2003/2004 College Football Bowl Season [R]

[afgrijselijkheid]

Originally posted by Ludahai
The Big 10(sic) is 2-5.

Minnesota beat Oregon in the Sun Bowl...


oops, read that score wrong

[afgrijselijkheid]

Originally posted by CHICO13
I'll speak for Ian and the rest of the Michigan fans on this board ( if that's ok with them) and say that we lost to a better team. PERIOD.


i HATE michigan, but i am not going to give you trouble... ian however has been talking sh!t for weeks about how the wolverines were the best team and they should have a shot at the national title and the big12 sucks and this and that... long story short, i wouldn't make a habit of speaking for ian

[christopher d]

Originally posted by Riverdale Goalie
both teams had a tougher schedule than USC,
This "casual fan" hasn't checked the opponent's records for OU or LSU, but Trojans' opponents are 5-1 so far in the bowls.

I'm not buying "strength of schedule". We're the best team in the country, plain and simple.

[Ian McCracken]

Originally posted by bluedaddy19
i HATE michigan, but i am not going to give you trouble... ian however has been talking sh!t for weeks about how the wolverines were the best team and they should have a shot at the national title and the big12 sucks and this and that... long story short, i wouldn't make a habit of speaking for ian

Where was Ian talking sh!t about Michigan beating USC? I was anti-Big 12 and the Oklahoma fraud that was proven out in their lopsided loss to K-State. Michigan-USC was not that lopsided. Michigan moved the ball fairly well but never capitalized when driving. Michigan's defense played like sh!te. As I noted elsewhere, playing 6 weeks after your last game can result in puzzling performances and the Wolverines certainly did not play up to their capabilities. Play this game in the state of Michigan and you probably get a different outcome. That being said, USC won and deserves at least a share of the national title. Too bad the BCrapS will not allow the champion to be decided on the field this year. It'd be nice to see a promoter plop $10 million on the table to the two universities (USC and Oklahoma or LSU) to play at a neutral site next weekend. The ratings would be huge.

[Ludahai]

Originally posted by CHICO13
In a BCS year, it wasn't predisposed that a Big Ten team was going to the Rose Bowl, it just worked out that way. And the Big Ten doesn't play a conference championship game, so Michigan hasn't played in six weeks since we kicked OSU's ass.

If you think the Big Ten is weak, just look at how the bowls were aligned due to strength of schedule....

Big 10 (sic) teams have lost to a MAC team, a Big 12 team (Nebraska), 1-1 against the PAC-10 (and a lucky win at that) and were 1-2 against the SEC. If Ohio State can't win against Kansas State, a 2-6 Bowl Record isn't going to be anything for the Big 10 to brag about.

The SEC is already 3-1 in bowl games, and ALL of their bowl games were Dec. 31 or later. Tennessee should beat Clemson and I would give Mississippi the edge over Oklahoma State and to me LSU and Oklahoma is a push. If the SEC takes two of those games, 5-2 with all games Dec. 31 or later is far more impressive than a 2-6 Big 10(sic) who played (AND LOST) two Pre-New Year's Eve games.

[Ludahai]

Originally posted by SObearCAL
This "casual fan" hasn't checked the opponent's records for OU or LSU, but Trojans' opponents are 5-1 so far in the bowls.

I'm not buying "strength of schedule". We're the best team in the country, plain and simple.

And LSU opponents are 3-1. So what?

[christopher d]

Originally posted by Ludahai
And LSU opponents are 3-1. So what? Oh, just that the number of opponents that are still playing after exams may be a good indicator of strength of schedule. How many of those teams win might be further proof of a tough schedule. Just a hunch.

[Ludahai]

Originally posted by SObearCAL
Oh, just that the number of opponents that are still playing after exams may be a good indicator of strength of schedule. How many of those teams win might be further proof of a tough schedule. Just a hunch.

And LSU doesn't merit this consideration? Mississippi has yet to play!

[christopher d]

Originally posted by Ludahai
And LSU doesn't merit this consideration? Mississippi has yet to play! Did I say LSU didn't? What I'm saying by this is that the relative strength of schedules as determined by computers and this board's perception of relative strengths of conferences is flawed. What the bowl season has proven is that USC's schedule was as tough as anyone's; LSU's and OU's included.

[fidlerre]

Originally posted by Ludahai

As for the Big 10 (sic), they are a fraud. 2-5 in this Bowl Season.

ahh, yes...

thank god for last year when the big ten went 5-2.

but then again, after that good bowl record last season people just claimed the big ten wasn't all that good then too, they just got "good match-ups" and OSU got lucky on the way to their win against the 'real' best college football team.

whatever...

[Waingro]

Originally posted by Ludahai
Big 10 (sic) teams have lost to a MAC team, a Big 12 team (Nebraska), 1-1 against the PAC-10 (and a lucky win at that) and were 1-2 against the SEC. If Ohio State can't win against Kansas State, a 2-6 Bowl Record isn't going to be anything for the Big 10 to brag about.

The SEC is already 3-1 in bowl games, and ALL of their bowl games were Dec. 31 or later. Tennessee should beat Clemson and I would give Mississippi the edge over Oklahoma State and to me LSU and Oklahoma is a push. If the SEC takes two of those games, 5-2 with all games Dec. 31 or later is far more impressive than a 2-6 Big 10(sic) who played (AND LOST) two Pre-New Year's Eve games.

