December 5, 2006
How they voted: 2006 Final Coaches Poll
Here's a rundown of how key coaches voted in the Final 2006 Coaches Poll. The complete ballots are online at USA Today.
Ohio State Head Coach Jim Tressel - abstained
Michigan Head Coach Lloyd Carr
#1 Ohio State
#2 Michigan
#3 Florida
#4 Wisconsin
#5 LSU
#6 Oklahoma
#7 Louisville
#8 Southern Cal
#9 West Virginia
#10 Auburn
#11 Notre Dame
#12 Boise State
#13 Wake Forest
#14 Arkansas
#15 Texas
#16 Virginia Tech
#17 Rutgers
#18 California
#19 Tennessee
#20 Brigham Young
#21 Nebraska
#22 Texas A&M
#23 Boston College
#24 Georgia Tech
#25 Oregon State
Interestingly, Illinois Head Coach Ron Zook was the only Big 10 coach to rank the Gators ahead of Michigan.
#1 Ohio State
#2 Florida
#3 Michigan
#4 Wisconsin
#5 LSU
#6 Louisville
#7 Southern Cal
#8 Boise State
#9 Oklahoma
#10 Auburn
#11 Notre Dame
#12 West Virginia
#13 Virginia Tech
#14 Wake Forest
#15 Texas
#16 Arkansas
#17 Rutgers
#18 Tennessee
#19 California
#20 Brigham Young
#21 Texas A&M
#22 Nebraska
#23 Boston College
#24 Georgia Tech
#25 Hawaii
Coaches who put Florida #3:
Mike Belloti (Oregon), Larry Blakeney (Troy), Mack Brown (Texas), Lloyd Carr (Michigan), Randy Edsall (UConn), Joe Glenn (Wyoming), Terry Hoeppner (Indiana), Brady Hoke (Ball State), Brian Kelly (Central Michigan), Mike Leach (Texas Tech), Joe Novak (Northern Illinois), George O'Leary (UCF), Gary Patterson (TCU), Mike Riley (Oregon State), Greg Schiano (Rutgers), John L Smith (Michigan State), Joe Tiller (Purdue), and Charlie Weiss (Notre Dame).
Comments:
Luke said:
posted on December 5, 2006 12:57 PM — 24.250.217.142 — link — abuse?
I seem to recall after the Gators beat UCF 42-0, George O'Leary being quoted in the paper as saying "that team right there is one of the best 2 teams in the country," Funny thing he didn't back up his words with his vote.
geauxtigers0107 said:
posted on December 5, 2006 1:12 PM — 68.222.22.190 — link — abuse?
Kev:
Noticed that none of the coaches that put FLA at #3 are SEC. Not surprising. Looking to keep the money in house, obviously. BCS will pay nicely to the SEC this year, as they will to the Big 10. It's all about the mighty dollar. I personally think Michigan is better this year than Fla but that's not what people wanted to see. Still gotta pull for 'dem Gators though. Geaux SEC.Geaux Tigers
GatorHeel said:
posted on December 5, 2006 2:00 PM — 216.239.124.38 — link — abuse?
Geauxtigers0107: Shocking that none of the #3 votes were SEC teams? Not really? Also not surprising that the list of coaches that DID put UF #3 was heavy from the Big-10. Everyone thinks their conference is the hardest....
Cane_Nation said:
posted on December 5, 2006 2:19 PM — 205.166.218.5 — link — abuse?
Everyone who defends Michigan's reason always starts with "I think" or "Michigan would". How about someone give me some concrete reasons why they should play for the NC. The UF reasoning is backed up by numbers and wins, not hypotheticals and "a good loss". I'm sorry but if your "best game" is a loss, that says something to me.
Wolverine said:
posted on December 5, 2006 3:52 PM — 65.222.188.130 — link — abuse?
Strange how those Gator fans forget that Michigan whacked Fla. last time they met and, Florida fans not necessarily being history majors, that Michigan is 6-3 versus the almighty SEC in bowl games.
Too bad we don't still have that Big Ten - SEC bowl alignment; it was fun whupping up on those cocky teams. It real takes some of the air out of that "best conference" puffery.
Tommie Trojan said:
posted on December 5, 2006 5:25 PM — 64.32.153.19 — link — abuse?
Wolverine:
You're not playin' the SEC this time - you're playin' the USC - who is 21-9 in all Rose Bowls (mostly against Woody Hayes and Bo Schembechler). Michigan is 8-11 in those games. I remember many a "great Wolverine" team that went home without the win. Better pay attention to what will be in front of you. You can't do nothing about Florida. Just like USC, you controlled your own destiny, and blew it!
Tommie T
BULLDOG55 said:
posted on December 5, 2006 5:31 PM — 24.99.205.182 — link — abuse?
This voting thing is not what it is cut out to be anyway. Like high school it is a popularity contest with most sports writers coming from Northern schools who they vote for and want to win the National Championship every year. Take the SEC if a school loses a game they drop way down or out of the top 25. If Northern or Western conference schools lose they drop a couple of spots and if they beat another top 25 school they take their place in the rankings.
Jeff said:
posted on December 5, 2006 7:01 PM — 64.12.116.199 — link — abuse?
It's funny how every single sports writer or coach who voted for Florida says they did because they didn't think it was fair for OSU to have to play them again or simply because Florida plays in the sec. But they all agree Michigan is the better team! I thought the bcs was designed to put the best teams in! Not this year, it was a popularity contest. We'll see whose conference wins most Bowl games, remember sec when Auburn your second best team play Wisconsin last year and got destroyed! Wisconsin was # 3 or 4 in the Big Ten.
Johnny said:
posted on December 5, 2006 7:47 PM — 71.56.58.225 — link — abuse?
Notice how everyone talks about how voting for Florida is the "fair" thing to do because "they earned it" and "Michigan had their shot". Noone is willing to say that they have voted for the second best team to play the first best.
Look at the second half of Florida's season, horrible, after they loss to Auburn, they went on to squeak by 5 unranked teams (WC aside) before a moderately impressive win over Arkansas.Michigan looked like a better team in their loss to Ohio St. than Florida did in their win over Arkansas, or even a majority of their wins, to be honest.
The national championship game has already been played, and Ohio St. has it. Now its just mop-up time.
Tommie Trojan said:
posted on December 5, 2006 8:19 PM — 64.32.153.19 — link — abuse?
Johnny:
Let's put this in perspective. Nobody knows if anybody in the Big 10 is any good. Your teams only played Texas and Notre Dame and did not lose. So what? USC did not lose to anybody outside their own conference either. Does that not make them #1.
How bout the SEC? Florida only lost to Auburn. LSU only lost to Auburn and Florida. Auburn only lost to Arkansas and Georgia. Who beat these teams outside of the SEC? Nobody did. So why can't the rankings look like this:1. Florida
2. LSU
3. Auburn
4. USC
5. Ohio State
6. Michigan
7. WisconsinWhy not? Who has proven, other than other SEC teams, that anybody could beat these teams. Nobody can. None of these teams has played off and taken any losses at all to other conferences. So, the Big 10 has no monopoly on claiming that "they can't be beat". There are several other teams that did not lose outside the're own conferences. For all you know - the whole conference could be better than any team in another conference.
Tommie T
PopsMich said:
posted on December 5, 2006 8:46 PM — 71.77.24.80 — link — abuse?
Well said TT. It'll only be the bowl games where we can sort any of this out.
