Competitiveness Check
In a previous thread I thought someone said something ridiculous I gave him a -1 and responded with mockery. Then I had other people come to his defense. So I created this new thread to see where people actually stand maybe I'm a nut case. The question is this. In 1997 if you were given all the power to schedule the bowls would you have kept things the same so you could argue with Cornheads and say we got our NC or would you have changed the match up so we could play Nebraska?? I was shocked that fans were actually happy to debate it and not play it.
I hate the Saturdays when we play Delaware St. and not Florida St. Sure your balls ache when you lose and the season comes crashing down but I want that build up that anxiety that's what makes the win so much sweeter is the pain on the other end. It's not the wins and losses it's being in the mix and seeing what comes out that is the fun part.
I would have loved it if We could have played Nebraska.
but in pasadena, calif.
That is exactly how I would have liked to see it.
Whenever the argument erupts over who deserved to be crowned National Champion, I point out that Michigan was the only undefeated team that year without an asterick on their record.
Also Phillip Fulmer is still a douchebag.
*rabble rabble*
it was that desire to end the debate that resulted in the BCS in the first place.
The BCS was a first (and terrible) attempt at ending the debate, but I don't think that means it's the final solution.
"Final solution"...are you saying the BCS is a holocaust? (I kid.)
I didn't say it was the solution. The point is that in trying to end the debate, they came up with something that everyone hates even more. Who's to say that the next thing they come up with won't also be hated equally six years down the road?
hate the BCS more. I wish we had played Nebraska. I don't know if a playoff would work, but I would rather have a subjective game of 1 vs. 2 rather than a random assortment of final bowl games based on conference tie ins.
I call Godwin's Law.
Sure it sucks, but it's better than before. The only thing it does right is if there is a clear 1 and 2 they let them play.
My vote... let 'em play... I was at the Rose Bowl that year... although it was great to beat Ryan Leaf.... kind of a let down..cmon... Washington State ????.. a Michigan/Nebraska NC game would have been awesome to attend... OMG.
How exactly? It's far worse than before. Since most people (pro playoff or not) agree that the Championship game (in most years) is not definitive and does not end debate over #1, what have we gained?? A devaluation of every other BCS bowl, which are now 2nd choice for top schools, instead of as in the past, a reward for a great conference year. It's a pretend system that pretends to be definitive and is far from that. At least before there were no pretensions and everyone agreed that it was simply a poll result.
A well designed playoff system can improve where we are now, but where we are now is far worse IMo than what we had.
Here's why it's better. Sure, there are some years where it's unclear who the top 2 teams are, but not always. How about the year when USC and Texas were OBVIOUSLY the 2 best teams? In the old system, they would have played in different bowls, and likely won. Since USC was #1 going into the bowls, they probably would have been "voted" as the national champion, and we would have missed VY run over them.
Although a lot of M fans think we got dissed, in 2006 OSU and Florida were the 2 best teams. We had an argument, yes, but we lost to OSU. In the old system, again, those teams would have played different bowls. Had they both won (which we don't know, but for argument's sake) OSU would have finished undefeated and #1, which, as we saw in the bowl, was deservedly Florida's.
The system isn't perfect, but there could have been a lot of UM/Nebraska type situations since that were avoided. Not all problems were solved, but some were.
Let them play. No question about it.
- points for stealing another bloggers avatar.
I agree with Ziff72 in that it is all about the process, the build up and anxiety, not just W&Ls. People need to keep this in mind when complaining and begging for a playoff system, where much more doubt and uncertainty is put to rest. We feed off of doubt and uncertainty. Our brains are programmed that way. Too much certainty or predictability is boring. The BCS proclaimed to put the doubt to rest, but it also created a system that did not detract from the week to week process that is our season. This includes the build up, the arguing and debating, the predicting, the contingencies - how most every game played on a Saturday might impact your team, how most every down counts. This is why I love college football. I would hate to see a system like the NFL in which an upstart team at the beginning of the playoffs makes it through to the Pooper Bowl, making the regular season that much less meaningful.
It is the sustained anxiety, complexity, ever present contingencies that makes NCAA football so great. The BCS leaves a lot of doubt throughout the process, does not provide complete certainty, and that is a good thing. That is just where our brains like to operate.
Play on.
I don't know that the argument in the other thread was so much that the arguing is better than the game, but that it does have its place.
As a football fan who likes to watch football players compete against each other in games of football, I would have scheduled a football game between the Michigan football team and the Nebraska football team.
Also, football.
I throw out all the other arguments for and against and settle on one thing: I love watching two great teams play each other. Period. The more of that we can get, the better. If a playoff means more great games/match-ups to watch, I'm all for it.
I would be behind playing the game...
But on the other hand...
Can you imagine the further abuse we would be taking right now from Sparty, OSU, etc. if we had lost and couldn't even lay claim to a "1/2" a national title anytime in the last 50 years. That would be brutal.
All in all, as it currently stands, we tell people we won a NC in 1997, and no one really argues with it (unless they are from Nebraska). I am okay with it that way.
