December 4, 2005
2005-2006 Bowl Game Schedule
| BOWL | LOCATION | DATE/TIME | NETWORK |
|
New Orleans Southern Miss (6-5) vs. Arkansas State (6-5) |
Lafayette, La. |
Dec. 20 8 p.m. |
ESPN |
|
GMAC UTEP (8-3) vs. Toledo (8-3) |
Mobile, Ala. |
Dec. 21 8 p.m. |
ESPN |
|
Pioneer PureVision Las Vegas BYU (6-5) vs. California (7-4) |
Las Vegas, Nev. |
Dec. 22 8 p.m. |
ESPN |
|
San Diego County Credit Union Poinsettia Bowl Colorado State (6-5) vs. Navy (7-4) |
San Diego, Calif. |
Dec. 22 10:30 p.m. |
ESPN2 |
|
Fort Worth Kansas (6-5) vs. Houston (6-5) |
Fort Worth, Texas |
Dec. 23 8 p.m. |
ESPN |
|
Sheraton Hawaii Nevada (8-3) vs. UCF (8-4) |
Honolulu, Hawaii |
Dec. 24 8:30 p.m. |
ESPN |
|
Motor City Memphis (6-5) vs. Akron (7-5) |
Detroit, Mich. |
Dec. 26 4 p.m. |
ESPN |
|
Champs Sports Clemson (7-4) vs. Colorado (7-5) |
Orlando, Fla. |
Dec. 27 5 p.m. |
ESPN |
|
Insight Arizona State (6-5) vs. Rutgers (7-4) |
Phoenix, Ariz. |
Dec. 27 8:30 p.m. |
ESPN |
|
MPC Computers Boise State (9-3) vs. Boston College (8-3) |
Boise, Idaho |
Dec. 28 4:30 p.m. |
ESPN |
|
MasterCard Alamo Michigan (7-4) vs. Nebraska (7-4) |
San Antonio, Texas |
Dec. 28 8 p.m. |
ESPN |
|
Emerald Bowl Georgia Tech (7-4) vs. Utah (6-5) |
San Francisco, Calif. |
Dec. 29 4:30 p.m. |
ESPN |
|
Pacific Life Holiday Oregon (10-1) vs. Oklahoma (7-4) |
San Diego, Calif. | Dec. 29 8 p.m. | ESPN |
|
Gaylord Hotels Music City Minnesota (7-4) vs. Virginia (6-5) |
Nashville, Tenn. |
Dec. 30 Noon |
ESPN |
|
Vitalis Sun Northwestern (7-4) vs. UCLA (9-2) |
El Paso, Texas |
Dec. 30 2 p.m. |
CBS |
|
Independence South Carolina (7-4) vs. Missouri (6-5) |
Shreveport, La. |
Dec. 30 3:30 p.m. |
ESPN |
|
Chick-fil-A Peach Miami (9-2) vs. LSU (10-2) |
Atlanta, Ga. |
Dec. 30 7:30 p.m. |
ESPN |
|
Meineke Car Care South Florida (6-5) vs. NC State (6-5) |
Charlotte, N.C. |
Dec. 31 11 a.m. |
ESPN2 |
|
AutoZone Liberty Tulsa (8-4) vs. Fresno State (8-4) |
Memphis, Tenn. |
Dec. 31 1 p.m. |
ESPN |
|
EV1.net Houston TCU (10-1) vs. Iowa State (7-4) |
Houston, Texas |
Dec. 31 2:30 p.m. |
ESPN2 |
|
AT&T Cotton Texas Tech (9-2) vs. Alabama (9-2) |
Dallas, Texas |
Jan. 2 11 a.m. |
Fox |
|
Outback Iowa (7-4) vs. Florida (8-3) |
Tampa, Fla. |
Jan. 2 11 a.m. |
ESPN |
|
Toyota Gator Louisville (9-2) vs. Virginia Tech (10-2) |
Jacksonville, Fla. |
Jan. 2 12:30 p.m. |
NBC |
|
Capital One Wisconsin (9-3) vs. Auburn (9-2) |
Orlando, Fla. |
Jan. 2 1 p.m. |
ABC |
|
Tostitos Fiesta Notre Dame (9-2) vs. Ohio State (9-2) |
Tempe, Ariz. |
Jan. 2 4:30 p.m. |
ABC |
|
Nokia Sugar West Virginia (10-1) vs. Georgia (10-2) |
Atlanta |
Jan. 2 8:30 p.m. |
ABC |
|
FedEx Orange Penn State (10-1) vs. Florida State (8-4) |
Miami, Fla. |
Jan. 3 8 p.m. |
ABC |
|
The Rose Bowl Game Presented by Citi USC (12-0) vs. Texas (12-0) |
Pasadena, Calif. |
Jan. 4 8 p.m. |
ABC |
Comments:
IrishJT said:
posted on December 5, 2005 12:31 PM — 65.83.54.4 — link — abuse?
BODY OF WORK
Fan of the Game...while a bit sarcastic, you could not be more correct. Oregon doesn't deserve a BCS spot simply because the PAC 10, and the body of work done in that conference this year, does not deserve two selections for a BCS bowl. They have one team...a very good team...who deserves all of the good fortune that comes its way. On the other hand, there is no other team in the PAC 10 who deserves BCS good fortune, BCS sympathy or BCS dollars. The BIG 10 was a far better, tougher conference this year. Ohio State lost two games this season (to the current #2 and #3 teams in the country). Notre Dame lost in OT to State and quite honestly should have beaten the #1 team in the land...ironically the only team the PAC 10 can boast worthy of a BCS bid (and a team that the Ducks were embarrased by to the tune of 32pts).
Duck fans, all of the lobbying and sympathy in the world could not have gotten another PAC 10 team into a BCS game. You can't play perennial "powerhouses" such as Montana, Houston, Idaho, Portland, etc., year in and year out, especially in a conference with such annual losers such as Washington, Oregon State, Washington State, Arizona, Arizona State, and expect any committee to take your team seriously. While the teams on the Irish schedule were not as stout as preseason minds had predicted, Notre Dame was pretty certain that Tennessee would be a formidable opponent when they scheduled them...because they ARE a perennial powerhouse (SEC East champs last year). However, I doubt the Oregon A.D. could boast that Montana and/or Houston were really expected to be games at all. Powder puffs...both.
You want credit for the work you have done this year? Get a body of work worthy of praise.
K Hat said:
posted on December 5, 2005 1:09 PM — 24.217.145.84 — link — abuse?
The BCS needs to straighten itself out, they worst thing that can happen is for Congress to stick their nose in it. Why do some people think Congress is the solution to everything?
The top eight teams should go, period. Those teams have earned a trip to the BCS, and if the BCS wants the best, they, not Congress, need to invite the best.
Jeremy said:
posted on December 5, 2005 1:59 PM — 69.19.14.31 — link — abuse?
After watching USC and Texas play this weekend, i begin to wonder if maybe some strings were pulled to make sure Texas and USC remained undefeated. Those two games were thrown by the losing teams. Now I am not saying either could have beat texas or USC, but someone told Colorado and UCLA to lose badly or else. My college football season is always over after the SEC Championship game. At least the SEC gives everyone from topto bottom a fair chance to bring home the championship. The BCS is getting as bad as pro-wrestling, the bowl games are a joke, period.
Todd said:
posted on December 5, 2005 6:11 PM — 198.109.220.6 — link — abuse?
Why is there not an uproar due to the fact that not a single college bowl game will be played on New Years Day? This is blasphemous! Isn't anyone else out there angry or at the least disappointed by this? I can understand scheduling the national championship game a couple days later, but moving a half-dozen bowl games that have been played for decades on New Years Day is to me disrespectful and stupid. The only explanation I can find for this break from American tradition is that the NFL has games scheduled for New Years day. I'm also aware that January 1 is a Sunday, but New Years has fallen on a Sunday many times before and the bowl games didn't reschedule, because of tradition.
Last year featured some excellent football games on New Years day; it doesn't get much more exciting than the LSU-Iowa and Michigan-Texas games from last year. Compare that to this upcoming New Year where I and many others may have the painful experience of not only possibly welcoming in the new year with a hangover, but also turning on the TV and watching the Lions having to play the Steelers in Pittsburg in January.
For someone who prefers the college game over the professional and loves and respects the tradition of New Years bowl games, this comes as a slap in the face and I can't imagine their aren't others across the country who are similarly disappointed. The NCAA, NFL, and TV executives all managed to fumble this one. Now the best thing about New Years Day will have to wait until January 2.Rabbitfoot said:
posted on December 5, 2005 7:34 PM — 70.121.162.227 — link — abuse?
Please Vote - Iowa is beating UF Badly-----------
UF is getting killed in the latest poll. Please go cast your vote for the mighty Gators. Iowa is winning Iowa: 4626 Florida: 1599
Total: 6225 Results current through Dec 5, 7:48 PMwww.outbackbowl.com/
oecow said:
posted on December 5, 2005 9:58 PM — 71.80.8.206 — link — abuse?
As a Penn State fan I have to agree with Fan of the Game. I am very disappointed to see the Lions play an 8-4 team in FSU, rather than playing a team with at least a comparable record. I say screw FSU and bring on the Ducks
Aaron B! said:
posted on December 5, 2005 10:48 PM — 68.13.130.96 — link — abuse?
lol its amazing that Nebraska got into the alamo bowl! thats kickin butT! way to go Huskers! Wow its good for the voters that VT got knocked off by miami, it made the NC east for them! in future years in not ganna be so easy, thats y they NEEDD a playoff game bad! those would get more money then bowl games!
Gaylon Tiry said:
posted on December 6, 2005 1:28 AM — 69.44.196.181 — link — abuse?
Frankly, I believe it to be noteworthy that out of the 12 teams in the Big 12 75% of them will be represented in bowl games this year. Now if only they win some of those games perhaps it may show the other conferences that the Big 12 is still a very strong conference not only in basketball but in football as well.
JT said:
posted on December 6, 2005 3:04 AM — 63.228.165.18 — link — abuse?
Iowa State will get thumped by TCU. I wish TCU could get a shot at Oregon; Oklahoma couldn't even win at home on opening weekend.
On another note, it looks like the Hawkeyes get to disappoint Florida again. The last time that happened, Hawk fans immitated FSU fans.
IrishJT said:
posted on December 6, 2005 9:12 AM — 68.62.202.243 — link — abuse?
DuckFan101:
What is it with you Oregon fans? Oregon is better than Ohio State and Notre Dame? What would lead you to believe that? Notre Dame has a common opponent with Oregon...USC. Notre Dame lost to USC on the last (controversial) play of the game, a game in which USC showed up for and played hard. On the other hand, Oregon lost to USC but nearly five touchdowns.
Be bitter if you want to about the BCS formula. I agree that the top 8 teams oughta get a bid (Auburn is more deserving than most). But please spare us with Oregon's credentials. The PAC 10, if you subtract USC, is the weakest conference in college football. Oregon might have gone 6-5 in the Big 10 or SEC. I doubt very seriously you'd compete with West Virginia and FlaSt as well.
Go ahead and be upset with the BCS, be upset with the pollsters...but be honest. Oregon is just not a "real" top ten team.
Fan of the Game said:
posted on December 6, 2005 11:49 AM — 12.43.234.14 — link — abuse?
