WebFire;1038398 wrote: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;1038399 wrote:Well, if we followed your formula, the bowl scenarios would be quite different!

Webbie, this isn't a formula, it's just my opinion...and again, congrats on the 'divine' W.

web appears to have a small penis with how badly he is arguing this bullshit. your team won, quit acting like a little bitch about it

Haha. Whatever. Sorry it's so hard to comprehend.

WebFire;1038398 wrote:See, 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.

I'm listening to you, and I'm saying you're not getting it.

No, I am not only making the argument for MSU being "deserving" when comparing it to Michigan.

While it isn't entirely connected to Michigan, it is largely connected to Michigan.

MSU lost 3 games. Yes. It doesn't matter that one was the B1G title game.... It should. MSU would not have had 3 losses if it didn't play in the Big Ten title game. Michigan, likely, would have had 3 losses had they played in the Big Ten title game. MSU beat Michigan head-to-head... MSU won the Legends Division... MSU had the same record (10-2) as Michigan [going into the Big Ten title game]... MSU suffered from having to play in the Big Ten title game... Michigan benefited by not having to play in the Big Ten title game... it's ass backwards.

No one is saying OSU should have been in the Rose Bowl over Wisconsin, so I don't understand why you keep bringing that up. Wisconsin had a better record, won the Leaders Division, and won the Big Ten title. Of course they should go to the Rose Bowl over the Buckeyes.

I'm not saying MSU "deserved" to be in the Sugar Bowl. Not at all.

I'm saying, MSU had a better resume / was MORE "deserving" / had a better argument to be in the Sugar Bowl than Michigan did. None of that says they "deserved" to be in the Sugar Bowl. It simply says they were MORE deserving that Michigan.

They were simply left out of the BCS because they had 3 losses and 1 of those losses was because they were better than Michigan (and therefore had to play in the Big Ten title game).

The BCS needs to look at how it judge's losses... especially if it wants to sit there and belittle programs like Boise, Houston, TCU, etc. for "weak" schedules. If the BSC is going to sit there and belittle Boise for having 1 loss, then certainly they can boost schools like Michigan State that suffered a loss to a premiere team (i.e., Wisconsin).

^^^excellent...reps :thumbup:

Scarlet_Buckeye;1038381 wrote: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?

Scarlet_Buckeye;1038465 wrote:I'm listening to you, and I'm saying you're not getting it.

No, I am not only making the argument for MSU being "deserving" when comparing it to Michigan.

While it isn't entirely connected to Michigan, it is largely connected to Michigan.

MSU lost 3 games. Yes. It doesn't matter that one was the B1G title game.... It should. MSU would not have had 3 losses if it didn't play in the Big Ten title game. Michigan, likely, would have had 3 losses had they played in the Big Ten title game. MSU beat Michigan head-to-head... MSU won the Legends Division... MSU had the same record (10-2) as Michigan [going into the Big Ten title game]... MSU suffered from having to play in the Big Ten title game... Michigan benefited by not having to play in the Big Ten title game... it's ass backwards.

No one is saying OSU should have been in the Rose Bowl over Wisconsin, so I don't understand why you keep bringing that up. Wisconsin had a better record, won the Leaders Division, and won the Big Ten title. Of course they should go to the Rose Bowl over the Buckeyes.

I'm not saying MSU "deserved" to be in the Sugar Bowl. Not at all.

I'm saying, MSU had a better resume / was MORE "deserving" / had a better argument to be in the Sugar Bowl than Michigan did. None of that says they "deserved" to be in the Sugar Bowl. It simply says they were MORE deserving that Michigan.

They were simply left out of the BCS because they had 3 losses and 1 of those losses was because they were better than Michigan (and therefore had to play in the Big Ten title game).

The BCS needs to look at how it judge's losses... especially if it wants to sit there and belittle programs like Boise, Houston, TCU, etc. for "weak" schedules. If the BSC is going to sit there and belittle Boise for having 1 loss, then certainly they can boost schools like Michigan State that suffered a loss to a premiere team (i.e., Wisconsin).

