BCS league representative in the history of the modern era.

---------------------------------------------
--- RJSimmons wrote:

BCS league representative in the history of the modern era.

---------------------------------------------

RJ, you are probably right; however, over the past three years, they have been light-years better than us.

We know how bad we are. It's been talked about around here for months. Let's talk about how bad other teams are. Just to shake things up.
Unless you want to continue discussing Greg Davis of JV?

RJSimmons wrote: BCS league representative in the history of the modern era.

Don't sell the Big East short!  There was at least a bad Pitt team that played Utah in a BCS bowl game one year.  I am sure there are other examples.

No, that would be the 2007 Illinoiz team that got spanked by USC.

Down year for Wisconsin and they still might go to the Rose Bowl.  Wish we had those problems.  Wisky gets basically the same talent we do yet Bielema has beaten us in scoring and rushing every year but once since 2006. 

Since 2006, Wisky was 1st in scoring 3 times in the B1G.  Our best was 3rd (in 2008) and no other top 5 years for us.  Wisky was also 1st in rushing 3 times and didn't finish worst than 5th since 2006.  Our best was 4th and no other top 5's in the same period.  If we could adopt Wisky's offense we would be dangerous.

Don't forget Connecticut two or three years ago. Far worse than Wisconsin.

Three of the four conference losses by Wisconsin were in overtime. Not excusing the losses, but they are not an awful team. And their bowl history is pretty good. They may do better than you think they will if they go on to the Rose Bowl.

Va. Tech, Florida State, and UCONN have all made a BCS game with 4 losses.  Hawaii made it undefeated but should never have been there (game score proved it too).

RJSimmons wrote: BCS league representative in the history of the modern era.

But their cheese is to die for.....mmmm

I am not gonna belittle any BIG teams that are bowl bound. They are from the same league we are and I always root for them to win. BB has done a damned good job where he is and I envy Wiscy for having him.

Same talent as we do?  They've got three running backs on their roster that are all better than any of the six or so that we've got. 

hwk23 wrote: Down year for Wisconsin and they still might go to the Rose Bowl.  Wish we had those problems.  Wisky gets basically the same talent we do yet Bielema has beaten us in scoring and rushing every year but once since 2006. 

Since 2006, Wisky was 1st in scoring 3 times in the B1G.  Our best was 3rd (in 2008) and no other top 5 years for us.  Wisky was also 1st in rushing 3 times and didn't finish worst than 5th since 2006.  Our best was 4th and no other top 5's in the same period.  If we could adopt Wisky's offense we would be dangerous.

lindley wrote:

RJSimmons wrote: BCS league representative in the history of the modern era.

But their cheese is to die for.....mmmm

I just pulled a batch of Wisconsin cheese curds out of the fryer. They are awesome that way.

One of those Wiscy RB's had an offer from the hawks and we pulled it for someone else. Go figure.

Sorry but Fitz from NW was right in saying that there should of been a board drawn up by the Big Ten that would decide who the team was that played the winner of the Legends Division this year since two of the teams in the Leaders Division are not eligible. 

We should be seeing Michigan play Nebraska if you ask me.

RJSimmons wrote:

lindley wrote:

RJSimmons wrote: BCS league representative in the history of the modern era.

But their cheese is to die for.....mmmm

I just pulled a batch of Wisconsin cheese curds out of the fryer. They are awesome that way.

Oh my, if that doesn't say happy holiday

How bad does Wisconsin look now, RJ?

Really? You guys will finish the season 8-6 in the Rose Bowl. Give me a break. It was a fluke you were even in the title game due to the "exceptions" this year, neither of whom you could beat head to head. Nebraska is not a great team, especially when such a lowly Iowa team was able to hang with them.

They are the best the BIG has this year however.

They are kicking some Husker ass and look pretty good to me.  Iowa has a long, long, way to catch up to the quality and consistency of the Badgers.  I think BB is a far better and innovative coach than KFz, too.

---------------------------------------------
--- CaWino wrote:

They are kicking some Husker ass and look pretty good to me.  Iowa has a long, long, way to catch up to the quality and consistency of the Badgers.  I think BB is a far better and innovative coach than KFz, too.

---------------------------------------------

BB and Barry has made them winners for three years in a row. If Careful Kirk took us to the Rose Bowl for three years in a row, it would be like winning the Power Ball!

You are absolutely correct. Bielema will do what it takes, tweak his own system, if that's what it means to win the football game. Ferentz is not an innovator and doesn't know how to utilize or scheme his game plan to the personnel he has on the field year in and year out, let alone each individual game. He has no imagination, tolerates inept offensive production and it down-right boring as hell to watch. Iowa will be better off when KF leaves. He has no clue that his prgram sucks nor that he is why the program sucks. He's also a terrible recruiter and could't sell anything if he tried. But then again, when you have the type of job security he has, who cares. They can't fire you and you make 3.875 mill per year to go 4-8. It's a coaches dream.

---------------------------------------------
--- CaWino wrote:

They are kicking some Husker ass and look pretty good to me.  Iowa has a long, long, way to catch up to the quality and consistency of the Badgers.  I think BB is a far better and innovative coach than KFz, too.

---------------------------------------------

Hate to say it, but Wisconsin coaching staff is the best in the big ten. They recruit well, they utilize the talent they have in an appropriate manner, and they can score lots of points against good defenses. We put up a whooping seven on nebby at home, and whisky hangs 70 on them in a neutral site....wow.jw

marcx wrote: How bad does Wisconsin look now, RJ?

