This Week in College Football 9/21 - 9/23

[Guest]

That's because there's so much other stuff to do out here. The fans of some teams will travel to the good locales, but El Paso? Nobody wants to go to CronoT's hood.

[teke184 0]

They have the bad bowl spots because people have the perception that the conference is bad. The talent is great. The coaching is not so great.

 

There are so many good players that it's hard to keep them spread around during recruiting, and USC takes it all. Almost everyone on that team was all-state or close to it in highschool.

 

The PAC 10's recent performance in the Holiday Bowl hasn't helped that perception. (Highly-ranked Cal and Oregon losing after missing out on BCS bids furthers the perception that the #2 team in the PAC 10 is worse than the #4 team in a shallow Big XII talent pool.)

 

 

 

Another thing hurting them is geography, as most of the big non-BCS bowls are in Texas and the Gulf South.

 

 

Bowls like the Chick-Fil-A (Peach), Capitol One (Citrus), Cotton, and Outback tend to have high-quality games.

 

The problem is that most of the Texas bowls are tied into the Big 12 and most of the other bowls are tied into the SEC, ACC, or both.

 

 

 

Most of the West Coast bowls tend to be crap, like the two Hawaii bowl games, the Emerald Bowl, the Las Vegas bowl, the Sun Bowl, the Humanitarian Bowl, etc.

[Guest]

The west coast games are crap because they all have a WAC team or Mountain West team playing a shitty Pac 10 team, or playing some Big East trash like in the Emerald Bowl. The Hawaii Bowl's are junk.

 

Put some good teams out here, you get good results. There just aren't enough great venues to put games in, and the cities that do have good venues, are places that nobody wants to travel. People don't want to go to Vegas and watch sports. Do I want to go to Seattle or Boise in the winter? Fuck no, why should anyone else.

 

EDIT: I would never go to the Emerald Bowl again in my entire life. That was the worst trip anywhere that I've ever had.

[Damaramu 0]

You're making the Pac 10 sound worse than it is with this Big XII #4 stuff. It's Big XII #3.

#1 goes to the Fiesta, #2 goes to the Cotton, and #3 goes Holiday.

OU was the #3 team in the conference last season.

The reason that #4 Texas Tech went to play Cal was because OU was #1 and in the Orange Bowl, Texas was #2 and in the Rose Bowl. So that meant instead of #2 going to the Cotton #3 had to go and it moved it down.

[teke184 0]

The west coast games are crap because they all have a WAC team or Mountain West team playing a shitty Pac 10 team, or playing some Big East trash like in the Emerald Bowl. The Hawaii Bowl's are junk.

 

Put some good teams out here, you get good results. There just aren't enough great venues to put games in, and the cities that do have good venues, are places that nobody wants to travel. People don't want to go to Vegas and watch sports. Do I want to go to Seattle or Boise in the winter? Fuck no, why should anyone else.

 

If the Holiday Bowl could raise its profile by securing the #2 Big 12 team instead of the #4 team, it would help things out there.

 

 

 

The Hawaiian bowl games could avoid suckage if they paid over the minimum bowl payout (which makes it tough to turn a profit flying everyone out there) and cut ties with the smaller conferences in favor of the Pac 10 and either the ACC or SEC.

 

 

Boise sucking in December is a no-brainer. No amount of money would get most teams to go out there and play on the Smurf Turf.

 

 

The Emerald Bowl could turn out to be a good venue IF they raise the payout and secure better teams.

 

San Fran is supposed to have mild winters and it's a major tourist city, so it would have the infrastructure to handle a large influx to see a top PAC 10 team vs. a powerhouse from the SEC or ACC.

 

(I wouldn't want to put a Big XII or Big 10 team in there as not to screw with the dynamic of the Rose Bowl or Holiday Bowl unnecessarily.)

[Bored 0]

I think people focus too much one when a bowl game is played when it comes the stature of the game. People don't think of the Holiday Bowl as a major bowl, when it really is, because it's played on December 28th but it has one of the larger payouts for a non-BCS bowl and in fact is a higher payout than the Gator Bowl. The Sun Bowl has the same payout as the Gator, believe it or not. Here's how the non-BCS bowls rank by payout.

