Enter Your BCS Predictions: Win and Spread *With Polls*

[Tom]

Originally posted by: Turfzilla
The BCS was designed to have the two best teams in the nation playing for a title. Given that information, Michigan should be in the Nat'l Championship game. Michigan rolled over everone they played up until Ohio St. and that game was fun to watch. I personally would have loved to see the re-match, it would have been the game of the decade! Now I get to watch Ohio St. beat a half-ass Florida team who barely squeeked by in the SEC championship game. Not to mention LSU easily beat the SEC runner-up. Although Florida beat LSU early in the year, they were up and down this season. Michigan beat ranked teams, and beat them easily. So.... Expect a BCS blowout as Ohio St. kicks the S**T out of Florida 44-10.

Too bad Wolverines the BCS once again failed. Remind you of Auburn much?

:disgust:

a. Michigan rolled over Ball State ?

b. the "game of the decade" was already played two weeks ago. OSU won it.

 

[mpitts]

How about this gem from the voter in the Harris poll that put Florida #1:

Walden said Texas would still deserve to be rated higher than every other one-loss team if it wins out because the Longhorns? only loss was to No. 1 Ohio State.

?You?re never going to get me to vote for one team ahead of a team that?s only lost to the best team in the country,? - Jim Walden

Nice. Keep in mind that he said this about a month ago regarding Arkansas and it's ability to leap to #2 in the human polls.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: Wreckem
Thats some faulty logic. Florida lost the now #10 team. Not to mention were taken to the brink by 3 unranked teams, and played a crappy non confrence schedule.

And their in conference schedule was tougher than anyone else and overall UF's schedule was the toughest in the country. Period.

Let's talk about UF's loss to Auburn... I'm not whining or crying but UF beat themselves in that game with stupid mistakes and penalties (some bad calls but that usually balances itself out). The UF defense didn't give up a single TD (Auburn's TD's were a punt block and fumble return). Also, the 27-17 final score looks bad but they were in it until the end. It was 21-17 when Auburn ran the UF fumble back to seal the game.

In the SEC Championship game yesterday it was not that close. There were 2 awful calls on 3rd downs against UF that extended drives for Arkansas leading to TD's. And if Leak didn't make 2 absolute bonehead plays (INT's) the game would've been a blowout (granted - that is part of the game though).

I'll say this... I think Michigan got screwed but if it wasn't them it would've been the Gators and I would be saying the same thing UM fans are saying now. The fact is whoever finished in 3rd got screwed. It happens every year. This time it was UM's turn to get the screw. Next year it will be someone else. The current BCS system sucks and will until they decide it on the field.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: mpitts
I'd really like to know how a Gator fan would feel if they were left out of the championship game today. Michigan had just as much right to be there as Florida.

You know exactly how UF fans would feel. They'd feel the same way UM fans do now.

I agree with you by the way. It's not fair that only 2 teams have a chance to win the championship. The BCS system sucks. If nothing else maybe this will finally be the year that changes the system to a playoff.

 

[SpanishFry]

I think Michigan is probably better than UF, but don't want to see a rematch played.


1. It cheapens the regular season. It makes that win my OSU and loss by UM meaningless.

2. Leaves more questions.

a. If Michigan wins. who's better? The season record is at 1-1 and you need a 3rd game to decide the "real" winner.

b. If OSU wins again, then it turns into "we already knew OSU was better, what about UF?"

 

[AdvancedRobotics]

WAKE FOREST by 21! And that's the only game I care about

GO DEACS!

 

[Thraxen]

Originally posted by: Robor
In the SEC Championship game yesterday it was not that close. There were 2 awful calls on 3rd downs against UF that extended drives for Arkansas leading to TD's. And if Leak didn't make 2 absolute bonehead plays (INT's) the game would've been a blowout (granted - that is part of the game though).

Wow... talk about selective memory. It could EASILY be argued that Arkansas gave the game away on special teams: 1 missed field goal (-3 pts Ark), 1 blocked punt (+7 pts Fla), 1 muffed punt (+7 pts Fla), Ark fell for a fake punt, short kickoffs, short punts... etc... Arkansas did just about everything wrong on special teams. So while you could make that argument, it's just as valid to say Arkansas should have won 31-24 without the bonehead special teams play. Arkansas' overall special teams isn't that great, but that was their worst special teams play of the year. Leak throwing picks really isn't that unusual.

