Like all Michigan fans, I am in shock. Following yesterday’s blistering 46-17 loss to Penn State, Michigan is now 2-5 on the season, its worst start since 1967.  With immensely difficult games remaining on the schedule, it now seems a foregone conclusion that Michigan is en route to suffering its first losing season in my lifetime.  Our record-setting streak of winning seasons and bowl appearances is at an end.

I never thought I would see this day.  Hell, I never thought my children would see this day.  But like all Michigan fans, I am not one to sit idly by and mope.  I leave that task for the Irish.  Instead, we Michigan faithful — we Michigan Men — are more inclined, in the face of such adversity, to identify and solve the problem.  We mope for a while, but then we get up, figure out a way to win, and win.  It’s that simple.

So here we are, at 2-5.  What’s the problem?  What’s not working?  How do we fix it?

What’s Not Wrong: Debunking the Myth of the Freshman Team

Before we get into the problems facing the team, let’s first debunk the popular myth that Michigan ‘08 is bad because the team is young.  It’s oft been said that with a more experienced quarterback, running back and/or wide receiver, Michigan would be better than it is.  I don’t dispute some truth to that statement, but let me be clear: Michigan’s youth is not the root cause of its woes.

Consider, for example, 2004, when the premiere starting positions were occupied by a freshman quarterback (Chad Henne), running back (Mike Hart), and a senior receiver (Braylon Edwards).  Despite such inexperience, Michigan finished the 2004 season with a 9-2 record, shared the Big Ten championship and paid a visit to Pasadena in January.  In fact, the parallels between 2004 and 2008 are remarkable: Both seasons saw freshman quarterbacks (Henne, Threet, Sheridan)  a freshman running back (Hart, McGuffie), a relatively experienced defense, a relatively inexperienced offense and several key returning seniors (Edwards, Minor).

There is, of course, one major difference between the 2004 and 2008 seasons that simply cannot be overlooked: In 2004, we had Lloyd Carr.  In 2008, we have Rich Rodriguez.  And therein lies the problem.  Or problems, in the plural, as it were.

Problem No. 1: We fumble too much.

This is an obvious point, but not a minor one.  With five games left to play in 2008, we have already amassed a season’s worth of fumble statistics.  In only seven games, we have fumbled the ball twenty five times, twelve of which resulted in turnovers.

Compared to the last four seasons, the devastation of this statistic becomes apparent.  Through five games, somewhere between seven and ten fumbles — three to five of which result in turnovers — is entirely normal.  In 2008, we have nearly tripled those numbers.  The fundamentals of the game, including holding on to the ball, fall to the coaches.  There is simply no one else to blame.  The inexperienced freshman team of 2004 made it work, so what’s wrong with the 2008 team?  A lack of fundamental ball-handling education, that’s what.

Problem No. 2: Our third-down conversion rate is terrible.

In the four seasons prior to Richrod’s arrival, Michigan’s third-down conversation rate hovered somewhere in the 40-45% range.  Under Richrod, it’s only 25%.

The question is: Why?  What could Lloyd Carr do on third downs that Richrod cannot?  Keep reading for the answer.

Problem No. 3: Our passing game is designed around small-yard gains.

Steve Threet and Nick Sheridan are common scapegoats for the abysmal performance of Michigan in the 2008 season.  And I don’t dispute that Sheridan and Threet aren’t great.  The problem with blaming the QBs for Michigan’s lack of success is that the statistics simply do not support that conclusion.  Even as a freshman, Chad Henne’s completion rate was 60%.  In subsequent years, he would continue to hover right around that 60% mark.  Threet, by comparison, has a completion rate of 52%.  Obviously Threet isn’t completing as many passes as Henne, but the 8% margin between the two is simply not that profound.  As mediocre as Threet is, he’s connecting on more than half of his passes.  (He’s also mounting more yards on the ground than any quarterback in Michigan history, now that the gameplan encourages quarterbacks to run on occasion.)  The myth that Threet isn’t a good quarterback simply is not true.

The problem lies not with Threet’s ability to throw the ball, but rather, with how far he’s throwing the ball.  In the 2004-2007 seasons, Michigan logged an average of about 200 airborne yards per game.  In 2008, that number has been cut in half.  Through five games, Michigan is now averaging little over 100 yards per game in the air.  Threet’s completion rate rivals Henne’s (52 compared to 60), but his actual yardage is half that of Henne’s.  Yikes.  What’s going on here?