They look just like they looked earlier. Like the worst BCS qualifier in the history of the BCS. Lets revisit this discussion after the Rose Bowl beating you will  get at the hands of Stanford.

Wisconsin might not even qualify for the Rose Bowl. They arent ranked in the top 16. Nor will they be tomorrow.

WOW! I've been out all night and didnt see the game. 70-39??? Are you serious? 
Thats embarrassing. But funny.

RJSimmons wrote: Wisconsin might not even qualify for the Rose Bowl. They arent ranked in the top 16. Nor will they be tomorrow.

What are you talking about?

DrHibbard wrote:

RJSimmons wrote: Wisconsin might not even qualify for the Rose Bowl. They arent ranked in the top 16. Nor will they be tomorrow.

What are you talking about?

Isnt there some rule that states if the winner of the BIG/PAC12 conference isnt ranked in the top 16, that they (RB) can choose any team they want, that's ranked higher? I thought I read something like that, somewhere.

DrHibbard wrote:

RJSimmons wrote: Wisconsin might not even qualify for the Rose Bowl. They arent ranked in the top 16. Nor will they be tomorrow.

What are you talking about?

Evidently the Big Ten is a non-AQ conference now.

I hope Wiscy beats Stanford like they did Nebby tonight.

3. The champion of Conference USA, the Mid-American Conference, the Mountain West Conference, the Sun Belt Conference, or the Western Athletic Conference will earn an automatic berth in a BCS bowl game if either:

• A. Such team is ranked in the top 12 of the final BCS Standings, or,
• B. Such team is ranked in the top 16 of the final BCS Standings and its ranking in the final BCS Standings is higher than that of a champion of a conference that has an annual automatic berth in one of the BCS bowls.

This is the rule I was referring to.

Like Kent St, Boise St and Northern IL, who are all ranked higher than Wisconsin. Currently.

UImed17 wrote:

DrHibbard wrote:

RJSimmons wrote: Wisconsin might not even qualify for the Rose Bowl. They arent ranked in the top 16. Nor will they be tomorrow.

What are you talking about?

Evidently the Big Ten is a non-AQ conference now.

Genius. Learn the rules before you run your mouth. It helps.

No clever comments? No snappy repartee? A little Anthrax goes a long way, I guess.

Mark my words. Wisconsin miraculously vaults into the top 16, from outside of the top 25. Book it!

UImed17 wrote:

DrHibbard wrote:

RJSimmons wrote: Wisconsin might not even qualify for the Rose Bowl. They arent ranked in the top 16. Nor will they be tomorrow.

What are you talking about?

Evidently the Big Ten is a non-AQ conference now.

It looks like RJ is confused.

He will figure it out on January 1 when he turns on his TV and does not see Northern Illinois playing in the Rose Bowl.

DrHibbard wrote:

UImed17 wrote:

DrHibbard wrote:

RJSimmons wrote: Wisconsin might not even qualify for the Rose Bowl. They arent ranked in the top 16. Nor will they be tomorrow.

What are you talking about?

Evidently the Big Ten is a non-AQ conference now.

It looks like RJ is confused.

He will figure it out on January 1 when he turns on his TV and does not see Northern Illinois playing in the Rose Bowl.

Confused is better than stupid.

RJSimmons wrote:

3. The champion of Conference USA, the Mid-American Conference, the Mountain West Conference, the Sun Belt Conference, or the Western Athletic Conference will earn an automatic berth in a BCS bowl game if either:

• A. Such team is ranked in the top 12 of the final BCS Standings, or,
• B. Such team is ranked in the top 16 of the final BCS Standings and its ranking in the final BCS Standings is higher than that of a champion of a conference that has an annual automatic berth in one of the BCS bowls.

This is the rule I was referring to.

This rule doesnt say what you think.  It just says the team gets into the BCS, replacing an AT LARGE.  The Champions of the B1G, SEC, PAC-12, ACC, B12, BE all get auto bids regardless of their ranking.  Why do you think they're called automatic qualifiers.

Look I hate Becky as much as anybody but they WILL be playing in the Rose Bowl.

bwlc2011 wrote:

RJSimmons wrote:

3. The champion of Conference USA, the Mid-American Conference, the Mountain West Conference, the Sun Belt Conference, or the Western Athletic Conference will earn an automatic berth in a BCS bowl game if either:

• A. Such team is ranked in the top 12 of the final BCS Standings, or,
• B. Such team is ranked in the top 16 of the final BCS Standings and its ranking in the final BCS Standings is higher than that of a champion of a conference that has an annual automatic berth in one of the BCS bowls.

This is the rule I was referring to.

This rule doesnt say what you think.  It just says the team gets into the BCS, replacing an AT LARGE.  The Champions of the B1G, SEC, PAC-12, ACC, B12, BE all get auto bids regardless of their ranking.  Why do you think they're called automatic qualifiers.

Look I hate Becky as much as anybody but they WILL be playing in the Rose Bowl.

No. It says exactly what I think it says. Read it again. It says CHAMPION. Not at large.

Nowhere in the rule does it say they take that teams bid.  Its just a necessary condition for them to get an auto-bid into the BCS.  In other words, the rule is saying that if, say, Boise State is #15 and the champions of the six-AQ conferences are #1, #2, #5, #7, #10 and #12 then the BCS doesnt have give a bid to Boise State.

If the rule said what you think it says then the Big East would practically never get a team into the BCS.