T1B

Boise State vs. TCU @ San Diego

Quite a marquee of "mid majors." BSU can make a statement by winning big, which can help them in the 2009 preaseason rankings. It's all about where you start.

Hawaii vs. Notre Dame @ Honolulu

So a 6-6 team gets a vacation to Hawaii? I thought they were supposed to go to Detroit? Classic. Only ND could pull that off.

Miami vs Cal @ San Francisco

Miami will travel 3,000 miles to play Cal in their own backyard. Seems fair.

2oolio will have to get creative with the excuses if Cal finds a way to blow this one (which I don't see happening.) The travel excuse will be out the window, and no Pac 10 refs to blow it for Cal. Cal is basically being HANDED this game. If they don't win by 21+ I'll laugh my ass off.

South Carolina vs Iowa @ Tampa

As much as it pains me to say, this is probably the closest thing to a "lock" for the Big Ten in the bowls. Iowa is pretty decent all around, but it'll be interesting to see how Greene does vs that stout S. Carolina D. I think it will be fairly close, but Iowa will win something like 19-10.

Georgia vs Michigan State @ Orlando

Yeah, I'm homering with this one, but it's a pretty interesting game on paper. Yeah, you've got the whole Moreno vs Ringer marquee but this game is about which team can actually and finally DO something in a big game. I think MSU can outscore Georgia, but they will need both Ringer and Hoyer to play well. That's always an iffy prospect.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:Boise State vs. TCU @ San Diego

Quite a marquee of "mid majors." BSU can make a statement by winning big, which can help them in the 2009 preaseason rankings. It's all about where you start.

hardly. as long as boise state goes undefeated they'll get a consolation bcs game, regardless of where they start, though this year is the obvious exception. utah would've leap-frogged them this year if they started behind bsu.

as long as boise state goes undefeated they'll get a consolation bcs game, regardless of where they start, though this year is the obvious exception.

Huh? Ok, whatever.

Starting in the top 10 would probably guarantee it, anyway. If you're a non-BCS school, or Notre Dame, everything is about rankings. They don't have the luxury of conference auto bids. Hell, rankings are what they use as a tie breaker for the BCS if it comes down to that.

this year was an obvious anomaly. generally speaking, an undefeated non-bcs school is going to be ranked high enough for the auto bid, whether they start in the top ten or not. one loss is going to do them in even if they start the season at #1. so yeah, ok, whatever.

A team with a WAC, or MAC, or Sun Belt schedule needs to start strong in order to finish strong. If this season wasn't enough evidence for you, I don't know what else to tell you. Especially when you're competing against undefeated teams in the Mountain West who play a much tougher SOS and are able to climb the polls faster as a result.

you're not making a point that disputes anything i have to say. in fact, you made mine. thanks.

M Club wrote:you're not making a point that disputes anything i have to say. in fact, you made mine. thanks.

"Hillbilly" tard fight!

This stuff entertains me between banging trick ass hoes... and trying to figure out if "Parallel Universes" exist....


Thank you...





the truth

it really gets under my skin when some loser sans education calls me a hillbilly.

I always find it funny when a "hillbilly" questions anything in life... and lives in a METH lab (Portland).



the truth

uneducated. i might even live close to felony flats.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:Hawaii vs. Notre Dame @ Honolulu

So a 6-6 team gets a vacation to Hawaii? I thought they were supposed to go to Detroit? Classic. Only ND could pull that off.

For ND this is a "look to next year" type of scenario. In that regard, the Hawaii Bowl is not an ideal situation. It's one of the earlier bowl games, so the extra practice time is minimal.

Having said that, a trip to Hawaii is a nice reward for the players. And I suppose the Hawaii Bowl is a better option, from a TV standpoint anyway, than the Texas Bowl, which was what I was hearing a lot of yesterday.

Also, it might be the best bowl matchup we could have expected. We get a team one year removed from a BCS appearance in a de facto home game for them. Even so, this game appears winnable for us. I'm really not sure what to make from all of that, except that we underachieved big time this season.

On second thought, the team that should be really miffed about this is Bowling Green. If either ND or NC State had accepted the Motor City Bowl bid, I'm pretty sure that Bowling Green would be bowling instead of Florida Atlantic. Then again, if the Hawaii Bowl was going to get a 6-6 team, I'm pretty sure they would rather have ND than Bowling Green.

Going back to the original post, I'd include the GMAC Bowl -- Ball State vs. Tulsa -- in the list of intriguing bowl matchups. Call it the "What might have been" Bowl.

Kansas and Minnesota in the Glen Mason Bowl.

did Bowling Green's coach (forget his name) get fired? Herbstreit was talking about that job being open (when he and Musberger weren't enthusiastically endorsing every possible BCS scenario under the sun and Heisman candidate during the Big XII championship game--they made Vitale's pre-Selection Sunday tournament field of 128+ "let em in baby" teams and coaches look like taking a hard-line decision).

