USC vs. OSU, 1/8/07

So by now I realize that it's time to come to terms with the inevitable: USC is going to the National Championship Game to take their shot against OSU. Whatever. As I ease out of my spirited campaign for the Rematch of the Century, I have little left to me, except to state the several reasons I wish it weren't so. Without further ado - the reasons.

First, foremost, and obviously - I want My Team to get a trip to the National Championship Game. I'm graduating in a month, but not leaving town (for the real world) yet, so this would be a perfect opportunity for me to follow my team to a BCS NCG. Really, the only opportunity of its kind. I'm not gonna lie, and pretend that this isn't the biggest reason for my wish. It is. It's there, but it's not alone. In fact, it is related and leads logically to the second reason -

I think Michigan is as good as (verily, better than) Ohio State. I don't want to take a trip to Arizona to watch my team lose one of the biggest games of my life, and I certainly don't want Michigan to get a second chance at Ohio frickin' State and lose again. By some definitions, that would make this the worst season in Michigan Football history, which sounds like a bad plan. If Michigan couldn't beat the Buckeyes, I would be all for a trip to the Rose Bowl and a Boise State matchup to make Michigan look good and make minor conference upstarts look awful. But I think Michigan can beat the Buckeyes, and I think they can do it on the field they'll play the NC Game on. I would absolutely put money on Michigan in the NC Game, if the option made itself available, because I really believe that Michigan would win.

And that's pretty much the same as the third reason - I would hate to see this season end with an OSU rout of USC, followed closely by declarations that Ohio State might be "the best College Football team ever." It's bad enough that Ohio State came away with a very slim victory two weekends ago, and analysts all over the country have ignored the closeness and circumstances of The Game to come to the conclusion that Ohio State is undeniably better than any other team in the country. Ohio State proved that they could beat Michigan at home. What if Michigan won by 3 in Ann Arbor sometime this month in a hypothetical game that you will dismiss as a ludicrous conceit? Such a Michigan victory would throw this whole Ohio State supremacy into question, but does it seem that unlikely? I say no. How tragic would it be for Michigan if history praised these Buckeyes, while forgetting an equally good/better Michigan team? Unbearably tragic.

Another reason is purely my enjoyment of Bowl Season this year. USC-OSU is a great, Pac-10/Big Ten matchup that might be entertaining, and might be lopsided because USC is not really very good. But what else will be worth watching? Who will Michigan face in the Rose Bowl? Notre Dame? No thanks. Boise State? Please, no - if Michigan wanted to play a high school team, they could call up East Grand Rapids and schedule a scrimmage on Pioneer's field. Rutgers/Louisville/any ACC team? Maybe for comedic value. I find that most of the surefire BCS teams so far aren't really very good.

The teams I would like to see Michigan play probably can't come; Florida will either beat Arkansas and be unavailable, or lose and be a 2-loss team. I wouldn't mind revenge against Nebraska (for 1997 plus the Bullshit... I mean Alamo... Bowl) or USC (for the only Rose Bowl I have seen in person... ouch.), but the Trojans are obviously predisposed, and if Nebraska makes it out of the Big XII, they're locked into the Fiesta Bowl. LSU might get an invite, but I don't believe in 2-loss teams, especially when they play games as stupid and ugly as whatever you call that game against Arkansas.

And now, some things I don't like, but instead dislike.

I hate "What have you done for me lately?". I hate watching the polls every year and knowing that the voters will somehow vote just as though they've forgotten what happened a few weeks prior. I hate USC losing a month ago and taking Michigan's place because Michigan lost a week ago. And I hate, hate, hate poll inertia that keeps teams like USC on top all year, because voters appear to have no individual minds. In short, I hate everything that has helped USC to reach #2 in all the polls. But I don't hate them for this reason; I hate them on principle. Seeing the same things I hated to begin with come and bite My Team... it's almost too much.

One more thing I hate: USC. I hate Pete Carroll and his smarmy press conferences. I hate USC's 30-plus-game home winning streak that exists because USC plays Pac-10 teams and beats them all at home because they're not that good. I hate teams that lose to lousy teams but go to the National Championship Game anyway, especially if there are better-qualified teams who could go instead. I hate all of USC's smug players who keep talking about what they deserve and what they've earned, when both of those things equate to nothing.

And now, my case for Michigan's inclusion.

What is the whole point of the BCS? Is it to match the #1 team in the country against the #2 team in the country? Or is it to create some matchup that might or might not have been impossible before the BCS existed, which satisfies various coaching and media personnel? I ask because I had heard a rumor that the former was the answer, but as far as I can tell, the latter is the case.

