Re: College Football - Bowl Discussion

[Guest]

The beginning of the end for the Nittany Lambs. Bring on the Oklahoma/Florida winner.

 

1 - 6 (after OSU loses to Texas) = another great bowl season by the most over rated football conference in the country.

 

PAC 10 is 5 - 0 in bowls. USC was robbed out of a championship game birth.

 

You know how you would have not been robbed. Beating an Oregon St. team that managed to score 3 points against Pitt.

 

Another year, another no championship for you. Soooooooooo sad.

 

Oregon State is a good, consistent program though. And they beat Pitt without the Rodgers brothers (Quizz Rodgers was Pac 10 player of the year). I don't see what's such an embarrassment about losing to them.

 

Well, Penn State beat Oregon State 45-14.

 

And USC beat Ohio State 35-3.

 

Citing the results of those two games means nothing because they cancel each other out.

 

I don't understand what cancels what out. But in quantifying singular losses for a national title contender, losing to a team that lost 45-14 to Penn State and 65-28 at home to Oregon has to considered a subpar loss. Oregon State is a quality team, sure. This string of posts is whether USC was "robbed" of playing in the title game. They weren't. They were less deserving than Florida, Oklahoma and Texas.

 

I agree that USC wasn't robbed of playing in the title game and that Florida/OU/Texas were probably more deserving. Just not because USC lost to Oregon State.

 

USC lost at Oregon State

Florida lost at home to Mississippi

Penn State lost at Iowa

Texas lost at Texas Tech.

 

The first team should have won all of these games, but they didn't. USC was less deserving not because of their loss but because the Pac-10 wasn't that good and the Big 12 and SEC were better so the other teams had more good wins than USC did.

[Derwood]

lol usc didn't win the national title what a joke program

 

If you're gonna cheat, you should get some results beyond a home game against either the 2nd place Big Ten team or the 1st place Big Ten team in a down year every single year.(That was a horribly structured sentence)

 

Iowa in 2002, Michigan in 2003 and 2006, Illinois in 2007, Ohio State in 2008, Penn State in 2008...

 

The poor Big 10 just is SOOO UNLUCKY that USC keeps catching them when they're down :roll:

 

You're grasping at straws.

 

That's what we call missing the point. USC plays a home game every years on January 1st because they're too undisciplined to try against teams they should beat the crap out of.

 

Their opponents in these games are 2nd place Big Ten teams if the Big Ten is good(becuase the 1st place team goes to the title game) or a 1st place Big Ten team when the conference is down.

 

There were a ton of Penn State fans at the Rose Bowl so it's not exactly a true home game.

 

Florida, Texas, USC and Penn State all lost to teams that they have more talent than and should have beaten and in each case but Texas, probably beaten handily. Every team has a letdown or two at some point in the year or a game where they play poorly. Sometimes they win, others they don't.

 

And even if USC is playing against the Big 10 in the Rose Bowl each year, they're still routing the first or second place Big 10 team every time they play them. It's still remarkable what they've been able to do.

 

It's a home game in that the USC players don't have to travel, can stay in their own dorms/apartments, hang out with their girlfriends during the week, whatever. It shouldn't be that big a deal but a "tie-in" game that requires one of the teams to have to travel 2000 miles every year....

[dew1679666265]

Just thought I'd contribute that USC cheerleaders are extremely awesome.

 

no doubt.

 

They've been the best part of this game sadly.

[Exile on Waveland]

lol usc didn't win the national title what a joke program

 

If you're gonna cheat, you should get some results beyond a home game against either the 2nd place Big Ten team or the 1st place Big Ten team in a down year every single year.(That was a horribly structured sentence)

 

Iowa in 2002, Michigan in 2003 and 2006, Illinois in 2007, Ohio State in 2008, Penn State in 2008...

 

The poor Big 10 just is SOOO UNLUCKY that USC keeps catching them when they're down :roll:

 

You're grasping at straws.

 

That's what we call missing the point. USC plays a home game every years on January 1st because they're too undisciplined to try against teams they should beat the crap out of.

