Michigan vs Ohio St: It all comes down to this

[dakota]

As for the the game it was not as close as the final score indicated... the bucks had three turnovers in the second half.. including two completely unforced center snaps that led to 10 michigan points.. the FIRST points all year that Ohio State gave up as a result of turnovers..

and for the reccord the ONLY time the florida-florida state game was between teams 1 and 2 was november 1996. The last team to play in two 1 versus 2 matchups in the regular season was army in 1945.


As for these rivalries...... with your inclusion of miami-fsu as a " bigger " rivalry.. its clear you are a kinda a johnny come lately to these rivalries.. Miami was considered a lightweight independent prior to 79...
while lets see fsu before bowden...
well there was 0-11 in 73...
1-10 in 74
3-8 in 75
then bobby arrives... and they start becoming contenders...
so yes while the 80's marked great times in the history of the programs for florida, florida state and Miami... prior to this period they were hardly, if ever factors on a national stage.

 

[TooColdUlrick]

that's why i put the "rivalry" between FSU and Miami in quotes .

 

[ValleyDJing]

As for the the game it was not as close as the final score indicated... the bucks had three turnovers in the second half.. including two completely unforced center snaps that led to 10 michigan points.. the FIRST points all year that Ohio State gave up as a result of turnovers..

and for the reccord the ONLY time the florida-florida state game was between teams 1 and 2 was november 1996. The last team to play in two 1 versus 2 matchups in the regular season was army in 1945.


As for these rivalries...... with your inclusion of miami-fsu as a " bigger " rivalry.. its clear you are a kinda a johnny come lately to these rivalries.. Miami was considered a lightweight independent prior to 79...
while lets see fsu before bowden...
well there was 0-11 in 73...
1-10 in 74
3-8 in 75
then bobby arrives... and they start becoming contenders...
so yes while the 80's marked great times in the history of the programs for florida, florida state and Miami... prior to this period they were hardly, if ever factors on a national stage.

Well, I am 19, not 50 so that could have something to do with it.

Florida/FSU in November 96 yes, but then they played in the title game in January later that year. While they weren't technically number 1 and 2 in that game (the rankings/Bowl System system was kinda strange back then) the winner got to be number 1 and the loser got to be number 2 so...thats good enough for me. Other than that see my quote about OSU/Michigan playing for national title aspirations being old news and been there done that for FSU/UF. ESPN needs something to hype, made even more apparent seeing as how they didn't drop Michigan at all after losing. Absolute BULLS.HIT! Florida and SC are getting shafted big time, particularly florida seeing as how they play a b.itch of a schedule and lost to a ranked opponent as opposed to SC who lost to...who did they lose to again? Oh yeah, Oregon State. LMAO!

 

[dakota]

Well I am not gonna argue the point anymore .. you will clearly see what you want to see. The whole number 1 versus 2 thing was brought up in the media because, much like fsu/uf only meeting once as number 1 and 2.. this was the first time ohio state/michigan had done so ranked as such... this does not mean that the game was not without national title implications otherwise.. off and on, especially in the 60's and 70's they would play each other with one or both highly ranked and in title contention...
as for your complaints about the new rankings.. if you look closely it is the impartial computer rankings that are giving michigan the margin to be number 2 overall right now.. espn has nothing to do with it.
And oh, I am not 50 either.. I just started going to osu football games by myself when I was 12, either alone or with my 10 or 13 year old sister.
Lastly for the reccord, every team has an equal chance to go undefeated. USC and florida only have themselves to blame.. they did loose games to either unranked or ranked 12th overall. Michigan has a 3 point loss to the number 1 team on that teams home field.. seems like they should still be 2nd...

 

[ValleyDJing]

Well I am not gonna argue the point anymore .. you will clearly see what you want to see. The whole number 1 versus 2 thing was brought up in the media because, much like fsu/uf only meeting once as number 1 and 2.. this was the first time ohio state/michigan had done so ranked as such... this does not mean that the game was not without national title implications otherwise.. off and on, especially in the 60's and 70's they would play each other with one or both highly ranked and in title contention...
as for your complaints about the new rankings.. if you look closely it is the impartial computer rankings that are giving michigan the margin to be number 2 overall right now.. espn has nothing to do with it.
And oh, I am not 50 either.. I just started going to osu football games by myself when I was 12, either alone or with my 10 or 13 year old sister.
Lastly for the reccord, every team has an equal chance to go undefeated. USC and florida only have themselves to blame.. they did loose games to either unranked or ranked 12th overall. Michigan has a 3 point loss to the number 1 team on that teams home field.. seems like they should still be 2nd...

