T1B

Well, sorta.

UF v. OU = good matchup.
PSU v. USC = good matchup.
UT v. tOSU = good matchup.

As for the rest, Cincy is probably the best Big East champ we've seen in a while, imo. Utah will have a chance to make a big statement.

We all know that crowning a real champ in all of this is impossible, so personally, I will just seek to enjoy three good matchups.

Virginia Tech? Sure, I'll find some way to endure it:

PSUFAN wrote:Well, sorta.

UF v. OU = good matchup.
PSU v. USC = good matchup.
UT v. tOSU = good matchup.

As for the rest, Cincy is probably the best Big East champ we've seen in a while, imo. Utah will have a chance to make a big statement.

We all know that crowning a real champ in all of this is impossible, so personally, I will just seek to enjoy three good matchups.

Virginia Tech? Sure, I'll find some way to endure it:

I'm lookin forward to playing tOSU but it should have been Bama and Texas that would have made for a better bowl game.

I think Utah takes down Bama. They'll be sky high, and Bama just went from the brink of an MNC game to a consolation bowl against a Mountain West team. Perhaps after a few weeks the let down will have eroded and they'll be ready to go, but I think Utah will want this one more.

PSUFAN wrote:Cincy is probably the best Big East champ we've seen in a while, imo.

Tell me you're trolling. Please.

I know it's difficult to compare teams from different years, but since you started that particular ball rolling, Cincinnati certainly isn't the best Big East champ in terms of final BCS rankings. Here are the final regular-season rankings of Big East champs over the past four years, fwiw:

2008: Cincinnati (12)
2007: West Virginia (9)
2006: Louisville (6)
2005: West Virginia (11)

You'd have to go back to 2004 (Pittsburgh, 21) for a lower-ranked Big East champion.

And last season, West Virginia was a touchdown away from playing for the national championship. Tell me you knew.

All this chatter belongs in the college hoops forum.

As much as I hate the BCS, it does offer up some nice consolation matchups as far as the names alone...Penn State-USC and Texas-Ohio State. There's overall about a half-dozen matchups in all the bowls that peak my interest but the only game I will watch from start to finish is Florida-Oklahoma. We really are getting robbed as fans from seeing what could've been an amazing playoff field given the number of one-loss teams. Instead, we see these teams scattered all over the country playing these cute exhibition games. They'll probably be entertaining but they leave an empty feeling afterward.

Shoalzie wrote:As much as I hate the BCS, it does offer up some nice consolation matchups as far as the names alone...Penn State-USC and Texas-Ohio State.

One of the (few) advantages that the BCS and bowl system offer is the sort of OOC matchups we rarely get to see during the regular season. For that reason, I'm in favor of continuing the bowl system as basically college football's answer to the NIT. But wouldn't it be nicer if some of those matchups had an impact on determing the national champion?

There's overall about a half-dozen matchups in all the bowls that peak my interest but the only game I will watch from start to finish is Florida-Oklahoma. We really are getting robbed as fans from seeing what could've been an amazing playoff field given the number of one-loss teams. Instead, we see these teams scattered all over the country playing these cute exhibition games. They'll probably be entertaining but they leave an empty feeling afterward.

I'll watch as much of ND-Hawaii as I can, but: (a) only because I'm a fan; and (b) even so, the fact that the game is played on Christmas Eve, given my family holiday plans, means I'll miss at least some of the game.

Otherwise . . . yep.

I do not like the BCS
year in and out is is a mess
the other bowls are meaningless
I'll watch and pick 'em none the less
I will not rack the BCS
And while I'm at it fuck Jim Tress.....................................el

-Dr. Seuss

Shoalzie wrote:As much as I hate the BCS, it does offer up some nice consolation matchups as far as the names alone...Penn State-USC and Texas-Ohio State. There's overall about a half-dozen matchups in all the bowls that peak my interest but the only game I will watch from start to finish is Florida-Oklahoma.

Why would you not watch the entire Rose, Orange, Sugar and Fiesta bowls? I believe they are the only games being played in their timeslots.