Thankyou JT, sarcasm was what I was shooting for. The real college football season is over for everyone but USC and Texas. The other games are only their for the bowl money. There are fifteen ways from sunday to rank the best teams in the country and its all a matter of opinion anyway. I do however agree with the majority of the polls that have Oregon ranked above Notre Dame. I think Notre Dame fans have no right criticizing other team's coonferences when the Irish don't even play in one. But then again, it isn't in Notre Dames best interest to join a conference. By not having to compete for a conference title, Notre Dame will always benefit from have a decent record over a conference runner-up with a better record. I have to give Notre Dame all the credit in the world for being intelligent enough to realize that the BCS is flawed and that tradition and fan base are as important as wins. The Irish use this to their full advantage and I don't blame them a bit. I mean, why bitch about a flawed system if it always benefits you,right? Allthough, I don't think Notre Dame's football team is as good as Oregons. The University itself has proven to be wiser than most.
Twanathon said:
posted on December 6, 2005 3:43 PM — 67.166.86.93 — link — abuse?
To JTIrish the big duck hater. I agree with you that notre dame and Ohio State are great football teams but you got to agree with fan of the game. Notre Dame doesn't want to play in a conference because they will not make bowl games as often. On top of that what a game the Irsih put up agianst Stanford who is a mediocre Pac 10 team. The Irish got a little luck agianst a terrible team. I your going to talk about how great notre dame is, why don't you talk about Fresno State who gave USC a great game. Why is notre dame in the fiesta bowl, because we are forced to watch them weekly on NBC. Where is Michigan State at right now. Oh yeah Notre Dame is the only team in the Top 10 that has lost to an unheralded and unranked Michigan State team.
Tommie Trojan said:
posted on December 6, 2005 7:44 PM — 208.57.130.196 — link — abuse?
Not taking any sides here, as a USC follower, I like Notre Dame and Oregon equally. But, I find it interesting that the BCS computer ranks Texas #1 with USC #2. I'm not gonna complain about that. But, it is interesting that Oregon is #5 and Notre Dame is tied for 10th along with LSU. The computer says that Oregon is also better than Virginia Tech, Miami, Georgia and West Virginia before it ever gets to Notre Dame. Even better than Auburn. Heck, Florida State does not even make it into the computers top 25. Yet, there stands Oregon ranking higher than all these teams "according to the computer". And, according to the "human polls": Oregon and Notre Dame are split between the 5th and 6th rankings. Looks like everything points toward Oregon being a pretty good team.
Now, I live and breath the Trojans. Let me tell ya something about that team. They don't always play well. But, they always win. I'll say it again: they don't always play well. Now, when they do play well - you have no chance! Many teams have seen USC play well. Oklahoma, Arkansas, Oregon and UCLA have all had to play USC on a good day - and they all got blown out. I'm not going to try and say that Notre Dame didn't have any effect on the outcome of the game - but, USC did not play well in South Bend that day. Notre Dame did control the clock and kept moving the ball. USC did not play well against Fresno State either. And, they did not play well against Arizona State. Notre Dame did not play well against Stanford and still came away with the win. The point is, against Stanford and Michigan State, Notre Dame played as poorly as they can play. Oregon played their worst game against USC and got blown out (they actually took a 13-0 lead - but so have so many others) by a very good team. But, all I ever hear about is how could Oregon have lost by 32 to USC? Easy - anybody could. Just depends on what day it is. A pretty good Oklahoma club got hammered by 36. I really don't think Arkansas turned out so bad - yet got destroyed by 53. UCLA isn't that bad either - but just got mauled by 47 (and the BCS computer still has them at #14). So, just because you got beat by 32 to USC does not make you a "bad" team. In fact, it is possible that you might even be the second best team in the country. Oklahoma was. Let's see how Texas stacks up. My prediction for the game is: USC 53 Texas 14.Tommie Trojan
Jay said:
posted on December 6, 2005 7:57 PM — 12.65.66.11 — link — abuse?
South Carolina got jipped. The have one of the most explosive quarterback/reciever setups in all of college football. Sydney Rice is two td's away from breaking the Alltime Freshman td catch record. They were down to the last minute with Georgia, beat Florida and Tennessee. The only bad loss was to Auburn. They are a much better team and deserved a much better opponent than Missouri (6-5). Thanks to Georgia for beating LSU and for Vick chocking to Florida state "Cost us the Outback or Peach". Look out next year as the sleeping giant awakens.
Regan said:
posted on December 7, 2005 3:26 PM — 64.12.116.139 — link — abuse?
Mike (#20):
As has been said early and often, a playoff system would ruin the intensity of the Regular Season games, which is what makes College Football special. I like PSU, but if you think the Lions got screwed, have a chat with a Duck fan. Having an 8-4 FSU team in the BCS is bad enough, there is no reason to risk having a 2-Loss team claiming a National Championship by putting in a playoff, especially when the #1 vs. #2 system actually worked this year.Regan said:
posted on December 7, 2005 3:30 PM — 64.12.116.139 — link — abuse?
Jay (#23):
A 7-4 team should go to the Independence Bowl, not the Peach or Outback, IMHO. On a note more consistent with my Palmetto State roots, Clemson owns Carolina, no matter how explosive your one WR is. Whohahaha....:-)
Dan said:
posted on December 7, 2005 7:19 PM — 66.71.73.139 — link — abuse?
On the contrary, Tommie Trojan, I think the unifying theme between the Fresno State and Notre Dame games was that USC's opponent didn't play scared. Both of those teams played hard, and both gave USC a game. Actually, if a flag had been thrown when it should have, you would have lost to Notre Dame (and I'm not whining for Notre Dame - as a lifelong Penn State fan, I can't stand Notre Dame).
Clearly, USC has the best resume and a lot of star-power. That doesn't make them the best team in the country, though, and Texas might just be better. Certainly, Texas is a more complete team - ranked in the top ten in both offense AND DEFENSE. Watch out for Texas: like ND and Fresno, they won't come out scared. The difference is that they might just also be better than your Trojans.
As for Penn State, we have nothing to complain about. We've had a hell of a year, and it's been a lot of fun after coming off of the two worst years in the JoPa era (that's 40 years). Yes, I would like to see Penn State play a better team than FSU, but that's how the rules work. It would be nice if the automatic bids were thrown out, and Penn State had a chance to play Oregon or Auburn.
We are... Penn State.
Fan of the Game said:
posted on December 7, 2005 9:29 PM — 24.243.124.254 — link — abuse?
Regan..... In response to your post concerning a playoff system: I fail to see how a playoff system would ruin the intensity of college football regular season. Every game is a regular season game, with the exception of conference championships and bowl games. Even with the BCS National championship game it pairs a "hypothetical" #1 and #2 against one another. How could a "hypothetical" matchup be better than teams competing for a championship? Here is an example for you: A team ranked in the Pre-season top 5, but playing without some key starters because of injury looses 2 games early in the season, and slips in the polls. The team finishes the season without another loss, beating 3 top 10 opponents along the way. Now there could be a strong argument that this team may be the best in the country now that they're healthy. Unfortunately, even if they are the best, the BCS system has them ranked #3 and leaves them out of the National Championship game. You consider this a good way to find a National Champion? Consider the NFL last year. If rankings decided the Superbowl matchup after the regular season, then Philadelphia would have played Pittsburgh for the championship. The eventual champion Patriots wouldn't have had a chance to compete in the Superbowl. If anything, a playoff season would make the regular season more intense. Teams wouldn't have to fold their tents after suffering a loss and realizing they have almost no chance of playing for the National Championship. For some moronic reason you identify the corporate sponsorship and money involved with the bowl games as the reason for making college football "special". I assume that you also equate your fantasy football league championship to the actual Superbowl. The BCS system is doing the same thing...playing fantasy football with real teams. Football is a tough, hard-nosed sport. Why should it be settled by a popularity vote of a corrupt system that has made it more than evident that nothing matters more than the money to be made, not even finding a true champion. College football used to be special....before it became marketable to the extent of corruption and favoritism.
IrishJT said:
posted on December 8, 2005 9:13 AM — 68.62.202.243 — link — abuse?
Folks,
I agree that Notre Dame doesn't play in a conference because of financial considerations. Most programs would do just as ND does, but they cannot AFFORD to...period. How would Oregon survive without PAC 10 bowl dollars every year? They make more money off of their annual loss to USC than they do from Holiday Bowl. A score of other schools couldn't do it either. There are only a few teams, year in-year out, that folks want to see play. USC, the "Floridas", Michigan, Ohio State, Texas, a handful of SEC schools...and yes, Notre Dame. The other 200+ teams need conferences to recruit and pay for their programs.So let's be honest. It is all about scheduling, not whether you play in a conference. And with that said, traditionally the Irish play one of the toughest schedules in the nation. We don't schedule Montana or La-Monroe or Central Florida or Tulsa or Central Michigan. Those teams are weak EVERY SINGLE YEAR. Is Syracuse? Navy? Stanford? No.
Oregon fans...you better start focusing in on Oklahoma. They're likely to be your third loss.
Mayor said:
posted on December 9, 2005 1:27 PM — 24.23.202.200 — link — abuse?
oecow: Oregon Fans would love another chance to play Penn State. At the 1996 Rose Bowl we had a great time and you're fans showed a ton of class even though they would have preferred playing Nebraska. The game was great (14-14) until the end of the 3rd quarter when your K Carter went up the middle for 80 yards...oops, game over. Hopefully we will be prepared for Oklahoma in the Holiday Bowl, we're looking forward to a great game and a good time in San Diego.
Irish JT: How convenient that you use the USC game as a litmus test for comparing your beloved Irish against the Ducks. How'd you guys do against Stanford? Both the Ducks and the Irish played them in Palo Alto. We beat them by 24 points whereas the Irish had to rally in the last 1:49 to win by 7 (thanks Cardinal). I actually think Notre Dame has a great team this year and enjoyed watching your games against USC and Stanford. I even met some of the true ND fans while they were out here in California for the Stanford game. They were very knowledgeable about college football and had great respect for the Pac-10. These were actual alumni of the university and current students at Notre Dame that travel to all of the games.
Unlike you, they remebered all too well the last two Bowl Games against a team from the state of Oregon, the Beavers from Oregon State. The Irish lost 41-9 (2000 Fiesta Bowl) and then 38-21(2004 Insight Bowl). Since the OSU shelling, the Irish are a successful 8-6 against Pac 10 teams, so I wouldn't say you actually "own" us. Your continued trash talking about the Pac 10 is boorish when you forget your teams recent bowl history.
Fan of the game: I totally agree with your last blog about the state of college football. Going to the 1996 Rose Bowl was so special for the Ducks after a drought of how many years... I don't know, close to forever. To me, the Post BCS Rose Bowl sponsored by (your company name here) is losing it's Grand Daddy luster. Why some people demand that we crown a National Champion is beyond me. It's a game played by Student Atheletes for crying out loud. I can't help but feel we have have lost sight of that.
Todd: You are spot on...no Bowl Games on January 1st??? That is a true crime against nature. I'll be on the golf course wearing a black arm band and sporting a 3 alarm hangover.
Fan of the Game said:
posted on December 9, 2005 3:50 PM — 12.43.234.14 — link — abuse?
