BCS Bowls and all others

Message

takinover · #1 Post by **takinover** » Sun Dec 02, 2007 7:24 pm

I think I will offically pass on all of them this year. I only saw Rose and Fiesta last year.

And next season and until otherwise things change (maybe a playoff, anything but this garbage) College Football will only be of interest when my team is involved.

elwoodblues · #2 Post by **elwoodblues** » Sun Dec 02, 2007 8:51 pm

In some years they get lucky and have two unbeaten teams left, but this season there is no way they can defend this crappy system. But they will keep it up because they don't care what the fans think.

silvercamaro · #3 Post by **silvercamaro** » Sun Dec 02, 2007 9:08 pm

Here's my nefarious plan. I hope to see Ohio State and LSU fight to a 0-0 tie (even after 47 overtimes, after which both teams will give up in exhaustion,) so the national championship will go to the winner of the Fiesta Bowl.

Okay, so it's not likely, but it's the only plan I've got.

DadofTwins · #4 Post by **DadofTwins** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 1:13 am

Random thoughts on the BCS Bowls:

1 -- I guess conference affiliation isn't everything. The Orange Bowl was supposed to be Big East vs. ACC, but West Virginia goes to the Fiesta to play Oklahoma while Kansas gets Va Tech in the Orange Bowl. Look for a tweak next year that says the BCS can't take an at-large team from a conference if there's another at-large candidate from the same conference ranked higher.

2 -- In the final standings, Virginia Tech is #1 in the computers, #5 in the Coaches Poll, and #6 in the Harris Poll. If this doesn't scream playoff, nothing will.

3 -- Speaking of screaming playoff, is anyone else shocked (shocked!) to hear all the voices at ESPN decrying the BCS now, when 4 years ago it was "the only viable solution" when USC, OU, and LSU all had 1 loss on the first Sunday in December? Now that FOX has the TV contract, the BCS sucks. But when ESPN/ABC had it, "we got two national championship games! Woohoo!"

TheCalvinator24 · #5 Post by **TheCalvinator24** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 1:39 am

The voters obviously "punished" VT for their bad loss to LSU early in the season.

If the voters had decided OU deserved the shot and put them at #2, they still would have been left out. The computers give them no love.

I don't understand how anybody can look at this mess and not agree that a playoff is the only right thing for Division 1-A Football.

Why, oh why did OU have to choke to Colorado? Even with a late season loss to Tech, they might have made it in if they only had one loss. Given the computer ranking, they still might have been on the outside looking in.

earendel · #6 Post by **earendel** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 7:12 am

Well at least TCFPTB didn't decide on a "Big XII post-season championship game" by matching OU and Kansas, as I heard a lot of people suggest would happen. And kudos (of a sort) to the Big 10, which has resisted the lure of big money and not established a post-season championship game.

NellyLunatic1980 · #7 Post by **NellyLunatic1980** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 8:04 am

The C in BCS is superfluous.

Think about that one for a sec...

andrewjackson · #8 Post by **andrewjackson** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 9:20 am

earendel wrote:Well at least TCFPTB didn't decide on a "Big XII post-season championship game" by matching OU and Kansas, as I heard a lot of people suggest would happen. And kudos (of a sort) to the Big 10, which has resisted the lure of big money and not established a post-season championship game.

By the current rules, the Big 10 is not allowed to have a conference championship game. You have to have at least 12 members and split into two divisions to be able to have that extra game.

Frankly, I'll give more kudos to the Pac 10 who I normally despise as the natural enemy of the Big 10. They are now playing a complete round-robin of 9 games so that every team in the league plays every other team. I would much rather see the Big 10 do that even if it would be 10 league games. Yes, teams would have slightly fewer home games overall since they would lose control of two games for scheduling purposes and fewer teams would become bowl eligible but I'd rather see meaningful games rather than a series of MAC opponents to start the year.

mrkelley23 · #9 Post by **mrkelley23** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 9:24 am

Especially since you might wind up playing some of those MAC teams twice in the same year, right?

Seriously, I agree with you. There should not be any years where some teams get to "avoid" the traditionally powerful teams like OSU and Michigan, as IU got to do this year. Even though Michigan was theoretically "down," I"m thinking that would have been another loss, which would have kept us out of bowls altogether, most likely.

andrewjackson · #10 Post by **andrewjackson** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 9:39 am

mrkelley23 wrote:Especially since you might wind up playing some of those MAC teams twice in the same year, right?

