its stupid for them not to be in a major bowl game. They lost their number 1 in the last half of a game. Its stupid...i mean im not a fan of them but thas just stupid...thats why we should have a playoff
2007-12-13 01:51:25 · 17 answers · asked by Chris H 2 in Sports ➔ Football (American)
The BCS system isn't to blame for them not getting a major bowl game. Except for the National Championship game, individual bowl committees that have nothing to do with the BCS pick the teams for the other bowl games. The Orange Bowl was going to take a Big 12 team (which would be the 2nd and final Big 12 team that could be in a BCs game) and it was between KU and Mizzou. The reason Mizzou isn't playing in the Orange Bowl is because somehow, some way the KU athletic director managed to convince the Orange Bowl committee that they would be able to get more fans to travel than Mizzou would. The Orange Bowl is going to be very disappointed because because KU football fans don't travel. Last I heard, KU still had 20,000 tickets available whereas Mizzou sold out their entire Cotton Bowl allotment in 30 minutes.
So again, the BCS system didn't screw Mizzou over - the Orange Bowl committee did.
2007-12-13 08:53:06 · answer #1 · answered by DoReidos 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
First, the Cotton Bowl is not something that should be dismissed. That is a very nice and respected bowl. GL to them.
However, I do believe the BCS did, in fact, screw Mizzou by taking Kansas over Missouri in the Orange Bowl. Well, more specifically, the Orange Bowl screwed Missouri since, after the #1 and #2 are decided, the bowls decide what teams they want to have play in the BCS. Please understand that they can't pick more than 2 teams per conference for all the BCS bowls.
It's really sad considering that Mizzou beat Kansas (Kansas's only loss and the only really decent team they played this year, to be honest) and Mizzou has two losses but both were too the Big 12 Champs, Oklahoma.
The BCS system is terrible and there needs to be a playoff to determine who is the true national champion. A playoff would let us know who the true champion is by pure competition and not assumptions. Hopefully the NCAA will wise up and have a playoff so competition will rule over money. Because, right now, the message the NCAA is sending is "Competition is nice, but only after we get our money." That is not teaching the student athletes the right thing.
2007-12-13 02:19:37 · answer #2 · answered by The TDB 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Would a playoff assure Missouri a Major Bowl game? I doubt it. Oklahoma got one BCS spot as conference champion and the Orange Bowl, as was their right, opted for Kansas. Only two teams from the same conference can be invited. Missouri got left out. Is it fair? Probably not. Is it right? According to the rules, absolutely.
2007-12-13 14:40:04 · answer #3 · answered by TLee 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Remember the Cotton Bowl is still quite a respectable bowl game that is one of the best non-BCS bowls a team would want to be in but yes D-I FCS should have a playoff. A playoff is the only way to determine a true national champion for major college football. I mean all the other divisions of college football have a playoff so why not the top division? The playoffs should consist of 16 teams, eleven conference champions (yes including the lowly Sun Belt champ) and five at-large bids.
2007-12-13 02:12:17 · answer #4 · answered by JCam 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋
There cannot be more than 2 teams per conference in BCS bowl games...Missouri just happens to be in with Kansas and Oklahoma, who both made it, and Missouri was the odd man out. Kansas isn't as good of a team, I don't think, and Missouri should be in before them.
2007-12-13 02:30:55 · answer #5 · answered by Carolina Kitten 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Thereason is very simple......Oklahoma.If and when Mizzou can learn to beat OU even once in a single season, then perhaps their argument is valid, but to lose twice? Clearly OU is the better team, and Kansas didnt play OU, so they didnt lose to OU. One can say all they want about the what ifs, but until the game is actually played, you never know. There werent many people who thought Boise State could beat OU last year,,,and yet they did. So its only sour grapes to say Kansas isnt as good as Mizzou.
2007-12-13 03:30:50 · answer #6 · answered by Shoot-em-All 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I agree, we need a playoff. The BCS limits conferences to only 2 teams so after Oklahoma and Kansas were taken, Missouri was relegated to the Cotton Bowl by default.
2007-12-13 01:55:07 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
Ha Ha Ha. Terry C said Hawaii got screwed? That is funny. Hawaii will get screwed all right, Georgia will do the screwing and there won't be any lube involved. I agree with the fact that Missouri should have gone to a BCS bowl in place of Kansas. But than again, if they could beat OU, they would be in the title game.
Terry C- LSU has 2 losses. OU has 2 losses. Mizzou has 2 losses. Georgia has 2 losses. WVU has 2 losses. Those are the 5 best teams in the country. Any of those teams would whip Hawaii. Pay close attention to how they fare against Georgia.
2007-12-13 01:59:54 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 4⤋
Because...they lost the last week....and it wasnt even close.
they were outplayed by oklahoma the entire game not just one half.
Its all about losses when they happen and how many. had lsu not played tenn. georgia would have been #2 but lsu played one more game won and people forgot about the loss to ark....so the morale of the story is....lose week 3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10....just dont lose the last week.
2007-12-13 02:02:15 · answer #9 · answered by michael b 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That is the biggest travesty in the history of the BCS, IMO. And I'm an SEC fan. PS, I don't think Hawaii got a raw deal. I think UGA got a raw deal for having to play them rather than USC or Oklahoma. There is nothing like trying to elevate your team and your team's stature with a win over Hawaii (jesting).
2007-12-13 01:57:23 · answer #10 · answered by Splitters 7 · 0⤊ 3⤋