Hate Mail! Yes!

As those who check in on a weekly basis will know, I write a college football newsletter every week. In it, I include the following: An intro that sums the weekend's games up, the bonehead call of the week, the bonehead play of the week, the game of the week, player of the week, kudos, no kudos, Nebraska game (from a non-biased person's viewpoint), Solich update, Gill update, inside the numbers, rant of the week, and my calculated version of the rankings, all 119 of them (thanks to excel).

I attempt to do things from a non-biased perspective. There is no conference I love more than another. Heck, last year, I felt the ACC and Big Ten had the strongest of the major conferences and this year, it's completely backwards. Of the six major conferences, I believe the Big Ten to be ranked #5 and the ACC at the very bottom. I select the player (or players) of the week based on a player or players making the most difference for their team in a qualified matchup. I typically won't hand out this award to a quarterback who throws for 500 yards against a Division I-AA team. I don't select the game (or games) of the week based on hype. I thought the Michigan and Ohio State game was a pretty good one on Saturday, but do I believe it to have been the best game of the weekend? No, I don't. Since I'm from Nebraska, I give weekly updates on how Ohio head coach Frank Solich and Buffalo head coach Turner Gill are doing with their respective programs. I also give a very non-biased run-down of the Nebraska games. Some points may tick Husker fans off a bit and yet others may make them smile. All-in-all, I attempt to lay things out in a manner very different from most analysts you'll see on television. I'm not going to include Notre Dame into every discussion such as ESPN analyst Lou Holtz. I'm not going to do similar such things with SEC programs such as Craig James, ABC analyst. I try to combine wit, humor, sarcasm, opinion, and facts. I'm not a huge fan of any one program and am not a huge "hater," for lack of a better word of any one program.

In the most recent newsletter, which I sent out earlier today, I gave a detailed look at all the one-loss teams (along with Boise State, who is unbeaten) and their resume's in order for people to see the layout and to come to a conclusion on who is the most deserving at this point of playing against Ohio State in the national championship game. Following the detailed analysis, I counted down from 10 to 1 on the teams I felt were most deserving of playing in the title game. Since I didn't have Michigan ranked 1 or even 2 on the list, I then listed the top ten reasons why there shouldn't be a rematch between Michigan and Ohio State. In response, I received the following e-mail from a regular reader and an avid Michigan fan. His name will remain anonymous. I've known him for quite some time and didn't want to get into it over something this silly, but thought many "points" made in the e-mail deserved some attention. You'll see after you read it. Here is the hate mail! Yes!

" Just my response

There should be a rematch because that was unquestionably the game of the year, the game of the week, and the new game of the century. Games like LSU/Ole Miss that come down to the wire are great, but that game meant nothing and it lived up to the hype because everyone expected LSU to blow out Ole Miss, but LSU like most other SEC teams is overrated. Michigan played from behind all game...thats why it was a good game....They lost schembechler the day before (the bob devaney of Michigan), went into the Shoe and kicked Ohio State's ass for the first quarter, than lost their edge and slowed down. Michigan can put the points up right with Ohio State. No team in the country has a better chance at stoppin ohio state than michigan, and no team in the country can stop michigans running game. Michigan played from behind against the number 1 defense in the nation and still rushed for 160 or so.

The argument about why should Ohio State have to prove something again is completely stupid....why should Texas have to play Nebraska again for the big 12 title....no wait, we will call the game off, texas already beat nebraska so they would beat them every time.....nope, doesnt work like that. To be the best you have to beat the best, sometimes twice, and sometimes on a nuetral field. If the big 10 had a conferance championship game there would be this very same rematch and nobody would say a word about it. If there was a rematch in Glendale the winner wins, loser loses....winner is national champ because they won the game that mattered, all these other games are irrelevant once the championship game is paired up.

