Warpath

Warpath (http://www.thewarpath.net/forum.php)
-   Other Sports (http://www.thewarpath.net/other-sports/)
-   -   Sugar bowl fiasco...not right! (http://www.thewarpath.net/other-sports/16661-sugar-bowl-fiasco-not-right.html)

jsarno 01-03-2007 08:48 PM

Sugar bowl fiasco...not right!
 
It is not right that a team gets to have another home game. LSU should not be playing Notre Dame at New Orleans, that's not right. Every game should be played at a neutral site.

itvnetop 01-03-2007 08:51 PM

Re: Sugar bowl fiasco...not right!
 
[QUOTE=jsarno;266787]It is not right that a team gets to have another home game. LSU should not be playing Notre Dame at New Orleans, that's not right. Every game should be played at a neutral site.[/QUOTE]

bowl games are traditionally held at certain locations... teams are picked post-facto. would you move the rose bowl out of pasadena, even though USC goes there often?

notre dame is going to need more than their fans to pull this out... they look too slow for lsu.

jsarno 01-03-2007 08:57 PM

Re: Sugar bowl fiasco...not right!
 
Sorry mods...I put this on the wrong section (locker room)...please feel free to move it.

jdlea 01-03-2007 09:06 PM

Re: Sugar bowl fiasco...not right!
 
[QUOTE=jsarno;266787]It is not right that a team gets to have another home game. LSU should not be playing Notre Dame at New Orleans, that's not right. Every game should be played at a neutral site.[/QUOTE]

I agree with you on this one. Put em in some other Bowl. It's really unfair. While LSU plays maybe an hour and a half away (probably less) most college football fans in NOLA are LSU fans. Having lived there, I can tell you, no one gives a damn about Tulane unless you go there and half of us were LSU fans. I never really was, always liked Auburn and the Gators, haven't been much for LSU till I got with the current girlfriend. Anyway, I'm not huge on college football, not nearly as much as pros, but it is fun to watch sometimes. However, I do agree, it is unfair that a 2 loss team gets to play in a BCS home game.

I do have to add, though, that it's pretty much impossible to move Death Valley to New Orleans. You really can't capture that kinda feel anywhere, but in Baton Rouge.

itvnetop 01-03-2007 09:08 PM

Re: Sugar bowl fiasco...not right!
 
i'd also have to mention the fact that ND gets to keep all of its revenue for being in this game... while every other school has to split the amount with its conference. cry me a river, ND.

jdlea 01-03-2007 09:14 PM

Re: Sugar bowl fiasco...not right!
 
[QUOTE=itvnetop;266791]i'd also have to mention the fact that ND gets to keep all of its revenue for being in this game... while every other school has to split the amount with its conference. cry me a river, ND.[/QUOTE]

Notre Dame shouldn't have to apologize for being independent. Army, Navy, and Temple all are too. The Air Force is apparently in the Mountain West Conference. However, I'm pretty sure Navy went to a bowl game too, I don't have a problem with them getting to keep the revenue.

As for LSU, they're sharing with the SEC who had 9 of their 12 teams heading to bowl games. Somehow, I don't think that sharing that revenue is gonna kill LSU.

jsarno 01-03-2007 09:15 PM

Re: Sugar bowl fiasco...not right!
 
[QUOTE=itvnetop;266788]bowl games are traditionally held at certain locations... teams are picked post-facto. would you move the rose bowl out of pasadena, even though USC goes there often?

notre dame is going to need more than their fans to pull this out... they look too slow for lsu.[/QUOTE]

I'm not saying move the Rose bowl out of pasedena, or the sugar bowl out of New Orleans, just that USC is not eligible for the Rose Bowl, or the LSU Tigers are not eligible for the Sugar Bowl. It's not fair to the opposing team.

They just scored a TD.

That QB (Russell) for LSU looks good...fast and BIG, with a good arm.

itvnetop 01-03-2007 09:16 PM

Re: Sugar bowl fiasco...not right!
 
