Should Michigan get a shot at the National Championship game?

[Zurp]

I say that even though they are the second best team in the country, they had their shot at the Buckeyes. They lost. None of this "do-over" stuff.

 

[buckeyegrad]

If USC, Florida, and Arkansas all lose in the next two weeks, then maybe.

It would be hard to argue for ND, WV, or Louisville over scUM.

 

[WolverineTX]

At the risk of ...

We had our shot, and didn't get the job done against the #1 team in the nation. Ohio State won the Big Ten head-to-head and decidedly earned the trip to Glendale. I think USC and/or the SEC champ will overtake Michigan in the final rankings and end the rematch hype (although probably not all of the debate -- many of my fellow fans seem stuck in denial).

If our situations were reversed, I sure wouldn't want to face Ohio State a second time.

I cheer for Michigan to win, not other programs to lose solely for selfish benefit. M does not stand for Mulligan, and I wouldn't want it to.

Ohio State will have the distinction of being the first team in history to compete in (and likely win) three #1 vs. #2 matchups in the course of one season. The win in Columbus demonstrated that the Buckeyes are the most complete team in college football, and I don't think it fair to them, our great rivalry, or the other contenders in line to force a rematch.

 

[Ohio Steeler]

I said no and this is why Michigan already had there chance to beat us so if USC wins there last 2 games they then should be the team to face us for the NC...

 

[WaitingforKickoff]

If anyone told me before the game that Michigan would play in Glendale with a victory or a loss, I would have laughed at him. I would have told him that it would be a total slap in the face to football played in the Pac-10, SEC and the Big East. I would have also told him that it would be a disservice to the coaches and players over the past 100 years that have given so much significance to the game on 11/18.

As a fan of college football, I have never considered myself a cynic. But again, I have never seen and experienced the kind of treachery that is being suggested.

 

[BuckeyeBill]

I cheer for Michigan to win, not other programs to lose solely for selfish benefit. M does not stand for Mulligan, and I wouldn't want it to.

Someone has posted the Michigan Block M with "Mulligan" across it. I have to admit, that one cracked me up. But all-in-all, once the dust settles, I suspect most people will realize its not in the best interest of the rivalry, or even college football, for that matter. There is not enough interconference play as it is. This outcome of this game has already been determined. Someone else need to take a shot so we can determine if we are really that good, or we're drinking our own bath water.

And why isn't this conversation in the main replay thread?

 

[OregonBuckeye]

They already had their shot. Do you mean a second chance?

 

[SanAntonioBuck]

No, Fuck Michigan!:)

 

[Best Buckeye]

they haven't beat us for 3 years. I want to beat USC or Fla.

 

[methomps]

Since we are having a BCS NC game this year, I don't see why Michigan shouldn't get fair consideration. The BCS is supposed to match the "two best teams" (or "most deserving teams" or "most accompished teams" or whatever you want to call it).

College football under the BCS is inherently unfair/flawed due to the schedule disparity and conference setup. To say that losing to the #1 team in the country is more fatal than losing to anyone else only compounds the inequity of the system.

Saying that Ohio State shouldn't be punished by having to beat Michigan again is a better argument, but it still misses the mark. Ohio State (or any other team) is not owed any right by virtue of being #1 in the BCS outside of a chance to play in the BCS NC game. There are far more vexing situations than the possibility of a rematch (such as an undefeated team losing in the BCS NC game to a 2-loss team).

Michigan is not a conference champion. So what? That has never been a condition for making the BCS NC game. The BCS had a chance to "correct" this issue after the 2001 season. They chose not to, and probably for the best. First, Notre Dame doesn't need any more breaks in the sysem. Second, it is very possible that the two best teams in the country both play in the same conference. What if Wisconsin had beaten Michigan (and perhaps not played such a lame OOC slate)?

Michigan's candidacy should be judged on the merits. This "no rematch" argument is flawed.

 

[CCI]

Fuck Michigan they had there chance to dethrone the #1 team in the land

 

[Crystal76]

I have a real problem with playing Michigan again.

Not because I am scared. (Okay, so I am a little scared.) But, because if say they would beat us. Then they would be National Champions. It wouldn't matter than we beat them already, it wouldn't matter if the win was by 3 or by 33 they would still be the Champs. I don't see how that would play out in the polls.

They beat us once, we beat them once. Yet, they still get the title. On the risk of sounding like my nine year old daughter, I don't see how that would be fair to our Players after they already played and beat Michigan already.

 

[WaitingforKickoff]

Since we are having a BCS NC game this year, I don't see why Michigan shouldn't get fair consideration. The BCS is supposed to match the "two best teams" (or "most deserving teams" or "most accompished teams" or whatever you want to call it).

Michigan has gotten a fair consideration. They got their fair consideration on the field against OSU on 11/18. While it is the responsibility of the BCS to choose the best two teams in the country, its ultimate objective is to determine the number one team in the country. If the superior team has already been determine on the field, why should there be a rematch to determine superiority?

College football under the BCS is inherently unfair/flawed due to the schedule disparity and conference setup. To say that losing to the #1 team in the country is more fatal than losing to anyone else only compounds the inequity of the system.

