What a great game folks.
Any thoughts?
To tell you the truth I wasn’t at all impressed with either team. Both defenses played horribly and OSU’s offense turned the ball over three times. Michigans offense looked good, but not good enough to overcome the play of the defense. OSU gave them three gift turnovers but still managed to win due to Michigan’s complete inablity to stop them.
Hopefully, Michigan does not make it into the National Championship. I would much rather see an SEC team or even Rutgers, teams that have consistently played good defense, not just against bad teams, play OSU for the Championship.
I thought it was a great game, from start to finish. The only way it could have been better would be if the score were reversed. Damn, that personal foul on third and fifteen killed. Damn. Great game, tough loss.
[quote]tedro wrote:
Hopefully, Michigan does not make it into the National Championship. I would much rather see an SEC team or even Rutgers, teams that have consistently played good defense, not just against bad teams, play OSU for the Championship.[/quote]
you’re telling me that Rutgers has played good defense against “good” teams all year? that is a freaking joke. Yes Michigan’s defense lost the game, but you can’t really say that Ohio State played great defense either.
It was a hell of a game, and there is still some football to be played. My choice would be for a rematch. . . but I’m biased since I go to Michigan.
-Matt
[quote]slimsaw00 wrote:
you’re telling me that Rutgers has played good defense against “good” teams all year? that is a freaking joke. Yes Michigan’s defense lost the game, but you can’t really say that Ohio State played great defense either.
-Matt
[/quote]
I’m not at all saying that OSU played good defense. I said both teams played horrible defense.
And I didn’t say Rutgers has played good teams all year, but their strength of schedule is very similar to Michigan’s and OSU’s, and they have played good defense in each game, including against #3 (at the time) Louisville, the #2 offense in college football.
Ooooo-rah Buckeyes! Fuck Michigan!
[quote]Donut62 wrote:
Ooooo-rah Buckeyes! Fuck Michigan![/quote]
Thats whats great about OSU Fans…
Classy til the end.
I’m sad that big blue lost, but a 3 point loss, at the horseshoe, in a shootout… no shame in that.
BTW for all those Rutgers folks…
At the moment Cin 17 Rut 3…
[quote]emdawgz1 wrote:
Thats whats great about OSU Fans…
Classy til the end.
[/quote]
The irony of a UM fan criticizing the ‘class’ of an opposing fanbase in victory is overwhelming…
My thought on it is until they start giving bonuses in the BCS points standings to SEC teams the entire ranking system is irrelevant, as shown by incompetent play by both OSU and Michigan.
If USC played Arkansas again they’d get mauled. The team is greatly improved. If USC played in the SEC they’d be one of the better teams, though probably not the best. The same can be said of Michigan. Rutgers would be a mediocre team in the SEC at best. The only team that could conceivably rise above the pack would be OSU.
In short, no playoffs no care. The conferences are poorly balanced as far as talent goes. The best conference rips itself apart, while teams that dominate a few bad teams and survive a few good ones are named champions.
[quote]Dweezil wrote:
In short, no playoffs no care. The conferences are poorly balanced as far as talent goes. The best conference rips itself apart, while teams that dominate a few bad teams and survive a few good ones are named champions.[/quote]
So, with playoffs, a team that clinches early can rest its starters and lose two regular season games with no repercussions and no penalties for losses. I disagree, and, for now, I’ll pass on playoffs.
And for those keeping score, since 1998, Big Ten teams have the most BCS bowl wins.
[quote]Dweezil wrote:
My thought on it is until they start giving bonuses in the BCS points standings to SEC teams the entire ranking system is irrelevant, as shown by incompetent play by both OSU and Michigan.
If USC played Arkansas again they’d get mauled. The team is greatly improved. If USC played in the SEC they’d be one of the better teams, though probably not the best. The same can be said of Michigan. Rutgers would be a mediocre team in the SEC at best. The only team that could conceivably rise above the pack would be OSU.