JT....based on your posts, it doesn't appear as though honesty is what you really want. It was not your schedule that got you into the BCS game, it was Notre Dames legacy. Your strength of schedule as accepted by the BCS is ranked below that of Oregon's. In fact, what you believe is a tough Notre Dame schedule, tuened out to be quite the opposite. I know, I know, we keep hearing the Irish fans say they're not responsible for the teams on your schedule flopping this season, and I agree. The Irish aren't responsible for their opponents successes..so we can safetly assume that scheduling is not the reason Notre Dame is in the BCS. The BCS was started by representatives from the 6 major conferences and thus it is easy to see why they have automatic invites for certain conference champions. The BCS bowls are the big money bowls and the 6 big conferences are insuring themselves of being represented in these bowls with automatic bids. Now, getting into a BCS game is assured by the format for the 6 major conferences, but the BCS needs to ensure itself that these games are going to make the most money. They do that by inviting the teams capable of drawing the biggest audiences and are close enough in the polls to make for intiguing matchups. The BCS is the first to admit that they try to match up #1 against #2 and not #3 vs #4, #5 vs #6 and #7 vs #8. Once they have their #1 and #2 teams in the Championship game, the other BCS bowls are all about the money. Notre Dame is great program but the only reason they are in a BCS game is because they can draw more money than Oregon (or so the BCS selection committee assumes). Not because the BCS thinks Notre Dame is better than Oregon. I believe the BCS rankings show who they believe is the better team. The 2 most important advantages Notre Dame has over most of the other schools are (1) ND's reputation as a Football Legacy and (2) ND isn't in a conference and therefore will benefit in the rankings with a less than perfect record. Those are the facts. Irish fans may use their schedule to defend their teams ranking and that is all fine, in fact most fans will defend their teams in much the same manner, but the BCS could care less as long as you have a good record and keep bringing in the money.
The Lama said:
posted on December 9, 2005 6:20 PM — 71.1.202.66 — link — abuse?
Oregon, please if you don't like your bowl give it up and let someone else have it. Irish, no one wants to see USC and Texas on normal years. Southern cal will be forgotten in a couple years and texas will go back to being o.k.
Go Bulls beat N.C. State! Amato is a jackass!
IrishJT said:
posted on December 10, 2005 10:33 AM — 68.62.202.243 — link — abuse?
Fan of the Game:
While I appreciate your comments, I do still believe that Notre Dame gets its reputation as what you refer to as a "football legacy" because it schedules perennial powerhouses. Oregon cannot boast doing this...at all.
...and by the way, the BCS was created by the 6 conferences AND Notre Dame. It was designed to exclude teams in the Top 12 that were not conference champs. It was never designed to have the top 8 teams play each other in the bowls. If it were, there would be no reason for the at-large or automatic bids. IT IS ABOUT $$$$$$.
Matt said:
posted on December 10, 2005 5:31 PM — 129.59.27.92 — link — abuse?
In response to the fact that there are no games playing on New Years Day:
Yes, I am dissapointed that this is the case. However, there is a clause in the NFL's trust exemption with the US Goverment that prevents them from playing any NFL games within 75 miles of a college or high school game on the same day. So it was not up to the TV execs or anyone else, it was necessary because of US law. In order for games to happen on New Years, they would have caused the NFL to cancel its games, which would have been just stupid. Granted, its a tradition, but its actually for the benefit of college games. The fact is that more people are willing to spend more time and money on NFL games and if they held them on the same day, college football would suffer. Hope that serves as some explanation.John Kentzel said:
posted on December 11, 2005 11:05 PM — 70.187.57.62 — link — abuse?
How does the bowl selection committee send LSU to a lower tier bowl when Alabama, Auburn, and Florida, all teams that LSU beat, go to bigger and better bowl games. And I don't want to hear about the Auburn kicker missing five field goals, LSU missed three or four in that game too if my memory is correct...geaux Tigers!
Regan said:
posted on December 12, 2005 2:53 PM — 64.12.116.139 — link — abuse?
Fan of the Game (#27):
As far as the 'hypothetical' teams matching up, I am in favor of a 'plus-one' system contingent on the need for it during years when three teams have legit claims to be in the NC game (such as '98, 00, '01, '03, '04). In years like this one, it works out just fine.
The example you used could be somewhat illustrated in Colorado '01. Pre-Season rank means nothing (ie: Tennessee '05, Alabama '00). I'm not sure about injuries, but all the other criteria are there. In said example, there is no way to claim that Colorado deserved a NC berth more than other BCS conference champions with only one loss. Any such claims would be purely subjective and, thus, biased as every team claimed whatever rules applied to their being the deserving teams...
I understand where you are coming from about saying there could be an argument that they are currenly the best team at the end of the season, but that really isn't the criteria of a National Champion. There will ALWAYS be doubts, even in a playoff.
This isn't meant to be (too) sarcastic, but here is the only way to have a 100% accurate National Champion:
- Every team plays every other team. 118 games. Everyone plays head-to-head - No more strength of schedule whining by anyone.
- Every game must take place in Neutral Sites so no outside factors interfere with the game. This also means either no fans in the stadiums, or an absolute 50-50 division of tickets enforced by law.
- Every Neutral Site must be in an indoor arena so that weather does not give a team an unfair advantage.
- So that teams can play each other in the fairest way possible, every player on each team will be cloned in order to make sure injuries don't interfere in the fair and measured outcome.As far as the Regular Season goes, I will simply illustrate this year's Florida State. They clinched the ACC Atlantic berth early on, and had absolutely no reason to play until that game. Winning out meant a BCS game. They got blown out by Clemson and Florida and woke up to play VT. If the ACC Champion was figured by records like it was last year, Miami would be ACC Champ.
Settling games on the field is NOT a perfect solution for finding the best team due to the fact that FLUKES do happen (Michigan State beating Ohio State, 1998, etc)
College Football's Regular Season -
- 0 Losses: you're in (ignoring last year; which is why I like a 'plus-one')
- 1 Loss: you can still make it, but you leave your destiny to other teams
- 2 Losses: Out of the NC race.If Florida State could win the National Championship with 4 losses in an 8-Team playoff, you cannot tell me the Regular Season would matter.
Matt Hayes summed it up even better:
http://www.sportingnews.com/experts/matt-hayes/20050214.html
Enjoy!
Fan of the Game said:
posted on December 13, 2005 11:25 AM — 12.43.234.14 — link — abuse?
Regan (#38)
Because the BCS has worked 3 times in 8 years isn't cause to add a plus 1 format only when its needed. It needs to change permanently. The system is extremely flawed. And I have to disagree with your assumption that a team has to have a perfect record or almost perfect record to win the NC. In a playoff format, if a 4 loss team is able to knock off it's opponents in the playoff and win the title game, then they are National Champions. Despite the 4 losses they have proved themselves worthy via the playoff format. Thats why the seasons that no team goes undefeated are so important. They prove that no team is invincible and that anyone could win or lose on a given day. These teams cant be ranked based only on their number of losses. On way too many occasions, a 4-loss team has proven to be better than teams with fewer losses on their record. Allthough I can appreciate your passion for the hypothetical format, I believe that most fans would rather see a playoff format be instituted on a permanent basis and not only when the BCS system doesn't work (which to this point has been most of the time).
JT_ I'm assuming your post was in agreement with my post about ND since you reitterated everything I said in my post. It's not about the better team its about the money.
Regan said:
posted on December 13, 2005 7:51 PM — 64.12.116.139 — link — abuse?
Fan of the Game (#40):
A ‘Plus One’ Format (BCS #2/#3 winner vs. BCS #1) contingent on whether it is needed per year would have corrected the BCS issues during each of those five years:
1998 – Ohio State/Florida State winner vs. Tennessee
2000 – Miami/Florida State winner vs. Oklahoma
2001 – Oregon/Nebraska winner vs. Miami
2003 – Southern California/Oklahoma winner vs. LSU
2004 – Auburn/Oklahoma winner vs. Southern CaliforniaAs far as the BCS being flawed outside this, please explain how it is flawed – it uses human polls for 2/3 of its ratings, and 1/3 to computer polls to make up ground for when human polls make errors for the sake of bias. If the BCS is supposed to line up the best two teams for a national championship title game, a ‘Plus-One’ system is an easy fix to make sure this happens within the framework we now enjoy.
As far as your opinion that a team with more than 2 losses should have a chance to claim a national championship over teams with one loss, we will have to agree to disagree. This will make Regular Season games mean so much less. In NCAA Basketball, it is called March Madness because that’s when people start paying attention to it – a full four month after the Regular Season begins…
I’m all for the ‘Rudy’ teams that can line up against powerhouses any given day and be the giantkillers, but National Championships are not based on what any one team can do on any one day – they never have and never will. It is whether or not a team has the special formula to go in week in and week out and prove they are the best team by the end of the season. Case in point – this year. If Florida State somehow beat Penn State and two more teams in a playoff and then laid claim to a NC with a 11-4 record, how could you explain to a potential 10-2 Miami or 11-1 Oregon team they are second fiddle? Agree to disagree…and trust me when I say most fans would not be with you on this one…
I have already demonstrated the only way a National Championship could be free of controversy and it is safe to say that it is not worth it just to figure out who is #1 when it is rarely if ever the one team they follow to begin with.
Buckeye Fan said:
posted on December 13, 2005 11:18 PM — 70.119.253.249 — link — abuse?
Wow, I find it amazing that an Oregon fan that is so upset actually can come forward and say that an Oregon team is better then Notre Dame and Ohio State. Lets be serious. First of all I understand your only loss was to USC, but it wasn't a loss it was a masacre. It showed just how worthy the Ducks really are. Secondly Oregon is in one of the weaker conferences in college football. If you subtract USC from that conference it's not much of a conference at all.
Ohio State lost to the number 2 and 3 teams in the BCS by a combined 10 points. And if Tressel had stuck with Troy Smith the entire game I believe the Buckeyes would have won. Yea, I said it they would have beaten Texas. Notre Dame had the game won against USC but Leinhart showed why he won the Heisman last year by fitting a ball in the smallest window ever on 4th and 9 and eventually winning his club the ball game.
Also the BCS is going to pick a game people want to see. Nobody wants to see Ohio State absolutely destroy Oregon people want to see two great schools with great tradition in a matchup that is almost as anticipated as the USC vs. Texas matchup. So hold your breath and be realistic. Oregon had a great season vs. Mediocre teams and is in a bowl game that they deserve. Ohio State, Notre Dame, and Oregon. One of those teams doesn't belong. Take a wild guess as to which one it is.
Fan of the Game said:
posted on December 14, 2005 11:54 AM — 12.43.234.14 — link — abuse?
Regan (#41)
You pretty muched explained to yourself why the BCS is flawed. First of all the human polls are inherantly biased. Look at how some of the coaches voted in the polls. Are you the only one in the country that believes a popularity contest is a best way to find a National Champion? Rather than have teams compete on the playing field for the title, you would rather an outside voting process decide who the best teams are? Secondly, there is no plus 1 system, so the BCS is flawed to the point of only being accurate 3 times in 8 years, by your own admission. Thirdly, if a 4 loss team wins its way through the playoffs,knocking off higher ranked teams, then of course they deserve to be champions. Lastly, you have made several points that only prove the fact that you could care less who the better teams are you just want to see what you believe to be a good matchup. I have to wonder why you are so concerned with the regular season games losing importance (by having a playoff), when your posts seem to show only concern defending the BCS system. Personally, I believe fans want to see the best teams playing the best teams not good teams playing another team's history. Your infatuation with limiting coolege football to a handful of elite programs is ridiculous. Evidently you are blind to the fan polls taken on whether or not college football should have a playoff system. I don't think I can trust you on this one, seeing as how an overwhelming majority of fans would rather see some sort of playoff system over the BCS system that is in place now. You are may not be alone in opinions, but you are definately not a part of the majority. As far as keeping with the integrity of college football and its history.....the old system was based entirely on polls and didn't guarantee a #1 vs #2 matchup. Now this didn't guarantee us a true National Champion, but that's just the way it was. If anything, the BCS has disrupted the integrity of the game. I'm just a Fan of the Game, Regan, not just a fan of decent matchups.
Fan of the Game said:
posted on December 14, 2005 12:02 PM — 12.43.234.14 — link — abuse?
