2011NCAA Football Thread

[Burkell007]

So can somebody tell me why, oh why is Michigan projected in the sugar bowl in front of teams like Kansas St, Boise St. Arkansas??? im baffled by that really.

Kansas St and Arkansas because conferences can only have two teams play in the BCS, save for an insanely unlikely scenario where teams from the same conference finish #1 and #2, but fail to secure the automatic bid by winning their conference. Kansas State because of Oklahoma and Oklahoma State, both of which beat them (Oklahoma destroyed them); Arkansas because of LSU and Alabama both of which handily beat them and have less losses.

Boise State because do you really think that a team that failed to win the Mountain West Conference deserves to go to a BCS game?

well say Oklahoma loses to Ok state, then is there really much of a question, Kansas St, would be in the top 10 bcs Michigan is 15, Michigan lost to Michigan st and Iowa, Kansas St lost to both ok schools, just baffled by it plus i rather take the loser of the big 10 champ game over Michigan any day.

You don't understand. It's a rule. Is Kansas State more deserving of a BCS game than two teams that beat them and are higher ranked? No, and since only two of them can get in, it makes room for Michigan. Same goes for Arkansas.

no i do get the rule now if oklahoma looses then it opens it up for kansas st right??

[See Red]

So can somebody tell me why, oh why is Michigan projected in the sugar bowl in front of teams like Kansas St, Boise St. Arkansas??? im baffled by that really.

Kansas St and Arkansas because conferences can only have two teams play in the BCS, save for an insanely unlikely scenario where teams from the same conference finish #1 and #2, but fail to secure the automatic bid by winning their conference. Kansas State because of Oklahoma and Oklahoma State, both of which beat them (Oklahoma destroyed them); Arkansas because of LSU and Alabama both of which handily beat them and have less losses.

Boise State because do you really think that a team that failed to win the Mountain West Conference deserves to go to a BCS game?

well say Oklahoma loses to Ok state, then is there really much of a question, Kansas St, would be in the top 10 bcs Michigan is 15, Michigan lost to Michigan st and Iowa, Kansas St lost to both ok schools, just baffled by it plus i rather take the loser of the big 10 champ game over Michigan any day.

You don't understand. It's a rule. Is Kansas State more deserving of a BCS game than two teams that beat them and are higher ranked? No, and since only two of them can get in, it makes room for Michigan. Same goes for Arkansas.

no i do get the rule now if oklahoma looses then it opens it up for kansas st right??

Yes.

[Burkell007]

So can somebody tell me why, oh why is Michigan projected in the sugar bowl in front of teams like Kansas St, Boise St. Arkansas??? im baffled by that really.

Kansas St and Arkansas because conferences can only have two teams play in the BCS, save for an insanely unlikely scenario where teams from the same conference finish #1 and #2, but fail to secure the automatic bid by winning their conference. Kansas State because of Oklahoma and Oklahoma State, both of which beat them (Oklahoma destroyed them); Arkansas because of LSU and Alabama both of which handily beat them and have less losses.

Boise State because do you really think that a team that failed to win the Mountain West Conference deserves to go to a BCS game?

well say Oklahoma loses to Ok state, then is there really much of a question, Kansas St, would be in the top 10 bcs Michigan is 15, Michigan lost to Michigan st and Iowa, Kansas St lost to both ok schools, just baffled by it plus i rather take the loser of the big 10 champ game over Michigan any day.

You don't understand. It's a rule. Is Kansas State more deserving of a BCS game than two teams that beat them and are higher ranked? No, and since only two of them can get in, it makes room for Michigan. Same goes for Arkansas.

no i do get the rule now if oklahoma looses then it opens it up for kansas st right??

Yes.

that was my point after u pointed out the rule in the first place, and Kansas st is more deserving then Michigan correct??

[See Red]

So can somebody tell me why, oh why is Michigan projected in the sugar bowl in front of teams like Kansas St, Boise St. Arkansas??? im baffled by that really.

Kansas St and Arkansas because conferences can only have two teams play in the BCS, save for an insanely unlikely scenario where teams from the same conference finish #1 and #2, but fail to secure the automatic bid by winning their conference. Kansas State because of Oklahoma and Oklahoma State, both of which beat them (Oklahoma destroyed them); Arkansas because of LSU and Alabama both of which handily beat them and have less losses.

