Bull, why would the BCS do that for USC. I understand that is it some convoluted system for choosing who plays who but it is not based around making USC look good.
Illinois had a great season, and I think they'll be better next year. When people were talking about Illinois being great, keep in mind that's in comparison to winning like four games over the last four years or something. I mean, people were talking about them maybe going over .500 and getting into a decent bowl, and that would probably have been enough.
Tradition is why Illinois was in the Rose Bowl, and not much else. But they're a young team, and they have a great recruiter, so I think it's going to be a pretty good run for Illinois. Juice Williams showed some major signs of improvement over the last few games (discounting the Rose Bowl, but USC is a bit ahead of anyone they've faced this year) and will probably be better, so I dunno. It's just nice to have an Illinois team that isn't going to automatically lose eight games.
I lived in Champaign and then I moved to Pasadena. I am not surprised at all. USC has so much more going for it then IL. The Illini were overrated because this was the first year in a long time they were not slaughtered the whole season.
No they were not overrated. Nobody with a brain thought at all they had a chance of winning this game.
No I went home for the summer and everyone is screaming how good the Illini are and how they are going to win in socal. One headline read "orange county" in reference to apparently how much socal loves the Illini. All that was on the local channels who crap about the Illini. True they are biased in Champaign they really did act like they were going to win. Also the fact they are in the Rose Bowl shows how they were overacted. They never deserved to go and Ohio is going to lose as well. The whole Big Ten is overrated
You don't understand the BCS at all. If they meant for it to be an even matchup, Illinois wouldn't have been a 2-TD underdog. This a game to pad USC's stats and make them look the way that they look.
Maybe Champaign thought they stood a chance, but nobody else did including the BCS. You don't skip over 4 better teams (Missouri, Kansas, Florida, and ASU) because you think it's a good matchup.
They got in because the Rose Bowl is obsessed with tradition. Man, are you obsessed with conspiracy theories though.
I agree it is great the the Illini finally can have a team to be proud of. I just think it is silly how the season they do pretty well they go nuts over it.
peter64 on
things out of context are funny
0
ButtersA glass of some milksRegistered Userregular
I lived in Champaign and then I moved to Pasadena. I am not surprised at all. USC has so much more going for it then IL. The Illini were overrated because this was the first year in a long time they were not slaughtered the whole season.
No they were not overrated. Nobody with a brain thought at all they had a chance of winning this game.
No I went home for the summer and everyone is screaming how good the Illini are and how they are going to win in socal. One headline read "orange county" in reference to apparently how much socal loves the Illini. All that was on the local channels who crap about the Illini. True they are biased in Champaign they really did act like they were going to win. Also the fact they are in the Rose Bowl shows how they were overacted. They never deserved to go and Ohio is going to lose as well. The whole Big Ten is overrated
You don't understand the BCS at all. If they meant for it to be an even matchup, Illinois wouldn't have been a 2-TD underdog. This a game to pad USC's stats and make them look the way that they look.
Maybe Champaign thought they stood a chance, but nobody else did including the BCS. You don't skip over 4 better teams (Missouri, Kansas, Florida, and ASU) because you think it's a good matchup.
They got in because the Rose Bowl is obsessed with tradition. Man, are you obsessed with conspiracy theories though.
And what tradition would that be? Think hard, Geebs, and be sure to check your facts before answering.
Well, I mean the only bad loss they have is to Iowa. Any season where you go beat the number one team at home and have a chance to beat teams like Missouri and Michigan and end up in the Rose Bowl? It's pretty easy to get excited.
It was more nuts when the basketball team almost finished the regular season undefeated though.
And what tradition would that be? Think hard, Geebs, and be sure to check your facts before answering.
The tradition of having the PAC 10 and Big Ten champs in the game. And recently if they can't have the champs because of the title game (like last year), just having teams from those conferences.