Regan---
By the way, the BCS computer rankings have no method for calculating rankings so as to account for human error or bias. I'm not sure who told you that was what the computer rankings did, but perhaps if you find a new source for your information you may find yoursel a bit enlightened. If the BCS system wasn't flawed, then why has the format for calculating the BCS rankings changed over and over again? It's like getting new tires and better gasoline to improve a cars performance, when the car doesn't have an engine anyway. No matter what you do to it, it aint going to work right.The Mayor said:
posted on December 15, 2005 12:23 AM — 24.23.202.200 — link — abuse?
To Buckeye Fan: (#42)
That's a lotta woulda, coulda shoulda! Fact is the Ducks only have 1 loss. Fact is ND vs OSU is the bigger TV draw nationally. That's it. No one can say who is better between the Ducks, Irish and Buckeyes at this point.
We'll never know the score of an OSU/UO game. It's easy to be cocky about an event that won't happen. Historically the Pac 10 blows during bowl season.. But the knowledgeable prognosticators have the weak and lame Pac 10 favored 5-0 over their bowl opponents, but that's just talk. Even as a Pac 10 fan, I wouldn't take all 5 Pac 10 teams this year or any year.
I love the Pac 10 haters claiming how weak the Pac 10 is in college football. What conference had the most All Americans this year?
After Jan 4th I hope that, if Oregon wins and OSU loses, you won't be one of those fans that will try to justify a 9-3 record being superior over an 11-1 record. If UO loses, then Duck fans, like me, will take our rating with quiet dignity and grace.
I was pulling for OSU as some of the ND bloggers were out of control. You're making it hard for this fan to root for the Buckeyes. Most fans of an OSU/ND Fiesta Bowl overate the TV draw on the West Coast, the game's just not that important on this side of the country without a West Coast Team or a National Championship.
Most importantly, the local bartenders that I know (and I know too many) rate the Vols, Beavers and Ducks as the best tippers since the BCS starting coming to Tempe. They claim that the Irish have deep pockets and short arms....
Regan said:
posted on December 15, 2005 3:11 AM — 205.188.116.199 — link — abuse?
Fan of the Game (#43):
>>You pretty muched explained to yourself why the BCS is flawed. First of all the human polls are inherantly biased. Look at how some of the coaches voted in the polls. Are you the only one in the country that believes a popularity contest is a best way to find a National Champion? Rather than have teams compete on the playing field for the title, you would rather an outside voting process decide who the best teams are?I never said the BCS was not flawed. I pointed out that a Playoff was flawed as well. Every March, there is controversy about that 65th team that was left out. The greatest team on any given day should not be a national champion. That honor should go to the best team week-in and week-out, unless you are in favor of “Weekly National Champions”. Just my opinion.
>>Secondly, there is no plus 1 system, so the BCS is flawed to the point of only being accurate 3 times in 8 years, by your own admission.For the ‘Plus-One”, I am very aware there is no such system in place currently. My point was that by using a “Plus-One” system contingent on need of a yearly basis, significant ground could be made in shoring up the flaws in the BCS without radically changing the entire landscape of College Football.
>>Thirdly, if a 4 loss team wins its way through the playoffs,knocking off higher ranked teams, then of course they deserve to be champions.Not when there are other teams with better records. Then, screaming about ‘strength of schedule’ starts up and we have chaos once more…
>>Lastly, you have made several points that only prove the fact that you could care less who the better teams are you just want to see what you believe to be a good matchup.Such as? Match-ups are not what the national championship game is all about. If you think I meant the best two teams should play for the national championship, then this is a correct statement. But there is no way on earth a playoff could guarantee this because of flukes and upsets.
>>I have to wonder why you are so concerned with the regular season games losing importance (by having a playoff), when your posts seem to show only concern defending the BCS system. Personally, I believe fans want to see the best teams playing the best teams not good teams playing another team's history. Your infatuation with limiting coolege football to a handful of elite programs is ridiculous. Evidently you are blind to the fan polls taken on whether or not college football should have a playoff system.Let’s please try to refrain from personal shots and swipes, as this is in no way accurate when it comes to how I feel about College Football. You don’t know me or how I feel about the game, so please don’t assume I am a corporate raider trying change the name of the Rose Bowl to the “EvilReganCorporation.com Bowl.
As far as having teams compete for the title, which teams would play who? How many times have ‘Giantkillers’ won the Basketball tourney? They end up being spoilers, like a Clemson team that could beat Miami one week and lose to Wake Forest the next. As I said earlier, we all love ‘Rudy’ teams, but honestly suggesting having an 8-4 team having more of a shot at a national championship over a 10-1 or 9-2 team because they won “the right games” is nothing short of advocating anarchy. It is chaotic enough as it is.
>>I don't think I can trust you on this one, seeing as how an overwhelming majority of fans would rather see some sort of playoff system over the BCS system that is in place now. You are may not be alone in opinions, but you are definately not a part of the majority.Point taken – just remember opinions are simply that. They are not facts. Personally, I am gratified to see a Southern California-Texas match-up that worked out well, and am happy that the system worked this year. Corso said it best when he pointed out all the great things that are ignored each year due to people complaining about the BCS. I would like to know what your opinion of a hypothetical ‘Plus-One’ system such as the one I discussed might work, though…
Regan said:
posted on December 15, 2005 3:19 AM — 205.188.116.199 — link — abuse?
Fan of the Game (#44):
My point about the computer polls is that they are there for the purpose of cancelling out the subjective nature and potential bias of the human polls. Whether they accomplish this task is arguable.
You do, however, have a good point in the fact that the system is tweaked each year and that is not a good sign. My arguments are basically that:
#1: A "Plus-One" system could end the problems stemming from the "Three teams - two spots" problem that came from the 5 years the BCS didn't do too well.
#2: A Playoff system would be as flawed as the BCS sytem when trying to crown a national champion, and would favor the "team of the moment". My argument is that such a system would render the Regular Season obsolete.
Let's just agree to disagree here. You won't change my mind and I'm not going to change yours.
Fan of the Game said:
posted on December 15, 2005 9:30 AM — 12.43.234.14 — link — abuse?
Regan (#45 & #46)
Please don't take this personally. I am in no way attacking you as a person. I think we can both agree the system is flawed. I assumed you were defending it when you posted, "As far as the BCS being flawed outside this, please explain how it is flawed – it uses human polls for 2/3 of its ratings, and 1/3 to computer polls to make up ground for when human polls make errors for the sake of bias."
And by the way, the 65th team in the NCAA B-Ball tourny can't argue. 63 teams are selected and 2 other teams play an elimiinator game for the final spot.( I guess the 66th ranked team could argue though). As far as the "Giant Killers" go, well if you lose to one of them then I guess you aren't the best team in the country and deserve to be sent home, regardless of your record. I'm begging to think you hate the idea of "Cinderella" teams. I have never heard of anyone thinking a regular season is obscelete when there is always a chance for making the playoffs. The regular season is already obscelete for about 50 to 60 of the Div. I schools. Because of the BCS system, they'll never have a chance to play for the NC even if they go 12-0 and win every game by 50 points. The BCS has segregated half of the Div. I football programs and I've never been a big fan of segregation, but I understand that there are still people put there who do. I've never met anyone who rooted for the big school in Hoosiers,but I imagine there are at least 3 or 4 of you out there. And you are correct in your assumption that we will just have to agree to disagree. --Food for thought- Army has a larger tradition than Ohio State or Notre Dame, why aren't they a BCS school? Even if they have an undefeated season, it is highly unlikely that they would get a BCS bowl. Again, please don't take this personal it is only a blog. AND YES, OH YES, I DO BELIEVE A "PLUS 1" SYSTEM WOULD BE BETTER THAN THE CURRENT SYSTEM. On that I think we actually agree. However, I still think a real playoff system is better, but would take a plus 1 format over the current one any day.Regan said:
posted on December 16, 2005 12:53 AM — 64.12.116.139 — link — abuse?
Fan of the Game (#47):
That’s cool, I feel the love :) I just wanted to make sure we were on the same page. I have found it really embarrassing when I make a mistake and go off on someone when they weren’t being rude, so now any time I get into a heated discussion I try to do the ‘deep breath’ thing instead of mouthing off like I used to. I can recall a really embarrassing post I made in response to “Pacman” a few months ago that I regret being such a jerk in. Anyhoo, back to the topics:
>>As far as the "Giant Killers" go, well if you lose to one of them then I guess you aren't the best team in the country and deserve to be sent home, regardless of your record. I'm begging to think you hate the idea of "Cinderella" teams. I have never heard of anyone thinking a regular season is obscelete when there is always a chance for making the playoffs.Well, it isn’t that I am against ‘Cinderella’ teams, it’s just that it means a lot more for a team to go week-in and week-out for 12 (or so) games than it does for one team to rise to one occasion on one day. If a ‘Cinderella’ team goes undefeated in the Regular Season, I say give them a shot at the NC. I guess my point was to emphasize that the criteria for which people define as “the best team” is more often than not simply the team that wins the right games at the right times. While you are correct in that the vast majority of the College Football community is probably in favor of a playoff, the percentage of people that could see a 4-loss team as a legit National Champ over a bunch of 1- or 2-loss teams is much smaller.
>>The regular season is already obscelete for about 50 to 60 of the Div. I schools.In terms of a National Championship alone, this is annoyingly difficult to argue against…good point.
>>Because of the BCS system, they'll never have a chance to play for the NC even if they go 12-0 and win every game by 50 points. The BCS has segregated half of the Div. I football programs and I've never been a big fan of segregation, but I understand that there are still people put there who do. I've never met anyone who rooted for the big school in Hoosiers,but I imagine there are at least 3 or 4 of you out there.I for one don’t understand why the ‘Coalition’ Teams do not have a greater chance to get into the BCS now that Strength of Schedule has been taken out of the equation. (I think they get more of a boost from the computers but are looked down on by the human polls.) We should probably wait until we see how the 5th BCS bowl works at the end of the ’06 Season to make a call on this, anyway. I will admit there are many teams that get screwed over. A Devil’s advocate would ask whether or not any ‘Coalition’ Team could ever win a true NC, considering only one current non-BCS school (BYU ’84) has won a NC since 1945, but who would want to tell them they shouldn’t get the chance?
>>And you are correct in your assumption that we will just have to agree to disagree. --Food for thought- Army has a larger tradition than Ohio State or Notre Dame, why aren't they a BCS school? Even if they have an undefeated season, it is highly unlikely that they would get a BCS bowl. Again, please don't take this personal it is only a blog. AND YES, OH YES, I DO BELIEVE A "PLUS 1" SYSTEM WOULD BE BETTER THAN THE CURRENT SYSTEM. On that I think we actually agree. However, I still think a real playoff system is better, but would take a plus 1 format over the current one any day.I get what you’re saying. I guess my big point was that there are a lot of us out there that do treasure the Bowls and the traditions and a Regular Season unmatched in sports for its intensity. A playoff system is usually the first thing people say when it comes to a College Football NC, and I don’t even see that as a “perfect system”. I think a “Plus-One” is the most feasible (likely) and it is the solution that would fix the ‘3-teams-2-slots’ problem with as little headache as possible. As far as Army goes, they just might get to a BCS Bowl if they went undefeated (Utah did it last year)…I think they have to if they are ranked high enough in the BCS.
Trust me, I’m not the grinch when it comes to the small teams; I’m just leery of too much tinkering with the framework of my favorite obsession :-)
PhilDawg#1 said:
posted on December 19, 2005 9:47 PM — 64.12.116.139 — link — abuse?
Anyone and i mean anyone who thinks that college football should a playoff is an idiot. We don't need 2 screw up college football with all kinds of stupid playoff games. I'm a "Bowl Fanatic" myself.
