- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: LSU #6 in USA Today PreSeason Top 25
Posted on 8/2/08 at 5:33 pm to rpenni4
Posted on 8/2/08 at 5:33 pm to rpenni4
quote:
just realize how exciting a uga vs. usc game woulda been last year.
Totally agree. USC fans were not thrilled getting Illinois because the fossil Rose Bowl committee wanted to stick with tradition and put in a Big 10 team. It's the BCS era, get with the times.
Any teams should be able to play in the Rose Bowl.
1
Posted on 8/2/08 at 5:59 pm to UNCTarHeels
quote:
The USA TODAY Board of Coaches is made up of 61 head coaches at Division I-A institutions. All are members of the American Football Coaches Association. This season's board: Frank Beamer, Virginia Tech; Mike Bellotti, Oregon; Bret Bielema, Wisconsin; Bobby Bowden, Florida State; Tommy Bowden, Clemson; Art Briles, Baylor; Mack Brown, Texas; Neil Callaway, Alabama-Birmingham; Gene Chizik, Iowa State; Mario Cristobal, Florida International; Sylvester Croom, Mississippi State; Mark Dantonio, Michigan State; Butch Davis, North Carolina; Todd Dodge, North Texas; Randy Edsall, Connecticut; Phillip Fulmer, Tennessee; Jeff Genyk, Eastern Michigan; Turner Gill, Buffalo; Joe Glenn, Wyoming; Todd Graham, Tulsa; Jim Grobe, Wake Forest; Dan Hawkins, Colorado; Pat Hill, Fresno State; Butch Jones, Central Michigan; Steve Kragthorpe, Louisville; Mike Leach, Texas Tech; Jim Leavitt, South Florida; Rocky Long, New Mexico; Bill Lynch, Indiana; Doug Martin, Kent State; Urban Meyer, Florida; Les Miles, LSU; Shane Montgomery, Miami (Ohio); Hal Mumme, New Mexico State; Rick Neuheisel, UCLA; Tom O'Brien, North Carolina State; George O'Leary, Central Florida; Gary Patterson, TCU; Bo Pelini, Nebraska; Chris Petersen, Boise State; Gary Pinkel, Missouri; Mike Price, Texas-El Paso; Mark Richt, Georgia; Mike Riley, Oregon State; Rich Rodriguez, Michigan; Greg Schiano, Rutgers; Howard Schnellenberger, Florida Atlantic; Mark Snyder, Marshall; Frank Solich, Ohio; Steve Spurrier, South Carolina; Rick Stockstill, Middle Tennessee; Jeff Tedford, California; Joe Tiller, Purdue; Bob Toledo, Tulane; Dick Tomey, San Jose State; Jim Tressel, Ohio State; Tommy Tuberville, Auburn; Charlie Weis, Notre Dame; Kyle Whittingham, Utah; Tyrone Willingham, Washington; Ron Zook, Illinois.
no saban, no spurrier
Posted on 8/2/08 at 6:35 pm to rpenni4
quote:
ut of everything holding back college football money is the number one. forget not having a playoff for one second (although tis another point of interest) and just realize how exciting a uga vs. usc game woulda been last year. just sayin. figs in charge of the rose bowl made an awesome deciscion to put illinois there. these tie-ins are kinda bullshite.
It was not possible for UGA to play USC in the Rose Bowl.
Posted on 8/2/08 at 7:00 pm to Buckeye Fan 19
quote:
It was not possible for UGA to play USC in the Rose Bowl.
True, but it would have been an awesome game.
Posted on 8/2/08 at 7:08 pm to Orko
Orko, you missed it. Spurrier is in there.
Posted on 8/2/08 at 7:12 pm to Ross
quote:
True, but it would have been an awesome game.
Yes, but everybody blaming the Rose Bowl for not having UGA/USC is incorrect.
Posted on 8/2/08 at 7:15 pm to Zamoro10
quote:
Totally agree. USC fans were not thrilled getting Illinois because the fossil Rose Bowl committee wanted to stick with tradition and put in a Big 10 team.
I'd like to put forward a motion that anyone that spews this nonsense should be shot. Any takers?
The fact of the matter is that the Sugar Bowl more than likely cock-blocked the Rose Bowl from taking an SEC team just like it did in 06 with LSU.
Posted on 8/2/08 at 7:23 pm to Volvagia
quote:
The fact of the matter is that the Sugar Bowl more than likely cock-blocked the Rose Bowl from taking an SEC team just like it did in 06 with LSU.
And you would be 100% correct.
Posted on 8/2/08 at 7:41 pm to Volvagia
LOL @ "cock-blocked"
Posted on 8/2/08 at 8:11 pm to Buckeye Fan 19
quote:
The fact of the matter is that the Sugar Bowl more than likely cock-blocked the Rose Bowl from taking an SEC team just like it did in 06 with LSU.
Well that theory has never been in print. All I can go off of is what the Rose Bowl Committee said..."we wanted Illinois all along to return to tradition." So they're lying, so you say. Wouldn't surprise me about the SEC, considering they wanted UGA for the Sugar Bowl.
Posted on 8/2/08 at 8:14 pm to Zamoro10
quote:
Well that theory has never been in print. All I can go off of is what the Rose Bowl Committee said..."we wanted Illinois all along to return to tradition." So they're lying, so you say. Wouldn't surprise me about the SEC, considering they wanted UGA for the Sugar Bowl.
I've never seen that quote from the Rose Bowl committee. Even if they did say it, that doesn't take away the fact that there was no way for USC to play UGA in the Rose Bowl.
