Current Commentary: 3 talking heads all in consenseus agreement that TCU is just a "Little" dissapointed to goto the Fiesta Bowl and deserves a shot at a National Title...just not this year.
Just a little Ironic considering that it's on the BCS's own television show.
Its nice to see how The BCS Selection show, and Fox (The Biggest BCS Supporter & Network with all the Television Rights for the BCS) tries so hard to polish up a turd matchup between Unbeatens to at least *Try* and make it sound like its a title worthy matchup, while the only Title game that matters is between two other teams.
What's graciously given to KC, is strong for the region as a whole. Passion and benevolence will one day exeem towards all whom know true adoration. We shall triumph to better the community as One within THINK (ONE) KC.
Highlander wrote:
It wasn't a great year for the Tigers and I suspect they will be more than happy to get the recruiting exposure in Texas.
I would agree, the Texas bowl provides much better coverage for them than the Insight.
What's graciously given to KC, is strong for the region as a whole. Passion and benevolence will one day exeem towards all whom know true adoration. We shall triumph to better the community as One within THINK (ONE) KC.
Interesting thing you guys. I'm doing some research, and it seems that the officials may not have had the right to review the final play of that game. I know everyone's going to shout out that they can review anything, but technically..they cannot review anything. Only certain things can be reviewed, and they are all listed in the 2009 Rule Book. It does establish that the game clock can be reviewed, but to what extent? Can a game clock be reviewed for an unreviewable reason? Secondly, all reviews require a an agreement, or overturning of an original ruling...as which there was no original ruling on the field regarding the game clock. They did not signal game over, game not over...then review. It was simply "we have no idea...let's review", which is strictly forbidden.
What's graciously given to KC, is strong for the region as a whole. Passion and benevolence will one day exeem towards all whom know true adoration. We shall triumph to better the community as One within THINK (ONE) KC.
im2kull wrote:
I know...I love how much the general mindset of TV personalitys has changed. It doesn't make sense when they go from being all...
(2003-2008)
"Oh __Such & Such Non-BCS team__ Deserves a shot at the title!"
-When we've got 2 BCS teams Undefeated, and 1 Non-BCS undefeated(3 total)...
TO
(2009)
"The BCS championship game is now set, Tune in to us live in Pasadena to see Texas & Alabama.."
-Now that we've got 3 OTHER undefeated teams (5 total). Gotta love how the "only" way there's a problem with the BCS this year was "If NU Upset Texas"...
Am I wrong in thinking that there's a problem when we've got FIVE undefeated teams, 1 or 2 of which will not even make it into a BCS game?!?!
True, TX is going to get pounded by Bama. They looked atrocious in every regard.
That will make me feel a little less heartbroken than I do right now.
At the end of the day:
1. Although the defense is just unbelievable - the offense is simply atrocious. Had Huskers offense been able to score ONE touchdown, this wouldn't be an issue.
2. The Big 12 was crapping their pants at all of the lost revenue for the conference had TX not won and gone to the title game. Once again, all in life seems to come down to the benjamins..... Not that I'm suggesting any foul play, I'm just sayin'.....
The Big XII is a corrupt sham that serves only to further the economic purposes of Texas, A&M, Oklahoma, and to a lesser extent Nebraska.
It's no secret that Texas was loudly grumbling about negotiating a conference emigration last year after being dissatisfied with the tiebreaker process. There have also been constant reports that Texas is less than impressed by the Big XII's academic reputation and feel that this hampers their own growth as an elite research university ... but it clearly doesn't matter. The current TV deal (and bowl selection criteria) is so completely weighted in their favor economically that it's all smoke and mirrors. No school in the country gets a better deal than Texas-Austin does.
It's also pretty clear that Big XII administration would prefer to phase out the historical Big 8 capital (Kansas City) and move pretty much everything not nailed down into the Lone Star state. Heck, if it could get any traction, I'm sure they'd suggest that every Big 12 school play it's entire home schedule in Texas.
So I say: let them have the damn thing. It's pretty clear that a rising Longhorn tide has not done one iota for the rest of the conference (adjusted for the inflation of the entire D1 or FBS system, payouts are almost exactly the same for schools outside of the big 4).
As it stands, the school with the most to complain about this is Missouri, who has now been snubbed in 3 consecutive years, costing the university untold amounts of exposure and at least 8 million dollars in appearance fees. And the problem hasn't been underperformance, far from it. If they were a typical non-Nebraska football school in the North, their bowl appearances would be sporadic and notable, and therefore likely to draw better (see Insight Bowl: State, Iowa). Kansas was a very charming national Cinderella story in 2007, and last year, well, Nebraska is Nebra$ka. And if Big Red is on a program upswing coming up again, well, you can pretty much close the book on anyone else in the North sniffing any sort of exposure for the next decade. If Missouri is truly a program stuck in that "good, not great" area, this conference may prevent them from ever getting out of it.