 

Their opponents in these games are 2nd place Big Ten teams if the Big Ten is good(becuase the 1st place team goes to the title game) or a 1st place Big Ten team when the conference is down.

 

There were a ton of Penn State fans at the Rose Bowl so it's not exactly a true home game.

 

Florida, Texas, USC and Penn State all lost to teams that they have more talent than and should have beaten and in each case but Texas, probably beaten handily. Every team has a letdown or two at some point in the year or a game where they play poorly. Sometimes they win, others they don't.

 

And even if USC is playing against the Big 10 in the Rose Bowl each year, they're still routing the first or second place Big 10 team every time they play them. It's still remarkable what they've been able to do.

 

It's obviously a huge advantage for a team to play 11 miles from home compared to playing 2,560 miles from home. A true home game it may not be, but advantageous it certainly is.

 

No one is claiming that what USC has done isn't impressive or remarkable. No one is claiming they aren't better than every Big Ten team year-in and year-out. They're great. No doubt. They'd win the Big Ten every year. They also win the Pac 10 every year.

[SouthSideRyan]

head hunting goons.

[Derwood]

head hunting goons.

 

you can kill a dude doing that

[Guest]

lol usc didn't win the national title what a joke program

 

If you're gonna cheat, you should get some results beyond a home game against either the 2nd place Big Ten team or the 1st place Big Ten team in a down year every single year.(That was a horribly structured sentence)

 

Iowa in 2002, Michigan in 2003 and 2006, Illinois in 2007, Ohio State in 2008, Penn State in 2008...

 

The poor Big 10 just is SOOO UNLUCKY that USC keeps catching them when they're down :roll:

 

You're grasping at straws.

 

That's what we call missing the point. USC plays a home game every years on January 1st because they're too undisciplined to try against teams they should beat the crap out of.

 

Their opponents in these games are 2nd place Big Ten teams if the Big Ten is good(becuase the 1st place team goes to the title game) or a 1st place Big Ten team when the conference is down.

 

There were a ton of Penn State fans at the Rose Bowl so it's not exactly a true home game.

 

Florida, Texas, USC and Penn State all lost to teams that they have more talent than and should have beaten and in each case but Texas, probably beaten handily. Every team has a letdown or two at some point in the year or a game where they play poorly. Sometimes they win, others they don't.

 

And even if USC is playing against the Big 10 in the Rose Bowl each year, they're still routing the first or second place Big 10 team every time they play them. It's still remarkable what they've been able to do.

 

It's a home game in that the USC players don't have to travel, can stay in their own dorms/apartments, hang out with their girlfriends during the week, whatever. It shouldn't be that big a deal but a "tie-in" game that requires one of the teams to have to travel 2000 miles every year....

 

It's because nobody wants to travel to Pennsylvania/Illinois/Ohio/Michigan every year and play a game or watch a game in freezing temperatures with the potential for a snowstorm. These teams get to the games a few days early, usually on chartered planes and stay in nice hotels. It's not that big of a deal and it really shouldn't affect them all that much.

 

This isn't some high school team sitting in a cramped bus for an hour or two the day of to go play a game.

[dew1679666265]

head hunting goons.

 

That was a huge hit, but definitely very dirty.

[Exile on Waveland]

lol usc didn't win the national title what a joke program

 

If you're gonna cheat, you should get some results beyond a home game against either the 2nd place Big Ten team or the 1st place Big Ten team in a down year every single year.(That was a horribly structured sentence)

 

Iowa in 2002, Michigan in 2003 and 2006, Illinois in 2007, Ohio State in 2008, Penn State in 2008...

 

The poor Big 10 just is SOOO UNLUCKY that USC keeps catching them when they're down :roll:

 

You're grasping at straws.

 

That's what we call missing the point. USC plays a home game every years on January 1st because they're too undisciplined to try against teams they should beat the crap out of.

