T1B

The Irish have lost seven straight bowl games — losing by an average of 37-18 — since beating Texas A&M to end the 1993 season.

Why should the Irish be in another Bowl game they dont deserve to be in?????

The fighting ethnic group should show some class...

...and give the game to a team that deserves it...

Oregon!!!


the truth

^^^^^^^^^^^

OUch!

Believe the Heupel wrote:Shush you. Pac-10 teams that get passed over for the BCS never lose to 7-4 Big 12 teams.

That pretty much ended this thread. BOOM!

Believe the Heupel wrote:Shush you. Pac-10 teams that get passed over for the BCS never lose to 7-4 Big 12 teams.

How'd that Tech game go this year???

UCLA game ???

88, made a funny...

...just make sure you're not the 1st team to lose to ND in a bowl game... in almost 2 decades...




the truth

Believe the Heupel wrote:Y'know, m2, you'd be a hell of a lot more fun if you'd just accept good-natured ribbing now and then..

I'm in if you're in...


m2

m2 wrote: I'm in if you're in...


m2

You could make The Art of War sound faggy

Believe the Heupel wrote:Shush you. Pac-10 teams that get passed over for the BCS never lose to 7-4 Big 12 teams.

Remember us? We're another Pac 10 team that got passed over big time by the BCS, this time in 2001. Instead of getting to play in the national championship game, which would've made sense since we were the consensus #2 team at the conclusion of the regular season, well, we were given a consolation game against, yep, you guessed it, Notre Dame.

The Fiesta Bowl, if memory serves.

We're pretty sure most of the same people who are now saying ND would crush Oregon this season were also saying ND would crush us too, and for the same (lack of) reasons.

Pretty sure those same people were saying the same thing before we again were pitted against ND in our 2004 bowl game.

Sincerely,
Oregon State 41
Notre Dame 9

and

Oregon State 38
Notre Dame 21

BTH, in terms of calender years, yeah, I might have the actual January bowl game dates vs their respective seasons wrong.

Nonetheless, I think you get the point: Typical CF Fan is saying ND would wax Oregon this year and they probably were saying it in those other seasons as well when ND was pitted against a supposedly inferior Pac 10 team...and we all know how those games turned out.

I see no reason to assume that ND or OSU would roll Oregon this go around either, especially if Oregon still had their starting QB...

Van wrote:BTH, in terms of calender years, yeah, I might have the actual January bowl game dates vs their respective seasons wrong.

Nonetheless, I think you get the point: Typical CF Fan is saying ND would wax Oregon this year and they probably were saying it in those other seasons as well when ND was pitted against a supposedly inferior Pac 10 team...and we all know how those games turned out.

I see no reason to assume that ND or OSU would roll Oregon this go around either, especially if Oregon still had their starting QB...

Maybe not, but that's irrelevant at this point. ND is in, and under the rules as they now exist (and rules which, btw, all of the BCS teams agreed to) they have every right to be in. And btw, I find it a little troubling that ND is singled out on this board as "not belonging" in the BCS, when this year's BCS roster includes three teams (Georgia, West Virginia and Florida State) all ranked below ND in both the polls and the BCS rankings. Florida State is behind ND in both those categories, as well as the computer rankings, by a substantial amount.

So why is it that ND "doesn't belong" in the BCS, but Florida State does? (That question isn't directed at you, Van -- it's directed at Renaissance Fair man.)

And for Renaissance Fair man to claim to live in the here and now, while simultaneously bringing up ND's "two decades long" (sidenote: Renaissance Fair man has a strange way of calculating time) bowl game losing streak, is so laughable that it requires no further comment from me.

m2 wrote:Why should the Irish be in another Bowl game they dont deserve to be in?????

the truth

Explain to me how ND doesn't "deserve" to be in? Does OSU also not "deserve" to be in?

Believe the Heupel wrote:I dunno about you, Van, but after the 2000 season I was pretty sure that Oregon State was going to beat the hell out of Notre Dame. Erickson's an ass, but he's a good coach.