However, some teams booked tough OOC games, including USC. That has helped sort this out, in part.
I don't know what to make of the SEC since they don't play anybody worthy of comparison OOC. Heck, if we base it on one of their conference champs getting whipped by USC we'd have it all wrong.
Same can be said of Big 10, despite the OOC games since Texas and ND looked softer than usual. If the Polls are wrong about Michigan, then they're likely wrong about OSU. I hate to say it, but after their game I simply said "They're both not what we thought" given so many points allowed.
I did notice that the late season SEC vs ACC games were all tight. The ACC teams are not Top Guns. Most notably, the game between UF vs FSU with the others being UG vs GT, Clemson vs SC.
Takes a little bite out of the "We played so and so..." arguments being tossed around.
Tommie Trojan said:
posted on December 5, 2006 9:36 PM — 64.32.153.19 — link — abuse?
Everything is tough to understand for any Notre Dame fan. I haven't seen one on here yet that could ever connect the dots.
But, at least PopsMich understands what I'm gettin' at. Well, with rousing victories over Florida, USC and Arkansas - we'll all know how good the Big 10 really is this year. They may certainly prevail - or not.Tommie T
Tony said:
posted on December 5, 2006 10:31 PM — 12.216.190.146 — link — abuse?
the SEC overhypes itself... they try and come off like they are the greatest conference in all of sports but they will not test the waters with anybody else except for rivalry games.
here is the #1 reason why Michigan should be in the championship game over florida though... the people that know more about college football than anybody, is not you or me, its not the coaches, its not even the computers!
Its the handicappers and big time gamblers that set the spreads on these games! they know more, because there is a reason why vegas keeps winning and online bookies keep popping up everywhere, because these few individuals set these lines and are so good at it they always make money for the house.
Now when michigan visited columbus they were 7 point dogs, this was at columus may I restate. Now Florida is a 8 point dog to ohio st on neutral field, the oddsmakers say the homefield plays a 2-3 point swing in the line depending on the team and its history, so we are talking a 4 point difference in what the smart guys in vegas think...
Advantage Michigan!
JohnnyW said:
posted on December 5, 2006 11:05 PM — 76.18.215.105 — link — abuse?
Without a playoff, there's no possible way to tell who's got the best team. Subjective rankings can't be taken seriously as a means of determining a football "champion". It's absurd. Think about it objectively. Div 1-A is using virtually the same means to select a football "champion" as synchronized swimming, ice skating, gymnastics and diving uses to judge their competitors. Again, it's absurd.
The NCAA gets it right with the "Division 1 College Football Championship" (Div 1-AA playoffs). A mix of conference champions and "at large" teams make up a 16 team playoff that is used to determine a champion by objective means through competitive elimination. The championship playoffs are currently in progress and will end Mid Dec. There's no reason Div 1-A couldn't adopt a similar system.
Tommie Trojan said:
posted on December 5, 2006 11:22 PM — 64.32.153.19 — link — abuse?
Tony:
Let me set you straight on "the line". The line has nothing to do with how good a team is. Well, in some games it does - the games you'll never care about or never want to see. The line is made toward what the "perception" of the "average" gambler is gonna be. The "house" only wants to balance and even the distribution of money on each team. They take 10% off the top and pay out 90% back to the "cash customers". As long as the money is balanced between both teams - the "house" can never lose.
Here is the definition of "perception". We're gonna have to use Notre Dame again I'm afraid. Millions of Irish fans are gonna percieve that Notre Dame is better than they are. Now, the house does have the computer programs that say that LSU should win by 16 points. But, they cannot set the line at 16. Why not? Because every single freakin' Notre Dame fan in the world, and everybody else, might think that is too high. Therefore, a large imbalance of money will shift over to the Notre Dame side. If Notre Dame should somehow lose by less than 16 - the house loses! So, what happens is that "the line" opens up at LSU by 9 instead. Now, alot of SEC'ers are gonna see that 9 and figure that LSU is a lock to win by 10, and alot more money is gonna swing toward the LSU side. Now, the "smart money" also knows that LSU is gonna win by 16 - so their lookin' for that "6 heavy" discrepancy between the line and reality. Tony, if you could figure this all out you'd be a genius and a millionaire. Nevertheless, the line is constantly changing in order to get a perfect distribution of the money toward each team. It has nothing to do with who is that much greater than any other team. It all has to do with perception. I notice that Ohio State open up by 8 over Florida. Doesn't mean that the "house" thinks the Buckeyes will even win. They don't post the "odds" for your benefit - if they did we'd all get rich.Tommie T
btompkins67 said:
posted on December 6, 2006 12:10 AM — 206.124.222.93 — link — abuse?
One argument I do not see being made for any team is how many of their games were against ranked opponents at the time of the game. Look at the AP top 10. For the most part teams that played ranked teams were rewarded. The argument for Florida should be made on the basis that they played 4 ranked teams and were 3-1 with 2 on road, one at home, and one neutral. Michigan only played two ranked teams and was 1-1 both games on the road. LSU played 4 ranked teams all in the top 10 all on the road and were 2-2. USC played 4 ranked teams all at home and all wins. However their two losses came against unranked opponents. I don't know how Bosie St. is in the top 10 even though they were undefeated, they played no ranked teams. ANY team in the Big 10, Pac 10, Big 12, SEC, ACC, or Big East would have also went undefeated against that schedule. To me it is a very unimpressive 12-0. The evidence for my argument is below. I think the way it all ended up is really pretty fair when you look at it. In no way did Michigan get the shaft. Florida just played tougher competition throughout the year and came out with a slight edge. Stop whining Michigan fan and enjoy the Rose Bowl.
#1 Ohio State (4):
#2 Texas away W
#24 Penn St. home W
#13 Iowa away W
#2 Michigan home W#2 Florida (4):
#13 Tennessee away W
#9 LSU home W
#11 Auburn away L
#8 Arkansas Neutral W#3 Michigan (2):
#2 Notre Dame away W
#1 Ohio State away L#4 LSU (4):
#3 Auburn away L
#5 Florida away L
#8 Tennessee away W
#5 Arkansas away W#5 Louisville (3):
#17 Miami home W
#3 West Virginia home W
#15 Rutgers away L#6 Wisconsin (1):
#6 Michigan away L#7 Oklahoma (5):
#18 Oregon away L
#7 Texas home L
#23 Missouri away W
#21 Texas A&M away W
#19 Nebraska neutral W#8 USC (4):
#19 Nebraska home W
#21 Oregon home W
#17 Cal home W
#6 Notre Dame home W
Note: USC's two losses came against unranked teams.#9 Boise St. Undefeated but played no ranked teams.
#10 Auburn (2):
#6 LSU home W
#2 Florida home W
Auburn had two losses to unranked teams
Jake Fegan said:
posted on December 6, 2006 12:51 AM — 68.185.100.17 — link — abuse?
Hey Nick, post #8:
The Gators DID play a 12 game schedule. I sincerely hope you don't count Western Carolina as an actual football game as opposed to a recess-like practice.
The Big 10 did happen to play a conference championship game this year. It was Ohio State-Michigan on Nov 18th, with the winner getting the automatic BCS berth (and in this case the national championship).
A lot of people are saying that it would have been unfair to ask Ohio State to beat Michigan a second time. However, that could happen in conferences with championship games.
Florida State and Miami, provided they both won their respective divisions, could play each other twice every year.