 

Their opponents in these games are 2nd place Big Ten teams if the Big Ten is good(becuase the 1st place team goes to the title game) or a 1st place Big Ten team when the conference is down.

 

There were a ton of Penn State fans at the Rose Bowl so it's not exactly a true home game.

 

Florida, Texas, USC and Penn State all lost to teams that they have more talent than and should have beaten and in each case but Texas, probably beaten handily. Every team has a letdown or two at some point in the year or a game where they play poorly. Sometimes they win, others they don't.

 

And even if USC is playing against the Big 10 in the Rose Bowl each year, they're still routing the first or second place Big 10 team every time they play them. It's still remarkable what they've been able to do.

 

It's a home game in that the USC players don't have to travel, can stay in their own dorms/apartments, hang out with their girlfriends during the week, whatever. It shouldn't be that big a deal but a "tie-in" game that requires one of the teams to have to travel 2000 miles every year....

 

It's because nobody wants to travel to Pennsylvania/Illinois/Ohio/Michigan every year and play a game or watch a game in freezing temperatures with the potential for a snowstorm. These teams get to the games a few days early, usually on chartered planes and stay in nice hotels. It's not that big of a deal and it really shouldn't affect them all that much.

 

This isn't some high school team sitting in a cramped bus for an hour or two the day of to go play a game.

 

Wait, it's cold in the Midwest? Wow. Everyone understands the reason why. A valid reason doesn't make the situation any less advantageous for USC.

[Derwood]

the alternative (playing in Big 10 country) isnt' fair either. but cold weather teams will always have a slight disadvantage like this. LSU playing OSU in Louisiana, etc., etc.

[Guest]

It's obviously a huge advantage for a team to play 11 miles from home compared to playing 2,560 miles from home. A true home game it may not be, but advantageous it certainly is.

 

No one is claiming that what USC has done isn't impressive or remarkable. No one is claiming they aren't better than every Big Ten team year-in and year-out. They're great. No doubt. They'd win the Big Ten every year. They also win the Pac 10 every year.

 

It certainly seems to me that's what SSR is implying when he says:

 

Their opponents in these games are 2nd place Big Ten teams if the Big Ten is good(becuase the 1st place team goes to the title game) or a 1st place Big Ten team when the conference is down.

[SouthSideRyan]

It's because nobody wants to travel to Pennsylvania/Illinois/Ohio/Michigan every year and play a game or watch a game in freezing temperatures with the potential for a snowstorm. These teams get to the games a few days early, usually on chartered planes and stay in nice hotels. It's not that big of a deal and it really shouldn't affect them all that much.

 

I don't think anybody expects bowls to be played in those cities. I think it's ridiculous that there are bowls in Detroit and Toronto. It's something to take note of though, and I think you're underselling the effect it has.

 

That said, I think it would kind of suck to be a USC player and never getting to travel for your bowl game. I think that would be really cool getting to travel cross-country and stay elsewhere as a celebrity for a week. Instead they play at home every year. And that's pretty much the only way it would suck to be a USC football player. That and you'd probably be a douchebag.

[Flames24Rulz]

It amazes me how USC isn't in the title game every year. With the defense that they have, it's ridiculous that they lost to Oregon State in the fashion that they did. I know that USC came back to only lose by a touchdown or so, but the final score didn't really indicate how bad USC really played.

[imb]

It's because nobody wants to travel to Pennsylvania/Illinois/Ohio/Michigan every year and play a game or watch a game in freezing temperatures with the potential for a snowstorm. These teams get to the games a few days early, usually on chartered planes and stay in nice hotels. It's not that big of a deal and it really shouldn't affect them all that much.

 

I don't think anybody expects bowls to be played in those cities. I think it's ridiculous that there are bowls in Detroit and Toronto. It's something to take note of though, and I think you're underselling the effect it has.

 

That said, I think it would kind of suck to be a USC player and never getting to travel for your bowl game. I think that would be really cool getting to travel cross-country and stay elsewhere as a celebrity for a week. Instead they play at home every year. And that's pretty much the only way it would suck to be a USC football player. That and you'd probably be a douchebag.