The Big ten is actually the best conferance in the land if you look at the top...they have 3 teams in the top 9 i think in the bcs. Penn State and Purdue are both 8-4. I'll admit they arent as good as their records indicate and the rest of the conferance is mediocre at best, but nobody gives a shit about the bottom teams. Is the big 10 bad because their upper teams dont get upset by the bottom teams....(oklahoma state beat Nebraska, Vandy beat Georgia, Cincy beat Rutgers)...did you ever think that maybe the big name teams just werent that good. The Big LEAST sucks.....West Virginia is legit ....Louisville is ok, but Rutgers, come on???? Cincy has 2 wins over teams with winning records (USF, Rutgers), Pitt has 1 (Cincy), USF has 1 (Pitt).....Louisville isnt that impressive....a win over 7-4 Kentucky who barely beat ULM, a win over K-State who doesnt impress me either, and wins over Cincy and WVU....WVU is the only good win they have. Rutgers hasnt beaten shit (USF, Pitt, Navy whose qb broke his leg in the first quarter, and Louisville are their teams with a winning record). West Virginia is the only team in the Big East thats worth a shit and maybe the only team that can score with oohio state besides michigan.

And the argument about the pass interference call is legit, I was suprised they called it to, but there were several other calls that went against Michigan. Mario Manningham was in on the first touchdown of the game and they called him down at the 1, which was no where near correct, Michigan scored anyway but it wasted precious time. Steve Breasten was in on the reverse, and even if he wasnt in, there wasnt conclusive video evidence to overturn the call on the field and it was overturned, michigan scored anyway but once again precious seconds wasted. Shawn Crable clearly hit Smith in the helmet, but the dumbass referee called in a late hit, not roughing the passer (both are 15 yards so it doesnt matter) but it shows the referre's were fuckin morons and could fuck up a wet dream. Adrian Arrington got thrown down by his facemask late in the game, I beleive a couple of plays before the mysterious pass interference call....and it was left a no call.

The argument of the poeple have spoken is irrelevant because the votes came from states like Arkansas, Florida, California, etc...the heavily populated states happen that hold the one loss teams, no shit they dont wanna see their team left out. Who cares what the people want, the BCS has never cared before.

Heres why Michigan should play again:

Notre Dame and Arkansas wont even be considered because they lost to two other 1 loss teams, so those two teams are out.

Florida- Michigan would beat Florida by 20 or so with how lack luster Florida is this year. They struggled to beat a poor, very poor South Carolina team, a highly over rated georgia team, and they won by 6 @ Vanderbilt...are you serious....Florida is a joke. In their last 4 games vs d1 opponents they have scored 80 points and given up 76.....how can they be considered a contender, they are averaging a 1 point win over their last 4 games vs d-1 competition. Plus Tim Tebow would be eaten alive by the Michigan front 7 and he is their big play threat I would say, him and that percy whatever.

USC is as useful as a poopy flavored lolly pop. Main reason they should be left out....they lost to UNRANKED OREGON STATE. They beat Washington at home by 6 on a crazy time scenario, they were less than impressive vs Arizona (20-3), Wash State (28-22), and Arizona State (28-21). What has USC done this year besides blow out Arkansas early....nothing. Cal isnt very good either, they lost to Tennessee, Arizona, and USC.

If anybody has a beef right now it should be West Virginia because they lost on the road to Louisville in a tight game....and they have the offense to play against Ohio State. The rest of the 1 loss teams are pretenders....Michigan and West Virginia are contenders."

I'm sorry, but how angry, immature, and ignorant are many of these "points?" He has a right to his opinion just as much as the next person, but give me a break. Am I supposed to believe that these weak arguments are based on his true knowledge and beliefs or based upon his love of Michigan? I'm thinking I believe the latter as oposed to the former. It's funny, because if Michigan won the game, he'd be on the direct opposite side of the argument. He'd be saying exactly what I'm saying right now, that Michigan beat Ohio State and they shouldn't have to play them again. If that happened, I'd be saying the exact same thing, just as I am now.

