"Official" 2007 College Football Thread

[Jigga]

The Cotton Bowl is still a New Year's Day bowl game. If it's not on January 1 (or later now), it's still a third-tier bowl game.. The Holiday Bowl may be climbing in prestige while the Cotton Bowl is eroding, but it's still not THAT close. Remember how disappointed Cal was to be going to the Holiday Bowl a few years back?

[McCall]

By the Bowl games they got, ASU may have been screwed more, but the fact is Mizzou is more screwed because they should've been in a BCS Bowl. ASU probably could've deserved one too, but they would've been behind Mizzou in getting one anyway. But Mizzou was simply screwed out of their BCS bowl opportunity, no way around that fact. And it doesn't even have to do so much with the fact that it was our bitter rival Kansas that got it. Yes that is just pouring salt in the wound, but it's more the fact that a fellow conference team, who we beat, who didn't make it to the conference championship game, and who was ranked lower than us in every single poll, was chosen over us, for some f-ing reason that they won't even say.

I'd love to hear exactly why they chose KU over Mizzou. Anybody hear anything on that yet? No? Geez, I wonder why. Maybe cuz they have no good reason.

Just call us "Misscrewed"

[illwauk]

There's only 2 teams with less than 2 losses... Ohio State and Hawaii... THAT should be the national championship.

Seriously, what's the point of even splitting Division 1 into two sub-divisions if we're just gonna create another heirarchy within the sub-division? Why punish the Hawaii's and Boise State's for being so good that the so called "big conference" schools are scared to play them?

As for the SEC fans being mad at the respective positions of Ohio State and Illinois. I love how they hype themselves up as a conference loaded with superpowers, then get mad when the teams round-robining each other works against them. You got one of your teams in the championship over a team that won all of its games and a bunch of others that only had 2 losses... stop b***hin'...

I wouldn't say the uber-elite programs are too scared necessarily to play them...(that implies foreknowledge that Hawaii or BSU would most likely win). It's just that there is FAR too little to gain out of playing a Boise State or a Hawaii, and WAY too much to lose. Cost-benefit scale says...schedule some weak team and hope Loki doesn't decide to hate your team's guts.

Win? So what....

Lose? ROFLMAO

What rational being would willingly put themselves into this situation...especially because, while not likely, ROFLMAO still has decent odds.

Please believe I understand the hierarchies, politics, traditions and whatever other buzzwords can be used to excuse big conference teams from playing mid majors. My point is that it should be assumed any team can defeat any other in the same division. Either force the LSU's, Ohio State's and USC's to play the Boise's and Hawaii's, or create a new division consisting of only the BCS conferences. My preference is for the former.

[rams80]

There's only 2 teams with less than 2 losses... Ohio State and Hawaii... THAT should be the national championship.

Seriously, what's the point of even splitting Division 1 into two sub-divisions if we're just gonna create another heirarchy within the sub-division? Why punish the Hawaii's and Boise State's for being so good that the so called "big conference" schools are scared to play them?

As for the SEC fans being mad at the respective positions of Ohio State and Illinois. I love how they hype themselves up as a conference loaded with superpowers, then get mad when the teams round-robining each other works against them. You got one of your teams in the championship over a team that won all of its games and a bunch of others that only had 2 losses... stop b***hin'...

I wouldn't say the uber-elite programs are too scared necessarily to play them...(that implies foreknowledge that Hawaii or BSU would most likely win). It's just that there is FAR too little to gain out of playing a Boise State or a Hawaii, and WAY too much to lose. Cost-benefit scale says...schedule some weak team and hope Loki doesn't decide to hate your team's guts.

Win? So what....

Lose? ROFLMAO

What rational being would willingly put themselves into this situation...especially because, while not likely, ROFLMAO still has decent odds.

Please believe I understand the hierarchies, politics, traditions and whatever other buzzwords can be used to excuse big conference teams from playing mid majors. My point is that it should be assumed any team can defeat any other in the same division. Either force the LSU's, Ohio State's and USC's to play the Boise's and Hawaii's, or create a new division consisting of only the BCS conferences. My preference is for the former.

Unfortunately, the difference in resources and money available for an athletic department in a BCS school and in a school like Boise State or Hawaii means that the BCS school does possess a competitive advantage over them. Yes, the basic assumption is that any team can win a game (that's why they play), but the question of how likely it is would still be in the air. BCS is already a separate division within I-A....although the expansion to ten teams has made it significantly equal for a midmajor to crash the party.

