<p>am i the only one slightly annoyed by the pretentious “t” in “tOSU”?
or “dOSU”, which is ten times worse?</p>
<p>Kansas could easily be a 3-loss team if they got TX, OK and TxTech on their schedule. Such luxury doesn’t exist in Pac-10. Missouri then in turn looks awesome by beating this “1-loss” team. Pac-10 needs to expand or they will never get similar benefit.</p>
<p>^ There are advantages and disadvantages…</p>
<p>One disadvantage is that Missouri will have to play OU twice (regular season and championship game)…it’s just a possiblity for another loss.</p>
<p>In the meantime, the Big Ten champ has been off for two weeks getting fat and lazy, and moving up in the rankings.</p>
<p>It’s garbage that all of these overrated teams are getting hype because the Big East and Big 12 suck (ie, WVU and Missouri). The Big East shouldn’t even get a BCS bid. The Big East is one decent team surrounded by a bunch of scrubs(Louisville, their other supposed “powerhouse”, is 5-6). We all remember last year when everyone jumped on the Rutgers bandwagon. Wow, sure got empty on that same wagon after they got beaten by Maryland. The Big 12 is a 2 team conference, Texas and Oklahoma. They are down this year, so the conference should not get a team into the NC. You could have made an argument for Nebraska, but that program has fallen hard. Sam Lee, I can’t believe you would criticize the Big 12. You are in the Pac 10. Am I mistaken, or did Notre Dame go 2-1 against the Pac 10 this year? Hell, Notre Dame beat Stanford. The same Stanford that beat USC. There are only two real conferences, the Big 10 and the SEC.</p>
<p>^ Haha…same could be said of the Big Ten. 2 “powerhouse” (tOSU and UMich) conference.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And the “same” USC killed ND 38-0.</p>
<p>
I went to Northwestern.</p>
<p>In chronicling the weekly attendance at college football games of the USNWR Top 30 national universities, I took a larger interest than ever before in the national picture and in the games this year and all the controversy over the BCS. I think that this article makes some excellent suggestions about how to solve this. Take a look…</p>
<p>[The</a> Wetzel plan - NCAA Football - Yahoo! Sports](<a href=“The Wetzel plan - Yahoo Sports”>The Wetzel plan - Yahoo Sports)</p>
<p>^ This would only work if the Rose Bowl held the NCG every year to keep the Pac-10, Big Ten, and Tournament of Roses happy.</p>
<p>But what then of the Orange Bowl, Sugar Bowl, Cotton Bowl, Fiesta Bowl and other stadiums that have historic ties to football games. </p>
<p>Sure tournament brackets would be fun, and create huge excitement, but bowl games are tradition, and I don’t think the conferences are willing to give 'em up yet.</p>
<p>[ESPN</a> - USC in talks to move from Coliseum to Rose Bowl - College Football](<a href=“http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=3130858]ESPN”>http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=3130858)</p>
<p>what’s up with the two LA schools? how come they don’t even have their own football stadiums? i am too lazy to research why.</p>
<p>Have you ever been to LA? Where possibly could we put a stadium?</p>
<p>Besides, the coliseum is just across the street from USC - it would be disappointing (not to mention ridiculous) to not have home games there.</p>
<p>USC is having a temper tantrum because they don’t have a remodeled stadium. </p>
<p>The Coliseum has been trying to woo an NFL team, and have it renovate the stadium but to no avail. Now, USC has to put up the money to renovate it.</p>
<p>What I don’t understand is why USC is moving out now when they don’t have (non-NFL) renovation plans in place yet.</p>
<p>UCLA and USC will share the Rose Bowl (with UCLA’s permission). UCLA shared the Coliseum with USC until 1981.</p>
<p>Another interesting tid-bit: the Coliseum will host the Dodgers and Boston Red Sox for a game series next season.</p>
<p>USC has been requesting renovations for years now (and been willing to put the money up for it), but the Coliseum people are being resistant because a USC renovation plan would almost certainly doom any NFL prospects.</p>
<p>For example, most likely, any USC-fronted renovation would preserve the number of seats or increase it (92,000+ currently) since the stadium has been at least 90% capacity all season. However an NFL team would require the number of seats to be reduced to at most 60,000 (because of the NFL’s local market broadcast rules). Obviously no one will renovate an already-renovated stadium just to reduce the number of seats.</p>
<p>Basically the city of LA has been messing with USC for years now and this is only the most visible example. More blatantly still is the Expo light rail which “conveniently” runs directly between USC and Exposition Park, even though similar rail systems have been shown to be dangerous to pedestrians.</p>
<p>I agree the Coliseum officials have their head in the sand. </p>
<p>NFL owners will continue to use L.A. as a bargaining chip so they can get their current stadiums remodeled.</p>
<p>60,000 seats sounds too small for an NFL stadium…I would think they’d want to have at least 80,000 with nice full seat backs (with crush expansion capacity over 100k for Super Bowls, etc.) This would warrant extending bleachers and luxury boxes above the stadium’s rim. The Coliseum is a historic landmark, and that makes modification expensive and limiting.</p>
<p>Is the Rose Bowl much of an improvement, facility-wise, over the Coliseum?</p>
<p>I don’t think so…The move by USC is just a ploy to get the commission to act. This puts the ball in the commission’s court to allow renovation of the stadium, or lose their sole long-term tenet.</p>
<p>Could be a smart move by USC to get what it wants.</p>
<p>Perhaps 60,000 is a bit small, but still, when the Raiders were in LA they limited seating to about 65,000. </p>
<p>Frankly, this is all political maneuvering by each party involved. There won’t be an NFL team in LA anytime soon - no current NFL team would be willing to put up the money to make such a move, and certainly no new franchise will either. It’s politically unpopular to use tax money to replace USC with an NFL team. </p>
<p>The only deal the coliseum people seem to be willing to accept is USC funding the remodeling the stadium but leaving it open in the contract for them to be kicked out when the NFL comes calling, or else not remodeling at all.</p>
<p>The Rose Bowl isn’t a whole lot better than the Coliseum, facilities-wise, and has a whole lot of downsides also. Parking for one - USC has invested tremendously in building campus-adjacent structures for the Coliseum and Galen Center (when I went to see USC vs. Michigan last year, I had to walk nearly 3 miles) And there are major disadvantages - namely, the Rose Bowl is far removed from the campus, students, and huge fan-base in South LA. </p>
<p>UCLA puts up with it, but then again, they have always had to have their games at a distance. Plus, it is probable that UCLA football has suffered at times because of the distance between campus and the Rose Bowl.</p>
<p>championship is going to suck…at least there will be some interesting bowl games…college football is too crazy…tebow for heisman!</p>
<p>Tebow I think wrapped up the Heisman.</p>
<p>It’s a two horse race between Tebow and McFadden.</p>
<p>CBS Sportsline has some VERY interesting bowl picks:</p>
<p>[NCAA</a> Football Bowl Predictions - CBSSports.com](<a href=“http://www.sportsline.com/collegefootball/bowls/predictions]NCAA”>http://www.sportsline.com/collegefootball/bowls/predictions)</p>
<p>I guess we’ll find out tomorrow to see how they sort out this BCS mess.</p>
<p>Washington clinging to one TD lead over Hawaii at start of 4th quarter.</p>