But, let's peruse over some of these "points" the young man attempts to make throughout the e-mail. Allright, his first comment is utterly ridiculous.

"There should be a rematch because that was unquestionably the game of the year, the game of the week, and the new game of the century."

What? The game of the week? A game where Ohio State was ahead by two scores most of the game? The game of the year? That was better than Oregon/Oklahoma? Texas/Kansas State? Louisville/Rutgers? Tennessee/Florida? Not even close! The game of the new century? Oh, come on. He's trying to tell me that this game was better than last year's title game between Texas and USC? Again, not even close. Being a bit dramatic and exaggerative, aren't we? He then continued.

"Games like LSU/Ole Miss that come down to the wire are great, but that game meant nothing and it lived up to the hype because everyone expected LSU to blow out Ole Miss, but LSU like most other SEC teams is overrated."

LSU, like most other SEC teams, is overrated? Let's browse over this point. I get tired of Craig James since he harps on the SEC being head and shoulders above every other conference, but do you know what? The SEC is the best conference this year. They have: Arkansas (10-1), Florida (10-1), LSU (9-2), Tennessee (8-3), Auburn (10-2), Georgia (7-4), Alabama (6-6), South Carolina (6-5), and Kentucky (7-4). When all is said and done, the SEC will have nine of their twelve teams bowl eligible. Let's compare that to the Big Ten who has: Ohio State (12-0), Michigan (11-1), Wisconsin (11-1), Penn State (8-4), Purdue (8-4), Iowa (6-6), and Minnesota (6-6). When all is said and done, they'll have seven bowl eligible. Wisconsin and Purdue have two of the weakest schedules of major conference teams in the nation. Comparing the SEC to the Big Ten this year is like comparing the Big East to the MAC. Also, that game meant nothing? Every game means something. In baseball, perhaps that's not as much the case since there are 162 games in the season, but in a 12-game regular season, every game is meaningful. If LSU had lost that game, they would've fallen to 8-3 and in a bind with the likes of Tennessee battling it out for a superior bowl game. He continued.

"Michigan played from behind all game...thats why it was a good game....They lost schembechler the day before (the bob devaney of Michigan), went into the Shoe and kicked Ohio State's ass for the first quarter, than lost their edge and slowed down."

Let me check out these numbers and stats here, because I don't recall Michigan ever kicking Ohio State's tail in the game. Let me check this out to make sure I get these numbers right. Allright, that's what I thought. Michigan's only lead of the game was following their first drive when they went 80 yards in seven plays to take a 7-0 lead. That would be their only lead of the game. Ohio State answered right back to tie things up at seven. This all occurred in the first quarter. The score was all even, 7-7, after one quarter of play. So, if he wants to contend that Michigan was beating Ohio State's behind following UM's first drive of the game before OSU even had the ball, then sure, he's right. But if he wants me to believe that Michigan dominated the whole first quarter, I'm going to have to disagree with that. He continued.

"Michigan can put the points up right with Ohio State. No team in the country has a better chance at stoppin ohio state than michigan, and no team in the country can stop michigans running game. Michigan played from behind against the number 1 defense in the nation and still rushed for 160 or so."

Going into the game, Michigan averaged to allow just under 30 rushing yards per contest. On Saturday, Ohio State rushed for 187 yards on 29 carries (6.4 per). Michigan has an impressive front seven, don't get me wrong, but they didn't face many run-dominated teams to being with. Notre Dame, Purdue, Central Michigan are all pass-oriented teams. Wisconsin and Minnesota go as their running games go and are usually fairly successful, but outside of those two clubs, who else have the Wolverines played that consistently run for a great deal of yards? The same goes for Ohio State. Michigan ran for 130 yards on 30 carries (4.3 per) on Saturday. That's not necessarily "stopping" the run game of Michigan. OSU did a better job of that than Michigan did, don't get me wrong, but OSU was not dominant against the run on Saturday. Also, he should check out LSU, Virginia Tech, and quite possibly USC when it comes to defense. Michigan and Ohio State have pretty solid D's, but neither defense is the best in the country. I don't care what the stats say. Ohio State's D is more opportunistic than anything and Michigan's defense is stingy. He continued.