In addition, anyone who says that Oregon doesn't deserve 2 be in a BCS game is an idiot also. Oregon could ND, O State, WVU, and FSU down 2 the wire and win. I'm a Dawg fan myself and wouldn't mind if Oregon played Georgia, even though we know Georgia would win, it would be an exciting game, more than WVU will be.
Mark W. said:
posted on December 20, 2005 3:33 PM — 138.163.0.44 — link — abuse?
The BCS is good for one thing, and one thing only: to determine a number one. They're lucky that USC and Texas cooperated with that goal this year, but otherwise - and short of a playoff system - the BCS shall remain annoyingly flawed.
Jason said:
posted on December 21, 2005 6:07 PM — 24.73.234.9 — link — abuse?
Oecow, In response to your comments about FSU. They beat a very good Virginia Tech team to get to the bowl game. The ACC is the toughest conference next to the SEC. After you see a good healed Mickey Andrews defense you will give some respect, you pussy! Remember this number 34, you will probablly see it alot, or atleast your quaterback will.
ryan said:
posted on December 23, 2005 4:59 AM — 69.178.36.197 — link — abuse?
Everyone calm down. There is no need to hash out all the BCS arguments that anyone reading this sight has ranted about a thousand times before.
Its bowl season. The BCS are just 4 games. Lets give attention to some other teams. There are two great stories coming out of Florida. UCF, who lost every game last year, is going bowling. USF is going to its first bowl. Their entire program is less than ten years old. How about Nebraska's proud program finally starting to emerge from from their last few dismal years. I can't even remember a time when Houston did anything but lose and now they're in the postseason.
The big games can be epic, but don't forget to watch the young men that aren't on nat'l TV every saturday.
PAC-10 fan said:
posted on December 24, 2005 12:46 AM — 24.237.221.208 — link — abuse?
Re: whether Oregon should have gotten into a BCS bowl or not:
Since 2000, the conference with the best record in BCS bowl games is the PAC-10 at 6-1. The second best is the SEC at 5-1 (This according to ESPN Radio). If Oregon wants to stop getting screwed, they should stop scheduling cupcakes. But so far, the PAC-10 has done the best in the BCS -- Oregon should be in this year.Brett Fish said:
posted on December 26, 2005 3:00 PM — 205.188.116.199 — link — abuse?
Here's my novel that will go on sale next month:
Auburn will beat wisconsin by 20 like i just said, then have a great offseason, and start at least 7 or above in the preseason polls. Usc will suck next year, and lose to alabama in the sugar bowl. Auburn will have a slow start but quickly rebound to beat LSU. That will be the climax to our season. After we beat Georgia by 30 points, We'll win a close nailbiter to Bama. Notre Dame will suck as usual and still get into a BCS game by beating Washington, or another 4th quarter showdown to Stanford. Texas will have a good year and lose to us in the championship game by 10 points. Kenny Irons will sadly finish 2nd in the heisman voting to Vince Young. Oregon will finally get to a BCS game, but lose to a sucky big east team that for some reason gets a BCS bid. Auburn will finally get our national championship that USC stole from us in 2004. The BCS(Big 12 Championship Series) will finally get one right(this year they got lucky thanks to Michigan). WAR EAGLE 2006
IrishJT said:
posted on December 27, 2005 10:17 AM — 65.83.54.4 — link — abuse?
PhilDawg:
I guess I am an idiot then. Having gotten three advanced degrees and an undergraduate from Notre Dame, I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT OREGON DESERVED A BCS BID!!! There were no at-large bids this year. All bids were automatic. I think an idiot is better defined as someone who believes that his team should be in a BCS Bowl with an at-large bid over one of a number of teams who received automatic bids.
There are a lot of teams out there have already beaten FSU & West Virginia. I think it's great that you are a Ducks fan and believe your team would beat either. I disagree that you Oregon could hang with Notre Dame or Ohio State, primarily because I think Oregon to be a mediocre team who has played a series of "nobodys" this season and lost by 32 points to the only team they played. Conversely, Notre Dame lost to that very same team on the last play of the game and Ohio State lost to the #2 team in nation by a couple points in the closing minutes. I really think your boasting of Oregon towards the Fiesta Bowl participants is baseless. Maybe when Oklahoma runs the Duck defense into the dirt will you realize how weak the PAC 10 is and, more importantly, how overmatched Oregon is against real competition (Montana is not considered a perennial powerhouse, by the way!).
Go Sooners!!
Fan of the Game said:
posted on December 27, 2005 11:09 AM — 12.43.234.14 — link — abuse?
PhilDawg... It is evident that you are a Bowl Fanatic. And yes, a playoff system would definately screw up your love for the bowl games. I think its important that college football be concerned with your love for bowl games rather than letting a playoff system decide a National Champion. After all, college football should be about the fans,....all fans,...even the inbred IDIOTS from Georgia. It should never be about the teams themselves or the competition for championships. When I say inbred IDIOTS from Georgia, I don't mean all Georgia fans, just the ones known as PhilDawg.
BigSoonerFan said:
posted on December 27, 2005 2:17 PM — 24.253.232.168 — link — abuse?
Will guys, as most fans, everyone will root for there team. That is the way it should be, however, to say stupid things like Oregon should be in the BCS, is crazy. Don't get me wrong, as a sooner fan, I think Oregon, will beat Oklahoma, but it will be a good game. I just hope the Rose Bowl is not like last years OU vs USC game in the Orange Bowl. My gut tells me it will be a USC blow-out. Mack Brown is over due for a choke. Coming from a sooner fan, I would like to see Texas stop the USC winning streak and the win would be great for Texas and the Big 12. It is ok to cheer on your team, just don't make stupid statements!!!! GO BIG RED. Boomer Sooner.!!
AllEers said:
posted on December 27, 2005 2:35 PM — 70.22.125.224 — link — abuse?
PhilDawg:
I am happy that you would choose to play Oregon over WVU. It tells me just how little you know about the team that is coming into your "dawghouse".
Just remember to bring your lil' doggy pooper scooper cause your about to meet a defense that is gonna knock the s%*t out of you.
The Mayor said:
posted on December 27, 2005 3:53 PM — 24.23.202.200 — link — abuse?
Irish JT #63
You are exacly right, there were no at large berths this year. We Ducks did not get screwed and most of us don't argue the point...we could have easily been 8-3, but through hard work, great coaching and good fortune, we are 10-1, despite losing our starting QB Oct 22nd.
Most Ducks are looking forward to the Holiday Bowl and Oklahoma. The University sold out of their 11,000 ticket allotment in less than 24 hours and then sold out an additional 4,000 soon after that.
I wish you would give up on your consistent knocking of Oregon and the Pac-10. The Irish were lucky to escape Stanford (scoring the winning touchdown with 55 seconds left), a team that the "hapless Ducks" beat handily (44-20)...you never mention your performance in Palo Alto in your blogs but you bring up the USC trashing of Oregon in Eugene as your litmus test for success against the Pac-10. Try being fair and not such a homer.
As I mentioned in an earlier writing, Notre Dame is a little better than .600 over the Pac-10 in the last 5 years and has lost by 49 points to the OSU Beavers in Bowl Games in 2000 and 2004 (two games that you also fail to mention in your blogs).
Notre Dame had a great year, but that doesn't mean that Notre Dame owns the Pac 10.
My 2006 Fiesta Bowl dream is for an Ohio State win in a 2-0 snorefest Jan 2nd...with terrible TV ratings. Fat chance, but it is my dream.
Also I am impressed with your scholastic credentials. I was glad to see I wasn't "matching wits" with a 12 year old from a Ft. Wayne middle school.
Best of luck to the Irish.
Gerald said:
posted on December 27, 2005 5:14 PM — 216.113.128.239 — link — abuse?
IrishJT:
Look, you guys took USC to the wire. Good deal. But so did Fresno. So did ASU. Heck, 3 - 8 Arizona was within a TD of USC until 5 minutes left in the game! Further, last year 4 - 7 Stanford was up like 28 - 0 on USC in the first half last year, 6 - 6 UCLA had the ball in USC's territory with a chance to win at the end of the game, and 7 - 5 Oregon State played USC to within double digits. So, in the scheme of things what does that really mean? Either it means that USC isn't that good, or that giving USC a tough game doesn't mean that much. Now we know that the former isn't true ... if it was you wouldn't talk so much about how you guys almost beat them ... so obviously it is the latter! ALMOST beating USC does not mean a thing! BEATING USC is what counts! And heck, even that ... the last team that beat USC finished 8 - 6 with losses to Colorado State, Utah, and 6 - 7 UCLA! So please. You didn't "outplay and almost beat" USC. You LOST. So talk about the teams that you did beat, OK?
You beat 7 - 4 Michigan. So what? So did 7 - 4 Minnesota. Did I mention that it was by only 7 points, required a goal line stand at the end, or that Michigan didn't have their best offensive player RB Leon Hart? Now when Michigan DID have Hart, they beat 10 - 1 Penn State! Hmmm ...
Who else did you beat? You beat Navy for the 40th time in a row (and you play Army next year!). And you also beat 6 - 6 BYU. You beat Pitt during their 0 - 4 start (their first win was against a I - AA team). You beat 2 - 9 Syracuse. You beat 2 - 9 Washington. You beat 5 - 6 Purdue during their 1 - 5 start. You beat 5 - 6 Stanford (barely). And you beat a 5 - 6 team that had lost most of their best players to injury and just fired its offensive coordinator.
Now I am willing to give ND the benefit of the doubt. After all, it isn't their fault that all those teams were terrible. Most of them were good when those games were scheduled. Heck, most of them were god last year! So, I would be willing to give ND a pass had they merely taken care of business and beaten all the teams that they had supposed to. BUT NO! They lost to 5 - 6 Michigan State! AT HOME!
So, er, no. ND does not deserve a BCS game. They are actually less deserving than Oregon, who at least beat all the teams that they were supposed to beat, and in addition defeated more bowl bound teams than did ND in Fresno, Houston, ASU, and Cal.
But they are clearly less deserving than Auburn and LSU. They may even be less deserving than Miami and even Virginia Tech. And even UCLA beat OU, Cal, and ASU ... far better teams than BYU and Navy. Even 7 - 4 Georgia Tech managed to beat two top 10 teams (Miami and Auburn, and both on the road!) and did not lose to a single losing team (losses to 10 - 2 Virginia Tech, 10 - 2 UGA, 6 - 5 UVA, 6 - 5 NCSU). Heck, all 11 of Georgia Tech's opponents were schools in BCS conferences!
Sorry. Not only do the Irish not belong, but Ohio State barely does. I will grant you that Ohio State's two losses are to teams with a combined record of 22 - 1, but their best victory was a scrape job over Michigan ... although unlike ND Leon Hart did actually play in that game.
Now actually, I do think that ND-Ohio State will garner record attendance and ratings, and unlike msot people it will be a great game. Why? ND's strength, the downfield passing game, is OU's weakness (downfield pass coverage). OU's strength, pressure with the front four, will be negated by ND's underrated offensive line and Quinn's ability to get rid of the football quickly. Ultimately, OSU will win because they can stop the run and ND cannot, and Troy Smith will drive ND's defense nuts. I say OSU 31, ND 27. It will be a ratings bonanza and a game that will be talked about for ages! But it will still be a game that never should have been played, and the result will the Irish's 12th bowl loss in a row.
jim said:
posted on December 27, 2005 7:59 PM — 66.57.21.86 — link — abuse?
PENN STATE did not get robbed. They were insulted. Win or lose to FSU, they still lose in any vote.
Play an 8-4 team???? with sooo many other deserving teams out there.
As a former player at PSU, I wash my hands of the system. HEY? Almost like 1994 when JOE got VOTED out of a National Championship, yet, Curt and the gang on ESPN's 2005 show chose the 1994 PSU team as the best Offensive team in the past 2 decades.I'll take the play offs - better to face the music than be insulted year in and year out.
