The Official MSU vs ][V][ichigan Game Thread

[byco42]

were they not co-champions? '66 happened before I was born and prior to the playoff, I never put a lot of stock in the national championship. It was never a big deal to me given how it was determined. I always felt if you won the B1G and then the Rose Bowl but a bunch of sports writers gave the NC to nd or usc or whoever they were in love with that year, so what?

There was a AP and a UPI champion. You don?t understand. Those NCs are as valid as the ones now, and no one disputed them they way they are disputed now.

Also, there was a Big Ten no-repeat rule for the RB until 1975-76. And no Big Ten team was eligible for any other bowl but the Rose Bowl until that season.

USC (3) and ND (3) won a combined six AP (writers?) poll from 1950 to 2010. #research

 

[tinselwolverine]

were they not co-champions? '66 happened before I was born and prior to the playoff, I never put a lot of stock in the national championship. It was never a big deal to me given how it was determined. I always felt if you won the B1G and then the Rose Bowl but a bunch of sports writers gave the NC to nd or usc or whoever they were in love with that year, so what?

Every fan of every team who won a share of the national championship calls it ?the national championship.? No one ever it refers to it as a ?co-championship.?

The beautiful Gabriel Union was the guest picker on GameDay earlier this season with her stupid asshole husband and she correctly named the years that Nebraska won the national championship ? 70, 71, 94, 95, and 97. She didn?t bother to mention that the 70 and 97 championships were co-championships and nobody corrected her.

USC fans don?t refer to the AP championships of the first decade of this century as co-championships.

Spartan fans who are old enough to remember-or simply care about it-don?t refer to the co- championships of the 60s as co-championships.

 

[Spartanmack]

Every fan of every team who won a share of the national championship calls it ?the national championship.? No one ever it refers to it as a ?co-championship.?

The beautiful Gabriel Union was the guest picker on GameDay earlier this season with her stupid asshole husband and she correctly named the years that Nebraska won the national championship ? 70, 71, 94, 95, and 97. She didn?t bother to mention that the 70 and 97 championships were co-championships and nobody corrected her.

USC fans don?t refer to the AP championships of the first decade of this century as co-championships.

Spartan fans who are old enough to remember-or simply care about it-don?t refer to the co- championships of the 60s as co-championships.

fair, but I still don't put a whole lot of stock in any of those championships, "co" or otherwise. I do think the '97 Nebraska team would have beaten the Wolverines that year but I still wouldn't care much about their championship if they had. I cared much more about the B1G championship and the Rose Bowl - let the sports writers pick who they pick for their nearly meaningless champion.

 

[tinselwolverine]

fair, but I still don't put a whole lot of stock in any of those championships, "co" or otherwise. I do think the '97 Nebraska team would have beaten the Wolverines that year but I still wouldn't care much about their championship if they had. I cared much more about the B1G championship and the Rose Bowl - let the sports writers pick who they pick for their nearly meaningless champion.

OK, cool.

That?s the way Bo Schembechler looked at it.

 

[Spartanmack]

There was a AP and a UPI champion. You don?t understand. Those NCs are as valid as the ones now, and no one disputed them they way they are disputed now.

Also, there was a Big Ten no-repeat rule for the RB until 1975-76. And no Big Ten team was eligible for any other bowl but the Rose Bowl until that season.

USC (3) and ND (3) won a combined six AP (writers?) poll from 1950 to 2010. #research

I do understand, and no, they're not as valid. All you have to do to see this is go to the NCAA website and run a list of NCAA Division I Football National Champions and you will see, the list doesn't start until the BCS era. If they were as valid the NCAA would recognize them as Champions but they don't.

Also, the no repeat and the arbitrary Rose Bowl tiebreakers that went on beyond '76 only support my case regarding the meaninglessness of the NC before the playoff.

I apologize for not presenting an exhaustive list of AP and UPI champions through 2010. I probably should have at least included teams from my era like Miami, Nebraska, OK, Alabama, OSU etc but I was just making the point that I didn't care who they picked so it wasn't really worth researching. I do find it refreshing though, that there is at least one uofm poster who cares about supporting data.

 

[rumseyhouse77]

"might" have been - we still get the ball inside the 40 with time on the clock and near game-winning FG range. But as I'm sure you recall, it wasn't.

no, I don't think we will win next year, but again that's got nothing to do with what we're talking about.

Actually, it would have been 4 and 1. No matter.

 

[tinselwolverine]

I do understand, and no, they're not as valid. All you have to do to see this is go to the NCAA website and run a list of NCAA Division I Football National Champions and you will see, the list doesn't start until the BCS era. If they were as valid the NCAA would recognize them as Champions but they don't.

hmmm...

 

[Spartanmack]

Actually, it would have been 4 and 1. No matter.

I suppose, "if" all of those things you mentioned and one or two more you didn't mention actually happened and none of the things I mentioned ended up happening, then it would have been 4-1 but since none of those things did happen, it's 3-2. It's really too bad too because that was a good MSU team - harbaugh would be able to say he's beaten a good MSU team. But he hasn't.