"The argument about why should Ohio State have to prove something again is completely stupid....why should Texas have to play Nebraska again for the big 12 title....no wait, we will call the game off, texas already beat nebraska so they would beat them every time.....nope, doesnt work like that. To be the best you have to beat the best, sometimes twice, and sometimes on a nuetral field. If the big 10 had a conferance championship game there would be this very same rematch and nobody would say a word about it. If there was a rematch in Glendale the winner wins, loser loses....winner is national champ because they won the game that mattered, all these other games are irrelevant once the championship game is paired up."

Well, I personally don't agree with the conference title games. These teams fight for eight, sometimes nine weeks in conference and even if a team finishes the regular season with the best record in conference, what's their reward? Another game, this time for the official title. Conference titles are just there for added revenue. Texas already beat Nebraska in Lincoln this year. They shouldn't have to do it again. If they beat A&M on Saturday, they should be crowned the Big XII champs. The Big Ten, Pac-10, and Big East don't have conference title games. Why should the ACC, SEC, and Big XII have them? The only game that matters is the national championship, eh? So, the game this past weekend didn't mean anything? It didn't matter? The game of the week, year, and new century didn't matter? Hmm. That's quite the game of the week, year, and new century then, isn't it? Michigan does not deserve a Mulligan. If Ohio State lost, this kid would be saying the direct opposite, but since his Wolverines lost, he's up in arms and thinks a rematch is the way to go. The fact that Ohio State beat Michigan on Saturday when losing the turnover battle by three (3 to 0), had more than 100 total yards than the Wolverines, and got shafted on a pass interference call toward the end of the game (along with making some other very TIMELY penalties) shows me that Ohio State is most definitely the better of the two teams. If the Buckeyes can lose the turnover battle by three and still basically win the game by two scores, that's amazing first of all. That is rarely ever the case. But, that game doesn't count? Doesn't mean anything? If Michigan were to rematch them and beat the Buckeyes in the title game, then that'd be the only one that mattered, even though Ohio State beat them 50 days earlier and tied the season series at one game a piece? Riiight. Say what you want buddy. You're just arguing yourself in circles and making contradictions left and right, yet he continued.

"The Big ten is actually the best conferance in the land if you look at the top...they have 3 teams in the top 9 i think in the bcs. Penn State and Purdue are both 8-4. I'll admit they arent as good as their records indicate and the rest of the conferance is mediocre at best, but nobody gives a shit about the bottom teams. Is the big 10 bad because their upper teams dont get upset by the bottom teams....(oklahoma state beat Nebraska, Vandy beat Georgia, Cincy beat Rutgers)...did you ever think that maybe the big name teams just werent that good."

