Can someone explain what the big deal is about Mizzou getting snubbed by the BCS bowls? I mean, except for the championship game, why are they more prestigeous? Just money? I mean the Tigers are rated #6 in the standings. If they take care of biz against Ark, they will move up in the final rankings over anyone ahead of them that loses, won't they? I mean the cotton bowl is one of the main games on Jan 1.
BTW, how many bowl games does New Orleans need?
To me, as a Mizzou student, it is a big deal because we feel we're more deserving of a BCS bowl than KU or Illinois. We beat both and our only losses (granted we have 2 where KU has 1) are against one better team.
What I don't understand is how the BCS bowls aren't decided by the BCS standings at all. If it was, MU over KU in the BCS bowl and KU plays in the Cottonelle Toilet Bowl. So what IS the point of the BCS if it doesn't even decide who plays?
I'm ok with NO getting some bowl games to get money back into that city after Katrina (Bush) demolished it.
My friend and I were having an argument about who we should want to win in the KU and OU games.
He argues that the Big 12 winning games brings more prestige and money to the conference and Mizzou. He says that OU going on to win shows we are a good team, the same with KU winning.
I say that I can not allow myself to root for a team that beat mine, especially when they are rivals. I asked him if he'd root for the Cubs in the WS if they knocked off the Birds in the NLCS. He said no.
I think that the benefits for Mizzou of KU/OU winning aren't as satisfying as watching their team and fans go though the torture we went through, but I understand his argument.