[TBGKon]

The one thing I am mad about is Hawaii in the Sugar Bowl. Although I follow UGA, I still think that Hawaii got jobbed. It's not like they could've switched out Oklahoma and Hawaii and put OU in the Sugar Bowl and Hawaii in the Fiesta Bowl, so at least they don't have to travel half-a-hemisphere to play UGA in SEC country. I understand Hawaii nearly beat Alabama at Alabama, but this is a different story. This is the Sugar Bowl, right in the heart of SEC country, and if I had to guess, unless Hawaii's fans pull out a mass pilgrimage to the Superdome, I'd have to guess it's going to be 90% Dawg fans, 5% Hawaii fans, and 5% "We couldn't give a more so we'll pull for the underdog." fans. So yeah, I really think this is the selection committee's way of saying "Oh you wanna be in the BCS? Fine, go play there. You want it so bad, don't you?"

My guess is Hawaii went to the Sugar Bowl for the same reason Boise State went to the Fiesta Bowl. The BCS must have an order of succession in the bowl games that designates that the host site of the Nat'l Title Game (New Orleans this year) also gets to select the 10th team in, which means the Sugar Bowl got the last selection and due to regulations, had to select the non-BCS school. I assume the same thing happened last season.

[rams80]

The one thing I am mad about is Hawaii in the Sugar Bowl. Although I follow UGA, I still think that Hawaii got jobbed. It's not like they could've switched out Oklahoma and Hawaii and put OU in the Sugar Bowl and Hawaii in the Fiesta Bowl, so at least they don't have to travel half-a-hemisphere to play UGA in SEC country. I understand Hawaii nearly beat Alabama at Alabama, but this is a different story. This is the Sugar Bowl, right in the heart of SEC country, and if I had to guess, unless Hawaii's fans pull out a mass pilgrimage to the Superdome, I'd have to guess it's going to be 90% Dawg fans, 5% Hawaii fans, and 5% "We couldn't give a more so we'll pull for the underdog." fans. So yeah, I really think this is the selection committee's way of saying "Oh you wanna be in the BCS? Fine, go play there. You want it so bad, don't you?"

My guess is Hawaii went to the Sugar Bowl for the same reason Boise State went to the Fiesta Bowl. The BCS must have an order of succession in the bowl games that designates that the host site of the Nat'l Title Game (New Orleans this year) also gets to select the 10th team in, which means the Sugar Bowl got the last selection and due to regulations, had to select the non-BCS school. I assume the same thing happened last season.

That's precisely what happened. There is a set rotation between the Sugar, Orange, and Fiesta Bowls to determine the order of at large selections. (The Rose Bowl, which gets the Big Ten and Pac Ten champs...or their replacements, is not in this rotation.) The Sugar Bowl had the last pick...and was forced to take Hawaii.

[footballfiji]

The one thing I am mad about is Hawaii in the Sugar Bowl. Although I follow UGA, I still think that Hawaii got jobbed. It's not like they could've switched out Oklahoma and Hawaii and put OU in the Sugar Bowl and Hawaii in the Fiesta Bowl, so at least they don't have to travel half-a-hemisphere to play UGA in SEC country. I understand Hawaii nearly beat Alabama at Alabama, but this is a different story. This is the Sugar Bowl, right in the heart of SEC country, and if I had to guess, unless Hawaii's fans pull out a mass pilgrimage to the Superdome, I'd have to guess it's going to be 90% Dawg fans, 5% Hawaii fans, and 5% "We couldn't give a more so we'll pull for the underdog." fans. So yeah, I really think this is the selection committee's way of saying "Oh you wanna be in the BCS? Fine, go play there. You want it so bad, don't you?"

My guess is Hawaii went to the Sugar Bowl for the same reason Boise State went to the Fiesta Bowl. The BCS must have an order of succession in the bowl games that designates that the host site of the Nat'l Title Game (New Orleans this year) also gets to select the 10th team in, which means the Sugar Bowl got the last selection and due to regulations, had to select the non-BCS school. I assume the same thing happened last season.

There is an order of selection:

From the BCS website:

3. If a bowl loses a host team to the NCG, then such bowl shall select a replacement team from among the automatic-qualifying teams and the at-large teams before any other selections are made. If two bowls lose host teams to the NCG, each bowl will get a replacement pick before any other selections are made. In such case, the bowl losing the No. 1 team gets the first replacement pick, and the bowl losing the No. 2 team gets the second replacement pick. If the Rose Bowl loses both the Big Ten and Pac-10 champions to the NCG, it will receive two replacement picks.