 

[jlbenedict]

Originally posted by: Thraxen

Originally posted by: Robor
In the SEC Championship game yesterday it was not that close. There were 2 awful calls on 3rd downs against UF that extended drives for Arkansas leading to TD's. And if Leak didn't make 2 absolute bonehead plays (INT's) the game would've been a blowout (granted - that is part of the game though).

Wow... talk about selective memory. It could EASILY be argued that Arkansas gave the game away on special teams: 1 missed field goal (-3 pts Ark), 1 blocked punt (+7 pts Fla), 1 muffed punt (+7 pts Fla), Ark fell for a fake punt, short kickoffs, short punts... etc... Arkansas did just about everything wrong on special teams. So while you could make that argument, it's just as valid to say Arkansas should have won 31-24 without the bonehead special teams play. Arkansas' overall special teams isn't that great, but that was their worst special teams play of the year. Leak throwing picks really isn't that unusual.

Pretty much spot on for my Hogs disaster. Hogs gave that game away. In addition, McFadden got injured in the 2nd quarter and played the rest of the game at around 75%. You could see it in all of his runs that he was not in form.

 

[Balt]

Ohio State over Florida
Michigan over USC
LSU over Notre Dame (there are actually people who think ND will win this?)
Wake Forest over Louisville (no respect for the Big East, even if the ACC is horrible)
Oklahoma over Boise State
Arkansas over Wisconsin (could be close if McFadden isn't 100%)

 

[Thraxen]

Originally posted by: jlbenedict
Pretty much spot on for my Hogs disaster. Hogs gave that game away. In addition, McFadden got injured in the 2nd quarter and played the rest of the game at around 75%. You could see it in all of his runs that he was not in form.

Yeah, I saw McFadden come up limping. But I've got to give Florida credit, they did a great job of keeping him contained. There were several plays where I saw big holes open only to see them shut just as quick. There was one Florida defender, Siler (sp?), that seemed to be in on almost all the tackles on McFadden. I think they had Siler spying McFadden the entire game (i.e. assigned man-to-man on him). Even with that, they were still in the game, but special teams threw their chance away. It was very disappointing.... especially watching it first hand

 

[BlancoNino]

Ohio State over Florida
USC over Michigan
Boise St. over Oklahoma
LSU over Notre Dame
Arkansas over Wisconsin

The bold one is the one where I am going out on a limb. Oklahoma was about an even match for Oregon (should have won, though) and played in a not-so-great Big-12. Boise St. beat Oregon State 42-14 and Oregon State went on to beat Oregon and USC.

Oklahoma is NOT ready to contain Ian Johnson and Zabranski with their bold and highly productive offense. Also, nobody has mentioned the outstanding defense Boise has played this year.

 

[mpitts]

Originally posted by: kmr1212
I think Michigan is probably better than UF, but don't want to see a rematch played.


1. It cheapens the regular season. It makes that win my OSU and loss by UM meaningless.

2. Leaves more questions.

a. If Michigan wins. who's better? The season record is at 1-1 and you need a 3rd game to decide the "real" winner.

b. If OSU wins again, then it turns into "we already knew OSU was better, what about UF?"

1. Doesn't putting Florida in the championship game make their loss to Auburn meaningless?

2a. So playing the #1 team on the road and playing the #1 team on a neutral field is the same? If that's the case, then lets make Florida play OSU in Columbus.

2b. Don't you think that if Florida loses by fourteen points, people will be saying "Maybe Michigan should have been in the championship game."?

People can try to equate OSU beating UM in Columbus to OSU playing UM in Glendale, but it's NOT the same.

 

[Thraxen]

Originally posted by: mpitts
1. Doesn't putting Florida in the championship game make their loss to Auburn meaningless?

2a. So playing the #1 team on the road and playing the #1 team on a neutral field is the same? If that's the case, then lets make Florida play OSU in Columbus.

2b. Don't you think that if Florida loses by fourteen points, people will be saying "Maybe Michigan should have been in the championship game."?

People can try to equate OSU beating UM in Columbus to OSU playing UM in Glendale, but it's NOT the same.

1. No, because they still beat out Auburn in the conference title race. UM lost their conference.

2a. I agree, it's not the same. But in the absence of a true playoff I see no reason why OSU should have to play UM again. It's just tough luck UM had to play them at OSU this year. They can try again next year when they have them at their house. Also, what would it prove? As others have pointed out, there would still be questions. A lot of people keep talking like it's a given OSU and UM are the top two teams, but why? What proof is there? Because OSU beat a Texas back at the beginning of the year? Texas didn't even make their conference title game and the game against OSU was the first big game ever for their freshman QB. UM beat ND, a team almost every thinks is overrated. They also beat Wisconsin who may be overrated themselves considering they lost to the only ranked team they played this year. So no matter how a rematch turned out many people would still be wondering how they would have faired against a top team from another conference.

