 |
View Old Forum Thread
Old Forum Index » Other Stuff » Sports Talk » Rose Bowl bound
youngallstar
Young had an okay day passing 3 TD's passing and it should be a close Heisman vote but I think Reggie will pull it out. To bad he wont come away with the national title this year as well :D
One thing is for sure, it will be an awesome title game.
Rose Bowl bound
December 03, 2005 at 10:35PM View BBCode
Texas spanked Colorado in the Big XII Championship today 70-3 and it looks like USC is going to cruise against UCLA with Bush allready having 100 yrds rushing in the first quarter USC looks to cruise against the Bruins.Young had an okay day passing 3 TD's passing and it should be a close Heisman vote but I think Reggie will pull it out. To bad he wont come away with the national title this year as well :D
One thing is for sure, it will be an awesome title game.
Jedi_Pimp
December 04, 2005 at 01:05AM View formatted
You are viewing the raw post code; this allows you to copy a message with BBCode formatting intact.
Yeah reggie pretty much sealed the heisman up with a great performance today. 218 rushing yards or something close that in the first half alone. Matt had a solid day even with the wind blowing. The BCS finally fucking worked. The matchup people wanna see and they are #1 and #2.
drew
I think I remember people saying that about last years game too (I also remember a few predictions that we will not bring up again ;) ).
Yes this should be a great game, but USC has done very well preparing for big games in the Carroll era.
December 04, 2005 at 01:18AM View BBCode
Originally posted by youngallstar
One thing is for sure, it will be an awesome title game.
I think I remember people saying that about last years game too (I also remember a few predictions that we will not bring up again ;) ).
Yes this should be a great game, but USC has done very well preparing for big games in the Carroll era.
youngallstar
December 04, 2005 at 01:25AM View BBCode
I think USC's score last year surprised most people outside of Southern California :P
DeVeau31
How did the BCS work? You had two undefeated teams in all of college football, of course they should be playing each other for the National title, it had nothing to do with the BCS, it still sucks.
December 04, 2005 at 01:29AM View BBCode
Originally posted by Jedi_Pimp
Yeah reggie pretty much sealed the heisman up with a great performance today. 218 rushing yards or something close that in the first half alone. Matt had a solid day even with the wind blowing. The BCS finally <b>[Censored]</b> worked. The matchup people wanna see and they are #1 and #2.
How did the BCS work? You had two undefeated teams in all of college football, of course they should be playing each other for the National title, it had nothing to do with the BCS, it still sucks.
Cubsfan13
The USC game was pretty crappy and much more boring than I expected, but why was USC still throwing more than they were running when they were up by fifty in the forth quarter? I was pretty happy when Booty threw that interception, just because it seemed so stupid that he was throwing. Of course, USC probably would have scored more if they had kept running. UCLA couldn't stop White or Bush at all.
December 04, 2005 at 02:01AM View BBCode
We'll see what happens I guess. Texas and USC should probably be a good game, but shit happens.The USC game was pretty crappy and much more boring than I expected, but why was USC still throwing more than they were running when they were up by fifty in the forth quarter? I was pretty happy when Booty threw that interception, just because it seemed so stupid that he was throwing. Of course, USC probably would have scored more if they had kept running. UCLA couldn't stop White or Bush at all.
FuriousGiorge
Because before the BCS those two teams wouldn't be playing each other, USC would be going to the Rose Bowl against Penn State and Texas would be going somewhere else.
December 04, 2005 at 03:07AM View BBCode
Originally posted by DeVeau31
How did the BCS work? You had two undefeated teams in all of college football, of course they should be playing each other for the National title, it had nothing to do with the BCS, it still sucks.
