Michigan vs. Tennessee in the Gator Bowl?

Submitted by dmcb32 on

Per thewolverine.com says that UM will be headed to the Gator Bowl to face off with the Tennessee Vols (6-6, 3-5).  This is a good matchup!

raleighwood

December 3rd, 2010 at 7:51 PM ^

Three of the games were decided by at least three scores.  Penn State took a knee in the red zone at the end of the game or that would have been three scores.  In my mind, three scores consititutes a blow out.  It's certainly not like it was close.

Reality.....try it, you'll like it.

Blue_n_Aww

December 3rd, 2010 at 7:56 PM ^

Right. Reality.

How many games were actually "blowouts" as you claimed? Because you said five, and I'm confused about that. I'm sorry but 10 point losses are not blowouts, no matter how much you want the coach fired. I dunno about you, but I tend to only count the scores the other team actually, you know, scores.

So the reality is: you're wrong.

raleighwood

December 3rd, 2010 at 10:08 PM ^

All games were double digit losses.  None of them were particularly close.  If you watched the games you, know this.  Granted, the Wisky and OSU losses were the most egregious.  MSU and PSU were pretty much decided by halftime.  The Iowa game had potential but was the outcome was never really in doubt.

PSU didn't score another TD because they had pity on Michigan.  They took a knee knowing full well that they could score again (and you know it too).  If you want to ask for (or accept) pity that's fine, Monsieur.

I never said that I wanted the coach fired.  I said (or at least tried to imply) that Michigan was not competitive in its five losses this year.  You can dispute that all you want but you're just fooling yourself.

raleighwood

December 4th, 2010 at 9:24 AM ^

Three of the five losses were by 17 or more points.  Since 17 isn't a low double digit, it's apparent that you concede three of the games were blowouts (and a fourth game was a "pity" away from a blow out).

17 points is three full scores.  Since the average team gets around three possessions in a quarter, you'd need another full 15 minutes of football time to get back into the game (without letting the other team score).

So there were three blowouts instead of five (with a fourth right on the brink).

raleighwood

December 3rd, 2010 at 10:14 PM ^

I'm saying that they were not blown out on a regular basis like they have been in the recent past.  Yes, they lost to Tennessee by 28 in 2002.  All of their other three losses that year were by less than a TD (a total of 11 points across the three games).

You can look at the Tenny loss as an outlier, an aberration for that season.  None of the losses this year would fall into that category.

Communist Football

December 4th, 2010 at 7:38 AM ^

It's an aberration because in the 1990s and early 2000s, the Big Ten was a weak conference and we would get blown out by also-ran teams from other conferences. The teams that blew us out this year (OSU, Wisc) are legit on a national level (look at what OSU did to Oregon last year).
<br>
<br>This isn't to say that we don't need to get better. But this romanticization of the Lloyd-Mo-Bo era is ridiculous.

M-Wolverine

December 6th, 2010 at 10:33 AM ^

Maybe in the 70's and 80's, sure....but how many Big Ten programs are better now than they were in the 90's and early 2000's?

Illinois - about the same, up and down, occasional good season. (2001 last really good team...early 2000s)

Indiana - continued suckage

Iowa- Good in early 90's, best Ferentz seasons early 2000s.

MSU - Perles, Saban MSU a lot better than everything since, up till this year.

Minnesota - Glenn Mason, the only respectable coach they've had since Lou Holtz was out by 2006.

Northwestern - all their championship years and Rose Bowl year was the years you speak of. Barnett had a much better program than they've been recently.

OSU- probably about the same.  But they did win their National Title in the early 2000s.

PSU - was a LOT better in the 90's, with an undefeated season, and consistent record. It wasn't till the early 2000s they started becoming up and down...which they still are to this day.

Purdue- only good years since the 60's were Tillers early years, and that's when the Brees years took place. Much worse now.

Wisconsin - still consistently strong. But they went to 3 Rose Bowls in the 90s.  This is their first since then.  So they were better then.

The only real difference is Michigan was a much better team then (making a stronger conference).  And most of the League has gotten weaker with them. The Big Ten had a 7-1 streak in the Rose Bowl during the 90's (and yes, the Pac-Ten was down...but you've already made the case elsewhere that they're not that good now, either).  So it's not romanticizing....it's just fact.

speakeasy

December 3rd, 2010 at 6:20 PM ^

Is there a missing /s?

UMass and Delaware St aren't AQ teams (or in DSU's case, even D1), and Indiana isn't a bowl eligible SEC team, so this comparison makes no sense. In a perfect year, we'd be playing an undefeated #2 ranked______ for the MNC, but in a relatively mediocre year for Michigan football, I am perfectly happy to watch us romp any SEC team in a bowl...certainly more than I want to see Ok St or someone else crush us in the Insight.

wiper

December 3rd, 2010 at 10:21 PM ^

but beating down a team by 20 would look pretty good to recruits too, wouldn't it?

i mean, going from Alabama to a 6-6 Tennessee in 2 days certainly is a roller coaster, but i personally don't think our kids are ready for 'Bama yet. maybe playing an SEC team in florida would be better. especially one that we have the ability to look good against.

whoever though, you're right in the end. thank God we're back to getting the extra game. offseasons have been loooooooong lately.

KBLOW

December 3rd, 2010 at 6:24 PM ^

More Tennessee fans would come from out of state and buy tickets and spend money than the already in-state and not-real-excited-about-the-gator bowl Florida fans.