There is a nationwide conversation brewing about the BCS standings and the #1 vs. #2 matchup that they will produce. Everywhere in the College Football Universe, fans, commentators, and analysts are discussing who ought to go to the National Championship Game. Almost none of them are debating which team is better. It's clear which team is better. Michigan won 11 games and lost to Ohio State, perhaps one of the best teams of all time (ha, ha?). USC has won 10 games and lost to Oregon State, perhaps one of the 50 best teams in NCAA Division I-A this season. Teams are defined by their losses, and great teams do not lose to lousy teams.

If everyone who filled out a ballot that will have some bearing on the final BCS standings decided to honestly follow the instruction, "rank these teams in order, from best to worst," Michigan should be a near-consensus #2.

I think that's enough.

If you don't agree with my second paragraph, you'll probably disagree with most of this post. Fine. I understand your motivation and I respect, at least, your right to feel the way you do. If you care to try and explain the way you feel in the comments section, go for it. My request is that you refrain from the use of the argument "Michigan had their chance," since USC, Florida, Oklahoma, LSU, Arkansas, Texas, and others had their chance to remain undefeated this season, and they all passed. My demand is that you never mention Boise State as a serious National Championship contender in this century.

Knights Lose!

Just a short, snarky post to crow about another Big East result that I could have predicted. Rutgers took a beating in Cincinnati this weekend - not really the mark of a National Championship contender.

Rutgers is alright; they have done a good job of playing consistently all year, and they even got up bigtime for a very important Louisville game. They deserve a good bowl game, their coach probably deserves CotY, and the program deserves some good recruiting classes and some good non-conference games.

But these Big East teams are not top-tier yet. I hate the Big XII and Pac-10 for building up bad teams by providing bad conference opposition year in and year out, but the Big East is in a class of its own this year. The class of the Big East has mostly beaten up on the bottom of the Big East, but I just can't convince myself that any of the top Big East teams could hang with the Top 3 of any other conference (even the aforementioned conferences, in which I don't really believe).

I called Louisville over West Virginia because I knew West Virginia ran over teams that didn't play defense; I called Rutgers over Louisville for very similar reasons; I called West Virginia over Rutgers even before the Cincinnati game because I don't think Rutgers is that good, and I don't think they could put together another game as solid as the game against Louisville, especially not on the road.

Everything that rings true about the Big East teams rings double- or triple-true about Boise State. Don't pretend that failing to lose all season makes a team worthy of playing for the National Championship. My high school's football team used to go undefeated all season. Can they get millions of dollars and get crushed by Ohio State in Arizona in January?

No?

Then leave the Big East and Boise State out of this discussion.

UM 39, OS 42

Yes, the heading of this post says "OS" rather than "OSU." This may be an overstatement of my point, but by "OS," I meant "Ohio Stadium." I obviously don't want to suggest that the field was OSU's whole team - Michigan certainly didn't give up all 42 points to grass - but I will not back down from considering the playing surface a kind of "12th Man" for OSU.

"But both teams had to play on the same surface," you might say. Maybe, but Ohio State provided it. Possibly relevant to this discussion is the fact that Ohio State did not seem to have as much trouble with footing as Michigan did. I will readily admit that bias sometimes colors one's perception of a game - I noticed a few penalties that I certainly think could have been called on OSU, but I wouldn't doubt that I ignored the same number of uncalled Michigan penalties - but I am firmly convinced that there were many more footing problems for Michigan than for OSU.

"But that's called Home Field Advantage," you might say. Bullshit, I might say. Home Field Advantage means you get to sleep in your beds (or at least your normal pre-game beds somewhere off campus), you get to eat where you are used to eating, you get to hear the crowd cheering for you and cheering against your opponent and drowning out Chad Henne's audibles. It doesn't mean you are supposed to be more accustomed to the playing surface, which is radically different from any other field in the conference. The game of football is what is supposed to be consistent regardless of where the game is played. Maybe it never has been perfectly consistent, but in the year 2006, it should be closer than this.

To illustrate: if a football team were hosting another football team and the playing surface of their stadium turned out to be covered with an actual ice rink, and the home team was wearing some sort of ice-skate shoes, or the home team was obviously accustomed to walking on ice, we would consider that almost criminal. I submit that the Ohio Stadium "turf" was only a couple steps from that extreme level of sinful inequality. I really believe that, while Ohio State was playing football, Michigan was playing a different game, entitled, "Figure Out How to Play Football on This Field."

