VA Husker Fan

I enjoyed it a lot. I find well-done alternate history stories very interesting. Some are saying this or that just couldn't have happened, but when you are rewriting history I don't have a problem with unlikely things coming about.

I think an undefeated Boise St deserved a spot. A 2-loss WKU with 0 noteworthy wins does not. As I've said in other threads, a conference championship is based on only a subset of the games and not the entire season. The national championship should be based on the whole season. Winning a conference championship should carry serious weight but not be an absolute.

Which two top 25 teams did Western Kentucky play? I see LSU, who they lost to, and that's it. Ridiculous to put them in over any of about a dozen teams.

Those are selected "facts". W-L is a more important fact than anything you put in. If I read this correctly, and it's not very easy to read so maybe I'm not, you're saying the Big 10 has 4 great teams but Michigan State isn't one of them? That doesn't pass the eyeball test at all. Just because you found some things that are measurable doesn't mean those are the things that really say who are the best teams.

I'm good with an 8 team playoff, though I don't think it's a travesty that Ohio St didn't get in. They knew they had a must win game, at home, and they didn't do it. If you want to make sure you get in, win all your games. Otherwise you run the risk of being left out. There's no previous system we've had where they would've had a chance either, so the 4 team playoff didn't cause this. Other than the Michigan team they never did look like a top team. Last year is history. You can't say Ohio St deserves a shot after last year and in the next breath complain about SEC bias from past championships.

Do they give away so many Fossil watches because they can't sell them?

The original rule for 5-7 teams said http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/jerry-palm/25353577/bowling-2015-bowl-eligibility-tracker But that was the rule that said you had to be in the top 5 APR. No 5-7 teams were in the top 5 so they had to go back and modify the rule, and I guess they forgot or ignored the "no BCS wins" rules.

Next season the goal will be to have a bowl outside of Florida or California Next season, the goal should be to actually deserve a bowl. Not steal a "win" on a horrifically bad call and then get a bid to a bowl game out of pity. Fact is, we do NOT deserve a bowl this year. We should be more ashamed than excited. Next up: participation trophies and orange slices...count me out. Missouri is the only team with enough class to say thanks but no thanks. That was a horrifically bad post, but I'll give you a participation trophy for taking part in this discussion.

Of the lesser bowl games, I love the BYU-Utah match-up.

It's the Pac 12 #4 vs. Big 10 #7. Why they mismatch conferences that much, I don't know, but it's got little to do with perception of us. We are 9th in the B1G, and with MSU in the playoffs, we are B1G #8. So we got bumped one spot, assuming this is true. I'm guessing they've put Indiana in the closer QuickLane Bowl in Detroit. Hadn't heard if other matchups have been leaked or announced. Holiday bowl is Pac #3 vs B1G #6 also. http://collegefootballnews.com/2015/2015-2016-college-football-bowl-conference-tie-ins Actually, since Ohio State got the Fiesta Bowl, the B1G got 2 extra major bowls (playoffs + Fiesta in addition to the Rose) so we are right in line as the #7 team. We face a tough matchup because of the #4 vs #7, and also because the Pac 12 didn't get any extra bowls while the Big 10 got 2 extras, so it's really #4 vs #9. Nothing really to lose, other than the possibility of a 5-8 record. If we win, it should be considered a very good win against a tougher opponent. Indiana got the Pinstripe Bowl as #6 so they did not fall behind us. The source I quoted was wrong about the Holiday taking the #6 team. They had the order right under the Big 10, but under the Pac 10 they listed the opponent as Big 10 #6 when it's actually #4.

Henry looks like a man vs boys to me, almost a Herschel Walker. 460 yards on 90 carries his last two games. What was that about carrying a team? That total yards number is BS with kickoff returns. McC did have a few more yards from scrimmage including receiver, but Henry had 23 TDs vs 12 for McCaffrey. Henry is the most impressive I've seen, but I didn't see as much of those other guys to really compare. If I had a vote I'd have been watching a lot more closely, but my thought actually was WOW, this guy is the best player in the country!

It's the Pac 12 #4 vs. Big 10 #7. Why they mismatch conferences that much, I don't know, but it's got little to do with perception of us. We are 9th in the B1G, and with MSU in the playoffs, we are B1G #8. So we got bumped one spot, assuming this is true. I'm guessing they've put Indiana in the closer QuickLane Bowl in Detroit. Hadn't heard if other matchups have been leaked or announced. Holiday bowl is Pac #3 vs B1G #6 also. http://collegefootballnews.com/2015/2015-2016-college-football-bowl-conference-tie-ins

Not sure if you're replying to me, but I'm talking about them pulling out the chains instead of taking it straight to video evidence in the booth. An Official Review, I mean. What does a booth review do by itself? They could look at it relative to the line, but like I said, that's not official. They bring the chains out to see whether it is a first down or not, then they review to see if the spot was right. They should use the technology IMO but since they don't, it makes sense to establish where the ball is relative to the official 1st down mark.

That line is a TV thing, not official. Seems like it should be though.

Really? I'm enjoying this one. Stanford game is a blowout. I may put the ACC game on the main TV if UNC keeps it up.

That's possible. Or, schools may decide if they don't need strength of schedule at all, there's no need to put your guys at risk in tough games and you schedule nothing but pasties, especially to get home games. People complain that playoffs make the regular season meaningless; this would absolutely guarantee that 1/3 or 1/4 of the season really is totally meaningless.

What does that even mean (bolded part)??

