Who's Pulling for the Huskies of NIU?

TideWatcher

All-SEC
Dec 11, 2006
1,814
11
62
newton county, ms
Well, I am certainly pulling for them to beat FSU; but they do not deserve to be in the game. It is a joke they are in it considering how many teams are more deserving.
 

califbamafan

1st Team
Nov 7, 2005
666
0
35
77
Rialto, Calif
I for one am happy to see them in and I hope they beat FSU. The whole BSC system suxs but if you really want to complain how about a five loss team in an a horrible big least team in. That is what a joke the BCS is.
 

Mystical

All-American
Sep 28, 2009
4,052
458
107
Fairhope, Alabama
Re: Who's pulling for the husky's of niu ?

Not me. I rather see the big boys play. They need to change it so 4 SEC teams can get in a BCS Bowl. Having the little guys win is just more argument for the non sense of you need to win your conference to go to a good bowl.
 

WalkaboutSean

1st Team
Nov 23, 2010
323
11
37
Re: Who's pulling for the husky's of niu ?

I vividly remember NIU beating Alabama in Bryant-Denny. (One of the lowlights of the Shula era.) I won't be pulling for them... ;)
 

FThomas

1st Team
Oct 18, 2011
369
106
62
I for one am happy to see them in and I hope they beat FSU. The whole BSC system suxs but if you really want to complain how about a five loss team in an a horrible big least team in. That is what a joke the BCS is.
+1

This... Not sure how people can rail against NIU when the Big East and Big Ten BCS representatievs are both ranked behind them. Heck, the MAC might be better than the Big Ten and the Big East this year. Furthermore, all the teams near NIU in the rankings needed to lose for them to move up (sound familiar to our situation)... guess what, they nearly all lost:

#16 UCLA lost
#17 Kent State lost to NIU
#18 Texas lost
#12 Nebraska obliterated by a 5 loss team
#24 Okalahome State lost
 

tftplisa

1st Team
Jul 11, 2003
583
2
137
63
North Ridgeville, Ohio, USA
Re: Who's pulling for the husky's of niu ?

I want FSU to stomp the "fly in the ointment". This is why Saban pushes for the best teams in a playoff rather than the conference champions model. Look at the B1G champ Wisconsin with 5 losses.
 

Huckleberry

All-American
Nov 9, 2004
3,248
7,040
187
Jacksonville, FL
Not sad to me considering the Orange Bowl is just another bowl game. Everything past the BCS Championship is just another bowl game.

And the whole "split from the NCAA" system argue is incredibly tired considering the major conferences make up the NCAA and could have split at any time now. They aren't leaving so please get that idea out of your system.
I'm not some conspiracy nut with who thinks the NCAA is out to get particular teams. I believe them to be bad for the sport and it is my opinion that their actions support that conclusion. I don't think moving past the current hiearchy of NCAA control to be a "tired" idea. I've never advocated wholesale changs in the past, but it appears now that we could be in a United Nations-style situation where a band of smaller schools could make wholesale changes for their own benefit -- and there's no Security Council ability to veto such nonsense.

Were you around during the era when people would hook up several TV sets on New Year's Day so they could watch all the big bowl games without having to switch channels and/or miss big plays? Before the BCS-era, we didn't often get a 1 vs 2 matchup, but it seemed like there was more than one big bowl game. While I like having the top two teams play for it all -- and the big important people really like the the cash it brings (the sole reason for the BCS, as you know), it's diminshed all the other bowl games to the point where the Orange, Sugar, Rose, and Fiesta (poor old Cotton Bowl used to be up there, too) are merely consolation games. Regardless of what you might think about the current system, the idea that everything past the BCSCG should be considered just another bowl game is sad to me. The old New Year's Day bowls used to mean something, even if there wasn't a title on the line.