And Gator fans, what if, WHAT IF...your hopes on winning the SEC berth in the BCS hinged on having to beat LSU a second time in an SEC championship game rematch. If LSU won the rematch, the Gator victory earlier in the year would be virtually meaningless.
Conference championship games only make sense if teams from the two divisions do not play each other during the season.
Here's are some good ideas forconferences with two divisions, and future BCS ideas:
(1) No cross-divisional play (i.e. teams from SEC west do not play teams in SEC east)
(2) Play each team in your division twice, once at home once on the road
(3) Vanderbilt goes 1-9
(4) Divisional winners play in neutral-site championship game for BCS berth
(5) Notre Dame joins the Big 10 to make it a total of 12 teams. It splits into two divisions
(6) Pac 10 has to have two more teams enter it to make it a 12 team conference with two six-team divisions. Maybe Boise State? Brigham Young? Fresno State?
(7) Big East loses its automatic berth, but the champion of the Big East can play the highest ranked non-BCS school for an automatic berth in the BCS, which would be somewhat like a conference championship game.
(8) If the highest ranked non-BCS school is ranked in the top-10, they are automatically in the BCS (like Boise St this year) so the Big East champ would have to play the NEXT highest non-BCS school. This year it would be Louisville vs. Brigham Young (who is ranked 20th in the final standings).
(9) Only one non-conference game per year allowed for BCS conference schools.
(10) This makes six automatic berths for a playoff system. The top two BCS teams in the rankings get byes. The third ranked team plays the sixth ranked team. The fourth ranked team plays the fifth ranked team. Winner of 4-5 plays 1 and winner of 3-6 plays 2. Then the winners play in a national title game.If a team makes it to the title game, they will have played 14 games at the most, which is what the Gators are playing this year.
Everyone who clamors for a playoff must acknowledge that the regular season must be shortened. Anything more than 14 games is unreasonable and inappropriate.
Crazy said:
posted on December 6, 2006 3:04 AM — 71.80.235.188 — link — abuse?
Interesting that the Commissioner of the SEC is also the Coordinator of the BCS and has all year long publicly pushed for more SEC representation in the BCS games.
12-1 better than 11-1? I guess when you play Western Carolina as your last regular season game then, yes, 12-1 is better. Anyone know what division of the NCAA WC is in? I guess that's what you call "style points" for Meyer.
Oh yeah, for all you math whizzes, since 12-1 is better than 11-1 which of these numbers is better... 27-7 or 25-19?
Since Vandy is the only team that both Michigan and UF played this season... draw your own conclusion.
Good Luck to the gators in the big game. They deserve everything they will get.
Luke said:
posted on December 6, 2006 10:16 AM — 209.251.132.34 — link — abuse?
If we can't count our 62-0 win over western carolina, then you cant count your 7 point win over ball state.
I love how michigan tries to argue they deserve to be in the championship because they lost. "Oh we lost to the number 1 team! we can handle them!" "Florida hasn't played them yet, but there's no way they have a chance." "Let the losers play." I have no confidence in Michigan beating Ohio State. I'd rather have LSU play ohio state than michigan.
Cochese23 said:
posted on December 6, 2006 10:19 AM — 66.92.214.247 — link — abuse?
from #10: Too bad we don't still have that Big Ten - SEC bowl alignment; it was fun whupping up on those cocky teams. It real takes some of the air out of that "best conference" puffery."
I seem to remember Ohio State losing twice in a row to the mighty Gamecocks in the Outback bowl... (granted, then they went on to win a national championship)
Bass Go Blue said:
posted on December 6, 2006 10:56 AM — 71.16.245.142 — link — abuse?
You have to think about much of what is being said here. #1. "Theyhad their chance" comment coming from voters and coaches did NOT see it that way in 96..see UF vs FSU. #2 FSU did not play in the hardest conference so SOS is BS in that arguement. #2 SEC had 7 teams in the top 25 all season and they were flawed. They kept 5 in teh top 12 all season so their schedule is hyped. BTW, Arkansas , who had two years of no bowls, pratically dominated the conference. That is like Kansas, Baylor, Minnesota, or in this years case, Wake dominating. IT IS A BAD SIGN! They are good but they are NOT deep on talent like top programs so they had no business being that dominant. LSU, Auburn and UF are the top 2 in conference and they ALL lost to B-10 comp in recent years. UF got the win last year on a BS game that USA today wrote a huge article on. 12 UF players on D and no offsides on Iowa yet UF claimed victory. All that said, since the BCS, the SEC is 10-11 vs B-10 opponents. Auburn was 30-2 when Wisky put 500 yards plus on that vaunted D last year. Shot or no shot..see the facts. Last comment, When Georgia threw three ints versus Carolina, tehy jumped UM for no reason..shows how the SEC is so beloved. And for all UF's glory, they are top 7 every years and fall on their face so why does anyone here think this year is different? It is not. OSU would POUND carolina and I live in SC so I know. I was at the game!
M GO BLUE said:
posted on December 6, 2006 11:35 AM — 216.46.213.163 — link — abuse?
Luke,Florida did crush W. Carolina,and that game is counted.
The only team that played both Michigan and Florida was Vanderbilt.
Florida 25 Vanderbilt 19
Michigan 27 Vanderbilt 7Obviously it is a mistake,there is no way Michigan could have beaten an SEC team worse than Florida did? Because the SEC is THE ALMIGHTY SOUTH EASTERN CONFERENCE!
this must have been a scoreboard glitch! there is no question that the SEC is by far the best conference in college football and no other conference has ever been able to touch them........Oh I forgot Wisconsin ran all over Auburn last year.......And I forgot about Iowa Beating LSU a couple years ago.......AND OH BABY I FORGOT THE LAST TIME MICHIGAN WON A BOWL GAME THEY WERE PLAYING THE ALMIGHTY GATORS IN TAMPA FLORIDA!So maybe the SEC is is not the almighty conference,I am not saying they are bad,cuz I know the SEC is good,but maybe not quite as good as some would like to think.
NYCMichiganFan said:
posted on December 6, 2006 11:36 AM — 128.59.180.81 — link — abuse?
GatorGreg says: "44 votes for Florida and 18 for Michigan...real nail biter there. Just take your Rose Bowl and be happy" While we deserve the Championship game, I am happy to be going to the Rose Bowl, since I will be there to watch us destroy USC. And as for nail biters, don't count on the National Championship being one. OSU by three touchdowns ... at least.
UM Fan said:
posted on December 6, 2006 12:22 PM — 71.16.245.142 — link — abuse?
Cocheese. OSU was in turmoil in those days when South Carolina beat them twice. Not to mention that during that span, the coaching change was in effect between Cooper and Tressel. Since OSU is 4-0 in the BCS with an NC. I have no issue with UF playing in the NC other than the reality that speculation is not a solid support of this. Regardless of the arguements put forth, fact is that Michigans D is astounding against the run and OSU shredded that strength. OSU has a great deal of defense and Harvin is not going to get loose anymore than Mannigham did who is stat for stat the more dynamic of the two. UF cannot run the ball and that will be the issue. As Vandy said on CNNSI when interviewed, UF has more speed and some players to die for but UM was more physical and more balanced. They said Michigan was the harder of the two they played and they would rather play UF in that case. That was before Adrian Arington was on fire at wide out to support Mannigham. I think they got it wrong from the top two teams playing but right for the sake of making it interesting. What I find funny is that most everyone on here provided support for their case but in the end, BCS means "Big Cash System" and that is all this is about. Only one persons opinion mattered. MIKE SLIVE who is an SEC ex-com sleeze. Don't think he was not behind the curtain directing traffic to the money. After all, he made them the richest conference but also there were more infractions in 7 years than any TWO CONFERENCES combined in the same span why are we suprised about this? UF jumped us twice in one season so it is clear that the SEC would be there.
