Anyone still belive Michigan was the #2 Team in the country [Archive] - The Orange Mane

View Full Version : Anyone still belive Michigan was the #2 Team in the country

shakenbake

01-01-2007, 08:19 PM

32-11 USC late in the fourth. But they should have been playing for the National Championship game right ?

-Slap-

01-01-2007, 08:27 PM

I believe once they got railroaded out of the National Championship Game they stopped really giving a ****.

Its a good thing Jake Long is returning for his senior season. His Draft stock would have taken a major tumble tonight. The Trojans have been all over Henne from the opening snap.

I can't believe I've been watching college football for over 30 years and there's still no playoff system. It might be the single most ridiculous thing in sports.

shakenbake

01-01-2007, 08:33 PM

The same could be said about USC. They lost thier last game of the season against thier rivial, which kept them out of the NC game. They still seem to give a ****.

-Slap-

01-01-2007, 08:38 PM

Clockwork Orange

01-01-2007, 09:04 PM

Its a good thing Jake Long is returning for his senior season. His Draft stock would have taken a major tumble tonight. The Trojans have been all over Henne from the opening snap.

Leon Hall is probably hoping the scouts will overlook this game, too. He's been projected as the top corner to be taken in the coming draft and he got his lunch money taken by Dwayne Jarrett today.

ludo21

01-01-2007, 09:10 PM

no matter how much i hate usc, they beat 5 (or 4) top 25 teams. If they would have won they would have deserved thier shot.

Michigan still deserved a shot too.

Playoff system has to happen, its getting stupid.

Billy Clyde Puckett

01-01-2007, 10:37 PM

DBroncos4life

01-02-2007, 02:22 AM

I think Mich would have rolled over and died vs any team this week. Mich hasn't played a game in how long? USC got some time off but played two games after Mich lost to OSU. Kind of like NU vs UM in the NC game. NU had a long time to think about that loss which was the worst in school history, (a huge let down just like Mich vs OSU just not as bad). Sometimes you need to play a game after a huge loss to get it out of your system before a big game like today.

anthonypacino

01-03-2007, 02:32 AM

The last time I thought they were the #2 team was about 11 am on Nov 18.

Kaylore

01-03-2007, 06:22 AM

Orange_Beard

01-03-2007, 11:01 AM

They have a better D-Line then the Broncos.

broncocalijohn

01-06-2007, 05:15 PM

They hadn't done enough to deserve their shot and the Bruins proved that conclusively.

The Trojans came in tonight with a chip on their shoulders after being embarrassed in their final game of the season by their arch rivals.

More power to them for kicking ass tonight, especially on defense, but Michigan was a more impressive team during the regular season.

I just believe the Trojans came in much more motivated and it really showed. The team looked flat coming off a 50 day layoff and even their fans seemed lifeless, even when the game was tied late in the second quarter.

I couldnt disagree more. USC had the chance and deserved the shot at OSU if they beat the Bruins. For those that think USC was a fraud this year (Kaylore), should see this team next year. They had so many guys in the backfield out during the year with injuries. Hershel Dennis would be on year 6th if he gets a medical. This team is so loaded with under classman. Next year they will be #1 ranked.

youcandoit1687

01-07-2007, 03:45 AM

I couldnt disagree more. USC had the chance and deserved the shot at OSU if they beat the Bruins. For those that think USC was a fraud this year (Kaylore), should see this team next year. They had so many guys in the backfield out during the year with injuries. Hershel Dennis would be on year 6th if he gets a medical. This team is so loaded with under classman. Next year they will be #1 ranked.

yet they still lost to oregon state and UCLA. i guess USC is 1c, oregon state and UCLA 1a?

broncocalijohn

01-07-2007, 05:01 PM

yet they still lost to oregon state and UCLA. i guess USC is 1c, oregon state and UCLA 1a?

