Re: Big 12 Football
Posted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 3:08 pm
![Image](http://www.bjacked.net/LuvToHunt/forums/phpBB2/modules/gallery/albums/album01/Beat_Dead_Horse.jpg)
All bowls that do not contain a team that is at least concievably playing for a shot at the national championship are second tier bowls. All the bickering will not change that reality. Orange Bowl, Cotton Bowl, and Holiday Bowl get relegated to the who-cares-other-than-the-fans-of-the-two-teams-involved category if they do not contain a potential national champion. It would be like watching UCLA play North Carolina on the same day KU and Memphis plays in the NCAA tourney and stating the games had the same meaning. To me watching UCLA vs North Carolina play a consolation game would have no more meaning than watching Davidson and Duke play one.jlbomega wrote: This whole thing started because MD claimed the Cotton Bowl is a second tier bowl.
The confernece splits all of this money anyway, total non-issue.Maitre D wrote:
Judging by the payouts, it is clear the Cotton = Orange
Rose 17M
Fiesta 17M
Orange 17M
Sugar 17M
Capitol 1 4M
Outback 3M
Cotton 3M
Chik-Fil-A 2.8M
Champs Sports 2.3M
Absurd. The payouts alone render your argument incorrect. So do the TV ratings.Highlander wrote: Orange Bowl, Cotton Bowl, and Holiday Bowl get relegated to the who-cares-other-than-the-fans-of-the-two-teams-involved
Exactly. That is why I would take beating Kansas, the opportunity to win a Big 12 title, and earn a spot in the National Championship game over losing to Kansas and backing into the Orange Bowl. Other than the crappy International Bowl every bowl played after NYD is bascially the same.Highlander wrote: All bowls that do not contain a team that is at least concievably playing for a shot at the national championship are second tier bowls. All the bickering will not change that reality. Orange Bowl, Cotton Bowl, and Holiday Bowl get relegated to the who-cares-other-than-the-fans-of-the-two-teams-involved category if they do not contain a potential national champion. It would be like watching UCLA play North Carolina on the same day KU and Memphis plays in the NCAA tourney and stating the games had the same meaning. To me watching UCLA vs North Carolina play a consolation game would have no more meaning than watching Davidson and Duke play one.
Payouts are spread evenly throughout the confernece.... quit bringing up this stupid point. If you would have taken any number of the NYD games (Cotton, Capital One, etc) and moved them to network TV in primetime they would have done the same numbers and probably more. The NYD games have competition from other games on TV.Maitre D wrote: Absurd. The payouts alone render your argument incorrect. So do the TV ratings.
Nobody thinks the Rose Bowl is totall worthless just because it doesn't host the title game 3/4 of the time. Or that going is the same as a Holiday Bowl bid. GMAFB.
Yeah...and? KU brought dinner to the table for the rest of the North teams to feast on.jlbomega wrote: Payouts are spread evenly throughout the confernece.... quit bringing up this stupid point.
The top 8 teams did play in it. Sorry if Mizzou wasn't top 8 in the minds of the committees.jlbomega wrote: The fact that bowl committees pick and choose teams without regarding what occured on the field the BCS will not mean anything (other than the National Champion). And yes, I will say this if Mizzou ever wins a BCS bowl game... unless they change the BCS so the top eight (or ten if they expand) teams play in it.
jlbomega wrote: Payouts are spread evenly throughout the confernece.... quit bringing up this stupid point.
The championship game between LSU and OSU had a TV rating of 17.4. The Rose Bowl had a TV rating of 11 which wasn't too bad. After that there was a big fall off, the Orange Bowl had a TV rating of 7.4 despite a pretty good television time slot. The Capital One Bowl, not a BCS bowl, had a TV ranking of 9.13. After the championship game, there was a huge fall-off in viewership and while the BCS bowls generally did better than non BCS bowls, they weren't much better and certainly were much closer in viewership to the non-BCS bowls than they were to the championship game. If you did a cluster analysis on the ratings, the non championship BCS bowl games would group much more closely with the rest of Bowl wannabees than they would with the championship game.Maitre D wrote: Absurd. The payouts alone render your argument incorrect. So do the TV ratings.
Nobody thinks the Rose Bowl is totall worthless just because it doesn't host the title game 3/4 of the time. Or that going is the same as a Holiday Bowl bid. GMAFB.
jlbomega wrote: Bottom line, the BCS is ruining college football.
MD is turing the attention elsewhere, usually what happens when he must admit defeat. You are seriously weak dude!Maitre D wrote:
The only thing the BCS is ruining, is your self-esteem.
Mizzou ended the season on top.
WSPanic wrote: The fact that you can't recognize the distinction between a BCS Bowl and a non-BCS Bowl makes the fact that you somehow make a huge distinction between #4 and #7 in an end of season poll that much funnier.
To end my time posting today I would merely like to point out I posted an article about how the Cotton Bowl will move to Jan 2 and have it's own timeslot in its attempt to become the fifth BCS bowl. I had no intention of talking about who had a better season. My point (which I made months ago) is if/when the Cotton becomes a BCS bowl everyone will look back at this as a total non issue.Maitre D wrote:
I still find it hilarious he says the Orange isn't that big a deal - but throws yet another tantrum clear out of nowhere about their snub of MU, 4 months later.
You talk about this like you know a lot about the subject :lol:Maitre D wrote: He's like the guy who says he doesn't miss his ex that dumped him. Then rags on her constantly.
I was going to stop... but this needs to be said.Maitre D wrote: Dude, I'd keep that quiet. JLB is about to explode on you.