NYCMichiganFan said:
posted on December 6, 2006 2:14 PM — 128.59.180.81 — link — abuse?
From #32 - Luke, chill out bro. You're getting your chance. Just curious though ... since we "had our chance," do you want the same chance? I.e., why don't you go play the national championship game in Columbus, and oh by the way, the stadium isn't going to be split 50-50 with half the tickets going to Florida fans. Sound fair? Didn't think so.
But honestly, this NC game is a lose-lose and a win-win for me. If OSU wins - it's a loss because I hate them and never want them to win a championship, ever, but it's a win because the Big Ten looks good and the SEC looks not so good (plus, if OSU wins by the margin I think they will, everyone will start up the now-useless conversations about how Michigan should have been the team to play them, assuming Michigan beats USC). If Florida wins - it's a loss for me because the Big Ten takes a hit, but a win because the Buckeyes take a hit. So who do I root for now?
Overall though, this season has been a huge success. Optimistically I expected 10 wins for Michigan. We have exceeded everyone's expectations and will have a great team returning next year for a follow up.
Hail to the Victors!
PopsMich said:
posted on December 6, 2006 2:15 PM — 149.173.6.51 — link — abuse?
Another comment on why its tough to compare conferences.
No doubt the SEC is the most balanced and competitive, making the week-after-week argument a very good one. In the PAC 10 USC may have been hit by that after 3 tough games (at least they geared up as tough and emotional).
We all know the college game rides on more emotion than the pros, so lets look at the Big 10.
Which team has a bulls eye on it every week? OSU? Not a chance.
You may consider ND vs UM a rivalry, and maybe ND does. Its one of the lesser for UM, and we beat 'em back at home.
UM is the biggest game each year on Michigan State's schedule. They don't care if they lose every game, but not that one.
Even Minnesota will show up for the Brown Jug.
I just so happen to sit across from 2 co-workers (Penn St. and Northwestern). All they've talked about since this summer is beating UM. The PSU fan was talking "payback" for last year for months. No mention of OSU, not once.
When all of that was dispensed with, UM finally played in the only game considered worthy of "rivalry" vs OSU.
OSU won, and deserves the shot at the NC, and UF.
So if you do insist on comparing conferences, I'll put that gauntlet vs the "World's largest cocktail party" any day. Urban, you out there?
Jake Fegan said:
posted on December 6, 2006 8:00 PM — 68.185.100.17 — link — abuse?
#39 NYCMich Fan:
If they changed the rules so that you cannot play in the NC game unless you win your conference, would you support that rule?
This year, I kinda compare what happened to Michigan to the 2nd best team in NCAA Final Four being paired up with the best team. Only one of them can win and go to the National Title game.
Tony said:
posted on December 6, 2006 9:55 PM — 12.216.190.146 — link — abuse?
Hey Tommy Trojan... you just took what I posted, and twisted it so you could sound smart, obviously I brought up the whole spread thing because i am a successful gambler. I know how the house puts the line and how each book has to sway it so that they end up winning regardless, but you need to understand the line has to come from somewhere??? what??? really??? the bigtime cappers are the ones that make the big bets that get the line waying in one way or another and therefore SETTING THE LINE.
this is beyond the point, the point I was making is that Michigan is better than florida in the eyes of the the ultimate cappers, which have more knowledge on the games then anybody else.
volstrike3 said:
posted on December 7, 2006 1:02 AM — 75.20.190.14 — link — abuse?
Johnny,
"Michigan looked like a better team in their loss to Ohio St. than Florida did in their win over Arkansas, or even a majority of their wins, to be honest."
Are you kidding me. UM looked better giving up over 500+ yards and 42pts than Florida did keeping Ark under 100 yards rushing. You are out of your mind. The OSU-Michigan game looked like a big east game. Sloppy tackling, and no defense. Florida and USC are going to expose the big 10.
AgGB said:
posted on December 7, 2006 10:10 AM — 66.76.55.152 — link — abuse?
i know a lot of you are thinking that polling is a rediculous way to do it and it's not fair and other whiny things such as that. but i have to argue in favor of the polling process, not necessarily for the championship game but b/c it ensures that every saturday you see every teams best. if we had a playoff it would be more like the nfl where they'd think, 'oh if we lose this game it's ok b/c we'll still make the playoffs and we can get a championship birth that way'. as it stands, if you want to be the national champion you have to show up to win every game. if you have one loss, you may have an argument but if you intend to be in the nat'l championship game, you just have to be head and shoulders above everybody to make sure you make it in. i dont want a playoff system b/c we already have an nfl and i dont want another nfl at the college level. and besides, it gives us fans something to talk about during the weeks in the fall.
GIG EM
NYCMichiganFan said:
posted on December 7, 2006 11:26 AM — 128.59.180.243 — link — abuse?
#41 and 42 Jake Fegan:
I'll take your questions in reverse order. I am assuming that Troy Smith is already 21, given that he is a senior, but I don't think that is what you were really asking. Yes, Troy Smith has owned us, no question. In general, I dislike all Buckeyes; but he is on the very short list of Buckeyes that I have a lot of respect for. He is not only very good and very deserving of the Heisman, but he is a class act. He always puts the team before personal accomplishments, respects all his opponents, and comes up biggest in the biggest games. Hopefully that will continue in the NC game and OSU will represent the Big Ten well.
As for your second question, your analogy to the Final 4 is good, but not perfect, since Final 4 games are played on neutral sites. I used to say that the win your conference if you want to play in the NC would be a great rule. Certainly it would have worked well the year that Nebraska went after getting slaughtered by Colorado, and the year that Oklahoma went after getting whacked by Kansas State. But anytime the BCS tweaks its system to add a rule that seems to make sense, the season reveals another problem with it. For example, the rule about having only 2 teams per conference in BCS bowls. There is no question, in my mind at least, that Wisconsin, Arkansas, Auburn, and Rutgers (even though this rule is not why Rutgers is out) are more deserving of a BCS bid than Notre Dame. In other words, the season seems to prove that a seemingly sensible rule may not make sense certain years. So I see lots of potential problems with the win your conference rule.
First, this year Michigan could legitimately be seen to be the second best team in the country and have gone to the game. But that rule would have kept them out. Suppose, hypothetically, that Florida had lost to South Carolina (or any of the other close calls they had). You can see that it is not out of the question that you have a bunch of two-loss teams and then a Michigan and an OSU who are have beaten everyone, except one lost to the other. In other words, it is possible that the two best teams would both be from the same conference. Should we shut one out because only one of them can be the conference champ? I don't think that sounds like a good idea.
Second, that rule would only seem to work in conferences that have a championship game that is played on a neutral site, but even then it has problems. Suppose that the two best teams in the conference are in one division? Then you have the same problem as a team that doesn't have a conference championship - one of those teams has to play the other on the road. Even if we used your suggestions above (i.e., have teams only play their division and play everyone home and away) there could be problems. For example, what if the two best teams are both in the same division, each beats the other at home and loses on the road, and wins every other game they play? Not entirely out of the question.