In short, no playoffs no care. The conferences are poorly balanced as far as talent goes. The best conference rips itself apart, while teams that dominate a few bad teams and survive a few good ones are named champions.[/quote]
I agree with the playoff statement. I just think that for football - the Pac10 should carry no more weight than the WAC, or the Mountain West COnferences.
I’d bet cash money Boise State would wipe the floor with the “mighty” trojans.
[quote]malonetd wrote:
So, with playoffs, a team that clinches early can rest its starters and lose two regular season games with no repercussions and no penalties for losses. I disagree, and, for now, I’ll pass on playoffs.[/quote]
More like with playoffs the best teams under the currently ridiculous standards would get a bye while teams playing tougher schedules with their two losses still have to play through to reach them and ultimately prove themselves.
I would imagine any fan of any team not in the SEC would pass on playoffs. Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, Alabama, Arkansas, LSU, Auburn, MSU, Mississippi. No matter which of those teams is having an off year, there’s almost always competitive, and it always seems that atleast three of them are in it until they kill each other.
If you put USC in the SEC they’d be destroyed along with the rest. If you put OSU in they’d be a one loss team with Florida this year. It’s fair if your team belongs to a conference that only has one or two strong teams a year instead of five.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
I’d bet cash money Boise State would wipe the floor with the “mighty” trojans.
[/quote]
Without a doubt.
As it stands now, the teams in the best position to win national championships are in mediocre to good conferences. The best conference, the SEC, essentially cannibalizes itself. A team from a smaller conference doesn’t get the credit regardless of what they do, which is also bullshit.
I’m not completely against playoffs, but it had better be a damn good system to convince me. One of my biggest concerns is that I never want it to get to a point where a regular season means nothing. That’s part of my fear this year, with a lot of people calling for a OSU-UM rematch. Basically, these people are saying it doesn’t matter who wins or loses this game. I disagree, Every game should matter. Even if I truly believe Michigan is still the second best team in the nation, they lost, they should get penalized.
Every year SEC fans talk about how tough the conference is and how the teams take turns beating each other up all year. Just win the games and there will be no issue. If an SEC team can’t make it through its conference without losing a couple games, how is it supposed to make it through a three-round playoff against some of the best teams in the country.
Because of this, I almost think the current system is better for SEC teams than a playoff. At least with the current system, an SEC team just needs to play one bowl game against a team from a “softer” conference and not a series of games since the team is already beat up from the regular season.
Here’s a list of bowl records by conference the last two years:
2005 season:
ACC 5-3
Big 12 5-3
Pac-10 3-2
SEC 3-3
C-USA 3-3
MW 2-2
MAC 1-1
Ind 1-1
Big Ten 3-4
WAC 1-2
Big East 1-3
Sun Belt 0-1
2004:
MW 2-1
C-USA 3-2
Pac-10 3-2
Big 12 4-3
ACC 3-3
Big Ten 3-3
SEC 3-3
WAC 2-2
Ind 1-1
Big East 2-3
MAC 2-3
Sun Belt 0-2
If the SEC is truly head and shoulders above the other conferences, wouldn’t it show in their bowl records? Back-to-back .500 records does not show me they are the superior conference.
Back to the playoffs, I’m not totally against the idea, I just need something very convincing to sway me. I don’t want a large playoff. The whole argument for a playoff is to determine the national champion and there’s rarely more than a few teams that can claim they deserve a shot. The best idea for a playoff I’ve heard so far is the “plus-one” idea, with an extra game after the bowl games. But the idea would need some tweaking.
The one area I think needs desperate attention, regardless of playoff or bowl system, is the situation with undefeated teams in conferences other than the BCS 6. When a team wins every game it plays, no matter how supposedly “weak” their schedule is, they deserve to play either until they lose a game or until they win the championship.
