I'm still waiting until they find a way for everyone to get into a bowl game.

But hey, at least the bowl cartel got paid off again. It's worth it to avoid the potential financial windfall to universities and drama from a playoff, right?

UCLA definitely didn't deserve a bowl invite based on football. This was purely a money decision by the bowl. At least they didn't manage a 100-1 shot by beating Oregon in the Pac12 champ game. That would have completely farked everything up with one of the two best teams in the conference being forced out of a BCS matchup to let UCLA die in a fire to Wisconsin.

I can't believe UCLA even filed for a waiver after the season they had. The Arizona brawl and loss to USC were bad enough. The administration should have considered the PAC-12 championship game their +1 and moved on from a completely forgettable year. The new coach has actually started off strong with his hires and a few recruiting pick ups, but crap like this doesn't exactly help the team's momentum.

/UCLA season ticket holder until I moved out of state
//will be there for the season opener sweating to death in the Houston sun

TheManofPA: I'm still waiting until they find a way for everyone to get into a bowl game.

"In the Del Monte Fruit Cocktail in Light Syrup Bowl, we have a truly competitive matchup: the Eastern Michigan Hur--ah, Eagles, versus the UNLV Rebels. Today's game will feature tight shots of the field in order to conceal the fact that the paid attendance is 349 people, 90% of whom are related to the players. And now for our starting lineups...."

The bowl eligible Hilltoppers of Western Kentucky University say thanks to the whole bowl system.

AKTurkey: Go B1G!

/except Ohio

Ohio is in the Mid American Conference. We won our bowl game earlier this month.

/Yes, I am a Bobcat!

IAmRight: Removing USC from the bowl equation has really screwed the Pac-12's bowl slots up. As has putting two teams in the BCS. Outside of the BCS-eligible teams and USC, there wasn't a good team in the Pac-12 this year.

You act like usc was that good, hell the entire pac 10 was worse off than the sec this year

steamingpile: IAmRight: Removing USC from the bowl equation has really screwed the Pac-12's bowl slots up. As has putting two teams in the BCS. Outside of the BCS-eligible teams and USC, there wasn't a good team in the Pac-12 this year.

You act like usc was that good, hell the entire pac 10 was worse off than the sec this year

Beat Oregon, gave Stanford the fight of their life, and blew out UCLA 50-zip. I'd say they're "good". They weren't the same team that blew the doors off BCS football years ago, but they weren't not-good either.

IAmRight: Maybe UCLA should try picking up someone who might be able to sustain a block for more than 1/8 of a second.

They sucked ass all game and STILL should've rolled but for two amazingly incompetent plays. In any case, that game was potentially the best argument for getting rid of the extra bowl games. But the Utah/Georgia Tech game was pretty damn fun.

/I forget how it was actually spelled but "Merciless" is a fantastic last name for a defensive end

The fact they didn't put more points up against that shot defense while giving up so many speaks volumes about how bad they are.

Also I would bet his name is really pronounced like marcalus but they changed it for his football playing.

IAmRight: Removing USC from the bowl equation has really screwed the Pac-12's bowl slots up. As has putting two teams in the BCS. Outside of the BCS-eligible teams and USC, there wasn't a good team in the Pac-12 this year.

No conferences had three teams make BCS bowls, which there's a decent chance the Pac-12 would have done had USC been eligible. Even still, they would have had 3 teams in the top 9 of the final standings.

It was definitely a top heavy year for the Pac-12, but that's true of most conferences. Even the SEC had only 5 teams above .500, which was also true of the pac-12. I still think, down year though it was, that the Pac-12 was the 2nd best conference in college football this year.

steamingpile: You act like usc was that good, hell the entire pac 10 was worse off than the sec this year

I'm no fan, but USC was as good as any team in the country by the season's end. They took Stanford into OT and beat Oregon at Autzen stadium. They finished the season in the top 5 and will start the season in the top 3. Sure the PAC-12 had a huge drop-off after their top 3, but we can't all be powerhouse conferences stacked with juggernauts like Ole Miss, Vanderbuilt and Kentucky.

bhcompy: steamingpile: IAmRight: Removing USC from the bowl equation has really screwed the Pac-12's bowl slots up. As has putting two teams in the BCS. Outside of the BCS-eligible teams and USC, there wasn't a good team in the Pac-12 this year.

