So Much For Rose Bowl Tradtion...

[Blues1]

Next year give us a game that is NOT a patsy for usc suck.... :hot: - :mad:

[colleyvillesooner]

no kidding. Thus game is a joke.

[Sooner_Bob]

If Illinois could've held on to the ball and scored that one touchdown to come within 4 the game probably would've been worth watching.

After USC took the lateral and scored the Illini were toast.

[stoops the eternal pimp]

RBC was so unhappy having to select Oklahoma...And was even more unhappy when they slapped around that pansy pac 10 team

[OKC-SLC]

Yeah, watching SUC play and beat the 2nd or 3rd best team in the Big Ten year after year is getting old.

One of those rare times I'm glad TX beat them in 05-06

[John Kochtoston]

That game fit squarely into the grand old Rose Bowl tradition ... an irrelevant matchup that no one outside of California, Michigan and Ohio gives a rat's *** about. That's what the RBC is trying to preserve, because they think people care. No one does.

Edit: OK, maybe in Illinois once in a great while.

[TUSooner]

"patsy for USuC" -- exactly right.
**** the Rose Bowl

[OUAndy1807]

how bad is the big 10?

[r5TPsooner]

I'm extremely proud of myself... I didn't watch one fu**ing minute of that poor excuse for a ball game.

[salth2o]

I'm extremely proud of myself... I didn't watch one fu**ing minute of that poor excuse for a ball game.

me either..F* SUC, F* The Big Ten/Eleven, F* The Rose Bowl committee bastages.

[insuranceman_22]

Like all of you, I knew what was going to happen...pretty much. And of course it did, the offering to suc was delivered up. Unlike most of you, I watched a good portion of it. Illinois had a couple of big plays and that was it. suc did let up on them, but it was a brutal game......

[tulsaoilerfan]

I'm honestly not sure anyone in the country gives a rat's *** about that game any more

[JohnnyMack]

If Dennis Dixon doesn't go down with an injury, Oregon would have been playing Illinois. Then you people could have bitched about that instead.

[Dan Thompson]

When do the broadcasters talk about play selection etc., in place of how great suc is. I say only one graphic about Illini, but a billion about suc.

[AllAboutThe'O']

If Dennis Dixon doesn't go down with an injury, Oregon would have been playing Illinois. Then you people could have bitched about that instead.
Actually, if Dixon hadn't gone down, the Ducks would've been playing in the BCS title game Monday night.

[JohnnyMack]

USC won the Pac-10.

tOSU won the Big Ten. Since tOSU ended up ranked no. 1 in the BCS they were selected for that game leaving a spot open in the Rose Bowl.

Illinois finished Second in the Big Ten.

The Rose Bowl Committee chose them because they want to keep their tradition in tact of having a Big Ten team play a Pac-10 team. It wasn't some scheme at giving USC a patsy.

Take off the tin foil hats peeps.

[JohnnyMack]

Actually, if Dixon hadn't gone down, the Ducks would've been playing in the BCS title game Monday night.

OMG!!!!!!! YOU'rE RIGHT! IT IS A VAST CONSPIRACY TO PIT USC AGAINST A HAPLESS FOE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

THOSE RBC FOLKS WILL STOP AT NOTHING TO HELP OUT DEAR OLD SC!!!!!!!

[goingoneight]

If Dennis Dixon doesn't go down with an injury, Oregon would have been playing Illinois. Then you people could have bitched about that instead.

That just means even less people care about it. And it would have actually been a game then, too. Don't let Oregon's little "streak" fool you... they happened to squeak past an injury-plagued SUC on their home field just like Stanford did. It happens. Thankfully they (SUC) got embarassed like everyone else in the country did this year. It's pretty clear that no one plays as good of football as OU and SUC on a good, healthy day.

[GottaHavePride]

USC won the Pac-10.

tOSU won the Big Ten. Since tOSU ended up ranked no. 1 in the BCS they were selected for that game leaving a spot open in the Rose Bowl.

Illinois finished Second in the Big Ten.

The Rose Bowl Committee chose them because they want to keep their tradition in tact of having a Big Ten team play a Pac-10 team. It wasn't some scheme at giving USC a patsy.

Take off the tin foil hats peeps.

Still, USC / Georgia would have been a better game. Also, Hawaii / Illinois would have been a much better game to watch.

[goingoneight]

... FWIW, I also agree with how it happened. SUC was Pac 10 champ, tOSU got the MNC bid, fair is fair. If anything, the BIG 10 shouldn't suck so much if they're embarassed by this.

[JohnnyMack]

... FWIW, I also agree with how it happened. SUC was Pac 10 champ, tOSU got the MNC bid, fair is fair. If anything, the BIG 10 shouldn't suck so much if they're embarassed by this.

Now here's a post that makes a little bit of sense.

