Today I read a very compelling argument written by Gary Ahern at Yahoo! Sports in favor of a Michigan-Ohio State rematch. Since the two teams cannot simply battle it out on the field (ahem..playoffs) the next best thing is to compare the performances of each teams against a common opponent, in this case: Notre Dame.

Then you need to take two additional facts into consideration:

1. Michigan did all this in South Bend while USC had the advantage of being the home team.
2. Michigan’s only loss is to the undefeated, unanimous number one team in the nation. USC’s only loss is to a good, but not great, 8-4 Oregon State.

Now, here is the second phase to my argument: if it is okay/fair to have a rematch in the Rose Bowl (Michigan-Notre Dame or USC-Notre Dame), why not the title game?

I understand that the stakes are not as high, but the Rose Bowl could decide who ends up the second ranked team when it is all said and done, which means a lot in terms of bowl payout and it definitely has potential impact in the recruiting wars. So someone tell me why its unfair to Ohio State (and other teams) if Michigan is rewarded with a rematch, yet totally fair to USC or Michigan if they have to beat Notre Dame, again, for a Rose Bowl title and a high ranking to finish out the season.

Oh, and considering their strength of schedule and recent close wins over South Carolina and a terrible Florida State, the Florida Gators are simply not an option. Not at all. But to be fair, Michigan and Florida also share a common opponent: Vanderbilt.

And once again Michigan comes out on top in almost every category. That’s it. This morning I was all for the USC-Ohio State game but after looking at all the stats I think the debate should rage on, and now I will be rooting for UCLA and Arkansas (each can take out USC or Florida from the title race) as well as Hawaii (USC strength of schedule) and Houston (Florida strength of schedule).