Michigan remains #2 in BCS!

[Tasher]

OSU #1 Michigan #2

Oh my.

[PMThor]

Won't last. USC is going to beat ND next week, and then leapfrog them. Basically michigan and USC are in a tie right now, 9 point difference.

michigan not playing is going to hurt them, and USC will take advantage of that.

Won't matter, they will all be victims of tOSU anyway.

[ArmyBengal]

Big USC win tonight makes it a USC vs. Ohio State matchup for the national championship, barring a loss to UCLA... GO BUCKEYES !!!

WHODEY !!!

[PMThor]

Goldangit. Now I see USC having a letdown and losing to UCLA.

I do not want to play michigan again.

Not because I think OSU will lose to them, they won't, but there are other teams that deserve a shot at my Bucks.

[Kazkal]

usc choked first time in how many years? not gonna happen twice in a year if not we can talk rutgers or gators lol

[Kazkal]

USC is 2# suck it.

[Stripes]

USC is 2# suck it.

You and your Pac 10.

[Kazkal]

What's wrong with the pac 10? when it beats eachother up it's a weak division,If the sec does it.it's because its such a good division....

In all seriousness though USC does deserve a shot at it.it hard a harder scheadule + mich blew its chance vs osu.

[derekshank]

Colin Cowherd's one area of expertise is college football. He hates the Big East... but admitted that without USC, the Pac-10 is the Big East. USC is the only truly legitimate team in that conference year in, year out.

No great shame there... because USC is pretty incredible, but most conferences have 2 or 3 teams that might challenge for a national championship in a given year.

[Kazkal]

Quoted from some where else

The Pac 10 has ONE doormat team. The SEC and Big 10 each have three doormats. So, that's two to three automatic wins for the top teams in the SEC and Big 10. ADD the weak nonconference schedule and you have five to six automatic wins for the top teams in the SEC and Big 10. So, that means the SEC and Big 10 basically will have automatically qualify for a bowl based on their weak schedule. Obviously, it makes it real easy for the SEC and Big 10 to have great looking records when you have that type of schedule.

It makes me laugh when I hear the SEC and Big 10 conferences are so tough. That's why they always lose a couple of games. What they fail to mention is that the SEC and Big 10 consistently schedule doormats in their nonconference portion of their schedule. Not only that, each conference always has several weak teams. The Pac 10, on the other hand, is strong top to bottom. There's ONLY one team with under 5 wins in the Pac 10: Stanford. Can the SEC and Big 10 make that same claim?

Of course, the other argument that the SEC and Big 10 pundits like to make is that there's no conference championship game in the Pac 10. The Pac 10 doesn't need one. They already play every team in their own conference. The SEC and Big 10 don't and won't. I mean, seriously, did Wisconsin play Ohio State this year? The answer is NO. At least, Florida did play all the top teams in their conference and only because of the championship game; otherwise, they would've missed out playing Arkansas. However, there are many teams in the SEC that didn't play all the top teams within their conference: Did Tennessee play Auburn this year? Did Arkansas play Georgia? Did LSU play Georgia? Sorry, the argument that the SEC beats each other up doesn't really hold up when the top teams don't play each other.

With that being said I really don't care if USC plays in the NC or not,I just think its more intresting match up then mich vs OSU 2....then again I don't care much for college football outside of the draft.

[bengalboomer7]

Quoted from some where else

The Pac 10 has ONE doormat team. The SEC and Big 10 each have three doormats. So, that's two to three automatic wins for the top teams in the SEC and Big 10. ADD the weak nonconference schedule and you have five to six automatic wins for the top teams in the SEC and Big 10. So, that means the SEC and Big 10 basically will have automatically qualify for a bowl based on their weak schedule. Obviously, it makes it real easy for the SEC and Big 10 to have great looking records when you have that type of schedule.

It makes me laugh when I hear the SEC and Big 10 conferences are so tough. That's why they always lose a couple of games. What they fail to mention is that the SEC and Big 10 consistently schedule doormats in their nonconference portion of their schedule. Not only that, each conference always has several weak teams. The Pac 10, on the other hand, is strong top to bottom. There's ONLY one team with under 5 wins in the Pac 10: Stanford. Can the SEC and Big 10 make that same claim?

Of course, the other argument that the SEC and Big 10 pundits like to make is that there's no conference championship game in the Pac 10. The Pac 10 doesn't need one. They already play every team in their own conference. The SEC and Big 10 don't and won't. I mean, seriously, did Wisconsin play Ohio State this year? The answer is NO. At least, Florida did play all the top teams in their conference and only because of the championship game; otherwise, they would've missed out playing Arkansas. However, there are many teams in the SEC that didn't play all the top teams within their conference: Did Tennessee play Auburn this year? Did Arkansas play Georgia? Did LSU play Georgia? Sorry, the argument that the SEC beats each other up doesn't really hold up when the top teams don't play each other.