Eureka.  The problem becomes obvious when you look at the yards-per-pass.  In the 2004-2007 seasons, Michigan averaged 11-12 yards per pass before competion.  In 2008, the Wolverines are averaging less than half of that, or about 5 yards per pass.  Threet has a good arm and good aim, and he’s connecting on more than half of his passes.  Threet’s not the problem; his playbook is the problem.  Michigan is running much shorter passing plays than it used to, plain and simple.  That’s not the players’ problem; that’s a coaching choice.

Is Michigan running short passing plays because they don’t trust Threet to air it out?  Maybe.  Could Threet improve as a quarterback?  Definitely.  But I don’t think either of those is the fundamental cause of Michigan’s lack of airborne yardage.  The problem is that the playbook is designed for short passes.  You can see this for yourself when you watch Michigan on third-and-long this year.  Instead of running a play designed to pick up maximum yardage and get the first down, the offense run a play designed for moderate pickup of, say, 5 yards or so.  Hence the lack of airborne yardage compared to previous seasons and the abysmal third down conversion rate.  The players can get more yards, but they’re being told not to, period.

Problem No. 4: No identifiable marquee players.

No one questions that true freshman Sam McGuffie has started living up to his YouTube highlight videos.  (I’ll say it again: Michigan is my favorite for the national championship… in 2011.)  This kid is the future of Michigan’s running game, plain and simple.

But what about the present?  On the ground, Michigan is averaging about 4 yards per carry, which isn’t bad.  It is true that in the recent past, Mike Hart, even as a freshman, had superior numbers to McGuffie. (Hart averaged about 5 yards per carry during his tenure).  But this is quibbling; today’s 4 yards per carry is awfully close, in terms of ability, to yesterday’s 5 yards per carry.  So what’s the problem here?

Again, eureka.  The problem becomes evident when doing a side-by-side comparison of Michigan’s past rushing leaders.  Between 2004 and 2007, Hart carried the team, quite literally, on his powerful legs.  Hart was the go-to guy, pure and simple, and his ground yardage evidenced that.  In his worst season, Hart still averaged 80 yards per game, in 2005, a season wracked with injury for him.  When he wasn’t injured, Hart consistently averaged more than 120 yards per game.

McGuffie, by comparison, is running less than half of that; he’s averaging only about 60 yards per game.  Is this because McGuffie isn’t as good as Hart?  Is this because the inexperienced offensive line isn’t blocking for McGuffie as well as it used to block for Hart?  The answer is “no” to both of those questions.  McGuffie’s yards-per-carry (4) are close enough to Hart’s (5) to show that McGuffie’s running ability, and the blocking he’s receiving, are comparable.  So why as his yards so low?

In comparing the performance of 2008’s receiving leaders (Odoms and Mathews) with that of past seasons, the trend now finally emerges.  Again, Michigan is putting up only half the yards it used to.  But wait, we’ve seen this problem before!  Threet is averaging half of Henne’s yards per game, McGuffie is averaging half of Hart’s yards per game, and Odoms/Mathews are averaging half of Manningham/Arrington’s yards per game.  Everything has been cut in half.  The trend is now obvious.

And finally, we arrive at the most fundamental problem with the 2008 Michigan football team: There are no stars.

It is no secret that great football teams rely on the individual efforts of great players.  In the past, a hallmark of Michigan’s program was the presence of 2-3 marquee athletes, and that strategy has produced names that echo like gunshots across history: Brady, Breaston, Perry, Woodson, Carter, Howard, Harmon.

Who are the stars on the Michigan 2008 football team?  There are none.  Threet has begun to emerge as the starting quarterback, and McGuffie as the go-to running back.  But already, there are rumors that the Threet/Sheridan tandem may be replaced as early as next year with kids who right now are celebrating homecoming… in high school.  While I welcome the introduction of the “mobile quarterback” to the Michigan program, you can imagine how Steve Threet feels about that.