Boise State because do you really think that a team that failed to win the Mountain West Conference deserves to go to a BCS game?

well say Oklahoma loses to Ok state, then is there really much of a question, Kansas St, would be in the top 10 bcs Michigan is 15, Michigan lost to Michigan st and Iowa, Kansas St lost to both ok schools, just baffled by it plus i rather take the loser of the big 10 champ game over Michigan any day.

You don't understand. It's a rule. Is Kansas State more deserving of a BCS game than two teams that beat them and are higher ranked? No, and since only two of them can get in, it makes room for Michigan. Same goes for Arkansas.

no i do get the rule now if oklahoma looses then it opens it up for kansas st right??

Yes.

that was my point after u pointed out the rule in the first place, and Kansas st is more deserving then Michigan correct??

It's debatable. At least Michigan's two losses were by relatively close margins (I can't comment on whether or not they had a realistic chance of winning either as I didn't watch either) and Kansas State's loss to Oklahoma was a damn massacre. K State didn't even belong on the same field as OU. If Oklahoma beats Oklahoma State, Kansas State should be on the outside looking in.

Edit: I guess I take it back, though. Oklahoma doesn't appear to be projected to be in a BCS bowl. So I don't know.

[Burkell007]

So can somebody tell me why, oh why is Michigan projected in the sugar bowl in front of teams like Kansas St, Boise St. Arkansas??? im baffled by that really.

Kansas St and Arkansas because conferences can only have two teams play in the BCS, save for an insanely unlikely scenario where teams from the same conference finish #1 and #2, but fail to secure the automatic bid by winning their conference. Kansas State because of Oklahoma and Oklahoma State, both of which beat them (Oklahoma destroyed them); Arkansas because of LSU and Alabama both of which handily beat them and have less losses.

Boise State because do you really think that a team that failed to win the Mountain West Conference deserves to go to a BCS game?

well say Oklahoma loses to Ok state, then is there really much of a question, Kansas St, would be in the top 10 bcs Michigan is 15, Michigan lost to Michigan st and Iowa, Kansas St lost to both ok schools, just baffled by it plus i rather take the loser of the big 10 champ game over Michigan any day.

You don't understand. It's a rule. Is Kansas State more deserving of a BCS game than two teams that beat them and are higher ranked? No, and since only two of them can get in, it makes room for Michigan. Same goes for Arkansas.

no i do get the rule now if oklahoma looses then it opens it up for kansas st right??

Yes.

that was my point after u pointed out the rule in the first place, and Kansas st is more deserving then Michigan correct??

It's debatable. At least Michigan's two losses were by relatively close margins (I can't comment on whether or not they had a realistic chance of winning either as I didn't watch either) and Kansas State's loss to Oklahoma was a damn massacre. K State didn't even belong on the same field as OU. If Oklahoma beats Oklahoma State, Kansas State should be on the outside looking in.

well it was bad after halftime, if i remember we had the lead or down by 3 at the half...but yea if ok st looses then yea Kansas st should be outside looking in. but say clemson beats va tech does va tech get that spot over Michigan?

edit, ou is not projected cause they assume they loose to ok st.

[Lights Out]

Boise State because do you really think that a team that failed to win the Mountain West Conference deserves to go to a BCS game?

So? They are currently ranked 7th in the country by the BCS' own criteria.

This is why the current at-large rules suck. It switches how teams are judged from what you did on the field to money and tradition.

[Burkell007]

a Boise St-Houston Sugar bowl would be quite fun to watch i think...

[Chicageaux]

So can somebody tell me why, oh why is Michigan projected in the sugar bowl in front of teams like Kansas St, Boise St. Arkansas??? im baffled by that really.

Kansas St and Arkansas because conferences can only have two teams play in the BCS, save for an insanely unlikely scenario where teams from the same conference finish #1 and #2, but fail to secure the automatic bid by winning their conference. Kansas State because of Oklahoma and Oklahoma State, both of which beat them (Oklahoma destroyed them); Arkansas because of LSU and Alabama both of which handily beat them and have less losses.

