Albom on the non-rematch

Here's a couple segments from the Mitch Album column this morning. Mitch always does a good job about keeping things unbiased, and I agree with a lot of his points in the entire article, not because I selfishly want to see Michigan in the title game. If voters think Michigan is #2, then you HAVE to put them in the BCS title game. If they honestly think Florida is #2, then fine, I don't have a problem with that and they should be in the title game. However, I do have a problem if people ONLY voted UF #2 because they didn't want to see a rematch, that's wrong. The BCS (as much as people don't like it) is to put the #1 and 2 teams together.
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061204/SPORTS06/612040363/1048/SPORTS

"You can spin this thing any way you want. It was strictly about fresh versus familiar. In the end, Ohio State will play Florida on Jan. 8 in Glendale, Ariz., because people with votes want to see that game more than they want to see a rematch of Michigan-Ohio State. This was all about the line of thinking that says: "Give someone else a chance."
But if the system were about giving everyone a chance, they wouldn't call it a poll, they'd call it a donkey ride."

"Michigan, having not touched a football in two weeks, has to wonder why it was dropped -- while Florida was vaulted. Michigan has to wonder how losing on the road to the only team ranked ahead of it -- and losing by three points -- is somehow less worthy than Florida losing by 10 points to Auburn, a team not even in the final Top 10."

Speaking of donkey's, that's what I think of Gary Danielson and his announcing of the SEC game. I thought announcers were supposed to be biased during a game. I was about to scream if I heard Gary say one more time why voters had to vote Florida ahead of Michigan.

So now, who do I pull for in the title game? Dare I say it, but Ohio State IN A BLOW OUT. Come on Buckeyes! I don't care if it costs me an extra $10.