<p>If UM does go to the Rose Bowl and wins...and Ohio State wins the BCS national championship..won't Michigan go back to its #2 spot at the end of the season now that USC and whoever plays UM both lost?</p>
<p>Alexandre,</p>
<p>USC's schedule is clearly tougher than Michigan. Does USC have teams like Ball State, Vanderbilt, and Central Michigan on its schedule? That USC is already ahead of Michigan in computer rank despite of its lower W/L ratio (10-1 vs 11-1) shows that's clearly the case. Expect the difference will be larger after USC's final win over UCLA. I don't know why you even bother to argue; that the fact you use rankings earlier in the season (which is very much based on preseason ranking) rather than final rankings shows how biased you are. What's up with only looking at the top few teams they played rather than looking at the whole schedule? That's just simply bad science and analysis. I am sorry, Wisconsin didn't beat anybody ranked this year. Their final rank is very questionable. They could easily have one more loss to Ohio State (hence lower rank) had each Big10 team played everyone in the conference like the Pac10 teams do. Wisconsin is lucky not to have Ohio State on its schedule. Michigan played OSU but they didn't win; you need to WIN the tough match for it to count fully. Stanford played a tough schedule too, does that mean they should get points? For those of you who keep bringing up USC's loss to Oregon State, a win over a top team is better than a loss to an unranked yet decent team (Oregon State got some votes in the AP/coach poll (ranked 26-30) and is actually RANKED at #24 in the BCS) anyday.</p>
<p>Oregon State-33 USC-31
Oregon State-7 UCLA-25</p>
<p>USC should have destroyed Oregon State, but they didn't. Michigan should have lost by 7 to Ohio State (spread), but they lost by 3.</p>
<p>Sam Lee, Vanderbilt is a decent team. They beat Georgia and almost beat Florida. </p>
<p>And I never mentioned rankings at the time we played the teams. I only mentioned current rankings. </p>
<p>As my post below clearly states, Michigan's 4 toughest games were tougher than USC's four toughest games. USC's toughest team this season was Notre Dame. Notre Dame was our second or third toughest team. OSU was Michigan's toughest game and as we both know, OSU is one of the best teams in the nation. USC hasn't played a team of that calibre this season. </p>
<p>I also agree that Michigan's two or three easiest games were easier than USC's two or three easiest games. Overall, like I said, it is impossibly to judge which team has a tougher schedule. Most SOS ratings have USC between #3 and #5 and Michigan between #5 and #13. They are pretty even in that regard. Neither has a clear edge.</p>
<p>USC shouldn't be ranked higher than Michigan, even if they beat UCLA, but they are because of the media. It doesn't matter though, if Michigan takes care of business, we finish 12-1 and ranked #2 in the nation. Not bad for a team everybody thought would finish with 3-5 losses.</p>
<p>Like I said, if your comparing the best teams USC played vs the best teams Michigan played, then yeah, Michigan probably had the harder schedule. Also when I compared overall schedule, I also used rankings at the times Michigan played the teams. I agree it's probably impossible to judge which team has a harder schedule. Both teams are equally matched.</p>
<p>BTW, Alexandre, I never said that USC's schedule was "clearly" harder. Simply playing devil's advocate here (keep in mind I'm a UM fan here, even after they deferred me -.-, I mean, hell I was born at the UMich hospital and my dad is alumni, and I go to A2 at least once or twice a week :P), it's not like it's clearcut that Michigan's schedule is harder as you made it seem in your first post :P. Just wanted to point that out</p>
<p>Alexandre,</p>
<p>Vanderbilt is 1-7 in the SEC. If you say Vanderbilt is such a strong opponent, then perhaps you are saying FLA deserves to be ahead of Michigan. :)</p>
<p>USC is ahead mainly because of computer's calculation that awards its #2 ranking (because of higher schedule strength), not the media like you claimed. Give the credit where it deserves, instead of just blaming some human bias. </p>
<p>Michigan's opponents currently in top 25 in the BCS:
Ohio State #1 (Michigan didn't win however)
Wisconsin #7 (played one ranked team only and lost; likely overrated)
Notre Dame #10</p>
<p>Michigan's number of wins over top-25 opponents: TWO
Number of Michigan's bowl-eligible opponents: SEVEN </p>
<p>USC's oppenents currently in top 25 in the BCS:
