The right thing to do would be kick KU out of a BCS bowl since they don't have good wins or a tough schedule and shove Mizzou in that game.
Which BCS team(s) does not deserve what they got?
- Thread starter mj4cy
- Start date
The right thing to do would be kick KU out of a BCS bowl since they don't have good wins or a tough schedule and shove Mizzou in that game.
Maybe, but why wouldn't you put a UGA, or OU or Hawaii, or WV or KU or Va Tech in the Rose Bowl, then put a higher ranked ASU in their place?
Its a screendoor on a submarine, dork! Marty Mcfly on Back to the future.
Why dont you make like a tree and get out of here! Biff on back to the future.
What's wrong with USC-Boston College? At least BC made their championship game and was in the top 5 for part of the season. The only reason why BC finished behind Illinois in the final BCS standings was so the Rose Bowl could have their precious Illinois without facing a crisis of conscious (and it's not like the Rose Bowl would have picked Illinois over BC had their rankings been flipped anyway)
Or what's wrong with having USC-OU in the Rose Bowl and having WV-ASU in the Fiesta? The BCS will simply go out of their way to allow the "big money" matchups (and any Pac 10-Big 10 Rose Bowl is a money matchup)
Best trilogy that doesn't bear the title "The Lord of the Rings" and simply because a decade later Star Wars no longer is a trilogy. Personally, I think they should have left Back to the Future alone and not made II and III (IMO it certainly didn't help the franchise). Other than that - no gripes - love Back to the Future.
I enjoyed Star Wars. LOTR was a great movie, but just too long for me and doesn't hit my taste. I do see though why it is so loved. Back to the future is the only trilogy that has humor, a love story, an awesome time travel plot and a great soundtrack!
Agreed the 1st is the best, but I love all of them.
I think it is great Hawaii gets a shot to show off this year, I have stayed up late to watch a couple of games and they have come back from some big deficits quite a few times. I know they have a weak schedule but when your team goes 12-0 in any conference or season you should get a chance to show what you can do against the big boys. I am a little disappointed KU got in over MU, but not heartbroken... But Ohio State in the title game, I know they only have one loss and one the Big 11... but there are a lot better teams out there. But it has been a crazy year and very exciting season.
Mizzou got screwed big time, but I hate them so they deserved it!!!
The BCS is pure bull****, Ohio State just sits back and watches #1 and #2 lose....then they back themselves into the national championship game....I hope LSU destroys them!!
The BCS is pure bull****, Ohio State just sits back and watches #1 and #2 lose....then they back themselves into the national championship game....I hope LSU destroys them!!
I don't believe that the NCAA gets ANYTHING from the bowl games. Nada. Zip. Zilch. The conferences aren't the NCAA. The NCAA doesn't own the TV rights. The NCAA doesn't own the bowls. The NCAA doesn't own the conferences. The only real big cash cow for the NCAA is the NCAA tournament.
The bowl system is almost entirely outside the realm of the NCAA. They simply allow it to exist, because if they did not, the major conferences that comprise it would probably all pull out of it.
People act like the NCAA is somehow in control of all of this. In reality, the people who own the process are the conferences and the schools that belong to them. If you want to complain to someone, complain to the Big 12. They have a lot more influence on things than the NCAA.
Personally, Illinois is the only one that really bothers me. You can make points and counter-points for pretty much every team there, except Illinois. They didn't win their conference, They lost to a really bad Iowa team and to another team that didn't make a BCS bowl. Yet they somehow find a way into a BCS game while having 3 losses? I wouldn't understand this if they played in the SEC. Heck, I bashed Notre Dame a year ago for getting in with two blow out losses. This is worse than that. This is the one team that I just don't see how you can argue for them. It really has no leg to stand on other than giving the Rose Bowl their storied match up. If you want the Big10 vs. Pac 10 every year, then leave the BCS and convince those conferences to leave the BCS. This is a farce or epic proportions.
There are others I don't agree with, but, this year, I think you can make a valid case both for and against most other teams. Even Hawaii, yeah, they didn't have the schedule, but, they did what they were supposed to and it's not easy to convince non conference teams to go there and play.
