If USC wins would florida still be ahead of Michigan?

[King Felix]

..............


playoffs..

edit: if usc would've won than would florida still be ahead of michigan?

 

[Mike13]

Probably not.

 

[HysterikiLL]

IMO, Florida would have been ahead of Michigan, but USC would've been ahead of Florida. If USC had won, we seriously would've needed a 4 team playoff. As of now, there's only 3 teams worthy of that title shot IMO - OSU, UM and UF of course...the 4th team would be too subjective as of now and would only cause more complaints and controv.

 

[DBoston80]

No, they wouldnt have had a reason too.....the majority of people know why Florida jumped Michigan....to avoid a rematch.

By the way If I was a voter I wouldve done the same thing..who cares if Michigan is the 2nd best team?? A rematch would be unfair..they had there shot and missed.

 

[Pennington's Rocket Arm]

nope. oh well! :D

 

[Real_Teal]

If USC had won, then there would not have been a shake up in the polls so Florida may have stayed at #4. #3 or #4 would not have made a difference since Florida would have been going to the Sugar Bowl either way.

 

[Timmy54]

it is over, lets move on to the games, oh wait they are not for another month!!!uggg

 

[Crowder52]

If USC had won, the voters would have no reason to examine whether or not UF should have been in front of Michigan. The difference between #3 and #4 is negligible. By USC losing, the voters were forced to make a decision between UF and Michigan, and they chose UF. So to answer your question, if USC won I believe Michigan would have remained #3.

What I find puzzling about the whole thing is how it was just assumed that USC should've gone to the title game if they beat UCLA. There was no controversy at all, it was already accepted as fact that if USC won, they were going. But there were 3 teams each with a convincing arugment to go.

 

[Timmy54]

seams like the need for a playoff is there.

 

[DBoston80]

If USC had won, the voters would have no reason to examine whether or not UF should have been in front of Michigan. The difference between #3 and #4 is negligible. By USC losing, the voters were forced to make a decision between UF and Michigan, and they chose UF. So to answer your question, if USC won I believe Michigan would have remained #3.

What I find puzzling about the whole thing is how it was just assumed that USC should've gone to the title game if they beat UCLA. There was no controversy at all, it was already accepted as fact that if USC won, they were going. But there were 3 teams each with a convincing arugment to go.

Yea, I wouldve hate to have seen what we wouldve done to USC...they lookd VERY average vs UCLA....