2007 BCS Bowls

by **Leedog** » Tue Jan 01, 2008 9:36 pm

Ya think the network types are hating Illinois in the Rose Bowl and Hawaii in the Sugar Bowl right about now? Wouldn't Mizzou and USC been a better game, as well as Illinois vs Arkansas? Same with Georgia and Hawaii? Not a case of hindsight being 20/20, It is what folks 'round these parts have been sayin all along. Now if VT can crush Kansas the trifecta will be complete.

by **marco** » Tue Jan 01, 2008 9:44 pm

Rohan wrote:Trust me, I know how you feel. For me, the WORST thing about KU losing to Mizzou was the reaction I received from Mizzou fans after the game. I was getting text messages from people my wife works with. People I've met only a hadfull of times. Mizzou fans were coming out of the woodwork that night.

You too huh? The only reason I was sorta tilting for OU in the Big XII game was for the chatter to die down. People went out of their way all week to remind me about it.

by **WaukeeBlues** » Tue Jan 01, 2008 10:56 pm

Leedog wrote:Ya think the network types are hating Illinois in the Rose Bowl and Hawaii in the Sugar Bowl right about now? Wouldn't Mizzou and USC been a better game, as well as Illinois vs Arkansas? Same with Georgia and Hawaii? Not a case of hindsight being 20/20, It is what folks 'round these parts have been sayin all along. Now if VT can crush Kansas the trifecta will be complete.

Well with the Rose Bowl it has always traditionally been the winner of the Pac-10 vs the winner of the Big Ten. Ohio State is in the National Title though, so there you go.

by OS » Tue Jan 01, 2008 11:16 pm

WaukeeBlues wrote:
Leedog wrote:Ya think the network types are hating Illinois in the Rose Bowl and Hawaii in the Sugar Bowl right about now? Wouldn't Mizzou and USC been a better game, as well as Illinois vs Arkansas? Same with Georgia and Hawaii? Not a case of hindsight being 20/20, It is what folks 'round these parts have been sayin all along. Now if VT can crush Kansas the trifecta will be complete.

Well with the Rose Bowl it has always traditionally been the winner of the Pac-10 vs the winner of the Big Ten. Ohio State is in the National Title though, so there you go.

The Rose Bowl didn't have to take the Big 10 runner up. They could have taken the best team available, but because they don't want to piss of the Big Ten they took a mediocre team over a better one and in the end their bottom line will take a hit because of it.

by **tsblue** » Wed Jan 02, 2008 6:40 am

WaukeeBlues wrote:
tsblue wrote:
Leedog wrote:I thought one of the births in the Rose Bowl went to the Big 10 champ unless they qualified for the Championship game (Ohio St), in which case the runner up get's the slot (Illinois).

It is not required, they have the option to choose a non-Big 10 or Pac 10 team if one or both are in the title game. Since the Rose Bowl is the group standing in the way of a +1 game ( a four team playoff, in essence) they can bite me. And it always is nails on chalk board the 357th time you hear "the grandaddy of them all"....

Why the heck would you NOT want to pick the best possible team out there to play in your bowl in order to make the game more exciting, a better draw, more interest, etc?

Like many things in the BCS, this doesn't make sense to me.

Absolutely makes no sense...if you are trying to get the best matchup, have the best game, etc. But these jackasses are not interested in that, only their hidebound "tradition". How great would a USC vs Georgia game been? Or Mizzou vs USC? Instead we get to watch a game that was over halfway into the first quarter.

by **WaukeeBlues** » Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:12 pm

OS wrote:
WaukeeBlues wrote:
Leedog wrote:Ya think the network types are hating Illinois in the Rose Bowl and Hawaii in the Sugar Bowl right about now? Wouldn't Mizzou and USC been a better game, as well as Illinois vs Arkansas? Same with Georgia and Hawaii? Not a case of hindsight being 20/20, It is what folks 'round these parts have been sayin all along. Now if VT can crush Kansas the trifecta will be complete.

