Official Bowl Game Selection Discussion (Page 1 For Results)

A.J. · Post #81 » by **A.J.** » Mon Dec 3, 2007 2:04 am

bove310 wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

if you like blowouts or are a gator fan i suppose. i can't wait for this game to be over already.

i just like tim tebow thats all.....

meatball sub · Post #82 » by **meatball sub** » Mon Dec 3, 2007 2:16 am

Ah well in that case, tebow is going to have a vince young at the rose bowl vs. michigan-esque 200 passing, 200 rushing yard performace. Or he might settle for 400 passing, 150 rushing. no matter how i look at it, it always ends up with michigan losing in a blowout.

i wanted to play florida for the month or so leading up to the national championship and after they played ohio state i didn't want to anymore. and after how horrible this team played this year we have to cap it off against tebow, unreal...

Post #83 » by **Doctor MJ** » Mon Dec 3, 2007 2:46 am

T-Mac United wrote:Illinois just got away with robbery. That team doesn't deserve to be in a BCS game.

That was my first reaction but thinking about it I'm not that upset considering the alternatives. First you've got to just accept the fact that when the Rose Bowl loses a Big 10 team, they'd like to get another one.

I think that if you're going to get the spot over one from the preferred conference, you have be able to cause buzz about the game. Georgia would have done that. Would have made it a bowl of the 2 hottest teams in the country and would have brought a traditional powerhouse to the Rose Bowl for the first time. Georgia gets that spot over Illinois easily, but of course the Sugar Bowl scooped them up.

Mizzou is the program that got screwed so I'll address them here. Had Mizzou played OU close with Daniel having a great game, I think they might have gotten this spot. As is, the team is seen as a clear B-lister with no real tradition, so it's not worth it for the Rose Bowl to break with tradition.

Post #84 » by **TMU** » Mon Dec 3, 2007 2:56 am

Doctor MJ wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

That was my first reaction but thinking about it I'm not that upset considering the alternatives. First you've got to just accept the fact that when the Rose Bowl loses a Big 10 team, they'd like to get another one.

I think that if you're going to get the spot over one from the preferred conference, you have be able to cause buzz about the game. Georgia would have done that. Would have made it a bowl of the 2 hottest teams in the country and would have brought a traditional powerhouse to the Rose Bowl for the first time. Georgia gets that spot over Illinois easily, but of course the Sugar Bowl scooped them up.

Mizzou is the program that got screwed so I'll address them here. Had Mizzou played OU close with Daniel having a great game, I think they might have gotten this spot. As is, the team is seen as a clear B-lister with no real tradition, so it's not worth it for the Rose Bowl to break with tradition.

You make a very good point. I often feel that the BCS bowls restrict themselves to divisions (as in #1 in a particular division and such), ignoring the whole point of BCS rankings. And I agree Mizzou got screwed over as they deserve a BCS selection if it wasn't for the divisions. I mean divisional championship is one thing and the BCS bowl selection is another.

Post #85 » by **mizzoupacers** » Mon Dec 3, 2007 3:14 am

Wow...my Missouri Tigers are having a tough weekend. :lol:

Not only are we going to the Cotton Bowl, but the ESPN crew is giving us no chance to beat Arkansas. :lol:

Everyone has known for years that the BCS is a bad system, so there's no use griping about it, but it's a very strange system that bypasses the #6 team in the country in favor of two lower-ranked at-large teams that lost to us--and both on neutral fields at that.

Missouri is the only team in the country with two wins over BCS bowl teams. (None of the BCS bowl teams has two wins over other BCS bowl teams--LSU and Illinois have one each, and that's it.)

And Missouri is one of only two teams in the country whose only loss(es) have come to BCS bowl teams. (Ohio State is the other.)

Seems like we kinda definitely deserved to get into the Orange Bowl. Oh well. My second-favorite college football team just became Virginia Tech.

Post #86 » by **mizzoupacers** » Mon Dec 3, 2007 3:24 am

T-Mac United wrote:You make a very good point. I often feel that the BCS bowls restrict themselves to divisions (as in #1 in a particular division and such), ignoring the whole point of BCS rankings. And I agree Mizzou got screwed over as they deserve a BCS selection if it wasn't for the divisions. I mean divisional championship is one thing and the BCS bowl selection is another.

