OK, UCLA has done their part (thanks, Jane!). Now, I'm watching to see if Arkansas can beat Florida, which will make any debate moot. If Florida wins, look for another debate over how screwed up the BCS is (which every year is a given...).

[Update at end of Florida-Arkansas game]

Florida won by ten points. Now the emotional debate (that will shed much more heat than light) over who is number two will begin...

[Update at quarter till five PM]

OK, it looks like Florida has been named number two. I have to think that's because of the strong desire of many to avoid a rematch, rather than an honest assessment of who's number two.

I'll be quite amused if Ohio State blows out Florida, and Michigan trounces USC. We know from an existence proof that Michigan and Ohio State are well matched (or at least as well matched as anyone's been against Ohio State), and provide an exciting game. If we have two blowouts in the Rose and Championship games, the country will know that they chose the wrong number two, and wondering if the real national championship game didn't occur on November 18th.

[Update]

One more thought. I think that dual blowouts are in fact quite likely. I don't think that Florida will be able to handle Ohio State, and does anyone think that UCLA's defense is better, or even as good as Michigan's? USC has been a pretender all season.

[Update]

Pete Fiutak says that the humans have taken control away from the machines:

The voters have spoken, delivering the message that they didn't want a rematch by keeping Michigan out of the national title game and putting in a good, but underwhelming, Florida team to face Ohio State in the first stand-alone BCS Championship. While many outside the Detroit and Ann Arbor metropolitan areas may be pleased about this, there's still something a bit hanging-chad slimy about the process.

I understand the arguments against a rematch, but I think that they should have lived with the rules they set up at the beginning of the season. I also think that Wisconsin was robbed by the two-team-per-conference rule.

Heh, my Bruins pulled it off ... yeah GO BRUINS.

Michigan, Florida, Wisconsin they have one loss. Boise St. should be in the championship game ... unless we had a playoff.

BTW, both USC and Notre Dame were highly overrated in the polls all season.

I'm an OSU fan, so by no means am I objective about this, but the Michigan-Ohio State game, like the USC-UCLA game and the Florida-Arkansas game, should be considered a playoff. The teams in contention that lost have lost their shot at a National Championship. The 2 teams left standing should play for the title.

And for the record, I believe Michigan is the 2nd best team in the country. However, they had their shot to get to the National Championship game and lost. It's someone else's turn.

And for the record, I believe Michigan is the 2nd best team in the country.

That's the problem. People want a playoff, but that's not the way the rules are set up. They're set up so that Number One plays Number Two in a "national championship" game. If that's the rule, there will be an occasional rematch. And it's not necessarily a rematch, because teams evolve over time (one of the reasons that the notion of a "national champion" doesn't really make sense). Injuries can have major effects (e.g., Michigan will probably play better in January with a healthy Manningham).

I think that the most sensible thing at this point would be to have a playoff in some bowl between Florida and Michigan to determine who plays Ohio State a week later, but again, that's not the way it's set up.

How about giving OSU the title, and letting Michigan and Florida play for 2nd. :)

Florida got ranked 2nd. Michigan 3rd.

There was a somewhat similar situation in 1971. Nebraska edged Oklahoma in the Thanksgiving Day game (in what I still think was the greatest college football game ever), and as a result Oklahoma dropped to #3 (behind unbeaten Alabama). As now, the consensus was that Oklahoma was still the second best team in the country. Nevertheless, Nebraska played Alabama in that year's "National Championship" game, and Oklahoma played a "consolation" bowl game. As you posit for this year, both Nebraska and Oklahoma blew out their opponents, pretty much establishing who were really #1 and #2. FWIW, that year, the third-ranking team in the Big Eight, Colorado, whose only losses were to Nebraska and Oklahoma, also won their bowl game handily, strongly suggesting the three best teams in the country were all in the Big Eight.

you seem to really be writing florida off here. keep these things in mind ( http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/columns/story?columnist=schlabach_mark&id=2684345 ):

1. Florida beat nine teams that are projected to play in bowl games. Michigan beat six.

2. Michigan beat five teams that finished the season with losing records. Florida beat two teams with sub-.500 records.

3. Florida's 12 Division I-A opponents had a combined record of 89-57. Michigan's 12 opponents had a combined record of 84-61.

5. The 12 teams Florida defeated finished the season with 11 combined wins against opponents which were ranked in the AP Top 25 poll at the time the game was played. The opponents Michigan defeated claim just three wins against ranked teams (Notre Dame beat Penn State. Indiana beat Iowa. Vanderbilt beat Georgia. The Nittany Lions, Hawkeyes and Bulldogs, it should be noted, haven't been ranked in seven weeks).

6. The Gators went 3-1 against ranked opponents, beating then-No. 13 Tennessee, No. 9 LSU and No. 8 Arkansas and losing at No. 11 Auburn. The Wolverines went 1-1 against ranked opponents, beating a highly overrated No. 2 Notre Dame team (that lost to Michigan and USC by a combined total of 46 points) and losing at No. 1 Ohio State 42-39 on Nov. 18.

7. The Gators' average margin of victory against Division I-A teams was 13.5 points. They won seven games by 14 points or fewer, six by less than 10. The Wolverines' average margin of victory was 17.3 points. They won six games by 14 points or fewer, two by less than 10.

Not trying to be downplay Michigan, but give Florida its due. Go Gators!

The 12 teams Florida defeated finished the season with 11 combined wins against opponents which were ranked in the AP Top 25 poll at the time the game was played.

It's meaningless to talk about where they were ranked at the time they played. All that means is that they were misranked. Your other statistics are more valid.

In any event, we shall see what happens in January.

"And it's not necessarily a rematch, because teams evolve over time (one of the reasons that the notion of a "national champion" doesn't really make sense). Injuries can have major effects (e.g., Michigan will probably play better in January with a healthy Manningham)."

I've noticed similar statements you've made before to the effect that the idea of a "national champion" doesn't make sense. What you say is completely true--teams evolve over time, there are injuries, etc. However, if we continue down that logical path, it seems to me there is never any sense in crowning a "champion" in any sport. All the NCAA basketball playoffs establish, for example, is that team X was able to win 6 games in a row in the tournament. It's often the case that a team which is probably the best overall loses a some point to a team which plays much better than usual for a single game. Likewise teams in the tournament are dealing with injuries, illnesses, etc. If it makes sense to have a "champion" at all, then you have to have a system for determining that "champion."

Are you saying that it doesn't make sense to have a "national champion" in just college football, or does this position extend to all sports? Or is it just the fact that you find the system of declaring the national champion flawed, and you would think the notion of a "national champion" made sense under a different system? Would a playoff make a national champion make sense, even though injuries and other team changes over time would still play a factor?

I think that there are too many teams, and not enough games in a season, for there to be a meaningful national championship in college football. A playoff would help, if it were feasible, but I think that it's a fundamentally unsolvable problem.