What all this leads to, as you might have guessed, is that I don't think a rematch for the National Championship is unreasonable anymore. If I were a fan of any other program, I would probably complain about Michigan's instant shot at redemption; if I were a fan of OSU, I would certainly not want to play Michigan again, on a field on which both teams had the same opportunity to practice. But I flatter myself and suppose that cold, hard logic favors my position, even without the benefit of my pro-Michigan bias. Michigan is certainly the only one-loss team in the country with so great an excuse for their loss, and Michigan definitely looked good enough on Saturday to beat the consensus #1-ranked team on a neutral field, which has been hard to say about the other contenders at certain points throughout the season. I know it's self-serving, but if the BCS ends up with Michigan in the 2-spot, I would not think it was incorrect.

I'm bad at this process, but I'll try to add more thoughts later, on the likelihood of Michigan's BCS
Championship Game inclusion, and anything else that intrigues me. For instance, the BCS intrigues me somewhat... I'm not sure how Michigan is still so far above USC, given USC's lead in both polls. I thought two was more than one. But I do hate USC, and they've been overrated all year, so I don't mind.

Anyway, time for work.

Knights Win!

It hurts sometimes, being so right.

Finally, the Big East team I will admit into the Top 5 (perhaps even the Top 4) has arrived.

A good game, and a great win. Congratulations, Rutgers - now get some rest and do it again to West Virginia.

Maybe more on this later. At this point, I regret the fact that I've let a week go by without posting my full thoughts on WVU-UL last Thursday. But I'd like to claim that my thoughts are great, since I was evidently one of the few people who analyzed that game well.

Long Live the Big East!

So, the Big East and I might have our differences in terms of whether we think the conference is legitimate and its top teams play against real competition, but I've found something I really agree on, as much as it surprises me.

Thursday Night Football. Now, I certainly might hate it if this were practiced in/at Michigan, but my hat is tipped to the Big East for starting the last two weekends of College Football two days early and with two big games. Great job, schedulemakers - I'm not sure how you picked Louisville vs. Rutgers (unless one assumes that there are only three real teams in the Big East) for this big matchup of the week, but you're gonna get me to waste time on Thursday night watching football, and I'm glad.

By the way, my prediction is that stupid drive-killing penalties will fill in the chinks in Rutgers' D (since UL's offense is actually really potent when they're not committing personal fouls), and Rutgers will play solid fundamental ball (don't count on 7 fumbles) to limit UL's opportunities to score easily on defense and special teams. Oh - and whoever is expecting Louisville's potent defense to stymie this Rice guy is obviously guilty of that crime that annoys me so - they didn't watch last week's game. No way UL will tackle Rice in the backfield all night, he'll go for a buck-fifty, if not the whole Jefferson.

Rutgers 28, Louisville 10

$18.5 Million For That?

I depart from my normal topics because this just shocks me so much when it hits my eyes: Larry Brown just got paid, I believe, $9 Million for "coaching" the Knicks for one year (plus $7 Million for not coaching the Pistons that year or any following), and then $18.5 Million for agreeing to, I believe the Knicks' exact wording was, "please, please not coach the Knicks anymore."

I can't believe this guy is making such a mint by being spiky, stubborn, and dishonest. And bad at his job.

Somehow, Allen Iverson (the guy who "said 'practice' more times than he's actually practiced") turns out to be the better role model out of this duo.

We Just Can't Get No Respect

Right now I have a great big complaint with espn.com, which is one of the only sites I check regularly for news and opinions about sports (i.e., about College Football, this month). Maybe that's a bad plan, but I think it's mostly because espn.com is just way prettier than the other sites I've looked at. Could be the writers, but I doubt it.

Anyway, my complaint right now is that espn.com's columnists have nearly all turned into, of all things, Big East apologists. Even better, today there's a Big Ten-bashing column. I guess all this makes sense, since there's nothing creative about suggesting that the Big Ten is better than the Big East. I take issue, however, with the writers who don't seem to have watched the games they use as evidence. Michigan is lousy because they let Ball State get close. Louisville is great because they beat West Virginia at all. Who cares whether Michigan was playing first or third stringers? Who cares that Louisville benefitted greatly from five turnovers, mostly unforced?

Scoreboards matter only so far as you have to knock teams down from the upper eschelon if they can't finish a game, and actually lose. Beyond that, you need to watch a game to judge the quality of a win - the scoreboard does not tell the whole story.

And here's a good line - "So, hats off to Michigan, but Notre Dame hasn't been that sloppy since, and Manningham isn't certain to regain the form this season that made him a star that day." Since when does it hurt Michigan that Notre Dame has played well all season, after they dominated Notre Dame on both sides of the ball? All of a sudden, Notre Dame's play was "sloppy," not "greatly affected by the constant pressure on Quinn and the fact that there was no space to run." I'll grant that Super Mario was involved in a lot of the Wolverines' points that day, but I daresay we could have gotten most of them through other avenues, although it might have taken a little longer. Plus, since when do we downplay teams because we're projecting that players will pull up lame?

