PDA

View Full Version : Gary Danielson on Florida vs. Michigan



Pepper
12/9/2006, 07:25 PM
I thought this was interesting. Personally I felt that Florida should go because I believe that two teams from the same conference should not play for the national championship. But I don't think ESPN deliberately slighted Florida either. Still, some good points I thought in here and I didn't see it posted.



Danielson on WXYT AM Radio in Detroit, MI, December 4th:

On his campaigning for Florida: "I figure I have two more months to go to catch up with ABC and ESPN. They've been [campaigning for] the Big Ten since September."

On the controversy over Michigan losing out to Florida: "That Michigan - Ohio State game in 1969. It wouldn't have been fair for Michigan to have to play them again, would it?

"Understand that winning it on the field is all that matters. There were only two teams all year that did not have to please voters - Michigan and Ohio State. They were ranked one and two for the last six weeks of the year I don't know why, really. They were anointed one and two, they were undefeated and they deserved their rankings. I don't know how anyone knows they are the two best teams.

"I watch a lot of tape. I assume you guys watch a lot of tape. I'll bet you do. But I don't know who the best two teams are, and I'm sure no one else does. So I don't know how the Michigan argument goes that we are the only team capable of coming within three points of Ohio State. I don't know how you can justify that argument. I know you can't. You're telling the rest of college football we're the only team capable of coming within three points of Ohio State.

"My argument was that anyone was more deserving than Michigan. I would have voted Oklahoma over Michigan. Oklahoma got robbed. They basically lost one game, okay? I would have voted Louisville, anyone other than Michigan, because there was only one team in college football that had the opportunity to play their way into that game against Ohio State without having to please one voter. Not one voter. Michigan had a shot. They're obviously a very good football team.

"I think it's small minded to think that the two best teams just happen to play in the Big Ten this year. It reminded me of the Big Ten Conference in the 70s, where Michigan and Ohio State played every year with the two best records go out to the Rose Bowl then found the rest of the country isn't quite as easy as the rest of the Big Ten.

"Michigan and Ohio State didn't mind having the Sports Reporters [stumping for them]. ESPN and ABC had that clock running for over a month [for the OSU Michigan game] while the rest of the country fumed about that. But the first time somebody says something about somebody else, oh, my, the whining starts. My drum was banging for college football. Now we finally got to a game here because of circumstances where everybody had to stand up and say, 'you mean there's another team besides Michigan Ohio State, Notre Dame and USC out there?' I think it's laughable, totally laughable that people think they know who the best two teams are. I know football pretty good, and I think I know how to watch film pretty well. If I don't know who the best two teams are, I don't see how anybody else can do it."

On other factors that went into his thinking: "I look at it that the rest of the country really didn't give anybody else a chance except Michigan and Ohio State for a while. Then once they looked at USC, ESPN and ABC jumped on a new bandwagon. Bob Davie was on the front page of USA TODAY saying, "I watched college football all year, and I know the two best teams are Michigan and Ohio State. Then that horse gets a little tired and they go to USC and watch and go, 'you know? Now that I look at it, I think USC is the second best team in the country.' Then when USC loses they go, 'what do we do now?' And I think the rest of the country is out there saying, 'who anointed Michigan, Ohio State, USC and Notre Dame to run all of college football?'

"My stance has been consistent on this. I've been through this three times. I did the Colorado Nebraska game, and you applauded me when I said the second place team should not play for the national championship. I did the Oklahoma Kansas State, and you applauded me. Now all of a sudden when I make the same stance, do Michigan fans whine."

On Florida's case: "The SEC had five teams in the top 20. Florida played the other four. Now what kind of system do you have when the best conference in the country doesn't have according to the polls for their team to play for the national championship? Or put it this way an equal opportunity to play in the national championship game. This whole thing about No. 3 and No. 4 I don't think anybody cared who No. 3 and No. 4 were until USC lost. Once that happened, I think people stood up and said, 'all right, what should I do?'

"As a broadcaster of this game, I banged on the table at halftime and said, 'we are not going to talk about Florida's national championship case until at least the fourth quarter.' But I did prepare in case this happen, and I put plusses and minues on both sides, said how am I going to make my argument? That's my job. My argument was to kind of compare the best thing to the worst thing for each team. I left a blank ballot up there for a whole series. I said, 'you make your own ballot out there.' I'm getting paid very well to give my opinion. My opinion was laid out the way I saw it. Now, if I convinced people, maybe I'm a good communicator."

On whether his opinion is influenced by his employer [CBS]: "So is everybody else's, but that's not true. When I was working at ABC and ESPN I got called to the carpet because I was doing the national championship game and said I didn't believe a second place team should do it ... they had their chance. This is the same argument. I'm the ONLY one who has remained consistent. My old partner, Brent Musberger, anointed Michigan the second best team, then in the middle of the ND - USC game said, you know, I've always said a second place team shouldn't play for the championship, then doubled back and said, "I was off.' I don't know where other people stand, but I have been.

