CSTV Bowl Projections

#201
#201
XtennesseeX said:
I am just going by what, NCAA Sports, Cal Athletics, and CFBDatawarehouse, says.
Click to expand...

Well that would be reasonable. Teddy would prefer to claim a calendar which he has no way of showing us supports his idea. Maybe he'll post a fake quote in support of the 2 national championships theory.
 
#202
#202
kptvol said:
Not being at Neyland might help the Bears. Being at Memorial won't really affect the Vols. I don't think either factor is significant enough to change the outcome of the game. You seem rather interested in my opinion. That is odd considering you've made several pathetic attempts at insulting my intelligence.
Click to expand...

Well, everyone on the team is pretty much unanimous that they had never before played in such an intimidating setting. Props to Neyland.
 
#206
#206
Teddyhead said:
Well, everyone on the team is pretty much unanimous that they had never before played in such an intimidating setting. Props to Neyland.
Click to expand...

You should try to schedule LSU. Hopefully pretty soon Neyland becomes as loud as it used to be, but as of now Death Valley is crazy.
 
#209
#209
Also, the Chick Fil A is a better bowl than the Holiday. Here are the 2006 payouts for the Holiday Bowl in comparison with SEC related bowls:

Holiday: 2.25 million

Independence: 1.20 million
Music City 1.50 million
Liberty: 1.70 million
Chick-Fil-A: 3.25 million
Outback: 3.00 million
Cotton: 3.00 million
Capital One: 4.25 million
Sugar: ALOT
 
#212
#212
I think this game is going to be really tough. Honestly I think Tennessee might win. I am so sick of this waiting.
 
#214
#214
Hey VIA, your team is really good, so is ASU. I say Tennessee might really win this game. I am changing my tactics. I think I might jinx the team if I go around saying they are going to win, so from now on I am going to be different.:thumbsup:
 
#216
#216
Fact: the pac-10 has a horrible bowl agreement. That's why Fire Pac-10 Commissioner Thomas C. Hansen! exists. Though a lot of this has to do with the fact that most of the major bowls are in the south east and there are only 3 or 4 pac-10 schools that travel well. When we were in the citrus bowl in 1991, we travelled very well. Unfortunetly UCLA, stanford, asu, arizona, and SC (sans the pete carroll era) never sold their tickets.
 
#217
#217
droski said:
Fact: the pac-10 has a horrible bowl agreement. That's why Fire Pac-10 Commissioner Thomas C. Hansen! exists.
Click to expand...
there's some truth to that. but it all stems from the hardcore affiliation that hte Pac 10 and big 10 have with the Rose Bowl. even way back when the defunct bowl coalition was formed, the big 10 and pac 10 stood their ground and watched as all the other conferences gobbled up the rest of the pie.
 
#218
#218
jakez4ut said:
there's some truth to that. but it all stems from the hardcore affiliation that hte Pac 10 and big 10 have with the Rose Bowl. even way back when the defunct bowl coalition was formed, the big 10 and pac 10 stood their ground and watched as all the other conferences gobbled up the rest of the pie.
Click to expand...

i'm not sure that's relavant. the bowls sucked well before that. I do think geography is a major issue and the big-10 has a much better package than the pac-10. The Holiday Bowl might be considered better if it wasn't on a thursday, 2 weeks before new years. It's actually a fun bowl to attend.
 
#219
#219
droski said:
i'm not sure that's relavant. the bowls sucked well before that. I do think geography is a major issue and the big-10 has a much better package than the pac-10. The Holiday Bowl might be considered better if it wasn't on a thursday, 2 weeks before new years. It's actually a fun bowl to attend.
Click to expand...
i guess my point was that the SEC, Big 12, ACC etc...were willing to part ways with bowl affiliations in order to grow the sport and their conferences. the Pac 10 and Big 10 didn't have anything else except the Rose bowl and held on to it with dear life as those other conferences made necessary changes to get better matchups and create some conf. rivalry etc...

I mean look at the ACC/SEC/Big 10......the SEC and Big 10 are regularly battling it out for best college football conf, they have regular bowl matchups each year, and then the ACC/SEC have some significant reg season games as well as a couple of bowl tie ins that put a teams together. the Big 12 was smart enough to see that and got involved with the Shreveport bowl and Cotton bowl so you have SEC opponents you normally wouldn't have.

then there's the Pac 10......vs. the Big 10.......in the Rose bowl, and now, which this is the kicker, the Rose bowl isn't even guaranteed to have a team from either conf, and if they do, it's not a guarantee it's the conf. champ from either conf.

if you ask me, the Pac 10 simply got left behind when all the brokering and bargaining was going on.

yeah, geography plays a part in it, but you regularly have teams flying half way across the country to play in the Sugar, Orange or Fiesta bowls, and to some of the FL Jan 1 traditional games.
 
#220
#220
Well I'd argue the other conferences didn't have as much to give up as the pac-10/big-10. The rose bowl is by far the most prestigious bowl. The other bowls may offer similar money, but the TV ratings and tradition just don't compare.
 
#222
#222
droski said:
Well I'd argue the other conferences didn't have as much to give up as the pac-10/big-10. The rose bowl is by far the most prestigious bowl. The other bowls may offer similar money, but the TV ratings and tradition just don't compare.
Click to expand...
that's just it......i personally have never cared one way or the other about the rose bowl, but that does in fact have to do with my geography.:p Nonetheless, i certainly recognize the signifigance of the Rose bowl in college football.

so it then made me wonder even more how the Rose bowl, so esteemed, could let it's two participants go to another bowl to determine championships.

the one thing it had going for it was the annual Pac 10/Big 10 champions battling it out. the "tradition" is what it was trying to protect. and now that's not even the case.......

Even before the BCS came around, i think there was some foreshadowing that the Rose Bowl had lost some of it's luster, and really, it's only saving grace the past few years have been the two games that TEXAS played in. Other than that, it's now no more relevent than the other BCS games.
 
#223
#223
jakez4ut said:
that's just it......i personally have never cared one way or the other about the rose bowl, but that does in fact have to do with my geography.:p Nonetheless, i certainly recognize the signifigance of the Rose bowl in college football.

so it then made me wonder even more how the Rose bowl, so esteemed, could let it's two participants go to another bowl to determine championships.

the one thing it had going for it was the annual Pac 10/Big 10 champions battling it out. the "tradition" is what it was trying to protect. and now that's not even the case.......

Even before the BCS came around, i think there was some foreshadowing that the Rose Bowl had lost some of it's luster, and really, it's only saving grace the past few years have been the two games that TEXAS played in. Other than that, it's now no more relevent than the other BCS games.
Click to expand...


I totally agree.
 
#224
#224
droski said:
Fact: the pac-10 has a horrible bowl agreement. That's why Fire Pac-10 Commissioner Thomas C. Hansen! exists. Though a lot of this has to do with the fact that most of the major bowls are in the south east and there are only 3 or 4 pac-10 schools that travel well. When we were in the citrus bowl in 1991, we travelled very well. Unfortunetly UCLA, stanford, asu, arizona, and SC (sans the pete carroll era) never sold their tickets.
Click to expand...


Well why would they not be? I mean it is the home of College football. In the SEC on most Saturdays in the fall there are about 1 million fans in seats watching football. How many saturdays would it take in the PAC 10?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement



Back
Top