So since the Sugar Lost LSU to the BCS game and the Rose Bowl lost OSU to the Conference title game they got to pick first from the following:

West Virginia*, Hawai'i*, Kansas, Missouri, Arizona State, Illinois, Georgia, Florida, Boston College. (* denotes automatic qualifier, the other are the reamaining teams in the top 14 teams in the final BCS standings)

The Rose gets the first pick. They can't pick UGA because of rule 3:

C. When two bowls lose host teams, then the bowl losing the number one team may not select a replacement team from the same Conference as the number two team, unless the bowl losing the number two team consents.

So they chose Illinois. Which they were perfectly legal and allowed to do.

Then the Sugar picks. They chose UGA, which leaves the at large standings like this:

West Virginia*, Hawai'i*, Kansas, Missouri, Arizona State, Boston College.

Florida is eliminated because you can't have more than two teams from a BCS conference.

The BCS Bowls then look like this:

BCS: LSU vs OU

Orange: VA Tech (ACC) vs ?

Rose: USC (PAC-10) vs Illinois (at-large)

Sugar: UGA (at-large) vs ?

Fiesta: OU (Big XII) vs ?

So who chooses next?:

4. After steps No. 1, 2 and 3 have been completed, any bowl with an unfilled slot shall select a team from the automatic qualifiers and/or at-large teams in the following order:

A. The bowl played on the date nearest to the National Championship Game (for 2008, Orange Bowl) will pick first;

B. The bowl played on the date second-nearest to the National Championship Game (for 2008, Fiesta Bowl) will pick second;

C. The bowl hosting the game that is played in the time slot immediately after the Rose Bowl game (for 2008, Sugar Bowl) will pick third

The Orange chooses Kansas leaving the selection pool looking like this:

West Virginia*, Hawai'i*

What happened to all the other teams? It doesn't matter. Once the Orange Bowl chose Kansas, all the other at large teams were eliminated because you have two automatic qualifiers left for two slots.

Fiesta chooses West Virginia.

Sugar is left with Hawai'i

So who should Missouri fans be pissed at?

I'd be pissed at the Rose Bowl. Them choosing Illinois cause all this craziness to start.

Who should Arizona State fans be pissed at?

Probably the Orange Bowl. That was probably the only spot they could have been taken in. Or, if they hadn't selected Kansas it could have left the Sugar as a possibility.

[rams80]

I would like all those bitching about how we couldn't get USC-Georgia in the Rose Bowl to please read that rule governing replacement picks.

And before you ask....the Sugar Bowl would never give its consent.

Personally, I'd be mad at the Orange Bowl (if I was Missouri) for choosing Kansas out of an inexplicable bout of madness.

[McCall]

The one thing I am mad about is Hawaii in the Sugar Bowl. Although I follow UGA, I still think that Hawaii got jobbed. It's not like they could've switched out Oklahoma and Hawaii and put OU in the Sugar Bowl and Hawaii in the Fiesta Bowl, so at least they don't have to travel half-a-hemisphere to play UGA in SEC country. I understand Hawaii nearly beat Alabama at Alabama, but this is a different story. This is the Sugar Bowl, right in the heart of SEC country, and if I had to guess, unless Hawaii's fans pull out a mass pilgrimage to the Superdome, I'd have to guess it's going to be 90% Dawg fans, 5% Hawaii fans, and 5% "We couldn't give a more so we'll pull for the underdog." fans. So yeah, I really think this is the selection committee's way of saying "Oh you wanna be in the BCS? Fine, go play there. You want it so bad, don't you?"

My guess is Hawaii went to the Sugar Bowl for the same reason Boise State went to the Fiesta Bowl. The BCS must have an order of succession in the bowl games that designates that the host site of the Nat'l Title Game (New Orleans this year) also gets to select the 10th team in, which means the Sugar Bowl got the last selection and due to regulations, had to select the non-BCS school. I assume the same thing happened last season.

There is an order of selection:

From the BCS website:

3. If a bowl loses a host team to the NCG, then such bowl shall select a replacement team from among the automatic-qualifying teams and the at-large teams before any other selections are made. If two bowls lose host teams to the NCG, each bowl will get a replacement pick before any other selections are made. In such case, the bowl losing the No. 1 team gets the first replacement pick, and the bowl losing the No. 2 team gets the second replacement pick. If the Rose Bowl loses both the Big Ten and Pac-10 champions to the NCG, it will receive two replacement picks.

So since the Sugar Lost LSU to the BCS game and the Rose Bowl lost OSU to the Conference title game they got to pick first from the following:

West Virginia*, Hawai'i*, Kansas, Missouri, Arizona State, Illinois, Georgia, Florida, Boston College. (* denotes automatic qualifier, the other are the reamaining teams in the top 14 teams in the final BCS standings)

The Rose gets the first pick. They can't pick UGA because of rule 3:

C. When two bowls lose host teams, then the bowl losing the number one team may not select a replacement team from the same Conference as the number two team, unless the bowl losing the number two team consents.