:D

[tulsaoilerfan]

USC won the Pac-10.

tOSU won the Big Ten. Since tOSU ended up ranked no. 1 in the BCS they were selected for that game leaving a spot open in the Rose Bowl.

Illinois finished Second in the Big Ten.

The Rose Bowl Committee chose them because they want to keep their tradition in tact of having a Big Ten team play a Pac-10 team. It wasn't some scheme at giving USC a patsy.

Take off the tin foil hats peeps.
It's a tradition that needs to be ****canned

[FirstandGoal]

I can totally understand how this match-up happened.

Its the why that has me stymied.

The fact that the RB committee knowingly and willingly [IMO] chose an inferior opponent rather than someone that could have given USC a better game is what I would like to see addressed.

This elitist policy of only choosing from the Big Televen when there are other more talented and deserving opponents is complete BS.

[Jmorales22]

Somebody cared:

http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaaf/news;_ylt=AmJWXP3kRtbLoTx6r37KhXMcvrYF?slug=rosebo wlroutleavesnodoub&prov=tsn&type=lgns

Apparently beating a mediocre Illinois team is validation of the dominance. And so the hype machine rolls on....

[royalfan5]

The bowl system exists to make money, not to present compelling matchups. I don't know why anyone expects anything different.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I can totally understand how this match-up happened.

Its the why that has me stymied.

The fact that the RB committee knowingly and willingly [IMO] chose an inferior opponent rather than someone that could have given USC a better game is what I would like to see addressed.

This elitist policy of only choosing from the Big Televen when there are other more talented and deserving opponents is complete BS.I think the Rose Bowl is holding out against pressure to have the best matchups outside of the NC game, to be a thorn in the side of moving toward national playoff for deciding the NC. Now, exactly why is the question.
The Pac 10 potentially lost millions this year, by not inviting OU or Georgia to play suc in the Rose Bowl...why, because by inviting one of those two teams, a spot would have been freed up in the Sugar or Fiesta for a second Pac 10 team to play in a BCS game, garnering million$ more in payoffs from the BCS than said team earned for the conference from a lesser(non-BCS) bowl.

[HopeSpringsEternal]

The entire BCS lineup will be boring as hell. After watching Illinois turnover for the Trojans, I can only imagine the joke that will be the NC game. Ohio State getting the bid is a goat screw only useless tired bitter old men could've possibly come up with. It's time for a playoff. The bowl system is dying. Empty seats boring snooze fest match ups and weak teams sneaking their way into the BCS is seeing to that.

[GottaHavePride]

The entire BCS lineup will be boring as hell. After watching Illinois turnover for the Trojans, I can only imagine the joke that will be the NC game. Ohio State getting the bid is a goat screw only useless tired bitter old men could've possibly come up with. It's time for a playoff. The bowl system is dying. Empty seats boring snooze fest match ups and weak teams sneaking their way into the BCS is seeing to that.


I nominate this as Most Ironic Post / Username Combo of 2008. :D

[pott_2]

All the Rose Blow does is cater to a large soCal TV audience. Just as espn has big hard one for SUC..... TV audience...100000 people per square mile.

[pott_2]

Somebody cared:

http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaaf/news;_ylt=AmJWXP3kRtbLoTx6r37KhXMcvrYF?slug=rosebo wlroutleavesnodoub&prov=tsn&type=lgns

Apparently beating a mediocre Illinois team is validation of the dominance. And so the hype machine rolls on....

What is the word that I am looking for.????

Homer..?

condom goggled???

Biased.?

[insuranceman_22]

USC won the Pac-10.

tOSU won the Big Ten. Since tOSU ended up ranked no. 1 in the BCS they were selected for that game leaving a spot open in the Rose Bowl.

Illinois finished Second in the Big Ten.

The Rose Bowl Committee chose them because they want to keep their tradition in tact of having a Big Ten team play a Pac-10 team. It wasn't some scheme at giving USC a patsy.

Take off the tin foil hats peeps.

Don't get me wrong JohnnyMack, I know what you mean. I think goingoneight said what I was trying to say with this:

FWIW, I also agree with how it happened. SUC was Pac 10 champ, tOSU got the MNC bid, fair is fair. If anything, the BIG 10 shouldn't suck so much if they're embarassed by this.

Illinois simply was way outclassed in this game......but it's not like they were 6 and 6 or anything. Tradition was followed and it just turned out to be a patsy game for usc....

[Jacie]

The got-the-Fighting-knocked-out-of-them Illini made the condoms look like the all-millenium team they aren't. For all the whining about the Rosy Bowl guys' choice of opponents, and I suspect it is happening on other boards, they haven't done anything they don't always do and that is play to the Pac 10 in general and suc in particular. The only way to tweak em is for the Pac 10 representative to lose the "grandaddy of em all" and that only happens in two instances:

1) When suc's opponent isn't a Big 10 team

or

2) The Pac 10 is not represented by the condoms

[JohnnyMack]

Tradition was followed and it just turned out to be a patsy game for usc....

