ShareThis Page
Penn State’s bowl outlook unclear |

Penn State’s bowl outlook unclear

| Thursday, November 29, 2007 12:00 a.m

Penn State lost a bowl option — albeit an unlikely one — when the Outback Bowl picked Wisconsin as its Big Ten representative Wednesday.

The Big Ten bowl picture will not come into complete focus until after Saturday’s games. There is a possibility Big Ten champion Ohio State, currently No. 3 in the Bowl Championship Series standings, could move up from the Rose Bowl to the BCS title game if either Missouri or West Virginia loses.

If that happens, it is possible the Rose Bowl would take Illinois. But the Illini (9-3, 6-2), the No. 15 BCS team, would need a team or two ahead of them, such as No. 14 Tennessee, No. 13 Arizona State, No. 12 Hawaii, or No. 11 Boston College, to lose. Otherwise, Illinois would need a scenario in which the BCS at-large pool is expanded to the top 18 because not enough teams are eligible. Conferences are limited to two BCS bids.

“I think it’s great for the Outback because they bought themselves extra time to promote the game,” Alamo Bowl spokesman Rick Hill said of the Wisconsin selection. “For us, it makes it easier for teams because there are three bowls in the picture and only two cities.”

If Illinois gets the BCS bid, the Capital One Bowl in Orlando could choose between Michigan (8-4, 6-2) and Penn State (8-4, 4-4). The other would go to the Alamo in San Antonio, which picks next since the Outback has selected. If Illinois does not make the BCS, it would play in the Capital One game, with the Alamo choosing Penn State or Michigan and the one not taken going to the Champs Sports Bowl in Orlando.

Note: Penn State sophomore defensive end Maurice Evans, who had 21 1/2 tackles for loss and 12 1/2 sacks, has been named one of eight finalists for the Ted Hendricks Award, given annually to the top college defensive end.

Categories: News
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.