-11 Florida Atlantic and 3-9 Central Michigan have on over schedule strength calculations.

As SLF said, Michigan played 10 bowl teams out of 12 opponents. That is pretty damn good.

no ignoring .... it's obvious that your patsies could beat our patsies ... which is why our overall schedule strength was low.

but who cares. Both teams should and did easily handle them.

[Masspartan]

And downplay how great their team was. No game on anyone's schedule was harder than playing state at state.

well .. that is true. Which is why your schedule strength got a big bump up.
:-D

[Masspartan]

Why do the computers say otherwise?

figure it out. I have.

[Niffla]

From what I've seen, most have given State the slight edge for the season. And that includes myself, which Mass called me out on in his last post for not doing so. I'd hate to throw out this overused interweb insult...but dude. Learn to read, please.

I have admitted the edge (slight, oh so slight) to the dudes in the hideous green uniforms at least a half dozen times.

So....what more do y'all want? Damn you people are insecure. And if you're still butt hurt due to Big Blue getting a more prestigious bowl...then you shouldn't have gotten your asses kicked all over the field by two allegedly inferior teams in Nebraska and ND.

You earned a right to play for the most prestigious and storied bowl the BT has to offer (something Michigan failed to earn, thus they didn't have that chance). You blew it, so off goes Michigan to a better bowl. Fair or not, STFU and deal with it.

[Masspartan]

interesting read

By Sally Jenkins, Published: December 6
Meet Paul Hoolahan, chief executive officer of the Sugar Bowl, and watch him as he goes tee-hee-heeing all the way to the bank. Understand that he is simply operating on the overriding Bowl Championship Series principle that cash trumps competition. Listen to his smooth language as he justifies the larceny that college football has become. Consider him Exhibit A in a government case against the BCS.
Hoolahan is the face of the BCS. He is the longest-serving bowl executive, and the perfect reflection of its values and priorities ? the least of which is to name a legitimate national champion. He hides behind bland marketing terms that can be loosely translated to ?stick ?em up.? He plays especially adroit games with the word ?integrity.?




Hoolahan will rake off something in the neighborhood of $600,000 in salary and bonuses this year for defrauding college football fans who expected the Sugar Bowl to present the best available game. Instead he awarded bids to No. 13 Michigan and No. 17 Virginia Tech based, it appears, purely on debts and favors owed. It mattered not that at least five other teams had stronger competitive claims.
No. 8 Boise State, No. 11 Kansas State and No. 12 Michigan State were all more deserving of a bid than Virginia Tech, which failed to beat a ranked team, and for that matter so were No. 15 Baylor and No. 16 TCU.
None of this mattered to Hoolahan with his mystery criteria. Even Tech Coach Frank Beamer struggled to understand what did matter. The best he could guess was, ?Over the years the Virginia Tech name has gotten to be a very good name.?
As if this is Boston, and teams are the Cabots and Lodges.
Remember, it was Hoolahan who last year blatantly lobbied Big Ten and Ohio State officials to back off suspending Buckeyes quarterback Terrelle Pryor and four teammates for pawning items for cash until after the Sugar Bowl game against Arkansas. And then was brazen enough to brag about it in public. ?I made the point that anything that could be done to preserve the integrity of this year?s game, we would greatly appreciate it,? Hoolahan told the Columbus Dispatch. ?That appeal did not fall on deaf ears, and I?m extremely excited about it, that the Buckeyes are coming in at full strength and with no dilution.?
No dilution. That was the neat phrase Hoolahan substituted for ?mockery of the rules.? This year, he used another neat phrase in defense of his indefensible bid to Virginia Tech, which seemed to amount to cronyism. ?We obviously had firsthand experience with them,? he said. ?It has always been a very effective experience and so we really didn?t have any problems selecting them.?
According to the lobbying group Playoff Pac, which watchdogs the BCS, the top three Sugar Bowl executives received more than $1.2 million of the game?s revenue of $12.7 million in 2009. Now, the Sugar Bowl is supposedly a nonprofit. Yet Hoolahan and two others skimmed almost $1 off of every $10 the bowl brought in. Hoolahan?s bonus in ?08, the year the Sugar hosted the national championship, was $140,000. In ?09 it was $80,000.