Now, if the situation was a bit different and we had won other national titles sometime recently, then game on, Huskers.
I’m with the above statements. Let them play! And also agree with Ziff72. I hate the way we schedule teams now. I know some of it has to do with money, but it’s ridiculous that we keep playing these FCS schools every year. I’d rather lose to somebody respectable than beat a pansy; even if Florida gets away with it I don’t like it. I think they should deduct BCS points for that bs so top tier teams would stop doing it.
For instance, I hated the App State scheduling, not just because we lost, but also because we shouldn't be playing a team from another division. That being said, I think Del. State and other cupcakes this year and maybe even next are ok because we are in serious rebuilding mode.
It would be cool if there was no BCS. And then, if there was a split-national title there was a game to be played 2 weeks later. Give them 2 weeks to heal up and prepare and then truly see who is the best. I guess there is a problem when there are 3 teams that are undefeated because, if #1 plays #2 and #3 plays someone else, and then #3 beats #1 in this "tie-breaker" there would be an uproar because #1 would have come off what would have been interpreted as a harder game. I guess there is no solution. Very off topic, now to return; I would rather have seen them play.
For sure, play it.
Michigan would have won. Nebraska could not pass at all, let alone against our D. Too many third and longs.
Michigan wins outright and covers the +7 number that people claim would have been the spread had they played. Book It!
be able to bet on that game. Nebraska's run only offense back then would have played directly into the strength of our '97 defense. i think we win that game by 2 touchdowns.
I would absolutely have loved it if the game had been played in '97, but I will admit that the heated conversations that come up because of situations like that are a big reason I love college football. You can still have some of that with an outright winner, but not nearly as much. It usually comes down to "If this penalty hadn't been called..." or something like that. I'd rather have a championship game, but it's not the worst thing in the world to be able to have those kinds of debates.
I didn't realize they play real football outside of the Great Lakes region and the Pacific Coast, aside from a few schools out East that used to be good in like the 1800s.
What should I care if some toothless farmers in Nebraska beat some even more toothless yokels from Tennessee? Do people actually even live in those states?
Nebraska didn't deserve to play Michigan for the 1997 National Championship. Pasadena is reserved for Big Ten and Pac Ten champions, you know, teams that play in real football conferences.
Osborne's crew were cute and all for a sub-league. I thought that play where they kicked the ball around a bit before losing or tying or whatever to unranked Missouri was fun to watch on ESPN. Horray for ESPN that we get to watch some of these down-ticket conferences. They should put high school ball on TV too while they're at it.
But Nebraska play Michigan? In a football game for the National Championship? Don't you, you know, have to earn your way to a game like that, like Michigan and Washington State did, before you put everything on one game?
Slightly tangent to this discussion: Nebraska is my second-favorite team behind Michigan.
MGoPoints: DECREASE!!!
I think that post was dripping with sarcasm. If not Nebraska was my #2 as well and while the 97 team was not unbeatable it was a very good team. It would have been a great match up and likely a 13-10 game or something like that as I think we would have struggled mightily on O and we would have had to rely on our D vs an option attack to rearrange Crouch's neck.
If that was a serious post -points and I direct you to the Saban lead Sparties vs Nebraska in the mid 90's....Uh Oh!!!
See if you can guess which Misopocomments are sarcasm, which are opinion, which are fact, etc.:
- Drew Sharp is a great columnist.
- Infinite Jest is a quick read.
- I wish Mitch Albom would write more about family values.
- I hope they make a third Transformers movie.
- I applaud George Lucas -- I couldn't have written a better Episodes IV-VI.
- I applaud George Lucas -- I couldn't have written a better Episodes I-III.
- I like ice cream
- The thing is to find a truth which is true for me, to find the idea for which I can live and die
- I blame mainstream media for most of society's ills
- Wonder Woman was created by a Harvard-educated middle-aged guy with two wives who was into bondage, and invented the lie detector
- Man, I could go for some ice cream
and I would agree there, but with the caveat that whatever mechanism made the match-up possible not ruin other more traditional match-ups.
I think it is righteous that the Rose Bowl has retained the B10-P10 match-up when it has made sense; I would hate to see it broken up unnecessarily because of some other system (i.e. Rose Bowl just becomes a nat'l semifinal game or something).
However, at the end of the day, I just want to see the best games hit the field (realize I'm probably contradicting myself here), so that's where I would prefer the RB to take a higher-ranked non P10/B10 team if the best in either of those leagues isn't available and the 2nd best isn't worthy. For example, if M and Neb played for the championship in another bowl, I would prefer that the Rose Bowl get the next best team in the country - say TN or FL - to a potentially sub-par B10 replacement - OSU/PSU in '97.
And yes, I would be frustrated if this jobbed a 2nd place in the Big 10 / top-10 overall Michigan out of a Rose Bowl bid, but that's life, and hopefully we would be paired with another appropriate opponent.
In sum: play the game, and keep tradition intact unless it will result in a worse pairing than could otherwise be achieved.
ed - yes, I know this was a bit of a digression. My apologies; couldn't stop once I started.