Logically explain to me why USC deserves to be playing in the Rose bowl instead of the Fiesta bowl against Boise State. USC is not a better team than OU or Wisconsin, they are not even the #5 team in the country. They should be below teams like Auburn and West Virginia.
2006-12-04 06:01:53 · 12 answers · asked by trrocks03 3 in Sports ➔ Football (American)
you must have started watching college football two minutes ago or else you would have already known the answer to this question.
in order to play in the rose bowl, the BCS would have to put you there. if the Pac-10 and/or Big 10 champions are available to play, then they will.
since USC won the Pac-10; and since they didn't qualify for the national championship game, they qualified to play in the rose bowl.
but on a side note, you should think twice about running your mouth off on yahoo answers because there will be a lot of people who will embarrass you. just something to think about...
2006-12-04 07:19:32 · answer #1 · answered by loveholio 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You make a good point. Wisconsin has been underrated all season. Their only loss was to Michigan. They play against the same teams that Michigan and Ohio State played, but only finally got some love at the end of the season. Oklahoma played in an overall weak Big 12. I can see why they are behind. But things would have been different if they didn't get screwed in the Oregon game. I think USC will get whooped by Michigan and teams like Wisconsin and Oklahoma will have legitimate gripes.
2006-12-04 06:12:27 · answer #2 · answered by kingsteve14 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's unfair but, each conference can only have 2 teams in the BCS, which leaves out Wisconsin. Also, USC won the Pac 10, so they automatically go to the Rose Bowl.
When you discuss the BCS, you have to take out all logic and common sense.
2006-12-04 06:11:01 · answer #3 · answered by clone1973 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
History
2006-12-04 06:15:28 · answer #4 · answered by Odes 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
USC would crush Wisconsin. Its kind of easy to go 10-1 when you only play one good team all season and don't even play the best team.
Oklahoma is good but they still lost to Oregon who USC beat easy. I could see ranking Oklahoma ahead of USC but they are about the same if you ask me.
2006-12-04 08:00:31 · answer #5 · answered by Bruce Tzu 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
USC beat some really tough teams like Arkansas, Cal, Nebraska, Notre Dame, so they are certainly above Wisconsin who had a easy schedule
2006-12-04 07:13:23 · answer #6 · answered by . 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Logically speaking, the PAC 10 shouldn't even be a BCS conference. USC should not be ranked at all.
2006-12-04 06:36:12 · answer #7 · answered by Boilerfan 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
because they are popular
and thats what the rosebowl wants ratings
its not about who is better
I'll enjoy it though cuz I remember after that USC v ND game eveybody was debating which team was better
2006-12-04 06:09:50 · answer #8 · answered by ImaGman 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
this planet runs on money and well after the bcs top 2 are formed it's invite time so mich-usc is the money maker bezzie. oh okla and wisc would get spanked by usc.
2006-12-04 06:05:33 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
Yup. They said it. Because of $$$$$. and I wouldn't classify which team is better than the other before seeing them play each other.
2006-12-04 06:18:59 · answer #10 · answered by c00kies 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