Michigan still doesn't belong in the BCS ? ? ?
If you go to the CBS Sportsline college football page, you will see that they have a poll about halfway down the page. The question is "Did Michigan's Win Prove It Belonged in a BCS Bowl?" Currently, 68% of their sage viewers voted NO !
Does this mean there was some bot sabotage, or merely that 30,000 monkeys all figured out how to log onto the internet at the same time, or what?
Seems implausible to me that after actually winning a BCS game, 68% of people voting would think that we don't even belong in a BCS game. Is there mischief afoot, or just a whole lot of haters?
(It is more likely that 30,000 monkeys can use the internet than 30,000 Sparties IMHO)
January 4th, 2012 at 10:14 PM ^
I think we deserved to be in the bcs because of our record, but I also wonder how our team played so poorly on offense. How on earth is a team (clemson) who killed virginia tech 2xs losing to a big east team. This makes me seriously question our offensive performance. I am still proud of our team and happy with the win.
January 4th, 2012 at 10:34 PM ^
Are you watching the Orange Bowl? That Clemson team that looks like they don't deserve to be in a bowl game at all obliterated the VT team that you required obscene luck - and some questionable replay calls - to beat in overtime.
The real question is, who outside of mgoblog would think any of those three teams deserved a BCS bowl?
January 4th, 2012 at 10:49 PM ^
When you need to invoke the transitive property to prove your point in college football, you've already lost.
January 4th, 2012 at 10:49 PM ^
if the real question is "who outside of mgoblog" thinks we deserved a bid, you came to the wrong place to ask it.
January 5th, 2012 at 12:40 AM ^
I think most of us here are open minded about our lovely wife M. There are a few of us here that are blind to her beauty and I cannot fault them at all.
However, most of us are either graduates or students (which makes us smarter than the rest /s, and double /ss). Sparty on the Red Cedar Bowel Movement cant see the light of day.
Now bring on some M Softball.
January 4th, 2012 at 11:08 PM ^
Remember that Nebraska team that looked like it didn't belong in a bowl game at all completely trucked your team? Yeah, me too. Turns out you never know what team is going to show up on any given game day. And don't even argue about West Virginia being a dominant team. They lost to Louisville and got blown out by Syracuse. They barely beat Cinncinati and Pitt. Hell they didn't even win the BIG EAST (repeat that "BIG EAST") outright. Just because a decent, but not great, Clemson team didn't show up today means nothing about us.
January 4th, 2012 at 11:11 PM ^
Your case that VT is an elite team looks very weak right now, is all I'm saying. The country is not fooled; this year's Sugar Bowl has become something of a poster child for what's wrong with the BCS.
Besides, your argument that WVU isn't dominant is just supporting my case. They aren't. They're mediocre. Yet they're annihiliating the ACC champ. It shatters your delusion that your defense was legitimately good this year. 377 yards for VT against UM; only 13 points in two meetings for VT against Clemson. Meanwhile, Clemson gave up 49 points in a single half (!!!) to West by God Virginia! This is hilarious. Outside of Ann Arbor, no one is toasting Michigan's "return"; they're lamenting what a sham the BCS is.
January 4th, 2012 at 11:18 PM ^
cmu should be expecting their 2010 rose bowl trophy any day now.
don't be so obtuse, you know just as well as I do that just because a>b and b>c one saturday doesn't mean a>c always
January 4th, 2012 at 11:58 PM ^
49 points in a half is pretty compelling, as is the sheer futility of VT's efforts against Clemson. In most cases, I agree with you, but the ACC just looks like a joke.
January 5th, 2012 at 12:30 AM ^
Clemson, who oscillates wildly between '95 Nebraska and '07 EMU, no matter who is playing or coaching.
January 4th, 2012 at 11:00 PM ^
...deserve a bid. not that difficult.
January 4th, 2012 at 11:05 PM ^
Last I checked, we just won a BCS bowl. I don't think Clemson is gonna be able to say the same.
Hater's gonna hate. For every 30k haters, we are 60k strong.
January 4th, 2012 at 11:08 PM ^
but you can't say they don't have a valid point. VaTech was outplaying Michigan in almost all aspects of the game except for luck. I watched the game with a pretty die-hard Michigan fan and even he was in disbelief that they pulled out a victory in the end. First Hosley's first INT gets taken away, that's fine the call could've gone both ways. Denard throws into double coverage on what should've been an easy pick, but the DBs run into each other and Junior Hemingway has the concentration to bring it in... kudos to him. Then Michigan goes for a fake punt, it doesn't work and yet somehow the ball still gets deflected into the hands of a linemen for a first down. Then Beamer calls for that questionable fake punt that fails miserably. I think the thing that really hurts is Danny Coale playing the game of his life, catching what should've sealed his fate as the hero of the game, and having the refs take it away. Even your own coach said during the award presentation that he thought the TD catch should've counted...
So I think it boils down to, how did it take so many lucky breaks for Michigan to squeak out a victory against the runner-up of the ACC? Especially since Clemson, who torched VaTech twice this season is currently being CRUSHED by a 9-3 Vest Virginia team? Not to take anything away from VaTech who played pretty good defense last night, but people (particularly VaTech , Kansas State, and Boise State) do have a right to bitch at the moment.
In the end, Michigan is still the 2012 Sugar Bowl Champions. I'm just saying don't make it seem like Michigan played a dominating game and is unquestionably a BCS Bowl-caliber team.
