Illinois?

by **QuikSStang** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 9:59 am

Could someone tell me how Illinois made it to a BCS game at #13 with 3 losses? Mizzou deserved to go much more than this squad

by **BRStang** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 10:00 am

You can't have more than 2 teams from one conference in BCS bowls.

by **ponyte** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 10:07 am

The BSC cartel isn't interested in doing what the customer wants (most deserving teams get to go to the best bowls) or in doing what is fair to teams. The BSC cartel does one thing ad that is maximizing profits for cartel members. Therefore, do not expect the best teams to make it to BSC games.

by **QuikSStang** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 10:07 am

BRStang wrote:You can't have more than 2 teams from one conference in BCS bowls.

they should have taken Mizzou over Kansas in the Orange Bowl, then. Hell, even Arizona State would have been better

by **mustangxc** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 10:08 am

Missouri should have gotten in ahead of Kansas, not Illinois. Illinois took Arizona State's spot in a BCS bowl.

by **PonySnob** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 10:16 am

This is relevant to SMU football?

by **QuikSStang** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 10:35 am

PonySnob wrote:This is relevant to SMU football?

i apologize for wanting to talk about something other than the coach of the day

by **SMUMan02** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 11:01 am

QuikSStang wrote:Could someone tell me how Illinois made it to a BCS game at #13 with 3 losses? Mizzou deserved to go much more than this squad

The team that didn't deserve one is Kansas. They have not beaten a team ranked in the top 40.

by **J.T.supporta** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 11:09 am

whats more messed up is that Mizzou beat Illinois at the beginning of the year...sucks for them

by **TacoPony** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 11:13 am

right, in fact Mizzou beat both Illinois AND Kansas.... they got skrewed

by **MustangStealth** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 11:14 am

Because the Rose Bowl puts tradition first. They were given the opportunity to preserve their relationship with the Big 10 and PAC 10 and they took it, rather than taking a better team from another conference.

by **MustangStealth** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 11:15 am

TacoPony wrote:right, in fact Mizzou beat both Illinois AND Kansas.... they got skrewed

Also keep in mind that even though they had 2 losses, they only lost to 1 team. I was surprised Kansas was chosen instead of them.

by **J.T.supporta** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 11:15 am

MustangStealth wrote:Because the Rose Bowl puts tradition first. They were given the opportunity to preserve their relationship with the Big 10 and PAC 10 and they took it, rather than taking a better team from another conference.

Pac 10 officials were the reason the BCS changed the top 12 rule to top 16 because they didnt want any part of Hawaii playing in the Rose Bowl

by **SMUtrojanFAN** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 12:47 pm

J.T.supporta wrote:
MustangStealth wrote:Because the Rose Bowl puts tradition first. They were given the opportunity to preserve their relationship with the Big 10 and PAC 10 and they took it, rather than taking a better team from another conference.

Pac 10 officials were the reason the BCS changed the top 12 rule to top 16 because they didnt want any part of Hawaii playing in the Rose Bowl

What are you even talking about??

by **D1Football** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 1:10 pm

J.T.supporta wrote:
MustangStealth wrote:Because the Rose Bowl puts tradition first. They were given the opportunity to preserve their relationship with the Big 10 and PAC 10 and they took it, rather than taking a better team from another conference.

Pac 10 officials were the reason the BCS changed the top 12 rule to top 16 because they didnt want any part of Hawaii playing in the Rose Bowl

Never heard that one. I don't think the Pac-10 can change the entire BCS format at the last minute.

Illinois?

Illinois?

Re: Illinois?

Who is online