Did Michigan get shafted by Tressel's abstaining from the vote?

We don't feel that a playoff will be beneficial for our student-athletes, since so many games will take them away from their studies. [/college presidents]

 

What makes D-1A football players so special from D-1AA and lower who have a playoff??? (asking as if you were college president who did say that)

 

As Slappy said, Tressel would have had to remove Florida from his ballot in order for the Wolverines to have any shot of playing in the National Championship. I'd bet Tressel had Florida no worse than fourth or fifth on his previous ballots, and to totally remove them would have raised the biggest red flag in the history of polls.

Tressel did the wise thing by abstaining. There's no reason for him to provide bulletin board material for any opponent (now or next year).

And if Michigan wants to be AP No. 1, they need to beat the holy hell out of USC and pray that Florida just squeaks by Ohio State -- a controversial call in Glendale wouldn't hurt either. Michigan could then claim its loss was at Ohio State and not on a neutral field. Not likely, but then again, neither was UCLA's upset on Saturday.

 

One of the radio guys here in Houston did some mathematical tinkering to see how much Tressel's non vote might have counted in the USA Today poll. According to him, FWIW, it would have made something like .09 percent difference.

 

Or he could have done what all the SEC coaches did. They all voted Florida over Michigan.

Tressell could have voted Michigan No. 2 for more than one reason (it gets his conference a bigger bowl payday, of which his university would get a bigger cut then). And we all know college football is about the money.

If he had voted Michigan, it wouldn't be nearly as much bulletin board material for Florida as it will be for Michigan next year in Ann Arbor.

 

Let me lay it out for you GFav, since you are a newbie to the boards. That was a sarcasm line [/sarcasm]. Anytime you see [/xxxxx], it's sarcastic or taking a shot at someone. My shot was directed towards the D-1 college presidents who have been adamant in not having a playoff in Division I football. Their excuse is the time that each football player would be away from the classroom if they not only play in a bowl game, but a 4 or 8 team playoff after the bowls. Clearly, the presidents love the bowl money and would rather not have a playoff.

The argument against them is that if you look on how much time basketball players, baseball and softball players miss classtime, they (the presidents) look fucking stupid with that cop-out. I went to a D-3 school and I like the playoff format. It works for D-3, D-2, D-1AA, and NAIA.

You'll learn more about the sarcasm fonts and the shots we take on those we hate. Hang in there newbie and go fetch Freelance a donut and coffee. He's hungry.

 

I knew you were being sarcastic that's why I asked a sarcastic question. I too went to a D3 school and was involved with the football team so I know about the playoff system for D3(my school went to the playoffs 5 out of the first 6 years of existence). I still believe you can get a playoff in the D1 with still using the BCS and have the bowl games. the key is getting rid of all the bye weeks that are in a football schedule. 1 bye week is enough. Freelance, Krispy Kreame donut and coffee?

 

Here's the coaches' poll...
WTF is Howard Schnelleberger doing voting LSU 15th? Phillip Fulmer had ND seventh; Dennis Franchione and Gregg Brandon had Auburn fifth.
At least the coaches put either Michigan/Florida second/third...
Reason enough not to take the Harris Poll or it's voters seriously...

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/graphics/coaches_fb_poll_2006/flash.htm

 

Gotta love Tommy Bowden voting his Tigers 25th and leaving USC off the ballot.

 

Just clicked on that -- he's got USC at No. 7.

 

Looks to me like Tommy voted USC 7th.

 

USC as in Trojans? Because he has them ranked No. 7. Or do you mean South Carolina?