Ohio State or Michigan?

A rematch is a lose-lose. If OSU wins, so what? They beat a team they already beat once. Some other one-loss team goes out and looks impressive in their bowl, and then you have controversy. If UM wins, then both teams are 1-1 against each other and now you have controversy. However, the computers may just give us a rematch whether we want one or not. A couple of awfully good one-loss teams are not going to be playing for the national championship.

 

I could be wrong, but my sources in KY along with the UK forum boards say that the Liberty and the Music City Bowl has already offered KY a bowl slot even if they lose to Tenn. And by the way, the KY fans travel really well and both bowl games would only be hours from KY. We shall see how everything shakes out.

Now, my opinion once again says that this is the reason why college football is down on my list of favorite sports. We have to have a playoff system or this will continue to happen. The BCS is a joke and some team or two will definitely be ripped off. Both Mich and Oh St now just get to sit home and rest while most of these other teams still have games to play including a conference championship! I saw Corso and Herbstreet saying how Flor or Ark would have no chance against Michigan. There is no way to know that and I guess we never will know until a playoff system is finally established!

 

Nothing like an unbiased moderator, 'eh? :tongue3: :laugh:

FTR, In 1994, UK managed to give Louisiana-Monroe, which was, at the time I believe, Division I-AA, its first ever Division IA victory. My Wildcats do have a penchant for occasionally knocking off a better team, and then turning around "and snatching defeat from the jaws of victory", though, I agree. And I'm not referring to the fluke play vs. LSU a few of years ago, either.

And the representatives from the Music City and Liberty bowls are both already interested in KY. And should UK manage to beat UT in Neyland, a daunting prospect to say the least, they would finish second in the SEC East, and no doubt move up a notch or two in the food chain. Finish third, and I'd guess either Nashville or Memphis.
UK ' Bowl eligible'? Yep! Under the guidelines, they are.

UK 'Bowl bound'? Probably.

UK 'Bowl worthy'? That does not take a great deal these days, with 32 of 'em, but probably.

UK 'Bowl ready'? Ask me this time next week, and see how many 'warts' are still showing. :smilewinkgrin:

A big win by Florida over Arkansas, or vice versa, and a fairly close loss by USC to Notre Dame, or a USC win over Notre Dame, and a loss to UCLA by USC would definitely "upset the apple cart" for bowl teams, once again. So far, that is a week to week thing, this year, apparently.

Ed

 

Ed, you can call me biased or not (Remember I spent ten years in Kentucky and deeply respect one of your asst coaches) but I'm just telling you how the lay of the land looks. Kentucky doesn't travel very well, but we don't really know because they haven't had many bowls lately to travel to. I agree that the Music City and Liberty would be good choices precisely because of the traveling issue. But the rub lies in the following:
1. As you know, each bowl has an unofficial divisional preference among the 8 with SEC tie-ins.
2. Where does the loser of the SEC Title game go? If it's ARK, you put them in the top bowl for the West, the Cotton. If it's FLA, then they go to the top for the East, the Citrus, and then UK gets shoved down a notch.
3. What happens if LSU knocks off ARK and improves their bowl stock?
4. What happens if the Chick-fil-A Bowl passes on UT since UT has been there 2 of the past 4 years? They pick a Western team, then UT slides into the Liberty or Music City Bowl.
5. Georgia is a wild-card. Who knows where they will end up. However, they look mighty attractive to the Music City.
6. Will USC get a slot they don't deserve because they travel so well?
7. Will Bama take the Liberty Bowl (Big Memphis connections for Bama, and not just the ones that get you on probation).

A case in point would be the Vols from 2003. 10-2, 6-2 in the SEC. Their prize? A trip to the Peach Bowl (where they were defeated). They got shoved downward because of some of the same kinds of events as listed above.

I say all that to say the Cats may have to win in Neyland Saturday to guarantee a bowl. Some things work aginst the Cats. Some people still think UK didn't deserve the New Year's day Bowl with only 7 wins back in '98. UK may be better than some of the 6-6 teams out there, but economics and history will decide the bowl bids (and these crazy divisional preferences) as much as records and eligibility. And the poor fan attendance this year (worst average since Commonwealth was expanded, and yesterday's 25% empty stadium) is not going to be appealing.

