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
Doesn't matter. Michigan was sitting at #2 when it came time to set the BCS pairings. The SEC writers rigged the voting so Florida would jump from #4 to #2 and get into the game.
And I guaran-fricking-tee that OlieO didn't want to play Michigan again on a neutral field for the MNC.
Michigan would have kept out a very deserving Florida team that had a better record.
I think the whole point here is that it should not be put aside, which is what this debate has been about. So it's kind of a non-starter to start with ``put aside 2006...'' since that missed the point entirely. The SEC mindset however doesn't seem to allow for an argument based on principles and precendents. It's ok in that world for the rules to shift according to the needs of the conference. It's ok to vote strategically instead of for the best teams. It's almost strange to them to stay consistent in the application of the rules. Shocker.
So, whatever. Not fooling anyone. If it's anything other than a rematch in the MNC game I'll be shocked, but it will also be one more nail in the coffin.
Florida was 12-1, Michigan was 11-1. That is a better record. The SEC may have led the charge there, but logic dictates that a pollster can't ignore on-field results. After Michigan's season was over, Florida played a top-ten team in the SEC title game, and won by ten points. You have to evaluate the result in the context of Florida's overall season, and it was entirely reasonable then to use that result to move Florida up. Given that and the eventual results from the bowl season that year, I don't know why anybody would still be griping about that.
It could still be Okie State, though, or Stanford or Oregon but they all lost at the wrong time, especially OSU.
Oregon's out. Oklahoma State's technically still alive, due largely to the computers' inexplicable devotion to the Big XII(Jeff Sagarin's power rankings this week look like a bad joke, and his ELO-CHESS rankings, which are the ones the BCS uses, don't look much better), but the Cowboys are more likely to lose to OU, IMO, than Alabama is to Auburn. Stanford's not going to win its own division-- I suppose Oregon could go completely in the tank and lose next week at home to 3-8 Oregon State, but that's doubtful-- and quite frankly, I wouldn't want to see this Stanford team play either Alabama or LSU, because with their injuries and lack of depth at the skill positions, the Cardinal don't have anybody right now that could get open downfield consistently against those defenses. Andrew Luck might complete 25 passes for 150 yards and get sacked eight times against LSU.
The circumstance are different this year than they were in 2006. Right now, no team has a compelling case that they're demonstrably better than Alabama at #2-- in fact, Alabama beat the current #3, Arkansas, by 24 points.
The circumstance are different this year than they were in 2006. Right now, no team has a compelling case that they're demonstrably better than Alabama at #2-- in fact, Alabama beat the current #3, Arkansas, by 24 points.
The circumstance are different this year than they were in 2006. Right now, no team has a compelling case that they're demonstrably better than Alabama at #2-- in fact, Alabama beat the current #3, Arkansas, by 24 points.
That is a good point but it is as contextual an argument as mine. If you know what I'm ``saying''...
Florida's case for going ahead of Michigan was significantly stronger in 2006 than anyone going ahead of Alabama should they be #2 after this coming week. Florida played a brutal schedule that year and actually played TWICE after Michigan's season was over: once against FSU and then they beat a very good Arkansas team in the SEC title game.
Bottom line, absolutely no one around college football, except some diehards in the Michigan fanbase, thinks Michigan was wronged that season.
At this point, I don't see OK State or Stanford or Virginia Tech making a strong case that they would deserve a spot in the title game more than Alabama does. No one else even has an argument. So for those who think LSU vs. Alabama Part II would be a joke, sell me on the idea that OK State is clearly more deserving, after the shitfest they just put on against Iowa State. Does anyone think Virginia Tech is one of the two best teams in the country? Really?
OK State and Stanford could each easily lose another game. Is the "no-rematch let's get revenge for 2006" impulse so strong in some of you that you'd think a TWO loss team should go ahead of Bama?
Tweet
Comment