Cap one bowl

[Mich Fan in Cbus]

With uga losing yesterday and FLa and Alabama playing.. who will the buckeyes play in the cap one bowl?? how great would it be for them to play Flordia or Alabama.. what a great day that would be..

[MgoMatt]

Florida and Alabama are pretty much both guaranteed BCS spots.

Ohio State could end up getting a BCS game :( if they are picked over Boise. Boise State deserves it more, but the Bucks have a larger traveling fan base = $$$$, which will probably give them the edge.

[toledo rockets]

I would like to see OSU vs FSU. I think that's a Florida team we can beat and we owe them an ass whooping b/c of the ass kicking they gave us a decade ago.

[Wolvrin704]

Georgia is still the 3rd place SEC team so I don't see that matchup changing.

[GoBlue21]

Georgia is still the 3rd place SEC team so I don't see that matchup changing.

Georgia is OVER-RATED! Knowshon Moreno cannot do it all...AJ Green will be good, but Georgia's defense gives up TOO MANY big plays and they don't tackle. Hmmm...Who's defense does that sound like?

Georgia Tech made them look silly yesterday!

[Wolvrin704]

Georgia is OVER-RATED! Knowshon Moreno cannot do it all...AJ Green will be good, but Georgia's defense gives up TOO MANY big plays and they don't tackle. Hmmm...Who's defense does that sound like?

Georgia Tech made them look silly yesterday!

Yep and this could be OSU's chance to finally get the monkey off their back and beat an SEC team in a bowl.

[amazinblue]

I think that OSU - as in Ohio State - could be BCS'ing it this year, as much as it pains me to say so. I think the OSU - as in Oregon State - loss to Oregon, all but guaranteed that Ohio State gets a BCS invitation, unless, of course - Boise State gets an invite - in addition to Utah...

[GoBlue21]

I think that OSU - as in Ohio State - could be BCS'ing it this year, as much as it pains me to say so. I think the OSU - as in Oregon State - loss to Oregon, all but guaranteed that Ohio State gets a BCS invitation, unless, of course - Boise State gets an invite - in addition to Utah...

Even though I don't like tUOS, I believe Boise State should get the nod over tUOS. They played in one BCS and it was the best BCS game I ever watched...

Boise State defeated everyone on their schedule, what else can they do? Utah is obviously in...

On the other hand, I would like to see an tUOS vs. Oklahoma game! That would be fun to watch...

[wolverine]

who ever ohio b rate plays I hope they get there butt kicked

[Plus 1]

who ever ohio b rate plays I hope they get there butt kicked



Well Boise St. wouldn't do it. They wouldn't be playing those sissies from Oklahoma they beat a couple of years ago.
Granted OSU looked bad in losing the last couple of NCs [one of which they should not have been in.} But at least we lost to the top team in the country both times.
The same thing can be said for this season, yes OSU has 2 losses, but both were to what would be top 5 teams. PSU and USC {without Beany Wells}

But Oklahoma has won only 1 BCS bowl since 2000.
Including the embarrassment of losing to Boise St. in 06.{Hardly an LSU or Florida} Or maybe you think Boise St. would have beat Florida in 06??? I don't think so!!! Not Hardly!!!

OSU has won 3 BCS bowls since 2002. 02,03, and 05. + an Alamo Bowl vs Les Mile's Okla. St. team in 04. 33-7:cool:


If you all want to complain about something then complain about conferences like The Big East and ACC getting automatic bids for their conference champs. The rules need to be changed to require Conference Champs to at least be ranked in the top 10 or 12 teams to get an automatic bid. Then after that a conf. champ ranked outside the top 12 could still get an at large bid. But not an automatic bid. That doesn't do a thing to help find the best teams, when a 8-4 or 9-3 conf. champ gets an auto. bid.
There could be an 8-4 or even a 7-5 Big East or ACC champ make it to a BCS Bowl and some 10-2 or even 11-1 teams left out such as the Big 12 could have had happen to them this year.

Not allowing a 3rd 11-1 team from the same conference in is wrong. The whole idea was to play the best teams in the country in the BCs Bowls, not to leave em out.

