The worst part is, we may never know who has the better team, Florida or Michigan. Not like it matters. Ohio State could play the Indianapolis Colts and still drop 42 points. What matters is that we have a college football system we created to solve problems- instead it has just created more questions. Beyond the arguments of Michigan fans there are severe problems with the system that propose many different questions.

The Detroit Free Press with the help of BCS guru's published an article today outlining the numbers of voters who were swayed last week. A rough estimate showed that 120 voters from the Harris Poll and the Coaches Poll changed their vote. Fine, I can deal with that- Florida is a good team- but what's to say this won't be a different, more unfair situation later?

Who says that next year 120 voters won't change their vote to a team lower in the polls? Maybe putting a two-loss team ahead of a one loss team? Who says 150 voters won't change their votes? Or all of them? Who says a one-loss team ranked fifth in the nation because a poor strength of schedule couldn't jump four spots because all of the voters wanted them too? You know the voters compile 66 percent of the BCS formula.

Across the board, coaches and Harris Poll voters across the nation said they didn't want to see a rematch between Ohio State and Michigan. I'm sorry, tell me in the BCS rule book where it says voters are supposed to vote for the most appealing title game? Voters aren't being asked to vote on what is appealing or not. They are asked to vote on the top 25 teams. If they want to vote on what is appealing they should go to Hot Or Not.com.

We've already seen what a flip-flop of votes can do to the system when people want to see a more appealing match up. This year at least. What happens next year when it happens to another team? To your team? What happens when another year of college football is wasted because of more unnecessary controversy?

Almost every year they change the BCS to fix potential glitches- usually after they happen. This year they expanded a game to give 10 teams a shot at the BCS and give mid-majors another shot- but still the potential flaws are still there. If only 10 teams can go to BCS games and there are guaranteed spots to six conference winners, Notre Dame if they are in the top eight , any team in the top four and any mid-major in the top 12- there are ways where the system mathematically cannot work. Yes it is highly unlikely, but lets not wait until hit happens to realize that the system is screwed up.

Another major flaw nobody seems to be talking about is how an 11-1 Wisconsin team is not allowed to go to a BCS game because Ohio-State and Michigan are already in one. I'm sorry since when does winning 11 games and only losing to the No.2 team in the nation on the road in September by 14 points mean you aren't worthy of a top tier bowl game? People will argue that Wisconsin had a weak strength of schedule, but Boise State did too, but we have different rules for Boise State because they are a mid-major. Their strength of schedule doesn't matter. Wisconsin's does. And what would have happened if Wisconsin finished in the top four? Do they still get neglected from a BCS game? And why didn't Wisconsin even get a shot at Ohio State? All those voters keep saying Michigan had their chance to play OSU, but Wisconsin didn't- what if 150 voters decided it was time to see Wisconsin in the national title game? Again highly unlikely but lets not wait until something like this happens to change the system.

I'll agree that the BCS has produced some lights out matchups over the years but so have regular bow games in the past. Had this been 1994 Ohio State would be headed to Pasedena to play USC, in a great game. If they won they would have the national title, no controversy there. Florida would get the automatic bid from the SEC and go to the Sugar Bowl and play the next best at-large team- Michigan. So if OSU lost, you could have a national champion waiting in the shadows.

Instead we are left wondering what should be the national championship game?

Should Jim Tresell had voted? Should coaches be allowed to skip voting?

Should we base or system on voting and people's often biased opinions- or should we get more standard criteria?

Should you have to win your conference to make it to the BCS title game? Its never said so before?

Should you have to lose a game early rather than late? Or do you just have to play better teams?

Do you have to play 13 games? Have a conference championship game? Or have to play all your teams in your conference like the Pac-10 did this year?

Are there too many discrepancies?

What about Notre Dame? Why do they have special rules? They don't even have a conference? Navy doesn't have special rules why do they have an unfair advantage?

What about Rutgers? Why were they so low at 8-0 this season, is it because they sucked in the past? How is that fair?

How is any of this fair? Why am I still typing? Why are you still reading?

Your not the NCAA, and your not a magic 8-ball. You cant answer these questions and neither can they.

Lets get a system that can.

I had a really elaborate post planned out about this weekends game.

About how Tedd Ginn  had two fumbles agains tthe Wolverines last year, how coach Carr still had a safe job. How all the analysts picked Ohio State for no real good reason. And as much as I wanted to say those things it doesn't matter because this rivalry would be nothing without Bo.

 And my love for Michigan wouldn't be the same without it.

 Rest In Peace Bo. I don't know what else I can say.

 Tomorrow will be a sad day. Its going to no doubt be tough for Lloyd Carr who has been coaching for him forever.,


 

The old crumbling red brick row is chipping away as every moving car passes by Michigan and Trumbell. Weeds fill the sidewalks where vendors sold hot dogs for over 90 years, and the parking lot, usually accustomed to street vendors clad with min-bats and Tigers hats has long been emptied.

Nine years ago the white baseball mansion otherwise known as Tiger Stadium still carried the smell of hot dogs and the crack of wooden bats into the overhanging bleachers in right field.

A lot has changed since 1999 when the Detroit Tigers took to the hitter's park for the last time.

            Old friends named Alan Trammel, and Kirk Gibson came back, and left, again. A singing hot dog vendor emerged, as did new landmarks of three story high prowling tigers, baseball bats, and a dolphin swimming on a building side overlooking the center field wall.

