Wyoming fresno

BYUROCKS wrote:

The only rankings that matter were the final regular season rankings. As far as the current 4-yr analysis period, this year's data are already set in stone.

Where did you hear that ? last I read from ESPN, was that they took, end of year, but MOST important was after bowl.

mormonrasta wrote:

byutx wrote:
The only rankings that matter were the final regular season rankings. As far as the current 4-yr analysis period, this year's data are already set in stone.

Where did you hear that ? last I read from ESPN, was that they took, end of year, but MOST important was after bowl.

The evaluation data includes the following for each conference (1) the ranking of the highest-ranked team in the final BCS standings each year, (2) the final regular-season rankings of all conference teams in the computer rankings used by the BCS each year and (3) the number of teams in the top 25 of the final BCS standings each year.



http://www.bcsfootball.org/bcsfb/eligibility

mormonrasta wrote:

byutx wrote:
The only rankings that matter were the final regular season rankings. As far as the current 4-yr analysis period, this year's data are already set in stone.

Where did you hear that ? last I read from ESPN, was that they took, end of year, but MOST important was after bowl.

The evaluation data includes the following for each conference (1) the ranking of the highest-ranked team in the final BCS standings each year, (2) the final regular-season rankings of all conference teams in the computer rankings used by the BCS each year and (3) the number of teams in the top 25 of the final BCS standings each year.



http://www.bcsfootball.org/bcsfb/eligibility

byutx wrote:

BYUROCKS wrote:

The only rankings that matter were the final regular season rankings. As far as the current 4-yr analysis period, this year's data are already set in stone.

Where did you hear that ? last I read from ESPN, was that they took, end of year, but MOST important was after bowl.

The evaluation data includes the following for each conference (1) the ranking of the highest-ranked team in the final BCS standings each year, (2) the final regular-season rankings of all conference teams in the computer rankings used by the BCS each year and (3) the number of teams in the top 25 of the final BCS standings each year.



http://www.bcsfootball.org/bcsfb/eligibility

...and I believe the "final BCS standings" referred to are those that were announced on December 6th.

snoscythe wrote:

mormonrasta wrote:

byutx wrote:
The only rankings that matter were the final regular season rankings. As far as the current 4-yr analysis period, this year's data are already set in stone.

Where did you hear that ? last I read from ESPN, was that they took, end of year, but MOST important was after bowl.

The evaluation data includes the following for each conference (1) the ranking of the highest-ranked team in the final BCS standings each year, (2) the final regular-season rankings of all conference teams in the computer rankings used by the BCS each year and (3) the number of teams in the top 25 of the final BCS standings each year.



http://www.bcsfootball.org/bcsfb/eligibility

...and I believe the "final BCS standings" referred to are those that were announced on December 6th.

Correct.



The final BCS rankings from last year were 12/7/08, and the year before were 12/2/07.



Bowl games mean jack-squat in the BCS evaluations.

BYUROCKS wrote:

byutx wrote:

BYUROCKS wrote:

The only rankings that matter were the final regular season rankings. As far as the current 4-yr analysis period, this year's data are already set in stone.

Where did you hear that ? last I read from ESPN, was that they took, end of year, but MOST important was after bowl.

The evaluation data includes the following for each conference (1) the ranking of the highest-ranked team in the final BCS standings each year, (2) the final regular-season rankings of all conference teams in the computer rankings used by the BCS each year and (3) the number of teams in the top 25 of the final BCS standings each year.



http://www.bcsfootball.org/bcsfb/eligibility

...and I believe the "final BCS standings" referred to are those that were announced on December 6th.

Correct.



The final BCS rankings from last year were 12/7/08, and the year before were 12/2/07.



Bowl games mean jack-squat in the BCS evaluations.

How ? that is how they crown their Champion, makes 0 sense to not count post bowls.

BYUROCKS wrote:
How ? that is how they crown their Champion, makes 0 sense to not count post bowls.

mormonrasta wrote:

Wyoming beats FSU. The MWC's 5th best team beat the WAC's 3d best team. (And let's not forget that the MWC's worst team, beat the WAC's 2d best team earlier in the season.)



And to think, some want to get rid of Wyoming in favor of Fresno St. :P



Way to represent, Wyoming. 1 down, 4 more to go for the MWC this bowl season.

I'm still in favor of making a Wyoming for Fresno St. trade. One bowl win doesn't change the fact that Wyoming has one of the worst athletic programs in the MWC. Fresno St. has a much better athletic department and would provide a much better recruiting ground for the conference.