So the rule is a good one, in general, but there are bound to be years in which it is problematic. Bottom line, I think the only way that would be "fair" would be to have a playoff. At least it would be much fairer than this BCS nonsense.
Big Tide said:
posted on December 7, 2006 5:40 PM — 69.34.227.69 — link — abuse?
The SEC is a wide open conference, just look at the winners in the past 10 or 20 years. Georgia, Alabama, Tennessee, Florida, LSU and Auburn have all won the conference title. Now we have Arkansas and South Carolina added to the line up. Alabama, LSU and Florida have all won national titles in recent memory. Besides Michigan,Ohio State, Penn State and the freak Northwestern season a few years back, when is the last time another Big Ten team has won the conference? Ole Miss, Miss State, Kentucky and Vandy are the the doormats of the SEC, but what about the rest of the Big Ten? When was the last time a team won a national title in the Big Ten that wasn't OSU, Michigan or Penn ST.? It is the same scenerio in the PAC 10. Back in 1992 nobody gave Alabama a chance and cleaned up the floor with Miami. Just don't count the Gators out.
PopsMich said:
posted on December 7, 2006 9:22 PM — 71.77.24.80 — link — abuse?
Tide, more recent and varied than you would think:
2004 and 2002: Iowa co-champ, 2001: Illinois, 2000: Northwestern and Purdue 1/3 champs, 1999 Wisconsin.Some haven't won recently (last 15 years), like Michigan State, Indiana and Minnesota.
PopsMich said:
posted on December 8, 2006 5:20 AM — 71.77.24.80 — link — abuse?
Tipp: Its freezing out, but no frost on the old brain. There was a 3 way tie that year...
I didn't mention the co-champs, etc. in my post as it was one of the 3 mentioned by Tide.
Time to put word wood on the burner.....(exits)
"Hey Schiano, Get your butt over here and start chopping....."DRockafella9 said:
posted on December 8, 2006 11:26 AM — 24.211.40.19 — link — abuse?
When I was little on the playground if two kids were arguing on lets say on "who gets the the girl."(OHIO STATE) Their not going to compare what they did against the other kids, they would beat the crap out of each other. Maybe we should all forget about Ohio State and just let Michigan and Florida have at each other, wouldnt that be fun?
GOBOBLUE said:
posted on December 9, 2006 4:03 PM — 70.129.132.140 — link — abuse?
btompkins67 says: "Michigan only played 2 ranked teams" Oops.
Guess you forgot about Michigan Spanking 11-1 Wisconsin this year.
If my memory serves me correctly, didn't the Badgers crush Auburn last year?
The Gators only loss this year was to the War Eagles.
I know things can change from year to year...or week to week it seems. Michigan players were passed in consecutive weeks in the BCS standing without doing anything other that STUDYING. I bleed Maze and Blue and my only hope is that we can all run our mouth like this AND actually see our boys settle things on the field.
The SEC got hosed a few years ago (Oklahoma / LSU) and now it's the Big 10's turn.
Blue 35
USC 17So Cal USMC said:
posted on December 9, 2006 8:22 PM — 204.62.68.23 — link — abuse?
Comparison to the Consensus Ratings (4/6)...
Actual teams' Ratings --- Coaches Ranking
1. Ohio St --- 1st
2. Michigan --- 3rd
2. Florida --- 2nd
4. USC --- 7th
5. LSU --- 4th
6. Louie --- 6th
7. Boise St --- 9th
8. Auburn --- 10th
9. Notre Dame --- 11th
10. Wisconsin --- 5th... ?Over-Ranked?11. Cal Berkeley --- 19th... !Under-Ranked!
12. Arkansas --- 13th
13. Tennessee --- 18th... ?Under-Ranked?
14. Rutgers --- 17th
14. West VU --- 12th
16. Oklahoma --- 8th... !Over-Ranked!
17. Oregon St --- 25th... !Under-Ranked!
18. Wake --- 15th
19. VTech --- 14th... ?Over-Ranked?
20. UCLA --- N/A... !UNDER-RANKED!21. Penn St --- 30th... !Under-Ranked!
21. Texas --- 16th... ?Over-Ranked?
23. BYU --- 20th
23. Georgia --- 28th... ?Under-Ranked?
25. Oregon --- N/A... !Under-Ranked!
26. Boston C --- 23rd
27. aTm --- 21st... ?Over-Ranked?
28. So Carol --- 31st
29. Nebraska --- 22nd... ?Over-Ranked?
29. GTech --- N/A... ?Under-Ranked?The rest of the Coaches Over-Ranked teams...
32. TCU --- 24th
37. Clemson --- 29th
38. Hawaii --- 27th
41. Houston --- 26th
42. Navy --- 31st
The XII fooled a lot of voters this season.JT said:
posted on December 10, 2006 12:42 AM — 71.213.226.54 — link — abuse?
SoCal USMC -- Interesting... You show A&M @ 27 & TCU @ 32, yet Mike Leach, whose Red Raiders played both teams, ranks TCU 21 & A&M 23. What is the value of the voting from coaches who experienced coaching against various teams?
AnnArborGuy said:
posted on December 11, 2006 11:49 AM — 198.208.251.22 — link — abuse?
I'm going to watch the Ohio State game for one reason only. I can't believe that I'm about to put this in writing. I'm going to root (hack) for the Buckeyes (hackhack) to BLAST that SEC team so far south that they end up in Anartica. I want to see 600+ yards of offense by OS and zilch by those other guys. I want to see the biggest SMACKDOWN in the history of bowl games. I'm thinking 70-0 here. I want to see fans, dressed in red, chanting 'OVER-RATED' to the top of their lungs on global TV!
I'm glad that we are taking on USC. In the opinion poll UM loses in a rematch either way. If we win it's because we were 'given' a second chance and if we lose it's the 'I told you that they didn't deserve a second chance'.
A win over USC lands us at #2. And I hope that LSU loses (notice that I didn't say I was going to root for their opponent), Louisville loses and Wisconsin wins. Which should land them in #3!!
That would end the year with a Big Ten trifectia with a 37-2 combined record and the top three in the SEC would end up at 32-9.
Q: Which conference is the best?
A: The Big Tenp.s. See ya next year in Ann Arbor
Luke said:
posted on December 11, 2006 3:59 PM — 75.117.29.15 — link — abuse?
Well AnnArborGuy, I can tell you one thing for certain. You will not see what you want to see during the ohio state game. And that's a guarantee. Florida's defense is way better than what you guys call defense up in the Big 10. Get ready to play teams that actually have speed.
volstrike3 said:
posted on December 12, 2006 1:25 PM — 216.103.178.34 — link — abuse?
AnnArborGuy,
I am calling for USC to put a whipping on Michigan primarily because you are too worried about not playing in the NC game. You should be worried about USC, I believe they are a better team than OSU. They are more likely to beat you 70-0 than OSU vs. Florida.
Tommie Trojan said:
posted on December 12, 2006 5:51 PM — 64.32.153.19 — link — abuse?
volstrike3:
Pete Carroll is gonna be way more upset than Lloyd Carr is gonna be. Carr had a legit shot and blew. USC blew it before they got the shot. The Trojans will be "practicin' hard". That was flat out embarassing to them. It probably won't happen again.
Tommie T
Tommie Trojan said:
posted on December 13, 2006 9:29 PM — 64.32.153.19 — link — abuse?
