College Football 2006

[Dimwhit]

Well, they'd share the title, but Louisville would get the automatic bid to a BCS bowl on the head-to-head tiebreaker (in a 3-way tie, the team with the highest BCS ranking would get the autobid).

What if one team won the head-to-head, but the other team is ranked higher? Does the head-to-head take precedence?

 

[drothgery]

What if one team won the head-to-head, but the other team is ranked higher? Does the head-to-head take precedence?

Rankings only come into play in a tie involving more than two teams, and even in a multi-way tie, if one team has defeated all the others it's tied with, rankings aren't a factor. But the usual situation for a three way tie is where A beats B , B beats C, and C beats A (which could still happen, but WVU would have to lose to USF and beat Rutgers, while Rutgers beats SU, and Louisville loses to Pitt or UConn).

 

[Bubbalicious]

I figure at this point it will either be USC, Florida, or Michigan. In that order. I don't see any other team jumping over the Wolverines in polls. I have no problem with a rematch. I would hate to have a deserving team not in the game just becasue of the regular season schedule.

But if both USC and Florida win out who ever does not get to the championship game is going to raise a fuss.

Don't forget Arkansas. Yeah they lost bad to USC, but that was week 1 (pollsters are much more forgiving of early losses), and if they beat LSU and Florida and USC loses, they SHOULD leapfrog Michigan (whether or not they WILL is another story). Though it was a great game, Michigan had their chance, and I agree with the so-called experts that the big game was, in effect, the Championship semifinal. Basically, Michigan tops Notre Dame, Boise State, and any one-loss Big East team, but they had their shot, and if anyone from the SEC or Pac-10 finishes with one loss, they deserve a shot (no matter HOW bad the Buckeyes will whup 'em!!).

 

[drothgery]

Basically, Michigan tops Notre Dame, Boise State, and any one-loss Big East team, but they had their shot, and if anyone from the SEC or Pac-10 finishes with one loss, they deserve a shot (no matter HOW bad the Buckeyes will whup 'em!!).

I've yet to see a coherent argument where you can make a case for leaving a one-loss WVU or Louisville out of the BCS title game in favor of a rematch, but are willing to let USC, Arkansas, or Florda do so.

I mean, as near as I can tell, USC, WVU, and Louisville comprise the entire short list of teams that have a slim chance of beating OSU (rather than no chance) if the Buckeyes don't make a lot of turnovers (note: Michigan is on the 'no chance' list).

 

[Crothian]

Though it was a great game, Michigan had their chance, and I agree with the so-called experts that the big game was, in effect, the Championship semifinal. .

I keep hearing people say this, and it makes no sense. They had their chance to do what? They only lost one game. Same as USC, Arkansas, Florida, and all the others we talk about. Unless we are unfairly going to punish the Wolverines because OSU was on their schedule. It was not a semi final game, any more then any other regular season game is.

 

[drothgery]

I keep hearing people say this, and it makes no sense. They had their chance to do what? They only lost one game. Same as USC, Arkansas, Florida, and all the others we talk about. Unless we are unfairly going to punish the Wolverines because OSU was on their schedule.

Well, I'm perfectly willing to do this. I wouldn't have wanted Texas (even if KState hadn't upset them) in the BCS title game any more than Michigan. If Michigan had won, OSU, ND, and Wisconsin would be out of the running for the title game in my book.

When the BCS title game is one game where one team is playing undefeated Ohio State, putting someone that's already lost to OSU in the game either proves nothing (if OSU wins again) or confuses the issue (if OSU loses -- why is losing in a bowl game any worse than losing in the regular season; as you say, they aren't playoffs).

I'd rather see any of the other one-loss teams in the BCS title game. I'd rather see Boise State, for that matter.

 

[Crothian]

Bowl games are not nor have they ever been treated like regular season games. Winning a bowl game can make a 6-5 team's year and end it in a positive light. They are important. Losing a bowl game is worse then losing a regular season game.

The BCS is supposed to match number one verse number two. If the Wolverines are seen as the second best team in the country, they should get to play in that game. In years past with the BCS people have complained because what they felt were not the top two teams were playing in the Championship game. Now it seems that's going to be seen as okay just becasue they happened to play each other.

 

[johnsemlak]

I think there would be fewer people who didn't want a OSU-Michigan rematch in the championship game if Michigan (and OSU) had tougher schedules overall. That's the thing--the feeling that Michigan's schedule isn't as difficult as USC's for example makes people wonder whether in fact Michigan are the number two team in the country.

 

[Crothian]

And on the other side Michigan lose is a lot better then USC's lose. USC lost to a team that couldn't even beat Boise!! (Sorry Dimwhit!! ). Also, the Wolverines looked more impressive with their wins, style points count in College football.

 

[Dimwhit]

And on the other side Michigan lose is a lot better then USC's lose. USC lost to a team that couldn't even beat Boise!! (Sorry Dimwhit!! ). Also, the Wolverines looked more impressive with their wins, style points count in College football.

Haha! (You'll pay, Crothian, you'll pay...)

On that note, though, USC gets flak for losing to Oregon State, but they are currently third in the Pac-10 and have actually had a very fine season. If they beat Oregon, they're in great shape for a good bowl game. And it makes Boise's demolition of them that much sweeter...