I never said that USC should now be ranked #1. I was disagreeing with the quote that USC didnt deserve the National championship shot before the UCLA game. USC stayed positive despite blowing the UCLA game and blew out the former #2 team that lost to the possible Champion by 3 points. It only proves that game. You want to keep connecting games won by other teams I am sure we can get to UC Davis who beat Stanford. 6th degrees of separation will than get you UC Davis 1f by your calculations. Mark my words on USC #1 next year. This was considered a down year and yet they proved a worthy opponent in all games including the two losses.

-Slap-

01-07-2007, 05:06 PM

There's no way to spin that USC had a better regular season then Michigan. Its just impossible.

BroncoInferno

01-07-2007, 07:42 PM

I believe once they got railroaded out of the National Championship Game they stopped really giving a ****.

How did Michigan get "railroaded out of the National Championship Game"? They did not win their conference and already had a loss to their potential championship game opponent. Florida, meanwhile, won the toughest conference in the country and went through a tougher schedule overall. They will rightly get their shot tomorrow.

I do agree about your playoff comment, though Michigan wouldn't get a shot there either if it were up to me. Conference winners only.

shakenbake

01-07-2007, 07:45 PM

There's no way to spin that USC had a better regular season then Michigan. Its just impossible.

I don't think you even have to spin it.

USC had Victories over the Following ranked teams:

Arkansas, Nebraska, Oregon, Norte Dame (very over-rated) and Cal.

Michigan beat the following ranked teams:
Overrated Norte Dame and wisconsin

anthonypacino

01-08-2007, 01:26 AM

There's no way to spin that USC had a better regular season then Michigan. Its just impossible.
Doesn't really matter since USC beat them...neither played well enough to play for the national championship during the season, USC lost to two conference teams OSU and UCLA, Michigan lost to Ohio St. and failed to win the Big-10. Your theory about Michigan not playing hard because they weren't given another shot at the title is laughable and frankly it's loser talk. USC had just as much on the line as Michigan did and they showed up to play on the same field that they lost on to UCLA. All in all the only thing they had to do to vindicate their season was to play the game and win, they couldn't do it against Ohio St. or USC. So tell me three years from now will the country remember the excellent 10 victories or the two losses in their biggest and most important games of the year?

-Slap-

01-08-2007, 02:08 AM

Doesn't really matter since USC beat them...

Actually, it really does matter because that was the question. If the question was: who won between the two teams, you would have been right.

neither played well enough to play for the national championship during the season, USC lost to two conference teams OSU and UCLA, Michigan lost to Ohio St. and failed to win the Big-10. Your theory about Michigan not playing hard because they weren't given another shot at the title is laughable and frankly it's loser talk. USC had just as much on the line as Michigan did and they showed up to play on the same field that they lost on to UCLA. All in all the only thing they had to do to vindicate their season was to play the game and win, they couldn't do it against Ohio St. or USC. So tell me three years from now will the country remember the excellent 10 victories or the two losses in their biggest and most important games of the year?

Its hardly loser talk since I couldn't give a **** if Michigan wins or loses or burns to the ground. I just understand that motivation is probably the most important element in any contest. I also understand you have a chip on your shoulder about the Wolverines, so your input here is fairly suspect.

USC started shakey, lost to a mediocre Oregon State team, rebounded, and then got beaten by their arch rival in a matchup that would have sent them to the title game.

anthonypacino

01-08-2007, 01:14 PM

Actually, it really does matter because that was the question. If the question was: who won between the two teams, you would have been right.

Its hardly loser talk since I couldn't give a **** if Michigan wins or loses or burns to the ground. I just understand that motivation is probably the most important element in any contest. I also understand you have a chip on your shoulder about the Wolverines, so your input here is fairly suspect.

USC started shakey, lost to a mediocre Oregon State team, rebounded, and then got beaten by their arch rival in a matchup that would have sent them to the title game.

Well if you would have quoted the second line instead of the first you would have read that I thought NEITHER team played well enough in the regular season to deserve the title shot. And Michigan had more motivation than anybody to win those games: Carr was 1-4 against Tressel, losing at home the previous year...that's motivation...The death of one of their greatest coaches the day before the game he helped make into the greatest rivalry in all of sports...that's motivation...they were playing for a national title...that's motivation. Then against USC they had the motivation to show all the critics that they rightly deserved to be ahead of FLA, they lost another alum and former player in President Ford, it was the Rose Bowl the traditional bowl for the winner of the Big 10 (A game the Bucks have not played in since 97). If you're trying to tell me that despite all those motivational tools, professional coaches, the natural drive of a athlete to compete and win, that the Wolverines basically picked up their ball and went home to pout because they didn't get to play the Bucks again is crazy.

