Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

As I'm watching my WF Demon Deacs get throttled by Vandy I keep hearing that they don't care, they're already bowl eligible. Vandy is playing hard because they need the win to secure the opportunity to play in the Roto-rooter Tidy Bowl. Should we just go ahead and hand out participation trophies for everybody in FBS for showing up? Maybe if I give about 60% effort at the office I should get rewarded, yathink?

WAFJ /rant

I couldn't agree more. You wouldn't' see any teams vying to get into the playoffs dog it at the end of the season and you'd especially give all your effort once you got there!

UCLA won the Pac 12 south.

Yes, folks, UCLA could get into the Rose Bowl at 6-6

DuckDuckGriz wrote:UCLA won the Pac 12 south.

Yes, folks, UCLA could get into the Rose Bowl at 6-6

Only because Southern Cal was ineligible...NCAA and their stupid rules...like they control college sports or something...

DuckDuckGriz wrote:UCLA won the Pac 12 south.

Yes, folks, UCLA could get into the Rose Bowl at 6-6

Its not *that* different then when EWU made the playoffs (due to winning the Big Sky) with a 7-4 record when the field was 16.

But yea, FBS is pretty lame... Thank god the playoffs started today but unfortunately there arent any night games.

Vanderbilt is good for a 6-6 team....I mean they play in the SEC for goodness sake and they lost like 4 games by 1 score. They might be good next year too with Rodgers at QB coming back, along with their leading rusher, and a very good defense (if I'm not mistaken, GSU's former DC is their DC)

youngterrier wrote:Vanderbilt is good for a 6-6 team....I mean they play in the SEC for goodness sake and they lost like 4 games by 1 score. They might be good next year too with Rodgers at QB coming back, along with their leading rusher, and a very good defense (if I'm not mistaken, GSU's former DC is their DC)

True, but 6-6? C'mon, if a C effort is good enough to make a bowl, then whatever....

I can put last night's Mexican food in a bowl too, but it's about as much fun to watch.

DuckDuckGriz wrote:UCLA won the Pac 12 south.

Yes, folks, UCLA could get into the Rose Bowl at 6-6

Not a chance in hell they beat Oregon in Eugene. Just not gonna happen.

-
Washington State only sold 6,000 tickets to the apple cup in Seahawk stadium
That is pathetic

Just a few hour drive

Bronco wrote:-
Washington State only sold 6,000 tickets to the apple cup in Seahawk stadium
That is pathetic

Just a few hour drive

They were only given 6000 tickets to sell.

Grizalltheway wrote:

DuckDuckGriz wrote:UCLA won the Pac 12 south.

Yes, folks, UCLA could get into the Rose Bowl at 6-6

Not a chance in hell they beat Oregon in Eugene. Just not gonna happen.

didn't they already play?

youngterrier wrote:

Grizalltheway wrote: Not a chance in hell they beat Oregon in Eugene. Just not gonna happen.

didn't they already play?

Talkin bout the title game.

Meanwhile, we had two nail biter win or go home games today...

Bronco wrote:-
Washington State only sold 6,000 tickets to the apple cup in Seahawk stadium
That is pathetic

Just a few hour drive

I sure as hell wouldn't drive a few hours to watch the Cougs play.

youngterrier wrote:Vanderbilt is good for a 6-6 team....I mean they play in the SEC for goodness sake and they lost like 4 games by 1 score. They might be good next year too with Rodgers at QB coming back, along with their leading rusher, and a very good defense (if I'm not mistaken, GSU's former DC is their DC)

that won't mean much in 2012. I like Texas A&M but I don't think I will do much to strengthen the conference.


Sent from my iPhone using my mind powers.

During the Stanford-ND game, Musberger and Herbstreit were speculating about a 6-7 team being required to get a waiver to get into a bowl. Now, that's a no-win situation if there ever was one. They get it, you have the proudest bowl of them all reduced to hosting a team with a losing record. Deny it, and you have a can of worms. Nobody else in the Pac-12 South is eligible. So jump to the North for Stanford? Or go off the board for someone in another league?

I don't envy the Rose Bowl organizers on this one. Yet ANOTHER reason the playoffs are better. I haven't seen this come up yet for the FCS, and the other divisions are mostly near perfect for those who make it. MUCH better matchups, IMO.