Goober McTuber wrote:

Shoalzie wrote:As much as I hate the BCS, it does offer up some nice consolation matchups as far as the names alone...Penn State-USC and Texas-Ohio State. There's overall about a half-dozen matchups in all the bowls that peak my interest but the only game I will watch from start to finish is Florida-Oklahoma.

Why would you not watch the entire Rose, Orange, Sugar and Fiesta bowls? I believe they are the only games being played in their timeslots.

http://www.theoneboard.com/board/viewto ... =5&t=30380

There's potential for a little overlap between the end of the Liberty Bowl and beginning of the Sugar Bowl, but otherwise, those bowls are alone in their timeslots.

Then again, there are 15 other bowls about which that is also true. And two more bowls that are alone on TV at least for those of us who don't have NFL network.

They still play the Liberty Bowl? I thought that went the way of the AstroGlide Bluebonnet Bowl.

Shoalzie wrote:As much as I hate the BCS

The BCS did it's sole purpose of getting the top 2 teams in the title game. Under the old Bowl system UF would be in the Sugar Bowl and Oklahoma in the Fiesta Bowl. It's not the best system by any means, but it did the one thing it is designed to do.

You cannot blame the BCS for the Big XII's tiebreaker policies.

Jsc810 wrote:As one of the talking heads said on tv this weekend, Bama is bigger, faster, stronger, and better.

Yep. That's why they call them "upsets." The better team doesn't always win, especially in bowl games.

MuchoBulls wrote:

Shoalzie wrote:As much as I hate the BCS

The BCS did it's sole purpose of getting the top 2 teams in the title game. Under the old Bowl system UF would be in the Sugar Bowl and Oklahoma in the Fiesta Bowl. It's not the best system by any means, but it did the one thing it is designed to do.

You cannot blame the BCS for the Big XII's tiebreaker policies.

You are definitely right with that take on the Big XII...a flaw was found in the way they break ties. How often do you have a situation where three teams are tied for the best record and each team has a loss against another team that is part of that three-way tie. It was an unusual situation to say the least. Any of those three teams could've played in those games...they each had a claim to the South Division title.

As far as the BCS is concerned...you're also right about the fact that they are getting a #1 and #2 in the title game but we've have several years where the validity of #1 vs. #2 is in question. We had 4 BCS conference champions with 1 loss and oddly enough, it was the two teams that played an extra game that got in. Three of those conference champs each lost a conference game against a team that finished 8-4. Florida lost at home. Then you throw in the mess with Texas and Oklahoma...it further muddies the situation.

What is so wrong with the system is that every year a new flaw pops up in the system where they have to tweak it the following year. Does this system ever stay the same from year-to-year? It just doesn't get it right every year. You can't tell me it's an open and shut case that we have the correct two teams playing for the national title. We'll have some years where it might work but this year, you have problems abound and we're all left to arguing over the validity of what we're given rather than just talking about what will happen on the field. Debates are fine in sports but full on controversy is not. This crap has to stop.

Utah is not beating Alabama.

Shoalzie wrote:As far as the BCS is concerned...you're also right about the fact that they are getting a #1 and #2 in the title game but we've have several years where the validity of #1 vs. #2 is in question. We had 4 BCS conference champions with 1 loss and oddly enough, it was the two teams that played an extra game that got in. Three of those conference champs each lost a conference game against a team that finished 8-4. Florida lost at home. Then you throw in the mess with Texas and Oklahoma...it further muddies the situation.

What is so wrong with the system is that every year a new flaw pops up in the system where they have to tweak it the following year. Does this system ever stay the same from year-to-year? It just doesn't get it right every year. You can't tell me it's an open and shut case that we have the correct two teams playing for the national title. We'll have some years where it might work but this year, you have problems abound and we're all left to arguing over the validity of what we're given rather than just talking about what will happen on the field. Debates are fine in sports but full on controversy is not. This crap has to stop.