You act like usc was that good, hell the entire pac 10 was worse off than the sec this year

Beat Oregon, gave Stanford the fight of their life, and blew out UCLA 50-zip. I'd say they're "good". They weren't the same team that blew the doors off BCS football years ago, but they weren't not-good either.

Yes and Oregon was blown out* by lsu, what's your point?

*and for those of you saying they weren't just check where they were down 30-13 in the 4th after the soft zone started.

steamingpile: bhcompy: steamingpile: IAmRight: Removing USC from the bowl equation has really screwed the Pac-12's bowl slots up. As has putting two teams in the BCS. Outside of the BCS-eligible teams and USC, there wasn't a good team in the Pac-12 this year.

You act like usc was that good, hell the entire pac 10 was worse off than the sec this year

Beat Oregon, gave Stanford the fight of their life, and blew out UCLA 50-zip. I'd say they're "good". They weren't the same team that blew the doors off BCS football years ago, but they weren't not-good either.

Yes and Oregon was blown out* by lsu, what's your point?

*and for those of you saying they weren't just check where they were down 30-13 in the 4th after the soft zone started.

Every team lost to LSU. Losing to the team that didn't lose doesn't make you a bad team.

chapman: steamingpile: You act like usc was that good, hell the entire pac 10 was worse off than the sec this year

I'm no fan, but USC was as good as any team in the country by the season's end. They took Stanford into OT and beat Oregon at Autzen stadium. They finished the season in the top 5 and will start the season in the top 3. Sure the PAC-12 had a huge drop-off after their top 3, but we can't all be powerhouse conferences stacked with juggernauts like Ole Miss, Vanderbuilt and Kentucky.

Good but they were bad overall, I wont say they were Vanderbilt bad or ole piss bit come on people let's not say they were even close to the former juggernaut they used to be.

IAmRight: Why Would I Read the Article: It was definitely a top heavy year for the Pac-12, but that's true of most conferences. Even the SEC had only 5 teams above .500, which was also true of the pac-12. I still think, down year though it was, that the Pac-12 was the 2nd best conference in college football this year.

I'm just saying that because USC wasn't eligible, teams were bumped up one bowl level, beyond where they should be. And none of them were really that good to begin with. And then because Stanford and Oregon went into the BCS, they really didn't have anything to drop down and fix the positioning for 'em.

So the USC sanctions really kinda f*cked the whole conference pretty hard this year. I don't think USC makes a BCS bowl, too (especially if Arkansas didn't), but they should've been in the Holiday Bowl against Texas, whom they'd have killed this year thanks to no Vince Young. Then everyone else moves down a slot and instead of getting beaten in pretty much every bowl, the Pac probably only loses the Baylor game.

Well, they'd have played Oregon again in the champ game if they were eligible. As I said a long time ago, I'm not so sure the loser of that game misses out on the BCS given that Oregon and USC both are better draws than Stanford, and the bowls made it very clear this year that draw is all they care about.

IAmRight: I'm just saying that because USC wasn't eligible, teams were bumped up one bowl level, beyond where they should be. And none of them were really that good to begin with. And then because Stanford and Oregon went into the BCS, they really didn't have anything to drop down and fix the positioning for 'em.

So the USC sanctions really kinda f*cked the whole conference pretty hard this year. I don't think USC makes a BCS bowl, too (especially if Arkansas didn't), but they should've been in the Holiday Bowl against Texas, whom they'd have killed this year thanks to no Vince Young. Then everyone else moves down a slot and instead of getting beaten in pretty much every bowl, the Pac probably only loses the Baylor game.

Oh, ok, I see what you're saying now. Yeah, I agree with this. On the other hand, I hate USC with a passion so it's always nice to see them not make bowl games, for whatever reasons.

Why Would I Read the Article: IAmRight: Removing USC from the bowl equation has really screwed the Pac-12's bowl slots up. As has putting two teams in the BCS. Outside of the BCS-eligible teams and USC, there wasn't a good team in the Pac-12 this year.

No conferences had three teams make BCS bowls, which there's a decent chance the Pac-12 would have done had USC been eligible. Even still, they would have had 3 teams in the top 9 of the final standings.

It was definitely a top heavy year for the Pac-12, but that's true of most conferences. Even the SEC had only 5 teams above .500, which was also true of the pac-12. I still think, down year though it was, that the Pac-12 was the 2nd best conference in college football this year.

