I couldn't agree more. Mizzou deserves more...pretty shi**y! :tigereye::tigereye::tigereye::tigereye::tigereye::tigereye:
Definitely a ****ty move by the selection committee. I would really like to hear their explanation of picking Kansas over Mizzou.
My mouth dropped open. There was no excuse for them to pick Kansas over Mizzou. I feel for the guys. They played one heck of a season, (Mizzou...and to a point Kansas) But, Mizzou should have been the ones in the BCS bowl.
Mizzou can thank the rose bowl for getting screwed. They took Illinois, an 8-3 team and ranked 13th, to protect their precious pac 10/big 10 matchup. That sucks.
I agree, but VT is lucky they got Kansas. Mizzou would have beaten VT pretty easily in my opinion. Now they get to beat up on Kansas.
Not so much. Where did The Rose pick vs. The Orange Bowl? You can't have more than two teams from any conference in a BCS game. Which begs the question, what logic do the Orange Bowl officials have for taking Kansas over Mizzou, which of course Mizzou beat?
The previous two posters seem to get this...but correct me if I'm wrong... The BCS doesn't "pick" who goes to the games...except for the MNC game, correct? I believe the Orange, Sugar, Rose, and Fiesta could choose from the qualified teams, of which Mizzou was one. I agree they got screwed, but it can't be blamed on the system...it's the Orange Bowl Selection committee that screwed up, here.
I'm not blaming the system, I'm really blaming the Bowl Selection committee. They say its all about money, well as far as fans that travel, you have to put Kansas and Mizzou right about even. I think it may about the OBSC wanting a favorable matchup for their beloved ACC teams. Just like the Rose Bowl selecting Illinios. I know they love their traditional matchup, but who wouldn't have loved to see USC vs Mizzou or even WV?