With that being said I really don't care if USC plays in the NC or not,I just think its more intresting match up then mich vs OSU 2....then again I don't care much for college football outside of the draft.

Sorry Kaz, all I saw there was BLAH, BLAH, BLAH. Arguing that the Pac-10 is a great conference is unarguable. It sucks.

Here's my question. With all these teams with one loss, justify to me why USC deserves to go over the other one loss teams. This comes down to money, and USC can help college football make the most

[Kazkal]

Not saying it's a great conf I say it's avg.Yup it is all about money thats why bowl system is retarded.they say playoffs won't work which is total BS.

[derekshank]

Here's my question. With all these teams with one loss, justify to me why USC deserves to go over the other one loss teams. This comes down to money, and USC can help college football make the most

I'll give it a shot... more quality wins.

USC victories against ranked teams:

@ #9 Arkansas 50-17

vs. #20 Nebraska 28-10

vs. #18 Cal 23-9

vs. #10 Notre Dame 44-24

Michigan victories over ranked teams:

@ #10 Notre Dame 47-21

vs. # 7 Wisconsin 27-13

To me... the most impressive thing about USC's schedule was how they ended it. They finish the season with 3 big rivals Cal, Notre Dame and UCLA. It's late in the season, so there's not hiding their playbook, no bye weeks and warm-up games in between, just going in there and winning against rival teams.

To me there is a thin margin between these quality of these two teams. But the schedule that USC has played, the integrity with which they finish it, and the fact that Michigan already lost to Ohio State are all good enough reasons to give USC a shot in the championship game (assuming they beat UCLA).

[Stripes]

I honestly don't see how the Champ Game's participants can be decided based on greed when computer formulas are where the rankings are derived.

I'd say valid arguments can be made for USC or Michigan, and many people will be unhappy either way. Personally, I think Michigan is the better team, but I'd rather see USC play the Buckeyes.

As far as the Pac 10 goes, I don't think the quote you provided Kaz was very well constructed as an argument. So what if the Pac 10 only has one team with under five wins? I'm sure you could say the same thing about some less known conferences out there (like the WAC, Sun Belt, or Conference USA - I'm not sure if any of those fit that description, but they very well could). The argument is weak.

Top to bottom, I think the SEC is the best conference, and probably by a pretty sizeable margin. The Big Ten gets #2, and I'll say the Pac 10 is #3.

I don't think the Pac 10 gets enough credit as a strong conference, but at the same time it isn't anything special. It's better than the Big East, Big 12, and ACC.

[bengalboomer7]

Here's my question. With all these teams with one loss, justify to me why USC deserves to go over the other one loss teams. This comes down to money, and USC can help college football make the most

I'll give it a shot... more quality wins.

USC victories against ranked teams:

@ #9 Arkansas 50-17

vs. #20 Nebraska 28-10

vs. #18 Cal 23-9

vs. #10 Notre Dame 44-24

Michigan victories over ranked teams:

@ #10 Notre Dame 47-21

vs. # 7 Wisconsin 27-13

To me... the most impressive thing about USC's schedule was how they ended it. They finish the season with 3 big rivals Cal, Notre Dame and UCLA. It's late in the season, so there's not hiding their playbook, no bye weeks and warm-up games in between, just going in there and winning against rival teams.

To me there is a thin margin between these quality of these two teams. But the schedule that USC has played, the integrity with which they finish it, and the fact that Michigan already lost to Ohio State are all good enough reasons to give USC a shot in the championship game (assuming they beat UCLA).

Not bad, but throw in Florida's(another 1 loss team) schedule and it blows your theory up

[derekshank]

Here's my question. With all these teams with one loss, justify to me why USC deserves to go over the other one loss teams. This comes down to money, and USC can help college football make the most

I'll give it a shot... more quality wins.

USC victories against ranked teams:

@ #9 Arkansas 50-17

vs. #20 Nebraska 28-10

vs. #18 Cal 23-9

vs. #10 Notre Dame 44-24

Michigan victories over ranked teams:

@ #10 Notre Dame 47-21

vs. # 7 Wisconsin 27-13

To me... the most impressive thing about USC's schedule was how they ended it. They finish the season with 3 big rivals Cal, Notre Dame and UCLA. It's late in the season, so there's not hiding their playbook, no bye weeks and warm-up games in between, just going in there and winning against rival teams.