I think there are ways that you can help determine the validity of the #1 and #2 candidates. What I would propose are things like this:

- Penalize teams more for losing home games. In this instance UF would have been penalized more for losing than Penn State would have been.

- Penalize teams who schedule Division 1 AA games

- Do not put as much emphasis on Conference Championship games which are a teams 13th game. This would be tough to implement because if you do not put as much weight on that game, then Alabama doesn't drop that far and UF doesn't move up that much. A team like USC shouldn't be penalized because their conference actually plays EVERY OTHER team during the season.

- Drop the Coaches Poll as part of the equation. It's a good ole boy network and is more biased than the AP Poll is.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:

PSUFAN wrote:Cincy is probably the best Big East champ we've seen in a while, imo.

Tell me you're trolling. Please.

I know it's difficult to compare teams from different years, but since you started that particular ball rolling, Cincinnati certainly isn't the best Big East champ in terms of final BCS rankings. Here are the final regular-season rankings of Big East champs over the past four years, fwiw:

2008: Cincinnati (12)
2007: West Virginia (9)
2006: Louisville (6)
2005: West Virginia (11)

You'd have to go back to 2004 (Pittsburgh, 21) for a lower-ranked Big East champion.

And last season, West Virginia was a touchdown away from playing for the national championship. Tell me you knew.

I think you missed my point. Cincy, unlike other recent BE champs, appears to actually be good, above and beyond their ranking!

Papa Willie wrote:It's all controlled by greed & money. The bowl games are cash cows. They would have NEVER had OU and Texas playing for the NC, as they knew that most of the country wouldn't have given a fuck for it. Florida adds the SEC vs. Big 12 factor which will draw a helluva lot more viewers from all over the country out of basic curiosity.

TV has lots of influence in other sports but thankfully that it isn't as bad as is it is with college football. As much as I'm a fan of college football, this is a fatal flaw that is too big to ignore. I'm a huge college football fan for 11 months of the year but for the next 30 days or so, I'm luke warm at best. I realize it's just entertainment and I shouldn't get this bent out of shape but we all know how good it could be but the powers that be are too blind to see it. We're stuck with this and we have next to no say in the matter.

PSUFAN wrote:

Terry in Crapchester wrote:

PSUFAN wrote:Cincy is probably the best Big East champ we've seen in a while, imo.

Tell me you're trolling. Please.

I know it's difficult to compare teams from different years, but since you started that particular ball rolling, Cincinnati certainly isn't the best Big East champ in terms of final BCS rankings. Here are the final regular-season rankings of Big East champs over the past four years, fwiw:

2008: Cincinnati (12)
2007: West Virginia (9)
2006: Louisville (6)
2005: West Virginia (11)

You'd have to go back to 2004 (Pittsburgh, 21) for a lower-ranked Big East champion.

And last season, West Virginia was a touchdown away from playing for the national championship. Tell me you knew.

I think you missed my point. Cincy, unlike other recent BE champs, appears to actually be good, above and beyond their ranking!

While it's certainly possible to read too much into a single game, the three most recent Big East champs each won their BCS bowl game. Two of those wins came at the expense of higher-ranked opponents.

2007: West Virginia beat Oklahoma in Fiesta Bowl.
2006: Louisville beat Wake Forest in Orange Bowl.
2005: West Virginia beat Georgia in Sugar Bowl.

Last season, West Virginia probably wasn't as good as the #2 ranking they brought into the Pitt game, but definitely wasn't as bad as the #9 ranking they got after the loss to Pitt.

MuchoBulls wrote:

Shoalzie wrote:As much as I hate the BCS

The BCS did it's sole purpose of getting the top 2 teams in the title game. Under the old Bowl system UF would be in the Sugar Bowl and Oklahoma in the Fiesta Bowl. It's not the best system by any means, but it did the one thing it is designed to do.

You cannot blame the BCS for the Big XII's tiebreaker policies.

Actually the BCS is 100% to blame.