            As Comerica Park became christened as the new baseball Mecca in Detroit, Old Tiger Stadium with it's long Wrigley like concrete ramps, MLB pennants, and throwback Tigers logos was forgotten.

            Last week, Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick met with members of the Detroit City Council to discuss the future of one of baseball's most historic landmarks.

            After the meeting, ideas of demolition swirled and plans to turn the corner of Michigan and Trumbell into a shopping center, or another parking lot emerged.

            But is demolition for the future home of compact cars, or a Super K-Mart really the proper burial Tiger Stadium deserves?

            For nine decades Tiger Stadium was home to players like Ty Cobb, Hank Greenberg, Jack Morris and Al Kaline, home to Ernie Harwell, the '84 World Series champions and the culture of Detroit sports.

            Many advocates and Detroit baseball die-hards have created websites and lobbied to restore the building that was once home to so many great baseball memories and records.

            But without the man power or will to restore and maintain Detroit's most coveted sports landmark it is merely a lost cause.

            Instead of half-heartedly leading an effort to restore the now peeling and crumbling sports stadium, Mike Illitch and the Detroit Tigers organization need to give Tiger Stadium a proper burial by bringing back one more series to where baseball previously thrived.

            For just one weekend series, either this season or next, the Tigers should give the place a face lift and one last hoorah. They could play a division series against an old-rival, and bring back the old players to raise the excitement level of what would be an already historic weekend.

            They could pull the weeds, paint the chairs, and remove the tree that is growing in the outfield. They could bring back the vendors, the hat stands, and the old crowd that used to watch baseball back when baseball was America's pastime.

            Money shouldn't be an object. Never mind the fact that Detroit Tigers owner Mike Illitch is rolling in wads of cash from his other business ventures: Olympia Entertainment which encompasses Comerica Park, Joe Louis Arena, The Fox Theater, Hockeytown Cafe, Hockeytown Authentics, the Tigers, the Red Wings and so much more.

            Besides, fans young an old would no doubt eat the cost of an inflated admission ticket, or a hot dog and a box of Cracker Jack's just for a shot of that old time baseball nostalgia.

            The idea is feasible from an economical standpoint because it is certain baseball fans would still care enough to see one last home stand at the corner. In terms of man power and restoration efforts, the lobbyists would help because they already pushed to refurbish the tiring eye sore that hovers over Interstate-94.

            To the casual fan it may be over the top, but to long time, old fashioned baseball enthusiasts it's the proper send off Tiger Stadium has earned. After weekend series, turned Tigers celebrity alumni weekend party, mayor Kilpatrick can bulldoze the old white walled structure as soon as he can.

            Sure it will be sad. Sure it will signal the dawning of a new era for the corner of Michigan and Trumbell - an era that will either involve 24-hour one stop shopping, or five dollar easy out parking, but that's okay, because old Tiger Stadium will have gotten the it's ride into the sunset.

Eight years and just getting worse. I don't understand how the "computer polls" have Michigan ahead of Ohio State, why USC is better than both of them and why the whole system is a compilation of about 1,000 so -called experts predictions.

Basically we have all these polls with coaches, newspaper writers, and some guy named Harris, and still the system is flawed. Every talking head complains about how the system needs help yet everyone still votes and still supports this system that no longer includes strength of schedule, quality wins or margin of victory in the formula.

So really the system just keeps getting worse. I can understand why margin of victory is not in the mix anymore, but what's the point of excluding it if you don't include strength of schedule. Because really when you eliminate the strength of schedule your saying the opponents don't matter, and if the opponents don't matter then why is margin of victory not included- why are peoples opinions more important that the scores, the schedules and results?

What a mess.

I'm glad to be such a proponent for change. After last week's rant about Tedd Ginn being the only receiver in ESPN's Heisman watch, Chris Spielman added Calvin Johnson- who by the way still isn't the best receiver in the NCAA, and kept Ginn in the mix, probably because Kirk Herbstreet paid him.

But I digress.

Spielman is getting closer to getting his list right but here's how I would have my wide receivers ranked.

- Mario Manningham WR- Michigan -Twelfth in the NCAA in receiving yards with 527; first in the NCAA in touchdown receptions (9).

- Calvin Johnson WR- Georgia Tech - Just ahead of Manningham in yards (559) right behind him in touchdowns (8).

- DeSean Jackson - WR - California/ Robert Meacham WR Tennesee - Solid numbers all around.


In the case of running backs Northern Illinois finesse back Garrett Wolfe has still been overlooked by Spielman even though he has 496 more rushing yards than any other back in the nation. He may play in the MAC, but 353 yards against anyone, even Ball State, is worth a tip of the cap.

Besides, Ball State heads to Ann Arbor in a month, and I'd bet my life Mike Hart doesn't crack 253 yards against the Cardinals. Spielman still has him on his list though, along with Adrian Peterson of Oklahoma who has 400 less rushing yards and five less touchdowns.

I'd like to take this opportunity to remind everyone Wolfe put up 285 total yards on Ohio State plus a touchdown. To find someone with a performance that good you must go back to last September when Vince Young had 340 total yards. I wonder if he was on Spielman's list?

And I've heard so much about this "it" factor- I thought I knew what "it" was, but I apparently I don't know what "it" is when Steve Slaton is listed as a contender, but Garrett Wolfe is left in the cold. If this kid did any more work they'd call him Larry Johnson.