Geebs is right it is tradition but not set in stone like it used to be. Texas and Oklahoma prove that recently they choose teams not from pac 10 or big ten
peter64 on
things out of context are funny
0
ButtersA glass of some milksRegistered Userregular
Geebs is right it is tradition but not set in stone like it used to be. Texas and Oklahoma prove that recently they choose teams not from pac 10 or big ten
Exactly my point. All the more reason to put someone else that wouldn't be a 2-TD underdog in this game.
Geebs is right it is tradition but not set in stone like it used to be. Texas and Oklahoma prove that recently they choose teams not from pac 10 or big ten
Exactly my point. All the more reason to put someone else that wouldn't be a 2-TD underdog in this game.
It would be a better game, but again, it's a traditional thing and the Rose Bowl is more keyed into that sort of thing than any other bowl. It wasn't to pad USC's stats or record or anything stupid like that.
Geebs is right it is tradition but not set in stone like it used to be. Texas and Oklahoma prove that recently they choose teams not from pac 10 or big ten
Exactly my point. All the more reason to put someone else that wouldn't be a 2-TD underdog in this game.
It would be a better game, but again, it's a traditional thing and the Rose Bowl is more keyed into that sort of thing than any other bowl. It wasn't to pad USC's stats or record or anything stupid like that.
If this tradition is so important then why didn't Ohio State or Penn State play in the 2005 although they were conference co-champs and why did Texas play Michigan? Why didn't Michigan play in the Rose Bowl this year? They had the same conference record and they beat Illinois.
The tradition was dead and resurrected for no conceivable reason this year.
That still dosen't mean BCS is a conspiracy for inflating USC. The millions of dollars USC has makes them feel good enough thank you very much.
edit: Billions not millions I underestimated.
Yeah they are so good they lost to Oregon and Stanford. Wow they are amazing. No reason to test them against someone of similar talent and ranking.
similar talent to USC or similar talent to Stanford
Ok are you asking this because you are stupid or just don't have good explanation of this ridiculous matchup?
I am asking because you worded your statement incredibly poorly (and it doesn't really even make sense anyway) so I figured I'd request clarification.
DJ Eebs on
0
ButtersA glass of some milksRegistered Userregular
edited January 2008
Whatever, geebs. You know what I was getting at and you're sidestepping the argument with petty semantics. USC was thrown a softball this year in the BCS and the point spread makes that clear. The question is why do that? Why not match them up against a team of equal caliber? Tradition is not the answer to this as the BCS has put teams from other conferences in the bowl as of late even when it wasn't a BCS championship.
My opinion on making USC look good may be my own but "tradition" is not a suitable explanation for this retarded ass matchup. It doesn't even make business sense as way more people would be inclined to watch a rose bowl with a single digit point spread.
And by the looks of this Hawaii-UGA game the BCS is already shaping up to be as big of a disaster as one could ask for.
ButtersA glass of some milksRegistered Userregular
edited January 2008
Christ! This game is even worse. Well, FortyTwo, now you know why Hawaii didn't get their shot at the BCS title. You aren't going to pull an App-State or Stanford style upset when your opponent has no other opponent to think about for 4-6 weeks.
I'm confused as to how Brennan, Tebow, and Ryan were all front runners for the Heisman. I know that you can't judge a team by its quarterback and and vice-versa but I can't say that any of them impressed me. The "best player in the NCAA" should probably know how to scramble and throw on the fly.
I agree, but the Heisman winners for the past 20 years are almost all running backs or quarterbacks. I'd love to see a linebacker or corner get the pick one year. That would just fuck everything up.
Gafoto on
0
Munkus BeaverYou don't have to attend every argument you are invited to.Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPAregular
I agree, but the Heisman winners for the past 20 years are almost all running backs or quarterbacks. I'd love to see a linebacker or corner get the pick one year. That would just fuck everything up.
I agree, but the Heisman winners for the past 20 years are almost all running backs or quarterbacks. I'd love to see a linebacker or corner get the pick one year. That would just fuck everything up.
Yeah, only one primarily defensive player to win ever. That is sad.