Terry in Crapchester wrote: We get a team one year removed from a BCS appearance

oh is that what you call it....

we of the WAC commonly refer to that debacle as

"The Louisiana Massacre"

Felix wrote:

Terry in Crapchester wrote: We get a team one year removed from a BCS appearance

oh is that what you call it....

we of the WAC commonly refer to that debacle as

"The Louisiana Massacre"

Hey, I'm trying to put the best spin on this that I possibly can.

I'm old school, so ideally I'd prefer ND not to go to a bowl game under these circumstances. But there's something to the argument that times have changed. And they were going to take a few 6-6 teams anyway, so I suppose one can say that we might as well be one of them.

M Club wrote:you're not making a point that disputes anything i have to say. in fact, you made mine. thanks.

Huh? I've offered up evidence to support my claim. You haven't offered anything other than "generally speaking."

To say that Boise would be at NO advantage whatsoever from starting the year in the top ten vs starting the year unranked is reallyREALLY stupid.

.m2 wrote:"Hillbilly" tard fight!

This stuff entertains me between banging trick ass hoes... and trying to figure out if "Parallel Universes" exist....

Intelligence smack from a guy who could diffuse a bomb before he could correctly use an apostrophe. Nice.

King Crimson wrote:did Bowling Green's coach (forget his name) get fired?

Gregg Brandon, and yes.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:

M Club wrote:you're not making a point that disputes anything i have to say. in fact, you made mine. thanks.

Huh? I've offered up evidence to support my claim. You haven't offered anything other than "generally speaking."

To say that Boise would be at NO advantage whatsoever from starting the year in the top ten vs starting the year unranked is reallyREALLY stupid.

evidence? where?

if boise state begins the year in the top ten, beats the requisite bcs bottom feeders, and and rolls through the wac, all without a loss, they'll end up in the top ten and play in a bcs consolation game. if they begin the season without any votes in the polls, beat the requisite bcs bottom feeders, and roll through the wac, all without a loss, they'll end up in a bsc consolation game. the one caveat is if a wac teams does the same. even if bsu begins the season in the top ten, by season's end an undefeated wac team won't be ranked too far behind and will make up any difference in the computers and sos, which is a point you yourself made.

All things being equal from the starting point, then yes, Boise would lose out.

My initial thought on the matter was based on Boise starting the year ranked in the top 10 vs a team like Utah starting the year unranked. Under that scenario, I feel Boise would finish higher at the end. And that's where the higher starting point would be an advantage for them. Think about it. Utah maxed out at #7 this year after starting unranked. If Boise started at #7 this year, they most certainly would've finished higher than Utah.

i think if boise state started out at #7 and went undefeated, they'd end the season at #8. a team from their own conference went undefeated last year during a season the mnc had two losses, and no one even bothered talking about their right to play for the championship. the non-bcs schools get cosmetic votes: they're never going to be ranked high enough before the bowls to cause actual discomfort when it comes to discussing who should play for the mnc. if they win their bcs game, then sure, people are more than willing to stick them in their top five as a way to feign objectivity. the only way to get legitimate consideration is to go undefeated against an ooc schedule with usc, texas, florida, and ohio state. at least it seems that way.

M Club wrote:i think if boise state started out at #7 and went undefeated, they'd end the season at #8. a team from their own conference went undefeated last year during a season the mnc had two losses, and no one even bothered talking about their right to play for the championship. the non-bcs schools get cosmetic votes: they're never going to be ranked high enough before the bowls to cause actual discomfort when it comes to discussing who should play for the mnc. if they win their bcs game, then sure, people are more than willing to stick them in their top five as a way to feign objectivity. the only way to get legitimate consideration is to go undefeated against an ooc schedule with usc, texas, florida, and ohio state. at least it seems that way.

It makes you wonder if a team like BYU in '84 could have won the MNC under today's system. They would have been shipped to the least attractive BCS bowl and told "hey, nice work, guys" if they'd have won. Then some 1 or 2 loss team would have been crowned "champions."

Granted, BYU was probably not the deserving MNC in '84. They were matched up against a horrible Michigan team in the HOliday and almost lost to them, plus they may have been the 3rd or 4th best BYU team of that decade. Nevertheless, history views them as the '84 champs, FWIW.

M Club wrote:i think if boise state started out at #7 and went undefeated, they'd end the season at #8.

I don't buy that at all.

a team from their own conference went undefeated last year during a season the mnc had two losses, and no one even bothered talking about their right to play for the championship.

Who's saying anything about title game consideration? I never did. What is this relevant to?

I'm pretty sure Hawaii didn't start the season in the top 10 last year either, so it's still irrelevant if we're talking about title game contention.

the non-bcs schools get cosmetic votes: they're never going to be ranked high enough before the bowls to cause actual discomfort when it comes to discussing who should play for the mnc. if they win their bcs game, then sure, people are more than willing to stick them in their top five as a way to feign objectivity. the only way to get legitimate consideration is to go undefeated against an ooc schedule with usc, texas, florida, and ohio state. at least it seems that way.