I'd agree that the Music City (If UT Doesn't drop there by the strange quirks listed above) or the Liberty would be good fits, but watch out if UK is the SEC team left stranded. UK may have to pray that another conference doesn't make its allotment, but will UK fans go to the Motor City or Humanitarian? Likely not. The one thing in your favor is the Alabama faithful may not be willing to travel to follow their team this year. But remember: they're Bama. In some people's minds, a 6-6 Bama is a better draw than UK at 7 or even 8 wins. I don't agree, but I'm not on a bowl selection committee.

 

This was essentially a playoff game. The loser is done. If there is a rematch, it will be a total fraud. Michigan had a chance to earn their way into the title game and lost that chance.

For these two teams, this was the semi-final. The winner gets to play for the national championship; the loser doesn't. Michigan lost, so they are out.

Just as in a playoff, the other team in teh championship will be decided by other games.

It is hypocritical for someone to say they want a playoff and the want to see a rematch of this game.

 

Michigan retains #2 in the BCS. Now what?

I see no reason there cannot be a playoff with the top 4 teams in the BCS seeded 1 / 4, 2 / 3. This would only add one extra game...which would be a HUGE cash cow for the networks in the month leading up to the title game. It could take place a couple weeks after the season ends, and a couple weeks before the title game, like the Super Bowl.

 

How can you say that the OSU-UM game is "like a playoff game"? Who determined that OSU would get home field advantage in this "playoff" game? Oh, I see, it was simply luck of the draw that this was an even numbered year, so the game was played at OSU. That's not a playoff game.

If there is a rematch, and UM wins, it will prove that UM are national champs, because they won their game on a neutral field and OSU won theirs at home. So there shouldn't be any controversy, if that happens.

I'm in favor of a playoff system that starts as soon as the regular season is over around the 2nd week of Dec. OSU has to wait 50 days before they play again - that's silly. Here's what I think would be a good playoff system:

Keep the current BCS formula to rank the teams. The top 14 teams according to the BCS forumla are in the playoffs. As a reward, the top 2 teams get a bye the first week. Seeds 3-14 play each other, with 14 v. 3, 13 v. 4, etc. After round 1, you re-seed the teams with who's left. In round 2 you have 8 v. 1, etc. You keep going until two teams are left.

The only thing I'm not sure about, is where to play the games. I think the first round (and maybe even the second round) should be home games for the lower-seeded teams, but I would be fine with all of the games being played on neutral sites.

What do you think?

 

I think its nonsense. Michigan wouldn’t have beat OSU at home. They had to come from way back in the second half to even make it close. They were getting embarrassed. Furthermore, #1 teams win wherever they play.

Why was this a playoff game? Because it was one game with the winner getting to play for the national championship. The winner goes on; the loser doesn’t. Everyone knew that going in. There was no question about it. There was no dispute about where the winner ends up. And Michigan did not get it done.

Furthermore, most playoffs do have home field advantage. Look at every sport, including NCAA tournaments. The basketball tournament even gives people home court advantage by placing top seeds close to home.

If Michigan wins a rematch, will OSU have a chance again? Why not? They will have split. There would be a better case for a rematch in that case. As of now, there is no reason for a rematch until 363 days from now (or whatever the exact number is). Seattle didn’t get a rematch last year against Pittsburgh. The Tiger's don't get a rematch against St. Louis.

I think a playoff would be useless nonsense. Play the game on the field and let the teams win. Right now you have a clear #1 who beat Michigan. Give them 9 more games, and OSU probably wins 7 or 8 easily. USC or Florida deserve a shot now. Michigan had their shot and couldn’t get it done. Why do they deserve another?

 

I don't mind that play-off games are at home for one team, but you can't just determine home field by luck of the draw, which is what OSU got. If you're going to call that a playoff game, then you either play it on a neutral site or determine some pre-set formula to determine home field. If UM beats OSU on a neutral site in the NC game, that's a bigger, more impressive win than OSU winning by 3 points at home.