2b. Maybe, but what if that doesn't happen? I can just as easily say, what if Florida wins? Then what are all the people calling for a rematch going to say? I say if OSU wins, and UM wins their bowl, then you have OSU and UM back at one and two in the final poll. But I see no reason why a rematch should take place outside of a playoff.

 

[mpitts]

Originally posted by: Thraxen

Originally posted by: mpitts
1. Doesn't putting Florida in the championship game make their loss to Auburn meaningless?

2a. So playing the #1 team on the road and playing the #1 team on a neutral field is the same? If that's the case, then lets make Florida play OSU in Columbus.

2b. Don't you think that if Florida loses by fourteen points, people will be saying "Maybe Michigan should have been in the championship game."?

People can try to equate OSU beating UM in Columbus to OSU playing UM in Glendale, but it's NOT the same.

1. No, because they still beat out Auburn in the conference title race. UM lost their conference.

2a. I agree, it's not the same. But in the absence of a true playoff I see no reason why OSU should have to play UM again. It's just tough luck UM had to play them at OSU this year. They can try again next year when they have them at their house. Also, what would it prove? As others have pointed out, there would still be questions. A lot of people keep talking like it's a given OSU and UM are the top two teams, but why? What proof is there? Because OSU beat a Texas back at the beginning of the year? Texas didn't even make their conference title game and the game against OSU was the first big game ever for their freshman QB. UM beat ND, a team almost every thinks is overrated. They also beat Wisconsin who may be overrated themselves considering they lost to the only ranked team they played this year. So no matter how a rematch turned out many people would still be wondering how they would have faired against a top team from another conference.

2b. Maybe, but what if that doesn't happen? I can just as easily say, what if Florida wins? Then what are all the people calling for a rematch going to say? I say if OSU wins, and UM wins their bowl, then you have OSU and UM back at one and two in the final poll. But I see no reason why a rematch should take place outside of a playoff.

The "you need to win your conference" argument is tired. If Florida loses to Arkansas, who do YOU think #2 would have been? Not USC. Not Arkansas. Not Louisville, Wake, Boise State or Oklahoma. In fact, most people here agreed that if Florida lost then Michigan should go. So why the change of heart then?

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: alexjohnson16

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Neither FL nor Michigan are worthy of playing OSU, they both are overrated. Who is better? Flip a freaking coin... that being said, rematches are L-A-M-E, ask Jim Tressela about that.

I've read your college football posts over the last few months and have come to conclude that you don't know a goddamned thing about it, at all.

Michigan obviously isn't worthy of playing OSU, as they only lost by THREE in COLUMBUS. They can't hang.

Rematches are L-A-M-E, because storylines should choose the National Championship game, forget finding out who the best team in America about that.

Michigan is the only team in the nation that will give tOSU a game in the NC game. The Bucks will absolutely shred Florida if they play, especially if the Gators' D plays like it did last night against Arkansas.

Michigan would beat Florida if the two teams played, and Ohio State will more than beat Florida. It's going to be a waste of a very good national championship matchup (tOSU/Michigan), because CBS gave the Gators a major handjob last night to ensure that their cashmaking conference would make the NC game.

We'll just wait and see, but mark my words, if Florida gets in, they will get dominated.

If really thought I don't know a gd thing about college football then you wouldn't have written six sentences in response. The fact of the matter is that no team can beat OSU, FL or UM (read above: both overrated). And rematches are freaking L-A-M-E, UM had their shot and they choked. Tressel agrees. UF will get killed, UM doesn't deserve another shot. I won't be watching either the Rose or NC games.

Well, you won't be watching WVU in a BCS Bowl, so

I thought WVU was going to a better Bowl than Auburn? Can we put up your NC prediction with the rest of your predictions?

1. WVU would go undefeated.
2. WVU would go to a BCS Bowl.
3. WVU would go to a better Bowl than Auburn.
4. Slaton and White can't be stopped.
5. You have even the remotest clue about anything related to sports or football.

Still butt hurt about getting owned in the bet thread? You'll get over it eventually.

All I have to say is: Triple overtime win over Rutgers with backup QB. Have fun watching Auburn in the AT&T Cotton, if they lose to Nebraska I will LMAO.

I've never seen a bigger idiot that is so far past not knowing when to shut his mouth in my life...

