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

[Tom]

Originally posted by: mpitts

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: mpitts
How does this sound to everyone?

Ohio State v. USC - Rose Bowl
Florida v. Michigan - Sugar Bowl

Winners play each other on January 8th.

like a solution for a non-issue.

Some years there is a real problem figuring out which two teams belong in the Championship game, this isn't one of those years.

It all worked out quite cleanly today.

So Michigan has no claim at being #2? None?

Of course they do. So does Boise State. But to me neither has as good a claim as Florida, by a significant margin.

Suppose Michigan plays Ohio State and wins, and Florida wins their bowl game, how would you explain to Florida why they never got a shot at Ohio State, and Michigan got two ?

No matter how much you analyze it, the SOS difference between Florida and Michigan is insignificant.

But Florida has 2 real world advantages over Michigan.

1. they won their conference. this isn't a technicality, it's arguably the most significant thing a school plays for. Florida and OSU both won their conferences.

2. they didn't already lose to the team that nobody questions should be one of the teams in the National Title game.

That's another flaw in your suggested playoff, USC doesn't deserve to be in there, and OSU shouldn't have to earn their way into the title game, they already did.

 

[puffff]

Originally posted by: Alkaline5

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Michigan vs Florida.

Conference win = Florida.
Schedule Strength = Florida.
Team that didn't already play OSU = Florida.
Conference Strength = SEC>Big-10 = Florida.

These are the only stats that matter right now. UM is certainly deserving of a #2 ranking, but they already freaking played OSU two weeks ago! Florida may have struggled down the stretch, but they had a strong win over Arkansas tonight and they should get the nod for the title game seeing as we already know that OSU is better than Michigan.

For everyone who says it's already shown OSU is better than Michigan, they shouldn't play again, they don't deserve the opportunity since they already had theirs... remember Michigan lost by only 3 pts on the road. If we really want #1 vs #2,. and Michigan is the #2 team, by all means they should get a shot on a neutral turf.

 

[Alkaline5]

Originally posted by: puffff

Originally posted by: Alkaline5

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Michigan vs Florida.

Conference win = Florida.
Schedule Strength = Florida.
Team that didn't already play OSU = Florida.
Conference Strength = SEC>Big-10 = Florida.

These are the only stats that matter right now. UM is certainly deserving of a #2 ranking, but they already freaking played OSU two weeks ago! Florida may have struggled down the stretch, but they had a strong win over Arkansas tonight and they should get the nod for the title game seeing as we already know that OSU is better than Michigan.

For everyone who says it's already shown OSU is better than Michigan, they shouldn't play again, they don't deserve the opportunity since they already had theirs... remember Michigan lost by only 3 pts on the road. If we really want #1 vs #2,. and Michigan is the #2 team, by all means they should get a shot on a neutral turf.

Please explain to me why Florida shouldn't get a chance to play OSU so that UM can have a re-do instead.

 

[mpitts]

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: mpitts

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: mpitts
How does this sound to everyone?

Ohio State v. USC - Rose Bowl
Florida v. Michigan - Sugar Bowl

Winners play each other on January 8th.

like a solution for a non-issue.

Some years there is a real problem figuring out which two teams belong in the Championship game, this isn't one of those years.

It all worked out quite cleanly today.

So Michigan has no claim at being #2? None?

Of course they do. So does Boise State. But to me neither has as good a claim as Florida, by a significant margin.

Suppose Michigan plays Ohio State and wins, and Florida wins their bowl game, how would you explain to Florida why they never got a shot at Ohio State, and Michigan got two ?

No matter how much you analyze it, the SOS difference between Florida and Michigan is insignificant.

But Florida has 2 real world advantages over Michigan.

1. they won their conference. this isn't a technicality, it's arguably the most significant thing a school plays for. Florida and OSU both won their conferences.

2. they didn't already lose to the team that nobody questions should be one of the teams in the National Title game.

That's another flaw in your suggested playoff, USC doesn't deserve to be in there, and OSU shouldn't have to earn their way into the title game, they already did.

#1. Winning your conference has never been (and will never be) a determining factor by the BCS as to whether a team should play in the championship game.

#2. Florida lost to Auburn. How is that better than losing to Ohio State. Just because Michigan played Ohio State and lost doesn't mean they are any less a candidate to be the #2 team in the country.

And as for the flaw in my suggested playoff, why doesn't USC deserve to be there? And how would OSU have already earned their way into a title game if there were a playoff?