3 teams from the same conference can't go to the BCS or Arkansas would have gone to one of the big games over VT.

bhcompy: steamingpile: bhcompy: steamingpile: IAmRight: Removing USC from the bowl equation has really screwed the Pac-12's bowl slots up. As has putting two teams in the BCS. Outside of the BCS-eligible teams and USC, there wasn't a good team in the Pac-12 this year.

You act like usc was that good, hell the entire pac 10 was worse off than the sec this year

Beat Oregon, gave Stanford the fight of their life, and blew out UCLA 50-zip. I'd say they're "good". They weren't the same team that blew the doors off BCS football years ago, but they weren't not-good either.

Yes and Oregon was blown out* by lsu, what's your point?

*and for those of you saying they weren't just check where they were down 30-13 in the 4th after the soft zone started.

Every team lost to LSU. Losing to the team that didn't lose doesn't make you a bad team.

Didn't lose, they were run out of the stadium, it was not even close to the team who won the conference. The pac 10 took huge strides to making them a better conference but took a couple steps back the past year, I admit they aren't the pac1 of years past but they are still average.

TheManofPA: Why Would I Read the Article: IAmRight: Removing USC from the bowl equation has really screwed the Pac-12's bowl slots up. As has putting two teams in the BCS. Outside of the BCS-eligible teams and USC, there wasn't a good team in the Pac-12 this year.

No conferences had three teams make BCS bowls, which there's a decent chance the Pac-12 would have done had USC been eligible. Even still, they would have had 3 teams in the top 9 of the final standings.

It was definitely a top heavy year for the Pac-12, but that's true of most conferences. Even the SEC had only 5 teams above .500, which was also true of the pac-12. I still think, down year though it was, that the Pac-12 was the 2nd best conference in college football this year.

3 teams from the same conference can't go to the BCS or Arkansas would have gone to one of the big games over VT.

Except there is a listed exception for teams that make the NC(Or was it only if two make it? Either way).

Why Would I Read the Article: No conferences had three teams make BCS bowls

Because that's against the rules.

IAmRight: bhcompy: steamingpile: bhcompy: steamingpile: IAmRight: Removing USC from the bowl equation has really screwed the Pac-12's bowl slots up. As has putting two teams in the BCS. Outside of the BCS-eligible teams and USC, there wasn't a good team in the Pac-12 this year.

You act like usc was that good, hell the entire pac 10 was worse off than the sec this year

Beat Oregon, gave Stanford the fight of their life, and blew out UCLA 50-zip. I'd say they're "good". They weren't the same team that blew the doors off BCS football years ago, but they weren't not-good either.

Yes and Oregon was blown out* by lsu, what's your point?

*and for those of you saying they weren't just check where they were down 30-13 in the 4th after the soft zone started.

USC had a 38-14 lead on Oregon. No one's acting as though USC should compete for the title. Just mentioning that they're the 3rd best team in the conference, so them not being allowed to play means that everyone below them has to play a bowl higher than they'd ordinarily be seeded, which leads to a poor performance in bowl season.

/then again, EVERY team behind USC in the conference has been inconsistent/bad, so maybe they lose all of 'em anyway

That I can agree with consistency is they key although I hate on lsu/bama/Florida because they oversign kids, I'm hoping UGA doesn't start this with the old UF AD there now. Its one of the few things I respected Richt for, he didn't fark kids over.

IAmRight: Pratty: Except there is a listed exception for teams that make the NC(Or was it only if two make it? Either way).

Arkansas did have an exception but Arkansas was overrated and got murdered by the only two ranked teams they played (of course, the only ranked teams they played WERE No. 1 and No. 2). Then again, VT was even more overrated, since they only played one good team and got skullf*cked twice by a chokey, "meh" Clemson team.

Cotton Bowl is happy to have Arkansas, though.

I'm not so much saying Arkansas wasn't overrated(They were) as much as I am pretty sure they could have been selected.

ILL-INI!
/we stink
//at least we still have the engineering and accounting programs that kick butt

Rodeodoc: bhcompy
UCLA definitely didn't deserve a bowl invite based on football. This was purely a money decision by the bowl.

I am shocked, sir,... shocked and stunned... that you would make such an accusation that a decision in college football would be prompted by the thought of monetary gain. Surely you know that these decisions are made to support the best interests of our scholar-athletes.

/snicker

Every bowl invite has been for money, its why mich/vt got the sugar bowl this year.