Not sure what you're trying to prove pointing out that all of the SEC's bowl games are on Dec. 31st or later. The fact is meaningless considering the bowl slots are predetermined, the bowl dates are predetermined, and the participants are only dependent upon where a team finishes in conference. The dates have nothing to do with how strong a bowl game is. The Dec. 31st Music City Bowl illustrates this fact perfectly. That thing should have been played on Dec. 19th by your logic. Is the Chic-Fil-A Peach Bowl a better game than the Rose Bowl because it's on Jan. 2nd and the Rose is "only" on the 1st? What about the Humanitarian Bowl? It's on Saturday, so it must be better than every other bowl game except the Sugar, correct? Now I get it...

[Pack87Man]

Originally posted by Ludahai
You can go to the Rose Bowl if you are the best team in a weak Big 10 (sic), which it appears to be this year. Weak Big Ten? Wasn't that Iowa, a team from the "weak" Big Ten that smacked around Florida, a SEC team in their own state? Georgia won in OT against Purdue, seems like close, well fought game to me. Big Ten's record this year kind of sucks, yes, but hey, last year, it was 5-2, and a team from the conference won the national championship. It just happens this way from time to time, so what's the big deal?

As for the Michigan-USC game, USC capitalized on their chances, Michigan did not. USC's better, but probably not leaps and bounds better than Michigan. It was also kind of an accident of the polls that Michigan got ranked 4th.

[Ludahai]

Originally posted by Waingro
Not sure what you're trying to prove pointing out that all of the SEC's bowl games are on Dec. 31st or later. The fact is meaningless considering the bowl slots are predetermined, the bowl dates are predetermined, and the participants are only dependent upon where a team finishes in conference. The dates have nothing to do with how strong a bowl game is. The Dec. 31st Music City Bowl illustrates this fact perfectly. That thing should have been played on Dec. 19th by your logic. Is the Chic-Fil-A Peach Bowl a better game than the Rose Bowl because it's on Jan. 2nd and the Rose is "only" on the 1st? What about the Humanitarian Bowl? It's on Saturday, so it must be better than every other bowl game except the Sugar, correct? Now I get it...

The Humanitarian Bowl is the main exception, but generally speaking, the better bowl games come later in the Bowl season.

The fact that Georgia Tech is in a Bowl Game shows that saying that the number of bowl teams you face is an indication of your strength of schedule is falacious!

[CrewToon]

Just came back from a road trip....

...and I see El Jefe's Horns choked again...

...as if he will lose any sleep over that. :D

[CrewToon]

As far as the Big Ten matchups, I am not surprised by the 2-5. Northwestern had no business in a bowl game, and Nebraska beating a Big Ten team is no surprise.

I guess the two games that were somehow unexpected were Purdue making a game of it against UGA and Wisconsin just laying down in its bowl game.

[Auriaprottu]

Originally posted by Riverdale Goalie
Either way as impressive as the Rose Bowl win was, and Michigan did look like absolute crap

Michigan looked like a team playing against a national champion ought to look. The Wolverines are good -in fact, they may still be a nose better than LSU or Oklahoma- but against the Trojans, they were done in as soon as Edwards dropped that long pass.

I hate how all the announcers and casual fans try to sound as if they're an intelligent authority on the subject by sayin' they're the real champion here. I mean hello, one loss, same as Oklahoma and LSU

Oklahoma lost late and convincingly to a team USC (and possibly LSU) would have beaten. LSU should have been able to play the Trojans, with Oklahoma battling it out with Michigan, but the B(C)S didn't allow that to happen. Shame LSU couldn't play the best team in the country. If LSU beats Oklahoma and claims a computer title, well, party favors in New Orleans, whatever. They're paper tigers.


And it can be argued that you can't lose late

End of story.

[Auriaprottu]

Originally posted by Ian McCracken
Where was Ian talking sh!t about Michigan beating USC? I was anti-Big 12 and the Oklahoma fraud that was proven out in their lopsided loss to K-State. Michigan-USC was not that lopsided.

Yes, it was. Michigan doesn't score any touchdowns without the aid of the BIG XII OFFICIATING CREW that donated a pass interference call on each of your scoring drives. Neither of those balls was catchable, and the commentators almost had the stones to say as much. The result of the bad calls was that the score was much closer than the game, and gives some B(C)S lackeys a chance to say "well, 14 points..." it was a total assrape.


Play this game against LSU or Oklahoma and you probably get a different outcome.

Fixed. I do think the Wolverines would fare better against either Sugar Bowl opponent. You were just overmatched against USC.

[Ian McCracken]

Originally posted by Auriaprottu
Yes, it was. Michigan doesn't score any touchdowns without the aid of the BIG XII OFFICIATING CREW that donated a pass interference call on each of your scoring drives.

Yeah, and intercepting a ball off the heal of your opponent was skill, not a gift. Take that away and it's 21-14. Add in the dropped TD by Edwards early in the game and it's a tie. USC had the bounces and capitalized so that's why they're champions.

[soc4life409]

Originally posted by Pack87Man
Georgia won in OT against Purdue, seems like close, well fought game to me. [/B]

georgia was up 24-0.and the officating was crap, where were they from? purdue was lucky georgia were so predictable. every first down the would run, second down they would do a screen, 3rd down they would throw it. if they woulda done the same play calling that they did in the first quater, it would been 60-0

[Motterman]

Maryland beat West Virginia pretty handily. I fear that even though the Mountaineers had a pretty good season and beat some big opponents and nearly beat Miami, they played bad enough to not really help the Terps chances of breaking into the final Top 20 rankings...