Off topic - Go Blue Redux? [Archive] - Audio & Video Forums

PDA

View Full Version : Off topic - Go Blue Redux?



Swish
11-19-2006, 06:36 AM
Well, we know for sure that OSU will be playing for the national championship, but should their opponent be Michigan? At this point I would have to say yes. Rutgers was never going, even had they gone undefeated, which they didn't after the pounding they took at Cincinnati. That Big East should be called the Big Least. Have they ever heard the term "defense"? What about ND? Even if they beat USC, and I don't think they will, they should not leap-frog UM since they lost to them, and pretty soundly at that. What about USC? Even if they beat ND, I don't think they're deserving based on strength of schedule, or lack thereof, and some wins that were less than impressive. UM lost by just 3 and on the road, so a rematch is the likely scenario. I'm sure a few will stand up and shout "Florida", but they just don't have the quality wins to justify it, and there's nobody else who can seriously lay claim.

Swish

bobsticks
11-19-2006, 07:33 AM
Agreed, and well stated. We could do alot worse than a rematch of these two intense teams.

3-LockBox
11-19-2006, 09:53 PM
We'll see...

I think Arkansas deserves to be in this conversation if they beat Florida in the SEC championship. Their one loss was a long time ago. I don't wanna see Notre Dame or USC win so much as an all day sucker.

topspeed
11-19-2006, 10:17 PM
What about USC? Even if they beat ND, I don't think they're deserving based on strength of schedule, or lack thereof, and some wins that were less than impressive.
Strength of schedule? If USC wins out, it will have beat more opponents ranked in the Top 20 than any other team. UM played Vanderbilt, Central Michigan, and Ball State(!) for their non-conference schedule. 'SC played Arkansas, Nebraska, and Notre Dame. Sagarin ranks 'SC's schedule as the third toughest in the nation, well ahead of OSU (27) or UM (12). Besides, no one wants to see a rematch. It's bad for TV.

If 'SC wins out...sorry to all you haters out there...Troy will play for the the title once again.

Duds
11-20-2006, 05:25 AM
What a great game. I'm not ashamed we lost at all, we got down and came right back fighting. Questionable call on troy smith, but i'm not going to use that as an excuse. I'd love to see a rematch, and I think many others would as well.

Notre Lame shouldn't even be mentioned in the talks about who OSU will play. Whoever it was in this thread who questioned Michigan's non-conference schedule, take a look at who Notee Lame played. Absolutely pathetic. And why dont they join a friggin conference?

Swish
11-20-2006, 05:43 AM
What a great game. I'm not ashamed we lost at all, we got down and came right back fighting. Questionable call on troy smith, but i'm not going to use that as an excuse. I'd love to see a rematch, and I think many others would as well.

Notre Lame shouldn't even be mentioned in the talks about who OSU will play. Whoever it was in this thread who questioned Michigan's non-conference schedule, take a look at who Notee Lame played. Absolutely pathetic. And why dont they join a friggin conference?

...the helmet-to-helmet hit as he was going out of bounds? If that's what you're talking about you need to have your eyes checked and your head examined! I don't like either team so I was about as impartial a viewer as you can get, and that was a 15 yard flagrant penalty. Lloyd Carr had no room to argue that one, and neither do you.

It was a good game but OSU should have won it by at least 10 if not for a couple pathetic turnovers. As for a rematch, after a lots of pondering, I think it might not be fair to OSU to have to play Michigan again. Think about it; it's like saying "We don't care that you beat them in the regular season, you have to do it again or we're giving them the national title". Then again, OSU did have the home-field advantage and would not in the BCS championship. I guess it comes down to all the wussie coaches who won't vote for a true playoff format so we don't have all these "mythical" champions. That's really what they are, mythical.

Swish

Swish
11-20-2006, 05:52 AM
We'll see...

I think Arkansas deserves to be in this conversation if they beat Florida in the SEC championship. Their one loss was a long time ago. I don't wanna see Notre Dame or USC win so much as an all day sucker.