 

[Thraxen]

Originally posted by: mpitts
The "you need to win your conference" argument is tired. If Florida loses to Arkansas, who do YOU think #2 would have been? Not USC. Not Arkansas. Not Louisville, Wake, Boise State or Oklahoma. In fact, most people here agreed that if Florida lost then Michigan should go. So why the change of heart then?

That's not actually the claim I was making. I was simply saying Florida has "made up" for their loss against Auburn by winning the conference and beating the same teams Auburn lost to. But I do happen to agree with the conference title argument. In the absence of a playoff I think it's a very valid argument, I don't really care how "tired" you think it is. If Florida had lost I would have been in favor of Lousiville, though that wouldn't have happened. IMO, UM and OSU just stomped their way through a weak Big Ten conference. Maybe I'm wrong, but that will now be proven in the bowls. Nothing would have been proven with a rematch.

 

[b0mbrman]

OSU in a close one
USC in a close one
LSU by so much
Louisville by whatever...
OU by at least a touchdown
Arkansas by...touchdown...

At any rate, it'll be a more interesting bowl schedule than normal.

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: Thraxen

Originally posted by: mpitts
The "you need to win your conference" argument is tired. If Florida loses to Arkansas, who do YOU think #2 would have been? Not USC. Not Arkansas. Not Louisville, Wake, Boise State or Oklahoma. In fact, most people here agreed that if Florida lost then Michigan should go. So why the change of heart then?

That's not actually the claim I was making. I was simply saying Florida has "made up" for their loss against Auburn by winning the conference and beating the same teams Auburn lost to. But I do happen to agree with the conference title argument. In the absence of a playoff I think it's a very valid argument, I don't really care how "tired" you think it is. If Florida had lost I would have been in favor of Lousiville, though that wouldn't have happened. IMO, UM and OSU just stomped their way through a weak Big Ten conference. Maybe I'm wrong, but that will now be proven in the bowls. Nothing would have been proven with a rematch.

Perhaps...especially since Texas and Notre Dame each ended up weaker than everyone thought they were at the beginning of the season.

 

[SpanishFry]

Originally posted by: mpitts

Originally posted by: kmr1212
I think Michigan is probably better than UF, but don't want to see a rematch played.


1. It cheapens the regular season. It makes that win my OSU and loss by UM meaningless.

2. Leaves more questions.

a. If Michigan wins. who's better? The season record is at 1-1 and you need a 3rd game to decide the "real" winner.

b. If OSU wins again, then it turns into "we already knew OSU was better, what about UF?"

1. Doesn't putting Florida in the championship game make their loss to Auburn meaningless?

2a. So playing the #1 team on the road and playing the #1 team on a neutral field is the same? If that's the case, then lets make Florida play OSU in Columbus.

2b. Don't you think that if Florida loses by fourteen points, people will be saying "Maybe Michigan should have been in the championship game."?

People can try to equate OSU beating UM in Columbus to OSU playing UM in Glendale, but it's NOT the same.

1. No because Auburn != OSU. It's not as meaningful as Michigan's loss to OSU, because that's what it being settled here (Who is better between the 2 teams). We don't know who is better UF or OSU, but we know that OSU is better than Michigan because they already played.

2a. It is different, but it's never been about locale. It's always been about the teams. Here, there, wherever. Otherwise you have to play the same team 3 times to find the "real actual this time not last time" better team. Home, away, and neutral.

2b. Sure, I would be one of them. I think it's possible Michigan is better than Florida, but don't know. You have to give them their shot on the field, just like Michigan already got. You can't leave it up to speculation and put up a rematch when you already have the previous result. There are no previous results for UF/OSU.

**I was cheering for Michigan in the game with OSU. I think they're a great team. I hope they beat the ****** out of USC. But I think the voters had a tough choice to make and made the only one they had. There is NO WAY they could put Michigan back in a rematch and leave Florida out when Michigan already had their chance.

 

[mpitts]

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: Thraxen

Originally posted by: mpitts
The "you need to win your conference" argument is tired. If Florida loses to Arkansas, who do YOU think #2 would have been? Not USC. Not Arkansas. Not Louisville, Wake, Boise State or Oklahoma. In fact, most people here agreed that if Florida lost then Michigan should go. So why the change of heart then?

