If Big Ten in ’06 had new divisional setup, we might’ve had UM-OSU I in Nov, UM-OSU II for conf title, and if they split, UM-OSU III for BCS
If Big Ten in ’06 had new divisional setup, we might’ve had UM-OSU I in Nov, UM-OSU II for conf title, and if they split, UM-OSU III for BCS
As hypothetical alternate-universe 2006 Brian Foster would’ve said, THREE-MATCH = JUSTICE
I have to think the BCS powers that be would step in and finally invoke the for the best interests clause to keep UM and OSU out of the same bowl game. Just sayin.
Even if they were ranked #1 and #2 by the BCS formula? That’s unimaginable to me.
Ah i didn’t realize you were talking about the championship game. Still I think assuming that were true that USC would have stayed ahead of atleast one of them, possibly leapfrogging both depending.
Sorry, was looking at the wrong week, USC had lost its second game by then, Florida, Florida would be up. I think the championship game would have been Big-12 champion vs SEC champion i.e. Florida vs. Michigan. I think it would be easy to make the argument that Michigan was the better team at that point since they won more recently. True or nto I think it would hold sway in most voters minds, and I think they would be reluctant to vote Ohio State #2 after just losing vs. Florida after just winning.
You’re forgetting how much momentum there was for a OSU-Michigan rematch that year after the one “epic” #1 vs. #2 game. Florida just barely managed, with help from its lobbying team at CBS (i.e. the announcers during the SEC title game), to win the P.R. battle and convince voters to leapfrog them into the #2 spot ahead of Michigan. Remember, this was before the SEC dominance / Big Ten suckitude narrative took hold. OSU and Michigan had been seen as the unquestioned #1 and #2 teams in the country all season long, while Florida had been a virtual afterthought. As things transpired, the main argument against a rematch was that we’d already seen an OSU-Michigan game and OSU had won it, so we should “give someone else a shot” at the overwhelming title-game favorite, OSU. But if OSU and Michigan had split, particularly if both games had been close, that argument wouldn’t have existed — it wouldn’t be a question of “giving someone else a shot,” since you’d be talking about a “rubber game” for all the marbles. We’d have been looking at 3 one-loss teams, and with no clear winner between OSU and Michigan (besides the team that happened to win Game 2 as opposed to Game 1 being technically the “champion”), I think it’s very possible the voters would have kept those teams #1 and #2 in some order.
I dunno, a third game seems to have less allure than a rematch in my mind, especially when the first of the three would have occured mid season.
I agree it might have “less allure,” but there’d also be less of a substantive argument against it. If you truly believed that Ohio State and Michigan were the #1 and #2 teams in the country — as I think most people did, however erroneously — it would be hard to justify anything OTHER than a “rubber game.” With the simple “rematch,” the justification for a voter putting the team he thought, in his heart of hearts, was #3 (Florida), ahead of the team he thought was #2 (Michigan), was simple: Michigan had its shot at the Buckeyes and lost, so let’s give Florida a turn. But if Michigan and Ohio State were 1-1 against each other, what’s the rational justification for giving the perceived #3 team (Florida) a shot at… an arbitrarily selected team from the perceived top 2, which split their season series?
P.S. Keep in mind, the week after Ohio State-Michigan, the rankings were: #1 OSU, #2 USC, #3 Michigan, #4 Florida. Then, the next week, USC lost, Michigan was idle, and… Florida won 38-28 over a fairly pedestrian 10-2 Arkansas team… and suddenly Florida leapfrogged the Wolverines. Why? Because the voters were struck by a bolt of lightning and realized the Gators were actually better? Because the win over the Casey Dick-led Razorbacks was oh-so-impressive, compared with Michigan’s 0-0 tie with the University of Bye? Or because the voters actually thought Michigan was better (hence voting them ahead of Florida in the first place, after the OSU loss), but wanted to give a different team a shot at the consensus #1 team, Ohio State, since the Buckeyes had already beaten the Wolverines? The voters are not a monolith, of course, but I think the third factor was very much in play, in a lot of voters’ minds. It’d be a whole different scenario if there’d been no consensus #1 team, and the Buckeyes and Wolverines had split against each other.
I think it isn’t unreasonable to make the argument you are making, I just think chances are it wouldn’t have happened, not “OMG THAT WOULD NEVER HAPPEN” odds, or anything, but fairly good. Because don’t forget, Ohio State would have just lost and that would certainly affect things.
I can buy that. I don’t know what would have happened. It’s a ridiculous hypothetical anyway, who knows how things would have played out with different structure etc. Food for thought, though. Indeed, if Florida and Alabama split their potential season series this year, and we have 2007-like cannibalization elsewhere with lots of multiple-loss teams, etc., and neither Boise nor TCU go undefeated (or maybe even if they do?!?), watch out for the potential SEC “three-match” this year.