**Rose Bowl USC v Michigan thread**

[damaniac]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm sure you just "happened" to pick the year that Michigan won the national championship.

[/ QUOTE ]


damn....I went back over Sagarin ratings
Big10 was last in 2001 and 2002 among major conferences. Funny, wasn't that when Ohio State ran the table.

Is the pattern showing yet?

Teams that run the table often come from down conferences. Arguing for two big10 teams this year would be nearly equivalent to arguing for Louisville-West Virginia rematch had they not stubbed their toes later in the year.
Fortunately, the BigEast was strong enough to knock both those teams with another loss, whereas the big10 wasn't strong enough to test Michigan and Ohio State over and over.

[/ QUOTE ]

Speaking of Sagarin, I find it funny you seem to like it so much, but you keep arguing Florida had such a tough schedule compared to Michigan's. Sagarin says Michigan's was harder, and that Michigan is better. Comments?

[srjunkacct]

[ QUOTE ]
no, I happened to pick the last year I thought the big10 really sucked

just check the bowl games:
Rose #1 Michigan 21 #8 Washington St 16
hooray for you Michigan supporters
Sugar: Florida St 31 Ohio St 14
Citrus: Florida 21 Penn St 6
Outback: Georgia 33 Wisconsin 6
Sun: Arizona St 17 Iowa 7
Alamo: Purdue 33 Oklahoma St 20 ([img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] Billy Dicken)
Aloha: Washington 51 Michigan St 23

oh yeah, if you include Pseudo-big10 Notre Dame
Independence: LSU 29 Notre Dame 7

[/ QUOTE ]

Sugar: ACC #1 vs. Big Ten #2
Citrus: SEC #2 vs. Big Ten #3
Outback: SEC #3 vs. Big Ten #4

and so forth.

[wiper]

michigan 38 usc 21

and i agree with everything said about urban meyer. that said, being a michigan fan located in ohio, i wish our coach would've used his airtime a little better. urban (in my biased opinion) embarrassed himself a little with the whining and pointing out that they should go because they won their conference (which, by the way, ISN'T necessary in the bcd)...but, he got the job done.

i wonder how many buckeye fans would've dropped the whole 'win your conference ' argument that i've been hearing for the last few days if THEY would've lost...

either way, let's go out and win the rose bowl. we're overdue in big games..

[Scary_Tiger]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Who cares? The went into the toughest stadium in America, played the #1 team, and played their asses off. As a Michigan fan I am very proud of my team.

On an unrelated note, I don't get all the Carr-bashing. The guy's record in big games (other than OSU recently) is superb and he showed alot of class the last few days, unlike whine-boy Urban Meyer.

[/ QUOTE ]

No way...it's Carr who is the whiner
He targeted Meyer when Meyer has been nothing but consistent with his comments all year.

Meyer has said that he wants a playoff system from the getgo and that winning the SEC title is very impressive in just about every coaches' conference where the question has been asked. I've watched his press conferences all year...nothing but consistency.

It sure beats Lloyd Carr, who talked of not believing in a rematch prior to the Ohio State game. Damn....his tune sure changed.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol

[MyTurn2Raise]

[ QUOTE ]
Speaking of Sagarin, I find it funny you seem to like it so much, but you keep arguing Florida had such a tough schedule compared to Michigan's. Sagarin says Michigan's was harder, and that Michigan is better. Comments?


[/ QUOTE ]


yeah...schedule rankings are inherently flawed
if you drop Florida's game verse Western Carolina, they rise above Michigan in that rating context, too. A brute averaging method sucks for strength of schedule.

The real point I make is losable games
Florida is 2-0 v the top10 compared to Michigan's 0-1
Florida is 5-1 v the top30 compared to Michigan's 3-1

I have been consistent all season and only discussed records verse top teams when discussing schedule strength.
Cannon fodder is cannon fodder no matter what they are ranked. I find it disingenious to compare #96 to #219 since they both should have no shot.

The one improvement I would like to see is record against top50 or top55, as I think there is a distinct difference playing #54 than playing #77.

#46-50 are Iowa, Pitt, Maryland, Oklahoma State, Nevada
#76-80 are Ole Miss, Wyoming, Indiana, Middle Tenn St, NC St

big difference between those level of teams

[damaniac]

Yeah, good answer, I mentioned something to that effect before. Basically that playing #75 isn't much different (for a Top 5 team) from beating #129 so why make a distinction? Although the Top 10/Top 30 things are somewhat arbitrary (beating #11 and #12 isn't that different from beating #9 and #10), not a bad metric. Obviously MOV should come in too (can't believe that would ever hurt a Carr-coached team, but there we have it).

[MyTurn2Raise]

yeah, you're right
I am stunned that MOV hurt Michigan

Ironically, it really is the humans that killed the Wolverines as the rules they instituted about MOV in the computer rankings kept Michigan from being ahead there as well.

[srjunkacct]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Speaking of Sagarin, I find it funny you seem to like it so much, but you keep arguing Florida had such a tough schedule compared to Michigan's. Sagarin says Michigan's was harder, and that Michigan is better. Comments?


[/ QUOTE ]


yeah...schedule rankings are inherently flawed
if you drop Florida's game verse Western Carolina, they rise above Michigan in that rating context, too. A brute averaging method sucks for strength of schedule.

The real point I make is losable games
Florida is 2-0 v the top10 compared to Michigan's 0-1
Florida is 5-1 v the top30 compared to Michigan's 3-1

I have been consistent all season and only discussed records verse top teams when discussing schedule strength.
Cannon fodder is cannon fodder no matter what they are ranked. I find it disingenious to compare #96 to #219 since they both should have no shot.

The one improvement I would like to see is record against top50 or top55, as I think there is a distinct difference playing #54 than playing #77.

#46-50 are Iowa, Pitt, Maryland, Oklahoma State, Nevada
#76-80 are Ole Miss, Wyoming, Indiana, Middle Tenn St, NC St

big difference between those level of teams

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, if you want to toss out cupcakes for Florida and Michigan, you should do the same for every team, as the ratings for Florida and Michigan's opponents may also be flawed. I am not sure who gets the edge here, but I am sure the second-order effect is significant.

[Tron]

[ QUOTE ]
And USC is good b/c why? I don't understand why so many people have so much confidence in a medicore USC team in comparison to the last 3 years. They lost to OSU on the road, they lost to UCLA at home who isn't ranked. They didn't play well in the middle of the year. They stomped ND at home, they stomped Arkansas early in the year. But I doubt they would stomp Arkansas right now in a bowl game.

Face it USC isn't the golden boys of college football this year. They had a LOT of flaws. Michigan has it's own share of flaws, but the only flawful games they've put up all year are against Ball State and tOSU. One which they won and another they lost by 3 points on the road. What has USC done, lost 1 at home to a medicore UCLA team and lost to a mediocre OSU team on the road in which they were getting stomped at half time against.

[/ QUOTE ]\

Wrong.

The reason people think USC is good is because, uhm... They are good. They're obviously not great, but they're also obviously capable of great play. See the 4th quarter of Oregon State, Notre Dame, etc.

If USC decides to play, which they've done several times this season (and, of course, they've chosen not to do several times this season), they stand a VERY good chance of beating Michigan.

[capone0]

Sorry they played at the Rose Bowl. There was a sea of Red at the game. Effectively it was slightly UCLA partial but not really.