If I look at the top? Give me a break. What, if I look just at the top, is the Mountain West conference nearly as strong as the ACC? Are the independents nearly as strong as the ACC? No. You can't just look at the very top and state a conference is the best. Let's look at this, just when it comes to the six major conferences and their two best teams: ACC- Georgia Tech (9-2) and Boston College (9-2), Big Ten- Ohio State (12-0) and Michigan (11-1), Big East- West Virginia (9-1) and Louisville (9-1), Big XII- Texas (9-2) and Oklahoma (9-2), Pac-10- USC (9-1) and California (8-3), and SEC- Arkansas (10-1) and Florida (10-1). There's not a big difference there between the conferences. The Big Ten has the only unbeaten, I'll give them that. But, on any given day, most of the teams could beat the other. Who has Michigan beaten of these teams? Nobody. To answer his question, no, the Big Ten isn't bad because the top teams don't get by bottom teams. There are only two top teams, though. That's the problem. There are more bottom teams than top teams in the conference. Only 7 of 11 are bowl eligible in the Big Ten and two of those 7 are at 6-6. Penn State may be a legit 8-4 (or 7-5), but Purdue is anything but a legit 8-4. They had trouble with Division I-AA Indiana State. Wisconsin may be 11-1, but have played one of the weakest schedules by a major conference team in all of football. They lucked out by not playing the Buckeyes, or else they'd definitely be 10-2. The Big Ten only has two teams that can go out of conference and win consistently (Ohio State and Michigan). The Pac-10 has three teams that can do that (USC, Cal, and Oregon). The Big XII has at least two teams that can do that (Texas and Oklahoma). The SEC has several teams that could do that (Arkansas, Florida, LSU, Tennessee, and Auburn). The Big East has three teams that can do that (Louisville, West Virginia, and Rutgers). The only conference I'm uncertain about is the ACC. Georgia Tech and Clemson may be the two teams that could do such a thing, but I'm not as sold on them as I am on these other clubs. That's what bowl games are all about, conference vs. conference matchups. If Michigan and Ohio State win their respective bowl games, but the other five eligibles lose, does that make the Big Ten the toughest conference? No, of course not. Even if they get favorable matchups and finish 5-2, that still doesn't make them the toughest conference. There should be tough matchups week in and week out and not a bunch of yawners. If teams in one conference can consistently compete with those of another major conference, then you've got my attention, but overall, the Big Ten has not done that for me this year. He continued.

"The Big LEAST sucks.....West Virginia is legit ....Louisville is ok, but Rutgers, come on???? Cincy has 2 wins over teams with winning records (USF, Rutgers), Pitt has 1 (Cincy), USF has 1 (Pitt).....Louisville isnt that impressive....a win over 7-4 Kentucky who barely beat ULM, a win over K-State who doesnt impress me either, and wins over Cincy and WVU....WVU is the only good win they have. Rutgers hasnt beaten shit (USF, Pitt, Navy whose qb broke his leg in the first quarter, and Louisville are their teams with a winning record). West Virginia is the only team in the Big East thats worth a shit and maybe the only team that can score with oohio state besides michigan."

I don't think he did his homework. First off, Louisville beat West Virginia 44-34 and the game wasn't even that close. I guess that was just another one of those pointless mulligan-type games, wasn't it? Louisville is 6-1 against bowl eligible teams and if Miami (Florida) wins their final game, one can up that mark to 7-1. The Cardinals' opponents have a very simliar record to opponents of Michigan. So, there goes that argument. Rutgers is 5-1 against bowl eligible teams and that could potentially be 6-1 if UConn wins their final two games. Rutgers also has yet to face West Virginia. Speaking of the Mountaineers, they have the weakest schedule thus far of the three one-loss teams in the Big East. They are 4-1 against bowl eligible teams. That could potentially move up to 5-1 or 6-1 if Marshall and/or UConn win out. The Big East has 6 of 8 teams bowl eligible (75%) compared to 7 of 11 in the Big Ten (64%). UConn is also alive if they win their final two games. Is the Big East better than the SEC? No, of course not. But is there a good argument that from top to bottom the Big East is as good as, if not better than some of the other major conferences? Yes, most definitely. He continued.

"And the argument about the pass interference call is legit, I was suprised they called it to, but there were several other calls that went against Michigan. Mario Manningham was in on the first touchdown of the game and they called him down at the 1, which was no where near correct, Michigan scored anyway but it wasted precious time. Steve Breasten was in on the reverse, and even if he wasnt in, there wasnt conclusive video evidence to overturn the call on the field and it was overturned, michigan scored anyway but once again precious seconds wasted. Shawn Crable clearly hit Smith in the helmet, but the dumbass referee called in a late hit, not roughing the passer (both are 15 yards so it doesnt matter) but it shows the referre's were fuckin morons and could fuck up a wet dream. Adrian Arrington got thrown down by his facemask late in the game, I beleive a couple of plays before the mysterious pass interference call....and it was left a no call."