Posted on 8/2/08 at 8:23 pm to Zamoro10
Link to that quote? All that I could ever remember them saying, and could find now is:
In the past two years, the situation conspired with the rules that in order to take an SEC team period, any BCS bowl would need the express permission of the Sugar Bowl.
The apparent near certainty of LSU appearing in the Rose, with media claiming contacts came from somewhere. WAFB, no matter how premature, did not pull the Rose bowl talk out of their arse. What changed was UF going to the national championship in the stead of USC.
So while they may make tradition a primary consideration when it comes to like opponents, that wasn't the case last year. If they had the chance to get a match up that would probably come close to rivaling the national champ in rating, do you really think they would pass it for an assumed blow out?
SEC isn't related with the Sugar bowl committee.
quote:
"Illinois presented the tradition of the Big Ten-Pac-10, and wanting to stick with that tradition when we can was really the primary decision,"
In the past two years, the situation conspired with the rules that in order to take an SEC team period, any BCS bowl would need the express permission of the Sugar Bowl.
The apparent near certainty of LSU appearing in the Rose, with media claiming contacts came from somewhere. WAFB, no matter how premature, did not pull the Rose bowl talk out of their arse. What changed was UF going to the national championship in the stead of USC.
So while they may make tradition a primary consideration when it comes to like opponents, that wasn't the case last year. If they had the chance to get a match up that would probably come close to rivaling the national champ in rating, do you really think they would pass it for an assumed blow out?
quote:
Wouldn't surprise me about the SEC, considering they wanted UGA for the Sugar Bowl.
SEC isn't related with the Sugar bowl committee.
This post was edited on 8/2/08 at 8:25 pm
Posted on 8/2/08 at 8:27 pm to Buckeye Fan 19
quote:
there was no way for USC to play UGA in the Rose Bowl
I still do not get this. In the wording it says if the Big 10 champ is not available the choices are the next best Big 10 or the next best BCS at large. I will find you the link if I must. I am sure this is the case.
Now the order for the Sugar would be the same, albeit the SEC champ etc.
Yall are saying the Sugar pulled rank on the Rose? lol
okie dokie then.
And i am quite certain that Georgia was a higher BCS ranking than Illinois last season.
Posted on 8/2/08 at 8:34 pm to themunch
quote:
I still do not get this. In the wording it says if the Big 10 champ is not available the choices are the next best Big 10 or the next best BCS at large. I will find you the link if I must. I am sure this is the case.
Now the order for the Sugar would be the same, albeit the SEC champ etc.
Yall are saying the Sugar pulled rank on the Rose? lol
okie dokie then.
And i am quite certain that Georgia was a higher BCS ranking than Illinois last season.
The Rose had the first choice, and could choose any team they wanted, BUT if they chose an SEC team, since the Sugar lost their's (LSU), the Sugar could "block" the Rose and keep the SEC team, because they were from the same conference. Now if the Sugar for whatever reason didn't care, then, yes, the Rose could've chosen UGA, but otherwise, the Rose had the #1 choice besides UGA.
Of course, we can argue the Rose should've chosen Kansas or WVU over Illinois, but not UGA.
This post was edited on 8/2/08 at 8:45 pm
Posted on 8/2/08 at 8:36 pm to themunch
Here is the relevant rule, straight from the BCS website:
In both years, the bowl losing the #1 seed was the Rose, and the #2 was the Sugar.
quote:
C. When two bowls lose host teams, then the bowl losing the number one team may not select a replacement team from the same Conference as the number two team, unless the bowl losing the number two team consents
In both years, the bowl losing the #1 seed was the Rose, and the #2 was the Sugar.
Posted on 8/2/08 at 8:59 pm to Volvagia
Well bust my briches. I have to go protest the Sugar Bowl asses for keeping the SEC out of the Rose Bowl with USC. Dumb fricks.
Posted on 8/2/08 at 10:12 pm to Volvagia
quote:
In the past two years, the situation conspired with the rules that in order to take an SEC team period, any BCS bowl would need the express permission of the Sugar Bowl.
Wow, didn't know that. Also, isn't the selection process for the bowls consist of a pecking order and each committee can only pick on team at a time. So, Rose Bowl picks USC and then waits its next turn while the SEC picks Georgia and so on and so forth?
Posted on 8/2/08 at 10:58 pm to Zamoro10
quote:
So, Rose Bowl picks USC and then waits its next turn while the SEC picks Georgia and so on and so forth?
Well, the Rose didn't pick USC, they automtically got them (Pac 10 champs). But for the at larges, yes, that's how it works.
Posted on 8/3/08 at 1:21 am to Buckeye Fan 19
I put $20 on OU winning it all this year for shites and giggles.
Posted on 8/3/08 at 2:15 pm to tigers
quote:
Ohio State has gotten whipped in the last two BCS games, but is still one of the top 5 programs this decade and one of the top all-time programs. They've also won 3 BCS games this decade (including a title), so it's a bit premature to say that their glory days are in the past.
Also, this constant berating of OSU only serves to discount what LSU accomplished this past January.
Not to repeat myself from the SEC Rant board, but I had a thread on there explaining my theory on ESPN, and the college football media in general. Ohio State, and the Big 10 overall, is staying afloat on name recognition and historical feats alone. That conference has been down for quite some time as a whole, the BCS (with all its flaws) is really the only reason this reality has been exposed in the past 8-10 years, but none more so than the past two seasons. It's really shed some light on the media's bias towards the Big 10.
Ohio State is a great program in the Big 10. It's a good program on the national scale, but I think they're waaaaaaaay overrated and there are too many Big 10 homers in the media. Look no further than the crew that makes up the college football cast on ESPN for your proof.
Page 10 of 12
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News