Archive

Thank You Michigan State

  • WebFire
    vball10set;1037188 wrote:Why, just because they beat them? My argument is that both tsun and MSU had identical records in the regular season (10-2), with MSU having a better conference record (7-1 vs. 6-2), along with their beating tsun in their head-to-head matchup. IMO, MSU was essentially penalized for playing in the B1G title game, where their loss caused them to drop enough in the polls so as to not be eligible for a BCS bowl berth.

    OSU was 6-6, Wisky 10-2.
    The only difference is head to head. Penalized for playing in the game? How about penalized for LOSING the game and LOSING 2 ADDITIONAL GAMES.

    Just admit you are pissed Michigan is in the Sugar Bowl. Regardless, MSU doesn't deserve to be there, whether you think UM does or not.
  • vball10set
    WebFire;1037194 wrote:The only difference is head to head. Penalized for playing in the game? How about penalized for LOSING the game and LOSING 2 ADDITIONAL GAMES.

    Just admit you are pissed Michigan is in the Sugar Bowl. Regardless, MSU doesn't deserve to be there, whether you think UM does or not.
    The head-to-head IS the difference. MSU lost 2 games, tsun lost 2 games, so they did not lose 2 additional games. Just admit that tsun is lucky to be in the Sugar Bowl, and enjoy it while you're there--it may be some time before you're back. ;)
  • WebFire
    MSU lost 3. Period.

    Let me ask. If Michigan was 6-6, would you feel the same?
  • 0311sdp
    A lot of teams played in Bowl games that they did not "deserve" including Ohio State and Florida in the Gator. In my opinion, I did not think that either Michigan or VT should have gotten a BCS bid. By deserve it should have been Boise State and any of several other teams, But as I said these games are not picked by who deserves to be there so all in all I have no problem with it since it's just a game for the money. MSU with 3 losses did not deserve a BCS bid either, this was probably a year where the B1G should not have received an at large but they travel so well if at all possible to justify it they will always get a bid.
  • WebFire
    WebFire;1037613 wrote:MSU lost 3. Period.

    Let me ask. If Michigan was 6-6, would you feel the same?
    Or, better yet, if Michigan is 10-2 but doesn't get the bid, do you still think MSU deserves a Sugar bowl at 9-3?
  • ytownfootball
    0311sdp;1037773 wrote:By deserve it should have been Boise State.....

    Stopped reading right here.
  • vball10set
    WebFire;1038100 wrote:Or, better yet, if Michigan is 10-2 but doesn't get the bid, do you still think MSU deserves a Sugar bowl at 9-3?
    No. I just think MSU deserves it more than tsun, and that's been my contention all along. This is my opinion, and you ain't gonna' change it.
  • vball10set
    WebFire;1037613 wrote:Let me ask. If Michigan was 6-6, would you feel the same?
    and still got the BCS bowl bid? you've got to be kidding, right?
  • WebFire
    vball10set;1038155 wrote:and still got the BCS bowl bid? you've got to be kidding, right?
    I think it is implied they wouldn't have a BCS bid at 6-6.
  • WebFire
    vball10set;1038154 wrote:No. I just think MSU deserves it more than tsun, and that's been my contention all along. This is my opinion, and you ain't gonna' change it.
    Ok, so my point is proven. MSU doesn't deserve to be in over Michigan, you just don't think Michigan should be there. I can handle arguments against Michigan being there, but no way MSU "deserves" to be there over anyone. That is my point.
  • Scarlet_Buckeye
    WebFire;1038161 wrote:Ok, so my point is proven. MSU doesn't deserve to be in over Michigan, you just don't think Michigan should be there. I can handle arguments against Michigan being there, but no way MSU "deserves" to be there over anyone. That is my point.
    (1) Michigan doesn't "deserve" to be there.

    (2) MSU was more "deserving" than Michigan.
  • DeyDurkie5
    ytownfootball;1038103 wrote:Stopped reading right here.
    boise isn't undefeated because of a missed field goal. They would've rolled any team not named LSU/Bama, book it!
  • ytownfootball
    DeyDurkie5;1038176 wrote:boise isn't undefeated because of a missed field goal. They would've rolled any team not named LSU/Bama, book it!
    You're missing the "deserving" part but ok
  • DeyDurkie5
    ytownfootball;1038178 wrote:You're missing the "deserving" part but ok
    boise schedules sec teams, acc teams, anyone that wants to play them and they beat them. can't fault them for their conference.
  • WebFire
    Scarlet_Buckeye;1038172 wrote:(1) Michigan doesn't "deserve" to be there.