Mario Manningham didn't look in to me, but regardless, Michigan scored on the next play. Valuable time was consumed? What, 15-20 seconds? Breaston wasn't in either. They overturned it for a reason. Again, Michigan scored and how much time was wasted, 15-20 seconds? So, 30-40 for the game? That wouldn't have mattered at the end when Michigan had no timeouts and Ohio State had control of the football. The referee made the technical wrong call on the unnecessary roughness penalty, but regardless of the name, it was 15 yards and a first down. Even if the ref called it illegal deer hunting, it still would've resulted in a 15-yard penalty and an automatic first down. He continued.

"The argument of the poeple have spoken is irrelevant because the votes came from states like Arkansas, Florida, California, etc...the heavily populated states happen that hold the one loss teams, no shit they dont wanna see their team left out. Who cares what the people want, the BCS has never cared before."

The people=money and ratings, so yeah, the people do matter and the BCS should care just a bit that the people don't want to see a rematch, that 35 of the 50 states don't want to see a rematch. Let's see here. Let me count the states that have voted no: California (66-34, 27,532 votes), Alaska (52-48, 476), Hawaii (60-40, 1,473), Oregon (64-36, 3,870), Washington (56-44, 6,380), Idaho (59-41, 1,790), Montana (51-49, 640), Nevada (58-42, 2,047), Utah (56-44, 3,132), Arizona (54-46, 6,812), New Mexico (52-48, 829), Wyoming (53-47, 394), Colorado (53-47, 5,639), Texas (62-38, 23,527), Oklahoma (65-35, 5,561), Kansas (67-33, 4,441), Nebraska (64-36, 3,899), Missouri (51-49, 5,366), Arkansas (89-11, 4,806), Louisiana (73-27, 4,930), Mississippi (70-30, 1,179), Alabama (81-19, 6,094), Georgia (70-30, 15,889), Florida (67-33, 20,246), South Carolina (63-37, 4,804), North Carolina (55-45, 9,901), Tennessee (72-28, 7,374), Kentucky (57-43, 7,548), Virginia (57-43, 18,162), West Virginia (82-18, 1,987), Indiana (57-43, 8,794), Ohio (65-35, 40,856), Maryland (53-47, 6,082), New Jersey (53-47, 10,894), and Rhode Island (52-48, 1,679). Pennslyvania and Delaware are both split at 50-50 currently. Alrighty, let's go with this,state by state. California, okay, he's got a point there. It's the most heavily populated state in the country where USC resides. Alaska? No. They don't have a Division I-A football team. Hawaii has a solid 9-2 club, but they're not in the running for the title, so no again. Oregon has two bowl-bound teams in the 7-4 Oregon Ducks and 7-4 Oregon State Beavers. With each having four losses, I think it's obvious to see that neither have a chance to make the title game, so no again. Washington's two big schools are 6-6 (Wazzu) and 5-7 (UW). One of the two is bowl bound (barely), so no again. Montana doesn't have any Division I-A teams. Nevada has the Wolfpack who are 8-3 and a potential bowler and one-win UNLV. Neither will contend for the title. Utah has the 7-4 Utes, 1-10 Aggies, and 9-2 Cougars, none of whom will have a case for the championship game. Idaho has the 11-0 Boise State Broncos and the Broncos may go to a BCS game, but are too far back of the pack to goto the championship game. Arizona, New Mexico, Wyoming, Colorado, Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, and Missouri don't have any teams vying for a title bid. Arkansas does, but it is not heavily populated. Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina don't have any teams near the top of the rankings. Florida is rather heavily populated and are home to the 10-1 Florida Gators, so there is another example of where this person was accurate. Tennessee, Kentucky, and Virginia don't have teams in the top ten that'll contend for a title. West Virginia does, but like Arkansas, it isn't heavily populated. Maryland, New Jersey, and Rhode Island don't have any teams that'll contend for the title. Ohio's Buckeyes are already a lock for the title game, so they have nothing to worry about. Indiana is home to Notre Dame who is 10-1, but again, like Arkansas and West Virginia, it isn't too heavily populated. So, if I tally the states who are heavily populated and play host to one of the teams vying for a chance at the title as a whole one and the states that aren't very heavily populated but have teams contending for a chance at the title as .5, the total tally is 3.5 out of 35 states. That comes out to be 10%. So, this individual was 10% correct. In the academic world, that would be just above a 0 or not turning in an assignment. That's not too impressive, yet he continued.