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: thelanx
I don't understand the people who argue that the OSU/Mich game is a lot closer that it was. We could play woulda coulda shouda all day. The bottom line is, both sides made big and sometimes stupid mistakes that changed the game in a major fashion. To argue that OSU's mistakes somehow shouldn't count is ridiculous. Screwing up in such a in stupid manner shouldn't be used to argue that OSU is better, in fact it should be the other way around. If OSU fumbled on a stupid play and Mich won, would you argue that OSU should have won because it was a dumb mistake? The score is fair, stop arguing that it should have been different.

As far as I'm concerned the score is what it is. But that includes the fact that Michigan lost.

Close only counts in hand grenades and horseshoes.

 

[mpitts]

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: thelanx
I don't understand the people who argue that the OSU/Mich game is a lot closer that it was. We could play woulda coulda shouda all day. The bottom line is, both sides made big and sometimes stupid mistakes that changed the game in a major fashion. To argue that OSU's mistakes somehow shouldn't count is ridiculous. Screwing up in such a in stupid manner shouldn't be used to argue that OSU is better, in fact it should be the other way around. If OSU fumbled on a stupid play and Mich won, would you argue that OSU should have won because it was a dumb mistake? The score is fair, stop arguing that it should have been different.

As far as I'm concerned the score is what it is. But that includes the fact that Michigan lost.

Close only counts in hand grenades and horseshoes.

And the BCS.

 

[jlbenedict]

Originally posted by: mpitts

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: thelanx
I don't understand the people who argue that the OSU/Mich game is a lot closer that it was. We could play woulda coulda shouda all day. The bottom line is, both sides made big and sometimes stupid mistakes that changed the game in a major fashion. To argue that OSU's mistakes somehow shouldn't count is ridiculous. Screwing up in such a in stupid manner shouldn't be used to argue that OSU is better, in fact it should be the other way around. If OSU fumbled on a stupid play and Mich won, would you argue that OSU should have won because it was a dumb mistake? The score is fair, stop arguing that it should have been different.

As far as I'm concerned the score is what it is. But that includes the fact that Michigan lost.

Close only counts in hand grenades and horseshoes.

And the BCS.

 

[OSUCowboy]

Originally posted by: jlbenedict
There should be no way in hell Michigan gets another shot.

The goal of the BCS is to get the best two teams to play in the final game. In my humble opinion, Michigan is #2. Game one was so good, I would love to see round 2. Florida hasn't proved they're better than Michigan.

 

[bignateyk]

Originally posted by: OSUCowboy

Originally posted by: jlbenedict
There should be no way in hell Michigan gets another shot.

The goal of the BCS is to get the best two teams to play in the final game. In my humble opinion, Michigan is #2. Game one was so good, I would love to see round 2. Florida hasn't proved they're better than Michigan.

hah. You just want to beat michigan again since it felt so good last time. I too enjoy watching michigan lose, but I think florida should have its turn to lose to the powerhouse that is OSU.

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: mpitts

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: mpitts

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: mpitts
How does this sound to everyone?

Ohio State v. USC - Rose Bowl
Florida v. Michigan - Sugar Bowl

Winners play each other on January 8th.

like a solution for a non-issue.

Some years there is a real problem figuring out which two teams belong in the Championship game, this isn't one of those years.

It all worked out quite cleanly today.

So Michigan has no claim at being #2? None?

Of course they do. So does Boise State. But to me neither has as good a claim as Florida, by a significant margin.

Suppose Michigan plays Ohio State and wins, and Florida wins their bowl game, how would you explain to Florida why they never got a shot at Ohio State, and Michigan got two ?

No matter how much you analyze it, the SOS difference between Florida and Michigan is insignificant.

But Florida has 2 real world advantages over Michigan.

1. they won their conference. this isn't a technicality, it's arguably the most significant thing a school plays for. Florida and OSU both won their conferences.

2. they didn't already lose to the team that nobody questions should be one of the teams in the National Title game.

That's another flaw in your suggested playoff, USC doesn't deserve to be in there, and OSU shouldn't have to earn their way into the title game, they already did.

#1. Winning your conference has never been (and will never be) a determining factor by the BCS as to whether a team should play in the championship game.

#2. Florida lost to Auburn. How is that better than losing to Ohio State. Just because Michigan played Ohio State and lost doesn't mean they are any less a candidate to be the #2 team in the country.