Boise State because do you really think that a team that failed to win the Mountain West Conference deserves to go to a BCS game?

well say Oklahoma loses to Ok state, then is there really much of a question, Kansas St, would be in the top 10 bcs Michigan is 15, Michigan lost to Michigan st and Iowa, Kansas St lost to both ok schools, just baffled by it plus i rather take the loser of the big 10 champ game over Michigan any day.

You don't understand. It's a rule. Is Kansas State more deserving of a BCS game than two teams that beat them and are higher ranked? No, and since only two of them can get in, it makes room for Michigan. Same goes for Arkansas.

no i do get the rule now if oklahoma looses then it opens it up for kansas st right??

Yes.

that was my point after u pointed out the rule in the first place, and Kansas st is more deserving then Michigan correct??

It's debatable. At least Michigan's two losses were by relatively close margins (I can't comment on whether or not they had a realistic chance of winning either as I didn't watch either) and Kansas State's loss to Oklahoma was a damn massacre. K State didn't even belong on the same field as OU. If Oklahoma beats Oklahoma State, Kansas State should be on the outside looking in.

well it was bad after halftime, if i remember we had the lead or down by 3 at the half...but yea if ok st looses then yea Kansas st should be outside looking in. but say clemson beats va tech does va tech get that spot over Michigan?

edit, ou is not projected cause they assume they loose to ok st.

If V-Tech loses to Clemson, there's a good chance they'll take the spot from Michigan. The reason why Michigan is there now is because Michigan is a good draw, so money-wise it's smart to have them in the Sugar Bowl.

Right now, Kansas State is projected to be in the Cotton Bowl, which is a pretty good bowl itself. It's suppose to be the biggest none BCS game.

[Seadragon76]

From ESPN comes news from the sorry dungheap that is the Palouse...

Mike Leach (Yes, that Mike Leach... You know, the guy at Texas Tech who placed Craig James' kid in a empty storeroom or something to that effect) has agreed to be the coach at Washington State.

Ladies and Gentleman, as a Washington Huskie fan... nothing makes me chuckle harder then seeing Waz-Spew suffer massively. This will end in total faliure. Mark my words.

[thespleenenator]

From ESPN comes news from the sorry dungheap that is the Palouse...

Mike Leach (Yes, that Mike Leach... You know, the guy at Texas Tech who placed Craig James' kid in a empty storeroom or something to that effect) has agreed to be the coach at Washington State.

Ladies and Gentleman, as a Washington Huskie fan... nothing makes me chuckle harder then seeing Waz-Spew suffer massively. This will end in total faliure. Mark my words.

Mike Leach can coach. Wazzu is the perfect team to run the air raid (good QBs, RBs who can catch). UW, watch out.

[WSU151]

From ESPN comes news from the sorry dungheap beautiful rolling wheat fields that is the Palouse...

Mike Leach (Yes, that Mike Leach... You know, the guy at Texas Tech who placed Craig James' kid in a empty storeroom or something to that effect) has agreed to be the coach at Washington State.

Ladies and Gentleman, as a Washington Huskie fan... nothing makes me chuckle worry more then seeing Waz-Spew the better Washington school suffer rebound massively. This will end in total faliure high-octane offense that wins Apple Cup after Apple Cup. Mark my words.

Fixed

[Lights Out]

From ESPN comes news from the sorry dungheap that is the Palouse...

Mike Leach (Yes, that Mike Leach... You know, the guy at Texas Tech who placed Craig James' kid in a empty storeroom or something to that effect) has agreed to be the coach at Washington State.

Ladies and Gentleman, as a Washington Huskie fan... nothing makes me chuckle harder then seeing Waz-Spew suffer massively. This will end in total faliure. Mark my words.

Mike Leach is a good coach. The future is bright for Wazzu.

[Foxxtrot44]

Gonna be some interesting Offensive changes in the coming years for the Pac12...

Now if Chris Peterson just goes to UCLA......... I keed, I keed.

[Still MIGHTY]

Gonna be some interesting Offensive changes in the coming years for the Pac12...

