|
|
Post by lpcalihawk on Dec 8, 2008 10:33:44 GMT -6
The fact that they are playing in a BCS game and will get fucking rolled by Texas really pisses me off. Both Texas Tech and Boise State finished higher in the final BCS standings yet they are playing in the Cotton Bowl and Poinsettia Bowl (that one is on the 23rd of December).
I would much rather see a Tech/Texas re-match or Boise State against Texas than the Suckeyes making the Big Ten look even more pathetic after USC destroys Penn State. What the fuck is the point of the BCS again if they won't take teams ranked higher in their own poll?
|
|
|
|
Post by Dr. Doofenshmirtz (Heywood) on Dec 8, 2008 10:35:19 GMT -6
I don't think Texas Tech could be an at-large team since the Big 12 already had 2 teams in the BCS.
|
|
|
|
Post by Saggitariutt Jefferspin (ith) on Dec 8, 2008 12:39:23 GMT -6
What really pisses me off is Virginia Tech verses Cinci in the Orange Bowl. I understand the automatic bid, but there needs to be a clause added for a conference winner with more than 2 losses. The Bowl committee should have the right to look for another team in that case...and there could have been some interesting matchups.
Illinois proved last year that a team with more than 2 losses doesn't belong in a BCS bowl.
|
|
|
|
Post by mattahawk on Dec 8, 2008 12:49:48 GMT -6
You are spot on LP. TX, will kill OSU by 3 td's. At least I think so. I don't remember the last bowl OSU won. I don't think they have won one this decade that I remember.
The Orange should have been allowed to pick up anybody in the top 10. I honestly wouldn't have minded a Boise St./TT game. Boise st. while maybe not a ratings draw is a good team as they proved a couple of years ago.
|
|
|
|
Post by isu is shit on Dec 8, 2008 13:48:07 GMT -6
Because OSU got in BCS, we got Outback...otherwise we'd have been in the Alamo, which isn't bad, I understand, but i'd rather be in Outback Bowl
F*ck Boise State. They beat OU in BCS bowl a couple of years ago, but they're in a weak conference.
I hate Ohio State too, but having 2 Big Ten teams in BCS is good for the conference.
|
|
|
|
Post by MoHawk on Dec 8, 2008 13:50:56 GMT -6
You are spot on LP. TX, will kill OSU by 3 td's. At least I think so. I don't remember the last bowl OSU won. I don't think they have won one this decade that I remember. The Orange should have been allowed to pick up anybody in the top 10. I honestly wouldn't have minded a Boise St./TT game. Boise st. while maybe not a ratings draw is a good team as they proved a couple of years ago. I've tried to block it out of my memory as well, but don't you remember the National Championship against Miami in 2001? And then they blew out Notre Dame in Brady Quinn's swan song in 05. OSU does not fare well against the SEC for whatever reason. I think they'll get hammered by Texas as well, but just so we as Big XI fans don't get lumped in with their lack of being good on New Year's, I'll be pulling for them. |
|
|
|
Post by lpcalihawk on Dec 8, 2008 14:04:31 GMT -6
I don't think Texas Tech could be an at-large team bince the Big 12 already had 2 teams in the BCS. Yes, you are correct about that. However, if the BCS system is so fucking great.....why all of these rules about more than 2 teams from same conference, etc. After you announce the BCS championship game and all of the AQ's are accounted for......the teams ranked the highest in the BCS standings should fill in the remaining at large berths. Logic has escaped big-time college football because all they care about is fucking money......and these are the conferences and schools that already have enough money. They are not hurting. Yes, the Big 11 will get a bigger payout with OSU in a BCS game, but I'll take logic and a quality football game over this joke of a system. |