I was, considering Erickson hates ND, ND was starting a true freshman at QB who couldn't throw, and their schedule down the stretch was awful. I thought it would be closer, but I thought OSU would win that game. And I knew we'd get our ass kicked last year.

It's all a moot point since we're never going to get to find out but I simply think it highly specious to assume ND would roll a one loss Oregon team this year.

ND's track record both in recent bowl games and this season's play indicates no such thing would be likely. Admittedly ND didn't have Weis for all those bowl game losses but Oregon is a damn good team with only one loss, to #1.

There's no reason to assume a two loss team that lost to Michigan State at home is going to roll a higher ranked one loss team on a neutral field.

Not over Oregon they don't. They got it not because of what they did on the football field this year compared to Oregon but rather due to the specifics of their contract with the BCS; a contract which was agreed upon by both parties due to ND's national popularity and their allure as a team that travels well.

ND should be there though. They should be there along with Oregon, in place of FSU and WVA. FSU getting in while Oregon gets booted, that's the obvious joke here.

Van wrote:They should be there along with Oregon, in place of FSU and WVA.

Not over WVU they shouldn't be. WVU is a very underrated team. Their only loss to VT would have been a much different game if White was at QB and Slaton was the featured RB. Both of those guys got their starting positions in the Louisville game and they haven't looked back since.

An argument for WVA over Notre Dame could be made, but not for WVA over Oregon. Regardless, FSU can't be there and that slot has to go to Oregon.

88, I'm not saying the rules should be circumvented so as to deny FSU, Georgia and WVA their guaranteed conference winner slots.

I'm saying the rule again needs to be changed so as to prevent instances like this from happening again whereby a four loss FSU gets in and a one loss Orgeon doesn't.

Conference winners shouldn't be guaranteed slots unless they also have a Top 10 ranking. Winning some bogus money grab conference championship game should never get a four loss FSU team into the BCS.

Van wrote: Conference winners shouldn't be guaranteed slots unless they also have a Top 10 ranking. Winning some bogus money grab conference championship game should never get a four loss FSU team into the BCS.

The BCS was concocted by school presidents and conference heads precisely so major conferences would NEVER be shut out of the guaranteed money the four (soon to be five) major bowls afford them every single year.

Your suggestion is a pipe dream. It will never, ever happen as long as the BCS is in existence.

I have NO problem with doing away with the BCS once the current contract expires.

88 wrote:WTF are you talking about, Van? FSU won its conference title game.

So What?! Are you freaking kidding me?

They're a four loss team going winless in November but because they won that one game they got into by being atop that piece of shit division, they deserve it? These BS title games are a joke!

...and ND lost to a team that lost 6 of their final 7. They have a nice team and I don't really have a problem with them being in there but FSU is a joke. Yea, SC has a "title" from the AP but everyone with a clue knows LSU's trophy doesn't mean dick because they didn't play the best team in the country to get it.

Well that being said, I sure hope Texas comes in with the kind of balls Michigan had. I'd much rather see another match up like that than that pile of crap OU came to the table with last year.

They're a four loss team going winless in November but because they won that one game they got into by being atop that piece of shit division, they deserve it?

Yes, they do. They beat who they had to beat.

Oregon would be beaten silly by Notre Dame.

Dumbass wrote:Yea, SC has a "title" from the AP but everyone with a clue knows LSU's trophy doesn't mean dick because they didn't play the best team in the country to get it.

In fairness, by that standard USC's title doesn't mean "dick" either. USC-LSU was the matchup we should have gotten in '03, and the Big 12 championship game apparently made that obvious to everyone except the powers that be in the BCS.

I have no problem with USC and LSU getting a split national title in '03, but that alone proves that the BCS doesn't work, as it was designed to prevent precisely that type of situation.

Back to m2's original "point" (for lack of a better word) . . .

