Pull out your finest dress ladies, we're going to see a show!!

FriedsCPH, what team?

Hopefully you aren't a Gamecock or a Beaver... or even worse, an Ilinni (no offense, IP, but Fresno State winning is kind of shoddy)...

And this is kinda out there but I'm sure there are far worse ideas than "American Psycho: The Musical"... then again, I was thinking that before I saw "Reefer Madness: The Musical" and that was awesome (Especially considering it had Alan Cumming in multiple roles, Kristen Bell as the Female Lead, and both Ana Gastyer and Neve Campbell in supporting roles) so this could really do well... or it could be like the Queen musical and go the wayside to be lost in obscurity.

Florida State.

Regards

Frieds... Double Post...

For real?!? Don't toy with my emotions. I did a search earlier and didn't see one.

Regards

happypantsmcgeeAm I the only one that is baffled by Virginia Tech playing in a BCS bowl against Stanford? If one of you quant wizards can tell me how a 2 loss number 13 team ends up in a bowl against a number 4 team, I would love to hear it.

The musical should be interesting to say the least, but I will be particularly interested to see how they cast this though. Patrick Bateman, in my mind at least, is Christain Bale so I don't know how its going to work out.

I'm liking the new quote Happy ;)

FriedsHappy,

It will never happen. Now there's an anti-trust case if I ever saw one.

However, I gotta say I that I would do things alot differently for the bowls than we have now. Obviously, for the BCS, you can't argue Auburn/Oregon. For the rest he paired Wisconsin/Stanford, Ohio State/Boise State, Oklahoma/Arkansas and Michigan State/TCU. All three Big Ten games would be pretty damned awesome to see, and they match fairly against the competition.

With the current bowl schedual, no offense to all you UConn fans out there, but there is no way either the Big East or the ACC should even be represented in the top 5 games. UConn is not a BCS ranked team and got their bowl game because they won the Big East. VT, while ranked at the end of the season, lost to both Boise and James Madison. For those of you who don't know, James Madison, much like Appalachian State, is a Division I-FCS team. I don't care who you are, but as an FBS team, you should be able to readily beat an FCS team without much effort. That alone, in my mind, invalidates the legitimacy of the ACC in the bowl game. Along those lines, this just further proves how much bullshit is involved in the BCS in general.

When you knock out VT and UConn, you have 2 spots open for the two 11-1 teams that deserve BCS recognition this year in Boise (Really? Playing Utah? Yes, they are 11-1 as well, but Boise State plays on par with the big leagues, not the jokers in the MAC and WAC) and Michigan State (11-1 and Co-Big Ten Champs). LSU gets thrown out of the race because their 10-2 record includes a loss to both Auburn and Arkansas making them number 3 in the SEC West. Before anyone jumps the gun and yells at me for being in support of Arkansas (10-2, #2 in the SEC) and Oklahoma (11-2, #1 in the Big 12), Arkansas would get the nod over LSU because it is the highest SEC team not playing in a bowl, and Oklahoma won the Big 12 outright. This is where the BCS proves to be problematic, becuase it ranks a 2 loss LSU team higher than a 1 loss Boise State. I see the BCS likes to play favoritism even more. Now, the reason why I suggest both Boise and MSU is due to a combination of records, degree of difficulty of schedual and that they are both conference champions. Before anyones says anything about Nevada, who is tied with Boise at 11-1, Nevada only has 1 win over a credible BCS team in Boise versus Boise with their 2 wins (against VT and Oregon State), giving Boise the in conference edge. After that, we look at a few 2 Loss teams, followed by Nevada, followed by the 3+ Loss teams that are still ranked in the top 25. MSU, as previously stated, is a 11-1 team and cochampion of the Big Ten, which says something compared to the rest of the competition in the BCS.

Thoughts... comments... changes you'd made or questions on my logic?

Ya, I would just get rid of the BCS and instill a playoff system. There would be no more of this nonsense. TCU thinks they are good and can hold their own against highly ranked teams with the cake schedule they have year in and year out? A playoff system would prove it.

FriedsHappy,

It will never happen. Now there's an anti-trust case if I ever saw one.