|
|
|
Post by twinegarden on Dec 8, 2008 14:08:23 GMT -6
You are spot on LP. TX, will kill OSU by 3 td's. At least I think so. I don't remember the last bowl OSU won. I don't think they have won one this decade that I remember. Ohio State has actually won 5 bowl games over the last 10 years, one of which being a National Championship game against Miami that they won in OT (the game where Willic McGahee got his knee blown out. . . ouch). |
|
|
|
Post by hawkeyescott on Dec 8, 2008 14:08:36 GMT -6
Because OSU got in BCS, we got Outback...otherwise we'd have been in the Alamo, which isn't bad, I understand, but i'd rather be in Outback Bowl F*ck Boise State. They beat OU in BCS bowl a couple of years ago, but they're in a weak conference. I hate Ohio State too, but having 2 Big Ten teams in BCS is good for the conference. Exactly, we go to Tampa instead of San Antonio because of Ohio St. Not to mention the extra $5 to $10 million the conference splits by having the second BCS team. So they get rolled by Texas who gives a shit as this benefits Iowa financially and places them in a better bowl game. If Boise St played the schedule Ohio St played they would have at least 2 losses also and they wouldn't be in the top 10 anyway because, they wouldn't have beaten USC or Penn St and I don't think they would have won at Michigan St either so Boise St didn't deserve it more than Ohio St IMO. |
|
|
|
Post by lpcalihawk on Dec 8, 2008 14:11:33 GMT -6
Because OSU got in BCS, we got Outback...otherwise we'd have been in the Alamo, which isn't bad, I understand, but i'd rather be in Outback Bowl F*ck Boise State. They beat OU in BCS bowl a couple of years ago, but they're in a weak conference. I hate Ohio State too, but having 2 Big Ten teams in BCS is good for the conference. Exactly, we go to Tampa instead of San Antonio because of Ohio St. Not to mention the extra $5 to $10 million the conference splits by having the second BCS team. So they get rolled by Texas who gives a shit as this benefits Iowa financially and places them in a better bowl game. If Boise St played the schedule Ohio St played they would have at least 2 losses also and they wouldn't be in the top 10 anyway because, they wouldn't have beaten USC or Penn St and I don't think they would have won at Michigan St either so Boise St didn't deserve it more than Ohio St IMO. Apples to Oranges. How would OSU do against Boise's schedule? You honestly don't know. The BCS has a statistical system in place. Boise State and Texas Tech finished higher than OSU. Simple as that. |
|
|
|
Post by thunderhawk on Dec 8, 2008 16:40:37 GMT -6
Exactly, we go to Tampa instead of San Antonio because of Ohio St. Not to mention the extra $5 to $10 million the conference splits by having the second BCS team. So they get rolled by Texas who gives a shit as this benefits Iowa financially and places them in a better bowl game. If Boise St played the schedule Ohio St played they would have at least 2 losses also and they wouldn't be in the top 10 anyway because, they wouldn't have beaten USC or Penn St and I don't think they would have won at Michigan St either so Boise St didn't deserve it more than Ohio St IMO. Apples to Oranges. How would OSU do against Boise's schedule? You honestly don't know. The BCS has a statistical system in place. Boise State and Texas Tech finished higher than OSU. Simple as that. The only purpose of the BCS is to get #1 and #2 playing each other. That's it. All the rest is subject to change. |
|
|
|
Post by MoHawk on Dec 8, 2008 17:12:04 GMT -6
Agreed Thunder. The purpose of the BCS is to pair the two best teams in the country. So, the way the system is designed, it worked perfectly this year.
However, that doesn't mean the system is designed well.