It makes me happy they are having issues selling out that game

IAmRight: Pratty: I'm not so much saying Arkansas wasn't overrated(They were) as much as I am pretty sure they could have been selected.

Yeah, IIRC there were a lot of stories about how they were a possibility if Arkansas/LSU got into the BCSCG.

I don't think that was ever a possibility except in the fantasy lands of Arkansas fans.

And 2-6 in your conference is great?

Sounds like they should have been fighting the Loser Bowl.

They keep adding bowl games and keep getting sponsors because enough people watch them. Who are these people watching low level bowl games and why haven't they been killed?

There is a difference between rewarding UCLA for going 6-7 and rewarding a non-BCS team for going 9-3.

The non-BCS team should get some postseason action. Taking all of the bowls away simply reduces the amount of fun fans of 75% of the teams get to have.

College football is about enjoying good football games. If you think a game is "meaningless" because it does not affect who wins the national championship, you're not much of a football fan. You might as well ignore college completely because the teams in the NFL are better.

Why do people want less football? Sure some of the earlier games might not be relevant to anybody but the players and their families but it's still football and therefore better than just about anything else besides beer and boobies. It's perfect background noise during the holidays while you're doing a million other things. Just because a player wasn't good enough to go to a school like LSU, or Bama, or Oregon doesn't mean they shouldn't get to play in a bowl too does it? Why even have games besides the national championship game? I'm starting to think most Farkers start complaining and biatching before they even know what the topic is.

I actually rather enjoy the bowl season. Sure, they aren't all the Rose Bowl (which as a Big Ten traditionalist fan, is the ONLY game that matters), but some of them can still be good to watch. Utah/GT today was pretty decent. Baylor/Washington would have been if there was any D at all, but a fun show if you like lots of scoring.

It's also a way to see teams and players I don't really see so much when I am busy watching mostly B1G play during the regular season. Also a way to check out all the players who may be moving on to the pros, and a lot of unlikely heroes that seem to turn up every bowl season.

I actually agree that the lack of USC has really hurt the PAC-12 this year in terms of decent bowl matchups, and of course their championship game. It's hard to have a good championship when the only strength in one conference is on ban.

Even at that, we actually watched Illinois beat UCLA, and yes, there was suckage, but it was football, and we love football. The season is almost over in all leagues, and we will be bereft for a few months until it starts again.

/Except for March Madness...

IAmRight: And by that, of course I mean Alabama/LSU get into the BCSCG.

The rule is that if #1 and #2 are from the same conference, and neither is a conference champion, the champion of that conference can have a third BCS bid. So the only way that would have happened is if LSU lost the SECCG, and still stayed in the top two, a distinct possibility, given the BSPN-influenced voters.

NetOwl: There is a difference between rewarding UCLA for going 6-7 and rewarding a non-BCS team for going 9-3.

The non-BCS team should get some postseason action. Taking all of the bowls away simply reduces the amount of fun fans of 75% of the teams get to have.

College football is about enjoying good football games. If you think a game is "meaningless" because it does not affect who wins the national championship, you're not much of a football fan. You might as well ignore college completely because the teams in the NFL are better.

What are you talking about, I thought there were so many bowls that every team eligible got a bowl game?

buckeyebrain: IAmRight: And by that, of course I mean Alabama/LSU get into the BCSCG.

The rule is that if #1 and #2 are from the same conference, and neither is a conference champion, the champion of that conference can have a third BCS bid. So the only way that would have happened is if LSU lost the SECCG, and still stayed in the top two, a distinct possibility, given the BSPN-influenced voters.

That's not accurate, they sugar bowl could have still invited Arkansas or Georgia to the sugar bowl if they wanted too, I think they were pressured into getting other teams into the game. They are free to preserve their traditional match ups if they lose teams to the title game and judging from the ticket sales it looks like they should have.

Was watching this at Chilis today. I wouldn't say the game was awful because it was cracking me up but man that was some bad football.

Evil Canadian: I actually rather enjoy the bowl season. Sure, they aren't all the Rose Bowl (which as a Big Ten traditionalist fan, is the ONLY game that matters), but some of them can still be good to watch. Utah/GT today was pretty decent.

Utah/GT was a snooze fest and the rose bowl is not that important any longer because they want to hold onto that tradition, they have no balls to invite anyone other than big 10/pac10 teams so fark them.