I like good college football games. Even when the number of small bowls became ridiculously silly, we could still hope to see traditional powers meet in the big name bowls. There's no reason we can't have a 1 vs 2 and some really good games to watch -- games that we looked forward to seeing, even if they didn't live up to the billing (something that can happen to the BCSCG, too). The current system seems to work against that idea. If you don't care, that's OK. However, it makes a difference to me. The Orange Bowl should not have NIU playing FSU. I realized just how much I hated that part of the system when Alabama ended up playing Utah in the Sugar Bowl. Even had we won, so what? It was Utah. I would rather have seen us play a traditional power, even if their record wasn't quite as good. Maybe everyone else has moved past the days of having big names meet in several of the formally-important bowl games. I haven't and won't apologize for missing that part of the old days.

Why do many Alabama fans hate Notre Dame and Texas so much? Mostly because of old game results. If we had been ranked #6 or #7, wouldn't you like to see us play Oklahoma, Texas, or another traditional power (just examples)? We used to have several games like that during the important bowls. It seemed to be a popular thing.

You're right, though. There is only one important bowl game now. The rest don't really matter -- it doesn't make much of a difference who plays who. I find that to be an unnecessary loss for the college football fan who cares less about betting in a bowl pool involving a bunch of 6-6 teams than the prospect of watching a game between traditionally great teams and non-conference rivalries. Can't there be a middle ground where we still have a title game along with some system that gives us better major bowl games (the ones that don't seem to matter anymore) than what we're getting now?
 
Last edited:

crimsonaudio

Administrator
Staff member
Sep 9, 2002
63,414
67,193
462
crimsonaudio.net
You're right, though. There is only one important bowl game now. The rest don't really matter -- it doesn't make much of a difference who plays who.
Except bowl revenue is one of the things that has helped the SEC become even more dominant - by allowing undeserving schools like NIU in instead of, say, UGA, they take a large amount of additional bowl funds out of the pot for the SEC, which would benefit Alabama directly.

The BCS has been pretty spot-on in setting up #1 vs #2 over the years, imo, but these extra rules - 'everybody gets a trophy' - are ridiculous. And dismissing it as if it doesn't matter misses the big picture as it not only cheapens the bowls further, but it takes deserved money directly out of our AD's pocket.
 

Tide1986

Suspended
Nov 22, 2008
15,670
2
0
Birmingham, AL
I want FSU to stomp the "fly in the ointment". This is why Saban pushes for the best teams in a playoff rather than the conference champions model. Look at the B1G champ Wisconsin with 5 losses.
Wisconsin is an anomaly by the way, especially considering that OSU and PSU were ineligible for their conference championship game.
 

Tide1986

Suspended
Nov 22, 2008
15,670
2
0
Birmingham, AL
People who hate the BCS...you only have one more year, then you can fuss about playoff selections
Even though it may need a tweak or two, I don't hate the BCS -- overall, it's a pretty good system (better than the upcoming playoff fiasco). If anyone wants to be mad about the NIU situation, they should be mad at the moron voters who ignored NIU's body of work and ranked them in the Top 20.
 
I'm not some conspiracy nut with who thinks the NCAA is out to get particular teams. I believe them to be bad for the sport and it is my opinion that their actions support that conclusion. I don't think moving past the current hiearchy of NCAA control to be a "tired" idea. I've never advocated wholesale changs in the past, but it appears now that we could be in a United Nations-style situation where a band of smaller schools could make wholesale changes for their own benefit -- and there's no Security Council ability to veto such nonsense.

Were you around during the era when people would hook up several TV sets on New Year's Day so they could watch all the big bowl games without having to switch channels and/or miss big plays? Before the BCS-era, we didn't often get a 1 vs 2 matchup, but it seemed like there was more than one big bowl game. While I like having the top two teams play for it all -- and the big important people really like the the cash it brings (the sole reason for the BCS, as you know), it's diminshed all the other bowl games to the point where the Orange, Sugar, Rose, and Fiesta (poor old Cotton Bowl used to be up there, too) are merely consolation games. Regardless of what you might think about the current system, the idea that everything past the BCSCG should be considered just another bowl game is sad to me. The old New Year's Day bowls used to mean something, even if there wasn't a title on the line.