My main issue is that conference championships totally ignore non-conference games. That means conference champions are decided on only a subset of the games. I'd rather see the national championship decided based on all games. Take an extreme scenario: Team A plays and soundly beats Florida State, Alabama, and Oklahoma out of conference, with one of them being an end of the season rivalry game. Team B loses to 3 FCS or lower tier FBS schools, including a late season game (like some SEC schools schedule), and loses to the worst team in their conference. However, Team B upsets Team A on a fluke or terrible weather or due to one-week injuries to Team A's star players, and also manages to win the rest of their conference games. They go to the conference championship game on the head-to-head tiebreaker and win that too. Or it's like the Big 12 and they have no conference championship). Or Team B is in the other division, and gets in the conference championship game with 2 or 3 conference losses, and upsets team A. Clearly Team A is the better team, probably best in the country, and B really isn't very good, but B gets to go instead of A. And say something similar happens in every conference and we have a bunch of team Bs in the playoffs. Just pick the best teams for the playoffs. If you can make the field big enough to include the Team A or two that was clearly one of the very best but got shut out of it due to a fluke, ok, but don't make exclusive playoffs based on champions. It didn't work that well for hoops before the expanded the tournament, IMO.

Here's a prospect, from Florida State: http://espn.go.com/espnw/athletes-life/article/14271095/fsu-sorority-sister-back-stunning-flag-football-highlight-reel?ex_cid=espnfb

ACC: Virginia Tech, like what Beamer did with the program SEC: Mississippi St, had a roommate from there, we followed each other's teams. Big 10: Michigan St, I guess. I like how they've unseated Michigan, at least for now. Years ago I probably would've said Penn St. Big 12: Geez, I don't know. Kansas was never really offensive. Maybe Oklahoma. Pac 12: Stanford. Kind of like Oregon too. The rest: Notre Dame. I like how well they treated us in South Bend in 2000. Boise St, I like the blue turf and how they got their program on the map, stepping up and knocking off some big schools. FCS: James Madison, since my son is an alum and I enjoyed going to some of their games when he was in the band.

Not that it changes the picture all that much, but he left out Florida.

http://www.thegazette.com/subject/sports/unsold-bowl-tickets-costs-b1g-nearly-45-million-20140516 shows the expenses from a number of bowl games in 2013. There's a table part way down, which I don't fully understand, as it breaks down the unused ticket cost, transportation, and meals, and has a total that looks to be greater than those values. We spent over $900K in transportation and $500K in meals to go to the Gator Bowl, part of a total of $2.3M, including nearly $800K for unsold tickets. You'd hope we'll cut expenses for a smaller bowl game. Maryland spent over $600K (not counting unsold tickets) to go to a bowl in Annapolis. Take a look at a map to see how close Annapolis is to College Park. The article says that the Big 10 negotiated smaller ticket sales requirements in return for a smaller payout, so the ticket payouts won't be as bad, or hopefully non-existent. Most or maybe all of these bowls require more than a fly in/fly out the next day commitment though. No way is it going to be $250K. I haven't found a place where they say how much the conference pays for expenses, other than it's a predetermined amount. We don't get Dad's credit card.

But the B1G pools the bowl game $$ and divides it so Nebraska would still probably come out ahead. Especially if there is a B1G team in the CFP. Not the same thing. Certainly we'll make money from the bowl season, a lot of money, but ome of the smaller bowls don't even pay enough for expenses so we might make less by actually going to a bowl, especially if we have to guarantee a certain number of tickets and don't sell them. That's what that statement means. The way I remember the Big 8 doing it, which makes sense, is that you get a certain amount for expenses. It's a lot considering the travel and how many administrators go, at least when it was Miami. The excess would get pooled. I think the team that went to the bowl got an extra share. So we would get 2/9 over the expense allocation. Not sure if that's exactly right but it's something along those lines, and the B1G probably does something similar. I think they actually split the money evenly, after expenses, though maybe not quite evenly for the new schools. Here's one take on it from a few years ago: http://blog.pennlive.com/patriotnewssports/2011/12/big_ten_teams_share_rose_bowl.html Here is what the payouts look like for this year. http://www.statisticbrain.com/college-bowl-game-payouts/ The B1G gets about $50 million from the CFP/NY6 just for being the B1G. They get an additional $6 million for getting a team into the playoff and $4 million for a NY6 Bowl. Last year the B1G got all 3 for a cool $60 million on top of the other bowls. And it will probably happen again. Pooled together, that has to be far more than expenses to Detroit or San Francisco Yes, I said we'll make money on bowl season. But we'll probably make less if we go to a smaller bowl like the Armed Forces bowl paying $675K, which won't even cover our expenses. Instead of staying home and taking in $6M from the other games, we might get only $5.5M or so. That's called losing money by going to that bowl. Is that really hard to understand? The Big 10 isn't going to give us $1M for expenses to a $675K bowl game. I don't even know why the Big 10 bothered accepting a tie in to those bowls. Foster Farms and Pinstripe pay enough that the Big 10 will probably allow us more for expenses, because there'll still be some excess to put in the shared pool.

But the B1G pools the bowl game $$ and divides it so Nebraska would still probably come out ahead. Especially if there is a B1G team in the CFP. Not the same thing. Certainly we'll make money from the bowl season, a lot of money, but ome of the smaller bowls don't even pay enough for expenses so we might make less by actually going to a bowl, especially if we have to guarantee a certain number of tickets and don't sell them. That's what that statement means. The way I remember the Big 8 doing it, which makes sense, is that you get a certain amount for expenses. It's a lot considering the travel and how many administrators go, at least when it was Miami. The excess would get pooled. I think the team that went to the bowl got an extra share. So we would get 2/9 over the expense allocation. Not sure if that's exactly right but it's something along those lines, and the B1G probably does something similar. I think they actually split the money evenly, after expenses, though maybe not quite evenly for the new schools. Here's one take on it from a few years ago: http://blog.pennlive.com/patriotnewssports/2011/12/big_ten_teams_share_rose_bowl.html

I have no idea what AngstOrange is. But yeah, agree on the article.