As we sat in Atlanta and paced..... and paced.... and paced some more, waiting impatiently for the announcement, I objectively tried to find ONE legitimate argument that would give Michigan the nod over Florida in the Championship Game.  And I couldn't do it.

Certainly, Michigan had a (slightly) higher ranking than Florida going into the weekend, but when USC lost to UCLA, those remaining votes had to go somewhere, and the Southeastern Conference champion was given the nod.  And rightfully so.

In the end, two main factors gave the Gators their shot at the national title.  First, they played a more difficult schedule, including ten bowl teams on their schedule (as opposed to seven for Michigan) and a brutal stretch of six consecutive games against bowl teams in September and October.  Secondly, and this cannot be argued.  They won their conference championship in what's arguably considered the college football's best conference this year.

Let's now dispell some of the rather flimsy arguments that I've read supporting Michigan....

1. Common opponent: Vanderbilt.  While Michigan did beat Vanderbilt by a wider margin than the Gators, Vandy had to travel to Michigan on the first game of the season, while Florida had to travel to Vanderbilt, a division rival, after playing a stretch against Georgia, Auburn, LSU and Bama.

2. Michigan's LOSS was more impressive.  If you watched both of these games, you'll know that Ohio State essentially controlled the contest, even though the final margin was a three point victory.  Michigan had the good fortune to play the Buckeyes after three consecutive weeks of tune-up games against lowly Northwestern, Ball State and Indiana.  The Florida-Auburn game came after Florida had just played LSU.  Auburn had been ranked number three in the nation the week before, and was knocked down to number 11 after losing to SEC runner-up Arkansas.  Florida was essentially in control of the Auburn game, until they beat themselves, and a certainly questionable call robbed them of the opportunity to take the lead late in the game.  It was a three-point game, until Chris Leak threw a late interception making it a ten-point final outcome.

3. Nobody wanted to see a rematch.  While this may be true, this certainly does not discount the fact that voters went with who they felt was a better match-up:  The Big Ten champion against the SEC Champion, instead of the top two teams in the Big Ten.  Voters rewarded the team who won their conference, not the team that couldn't.

4. Meyer's late lobbying got them in.  Is a university president or head coach NOT supposed to lobby for his team to get into the championship game, with not only millions of dollars on the line, but also to fight for the opportunity to give his kids what they came to school for?  If Lloyd Carr were more media savvy, perhaps more voters would have given Michigan consideration, but that's still unlikely.  You can't give a team that didn't win it's conference and that lost it's final game of the season the nod over a team that did win it's conference.  Late season losses weigh heavier, we know that going in.  There are no mulligans in college football.  And yes, while Florida was fortunate enough to get a rematch in 1996 to a team it had lost to earlier that seaon, that was pre-B.C.S., the Gators still played an extra game, their conference championship game against Alabama, that year, and two teams ahead of them in the polls that year had to lose.  Michigan lost their final game of the season.

5. Auburn's exclusion from the title game years ago affected voters decions.  Possible, but unlikely.  Again, if you listen to soundbites from each voter explaining why they gave Florida the nod, they'll cite two factors, their tougher schedule and their conference championship.  Many have gone so far as to claim they don't think Michigan would finish 12-1 with Florida's schedule.

6. Michigan is the second best team in the nation.  How do you know this? How can you back that up?  Are saying it's because you barely lost to the top team in the nation?  Is it because you were ranked number two after that loss?  Who's to say you shouldn't have been knocked down to three or four in the polls after that game.  Is it because Las Vegas says the point spread would be less than 8.5 points in a Michigan rematch with Ohio State?  With all due respect to the experts in Sin City, since when do they get a vote in the polls?  If that's the case, why don't we just have a Vegas poll and factor that into the BCS.  What if Michigan got another shot and lost that game?  Would you want a third shot or would you finally admit OSU was the better team?

Michigan fans, don't blame Florida for being granted a shot at the title.  Blame your conference for being stubborn and not modernizing.  And don't arbitrarily root for Ohio State in the championship game out of spite.  They're you're arch-rival, you hate them, remember?  Give us a shot, you never know, we just might take them down.  Then you guys truly will be the second best team in the nation.