"Heres why Michigan should play again:

Notre Dame and Arkansas wont even be considered because they lost to two other 1 loss teams, so those two teams are out."

I agree with Notre Dame, because Michigan's regular season is over with. The worst Michigan can finish is 11-1 and that's where they stand now. The best Notre Dame can finish is 11-1 with that being a 47-21 loss to Michigan, so I agree with Notre Dame not deserving to go. But, Arkansas is a different story. Arkansas is 10-1 with two games remaining. Their only loss was a 50-14 blowout loss to 9-1 USC, who also plays two more games. A lot can happen in two weeks as we've seen over the previous two. If Arkansas beats up on 9-2 LSU and 10-2 or 11-1 Florida, they may have a chance if USC falls to UCLA and Notre Dame falls to USC. It could even be possible if USC loses to Notre Dame, although that'd be more difficult since the computers and humans seem to love the Irish. It's very unlikely, but Arkansas has a better shot in my mind than Notre Dame. He continued.

"Florida- Michigan would beat Florida by 20 or so with how lack luster Florida is this year. They struggled to beat a poor, very poor South Carolina team, a highly over rated georgia team, and they won by 6 @ Vanderbilt...are you serious....Florida is a joke. In their last 4 games vs d1 opponents they have scored 80 points and given up 76.....how can they be considered a contender, they are averaging a 1 point win over their last 4 games vs d-1 competition. Plus Tim Tebow would be eaten alive by the Michigan front 7 and he is their big play threat I would say, him and that percy whatever."

A very poor South Carolina team? They've played just about everyone tough. Carolina at 6-5 is like Purdue at 8-4. One might as well reverse those records, because that's where they belong. Yeah, that's true, Florida has only outscored their last four Division I-A opponents by the score of 80-76. These opponents have a record of 30-16 (.652). Following their game with Florida State and their SEC championship game with Arkansas, Florida will have played ten bowl eligible teams in thirteen games. Michigan played seven in twelve games. "Percy whatever?" It sounds like this young man has watched a lot of Florida football, wouldn't you say? While I think USC has a better case than Florida, I do believe that overall, Florida's resume' is more impressive than Michigan's, if the Gators win their final two games. In Michigan's last four games, they've played teams with a 25-22 (.532) record and that includes 12-0 Ohio State. If one were to take them out of the equation, the three previous opponents are a combined 13-22 (.371). He continued.

"USC is as useful as a poopy flavored lolly pop. Main reason they should be left out....they lost to UNRANKED OREGON STATE. They beat Washington at home by 6 on a crazy time scenario, they were less than impressive vs Arizona (20-3), Wash State (28-22), and Arizona State (28-21). What has USC done this year besides blow out Arkansas early....nothing. Cal isnt very good either, they lost to Tennessee, Arizona, and USC."