Because before the BCS those two teams wouldn't be playing each other, USC would be going to the Rose Bowl against Penn State and Texas would be going somewhere else.
max_fischer
December 04, 2005 at 05:36AM View BBCode
No, the Cotton Bowl was the tie-in for the old Southwest Conference, which died in 1992. The Big 12 champ used to go to the Orange Bowl.
rkinslow19
Since VaTech and LSU both lost, Ohio State will move up to #4 in the BCS. There is a clause that guarantees a BCS birth to a non-conference winner if they finish top-4. Notre Dame will certainly be the other at large bid.
Poor Oregon, shafted at #5 in the BCS
December 04, 2005 at 06:41AM View BBCode
Oregon is officially out of the BCS.Since VaTech and LSU both lost, Ohio State will move up to #4 in the BCS. There is a clause that guarantees a BCS birth to a non-conference winner if they finish top-4. Notre Dame will certainly be the other at large bid.
Poor Oregon, shafted at #5 in the BCS
kujayhawks15
December 04, 2005 at 08:39AM View BBCode
ORegon doesn't deserve to make a BCS bowl in my opinion, they didn't play good enough teams. One of (if not the) their *best* wins was against Fresno St., and they have fallen off of a cliff. The Pac 10 is weak like usual this year, so besides USC they didn't play any real high quality teams, they did play some pretty good teams like Cal and ASU. Still, they don't have a BCS resume I don't think, and should be happy with whatever bowl they get.
drew
December 04, 2005 at 08:54AM View BBCode
You may be right, but they lost one game and that was to a team that has not lost in 34 games. I don't think they will be "happy with whatever bowl they get".
rkinslow19
Anyway you dice it, that's getting shafted.
And by the way, from your name I'm guessing you're a big-12 supporter. Don't even try dissing the Pac-10 conference, it just makes you look rediculous
December 04, 2005 at 08:57AM View BBCode
Well, the facts are that their only loss was to #1 USC, and that they are going to be ranked #5 in the BCS, yet they won't be among the 8 teams playing in a BCS bowl (including two 2 loss teams, a 4 loss team.Anyway you dice it, that's getting shafted.
And by the way, from your name I'm guessing you're a big-12 supporter. Don't even try dissing the Pac-10 conference, it just makes you look rediculous
youngallstar
If he were supporting the WAC than I would understand . .
December 04, 2005 at 03:00PM View BBCode
We have allready established that the big XII has been one of if not the toughest conferences over the past 10 years so he is entitled to talk smack.If he were supporting the WAC than I would understand . .
barterer2002
Well if you're going back to 1992 then it was the Big 8 and not the Big 12 and Texas would have been in the Cotton Bowl. If you're talking after 1992 there was no tie in with the SWC since it didn't exist and Texas would have been in the Orange Bowl as the Big 12 champ so you're right but for the wrong reasons.
December 04, 2005 at 04:00PM View BBCode
Originally posted by max_fischer
No, the Cotton Bowl was the tie-in for the old Southwest Conference, which died in 1992. The Big 12 champ used to go to the Orange Bowl.
Well if you're going back to 1992 then it was the Big 8 and not the Big 12 and Texas would have been in the Cotton Bowl. If you're talking after 1992 there was no tie in with the SWC since it didn't exist and Texas would have been in the Orange Bowl as the Big 12 champ so you're right but for the wrong reasons.
max_fischer
Huh? No, I think we're saying the same thing, I just gave the short version.
I was trying to say that if the BCS had never been created (and conference tie-ins had remained the way they were) then Texas would be in the Orange Bowl as Big 12 champ. I only mentioned 1992 because that was the last time that Texas would have gone to the Cotton Bowl as conference champs.
December 05, 2005 at 03:29AM View BBCode
Originally posted by barterer2002
you're right but for the wrong reasons.
Huh? No, I think we're saying the same thing, I just gave the short version.
I was trying to say that if the BCS had never been created (and conference tie-ins had remained the way they were) then Texas would be in the Orange Bowl as Big 12 champ. I only mentioned 1992 because that was the last time that Texas would have gone to the Cotton Bowl as conference champs.
Pages: 1