Running bowl thread

Florida. Alabama. LSU. USC. Oklahoma (gotta love their BCS bowl record), Texas. Mix and match every year. No room for undefeated TCU. No room for undefeated Cincinnati. No room for undefeated Boise State. Sorry, little guys, the coaches don't want to see you play.

 

Clemson and Virginia and the MWC constitutes a top-flight schedule? Really? How many times have we pilloried the ACC for sucking out loud this year? How many times, for that matter, have the TCU/Boise defenders bashed the SEC for the poor quality of teams like South Carolina -- which bludgeoned the hell out of Clemson.

As for breaking the mold, success begets success. There's no rule that says the Patriots can't make the Super Bowl in consecutive seasons, or that the Bulls couldn't win a third straight championship, or that the Yankees can't win the World Series next year. And you don't give a title-game bid to TCU simply because it's not Texas or Alabama .

Texas and Alabama, incidentally, have played in a combined one title game in the BCS era. They might represent familiar conferences, but they aren't title-game retreads.

 

Funny, I thought Cincinnati played in a BCS conference. Don't know why they're considered a "little guy".

Do you even fucking watch college football?

 

By the way, I know it was a simple mistake, but it's evidence of what I was talking about earlier, with the MWC being the beneficiary of all the combined sense of injustice for the non-AQ conferences.

I've been involved in this argument for weeks, and I still have to double-check which teams are in the WAC and which are in the MWC.

 

It's never good enough.

The ACC has 3 of the top 14 teams (same number of ranked teams as the SEC), but TCU scheduling 2 games in ACC territory, and winning both, isn't good enough. Nope, ACC has been bashed, so it's not a worthy conference.


***

ABQ, stop acting like a fucking asshole. You're little power-tripping is really an insult to the intelligence you seem to have. Still angry that you claimed Nebraska, which lost to Iowa State, wouldn't come within 3 touchdowns of Texas? Poor baby. Want some Kleenex?

I see, because I say Cincy is a little guy, that implies that I think they play in a non-BCS conference? No, it doesn't mean that, blowhard. It means I've watched Cincy build up to this for the last 10 years. The program has arrived but they're still treated like a little kid.

 

Reading comprehension eludes you. I never claimed Nebraska would come within three touchdowns of Texas.

My point was the incredibly flawed logic that TCU would hammer Iowa because Iowa barely beat UNI & Ark. State makes as much as sense as saying Texas would kill Nebraska because the Huskers lost to Iowa State.

Pay attention.

 

So let me see if I got this right, Xan.
You're not really saying Texas doesn't belong in the chamionship game, just that the so-called "little guys" like TCU and Boise would be more fun to watch aganst Bama? (Cincy does not count because Big East is a BCS Conference).

 

So again, what are they supposed to do? Override the system because they want to let a mid-major play? Ban teams from being in the title game more than once every four years so that more kids can have their time on the swing set?

It's not just the coaches that voted Texas second, X. It's the Harris poll as well (and the media, were AP still a factor). You act like everything exists to fuck over the mid-majors. Ever occur to you that people with knowledge of the game, across the board, think Texas is better than Cincinnati and TCU, and that's why they're where they are?

 

To ABQ ...

Your post before all of the replies, was that Nebraska had zero chance. You're good at moving the goalposts when your predictions look like shit.

This was your post. And don't try to come back with some argument that your ellipses was supposed to mean something more. Because the statement, on its own, reads exactly how you wanted it to say.

spnited: I'd love to see Cincy in the title game, too. Any one of those 3 schools could play in the game, and I'd be fine with it.

 

Not possible Meat. It MUST be a conspiracy to keep the "little guys" down.

 

But on what basis does any of the three belong in the title game ahead of Texas? You're argument is based on who you want to see play. not who you think the two best teams are.

 

I know that coaches are one little piece. But it's still a big piece that goes into the equation.

All I'm saying is that this isn't 1988 anymore. Boise State, Cincy, TCU (I'm going to put Fresno State in there, too) can play with anyone and continues to prove it. There is something wrong with the system when it's the same old schools that get to play for the biggest prize.

I don't have an answer how to fix it.

*****

spnited, but on what basis does Texas "deserve" it this year? There is no bona fide correct answer.

OK, I'll backtrack a few steps. Texas is deserving to play in the title game. But so are the schools I've mentioned.