Reply With Quote
Utah has two BCS wins. One over Alabama and another over Pitt. I think they automatically qualify.
This past yr was the first time Tech didn't make a bowl game in the entire Big XII's existence. I may be a homer, but Tech belongs. And in 2008, Tech would have gotten an at large BCS bid if they had a higher BCS standing than UT and OU. We didn't therefore we were left out. BTW, just wait till the Michael Brewer era begins.
Utah has two BCS wins. One over Alabama and another over Pitt. I think they automatically qualify.
updated list:
1. LSU
2. Alabama
3. Oklahoma State
4. Stanford
5. Oregon
6. Arkansas
8. Kansas State
9. South Carolina
10. Wisconsin
11. Virginia Tech
12. Baylor
13. Michigan
14. Oklahoma
15. Clemson
16. Georgia
17. Michigan State
18. TCU
19. Houston
20. Nebraska
22. Penn State
23. West Virginia
24. Texas
25. Auburn
26. Texas A&M
27. Florida st
28. BYU
29. Georgia Tech
30. Cal
31. Iowa
32. Missi St
33. Florida
34. Washington
35. Ohio st
37. Miami
38. Arizona St
39. NC St
40. Pitt
41. UCLA
42. Illinois
43. Tennessee
44. Texas Tech
45. Purdue
46. Arizona
47. Syracuse
48. Boston College
49. Washington St
50. Kansas
51. Oregon St
53. Colorado
54. Ole Miss
55. Southern Cal
56. Notre Dame
57. Utah
can't seem to get it down to 48, so it will have to go 60, which means 5 12-team conferences.
58. SMU
59. Louisville
60. North Carolina
conference winner with the highest bcs rating gets a first round playoff bye
the 4 BCS bowls rotate games.
playoff game
playoff game
3rd place game
NC game
the other 60 schools left out would form another FBS level and have a similar system.
perfect college football world, imo
Last edited by Blake; 01-11-2012 at 05:33 PM.
meh... Scotty Young might be better.
Either way, I'm still waiting for a defensive era to begin.
3rd highest winning % in a conference with UT and OU ain't bad IMHO
Wish we could play some D though.
Washington St. perhaps in the 90's would be there--I would put them in the 2nd tier...
this list will be 115 by tomorrow
Way to go out on a limb there "would most likely"
I would love to see "some tangible" evidence.
Definitely no room for Akron or Buffalo
I would love to see you post more rumors of UT going to the Big 10.Way to go out on a limb there "would most likely"
I would love to see "some tangible" evidence.
I'm going to miss those. They were ing hilarious.
Better list now my school is on there now.
I would love to see "some tangible" evidence.Fiesta Bowl officials were also in Lubbock for the Tech/UT game.Fiesta Bowl keeping eyes on Red Raiders
......Texas Tech advanced to No. 7 in the BCS standings Sunday, a day after the Red Raiders whipped a ranked team with a couple of BCS bowl reps looking on.
Steve Whiteman, a Fiesta Bowl board member and part of the game's selection committee, couldn't help but be impressed with Tech during its 63-21 rout of Kansas on Saturday in Lawrence, Kan.
"Obviously, Texas Tech looks like a fabulous football team - offensively, just extremely good and defensively they came to play,'' said Whiteman, one of two Fiesta Bowl reps in attendance. "Very impressed with Texas Tech. I'm sure we'll be out there for a couple games over the next few weeks and obviously they're one to keep an eye on.''
....
"We're excited to see how they're playing,'' Whiteman said. "Clearly, they'll be a major factor in our game and, in general, the BCS they'll be a factor definitely. Tough next three weeks, though. Good thing two are at home. If they get through, they'll have earned it; that's for sure.''
http://lubbockonline.com/stories/102...48687276.shtml
You've been proven stupid. Again.
As a Kent State alum, I'd be delighted if the entire Mid-American Conference got demoted to FCS status.
That was your tangible evidence
Bowl officials always travel to college games to scout teams prior to bowl selection to review "potential". That doesn't even come close to proving that if Texas was ranked lower than #4 in the final BCS poll that the Red Raiders would have got the bid over them.