I think we're all missing the point here. The point is that the minimum requirements for a BCS at-large bid include nine wins against Division 1-A opponents. In that regard, ND, tOSU and Oregon are all the same.

Yes, Oregon had fewer losses than ND or tOSU, but they voluntarily gave themselves less margin for error by scheduling a 1-AA team on their schedule. So in this case, that one fewer loss doesn't trump ND.

Yes it does.

SEC teams get love from the BCS every year despite scheduling two and three home games against Southeast Sisters Of The Poor as their OOC schedule.

Notre Dame lost at home to a bad Michigan State team, plus they lost to USC. Oregon only lost to USC and ND's win over a four loss Michigan team is the closest ND came to gaining a quality win this season.

The Michigan State loss trumps all. Oregon's even ranked above ND in the BCS. Notre Dame got in not through any on field performance superiority compared to Oregon but by contractual mandate...

Van wrote:SEC teams get love from the BCS every year despite scheduling two and three home games against Southeast Sisters Of The Poor as their OOC schedule.

Other than bowl tie ins, what SEC love are you sniffing? Auburn would surely disagree. By the way, as an Auburn fan I'd rejoice if we scheduled the top OOC teams in the nation every single year if we could play the PAC's in conference schedule.

Van, if it's all about on field performance, what about TCU? They finished 10-1.

Spinach Genie wrote:

Van wrote:SEC teams get love from the BCS every year despite scheduling two and three home games against Southeast Sisters Of The Poor as their OOC schedule.

Other than bowl tie ins, what SEC love are you sniffing? Auburn would surely disagree. By the way, as an Auburn fan I'd rejoice if we scheduled the top OOC teams in the nation every single year if we could play the PAC's in conference schedule.

Try to keep your bitterness in check and stay on point here. We're talking about Oregan and Notre Dame, not the SEC. The guy's point was that Oregon's one weak OOC game negates Notre Dame's loss to MSU, and all I'm saying is playing a weak team or two OOC doesn't automatically trump a loss as evidenced by the love the SEC traditionally receives from the BCS.

LSU went to the BCS title game despite their weak OOC schedule so Oregon's one weak OOC game doesn't equal out Notre Dame's scheduling of Navy and their home loss to MSU.

Killian wrote:Van, if it's all about on field performance, what about TCU? They finished 10-1.

Who'd they beat, who'd they lose to and what's their BCS ranking?

Oregon has 'em covered.

Their weak IC schedule probably has as much or more to do with it, however.

Van wrote:Notre Dame lost at home to a bad Michigan State team,

Michigan State was not a bad team at the time. They went as high as #14, IIRC, in the polls two weeks after the ND game. And they were dominating Ohio State heading into halftime. Rarely has any one team's entire season turned on a dime the way Michigan State's did after the blocked FG attempt was returned for a touchdown, followed by JohnLLLLLL's Howard Dean-style meltdown during the halftime interview. If that game is played in November, rather than September, different story.

plus they lost to USC. Oregon only lost to USC

But you can't compare those two losses. SC needed a conversion on 4th-and-9, followed by a touchdown run in a confusing last play, to pull out the win against ND. Oregon, OTOH, managed to keep the game close for a half (ND managed the same thing against 'SC in each of the last three seasons, btw) only to get blown out in the second half.

and ND's win over a four loss Michigan team is the closest ND came to gaining a quality win this season.

What's the closest Oregon came to a quality win? A 7-point win at home over a 4-loss Cal team? Or a 3-point win at home over a Fresno State team that couldn't even close out the WAC against Nevada and Louisiana Tech in the last two weeks, and which recorded a total of five of its eight wins against a 1-AA team (Weber State) and four conference opponents (Utah State, San Jose State, Idaho and New Mexico State) who posted a combined record of 8-37?

Sorry, Van, but it's not nearly as cut and dried as you'd like it to be.

Spinach Genie wrote:Their weak IC schedule probably has as much or more to do with it, however.

Whose? TCU's?

