Running bowl thread

Totally irrelevant.

Please see my Iowa State-Nebraska-Texas point.

 

That's all good except for the fact there won't be any bowl games if the NCAA goes to a playoff system.

 

TCU scored 50 points four times, 40 three times and 35 two others. But their offense couldn't POSSSSSSIBLY score 34 on Iowa. No way.

 

Yeah, and it doesn't relate to Iowa State-Nebraska-Texas, either, mister.

 

No NCAA tournament fails to include every conference winner, so a football tournament would be no different. Without including all 11 conference winners, it's just another version of the BCS, excluding half the Division I teams from dreaming about winning a national championship before a down has even been played.

 

In the "there are way too many bowls" episode No. 2342233211355 - something called the Eaglebank Bowl is anxiously awaiting to see if Army - a 5-6 team with a five-point win over VMI (Division I-AA I think, right?) and a four-point win over North Texas (a borderline high school team with a high school coach) can get that sixth win this Saturday to invite them and if not, they will set their sites on 6-6 UCLA - a team which had at one point this season, a five-game losing streak.

Are you fucking kidding me?

I think I would, and many people, would have a lot less of problem with bowls if they truly were a reward for teams which had a good season.

Like I said - the NCAA should make it so a team must have seven Division I-A wins to get to a bowl, at least then it would be a reward.

 

Which shows the true hypocrisy of the BCS. Check out Gil Lebreton's column.
http://www.star-telegram.com/sports/columnists/gil_lebreton/story/1813852-p2.html

John Junker calls the BCS conspiracy theory regarding shielding the BCS boys from TCU and Boise "the biggest load of crap I've ever heard in my life"

But then...
As Junker said, after picking TCU, the reason for Boise was simple: "We wanted the highest ranked team possible."

Junker's math is flawed and he couldn't tell crap from a Rose Bowl float. Cincinnati is No. 3 in the BCS; Boise in No. 6.

No way in hell did the BCS want to subject the Big East to the argument the MWC has been making that it, not the Big East, deserves an automatic bid.

 

What benefit would the Fiesta Bowl get for deliberately taking a less-esteemed team and a less interesting matchup? The BCS is giving them money on the side? They figured Boise would bring more fans to Arizona than Cincy, and based on last year's thousands of empty seats in the Orange Bowl (the N.Y. Times game story says tickets could be had for 99 cents in the secondary market), they probably made the right call. Which is probably why Cincy didn't get another Orange Bowl bid.

Perhaps the Orange could have taken Boise over Iowa. But then the mid-major zealots wouldn't be satisfied because Georgia Tech isn't a big enough opponent and BOISE STATE BEAT OKLAHOMA IN THE 2007 FIESTA BOWL!

Only one of them would have gotten to play Florida. The other either would get Cincinnati (which probably has less national prominence as a top-tier player than Boise), Georgia Tech or Iowa, the latter two being two-loss teams that, again, wouldn't give their opponent a chance to prove themselves in your eyes.

 

Agreed. Cincinnati was the last pick regardless of which bowl had it.

And at least the Fiesta Bowl took Boise. They could just as easily taken Oklahoma State or Nebraska and sold a lot more tickets.

 

That would be a fine point if there wasn't already a procedure in place to evaluate whether the MWC, or any other current non-AQ conference, deserves an automatic bid.

And even if that weren't the case, I have a hard time accepting that the MWC should get an automatic BCS bid for one of three teams.

Since the ACC split, six of the eight teams in the Big East have won at least a share of the conference title, and the two that haven't -- Rutgers and South Florida -- have both made a significant impact on a number of title races. Four different schools have represented the conference in the BCS in the past six years.

The last time a school other than BYU, Utah or TCU won a MWC title was in 2002, when Colorado State did it. But that little spell of success appears to have been an exception for CSU, and there's no sign that they're anywhere close to repeating it.

The MWC, IMHO, is the beneficiary of a wealth of bad feelings toward the BCS, many of which are thoroughly warranted. The problem used to be that there was no automatic qualification for an unbeaten non-AQ team. Now there is, and people have figured out that still doesn't help.

So guaranteeing a spot for a conference winner is the next logical step. The problem is, which conference do you give it to? There have been a number of upstart teams recently, Boise State chief among them, but they come from different conferences. The MWC gets seen as the best one, because it has three legitimate BCS-busting teams. But it's being given implicit credit for the accomplishments of Boise State in the WAC and Tulsa in C-USA and Ball State in the MAC.

 

Two? Do you mean in bowl games? Or in non-conference play?