    (2) MSU was more "deserving" than Michigan.
    (1) Fine to have that opinion

    (2) No they aren't. Because you are only comparing head-to-head and nothing else. That's why I asked if OSU should have got a BCS bid over Wiscy. Sounds ridiculous, doesn't it?
  • ytownfootball
    DeyDurkie5;1038182 wrote:boise schedules sec teams, acc teams, anyone that wants to play them and they beat them. can't fault them for their conference.
    ok
  • DeyDurkie5
    ytownfootball;1038195 wrote:ok
    LOL
  • vball10set
    WebFire;1038161 wrote:Ok, so my point is proven. MSU doesn't deserve to be in over Michigan, you just don't think Michigan should be there. I can handle arguments against Michigan being there, but no way MSU "deserves" to be there over anyone. That is my point.
    lol--how does my post "prove your point"? I said I "MSU deserves it more than tsun" (tsun meaning the skunkbears :rolleyes:), capiche'?
  • WebFire
    vball10set;1038354 wrote:lol--how does my post "prove your point"? I said I "MSU deserves it more than tsun" (tsun meaning the skunkbears :rolleyes:), capiche'?
    They don't deserve it period. PERIOD. No deserving whatsever. Doesn't matter who got in instead of them.
  • Scarlet_Buckeye
    WebFire;1038184 wrote:(1) Fine to have that opinion

    (2) No they aren't. Because you are only comparing head-to-head and nothing else. That's why I asked if OSU should have got a BCS bid over Wiscy. Sounds ridiculous, doesn't it?
    No, I'm not only comparing head-to-head. I'm saying that if MSU had 1 less loss, they would have been in over Michigan. MSU only picked up that extra loss because they were privileged enough to play in the Big Ten championship game; they just happened to lose. They shouldn't be punished for making a conference championship game. If anything, Michigan should be punished for NOT making the conference championship game.
  • WebFire
    Scarlet_Buckeye;1038360 wrote:No, I'm not only comparing head-to-head. I'm saying that if MSU had 1 less loss, they would have been in over Michigan. MSU only picked up that extra loss because they were privileged enough to play in the Big Ten championship game; they just happened to lose. They shouldn't be punished for making a conference championship game. If anything, Michigan should be punished for NOT making the conference championship game.
    LOL, they shouldn't be punished for losing the game? ok.
  • Scarlet_Buckeye
    WebFire;1038369 wrote:LOL, they shouldn't be punished for losing the game? ok.
    Why should they (Michigan State) be punished for losing that game (B1G Championship) and Michigan receive the benefit of an MSU loss when Michigan wasn't good enough to make it to that game? I don't understand what's so hard to understand about that?

    Michigan wasn't good enough to make it to the Big Ten title game. Michigan State was. Michigan probably would have an extra "L" if they would have had to have played Wisconsin in the Big Ten title game. If Michigan had an extra "L," they would not have made it to the Sugar Bowl. You honestly can't comprehend that logic?
  • vball10set
    WebFire;1038359 wrote:They don't deserve it period. PERIOD. No deserving whatsever. Doesn't matter who got in instead of them.
    OK, so 'deserved' is the wrong term. However, MSU had the better B1G record, got to the B1G championship game over tsun (which, I know, they lost), and by virtue of that 'extra game' loss, were denied the opportunity to play in a BCS game. Maybe 'deserved' isn't the right term, but MSU (and a lot of us) knows who the better team is. Period.
  • WebFire
    See, you neither of you are listening to me. You only make the argument for MSU being "deserving" when comparing it to Michigan. It has NOTHING to do with Michigan. MSU lost 3 games. It doesn't matter that one was the B1G title game. 3 loss teams don't generally go to BCS games. Period. End of story.

    You guys are trying to take 2 separate arguments and making them one. If you think Michigan didn't deserve to be in the Sugar Bowl, fine! There are valid arguments for that. But it has NOTHING to do with MSU.

    So, to say MSU "deserved" to be in the Sugar Bowl instead of Michigan is highly inaccurate. MSU didn't deserve it, and they weren't even eligible.
  • WebFire
    vball10set;1038387 wrote:OK, so 'deserved' is the wrong term. However, MSU had the better B1G record, got to the B1G championship game over tsun (which, I know, they lost), and by virtue of that 'extra game' loss, were denied the opportunity to play in a BCS game. Maybe 'deserved' isn't the right term, but MSU (and a lot of us) knows who the better team is. Period.
    Well, if we followed your formula, the bowl scenarios would be quite different!