• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

"LLLLLLL"oyd Carr (officialllllll thread)

Jump to latest Follow Reply

Lloyd Carr - Love him or hate him?

  • Love Him

    Votes: 64 21.1%

  • Hate him

    Votes: 84 27.7%

  • Stupidest poll ever

    Votes: 155 51.2%
  • Total voters
    303
Sort by date Sort by votes
Zurp said:
Which is why I don't think anyone can say Michigan got snubbed. "Snubbed" means that Michigan SHOULD have been #1. But if enough people can argue (legitimately) for Nebraska, then I don't think they can fairly say "snubbed".
Click to expand...
I don't think Michigan got snubbed by finishing number 2. It's not clear to me that Carr was saying that. I do think it's reasonable to question the actions of coaches who voted Michigan #3 or #4. It seems on its face like those coaches were trying to semi-fraudulently manipulate the final outcome, even if it ended up not mattering (i.e. Nebraska would have won the coaches' poll anyway).
 
Upvote 0
zincfinger said:
I don't think Michigan got snubbed by finishing number 2. It's not clear to me that Carr was saying that. I do think it's reasonable to question the actions of coaches who voted Michigan #3 or #4. It seems on its face like those coaches were trying to semi-fraudulently manipulate the final outcome, even if it ended up not mattering (i.e. Nebraska would have won the coaches' poll anyway).
Click to expand...

I guess I can buy that. But I still think it's like Penn State complaining about the voters in "Big Ten Country" in 1994 - they got a higher percentage of votes within that area than outside that area, and even if they got ALL of the votes in 1994 in that area, they still wouldn't have won. I guess those coaches who voted Michigan #3 or #4 pulled a dick move, but since it didn't change anything, I see no reason to spend any time on it. Except for reading this thread. And posting in it. At least twice. I'll check back later.
 
Upvote 0
Zurp said:
I guess I can buy that. But I still think it's like Penn State complaining about the voters in "Big Ten Country" in 1994 - they got a higher percentage of votes within that area than outside that area, and even if they got ALL of the votes in 1994 in that area, they still wouldn't have won. I guess those coaches who voted Michigan #3 or #4 pulled a dick move, but since it didn't change anything, I see no reason to spend any time on it. Except for reading this thread. And posting in it. At least twice. I'll check back later.
Click to expand...
I don't think Carr's argument here is all that much like Penn State fans' arguments about 1994, if I understand them both correctly. Penn State fans' argument is one of paranoid self-congratulation: "All the BigTen coaches knew we were the best team in the country, and the only reason some of them didn't vote us #1 was because they were afraid and envious of us". Carr's much more limited argument about 1997, as I understand it, was entirely reasonable if not indisputable.

And yeah, a couple of coaches playing shenanigans in the final 1997 vote is obviously not among the more important things in life. But I would say that to whatever extent you consider college football polls important (and probably everyone on this board does, to some extent), you have to insist that the people doing the voting do so in good faith, at a minimum.
 
Upvote 0
zincfinger said:
I don't think Carr's argument here is all that much like Penn State fans' arguments about 1994, if I understand them both correctly. Penn State fans' argument is one of paranoid self-congratulation: "All the BigTen coaches knew we were the best team in the country, and the only reason some of them didn't vote us #1 was because they were afraid and envious of us". Carr's much more limited argument about 1997, as I understand it, was entirely reasonable if not indisputable.

And yeah, a couple of coaches playing shenanigans in the final 1997 vote is obviously not among the more important things in life. But I would say that to whatever extent you consider college football polls important (and probably everyone on this board does, to some extent), you have to insist that the people doing the voting do so in good faith, at a minimum.
Click to expand...

I think your last statement is true, but in reverse, and twisted around a little. If the people doing the voting are not doing so in good faith, college football polls are not considered important. I see no reason at all for coach of XYZ football team to care about Jerk State University's football team, when they aren't in the same conference, they don't play each other, and none of XYZ's opponents play Jerk State, and none of XYZ's opponents play any of Jerk State's opponents. XYZ's head coach should be worried about XYZ - not about whether Jerk State should be 5th or 4th or 2nd or 18th, and definitely not about whether Boob Tech's head coach of 20 years is retiring. That is why I dislike the coaches' poll.

And I'm not interested in the "we were number 1 going into the bowl games, we won our bowl game, so we should remain number 1" argument. What other arguments does Michigan have? I definitely agree that Penn State's argument from 1994 is much funnier. "We should leave this suck-ass conference! They didn't back us up in 1994, or in 2010. Let's join the Big East!!" But I've heard Michigan fans still hate Nebraska. Their Alamo Bowl game (another classic ending to a Michigan game in there) was supposed to be redemption for 1997. "We only lost our #1 spot because Tom Osbourne was retiring." If that's true, then I go back to my "I don't like the coaches' poll" thing. But I think there is a legitimate argument for Nebraska jumping Michigan. And if Michigan only won the AP national championship simply because they were #1 going into the bowl games, then the polls are stupid.
 
