Here's a thread where all of our experts can make their best case either for or against Michigan getting another shot at OSU.

The only stipulation is that you can use indisputable facts only. No subjectivity.

I will volunteer to referee this thread, and will not participate other than to point out violations of the "facts only" rule.

Please disregard that it's 99.9% possible that Michigan won't get the rematch.

If there are people here that are willing to put a few minutes of thought into this I think we'd be in for some good reading.

Damn dude, do we need another thread for this? I'm all for people posting whatever the hell they want, but it seems like we've ran up and down this topic in two other threads already.

I realize it doesn't appeal to you since you hate Michigan, but this is a pretty big story to Michigan fans.

That being said, you're the co-mod of this forum and if you don't think it's a worthy discussion/exercise, then so be it.

I thought it was a new twist on the huge national debate that is taking place about this issue, and didn't want it to get lost in the other thread.

By the way, your response to this exercise is one that I am looking forward to reading, Tre.

I just thought we were discussing all this in the Who should OSU play thread. That's all I meant by it.

Well this is going over like a lead balloon.

Thanks for playing, lol.

A rematch would not neccessarily lead to a champion, when a USC/OSU game would.

That isn't a great argument, but it is pretty hard to argue against IMO.

A rematch would not neccessarily lead to a champion, when a USC/OSU game would.

That isn't a great argument, but it is pretty hard to argue against IMO.

This thread was hurting for responses so badly that I don't want to be critical but, that's hardly an "indisputable fact".

I have a large penis.


I dare you to dispute that one.

Giffman is alive. We were worried that that saginaw beastality arrest had robbed us of the Giffmiester.

http://www.wtfdetroit.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7395

All the other Universities suck. Their profs suck, their students suck, their buildings suck, their bands suck, their mascots suck, they all suck, they suck at life.

UofM lost 1 game to the number one ranked team in the nation. UofM should get the game.

It's a fact that Gene Wojciechowski from ESPN.com said this-


LOS ANGELES -- So, USC or Michigan?


That's the only real question left to answer in a season where a national championship matchup will be determined by -- and how stupid is this? -- "style" points.


I hate the BCS. I hate it because the two best teams in the country aren't going to play in the national title game. Instead, No. 1-ranked Ohio State is going to face a very good, but moderately flawed USC team.


If it were up to me -- and a slightly less-flawed Michigan team -- the BCS would be swimming with the fishes. It would be ruled unconstitutional. If you uttered its initials, you would be required to eat a very large bowl of FieldTurf.

They had to choose between 10-1 USC, which beat overrated Notre Dame, 44-24, Saturday night at the Coliseum, or 11-1 Michigan, which defeated the same Irish team by 26 points more than two months ago at South Bend.

I think Michigan is the second-best team in the country.

This thread was hurting for responses so badly that I don't want to be critical but, that's hardly an "indisputable fact".

OK, how about - proving the Big Ten's superiority to other conference's would be something that has not happened, though it is widely believed. OSU's superiority(if by the slimmest of margins) to UM has.

Is that harder to dispute, if my point didn't change.

Facts for Michigan: Their only loss was to the top ranked team, who had home field advantage in what it widely regarded as the greatest rivalry in sports. Home field advantage in such a game could constitute a 3 point swing. Margin of victory against only common opponent favors Michigan: 26 points vs 20.

Facts against Michigan: They did not win their conference. Their loss came in their most recent game to the exact team they would be playing again.

Reminder to those planning to attack any of my comments: this thread is strickly for facts, not opinion. Opinion can be expressed in the other thread.

^that was more of what I was thinking Jeth, stats and numbers are indisputable

Well played.

USC has a slight edge in the computer rankings, which would suggest the numbers favor them (strength of schedule, etc).

However, in the comparison with ND I mentioned in the other thread...U of M won by more, on the road, and outplayed ND by more in every statistical category except 2.

My question is this...suppose U of M lost to a different #1 team on the road by 3 points. That is, to remove the rematch factor. Who would be playing OSU? Would the BCS rate USC's slight edge in schedule strength higher? Or would they give the nod to Michigan because they lost to a better team than USC? Who knows, but we'll never find out because the rematch senario IS there.

To answer your hypothetical Jeth, I would imagine that UM would be worse off with the computers in that situation as their strength of schedule would be worse since the team they lost to would no longer be #1 (in other words, UM would have lost to the current #4 team or something instead of the current #1). However, their position in the human polls would probably be better as the "they've already played them and lost" factor would be eliminated.

None of that is fact however.

That was Chris' hypotyhetical, not mine, but I see your point.

Another factor - though one that is a better fit in the other thread, is the question: what if USC beats OSU in a close game and UM beats their opponent by 17? The BCS would award the championship to the winner of their championship game, but it's possible that the AP would award the championship to Michigan. It's all in the voters hands.

Due to lack of repsonse I'm removing myself from the referee role to a contributor role.

One thing that hasn't been discussed when comparing UM and USC is the fact that we now have a common opponent between the two: Notre Dame. This is probably the closest that we can get to being able to accurately compare the two teams.


FACT: Total net yards allowed vs ND
Michigan: 273
USC: 404

FACT: Average yards per play allowed vs ND
Michigan: 4.0
USC: 5.3

FACT: Total net rushing yards allowed vs ND
Michigan: 32 (Avg. 1.9 ypc)
USC: 130 (Avg. 4.2 ypc)

FACT: Total yards passing allowed vs ND
Michigan: 241 (4.6 yds per pass play)
USC: 274 (6.1 yds per pass play)

FACT: Interceptions by defense vs. ND
Michigan: 3
USC: 0

FACT: Margin of victory vs. ND
Michigan: 26
USC: 20

FACT: Where these games were played vs. ND
Michigan: on the road
USC: at home

So while some here were going on and on about the speed and greatness of USC's defense vs. ND, do these numbers lie?

Wow, that's incredible research Glenn. [smilie=highfive.gi:

I'm sure there's other stats out there that are pro-USC, but Michigan should get a rematch.

Wow, that's incredible research Glenn. [smilie=highfive.gi:

I'm sure there's other stats out there that are pro-USC, but Michigan should get a rematch.

I'm sure he looked it up somewhere, but I already posted this in the other thread:

http://www.wtfdetroit.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7530&page=7

Sorry I missed your original post Chris, I just pulled this info from the two box scores.

I did not deliberately overlook any pro-USC facts from those games.

If I missed some, somebody can let me know.