Right. I'm counting this year as a bowl appearance and will watch the game but otherwise I will not speak of it.

Purdue is now in our 10th bowl game in 11 years. 2005 was the only year we missed since Tiller got here. And that concludes my Purdue bowl discussion for the season.

mrkelley23 wrote:Seriously, I agree with you. There should not be any years where some teams get to "avoid" the traditionally powerful teams like OSU and Michigan, as IU got to do this year. Even though Michigan was theoretically "down," I"m thinking that would have been another loss, which would have kept us out of bowls altogether, most likely.

Yep. I was glad to see the Big 10 basketball schedules go back to 18 league games this season. I'd just as soon see those go on up to 20 as well.

minimetoo26 · #11 Post by **minimetoo26** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 9:48 am

I don't know if the thrashing at the hands of LSU hurt Tech as much as that stupid loss to BC. They were up 10-0 in the third quarter and blew the game. Without that, they'd have only one loss and likely the #1 ranking.

But I have learned never to get my hopes up, having gone there in the very lean years when no one would know what a Hokie was if it fell on them....

#12 Post by **eyégor** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 10:18 am

minimetoo26 wrote:I don't know if the thrashing at the hands of LSU hurt Tech as much as that stupid loss to BC. They were up 10-0 in the third quarter and blew the game. Without that, they'd have only one loss and likely the #1 ranking.

But I have learned never to get my hopes up, having gone there in the very lean years when no one would know what a Hokie was if it fell on them....

Somebody throw a prisoner for that girl, because the BC game is the answer, IMO.

I love the fact that in all intercollegiate sports, 'Bowl Division' football players are the only ones school administrators think are put at risk academically by a playoff system.

silverscreenselect · #13 Post by **silverscreenselect** » Tue Dec 04, 2007 3:23 am

If the BCS is based on which two teams deserve to be there based on the results all season, then Ohio State and LSU are the correct teams.

If it's based on which two teams are playing the best right now and would produce the best game, then Southern Cal and Oklahoma should be playing.

I don't think teams should be rewarded for not winning a conference championship. Georgia should not have gotten to the title game simply because their losses, one to a middling South Carolina team and a blowout at Tennessee, happened earlier in the year than Oklahoma or Southern Cal or LSU.

Teams who don't play in a conference championship should not be rewarded either. Oklahoma could probably have beaten either Kansas or Missouri as many times as they wanted during a season. Kansas shouldn't have been rewarded for not having played Oklahoma during the regular season and for having scheduled a ridiculously easy non-conference schedule while Missouri was beating Illinois on the road.

Georgia really got a lousy draw in the BCS. They can and probably will beat Hawaii by 30 points or so and no one will care.

Hopefully, this is the last time Georgia Tech gets shipped out somewhere in the Rocky Mountains playing (and possibly losing) a mediocre team from a second rate conference before twenty or thirty fans in a bowl game one heard of, which is what seems to happen to them every single year under the unlamenedly departed Chan Gailey. This game will give our defensive coordinator John Tenuta a chance to show what type of head coaching material he might be.

Ritterskoop · #14 Post by **Ritterskoop** » Tue Dec 04, 2007 3:51 am

silverscreenselect wrote:
Georgia really got a lousy draw in the BCS. They can and probably will beat Hawaii by 30 points or so and no one will care.

Hopefully, this is the last time Georgia Tech gets shipped out somewhere in the Rocky Mountains playing (and possibly losing) a mediocre team from a second rate conference before twenty or thirty fans in a bowl game one heard of, which is what seems to happen to them every single year under the unlamenedly departed Chan Gailey. This game will give our defensive coordinator John Tenuta a chance to show what type of head coaching material he might be.

I'll take Hawaii and 30, for a lot of money.

As for poor Georgia Tech, I gather than if you win against good teams, and don't lose to bad ones, you don't get exiled to bad bowls.

silverscreenselect · #15 Post by **silverscreenselect** » Tue Dec 04, 2007 11:29 am

Ritterskoop wrote:
silverscreenselect wrote:

Hopefully, this is the last time Georgia Tech gets shipped out somewhere in the Rocky Mountains playing (and possibly losing) a mediocre team from a second rate conference before twenty or thirty fans in a bowl game one heard of, which is what seems to happen to them every single year under the unlamenedly departed Chan Gailey. This game will give our defensive coordinator John Tenuta a chance to show what type of head coaching material he might be.
I'll take Hawaii and 30, for a lot of money.