Web, you haven't refuted one single point made by Scarlet Buckeye in the above two posts. But congrats on your team's ill-deserved victory nonetheless.

Scarlet_Buckeye;1038465 wrote:I'm listening to you, and I'm saying you're not getting it.

No, I am not only making the argument for MSU being "deserving" when comparing it to Michigan.

While it isn't entirely connected to Michigan, it is largely connected to Michigan.

MSU lost 3 games. Yes. It doesn't matter that one was the B1G title game.... It should. MSU would not have had 3 losses if it didn't play in the Big Ten title game. Michigan, likely, would have had 3 losses had they played in the Big Ten title game. MSU beat Michigan head-to-head... MSU won the Legends Division... MSU had the same record (10-2) as Michigan [going into the Big Ten title game]... MSU suffered from having to play in the Big Ten title game... Michigan benefited by not having to play in the Big Ten title game... it's ass backwards.

No one is saying OSU should have been in the Rose Bowl over Wisconsin, so I don't understand why you keep bringing that up. Wisconsin had a better record, won the Leaders Division, and won the Big Ten title. Of course they should go to the Rose Bowl over the Buckeyes.

I'm not saying MSU "deserved" to be in the Sugar Bowl. Not at all.

I'm saying, MSU had a better resume / was MORE "deserving" / had a better argument to be in the Sugar Bowl than Michigan did. None of that says they "deserved" to be in the Sugar Bowl. It simply says they were MORE deserving that Michigan.

They were simply left out of the BCS because they had 3 losses and 1 of those losses was because they were better than Michigan (and therefore had to play in the Big Ten title game).

The BCS needs to look at how it judge's losses... especially if it wants to sit there and belittle programs like Boise, Houston, TCU, etc. for "weak" schedules. If the BSC is going to sit there and belittle Boise for having 1 loss, then certainly they can boost schools like Michigan State that suffered a loss to a premiere team (i.e., Wisconsin).

You said "No, I am not only making the argument for MSU being "deserving" when comparing it to Michigan." then went on to repeatedly compare them to Michigan. :rolleyes:

I'll ask the same question I asked vball...If Michigan didn't make a BCS bowl at 10-2, would you think MSU should be in the Sugar Bowl?

jhay78;1038566 wrote:Web, you haven't refuted one single point made by Scarlet Buckeye in the above two posts. But congrats on your team's ill-deserved victory nonetheless.

It doesn't need refuted. Why the hell would a team not be punished for losing a game? That makes absolutely 0 sense.

WebFire;1038604 wrote:It doesn't need refuted. Why the hell would a team not be punished for losing a game? That makes absolutely 0 sense.

They were punished for losing a game that Michigan was not even good enough to play in. I know the rules and I know the rankings, but the system (conf championships, BCS system, bowl games) is downright ludicrous on multiple levels.

jhay78;1039002 wrote:They were punished for losing a game that Michigan was not even good enough to play in. I know the rules and I know the rankings, but the system (conf championships, BCS system, bowl games) is downright ludicrous on multiple levels.

And that's a perfectly fine argument. But again, a separate issue from MSU deserving to be in BCS bowl.

WebFire;1038603 wrote:You said "No, I am not only making the argument for MSU being "deserving" when comparing it to Michigan." then went on to repeatedly compare them to Michigan. :rolleyes:

I'll ask the same question I asked vball...If Michigan didn't make a BCS bowl at 10-2, would you think MSU should be in the Sugar Bowl?

G*d damn, please stop being a moron. It has NOTHING to do with Michigan; it has everything to do with POSITIONS.