Well, of course you are. This is a team that lost 50-14 to USC, and I don't care that it was their first game of the season, and who squeked by that tough (cough, cough) Vanderbilt team 21-19. The OT win over Alabama was also unimpressive. Dream on dude! Look, I hate USC and ND as much as the next guy, but no way they leap-frog over either team, regardless of who wins that game. USC should also have no trouble with UCLA, so I'm thinking if they win out they will get the nod over UM.

Swish

Swish
11-20-2006, 05:55 AM
Strength of schedule? If USC wins out, it will have beat more opponents ranked in the Top 20 than any other team. UM played Vanderbilt, Central Michigan, and Ball State(!) for their non-conference schedule. 'SC played Arkansas, Nebraska, and Notre Dame. Sagarin ranks 'SC's schedule as the third toughest in the nation, well ahead of OSU (27) or UM (12). Besides, no one wants to see a rematch. It's bad for TV.

If 'SC wins out...sorry to all you haters out there...Troy will play for the the title once again.

...ok, I'd actually enjoy seeing them lose again, but if they win out, you may be right. No way ND jumps ahead of UM even if they somehow beat USC, based on how they got slaughtered by them earlier this year.

Swish

Duds
11-20-2006, 07:47 AM
Try looking at it this way. With a QB as mobile as troy smith, if you let up for the slightest moment, he is going to burn you. The hit was in bounds, and of course the helmets touched, its football for cryin out loud. Happens all the time. The call could have gone either way, it just went against michigan. And like i said, i'm not using that as an excuse for losing. And if it was so obvious to you that it wasnt a bad call, then why is it being mentioned on the talk shows? Obvioulsy it was a questionable call. Oh and by the way, who the hell are you to tell me i cant argue something?


...the helmet-to-helmet hit as he was going out of bounds? If that's what you're talking about you need to have your eyes checked and your head examined! I don't like either team so I was about as impartial a viewer as you can get, and that was a 15 yard flagrant penalty. Lloyd Carr had no room to argue that one, and neither do you.

It was a good game but OSU should have won it by at least 10 if not for a couple pathetic turnovers. As for a rematch, after a lots of pondering, I think it might not be fair to OSU to have to play Michigan again. Think about it; it's like saying "We don't care that you beat them in the regular season, you have to do it again or we're giving them the national title". Then again, OSU did have the home-field advantage and would not in the BCS championship. I guess it comes down to all the wussie coaches who won't vote for a true playoff format so we don't have all these "mythical" champions. That's really what they are, mythical.

Swish

Swish
11-20-2006, 08:13 AM
Try looking at it this way. With a QB as mobile as troy smith, if you let up for the slightest moment, he is going to burn you. The hit was in bounds, and of course the helmets touched, its football for cryin out loud. Happens all the time. The call could have gone either way, it just went against michigan. And like i said, i'm not using that as an excuse for losing. And if it was so obvious to you that it wasnt a bad call, then why is it being mentioned on the talk shows? Obvioulsy it was a questionable call. Oh and by the way, who the hell are you to tell me i cant argue something?

I said you needed to have your eyes checked and your head examined. :ciappa: What do you mean it could have gone either way? You mean a "no call"? If so, perhaps they could have swallowed the whistle, but QBs have to be protected to a certain degree. Helmet-to-helmet hits are nasty, especially when all he had to do was push him out of bounds.

Swish

Duds
11-20-2006, 08:34 AM
LOL!! i meant to put a smiley at the end of that statement!!

i think it could have definitely been a no-call. I just think its getting ridiculous how much they actually try to protect the QB these days. Christ, if a QB wants to run with the ball, he should be able to take a hit like a RB or a receiver. The same thing is happening in hockey with protecting the goalies. Christ, they wear more equipment than the rest of the team combined, but god forbid you touch them.