Oh - and my biggest complaint with the Big East boosters was actually this - every article I see that downplays the schedule and wins of Big Ten and SEC teams conveniently omits the parallel coverage of the Big East teams they claim are comparable. Prior to last Thursday, it was a joke to compare the top tier of the Big East to the rest of the BCS Top 10, in terms of teams they had played. Fortunately, all the writers who were pretending to, didn't. They just suggested that maybe the Big Ten and SEC weren't that good, and then neglected the fact that WVU and Louisville had both played nobody. (In fact, I still submit that it's possible that Louisville hasn't played anybody.)

Almost Losing to Ball State... NOT!

Recently, I've realized that I have a harder time coming up with my own talking points than responding to the misguided opinions of others, but I have enough built-up annoyance with such opinions that I should be able to craft a post that stands on its own.


First up, a spirited defense of Michigan in the face of this weekend's apparent squeaker over Ball State:
Anyone who has expressed the opinion that Michigan was in danger of being upset this weekend was not watching the game in question. I feel pretty confident about this, not only because the Wolverines were in control of the game throughout, but also because I think it was impossible to watch the game anywhere but in the Big House.
The simple fact is that M dominated the game when their players and game plan were in place. I'll admit that there were two glaring mistakes on the part of the starting offense, which led to exactly 9 Ball State points; however, the ground game was unstoppable (by the Cardinals, anyway), the first-string defense was solid and gave up nothing, except for a two-yard TD run on a play which began with the first-stringers still scrambling into position (I was watching). The same thing almost happened late in the game, when Ball State was threatening inside the Michigan 10 again; fortunately the coaching staff was wise enough to call a timeout to prevent the same stupid result. The first-string defense, given time to take the field, proceeded to stop Ball State on 7 consecutive plays to negate the threat.
Do the unfocused attitude of the team, exemplified mainly by the coaching staff's personnel decisions, and the obnoxiously close final score merit derision for Blue? Sure. Jokes are welcome, especially from fans of any team that hasn't survived a "scare" from a team it should have handled (or lost to a team it should have handled). This result does not, however, reflect at all on Michigan's ability or talent.
As a matter of fact, the word "scare" should be forbidden from all discussions on this topic. I reiterate: at no point did Michigan lose control of the game, nor was there any moment when Ball State had a chance to win. I was present and I was frustrated (because it was obvious what the talking heads who weren't watching the game would say), but I was never scared. The team should be ashamed of its performance, but I'm sure they were never worried in the fourth quarter on Saturday.
The fact is, Saturday's game had nothing to do with the Michigan team that will play OSU this month. Sure, phoning in a game and resting 75% of the starting line is a great way to lose against good teams and give mediocre teams a chance to put more points on the board than they should, but that won't matter in Columbus when the coaching staff does neither of those things. Do not be a fool - do not pretend that Michigan plays just as well when resting most of the first-string because they have been playing football for 10 weeks straight, with two more incredibly important games coming up with no break, as they do when playing all the starters, running all the plays, and examining all the angles.
Sound fair?
(By the way, you're not likely to hear me crow about OSU's "struggle" against Illinois. I didn't watch that game, but I'm willing to bet that the Buckeyes did what they needed to do for a win, which is all they wanted. Michigan had nothing to prove against Ball State, and Ohio State had nothing to prove against Illinois - Missions Accomplished.)

When I have time, I'd certainly love to take some shots at the obnoxious hype surrounding Louisville right now. Most of all, I'd love to slap some writers in the face with logic; coming to mind right now is Mark Schlabach of ESPN.com, who writes a recent column about the lack of respect Louisville is receiving; meanwhile, all of ESPN.com's CFB coverage is teeming with stories celebrating the renaissance of the Big East and Louisville's dominance (omitted: "[dominance] over lousy teams"). Even the AP report concerning the latest BCS standings takes a passive-aggressive swipe at Ohio State and Michigan, suggesting (I can read between the lines - I'm no fool) that Louisville might possibly deserve the #1 ranking in all of College Football. Sure, UL has critics, Mark - but evidently, so do UM and OSU.
So I'd like to develop that argument more fully some time, but it's late and I have to drive a bus early in the morning.

And So It Begins...

This would appear to be my first post on my own blog. We'll see where it goes from there.

Right now the first thing I want to do is pre-date myself by importing some comments I have previously published on Dan Shanoff's Blog. I'm mostly hoping that this will make me look smart (or maybe I think I had something to say on some previous occasions. Something like that).

So the first series of posts might be out of context, will certainly be dated confusingly, and might address a guy who essentially doesn't exist, but there is something in each that I want to preserve.