 

1. Capital One $5.312 million

2. Cotton $3 million

3. Outback $2.85 million

4. Peach (fuck Chick-Fil-A) $2.35 million

5. Holiday $2 million

6t. Gator, Sun $1.6 million

8. Alamo $1.55 million

9. Liberty $1.35 million

10. Independence $1.2 million

 

Every other bowl is between $750k and $900k.

 

The Emerald Bowl could turn out to be a good venue IF they raise the payout and secure better teams.

 

San Fran is supposed to have mild winters and it's a major tourist city, so it would have the infrastructure to handle a large influx to see a top PAC 10 team vs. a powerhouse from the SEC or ACC.

The Bay Area will never care about college sports, ever. When Stanford went the Final Four and then the Rose Bowl it barely made a blip on the radar here.

[Guest]

If the Holiday Bowl could raise its profile by securing the #2 Big 12 team instead of the #4 team, it would help things out there.

I'd also like it if they got an ACC or SEC team. The bowls are missing variety in their matchups, it's mostly the same conferences playing each other twice, leaving out great possible matchups. Hell I'd take the 4th SEC team. San Diego is a good vacation city and something the kids would like.

 

The Hawaiian bowl games could avoid suckage if they paid over the minimum bowl payout (which makes it tough to turn a profit flying everyone out there) and cut ties with the smaller conferences in favor of the Pac 10 and either the ACC or SEC.

It's way too hard for fans to travel out there.

 

Boise sucking in December is a no-brainer. No amount of money would get most teams to go out there and play on the Smurf Turf.

It's SO COLD.

 

The Emerald Bowl could turn out to be a good venue IF they raise the payout and secure better teams.

 

San Fran is supposed to have mild winters and it's a major tourist city, so it would have the infrastructure to handle a large influx to see a top PAC 10 team vs. a powerhouse from the SEC or ACC.

I edited in how I felt about that. They need to use a real football stadium, not one so close to the water. It's freezing.

[teke184 0]

I think people focus too much one when a bowl game is played when it comes the stature of the game. People don't think of the Holiday Bowl as a major bowl, when it really is, because it's played on December 28th but it has one of the larger payouts for a non-BCS bowl and in fact is a higher payout than the Gator Bowl. The Sun Bowl has the same payout as the Gator, believe it or not. Here's how the non-BCS bowls rank by payout.

 

1. Capital One $5.312 million

2. Cotton $3 million

3. Outback $2.85 million

4. Peach (fuck Chick-Fil-A) $2.35 million

5. Holiday $2 million

6t. Gator, Sun $1.6 million

8. Alamo $1.55 million

9. Liberty $1.35 million

10. Independence $1.2 million

 

Every other bowl is is between $750k and $900k.

 

 

Wow...

 

The fucking Weed-Eater Bowl (Independence) is in the top 10 of non-BCS payoffs.

 

 

I guess that was a requirement to get the SEC's leftovers.

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

You can see how huge the SEC's influence is on bowl payouts. 6 of those 10, including all of the top 4, have an SEC team. Actually, it's every SEC-affiliated bowl except for the Music City.

 

That's the problem. There just aren't a lot of big bowls willing to give up their slots. The Cotton, Capital One, and Outback should probably be more evenly distributed (especially since Capital One and Outback are both SEC/Big Ten matchups), but who wants to get rid of a sure thing? The ACC tried desperately to get one of those when it expanded, but only managed to add the Emerald and Music City Bowls and still only have access to 2 of the top 10 payouts. The Big XII has access to 6 as well (including Sun/Gator).

 

I still don't know why the ACC even bothered taking on the Emerald Bowl. There are too many big programs in Californa for it to be a recruiting benefit, and no ACC team will ever travel well there.

[Guest Princess Leena]

I'm surprised the Cotton and Sun are so high.

 

Maybe the Cotton should use that money to move out of that dump of a stadium.

[Damaramu 0]

Teke why do you keep saying the #4 Big XII team goes to the Holiday Bowl when I keep telling you that's not true?

 

The #2 Big XII team goes to the Cotton Bowl.....so where does #3 go if they're not going to the Holiday Bowl?