TerryO said:
posted on December 27, 2005 9:42 PM — 68.65.252.74 — link — abuse?
I think you are all over doing it. We need a BCS champion like a wart on the nose, and a playoff system even less. Part of the fun of college football is spending the off season arguing about who could have, should have and would have except for.... I like seeing quality teams go head to head, but I also like seeing a game that has some inter-conference bragging rights attached to it. I grew up in the John McKay, Woody Hayes and Bo Schembeckler era when we used to wait all year to see which of their teams would come to the Rose Bowl to take on the Pac 10 Champ. The tension started building in October, and by mid December, the wolves were in full cry. Sorry, I know it sounds old fashion, but I sort of miss the days when the Big 10 would come to town every year. Sometimes they beat us, and sometimes they went home on their shields, but either way, it seemed like there was a lot more fun and a lot less bitching.
Duckman said:
posted on December 28, 2005 6:12 AM — 66.223.208.241 — link — abuse?
The Mayor is a bit more polite than myself. I would like to state that I find it highly unlikely that Irish JT hold a degree of any kind. I have never met anyone that highly educated that is that bias. Throughout a proper education students learn to be objective and come up with an educated guess based on all the evidence. None of IrishJT’s posts have that quality. The only evidence he has put forth in a lot of his posts is the USC game and your foundationless accusation of how weak the PAC-10 is. You ignore questions that have been asked and need to be answered in order to support your case. Hear are some of those questions;
You never mention the fact that Oregon and ND had two other common opponents being Washington and Stanford. Out of the three common opponents Oregon preformed better in two out of three games. Explain why.ND played teams whose average defensive ranking was 66th. Do you think that was a factor in how good their offence looked?
Please tell me the powerhouse teams that ND beat. You are always saying Oregon played a weak schedule but never talk about the tough teams that ND played. Please do not refer to BYU and NAVY as powerhouse teams.
I agree that in the extremely flawed system that we have in place ND gets into a bowl game over Oregon by an automatic bid. The problem is that you think that in a perfect system ND should still go over Oregon even though ND lost two games. One of those losses came to a 5-6 Mich. State team while playing them at home. Please justify.
A lot of people (Including myself) believe ND is over ranked not only this year but past years as well. In the past twelve years ND has made seven bowl games and lost all seven. Do you think that this shows a pattern of being over ranked and outmatched at the end of the season. Why or why not?
I have asked you questions like this in the past and you never answer them. Why?
In one your previous posts you warn us to be careful or OU will be our third loss. Just to clear up your facts Oregon only has one loss.
If ND is as superior to Oregon as you have stated then you should not have any problems giving objective answers that are supported by facts and not opinion. If you cant answer these questions then your argument is weak.
P.S.-Stop lying about your education.
P.P.S.-GO DUCKS!!!
PSUfannnn said:
posted on December 28, 2005 4:32 PM — 24.53.132.12 — link — abuse?
Jim,
I totally agree with you on the PSU-FSU comments. Penn State has nothing to play for in this game. After not playing for 6 weeks and with no real incentive, who knows the outcome? I happen to think that the Big Ten and SEC were the class of college football this year as far as conferences go. That's what makes rankings so tough. Texas and USC deserve to play for the championship, but I really wonder if they'd get through the Big Ten and SEC schedules unscathed. Penn State was one second from being undefeated and I believe they could compete with anyone in the country....they at least deserve a top ten opponent. Nothing against FSU or Bobby Bowden who perennially have great teams, but had a down year and finished strong....if the situation was reversed, I wouldn't think PSU should deserve a chance to beat them in a bowl eitherBrett Fish said:
posted on December 28, 2005 7:38 PM — 152.163.100.139 — link — abuse?
bama will beat tech. good defense cancels good offense, and shula will make shure that his o-line don't allow another 11-sack game like he did against auburn, so i think they should score at least 3 touchdowns in this game.
metz said:
posted on December 29, 2005 12:48 AM — 68.219.185.6 — link — abuse?
the bcs system is so messed up i still pissed off about the 2004 auburn tigers oklahoma got blown the fuck out and then everyone saw that auburn was the right team i dont see how an undeafted SEC team can not got to the national championship i blame ESPN for giving oklahoma and usc to much air time for everyone to see and no one got to see auburn and what ever happened to jason white the big heisman winner and o will he do it agian i dont know where he is do u he hasnt done shit just becuase auburn is not as big a football school as usc and oklahoma i belive that auburn would have beat oklahoma and went to overtime and won with usc
talkin bout Landon said:
posted on December 29, 2005 8:58 PM — 64.233.166.136 — link — abuse?
Does anyone else find ESPN's precorronation of USC, posing as Rosebowl coverage a bit overboard? I admit being a longhorn fan. Untill recently, I have been a skeptical one. Spending the week discussing whether any of the greatest teams in history could beat them is an absolute insult to Texas. Any former champion that was an offensive power house also fielding any kind of defense would have to be a favorite. Also, acting like USC did something phenominal on the field by winning the PAC10 is laughable. The PAC10 looks to me like the BIG12, except with bleached hair. If Fresno St. could have borrowed our defense for 5 minutes, there would be no discussion. USC may win, but they will have to do so facing a superior defense, superior special teams, and comparable offense. The experience and homefield advantage will help, but take it from a Dolphin fan, Pete can be beat. Texas' defense has senior, all american leadership on the line, at linebacker, and in the secondary. Only Vince can stop Vince.
zach said:
posted on December 29, 2005 10:47 PM — 68.119.237.127 — link — abuse?
you guys need to get a life and stop aruing with each other about the BCS system. this is the way they have done it for years, and its worked every time. ya'll are just upset because "ur team"prolly blows and didn't get a bowl game.my team did...but got beat.my team is colorado.they would have won if there qb didn't get hurt in the texas game(sorry game)i was there.by the way im 14 years old.
BigSoonerFan said:
posted on December 30, 2005 1:14 AM — 24.253.232.168 — link — abuse?
Sorry Duckman, my sooners pulled it off. Finally!! A bowl win, so two things are offical, Duck Season is over and they did not deserve to go to a BCS game. See you in Eugene next Sept. for yet another sooner vs. duck match up. Good luck in 2006! Oh, by the way, Oregon has some of the BIGGEST linemen I have ever seen. It's a wonder we did not have more injuries in the game. Well it was fun to watch and I really thought Oregon would have won.
Bleed Crimson said:
posted on December 30, 2005 2:52 PM — 65.4.30.159 — link — abuse?
I think the Pac-10 bowl record shows the true brute strength of their conference. Shame on us SEC fans for saying that the Pac-10 sucks the big one.
ASU-45
Rutgers-40 (ASU got lucky against the RUTGERS)Oregon-17 (the underrated Pac-10 god)
Oklahoma-24 (unranked)right now UCLA is getting raped by Northwestern and USC will get beat by Texas.
Pac-10 bowl record 2006
1-3THE PAC-10 SUCKS
Fanofthepac said:
posted on December 30, 2005 7:17 PM — 207.200.116.133 — link — abuse?
Looks like you're wrong again Bleed Crimson. UCLA finally woke up and prevented the raping while South Carolina fell asleep and got gang banged by a lousy Missouri team from the lousy Big 12. The SEC continues its season of embarrassment...
The SEC sucks
Brett Fish said:
posted on December 30, 2005 7:22 PM — 64.12.116.139 — link — abuse?
I agree with everything metz said except the part about taking USC to overtime. Auburn would have beat them by 2 or 3 touchdowns! our defense would have shut lienart and bush down, and there ain't no way that a team from the Crap-10 could shut down our offense last year! ESPN gives USC to much credit, even when USC made that 4th quarter comeback against national powerhouse STANFORD! Auburn will win the national championship next year.
The Mayor said:
posted on December 30, 2005 9:17 PM — 24.23.202.200 — link — abuse?
I just got back from our beating by The Sooner nation. It was a great game to be at, a Holiday Bowl record for attendance. Looks like those of you who thought we were over-rated were right. Not our best game but I'll take a 10-2 season and a trip to San Diego any year. Everyone is excited about the Sooners coming to Autzen next fall. If you're a Sooners fan, book your room now, there aren't very many decent hotels in town.
I am eating crow for dinner...I hope Bleed Crimson does not have to do the same next Monday afternoon. Lighten up bud, you might want to check your meds, I guess you missed the second half of the UCLA game, wasn't it 50-38 Bruins?
The Mayor said:
posted on December 30, 2005 10:51 PM — 24.23.202.200 — link — abuse?
Bleed Crimson,
By the way, you missed the fact that Cal beat BYU, UCLA and ASU both won. My Ducks gagged, but the Pac-10 is 3-1 at this point, not sure whioh games you've been watching.
Good luck against Tech or did you guys already win that one on your TV set?
Scrub said:
posted on December 31, 2005 5:52 AM — 69.248.103.67 — link — abuse?
Nice post Bleed Crimson. You're making Alabama fans and SEC fans look bad. UCLA beat Northwestern, dominating them in the 2nd half, and if you watched college football this year, you would have known that UCLA has the biggest come from behind reputation this year and it would have been foolish to post something like you did until waiting for the game to end. Also you apparently didn't know that Cal is also in the PAC-10 and they beat BYU, so the current PAC-10 bowl record is 3-1 (not 1-3) and USC and Texas still have a game to play.
IrishJT said:
posted on December 31, 2005 9:30 AM — 68.153.88.205 — link — abuse?
Duckfan and Mayor:
First, Mayor, I appreciate your comments and think that you may want to talk to your ally in Duckfan. He still believes that Ohio State and Notre Dame didn't deserve the slot over Oregon, despite their automatic bids. With that in mind, stop looking for comparisons between Oregon's schedule/opponents and Notre Dame's. It takes a special kind of arrogance for someone to any teams schedule weak, especially when there team began the season against D-II Montana!! What a joke?!
Duckfan: Please try to pay attention. Here are some stunning insights into your penetrating questions that have somehow gone unanswered in my attempt to run from the truth...
"You never mention the fact that Oregon and ND had two other common opponents being Washington and Stanford. Out of the three common opponents Oregon preformed better in two out of three games. Explain why." -- Against the three common opponents with Oregon, Notre Dame performed better overall...beating both teams that Oregon defeated and NOT LOSING BY 32 to the third (SC).
"ND played teams whose average defensive ranking was 66th. Do you think that was a factor in how good their offence looked?" -- No. I think having Heismann candidates and All Americans on their offense made them look good...not to mention they have a head coach whose offensive mind has won 4 Super Bowls. Let's not the facts get in the way of your ridiculous conspiracy theories. Also, and more importantly for you, offenSe is not spelled with a 'c.'
"Please tell me the powerhouse teams that ND beat." -- This is actually not a question, but I'll respond. Michigan, Purdue, Pitt, Michigan State, USC, Navy, BYU, Tennessee...all of these teams were ranked at some point in the season. Only BYU and Tn were not ranked when the Irish played them, but BYU won their bowl game last week and I doubt any team would want to play Tennessee 11 times a year and expect to be better than .500.
I can understand why Duckfans judge programs a year at a time because their programs have no actual endurance, but powerhouse teams are not made in a year. If they were, TCU would be a powerhouse. So would Texas Tech or Boise State. They are NOT powerhouses...not in the same breath as USC, Michigan, Auburn, Florida State, Texas and, yes, Notre Dame!
Win just one National Championship and maybe I'll change my mind. Hell...win the PAC 10 once and I'll think about it.