I never accused you of being 50. I was just saying that I wasn't around during the "glory days" of OSU Michigan.

Equal opportunity, bulls.hit! I wish my Gators could play in the cupcake big 10 all season long, instead of facing opponents that were or had been ranked in 8 of their 13 games (yes 8: Tennessee, Alabama, Auburn, LSU, FSU, South Carolina, Arkansas, Georgia). By the way, no I didn't look it up but I'm pretty sure Tennessee, Auburn, LSU, and Arkansas still are. Georgia probably about to jump back in. Alabama was ranked at the time I believe and I also think FSU and SC were ranked at some point during the season, just not when they played or will play Florida. I also wish the refs hadn't made up that phantom tuck rule in the Auburn game, just in time to screw Florida out of an undefeated season.

p.s. Tousche' on the computer ranking deal. But ESPN still pisses me off with their OSU/Michigan+USC lovefest.

 

[dakota]

cupcake big ten?
clearly your argument would be that florida should be ranked over 1 loss michigan.. lets see.
michigan beat #5 ND 47-21 at ND, handing ND its only loss
michigan beat #8 wisconsin 27-13, handing them their only loss
michigan lost to OSU 39-42...
so 2-1 versus teams that are or would be undefeated if not for Michigan...

oh.. and common opponent with florida...?
that would be Vanderbilt
27-7 michigan
25-19 florida
the highest currently ranked team florida has beaten?
#10 LSU
while losing to #12 auburn
and beating #20 tennesee
(using bcs standings)
... the other teams you mention are not rated anymore for a reason.. they just were not that good ( much like Iowa in the big ten)

the reality is that pollsters are simply not impressed by the florida schedule up to this point that includes 1-AA western carolina and central florida

 

[ValleyDJing]

cupcake big ten?
clearly your argument would be that florida should be ranked over 1 loss michigan.. lets see.
michigan beat #5 ND 47-21 at ND, handing ND its only loss
michigan beat #8 wisconsin 27-13, handing them their only loss
michigan lost to OSU 39-42...
so 2-1 versus teams that are or would be undefeated if not for Michigan...

oh.. and common opponent with florida...?
that would be Vanderbilt
27-7 michigan
25-19 florida
the highest currently ranked team florida has beaten?
#10 LSU
while losing to #12 auburn
and beating #20 tennesee
(using bcs standings)
... the other teams you mention are not rated anymore for a reason.. they just were not that good ( much like Iowa in the big ten)

the reality is that pollsters are simply not impressed by the florida schedule up to this point that includes 1-AA western carolina and central florida

Alright, consider who ND and Wisconsin beat to get to number 5 and 8. Fellow cupcakes.

Consider who LSU, Auburn, and Tennessee and others lost to to drop to 10, 12, and 20 or unranked. Fellow powerhouses like Florida and other tough SEC teams.

As for Vanderbilt. You guys played them at home we played them on the road. That has to account for a little bit, plus the fact that we had one star player suspended for that game and another playing on one ankle and a s.hity kicker. I'm not saying you guys didn't have a better win or aren't a powerhouse, I'm just saying Florida deserves more leniency in their loss because their road to 10-1 is alot tougher than michigan's to 11-1. Clearly they didn't get that leniency because after they lost to Auburn, they dropped from 2 to 11. Michigan dropped how far? Oh thats right they didn't. Thats horses.hit and you know it! They don't need to drop to 11. But they can bump em down a few notches to say about 5. Its only fair.

 

[PRMoon]

Michigan has every right to still be ranked second in the BCS even after their sole loss...to the best team in NCAA football...which was also the most watched regular season game since 93'. Michigan has ran the table on EVERYBODY and, with the exception of the OSU game, haven't let anybody have any progress moving the football on the ground or in the air. They dished out some searious defensive and offensive punishment all year long. More then half of their wins were concidered blow outs which is really the main reason the computer factors them as second best. Tough schedule plus blow outs equals high ranking in the BCS. It's actually a little bit more complicated but trust me when I say that despite how people feel about Michigan remaining in the number 2 spot setting up for a potential remach, there really isn't another way to for things to play out as Michigan was and should still be the number 2 team in the country. A tough schedule is a tough schedule no matter what division you're in.