Lawboy wrote:
I think it is easy to see. If the MWC goes 6-0 in bowl goes, and is 2-0 over the PAC10 in bowl games this year, that raises eyebrows and adds to the perception that the MWC is tough an deserving. If the MWC goes 0-2 v. the PAC10, that is just more fodder for those opposed to the MWC joining the BCS. Plus, end of year rankings matter in the BCS equation, so TCU, Utah and BYU all need to win to improve that for 2009, because it is part of the eval process. Last year we had 3 ranked teams, need 3 this year==and highly ranked. Fact is, if Utah wins, it helps BYU because it improves the MWC chances of being BCS eligible.

byutx wrote:

byutx wrote:
The only rankings that matter were the final regular season rankings. As far as the current 4-yr analysis period, this year's data are already set in stone.

Where did you hear that ? last I read from ESPN, was that they took, end of year, but MOST important was after bowl.

Someone on Cougarboard (and I think here too, maybe) quoted the BCS language and provided a link. Feel free to go look for it, but from what I read in the rules and regs, it's based on the last BCS standings, prior to the bowls which, I know, makes little sense.

BYUROCKS wrote:

I think it is easy to see. If the MWC goes 6-0 in bowl goes, and is 2-0 over the PAC10 in bowl games this year, that raises eyebrows and adds to the perception that the MWC is tough an deserving. If the MWC goes 0-2 v. the PAC10, that is just more fodder for those opposed to the MWC joining the BCS. Plus, end of year rankings matter in the BCS equation, so TCU, Utah and BYU all need to win to improve that for 2009, because it is part of the eval process. Last year we had 3 ranked teams, need 3 this year==and highly ranked. Fact is, if Utah wins, it helps BYU because it improves the MWC chances of being BCS eligible.

Quoted for truth.

CougarPeasant wrote:
Until BYU is in a BCS conference, or a playoff is instituted that allows BYU to play for the title, I root for MWC teams OOC, including :utard:. Yet, when they lose, I do smile and feel good. It's win-win to me.

Sammich wrote:

Until BYU is in a BCS conference, or a playoff is instituted that allows BYU to play for the title, I root for MWC teams OOC, including :utard:. Yet, when they lose, I do smile and feel good. It's win-win to me.

This is an acceptable attitude, provided you don't audibly cheer for them, or present any kind of visible enthusiasm for their sakes.

Sammich wrote:

Lawboy wrote:
I think it is easy to see. If the MWC goes 6-0 in bowl goes, and is 2-0 over the PAC10 in bowl games this year, that raises eyebrows and adds to the perception that the MWC is tough an deserving. If the MWC goes 0-2 v. the PAC10, that is just more fodder for those opposed to the MWC joining the BCS. Plus, end of year rankings matter in the BCS equation, so TCU, Utah and BYU all need to win to improve that for 2009, because it is part of the eval process. Last year we had 3 ranked teams, need 3 this year==and highly ranked. Fact is, if Utah wins, it helps BYU because it improves the MWC chances of being BCS eligible.

Quoted for truth.

You guys obviously didn't get my point about the benefits of a utah win. But I promised I'd be nice, so take this as a fellow cougar concerned for your happiness. First of all, keep this one truth in mind: "rooting for" a team does not actually make them more or less likely to win.



So we have two scenarios, (A) in which Cal wins, and (B) utah wins. In both scenarios, I cheer for Cal and you go rooty utey.



You in A: Disappointed with the loss, because the conference is worse off than "it would have been." To top it off, bad taste in mouth for cheering on the :utard: at no avail.

Me in A: Happy with the win (or loss)! Not disappointed for the sake of the conference, since it's no worse off than it was, and happy because this will help BYU's recruiting vs. the :utard:.



You in B: Satisfied because of a win, but soul is blackened for having cheered on they-who-sell-their-souls to win in big games.

Me in B. Not necessarily disappointed because I'm not invested in Cal. Can find satisfaction in the fact that utah winning *might* benefit BYU.



In both scenarios, you lose something. In both, I win. Come to the light side, for your sakes.

mormonrasta wrote:
I'm still in favor of making a Wyoming for Fresno St. trade. One bowl win doesn't change the fact that Wyoming has one of the worst athletic programs in the MWC. Fresno St. has a much better athletic department and would provide a much better recruiting ground for the conference.

BYUROCKS wrote:
fine act no better then the :utard:

Mars wrote:

fine act no better then the :utard:

"Then" refers to time. "Than" refers to comparison. Also, "to" is not the same word as "too".

This lesson brought to you by Professor Mars.