January 4th, 2012 at 11:18 PM ^
NOBODY is claiming Michigan played a dominating game. But they did enough to win against an 11 win team loaded with NFL talent. Even if the offense struggled, the defense, special teams and coaching did what it took to win the game. If the rich rod era taught me anything, it's that winning depends far more on these factors than on total yardage alone.
January 4th, 2012 at 11:16 PM ^
Holy shit. Are you really using transativity with two ACC teams to justify why Michigan shouldn't have been on the BCS? Really? How much butthurt do you have considering you came here to post that? There are valid points as to why UM may not have deserved the BCS bid, but you touched on literally none of them. Do you really think WV is this much of a better team? A 5-2 Big East team that didn't win its conference (repeat THE BIG EAST) outright, and lost to Louisville and got its as kicked by Syracuse, not to mention squekey wins against Pitt, USF, and Rutgers? Just because Clemson didn't show up for their game today does not reflect anything on UM.
And good lord, your synopsis of the Sugar Bowl is just so ridiculous I'm not even going to touch on it. How about you go wollow in your own bitterness and butthurt and leave us alone.
January 4th, 2012 at 11:15 PM ^
ESPN and CBS have been waging war with the evil evil Sugar Bowl for some time now. God forbid they should choose teams that someone is going to want to watch(no offense Boise and Kansas St). These articles were written before the game was even played. You're looking at three groups: ESPN's sheep, Spartans and Hokies. Everyone else is glad the B1G got the win.
January 5th, 2012 at 12:11 AM ^
a three-game season should be enough to have an accurate ranking of every single FBS team and declare the National Champion.
January 5th, 2012 at 12:51 AM ^
I have a good feeling Hoke is gona use this as great motivation to prevent complacency.
January 5th, 2012 at 12:57 AM ^
the good thing about hoke is he understands that no matter how great his teams become, it will never be enough. it sounds cynical, but it will serve as consistent motivation for the team to get better and better.
maybe one day michigan will hold teams to 3 points a game on average. hoke will ask them why couldn't they hold them to 2? they'll win 3 titles in a row, and he'll tell them they need to win 4.
January 5th, 2012 at 12:51 AM ^
I have a good feeling Hoke is gona use this as great motivation to prevent complacency.
January 5th, 2012 at 12:55 AM ^
There are some who will think that only the top-rated teams before the bowls should be in the BCS Bowls. For those people, the result of the game is irrelevant. The fact is that bowls started out as, and still are, exhibitions. The rules state that the bowl can pick from any of the top teams above the cut-off line. We were above that line, we were picked, and we therefore got to go. Going is a privilege, not a right, and being picked to go is, itself, the only justification needed for going. If the question is whether UM is one of the top 2 non-conference (or non AQ) winners in the country, that's a valid question. Whether UM or VaTech deserved to be there is the wrong question.
January 5th, 2012 at 1:13 AM ^
Obviously this team does not have top 10 talent at all positions but these kids played well together as team! I for one think the team and the coaches did an excellent job winning 10 games this season and did deserve a BCS bowl bid! They did not play their best football last night but still did manage to make enough great plays to win the game. Congrats team for having a great season and a hard fought sugar bowl victory. Ignore the whiners and haters! Brady had as successful a first season as Bo! I only see more BCS bowl games in store for Michigan and coach Hoke in the years to come!
January 5th, 2012 at 2:22 AM ^
Michael Weinreb joins the piling on Michigan's victory. He even takes it a step further in the final paragraph, complete with the assumption that all Ohio State needs to beat Michigan is Urban Meyer:
"Of course, none of this means the Big Ten is "back," and none of this means that Michigan is back, either; the Wolverines didn't even win their own division within the conference. Yet nobody carries the flag for misguided Big Ten pretension quite like Michigan does, so let us permit the Wolverines their moment of glory before Urban Meyer squashes their dreams for the next decade."
I'm not expecting a national championship caliber team just yet, but I'm putting this one on the bulletin board. I'd love to see U-M prove Weinreb wrong; of course, Michigan could go undefeated with a national championship over an SEC opponent and folks like Weinreb will still find a way to crap on whatever Michigan does.
January 5th, 2012 at 6:40 AM ^
the game, watching the morning shows and looking over some sites it's pretty obvious there quite a few haters.
Can't argue with anyone that says it was a pretty ugly game but VT didn't get ripped off or anything like that
January 5th, 2012 at 8:33 AM ^
I would rather be the "undeserving team" that went 11-2 and won a BCS bowl than one of the teams whining that Michigan "doesn't belong." Let them cry in their beer and listen to country music.
January 5th, 2012 at 2:01 PM ^
is that aside from inspired play by Jersey #1 Emeritus Junior Hemmingway and Jake Ryan and Gibbons , true grit by Molk and Van Bergen we were out coached (On you Al) and didn't play very well, we still came out and beat a higher ranked team. Thats what its all about.
We were Bad, and we were Nationwide......come to think of it Brendan's Uncle Billy wrote a tune about this.
January 5th, 2012 at 11:02 AM ^
Probably the only BCS team they could have beaten. OSU, Stanford, Wisc, Oregon, WVU, Clemson all would have beaten UM. Boise probably would too, I think UM would take KSU like they did Va Tech.
UM really needs to step up next year. I hope the team does not think they have arrived. There is still work to be done. I'm beyond happy the seniors went out with a W and "righted" the UM ship. But next year the team must improve in order to keep the momentum going.