The Wolverines had a great season, they are year in and year out the toughest game the Bucks have on the schedule. I'm not trying to take that away from them. But they lost the two biggest games of the season for them, that tells me they weren't national championship material this year. Trust me, I'm not as big of a homer as you think. If the Bucks had lost to Michigan I would not be screaming for them to still be in the hunt.

-Slap-

01-08-2007, 09:23 PM

Well if you would have quoted the second line instead of the first you would have read that I thought NEITHER team played well enough in the regular season to deserve the title shot. And Michigan had more motivation than anybody to win those games: Carr was 1-4 against Tressel, losing at home the previous year...that's motivation...The death of one of their greatest coaches the day before the game he helped make into the greatest rivalry in all of sports...that's motivation...they were playing for a national title...that's motivation.

Nowhere did I question their motivation against the Buckeyes. I knew they would give Ohio State everything they could handle and sure enough, it was a great game, that was a joy to watch.

Then against USC they had the motivation to show all the critics that they rightly deserved to be ahead of FLA, they lost another alum and former player in President Ford, it was the Rose Bowl the traditional bowl for the winner of the Big 10 (A game the Bucks have not played in since 97). If you're trying to tell me that despite all those motivational tools, professional coaches, the natural drive of a athlete to compete and win, that the Wolverines basically picked up their ball and went home to pout because they didn't get to play the Bucks again is crazy.

I believe its true. I heard a handicapper predicting they would come out flat for the very reasons I suggested earlier and that's exactly what happened. I'm not saying they just said 'screw it' and went straight into the tank, but it was clear to me USC wanted the game more. Add in the 50 day layoff and Michigan never even got started, especially their offensive line. What a miserable performance by those guys.

youcandoit1687

01-09-2007, 12:09 AM

82-28, SEC comes up big in the BCS, suck it herbstreit

Jose Chung

01-10-2007, 12:46 AM

The Big 10 Rose Bowl curse still exists. Those guys come from grey skies, snow on the ground, everyone wearing parkas to the sunshine, beaches and everyone (women) wearing few clothes and they lose their concentration. Happens almost every time.

So that explains the Pac-10's dominance over Big 10 in the Rose over all those decades. I always thought the better teams won.

Billy Clyde Puckett

01-10-2007, 12:49 AM

So that explains the Pac-10's dominance over Big 10 in the Rose over all those decades. I always thought the better teams won.

You aren't old enough to remember all of the pictures of the Big 10 players at the beach, at Disneyland, at the parties, while the PAC Ten teams practiced and took care of business as usual.

Jose Chung

01-10-2007, 01:01 AM

Big 10 went 2-5 in bowl games, won both games by a combined 13 points.
Big 10 went 0-2 in BCS games, both got killed.

Both Ohio State and Michigan benefitted from an easy Big 10 and a relatively easy OOC schedule.

We all knew that last TD that USC gave up against Michigan was a garbage touchdown. It had no meaning on the outcome of that game. USC put Henne on his back and held Hart to few rushing yards. Yet, JD Booty picked apart the Michigan defense with the great corps of WR's, TE's and RB's. USC flat out dominated the game. If USC didn't fumble going to score on Michigan, they would've been at least been up by either a touchdown or a field goal at halftime.

Billy Clyde Puckett

01-10-2007, 01:34 AM

I agree, but go back when the Rose Bowl was Big Ten and Pac 8. Pac won almost every game even though Big 10 had better team because big 10 came to California to play, not play football.

Jose Chung

01-10-2007, 02:08 AM

I agree, but go back when the Rose Bowl was Big Ten and Pac 8. Pac won almost every game even though Big 10 had better team because big 10 came to California to play, not play football.

True