Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: $Revision: 1.6.2.16 $; site ISM780.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!ISM780!jimb
From: jimb@ISM780.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.sport.football
Subject: Re: Re: 2 field goals? (Michigan)
Message-ID: <35600006@ISM780.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 23-Jan-86 12:03:00 EST
Article-I.D.: ISM780.35600006
Posted: Thu Jan 23 12:03:00 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 26-Jan-86 04:40:26 EST
References: <852@spp2.UUCP>
Lines: 30
Nf-ID: #R:spp2:-85200:ISM780:35600006:000:1164
Nf-From: ISM780!jimb    Jan 23 12:03:00 1986



SLAAAANNNNNDER!   LIBEL!   GROSS MIS-ATTRIBUTION!  IS THERE A LAWYER ON THE
NET!

The quote attributed to me (below) is most emphatically not mine.  I'm
generally a lot more careful about semantics (I'm a writer by training,
trade, inclination) and wouldn't have let myself be *quite* so wide open
to counter-attack -- at least without meaning to invite one.  Apology will
be accepted, if offered.
			    -- Jim Brunet
		      ("Can't these Sooner Boomers even shoot straight?")

>>>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