So they chose Illinois. Which they were perfectly legal and allowed to do.

Then the Sugar picks. They chose UGA, which leaves the at large standings like this:

West Virginia*, Hawai'i*, Kansas, Missouri, Arizona State, Boston College.

Florida is eliminated because you can't have more than two teams from a BCS conference.

The BCS Bowls then look like this:

BCS: LSU vs OU

Orange: VA Tech (ACC) vs ?

Rose: USC (PAC-10) vs Illinois (at-large)

Sugar: UGA (at-large) vs ?

Fiesta: OU (Big XII) vs ?

So who chooses next?:

4. After steps No. 1, 2 and 3 have been completed, any bowl with an unfilled slot shall select a team from the automatic qualifiers and/or at-large teams in the following order:

A. The bowl played on the date nearest to the National Championship Game (for 2008, Orange Bowl) will pick first;

B. The bowl played on the date second-nearest to the National Championship Game (for 2008, Fiesta Bowl) will pick second;

C. The bowl hosting the game that is played in the time slot immediately after the Rose Bowl game (for 2008, Sugar Bowl) will pick third

The Orange chooses Kansas leaving the selection pool looking like this:

West Virginia*, Hawai'i*

What happened to all the other teams? It doesn't matter. Once the Orange Bowl chose Kansas, all the other at large teams were eliminated because you have two automatic qualifiers left for two slots.

Fiesta chooses West Virginia.

Sugar is left with Hawai'i

So who should Missouri fans be pissed at?

I'd be pissed at the Rose Bowl. Them choosing Illinois cause all this craziness to start.

Who should Arizona State fans be pissed at?

Probably the Orange Bowl. That was probably the only spot they could have been taken in. Or, if they hadn't selected Kansas it could have left the Sugar as a possibility.

Naw, the Rose Bowl chose Illinois to keep the Big Ten/Pac 10 match-up. No problem with that, even if they lost to Mizzou. That's not the selection that kept Mizzou from getting in.

The Orange Bowl chose Kansas over Mizzou, thus taking the 2nd Big 12 spot that, rightfully, should've belonged to Mizzou. That's what kept them out of the BCS.

The BCS should make a rule that, you can't choose a team if there is a remaining team from their conference with a higher ranking. (Not to mention all the other criteria that puts Mizzou ahead of KU.)

[FiddySicks]

Is anyone else horribly tired of hearing the term "BCS School"? i think that factor alone shows why college football's selection process is such an amazingly bad joke.

[infrared41]

Is anyone else horribly tired of hearing the term "BCS School"? i think that factor alone shows why college football's selection process is such an amazingly bad joke.

BCS simply means Big Cash School. It makes more sense when you look at it like that.

[footballfiji]

Is anyone else horribly tired of hearing the term "BCS School"? i think that factor alone shows why college football's selection process is such an amazingly bad joke.

BCS simply means Big Cash School. It makes more sense when you look at it like that.

That's a stupid way of looking at it and actually it's untrue. Here's a list of the top 20 college endowments:

1. Harvard University (Cambridge, Mass.) $25,473,721,000

2. Yale University (New Haven, Conn.) 15,224,900,000

3. Stanford University (Stanford, Calif.) 12,205,000,000

4. Univ. of Texas System Administration (Austin, Tex.) 11,610,997,000

5. Princeton University (Princeton, N.J.) 11,206,500,088

6. Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Cambridge, Mass.) 6,712,436,000

7. University of California 5,221,916,000

8. Columbia University (New York, N.Y.) 5,190,564,000

9. Texas A&M University (College Station, Tex.)2 4,963,879,000

10. Univ. of Michigan (Ann Arbor, Mich.) 4,931,338,000

11. Emory University (Atlanta, Ga.) 4,376,272,000

12. Univ. of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia, Pa.) 4,369,782,000

13. Washington University (St. Louis, Mo.) 4,268,415,000

14. Northwestern University (Evanston, Ill.) 4,215,275,000

15. Univ. of Chicago (Chicago, Ill.) 4,137,494,000

16. Duke University (Durham, N.C.) 3,826,153,000

17. Cornell University (Ithaca, N.Y.) 3,777,092,000

18. Univ. of Notre Dame (Notre Dame, Ind.) 3,650,224,000

19. Rice University (Houston, Tex.) 3,611,127,000

20. Univ. of Virginia (Charlottesville, Va.)

Over half of those are non-"BCS" schools.

[infrared41]

Is anyone else horribly tired of hearing the term "BCS School"? i think that factor alone shows why college football's selection process is such an amazingly bad joke.