My Final Season Ratings:
1.) Ohio State (12-0)
2.) U.S.C. (10-2) -1.47
3.) Louisville (11-1) -3.04
4.) L.S.U. (10-2) -4.01
5.) Michigan (11-1) -7.03
6.) California (9-3) -7.13
7.) Texas (9-3) -7.76
8.) West Virginia (10-2) -7.92
9.) Florida (12-1) -8.38
10.) B.Y.U. (10-2) -9.60
11.) Boise State (12-0) -10.25
12.) Clemson (8-4) -10.54
13.) Hawaii (10-3) -11.01
14.) Oklahoma (11-2) -11.43
15.) Tennessee (9-3) -11.64
16.) Virginia Tech (10-2) -12.43
17.) Rutgers (10-2) -12.89
18.) Wisconsin (11-1) -12.95
19.) Auburn (10-2) -13.36
20.) Notre Dame (10-2) -13.61
21.) Oregon (7-5) -13.67
22.) U.C.L.A. (7-5) -13.72
23.) Arkansas (10-3) -14.39
24.) Nebraska (9-4) -14.91
25.) Oregon State (9-4) -15.20
26.) South Carolina (7-5) -15.21
27.) T.C.U. (10-2) -16.14
28.) Boston College (9-3) -16.51
29.) Penn State (8-4) -16.80
30.) Arizona State (7-5) -17.28If your team didn't make this list - it's probably because they really were not that good this year. But, we still have the Bowl Season to redeem ourselves. Sorry, Tomcat, still can't get A&M into the Top 30.
Tommie T
Luke said:
posted on December 13, 2006 11:02 PM — 24.250.217.142 — link — abuse?
Tommie Tommie Tommie..! What is with that list man?? How do you have 2 three loss teams above Florida?? And i know you love USC, but rank 2 really? they just lost to ucla. And West Virginia above florida, even though they lost to south florida at home?
Tommie Trojan said:
posted on December 14, 2006 10:39 AM — 64.32.153.19 — link — abuse?
Luke & Pops:
As I've said a million times - these are "Power Rankings" based on quality wins, who the opponent was and amount of score. If you look at many of the "computer rankings" - USC is still 2nd. My ratings are derived from the computer model. I can't make it change it's mind.
For the purposes of BCS placement, the amount of a win, is not considered. For the purposes of betting against the line - you may want to know that. My ratings are based on the 2nd assumption.
Florida has had many close wins. Therefore, no big "blow outs" over quality opponents, keeps them down in the ratings. USC on the other hand, with several "blow out" wins over quality opponents (and only two losses, by a combined seven points, to quality opponents), keeps them with the higher rating. Michigan is lower because of a conceived "weaker schedule" than USC. Louisville is higher because of several "blow out" wins over weaker opponents. And, LSU has performed almost equally as USC has, this year.
The two three loss teams, California and Texas, have many blow out wins, where Florida has virtually none against quality opponents.
None of this means anything more than what the "average game" is for the course of the season. Close losses, to good opponents, does not hurt a hurt team as much as it would in the human polls. The computers do not "forget" how well you played, or didn't play, for the course of the season. Only humans remember only the last game you played. So, these are basically the "average game" played for the course of the season so far. It can't figure out who will win or "choke" - as USC certainly did against UCLA. But, If USC plays their "average game" and Michigan plays their average game, then USC will beat Michigan. That is what it all boils down to.
The reason I am so against Notre Dame making the BCS - is because they really are the 20th best team in America. That does not cut it. And, you can't really argue it in light of the two "blow out" losses to Michigan and USC. It looks right.Tommie T
Tommie Trojan said:
posted on December 14, 2006 11:51 AM — 64.32.153.19 — link — abuse?
Pops & Luke:
Here is more information. What if Ohio State beats Florida and USC beats Michigan? Now, I know Louisville will not lose - but it is very possible that USC ends up #3 in the "human polls". Is this really a stretch? Think about this - should USC beat Michigan: USC will have beaten all four OOC games (Arkansas, Nebraska, Notre Dame and Michigan) while losing to two good Pac10 teams (Oregon State 9-4 and UCLA 8-5). Both Oregon State and UCLA are favorites in their Bowl games BTW. The PAC is considered to be right on the heels of the SEC this year in terms of overall strength. The PAC will be favored in 4 of 6 Bowl games, with the very real possiblity, of Oregon beating BYU and Arizona State beating Hawaii. Is a two loss team a bad team? How bout LSU with two losses? Are they not a good team? How bout Oklahoma? Are they a good team?
Key injuries: Adrian Peterson at Oklahoma. Amazing that they have finished up at 11-2. Peterson will be back for the Bowl game and Boise State is probably in big trouble. Is Oklahoma not a good team with the two losses? Colt McCoy at Texas. Texas was 9-1 (only loss to Ohio State) prior to his injury. Was Texas not on a roll and one of the elite teams in the country at that time? McCoy will be back for the Bowl game and Iowa will be totally destroyed. Ben Olsen at UCLA. Prior to his injury UCLA was 5-1 and playing very well. At the time of the QB switch - UCLA lost four straight games. It is remarkable that they have recovered to finish up at 7-5. They have a very good defense. This team would have finished much better had they not had this injury.
The point is that many things transpire throughout the season - and it isn't over yet. Good teams do lose games to other good teams. I am not a proponent of "your a great team because you didn't lose". We'll see how Boise State does against Oklahoma. We'll see if Ohio State can beat Florida. The reality, if you really look at those rankings, is that there are alot of very good teams. I can't even get Wake Forest or Texas A&M into my Top 30. There are about forty really good teams. There is tremendous parity these days in college football. There are many teams that can give any of the "traditional powers" a real run for their money.Tommie T
volstrike3 said:
posted on December 14, 2006 1:10 PM — 216.103.178.34 — link — abuse?
Tommy,
Usually I can follow your line of thinking but these rankings are crazy. I will use my favorite team to prove my point. #6 Cal and #15 Tennessee are both 9-3. Tennessee has three losses to teams ranked in the top 14. Cal has three losses with one to unranked Arizona. I almost forgot, Tennessee beat Cal 35-18 with Cal scoring two TD's in mop up time.
I really do not care about "Blow out" wins vs. average competition. Hawaii at #13? Didn't they get beat by Alabama. The high powered Hawaii offense put up 17 points against Bama and their QB threw 44 times for 350 yards and a TD.
I think your a smart guy and usually on the money but these rankings are ill conceived.
PopsMich said:
posted on December 14, 2006 7:07 PM — 71.77.24.80 — link — abuse?
TT, I can't buy into it. My view is based on UM, and here's why:
1. Mario Manningham missed about 1/2 of the season. Before then, he had 7 of Henne's 9 TDs. Believe me, he is a stud. He was open by 10 yards against OSU, but Henne missed him.
2. Carr doesn't run it up on anybody.
3. Ball St. (that's right). This Blog loves to point at that game. 99.9% of the people here don't realize Ball St. is coached by a former member of Carr's UM staff. Well, good old Lloyd pulled the starters too quick (early 3rd Q) at 34-12 (or about that). The "student" sent a great message to his former teacher. However, there is no way UM was losing that game (never have to a MAC team - ever).
Lastly, stop formulating scenarios about USC beating UM. You're bound to be disappointed.
