Illinois?

by **MustangStealth** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 1:17 pm

J.T.supporta wrote: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 rule are you talking about?

by **J.T.supporta** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 1:21 pm

MustangStealth wrote:
J.T.supporta wrote: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 rule are you talking about?

BCS use to allow only top 12 finishers as at large births but they changed it due to the fact that they wouldnt have enough at large teams in the top 12 due to the Big 12 having 3 teams in the top 10...

BCS rules state that no conference should have no more than 2 teams in their games so it was changed from top 12 to top 16 finishers...

Illinois was ranked 13th in the final standings...they wouldnt be eligible unless the rule was changed...Arizona State was passed up at 11, Florida couldnt make it bc SEC had 2 teams in and Mizzou ofcourse got screwed at 6...all the rest made the bcs

by **MustangStealth** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 1:25 pm

J.T.supporta wrote:
MustangStealth wrote:
J.T.supporta wrote: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 rule are you talking about?

BCS use to allow only top 12 finishers as at large births but they changed it due to the fact that they wouldnt have enough at large teams in the top 12 due to the Big 12 having 3 teams in the top 10...

BCS rules state that no conference should have no more than 2 teams in their games so it was changed from top 12 to top 16 finishers...

Illinois was ranked 13th in the final standings...they wouldnt be eligible unless the rule was changed...Arizona State was passed up at 11, Florida couldnt make it bc SEC had 2 teams in and Mizzou ofcourse got screwed at 6...all the rest made the bcs

Incorrect. The rule is that the top 14 are eligible for at-large spots. The change you are thinking of would have made the top 18 eligible. The measure did not come into effect this year, because there were enough teams in the top 14 to fill the bowls without taking more than 2 from any conference.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=3119690

Edit: The at-large pool expanded from 12 to 14 when they added the 5th BCS game, after the 2005-2006 season.

by **J.T.supporta** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 1:29 pm

oh thats it...you are right, im am [deleted]...i thought it was top 12 because thats what it is for NON BCS at large teams and thought that took effect this year...thanks for correcting me

by **docabel** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 1:29 pm

D1Football wrote:
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.

I think that only the SEC is allowed to change the rules, seeing as their commissioner is also in charge of the BCS

by **mustangxc** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 1:30 pm

The rule is that in order to receive an at large invite to a BCS bowl your team has to finish in the top 12 of the BCS standing or in the top 16 if your team is ahead of a BCS Conference conference champion.

by **J.T.supporta** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 1:32 pm

mustangxc wrote:The rule is that in order to receive an at large invite to a BCS bowl your team has to finish in the top 12 of the BCS standing or in the top 16 if your team is ahead of a BCS Conference conference champion.

Yes, thats the full rule for NON BCS schools

Illinois?

Who is online