Jim Tressel abstained from voting in the coaches' poll instead of causing a potential firestorm over who he picked to be the Buckeyes' opponent. Al Tielemans/SI
	MAILBAG Submit a question or an opinion to Stewart. Your name: Your e-mail address: Your home town: Enter your question:

If Jim Tressel did not turn in his vote, why does any other coach have to turn in their votes all year?
--T.J. Scribner, Wichita, Kan.

I might be in the minority on this one, but I agreed with Tressel's decision 100 percent -- and I'm kind of stunned by the amount of criticism he's taken. You just know if he had voted he would have faced even more backlash, regardless of his choice, and pundits would be decrying a system where the coach of the No. 1 team gets to choose his championship opponent. If he picked Michigan and Florida wound up No. 2, it would become a media storyline (and potential Gators locker-room fodder) the week leading up to the game. If he picked Florida and it helped keep his archrival out of the title game, he'd be hearing about it before every OSU-Michigan game the rest of his career. It was a no-win situation and he made the smart move.

I do think USA Today and the coaches association should put some sort of rule in writing to address such situations in the future. They should specify exactly what situations, if any, a coach can opt out.

Do you think Lloyd Carr's "taking the high road" approach was the right thing to do? I think Lloyd should have stuck up for his team a lot more than he did.
--John Shaffer, Quincy, Ohio

I don't think you reflected enough whether any voters changed their minds simply to put an end to the whining of Urban Meyer. Perhaps Michigan would be playing for the title if Lloyd Carr had whined and cried like the Florida coach.
--Tim, Las Vegas

I wasn't particularly thrilled with either coach's approach, and I think the whole exchange marked a particularly ugly moment for the BCS. My biggest problem with Meyer's comments was that he started in on them so early (though maybe that helped his cause). I think you should play the games before you start lobbying. For all the flack Mack Brown took for the Cal situation in '04, he only addressed it once, in a press conference after his last game. Meyer started in with two games remaining. And there's no question some of his comments were hypocritical considering: a) Florida would not have won its 1996 title without a bowl-game rematch; and b) A lot of the things he said about the need for a playoff directly contradicted his sentiments when he was coaching Utah just two years ago.

All that said, I thought Carr's response to Meyer went completely overboard. Never once during the final two weeks of the season did Meyer say anything derogatory about the Wolverines. He never even said his team was better than Carr's. All he said was that Michigan had its shot at Ohio State and that he felt his team had earned the right to get its shot at the Buckeyes. So don't give me this "Carr took the high road" nonsense. Besides, what would Carr have said even if he had chosen to lobby? "We've watched the tape from the last game, and I can assure you we've figured out a way to make up those three points."

If Michigan had beat Ohio State by three points, would Florida still be in the BCS championship?
--Patrick Haney, Belleville, Mich.

Good question. I'm inclined to say yes, the same thing would have happened, and in fact I would think the voters would have even less sympathy for a team that lost at home. But another factor to consider is, would the Buckeyes have lost in the same exact fashion? Or would they have lost on a last-second field goal? Because I think one reason a lot of voters were so anti-rematch is the reality that the Nov. 18 game wasn't necessarily as close as the final score indicated. Michigan never led after the 6:03 mark of the first quarter and trailed by 11 with just over two minutes remaining. Ironically, Florida's 27-17 loss at Auburn was actually much closer than the Wolverines' loss in Columbus. People forget, the Gators only trailed by one point, 18-17, with about 40 seconds remaining, before the Tigers made a field goal and returned a fumble for a touchdown on the final play. That's why I never bought into the whole "Michigan lost to a better team" argument.

In the great debate, why did no one look up common opponents? One word: Vanderbilt. Vanderbilt. Which is a better victory, 27-7 (Michigan) or 25-19 (Florida)?
--William Riedel, Cincinnati

Ah yes, the Vanderbilt factor. I'm sure they'll be adding that to the BCS formula next year.

Another example of how scores don't always tell the whole story. How is that a remotely accurate measuring stick when the Commodores played Michigan the first week of the season, in Ann Arbor, with a quarterback making his first career start while facing Florida at home more than two months later? You know what else Vanderbilt did this season? It beat Georgia. Four weeks later the Dawgs went and crushed Auburn. Using your rationale, the 4-8 'Dores ought to be playing in that Cotton Bowl instead of the 10-2 Tigers.

If Michigan were to blow out USC and Florida were to squeak by Ohio State, is there any possibility that Michigan would win the AP National Championship? It couldn't hurt for the Wolverines to start lobbying right now.
--Ben Burns, Hoboken, N.J.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Ohio State has been the No. 1 team all season. If Florida manages to beat them, why on earth wouldn't the No. 2 Gators rise to No. 1?