Finally, the BCS-screwed Ducks really looked good against an unranked Oklahoma team. Way to show up, fellas. The Ducks looked great!! Seriously, I can understand why the Ducks should have been in the Fiesta Bowl. It's all clear. I'm sure the folks at the Fiesta Bowl would have loved to see Oregon put up 14 points. What an offense???
Stick with Montana and Idaho. Oregon is a joke.
P.S. Duckfan -- Here is my C.V. WRT diplomas. Enjoy!
Notre Dame, B.A. '95
Seton Hall Law, J.D. '98 ...feel free to Google;
7 additional degrees from military institutions on Laws of War, the Geneva Convention & Military Justice.
Scrub said:
posted on December 31, 2005 10:39 AM — 165.251.12.36 — link — abuse?
IrishJT said: "Please tell me the powerhouse teams that ND beat." -- This is actually not a question, but I'll respond. Michigan, Purdue, Pitt, Michigan State, USC, Navy, BYU, Tennessee...all of these teams were ranked at some point in the season. Only BYU and Tn were not ranked when the Irish played them, but BYU won their bowl game last week.
I have total respect for Notre Dame, but darn IrishJT, your post couldn't have any more errors or exaggerations.
Fact: Notre Dame did NOT beat Michigan St and USC.
Fact: BYU lost its bowl game against Cal, not the other way around.
Fact: Of the teams you listed as being beat by Notre Dame (excluding Michigan St and USC), only Michigan and Navy having winning records (and only Navy won its bowl game)
bubba said:
posted on December 31, 2005 1:54 PM — 65.54.154.147 — link — abuse?
i have to post my anger about leaving games out on new year. i have always looked forward in watching the games on jan 1. what has happened to games on new years day. is it the fact it is on sunday and they don't want to step on the nfl's toes if someone knows just feel me in.
Mr. Buttons said:
posted on December 31, 2005 7:51 PM — 68.231.33.24 — link — abuse?
Irish JT,
Win a bowl game in the last five years then come talk to us.
in the last five years i remember off the top of my head Oregon beating #3 CU in a fiesta bowl to end up ranking #2 in the country not to mention beating a #12 Texas in a Holiday Bowl in 2000. Not to mention that in 1999 Oregon upset another #12 minnesota team in the sun bowl. I know there are more but im not the largest wealth of knowledge.
The ducks really do suck.
if only you could have competed with Oregon State either of the two times...then MAYBE youd have some valid testimony.
CheeseCamp said:
posted on January 1, 2006 12:50 PM — 24.159.164.139 — link — abuse?
Alot of complaints posted here, but there is some justice: Virginia Tech is where it should be...out of the picture. As usual, they are overated for most of the season and, then, fold like a cheap lawn chair. Can't win a big game, don't belong in the company of the old ACC teams, but do a good job of keeping the players out of jail.
IrishJT said:
posted on January 1, 2006 6:57 PM — 68.62.202.243 — link — abuse?
Mr. Buttons: I don't have a time machine, so I can't "win a bowl game in the last five years." However, if I did, I'd go back and watch Notre Dame's 11 National Championship performances live. I could travel all the way back to Columbus' big trip and still not find a National Championship performance out of either Oregon team.
Pac10 is a joke.
Mr. Buttons said:
posted on January 2, 2006 1:31 AM — 68.231.33.24 — link — abuse?
Irish,
to your comment that the Pac 10 is a joke.
Pac-10 national champions 1900-present (source NCAA.org)
Califiornia-1920, 1921, 1922, 1923, 1937
Stanford- 1926, 1940,
USC- 1928, 1929, 1931, 1932, 1933, 1939, 1974, 1976, 1978, 1979, 2002, 2003, 2004 (and possibly 2005)
UCLA - 1954
Washington- 1984, 1990, 1991
ASU*- 1970, 1972, 1975
WHile none of the schools have as many national championships as Notre Dame id hardly say the conferance is weak.
*(Also noted that the years the ASU won that ASU was not in the pac-10 when they won..but their tradtion carries over)
Regan said:
posted on January 2, 2006 5:06 PM — 152.163.100.139 — link — abuse?
Notre Dame (13=8+5 co-championships):
1919 (co) NCF
1924 CFRA, HAF, NCF
1929 CFRA, HAF, NCF
1930 (co) CFRA, HAF, NCF
1943 AP
1946 AP
1947 AP
1949 AP
1964 (co) AP, UPI, FWAA, NFF
1966 (co) AP, UPI, FWAA, NFF
1973 (co) AP, UPI, FWAA, NFF
1977 AP, UPI, FWAA, NFF
1988 AP, UPI, FWAA, NFF, USA/CNNSouthern California (9=6+3 co-championships):
1931 CFRA, HAF, NCF
1932 CFRA, HAF, NCF
1962 AP, FWAA, NFF, UPI
1967 AP, FWAA, NFF, UPI
1972 AP, FWAA, NFF, UPI
1974 (co) AP, FWAA, NFF, UPI
1978 (co) AP, FWAA, NFF, UPI
2003 (co) AP
2004 AP, BCSTrojan fans have a lot to be proud of, but are notorious for claiming everything under the sun in National Championships.
lone star Landon said:
posted on January 2, 2006 7:06 PM — 64.233.166.136 — link — abuse?
Remind me again, who did USC beat that should have Texas shakin in their boots? Oregon? Notre Dame? U fudge-PAC10 guys getting concerned yet? If not it's because mary jane is still jackin with your thinking. We played Ohio St 2nd game and made 3 redzone turn overs early. That game occures mid season and we even beat the Buckeyes by a land slide. USC better have more than the luck of the Irish.
Brett Fish said:
posted on January 2, 2006 7:15 PM — 152.163.100.139 — link — abuse?
had auburn played like they did against georgia and alabama, they'd have beat wisconsin by 2 touchdowns. their loss doesn't seem so bad now that ohio st. is waxing notre dame. i hope ohio st. comes out in the second half and rings up 21 more on the "great irish."
david1 said:
posted on January 2, 2006 10:16 PM — 68.65.252.74 — link — abuse?
P.S. Duckfan -- Here is my C.V. WRT diplomas. Enjoy!
Notre Dame, B.A. '95
Seton Hall Law, J.D. '98 ...feel free to Google;
7 additional degrees from military institutions on Laws of War, the Geneva Convention & Military Justice.Hmmmm. All that education and still an overbearing jerk.
blah said:
posted on January 3, 2006 12:06 AM — 66.138.197.138 — link — abuse?
Listen up
I am going to set it straight
Socal is going to get beat by double digits on Wed.
Pac 10 #2 team "Big" Oregon was defeated by a very sub par Oklahoma team. Oregon lost even with the "we deserve to be in the BCS attitude" coming into the game.
SC had a difficult time in the first half with oregon this year
Fresno State almost ended the trojans win streak this year, then were completely blown out the next week by LOUISIANA TECH on their home field. Then Fresno state lost in there bowl game to who? TULSA
The trojans had a tough time with Arizona state, who turned out to be a 6-5 team
Notre Dame just got beat by two touchdowns on a neutral field to ohio state.
Socal needed the illegal "Bush push" play to beat Notre dame. Texas beat Ohio state in the hardest place to play in college football.
The pac 10 is overrated this year, and the Big 12 is slightly underrated
The country is going to be suprised when "THE BIG GAME" this year turns out to be a double digit rout by the longhorns. The Pac 10 cant play defense, Socal has NEVER seen a defense like the longhorns defense, or a mobile quarterback in Young. The longhorns offense will TOY with Socal's defense, and Socal's offense will be stunned by the onslaught of the Texas defense.
The longhorns are going in with a big chip on their shoulders, with something to prove due to all of the SC hype.
Longhorns win by double digits
Tommy Trojan said:
posted on January 3, 2006 5:31 PM — 208.57.130.196 — link — abuse?
So far, idiot, the Pac-10 is 3-1 in their Bowl games and will most likely be 4-1. Just because a traditionally strong Oklahoma team does what they are supposed to do - doesn't make the Big-12 south good. Seems to me, that the great Texas Tech offense, totalled nothing against Alabama. And why is it that everytime some team beats some other team, the winning teams fan base, wants to claim that the other team was overrated? Wouldn't it be better to insist that your team played a great game against a good team? Why set your sights so low? How about Romar played a great game (better than Dixon and Leaf) and that Oklahoma may be primed to make it back up top next year? No matter how badly USC hammers Texas - I'm not gonna want to claim that Texas was overrated. I didn't claim Oklahoma was overrated last year - they were still a top five team (no doubt). I think that Oklahoma played a good game against a good Oregon team and came within one errant pass of losing the game. So, I wouldn't get too puffed up about claiming that the Big-12 is that great of a conference. Wait until Texas can beat USC before you start claiming some kind of superiority. And, furthermore, I can't even begin to explain how stupid this sounds coming from an Oklahoma fan who was beat down by a Pac-10 school last year 55-19 and thouroughly demolished by UCLA this year. You beat Oregon by three points after getting blown out in your previous two - and think that you can claim superiority? Incredibly stupid!
Tommie Trojan
Duckman said:
posted on January 3, 2006 6:46 PM — 66.223.208.241 — link — abuse?
You sooner fans must be walking on water. I am not a poor sport. I am happy that you all are happy and look forward to playing the Sooners in the future. I hope that this victory will not make you cocky. The Ducks lost because our quarter backs are young and did not play well. They consistently did not throw the ball to wide open receivers and lets not forget about the interception that won the game. That was a hell of a catch by a linebacker but if that ball would have been six inches higher then the ducks would have won. The fact remains that it was not and we lost. Next year we return most of our key players and they will be one year wiser. Dixon has lots of talent but is young and inexperienced. That will be different next year. The Sooners also play at Oregon next year. Do some research on Autzen Stadium. It is very loud and not a easy place to win at.
For those if you that say Oregon was overrated you are mistaken. Before losing to OU Oregon had earned their ranking. When the new polls come out they will drop some spots and be wear they deserve. The only team that that did not deserve their ranking was ND. Before IrishJT starts crying and posting, please note that I am tired am ripping apart everyone of you pathetic statements. If you are so educated then do some research before asking dumb questions like “How did Oregon perform better then ND in two out of three common opponents faced?“.
I also post as Uncle Jesse on the Blue Grey Sky Blog and every thing that I predicted came true. The one thing that I discovered is that most Irish fans seem to humble and except their loss with class. IrishJT should stop telling lies about his education because he is making all ND students and fans look bad. Everyone knows you are lying so cut it out.
P.S. I wish the Irish the best of luck in the future. I am not a Irish hater I am a IrishJT/BCS hater.
P.P.S. GO DUCKS!!!/good job Sooners!!!
Diggs the Mountie said:
posted on January 3, 2006 8:41 PM — 24.177.27.103 — link — abuse?
Oregon sure proved they didn't belong!! WVU proved they were underrated! OH how sweet it is to beat a Georgia team whom everyone seem to think would demolish a WVU team from the BIG EAST! Huge win for us, and most likely a top 5 finish, and start for the 2006-2007 season, i can't wait till next season!!!
portis said:
posted on January 3, 2006 8:58 PM — 24.3.33.178 — link — abuse?
The Beast is Officially Back. Sugar Bowl Champs after beating the boys from down in the SEC. It was great to see the stunned looked on all the JAWJA fans after Rich Rod pulled out the fake punt..................Let's go Mountaineers.
blah said:
posted on January 3, 2006 10:53 PM — 66.138.197.138 — link — abuse?
Pac 10 is 3-1:
Rutgers, BYU, and Northwestern.
Okay, I will give you the Northwestern win, Ucla beat a decent team. But the only other respectable bowl team the Pac 10 has played is Oklahoma (and calling OU a respectable bowl team this year is a stretch). Of course, the Pac 10s second best team lost. I wouldn't be too proud about those other two wins over Rutgers and BYU.