I guess since you stated "would most likely" you have an out. But what a ing joke.
I was expecting "some tangible" evidence to be a picture of your wife from 2008 giving the CEO of the Fiesta Bowl a blow job as "some" tangible evidence that Tech would most likely have gotten the bid had UT not been eligible.
If this were true, Fiesta Bowl officials wouldn't waste coin and time traveling to places like Lawrence and Lubbock.
Nate From Ohio continues to provide tangible evidence of being stupid.
So you are putting your faith in Fiesta Bowl Officials that (a) had the CEO terminated and had employees commit numeruous non-profit rules, which specficially included bowl lobbying efforts and spending practices?
"John Junker, chief executive officer for Arizona's Fiesta Bowl , was fired Tuesday amid multiple investigations of alleged political campaign-finance violations and other financial misconduct, according to bowl officials."
"In December 2009, The Arizona Republic reported on political contributions by Fiesta Bowl employees who said they were reimbursed by the organization, a potential legal violation as well as a violation of the organization's tax-exempt status. The article also described bowl lobbying efforts and spending practices, both of which could breach federal rules for nonprofits."
Link
What other tangible evidence do you have? Still waiting for something that is worth a damn.
The fact that fiesta bowl officials flew to Lawrence, Kansas is enough tangible evidence to prove that Tech was under consideration for an at-large bid.
No other evidence required to prove that you are stupid, but keep throwing out more proof that you are. It's good stuff.
When I went to last yr's spring game, Brewer outperformed Young. Should be interesting to see who starts after Doege. I'm just glad we finally got the D-Cord position settled. I hope we can see some progression. I'm also worried about the RB situation with all the knee injuries.
So now under consideration means "most likely would have selected Tech"
Still no "tangible evidence" that Fiesta bowl officals would have selected Tech over Texas had Texas finished lower than #4.
Not what you initiallly proclaimed.
Right, I initially said "most likely would have". Had UT and OU not been ranked ahead, Tech would "most likely" have gone as an at-large.So now under consideration means "most likely would have selected Tech"
Still no "tangible evidence" that Fiesta bowl officals would have selected Tech over Texas had Texas finished lower than #4.
Not what you initiallly proclaimed.
Fiesta Bowl officials visiting confirm Tech was under serious consideration.
Nobody ever said it was a guarantee.
You're stupid.
It's been confirmed.
Pretty sad you still don't get IT. If UT was ranked lower than fourth and higher than 10th they were going to the Fiesta Bowl and Tech was going to another bowl.
Yeah you said "most likely would have". Once again you went way out on a limb there with an opened statement. Congratulations, what next the weather is going to be different tomorrow.
You also had said you had "some tangible" evidence and only provided quotes from corrupt bowl officials and that corrupt bowl officials went to Tech games. Very lame "tangible" evidence.
I never said Tech wasn't under consideration, just refuting your lame point that Tech would have gone if UT was ranked between 5 and say 10.
If you confirmed it then there is a 100% there was an error, I mean you couldn't even identify the last time the Big 12 only had one team in the BCS and that was last year.
right, because at-large bids are not guaranteed to any school. We both know this, so there's no reason to go on a limb and guarantee Tech would have gotten in.
Ftr, closed statements like "Face it dude Tech doesn't bring enough to the table to warrant an at large selection" are what stupid posters say.
Whether the officials are corrupt or not has absolutely nothing to do with whether they were going to invite Tech or not.You also had said you had "some tangible" evidence and only provided quotes from corrupt bowl officials and that corrupt bowl officials went to Tech games. Very lame "tangible" evidence.
You are stupid for implying such.
I never said Tech wasn't under considerationThat's exactly what you said:
You are too stupid to realize how stupid you are.
I have confirmed your stupidity on multiple occasions.
A memory lapse on my part doesn't equal stupidity, especially when I start the phrase with "I don't recall off the top of my head".
Your continued ignorance and poor reading comprehension is what makes you stupid.
Nice excuse.
whatever you have to tell yourself to make you feel better.
I'm talking to you, stupid.
That's what the "you" in "you are stupid" means.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