To me there is a thin margin between these quality of these two teams. But the schedule that USC has played, the integrity with which they finish it, and the fact that Michigan already lost to Ohio State are all good enough reasons to give USC a shot in the championship game (assuming they beat UCLA).

Not bad, but throw in Florida's(another 1 loss team) schedule and it blows your theory up

In your opinion I guess. Boise State is undefeated... but no one thinks they deserve to be in the National Championship game.

If Florida manages to beat Arkansas, you'll have a point, but I... and a good majority of the country along with me, have not seen much from Florida to believe they deserve a shot. But as I said, I think the argument will be moot by Saturday night, because I fully expect Arkansas to beat them.

[Kazkal]

Isen't the reason gators are at 4# because all of their games were close? which I think is a retarded way to look at it but as most know this is why bowls are retarded heh

[bengalboomer7]

Here's my question. With all these teams with one loss, justify to me why USC deserves to go over the other one loss teams. This comes down to money, and USC can help college football make the most

I'll give it a shot... more quality wins.

USC victories against ranked teams:

@ #9 Arkansas 50-17

vs. #20 Nebraska 28-10

vs. #18 Cal 23-9

vs. #10 Notre Dame 44-24

Michigan victories over ranked teams:

@ #10 Notre Dame 47-21

vs. # 7 Wisconsin 27-13

To me... the most impressive thing about USC's schedule was how they ended it. They finish the season with 3 big rivals Cal, Notre Dame and UCLA. It's late in the season, so there's not hiding their playbook, no bye weeks and warm-up games in between, just going in there and winning against rival teams.

To me there is a thin margin between these quality of these two teams. But the schedule that USC has played, the integrity with which they finish it, and the fact that Michigan already lost to Ohio State are all good enough reasons to give USC a shot in the championship game (assuming they beat UCLA).

Not bad, but throw in Florida's(another 1 loss team) schedule and it blows your theory up

In your opinion I guess. Boise State is undefeated... but no one thinks they deserve to be in the National Championship game.

If Florida manages to beat Arkansas, you'll have a point, but I... and a good majority of the country along with me, have not seen much from Florida to believe they deserve a shot. But as I said, I think the argument will be moot by Saturday night, because I fully expect Arkansas to beat them.

See, though, you make it sound as if you're basing your argument on style points. Boise St isn't in a BCS conference, so I really don't even consider them. But Florida has the exact same record, they just haven't been as stylish in their W's. All that should matter here is wins and losses

And it isn't my opinion that beat Tennessee, LSU, Florida St, Auburn, and others, it was Florida

I don't like picking my national title contender on style points. We NEED to settle this on the field..

Just look at division 1-AA, they have no porblems with a playoff

[derekshank]

Here's my question. With all these teams with one loss, justify to me why USC deserves to go over the other one loss teams. This comes down to money, and USC can help college football make the most

I'll give it a shot... more quality wins.

USC victories against ranked teams:

@ #9 Arkansas 50-17

vs. #20 Nebraska 28-10

vs. #18 Cal 23-9

vs. #10 Notre Dame 44-24

Michigan victories over ranked teams:

@ #10 Notre Dame 47-21

vs. # 7 Wisconsin 27-13

To me... the most impressive thing about USC's schedule was how they ended it. They finish the season with 3 big rivals Cal, Notre Dame and UCLA. It's late in the season, so there's not hiding their playbook, no bye weeks and warm-up games in between, just going in there and winning against rival teams.

To me there is a thin margin between these quality of these two teams. But the schedule that USC has played, the integrity with which they finish it, and the fact that Michigan already lost to Ohio State are all good enough reasons to give USC a shot in the championship game (assuming they beat UCLA).

Not bad, but throw in Florida's(another 1 loss team) schedule and it blows your theory up

In your opinion I guess. Boise State is undefeated... but no one thinks they deserve to be in the National Championship game.

If Florida manages to beat Arkansas, you'll have a point, but I... and a good majority of the country along with me, have not seen much from Florida to believe they deserve a shot. But as I said, I think the argument will be moot by Saturday night, because I fully expect Arkansas to beat them.

See, though, you make it sound as if you're basing your argument on style points. Boise St isn't in a BCS conference, so I really don't even consider them. But Florida has the exact same record, they just haven't been as stylish in their W's. All that should matter here is wins and losses

And it isn't my opinion that beat Tennessee, LSU, Florida St, Auburn, and others, it was Florida

I don't like picking my national title contender on style points. We NEED to settle this on the field..

Just look at division 1-AA, they have no porblems with a playoff

Florida lost to Auburn by the way.

