USC kills Notre Dame

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Gander

Bring the Rose Bowl matchip to Ann Arbor, MI yesterday and the game is completely different

Spoken like a true Big Ten fan. Its exactly why I root for teams like Michigan, Penn State and Ohio State to lose. Big Ten fans cant admit their team was inferior in every way. They use the excuse of where the game was played, as if that accounted for the huge difference in yards gained and points gained.
Stick to your music, you would never be a good sports analysist. Too much of a bias. Instead of giving the other team credit, you bring up the fact that they lost to UCLA 4 weeks ago. What does that have anything to do with them pounding on Michigan?

By the way, everybody acts like this was an upset. Check out the spread that was anywhere between 1 and 2.5 points (michigan favored) depending on where you bet. Thats not that much respect for a team who only lost by 3points to Ohio State against a lowly team like USC, who got beat by a very medicore (at best) UCLA. Seems to me like the spread should have been Michigan by 10, but it was hardly that.

well them losing to UCLA has everything to do with it, when we're talking about their "pounding" of Michigan indicating that they're a better football team. if we're going to use head to head matchups to determine that one team better than another -- then we're right back at having the tough debate as to whether oregon st. is better than USC, aren't we? i've never claimed that USC was "lowly," I just don't think they're a better football team than Michigan. You won't find anyone on any board who has been around me for any of the last five years who recalls me ever being a Big Ten apologist, or an any team apologist for that matter....because I have never been one. This is the first time in my entire life that I've claimed anything like this regarding college football (oh wait, i don't want to be a liar. i did the same thing for florida st. when they had charlie ward and notre dame beat them but i still thought florida state was the better team when i was maybe about 10 years old. wouldn't want to get caught in that fishy situation of you unearthing a witness to that!) -- because I'm not one to go blindly to bat for a team just because of their conference or where I live. It's a battle I've chosen specifically because they're not a better team than Michigan.

You can point to any number of results like that -- teams win games when they are not the better team all the time. From your point of view, I'd imagine you're apalled and calling for an NFL playoff overhaul because they Cleveland Browns didn't get in. Heck, they beat both Kansas City and the New York Jets and both of those teams get to be in the playoffs.

Makes sense right? Of course it doesn't -- just because the Browns beat both of those teams doesn't mean they are a better football team.

Those are the kinds of claims you end up making when you just say "well USC pounded Michigan, so they're a better team." Of course they just pounded Michigan, so what? **** happens. It doesn't make them a better football team just because they won.

[dr. fager]

I don't know what the battle is really about here, as a Michigan fan I was pretty disgusted outplayed and outcoached. Why it took them 2 1/2 quarters to put Henne in the shotgun blows my mind. USC had a great game plan they stopped the run.....and that was that.

and Gander please....Big Ten fans are no worse than Red Sox fans.....

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by dr. fager

I don't know what the battle is really about here, as a Michigan fan I was pretty disgusted outplayed and outcoached. Why it took them 2 1/2 quarters to put Henne in the shotgun blows my mind. USC had a great game plan they stopped the run.....and that was that.

and Gander please....Big Ten fans are no worse than Red Sox fans.....

the battle is that having one terrible game doesn't make a team necessarily worse than another, that's all.

[Gander]

If the game was closer I would tend to agree and throw it out. But it wasnt.
Michigan got crushed and it was more than just where they played the game.
We could argue all day who the better team is, truth be told, better is a very oblivious word. I personally dont care, have no strong liking for either school, just a pretty big anti fan of Big Ten teams, not as strong as my hatred for the Yankees, but I root against them nonetheless.

I agree about Red Sox fans, they can be pretty obnoxious too. I love them but I am more in love with the sport than I am with the Red Sox and tend to be pretty non bias when I speak of baseball.

[dr. fager]

Originally Posted by Gander

I agree about Red Sox fans, they can be pretty obnoxious too. I love them but I am more in love with the sport than I am with the Red Sox and tend to be pretty non bias when I speak of baseball.

Oh, I been around long enough...I know you are. Just a friendly jab.

UM didn't play their best game, but I also won't make excuses for them.

Does the big ten hatred stem more from b-ball...I know you're not a huge cfb fan. just curious.

[Gander]

You are right, I am much more a college hoops fan than I am a college football fan. I would say yes, I find the football fans to be much more obnoxious. With basketball, seems like their are more true fans with realistic non bias judgement.

Myself, I root for the Florida Gators, mostly because of Billy Donovan. Since he took over, they are the team I follow and watch.

[Cajungator26]

Originally Posted by Gander

You are right, I am much more a college hoops fan than I am a college football fan. I would say yes, I find the football fans to be much more obnoxious. With basketball, seems like their are more true fans with realistic non bias judgement.

Myself, I root for the Florida Gators, mostly because of Billy Donovan. Since he took over, they are the team I follow and watch.