 

and if you're brian cushing, you have female breasts

[Exile on Waveland]

It's obviously a huge advantage for a team to play 11 miles from home compared to playing 2,560 miles from home. A true home game it may not be, but advantageous it certainly is.

 

No one is claiming that what USC has done isn't impressive or remarkable. No one is claiming they aren't better than every Big Ten team year-in and year-out. They're great. No doubt. They'd win the Big Ten every year. They also win the Pac 10 every year.

 

It certainly seems to me that's what SSR is implying when he says:

 

Their opponents in these games are 2nd place Big Ten teams if the Big Ten is good(becuase the 1st place team goes to the title game) or a 1st place Big Ten team when the conference is down.

 

Strong fan bases certainly have an adverse effect on the Big Ten in bowls. They get two BCS teams if at all possible, knocking every bowl team down a slot. The top Big Ten team would have a difficult enough time against USC in Pasadena. It's near impossible for the second best Big Ten team (as was the case the past two seasons).

[SouthSideRyan]

It's obviously a huge advantage for a team to play 11 miles from home compared to playing 2,560 miles from home. A true home game it may not be, but advantageous it certainly is.

 

No one is claiming that what USC has done isn't impressive or remarkable. No one is claiming they aren't better than every Big Ten team year-in and year-out. They're great. No doubt. They'd win the Big Ten every year. They also win the Pac 10 every year.

 

It certainly seems to me that's what SSR is implying when he says:

 

Their opponents in these games are 2nd place Big Ten teams if the Big Ten is good(becuase the 1st place team goes to the title game) or a 1st place Big Ten team when the conference is down.

 

I don't think it's impressive or remarkable what USC has done given the clear talent disparity between them and the rest of the NCAA. It's impressive that they get these kids to come there and ride the bench for 4 years when they could start for 75% of BCS programs.

[SpongeWorthy]

It's obviously a huge advantage for a team to play 11 miles from home compared to playing 2,560 miles from home. A true home game it may not be, but advantageous it certainly is.

 

No one is claiming that what USC has done isn't impressive or remarkable. No one is claiming they aren't better than every Big Ten team year-in and year-out. They're great. No doubt. They'd win the Big Ten every year. They also win the Pac 10 every year.

 

It certainly seems to me that's what SSR is implying when he says:

 

Their opponents in these games are 2nd place Big Ten teams if the Big Ten is good(becuase the 1st place team goes to the title game) or a 1st place Big Ten team when the conference is down.

 

Strong fan bases certainly have an adverse effect on the Big Ten in bowls. They get two BCS teams if at all possible, knocking every bowl team down a slot. The top Big Ten team would have a difficult enough time against USC in Pasadena. It's near impossible for the second best Big Ten team (as was the case the past two seasons).

 

I'll give you Illinois but you seem to be forgetting that there was a good amount of people that thought that Michigan team should've been playing in a rematch against OSU for the national championship. "Near impossible" is hyperbole.

[SpongeWorthy]

lol, nice coverage

[Exile on Waveland]

It's obviously a huge advantage for a team to play 11 miles from home compared to playing 2,560 miles from home. A true home game it may not be, but advantageous it certainly is.

 

No one is claiming that what USC has done isn't impressive or remarkable. No one is claiming they aren't better than every Big Ten team year-in and year-out. They're great. No doubt. They'd win the Big Ten every year. They also win the Pac 10 every year.

 

It certainly seems to me that's what SSR is implying when he says:

 

Their opponents in these games are 2nd place Big Ten teams if the Big Ten is good(becuase the 1st place team goes to the title game) or a 1st place Big Ten team when the conference is down.

 

Strong fan bases certainly have an adverse effect on the Big Ten in bowls. They get two BCS teams if at all possible, knocking every bowl team down a slot. The top Big Ten team would have a difficult enough time against USC in Pasadena. It's near impossible for the second best Big Ten team (as was the case the past two seasons).

