ceglar wrote:
In all fairness though what would happen if Michigan won? How can they be the national champs when both they and Ohio St. are 11-1 and they split the two games between them. That would not be fair to Ohio St.
They won't get to play because Florida moved ahead, but there is an argument that if the two played the winner should be the champion. The reason is because that is how the system is set up. The two best teams as determined by the computers and poll voters are designated the play for the championship, and the winner is the official champion. If Michigan were in fact the #2 team (that's an argument for elsewhere), then the winner between #1 & #2 is the champion, according to the rules.
If you need a fairness argument, consider that Ohio St. played the game versus Michigan at home. For betting purposes, home field advantage is generally measured at 3-3.5 points. On a neutral field, the result between Ohio St. and Michigan would essentially be considered a toss-up. The game between these two for the national title would essentially be a toss-up on a neutral field; it doesn't get any better than that. On a side note, ESPN noted that in a hypothetical game between Florida and Michigan, the Vegas line would favor Michigan by 6.5-7 points. For those of you that don't gamble or follow sports, that's a whole bunch of points for competition at this level.
Is it fair that Ohio St. got to play a home game for the national title (let's be serious, Florida has virtually no chance here so the game against Michigan was the de facto national title game)?
From a personal standpoint I'm disappointed, but generally speaking I do not disagree with the outcome. I do see the merits in allowing teams from two different conferences compete for the title. It's just that under the rules as they currently stand, Florida should not have been selected. The rules state the best 2 teams should face each-other.