And why then was OU Big XII #3 last year and in the Holiday Bowl?

I'm pretty sure Big XII #4 goes to the Alamo Bowl.

[teke184 0]

...

 

Maybe because I posted that like 4 times in 5 minutes, before you corrected it?

 

Or because I didn't see your correction until after my posts were up and I don't feel like changing it?

 

 

 

Specifically, that last post I had mentioning it was being composed for several minutes. Your correction went up between my starting the post and it actually being finished.

[Jorge Gorgeous 0]

And about last year's Oregon team. They proved they deserve the Holiday Bowl when that off the radar OU team outplayed and beat them. Just like Cal the year before. If you're going to bitch you deserved a better bowl then you should win the bowl you get put in against "lesser" competition.

 

Cal and Oregon got left out of the BCS picture and had to settle for the Holiday Bowl, the motivation isn't there... its like having a ticket to Disneyland and having to go to one of those Tilt-A-Whirls they set up in Wal-Mart parking lots. Sure, its probably fun, and you should make the most of it, but you coulda been at Disneyland, dammit.

 

Oh, and...

 

If you're going to bitch you deserved a better bowl

 

If you insist on keeping up the snide remarks, at least have the common decency to keep PMing them to me. Really, I'm enjoying your retarded little exasperated crusade.

[Damaramu 0]

There was nothing snide about it. Both Cal and Oregon bitched they deserved a better bowl and then went out and got romped on by "inferior" competition thus proving they didn't deserve a BCS bowl. Don't give me any crap about getting up for it and what not. At the end of the day it's still a bowl game and you still have to get motivated and play it. Nobody's going to feel sorry for you.

 

That's neither here nor there though. We were talking about the Pac 10 deserving a better bowl.

Maybe they should start working on getting a better one. I don't know how well fans of Pac 10 schools travel though. Would they travel somewhere far out to watch their #2 team face a big time school in Florida or Texas?

[Fökai 0]

The Hawaiian bowl games could avoid suckage if they paid over the minimum bowl payout (which makes it tough to turn a profit flying everyone out there) and cut ties with the smaller conferences in favor of the Pac 10 and either the ACC or SEC.

Quick correction: we only have one bowl now.

 

And really, a SEC or ACC team in Hawai'i? It won't be much of a difference as it is now with Conference USA. Unless it's a conference powerhouse, which I doubt will slip down to the Hawai'i Bowl, they're not going to travel well.

 

And anyway, they finally squared it down to "WAC #2 vs Pac-10 #5", which I'm fine with, but with Pac-10 #3/4 being split between the SF and Vegas bowls, they need to leapfrog them with something. You'd think the location was enough to draw the attention of teams here.

[Jorge Gorgeous 0]

There was nothing snide about it. Both Cal and Oregon bitched they deserved a better bowl and then went out and got romped on by "inferior" competition thus proving they didn't deserve a BCS bowl. Don't give me any crap about getting up for it and what not. At the end of the day it's still a bowl game and you still have to get motivated and play it. Nobody's going to feel sorry for you.

 

That's neither here nor there though. We were talking about the Pac 10 deserving a better bowl.

Maybe they should start working on getting a better one. I don't know how well fans of Pac 10 schools travel though. Would they travel somewhere far out to watch their #2 team face a big time school in Florida or Texas?

 

 

Both Oregon and Oregon State were in the Fiesta Bowl in the last 7 years, and the fans traveled well. I can't really speak for the rest of the Pac-10, but I'm fairly certain there are enough alumni from the Oregon schools to represent their teams well. I think the Pac-10 needs to have their #2 play someone else's #2, part of being regarded as a major conference is carrying yourself as a major conference. I don't even care what bowl it is, hell, make the Las Vegas Bowl Pac-10 #2 vs. Big East #2 or even Big-10 #2. If you can't get your fans to travel to Las Vegas to see a bowl, then you're probably BYU. I know theres probably a lot going on underneath the surface moneywise that would keep this from happening, but I'd still like to see it.

[Hogan Made Wrestling 0]

As has been noted, the Holiday Bowl is a good bowl with a good cash payout, it just needs to be moved to New Year's.

