Dumbest post in this thread and proof SK either doesn't watch college football or he has Big Ten blinders on.


SK any argument you can make for Michigan I can make for Florida.

Your argument about their "quality loss" being better isn't credible.

Florida lost to Auburn when they were in the Top 5 at Auburn. That game was a 3 point game until late (I'm using your "Michigan was up 19 until late" criteria here). So what does that all mean? Not a damn thing.

You're talking about "style" losses which is complete bullshit. Both teams are deserving to be there. The bottom line is:

A) Michigan played Ohio St and lost
B) Florida played the toughest schedule in the land and finished with the same record as Michigan
C) Florida won a 13th game against a top 10 team
D) Michigan can only blame themselves (for losing) and the Big Ten for not having a championship game.


None of those prove that Florida is better than Michigan but they do prove that Florida deserves to be there.


Also, Michigan struggled as much as Florida this year in several games if you were watching. You seem to think that teams should win by 40 to be dominate.


Last thing, the year Tennessee won the Nat'l Championship they squeaked out several wins (ala Ohio St. couple years ago) and were a touchdown underdog to Florida State. UT won.

I wouldn't go that far, Pat. I didn't participate cos I was too damn busy to really concentrate on anything outside the SEC, so I'd give Spade a pass on that.

el scorcho makes some good points, but Sketch PWNED the Ball State/South Cackalac argument.

I'm pretty much going to keep my trap shut and watch the damn ol game and see what happens.

I will say that Ohio St. is the best team in the country and should be a heavy favorite but National Championship games are littered with dominate teams that go down to underdogs. (It will be 51 days since OSU played Michigan when they play in Glendale.)

el scorcho, I agree the system is BS but not watching until a playoff is in place is too bad. You'll miss out on what is the greatest regular season of any sport anywhere. As much as I hate the BCS this season was sick. The fact that it wasn't decided until the final 4 games on the last day is amazing. (even though it's still up for debate)


I should say that I hate Florida about as much as any team ever.

It's all gonna be subjective anyway. Why the hell ain't Boise State even being mentioned in this argument? They beat everyone that they faced. Let's all have fun, make lots of money and go bowling like we used to.

Florida & Michigan have similar points scored & points allowed.

Because they don't play in one of the six major conferences. If you're Boise State and you dont like it, then get yourself into a major conference or declare yourself an independent and play Notre Dame's schedule.

My unfortunate thoughts, verbatim.

Guys, let's just say for a second that Florida loses by exactly the line, which is not unreasonable and even likely. What we have at that point is

Michigan losing to OSU at Columbus by 3
Florida losing by more on a neutral site

The only other common opponent was Vanderbilt (and yes, I'm aware of the home/road difference), but Michigan manhandled them and Florida won by less than a touchdown.

Assuming Michigan also wins its bowl (yes, a big fucking assumption), Is Florida or Michigan the number 2 team in the country?

Yes, if I really liked college football, by god, I'd be out there gambling on it

The point is that for whatever reason, Ball State never even led in the game but South Carolina led for almost the entire game. That's quite a difference, in my mind.

I don't give a shit about the conference's best fucking interests. I only care about pitting what I believe is the two best teams in the country against one another. To want any other result, regardless of who it benefits, in unconscionable.

btw, every Ohio State fan I've spoken to in the past 48 hours (basically my entire extended family) is ecstatic about getting Florida instead of Michigan.

If Florida loses Michigan is the #2 team in the country.

UF would have 2 losses.

That's only part of it. I don't see Michigan, Notre Dame or anyone else knocking down the door to go play on the blue turf. Yeah, UGA played them last year, but ain't no one from a big school gonna actually go up there and play them. I appreciate the fact that La Tech was willing to make the sacrifices to go play the Auburns & Nebraskas, but they also sold the farm by inking deals where no one will come to Ruston and play.

Also, if Boise State went independent and played ND's schedule, they damn sure wouldn't get a ND deal.

No, nobody is saying their prayers to a goddamned blue turf field in the middle of Aryan Nation country.

And South Carolina is (edit) a better team than you're willing to give them credit for. In my head, both of those things even out. Also, 'never being ahead' does not equate to 'not close' or 'not a squeaker', which was the original point of the UM/Ball St. discussion.


