College Football 2010: So it begins

[rah]

Yeah, try that excuse with a bookie. "I know the spread was 30 but they did win by 20, so I should win part of the bet" (add sound of knee being broken)

[SlowwHand]

http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.com/bowl/group/7835

There's a thread about Bowl Pick 'Em.

[Guynemer]

Where is this magical bowl pickum? I'm predicting victories for every bowl-bound SEC team (which is pretty much the whole conference). As I said before a 30 point Auburn blowout 44-14, and a similar score for BAMA against MSU since it'll be virtually the first game where they wont be playing a team coming off a bye week while they just played another top 25 team. They'll be rested and ready for bear!

As for wagers, that depends on the bet and odds. It's unreasonable if I lose if Auburn only wins by 20 for example.

Name your terms; I'm more than happy to negotiate.

I'd also take you up on a wager over a 10-0 SEC bowl season...

[Guynemer]

Interesting note: Only one Big Ten team (out of eight), Ohio State, is currently favored in their respective bowl game.

This a year after the Big Ten played extremely well in the bowls, especially the upper echelon of the conference (OSU, Wisky, PSU, Iowa)...

[Al B. Sure!]

The only bowl-eligible school with a winning (8-4) record to not go bowling... Temple University. Yeah, nice job. Beat a bowling team (UConn), even. Yeah. The NCAA isn't screwy

Seventy of the 120 Football Bowl Subdivision teams will play in bowl games, including 13 that don't have winning records. It's almost inevitable that some season the 35 bowls will not have enough bowl-eligible teams to fill their spots, forcing a bowl to take a team with a losing record.

That has not happened yet, but only two bowl-eligible teams failed to land a postseason berth this year. Western Michigan (6-6) has no gripes about being left home. But Temple is 8-4, including a 30-16 win over a Connecticut team that will play in the Fiesta Bowl. Yet Temple got no bowl invitation, though teams like UTEP (6-6, 3-5 Conference USA) did.

[Solomwi]

@Albie. The NCAA doesn't have anything to do with who goes to a bowl. The problem, so far as it is one, is that nobody cares about Temple football, so no bowl wants to get saddled with them.

[Imran Siddiqui]

And blame the Mid-American Conference for their bow tie ins (also Temple was like tied for 5th in the conference after Miami, Ohio, Northern Illinois, Toledo).

[Al B. Sure!]

@Albie. The NCAA doesn't have anything to do with who goes to a bowl. The problem, so far as it is one, is that nobody cares about Temple football, so no bowl wants to get saddled with them.

Exactly. It's about money and politics. ONLY WINNING TEAM TO NOT GO BOWLING! 13 teams do not have winning records but still have bowl games.

How can Temple ever regain relevance if they win games and don't get a bowl game? Seriously. What top recruits will want to go to Temple if there's no guarantee of a bowl berth every year? Way to keep Temple mired in mediocrity.

This really demonstrates just how good the Temple program (and Al Golden) is; it's a team filled with walk-ons, powerhouse school rejects, and three-star recruits from local schools.

[SlowwHand]

Adios.

Wannstedt out at Pitt

[SlowwHand]

Not bad.

http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news?slug=dw-playoff120610

A seeded 16-team field.

[Solomwi]

Exactly. It's about money and politics. ONLY WINNING TEAM TO NOT GO BOWLING! 13 teams do not have winning records but still have bowl games.

How can Temple ever regain relevance if they win games and don't get a bowl game? Seriously. What top recruits will want to go to Temple if there's no guarantee of a bowl berth every year? Way to keep Temple mired in mediocrity.

This really demonstrates just how good the Temple program (and Al Golden) is; it's a team filled with walk-ons, powerhouse school rejects, and three-star recruits from local schools.

Easy: get some people to care about and support the program. "ONLY WINNING TEAM TO NOT GO BOWLING!" is an indictment of Temple and Temple fans, not the bowls.

[Guynemer]

Not bad.

http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news?slug=dw-playoff120610

A seeded 16-team field.

Problem with that is, if my understanding is correct, the BCS standings are wrong. Boise State should be #10, instead of LSU. Holy ****, can you imagine if they annouced the tourney field, and then a few days later, whoops! Sorry guys! Boise State is actually #10, LSU is #11!

In the above case, I'd take the chalk in the first round save for MSU and BSU (or LSU), setting up Aub-Wisky and Ore-OSU semifinals. I think Oregon would take the finals over the Badgers.

[SlowwHand]

But it is what it is. If these are the BCS rankings and that's what's adhered to, football lives with it. The same could be said for any other poll, be it AP, USA Today or whatever.

[Guynemer]

No, you're misunderstanding me. They actually miscalculated the final BCS standings when they were first released. They corrected them just yesterday (I think). Those playoffs you posted were predicated on LSU being the final at-large at #10; in the corrected standings, the Broncos are actually #10, and the Tigers would be **** outta luck at #11.

I was merely speculating upon the gnashing of teeth and rending of garments if a) we actually had a 16-team playoff, and b) the playoff field was announced BEFORE the miscalculated BCS standings were recognized as miscalculated and subsequently corrected.

[SlowwHand]

Ooooh, yeah. That's true.