PDA

View Full Version : Is Michigan really #2? Who cares.



mdklatt
12/4/2006, 10:06 PM
We know they're not #1: http://www.slate.com/id/2154861/



The fact that the Wolverines are probably the second-best team in the country doesn't mean they've earned the right to play in the national championship game. In fact, it means the exact opposite: Michigan's No. 2 status is why they shouldn't be playing for the title.

Playoff systems are designed to determine, in a fair manner, which is the single best team in a particular sport. Their purpose is not to pit the two finest teams against each other in a season-ending game. The Yankees and Red Sox do not play annually in the World Series. The Indianapolis Colts will never be given a chance to play the New England Patriots in the Super Bowl.

...

Do we know if Florida is the second-best team in the country? Of course not. Here's what we do know: Michigan is not the best. How do we know that? By the traditional criterion: They scored fewer points in a football game than Ohio State did. The only team that has the "right" to play in the BCS championship game is the best team, Ohio State. And the only teams that should be scratched without question are teams that have already been determined to be "not the best," like Michigan.

On Sunday, Michigan coach Lloyd Carr had the gall to declare, "I hope that, in the future, we can have a system where all of the answers are decided on the field" and, "We need to get away from anything that's not decided by the players themselves." I'm fairly certain that Carr's players were involved in Michigan's 42-39 defeat at the hands of Ohio State and that it was played on a field. (If not, sports journalists have a real scandal on their hands.)

"Divining the difference between 11-1 Michigan and 12-1 Florida is truly an impossible task," wrote ESPN.com's Pat Forde. Fair enough, but there's no need to divine the difference between Michigan and Florida. The gridiron has already divined the relevant question: the difference between Michigan and Ohio State.

Edmond Sooner
12/4/2006, 10:12 PM
I read that in Slate earlier today, too, and thought it was a pretty good take on the situation.

Sooner_Havok
12/4/2006, 10:31 PM
I am skeered, that makes sense! Is the world coming to an end?

bixby28
12/4/2006, 11:21 PM
i spent last Thanksgiving in Michigan with family, so i was pulling for them at the #2 spot.

Boomer Sooner

jwlynn64
12/5/2006, 12:35 AM
I've been thinking that all week and someone finally put it in easy to understand words.

Thanks for the post.

badger
12/5/2006, 12:37 AM
You know who is #2?

EVERYONE EXCEPT OKLAHOMA!

boomer

jwlynn64
12/5/2006, 12:39 AM
I thought that we were always everyone elses #2 team. Thier #1 team, whoever is playing OU!

Jason White's Third Knee
12/5/2006, 09:59 AM
Symantics. Florida lost to a team that was clearly not a number one team, so are they ranked lower than the team that beat them? Why not? The gridiron has already divined the relevant question: the difference between Florida and and #10 Auburn.

I hate Michigan anyway, so whatever.

Rock Hard Corn Frog
12/5/2006, 10:09 AM
Symantics. Florida lost to a team that was clearly not a number one team, so are they ranked lower than the team that beat them? Why not? The gridiron has already divined the relevant question: the difference between Florida and and #10 Auburn.

I hate Michigan anyway, so whatever.


In some ways this is similar to our situation in 2000. Florida St and Miami both arguing about who should be #2 in the BCS. The primary differences being that Miami actually beat FSU that year and that many if not most people thought that Miami or FSU were going to beat OU in the championship game. The biggest similarity though is that once Ohio St beats Florida soundly there won't be any doubt who the national champ is.

Jason White's Third Knee
12/5/2006, 10:15 AM
In some ways this is similar to our situation in 2000. Florida St and Miami both arguing about who should be #2 in the BCS. The primary differences being that Miami actually beat FSU that year and that many if not most people thought that Miami or FSU were going to beat OU in the championship game. The biggest similarity though is that once Ohio St beats Florida soundly there won't be any doubt who the national champ is.

Almost. What if Boise State crushes OU? Wait. Did I say that? Sorry.


I remember all of the one loss teams... Miami beat FSU. Washington beat Miami. I forget who beat Washington, but it went on like that and it was only opinion that got FSU in the game.

The Maestro
12/5/2006, 10:41 AM
I just hate the whole "rematch" theory. It's foolish. I know as a Sooner fan I did not want to see Kansas again after beating them twice in the regular season of Big 12 hoops in the 1988 title game. Georgetown beat Villanova three times in that hoops season. Think Kansas or Villanova felt any less like a national champ since they lost more than they won against the title game opponent? Nope. And the fact we beat Kansas more during the season didn't make us feel any better.

My final point is this. If USC had blown out UCLA they would have been number 2 and in the title game. The poll the week prior had Michigan 3 and Florida 4. And it would have remained that way had USC won. The ONLY reason Florida moved ahead of Michigan is because USC lost. That's not right.

jwlynn64
12/5/2006, 12:04 PM
Why? If Florida plays OSU, you think that OSU would win but you don't know.

Michigan has already played OSU and OSU won. What would be accomplished if they play again. If Michigan wins (no matter what the score), does that necessarily mean that they are the better team. Should they play again a week later to see who is the best two out of three?

Michigan had thier chance, lets give this chance to someone else. Because of a lack of common opponents, we really don't know that OSU is better, we just think it. Let's find out for sure.