Brandon Minor, who played backup to Mike Hart for the last few years, has seen his senior year greatness evaporate in a cloud of dust that spells “McGuffie”.  Perhaps this is why Ryan Mallett quit the team; maybe he saw the writing on the wall, too.

The harsh reality is that Richrod has not shown respect for the system created by Bo and Lloyd, a system that recruited great freshman and cultivated them in an environment filled with great seniors.  Put in your time, give your due.  Play backup for a few years, and eventually, we promise, you will fill that marquee role.  Richrod has turned this system on its head.  He passed over Minor, a great back in his own right, for McGuffie, who is also great.  But has McGuffie put in his due?  Has McGuffie been part of the system?  No.

Richrod’s decision — to play the best players, regardless of seniority — is not necessarily a bad decision.  But let’s be clear that it is not what Michigan has done in the past.  If Sheridan and Threet are constantly competing against each other for the starting QB slot, I can’t imagine that’s good on team morale.  I can’t imagine that’s good for encouraging either Sheridan or Threet from assuming the ultimate mantle of responsibility for the team’s success or failure, particularly when they both know that regardless who wins, that guy will probably be replaced next year anyway.

For the record, Michigan has experimented with a dual-quarterback system in the past, and it wasn’t successful then, either.  In 95-97, Brian Griese and Scott Dreisbach competed for the position, and subsequent seasons saw a matchup between Tom Brady and Drew Henson.  In those days, just as today, the dual-quarterback system was ridiculed for throwing off the tempo of the game and lessening the sense of responsibility felt by the team’s leader, the quarterback.  Lloyd apparently learned from those lessons, but Richrod apparently has not.

Who is Michigan’s marquee quarterback?  Is it Threet or Sheridan?  Who is Michigan’s marquee receiver?  Is it Odoms or Mathews?  Who is Michigan’s marquee running back?  Is it McGuffie or Minor?  No one knows.  And that’s the problem.

I can appreciate that in a “spread” offense, one of the purposes is to reduce or even eliminate reliance on marquee players by “spreading” the ball around the field.  But the truth is that even in a spread offensive system, marquee players still end up getting the job done.  Just ask Tim Tebow, Juice Williams or Pat White.  Marquee players end up taking responsibility for the team’s success or failure, and as a result, they simply make plays happen, and that’s true regardless of the adjectives you use to  describe your offensive scheme.

Solutions.

First, Richrod needs to return to fundamentals.  All of these guys should have been taught, early on, how to run with a football in hand without dropping it.  Sticky gloves are not the answer.  The answer is hours upon hours of hard, grueling drills with a football in one hand.  This is how Bo and Lloyd did it.  Teach the fundamentals first.

Second, Richrod needs to open up the big-yard playbook.  On passing, the quick out plays are fine, but the big-yard plays need to be thrown in more often.  I believe Threet has the aim and power to paste Odoms and Mathews on the numbers 30 yards downfield.  The playbook needs to allow him to do that.  I understand that Richrod favors a “run first” offensive, but this is Michigan; it’s ok to find the guy in the corner of the endzone.  Often.

Third, Richrod needs to designate the go-to guys.  Seven games into the season, it’s past time to quit pansying around with deciding who your starters are going to be.  He needs to sit down with Threet/Sheridan, McGuffie/Minor and Odoms/Mathews and make a choice amongst them.  He needs to say “You’re the guy”, or “You’re not the guy”.  Place the full mantle of responsibility in the hands of these young players, and they will make things happen.  That’s what Michigan Men do.

Just stop paying your mortgage
signonsandiego.com — Interesting read on the recently-passed bailout legislation, suggesting that foreclosure is essentially not an option for many banks these days, or at least, won’t be an option in the very near term.  If you’re struggling under a mortgage and don’t have much equity, the smartest thing to do might be to simply not pay.

Star Trek movie updates
firstshowing.net — Entertainment Weekly has a handful of photos, finally, from the new Star Trek movie, due out May 8, 2009.  I’m still completely skeptical that this will be any good, but will that stop me from seeing it on opening night?  Of course not.

McCain Frowns, Rolls Eyes, Blinks 3000 Times
huffingtonpost.com — It always amazes me how presidential elections, in the end, boil down to personality.  For whatever reasons, independent swing voters don’t like it when candidates seem condescending or mean during debates.  (I’m the opposite; I love being condescending.)  In the third debate between McCain and Obama, watch as Obama starts to get very cranky.  And please, somebody, get this guy some eyedrops.