I like good college football games. Even when the number of small bowls became ridiculously silly, we could still hope to see traditional powers meet in the big name bowls. There's no reason we can't have a 1 vs 2 and some really good games to watch -- games that we looked forward to seeing, even if they didn't live up to the billing (something that can happen to the BCSCG, too). The current system seems to work against that idea. If you don't care, that's OK. However, it makes a difference to me. The Orange Bowl should not have NIU playing FSU. I realized just how much I hated that part of the system when Alabama ended up playing Utah in the Sugar Bowl. Even had we won, so what? It was Utah. I would rather have seen us play a traditional power, even if their record wasn't quite as good. Maybe everyone else has moved past the days of having big names meet in several of the formally-important bowl games. I haven't and won't apologize for missing that part of the old days.

Why do many Alabama fans hate Notre Dame and Texas so much? Mostly because of old game results. If we had been ranked #6 or #7, wouldn't you like to see us play Oklahoma, Texas, or another traditional power (just examples)? We used to have several games like that during the important bowls. It seemed to be a popular thing.

You're right, though. There is only one important bowl game now. The rest don't really matter -- it doesn't make much of a difference who plays who. I find that to be an unnecessary loss for the college football fan who cares less about betting in a bowl pool involving a bunch of 6-6 teams than the prospect of watching a game between traditionally great teams and non-conference rivalries. Can't there be a middle ground where we still have a title game along with some system that gives us better major bowl games (the ones that don't seem to matter anymore) than what we're getting now?
I do remember how it used to be, and frankly, I'm not going to long for that time or be nostalgic about it. Also, if Alabama had been ranked #6 or #7, most fans would have been disappointed with the game regardless because of the expectation factor. For a major program, it's really the BCS Championship Game or nothing at this point. Go ask Georgia how excited they are to be playing Nebraska.
 
Except bowl revenue is one of the things that has helped the SEC become even more dominant - by allowing undeserving schools like NIU in instead of, say, UGA, they take a large amount of additional bowl funds out of the pot for the SEC, which would benefit Alabama directly.

The BCS has been pretty spot-on in setting up #1 vs #2 over the years, imo, but these extra rules - 'everybody gets a trophy' - are ridiculous. And dismissing it as if it doesn't matter misses the big picture as it not only cheapens the bowls further, but it takes deserved money directly out of our AD's pocket.
Yet it was the decision of the AD's and Presidents to implement these rules so more money would be taken out of their pocket via lawsuits and such. It was also their decision to implement the two teams per conference rule way back at the beginning.
 

crimsonaudio

Administrator
Staff member
Sep 9, 2002
63,414
67,193
462
crimsonaudio.net
Yet it was the decision of the AD's and Presidents to implement these rules so more money would be taken out of their pocket via lawsuits and such. It was also their decision to implement the two teams per conference rule way back at the beginning.
That's fine, I full understand the background and reasoning, but it certainly doesn't mean we have to like or appreciate an undeserving team getting in instead of a team that actually played a real schedule and earned it.

This thread is about who will (or won't) pull for NIU - I decidedly will not. I want to see them epically plastered as I want it to be obvious to even the most casual fan that they don't deserve being there. But even if they were to win, that doesn't mean they deserve the opportunity and pay out.

Just because it's the rule doesn't mean it's right.
 

hacksaw830

2nd Team
Jan 20, 2007
313
0
0
Re: Who's pulling for the husky's of niu ?

I won't pull for them. Joke of a game. Forget them.
Im with ya Boston, this feel good give everybody gets a trophy, little man needs a hand Boise state crap is getting old fast. There are several teams that deserve to be in that bowl other than that joke of a team, I hope FSU smokes um if FSU lets this bunch beat them they need to give up football NIU is NOT a good team. I will not be watching that crap for sure, they belong in the Go daddy bowl or some other pointless high school exhibition game.
 

New Posts

Latest threads

TideFans.shop : 2024 Madness!

TideFans.shop - Get YOUR Bama Gear HERE!”></a>
<br />

<!--/ END TideFans.shop & item link \-->
<p style= Purchases made through our TideFans.shop and Amazon.com links may result in a commission being paid to TideFans.