SuperHornet wrote:During the Stanford-ND game, Musberger and Herbstreit were speculating about a 6-7 team being required to get a waiver to get into a bowl. Now, that's a no-win situation if there ever was one. They get it, you have the proudest bowl of them all reduced to hosting a team with a losing record. Deny it, and you have a can of worms. Nobody else in the Pac-12 South is eligible. So jump to the North for Stanford? Or go off the board for someone in another league?

I don't envy the Rose Bowl organizers on this one. Yet ANOTHER reason the playoffs are better. I haven't seen this come up yet for the FCS, and the other divisions are mostly near perfect for those who make it. MUCH better matchups, IMO.

If you think that the Rose Bowl would have UCLA at 6-7 over Stanford, you're full of shit. You literally have no idea or comprehension of how the system works and should really stop talking now

youngterrier wrote:

SuperHornet wrote:During the Stanford-ND game, Musberger and Herbstreit were speculating about a 6-7 team being required to get a waiver to get into a bowl. Now, that's a no-win situation if there ever was one. They get it, you have the proudest bowl of them all reduced to hosting a team with a losing record. Deny it, and you have a can of worms. Nobody else in the Pac-12 South is eligible. So jump to the North for Stanford? Or go off the board for someone in another league?

I don't envy the Rose Bowl organizers on this one. Yet ANOTHER reason the playoffs are better. I haven't seen this come up yet for the FCS, and the other divisions are mostly near perfect for those who make it. MUCH better matchups, IMO.

If you think that the Rose Bowl would have UCLA at 6-7 over Stanford, you're full of shit. You literally have no idea or comprehension of how the system works and should really stop talking now

A 6-7 UCLA may get a waiver to play in a bowl (which says alot about how pathetic the bowl system is), but they won't be in a BCS bowl.

UCLA has to win at Oregon and claim the Pac-12 title to get to a BCS bowl.

BlueHen86 wrote:

youngterrier wrote: If you think that the Rose Bowl would have UCLA at 6-7 over Stanford, you're full of shit. You literally have no idea or comprehension of how the system works and should really stop talking now

A 6-7 UCLA may get a waiver to play in a bowl (which says alot about how pathetic the bowl system is), but they won't be in a BCS bowl.

UCLA has to win at Oregon and claim the Pac-12 title to get to a BCS bowl.

exactly

Except for the fact that if Oregon wins and goes to the B(C)$ title game after the fallout from Arkansas losing today, the next team in line (namely the only other team in the league championship game) is the next pick, at least if one can believe Musberger and Herbstreit. Of COURSE Stanford would be a better choice, but they could be contractually required to take UCLA if the NCAA waives the losing record or if there is no waiver process and the 6 wins is the only criteria.

SuperHornet wrote:Except for the fact that if Oregon wins and goes to the B(C)$ title game after the fallout from Arkansas losing today, the next team in line (namely the only other team in the league championship game) is the next pick, at least if one can believe Musberger and Herbstreit. Of COURSE Stanford would be a better choice, but they could be contractually required to take UCLA if the NCAA waives the losing record or if there is no waiver process and the 6 wins is the only criteria.

NO. There is no rule that says the team has to come from the Pac12 division that isn't the champion. I've said it three times, get it through your fucking skull

Drop the language, YT. Your so-called "explanations" are meaningless. Pure drivel. I'll take clenz' position before anything from your teenagy self. Grow up, dude.

SuperHornet wrote:Except for the fact that if Oregon wins and goes to the B(C)$ title game after the fallout from Arkansas losing today, the next team in line (namely the only other team in the league championship game) is the next pick, at least if one can believe Musberger and Herbstreit. Of COURSE Stanford would be a better choice, but they could be contractually required to take UCLA if the NCAA waives the losing record or if there is no waiver process and the 6 wins is the only criteria.

That can't possibly happen. Even of every thing else you posted is true (which I doubt) Oregon will not be in the BCS title game.

SuperHornet wrote:Drop the language, YT. Your so-called "explanations" are meaningless. Pure drivel. I'll take clenz' position before anything from your teenagy self. Grow up, dude.

Has clenz even posted on this thread? What are you talking about?

I think youngterrier's use of the word "fucking" was appropriate.

SuperHornet wrote:Drop the language, YT. Your so-called "explanations" are meaningless. Pure drivel. I'll take clenz' position before anything from your teenagy self. Grow up, dude.

I'll stop when you give me reasons to. Your "explanations" are pulled straight out of your ass. Please tell me or show me where in the BCS rules that say that a divisional winner from the Pac 12 must go to the Rose Bowl. They don't say that, and that's why you're pulling it out of your ass. Jesus Christ