Now if Chris Peterson just goes to UCLA......... I keed, I keed.

Apparently UCLA has some donors willing to put forth massive money to pay for Peterson if UCLA can get him. Honestly, I think if Peterson were ever to leave Boise, it'd be to the Pac-12. He seems more of a West Coast kinda guy. Not saying he is or will leave, but it's an interesting idea... Add that into Arizona State targeting Houston coach Kevin Sumlin as their #1 guy, Leach at Wazzu, RichRod at UA, Chip Kelley in Oregon... Yeah, Pac-12 defenses just need not apply.

[Cujo]

From ESPN comes news from the sorry dungheap that is the Palouse...

Mike Leach (Yes, that Mike Leach... You know, the guy at Texas Tech who placed Craig James' kid in a empty storeroom or something to that effect) has agreed to be the coach at Washington State.

Ladies and Gentleman, as a Washington Huskie fan... nothing makes me chuckle harder then seeing Waz-Spew suffer massively. This will end in total faliure. Mark my words.

Jealousy.

Never thoght Leach would hold out for a "smallish" job like the one at Wassu. Great hire for the Cougs!

[Lights Out]

Apparently UCLA has some donors willing to put forth massive money to pay for Peterson if UCLA can get him. Honestly, I think if Peterson were ever to leave Boise, it'd be to the Pac-12. He seems more of a West Coast kinda guy.

Sorry to disappoint, but Coach Pete leaving seems to get less and less likely each year. He's turned down Florida, Stanford, and other better jobs than UCLA. He's also turned down UCLA before. Just sayin'.

[Still MIGHTY]

Apparently UCLA has some donors willing to put forth massive money to pay for Peterson if UCLA can get him. Honestly, I think if Peterson were ever to leave Boise, it'd be to the Pac-12. He seems more of a West Coast kinda guy.

Sorry to disappoint, but Coach Pete leaving seems to get less and less likely each year. He's turned down Florida, Stanford, and other better jobs than UCLA. He's also turned down UCLA before. Just sayin'.

No I know that. I was just saying that UCLA is going to offer something big. It's also why I qualified it with "if Perterson were to ever leave." I'm not saying he ever would, but if he did, I'd think it'd probably be a Pac-12 school. That's all.

[Lights Out]

I think I misread your post, then. Fair enough.

[thespleenenator]

Gonna be some interesting Offensive changes in the coming years for the Pac12...

Now if Chris Peterson just goes to UCLA......... I keed, I keed.

Apparently UCLA has some donors willing to put forth massive money to pay for Peterson if UCLA can get him. Honestly, I think if Peterson were ever to leave Boise, it'd be to the Pac-12. He seems more of a West Coast kinda guy. Not saying he is or will leave, but it's an interesting idea... Add that into Arizona State targeting Houston coach Kevin Sumlin as their #1 guy, Leach at Wazzu, RichRod at UA, Chip Kelley in Oregon... Yeah, Pac-12 defenses just need not apply.

I don't know if it'll be the best conference, but the Pac-12 is going to be the most fun to watch football conference on the planet. Honestly, if Leach can get his offense at Wazzu rolling, I think they could take down the ducks. Same with Kevin Sumlin at ASU, although Wazzu has much better QBs than ASU does. We need to improve our pass defense, and fast.

[dfwabel]

From ESPN comes news from the sorry dungheap that is the Palouse...

Mike Leach (Yes, that Mike Leach... You know, the guy at Texas Tech who placed Craig James' kid in a empty storeroom or something to that effect) has agreed to be the coach at Washington State.

Ladies and Gentleman, as a Washington Huskie fan... nothing makes me chuckle harder then seeing Waz-Spew suffer massively. This will end in total faliure. Mark my words.

Jealousy.

Never thoght Leach would hold out for a "smallish" job like the one at Wassu. Great hire for the Cougs!

I really don't think that he had much of a choice if he wanted to be at an AQ school. While Wazzu is making improvements to Martin Stadium and their football facility in excess of $150M, his biggest problem is that it is easier to recruit a kid from Dallas/Ft. Worth to Lubbock than it is to get anyone to Pullman, especially since the more talented "local" players will go to Boise State or a California school.