And as for the flaw in my suggested playoff, why doesn't USC deserve to be there? And how would OSU have already earned their way into a title game if there were a playoff?

Playoffs don't solve anything, they just make a new set of issues. Like the one I presented, there's no reason given the way things ended up, that Ohio State should have to earn their way into the title game.

Suppose USC beat Ohio State. So now USC gets to play for the title, and Ohio State's flawless regular season record means nothing ?

I don't see that as a superior way to pick the champion.

And if there was a playoff for 4 teams, why isn't Boise State included ? Better make it a 16 team playoff.


And why put it all on one game, make it like baseball, each playoff "game" will be a best of 5 series. That would better, right ?

so what you end up doing with a playoff system, is you make the regular season less important, and you still aren't fair to all teams.

 

[Tom]

"#1. Winning your conference has never been (and will never be) a determining factor by the BCS as to whether a team should play in the championship game. "


we'll see when the voting is complete..

 

[OSUCowboy]

Originally posted by: bignateyk

Originally posted by: OSUCowboy

Originally posted by: jlbenedict
There should be no way in hell Michigan gets another shot.

The goal of the BCS is to get the best two teams to play in the final game. In my humble opinion, Michigan is #2. Game one was so good, I would love to see round 2. Florida hasn't proved they're better than Michigan.

hah. You just want to beat michigan again since it felt so good last time. I too enjoy watching michigan lose, but I think florida should have its turn to lose to the powerhouse that is OSU.

My OSU is Oklahoma State; we have no bowl to speak of. I actually like Michigan.

 

[mpitts]

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: mpitts

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: mpitts

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: mpitts
How does this sound to everyone?

Ohio State v. USC - Rose Bowl
Florida v. Michigan - Sugar Bowl

Winners play each other on January 8th.

like a solution for a non-issue.

Some years there is a real problem figuring out which two teams belong in the Championship game, this isn't one of those years.

It all worked out quite cleanly today.

So Michigan has no claim at being #2? None?

Of course they do. So does Boise State. But to me neither has as good a claim as Florida, by a significant margin.

Suppose Michigan plays Ohio State and wins, and Florida wins their bowl game, how would you explain to Florida why they never got a shot at Ohio State, and Michigan got two ?

No matter how much you analyze it, the SOS difference between Florida and Michigan is insignificant.

But Florida has 2 real world advantages over Michigan.

1. they won their conference. this isn't a technicality, it's arguably the most significant thing a school plays for. Florida and OSU both won their conferences.

2. they didn't already lose to the team that nobody questions should be one of the teams in the National Title game.

That's another flaw in your suggested playoff, USC doesn't deserve to be in there, and OSU shouldn't have to earn their way into the title game, they already did.

#1. Winning your conference has never been (and will never be) a determining factor by the BCS as to whether a team should play in the championship game.

#2. Florida lost to Auburn. How is that better than losing to Ohio State. Just because Michigan played Ohio State and lost doesn't mean they are any less a candidate to be the #2 team in the country.

And as for the flaw in my suggested playoff, why doesn't USC deserve to be there? And how would OSU have already earned their way into a title game if there were a playoff?

Playoffs don't solve anything, they just make a new set of issues. Like the one I presented, there's no reason given the way things ended up, that Ohio State should have to earn their way into the title game.

Suppose USC beat Ohio State. So now USC gets to play for the title, and Ohio State's flawless regular season record means nothing ?

I don't see that as a superior way to pick the champion.

And if there was a playoff for 4 teams, why isn't Boise State included ? Better make it a 16 team playoff.


And why put it all on one game, make it like baseball, each playoff "game" will be a best of 5 series. That would better, right ?

so what you end up doing with a playoff system, is you make the regular season less important, and you still aren't fair to all teams.

So every other facet of sport in the US can be decided by a playoff (including Division 1-AA, Division 2 and Division 3 college football) but it is asinine to suggest it in Division 1-A college football?

I feel a lot better about leaving #5 or #9 out of a 4 or 8 team playoff than I do leaving a #3 team that is just as qualified to participate as #2. If you are #5 or #9, you have lost two or three games. If you are #3, you could have lost ZERO games (Auburn) and still be left out. How is that fair?

 

[mpitts]

Originally posted by: Tom
"#1. Winning your conference has never been (and will never be) a determining factor by the BCS as to whether a team should play in the championship game. "


we'll see when the voting is complete..

