U of M thread (in the Lions Forum) :)

[SeattleLionsFan]

Lol.

[Masspartan]

Michigan had a great year. Their fans should be happy. They should be able to handle VT quite handily as well.

Is beating VT in the sugar bowl more impressive than beating other teams in "lessor" bowls just because it's the sugar bowl?

I think it's kinda clear that if it isn't the rose bowl (symbolic big ten winner game) or for the NCAA championship there really isn't that much difference if you facing another top 25 team.

Spartans > Wolverines
Bulldogs > Hokies
Outback Bowl > Sugar Bowl (cept the payouts)

at least this year.

by the way the Spartans did not miss out on any money, nor did any other Big 10 team since all bowl payouts are divided equally amongst the entire conference.

[Masspartan]

Too bad Froot can't. It stings him so bad that Michigan is going to the sugar bowl its making him cRaZeEeEeE

hey ... I knew it was going to happen before the game was played. Could really care less about whether it was U-M or MSU that went to the BCS game ... it's obvious that the teams selected to play in those games were NOT selected based on performance. It makes no difference financially to MSU either way.

State has the tougher game against the better opponent regardless in my opinion.

Froot is DEAD ON POINT regarding the BCS. It won't change a lick anytime soon.

I'm all for a playoff system and not because I think it benefits State ... I think it would be GREAT for college football AND it would be financial success.

Of course I don't believe that a championship whould be awarded to the best team on paper ... it should be won on the field.

For those of you who say the regular season means something now and serves as the 'playoffs' ... bullshit. How can you differentiate between all the 1 loss teams. They all lost a game, so why does Bama get in while OSU, Stanford, Boise and shit even Houston get left out. They all accomplished the exact same thing ... you can't claim that OSU blew their chance by losing to ISU on one hand and then ignore the fact that apparently Alabama didn't blow their chance when they lost to LSU.

With the current system ... their is only 1 interesting game with any real meaning (though I won't be watching) and a bunch of meaningless exhibitions.

Compare that to a 16 team playoff where EVERY game has major implications and try to tell me it wouldn't be riveting.

Does it mean the regular season becomes irrelevant? SHIT no it doesn't ... since you have to play your way into the tourney. The regular season would actually become more important ... since 1 loss wouldn't automatically preclude you from having a chance via a popularity contest.

By the way .... there is NO doubt in my mind that the best two teams are playing in the Championship game. But I don't give a crap. Just because most people and I think Bama is the best team doesn't necessarily mean they should automatically be given a free pass to the finals.

[Masspartan]

Still, let?s be clear and candid. If Oklahoma State were named ?Ohio State,? ?Michigan,? ?USC,? ?Florida? or ?Oklahoma? it would be making travel plans for New Orleans

sad, but true.

I can't believe a team who finished 7th in the final BCS standings was rewarded the MAACO bowl against a 6-6 Arizona State team that fired it's coach. Laughable. What fucking good are the BCS standing exactly? The BCS should be forced to pull thier teams from the top 8 ranked teams ... period.

[Masspartan]

Huh? In 1983, Michigan went to the Sugar Bowl with a 9-2 recorrd that included a 10 point loss to 7-5 Illinois.

In 1999, Michigan went to the Orange Bowl with a 9-2 record.

In fact, since 1980, Michigan has played in a BcS Bowl (Rose, Orange, Fiesta or Sugar) in EVERY season in which they had 2 losses or less. EVERY SEASON. Most of those were Rose Bowls, but the point is, a 2-loss season IS a season in which you can end up in a BcS level bowl, especially when the bowls want your team in general.

and yet MSU didn't get a BCS bowl bid with an 11-1 record and Big 10 championship. Pretty much proves froot and Deacon correct. It's simply a popularity contest and old boys club.

[Jamie H]

Spartans > Wolverines
Bulldogs > Hokies
Outback Bowl > Sugar Bowl (cept the payouts)

at least this year.

Huskers > Spartans
Wolverines > Huskers

PARADOX. Guess what? Any one game doesn't totally define a football team or the season they had, or even exactly how good they are.

Michigan, MSU and Nebraska were all pretty much equal. The home team won every game.

And if Michigan rolls VT and MSU loses to Georgia, Michigan will be 11-2 and MSU will be 10-4. Then you can try telling people that MSU at 10-4 had a better season than Michigan at 11-2, just to see how hard you can get them to laugh.

[SeattleLionsFan]

You know MSU isn't even eligible for a BCS game? Three losses in a weak conference will do that.

[Masspartan]

If U-M finishes at 11-2 (they should) and State finishes at 10-4 (wouldn't shock me) then I'll be the first to admit that U-M had a better 'season'.

However, it doesn't change the fact that State is the better team ... as they proved it on the field ... for the last 4 years.

[Masspartan]

You know MSU isn't even eligible for a BCS game? Three losses in a weak conference will do that.

yes, I was aware it was Rose Bowl or Bust and the U-M would benefit by staying at home and not having to face the iron.

I like how you focus on 3 losses .. and not the 10 wins. Pretty lame.

By the way ... how many Big 10 losses did each team have?

[Jamie H]

However, it doesn't change the fact that State is the better team ... as they proved it on the field ... for the last 4 years.

Ok, so by that logic, Nebraska PROVED they were a better team than MSU. And Michiigan PROVED they were a better team than Nebraska.

All 3 of those statements cannot possibly be true. You end up with completely circular logic.

[Jamie H]

yes, I was aware it was Rose Bowl or Bust and the U-M would benefit by staying at home and not having to face the iron.

I like how you focus on 3 losses .. and not the 10 wins. Pretty lame.

By the way ... how many Big 10 losses did each team have?

Wait, so now it is a plus that MSU lost to Notre Dame while Michigan beat them??? Notre Dame doesn't count because they aren't in the Big Ten???

[Jamie H]

and yet MSU didn't get a BCS bowl bid with an 11-1 record and Big 10 championship. Pretty much proves froot and Deacon correct. It's simply a popularity contest and old boys club.

Who has tried to say it was anything else?

[Masspartan]

and by what logic are you going to claim that U-M is better than State Jamie? I'll eagerly be waiting for this one ....

[Jamie H]

Thats true if they still had the game. Someone said go back to the old system. If you got rid of the BCS, then you would probably not have a BCS bowl.

In the old system the Cotton Bowl was a major bowl at prety much the same level of the current BcS bowls. You can't talk about going back to the old system without factoring that in.

[Jamie H]

and by what logic are you going to claim that U-M is better than State Jamie? I'll eagerly be waiting for this one ....

Who said anything about that? But by your "one game means everything" logic, you have to admit that Nebraska is clearly better than MSU right? And you have to admit that Michgian is clearly better than Nebraska right?

So how do you rectify all 3 of those statements? They can't all be correct. It is impossible. And that doesn't even get into the fact that by that logic, Notre Dame is clearly betten than MSU as well.