FriendFeed Unveils New Live Updater
techcrunch.com — FriendFeed earlier tonight apparently unveiled a new auto-updating non-refresh scrolling updater.  As this article says, the new functionality turns the Internet into a chat room.  Like, the whole Internet.  I haven’t played with this yet, but I’m excited about another way to procrastinate!

TMobile G1 Review
engadget.com — The gadgeteers at Engadget finally gets hands-on with the new TMobile G1, which looks pretty badass to me.  I’m not about to buy one tomorrow, as it seems there are some kinks left to work out.  But this seems promising.  Finally, TMobile customers get a new product before everyone else!

15 Newspapers Endorse Obama; None for McCain
eandppub.com — As some you know, E&P is famous for charting every editorial endorsement for president, gaining a good deal of attention in this matter in 2004 — we accurately predicted the outcome in 14 of the 15 key battleground states based solely on the endorsements.  So far this year Obama leads McCain 26-9 (it’s early) and has already picked up at least three papers that endorsed Bush in 2004.  We will have a new chart on Monday– here is what we ran on Friday.

The New Rules of Work
Today let’s take a look at Productivity 2.0: a new set of rules have changed everything for the workers of the world. Don’t crank out tasks — learn to work with a deeper focus. Don’t plan and hold meetings and form committees — just launch the software or product or service and keep improving it. Don’t spend time organizing — you’ve got more important things to worry about.

Associates at Big Law Firm Not Safe in Bad Economy
At least 100 Heller Ehrman employees were laid off on Friday, without receiving the 60 days’ wages required by federal law or accrued vacation due under California law, leaving even those remaining expressing confusion and concern.

Michigan has never lost a game to a MAC team.  The Wolverines have a perfect 23-0 record against MAC opponents headed into this weekend’s matchup in the Big House against Miami of Ohio.  Will this be the game where Michigan turns it around and begins to find some traction after last week’s abysmal loss to Utah?  Or will this be the App State of 2008, sparking a Notre Dame-esque fall from grace?  Here’s what to expect:

The RedHawks (that’s not a typo; the “H” really is capitalized) are a pretty good squad.  They went 5-2 last year, and are the defending MAC West Division champs.  Miami lost its season opener to Vanderbilt last week, 34-13.

On offense, Miami is decent.  Like Michigan, they have two quarterbacks, a starry-eyed freshman, Clay Belton, and a more experienced junior, Daniel Raudabaugh.  Miami should be considered a “second year” offense; a majority of its offensive players are returning players, but saw their first action just last year.  Miami heavily favors its passing game, although starter Raudabaugh’s completion rate is less than 50%.  Miami is a “big play” team; they seek out the trick plays and sneak plays that will net instant touchdowns.

On defense, the RedHawks are very solid.  For a MAC team, this is as good as it gets.  Nine of Miami’s defensive players are seniors with multi-year experience; three of these guys were Butkus Award considerations.  In fact, Miami’s defense essentially carried last year’s freshman offense to the MAC championship game.

On offense, Michigan will continue to struggle, especially in the passing game.  Rodriguez will start Steven Threet, who significantly outperformed rival Nick Sheridan on Saturday.  (Both were miserable, but Threet was far less miserable.)  Expect Threet to favor Greg Mathews, who should start to find his stride this weekend as Michigan’s premier wide receiver.

The Wolverines will focus on the running game, however, with Brandon Minor making his fully healthy return this weekend.  (Minor was a key missing ingredient against Utah.  He sat out most of the game, but when he played, he averaged 5.4 yards per carry.)  Minor could easily have a 100-yard game against Miami.  If the Wolverines establish the running game early with Minor, this thing is in the bag.

On defense, Michigan needs to step it up.  If the second half defensive spark we saw against Utah is any indicator of this weekend’s game against Miami, then the Wolverines should be in good shape.  Expect Michigan’s experienced defensive line to bring it, hard, against Miami.  The risk here is Michigan’s secondary, which against Utah was utterly pathetic.  If Michigan can establish the rush against the RedHawks, they’ll be fine.  If they get back on their heels against Miami’s pass-happy offense, we could be in for a very long afternoon.  And in any event, look for a handful of trick plays by the “big play” Miami team to avoid potential embarrasment on the road against a Big Ten foe.