 

My crack about an "unbiased moderator", is the result of a couple of your posts suggesting you happen to be a Tennessee fan. Hence, the laughing smilie. I did not say you were biased, at all. But is you choose to think that, I obviously cannot prevent it. :tongue3: :laugh: :laugh: Actually, should UK manage to somehow upset Tennessee (IMO, it would definitely be an upset, especially in Neyland) my guess is, with absolutely nothing to go on, that UK would go to the Peach (Chick-fil-A??) Bowl. So UK (like UT) could and would bring more fans, hence more bucks, than say, Utah, Arizona State, or Utah. And as you touched on, the bucks will count, even if that is not clearly stated. I'm pretty sure the Chick-fil-A, Music City, Liberty, would not relish a bowl game that pitted, due to some fluke in how things play out, two schools from far outside the region, as opposed to an SEC team, and I don't think that is possible, with the SEC and its many tie-ins. But there are a couple of bowls where this type scenario could and may well play out. My guess is either Tennessee or Auburn to Atlanta; KY to Memphis, or possibly Shreveport. I think LSU is too well regarded by the polls to wind up in Atlanta, if there is any other scenario out there. Should LSU go to Atlanta, Tennessee might well wind up in Memphis, and probably would land there over Nashville, for a couple of reasons. UT Med School is in Memphis, I believe, and that could make an equal shot "unequal", although that will never be reported. And UT is going to be bowling on a good lane, even should it lose to UK, regardless, and on a better lane than UK will, even if the situation were exactly reversed, merely due to history and respect. IMO. And my opinion amounts to Zero, I grant.

Ed

 

It wasn't "luck of the draw." There is a set formula for determining home field in these games. It is "every other year." If UM beats OSU on a neutral field, it means they are 1-1. Which means that UM has no legitimate claim to a national championship. They lost once and won once.

But I still have not seen a good reason why UM should get a "do-over." They had their chance, and they lost. Would UM be begging for a rematch if they had won? Hardly. Which shows why they should not get a rematch. They could have put this whole issue to rest by winning. And they didn't. They lost, rather soundly in a game that was never really in dispute.

To tie this game, they had to come up with three turnovers, score in the last two minutes, make a two-point conversion, and get an onsides kick. That shows how soundly they were being beaten.

 

Pastor Larry, if you don't think that "every other year" is mere luck, then you should have no problem if the BCS formula ends up putting UM at no. 2. I guess I'm wondering what exactly you propose?

 

Let there be conflict, fighting, spite, condemnation........ Let this year stir up enough coaches, players, fans to shove the stupid university presidents toward a playoff. It appears Urban Meyer has already got a start, preparing to be left out. For the scrapping of the BCS, I hope he doesn't blow it by such competition with this that he doesn't put enough into playing Arkansas.

 

I would have a problem with the formula. I would not have so much of a problem with the game. However, the formula is heavily weighted toward human ranking and always has been. And every other year is not "mere luck." For years, it has been known that this years game would be played in Columbus. How is that luck? It isn't like they flipped a coin for it.

I am proposing that the either USC or Florida, assuming they win out (and surely one of them will) should play OSU for the championship. They are the best teams that have not yet been beaten by OSU.

My guess is that it will be USC. However, the Notre Dame team they will play this week is not the same team Michigan beat. They are far better. (There is a rematch I would like to see. Michigan and Notre Dame. And why not?) Florida is probably the better team between USC and Michigan and Florida. They play a tougher schedule with more games. Remember, Michigan beat Ball State by eight points, and Ball State had a chance to tie the game with two minutes to go inside the ten. National championship teams do not play Ball State that way. National championship teams do not even schedule Ball State at that point of the season. That was totally lame.

Even if you go to a playoff you still have the same problems. How many teams? Eight? what about the ninth? They could easily win it. 14? What about the fifteenth? As it now stands, every team in the nation starts the year with a chance to win. All they have do is win the games in front of them, beating quality teams.

What if #1 and #2 meet in a tournament and #2 gets beat. Do they get a rematch? Why not? And how is that different than Michigan wanting a rematch now? Would Michigan be cryign for a rematch if they had won? I doubt it.

They played. They lost. Move on. This isn't like baseball where you have a best of seven series.

 

Michigan doesn't deserve another shot because there is no proof that they are the #2 team in the country. That's the media hype but besides a close loss to OSU... what else have they done? They've beaten Big10 competition in a down year for the conference, so? Beaten an ND team that has hardly looked like world beaters?

For that matter, OSU has beaten two quality opponents... and Texas is only "quality" if you give the Big12 the benefit of the doubt this year. Further, Texas played OSU the first game with a freshman QB and it wasn't a blowout.