The guy was going full steam Swish, you think it would have been easy to let up and just push him out of bounds?


I said you needed to have your eyes checked and your head examined. :ciappa: What do you mean it could have gone either way? You mean a "no call"? If so, perhaps they could have swallowed the whistle, but QBs have to be protected to a certain degree. Helmet-to-helmet hits are nasty, especially when all he had to do was push him out of bounds.

Swish

Swish
11-20-2006, 09:10 AM
The guy was going full steam Swish, you think it would have been easy to let up and just push him out of bounds?

...ok, everyone else but me used one, so I know how much it hurts to get hit in the head. :) But seriously, what's so hard about dropping your head and going for the waist, like your supposed to do? I don't care how fast your going, you're supposed to tackle at the waist, not the shoulders or the head. I think the Eagles's need to learn that out after their disgraceful effort against the lowly Titans yesterday.

I'm all for calling the QBs fair game when they become a runner, but nobody deserves to be hit in the head by a defensive player. Too many needless concussions being inflicted on players are are vulnerable. That's it for me on this topic.

Swish

Duds
11-20-2006, 09:49 AM
oh well, we can agree to disagree!!!




...ok, everyone else but me used one, so I know how much it hurts to get hit in the head. :) But seriously, what's so hard about dropping your head and going for the waist, like your supposed to do? I don't care how fast your going, you're supposed to tackle at the waist, not the shoulders or the head. I think the Eagles's need to learn that out after their disgraceful effort against the lowly Titans yesterday.

I'm all for calling the QBs fair game when they become a runner, but nobody deserves to be hit in the head by a defensive player. Too many needless concussions being inflicted on players are are vulnerable. That's it for me on this topic.

Swish

topspeed
11-20-2006, 04:39 PM
There are only two teams that have a chance playing OSU at this point: UM and 'SC. That's it. Notre Dame has no shot, even if they somehow beat the Trojans (which isn't going to happen, especially at the Colosseum) because UM stomped the Frightened Irish. Florida won't beat Arkansas, but if they do they still won't have enough to leapfrog either 'SC or UM and Arkansas can't get by 'SC because Troy slaughtered the Hogs earlier.

Nope, it's going to be either UM or 'SC...and if they win out, it's going to be the Cardinal and Gold. Start making your bets now, gentleman.

3-LockBox
11-20-2006, 09:11 PM
Well, of course you are. This is a team that lost 50-14 to USC, and I don't care that it was their first game of the season, and who squeked by that tough (cough, cough) Vanderbilt team 21-19. The OT win over Alabama was also unimpressive. Dream on dude! Look, I hate USC and ND as much as the next guy, but no way they leap-frog over either team, regardless of who wins that game. USC should also have no trouble with UCLA, so I'm thinking if they win out they will get the nod over UM.

Swish

and SC plays in the Pac frikken 10...where they got beat by a mediocre Oregon State team and barely got by a pathetic Washington team, and was played close by the rest of the their terrible conference...nuff said.

I think the media wants an OSU -v- USC matchup so bad they can taste it.

But give credit to OSU; they took down an impressive UM team. They're the champs now, AFAIC.

Duds
11-21-2006, 05:28 AM
Here's a scenario for the people who dont think there should be a rematch. What if Texas went on to only have 1 loss, and somehow ended up being ranked #2 and playing OSU for the national championship? Would people be complaining about that like they are with the chance of another OSU/Michigan game? I dont think they would because that loss happened on the first week of the season. So why should Michigan get punished because they lost late in the season? And if you compare losses, Michigan has, by far, the best loss of any one loss team.

The national championship game is damn near two months away, who cares if OSU and Michigan just played? With the attention span of people these days, most wont even remember.

Swish
11-21-2006, 05:52 AM
Here's a scenario for the people who dont think there should be a rematch. What if Texas went on to only have 1 loss, and somehow ended up being ranked #2 and playing OSU for the national championship? Would people be complaining about that like they are with the chance of another OSU/Michigan game? I dont think they would because that loss happened on the first week of the season. So why should Michigan get punished because they lost late in the season? And if you compare losses, Michigan has, by far, the best loss of any one loss team.