I really think a playoff of some sort is the only way to go. Keep the bowls...that's fine, get your payouts there. Just add two more games...a football final four...and you're all set and OWN the month of December. Of course, you have to convince the Rose Bowl to have their event in December rather than January 1st...which might prove to be slightly less difficult than understanding how ISU claims to have a football program.
|
|
|
|
Post by jwiley10 on Dec 8, 2008 19:51:46 GMT -6
As a Fiesta Bowl season ticket holder who plans on selling his four tickets to the game, I was ecstatic that Ohio State was selected to play Texas.
|
|
|
|
Post by mattahawk on Dec 8, 2008 20:53:00 GMT -6
You are spot on LP. TX, will kill OSU by 3 td's. At least I think so. I don't remember the last bowl OSU won. I don't think they have won one this decade that I remember. Ohio State has actually won 5 bowl games over the last 10 years, one of which being a National Championship game against Miami that they won in OT (the game where Willic McGahee got his knee blown out. . . ouch). Really? Wow, I honestly never would have thought that. For some reason it seems like every time they go to a bowl they lose. I do remember the Miami game though now. The BCS may have been designed to pit no. 1 vs no. 2 but I would disagree that it did that job very well. Florida is probably no. 1 but all of those blow outs over the last 6 weeks by Oklahoma don't mean squat when you have your starters in until the final 3 minutes of the game. Any team in the country could say the same thing. This year is actually the perfect example. Scrap the bottom 8 or so bowls and institute an 8 team playoff. Oklahoma, USC, Florida, PSU, Tx, TT, Alabama, OSU. Hell, throw in Utah, they have played a pretty decent schedule this year, they could possibly win game 1 in a playoff if they went up against PSU/OSU/TT. |
|
|
|
Post by lpcalihawk on Dec 9, 2008 9:29:45 GMT -6
Apples to Oranges. How would OSU do against Boise's schedule? You honestly don't know. The BCS has a statistical system in place. Boise State and Texas Tech finished higher than OSU. Simple as that. The only purpose of the BCS is to get #1 and #2 playing each other. That's it. All the rest is subject to change. If that is the only purpose, why rank schools that aren't #1 and #2 in the final standings? |
|
|
|
Post by scotthawk on Dec 9, 2008 10:48:14 GMT -6
Boise State needs to switch conferences if they really want to be big time. Their schedule blows so it isn't any wonder that they are always 12-0 or 11-1. Trade them straight up for Iowa State and see how they do in the Big 12. They might do ok...but they wouldn't have the inflated 12-0 record every year. It would certainly be earned if they ever finished 12-0. This switch would also allow Iowa State to win at least 4 games a year.
|
|
|
|
Post by thunderhawk on Dec 9, 2008 11:55:15 GMT -6
The only purpose of the BCS is to get #1 and #2 playing each other. That's it. All the rest is subject to change. If that is the only purpose, why rank schools that aren't #1 and #2 in the final standings? That's the part where all of the "subject to change" bullshit comes into play. I'm not defending the BCS (read: Greed Codified); I think that ranking past #1 and #2 is worthless especially with the presence of a BCS title game separate of the Big Four bowls. Why do they rank the rest? Money, why else. |
|
|
|
Post by thunderhawk on Dec 9, 2008 11:57:49 GMT -6
Boise State needs to switch conferences if they really want to be big time. Their schedule blows so it isn't any wonder that they are always 12-0 or 11-1. Trade them straight up for Iowa State and see how they do in the Big 12. They might do ok...but they wouldn't have the inflated 12-0 record every year. It would certainly be earned if they ever finished 12-0. This switch would also allow Iowa State to win at least 4 games a year. Where are they gonna go? I'm sure they'd switch to a BCS conference in a nanosecond if they could find one to take them. Boise State is a victim of BCS collusion. They oughta file an antitrust lawsuit. |
|
|
|
Post by Solar Stud on Dec 9, 2008 13:10:04 GMT -6
Say what?!
Why hate on them?
If Iowa would have went 10-2 and not went to a BCS bowl, we'd be bitching.
Can't have it both ways.
|
|
|
|
Post by isu is shit on Dec 9, 2008 13:31:18 GMT -6
Say what?! Why hate on them? If Iowa would have went 10-2 and not went to a BCS bowl, we'd be bitching. Can't have it both ways. We're in a tougher conference that BSU. If we went 10-2, we may not deserve a BCS bowl, but definitely a better bowl than what BSU would get if we had identical records. |
|
