Seems as if there is more than one scribe out there not sold on the BCS worthiness of CW's Irish. Must be the schedule..... The Luck Of The Irish Two losses against BCS-bound opponents by 26 points (Michigan) and 20 points (USC), yet Notre Dame is a lock to earn a spot in one of the game's most lucrative bowls. Yeah, that seems right, doesn't it? Of the top 12 teams in the latest BCS rankings, it's the Irish who are the least deserving of a bid (Say what you want about Boise State, but the Broncos beat everyone on their schedule). Look at the way Notre Dame performed in the losses to the Wolverines and Trojans and tell me it's still one of the best teams in the country. Its only serious wins came against Georgia Tech and Penn State, while they had to comeback and beat sub par Michigan State and UCLA (who was without its starting QB) But come Jan. 3 the Irish (who are 10th in the latest BCS standings) will likely be in the Sugar Bowl vs. the SEC champ while teams like Wisconsin (7th) and Auburn (11th) will be shut out of the showcase bowl games. It's as much an indictment of a system that is won't allow three teams from the same conference a BCS invitation, a system that ought to be retooled to give the best 12 teams a shot, period, not the best teams that meet certain qualifiers. This year it means that the Badgers and Tigers are automatically left out while Ohio State and Michigan takes the Big Ten bids, while the SEC champ (Arkansas or Florida) and likely LSU take its invites. It also means the Irish will be able to reap the benefits of being one of the best teams in the country because of a 10-2 mark and a system that allows them to play in a top-teir bowl, even if with two blowout losses in their biggest games, they have shown they don't belong.
Who is more worthy? Remember the rules, not ND, prevent Wisconsin and a 3rd SEC team from being in the BCS. So you need 4 BCS at large teams. 1. Mich 2. LSU/SECCG Loser 3. Boise State 4. ?????? I guess you could say a 2nd BE team, but do you think any of the BE teams would have a better record vs the ND schedule? A 2nd PAC10 team? Which one?
How about 11-2 Florida if UF loses to Arkansas. That will get the blood boiling around here. I don't agree that LSU at 10-2 should be over UF when the Tigers lost by 13 points to Florida. That is likely to happen if UF does not beat Arkansas. I think the top Big East teams have an argument but I won't go so far as to say they should have a 2nd team in over ND. Wisconsin is comparable to ND but who is the top team they have beaten that is better than what ND had done. Very close there probably. At least if UF does drop to the CapOne then their bowl opponent will be very highly ranked and a 12-2 top 5 finish for the Gators is very attainable. Hopefully it's the Sugar vs. ND though.
If the Gators lose they may or may not get selected over LSU, the problem is that if LSU is selected the rules don't allow the Gators to be selected. You did catch that didn't you? It has nothing to do with bowls taking ND over Fla, they will not have to chose between ND and a 3rd SEC team, that 3rd SEC won't even be eligible. But this is just the way it has been for quite awhile. It certainly was in '92 when you Gators were indignant over having to play a unworthy ND team who you would beat handily.
My answer to this is... national appeal. When you play a diverse coast to coast schedule you build a national fan base that is second to none. Nobody draws fans like the Irish. That translates into revenue for the host bowl and city and money drives the college football world. If ya'll poked your heads outside the deep south every once in a while you might build a similar appeal.
I agree with George, money talks when it comes to bowl selections. ND travels well and that will bring in mega bucks. Don
And you can never under estimate the powere of pursuasion when dealing with the bowl selection committees...
George, Being the dapper Don of this board, perhaps you can EM Charlie about dressing tips. I know he and Belichek are close and great coaches but they both like homeless bagmen when wearing that friggen hoodie. I know I am sounding like an old crank but I preferred the days when coaches wore suits and ties on the sideline.
Bobda, LOL! I was thinking the same thing when I first saw Charlie's attire last Saturday night. I tried to estimate the size of the sweatshirt. It must have been XXXXXXXL. To show how much things have changed in this regard, when Jack Del Rio wore a suit last Monday night, he looked weird to me. By the way, in the midst of my agony late in the game, I had to laugh when they showed how far away from his dad Charlie Jr. was standing.
Sid.... <t>I was actually embarrassed for Charlie. That sweatshirt was silly looking for that climate. Man I hope he left that thing in the locker room.</t>
Yeah that distance between the Charlies was pretty funny! I also didn't understand the Hoddie in L.A. It was 63 at kickoff, doubt if it was necessary. Pete Caroll isn't exactly well dressed on the sidelines though...but who cares when you have his record.
No doubt Tressel is the most stylish coach in football. He sort of reminds me of Tom Landry, very dapper on the sidelines.
Yeah, I'm going to have some of the boys "dialogue" with Charlie about his attire. He looked like a homeless man looking for the end of the bread line at the soup kitchen. I know Men's Wearhouse can outfit a portly guy like him.... We're on it.