B1G title game = Wisconsin (10-2) vs. Michigan State (10-2)
PAC12 title game = Oregon (10-2) vs. UCLA (6-6)
SEC title game = LSU (12-0) vs. Georgia (10-2)
ACC title game = Clemson (9-3) vs. Virginia Tech (11-1)

Wisconsin, Oregon, LSU, Clemson all won... automatically in. Oklahoma State & West Virginia were automatic qualifiers because they won their conferences; they're in. By rule, Alabama and Stanford received automatic bids - thanks to their #2 and #4 BCS rankings. Thus, that left 2 spots available.

The final BCS rankings leave...

• #6 11-1 Boise State
• #7 10-2 Arkansas
• #9 10-2 South Carolina
• #10 10-2 Kansas State
• #11 11-2 Virginia Tech (with one of those losses resulting from the ACC championship game)
• #12 10-2 Michigan
• #13 10-3 Michigan State (with one of those losses resulting from the B1G championship game)
• #15 10-2 TCU
• #17 12-1 Houston (with their one loss coming in the C-USA championship game)

*** Don't get me wrong... all of those teams have SOME argument for those remaining 2 BCS spots, and they are probably all "deserving" to some point/level, but I think there are teams that are MORE deserving than others.
*** Also, please note that I would not want to have to pick or decide between 9 teams for 2 spots. Of course someone is going to be "left out."

IMO (and I realize my opinion is not the way things are), Va Tech's, MSU's, & Houston's championship game losses should not be held against them. Championship games should be REWARDS for teams doing well IN THE REGULAR SEASON. Championship games are NOT part of the REGULAR season. They are an EXTENSION of the season, like PLAYOFFS or BOWL GAMES are. Therefore, to penalize a team who happened to lose a championship game is ass-backwards. There has to be ONE team that wins (because there's a game), so there obviously has to be one "loser". And it's b.s. that the "loser" is going to be penalized for losing a game against a premier competitor when (a) other teams (like Michigan, FOR EXAMPLE) didn't even have to play said team (e.g., Wisconsin), yet MSU had to play them TWICE!

I'm not (nor is anyone else -- that I'm aware of) arguing that MSU is "deserving" of a BCS bowl bid. People are ARGUING that MSU is more "deserving" than Michigan. And if you want me to use another team, just because you seem to be infectious about "Michigan", then...

[ROAST]

• Boise State (ranked higher and 1 less "L")
• Arkansas (who unfortunately couldn't receive a bid b/c of the stupid rule that no more than 2 teams from 1 conference can receive BCS bowl bids)
• South Carolina (see Arkansas), Kansas State (ranked higher & tougher strength of schedule)
• Va Tech (ranked higher & same amount of losses as Michigan, but only because of conference title game)
• Michigan State (see Va Tech + beat Michigan + won their division, etc), and finally
• Houston (1 less 'L' than Michigan and their only loss was a result of a conference championship game).
• And even an argument can be made for TCU > Michigan, but I'm not even going to get into that because I've already lambasted you in this argument with my previous points.

Now... I'm done with this thread. I've already brought big boy points to a childish argument. I'm not going to waste another minute of my time trying to convince a simple mind why he's being a foolish, blind man. It's obvious you are acting narrow/close minded and your opinion isn't going to change, but I've already presented enough of the FACTS that everyone else on this message board will know who is being RATIONALE and presenting valid points/arguments.

You're trying to be a smartass and it's making you look like a fool.

[/ROAST]

Scarlet_Buckeye;1039575 wrote:G*d damn, please stop being a moron. It has NOTHING to do with Michigan; it has everything to do with POSITIONS.

Exactly!

Scarlet_Buckeye;1039575 wrote:
IMO (and I realize my opinion is not the way things are), Va Tech's, MSU's, & Houston's championship game losses should not be held against them. Championship games should be REWARDS for teams doing well IN THE REGULAR SEASON. Championship games are NOT part of the REGULAR season. They are an EXTENSION of the season, like PLAYOFFS or BOWL GAMES are. Therefore, to penalize a team who happened to lose a championship game is ass-backwards. There has to be ONE team that wins (because there's a game), so there obviously has to be one "loser". And it's b.s. that the "loser" is going to be penalized for losing a game against a premier competitor when (a) other teams (like Michigan, FOR EXAMPLE) didn't even have to play said team (e.g., Wisconsin), yet MSU had to play them TWICE!