IMO, the SEC followed closely by the Pac10 are by a wide margin the best two conferences this year. OSU wouldn't have gone undefeated in either of those conferences. Tuberville was right about the deck being stacked against SEC teams.

The fix- Require all of the BCS conferences to have 12 teams and a championship game. Take the 6 champs plus 2 wildcards and play the Saturday before Christmas. Now at 4. Let the 4 play in the four major bowls. Play the final game the next week in the 5th bowl.

The hard part is obviously the conference realignment but that should be the price to play for the NC.

The current system is all but certain NOT to put the best two teams in the country on the field together.

 

You mean other than the fact that they haven't beaten anyone except ND?

I propose that the homers in the human polls do some research. Both of those schools have exactly one "quality" OOC win against teams that are themselves questionable. In conference they've played a series of also rans that wouldn't finish above the middle in either the SEC or Pac10 this year... except for maybe Wisconsin... who OSU didn't play.

I hoped Michigan would beat OSU and thought they would. That game proved something though... neither team is nearly as good defensively as they got credit for. They have just played such weak offensive opponents that their stats were pumped.

OSU is very good offensively. Michigan is good but not great on both sides of the ball.

They may surprise and prove me wrong but... if USC makes it to the CG, I expect them to expose OSU on both sides of the ball.

 

So you think OSU should play a team that you think they should play? Apparently, your opinion matters more than all the pollsters and computer formulas? That's nice. I'm not arguing or crying that UM should get a rematch, but if they do end up no. 2, then no one should complain, because that was the system in place at the beginning of the year. The only complaining that should be done is that to get a playoff system. Everyone understands that no system is perfect, and even with a playoff, the teams left out will complain, but under the current system, you're only including 2 teams. The more teams you include in a playoff, the less controversy there would be.

On the "luck" thing - you keep calling the UM and OSU game as a "playoff" game. Every other playoff game that I've seen is either played at a neutral site, or at the home field determined by some measuring stick for the current year. Home field was determined before the year began and had nothing to do with this year's results. That's why you can't call it a legit "playoff" game. It may work out that way, since UM needs some help to retain it's no. 2 spot, but it's not right to change the rules now and not let UM play in the NC if they get the no. 2 spot.

When I think of "luck", I think of it this way: This year the game was at OSU, when both teams were 11-0 and ranked no. 1 and 2. Next year, the game will be at UM, but both teams might be 8-3 and the game will be meaningless (for Bowl implications). That would be "bad luck" for UM to pick a year to go 11-0 and have their toughest game scheduled on the road. But that's the nature of the regular season, not the postseason. The postseason rewards those teams that do well in the regular season and/or play the games on a neutral site.

 

I think Arkansas is at this point a better team than either one of them... but bias won't let them in even if they finish the season beating LSU and UF.

You are probably right about USC though I don't think they deserve it. If ND beats them... bias will carry them into the NC game where they'll probably get embarrassed because they won't deserve to be there... not even close.

Doesn't that say something about ND as well?

As it stands now, it is unlikely that any SEC team will rise that far above the others even though they may be better than undefeated teams from other conferences.

The Pac10 has down years. I didn't think I'd see it but the Big 10 has been uncompetitive this year for the first time in my life. The BE has up years once in awhile but hasn't established any credibility this season. The ACC is definitely up and down. The Big12 is a conference of 2 or 3 contenders and a bunch of also rans.

I have never seen a season where the SEC didn't have 4 or 5 teams at the top that could all beat that year's national champ on any given Saturday... this year especially.

 

Scott,

I mostly agree with you - I'm in favor of a playoff over the BCS. I'm not a fan of the BCS, but even a playoff will not ensure that the "best" teams make it to the final game. That's just the nature of any playoff system. Does anyone really think that George Mason was one of the 4 best teams in college BB last year? No, that's silly. But that's what makes a playoff system so neat. So don't delude yourself into thinking that a playoff system will always produce the most-deserving champion. But I still think a playoff is better for two reasons:

1) It will provide for great excitement, much like the college BB tourney.
2) It opens up the field to more than just two teams. Most of the proposals I've seen are for 8 or 16. Sure, either the no. 9 or 17 teams will complain, but I think most would take that over the current system that each year leaves out a no. 3 or 4 who thinks they should be in.