Well with the Rose Bowl it has always traditionally been the winner of the Pac-10 vs the winner of the Big Ten. Ohio State is in the National Title though, so there you go.

The Rose Bowl didn't have to take the Big 10 runner up. They could have taken the best team available, but because they don't want to piss of the Big Ten they took a mediocre team over a better one and in the end their bottom line will take a hit because of it.

When Illinois was driving when it was 21-10 it was a great game. That ONE interception and USC getting a touchdown right there ended the game. the game was over at 28-10. Illinois absolutely collapsed after that. Arguably, if Illinois had scored on that drive and made it 21-17, it would have been a much better game.

BUT, coulda shoulda woulda, and they fell apart and let it happen so, in the end, you are right.

by **ViPeRx007** » Wed Jan 02, 2008 7:23 pm

ohio BLUES wrote:So you are Aode?

If he wasn't, don't you think he'd be trying his damnedest to convince us otherwise?

Nobody WANTS to be Aode unless they ARE Aode.

by **WaukeeBlues** » Wed Jan 02, 2008 8:50 pm

I'm here because I enjoy getting my dose of Blues stats, coverage and hockey talk. The random conversation here and there doesn't hurt. If that isn't enough for anyone- go to hell.

honestly, the obsession with it is something that to this day I don't understand and don't care to.

If you have to know, I have never been responding because its a dead issue that doesn't need to be getting fuel dumped on it by anyone responding or reacting to it. And that's the last I'm going to say about it.

tsblue wrote:Absolutely makes no sense...if you are trying to get the best matchup, have the best game, etc. But these jackasses are not interested in that, only their hidebound "tradition"

*shrug* then you get Michigan playing against Florida and it gets prime TV coverage. Even crappy teams this year that are big 'tradition' teams (Michigan/ Notre Dame, etc) are made huge deals of when non-traditionally good teams beat them (Navy for example). It's a big part of it for sure.

by **Nayrb** » Thu Jan 03, 2008 11:17 pm

WaukeeBlues wrote:
*shrug* then you get Michigan playing against Florida and it gets prime TV coverage. Even crappy teams this year that are big 'tradition' teams (Michigan/ Notre Dame, etc) are made huge deals of when non-traditionally good teams beat them (Navy for example). It's a big part of it for sure.

Michigan was crappy this year?

I'd take them over most teams, actually. And I'm no Michigan fan...

You can't lump that team in with ND... South Bend was awful this year.

by **WaukeeBlues** » Thu Jan 03, 2008 11:28 pm

Nayrb wrote:
WaukeeBlues wrote:
*shrug* then you get Michigan playing against Florida and it gets prime TV coverage. Even crappy teams this year that are big 'tradition' teams (Michigan/ Notre Dame, etc) are made huge deals of when non-traditionally good teams beat them (Navy for example). It's a big part of it for sure.

Michigan was crappy this year?

I'd take them over most teams, actually. And I'm no Michigan fan...

You can't lump that team in with ND... South Bend was awful this year.

You're right, that was an unfair comparison.

But still, it's just the point that a team that has great tradition and is usually good will be favored over a less prestigous team, even if the latters' record is better.

by **Rohan** » Fri Jan 04, 2008 6:15 am

by OS » Fri Jan 04, 2008 9:31 am

Congrats, Rohan... both of our teams did better than I expected.

by **marco** » Fri Jan 04, 2008 9:55 am

Rohan wrote::grin:

by **Rohan** » Fri Jan 04, 2008 7:28 pm

OS wrote:Congrats, Rohan... both of our teams did better than I expected.

Back in August, who would have ever thought these two teams would finish like this? :lol:

Unfukinreal.

Soft schedule or not, KU has a chance to be the only team in the country with a one loss season. (I know Hawaii only has one loss as well, but come on)

2007 BCS Bowls

Who is online