I sort of agree with that. Only I'll come from that angle that just about anyone USC plays right now would be a patsy game for them.

[Ash]

Georgia SUC would have been a great match up.

[Charla]

If Dennis Dixon doesn't go down with an injury, Oregon would have been playing Illinois. Then you people could have bitched about that instead.
If we hadn't of lost to Colorado or Tech we could be playing for the prize or if Notre dame hadn't lost to everybody they could be champs. Maybe we could have the shoulda coulda woulda bowl so people like you could bitch about people like us.

[soonerinabilene]

Georgia SUC would have been a great match up.

yeah it would. A better match up than the mnc. Which is why it didnt happen.

[JohnnyMack]

If we hadn't of lost to Colorado or Tech we could be playing for the prize or if Notre dame hadn't lost to everybody they could be champs. Maybe we could have the shoulda coulda woulda bowl so people like you could bitch about people like us.

Heh.

Wait. What?

[soonernation]

USC won the Pac-10.

tOSU won the Big Ten. Since tOSU ended up ranked no. 1 in the BCS they were selected for that game leaving a spot open in the Rose Bowl.

Illinois finished Second in the Big Ten.

The Rose Bowl Committee chose them because they want to keep their tradition in tact of having a Big Ten team play a Pac-10 team. It wasn't some scheme at giving USC a patsy.

Take off the tin foil hats peeps.


I thought Illinois finished 3rd in the Big 10. Meatchicken and Illinois both finished with the same conference record and Michigan beat Illinois. That would make them third. Right?

The Rose Bowl Committee sucks and could give a **** about the rest of college football. The fact that they insist on keeping the same ole boring *** Pac10-Big 10 game every year is a joke. Who in the **** wants to watch USC kick the **** out of Illinois? Everyone in the country knew that was going to happen. They are one of the primary reasons that there is not at least a plus one system in place right now.

Hopefully when the Cotton Bowl moves to Jerry’s world in a few years the BCS tells the Rose Bowl Committee the screw themselves and put the Cotton in the rotation.

[Blues1]

I thought Illinois finished 3rd in the Big 10. Meatchicken and Illinois both finished with the same conference record and Michigan beat Illinois. That would make them third. Right?

The Rose Bowl Committee sucks and could give a **** about the rest of college football. The fact that they insist on keeping the same ole boring *** Pac10-Big 10 game every year is a joke. Who in the **** wants to watch USC kick the **** out of Illinois? Everyone in the country knew that was going to happen. They are one of the primary reasons that there is not at least a plus one system in place right now.

Hopefully when the Cotton Bowl moves to Jerry’s world in a few years the BCS tells the Rose Bowl Committee the screw themselves and put the Cotton in the rotation.

AMEN....!!!!

[Blues1]

It's really not a question IF Illinois was a Patsy or Not - (Even though That was in my original Post) --- It's the fact We could have had Two Bowl games (Rose and Sugar) that would helped us all see who really does have the better teams in the nation -- Won't you always wonder about a usc - Georiga matchup or a Mizzou vs Virgina Tech or a ...?? - The BCS system and The Rose Bowl - cheated the College Football Fans of America --- Plain and Simple --- JMHO...and Still Rockin' --- :)

[Miko]

I'm extremely proud of myself... I didn't watch one fu**ing minute of that poor excuse for a ball game.

I think I read that same quote attributed to some of the mothers of illini players.

Besides them and suc nation, who DIDN'T use the rosebowl time slot to make a beer run, placate the missus, catch the news, re-watch parts of the Blue Bonnett bowl from the late 70s or just let their televisions cool down while awaiting the Great Hawaiin beatdown?

[bluedogok]

Somebody cared:

http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaaf/news;_ylt=AmJWXP3kRtbLoTx6r37KhXMcvrYF?slug=rosebo wlroutleavesnodoub&prov=tsn&type=lgns

Apparently beating a mediocre Illinois team is validation of the dominance. And so the hype machine rolls on....
That wasn't the only one like that today.

USC back in title hunt? (http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaaf/news;_ylt=AjI1Cwyd8QahIQ2NKmO1b2IcvrYF?slug=ga-rose010108&prov=yhoo&type=lgns)

[OUMedMan]

Tis true . . . . .USC stomped all over the hapless Illini, 49-17, and essentially wound up taking a knee as time run out, which kept it from being 56-17. And there is not doubt that USC vs. Georgia or USC vs Oklahoma or USC vs Missouri would have been a much better game.