Arkanas #9
Notre Dame #10
California #18
Nebraska #20
Oregon State #24</p>
<p>USC's number of wins over top-25 opponents: FIVE
Number of USC's bowl-eligible opponents: TEN</p>
<p>Sam Lee, if you think Vanderbilt is that bad, you know very little about college football. Vanderbilt lost 10-13 at Alabama, 19-21 vs Arkansas, 10-17 at Mississippi and 19-25 to Florida...plus they beat Georgia in Athens. Like I said, Vanderbilt is not a bad team. And I don't get your point about Florida being ranked higher than Michigan. Unlike Florida, which struggled vs Vandi, Michigan beat Vanderbilt 27-7. </p>
<p>And do you really think there is a difference between #20 or #24 and #26? PSU is just as good as Nebraska and Oregon State. </p>
<p>You keep saying I am bisaed. I am definitely biased and I admit it. Now why don't you admit that you too are biased. Unless the fact that you were born and raised in California does not influence your thinking. But I doubt it very much since the facts are clear; Michigan's top 4 opponents, on average, were tougher than USCs. At least I admit that the 3 weakest teams that Michigan played were indeed easier than USC's 3 easiest teams. Who is the more biased between us?</p>
<p>But the bottom line is simple, there is very little difference in the quality of those two teams' schedules. You can claim all you want that Wisconsin is a bad team and not worthy of top 10 consideration or that USC's secheudle was way tougher, it does not change two facts. Michigan and USC have two things in common, and the best way to compare them is to probably anaylize those commonalities:</p>
<p>1) Michigan and USC both played Notre Dame. Although both Michigan and USC handled Notre Dame, Michigan was more dominant. Michigan scored more points, allowed fewer points, caused more turnoevers, had larger leads all game long, allowed fewer offensive yards, rushed the ball more effectively and of course, did all that at South Bend whereas USC played them in LA. Again, home field advantage is huge in East vs West coast games. Travelling 7 hours and jetlag are a huge factor. </p>
<p>2) They both lost just one game, by three points, on the road, to teams that answer to the title OSU. Of course, Michigan's OSU is the #1 ranked Ohio State team whereas USC's OSU is the #24 ranked Oregon State team.</p>
<p>I wasn't "born and raised in California". I was born in Hong Kong; I lived in the east coast and the midwest before coming to California.</p>
<p>In a way, you seemed to like playing with words. On one hand, you said there's not really difference between the two schedule. Then you said you acknowledged how Michigan had cupcake teams on their schedule. So what are you really trying to say? No difference at all? Slightly better? Or what?</p>
<p>Comparing what you call "commonalities" is silly. What makes college football fun is the players are still kids and they show up differently on any given day. People who followed Notre Dame would know Notre Dame had improved since the Michigan loss. </p>
<p>Regarding games against Ohio State and Oregon State. USC had over 100 more yards on offense than Oregon State. With 4 turnovers, they self-destructed more than anything. The first interception happened in the end zone and could easily be a TD. They came up one play short in the end. USC has played better since that loss. On the other hand, Michigan was lucky to be on the other side of the fortune. They were given plenty of free gifts from OSU with 2 of the 3 turnovers being totally unforced deep in OSU's territory. That resulted in 10 free points. You may say with your bias how Michigan committed stupid penality in the 4th quarter. Well, Ohio State commited not just one but two stupid penalities that made them turn the ball over instead of getting the first-down too. Ohio State actually had over 100 yards more on offense (over 500 yards total) and pretty much moved the ball at will. You could sense that if OSU didn't turn the ball over through fumble or interception, they would most likely score. If they didn't have that 2 turnovers, it would be more than 10 points swing and the game could end up in a rout. The final score looks a lot closer than the difference between the two teams. It made Michigan look pretty but the whole game was really OSU's game to lose. That's one of the reasons most people (other than Michigan fans) don't want a rematch because the feeling is it's totally unfair to Ohio State. OSU is a better team and it's already settled.</p>