They key is Minor.  If Minor stays healthy, Michigan should see a decisive win.  If Minor is unhealthy, this game is essentially a coin toss, and we could be looking at the first ever MAC upset in the Big House.

The Official Prediction…

Michigan 31, Miami 17

On the XBox…

The defending five-time national champ Wolverines routed the RedHawks on my Xbox, 112-0, extending their winning streak to 62 consecutive games.  Steven Threet threw an astonishing nine touchdown passes to Greg Matthews, who had 512 yards receiving.  Brandon Minor added five touchdowns and a total of 440 rushing yards.

A New Hope…

Take heart, Michigan fans.  The maize and blue have finally received a commitment from five-star high school recruit Tate Forcier, an elite dual-threat quarterback from San Diego.  The running quarterback Forcier is an ideal recruit for RichRod’s new spread system, and could be the face of Michigan football as early as next fall.  If only we can hang on for just one season…

The 2008 Michigan football season saw a dismal opening yesterday in Ann Arbor. Michigan lost to Utah, 25-23, although the game was not nearly that close. Let’s be clear: Utah whupped Michigan badly.  This is going to be a very long season.

The Michigan offense was absolutely pathetic.  Michigan rushed for a total of 34 yards in the entire game.  Of eleven third down opportunities, the Wolverines converted on only two.  Honestly, I can’t remember ever seeing statistics that bad for Michigan.  The offensive line crumbled upon any kind of pressure whatsoever, and when Michigan actually did advance the ball (which was rare), players seemed utterly incapable of breaking even a single tackle.  The offensive play calling was also abysmal; on multiple third-and-long opportunities, Michigan went for the 2-3 yard short gain option.

The offensive line failures are the result of multiple problems inherent in the program.  First, Michigan is playing under a new “spread” or “quasi-spread” offense, which requires a strong, mobile quaterback.  Neither of Michigan’s quarterbacks, Steven Threet and Nick Sheridan, are strong or mobile.  Second, nearly the entire offense (save only two players) are brand new; Michigan lost a whopping nine offensive starters as a result of graduation and worse, defection (I’m talking about Ryan Mallett and Juston Boren, who are traitorous assholes).  In short, the offense is awful, and there’s no reason to expect it to improve at any point in the near future.

The defense was also terrible.  In the first half, Michigan’s defensive line gave up an average of 7.5 yards per play.  This is an abysmal failure by any standard.

The defensive worries are deeply disturbing, because the Wolverines retained more than half of last year’s top-ten defense.  In other words, these guys were supposed to be good.  This is the same defense that, last year, was incapable of defending the spread.  These are the same Wolverines responsible for the two ugliest words in college football: App, and State.  Rich Rodriguez was hired as Michigan’s coach to stop that nonsense, to bring these guys up to speed, to teach them how to defend the spread.  Apparently, he failed to do so.

Everything about Michigan this year is different.  We have a new coach, a new quarterback, an entirely new offensive line, a relatively new defense and a new “spread” playbook.  We even have a new stadium.  But by any standard — and certainly, by Michigan standards — this new era of Michigan football is off to a terrible start.  Honestly, this is the worst Michigan football team I have ever seen.

In a transition year, such as this, I don’t expect my team to win every game.  Sure, I’d like them to win every game, but I understand that every so often you need to break in a new coach or a new quarterback.  In a transition year, such as this, I expect there to be some kinks in the system that need ironing.

As a Michigan fan, however, one thing I do not tolerate is a losing season.  Michigan hasn’t seen a losing season since 1967, and hasn’t failed to go to a bowl game in 33 years.  Michigan has a top tier recruiting class every year, and frankly, we just simply do not tolerate mediocrity for very long.

I tell you now, we are in extreme danger of seeing a losing season at Michigan.  I’ve never said that before.  I’ve never worried about that before.  This is worst Michigan football team I have ever seen, and for the first time ever, I am genuinely worried that they’re going to lose most of their games.

