HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
Nov. 21, 2006 For sports fans, much is being made about the outcome of the college football game between arch-rival Michigan and the Ohio State University. This game, for the first time in history, included these gridiron enemies as the number one and number two ranked teams in the country. It is indeed surprising that teams with the histories of these two would never have been ranked at the top when this game was played, especially before scholarship limitations and other factors were in place which reduced the ability of these programs to stockpile pretty much all of the talent east of the Mississippi. The Ohio State Buckeyes ended up winning this one, 42-39. Considering this rivalry is, more often than not, a defensive struggle, this game was one for the ages. Now the discussion has turned to whether or not Michigan deserves a rematch in the national championship game which, due to college football's ridiculous scheduling, will occur sometime in about two months. While I agree with certain critics that the current BCS system is a fiasco, I completely disagree about Michigan not being deserving of a rematch. Sure, the Big Ten is somewhat down this year, but UM did beat two teams in the current top 10 and lost to the the number one team by three points---on the road in front of a roaringly hostile crowd. This was, I may add, after Michigan lost a key member of its defense in the opening minutes of the game. Aside from the Buckeyes, no other team, including those with only one loss, has demonstrated that it is better than Michigan this year. USC and Florida have struggled against some lesser opponents, with USC losing to one of them. Michigan crushed Notre Dame on its home field and, up until this past Saturday, had not even come close to losing a game. Using the excuse that Michigan has played nobody is also weak considering the fact that the BCS history has had several teams in its championship game which played no more than one or two tough games in the respective years that they appeared in that game. This includes USC which, historically, does not play all that tough of a schedule. Regardless of who Michigan has played, it clearly is at least the number two team in the land until it is proven differently. Regardless, strength of schedule is a significant provision in the BCS formula, which really nullifies the argument. If Michigan's schedule was considered weak, this team would not remain number two in the nation after a loss. The fact that Michigan is where it is affirms that its schedule was actually relatively tough. OSU certainly appears to be the best team in the land; however, Michigan came within a play or two of beating them. A late hit penalty on the OSU QB on third down (an incomplete pass) allowed OSU to score its clinching TD. Without that, UM likely has the ball back in its hands with plenty of time, trailing by only four points. And, for those who watched the game, OSU did not exactly shut down the UM offense. Michigan moved the ball at will in the latter half of that game and the Buckeyes would likely have been sweating out a tight finish if not for that questionable "roughing the passer" call. (I see "helmet to helmet" hits every weekend in college football that are never called.) Let's also not forget the Michigan QB overthrowing a wide open Mario Manningham for a TD in the first half, which would have added 7 points to UM. The truth is that OSU played a near flawless game on offense. They had a perfect game plan and executed it tremendously. I find it difficult to picture that team playing a better offensive game than what was displayed on Saturday. Some may argue that they should not have to face Michigan again after beating them already. This viewpoint overlooks the fact that a system is in place for "objectively" determining which teams play in that final game and, when all is said and done, if Michigan is the number two team after that complicated formula is crunched by the computers that be, Michigan should be the opponent of OSU for all the marbles. It does not seem right that another weaker team should be offered up for OSU for no other apparent reason than "it's not Michigan, and Michigan already played OSU". The BCS is not established to pit the two best teams that have not yet played each other in its championship; it's the two best teams, period. This year, I think those two teams are Michigan and Ohio State. The NFL has playoff rematches all of the time, and these often add significant interest to the mix. There's no reason to shy away from one in college ball. A rematch is still up in the air, because, although Michigan remains number 2 in the BCS standings, USC is likely to overtake them if it wins its last two games. Still, a match up of two arch-rivals in that final game is very appealing to a college sports fan--even if it is a "dreaded" rematch. ------------ About the author: Ed Abraham is a concerned citizen living in flyover country, U.S.A., who happens to be truly disgusted by the loss of common sense in our society and is doing all he can to try to reinstall it. Email: eabra@myway.com Comment on this article here! ------------ All articles are EXCLUSIVE to Useless-Knowledge.com. Please link to this article rather than copying and pasting it onto your site (which would be unauthorized and illegal). |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