Another thing while we are at it. If Boise St. is as good as people thinks let them move a team out of the Big 12 and put Boise St. in, or better yet let Bosie St. join the Pac 10. Let em play USC, Oregon + 1 ranked non-c team and the rest of the Pac 10 schedule year in and year out and see if they go undefeated every year like they do now.:rolleyes:

[amazinblue]

I think the topic of the thread is the Capital One Bowl - my guess, Michigan State against Georgia. Sparty can win this game, but - it will require a solid team effort on both sides of the ball to do so. I know that Georgia was very highly rated at the beginning of the season, but they incurred a number of injuries early in the year that held them back. So, I don't know how healthy the Bulldogs will be, I just hope that Sparty plays as well as they can and wins.

With the events of Monday - I'm guessing that OSU may wind up against Texas in the Fiesta Bowl. Though, nothing would make me happier than to see Missouri beat Oklahoma in the Big 12 championship game.

I'm a believer that you have to win your conference to have a chance to win the MNC. And, though Texas has a solid team this season, and I have nothing against Mack Brown and the Longhorns - if Missouri wins, and USC passes Texas to play in the MNC game - well, it might just show (again) how ridiculous the BCS and its formulas really are.

Regarding Boise State - Plus 1 brings up a couple of good points. But, Petersen may not be there long. I don't know if Washington is interviewing him, but - if they're not, they should. I think that Boise can put up a good fight against most teams in Div 1A - would they win the Pac 10 - probably not, but - they'd probably finish in the top 1/3 of the conference.

And, regarding the automatic bowl tie-ins, Plus 1 talking about the ACC and Big East, perhaps not getting automatic bids this season. I disagree - though I respect his perspective. A major conference conference championship has to be worth something - and, let's say the SEC champ finished the season with three losses (perhaps several teams tied for the conference lead - all with three losses) - I do believe they should have an opportunity to play on the big stage - perhaps not the biggest stage, but a noticeable one. And, that's one reason why I think an 8 team playoff would be a good way to go - with the six major conference champs automatically qualifying and two at-large's. So, if a three loss major conference champ has just played in a brutally tough conference, they can show it in post season play. If, on the other hand, they're a weak three loss team, they'll get their's handed to them in the opening game - and at least had the opportunity to show on the field what they were (or weren't) made of.

[editor]

Before we disrespect the Big East, if I recall correctly, I think they were 5-1 in bowl games last year. WVU trounced Oklahoma. South Florida beat Oregon. If Bowls are any indication, the Big East is underrated.

[osusteve]

We also should not bash Boise State too much. They are 12 - 0 and their best win is against Oregon.

Ohio State is 10 - 2 and their best win is vs. Michigan State.

Either Boise State or Ohio State will be left out of a BCS bowl.

Based on the above, I believe my Buckeyes and the rest of the Big 10 are damn lucky if our league gets a big pay check from a BCS Bowl like the Fiesta or Sugar.

[amazinblue]

...Based on the above, I believe my Buckeyes and the rest of the Big 10 are damn lucky if our league gets a big pay check from a BCS Bowl like the Fiesta or Sugar.

The BCS payout for two conference teams is a nice thing. My guess is that Boise will be left out of the mix, simply because OSU's going to draw better and their fans will turn out in droves.

So, the SEC (Florida and Bama), Big 12 (Texas and the Conf Champ), and Big 10 (PSU and OSU) will each have two teams - USC will represent the Pac 10, Cincy for the Big East, the ACC champ BC or VT, and Utah. Those, IMO, will be the BCS teams this season.

[osusteve]

It looks like the Buckeyes will either play Texas (if Oklahoma wins Saturday) in the Fiesta Bowl or the Florida/Alabama winner in the Sugar Bowl.

In addition to Ohio State bringing a lot of people to the game, Buckeye games draw better TV ratings than Boise State/Utah/etc.

I wouldn't be surprised to see the Sugar Bowl really go after Ohio State to play Florida or Alabama. Last year's Sugar Bowl with Hawaii was a disaster in more ways than one. The North/South/Big 10/SEC angles are all enticing. Not to mention a lot of Buckeyes spending money in the French Quarter.

[BBA1994]

Who are you kidding? Bucknutz fans don't have money. Sure they'll mortgage the trailer for tickets to the game but they certainly won't have anything left over to spend at the venue. C'mon, you do realize we're talking about Bucknutz fans here. If they were lucky enough to actually graduate from tuos, we're still talking about what a degree from there is worth. Although, I guess a degree from tuos would allow them to afford a double-wide trailer. Party on Bucknutz.