However, I'm not sure that best group of people to be gripping about Illinois rolling over for USC are the fans of a team that lost to USC in a big bowl game a few years back, by, what, something like 55-19?

[BoulderSooner79]

Tis true . . . . .USC stomped all over the hapless Illini, 49-17, and essentially wound up taking a knee as time run out, which kept it from being 56-17. And there is not doubt that USC vs. Georgia or USC vs Oklahoma or USC vs Missouri would have been a much better game.

However, I'm not sure that best group of people to be gripping about Illinois rolling over for USC are the fans of a team that lost to USC in a big bowl game a few years back, by, what, something like 55-19?

What has that got to do with anything? The gripe (at least for me) is that the Rose bowl is treated special and is consistently an impediment to trying to improve the selection process or have a p-word. They could have taken UGA, but choose not to. If you don't count the MNC game, the bowls now look like the bad old days. USC,OU,VT,UGA all going to different bowls and heavily favored. This used to be the norm and then the writers/coaches would try to vote on the outcome of 4 apples to oranges comparisons. No politics there. As frustrating as the BCS is now, it used to be worse. The RB just stops it from improving any more.

[OUMedMan]

They could have taken UGA, but choose not to.

You think so?

That would have required the Sugar Bowl to release Georgia.

And since only two teams from any BCS conference can go to bowl games, that means that the Sugar Bowl would have not even had a Southeast Conference team.

Now I'm not saying that wouldn't have been a good thing -- heaven knows that USC vs Georgia would have been a much better game than USC vs Illinois and Hawaii vs Georgia.

But I'm not sure it's the Rose Bowl's fault they didn't get Georgia. I will fault them, however, for not taking Missouri or Kansas over Illinois.

I suspect they sit down with ABC and calculated that there would be more advertising dollars available for USC vs. Illinois than USC vs. Missouri or Kansas.

[bluedogok]

You think so?

That would have required the Sugar Bowl to release Georgia.

And since only two teams from any BCS conference can go to bowl games, that means that the Sugar Bowl would have not even had a Southeast Conference team.

Now I'm not saying that wouldn't have been a good thing -- heaven knows that USC vs Georgia would have been a much better game than USC vs Illinois and Hawaii vs Georgia.

But I'm not sure it's the Rose Bowl's fault they didn't get Georgia. I will fault them, however, for not taking Missouri or Kansas over Illinois.

I suspect they sit down with ABC and calculated that there would be more advertising dollars available for USC vs. Illinois than USC vs. Missouri or Kansas.
Not necessarily, remember why OU was out in the Rose Bowl in the first place? The Orange Bowl invoke some every 4 year exemption or something to take USC away from the Rose Bowl. I think with the BCS-CG being in NO that the Sugar drops to the bottom in the selection process. The Rose might of invoked something like that this time. I just think they are so beholden to "tradition" that ultimately it bedowngrades their bowl.

[BoulderSooner79]

You think so?

That would have required the Sugar Bowl to release Georgia.

And since only two teams from any BCS conference can go to bowl games, that means that the Sugar Bowl would have not even had a Southeast Conference team.

Now I'm not saying that wouldn't have been a good thing -- heaven knows that USC vs Georgia would have been a much better game than USC vs Illinois and Hawaii vs Georgia.

But I'm not sure it's the Rose Bowl's fault they didn't get Georgia. I will fault them, however, for not taking Missouri or Kansas over Illinois.

I suspect they sit down with ABC and calculated that there would be more advertising dollars available for USC vs. Illinois than USC vs. Missouri or Kansas.

I thought there were various clauses in the BCS selection process that allowed various deals, but it could be that UGA was off the table. As you point out there were other strong teams available. It just always seems it's the RB committee in the way of change. With 4 BCS bowls available it seems the better teams get spread around creating mis-matches because the bowls won't budge on giving up the 1 strong team. Kinda like ****ing in the soup to make it taste bad for everyone.:eek:

[OUMedMan]

Not necessarily, remember why OU was out in the Rose Bowl in the first place? The Orange Bowl invoke some every 4 year exemption or something to take USC away from the Rose Bowl.

Actually, I think OU was in the Rose Bowl because Ohio State -- the Big 10 champion -- was playing in the BCS title game.

If I recall rightly, Washington State was in the Rose Bowl because they were co-champions with USC and beat them head to head to get the Rose Bowl nod.

The Orange Bowl lost Miami to the NC game (?), and got first choice to take Iowa, who I think was #3. The Rose Bowl grabbed OU, who was #4. USC then more or less had their choice of the either the Fiesta or Orange Bowl and chose the higher ranked team (Iowa) in the Orange Bowl.

I think that's how it happened.

[bluedogok]

I wasn't real sure of who was chosen when, but I remember some fuss from the RBC when the Orange Bowl got the game that they wanted by invoking the clause which had not been used prior.