Terry, sorry, but yes it is.

In terms of on field performance this year Notre Dame has nothing on which to hang their hat, compared to Oregon.

You can't excuse extra losses to sub .500 teams, not when the other team's only loss came against the same team that beat you and their wins are every bit as good as yours.

You're simply attempting to mitigate the damage of your losses while having no advantage in wins. Oregon doesn't need to do mitigate their single loss and their wins are equally good and greater in number.

Van wrote:You're simply attempting to mitigate the damage of your losses while having no advantage in wins. Oregon doesn't need to do mitigate their single loss and their wins are equally good and greater in number.

To me, haveing a 1-AA team on your schedule is as bad as an extra loss. I'm not saying this specifically this year because of Oregon, but in general. The fact they allowed those to count as BCS eligible wins is a crock.

Van wrote: In terms of on field performance this year Notre Dame has nothing on which to hang their hat, compared to Oregon.

Feel free to list Oregon's quality wins this year, starting with teams currently ranked in the AP/USA Today/BCS top 25.

Hint: you won't get very far.

Killian wrote:

Van wrote:You're simply attempting to mitigate the damage of your losses while having no advantage in wins. Oregon doesn't need to do mitigate their single loss and their wins are equally good and greater in number.

To me, haveing a 1-AA team on your schedule is as bad as an extra loss. I'm not saying this specifically this year because of Oregon, but in general. The fact they allowed those to count as BCS eligible wins is a crock.

I could be wrong, but I always thought you needed 9 wins against 1-A opponents to be BCS eligible. So in that regard, from the BCS' standpoint, a win against a 1-AA squad is the equivalent of a loss (except, of course, that it doesn't have the corresponding negative impact upon poll/computer rankings).

They changed it this year to allow one 1-AA victory to count towards BCS eligibility.

Maybe if ND lined up against powerhouses like Houston, Montana and a Fresno State team whose sole worthwhile achievement was losing to USC by less than 15 touchdowns they would have fared better.

Bottom line is this is about money. Oregon hardly has any impressive claim to anything based on schedule. They're getting screwed on record, but ask Utah, Auburn, Cal et al. about that one. Notre Dame gets the ratings, they get the bid. No one wants to watch Ohio State flambe the ducks.

Killian wrote:

Van wrote:You're simply attempting to mitigate the damage of your losses while having no advantage in wins. Oregon doesn't need to do mitigate their single loss and their wins are equally good and greater in number.

To me, haveing a 1-AA team on your schedule is as bad as an extra loss. I'm not saying this specifically this year because of Oregon, but in general. The fact they allowed those to count as BCS eligible wins is a crock.

So, following up on that train of thought, are you also willing to count as a loss all those OOC cream puff home games against North By Northwest Appalachian State that so many SEC and Big XII teams use to pad their W-L records practically every season?

Degenerate wrote:

Van wrote: In terms of on field performance this year Notre Dame has nothing on which to hang their hat, compared to Oregon.

Feel free to list Oregon's quality wins this year, starting with teams currently ranked in the AP/USA Today/BCS top 25.

Hint: you won't get very far.

Hint: Their overall record, including the teams they beat, still surpasses ND's...even according to the BCS, which has Oregon ranked above ND.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:

Killian wrote:

Van wrote:You're simply attempting to mitigate the damage of your losses while having no advantage in wins. Oregon doesn't need to do mitigate their single loss and their wins are equally good and greater in number.

To me, haveing a 1-AA team on your schedule is as bad as an extra loss. I'm not saying this specifically this year because of Oregon, but in general. The fact they allowed those to count as BCS eligible wins is a crock.

I could be wrong, but I always thought you needed 9 wins against 1-A opponents to be BCS eligible. So in that regard, from the BCS' standpoint, a win against a 1-AA squad is the equivalent of a loss (except, of course, that it doesn't have the corresponding negative impact upon poll/computer rankings).

Under that scenario it would be tantamount to a bye, not a loss.