Tommie Trojan said:
posted on December 14, 2006 8:13 PM — 64.32.153.19 — link — abuse?
volstrike3:
The computer uses Sagarin's ratings and then compares all head-to-head scores. I'm not claiming it's absolutely right. It only gives an estimation of how well each team has played. California has killed a few teams, and Tennessee playing in the rugged SEC, has not been able to do that. Hawaii has also massacred many weaker teams - or else they'd be placed higher. Of course it does not mean that Hawaii would beat Tennessee or Wisconsin. It only means that they have played to that level against the competition that they have played. Nobody gets it worse than the human voters do. You will see some things pan out - and other things won't. But, the computer doesn't recognize weak schedules, when you don't win by enough points. AGAIN, THIS IS NOT HOW I WOULD RANK THE TEAMS. It is what the "real" numbers are for the whole season. You can't really calculate how good Boise State, BYU or Hawaii really are until they play some games against better competition. How often have we seen many teams start the season off at 4-0 - only to flounder as soon as they hit BCS conference competition? Many times. We'll have more data after the Bowls. The BCS format does consider and subtract for amount of losses. My system is not "condemning" a team for quality losses. That is probably the main difference.
Tommie T
Guy in Boston said:
posted on December 14, 2006 8:33 PM — 209.6.133.97 — link — abuse?
The SEC is ridiculous this year. Even the average teams are good. Look at South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama and Kentucky with only one non conference loss between all of these teams and that was Kentucky to a high powered Louisville. Then you have the powerhouse SEC teams Florida, LSU, Auburn, Arkansas and Tennessee who are all damn good.
Florida may not be better than Michigan but they pulled out a lot of wins in this conference and deserve to play for the title.
Michigan should be blaming every big ten team besides Wisconsin and OSU for having a weak year and not making a 11-1 record seem NC worthy despite a close loss to the no.1 team in the land.
Tommie Trojan said:
posted on December 14, 2006 9:43 PM — 64.32.153.19 — link — abuse?
PopsMich:
Correct, a computer can never figure when a coach let's off on the competition. It happens all the time. Some teams send the reserves in early and some don't. There are many times that teams take a "kneel down" late in the game when they probably would have scored. You cannot calculate all that stuff. USC will try to kill some teams because Pete Carroll doesn't like the coach. If he does like the coach, they'll play more reserves, and not beat them so badly.
Now, I know for a fact that Michigan probably played many reserves against Ball State. You have never heard me say a word about it. But, the computer can't know this - so Michigan is thusly penalized for that game. It is something to consider.
Now, all I ever hear you guys talk about is some guy named Manningham (a sophmore). Well, we have a really good defensive backfield over here and I don't think he'll do much. On the other hand, we got a 6'5 WR named Dwayne Jarrett (who's a 1st team all-american), who might give your boyz a problem. I haven't seen too many teams that he won't give a problem if they throw the ball anywhere in his direction. Don't get too over-confident come January 1st. Your boyz have lost three straight Bowl games, and your going up against the top program in the country, on their home field. Have some confidence - but don't get too cocky. USC usually always shows up for the really big games. I can't remember when they didn't (UCLA doesn't count as USC overlooked them after hammerin' them 66-19 in 05'). Michigan will not be overlooked and there are 4-5 weeks to prepare for the game. Pete Carroll is pretty good under those circumstances. How's your guy?Tommie T
PopsMich said:
posted on December 14, 2006 10:02 PM — 71.77.24.80 — link — abuse?
TT: If Booty has time to throw it, then we're in trouble. If he rattles like he did in parts of the ND game from the heat, you're toast.
UM's offense hasn't been stopped, but if there is a coach that can do it with weeks of prep, its Carroll.
Should be a good one.....
Tommie Trojan said:
posted on December 15, 2006 11:09 AM — 64.32.153.19 — link — abuse?
PopsMich:
I have news for you: USC has a tremendous defense. Michigan's offense will be stopped. I'm more concerned about our offense going against the Michigan defense. We don't have the big running game we've had in the past - and Michigan excels at run defense. I don't think we'll be able to run the ball. That was the problem against UCLA also. After that - UCLA tee'd off on Booty. I see Michigan being able to replicate what UCLA was able to do. So, I think that the game will end up being a low scoring affair also. Something like 17-14 maybe. But, all I'm saying is that you don't understand how good the USC defense really is. Think about this: USC gave up 14.7 per game in the PAC10 with OOC opponents Arkansas, Nebraska and Notre Dame on the schedule. All of these teams had similar offenses to Michigan's - and all were shut down. Two PAC10 teams, Oregon and Cal, averaged 36.0 per game coming in to play USC - and both were turned away with virtually nothing. So, low scoring game for sure.
Tommie T
Gerald said:
posted on December 15, 2006 3:08 PM — 216.113.128.239 — link — abuse?
Tommie Trojan:
Now don't go comparing Arkansas, Notre Dame, and Nebraska to Michigan. None of those are top 10 teams. You saw what Michigan did to Notre Dame, for instance. Arkansas does not have a QB, and furthermore in that game their one - man offense, McFadden, was hurt. Right after playing USC, Arkansas barely got by 4 - 8 Vanderbilt 21 - 19 with Vandy leaving a lot of points on the board. Arkansas got a lot better as the season went along. And Nebraska? Please. Are they even ranked? Hate to say it, but unlike Michigan, you guys haven't played a top 10 team all year. Michigan will be by far the best team that USC has played all year. Meanwhile, Michigan can say that they have played a 12 - 0 Ohio State team that is clearly better than USC, and an 11 - 1 Wisconsin team that may be as good or better (I don't want to hear about how a USC team that lost games to unranked 7 - 5 UCLA and an 8 - 4 Oregon State team that got hammered by BOISE 42 - 14 is somehow more superior than other teams with better records ... USC is just another 10 win team). Further, Michigan is going to be extremely hyped to prove that they should be in the national title game. It is going to be an exceptionally tough matchup for you guys, especially since there is no one in your secondary capable of covering Manningham, and Michigan's huge offensive line will do as decent job as any of blocking your front seven.
Gerald said:
posted on December 15, 2006 3:18 PM — 216.113.128.239 — link — abuse?
Tommie Trojan:
USC finishing #3 in the human polls would be, I don't know. They would have beaten #2 Michigan, of course. But no way an USC team that lost to Oregon State (Boise 42 OSU 14) and 6 - 5 UCLA is going to be ranked over 1 loss Wisconsin and Louisville teams if they win their bowl games. You also cannot rank them over LSU (who is currently ranked ahead of you) or the loser of the national title game. There is absolutely no justification for ranking 2 loss USC over any one - loss team, even Boise, as they beat a team that beat you guys. And making USC the chief two loss team would be unjustified as they lost to two teams ranked nowhere near the top 10 (unlike, say, LSU, who lost to #2 Florida and #9 Auburn). The pollsters should not reward this USC team for the accomplishments of Matt Leinart, Reggie Bush, LenDale White, Dominique Byrd, Winston Justice, Deuce Tutui, Darnell Bing, Frostee Rucker, and (let's face it, you guys do miss him) Norm Chow. This is a different team that has to be judged on its own merits.
Tommie Trojan said:
posted on December 15, 2006 3:26 PM — 64.32.153.19 — link — abuse?