I just met him, Gander... I'm setting up a seminar with him at my job right now with him as the speaker. He's a nice guy... GO GATORS!

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Gander

If the game was closer I would tend to agree and throw it out. But it wasnt.
Michigan got crushed and it was more than just where they played the game.
We could argue all day who the better team is, truth be told, better is a very oblivious word. I personally dont care, have no strong liking for either school, just a pretty big anti fan of Big Ten teams, not as strong as my hatred for the Yankees, but I root against them nonetheless.

Just for the sake of airing it out, since you mentioned that you don't have a strong liking for either team -- I don't have any longstanding commitment to any team in America in college football. I used to love Florida State -- and have only paid attention to college football the last few years because of living in Oregon and now in Ann Arbor -- the atmosphere dictated that I pay attention to it. I really couldn't care less about UM, but I think it's insane that they're getting dogged the way they are because they played ONE really terrible game...a game that I don't think determined who was the better team one bit.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

I really couldn't care less about UM, but I think it's insane that they're getting dogged the way they are because they played ONE really terrible game...

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

Nowadays anytime someone is defeated, sports team, athlete, horse you name it. There seems to be an excuse.

I'm going to compare it to horse racing. I find it insane that there are people out there who were ready to crown Bernardini not only 3yo of the year, but Horse of the Year if he won the BCC. Instead, he gets beat by a LENGTH, and now many of those same people are saying that he should not even be 3YO champion of the year because he didn't beat older horses in the BCC?!

One length should cost him both titles that people were ready to give him?

Likewise, Michigan gets trounced once and everyone jumps ship and starts dogging UM over it.

[Cajungator26]

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

Well whoever is saying he shouldn't be 3 year old champ because he ran second in the Classic is insane and frankly an idiot. My point is, we live in a day and age where excuses are made for everything. Had Michigan trounced USC there would have been a huge outcry that they probably should have been playing Ohio St. for the Nat'l title. And I would have agreed with that. But, fact is they were trounced by USC and to say after the fact that they weren't themselves is just making an excuse because they were soundly defeated. If it were close it would be one thing....but it wasn't.

They weren't themselves...

They really weren't. I hope Ohio State plays just as poor.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

My point is, we live in a day and age where excuses are made for everything.

I'm focusing mainly on two things right now

1.) That everything aside, I believe that Michigan is the second best team in college football, no excuses, no nothing.

2.) On the topic of excuses, the "play the game in Ann Arbor, MI" thing is an excuse -- but it's a very valid one. Look at how Tampa Bay can't beat the Bears in Chicago in December in like 13 tries, even when the Bears are terrible. Would it have changed the outcome? Probably not. Would it have affected the boys from SoCal to be put in Michigan in the middle of winter instead of a home game in socal? Probably. That's a very fair thing to point out.

[Gander]

I was shocked the spread wasnt higher in this game. Thought for sure given the Big Ten's reputation and the fact that Mich barely lost to Ohio State and USC looked pretty mediocre losing to a very so-so UCLA, that the spread would be more like Mich by 7.

I realize where the game was played, but cmmon. Something about that spread screamed "bet USC."

[Cajungator26]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

well them losing to UCLA has everything to do with it, when we're talking about their "pounding" of Michigan indicating that they're a better football team. if we're going to use head to head matchups to determine that one team better than another -- then we're right back at having the tough debate as to whether oregon st. is better than USC, aren't we? i've never claimed that USC was "lowly," I just don't think they're a better football team than Michigan. You won't find anyone on any board who has been around me for any of the last five years who recalls me ever being a Big Ten apologist, or an any team apologist for that matter....because I have never been one. This is the first time in my entire life that I've claimed anything like this regarding college football (oh wait, i don't want to be a liar. i did the same thing for florida st. when they had charlie ward and notre dame beat them but i still thought florida state was the better team when i was maybe about 10 years old. wouldn't want to get caught in that fishy situation of you unearthing a witness to that!) -- because I'm not one to go blindly to bat for a team just because of their conference or where I live. It's a battle I've chosen specifically because they're not a better team than Michigan.

You can point to any number of results like that -- teams win games when they are not the better team all the time. From your point of view, I'd imagine you're apalled and calling for an NFL playoff overhaul because they Cleveland Browns didn't get in. Heck, they beat both Kansas City and the New York Jets and both of those teams get to be in the playoffs.

Makes sense right? Of course it doesn't -- just because the Browns beat both of those teams doesn't mean they are a better football team.

Those are the kinds of claims you end up making when you just say "well USC pounded Michigan." So what? It doesn't make them a better football team.

I agree, Brian...

The truth is... these are humans and humans have off days (much like horses.) When the team isn't playing as a true "team", then they're not going to play their best. It was obvious to me (neutral person) that Michigan did NOT play their best and therefore the Rose Bowl was not a good indication of who is actually the better football team. JMO...