No need to wait. Just ask Nebraska and Oklahoma fans. They can attest to it.

And if Florida lost to Arkansas, then who would you suggest play Ohio State? USC? Arkansas? Louisville? Oklahoma? Wake Forest? Again, if Florida loses, those are your conference champions.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Tom
"#1. Winning your conference has never been (and will never be) a determining factor by the BCS as to whether a team should play in the championship game. "


we'll see when the voting is complete..

It's unfortunate that human voters have their own biases. If you're going to have a national championship game with no playoffs, then that national championship game should be between the two best teams in the country. Not the best team in the country and the best team in the country that is in a different conference. If the best two teams in the country are in the same conference, so be it. If they don't want it to be that way, they ought to change the rules.

 

[Fingolfin269]

Everyone just needs to step back and look at the big picture. Forget about Florida. Forget about Michigan. If someone walked up to you and asked, 'At the end of the year, would you rather see a national championship with two teams from the same conference OR would you rather see a national championship with two teams from two different power conferences?' .....

How would you have answered?

This is a no-brainer folks.

 

[preslove]

Originally posted by: mpitts
How does this sound to everyone?

Ohio State v. USC - Rose Bowl
Florida v. Michigan - Sugar Bowl

Winners play each other on January 8th.

That would be a good start. But, an ideal playoff system, imho, would be 8 teams so that schools like Louisville and Boise State get a chance.

 

[mpitts]

Originally posted by: preslove

Originally posted by: mpitts
How does this sound to everyone?

Ohio State v. USC - Rose Bowl
Florida v. Michigan - Sugar Bowl

Winners play each other on January 8th.

That would be a good start. But, an ideal playoff system, imho, would be 8 teams so that schools like Louisville and Boise State get a chance.

I completely agree. I have said for years that the four major bowl games should be the six BCS conference winners and two at-large teams.

 

[chuckywang]

I think that Michigan is hurt by not being on the field for 2 weeks. Voters have a short memory span, and they'll have the images of Florida winning their championship game fresh in their minds. I think that Michigan was hurt by scheduling their 12th game this season so early in the year. They should have taken a bye one of their earlier weeks and played either last week or this week.

 

[Poulsonator]

Originally posted by: mpitts

Originally posted by: Tom
"#1. Winning your conference has never been (and will never be) a determining factor by the BCS as to whether a team should play in the championship game. "


we'll see when the voting is complete..

No need to wait. Just ask Nebraska and Oklahoma fans. They can attest to it.

And if Florida lost to Arkansas, then who would you suggest play Ohio State? USC? Arkansas? Louisville? Oklahoma? Wake Forest? Again, if Florida loses, those are your conference champions.

This scenario is the one case where conference championships can't override a better record. If Florida would have lost tonight, then UM would be the ONLY choice for OSU's opponent due to their record. Louisville's schedule would do them in.

 

[mpitts]

Originally posted by: Poulsonator

Originally posted by: mpitts

Originally posted by: Tom
"#1. Winning your conference has never been (and will never be) a determining factor by the BCS as to whether a team should play in the championship game. "


we'll see when the voting is complete..

No need to wait. Just ask Nebraska and Oklahoma fans. They can attest to it.

And if Florida lost to Arkansas, then who would you suggest play Ohio State? USC? Arkansas? Louisville? Oklahoma? Wake Forest? Again, if Florida loses, those are your conference champions.

This scenario is the one case where conference championships can't override a better record. If Florida would have lost tonight, then UM would be the ONLY choice for OSU's opponent due to their record. Louisville's schedule would do them in.

That one scenario was very likely up until the last game of the year. It has happened in the past. Don't make it sound like it is a million to one shot.

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: mugs
It's unfortunate that human voters have their own biases. If you're going to have a national championship game with no playoffs, then that national championship game should be between the two best teams in the country. Not the best team in the country and the best team in the country that is in a different conference. If the best two teams in the country are in the same conference, so be it. If they don't want it to be that way, they ought to change the rules.

Mugs, you're one of my favorite posters here and although we have different ideas for who should be playing Ohio State in the title game, I have to agree. The 2 best teams should play eachother. If Florida would have lost, I would have no problem with Michigan playing Ohio State. But right now, I think the pollsters would have to give Florida some points for playing in a tough conference championship game and winning it.

