If number one beats number two by a field goal on number one's home field, sounds like they're ranked about right. We'll see what the pollsters and computers say this afternoon.

Ohio State definitely looked like the better team, though, at least after the first quarter. Michigan's first drive was impressive, but after that they seemed to sputter somewhat. I'd say that if these teams played ten games, Ohio State would win six or seven of them.

And I was pulling for a Cal victory last night, but it wasn't to be. But if Notre Dame knocks off USC, what to do, what to do? It doesn't make sense to rank the Irish ahead of Michigan, considering the pasting the Wolverines gave them in South Bend. Perhaps, though, just to be safe, USC should beat Notre Dame, and then let UCLA knock off the Trojans. That would leave Florida, I guess.

I know that a lot of people don't want a rematch, but it looks like there's a good possibility of that happening. Of course, then, if Michigan wins, people will be demanding another, and the best two out of three. Such is the silliness of trying to assign a national championship to college football teams. There simply aren't enough games for it to be meaningful.

O-H-I-O !!!!!

Let me show how little I pay attention to or know about college sports.

Why DON'T they have a college football playoff system among the top 16 or 32 teams? Just about all the polls agree who that top ranking is. There's a playoff system for every other college sport. I've heard it's because of the physical aspect of football. But college hockey and lacrosse both have a playoff bracket system don't they? They're both pretty physical.

Just asking what the rationale is.

The rationale is M-O-N-E-Y. The big bowls drive the system. They rotate the BCS championship game so they all stay relevant and interest stays high in the others because fans of the teams going to them feel their team should be in the big game. If division 1-AA can make playoffs work, so can 1-A. The hypocrisy of the NCAA knows no bounds. They punish athletes for taking a pair of shoes from a booster but won't install a playoff system because of the BILLIONS of dollars in TV and bowl revenue. I bet the amount of money would remain the same with a playoff.

As someone who had student tickets to Ohio State football for 8 seasons, let me say this: Seeing those guys once a year is all I can take.

I favor a re-match. Michigan and Ohio State in the Fiesta Bowl. Yesterday, if Ohio State had won handily, then Michigan should drop down however the game was too close (IMHO) to deny Michigan the #2 ranking.

Bill,
I guess I see that money issue. Aren't there about 8 or 16 MAJOR bowl games with viable national champion teams? (There are about as many bowl games as there are stadiums now.)

Let the bowl winners play in a playoff system. INCREASE the number of games. Create a College Super Bowl.

It's not clear that "knowing" the national champion is worth all that much.

Under the "no playoff" system, folks can argue for decades about who was best. And, half the teams in bowl games get to go home happy.

Well, Rand, as I heard reported yesterday during NFL games, Michigan remained #2 after this weekend's loss, which I agree is the way it should be.

However, I'm not sure I agree with some of the "analysts" that USC should be #3. By my count, USC has played fewer games than any other team in the top 6. There are only 3 teams in the top 10 that have played 10 games; all the others have played 11 or 12. And Boise state, undefeated, and Rutgers, with 1 loss, are both out of the Top 10, under LSU with 2 losses.

In any case, I'm going to take a chance and once again predict a loss for the greater Detroit metro area at the end of the season. I'm sorry, Rand, but 2006 just isn't their (Detroit's) year...

And USC has two more games to go, in which they have a fine opportunity to show whether they're over-rated or not. If they win out - against Notre Dame and UCLA - they'll likely play in Glendale.

If they don't, they'll play in Pasadena.

So why should USC play in Glendale even if they win out? They would have, at best, the same record as Michigan (11-1). Michigan's loss was a squeaker to undefeated and consensus #1 Ohio State. USC's loss was a squeaker to 7-4 Oregon State. As for quality of wins, Michigan handed 10-1 Notre Dame its only loss and 11-1 Wisconsin its only loss.

It's hard for me to say this as a Wisconsinite, but Michigan deserves to play in the title game regardless of what USC does.

Mike