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.

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.

WebFire;1037613 wrote:MSU lost 3. Period.

Let me ask. If Michigan was 6-6, would you feel the same?

0311sdp;1037773 wrote:By deserve it should have been Boise State.....

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?

WebFire;1037613 wrote:Let me ask. If Michigan was 6-6, would you feel the same?

vball10set;1038155 wrote:and still got the BCS bowl bid? you've got to be kidding, right?

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.

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.

ytownfootball;1038103 wrote:Stopped reading right here.

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!

ytownfootball;1038178 wrote:You're missing the "deserving" part but ok

Scarlet_Buckeye;1038172 wrote:(1) Michigan doesn't "deserve" to be there.

(2) MSU was more "deserving" than Michigan.

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.

ytownfootball;1038195 wrote:ok

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.

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'?

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?

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.

WebFire;1038369 wrote:LOL, they shouldn't be punished for losing the game? ok.

WebFire;1038359 wrote:They don't deserve it period. PERIOD. No deserving whatsever. Doesn't matter who got in instead of them.

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.