Upvote 0
I think the frustration on their part comes from the fact that they beat 4 ranked teams to end the season, inluding 3 top 10 teams, with two of those top ten teams in the top 5. Nebraska's fnal two opponents were ranked, and Tennessee was ranked in the top 5, but Nebraska only played 4 ranked teams the entire season. The one opponent they had in common, which we all know is a flawed way to compare, was Colorado, who scUM beat 27-3, and Nebraska beat 27-24 (Colorado was ranked when scUM beat them, but had long since fallen from the to 25 when Nebraska played them to close the regular season). Like I said, both teams have legitimate arguments, and Nebraska's Bowl opponent was certainly a bigger name...
 
Upvote 0
Zurp said:
I think your last statement is true, but in reverse, and twisted around a little. If the people doing the voting are not doing so in good faith, college football polls are not considered important. I see no reason at all for coach of XYZ football team to care about Jerk State University's football team, when they aren't in the same conference, they don't play each other, and none of XYZ's opponents play Jerk State, and none of XYZ's opponents play any of Jerk State's opponents. XYZ's head coach should be worried about XYZ - not about whether Jerk State should be 5th or 4th or 2nd or 18th, and definitely not about whether Boob Tech's head coach of 20 years is retiring. That is why I dislike the coaches' poll.

And I'm not interested in the "we were number 1 going into the bowl games, we won our bowl game, so we should remain number 1" argument. What other arguments does Michigan have? I definitely agree that Penn State's argument from 1994 is much funnier. "We should leave this suck-ass conference! They didn't back us up in 1994, or in 2010. Let's join the Big East!!" But I've heard Michigan fans still hate Nebraska. Their Alamo Bowl game (another classic ending to a Michigan game in there) was supposed to be redemption for 1997. "We only lost our #1 spot because Tom Osbourne was retiring." If that's true, then I go back to my "I don't like the coaches' poll" thing. But I think there is a legitimate argument for Nebraska jumping Michigan. And if Michigan only won the AP national championship simply because they were #1 going into the bowl games, then the polls are stupid.
Click to expand...
I agree there was a legitimate argument for Nebraska jumping the Michigan, and I'm glad they did. What I was referring to as Carr's "legitimate if not indisputable" argument was, again as I interpreted it, "That's fine if you believed we deserved #2 and voted that way accordingly. But for anyone to have voted us #3 or 4 was complete BS." I didn't read the article very carefully though, so maybe he was bitching about the final outcome, as opposed to the BS votes of a couple coaches, more than I gathered.
 
Upvote 0
Does Carr, or anyone, know which coaches voted them 3 and 4? If so he needs to stop bitching and confront the coaches that did the questionable voting. Otherwise Mr. Carr...stop being a pussy wimp fuck and shut your pie hole you Scum fuck asshole.
 
Upvote 0
zincfinger said:
I agree there was a legitimate argument for Nebraska jumping the Michigan, and I'm glad they did. What I was referring to as Carr's "legitimate if not indisputable" argument was, again as I interpreted it, "That's fine if you believed we deserved #2 and voted that way accordingly. But for anyone to have voted us #3 or 4 was complete BS." I didn't read the article very carefully though, so maybe he was bitching about the final outcome, as opposed to the BS votes of a couple coaches, more than I gathered.
Click to expand...

I think I read the article, but I really don't remember what he was complaining about. I barely remember what I was saying.
1. Yes - that is complete BS for anyone to have voted Michigan any lower than #2 that year.
2. I was rooting for Michigan to get the national championship. You know - the whole "love thy conference"
3. I still laughed when they dropped to Nebraska.
 
Upvote 0
Michigan would have got rocked in that game.

Michigan had the #2 defense and #45 offense.

Nebraska had the #1 offense and #5 defense.

Michigan played 3 ranked teams and Nebraska 5. Two of the ranked teams were also ranked higher than any Michigan played.

Michigan outscored their opponents by 17, Nebraska by 30.

In their respective Bowl Games-

Michigan barely beat #9 10-2 Washington State. 21-16

Nebraska destroyed an SEC Champ #7 11-2 Tennessee 42-17.

Michigan wouldn't have stood a chance.
 
Upvote 0
USC said:
Michigan would have got rocked in that game.

Michigan had the #2 defense and #45 offense.

Nebraska had the #1 offense and #5 defense.

Michigan played 3 ranked teams and Nebraska 5. Two of the ranked teams were also ranked higher than any Michigan played.

Michigan outscored their opponents by 17, Nebraska by 30.

In their respective Bowl Games-

Michigan barely beat #9 10-2 Washington State. 21-16

Nebraska destroyed an SEC Champ #7 11-2 Tennessee 42-17.

Michigan wouldn't have stood a chance.
Click to expand...
I'd probably favor Nebraska in that matchup, too, but as far as using statistical rankings to predict who would win some game, the only statistics I give much of a damn for are DBB's Differential Statistical Analysis (or here for a heavier dose).
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
WolverineMike said:
games aren't played on paper. We'll never know what the outcome would have been.
Click to expand...
This is a meaningless comment for at least two reasons. One is, there can be no answer to a question like who "would have won" (which wasn't even the original point of this tangent). If those two teams played 100 times, the same team would not win every time. The only question you can try to answer, and this is what statistical analysis does, is what is the probability of each team winning. Neither team's probability will ever be 1 (100%).
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top