That's not actually the claim I was making. I was simply saying Florida has "made up" for their loss against Auburn by winning the conference and beating the same teams Auburn lost to. But I do happen to agree with the conference title argument. In the absence of a playoff I think it's a very valid argument, I don't really care how "tired" you think it is. If Florida had lost I would have been in favor of Lousiville, though that wouldn't have happened. IMO, UM and OSU just stomped their way through a weak Big Ten conference. Maybe I'm wrong, but that will now be proven in the bowls. Nothing would have been proven with a rematch.

Perhaps...especially since Texas and Notre Dame each ended up weaker than everyone thought they were at the beginning of the season.

Yet those two wins are better than any out of conference win that any SEC school can claim

 

[mpitts]

Originally posted by: Thraxen

Originally posted by: mpitts
The "you need to win your conference" argument is tired. If Florida loses to Arkansas, who do YOU think #2 would have been? Not USC. Not Arkansas. Not Louisville, Wake, Boise State or Oklahoma. In fact, most people here agreed that if Florida lost then Michigan should go. So why the change of heart then?

That's not actually the claim I was making. I was simply saying Florida has "made up" for their loss against Auburn by winning the conference and beating the same teams Auburn lost to. But I do happen to agree with the conference title argument. In the absence of a playoff I think it's a very valid argument, I don't really care how "tired" you think it is. If Florida had lost I would have been in favor of Lousiville, though that wouldn't have happened. IMO, UM and OSU just stomped their way through a weak Big Ten conference. Maybe I'm wrong, but that will now be proven in the bowls. Nothing would have been proven with a rematch.

If you understand the core of what the BCS attempts to accomplish, you will understand why you can not say that winning your conference is a prerequisite to being in the national championship game.

The BCS's ultimate goal (besides distributing money) is to have the two best teams play each other. If you say that you must be a conference champion in order to be one of the two best teams, you are also saying that it is never possible that the two best teams are in the same conference.

Everyone knows that the BCS is fvcked. Everyone. But conference and university presidents don't care. They care about money and making sure that they get their piece of it. The end.

 

[Thraxen]

Originally posted by: mpitts
Yet those two wins are better than any out of conference win that any SEC school can claim

Maybe. Georgia beat GT, SC beat Clemson, Auburn beat Washington St, Tennessee beat Cal. Maybe not as spectacular, though I'd argue that their in-conference games are much tougher than the Big Ten. The good thing about the way things turned out is now we'll get to see how things shake down. Ark will be taking on Wisconsin, Florida will be playing OSu, and LSU will be playing ND. Then add in USC vs UM and that should reveal a lot about all three conferences. That's the major reason I was against a rematch.

Originally posted by: mpitts
The BCS's ultimate goal (besides distributing money) is to have the two best teams play each other. If you say that you must be a conference champion in order to be one of the two best teams, you are also saying that it is never possible that the two best teams are in the same conference.

But, again, I still think it's unproven that they are indeed the two best teams. Until proven otherwise in the bowls, I think the Big Ten is one of the weaker BCS conferences overall this year. I'd personally only place them above the Big 12 in overall strength. Sure, it's possible that the two best teams are in the same conference, but when it's unproven that they are the two best, and they have already played, why shouldn't the conference champ be forced to play a team from another conference if there is one available with the proper credentials?

 

[mpitts]

Originally posted by: Thraxen

Originally posted by: mpitts
The "you need to win your conference" argument is tired. If Florida loses to Arkansas, who do YOU think #2 would have been? Not USC. Not Arkansas. Not Louisville, Wake, Boise State or Oklahoma. In fact, most people here agreed that if Florida lost then Michigan should go. So why the change of heart then?

That's not actually the claim I was making. I was simply saying Florida has "made up" for their loss against Auburn by winning the conference and beating the same teams Auburn lost to. But I do happen to agree with the conference title argument. In the absence of a playoff I think it's a very valid argument, I don't really care how "tired" you think it is. If Florida had lost I would have been in favor of Lousiville, though that wouldn't have happened. IMO, UM and OSU just stomped their way through a weak Big Ten conference. Maybe I'm wrong, but that will now be proven in the bowls. Nothing would have been proven with a rematch.

OK, then let's speculate. The Big Ten has a conference championship game. Based on the standings and location, it is very likely that Michigan and Ohio State would have played each other again in this imaginary game. What if Michigan wins that game and becomes conference champions? Does that dissolve their regular season loss to the same OSU team? Is that fair to OSU?

The fact of the matter is that conference championship games are just as bad as the BCS when it comes to money-grubbing. They are designed only to generate revenue for their respective conference. Conference championship games are the reason that 4-loss teams get into BCS bowl games. Look at the 2001 SEC championship game.. or the 2003 Big 12 Championship game.