The Big 12 is 4-3
The three losses are:
Colorado to a ranked Clemson squad, and Colorado was under a brand new coach after the Big 12 Champ. massacre.Iowa State to 14th ranked TCU
Texas Tech 3 point loss to a top ranked defensive squad in Alabama. Alabama needed a last play field goal to win the game.
I suppose you can compare the Tech loss with the Oregon loss seeing as how both games came down to the wire. But can you really say that Oklahoma is comparable to Alabama? I think not.
Big 12 wins this year are:
Kansas blowout over Houston, I admit this is a gimmeNebraska over a ranked Michigan squad, good win
Oklahoma over Oregon, good win
and Missouri over South Carolina, decent win
I am sorry but I feel that the Pac 10 is overrated this year, and from the looks of it, the Big 12 might be slightly underrated. Too bad if you feel differently.
I suppose we should all just shut up and wait until the game is played on Wed. I do believe the Longhorns win a not so close game
The Mayor said:
posted on January 4, 2006 1:25 AM — 24.23.202.200 — link — abuse?
Diggs the Mountie
Read the post by Tommie Trojan (#112). It pains me to agee with a Trojan but he offered to buy me drinks next year in LA at the UO.USC game.
You can't have it both ways. You claim that the Ducks were over-rated, (which I have admited to in various blogs) but perhaps Georgia was also over-rated and you were lucky to get away with the win?
Or here's a scenario that I like best, maybe your EERS were under-rated and upset a great Georgia team (in Atlanta) and Oklahoma pulled off an upset of a very good Duck team?
The Mayor said:
posted on January 4, 2006 1:27 AM — 24.23.202.200 — link — abuse?
I posted this on another blog, but haven't heard anything back from our ND freiends?
"It's awful quiet out there. Where are all of the Notre Dame fans this morning?
Irish JT, Notre Dame 444, NDDon, Bob Sharer, Bill Rocklin, Irishman, locondfan11 and the rest...let's hear your thoughts on The Fiesta Bowl game?"
PSUfannnn said:
posted on January 4, 2006 1:40 AM — 24.53.132.12 — link — abuse?
PSU-FSU....wow, what a game. So much determination by both teams. lots of penalties and missed kicks etc....but that's because of the huge time gap between the regular season and bowl games. It's been over 6 weeks since PSU played. This wasn't the same Penn State team that finished the regular season....was a killer losing Tony Hunt because of his blocking ability, even though Austin Scott had a nice game filling in. Really hope Posluzny is ok?
Pimpdaddy said:
posted on January 4, 2006 7:50 AM — 71.69.85.33 — link — abuse?
Just doing a quick tally of who the best conference is after most of the bowls are over. It may be tough to decide who the best is however we all know who the worst is, the Pac 10 by a mile. Can you say overrated WOW.. I believe the ACC has the best bowl record and narrowly escaped last night with a loss. I guess it really shows how deep the ACC is when their 4 loss team loses in a toss up to a 10-1 Big 10 team. I think it definitly tarnishes USC's media hyped claim that they are a dynasty when the play in the worst conference year in and year out outmatching their conference and also while avoiding true contenders in the national championship game year in and year out sans this year. Shared national championships and playing in the worst conference is not USC's fault however, the media fueled hype has definitly blown their current place in history way out of proportion. Does anyone out their really think USC would be winning if they played in a legitamte conference like the ACC Big 10 SEC or Big East. Didn't think so..
Senor Pez said:
posted on January 4, 2006 10:30 AM — 63.162.183.2 — link — abuse?
One comment. Whoo. After your bold "20 point" predicition, I suppose you had to chime in with some sort of excuse for the sorry, uninspired, poorly-coached, arrogant performance at the Capital One Bowl.
had auburn played like they did against georgia and alabama, they'd have beat wisconsin by 2 touchdowns.
Except that they weren't playing Georgia or Alabama. They were playing Wisconsin. The stats and performance from the Georgia game and Alabama game don't matter when you're playing Wisconsin.
Auburn choked. Wisconsin dominated.
I could quote a basketful of stats that prove the above two points. But I'll just quote one: SCOREBOARD.
canes alum said:
posted on January 4, 2006 10:48 AM — 24.96.199.254 — link — abuse?
I love how almost every fan of the SEC is trying to make it should like assaulting another player with a weapon after the game is ok. College football fans shouldn't expect anything better from a conference that had fans throw an opposing schools fan off the upper deck of a stadium in the past. The college football world would be a lot better if the drunken inbred hillbillies running the SEC would start to place more security at the games until their fans and players learn how to control themselves.
BigSoonerFan said:
posted on January 4, 2006 7:21 PM — 24.253.232.168 — link — abuse?
Hey Duckman, I hope you did not take my message to you as being "cocky". I was being serious, about being lucky to have beaten the ducks. I really did not think Oklahoma would win. Really don't think they could have if your quarterback had not been injured. The one of two games I worry about next year are, first at Oregon and second the Texas game of course. Can't wait to see your campus, I keep being told not to get excited, that the stadium is very small, I guess a lot of them are compared to Owen stadium in Norman though. We have relatives in Eugene to stay with, so don't have to worry about a Hotel room thank goodness. Looking forward to seeing Eugene and good luck to you and the ducks in 06! Boomer Sooner!!
DOWN WITH ND said:
posted on January 4, 2006 8:05 PM — 71.115.15.123 — link — abuse?
what is it in the water of south bend that makes domer fans so damn oblivious to fact. how many teams "almost" beat usc this year??? if all a top ten bcs bid takes is ALMOST beating usc, and getting beat by the lesser of the two over rated teams in michigan, then that whole top 10 is way off. oh well, i guess that if my team hadn't one a bowl game in what is it, 12, 13 years, i'd be bitter too. but hey, you guys do have the "toughest schedule every year" hahahaha. why was it notre dame turned down nebraska's offer to make it a yearly game on their schedule after 2000 and 2001? oh yeah, kevin white wanted to take the program in a different direction.
http://onlineathens.com/images/091000/nebraska_notre_dame.jpg
GO BIG RED
Brett Fish said:
posted on January 4, 2006 10:39 PM — 64.12.116.139 — link — abuse?
you think that prediction was bold, look at post 62 and start reading after my sorry prediction on the capitol one bowl. Hopefully, after losing, we won't start so high in the polls like we would have had we won. When we started 6 in the polls in 2003, we were bigheaded the whole season thinking we were better than everybody that year. when we're supposed to stink, we do good(2004). After cox threw that interception, and kenny irons fumbled, i figured we were done. i was mad over the ballgame in my previous posts.
Scrub said:
posted on January 5, 2006 12:38 AM — 69.248.103.67 — link — abuse?
Well, my Trojans finally lost. It was going to happen sooner or later. Hats off to Texas, they played a good game and won with class. Congrats on your championship! :)
OK, I know a lot of people were waiting for USC to lose to say they were overrated and begin their classless taunting. Go ahead and lets get it over with. :(
Again, gratz on your win! FIGHT ON and HOOK 'EM!
sc whoa said:
posted on January 5, 2006 12:54 AM — 24.152.151.196 — link — abuse?
leinart blows it! I am an sc fan and have been disgusted with leinart's lack of awareness. Bush knows how to pay attention to the clock. Leinart's final college game ends with what? not a final second hail mary, but a throw away pass as time expires. Leinart YOU THREW THE GAME AWAY!
The Mayor said:
posted on January 5, 2006 1:05 AM — 24.23.202.200 — link — abuse?
PSUfannnnnn
I disagree with you on the quality of what I thought was a horribly played Boringe Bowl game.
I echo you feelings and certainly feel for Posluzny and hope he is ok. He's incredibly talented player.Great season for PSU, good luck in 2006.
The Mayor said:
posted on January 5, 2006 1:12 AM — 24.23.202.200 — link — abuse?
What a great College Football season and Bowl season (except for the Nokia commercials)...but now what? I hate the NFL, NBA, Major League Baseball and the NHL. College basketball bores me (I am from Oregon afterall, we won the first NCAA Tournament but that's when the NIT was the deal and haven't been in the final four in 66 years)...
I guess that leaves the PGA. Anyone have any other suggestions? Guess it's time to get a life.
Can't wait for September.
Duckman said:
posted on January 5, 2006 2:47 AM — 66.223.208.241 — link — abuse?
Sooner fan;
Please see fan blogs top 10 stadiums. Autzen is #6. Even my wife posted on that one. I respect your humility.
I would like to ask everyone a question. Why do you all say the PAC-10 is overrated. What evidence exists that would suggest that the PAC-10 has been dominated by any conference. There is a lot of evidence that suggests that the PAC-10 is a very good confrence. Now is your chance to back up statements like “PAC-10 Sucks” and “The PAC-10 is overrated” with facts and stats. I do not want to hear your opinion. An opinion that dose not have any facts to back it up makes you look foolish. I only want to hear facts. If the PAC-10 sucks and was overrated this should not be a hard task. Just to make sure everyone herd the question I will ask it again. What evidence exists that would suggest that any other conference has dominated the PAC-10.
Boomer Sooner Fan said:
posted on January 5, 2006 11:47 AM — 67.89.181.26 — link — abuse?
Sooners Winning steak of 47 games still the BEST!!! Thank you Longhorns! 35 years is a long time to wait, but they finally did it and the BIG 12 RULES!!!
Sooner fan first, Big 12 fan second!!!
That was a GREAT game, glad to see USC lose and to put the pride back in Texas and to put the pride back into one of the best conferences in the nation...THE BIG 12!!! Whoo Hoo!!!
See ya next year Texas in the Big D, should be a good one (as always!).
The Mayor said:
posted on January 5, 2006 2:00 PM — 24.23.202.200 — link — abuse?
Did Tommie Trojan and Irish JT run off together?
Dishing it out and but not taking it...very impressive. I can only hope that they'll own up and enjoy eating a little crow like I did on behalf of my Ducks. Perhaps they're having difficulty getting their blogs posted?
AP Poll came out today. I guess I saw a different PSU (#3) performances. I think Ohio State, LSU and WVU got jobbed on this one.
I am already practicing my BCS chant..."We're number 12, we're number 12."
blah said:
posted on January 6, 2006 12:46 AM — 66.138.197.138 — link — abuse?
Duckman,,,
You want evidence, look at # 117. Who did your Ducks beat this year????? Montana? Stanford? Fresno State???????
You can add the Rose bowl to that list as well. Congrats to the Trojans. Socal played a great game and is a great program. However Texas proved to be the more rounded, better teamI do still think that the Pac 10 is very overrated. No disrespect to the Trojans, but if SC played in the Big 10, SEC, or even ACC, they would not have gone undefeated. See my posts 117 and 108 above if you want proof.
WHERE IS TOMMY TROJAN!!!!!!
TalkinBoutLandon said:
posted on January 11, 2006 8:30 AM — 64.233.166.136 — link — abuse?
Whose That That Won't cop out when there's trojans all about? Vince! Damn right. It's like I told all you condraceptives, only Vince can stop Vince. I can make some allowance for the pac 10ers not seeing the many horns games. Espn, however, I'd liken to the sharp media crew at the Daily Planet not recognizing that the Clark Kent they saw every day was really Superman.
Please note that all comments are subject to the Fanblogs Comment Policy.
Fan of the Game said:
posted on December 5, 2005 9:54 AM — 12.43.234.14 — link — abuse?Thank God the BCS gives automatic bids to certain conference champions. I see no reason to allow a team like Oregon play in a BCS game, just because they are better than most of the teams in the BCS games. Hopefully congress will allow the BCS committee to keep making a mockery of college football.