The national championship game is damn near two months away, who cares if OSU and Michigan just played? With the attention span of people these days, most wont even remember.

...OSU already beat UM once, and is it really fair to make them beat them again to call them National Champions? It makes the first game meaningless, with OSU having everything to lose and UM nothing to lose, except a higher ranking.

No matter how this plays out, as long as there is no playoff system, the "Championship" is pretty much mythical. The BCS has done nothing but create more problems. I support a playoff where the major bowls would serve as the pre-lim games, with one of them being used as for the championship on a rotating basis each year. That would in no way diminish the importance of any particular bowl game. One of the big issues brought up by those against a playoff off is that they could not get enough fans to fill the seats for multiple games should their team move on in the playoffs, or that the players would miss too many classes How dumb is that? A playoff system would make this even bigger and eliminate much of the controvery about who deserves a shot and who doesn't. You take the top 16 teams and go for it. And NCAA Division 1 players already miss plenty of classes. Take it from someone who knows.

Swish

Duds
11-21-2006, 07:20 AM
OSU already beat Texas once this year too, what if it came down to those two teams again, would you say the same thing?

And isnt the game supposed to be between the two best teams in the country? A team who loses to an unreanked opponent (USC) shouldnt be considered. A team who lost to a lower ranked team, and then had some really really close calls (Florida) probabyl shouldnt be considered. A team who got blown out by the team who lost to an unreanked opponent (Arkansas) shouldnt be considered. I'm not even going to waste my time with Notre Dame...


...OSU already beat UM once, and is it really fair to make them beat them again to call them National Champions? It makes the first game meaningless, with OSU having everything to lose and UM nothing to lose, except a higher ranking.

No matter how this plays out, as long as there is no playoff system, the "Championship" is pretty much mythical. The BCS has done nothing but create more problems. I support a playoff where the major bowls would serve as the pre-lim games, with one of them being used as for the championship on a rotating basis each year. That would in no way diminish the importance of any particular bowl game. One of the big issues brought up by those against a playoff off is that they could not get enough fans to fill the seats for multiple games should their team move on in the playoffs, or that the players would miss too many classes How dumb is that? A playoff system would make this even bigger and eliminate much of the controvery about who deserves a shot and who doesn't. You take the top 16 teams and go for it. And NCAA Division 1 players already miss plenty of classes. Take it from someone who knows.

Swish

Swish
11-21-2006, 08:44 AM
OSU already beat Texas once this year too, what if it came down to those two teams again, would you say the same thing?

And isnt the game supposed to be between the two best teams in the country? A team who loses to an unreanked opponent (USC) shouldnt be considered. A team who lost to a lower ranked team, and then had some really really close calls (Florida) probabyl shouldnt be considered. A team who got blown out by the team who lost to an unreanked opponent (Arkansas) shouldnt be considered. I'm not even going to waste my time with Notre Dame...

...plays the same opponents of everyone else, it's just too hard to say. There are just so many teams and leagues, and the money involved is huge. The only fair way to do this is to require all Division 1 teams be in a league (cough, cough ND) and then have a league champion going to a playoff against the other league champions. Decide it on the field, not with some old boy voting mechanism, couple with some computer results.

Look, I went to Penn State (go ahead and make your cruel jokes, but we're the only team that played 4 teams ranked in the top 10) and we've had 5 undefeated seasons where we could have been named National Champions, but were not. How about the great '94 team with Kerry Collins at QB? We give up two late (and meaningless) TDs to Illinois with our scrubs on the field and drop to # 2 behind Nebraska, never getting the # 1 ranking back, and for a team that had one of the greats offenses in Division 1 history. What, no split championship? Of course not! We got the shaft by the "old boy" club in the SE and Big 12.