When there are two teams clearly better than everybody else, absolutely. As of today, the second best team in the country is not clear, and other things need to be considered. Record and strength of schedule (my two biggest factors) both favor Florida.

If "who we lost to" logic is the only thing that should apply (because that is the only objective case Michigan can make at this point), Ohio State plays Boise State case closed. Any argument you make to put Michigan over Boise State also puts Florida over Michigan.

Is this all because Spade bet his poker wad a certain way?

So in other words, Michigan should've gone ahead and scheduled a 13th game against a division II team in lieu of a conference championship, and in your mind, they fucked themselves because they didn't do so. I can't wait until eventually we have a 16-game college schedule because of logic like this. 12-1 and 11-1 should be evaluated the same way. As a one loss schedule.

The argument against Boise State goes like this - not in a major conference and not Notre Dame. How does that argument automatically put Florida over Michigan?

"Who we lost to" is not the only argument. I would argue that Michigan's strength of schedule is not nearly as far behind Florida's as a lot of people would have you believe, and that Florida looked far less impressive far more often (that's actually the major point).

Actually, my poker bankroll is separate from my sports betting bankroll

Well good.

It looks like football being played in Bulgaria... that blue field is an abomination.

Florida deserves the shot, they won their conference and Michigan didn't.

Florida will lose by 20 points, and Michigan will beat SUC by 7, and wind up #2 and the "grudge match" inb Ann Arbor next year will be huge. I love college ball.

One of the biggest things pissing me off about this outcome is that Lloyd Carr will act like the arrogant, pompous, self-righteous jackass he is if it plays out like Harry says.

Whereas if Michigan just got Tresselowned again he'd stfu, maybe forever.

2 things that should be added to this thread:


1) Congrats Harry! I thoroughly enjoyed UCLA ripping the heart out of USC and kicking it against the wall. Seriously, does it get any bigger than beating your rival that you haven't beaten in 7 years AND keeping them from playing for all the marbles?


2) BRING ON THE HOKIES!!!!

What Derris just said (except replacing Hokies with Vols), and...


So that's what this is about. I would rather have Lloyd Carr and the UM (and some Big 10) faithful bitching about it than the rest of the country if a rematch happened.


It's record and SoS combined, which means I'm not using this logic at all. A Div II win improves record at cost of strength of schedule. They fucked themselves by 1) losing to Ohio State and 2) not scheduling stronger non-conference teams than Ball State and Vanderbilt. They got fucked through little fault of their own by being in a BCS conference that not only is having a down year but doesn't have a championship game (though I'm not sure how an OSU-Wisconsin game would impact Michigan's SoS). I don't like conf championship games myself, but they make a difference in showing what teams are worth. Playing Purdue may have helped, but it didn't happen this year.


Not in major conference == Weaker schedule. Stronger schedule == Florida over Michigan.


Michigan isn't far behind at all, but it's still behind. If you want to mark number of close calls, fine. Style points are largely subjective especially when comparing two teams with drastically different schedules. They can't be that definitive on their own.

The only close game Florida had against a team remotely close to Ball State's level was a 6-point win at Vanderbilt, whom Michigan beat by 20 in Ann Arbor. Slight edge to Michigan, but not enough to offset the rest of the schedule IMHO.

Best Bruin humiliation of SUC since 1965... and maybe even better than that. You should checkout YouTube for the "rumble" during the TV timeout... all of both teams almost meeting at midfield, jumping and shouting at each other, doing the tribal Braveheart thing...

Nothing like two great rivals in the same town... literally next door. It's been seven long years, I am still high from Saturday.

Hell fucking no. Comparing two top ten SoS's is not even close to comparing the 165th strongest schedule or whatever Boise St.'s was. Michigan was a shade behind Florida. Boise St. is leagues behind both.

So is Wisconsin (Boise State 83, Wisconsin 75). Had Wisconsin beat Michigan they would have passed your major conference test and potentially caused a even bigger shitstorm due to only beating one ranked opponent all year.

"Substantial SoS difference vs. marginal SoS difference" is a better way to phrase your distinction than conference prestige, but it passes my challenge as stated. Well done. Unfortunately, it also makes it ambiguous where to draw the line for SoS comparison, but I won't worry about that right now.