The thing is, though, there is no reason why the BCS or the bowl system had to put Kansas in the Orange Bowl over Missouri. Missouri won the Big 12 North, not Kansas. Missouri and Kansas had identical regular-season records, but Missouri played the tougher schedule, beat Kansas head-to-head, and advanced to the conference title game as division champs. And even after losing the conference championship, Missouri still ranked ahead of Kansas in the BCS standings. I guess Kansas is in the Orange Bowl because they had one loss and Missouri has two, but that's only because Missouri lost a game that Kansas didn't qualify to even play in.

If you want to leapfrog Illinois over Missouri--even though Missouri beat Illinois, has a better overall record than Illinois, and is ranked higher than Illinois--to preserve the Big Ten vs. Pac 10 tradition in the Rose Bowl, fine, I can understand that.

If you want to put Kansas in the Fiesta Bowl instead of Missouri because we've lost to the Sooners twice already and Kansas hasn't played them, well, I can sort of understand that, although I don't really agree with it since think Kansas should have to beat someone, anyone, who comes within a hundred miles of being a top-25 team in order to deserve a spot in a BCS bowl. Even Hawaii has one win like that (Boise State).

Kansas over Missouri for the Orange Bowl...that really makes no sense at all.

Post #87 » by **Doctor MJ** » Mon Dec 3, 2007 6:32 am

T-Mac United wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

You make a very good point. I often feel that the BCS bowls restrict themselves to divisions (as in #1 in a particular division and such), ignoring the whole point of BCS rankings. And I agree Mizzou got screwed over as they deserve a BCS selection if it wasn't for the divisions. I mean divisional championship is one thing and the BCS bowl selection is another.

Thanks.

I think one of the key things to understand is that the Bowls are profit generators. Their goal isn't to serve as a substitute for a playoff system, but to get the most profitable matchup possible. The BCS is simply a compromise they agreed to, not an ideal they want to live up to.

Post #88 » by **Doctor MJ** » Mon Dec 3, 2007 6:37 am

mizzoupacers wrote:Kansas over Missouri for the Orange Bowl...that really makes no sense at all.

Wow I'm dumb, I just realize that they made the smart move and didn't have OU and Kansas playing each other. Anyway has OU-Kansas played, I'd understand Kansas over Mizzou, but as is I don't get it either. Were Kansas a program with a Texas or Nebraska type history, I would get it, but as is, I don't see why you'd give Kansas a boost over Mizzou.

If this is really about the 1 loss vs 2 loss thing that's utterly insane. It's always insane, but when both of the losses are to the same team it's somehow even weirder.

Post #89 » by **PhilipNelsonFan** » Mon Dec 3, 2007 8:05 am

KingInExile wrote:WTF...OSU finished 3rd in the Pac-10, why the hell are they scheduled for the Emerald Bowl. They should be going to the Sun Bowl instead of Oregon. This is complete BS.

Word out of El Paso is that the Sun Bowl didn't want Oregon State after having them last year, so they decided to go with Oregon.

In other words: You, my friend, are s**t outta luck. :lol:

But enjoy beating up a terrible Maryland team.

Post #90 » by **mizzoupacers** » Mon Dec 3, 2007 3:36 pm

Doctor MJ wrote:I think one of the key things to understand is that the Bowls are profit generators. Their goal isn't to serve as a substitute for a playoff system, but to get the most profitable matchup possible. The BCS is simply a compromise they agreed to, not an ideal they want to live up to.

Missouri has a much bigger population than Kansas, and the state's loyalties are not divided between two different Big 12 football programs as Kansas is with KU and Kansas State.

Plus Missouri has been waiting 40 years to get back to the Orange Bowl or any other major bowl. Missouri fans would have swarmed Miami in droves.

Also, if there is some vast national following for Kansas Jayhawks football, it seems to have escaped everyone's attention up to now.

Even profit cannot explain taking Kansas instead of Missouri.

Post #91 » by **KingInExile** » Mon Dec 3, 2007 5:24 pm

PhilipNelsonFan wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

Word out of El Paso is that the Sun Bowl didn't want Oregon State after having them last year, so they decided to go with Oregon.

In other words: You, my friend, are s**t outta luck. But enjoy beating up a terrible Maryland team.

Yeah, I did a little digging after that post and got that info. Oh well, I think most OSU alum would rather travel to San Francisco than El Paso anyway. As for the game, it will be a good end of season scrimmage to get us ready for spring practices.