Swish

Duds
11-21-2006, 09:50 AM
you make some great points too. I dont agree with having to win your conference in order to be in the championship since you dont play everyone in your conference. OSU didnt play Wisconsin this year. Not saying they would have lost, but they are a tough team. And Notre Lame, I think everyone knows how I feel about them, LOL!!

I wont make any jokes, I dont really have any hatred toward Penn State, except they used to whoops us in tennis when I played at a small D1 school in PA. LOL!!


...plays the same opponents of everyone else, it's just too hard to say. There are just so many teams and leagues, and the money involved is huge. The only fair way to do this is to require all Division 1 teams be in a league (cough, cough ND) and then have a league champion going to a playoff against the other league champions. Decide it on the field, not with some old boy voting mechanism, couple with some computer results.

Look, I went to Penn State (go ahead and make your cruel jokes, but we're the only team that played 4 teams ranked in the top 10) and we've had 5 undefeated seasons where we could have been named National Champions, but were not. How about the great '94 team with Kerry Collins at QB? We give up two late (and meaningless) TDs to Illinois with our scrubs on the field and drop to # 2 behind Nebraska, never getting the # 1 ranking back, and for a team that had one of the greats offenses in Division 1 history. What, no split championship? Of course not! We got the shaft by the "old boy" club in the SE and Big 12.

Swish

3-LockBox
11-21-2006, 06:50 PM
...No matter how this plays out, as long as there is no playoff system, the "Championship" is pretty much mythical. The BCS has done nothing but create more problems

Define problem.

Look, the 'powers that be' like college football this way. Would UM and OSU have drawn such a huge veiwing audience if both teams were playoff bound? USC-v-Notre Dame will draw a big audience this weekend and its because the outcome will change the outlook for the bowl picture. But if both teams were already playoff bound because of their records...Do you think there'd be this much discussion about college football over the next couple of weeks if there were a playoff looming over the horizon. Both the Colts' and Seahawks' veiwership dropped off after the teams achieved home field advantage in the NFL last year, even when they played each other late in the season.

The BCS is the only system college football has ever had that guaranteed #1 -v- #2. If anything, having a for-sure title game has killed the other bowl games that don't involve the "national championship". I personally don't believe I'll ever see a playoff in dividion 1-A football in my lifetime.

MindGoneHaywire
11-22-2006, 12:25 AM
There was a comment during the OSU-UM game about how if there was a playoff system, one or both coaches would've been looking to rest starters, and one of the things that separates college football from the pros would be lost. I'm not so sure that lost element is a positive or negative, but it is what it is, and the bowls help define a college football fan's holiday season, for better or worse. And the frustration during those seasons where a playoff might help settle matters is part of that. I'm not sure I agree with the argument that the theoretical argument that not always having a genuine #1 is part of the essence of a sport, but then again there are places in this country that define themselves by either their bowls, their colleges that go to those bowls, or their interest in those bowls from a regional standpoint. The term 'injustice' is too lightly bandied about, and when a #2 team that perhaps deserved a national championship gets shafted because there's no playoff, I don't know that they were the victims of an 'injustice,' which to me is more like when a murderer walks free, you know? It's just football, and if a team should've won but didn't, that strikes me as a decent recruiting chip for a motivated staff.