As for poor Georgia Tech, I gather than if you win against good teams, and don't lose to bad ones, you don't get exiled to bad bowls.

I didn't say they didn't belong in a fourth rate bowl in the middle of nowhere. I just said I was tired of it and hopefully, with a decent coach, we'll be out of there.

Appa23 · #16 Post by **Appa23** » Tue Dec 04, 2007 11:41 am

silverscreenselect wrote:If the BCS is based on which two teams deserve to be there based on the results all season, then Ohio State and LSU are the correct teams.

If it's based on which two teams are playing the best right now and would produce the best game, then Southern Cal and Oklahoma should be playing.

I don't think teams should be rewarded for not winning a conference championship. Georgia should not have gotten to the title game simply because their losses, one to a middling South Carolina team and a blowout at Tennessee, happened earlier in the year than Oklahoma or Southern Cal or LSU.

Teams who don't play in a conference championship should not be rewarded either. Oklahoma could probably have beaten either Kansas or Missouri as many times as they wanted during a season. Kansas shouldn't have been rewarded for not having played Oklahoma during the regular season and for having scheduled a ridiculously easy non-conference schedule while Missouri was beating Illinois on the road.

Georgia really got a lousy draw in the BCS. They can and probably will beat Hawaii by 30 points or so and no one will care.

Hopefully, this is the last time Georgia Tech gets shipped out somewhere in the Rocky Mountains playing (and possibly losing) a mediocre team from a second rate conference before twenty or thirty fans in a bowl game one heard of, which is what seems to happen to them every single year under the unlamenedly departed Chan Gailey. This game will give our defensive coordinator John Tenuta a chance to show what type of head coaching material he might be.

Interesting take. I agree that OU is fairly hot, although the Texas Tech debacle is not that far in the past.

I just can not jump on the USC bandwagon. They beat a bad UCLA team, playing a 4th string quarterback, by less than Oklahoma beat the #1 team in the nation. A 17 point win over the Bruins tells me that USC is not up to the standard of recent years. (as does their perforamnces in several other games this year)

BTW, Missouri-Illinois was played at a neutral site (St. Louis -- is it still the Edward Jones Dome?)

OU likely beats Kansas more times than not, but Kansas would have given OU a better game, having seen the teams play. Sadly, for Kansas, they will appear to "regress' next year, when they have to play Texas, OU, and Texas Tech, plus having to travel to Nebraska.

I am wondering if Tenuta will not end up as LSU's DC, after the premature rumors that Miles was going to Michigan with Tenuta as the DC.

earendel · #17 Post by **earendel** » Tue Dec 04, 2007 11:50 am

Appa23 wrote:Interesting take. I agree that OU is fairly hot, although the Texas Tech debacle is not that far in the past.

That "debacle" was largely due to the loss of their QB early on. Yes, they have a good team and that shouldn't have taken the steam out of them (as it seemed to), but leave Bradford in and the game ends up in the W column.

TheCalvinator24 · #18 Post by **TheCalvinator24** » Tue Dec 04, 2007 12:19 pm

earendel wrote:
Appa23 wrote:Interesting take. I agree that OU is fairly hot, although the Texas Tech debacle is not that far in the past.
That "debacle" was largely due to the loss of their QB early on. Yes, they have a good team and that shouldn't have taken the steam out of them (as it seemed to), but leave Bradford in and the game ends up in the W column.

I'm not sure about that. OU was playing flat even before Bradford got knocked out of the game. Let us not forget that Bradford suffered the concussion tackling the guy who had just intercepted his pass.

If Bradford stays in, OU might have been able to right the ship sooner than they did, and that might have been enough to pull out the W, but it's not a foregone conclusion.

Appa23 · #19 Post by **Appa23** » Tue Dec 04, 2007 12:20 pm

earendel wrote:
Appa23 wrote:Interesting take. I agree that OU is fairly hot, although the Texas Tech debacle is not that far in the past.
That "debacle" was largely due to the loss of their QB early on. Yes, they have a good team and that shouldn't have taken the steam out of them (as it seemed to), but leave Bradford in and the game ends up in the W column.

Injuries are part of the game.

You are not much a team if you can not withstand the loss of one player.

As I said in an earlier post, it is the measure of a truly great team to be able to withstand such losses and win. (A selling point for LSU, who have withstood several games without the services of their starting quarterback and All-World DT Glenn Dorsey).