[quote]malonetd wrote:
Every year SEC fans talk about how tough the conference is and how the teams take turns beating each other up all year. Just win the games and there will be no issue. If an SEC team can’t make it through its conference without losing a couple games, how is it supposed to make it through a three-round playoff against some of the best teams in the country.[/quote]
That doesn’t make any sense. If conference A is a weak conference, and conference B is a great conference, and teams with the same talent level go through A and B, and the team in A loses 0 games and the team in B loses 2 games, how does it make the team from B any less likely to beat some of the best teams in the country? If anything, they’d of already played the best teams in the country, and it would be on the shoulders of the team in the weaker conference to prove they could play against three great teams three weeks in a row.
[quote]Because of this, I almost think the current system is better for SEC teams than a playoff. At least with the current system, an SEC team just needs to play one bowl game against a team from a “softer” conference and not a series of games since the team is already beat up from the regular season.
If the SEC is truly head and shoulders above the other conferences, wouldn’t it show in their bowl records? Back-to-back .500 records does not show me they are the superior conference.[/quote]
Bowls bowls bowls bowls bowls. Fuck bowls. This is about National Championships. It is a sport. This is not some pageant and parade. The people at the NCAA have forgotten this is a sport, the deans who care about the money have forgotten this is a sport, and the people who support the BCS system have forgotten this is a sport. A true sporting event is judged by putting two opponents against each other and seeing which one wins.
The bowl record of the SEC may be mediocre, but the strength of the teams throughout the majority of the regular season is incredible. Wear and tear plays a role by the end of the season when you’re playing through a superior conference. If one team from the SEC makes it through to the title game then chances are they’re going to take it. Does anyone really believe USC would have beaten LSU in 03 had they played? Anyone who watched LSU that season knew how good they were. They shared a title. Competition is supposed to crown a winner. When it does not, then the competition is flawed.
1 and 2 get byes on week one, play the weakest ranked remaining in week two. Top 8 teams.
I agree.
[quote]emdawgz1 wrote:
Donut62 wrote:
Ooooo-rah Buckeyes! Fuck Michigan!
Thats whats great about OSU Fans…
Classy til the end.
[/quote]
Oh, can the sad loser crap. If Michigan had won you would have been super pumped and rubbing it in as well. The Wolverines are a great football team, as always, and that only makes the win all the more exciting.
[quote]jjblaze wrote:
Damn, that personal foul on third and fifteen killed. Damn.[/quote]
You’re telling me. Crable passed on OSU to go to Michigan, but he still came through for us right there. Leading with the helmet with a line judge standing a yard away? Just plain dumb.
[quote]Dweezil wrote:
stuff…[/quote]
I don’t think we’re that far off in our opinions. I think our biggest disagreement is the strength of the SEC.
Like I said before, I wouldn’t mind a playoff, but I don’t hate the system now as much as some do.
[quote]malonetd wrote:
So, with playoffs, a team that clinches early can rest its starters and lose two regular season games with no repercussions and no penalties for losses. I disagree, and, for now, I’ll pass on playoffs.
And for those keeping score, since 1998, Big Ten teams have the most BCS bowl wins.[/quote]
When you throw in first round byes and use the BCS to seed the teams, it is highly unlikely that any regular season game will be irrelevant. Check out the Louiville/Florida thread for my proposed playoff.
lol, good god Dweezil, watch some football outside the deep south.
The SEC is alright, but it’s not some super-conference that would destroy all others.
The top half of the conference is pretty strong, but the bottom half is absolutely, positively horrible. That leads to pretty strong record padding by the top half of the SEC. Combine that with the fact the most SEC teams have a reputation for cupcake out-of-conference scheduling, and you see that the SEC is more a case study of record inflation rather than superior play.
As malone pointed out, if the SEC was really all that great, they’d prove it in the bowls. Don’t give me the “they beat each other up” line. Every team is beat up over the course of a season. You also have a MONTH to heal up from the bumps and scrapes before the bowl game.
Every winter, the SEC has a chance to play games against evenly matched BCS opponents on a neutral field, and every season they finish around .500 in the bowls.
The proof is in the pudding, and the SEC is not some super conference.
Rematch?