First, let us acknowledge that there is no perfect system to determine the best team in college football. A team is only as good as how it plays on that day. The team with the best record may lose to a team with the worst record on a given day. Using an inherent flaw in the system as an justification to override fundamental tenet such as deciding superiority on the field is illogical. This is the system that we live with and have come to accept. Why should it be altered for the convenience of only one team?

Saying that Ohio State shouldn't be punished by having to beat Michigan again is a better argument, but it still misses the mark. Ohio State (or any other team) is not owed any right by virtue of being #1 in the BCS outside of a chance to play in the BCS NC game. There are far more vexing situations than the possibility of a rematch (such as an undefeated team losing in the BCS NC game to a 2-loss team).

No one is owed anything in any hypothetical situation, unless a matchup has been determined on the field. The fundamental tenet of college football, if there is one, is that superiority ought to be established on the field. Michigan had a chance to establish that superiority over the field. Florida hasn't. USC hasn't. Arkansas hasn't. WV hasn't. UL hasn't. Boise State hasn't. Denying them the chance to settle it on the field in favor of a team that has already had their chance to settle it on the field goes directly against the fundamental tenet of college football.

Michigan is not a conference champion. So what? That has never been a condition for making the BCS NC game. The BCS had a chance to "correct" this issue after the 2001 season. They chose not to, and probably for the best. First, Notre Dame doesn't need any more breaks in the sysem. Second, it is very possible that the two best teams in the country both play in the same conference. What if Wisconsin had beaten Michigan (and perhaps not played such a lame OOC slate)?

If second best team in the Big Ten is chosen over another one loss team from a major conference, what would that say about football played in other parts of the country? Players, coaches, fans, and media members are just as passionate about the sports as we are in the midwest. Who's to say that they are so atrocious that even after we have established the superior team in the big ten on the field, we are going to have to match them up again because of the lack of an alternative?

Again, football is a game to be played on the field. If you are not even going to give a team the courtesy to settle it on the field, you corrupt the system to the point of no return.

 

[Oh8ch]

The sentiment for a rematch that immediately followed the game seems to be abating. The more voters mull it over and hear the arguments against a rematch the more inclined they will be to facilitate it.

LvBuckeye had a great post in the other thread on this topic reminding us that one of the original purposes of the BCS was to assure all regions and conferences were fairly represented and to prevent regional rematches.

Why coaches and media from the SEC or PAC 10 would have voted for Michigan at #2 is beyond me.

At this point I believe even Arkansas can make the jump over Michigan if they win out and Florida and USC lose. Wins over both LSU and Florida would be impressive to both humans and computers. Only ND with the head to head loss would be a real long shot.

So as much as I will be rooting for USC this Saturday if the SEC Division champs escape unscathed I think Michigan is out.

 

[methomps]

Michigan has gotten a fair consideration. They got their fair consideration on the field against OSU on 11/18. While it is the responsibility of the BCS to choose the best two teams in the country, its ultimate objective is to determine the number one team in the country. If the superior team has already been determine on the field, why should there be a rematch to determine superiority?

Well, the ultimate goal is money, but we'll set that argument aside. Suppose Notre Dame makes it to the BCS NC game and wins. That makes them superior to OSU; OSU superior to Michigan; Michigan superior to...Notre Dame?

Suppose USC loses to Notre Dame, Arkansas loses to LSU, and Florida loses to either FSU or Arkansas. Then what? Who goes? Notre Dame? Why does "superior team decide on the field" count in OSU vs. Michigan, but not Michigan vs. Notre Dame?

First, let us acknowledge that there is no perfect system to determine the best team in college football. A team is only as good as how it plays on that day. The team with the best record may lose to a team with the worst record on a given day. Using an inherent flaw in the system as an justification to override fundamental tenet such as deciding superiority on the field is illogical. This is the system that we live with and have come to accept. Why should it be altered for the convenience of only one team?


No one is owed anything in any hypothetical situation, unless a matchup has been determined on the field. The fundamental tenet of college football, if there is one, is that superiority ought to be established on the field. Michigan had a chance to establish that superiority over the field. Florida hasn't. USC hasn't. Arkansas hasn't. WV hasn't. UL hasn't. Boise State hasn't. Denying them the chance to settle it on the field in favor of a team that has already had their chance to settle it on the field goes directly against the fundamental tenet of college football.

I disagree that this fundamental tenet is determinative. Conference Championship games suggests it does not exist. We see rematches there all the time. I don't see any fundamental tent swooping in and saving the day.

If second best team in the Big Ten is chosen over another one loss team from a major conference, what would that say about football played in other parts of the country? Players, coaches, fans, and media members are just as passionate about the sports as we are in the midwest. Who's to say that they are so atrocious that even after we have established the superior team in the big ten on the field, we are going to have to match them up again because of the lack of an alternative?

It says simply that the rest of the country doesn't have the two best teams. So you deny that it is possible for one conference to have the two best teams in the country?

Again, football is a game to be played on the field. If you are not even going to give a team the courtesy to settle it on the field, you corrupt the system to the point of no return.

What team are we talking about? Florida or SC? Did they not get the courtesy of a chance to beat Auburn and Oregon State?