It’s very simple.  We’re clearly not going to win the national championship this year.  I doubt we’ll go to a BCS bowl game.  I don’t even think we should worry about the conference championship.  For this year, it’s simple: Win 7 games.  That’s all we have to do.  And there are 11 opportunities left.

Michigan (even this pathetic version of Michigan) should beat: Miami of Ohio, Notre Dame, Toledo, Purdue and Minnesota.  That’s five.  These are must win games if we have any shot at a winning season and bowl invitation.

Michigan will most likely lose to Ohio State.  I’m sorry to say that, but that’s just how it is this year.

That leaves us with five remaining games in the season which could, frankly, go either way.  Michigan must therefore win two of the following: Wisconsin, Illinois, Penn State, Michigan State and Northwestern.

Winning two of those — hell, winning even one of those games — with this squad is a tall order.  We are in for a very, very rough ride.

Went for a hike this weekend. It’s still March, but the weather here in Colorado has been stunningly beautiful for the last two weeks. Almost all of the snow has melted, save for the once fifteen-foot piles of snow in the parking lot outside my apartment. Following two weeks of temperatures in the sixties, they have been reduced to mere two-foot piles of snow. I am convinced that they will in fact never melt, and thus have become very small glaciers.

But generally, it’s been beautiful here, and clearly, this weekend was time for a long-overdue hike in mountains. Nevermind those ominous-looking clouds over thar on the horizon. Sure, the weather lady said there was a slim chance of rain. But what does she know? Do her fancy thermal imagery and doppler radar really make her superior at predicting the weather? Remember, this is the same girl who told me it wouldn’t snow back in December, and we know how that turned out. Rain be damned! It will be a cold day in hell before I believe those half-assed Colorado weatherpeople and their “meteorology” ever again. So my girlfriend and I set out on our hike, ominous-looking clouds notwithstanding.

And it was a doozy of a hike, too: Our aggressive plan was to hike the “Apex” trail, which is about 3 miles long, roughly 1000 or so feet sharply uphill, and terminates at the summit of Lookout Mountain. From there, our plan was to descend the “Chimney Gulch” trail, which is essentially the same concept, but it goes downhill. We made it to the top without much difficulty, and in fact, the hike and weather were great. As we began our descent, however, the Colorado weatherpeople redeemed themselves, and that slim chance of rain became an absolute certainty.

Hiking in the rain isn’t too bad, especially when it’s nothing more than an annoying drizzle. Still, I wouldn’t call it “fun”. But hey, we were enjoying the Great Outdoors, and we were making good time on our descent. That’s when I discovered the meaning behind the First Commandment Of Hiking, which I shall now share with you:

Thou shalt not hike in the rain.

I’ll give you the play-by-play. We were coming down a particularly steep portion of the trail, and embedded in the trail before us was a fairly large rock. Hikers in Colorado know these rocks well, because they are everywhere; trails here are unlike, for example, the worn path of the Appalachian Trail. The Rocky Mountains actually are rocky, to such a degree that trails elsewhere are like paved roads by comparison. See figure 1.

As we approached this fairly inocuous-looking rock in the trail, the dirt path — now mud from the rain — gave way. I slipped. See figure 2.

When I landed, I landed on the rock. But like a sophisticated cruise missile, the goddam thing planted itself squarely in the middle of my back. See figure 3.

Legendary is my love for the less sophisticated elements of the english language; namely, those four-letter expletives that are banned among children. Indeed, the torrent of profanity that was released following my impact with The Rock shall go down in history as one of the more creative, and certainly the longest, unabridged streak of swearing in the history of spoken word. See figure 4.

Suffice to say that The Rock hurt. His calling card, which was fully realized only this morning, is a basketball-sized bruise square in the middle of my back. For those who missed the First Commandment of Hiking above, it shall be repeated:

Thou shalt not hike in the rain.

Good things did result from my painful encounter with The Rock. First, my girlfriend, recognizing the opportunity to shower me with pity, ordered some pizzas upon our return home. Second, recognizing the opportunity to shower myself with pity, I no longer have to take out the trash or do other manly things for a few weeks. Nonetheless, my tale of woe should serve as a painful lesson to those of you who anticipate hiking in the rain: Don’t.

Soon, I shall recover, and soon, we shall hike the trail again. There, I shall find The Rock, and shall cast him into the oblivion.