I didn't catch the USC-Cal score, so I don't know if USC is still in line to actually deserve a shot at OSU. I could think of worse scenarios than a rematch between OSU & Michigan for the nationals title. Why? Because if USC did lose to a mediocre opponent & almost got beat by another, well, Michigan lost by all of 3 points to the #1 team ON THE ROAD. The idea of telling OSU that they have to beat Michigan AGAIN...sorta makes some sense, because to avoid a rematch, they should've dispatched them in a more dominant fashion. I think it was around 20 years ago when Lou Holtz coached Notre Dame to a national championship? They had Miami, then the ranked #1 & defending national champions, I believe, at home, and Miami had gone for a 2-point conversion to win the game, rather than settle for a game-tying field goal. Jimmy Johnson felt they were good enough to do it, and it would establish their credentials to remain #1. They failed to convert, ND won, and ended up with the national title. I read an impassioned protest of this by someone who pointed out that losing by one point on the road in the final minute of a game should be looked at perhaps a little differently than just 'a loss,' and that the '1' at the end of a team's record could be viewed as somewhat misleading. Well, that argument makes some sense, if not a ton, but in this case, I think it holds water, and believe me, I'd rather see OSU destroy the Trojans as revenge for the last time I saw them hook up in the Rose Bowl some 25+ years ago. But unless the case is made that that should definitely be the game, a rematch makes more sense to me. To say that a team other than the one that was undefeated, ranked #2 in the country, and went into the home field of the #1 team & came within 3 points of beating them, with the outcome in doubt until the final minutes, is one that deserves the opportunity for the rare rematch in order to potentially qualify for the national title. That said, unless Michigan routed OSU, I don't know that it would be a slam dunk to hand them the title. All sorts of possibilities would then come into play with the various factors that go into determining the BCS standings.

Hey, it may not be perfect, but it's what we've got. And with that I say...GO BUCIKEYES!

Duds
11-22-2006, 06:01 AM
You make some excellent points.

I dont agree with that announcer saying that OSU and Michigan would have rested their startes. The rivalry between the two teams is just too much to rest the starters in my opinion. Both coaches know what it means to win that game, and i think they know it would ruin the entire atmosphere os Michigan vs. OSU if they played their second teams.


There was a comment during the OSU-UM game about how if there was a playoff system, one or both coaches would've been looking to rest starters, and one of the things that separates college football from the pros would be lost. I'm not so sure that lost element is a positive or negative, but it is what it is, and the bowls help define a college football fan's holiday season, for better or worse. And the frustration during those seasons where a playoff might help settle matters is part of that. I'm not sure I agree with the argument that the theoretical argument that not always having a genuine #1 is part of the essence of a sport, but then again there are places in this country that define themselves by either their bowls, their colleges that go to those bowls, or their interest in those bowls from a regional standpoint. The term 'injustice' is too lightly bandied about, and when a #2 team that perhaps deserved a national championship gets shafted because there's no playoff, I don't know that they were the victims of an 'injustice,' which to me is more like when a murderer walks free, you know? It's just football, and if a team should've won but didn't, that strikes me as a decent recruiting chip for a motivated staff.

I didn't catch the USC-Cal score, so I don't know if USC is still in line to actually deserve a shot at OSU. I could think of worse scenarios than a rematch between OSU & Michigan for the nationals title. Why? Because if USC did lose to a mediocre opponent & almost got beat by another, well, Michigan lost by all of 3 points to the #1 team ON THE ROAD. The idea of telling OSU that they have to beat Michigan AGAIN...sorta makes some sense, because to avoid a rematch, they should've dispatched them in a more dominant fashion. I think it was around 20 years ago when Lou Holtz coached Notre Dame to a national championship? They had Miami, then the ranked #1 & defending national champions, I believe, at home, and Miami had gone for a 2-point conversion to win the game, rather than settle for a game-tying field goal. Jimmy Johnson felt they were good enough to do it, and it would establish their credentials to remain #1. They failed to convert, ND won, and ended up with the national title. I read an impassioned protest of this by someone who pointed out that losing by one point on the road in the final minute of a game should be looked at perhaps a little differently than just 'a loss,' and that the '1' at the end of a team's record could be viewed as somewhat misleading. Well, that argument makes some sense, if not a ton, but in this case, I think it holds water, and believe me, I'd rather see OSU destroy the Trojans as revenge for the last time I saw them hook up in the Rose Bowl some 25+ years ago. But unless the case is made that that should definitely be the game, a rematch makes more sense to me. To say that a team other than the one that was undefeated, ranked #2 in the country, and went into the home field of the #1 team & came within 3 points of beating them, with the outcome in doubt until the final minutes, is one that deserves the opportunity for the rare rematch in order to potentially qualify for the national title. That said, unless Michigan routed OSU, I don't know that it would be a slam dunk to hand them the title. All sorts of possibilities would then come into play with the various factors that go into determining the BCS standings.