?I think he?s managed it as his own personal fiefdom,? says Matt Sanderson, co-founder of the Playoff PAC.
Any attempt to reshape the BCS into something more fair and legitimate is going to run smack into the reluctance of Hoolahan and his fellow bowl executives to surrender their power and positions ? not to mention who knows what sort of hold over conference commissioners. There will be no real reforming the BCS until the Hoolahans are forcibly pried away from the banqueting table. Last spring the Justice Department asked NCAA President Mark Emmert to please justify the BCS, and explain why it isn?t a violation of antitrust law. Emmert replied by acting as if the BCS was a reeking skunk he preferred not to touch. By letter, he explained to the DOJ that all the he does is hand out licenses, and other than that, ?the NCAA has no role to play in the BCS or the BCS system,? and any reform would have to come from the BCS members.
In other words, Emmert said, ?Don?t look at me.? Which leaves the government.
Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff has a term for Hoolahan to consider. Lawsuit. Shurtleff has long been threatening to file an antitrust case against the BCS, and says that Hoolahan just helped him by passing over Boise State at 11-1, the fourth time the school has finished in the top 10 yet been left out of the elite bowls. Shurtleff seems inclined to investigate the strange basis of the Sugar Bowl bids. ?There was some kind of mischief going on,? he told the Arizona Republic on Monday.
Government intervention or lawsuits are never a first choice. But the bowl fiefs have shown that they will only respond to legal threat.
Here?s what needs to happen. At risk of having a new championship structure dictated by a court or Congress, the conference commissioners should seize control of the bowls from CEOs like Hoolahan, and form an NCAA selection committee, just as in basketball. The bowls must become mere tournament sites, stripped of their special status, which they?ve so egregiously abused. The right to host should be dependent on the ability to meet rigorous good governance audits.
Right now there is only one bowl that meets such a standard, according to Sanderson, and it?s ironically the one with the most tradition, the Rose. Reward the Rose Bowl by designating it the host of the first clean, non-BCS national championship.
Do that, and the postseason will become again what it used to be, an ardent, spirited time of year, as opposed to a dour, cynical scheme that excites no one, and breeds apathy, with games drained of vitality, and rankings bled of meaning. It?s time to knock the whole thing down, and start all over again.

[Rocky Bleier]

To continue the silliness:

Let's compare scores versus Minnesota. Now that should be the final word!

[nhwbrooklyn]

UofM homer position: They are equal!

MSU homer position: MSU is way better!

Reality: State is a little better this year.

[Rocky Bleier]

Other than the BCS Championship game all bowl games are about revenue for host cities. They are not playoff games, and someone will always feel slighted.

Don't run into the kicker and you go to the Rose Bowl.

[nhwbrooklyn]

Other than the BCS Championship game all bowl games are about revenue for host cities. They are not playoff games, and someone will always feel slighted.

Don't run into the kicker and you go to the Rose Bowl.

Don't get manhandled by MSU and it could have been you guys having a shot at wisky (and getting blown out )

[Rocky Bleier]

We aren't complaining about not being in the CCG. We didn't deserve to be there. MSU should have won the game. They lost because of a bonehead play, and the first response is to complain about a committee selecting Michigan to go to the Sugar Bowl. Instead, they should look at themselves and admit that they lost their chance at the Rose Bowl. No one took it from them.

[chemiclord]

The irritation from me was that Michigan was pretty much guaranteed a BCS spot (over several other deserving teams) without even playing a game.

Meanwhile, the team that beat them head to head, and in the division, had to win yet another game (against a team they had already beat once), to get their shot. One team had to earn it (again), while the other had it handed to them... because they're Michigan.

And that's bullshit.

[nhwbrooklyn]

We aren't complaining about not being in the CCG. We didn't deserve to be there. MSU should have won the game. They lost because of a bonehead play, and the first response is to complain about a committee selecting Michigan to go to the Sugar Bowl. Instead, they should look at themselves and admit that they lost their chance at the Rose Bowl. No one took it from them.

Close loses. That's part of the beauty of the game. That drama. I'm sure UofM can dig up some heartbreakers.

But MSU, because they are as good a team as they are, put themselves in a position to go to the Rose bowl in the first place. Only Wisconsin was able to put themselves in the same position.

For UofM fans insisting they are equal. They are not. MSU is a little better this season.

[Jamie H]

We aren't complaining about not being in the CCG. We didn't deserve to be there. MSU should have won the game. They lost because of a bonehead play, and the first response is to complain about a committee selecting Michigan to go to the Sugar Bowl. Instead, they should look at themselves and admit that they lost their chance at the Rose Bowl. No one took it from them.

Exactly. No Michigan fans were complaining about anything. It has been the Spartan fans who have been whining and crying ever since they lost to Wisconsin.

Michigan would have gladly traded a Sugar Bowl bid for a chance to play for the Big Ten championship.