BCS simply means Big Cash School. It makes more sense when you look at it like that.

That's a stupid way of looking at it and actually it's untrue.

Well I thought it was pretty obvious that I was only referring to the football side of it, not to mention it was intended as humor, but thanks for calling me stupid anyway.

[footballfiji]

Is anyone else horribly tired of hearing the term "BCS School"? i think that factor alone shows why college football's selection process is such an amazingly bad joke.

BCS simply means Big Cash School. It makes more sense when you look at it like that.

That's a stupid way of looking at it and actually it's untrue.

Well I thought it was pretty obvious that I was only referring to the football side of it, not to mention it was intended as humor, but thanks for calling me stupid anyway.

I didn't call you stupid. I said that statement was stupid.

[McCall]

Is anyone else horribly tired of hearing the term "BCS School"? i think that factor alone shows why college football's selection process is such an amazingly bad joke.

BCS simply means Big Cash School. It makes more sense when you look at it like that.

That's a stupid way of looking at it and actually it's untrue.

Well I thought it was pretty obvious that I was only referring to the football side of it, not to mention it was intended as humor, but thanks for calling me stupid anyway.

I didn't call you stupid. I said that statement was stupid.

Geez, can we move away from all of this "she called me stupid. no she called me stupid" BS and get back on the subject at hand?

With all the bitching, whining, and name-calling, you'd think we were talking about the BCS or something.

[footballfiji]

Is anyone else horribly tired of hearing the term "BCS School"? i think that factor alone shows why college football's selection process is such an amazingly bad joke.

BCS simply means Big Cash School. It makes more sense when you look at it like that.

That's a stupid way of looking at it and actually it's untrue.

Well I thought it was pretty obvious that I was only referring to the football side of it, not to mention it was intended as humor, but thanks for calling me stupid anyway.

I didn't call you stupid. I said that statement was stupid.

Geez, can we move away from all of this "she called me stupid. no she called me stupid" BS and get back on the subject at hand?

With all the bitching, whining, and name-calling, you'd think we were talking about the BCS or something.

The worst part about all of this is we are still A MONTH away from the BCS games.

[winghaz]

I just thought of something scary: Imagine if Notre Dame would have had just a little better than a winning record, enough to get them in a BCS bowl. You know one of the BCS bowls would have taken the Irish. Who would have been left out then?

[Seadragon76]

I just thought of something scary: Imagine if Notre Dame would have had just a little better than a winning record, enough to get them in a BCS bowl. You know one of the BCS bowls would have taken the Irish. Who would have been left out then?

Simple. Hawaii would get hosed if ND got BCS eligible.

Let's face it, we all know the BCS is nothing more then a made-for-TV event and so they create the matchups to see what would garner the most interest. If you have a 12-0 Hawaii team and a, say, 9-3 Notre Dame team up for that Sugar Bowl spot, you know damn well the BCS heads would take Notre Dame in a heartbeat because it's about TV ratings.

Also, what Notre Dame would do is hurt the WAC here in this scenario. With Hawaii not getting into the BCS, they're forced to play at home against East Carolina in the Hawaii Bowl. It's not a bad thing because Hawaii has been at their home bowl game before, but at 12-0, many will complain that they were unjustfully screwed. With Hawaii staying home, Boise State (who is going to the Hawaii Bowl) ends up at home as well to play Georgia Tech in the Humanitarian Bowl. Fresno would play in the New Mexico Bowl instead of the Humanitarian Bowl and Nevada would be the major loser here. Instead of being in the New Mexico Bowl, they would get hosed at 6-6.

You're talking about a ton of money lost because the BCS heads are thinking about the name brand and not the brand of football on the field.

[jkrdevil]

I just thought of something scary: Imagine if Notre Dame would have had just a little better than a winning record, enough to get them in a BCS bowl. You know one of the BCS bowls would have taken the Irish. Who would have been left out then?

Simple. Hawaii would get hosed if ND got BCS eligible.

I believe Hawaii ended up being an automatic qualifier thus they couldn't be left out. My guess Kansas would be out. But really it's a silly question as Notre Dame was 3-9 not just outside of being able to qualify for the BCS.

[rams80]

I just thought of something scary: Imagine if Notre Dame would have had just a little better than a winning record, enough to get them in a BCS bowl. You know one of the BCS bowls would have taken the Irish. Who would have been left out then?

Illinois would be out. I predict the Rose Bowl would have taken Notre Dame's inevitably overrated carcass so they could get massacred in a rematch with USC.

Oh...and Notre Dame would have had to be a whole lot better than they were to get the required ranking.