|
Title: See, they did it again! Post by: MFAWG on December 06, 2010, 07:54:04 PM Wisconsin-TCU is NOT a Rose Bowl.
With the Pac10 champion Ducks playing in the :airquotes: title game :airquotes: would sticking Stanford in have killed anybody? Wisconsin-Stanford is a DAMN FINE Rose Bowl. Title: Re: See, they did it again! Post by: Aske on December 07, 2010, 07:44:48 AM maybe they shouldn't have signed that requirement obligating them to ...
Title: Re: See, they did it again! Post by: MFAWG on December 07, 2010, 01:01:31 PM maybe they shouldn't have signed that requirement obligating them to ... EXACTLY! You're the biggest cock on the block, why should you have to take the leftovers? Title: Re: See, they did it again! Post by: Aske on December 07, 2010, 01:34:40 PM hardly call that a leftover, history aside
that said, they're free to leave the BCS so they can keep their pac10/big10 matchups Title: Re: See, they did it again! Post by: gleek on December 07, 2010, 06:00:38 PM A bigger joke is that an 8-4 UConn team and team that lost to James Madison get automatic berths to a BCS bowl game, while Boise State gets to play in some car parts bowl.
Title: Re: See, they did it again! Post by: MFAWG on December 07, 2010, 06:25:30 PM hardly call that a leftover, history aside that said, they're free to leave the BCS so they can keep their pac10/big10 matchups Seriously: There were 2 good Pac10 teams available for this bowl. They took TCU? I'd like to see what the advance ticket sales look like. A bigger joke is that an 8-4 UConn team and team that lost to James Madison get automatic berths to a BCS bowl game, while Boise State gets to play in some car parts bowl. Boise State in the Rose would have worked as well. They'd fill the jails all the way to Tijuana for that one! The biggest joke of all is UW playing Nebraska. Title: Re: See, they did it again! Post by: Aske on December 07, 2010, 07:04:26 PM hardly call that a leftover, history aside that said, they're free to leave the BCS so they can keep their pac10/big10 matchups Seriously: There were 2 good Pac10 teams available for this bowl. They took TCU? I'd like to see what the advance ticket sales look like. A bigger joke is that an 8-4 UConn team and team that lost to James Madison get automatic berths to a BCS bowl game, while Boise State gets to play in some car parts bowl. Boise State in the Rose would have worked as well. They'd fill the jails all the way to Tijuana for that one! The biggest joke of all is UW playing Nebraska. there weren't any Pac10 teams "available" and no "taking" for this bowl once Oregon went to the title game. the Rose Bowl agreed to a 4 year rotation beginning this season a while back whereby if the PAC10 Champ is going to the championship game they would take the top eligible non-AQ (assuming one existed). Title: Re: See, they did it again! Post by: Aske on December 08, 2010, 06:59:22 AM http://blogs.forbes.com/kurtbadenhausen/2010/12/07/hottest-college-football-bowl-tickets
Title: Re: See, they did it again! Post by: Fuzzy on December 08, 2010, 07:46:50 AM From somewhere on the internets. I don't follow the politics of the BCS but I believe the highlighted section is why the Rose Bowl is stuck with TCU. I agree the match-up should be Wisconsin-Stanford:
At this point, we have two groups of teams: those that have automatically qualified and a pool of at-large candidates. Here is how they get assigned to the bowls. 1. The top two teams in the BCS rankings play in the national title game. 2. The BCS bowls get their conference champion tie-ins. The tie-ins are: Big Ten and Pac 10 champions to the Rose Bowl, SEC champion to the Sugar Bowl, Big 12 champion to the Fiesta Bowl, and the Orange gets the ACC champion. The Big East champion is not tied to a specific BCS game. 3. If the #1 team is the champion of a conference tied to one of the bowl games, that bowl gets to choose a replacement for that team. 4. If the #2 team is the champion of a conference tied to one of the bowl games, that bowl gets to choose a replacement for that team. A bowl choosing a replacement for a tie-in lost to the national title game is not required to choose another team from its tie-in conference. Also, if both the #1 and #2 teams need to be replaced in tie-in bowl games, the bowl choosing a replacement for the #1 team may not select a team from the same conference as the #2 team without the permission of the tie-in bowl for that conference. For the four year period beginning in 2010, the first time the Rose Bowl loses one of its anchor teams to the BCS title game, and a non-AQ team automatically qualifies for selection, and that team is not in the title game itself, the Rose Bowl is required to take that team. At this point, seven of the ten spots will be assigned. The selection order for the other three is the following. 1. the bowl that will be played fourth that year. 2. the bowl that will be played third that year. 3. the bowl that will be played second that year (right after the Rose Bowl). Title: Re: See, they did it again! Post by: MFAWG on December 08, 2010, 01:27:31 PM For the four year period beginning in 2010, the first time the Rose Bowl loses one of its anchor teams to the BCS title game, and a non-AQ team automatically qualifies for selection, and that team is not in the title game itself, the Rose Bowl is required to take that team.
Let me show you how I read that: 'Since the Rose Bowl wouldn't play ball for a few years, they have to take whatever scrubass team we say if the Pac10 champion is in the (so-called) national championship game. This will probably end in 2014. Unless they piss us off again. Then we'll make up some other *feces*.' All fine and good, but the first time that retard Musberger opens his mouth about 'Tradition' I'm throwing my TeeVee machine out in the street. |