[Guest Princess Leena]

There's no slot to move to on New Year's. BCS games at night. Rose Bowl at 1.

[Jorge Gorgeous 0]

As has been noted, the Holiday Bowl is a good bowl with a good cash payout, it just needs to be moved to New Year's.

 

I've got no issue with the payout, I've got an issue with Pac-10 #2 vs. Big-12 #3. I don't care if the bowl is on New Years, I don't care if the bowls in San Diego, I just don't want to count on Oklahoma having a down year just so Pac-10 #2 can play a marquee opponent.

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

But they did, and your team still lost. Dama is actually right on this one.

[Damaramu 0]

I think he was saying that the possiblity of having a marquee matchup with Big XII #3 vs. Pac 10 #2 is slim because OU and Texas are the only marquee schools(maybe Nebraska but not so much anymore) in the Big XII therefore they'll probably always be 1 and 2 in the conference meaning they'll play in the BCS and the Cotton Bowl leaving a team the caliber of Texas Tech to play in the Holiday Bowl.

He's saying to get that marquee matchup against the Big XII's big names they have to count on one of those two teams being down like OU was last year.

Am I right?

On top of that if OU AND Texas are in the BCS which may happen more often than not then they'll have to move down the rung to the #4 or 5 team in the Big XII making it even worse as far as the name matchup.

[Hogan Made Wrestling 0]

The Big 12 (at least right now) is not a good conference to have a bowl affiliation with in terms of your #2 playing their #3 because there are two power teams (Texas and Oklahoma), one or both of whom is going to be playing in the BCS, and so you either have to hope that Nebraska (the only other real marquee program) is back on track or that there's an upset somewhere. Obviously the SEC or Big 10 would be a better conference to have in terms of playing the #3 team, but the Big 10 doesn't work because of the Rose Bowl and the SEC might not work because of the travel (although I still think SEC fanbases will travel just about anywhere).

[Damaramu 0]

You said at least not right now. Well it's going to be that way for a long time because it'll take a couple of years of both OU and Texas being down for any of the other teams in the conference to develop a marquee name and be seen as anything except the after thought to OU,Texas, and maybe Nebraska.

Maybe if one of them like a Texas Tech can break out and win a national title? Will that make them an instant marquee name? One year with a national title? Or will they have to sustain that level of success to surpass those other 3 teams?

[Secret Agent 0]

Watch Oklahoma State do that this year, Dama.

[Damaramu 0]

Pfft.....I don't care if they are 3-0. They've been doing it against JV squads. I think they might make some noise in the Big XII like they did a few years back when they went like 9-3 but I don't see a title or anything in it.

Maybe they'll finally get over the Texas hump now that Vince Young isn't there to bring them back anymore.

[Jorge Gorgeous 0]

I don't know what it is about Texas Tech... they barely even seem like a legit program to me. I know they've got a good squad that puts up lots of points, I just can't get this stigma about them out of my head. I have no real factual basis for this, but they just seem like a paper tiger to me.

[iggymcfly 0]

I don't know what it is about Texas Tech... they barely even seem like a legit program to me. I know they've got a good squad that puts up lots of points, I just can't get this stigma about them out of my head. I have no real factual basis for this, but they just seem like a paper tiger to me.

 

Did you watch the TCU game? Because if you did I could easily see how you'd get that impression.

[Jorge Gorgeous 0]

I don't know what it is about Texas Tech... they barely even seem like a legit program to me. I know they've got a good squad that puts up lots of points, I just can't get this stigma about them out of my head. I have no real factual basis for this, but they just seem like a paper tiger to me.

 

Did you watch the TCU game? Because if you did I could easily see how you'd get that impression.

 

I didn't catch that one. Maybe its because Texas Tech didn't really enter my mind until they hired Bobby Knight so I think of it as a basketball school... but like, a shitty basketball school. And theres so much shit it spilled into the football coach's office.

[Jorge Gorgeous 0]

Woops, double post.

[Art Sandusky 0]

Texas Tech's problem is that I could start for them this Saturday and still manage to produce 300 yards and a couple of touchdowns. It's a "(something) system/offense" school, so it'll get a stigma about it.