Rants, comments, thoughts and funny - mostly funny - on all things Michigan and college football.

If you have ideas, tips, links or pictures for the blog, e-mail us at: MichiganZone at gmail dot com.

Thanks for checking out the M Zone. And if you enjoy the site, please pass the link on to a friend or two. We'd sure appreciate it.

Twitter: @MZoneBlog

Facebook/MZoneBlog

Best Of Tat and Tresselgate

M Zone Videos

Best Of MZone 2.0

Best Of The Original MZone

Tosu Favorites

MZone Archive

Friday, January 13, 2006

Thursday

On tap today:

* Another edition of The Best of the Worst Buckeye Sites on the Web
* An update on our M Zone All-Hotness Team search
* Wangs looks for any signal a coaching change is near
* LSU fans sure have a chip on their shoulder about 2003 (Note: you must check out the comments under this post. Wow. Didn't know we struck such a nerve in Tigerville).

Also, once again, when submitting pix for the M Zone All-Hotness Team, please only send JPEGs and embedded photos. No zip files. Thanks.

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

Congratulations to Texas for its Two-Peat. The Longhorns beat the Southern California Trojans 41-38 late Wednesday in the Rose Bowl, the BCS national championship game.

That’s two consecutive Rose Bowl victories for Texas, which should seize the opportunity to bill itself as repeat national champion.

Marketing is everything, you know. USC (and ABC and its sister network, ESPN) taught us in 2003 that the Rose Bowl can be the national championship game, even when it’s not, if enough people decide it is. Go for it, ’Horns. Hook ’em if you can.

That’s how USC entered Wednesday’s game on a quest for what everybody called a Three-Peat (or a Three-Pete, for USC coach Pete Carroll).

Do the math, comedian and USC fan Will Ferrell said during ABC’s pregame show. The Trojans are playing in their third national championship game in three years, he said.

Tell that to LSU, which has the ADT trophy, the crystal football signifying the BCS national championship for the 2003 season.

Nick Saban held one aloft after the 2004 Nokia Sugar Bowl.

Pete Carroll held one aloft after the 2005 Fed-Ex Orange Bowl.

Mack Brown held one aloft after the 2006 Rose Bowl Presented by Keith Jackson.

Anybody see a repeat in there?

It’s old news to remind you that every major conference in the country agreed to take the human element out of it as much as possible by following a system that picks two teams to play for Division I-A college football’s national championship.

Carroll liked the system in 2003 before LSU passed USC in the standings and won the right to play and beat Oklahoma for the national championship. Before LSU made that jump, Saban said he would respect the system whatever the outcome.

Carroll changed his tune, declaring the 2004 Rose Bowl the national championship game. Jackson bought the hype and billed the game accordingly, despite the fact nobody in America suggested that a Michigan victory over the Trojans in that game would earn Michigan a national title.

USC quarterback Matt Leinart wore a T-shirt ripping the BCS with a thinly veiled obscenity, but he and Carroll embraced the system when the Trojans won the 2004 version of the BCS national championship.

After USC lost Wednesday to Texas, Leinart insisted the Trojans have the better team. Following USC’s logic, that means the Trojans got their Three-Peat after all, because it’s all about declaring yourself the best whether or not things fall your way.

So, for the second time in three seasons, the “best team in college football history” — Oklahoma in 2003, USC in 2005 — bit the dust in the only national championship game agreed upon before the season by the major conferences.

After the fact, it’s a free-for-all to declare your team the best. That’s why Texas needs to remind everyone it has consecutive victories in the Rose Bowl, the game for all the marbles if you want it to be.

Meanwhile, LSU should guard its ADT trophy jealously, perhaps with an ADT security system. One day, it might be the only proof the Tigers won a national championship.

All of the crazy talk — a Three-Peat, a Three-Pete, a Two-and-a-half-Peat and Will Ferrell’s USC math — overshadowed what was one of the best games in college football history, featuring one of the best individual performances in college football history (by Texas quarterback Vince Young) and played on, as we were told, the best playing surface in Rose Bowl history.

Chris Fowler inspired ESPN to spend the last few weeks pitting USC against the best teams of all time in virtual matchups, hoping to help people determine whether the Trojans were the best team in college football history: USC 2005 vs. Nebraska 1995, USC 2005 vs. Miami 2001, USC 2005 vs. USC 1978 and so forth.

Perhaps ESPN (and the Trojans) should have spent more time analyzing USC 2005 vs. Texas 2005.

The best thing about the media and coaches being revealed as flawed in their ability to evaluate teams as the best in college football history (or the best in the current season) is it’s an increasing part of the slow but inevitable journey toward a playoff.

One day fans will look back in bewilderment that once upon a time the powers that be thought it was appropriate to do it any other way.

Anonymous said...

USC's 2003 schedule looks mighty similar to BYU's in 84.

Let's see.

Play one ranked team ALL season.
Play zero ranked teams on the road.

Beat an overrated Michigan team in its bowl.

Oh wait, BYU didn't lose to an unranked six loss team.

Geewiz, and BYU is overrated!

http://www.onepeat.com

Anonymous said...

You're right--the claim by USC does strike a nerve. Before the final BCS standings came out, Carrol and Saban were okay w/ the deal and willing to live by the results. The BCS was designed to PLAY for the NC. The AP poll went into the formula. Then USC calls for a do over and the BCS is suddenly flawed b/c the best team was not selected (that's called begging the question or circular reasoning). The AP/UPI system was replaced w/ the BCS, in part b/c of the advantage (bias) that big market teams had. And no wonder--I'm still waiting to see how the greatest team ever would have fared against 22 Teen Wolves on a ESPN special. I have no problem w/ sharing a title before the BCS, which is why the reform was made in the first instance. Thanks.

Wangs said...

You people are odd. A frickin' hurricane wipes out a whole city, and you're bitchin' about having to share a national title?

Believe me, I'm upset about Michigan having to share the '97 title with Nebraska, but I've gotten over it. And at least in that case, we have a somewhat better gripe than you - if Phil Fullmer votes Michigan 2 or 3, instead of 4th (which was the only vote we received that was not 1 or 2 in the coaches poll) then we win both polls. His one vote, unbelieveable ranking us 4th, cost us the coaches poll.

Do you think Phil was a little bitter that his girlfriend Peyton lost the Heisman to charles Woodson? Yep.

So, it's fine for you Red Stickers to complain amongst your selves about the injustice - BUT THE REST OF US DON'T CARE.

Although, I was interested to learn in the course of this discussion that you've had 14 5-or-more-loss seasons since '70. That pretty much verifies that the '03 championship was a fluke. Similar to BYU's in '84. You beat the runnerup in the Big 12. USC beat the Big Ten Champ. That's an accomplishment.

Anonymous said...

odd? well, if you mean different, yes. guilty. love our FB.

which is it? did you get over it or are you upset? did the fact that a "vote" keep you out of an undisputed CS play a part. Hey we need a reform. Oh yeah, the BCS already did that--unless you want a do over and have the cooperation of a big market media.

Don't care? Don't blame you. BTW, the fact that OKLA was a runner up in their conference and PLAYED for the NC says more about the Big Ten than it does USC's "accomplishment", at least in 03. Bit of self-importance there.

Thanks for the concerns about the effects of the hurricane. Many states, including Michigan, stepped up to the plate and helped out.

Meant to post this last week. I know the topic is old, but i had a few minutes before lunch.