No. You posted the championships
Again -- that was a discussion with a separate person on a separate topic. It wasn't directed at you. It wasn't in reply to any post by you. It isn't part of my discussion on this topic with you. It isn't -- at all -- part of my discussion of whether or not Michigan is a relevant football team in 2015.
There are most certainly three teams and the other two are definitely ahead of Michigan.
I'm not disputing that. However, having two teams ranked higher than you does not make you irrelevant.
Let's look at the progression of your definitions of relevance.
-- 1st was relevance = regularly playing for the national championship. Clearly, this makes all or nearly all teams irrelevant.
-- So, 2nd was relevance = regularly winning the conference championship. This has similar problems to the above.
-- Now, 3rd, I guess, relevance = no more than one team ahead of you in rankings. Well, at least now you have two teams in the country that are relevant, and everyone else (from #3 on down) is irrelevant. This still is exaggerated to absurdity.
I merely used 2000 as a solid litmus test of all three programs in trying not to "live in the past".
First, you can't use a discussion of 2000 (which is the past) as a tool to not discuss the past. Second, I am not talking to you about the past but about 2015 (which is the present).
Remember, here is what I'm talking about with you: that Michigan (in 2015) is not irrelevant except by a definition of relevance that is exaggerated to an absurd and self-contradictory level.