There are only three of the six major conferences that even have a conference championship game. Is it fair that a #1 team from the Big-12, SEC or now ACC have to win an extra game? It screwed Oklahoma. It screwed Tennessee. This year was the first time ever that a team not ranked 1 or 2 in the BCS, playing in a conference championship game, actually played their way IN to the chamionship game.

 

[Thraxen]

Originally posted by: mpitts
OK, then let's speculate. The Big Ten has a conference championship game. Based on the standings and location, it is very likely that Michigan and Ohio State would have played each other again in this imaginary game. What if Michigan wins that game and becomes conference champions? Does that dissolve their regular season loss to the same OSU team? Is that fair to OSU?

Yes, essentially it does. With a conference championship you earn your way in and then play for the title. But the argument with Florida/UM is that both teams have earned their way for a title shot. Unfortunately for UM they already lost to the #1 team... the loss coming at the end of year makes it even worse for them. Tough luck, but I can see no rational reason to leave Florida out when they played a tougher schedule and haven't had a shot at #1.

The fact of the matter is that conference championship games are just as bad as the BCS when it comes to money-grubbing. They are designed only to generate revenue for their respective conference. Conference championship games are the reason that 4-loss teams get into BCS bowl games. Look at the 2001 SEC championship game.. or the 2003 Big 12 Championship game.

This can, and does, happen with tournaments too. You will always have the chance for a team to get hot at the right time and win out or take down some teams that had better years in a playoff. No system is perfect, but at least with a playoff more teams get a shot and there is less to complain and speculate about.

There are only three of the six major conferences that even have a conference championship game. Is it fair that a #1 team from the Big-12, SEC or now ACC have to win an extra game? It screwed Oklahoma. It screwed Tennessee. This year was the first time ever that a team not ranked 1 or 2 in the BCS, playing in a conference championship game, actually played their way IN to the chamionship game.

Not sure what your point is here. The conference championship is a double edged sword. It can screw a team that would have made it without having to play the extra game, but it can also help... as is the case with Florida. If it can hurt a team, it should also be able to help.

 

[mpitts]

Originally posted by: Thraxen

Originally posted by: mpitts
Yet those two wins are better than any out of conference win that any SEC school can claim

Maybe. Georgia beat GT, SC beat Clemson, Auburn beat Washington St, Tennessee beat Cal. Maybe not as spectacular, though I'd argue that their in-conference games are much tougher than the Big Ten. The good thing about the way things turned out is now we'll get to see how things shake down. Ark will be taking on Wisconsin, Florida will be playing OSu, and LSU will be playing ND. Then add in USC vs UM and that should reveal a lot about all three conferences. That's the major reason I was against a rematch.

Originally posted by: mpitts
The BCS's ultimate goal (besides distributing money) is to have the two best teams play each other. If you say that you must be a conference champion in order to be one of the two best teams, you are also saying that it is never possible that the two best teams are in the same conference.

But, again, I still think it's unproven that they are indeed the two best teams. Until proven otherwise in the bowls, I think the Big Ten is one of the weaker BCS conferences overall this year. I'd personally only place them above the Big 12 in overall strength. Sure, it's possible that the two best teams are in the same conference, but when it's unproven that they are the two best, and they have already played, why shouldn't the conference champ be forced to play a team from another conference if there is one available with the proper credentials?

It's not a maybe. You can't use rankings and statistics to augment your arguments, then dismiss them when they are used against you. The fact is that the best win by any SEC team out of conference this year was Tennessee over #20 Cal.

The SEC is a difficult conference to play in. But so is the Big Ten. Go look at the head-to-head results of the Big Ten v SEC teams in bowl games over the past few seasons:

2005 - 2-2
2004 - 2-1 Big Ten
2003 - 2-1 SEC
2002 - 2-1 Big Ten
2001 - 3-0 SEC
2000 - 1-1
1999 - 2-1 Big Ten

So, add those up and we get:

11-10 SEC over Big Ten. So, over seven years of bowl games the SEC has won exactly one more game heads up than the Big Ten. But every year, SEC fans pound their chests and talk about how much better their conference is than anyone else's. This data is the only way we can really judge that.

BTW, Don't mind me. I am wound up right now. Truth be told, I would rather not have Michigan play OSU (which I have stated numerous times on this forum). What upsets me is that so many people are so flippant about dismissing Michigan as a viable option. They are obviously just as good as Florida. If you look at how close the voting was and the computer polls, everyone knows that.