[amazinblue]

It looks like the Buckeyes will either play Texas (if Oklahoma wins Saturday) in the Fiesta Bowl or the Florida/Alabama winner in the Sugar Bowl...

Steve,

I believe that OSU would play the Florida / Bama loser (not winner) in the Sugar Bowl - since the winner of the Florida / Bama game will be in the MNC, unless they decline the invitation for some reason. In any case, OSU's fortunate to be going to a BCS bowl - regardless of who they play, I hope they play their best and win one for the Big 10.

[GoGreen23]

And, regarding the automatic bowl tie-ins, Plus 1 talking about the ACC and Big East, perhaps not getting automatic bids this season. I disagree - though I respect his perspective. A major conference conference championship has to be worth something - and, let's say the SEC champ finished the season with three losses (perhaps several teams tied for the conference lead - all with three losses) - I do believe they should have an opportunity to play on the big stage - perhaps not the biggest stage, but a noticeable one. And, that's one reason why I think an 8 team playoff would be a good way to go - with the six major conference champs automatically qualifying and two at-large's.

The only problem that I have with that format is, what if a team that lost in it's conference title game turned around and beat their conference champion a week or two later in one of the rounds of the playoffs. What kind of controversy would that bring up? Let's say this year that Oklahoma wins the Big 12 and Texas (who I actually think should be playing in the Big12 Title game) gets a bid into this hypothetical playoff. They turn around and beat Oklahoma in the second round. This would still create controversy. Do you see where I'm going with this?

What if there were some rules on which two teams the at-large bids could pick from. I like the conference champions from the six "major" conferences keeping their autobids to the playoffs. But what if for the at-large bids the teams that they picked came from the non-BCS conferences. They could just pick the highest ranked teams from those conferences as long as they didn't pick two teams from the same conference.

This way there would still be a reason and an emphasis placed on winning your conference, so you could make it into the playoffs. This would also hopefully help to include teams like this year's Ball State, Utah, or Boise State. Teams that normally get passed over for "better" schools.

[amazinblue]

The only problem that I have with that format is, what if a team that lost in it's conference title game turned around and beat their conference champion a week or two later in one of the rounds of the playoffs. What kind of controversy would that bring up? Let's say this year that Oklahoma wins the Big 12 and Texas (who I actually think should be playing in the Big12 Title game) gets a bid into this hypothetical playoff. They turn around and beat Oklahoma in the second round. This would still create controversy. Do you see where I'm going with this?

What if there were some rules on which two teams the at-large bids could pick from. I like the conference champions from the six "major" conferences keeping their autobids to the playoffs. But what if for the at-large bids the teams that they picked came from the non-BCS conferences. They could just pick the highest ranked teams from those conferences as long as they didn't pick two teams from the same conference.

This way there would still be a reason and an emphasis placed on winning your conference, so you could make it into the playoffs. This would also hopefully help to include teams like this year's Ball State, Utah, or Boise State. Teams that normally get passed over for "better" schools.

GoGreen23,

The point about Texas and Oklahoma is fair - and, I think both sides are have valid arguments. If one conference is so tough and even - which you could easily argue that the Big 12 South is this season, than both Texas and Ok (assuming they beat Missouri) would have an argument - especially if it's a close game. This season, the same could be said for the SEC Championship loser, particularly if it's Alabama in a very close / OT game.

The other side of the argument, which I also believe is fair this season, is that Utah, Boise State, and Ball State (assuming they beat Buffalo) also should have a right to "get into" the dance.

My thought with this is - a plus one is still very dependent on the subjectivity of voters. Too subjective, IMO. And, this is a season where you've got a number of one loss teams that are difficult to separate - USC, Penn State, Texas, Alabama (assuming they lose on Saturday) - and all that people will talk about is "conference strength" and "OOC scheduling". Schedules are made years in advance, and a team shouldn't be penalized for trying to schedule tough opponents and then facing a weak team if that team (like ND) deteriorates after the schedule is it. Scheduling several FCS (formerly Div 1-AA) is a different story.

