Monday, November 27, 2006

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.

8 Comments:

Blogger Brave Sir Robin said...

Lost in your analysis of the OSU/Mich game is the fact that OSU played a mistake heavy game and still won. Yeah, it was at the Shoe, but it's naive to pretend that Michigan would be the only team that would fix their mistakes in the rematch.

Also, yes, it was a road game for Michigan. Guess what? The game alternates every year. And, under Tressel, it's not like OSU's been getting killed at the Big House. Who knows, using your hypothetical logic, maybe playing at the Big House makes OSU execute better and win even more handidly.

OSU would win the rematch, and even if it didn't, what would that even prove? It wasn't like the Michigan game was early in the season, it was the game right before the NC game. To say one counts more than the other just because it's later is absurd.

9:29 AM  
Blogger john (east lansing, mi) said...

Joe -

Haha, yeah, I got your email.

Settle down, tiger. I can't believe you ran home and did that... how can you take Mark's random claims seriously enough to do the research to refute them? I don't even remember hearing him say that.

Maybe he was thinking of 2 or 3 years ago; I think the Big Ten went 7 for 8 in bowl games or something. I don't think it was so good last year...

And maybe he meant recent history, but I don't even know where he would have been coming from on that - the only things sticking out in my mind are Tennessee whomping on Michigan and Michigan beating Ron Zook (ha, ha).

I don't know why Mark would even argue about a history that he hasn't studied. I would rather just talk about this year, because last season makes Michigan's past look rather sordid.

10:08 AM  
Blogger john (east lansing, mi) said...

oriole - I'm not gonna tell USC they can't play. The BCS will take care of that, and I will deal with it. I just felt like explaining beforehand and longwindedly how I will feel about that.

I do think that USC's loss to an 8-4 team is a pretty dark mark. I was waiting for a really bad loss for USC all season, when they kept pulling it out against a bunch of middling Pac-10 teams. The Washingtons both played them close; I think they had 3 close calls the month before Oregon State, but nobody noticed the trend, and nobody expected them to lose to Oregon State. I thought it was just a matter of time.

I think if Michigan had lost to, say, Minnesota, in addition to OSU, that would have demonstrated that Michigan isn't that great. If you can lose to teams that aren't great, you probably aren't that great yourself. It's just something I can't shake. If USC had lost to only Cal or ND, it's a different story. You can lose to really good teams on bad days and still be great, I think.

bsr -

This year, and in this post of mine, the debate is about which team is better. I say we're not sure. I'll try to go point-for-point.

I think mistakes are part of a game. I think they belong to a team, and without other evidence, we can expect a team to make them again. I'm not the guy crying, "But we had a penalty that we shouldn't have committed!" We did have a penalty that we shouldn't have committed. It was part of our game and we have to own it. You make mistakes or the other team forces them; either way, they are part of the game you played.
The thing that would change about the game is externalities. I doubt that you want to hear it, but I know that the sod they were playing on affected these teams, and I know that some things would go differently with better turf.


I understand rotating home fields; when the debate is about who is Big Ten Champion, that's fair. That championship is not exactly based on a single season, taken all by itself; it's a thing that the two schools are fighting over year in and year out, the Rose Bowl trip used to be based on "who hasn't gone more recently," et cetera. It's fair that OSU got to play at home this year, and it's fair that they're locked into the title game, and I'm sure they'll win, perhaps unless they play Michigan, and that's good for the Big Ten and I'm glad.
Also, these teams are not the same teams that met in Michigan Stadium last year, and don't act like Tressel is the only important factor. The whole BCS is set up so we can crown a champion for this season. If the #2 team is supposed to get a chance to play the #1 team in a championship game, why not let this year's #2 team do so?


Finally, the argument is not that this game counts more because it's later - and you know it. My argument is that this game would count more because it's played at a neutral field. Not neutral in terms of crowd, although it would obviously be much closer to neutral and that might help some. Neutral in that neither team owns the field or plays there all season long. It drives me crazy to think how much the stupid grass had to do with the outcome of many, many plays in The Game, and to wonder how well Michigan could have done if they had been ready for it or had not had to play on such a poorly prepared surface.

I know you hate it, but you can't honestly say it's not fair that the outcome of the second game would count more. If you think you can, you're lying to yourself.

10:36 AM  
Blogger john (east lansing, mi) said...

Back to Joe -

The "had their crack" argument has some measure of merit, but it can't be undeniable unless the game is at home, or neutral, as per your Large Outdoor Beverage Party. For the same reason I think the NC Game would matter more, I think the "crack" in question wasn't definitive. But your argument was written pretty well for an argument of its type. Maybe this will help me enjoy Michigan vs. Boise State in January.

I hate that "won their conference" shit. Cut that out. What a manufactured argument. This isn't the pre-1972 Big Ten. What if ND had lost last week, and USC this week, and Florida lost to Arkansas? Everybody but Louisville and Boise State would have two losses (sorry, Oklahoma, but as Mr. Galea has been known to say, "score enough that the refs don't matter"), but somebody has to win every conference. That's just silly. If we're trying to come up with a Champion in earnest, why let this come into play?

10:48 AM  
Blogger john (east lansing, mi) said...

Louisville or Rutgers playing for a national championship is a joke-ass joke.

That's what I meant when I said everybody in the SEC could have two losses. What if every other team in football demonstrated that it didn't deserve a shot? Losing in the Big East demonstrates that; 2 losses in ANY conference demonstrates that.

(Playing in Boise State's booty-WAC conference demonstrates that.)

8:42 PM  
Blogger john (east lansing, mi) said...

My argument is that there comes a point when you just can't get away with leaving a one-loss team out of the big bowl because it lost its conference.

Say, oh, I dunno, Florida. Gets through Tennessee, Georgia, FSU in a good year, LSU, Auburn, Alabama now that Shula's kid is gone, happened to schedule Michigan in this hypothetical season, and loses to Arkansas in the SEC Championship Game to finish with one loss. Not conference champions. Now let's pretend (yes, this is hypothetical, that's the point) that every team outside the SEC has three or more losses. Hard to even imagine, but parity's rough everywhere.

Now I know you could just distance yourself from this because even though I mentioned Florida, you know this outlandish scenario would take far longer to ever have a shot of occurring than, say, the creation of the Grand Canyon, but just imagine that for one second.

Does that 3-loss (10-win!) Big XII Champ have your #2 vote in the 20006 Final BCS Standings? Or do you punch The Underwater University of Florida's ticket?

If you say send the team that won its conference, ...I don't know what to do.


So as long as we're just haggling over the price, as they say, how can we cling to this idea like it's the rock on which College Football is built?

"Michigan had its chance," I'll grant, belongs in the conversation of this season. But you can take your "Michigan didn't win its conference," and you can shove it.

The assertion that Rutgers could ever belong in the NC Game this year is such nonsense. Ugh.

2:07 AM  
Blogger john (east lansing, mi) said...

Great job.

4:59 PM  
Blogger john (east lansing, mi) said...

Ohhhhhhhhhhh. I gotcha.

11:16 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home