You're veering off track. The discussion is a specific one about where would a top ten ranked Boise team finish in comparison to an unranked Mountain West team. I don't think the MWC team would finish higher...generally speaking.

The basic premise that I go back to here is that in any given year Boise is better off ranked in the top 10 as opposed to unranked. I really have no idea how anybody could disagree with that.

Who's saying anything about title game consideration? I never did. What is this relevant to?

I'm pretty sure Hawaii didn't start the season in the top 10 last year either, so it's still irrelevant if we're talking about title game contention.

it's entirely relevant. non-bcs conferences aren't taken seriously. the general argument is that a one-loss [traditional power] is better than undefeated [non-bcs], but last year all pretense was set aside to go ahead and give lsu its cfb welfare. all starting bsu at #7 accomplishes is letting them peak before the season starts. you spend a lot of time alone in your room writing bad poetry if you think they're going to move up accordingly from there.

You're veering off track. The discussion is a specific one about where would a top ten ranked Boise team finish in comparison to an unranked Mountain West team. I don't think the MWC team would finish higher...generally speaking.

i'm not veering off track. boise begins the year in the top ten and barely moves. an unranked mwc team will follow a well-defined trajectory and end up, at the most, two or three spots behind them, a difference overcome by the computers and sos.

The basic premise that I go back to here is that in any given year Boise is better off ranked in the top 10 as opposed to unranked. I really have no idea how anybody could disagree with that.

that's because you're squatting in a box. the point is where you end up, not where you start. regardless of where undefeated bsu begins, they'll end up at the same place, hoping a mwc team hasn't done the same. the where you start thing hasn't been relevant since the bcs began.

And for the big boys it's when you lose and not who you lose to.

Going back to this . . .

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:Hawaii vs. Notre Dame @ Honolulu

So a 6-6 team gets a vacation to Hawaii? I thought they were supposed to go to Detroit? Classic. Only ND could pull that off.

Fwiw, if you go to ND Nation, it seems to me the majority of the sentiment over there is against ND playing in this game. Some of the posters would have preferred to go to the Texas Bowl, which would have offered more additional practice time, albeit at the expense of a significant TV viewing audience and in a less interesting locale. But I think the rationale for most is that a bowl game should be a reward, and when bowl games are reduced to taking 6-6 teams, the whole "reward" concept has been skewed greatly.

I certainly can empathize with this rationale, and it takes on even greater emphasis when viewed through the prism of ND fan. Remember, ND had a no bowl games policy, no exceptions, until 1970. And to be honest, that was my initial reaction after we lost to Syracuse. The more I thought about it, though, the more I came to the conclusion that accepting a bowl bid was in the best interests of ND football.

We changed our policy on bowl games because times had changed. It was no longer realistically possible to win a national championship without playing in a bowl game. At the same time, college football has changed since 1970, certainly with respect to its bowl structure. Whereas there were 10 or so bowl games in 1970, there are 34 now. That, of course, has resulted in a dumbing-down of the accomplishment level necessary to qualify for a bowl game, from a realistic standpoint if nothing else. 6-win BCS-level teams are now expected to play in a bowl game, no ifs, ands or buts.

Had ND turned down a bowl bid this season, we would've been portrayed in the mainstream media as the equivalent of the kid who takes his ball and goes home when he doesn't like how the game is going. As a ND fan, I might not particularly like that set of facts, but that is the way it is.

Addendum to my last post . . .

I find it rather difficult for anyone to support a sentiment that ND somehow "got over" by going to the Hawaii Bowl, given the following:

• The early timing of this bowl means that additional practice time is minimal (game is on December 24, finals at ND don't finish until December 20). The game being played on Christmas Eve means that there will be a lesser TV audience for this game than otherwise would be the case.
• The payout to ND for this bowl appearance ($750,000) is not enough to cover ND's expenses in going to the game. Strictly from a financial standpoint, ND will lose money by playing in this game.
• It would appear that the reaction from ND's fanbase to news that we're playing in this game is ambivalent at best, hostile at worst.
• The only bowl-eligible teams who aren't going bowling somewhere are Bowling Green, Arkansas State, Louisiana-Lafayette and San Jose State. Against that backdrop, it's not surprising that the Hawaii Bowl was interested in ND.
• Notwithstanding the above, if you still want be mad at somebody about this set of events, you should be mad at the Pac-10, not at ND. This bid belonged to the Pac-10, and the only reason ND is going is because the Pac-10 didn't have enough bowl-eligible teams. That could have been different if Arizona State had taken care of business against Arizona. For that matter, Stanford had a furious 4th-quarter rally against ND that fell short. One more touchdown for Stanford in that game would've put Stanford in this game and left ND home for the holidays (yeah, I know a TD and an extra point only would've sent the game into overtime, but given the way ND plays in overtime, that's as good as a win for Stanford).

Fwiw, I've heard rumblings that ND is considering starting its own bowl game, but perhaps this should be filed under "rumors on the interwebs." Even if it does ultimately come to fruition, for now that prospect raises more questions than it answers.