There are others I don't agree with, but, this year, I think you can make a valid case both for and against most other teams. Even Hawaii, yeah, they didn't have the schedule, but, they did what they were supposed to and it's not easy to convince non conference teams to go there and play.
I'm not defending Illinois, but who else would you have put in under the current BCS selection process? The rules state that no conference can have more than two teams in BCS bowls, so that means that either Kansas or Missouri was necessarily going to be left out. Florida and Arizona State are the only other two teams ranked ahead of Illinois in the BCS standings that didn't receive a BCS invitation. Florida wasn't eligible because of the two-teams-per-conference rule, leaving Arizona State as the only other team with a legitimate beef under the current system.
Maybe ASU should have been included, but when you remember that the bowl committees still have a certain amount of autonomy in extending their invitations, it's pretty easy to see why they were left out. The BCS doesn't simply select ten teams into a pool and then assign them those ten teams to the bowl games without input from the bowl committees. If that had been the case, Arizona State would probably have been in. But the Rose Bowl obviously wasn't going to select Arizona State for a Pac-10 rematch game with USC. That made Illinois a fairly logical choice for the Rose Bowl. I don't have as much of a problem with Illinois being in the BCS as I do with the two-teams-per-conference rule. Based on the the current system, Illinois' selection was pretty justifiable.
Swap Mizzou for Kansas and pick'em for Illinois. Maybe ASU.
I think at minimum next year the 2 team maximum per conference rule has to go. Florida and Mizzou got the shaft because of that rule.
I understand the reason for the rule, but it punishes the best teams in the best conferences. I think the selection committees should be able to use the 2 team rule as a guideline instead of a law.
I think at minimum next year the 2 team maximum per conference rule has to go. Florida and Mizzou got the shaft because of that rule.
I understand the reason for the rule, but it punishes the best teams in the best conferences. I think the selection committees should be able to use the 2 team rule as a guideline instead of a law.
I agree, it's a stupid rule, but, I think you look around the country, you find someone else more deserving. Weather it falls under the rules or not, letting a 3 loss team in, especially when those 3 losses were not all to quality opponents, deminishes the already tarnished reputation of the BCS. I really think OU USC would have been a better match up, therefore opening the gates for ASU to get in. I guess I just don't buy the 2 team rule as much as the Rose bowl wanting their classic match up. I know anything can happen and I will tune in, but, I definitely don't like a lot of the match ups this year either.
To answer the question though, it would have forced other match ups, but, I definitely would have chosen ASU over Illinois. They wouldn't be in the Rose Bowl, but I don't see how you leave them out in favor of Illinois.
Oh I know that they will make for exciting games sometimes, OU vs Boise St. is the obvious example. I still just don't think they earned it. If they want a chance to play with the big boys then schedule them during their non-conference play. Let the teams that play with the big boys the entire year play in the bcs bowls.
I understand how they got a birth, and I agree that with their ranking they had to get one. But I think they don't deserve that ranking. Wins mean nothing if you don't look at the quality of teams that were on the other side of the ball. They were in the top 12 and were guaranteed their spot, whether they earned it or not is up for debate.
That definitely would have been a better game. Unfortunately, that could not have happened according to the rules, either. Each of the BCS bowls has an anchor conference where that conference's champion automatically goes unless it is bumped up to the national championship game. The Fiesta Bowl gets the Big 12 champion, the Rose Bowl the Pac-10 and Big Ten champions, the Orange Bowl the ACC champion, and the Sugar Bowl the SEC champion. The Fiesta Bowl was obligated to take Oklahoma, so the Rose Bowl couldn't take them, even if they'd wanted to. While the BCS bowls have a working agreement with one another to make the system function (relatively) smoothly, at the end of the day, they are all independent entities who are looking out for their own interests. They're under no obligation to agree to take certain at-large teams for the good of the system. That's why the Fiesta takes West Virgina over Arizona State (to bring in the out-of-state revenue) and the Rose takes Illinois to preserve its traditional Big Ten/Pac-10 match-up. Maybe that's the next thing that needs to change; perhaps the BCS should create a centralized selection committee that chooses the match-ups and assigns them to the bowls. I doubt the bowls would go for that, though.