[QUOTE=jdlea;266793]Notre Dame shouldn't have to apologize for being independent.[/QUOTE]

And LSU shouldn't have to apologize for being selected to the sugar bowl.

itvnetop 01-03-2007 09:18 PM

Re: Sugar bowl fiasco...not right!
 
[QUOTE=jsarno;266794]I'm not saying move the Rose bowl out of pasedena, or the sugar bowl out of New Orleans, just that USC is not eligible for the Rose Bowl, or the LSU Tigers are not eligible for the Sugar Bowl. It's not fair to the opposing team.
[/QUOTE]

I like the fact that the Rose Bowl is the one game that kind of sticks against the BCS... it's always been a Pac 10/Big 10 matchup, except when the national champ contender is from either conference. Tradition trumps innovation in Pasadena.

Hey, ND looks like it's making a game of it... turnover by LSU.

itvnetop 01-03-2007 09:20 PM

Re: Sugar bowl fiasco...not right!
 
[QUOTE=jdlea;266793]Notre Dame shouldn't have to apologize for being independent. Army, Navy, and Temple all are too. The Air Force is apparently in the Mountain West Conference. However, I'm pretty sure Navy went to a bowl game too, I don't have a problem with them getting to keep the revenue.
[/QUOTE]

The thing is service academies rarely get to a bowl game (hence, they can afford to be independent) and when they do, it's an extremely low payout.

I'm not saying ND is wrong for taking advantage of their status... just don't cry about homefield advantage when you're getting a BCS payout of 8 million dollars, while everyone else has to share it with 9 or 11 other teams.

jsarno 01-03-2007 09:24 PM

Re: Sugar bowl fiasco...not right!
 
I was shocked to see how many independants there are.

Notre Dame
Army
Navy
Troy State
UConn
Temple

jsarno 01-03-2007 09:26 PM

Re: Sugar bowl fiasco...not right!
 
[QUOTE=itvnetop;266795]And LSU shouldn't have to apologize for being selected to the sugar bowl.[/QUOTE]

No one said LSU had to apologize.
The selection committee should. They should not allow it.

jsarno 01-03-2007 09:28 PM

Re: Sugar bowl fiasco...not right!
 
[QUOTE=itvnetop;266797]The thing is service academies rarely get to a bowl game (hence, they can afford to be independent) and when they do, it's an extremely low payout.

I'm not saying ND is wrong for taking advantage of their status... just don't cry about homefield advantage when you're getting a BCS payout of 8 million dollars, while everyone else has to share it with 9 or 11 other teams.[/QUOTE]

ND isn't crying.
Also, all those teams have advantages to being in conferences, ND has none for being independant, other than not sharing bowl money.

Gmanc711 01-03-2007 09:31 PM

Re: Sugar bowl fiasco...not right!
 
Who cares? I'm a Irish fan, and I'll be the first to admit that they don't even deserve to be in the Sugar Bowl. If there wasent an extra title game this year, I'd be suprised if they were even in a New Years day bowl. They beat no quality opponents and everytime they played a team that was worth anything, they got run out of the stadium. The only reason they are there is because they are Notre Dame.....again, coming from an IRISH Fan.

jsarno 01-03-2007 09:39 PM

Re: Sugar bowl fiasco...not right!
 
[QUOTE=Gmanc711;266802]Who cares? I'm a Irish fan, and I'll be the first to admit that they don't even deserve to be in the Sugar Bowl. If there wasent an extra title game this year, I'd be suprised if they were even in a New Years day bowl. They beat no quality opponents and everytime they played a team that was worth anything, they got run out of the stadium. The only reason they are there is because they are Notre Dame.....again, coming from an IRISH Fan.[/QUOTE]

UMMM what? You must not be a real ND fan, cause they had a tough schedule.
Georgia Tech, Penn State, Mich. St., Purdue, UCLA and Navy. All of them had very good teams this year. They lost to top notch teams in Michigan and USC. (ps- UCLA beat USC) So why do they not deserve to be in the Sugar Bowl when they only lost to top notch contenders?


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:49 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site is not officially affiliated with the Washington Redskins or the NFL.

Page generated in 0.06559 seconds with 8 queries

Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0 RC5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25