Gentlemen, Start Your Boilerplate Columns: BCS Standings Released

Comparable scores is the most idiotic way to determine if one team is better than another. There are too many factors involved. Maybe one team pulled starters and the other didn't. Maybe one team had an injured player in one game, but not the other. Maybe one team had more to play for in one game than the other. It's just idiotic.

 

Michigan had the No.1 defense in the country. Take a look at the NFL rosters. Most of those players from '97 including Charles Woodson and four linebackers are still playing. Nebraska vs. Michigan would have been an epic game. Smashmouth football.

 

That would have been an amazing game.

 

My theory is they don't give a rats ass about the players, but will grasp at anything to keep the power structure (and money) where it is. They know a playoff would generate just as much money (if not more), but it wouldn't be consolidated in the little bastions of power that currently have control. These same bastions politically control the NCAA.

 

If Auburn or LSU runs the table they will move into the top 2 regardless of teams above them losing.

Boise State/TCU/Utah are screwed unless all the major conference teams lose a game.

 

If Auburn or LSU runs the table, they will be No. 1 in the country without question no matter what Oklahoma or Oregon do.

But both play each other this weekend. Both still have to play Alabama and the play in the SEC championship game (granted the SEC East blows this year, but still)

 

No, it is not. It is a very valid point and YOU know it. You'd have more crediblity, Zag, if you could occasionally acknowledge when someone makes a valid counterargument.

I have no idea who would've won a Nebraska/Michigan game that year, but silly assertions that Nebraska would've "destroyed" and "shitstomped" Michigan by some enormous margin are entirely baseless. And the fact Michigan fared far better against their common opponents certainly helps refute that notion. At the very least, they were close.

 

Particularly when you are trying to use comparable scores from ONE GAME like a certain genius around here is. ONE COMMON OPPONENT, that's what your entire argument rests on. That's idiotic - especially since it is a rivalry game for Nebraska and on the road and it was an early season non-conference game for Michigan. And if you don't know the difference then you don't understand college football.

It is a 12 or 13 game season and the whole season tells the story.

Nebraska was at least 14 points better than Michigan.

 

And let me add this - neither of those two teams were the best team in the country, Florida State was and had they not shit the bed in the final minute against Florida in the Swamp they'd have won the national title unanimously.

And they were good enough to beat an all star team of Michigan and Nebraska - combined.

Oh, and how do I know this?

Well Michigan played Ohio State at the end of that year and needed two miracle plays by Charles Woodson to hold on for dear life to a six-point win and then that same Ohio State team went down to the Sugar Bowl and got their asses stomped into the turf by Florida State and we all know, comparing one game is good enough!!!!

 

No it was one.

They both beat the shit out of Baylor, which is what good teams should do.

Your entire argument rests on the Colorado games, which is why you have no arguments at all.

Nebraska's strength of schedule was better, they were better in just about every statistical category and they had more wins over top opponents.

Those are facts, genius, but keep telling yourself, genius, that, genius, the ONE GAME means something, genius.

 

I guess it makes some sense since he has so much trouble keeping up with the facts other people throw at him. Kind of like a kid with a learning disability covering up his inabilty to spell with sloppy handwriting.