I would just like to see something in place, ideally in my lifetime, that returns major bowl games to their traditional alliances and settles it all on the field. I think that fields of 16 or more dilutes the regular season, and with an 8 team approach, it's simple - win your conference (if you're in a major conference) and you're in - if you come in second, it's a roll of the dice. And, I would like to see mid-majors involved in the process, assuming they have a good year and run the table - or lose a close game to a highly regarded team. Let's just say that Ball State played Florida this year, and suffered their only loos of the season in OT to them - for sure, they would merit consideration.

I guess we'll have to be content to discuss this for the near (or distant) future... it would be nice if it happened someday.

I'm thinking that this year's BCS games could be:
Sugar Bowl: Bama / FL vs. Texas
Rose Bowl: PSU vs. USC
Orange Bowl: BC / VT vs. Cincy
Fiesta Bowl: Oklahoma vs. Utah

With a bowl alignment like that - especially if they were scheduled December 31st (Sugar), Rose / Orange (January 1st), and Fiesta (January 2nd) - I'd be very close to a television to watch 'em all - well, I might miss some of the Orange Bowl...

And, then - depending on which teams win those four bowls, you can have east / west or north / south semi's, with the teams closest to those sites playing to make it a bit easier for fans to travel to those games.

Many people argue that the "interest" in college football would wane because of the limited BCS conversation. But, I disagree. Two at-large teams are still in the BCS conversation - and, the talk would be much more positive - anticipating matchups, rather than the negative - "the BCS has screwed up again" - that we hear most every year.

[StevieBrownforHeisman]

is it just me, or is OSU going to end up getting their ass kicked by a vastly better team.... again...

[Plus 1]

I think the topic of the thread is the Capital One Bowl - my guess, Michigan State against Georgia. Sparty can win this game, but - it will require a solid team effort on both sides of the ball to do so. I know that Georgia was very highly rated at the beginning of the season, but they incurred a number of injuries early in the year that held them back. So, I don't know how healthy the Bulldogs will be, I just hope that Sparty plays as well as they can and wins.

With the events of Monday - I'm guessing that OSU may wind up against Texas in the Fiesta Bowl. Though, nothing would make me happier than to see Missouri beat Oklahoma in the Big 12 championship game.

I'm a believer that you have to win your conference to have a chance to win the MNC. And, though Texas has a solid team this season, and I have nothing against Mack Brown and the Longhorns - if Missouri wins, and USC passes Texas to play in the MNC game - well, it might just show (again) how ridiculous the BCS and its formulas really are.

Regarding Boise State - Plus 1 brings up a couple of good points. But, Petersen may not be there long. I don't know if Washington is interviewing him, but - if they're not, they should. I think that Boise can put up a good fight against most teams in Div 1A - would they win the Pac 10 - probably not, but - they'd probably finish in the top 1/3 of the conference.

And, regarding the automatic bowl tie-ins, Plus 1 talking about the ACC and Big East, perhaps not getting automatic bids this season. I disagree - though I respect his perspective. A major conference conference championship has to be worth something - and, let's say the SEC champ finished the season with three losses (perhaps several teams tied for the conference lead - all with three losses) - I do believe they should have an opportunity to play on the big stage - perhaps not the biggest stage, but a noticeable one. And, that's one reason why I think an 8 team playoff would be a good way to go - with the six major conference champs automatically qualifying and two at-large's. So, if a three loss major conference champ has just played in a brutally tough conference, they can show it in post season play. If, on the other hand, they're a weak three loss team, they'll get their's handed to them in the opening game - and at least had the opportunity to show on the field what they were (or weren't) made of.


Of course winning your conf is outstanding and what most teams realistically look forward to. The only problem with the Big East and ACC is that there were NO dominant teams. It was like "Here you take it, we don't want it" when it came to the conf. Champ. If one of those teams stood out, it would be different, then that team would have a high enough National ranking to qualify for a BCS bowl. As far as the SEC I don't think there were any teams that could have made Florida or Alabama drop to 9-3 in retrospect. The SEC is definately down as a conf this year compared to last year.