I don't understand how you can argue against Tebow though. The guy did something no one ever has (the 20+ rushing 20+ passing thing), he may not have had a great game against Michigan but he didn't play badly, and he played pretty damn well against OSU last year for the national title. The guy is his entire team. Florida is nothing without him.
Who else do you give it to? Who had a better season?
Maybe today we'll finally have a good matchup and not a 30-40 point loss.
I was hoping for Illinois to win. They really didn't have a chance, USC pretty much outmatches them, but I'm always happy to see USC lose. I didn't think they'd hand USC the game so much, but oh well.
Hawaii I was happy to see get steamrolled by a good ol' fashioned SEC team. They were completely overrated the whole year and anyone could have seen a loss coming. Georgia outdid themselves and completely destroyed Hawaii's offense, though. I actually felt a little bad for Colt at the end, he got his ass kicked.
I agree, but the Heisman winners for the past 20 years are almost all running backs or quarterbacks. I'd love to see a linebacker or corner get the pick one year. That would just fuck everything up.
Posts
Tradition is why Illinois was in the Rose Bowl, and not much else. But they're a young team, and they have a great recruiter, so I think it's going to be a pretty good run for Illinois. Juice Williams showed some major signs of improvement over the last few games (discounting the Rose Bowl, but USC is a bit ahead of anyone they've faced this year) and will probably be better, so I dunno. It's just nice to have an Illinois team that isn't going to automatically lose eight games.
They got in because the Rose Bowl is obsessed with tradition. Man, are you obsessed with conspiracy theories though.
And what tradition would that be? Think hard, Geebs, and be sure to check your facts before answering.
It was more nuts when the basketball team almost finished the regular season undefeated though.
Exactly my point. All the more reason to put someone else that wouldn't be a 2-TD underdog in this game.
It would be a better game, but again, it's a traditional thing and the Rose Bowl is more keyed into that sort of thing than any other bowl. It wasn't to pad USC's stats or record or anything stupid like that.
edit: Billions not millions I underestimated.
If this tradition is so important then why didn't Ohio State or Penn State play in the 2005 although they were conference co-champs and why did Texas play Michigan? Why didn't Michigan play in the Rose Bowl this year? They had the same conference record and they beat Illinois.
The tradition was dead and resurrected for no conceivable reason this year.
Yeah they are so good they lost to Oregon and Stanford. Wow they are amazing. No reason to test them against someone of similar talent and ranking.
similar talent to USC or similar talent to Stanford
which was a 6 foot tall ball that was rainbow coloured
i just thought this was a good place to mention that
there was no personification of them
but we just knew they were bad
Ok are you asking this because you are stupid or just don't have good explanation of this ridiculous matchup?
I am asking because you worded your statement incredibly poorly (and it doesn't really even make sense anyway) so I figured I'd request clarification.
My opinion on making USC look good may be my own but "tradition" is not a suitable explanation for this retarded ass matchup. It doesn't even make business sense as way more people would be inclined to watch a rose bowl with a single digit point spread.
And by the looks of this Hawaii-UGA game the BCS is already shaping up to be as big of a disaster as one could ask for.
Games: CoD4, Halo 3
Games: CoD4, Halo 3
http://www.heisman.com/handbook/heisman-defense.html
take a look
Yeah, only one primarily defensive player to win ever. That is sad.
I don't understand how you can argue against Tebow though. The guy did something no one ever has (the 20+ rushing 20+ passing thing), he may not have had a great game against Michigan but he didn't play badly, and he played pretty damn well against OSU last year for the national title. The guy is his entire team. Florida is nothing without him.
Who else do you give it to? Who had a better season?
I was hoping for Illinois to win. They really didn't have a chance, USC pretty much outmatches them, but I'm always happy to see USC lose. I didn't think they'd hand USC the game so much, but oh well.
Hawaii I was happy to see get steamrolled by a good ol' fashioned SEC team. They were completely overrated the whole year and anyone could have seen a loss coming. Georgia outdid themselves and completely destroyed Hawaii's offense, though. I actually felt a little bad for Colt at the end, he got his ass kicked.