Gerald:
This time your mistaken: all those offenses average more than Michigan does - or had when they came in to play USC. USC held those five teams (Arkansas, Nebraska, Notre Dame, Oregon and Cal) to a combined 71 points or 14.2 per game. Michigan averages 30 and so do all these other teams - at least. Michigan will get around 14 points. Now, granted that Michigan probably has a much better defensive unit than any of these others - therefore we can both agree that they are a better team. Michigan will be the 1st team that USC has faced from the top ten. But, all Michigan has is wins over Wisconsin and Notre Dame. We know that Notre Dame isn't all that and we don't know about Wisconsin either. They have no wins over anybody. So, just watch the game and you'll see the USC defense take these guys apart. You may also see Michigan's defense take the USC offense apart. I look for a defensive struggle in this one.
Tommie T
Tommie Trojan said:
posted on December 15, 2006 3:33 PM — 64.32.153.19 — link — abuse?
Gerald:
So all that matters in your convulated reasoning is wins and losses. Why do we rank teams then? Seems pretty simple. Let's all just schedule Division 1-AA patsies so we can win them all. Who you beat and who you lost to has no bearing. Oh, unless you lost to a team in the SEC of course. That is the only acceptable loss - because every other team in every other conference sucks, right? So, it doesn,t matter that USC hammers every single Top 20 OOC foe, they lost to two PAC10 teams, therefore they suck, right? But, LSU is good because they lost to two SEC teams, right? We'll never get by your SEC homerism. But, all I'm saying is that there are other people, from outside the SEC, who vote in these polls - and they could find USC as high as #3. That was all I was saying - is that it is possible. I would be happy with a Top Five finish for this year.
Tommie T
PopsMich said:
posted on December 15, 2006 4:47 PM — 71.77.24.80 — link — abuse?
TT, you may be right. We'll see, and I won't believe it until then. You're talking about the offense that found a cure for Laurenitis.
Yep, I think the most OSU let up was 17, until they faced UM for 39. Of course the problem is we hadn't let up 42 before then :)
Tommie Trojan said:
posted on December 15, 2006 8:14 PM — 64.32.153.19 — link — abuse?
PopsMich:
Laurenitis is the most over rated player in America. He's only a sophmore. We have a soph MLB called Rey Maualaga who is far superior to this guy. Your gonna not be able to find a solution to him. And, if he gets to any of your skill people, there gonna surely be hurtin'. I was not impressed with Ohio States defense either. Remember, Ohio State gave away four turnovers, and this contributed to Michigan's high score. Now, just because you got 39 in one game - what do you think? You're gonna get at least that much in all the rest. It doesn't happen that way. Your team averages 30 and USC hold teams about 16 under their averages. Michigan will be doing good to get 14 points. I'm only wondering if USC will be able to get 17. That's the great debate. USC only managed 9 points against a good UCLA defense. I think Michigan's defense will be the best we've played. We have not played a higher rated defense. Remember, scoring is more prevelent in the PAC10 than it is in the BIG10. USC's numbers can look slightly askew. Michigan and Ohio State defenses can look better than they really are. We'll find out on the field.
Tommie T
PopsMich said:
posted on December 15, 2006 11:12 PM — 71.77.24.80 — link — abuse?
TT: Yes, on the field!
All your stats bombed in the big build up to the UCLA game. Why do you still trust them?
You're some place where the weather is great, right? Go outside for goodness sake, or I'll start singing again.
Tomcat said:
posted on December 16, 2006 4:57 AM — 69.153.81.120 — link — abuse?
Hey Tommie T You have Cal at #6 and A&M didnt make your top 30.A&M is a team that doesnt really run up points, thus lower stats than other teams however they consistantly have 200+ rushing yards per game.Three losses with a combined total of 6 points.We will see if they can slow down Cal.
T A&M had 6 real close games that could have went either way.They really should have won against OU and Nebraska.In the Texas Tech game the Red Raiders had about 80 seconds, that was too much time for Leach & company.
How is Cal's defense against the run?
Hookem-HornsGatorSource said:
posted on December 22, 2006 9:08 AM — 65.33.206.211 — link — abuse?
Coach voted polls are a joke. A playoff is the only way to determine a true champ w/out a shadow of a doubt. Kind of like the playoff system that Florida dominated in basketball this year...
identifythedummy said:
posted on December 22, 2006 7:46 PM — 206.105.78.10 — link — abuse?
HEy dummy, USC lost to two unranked teams, daaa.. "They are raned now" so what! THEY GOT BEAT BY UNRANKED TEAMS> Also the SEC could lose thier games becasue all the big mouth tough guys ( mainly USC ) get to play a good team while teams like P%^^.n Also, MI I think your good but no better than Tenn. But bottom line FL beat their guys and you had your shot. I like MI but if tye cry babies don't shutup I'll liken you to UofM. SHUT+UP already and play ball.
_GatorGirl09 said:
posted on January 2, 2007 2:29 AM — 152.163.100.196 — link — abuse?
HAHAHAHAHA MICHIGAN, YOU BIG BABIES... SO MUCH FOR TALKING ALL THIS SMACK ABOUT "BOO HOO HOO, WE DESERVE TO BE THERE MORE THAN FLORIDA..." YET YOU MANAGE TO BLOW IT YET AGAIN, THIS TIME AGAINST USC. PATHETIC. AND.... YOU ALMOST BLOW IT AGAINST BALL STATE (WHICH SHOULD BE DIVISION 1-AA) AND BARELY SLIDE BY. WOLVEVRINES SUCK. GATORS ROCK. BOW DOWN, BOYS!!!! ;)
Sincerely,
_gatorgirlsaresohotrightnow._GatorGirl09 said:
posted on January 2, 2007 2:32 AM — 152.163.100.196 — link — abuse?
the big 10 conference plays big nobodys... hahaha... seriously. NOBODY. it's no wonder ohio state is undefeated. And all those red-neck hicks wouldn't vote for florida... and we do better without them. GO GATORS!!! NATIONAL BASKETBALL CHAMPIONS!!! &&& SOON TO BE FOOTBALL!!! We loooovvvve being the underdog so BRING IT ON!
Tommie Trojan said:
posted on January 2, 2007 9:20 AM — 64.32.153.19 — link — abuse?
TomCat:
RE Post #89: You want to run that one by me again. I didn't quite understand what you said. Is it something to do with why I got Cal rated 6th and Texas A&M not in my Top 30? Well, the reason is: California 45 Texas A&M 10. That's should pretty much explain it.
Tommie T
Gatorboy40 said:
posted on January 3, 2007 8:56 PM — 138.163.160.41 — link — abuse?
Popsmich,,,,Don't tell USC that Michigan should have been #2. Also, the Fl against FL State game was and in State game, so you can through out the wins and losses. I think that the Wolverines fan know about the in state jinx quite well after Mich St clip there wings a few times. Honestly, do you think that Mich could have went undefeated playing Florida's schedule,,,,,,NOT. By the way, Mich is on a serious drought when it comes to bowl games won, and nothing have changed this year. Mich has a good team, but if you don't win your conference, you won't play for the National Title,,,,Case Closed.
BuckiNut said:
posted on December 5, 2006 12:56 PM — 65.189.178.33 — link — abuse?K-Hue,
Above you have listed Terry Hoeppner[Illilois] this should be Indiana.
I am a Buckeye and Jim Tressel fan but am somewhat concerned about his voting. Is there a precedent for him to abstain or is he taking this responsibility lightly. There was an incident earlier in the year when he either forgot who he voted #1 or his assistant did it for him [or he lied]. Am I wrong in thinking that it is every coaches responsibility to vote?
GO BUCKS