Hey, it may not be perfect, but it's what we've got. And with that I say...GO BUCIKEYES!

Swish
11-22-2006, 06:48 AM
Why? Because if USC did lose to a mediocre opponent & almost got beat by another, well, Michigan lost by all of 3 points to the #1 team ON THE ROAD. The idea of telling OSU that they have to beat Michigan AGAIN...sorta makes some sense, because to avoid a rematch, they should've dispatched them in a more dominant fashion. I think it was around 20 years ago when Lou Holtz coached Notre Dame to a national championship? They had Miami, then the ranked #1 & defending national champions, I believe, at home, and Miami had gone for a 2-point conversion to win the game, rather than settle for a game-tying field goal. Jimmy Johnson felt they were good enough to do it, and it would establish their credentials to remain #1. They failed to convert, ND won, and ended up with the national title. I read an impassioned protest of this by someone who pointed out that losing by one point on the road in the final minute of a game should be looked at perhaps a little differently than just 'a loss,' and that the '1' at the end of a team's record could be viewed as somewhat misleading. Well, that argument makes some sense, if not a ton, but in this case, I think it holds water, and believe me, I'd rather see OSU destroy the Trojans as revenge for the last time I saw them hook up in the Rose Bowl some 25+ years ago. But unless the case is made that that should definitely be the game, a rematch makes more sense to me. To say that a team other than the one that was undefeated, ranked #2 in the country, and went into the home field of the #1 team & came within 3 points of beating them, with the outcome in doubt until the final minutes, is one that deserves the opportunity for the rare rematch in order to potentially qualify for the national title. That said, unless Michigan routed OSU, I don't know that it would be a slam dunk to hand them the title. All sorts of possibilities would then come into play with the various factors that go into determining the BCS standings.

Hey, it may not be perfect, but it's what we've got. And with that I say...GO BUCIKEYES!

Not one typo the whole way and then you screw up the name at the very end. Ha! Anyway, while you make some decent points, I still don't thing OSU should have to beat Michigan again. They rolled up over 500 yards of offense, despite 3 stoooopid turnovers, and still beat them by 3. A win is a win, even if not as convincing as you would like it to be. If USC beats ND and UCLA, and they should, I guarantee they will be ranked # 2 BCS and play OSU for the championship. Bank on it.

Swish

Duds
11-22-2006, 07:27 AM
your Bucks also gave up 39 points at home, and came close very close to losing the game.


Not one typo the whole way and then you screw up the name at the very end. Ha! Anyway, while you make some decent points, I still don't thing OSU should have to beat Michigan again. They rolled up over 500 yards of offense, despite 3 stoooopid turnovers, and still beat them by 3. A win is a win, even if not as convincing as you would like it to be. If USC beats ND and UCLA, and they should, I guarantee they will be ranked # 2 BCS and play OSU for the championship. Bank on it.

Swish

Swish
11-22-2006, 08:24 AM
your Bucks also gave up 39 points at home, and came close very close to losing the game.

I went to Penn State, remember? Like I said, I'm about as impartial as you're gonna get. Ok, I am a Big 10 fan first and foremost, but that doesn't change my argument which is mainly that OSU should not have to play UM again. Should they lost by 3 in a rematch, does that mean the championship should be split since they each one game by 3 points? No way! They would say that UM is the champion, but would that really be fair? I don't think so. Again, USC will likely win out and will be ranked second in the BCS poll (they barely trail now) so this may be a moot point.

Swish

Duds
11-22-2006, 09:15 AM
LOL! I forgot you went to PSU!! my bad swish!

