The Thumpin' Continues :-)
 

Wayne Harrison wrote:
"Ken Fortenberry" wrote:
The #1 team in the country should play the #2 team in the
country for the national title. This year that was Ohio State
and Michigan.

somebody told me they played this year, already, and that michigan lost.

Michigan lost a close game on the road to the best team
in the country. Florida lost to Auburn. End of story.
Michigan got reamed.

--
Ken Fortenberry

The Thumpin' Continues :-)
 

Conan The Librarian wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:

Yeah, that win over 1-AA Western Carolina was real impressive.

Yeah, it ranks pretty close to Michigan's stellar outing against
Central Michigan.

Florida lost to Auburn and barely got by South Carolina, Michigan
lost only to Ohio State in a classic matchup. It was a no-brainer.

Well there was Michigan's "impressive" (34-26) win over Ball State.
And their "thumping" of Penn State, 17-10.

Don't forget that powerhouse squad from UCF on Florida's schedule.
The computers had both schedules even so all that "SEC is the better
conference" nonsense is just so much redneck crapola.

But the bottom line is how they both fared against my alma mater,
their only common opponent. Michigan beat Vanderbilt 27-7, and Florida
got by them 25-19. So I guess Michigan is deserving afterall.

Damn straight, Chuck.

--
Ken Fortenberry

The Thumpin' Continues :-)
 

Ken Fortenberry wrote:
The #1 team in the country should play the #2 team in the
country for the national title. This year that was Ohio State
and Michigan. Michigan got hosed.

As for the first sentence, you are going to get your wish.

As for the second, every poll & national ranking I can find disagrees
with your assessment. I don't know crap about college football, so I
can't personally disagree either way.

As for the third sentence, I'd allow that while there may have been a
market share consideration, if Michigan got hosed, it was by Ohio State
on 11/18, not by the pundits who declined to give them a second chance.

$.02
Joe F.

The Thumpin' Continues :-)
 

rb608 wrote:
snip
As for the third sentence, I'd allow that while there may have been a
market share consideration, if Michigan got hosed, it was by Ohio State
on 11/18, not by the pundits who declined to give them a second chance.

If Michigan had lost to Ohio State by 3 points in the Horseshoe
on December 2nd instead of November 18th we'd have an Ohio State-
Michigan rematch in the BCS title game.

--
Ken Fortenberry

The Thumpin' Continues :-)
 

On Mon, 04 Dec 2006 16:03:12 GMT, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

rb608 wrote:
snip
As for the third sentence, I'd allow that while there may have been a
market share consideration, if Michigan got hosed, it was by Ohio State
on 11/18, not by the pundits who declined to give them a second chance.

If Michigan had lost to Ohio State by 3 points in the Horseshoe
on December 2nd instead of November 18th we'd have an Ohio State-
Michigan rematch in the BCS title game.

Are you sure? I'm certainly willing to look at the numbers, but I don't
see, at first thought, how the date of the last game for each team would
change this particular situation.

IAC, how come not Boise State and Michigan? They are the only 2 teams
in the top ten of the polls or the BCS that can still say no other team
has bested them.

TC,
R

The Thumpin' Continues :-)
 

Ken Fortenberry wrote:

Conan The Librarian wrote:

But the bottom line is how they both fared against my alma mater,
their only common opponent. Michigan beat Vanderbilt 27-7, and
Florida got by them 25-19. So I guess Michigan is deserving afterall.

Damn straight, Chuck.

Actually, I was using that example to make fun of the whole thing.
Judging teams on records against common opponents is pretty much a joke.
The one thing that matters is head-to-head, and Michigan already lost
head-to-head to (the)OSU.

Someone else deserves a shot at them in the title game.


Chuck Vance (who has no dog in this hunt and actually hopes
Florida loses, but can't justify Michigan getting another shot)

The Thumpin' Continues :-)
 

Conan The Librarian wrote:
(who has no dog in this hunt and actually hopes
Florida loses, but can't justify Michigan getting another shot)

I don't much care either; but I might root for Florida to win just so
the whining will stop. g

Joe F.

The Thumpin' Continues :-)
 

On Mon, 04 Dec 2006 10:47:56 -0600, Conan The Librarian
wrote:

Ken Fortenberry wrote:

Conan The Librarian wrote:

But the bottom line is how they both fared against my alma mater,
their only common opponent. Michigan beat Vanderbilt 27-7, and
Florida got by them 25-19. So I guess Michigan is deserving afterall.

Damn straight, Chuck.

Actually, I was using that example to make fun of the whole thing.
Judging teams on records against common opponents is pretty much a joke.

Um, are you sure it's not Vanderbilt that the joke? Hey, it could be
worse...y'all might have made Duke 1-11 or something...

The one thing that matters is head-to-head, and Michigan already lost
head-to-head to (the)OSU.

Someone else deserves a shot at them in the title game.


Chuck Vance (who has no dog in this hunt and actually hopes
Florida loses,

Um, if you're expecting any packages from Walt, you might want to soak
them in the tub or something...if you're not expecting any, RUN!!!

but can't justify Michigan getting another shot)

TC,
R

The Thumpin' Continues :-)
 

rb608 wrote:

Conan The Librarian wrote:

(who has no dog in this hunt and actually hopes
Florida loses, but can't justify Michigan getting another shot)

I don't much care either; but I might root for Florida to win just so
the whining will stop. g

Well, there is that. :-)

My rationale for rooting against Florida is simply because of their
coach's politicking for the spot in the title game. (Well, that and the
fact that they beat Vandy. ;-)


Chuck Vance

The Thumpin' Continues :-)