editor

West Virginia I believe was 10-2 last year heading into the post season {not 8-4 or 7-5} and ranked in the top 10, so I'm not talking about last year's WVU team or the conf as a whole. The Big East is down compared to last year. The ACC is even worse IMO. They will both recover I'm sure, but this is now and that was then.
West Virginia beating Oklahoma in the bowl last year was no surprise to me. I would have bet on that happening. Oklahoma sucks in the post season. I fully expected WVU to win. Especially after being embarrassed by Pitt and losing out on a trip to the NC.
Hypothetically speaking, I just don't like the idea of a 11-1, 2nd or 3rd place team from a major conference sitting out for a 8-4 or 7-5 conf champ from a conf that's having a mediocre year. If that conf champ were 10-2 {like Cincy} sure, then yeah, they would have some credibility even if the conf as a whole was slightly down.

Anyway I was referring to the chance of a team in the Big east or ACC sometime in the future being 8-4 or 7-5 hypothetically, not the 10-2 Cincinnati team that is reality. I was merely looking at the future and what could and will happen eventually if changes are'nt made now. :cool:

Even now 11-1 Texas Tech {who as a 3rd place big 12 South team and out of the BCS equation according to the rules} is probably looking at an ACC or Big East Champ and thinking "what's wrong with this picture?" Even though they will be 10-3, and 10-2 respectively. Which is not bad, it's just not 11-1. Plus Texas Tech is ranked well ahead of both Champs in the BCS standings.
This is not about finding the "Best" teams, in the country it's about automatic bids, unless you use the national rankings themselves to detrermine the best teams. OR, have a playoff, which is not gonna happen.!!!

[Wolvrin704]

Of course winning your conf is outstanding and what most teams realistically look forward to. The only problem with the Big East and ACC is that there were NO dominant teams. It was like "Here you take it, we don't want it" when it came to the conf. Champ. If one of those teams stood out, it would be different, then that team would have a high enough National ranking to qualify for a BCS bowl. As far as the SEC I don't think there were any teams that could have made Florida or Alabama drop to 9-3 in retrospect. The SEC is definately down as a conf this year compared to last year.

editor

West Virginia I believe was 10-2 last year heading into the post season {not 8-4 or 7-5} and ranked in the top 10, so I'm not talking about last year's WVU team or the conf as a whole. The Big East is down compared to last year. The ACC is even worse IMO. They will both recover I'm sure, but this is now and that was then.
West Virginia beating Oklahoma in the bowl last year was no surprise to me. I would have bet on that happening. Oklahoma sucks in the post season. I fully expected WVU to win. Especially after being embarrassed by Pitt and losing out on a trip to the NC.
Hypothetically speaking, I just don't like the idea of a 11-1, 2nd or 3rd place team from a major conference sitting out for a 8-4 or 7-5 conf champ from a conf that's having a mediocre year. If that conf champ were 10-2 {like Cincy} sure, then yeah, they would have some credibility even if the conf as a whole was slightly down.

Anyway I was referring to the chance of a team in the Big east or ACC sometime in the future being 8-4 or 7-5 hypothetically, not the 10-2 Cincinnati team that is reality. I was merely looking at the future and what could and will happen eventually if changes are'nt made now. :cool:

Even now 11-1 Texas Tech {who as a 3rd place big 12 South team and out of the BCS equation according to the rules} is probably looking at an ACC or Big East Champ and thinking "what's wrong with this picture?" Even though they will be 10-3, and 10-2 respectively. Which is not bad, it's just not 11-1. Plus Texas Tech is ranked well ahead of both Champs in the BCS standings.
This is not about finding the "Best" teams, in the country it's about automatic bids, unless you use the national rankings themselves to detrermine the best teams. OR, have a playoff, which is not gonna happen.!!!

Cincinnati was failry dominant in conference play having only lost 1 game in conference. One of the teams they lost to this season is very likely to be playing in the MNC. How they are only #13 is beyond me, and while we're at it how is TCU ranked #11?

Big changes need made but to do so there would have to be some type of standardization of scheduling or something. Regardless like you I don't see any type of playoff happening anytime soon, even when the BCS agreement runs out.

[rickyleach]

I HOPE IT IS TEXAS , FLA, OR BAMA, need i say anymore...

[pryorthrowslikeagirl]

if its texas,which is what is being projected right now osu will lose by 4 td's..i bet no troll would bet against me either..let me know i could use a little extra money after christmas shopping..