[eDebate] ...or not salvation

Josh Hoe jbhdb8
Mon Dec 4 12:05:44 CST 2006


Honestly,

I realy dont think Michigan got "jobbed" because Florida is an inferior
number two.  The reason Michigan got "jobbed" is because after Florida
finished that schedule you love so much Michigan was rated higher than
them....then Florida barely beat a terrible FSU team.....and Michigan was
still rated higher than them....then Florida beat a now 3 loss Arkansas
team...and somehow they jumped above Michigan.  As Lloyd put it "I don't
think they would have moved ahead of us if USC had won their game," Carr
said of the Gators. "I don't know what the voters were thinking ? you'd have
to ask them ? but I don't think there's any question that if USC wins, we
remain No. 3."  This point was proven last week when - Michigan stayed ahead
of Florida.

In other words, the problem isnt Florida or Florida's schedule or if Florida
is deserving...The problem is with a system that became a popularity
contest.

Another problem was with an opposing coach (Meyer) not just pumping his own
teams credentials but also denigrating the other team in the press.

Another problem was with the sweater vest abstaining (after already being
caught letting his Assistant AD do the voting earlier in the year) seemingly
because as a Big Ten coach he couldnt rank Florida and he didnt want to play
Michigan again.

Finally, the coaches poll became a north/south divide for the most part
(with Big Ten votes hurting Michigan because Zook voted for Florida -
shocker - and Tressell abstained while all the SEC voters voted Florida 2).

Now all that said:

Florida is a deserving team.  They have had a great year.

Your arguments about schedule are inherently circular - basically your
argument is "everybody knows the SEC is the toughest conference" and then
quoting back SEC wins and saying that means excellence.  Truth is this is
all subjective....I am not sure by how you are making your arguments that
you have seen many Michigan games this year.  I have seen a ton of Florida
games and do think they are a very talented squad especially on defense.

Wouldnt it just be better to let us settle it on the field?  Thats the one
thing Lloyd and Meyer have pushed in concert.

