Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site spp2.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ukma!psuvm.bitnet!psuvax1!burdvax!sdcrdcf!trwrb!trwspp!spp2!stassen
From: stassen@spp2.UUCP (Chris Stassen)
Newsgroups: net.sport.football
Subject: Re: 2 field goals? (Michigan)
Message-ID: <852@spp2.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 20-Jan-86 17:36:44 EST
Article-I.D.: spp2.852
Posted: Mon Jan 20 17:36:44 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 22-Jan-86 04:41:21 EST
References: <30400012@ISM780B.UUCP> <19000007@hpcnoe.UUCP> <850@spp2.UUCP>
Reply-To: stassen@spp2.UUCP (Chris Stassen)
Organization: TRW, Redondo Beach  CA
Lines: 18
BCC: stassen


In article <850@spp2.UUCP> stassen@spp2.UUCP (I) write:
>>>someone earlier said michigan was two field goals from a perfect season and
>>>a nat'l championship.  hell, they were also a few field goals from
>>>a so-so season and dropping out of the top 10.
>>>             (Jim Brunet)
>>
>>Name the games which Michigan would have lost if the opposition scored
>>three more points.
>>
        Aha.  I think that Jim would give both field goals to Nebraska,
whom Michigan only beat by 4 points.  That would put Michigan at 9-2-1.

        Therefore, UCLA (also 9-2-1) had a "so-so season" this year.
Not only that, but UCLA had an easier schedule (see the article on
opponents' winning percentages), and should therefore not be in the
top 10, either.

                                        -- Chris