<p>Sam, that's ridiculous. You are giving the pitiful excuses that Bubkeye fans are giving for the close game. Since when are turnovers considered a freak occurance? I can also give excuses why Michigan lost. The game was at OSU, Shembechler died the day before the game and several key Michigan players (like Manningham, Barringer, Ecker and Burgess) were injured or recovering. But injuries and turnovers are part of the game. Good defenses cause turnovers, whether they are forced or unforced and good teams rise above injuries and find ways to win. At any rate, Michigan and OSU are most likely going to dominate whatever team they play in their respective ball games and pretty much prove that they should have played each other.</p>
<p>Alexandre,</p>
<p>An unforced fumble and a forced one are completely different thing. How often do you see fumble on a snap? I don't see that in 100 games yet OSU had two in that game. </p>
<p>I am far from being a Buckeye fan. Few years ago, when their offense wan't that good but kept winning close game, I called them Luckeyes.</p>
<p>Oh, more on your usage of "commanalities". I can imagine all kind of crazy talks coming out of such comparison. For example, Michigan's defense must be worse than Illinois' (using games against Ohio State). :)</p>
<p>It's interesting how Ohio St/Michigan and OSU/USC do share some similiarities. Ohio State commited 3 TO while USC had 4. Both had more 100 yards of offense than their opponents. Had Ohio State committed one more TO, Michigan would probably win just like Oregon State did. ;)</p>
<p>Fumbles on snaps happen frequently when the opposing defense applies constant pressure on the OL and QB, which Michigan was doing against OSU all game long. OSU did not merely commit TOs, Michigan caused them. And yards of offense is a meaningless stat taken on its own. Some teams play more conservatively but more steadily, which was the case with Michigan on Nov. 18th. The final score is all that matters. OSU was slightly better on the day.</p>
<p>Alexandre,</p>
<p>Huh? Are you saying MI defense knows how to do "Qi Kung" and causes fumble without even moving first? Since when they hired a Qi Kung master? LOL! I don't know a defense that gave up over 500 yards somehow could cause a lot of "constant pressure". Wow...with all that "Qi Kung" and invisible energy, I guess your team does deserve to be in the championship game.</p>
<p>Sam Lee...that wasn't even funny; just stupid. Troy Smith took a few good licks from us. I'm pretty sure he had that in the back of his mind when he was taking some of those snaps.</p>
<p>Sorry about my joke; but to say the rolled shotgun snap that never got off the ground had something to do with Michigan's defense is simply a stretch. It got nothing to do with Troy Smith either. So was the high snap (wasn't Troy Smith's fault) . The two were totally unforced, gift-wrapped, and were commited before Michigan's defense hardly moved. The center reportedly had injury with his hand. The third TO was credited to Michigan's defense but not these two. With 70% pass completion and 4TDs, I don't see Troy Smith was bothered by any of those "few good licks".</p>
<p>You serious? Did you see how *<strong><em>ed off Troy Smith was once in a while? He was sittin on the sideline bench just annoyed and he wouldn't even talk to his teammates for a while. He was *</em></strong>ed that his offense were making mistakes and that Michigan was taking advantage of that. </p>
<p>Of course in the long run he overcame that, but T.S definitely felt Michigan's defense once in a while, especially in the 2nd half. To say he wasn't bothered by ANY of these "few good licks" is just plain wrong.</p>
<p>Wow...congrats! </p>
<p>Now comes FLA!</p>
<p>Woooooooooohoooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Arkansas Better Win The Game And Then Here Comes A Reeematch!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!</p>
<p>Sam Lee, Arkansas is a good but not great team. Florida was leading by just 3 points with only a few minutes remaining and eventually won by 10. I don't think that will be enough for them to close the 0.3+ gap they have with Michigan in the BCS poll unless the human polls rig. With the exception of their win over LSU, Florida has had a very non-descript season.</p>
<p>So, Sam, do you still think that USC's schedule is tougher than Michigan's? Nebraska is getting blown out and dropping out of the top 25, Arkansas now having 3 losses and Penn State making the top 25?</p>
<p>Fingers Crossed For Tommorow!</p>
<p>We'll know in 12 hours!</p>