This is where we disagree. If it is NOT part of the regular season, then a loss in the postseason cannot cannot advance you. Right? It's like advancing and NFL wildcard team for simply being the wildcard, even though they lose the wildcard game!

I think for us to agree, only conference winners could make a BCS game. That would eliminate a team like Michigan or VT going to a BCS bowl game while the loser of a conference championship doesn't. I am not against that, but that's not how it is, so we have to deal with the system.

Scarlet_Buckeye;1039575 wrote:I'm not (nor is anyone else -- that I'm aware of) arguing that MSU is "deserving" of a BCS bowl bid. People are ARGUING that MSU is more "deserving" than Michigan. And if you want me to use another team, just because you seem to be infectious about "Michigan", then...

I get what you are saying, but many people say it and they think MSU should be in the Sugar Bowl instead of Michigan. To me, the statement that MSU is more deserving that Michigan is oxymoron. How can you be more deserving when you are not deserving in the first place? Though, I guess you think maybe they are deserving, since the 3rd loss should just be forgotten.

Scarlet_Buckeye;1039575 wrote:Now... I'm done with this thread. I've already brought big boy points to a childish argument. I'm not going to waste another minute of my time trying to convince a simple mind why he's being a foolish, blind man. It's obvious you are acting narrow/close minded and your opinion isn't going to change, but I've already presented enough of the FACTS that everyone else on this message board will know who is being RATIONALE and presenting valid points/arguments.

You're trying to be a smartass and it's making you look like a fool.

The problem is I am making a simple point, and everyone wants to make it what it isn't. I am simply saying MSU is not deserving. I couldn't care less if someone thinks Michigan isn't deserving. There are certainly valid arguments for that. But to say MSU is more deserving is highly inaccurate and wrong, IMO. And that's all I've said all along.

WebFire;1039639 wrote:But to say MSU is more deserving is highly inaccurate and wrong, IMO. And that's all I've said all along.

And my contention all along is that they were, IMO. I think this 'discussion' has ran it's course, so I'm done (as long as you are).

Yep, I'm done.

bo shemmy3337;1040813 wrote:

and this makes tsun fans look good how?

A better sign would be:

"MSU DESERVES THIS MORE"

vball10set;1040962 wrote:and this makes tsun fans look good how?

What you think they should have said no to the bowl offer? naw we want MSU to go, Also make us look bad? go a Michigan game once I will drive you there and you will never say that again.

bo shemmy3337;1041492 wrote:What you think they should have said no to the bowl offer? naw we want MSU to go, Also make us look bad? go a Michigan game once I will drive you there and you will never say that again.

lol--started a little early tonight, eh shemmy?

As everyone has said over and over and over "DESERVE" has nothing to do with who plays in what Bowl. Has a 3 loss team that was not a conference champ (automatic bid) ever received an at large BCS bid? I can't think of one off hand. I could make a case for Michigan not being in the Sugar Bowl but no case whatsoever for Michigan State getting a BCS bid.

0311sdp;1041588 wrote:As everyone has said over and over and over "DESERVE" has nothing to do with who plays in what Bowl. Has a 3 loss team that was not a conference champ (automatic bid) ever received an at large BCS bid? I can't think of one off hand. I could make a case for Michigan not being in the Sugar Bowl but no case whatsoever for Michigan State getting a BCS bid.

been there, done that, moved on

Had Michigan State beat Wisconsin, would Michigan be in the Sugar Bowl, or would the Badgers? Wisconsin would have three losses also.

sportswizuhrd;1041837 wrote:Had Michigan State beat Wisconsin, would Michigan be in the Sugar Bowl, or would the Badgers? Wisconsin would have three losses also.

MSU prolly would've gone

vball10set;1042076 wrote:MSU prolly would've gone

To the Sugar Bowl?