We can't judge a team based on one game, can we? Especially in a two-point loss, right? If USC hadn't come back to come within a two-point conversion of tying the game, then it'd be more difficult for me to say they deserve a shot to play Ohio State more than Michigan, but the game was 33-31 and since that time, USC has been rolling, winning 100-19 in their past three games against teams with a 16-17 (.485) record and that includes 1-10 Stanford. They beat Oregon 35-10 and California 23-9. Following their games with Notre Dame and UCLA, USC will have played ten bowl eligible teams in twelve games and Washington was one win away from becoming bowl eligible. So, USC was one game away from playing eleven bowl eligible teams in twelve games. They're 7-1 thus far against such teams and their non-conference schedule included: Arkansas (10-1, SEC title game), Nebraska (8-3, Big XII title game), and Notre Dame (10-1). In just three non-conference games, USC has the chance to have played three teams who will play in BCS games. Michigan just played one such team in Notre Dame. To say that USC doesn't deserve to go because of a two-point loss to Oregon State, a bowl-bound team and then pointing out some hard-fought wins. Michigan had hard-fought wins against Northwestern (4-8), Ball State (4-7), Penn State (8-4), Iowa (6-6), Minnesota (6-6), and Wisconsin (11-1). I'm basing these opinions on a team's entire resume', from game 1 through game 12 (or thirteen in some cases). I'm not basing them on one game of the season. He continued and concluded with the following.

"If anybody has a beef right now it should be West Virginia because they lost on the road to Louisville in a tight game....and they have the offense to play against Ohio State. The rest of the 1 loss teams are pretenders....Michigan and West Virginia are contenders."

I like West Virginia. They have a very fun team to watch, loaded with speed on offense in quarterback Pat White, tailback Steve Slaton, among others. But, let's be realistic here. To this point, West Virginia has played against five bowl eligible teams compared to seven for Michigan, eight for both Florida and USC. Their 44-34 road loss to Louisville wasn't even that close. It was tight in the first half, but West Virginia got sloppy in the third quarter and it was a three score game in the 4th. Was that their Mulligan? They lost by 10 on the road to Louisville and that's better than Louisville beating then unbeaten West Virginia by 10 and falling to then unbeaten Rutgers on the road by 3? How does that work? It shouldn't matter "who" it is that has the kind of offense that can put up points against the only unbeaten left (outside of Boise State). Hawaii and BYU might be able to score some against Ohio State, but they wouldn't be able to stop the Buckeyes and aren't deserving of a title bid. The team who should play Ohio State is the team who has the most impressive resume' at the end of the season. If USC beats Notre Dame and UCLA, they will have gone 9-1 against bowl eligible clubs, including wins over potential SEC champ Arkansas by the score 50-14, potential Big XII champ Nebraska 28-10, and potentially Notre Dame who could very well receive a BCS bid.

It sounded like a very angry rant by a die-hard Michigan fan, didn't it? The game didn't count. What if Michigan had won? Would it have counted then? Would they hold the same opinion on the rematch? My hunch is that they wouldn't. It reminds me of people's war views based on party affiliation. When Bill Clinton bombed the former Yugoslavia during his tenure, many Democrats went along with the president and many Republicans strongly disagreed with his actions. When the War on Iraq sprung up, those same Democrats disagreed with the president and the Republicans supported his actions. Michigan had their chance to goto the title game with a win over Ohio State this past Saturday, but they lost, plain and simple. Another one-loss team deserves a shot to dethrone the Buckeyes. Ohio State proved their a better team than Michigan. Why must they prove that again? If they were to rematch, Michigan would hold the edge for the simple fact that Ohio State may not come with as much energy, focus, and determination the second time around for the pure simple fact that they already beat Michigan! The Wolverines, on the other hand, would want payback and would come with more focus, energy, and determination for the Buckeyes. Is Michigan the 2nd best team in the country? It's hard to say, but it's safe to say they're not the best team in the country. They won the turnover battle by three on Saturday and still lost by 3 and that includes a very late score. In my mind, it was a 42-31+ game. Who's better than Ohio State? It's impossible to know until other clubs play the Buckeyes. Michigan lost and if Ohio State hadn't played sloppy during portions, they would've lost quite handily. How will we know if a team like USC, Florida, or maybe Arkansas could beat the Buckeyes unless they play them? The season's not even over yet, so chill! USC could fall to Notre Dame and Florida could fall to Arkansas. In that scenario, there'd be little argument over a rematch. Arkansas may have a slight argument, but not as much as if Florida or USC ran the table. Relax. There's a lot of football left to be played.