"If Michigan had beaten Ohio State, I would be making the same argument that it's not fair that one team only has to keep it close, the other team has to knock you out. Bo was against this thing, that's why Kirk Herbstreit was against a rematch before the Michigan Ohio State game. Kirk's a wonderful broadcaster, but my opinion is he was so wounded by the Steve Breaston comments that he jumped on the Michigan bandwagon and rode it."

On carrying on too long on behalf of the Gators: "It wasn't Florida, even. I don't even know how good of a team they are. They're a gamer. They remind me a little of that Ohio State team that won the national championship that everybody thought would lose every game, and somehow they found a way to win at the end. Nobody thought they could beat Miami, and they seemed to find ways to win.

"My argument was, and continues to be, that you can't anoint teams. No one knows who the best team is. The Sports Reporters don't know, Mitch Albom doesn't know, Kirk Herbstreit doesn't know, Bob Davie doesn't know, and I don't know, and Michigan fans don't know. You have to go then to a resume. Now you are telling people that because Michigan beat Notre Dame, who I think is an emperor with no clothes, and they played Ohio State close, they deserve the national championship.

Now I look at the schedules and say, now wait a minute ... there are other teams out there that have a resume. Why aren't they being considered? I think college football deserves to have something more than they get. I have railed, and as I said, they should pass rules that don't allow a second place team to go. That's not fair. So what do you do? But it is interesting that a whole year goes by, and can you name me any player besides a quarterback who plays for an SEC team?

"It's out of mind's eye. If you look at what dominates college football, it's ESPN/ABC. That publicity machine has rolled and rolled and rolled and has tilted the playing field in my opinion. So now one time somebody has an opinion that's different people say, 'wow.' You want to know what it's like in the Big 12, Pac-Ten and SEC? That's what it's like, every week from September to Nov. 25.

On the last time he talked to Lloyd Carr: "During the Michigan - Ohio State game a year ago. I respect Lloyd Carr. People can play out this stuff the way they want to. He's an excellent coach. I was one of his defenders. I'm a Jim Herrmann defender. I didn't think their defense was all that different this year, they just had better players than a year ago. They had a dominant defensive line and Lloyd always does a good job with his football team.

"Coaches can play out their campaign the way they want to. I think Jim Tressel was absolutely right on in the strategy he did. For him to have to try to determine the national ... I think to excuse yourself was absolutely right on. I think Urban Meyer played it the way he wanted to because nobody was talking about the SEC and he said okay, look at my team. We are a pretty good football team, too. I don't think there's anything wrong with that, and I think for Coach Carr to attack somebody over what somebody else says is wrong. I respect Coach Carr, but I don't think he should jockey both horses."

On whether Meyer dragged Michigan into the conversation: "He could say anything he wanted to say.

"Here's my opinion after watching the Michigan - Ohio State game. If the same game was played with Louisville and West Virginia uniforms, everybody would have said there's no defense on the field. That 's number one. No. 2 is there were two outstanding teams with one great player. Same as last year's game. Ohio State has the best player on the field and when the best player is the quarterback, they have a great chance of winning. It's going to be very difficult to beat OSU because they have the best player in college football."

Big Red Ron
12/9/2006, 11:41 PM
It reminded me of the Big Ten Conference in the 70s, where Michigan and Ohio State played every year with the two best records go out to the Rose Bowl then found the rest of the country isn't quite as easy as the rest of the Big Ten.

Spanish Sooner
12/10/2006, 12:14 AM
pretty good read, thanks

King Crimson
12/10/2006, 01:35 AM
that's pretty good. i'm not a huge GD fan.....but i respect him more than i used to after a season of Bob "mister excitement" Davie. and GD is hella better than Dan Fouts.

though, i don't think we should be playing for the NC.

Spanish Sooner
12/10/2006, 03:31 AM
neither do I, and neither does danielson. The point that he was making was that we deserved a shot at it moreso then michigan

crimson&cream
12/10/2006, 12:42 PM
Herbstreit, made just as logical and passionate arguement for Mich to be considered in the repeat game, but of course he's a Big 10 guy having played at tOSU. Danielson is not of the Big 10 so of course I'm not surprised by his stance.
To vote Mich down JUST BECAUSE you don't want a repeat game is poor basis to make a judgement how to vote, and some voter's did it that very way and admitted it that they voted MIch down strictly because they didn't want a repeat game never mind if Mich is or is not the 2nd best team. I fail to see how thats a fair way to base a vote.

1stTimeCaller
12/10/2006, 12:54 PM
You have to go then to a resume. Now you are telling people that because Michigan beat Notre Dame, who I think is an emperor with no clothes, and they played Ohio State close, they deserve the national championship.


he makes a very good argument.

anyone have a link to Herbie's argument?