BCS Bullshit

Once again, there’s election trouble in Florida. But this time, it isn’t about hanging chads; it’s about college football. Put simply, the University of Michigan got jobbed. They got hosed by a system that is so badly flawed that everyone, even its creators, agrees it needs be seriously overhauled.

Michigan, the undisputed second-best team in the nation, will not be playing for the national championship. In its place, the Florida Gators will play instead.

But how could this be?, you ask. How could anyone other than the top two teams contend for the national championship? And that, my friends, is the question that has football fans around the nation scratching their heads, wondering how the bowl system could be so irreperably screwed up.

Michigan, Not Florida, Should Be Number Two

With Ohio State as the only undefeated team in college football, the debate is really about who gets to play against them on January 8. The winner of that game will be crowned national champion. And at the end of the day, the only serious contenders are Michigan on the one hand, and Florida on the other. So let’s see how they stack up.

Michigan has an 11-1 season record. Its marquee wins came against Notre Dame (11) and Wisconsin (7). Michigan’s only loss was to Ohio State, which is ranked 1. Florida, by comparison, is 12-1. It had marquee wins against Tennessee (17), LSU (4), and Arkansas (12). But Florida lost a game, too, against Auburn (9). Moreover, Florida almost lost to both South Carolina and Florida State, two teams that are utterly atrocious. Toward the end of the season, the Gators were streaking, but Michigan has been streaking all year long.

It’s pretty simple, really. Explain to me how a team who lost to ninth-ranked Auburn is going to the championship bowl over a team who lost to first-ranked Ohio State. Explain to me how a team that didn’t trail in the second half against any top 25-teams this year has been passed over by a team that was nearly beaten, twice, by teams that aren’t ranked at all.

You might whine about how comparing Michigan to Florida is like comparing cherries to oranges, because the SEC is allegedly such a strong conference this year. But, it turns out, that’s just not true. SEC teams are only 1-5 against non-conference opponents, while the Big Ten summoned forth three teams in the BCS’ top ten slots. The Big Ten is the stronger conference, period, and Michigan is the stronger team, period.

So ridiculous is the idea that Florida is better than Michigan that no serious sports writer in the nation has even bothered to suggest the notion. In a game between them, Michigan would win, and this is a fact that even some Florida fans have acknowledged. Bookies in Vegas have Michigan a six point favorite over Florida, if the two were to play.

Michigan Got Jobbed

So how did the Wolverines end up #3, and the Gators #2? Through a truly fucked up system of voodoo we call the BCS. The sole purpose of the BCS is to determine who the best two teams are. And there’s wide agreement that the best two teams are Ohio State and Michigan. So how the hell did Florida end up #2?

It started on Sunday morning, when Florida coach Urban Meyer went on national television and did the unthinkable: he started to lobby. He said his team “deserves a shot” against Ohio State. Michigan coach Lloyd Carr, meanwhile, sat back in shock; lobbying, to him, is beneath the sport itself.

But when the votes were cast, the lobbying paid off. In the Harris poll, Former Washington State coach Jim Walden actually voted Florida #1, ahead of Ohio State. Four other Harris poll voters ranked Michigan #4, behind two-loss LSU. All four of those voters were local sports writers, and all four of them, just a week earlier, had Michigan ranked ahead of LSU. So why the change? Even Urban Meyer admits it was to manipulate the outcome; “I think people thought Florida deserves a shot,” he said.

In the coaches’ poll, things got even more bizarre. LSU coach Les Miles voted Florida ahead of Michigan because he thought the SEC winner “deserves” an opportunity to play in the national championship game. Oklahoma coach Bob Stoops ranked Florida ahead because he thought having thirteen games in the season, instead of twelve, meant Florida was better. This is the sports equivalent of stuffing the ballot box.

But the biggest insult of all came from Ohio State coach Jim Tressel, who abstained. “It’s a conflict of interest for me to vote in this one,” he said. A conflict of interest!? It’s pretty simple, really: Who would you rather play, if you were Ohio State? If Tressel had voted for Michigan, the team he knows is better, the team that almost beat him, in his own house, well now that would be a good game. But Tressel would rather play against the weaker team, and get the easy title under his belt. So he did nothing to stand up to the blatant manipulation that was going on. He took the coward’s way out.