Let first put aside the whole conference thing

The #2 team was passed by the #3 team which it beat head to head on a neutral field. All the arguments aside because they are all conference related. When was the last time this has happened? Oklahoma manipulated the BCS by blowing a lot of people out, that's fine it did the job and they have nothing to be ashamed of, it is the BCS that still let one team pass another when the first lost to the 2nd.

Again when has that ever happened to to teams with the identical record and pretty much equal in every regard.

Now with that as my background apply it to the conference who used it's judgement to identify the South division winner and you have the results of this whole mess.

Yes the Big 12 are morons for letting the BCS decide their champion, but those were the rules, I still think it was horse shit that the BCS basically said that head to head doesn't matter when all along they have been telling us it does and that it makes the whole season a playoff, well evidently it doesn't cause all you have to do is beat the shit out of lesser opponents and you will make up for key losses.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

did you say



the truth?



good lord are you going m2OOOL on us Papa?

Vito Corleone wrote:Yes the Big 12 are morons for letting the BCS decide their champion, but those were the rules, I still think it was horse shit that the BCS basically said that head to head doesn't matter when all along they have been telling us it does and that it makes the whole season a playoff, well evidently it doesn't cause all you have to do is beat the shit out of lesser opponents and you will make up for key losses.

Like Tortilla Tech?

Vito Corleone wrote:Actually the BCS is 100% to blame.

Let first put aside the whole conference thing

The #2 team was passed by the #3 team which it beat head to head on a neutral field. All the arguments aside because they are all conference related. When was the last time this has happened? Oklahoma manipulated the BCS by blowing a lot of people out, that's fine it did the job and they have nothing to be ashamed of, it is the BCS that still let one team pass another when the first lost to the 2nd.

Again when has that ever happened to to teams with the identical record and pretty much equal in every regard.

Now with that as my background apply it to the conference who used it's judgement to identify the South division winner and you have the results of this whole mess.

Yes the Big 12 are morons for letting the BCS decide their champion, but those were the rules, I still think it was horse shit that the BCS basically said that head to head doesn't matter when all along they have been telling us it does and that it makes the whole season a playoff, well evidently it doesn't cause all you have to do is beat the shit out of lesser opponents and you will make up for key losses.

I think the fact that you beat OU earlier in the season hurt you guys more. You flip your loss and their loss around, then you're playing in the National Title game.

While the BCS does have it's faults, I still think your Conference could have found a better way to break this type of tie, which is a rare tie in itself.

the Big XII system of "tie break" doesn't say head to head doesn't count, it says that head to head is not sufficient to settle a 3 way tie. Horn fans argue that Tech is "out of the discussion" because OU blew them out. Well, how is it you can sneak in the "style-points" argument when it suits you (margin of victory disqualifies Tech to produce the OU-UT head to head that UT wins) but cry about it when it doesn't (OU "manipulated" the BCS to jump UT!).

i think you can make a good argument UT got jobbed, but at least be consistent about it and save us the devolving into the Mack is all-class and hands out lollipops after the games/Stoops is everything that's wrong with sports stuff.

as i've posted before, according to prevailing Horn logic OU has a stronger case for the BCS game if they beat Tech by 7 points or a FG rather than putting 40+ on them. which is nonsense.

King Crimson wrote:the Big XII system of "tie break" doesn't say head to head doesn't count, it says that head to head is not sufficient to settle a 3 way tie. Horn fans argue that Tech is "out of the discussion" because OU blew them out. Well, how is it you can sneak in the "style-points" argument when it suits you (margin of victory disqualifies Tech to produce the OU-UT head to head that UT wins) but cry about it when it doesn't (OU "manipulated" the BCS to jump UT!).

i think you can make a good argument UT got jobbed, but at least be consistent about it and save us the devolving into the Mack is all-class and hands out lollipops after the games/Stoops is everything that's wrong with sports stuff.

as i've posted before, according to prevailing Horn logic OU has a stronger case for the BCS game if they beat Tech by 7 points or a FG rather than putting 40+ on them. which is nonsense.

Was there a a tie breaker for the teams that were played in the other division based on their conference record? That might have been better than just going by the BCS ranking.