Which is why I believe Missouri should strongly consider revisiting their long courtship with the Big Ten, a conference perhaps currently lacking in revenue sport firepower, but with an elite reputation in academics, exposure, and their business model (oh and did I mention merit based bowl placement?). Geographically it's obviously a good fit and pretty much cements the St. Louis TV market while getting a piece of Kansas City, not a bad haul for one university.
And the timing is perfect: Missouri may not have had much to offer ten years ago, but now it has a football program that would be middle of the pack or better in a struggling conference, would add significant recruiting and exposure footholds for the conference further south and west, and perhaps one of the conference's better basketball programs to boot. Academically it would be in their lower tier, but it isn't a complete bust either. Revenue and opportunity alone, as well as the awkward current structuring of the Big 10 conference, makes Mizzou a perfect fit.
For the rest of the non-Nebraska Big XII North schools, unfortunately there's not really any great options, but I'd begin exploring them anyway. The current conference structure is taking all of us for a ride.
2. The Big 12 was crapping their pants at all of the lost revenue for the conference had TX not won and gone to the title game. Once again, all in life seems to come down to the benjamins..... Not that I'm suggesting any foul play, I'm just sayin'.....
Wouldn't the Big 12 had made more money if Nebraska won? They would have two teams in the BCS.....each making $14mil+ for the conference instead of one.
brotherdarrell wrote:
Wouldn't the Big 12 had made more money if Nebraska won? They would have two teams in the BCS.....each making $14mil+ for the conference instead of one.
Yes. Beat me to it.
"Don't go around saying the world owes you a living. The world owes you nothing. It was here first."
- Mark Twain
all bowl monies are split evenly across the conference...MU maybe getting hosed due to their poorly traveled fan base but they aren't losing any money because of it.
From what I have read, the Big Ten "courtship" with Mizzou has all been one-sided - Mizzou wants in, the Big Ten isn't all that interested. The Big Ten is eternally waiting for Notre Dame to jump ship and join them.
Are you certain? My understanding was that while there is a split that the attending school gets a significantly increased share. I could be wrong here.
This is why I love college football. It's a stupid, parochial cluster of rules piled on bureaucracy.
KCMax wrote:
From what I have read, the Big Ten "courtship" with Mizzou has all been one-sided - Mizzou wants in, the Big Ten isn't all that interested. The Big Ten is eternally waiting for Notre Dame to jump ship and join them.
Where would Texas go? The Pac Ten?
There was a rumor that Texas and A&M were courting with the ACC of all things. CBS even ran it for a day or two last year that it was a done deal. They don't care for the SEC and the PAC-10, while attractive, screws with the television schedule too much.
I don't blame the Big 10 for preferring Notre Dame, but that's never going to happen.
Boognish wrote:
There was a rumor that Texas and A&M were courting with the ACC of all things. CBS even ran it for a day or two last year that it was a done deal. They don't care for the SEC and the PAC-10, while attractive, screws with the television schedule too much.
I don't blame the Big 10 for preferring Notre Dame, but that's never going to happen.
Wow, the ACC would be bizarre. I don't see much room in the SEC, since they already have 12. I guess they could expand to 16 like the Big East for basketball, but that's pretty unwieldy for football.
Yea, I don't think Notre Dame will ever join the Big Ten, but I think the Big Ten wants to keep the door open for them forever. There was also talk of them talking to Syracuse when the Big East lost all their good football programs, but that never went very far.
I don't see the Big 12 breaking up anytime soon. Its been a pretty lucrative arrangement for everyone interested.
KCMax wrote:
Wow, the ACC would be bizarre. I don't see much room in the SEC, since they already have 12. I guess they could expand to 16 like the Big East for basketball, but that's pretty unwieldy for football.
Yea, I don't think Notre Dame will ever join the Big Ten, but I think the Big Ten wants to keep the door open for them forever. There was also talk of them talking to Syracuse when the Big East lost all their good football programs, but that never went very far.
I don't see the Big 12 breaking up anytime soon. Its been a pretty lucrative arrangement for everyone interested.
Syracuse only has like 8 men's sports and none of them are very good, their stadium is small, and they are isolated. I heard this as well, but Missouri is a way better fit.
And Mizzou would make a ton more money in the Big 10.
jdubwaldo wrote:
2. The Big 12 was crapping their pants at all of the lost revenue for the conference had TX not won and gone to the title game. Once again, all in life seems to come down to the benjamins..... Not that I'm suggesting any foul play, I'm just sayin'.....
I'm pretty sure the conference would have gotten quite a bit more by getting a second team into the BCS instead of just one in the national title game. As far as I know, national title game payouts are the same as the other 8 slots.
So the money argument, if that's true, is actually the exact opposite.