 

[byco42]

I do understand, and no, they're not as valid. All you have to do to see this is go to the NCAA website and run a list of NCAA Division I Football National Champions and you will see, the list doesn't start until the BCS era. If they were as valid the NCAA would recognize them as Champions but they don't.

I?ve been through all the iterations of determining a National Champion, and none of them were more compelling than the Pre-BCS era.

Also, the no repeat and the arbitrary Rose Bowl tiebreakers that went on beyond '76 only support my case regarding the meaninglessness of the NC before the playoff.

So, like, Tinsel intimated, no Spartan, then, should never accuse Bo of not winning a National Championship.

apologize for not presenting an exhaustive list of AP and UPI champions through 2010. I probably should have at least included teams from my era like Miami, Nebraska, OK, Alabama, OSU etc but I was just making the point that I didn't care who they picked so it wasn't really worth researching. I do find it refreshing though, that there is at least one uofm poster who cares about supporting data.

The writers and the coaches generally got it right and no one cared that they often picked different teams. Now a select board and ?technology? picks four teams and the consternation is more distracting than the actual teams selected.

 

[thewolverines24]

I?ve been through all the iterations of determining a National Champion, and none of them were more compelling than the Pre-BCS era.



So, like, Tinsel intimated, no Spartan, then, should never accuse Bo of not winning a National Championship.



The writers and the coaches generally got it right and no one cared that they often picked different teams. Now a select board and ?technology? picks four teams and the consternation is more distracting than the actual teams selected.

They could make a real playoff like every other level of football on Earth.

 

[byco42]

They could make a real playoff like every other level of football on Earth.

What does a ?real playoff? look like to you?

 

[Spartanmack]

I?ve been through all the iterations of determining a National Champion, and none of them were more compelling than the Pre-BCS era.

I prefer the old bowl system too but because of the tradition it represented, not because it was better or even as good a system for determining a champion.

So, like, Tinsel intimated, no Spartan, then, should never accuse Bo of not winning a National Championship.

I agree, no Spartan or anyone else should never accuse Bo of not winning a National Championship - because he never won one. But like Tinsel intimated, Bo seems to have the right attitude about what was basically a meaningless title so even if a Spartan, or someone else did, Bo probably wouldn't care - unless he was just saying that because he couldn't win one.

The writers and the coaches generally got it right and no one cared that they often picked different teams. Now a select board and ?technology? picks four teams and the consternation is more distracting than the actual teams selected.

I don't think there was any less controversy over the title under the old system. I recall debates about who should have gone to what bowl game to play who, but didn't get the shot and "XYZ" team got screwed because they had to go to the Rose Bowl and play a bad Pac10/Big10 team. It was rarely without some level of controversy. People cared when they picked one team and there was always controversy when they picked two. I think the playoff has done a lot to address that - sure some people argue about why 1 of the 3 got in when another 1 or 2 didn't, but for the most part the winner of the playoff isn't considered a controversial champion.

 

[thewolverines24]

What does a ?real playoff? look like to you?

16 teams, but I'd settle for 12. Not hard to accomplish. The FCS pulls off a 24 team playoff every year.

 

[Spartanmack]

hmmm...

I stand corrected. The NCAA has never validated a National Champion in Division I Football. The BCS was not and the playoff is not NCAA sanctioned. There still has never been an NCAA sanctioned national champion in Division I College Football.

 

[Spartanmack]

16 teams, but I'd settle for 12. Not hard to accomplish. The FCS pulls off a 24 team playoff every year.

it's a good idea but probably tougher to pull off than you think. they already play too many games and the season is too long so you'd either have to have 100+ teams give up the revenue from at least 1, possibly 2 games every year so 8-12 teams would get a couple extra games. You could move the playoff to December to shorten the season but solving the number of games issue is tough.

 

[byco42]

Power 5 versus Power 5. FCS teams on a schedule disqualifies from consideration.

 

[Spartanmack]

it's a good selection criteria but 16 games, assuming you eliminate conference championship games, is still too many.

 

[byco42]

16 teams is a 5-week playoff. 12 teams is four weeks. Eight seems to be the limit.

 

[tinselwolverine]

I stand corrected. The NCAA has never validated a National Champion in Division I Football. The BCS was not and the playoff is not NCAA sanctioned. There still has never been an NCAA sanctioned national champion in Division I College Football.

Yep.

It?s still mythical.

Maybe it always will be.

Maybe it?s supposed to be that way.

Maybe the power of a true national championship would be so overwhelming that it would be extremely dangerous, not unlike the ark in ?The Raiders of the Lost Ark.?

Maybe some things in this world are better left alone.

 

[hungry]

I'll take 36 wins, a big ten title and a trip to the college playoffs over 46 basically hollow wins in that span

The pounding of two rivals, 45-14, then 44-10, is never considered hollow, just like MSU fans would've loved to see MSU somehow pull of an upset of Michigan this season.

I'm sure you'll enjoy those memories as the program you love becomes even worse next season.