And in the end, the human polls decided that Florida would play in the national championship game, and not Michigan, because Florida “deserves a shot”.

The BCS Doesn’t Work

But the point of the BCS is not to determine who gets to play; it’s to determine who the two best teams are. Mitch Albom put it best: “This was all about the line of thinking that says, ‘Give someone else a chance.’ But if the system were about giving everyone a chance, they wouldn’t call it a poll. They’d call it a donkey ride.”

Believe it or not, there is actually a built-in procedure in the BCS by-laws that allows for rematches to be avoided. The infamous “Rule 5″ allows for the BCS organizers to re-seed teams based on a variety of factors, one of which is whether the two teams have already played. In other words, if Michigan had been voted #2, Florida could have still played in the title game. At least that would have been fair, and by the book. But to put Michigan in as #3, through some trickery and slight of hand, reduces a so-called “sport” to a mere popularity contest.

There are plenty of good reasons to slot Florida in the national title game. “The game shouldn’t have two teams from the same conference.” “The teams in the game should both be conference champions.” “The game shouldn’t be a rematch.” Hell, take your pick. Those are all excellent reasons to forego a Michigan appearance against Ohio State. But what we can’t allow is a system that purports to choose the best teams, and instead chooses which teams we’d like to see. No legitimate sport should allow for lobbying and stuffing the ballot box to determine its champion. By allowing such tactics, the BCS has reduced college football to a form of figure skating.

Since the BCS has been around, it has been controversial. In 2003, USC was ranked #1 in the BCS, and still didn’t get to play in the national title game. In its nine years of existence, the BCS has failed to accomplish its mission — an undisputed national champion — six times. Regardless of whether you’re pro-Florida or pro-Michigan in 2006, you can agree that the 2003 split-national-championship result was a preposterous failure of a system designed to avoid precisely such a result. Regardless of how you feel about the result this year, you can agree that the BCS has been a national disaster for nearly a decade now.

The problem with the BCS and its flawed human polling element is that it establishes subjectivity as the arbiter of the championship, instead of the playing field.

Some, including Michael Rosenberg of the Detroit Free Press (his column on this issue is here), have argued that the old pre-BCS system is actually better than what we have now. I have no doubt that my buddy Todd will say the same. And there’s something to be said for the good ol’ days, when the debate about who would win some hypothetical game was half the fun.

But these days, it’s not fun. Because these days, we have a system that’s supposed to determine a national champion, and instead — as we saw Sunday — is as easy to manipulate as Brady Quinn is to tackle. If we’re going to have a national championship system in college football, let’s at least get one that works.

Toward A Playoff

The thing is, we already have such a system. We use it in every other sport, and it’s called a playoff. Baseball is an easy example. The Tigers beat the Yankees, and the Athletics beat the Twins. Then, the Tigers beat the Athletics. Twins fans can’t complain that they never got a shot to beat the Tigers — true as that may be — because they did get a shot to beat the A’s, and the A’s then fell to the Tigers. In playoff systems, the controversy generated by the BCS simply doesn’t exist, because the scoreboard — not some goddam poll — is the true arbiter of the championship. That’s why they call it a “sport”, and why the BCS is more accurately a beauty pageant. Champions are so titled because they win the crucial games, not because they’re elected. That’s the whole point of a playoff.

I have long advocated a 32-team playoff system for college football. And yeah, that’s probably unrealistic. But you could easily have a playoff system with six teams, and you could keep the present bowl games exactly as they are:

Week 1: 1 and 2 get a bye. 3 vs. 6, 4 vs. 5.

Week 2: 1 plays lowest-ranked winner, 2 plays highest-ranked winner.

Week 3: Championship game.

There are lots of different ways to do this, and mine proposed here isn’t necessarily the best. But any of them, so long as they are a playoff format, would deliver an undisputed national champion.

But until that day arrives, 2006 will have to be chalked up as yet another year of college football controversy and national championship failure. The only undisputed thing about this year’s season is that Michigan damn near beat Ohio State, on a bad field at home, and would probably beat them again on neutral ground. Why else do you think Jim Tressel decided not to vote on Sunday?

But the Wolverines won’t get that chance. And that’s, well… that’s bullshit.