Spanish Sooner
12/10/2006, 12:59 PM
well I didn't want michigan it in because michigan already had there shot to beat Ohio State and lost. tOSU shouldn't have to beat the twice. So ya, maybe a play off would have been better, but in the way there kind of was. Michigan-Ohio State was a playoff game cause everyone knew the winner was going to glendale. the SEC championship game was kind of a playoff florida wins they are in, they lose its michigan, like wise USC-UCLA, USC wins they are in, but they lost. Really i don't think tOSU should have to have that kind of double jeopardy placed on them where they have to beat the same team twice, and even if it is a month after the game it will be them playing the same team twice in a row. It is more unfair for ohio state for michigan to be in the big game, then it is unfair to michigan for florida to be in the game, because plain and simple ohio state beat michigan head to head.

OUmillenium
12/10/2006, 01:07 PM
There is another Gary who I like to listen to...Gary Barnett. Really. What do you guys think about his commentary on FOX SW,TBS, or whatever he is on.

Last week he was going back and forth with Eddie George on the BCS finals debate. Eddie (Big 10 Homer...uh homo) was making the Michigan argument and Gary was just blowing him out of the water.

I did not care for Barnett's attitude as a coach in the Big 12 but have enjoyed his commentary immensely.

Your thoughts please.

Spanish Sooner
12/10/2006, 03:41 PM
not to familiar with the Gary Barnett as a comentator, but i have noticed that most of the talking heads whining that Michigan should have been are all big 10 homers. I was watching the best damn sports show period, and Eddie George was saying how Michigan should be in, and Rodney Pete and Petros Papa(whatever his last name is) where shutting him down

Salt City Sooner
12/10/2006, 03:42 PM
Herbstreit, made just as logical and passionate arguement for Mich to be considered in the repeat game, but of course he's a Big 10 guy having played at tOSU. Danielson is not of the Big 10 so of course I'm not surprised by his stance.
To vote Mich down JUST BECAUSE you don't want a repeat game is poor basis to make a judgement how to vote, and some voter's did it that very way and admitted it that they voted MIch down strictly because they didn't want a repeat game never mind if Mich is or is not the 2nd best team. I fail to see how thats a fair way to base a vote.
Uh, Danielson played at Purdue......

Spanish Sooner
12/10/2006, 04:24 PM
did not know that, ok so ammend that most big 10 guys are saying michigan got snubbed.

Pepper
12/10/2006, 04:46 PM
Here is the link I got this from, along with Herbstreit's argument. Herbstreit was on the defensive and mainly just refuted the allegation that ABC/ESPN chose Michigan because of conference ties.
http://ncaa-fb-scandal.aolsportsblog.com/2006/12/06/celebrity-deathmatch-cbs-gary-danielson-vs-abcs-kirk-herbstr/

crimson&cream
12/10/2006, 05:03 PM
Uh, Danielson played at Purdue......
Yep your right Mind lapse on my part.
I just hate the damn arguement I don't want a repeat game as a very p!ss poor way to reason a position. Never mind Mich JUST may be the 2nd best team which translates to hell with they had their chance if they're still the 2nd best team they should have had the opportunity to prove it in the game that counts for all the marbles.
Best senario Florida plays Mich winner plays tOSU.

arlington
12/11/2006, 01:14 AM
Danielson was a QB at Purdue so if he doesnt have a B10 bias, thats a good thing..I have seen Barnett on a few times and couldnt believe how good he was with the limited experience in studio that he has..He actually is funny and shows personality, a trait i had never seen or heard from his as a coach

Ash
12/11/2006, 01:21 AM
"Here's my opinion after watching the Michigan - Ohio State game. If the same game was played with Louisville and West Virginia uniforms, everybody would have said there's no defense on the field. That 's number one. No. 2 is there were two outstanding teams with one great player. Same as last year's game. Ohio State has the best player on the field and when the best player is the quarterback, they have a great chance of winning. It's going to be very difficult to beat OSU because they have the best player in college football."[/INDENT]

Heh. I wasn't the only that thought that, afterall.

:D

rainiersooner
12/11/2006, 02:02 AM
We need a play-off. It's that simple. Voting for teams - from people who are not accountable - takes the game out of the players hands. Whatever logistical challenges exist, we need a play off to keep the competition real.

Rock Hard Corn Frog
12/11/2006, 09:43 AM
There is another Gary who I like to listen to...Gary Barnett. Really. What do you guys think about his commentary on FOX SW,TBS, or whatever he is on.

Last week he was going back and forth with Eddie George on the BCS finals debate. Eddie (Big 10 Homer...uh homo) was making the Michigan argument and Gary was just blowing him out of the water.

I did not care for Barnett's attitude as a coach in the Big 12 but have enjoyed his commentary immensely.

Your thoughts please.


I've heard Barnett several times and while I might not have been a big fan of his when he was at Colo, the dude is brutally honest. It's a little refreshing when he is asked a question and skips the canned answer and gives you an honest take. I'm certain he has rocked the boat a few times with his analysis.

I actually kind of live Davies' analysis of the X's and O's. Plus I'm sure Musberger is happy to have the DD.

As for the Florida-Michigan debate. I come down on the side of Flordia since Michigan had their shot and although it was just a 3-point game at Ohio St I don't think a rematch would have been as close anyway. Plus I'll take the winner of a conference champion game in the SEC over a runner-up in a conference that doesn't even play a conf championship game.