I think the only argument Michigan has is that their loss is to #1 Ohio State, whereas Florida's only was to #11 Auburn.

Strength of schedule, OTOH, would have to go to Florida for beating Tennessee, Arkansas, and LSU, which are 3 teams that are much better than Michigan's Notre Dame and Wisconsin quality wins.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: mugs
It's unfortunate that human voters have their own biases. If you're going to have a national championship game with no playoffs, then that national championship game should be between the two best teams in the country. Not the best team in the country and the best team in the country that is in a different conference. If the best two teams in the country are in the same conference, so be it. If they don't want it to be that way, they ought to change the rules.

Mugs, you're one of my favorite posters here and although we have different ideas for who should be playing Ohio State in the title game, I have to agree. The 2 best teams should play eachother. If Florida would have lost, I would have no problem with Michigan playing Ohio State. But right now, I think the pollsters would have to give Florida some points for playing in a tough conference championship game and winning it.

I think the only argument Michigan has is that their loss is to #1 Ohio State, whereas Florida's only was to #11 Auburn.

Strength of schedule, OTOH, would have to go to Florida for beating Tennessee, Arkansas, and LSU, which are 3 teams that are much better than Michigan's Notre Dame and Wisconsin quality wins.

I wouldn't mind seeing Florida in the national championship game. I'd be happy either way. I root for Michigan because my best friend went to Michigan, and I went to a school that isn't even in the NCAA (NAIA, and our football team sucked). But I think it's likely that Michigan would lose to OSU again. I wouldn't mind seeing Florida get a chance and seeing Michigan play USC in the Rose Bowl.

 

[chuckywang]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: mugs
It's unfortunate that human voters have their own biases. If you're going to have a national championship game with no playoffs, then that national championship game should be between the two best teams in the country. Not the best team in the country and the best team in the country that is in a different conference. If the best two teams in the country are in the same conference, so be it. If they don't want it to be that way, they ought to change the rules.

Mugs, you're one of my favorite posters here and although we have different ideas for who should be playing Ohio State in the title game, I have to agree. The 2 best teams should play eachother. If Florida would have lost, I would have no problem with Michigan playing Ohio State. But right now, I think the pollsters would have to give Florida some points for playing in a tough conference championship game and winning it.

I think the only argument Michigan has is that their loss is to #1 Ohio State, whereas Florida's only was to #11 Auburn.

Strength of schedule, OTOH, would have to go to Florida for beating Tennessee, Arkansas, and LSU, which are 3 teams that are much better than Michigan's Notre Dame and Wisconsin quality wins.

The Big Ten has no conference championship game, so don't use that argument against Michigan. For me, the conference championship game is just another game in the bigger picture of the BCS.

I am so sick and tired of Florida supporters using the argument "Florida won their conference and Michigan didn't" as a reason why it should be Florida instead of Michigan. What we're trying to figure out is is the no. 2 team in the country. Ohio State is no. 1, no doubt, and they play in the Big Ten. Does that mean any other Big Ten team cannot be no. 2 in the country? No, that's ridiculous. But that is exactly what the Florida supporters are trying to argue.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: mugs
It's unfortunate that human voters have their own biases. If you're going to have a national championship game with no playoffs, then that national championship game should be between the two best teams in the country. Not the best team in the country and the best team in the country that is in a different conference. If the best two teams in the country are in the same conference, so be it. If they don't want it to be that way, they ought to change the rules.

Mugs, you're one of my favorite posters here and although we have different ideas for who should be playing Ohio State in the title game, I have to agree. The 2 best teams should play eachother. If Florida would have lost, I would have no problem with Michigan playing Ohio State. But right now, I think the pollsters would have to give Florida some points for playing in a tough conference championship game and winning it.

I think the only argument Michigan has is that their loss is to #1 Ohio State, whereas Florida's only was to #11 Auburn.

Strength of schedule, OTOH, would have to go to Florida for beating Tennessee, Arkansas, and LSU, which are 3 teams that are much better than Michigan's Notre Dame and Wisconsin quality wins.

I wouldn't mind seeing Florida in the national championship game. I'd be happy either way. I root for Michigan because my best friend went to Michigan, and I went to a school that isn't even in the NCAA (NAIA, and our football team sucked). But I think it's likely that Michigan would lose to OSU again. I wouldn't mind seeing Florida get a chance and seeing Michigan play USC in the Rose Bowl.

I think Florida would get spanked by Ohio.