Josh









On 12/4/06, GatorDebate at aol.com <GatorDebate at aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> I will go on record saying that Florida will get smoked.
>
> I will go on record that Michigan already lost to Ohio State.
> I will go on record that Michigan was completely outplayed by Ohio State
> and would probably lose again.
>
> Let's look at some
> of Florida's wins--and I use that term loosely--they barely beat South
> Carolina by a point (17-16), they beat Vandy by 6 points, (who Michigan
> beat
> by 20) and they escaped with a win against a powerful 6-6 Florida State
> team.  This team is in way over their heads which Urban Meyer knows.
>
> But the bottom line is they won their games.  Florida played the
> statistically toughest schedule in the country in the toughest conference in
> the country.  They beat more bowl eligible teams than Michigan and more
> top-25 teams than Michigan.  Florida State would beat Notre Dame, Michigan's
> toughest non conference opponent because Notre Dame is one of the two most
> overrated teams in college football (the other being Wisconsin).  Also,
> Florida State was 6-6 but don't tell me a win over FSU is easy because teams
> play REAL tough in big rivalry games.  Just ask USC about UCLA.
> Additionally, no one plays as many big rivalry games as Florida.  Having to
> get up to play Tennessee, Georgia and Florida State every year is freaking
> tough.  Michigan gets OSU and an overrated Notre Dame team every year.
> Florida always has tough SEC West teams like Auburn and LSU to play and when
> all is said and done, the SEC has a Conference Championship game that teams
> have to get primed for (no easy task...just ask Oklahoma from a few years
> back).  Big Ten has no Conference Championship game.  Don't denigrate
> Florida or their schedule.  You just sound silly.
>
> It is
> true that Florida won a mediocre SEC this year.  Auburn,Tennessee,
> Georgia,
> and LSU were not nearly as good as they have been in the past.  But
> pollsters have fooled themselves into believing that the SEC is the best
> conference in college football regardless of how good the teams actually
> are.  This year conference play was a joke, all across the nation, the two
>
> best teams are clearly OSU and Michigan and they should be playing each
> other.
>
> The SEC is the toughest conference in football every year.  Hands down.
> You are naive or just a hater to think otherwise.  First off, we can just
> write off the Big East, ACC and Pac-10 for being far inferior this year and
> every year to the SEC.  The Big 12 is a bit down this year (the Big 12 North
> might be one of the worst Divisions in Football) so lets compare the SEC and
> Big 10 top to bottom.  The Big 10 has three teams in the BCS Top 25.
> Wisconsin is the most overrated team around.  Out of conference games
> against Bowling Green, Western Illinois, San Diego State and Buffalo is
> pathetic, plus they avoided playing Ohio State and got to feast on the chum
> of the Big 10 (Indiana, Northwestern, Illinois, Purdue, Minnesota plus a
> down Iowa team and a down Penn State).  Notre Dame (not in the Big Ten but
> touted as a "real" win by Michigan fans) is the second most overrated team
> around (one win against a top 25 team in the Weiss era and a strength of
> schedule in the 50's).  This is who Michigan got to feast on.  Sure they
> played well against Ohio State but when that is your one tough game you can
> prepare well for it.  Heck, Illinois only lost by 7 to Ohio State and there
> defense played better than Michigan's defense (17 points compared to 42
> points).  Let's give the Fighting Zooks another shot!  (This also shows how
> ridiculous it is to define a season by losses rather than wins)  It's not
> like it is at Florida where navigating the SEC is like navigating a
> minefield.  I really doubt Michigan could go undefeated in the SEC because
> it is an absolute grind.  Whereas the Big Ten has three teams in the Top 25,
> the SEC has five in the top 25 including four in the top 12 of the BCS.
> Tennessee is ranked 17.  Florida played them all.  They best Georgia, LSU,
> Arkansas, Tennessee and they beat decent teams South Carolina, Georgia,
> Florida State.  All I'm saying is that in a season like that, the likelihood
> of running the table is super tough.  Auburn did it and it was a rarity.  I
> don't know how you can say the SEC is overrated.  Lets match up the top 11
> in the SEC and the entire Big Ten.  I'll use the Fox Sports Top 119 which
> rates all Division 1-A teams.  My apologies to Jason Russell who thinks the
> Fox poll is biased because of some Rupert Murdoch/Fox News/Bill
> O'reilly/Southern conservative thing.  I'm using it because the AP, Coaches
> and Harris polls don't rank teams 1-119.  If you don't like this poll, find
> another that ranks all 119 teams and I'll bet you a dinner that the SEC has
> a higher aggregate ranking than the Big 10 on a team by team basis:
> 1 Florida (2)        Ohio State (1)
> 2 Arkansas (5)    Michigan (3)
> 3 Auburn (6)        Wisconsin (11)
> 4 Tennessee (9)   Iowa (35)
> 5 LSU (10)          Penn State (36)
> 6 Alabama (33)    Purdue (46)
> 7 Georgia (39)      Indiana (59)
> 8 South Carolina (40)   Michigan State (66)
> 9 Vanderbilt (49)    Minnesota (70)
> 10 Kentucky (56)   Illinois (78)
> 11 Ole Miss (68)     Northwestern (87)
>
> I don't think ANY of the Big Ten teams in matchups 4-11 have a sniff of a
> chance against the SEC team.  That is why the SEC is such a tough
> conference.  Michigan had one decent and two overrated opponents to prepare
> for.  To win in the SEC Even our 8th best team is as good or better than the
> Big Ten #5.  Give the SEC its due.
>
>
>
> Florida lost to Auburn which is a deeply flawed team.  Aurburn got
> beat like dogs by a very average Georgia team.
>
> Auburn isn't very good?  Are you serious?  They are a top-10 team in the
> AP, Harris and Coaches poll, #9 BCS, #6 Fox Rankings.  There only losses
> were to a hot Arkansas team and a Georgia team that finished strong and had
> wins against the ACC Runner up in Georgia Tech and Colorado (a marginal team
> but better than playing a 1-AA cream puff).  They beat Florida, LSU,
> Georgia, 'Bama and South Carolina.  Give them some credit.  They didn't play
> the cake schedule Wisconsin had who didn't even have to play OSU this year
> (see above on Wisonsin's JOKE schedule.  War Eagle!
>
> However, Michigan only lost
> to OSU on the road by 3 points. Michigan's quality of loss far exceeds any
>
> other teams in the country.  In the end that should be the deciding
> factor,
> but it wasn't television ratings were.
>
> First of all, quality wins should matter more than quality losses (see
> Illinois argument above) and Florida had more quality wins, played more bowl
> eligible teams, more top 25 teams, played in a tougher conference.  You can
> say quality of loss is more important than quality of win and that is your
> right.  Lets just say most fans, coaches, and sportswriters are more likely
> to rank you based on wins than losses.  If losses mattered more than wins
> than USC should never have been in contention because a loss to a 6-4 Oregon
> State team is worse than a loss to OSU or Auburn.  The rest of the world
> (outside of Michigan fans, you and Jason Russell) rank wins higher than
> losses.  That's why Florida got in.  They played the statistically tougher
> schedule than Michigan, they played in a better conference than the Big Ten,
> they beat more bowl eligible teams than Michigan and there strongest
> argument is stronger than the Wolverine mantra of "At least we lost close!"
>
> The brain trust that does the polls
> did some polling of their own and found that people wanted to watch
> someone
> OTHER than Michigan play and that is what we got.
>
> Do you have proof of this?  The ESPN Sportsnation poll indicated 51%
> wanted an Ohio State-Michigan rematch.  Wouldn't this be "evidence" to the
> powers that be that TV ratings would be high for a rematch of one of the
> most watched college football games ever?  Please keep your conspiracy
> theories to the world of politics.  I don't see it here.  Also, these
> "powers that be"...are you referring to the coaches, to the AP, to the other
> polls which ALL have Florida rated higher?  Are they all a part of the
> conspiracy to keep Michigan down?
>
> Even though it is going
> to be blowout it won't matter cause people will watch until halftime.  And
>
> to top it off they place Michigan in the Rose Bowl against USC,
> functionally
> making Michigan play USC at home.
>
> Just in case you didn't know this, the Big 10 played the Pac 10 at the
> Rose Bowl for many years before the BCS came along.  Non unique.  Michigan
> and USC have met in the Rose Bowl in 1948, 1970, 1977, 1979, 1989, 1990 and
> 2004, but I'm sure it's always been part of the grand conspiracy
>
> Priceless! Do not email about the
> logistics of the Bowl system I understand them but it reminds me of the
> days
> when Big 8 teams had to go to Orange Bowl and play Miami for the national
> championship know how many of those games Miami lost? Zero.
>
> How about you know what you're talking about before you write.  1995
> Orange Bowl, last time Miami played a Big8/12 team
> Nebraska 24  -  Miami 17 - Osborne wins National Championship and Tommie
> Frasier wins Orange Bowl MVP.  get your facts straight.
>
> Ok I have
> homework but I will say I have never been a proponent of a playoff but
> after
> this jobbing I am leaning heavily in that direction.  Phil
>
> First thing you've said that made sense.  A playoff system would be best
> but in the status quo, you play the hand you are dealt and the BCS got it as
> right as it could this year.  GO GATORS!
>
> frank
>
> _______________________________________________
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20061204/239351b4/attachment.htm 



More information about the Mailman mailing list