 

I'll give you Illinois but you seem to be forgetting that there was a good amount of people that thought that Michigan team should've been playing in a rematch against OSU for the national championship. "Near impossible" is hyperbole.

 

I'm not forgetting; Michigan wasn't the second best team in the country. A good amount of people were wrong. Having watched the games, I don't think "near impossible" is hyperbolic at all.

[SouthSideRyan]

Holy [expletive] Musberger shut the [expletive] up about a +1 for USC. Texas fans have probably put a hit out on him cause of this.

 

Tip of the hat to Keyshawn for his response. He's way more tolerable on tv than I expected.

[imb]

lol, nice coverage

 

the ref read that route better than penn state's DBs did

[Hosak8]

Their opponents in these games are 2nd place Big Ten teams if the Big Ten is good(becuase the 1st place team goes to the title game) or a 1st place Big Ten team when the conference is down.

 

So the only time a Big Ten school doesn't play for a championship is when the conference is down?

[The Voice of Reason]

It's obviously a huge advantage for a team to play 11 miles from home compared to playing 2,560 miles from home. A true home game it may not be, but advantageous it certainly is.

 

No one is claiming that what USC has done isn't impressive or remarkable. No one is claiming they aren't better than every Big Ten team year-in and year-out. They're great. No doubt. They'd win the Big Ten every year. They also win the Pac 10 every year.

 

It certainly seems to me that's what SSR is implying when he says:

 

Their opponents in these games are 2nd place Big Ten teams if the Big Ten is good(becuase the 1st place team goes to the title game) or a 1st place Big Ten team when the conference is down.

 

I don't think it's impressive or remarkable what USC has done given the clear talent disparity between them and the rest of the NCAA. It's impressive that they get these kids to come there and ride the bench for 4 years when they could start for 75% of BCS programs.

 

Maybe someday Pete will be considered as good a recruiter as Ron Zook.

[Exile on Waveland]

Their opponents in these games are 2nd place Big Ten teams if the Big Ten is good(becuase the 1st place team goes to the title game) or a 1st place Big Ten team when the conference is down.

 

So the only time a Big Ten school doesn't play for a championship is when the conference is down?

 

Heck, a Big Ten school has played for the championship the last two years out of a down conference.

[The Voice of Reason]

The beginning of the end for the Nittany Lambs. Bring on the Oklahoma/Florida winner.

 

1 - 6 (after OSU loses to Texas) = another great bowl season by the most over rated football conference in the country.

 

PAC 10 is 5 - 0 in bowls. USC was robbed out of a championship game birth.

 

You know how you would have not been robbed. Beating an Oregon St. team that managed to score 3 points against Pitt.

 

Another year, another no championship for you. Soooooooooo sad.

 

Oregon State is a good, consistent program though. And they beat Pitt without the Rodgers brothers (Quizz Rodgers was Pac 10 player of the year). I don't see what's such an embarrassment about losing to them.

 

Well, Penn State beat Oregon State 45-14.

 

And USC beat Ohio State 35-3.

 

Citing the results of those two games means nothing because they cancel each other out.

 

I don't understand what cancels what out. But in quantifying singular losses for a national title contender, losing to a team that lost 45-14 to Penn State and 65-28 at home to Oregon has to considered a subpar loss. Oregon State is a quality team, sure. This string of posts is whether USC was "robbed" of playing in the title game. They weren't. They were less deserving than Florida, Oklahoma and Texas.

 

I agree that USC wasn't robbed of playing in the title game and that Florida/OU/Texas were probably more deserving. Just not because USC lost to Oregon State.

 

USC lost at Oregon State

Florida lost at home to Mississippi

Penn State lost at Iowa

Texas lost at Texas Tech.

 

The first team should have won all of these games, but they didn't. USC was less deserving not because of their loss but because the Pac-10 wasn't that good and the Big 12 and SEC were better so the other teams had more good wins than USC did.

 

Much greater chance of Florida losing at Oregon State than USC losing at home to Ole Miss.