Sunday, December 03, 2006

Why I Don't Understand Sports

Unless you accidentally fell into a fountain and have been frozen in time for the past two days, the biggest debate in the sports world is who should be playing Ohio State University (no, I do not put "the" in front as I believe there are more than one, and it wasn't the first in the state that's round on both ends).

The battle began when #1 ranked OSU played then #2 ranked The University of Michigan (I'll use it there though). It was quoted as "The Game of the Century" and had more viewers than Top Chef...I mean Iron Chef America...I mean Gray's Anatomy (sorry I'm hungry). The game was at The Horseshoe, OSU's field, and was as close a game as many thought it would be. The Buckeyes did win, but only by three points, which many credit to being home field advantage. Keep in mind this was the only loss for Michigan...against the #1 ranked team in America.

So on the other side of the Nation, The University of Southern California (yeah, I'll give them the "the" just for fun) was starting to get some hype. They had two more games left, after Michigan's final versus OSU. USC was ranked 3 at the time and only had one loss as well. That sounds pretty decent, right? Well take into consideration that they lost to Oregon State University. That's right Oregon State. Have you even heard of this college? No? Well neither had any one else until they beat USC, a team known for football, in which should have been a throwaway for them. So USC is also with one loss, with two games left in the season: Notre Dame and UCLA. Notre Dame was the game all were talking about b/c if USC beat them, well it was pretty clear they would jump up to #2 and knock Michigan to #3. Oh well, that's how life goes. Well, wait...Michigan gets knocked down a peg b/c their only loss is to the best team in the nation, while USC lost to a school where the only student apparel you can find is in the school's bookshop? Seems odd. Well USC defeated Notre Dame...oh...and so did Michigan in it's second game of the year when the Wolverines were ranked #11 and the Fighting Irish were #2. Oh and Michigan stomped them with a victory of over 20 points. Yeah, this was football not basketball...20 points. Anyway, back to USC. They beat the overrated Notre Dame and then go onto what many thought would be a cake walk against UCLA. UCLA is known for creating actors, not athletes. Well, we were all wrong when in a giant upset, UCLA beat USC 13-9. It looks like reason does win out. So many think that Michigan is fine, and a great rematch will occur in the National Title Game. Think again.

You can't forget Florida. "Florida?" you ask. Well, so did I and many other people. All of a sudden they're going to play OSU in the national title game b/c they just won the SEC conference. Wait. "Why weren't they talking about Florida at the same time they were talking about USC?" and "What's their record?" are two questions you're probably asking. Well, I asked myself those questions as well. No one was talking about Florida at the time b/c, well, no one thought they really had any reason to be the #2 team in the US. They themselves had one loss in the Auburn. "Auburn! I've heard of them!" That's right, they're no Oregon State. But keep in mind, Florida was ranked #2 when they played them, and Auburn was #11. So Florida lost to a team that they should've beaten. Well they go on to play five unranked after that and, surprise, beat them. This puts them in the SEC finals to play Arkansas (another team I'm sure you know). Well they beat them as well and all of a sudden, people think they should play OSU in the National Championship.

Here is where my confusion comes in. The University of Michigan only has one loss this season, against the best team in the nation. They didn't lose to a team that they should've beaten. Florida, on the other hand, loses to a team that is ranked nine spots lower than they are, and suddenly they're the second best team in the nation? Does this make sense?

If the point of the national championship is to have the #1 team play the #2 team, then wouldn't it make sense to have the two best teams play? OSU is obviously the best team in the nation. They're undefeated and they defeated two #2 ranked teams in the same season (they beat Texas earlier in the year). But how can anyone honestly tell me that Florida, a team that barely beat South Carolina by one point, is better than Michigan who came into the season ranked #15 and rose all the way to #2? I know many people don't want to see a rematch, but does anyone truly believe that Florida is a better team than Michigan?

Oh, and to anyone who says that the SEC has the toughest schedule, read up. The rankings of the teams that Florida played, in order, are 13, 9, 11, and 8. The rankings of the teams that Michigan played were 2 and 1. In the current BCS standings, there are 3 Big Ten teams in the top 5, all of which Michigan played.

So I'm done trying to understand sports and I'm going to go back to watching Top Chef. At least there I know that they're kicking off the worst chef.


E said...

Big 10 bias.

Would you be this upset if we were talking about Louisville and Rutgers?

Michigan had their shot. Now before we give them their 2nd chance, let's give Florida its 1st.

Eric said...

Why does Florida deserve a shot more than Boise State?

G8RB8R said...

Ah, Grasshopper has no need to understand. Come to the feet of Albert, bow down and pay your respects to the Mighty GATORS, for they are the new Gods of collegiate athletics.