Anyway... like it or not, if you're going to be a 1-loss team, you do have to worry about style points. Beating Vanderbilt by 6 and S. Carolina by 1 (only winning because the gamecocks missed a late FG) isn't going to leapfrog you over Michigan or USC.

Again... I think you'll have a point if they beat Arkansas. I think Arkansas appears to be a pretty good team, but in the games I've watched by Florida, I've been completely unimpressed. If Florida managed to win all their games with no style, you'd be right. They would deserve a shot as an undefeated team... but they lost to Auburn and are in the 1-loss category. At that point, style matters... and Florida has none.

[bengalboomer7]

Here's my question. With all these teams with one loss, justify to me why USC deserves to go over the other one loss teams. This comes down to money, and USC can help college football make the most

I'll give it a shot... more quality wins.

USC victories against ranked teams:

@ #9 Arkansas 50-17

vs. #20 Nebraska 28-10

vs. #18 Cal 23-9

vs. #10 Notre Dame 44-24

Michigan victories over ranked teams:

@ #10 Notre Dame 47-21

vs. # 7 Wisconsin 27-13

To me... the most impressive thing about USC's schedule was how they ended it. They finish the season with 3 big rivals Cal, Notre Dame and UCLA. It's late in the season, so there's not hiding their playbook, no bye weeks and warm-up games in between, just going in there and winning against rival teams.

To me there is a thin margin between these quality of these two teams. But the schedule that USC has played, the integrity with which they finish it, and the fact that Michigan already lost to Ohio State are all good enough reasons to give USC a shot in the championship game (assuming they beat UCLA).

Not bad, but throw in Florida's(another 1 loss team) schedule and it blows your theory up

In your opinion I guess. Boise State is undefeated... but no one thinks they deserve to be in the National Championship game.

If Florida manages to beat Arkansas, you'll have a point, but I... and a good majority of the country along with me, have not seen much from Florida to believe they deserve a shot. But as I said, I think the argument will be moot by Saturday night, because I fully expect Arkansas to beat them.

See, though, you make it sound as if you're basing your argument on style points. Boise St isn't in a BCS conference, so I really don't even consider them. But Florida has the exact same record, they just haven't been as stylish in their W's. All that should matter here is wins and losses

And it isn't my opinion that beat Tennessee, LSU, Florida St, Auburn, and others, it was Florida

I don't like picking my national title contender on style points. We NEED to settle this on the field..

Just look at division 1-AA, they have no porblems with a playoff

Florida lost to Auburn by the way.

Anyway... like it or not, if you're going to be a 1-loss team, you do have to worry about style points. Beating Vanderbilt by 6 and S. Carolina by 1 (only winning because the gamecocks missed a late FG) isn't going to leapfrog you over Michigan or USC.

Again... I think you'll have a point if they beat Arkansas. I think Arkansas appears to be a pretty good team, but in the games I've watched by Florida, I've been completely unimpressed. If Florida managed to win all their games with no style, you'd be right. They would deserve a shot as an undefeated team... but they lost to Auburn and are in the 1-loss category. At that point, style matters... and Florida has none.

OK then, since both are one loss teams, wouldn't you rather lose to Auburn than Oregon St?

BTW, I think we could go on and on with this

[Kazkal]

Heard timing has to do with it too,that if USC would have loss last week vs Or st that they woulden't be 2# just because it was more recent

[bengalboomer7]

Heard timing has to do with it too,that if USC would have loss last week vs Or st that they woulden't be 2# just because it was more recent

That wouldn't make sense, since Florida lost before USC did, and USC still jumped them after the fact.

IT's so much bulls**t.

[Kazkal]

But Gators diden't hav any outstanding wins.USC crushed the Ark + gave ND a good whoopin.

[bengalboomer7]

But Gators diden't hav any outstanding wins.USC crushed the Ark + gave ND a good whoopin.

Uhh, Tennessee? LSU? those don't count

Just looks at Florida's schedule. I don't think the strength of schedule thing applies either.

This is about two storied programs that can make the NCAA the most money

[derekshank]

I think he meant they didn't beat any ranked teams very decisively (although that LSU victory was pretty impressive).

For me, I have a hard time blaming money here. It's a computer formula, that is more influenced by unaffiliated human polls than anything else. I don't see how college football can be blamed for matching up two storied programs.

I guess for me it's the "Sexy" factor. Florida's offense is probably the worst of any team in the top 10. They have nothing explosive about them. They are a very good defense... but they aren't balanced. USC has a great defense... and they have Jarret and Steve Smith. They are just the sexier pick.

You don't have to like that reason I guess... but it's a good enough reason for most of the country. Florida is not viewed by many as the 2nd best team. Michigan and USC are the only ones in that discussion.