There are so many reason why they SHOULD have to play UM again, more than why they shouldnt. The argument that they already beat them and isnt fair to have to play them again is a lame one. And i'm not singleing you out Swish, most people are saying that.

I made my argument why they should have to play them again. One other thing about not winning your conference, Florida has a loss to a team in their conference, so technically they didnt win their confernce. Now, they do have a conference championship game, whereas the Big 10 doesnt.

I just feel the championship game should be between the two best teams in the nation. To me, a team who loses to an unranked opponent isnt the 2nd best team.

Happy Turkey day to everyone!


I went to Penn State, remember? Like I said, I'm about as impartial as you're gonna get. Ok, I am a Big 10 fan first and foremost, but that doesn't change my argument which is mainly that OSU should not have to play UM again. Should they lost by 3 in a rematch, does that mean the championship should be split since they each one game by 3 points? No way! They would say that UM is the champion, but would that really be fair? I don't think so. Again, USC will likely win out and will be ranked second in the BCS poll (they barely trail now) so this may be a moot point.

Swish

Swish
11-25-2006, 12:23 PM
We'll see...

I think Arkansas deserves to be in this conversation if they beat Florida in the SEC championship. Their one loss was a long time ago. I don't wanna see Notre Dame or USC win so much as an all day sucker.

...about Arkansas since they won't be playing for any championship. I guess you are insane. :ihih: And if there's any justice, the Gators will lose to FSU and will also be knocked out of any consideration, not that they should be in the first place.

Swish

3-LockBox
11-26-2006, 01:04 PM
...about Arkansas since they won't be playing for any championship. I guess you are insane. :ihih: And if there's any justice, the Gators will lose to FSU and will also be knocked out of any consideration, not that they should be in the first place.

Swish

Oh, don't get me wrong...I'm not pulling for the SEC as much as I'm just a PAC-10 hater. Besides, I still look at Arkansas as old SWC team and I'd rather not see Florida make it either.

Rooting twix USC and Notre Dame is like going to an adult bookstore and trying to pick out the least painful dildo. I don't care if USC is a more deserving team, I can live with seeing them screwed out of the opportunity, and sleep well.

Swish
11-26-2006, 01:34 PM
Oh, don't get me wrong...I'm not pulling for the SEC as much as I'm just a PAC-10 hater. Besides, I still look at Arkansas as old SWC team and I'd rather not see Florida make it either.

Rooting twix USC and Notre Dame is like going to an adult bookstore and trying to pick out the least painful dildo. I don't care if USC is a more deserving team, I can live with seeing them screwed out of the opportunity, and sleep well.

...has won 2 of the last 3 national championships? He said it right before the game on Saturday and I almost jumped thru my TV set. LSU won it 3 years ago, not USC. They did win it 2 years ago then lost last year, as everybody knows. Gosh I hate Texas (ever since they stole a championship from Penn State. They used to pick them before the bowl games if you didn't know, and TX lost theirs while Penn State won theirs), but I was rooting for them for all I was worth last year.

Mushberger is an idiot and should not be on the air, but I guess we're stuck with him whenever ABC is broadcasting a game.

Swish

Swish

Duds
11-27-2006, 05:25 AM
That guy is absolutely terrible. He had his head so far up Brady Quinn's a$$ it wasnt even funny, talking like he is going to be the next big thing in the NFL....LOL!!!


...has won 2 of the last 3 national championships? He said it right before the game on Saturday and I almost jumped thru my TV set. LSU won it 3 years ago, not USC. They did win it 2 years ago then lost last year, as everybody knows. Gosh I hate Texas (ever since they stole a championship from Penn State. They used to pick them before the bowl games if you didn't know, and TX lost theirs while Penn State won theirs), but I was rooting for them for all I was worth last year.

Mushberger is an idiot and should not be on the air, but I guess we're stuck with him whenever ABC is broadcasting a game.

Swish

Swish