However, I gotta say I that I would do things alot differently for the bowls than we have now. Obviously, for the BCS, you can't argue Auburn/Oregon. For the rest he paired Wisconsin/Stanford, Ohio State/Boise State, Oklahoma/Arkansas and Michigan State/TCU. All three Big Ten games would be pretty damned awesome to see, and they match fairly against the competition.

With the current bowl schedual, no offense to all you UConn fans out there, but there is no way either the Big East or the ACC should even be represented in the top 5 games. UConn is not a BCS ranked team and got their bowl game because they won the Big East. VT, while ranked at the end of the season, lost to both Boise and James Madison. For those of you who don't know, James Madison, much like Appalachian State, is a Division I-FCS team. I don't care who you are, but as an FBS team, you should be able to readily beat an FCS team without much effort. That alone, in my mind, invalidates the legitimacy of the ACC in the bowl game. Along those lines, this just further proves how much bullshit is involved in the BCS in general.

When you knock out VT and UConn, you have 2 spots open for the two 11-1 teams that deserve BCS recognition this year in Boise (Really? Playing Utah? Yes, they are 11-1 as well, but Boise State plays on par with the big leagues, not the jokers in the MAC and WAC) and Michigan State (11-1 and Co-Big Ten Champs). LSU gets thrown out of the race because their 10-2 record includes a loss to both Auburn and Arkansas making them number 3 in the SEC West. Before anyone jumps the gun and yells at me for being in support of Arkansas (10-2, #2 in the SEC) and Oklahoma (11-2, #1 in the Big 12), Arkansas would get the nod over LSU because it is the highest SEC team not playing in a bowl, and Oklahoma won the Big 12 outright. This is where the BCS proves to be problematic, becuase it ranks a 2 loss LSU team higher than a 1 loss Boise State. I see the BCS likes to play favoritism even more. Now, the reason why I suggest both Boise and MSU is due to a combination of records, degree of difficulty of schedual and that they are both conference champions. Before anyones says anything about Nevada, who is tied with Boise at 11-1, Nevada only has 1 win over a credible BCS team in Boise versus Boise with their 2 wins (against VT and Oregon State), giving Boise the in conference edge. After that, we look at a few 2 Loss teams, followed by Nevada, followed by the 3+ Loss teams that are still ranked in the top 25. MSU, as previously stated, is a 11-1 team and cochampion of the Big Ten, which says something compared to the rest of the competition in the BCS.

Thoughts... comments... changes you'd made or questions on my logic?

The problem with all of the comparisons above is it inevitably contradicts itself. BS is supposedly great because they beat 2 credible schools, however, one of those credible school lost to what is essentially a 5th year senior high school team. So if VT is credible (but so mediocre they shouldn't be AQ) then you would have to discount the win that BS had on them.

The bottom line is there truly isn't a great way to do this. There are problems with each system (BCS vs. playoff) and, in my mind, less with the BCS because the teams that should be in bowl games typically are (this year excluded). The problem with a playoff system is it would replicate the NFL, which I wouldn't like very much, and that football is a "any given Sunday" style sport, meaning even the weakest team can beat the best team given the right scenario (injuries, mistakes, turnovers, bad calls, etc.) and having a playoff system potentially gives the edge to the lesser team. As someone pointed out recently in an article I was reading, there has become a formula that big time, competitive schools use every year in their game schedules which includes very few, if any non conference games out of their geographic region, and in some cases, none outside of their state (UF). So this seems to hold true for the University of Florida, not having played a non-conference road game outside of Florida since sometime before 1999...but I'm not sure if it holds true for every big team, but it seems likely (frankly, I don't care enough to do the research).

At any rate, the 800 lb gorilla in the room is the cash money. It's all about money for their schools and that is what the BCS provides. They have semi structured bowl games that have provides a geographical preference for who plays in the game (outside of the top bowl games) which ultimately encourages larger fan bases and higher ticket sales and revenue for both the schools and the cities that host the bowls, as opposed to a bunch of VT fans traveling to Idaho for the uDrove Humanitarian Bowl or some crap.

Regards