Bowl Games

[White Sox Josh]

It's a long debate.  But the current BCS system is worse than both a playoff and the old system.

the BCS got it right this year though. Well in terms of the #1 and #2 teams.

[Dick Allen]

the BCS got it right this year though.  Well in terms of the #1 and #2 teams.

A chimp could have got it right this year.

[ilsox7]

the BCS got it right this year though.  Well in terms of the #1 and #2 teams.

 

The BCS is beyond hypocritical. The only reason is works is b/c when two teams go undefeated, it places those two teams in the same game. But then it ignores the "logic" it used to place those two teams in the same game when it comes to the other BCS games. If you're so confident in your little formula, why not let it decide all four BCS games?

 

Also, the BCS is a piece of s*** when there are more or less than two undefeated teams in the country. I'd much rather the fairly rare years when there is a split National Champion than the crap the BCS pulls by changing its formula every other year and STILL not coming up with an appropriate result. And they will NEVER come up with an appropriate result unless it's a playoff. And if they refuse to go to a playoff, then just go back to the traditional system.

[ilsox7]

A chimp could have got it right this year.

 

It actually says a lot that they got it right considering the idiot who runs the NCAA.

[Rex Hudler]

But you do know the PSU is 3 OSU is 4 and Oregon is 5....maybe I am reading your post wrong.  I really dont see how there is any doubt that OSU is going to be playing ND in the Fiesta Bowl.

 

You were. I was painting a hypothetical scenario.

[SoCalSouthSider59]

A chimp could have got it right this year.

 

Isn't that kinda degrading the poor little chimp?

 

National Championship Game, USC VS. TEXAS, THE ROSE BOWL in Pasadena, SoCal, Jan. 4th...........

 

GOOOOOOOOOO TROJANS!!!!!!!!

 

 

Edited December 5, 2005 by SoCalSouthSider59

[rangercal]

You should be happy then.  You'll get to see Michigan kill a s***ty Nebraska team.

 

I, for one, will try to find something better to do with my December 28th than watch another underachiever from Michigan take the field.  It's all really a moot point anyways b/c college football in the last decade has gotten consistently less exciting to watch.  Either go to a playoff and determine a true National Champion or go back to the original bowl system with 3 million bowl games on New Year's Day.  Neither will happen, so who cares.

Nebraska will beat Michigan.

[ZoomSlowik]

It's a long debate.  But the current BCS system is worse than both a playoff and the old system.

 

How in any way is the poll system better than the BCS? You're going to let a bunch of sportswriters and errand boys for the head coaches determine the national championship? The BCS isn't perfect, but it's a lot better than the polls. If we still had the old system, USC would be playing PSU in the Rose Bowl and Texas would be playing Georgia in the Fiesta Bowl (or Sugar Bowl, whichever that setup used to be). Both teams would have a very good chance of winning, and we'd have solved nothing. About every other year, their isn't a whole lot of controversy with the two teams and they get a chance to settle things on the field. Even some of the other years the controversy is a bit overblown. Yes, a 4 team playoff would probably work the best. That way the regular season is still as meaningful as in any other sport, and you get a little more chance to settle things the right way. Then the controversy is a little lower on the totem pole, and there are usually only about 4 teams that stand out (this year isn't really one of them, although it probably would be USC, Texas, PSU, and OSU).

[ilsox7]

How in any way is the poll system better than the BCS? You're going to let a bunch of sportswriters and errand boys for the head coaches determine the national championship? The BCS isn't perfect, but it's a lot better than the polls. If we still had the old system, USC would be playing PSU in the Rose Bowl and Texas would be playing Georgia in the Fiesta Bowl (or Sugar Bowl, whichever that setup used to be). Both teams would have a very good chance of winning, and we'd have solved nothing. About every other year, their isn't a whole lot of controversy with the two teams and they get a chance to settle things on the field. Even some of the other years the controversy is a bit overblown. Yes, a 4 team playoff would probably work the best. That way the regular season is still as meaningful as in any other sport, and you get a little more chance to settle things the right way. Then the controversy is a little lower on the totem pole, and there are usually only about 4 teams that stand out (this year isn't really one of them, although it probably would be USC, Texas, PSU, and OSU).

 

The BCS only works when there are two undefeated teams. Any other year, it does not work. I'd much rather go back to the traditional bowl tie-ins with the occasional split championship than allow some system to hypocritically choose who should play in a pseudo National Championship game.

 

Last year, you had 3 major teams undefeated and 1 mid-major. Why was the BCS formula good enough last year to choose which 2 teams got to play for all the marbles, but that same ranking formula isn't good enough to use to fill out the remainder of the BCS Bowls?

 

Or how about those years when there is 1 undefeated team and 4 or 5 with 1 loss? Again, you allow some formula to choose which of those 4 or 5 teams gets to play for all of the marbles. The BCS solves absolutely nothing unless the perfect scenario of 2 undefeated teams come to fruition. And time has shown that this scenario does not happen al the time. In fact, since 1998, a season has ended with exactly 2 undefeated teams only 3 times. So what about all of those one loss teams or 3rd undefeated teams that get screwed by the BCS formula? It's no better than the traditional bowl system, IMO.

 

Of course, to end all debate, hold a 16 team playoff. You cut the season back to its original 11 games, therefore 2 teams in the country play 15 games. Big deal. They are playing 13 as it is.

[IlliniKrush]

Of course, to end all debate, hold a 16 team playoff.  You cut the season back to its original 11 games, therefore 2 teams in the country play 15 games.  Big deal.  They are playing 13 as it is.

 

That would ruin college football as we know it. Every 'big game' would be meaningless. Regular season would mean almost nothing, which is exactly what i don't want to happen.

[Mplssoxfan]

How in any way is the poll system better than the BCS? You're going to let a bunch of sportswriters and errand boys for the head coaches determine the national championship? The BCS isn't perfect, but it's a lot better than the polls. If we still had the old system, USC would be playing PSU in the Rose Bowl and Texas would be playing Georgia in the Fiesta Bowl (or Sugar Bowl, whichever that setup used to be). Both teams would have a very good chance of winning, and we'd have solved nothing. About every other year, their isn't a whole lot of controversy with the two teams and they get a chance to settle things on the field. Even some of the other years the controversy is a bit overblown. Yes, a 4 team playoff would probably work the best. That way the regular season is still as meaningful as in any other sport, and you get a little more chance to settle things the right way. Then the controversy is a little lower on the totem pole, and there are usually only about 4 teams that stand out (this year isn't really one of them, although it probably would be USC, Texas, PSU, and OSU).

"Old System" Bowl matchups this year:

 

Rose - USC vs. PSU

Orange - Texas vs. ND

Sugar - Georgia vs. Virginia Tech

Fiesta - OSU vs. Oregon

 

I'm fairly confident that's the way it would have broken down.

[Heads22]

Um....yeah.

 

 

Houston.

[RockRaines]

Does anyone know when the College football bowl games are announced im anxious to see if notre dame makes the fiesta bowl

Yes and the bucks are going to tear them a new one. Im going to love finally watching my team dismantle the irish, man I hate ND.

[WilliamTell]

Isn't the Michigan/Nebraska thing in 1997 a big reason why there is a BCS now? Anyways Michigan does deserve to be in a higher bowl than Iowa. Both teams had a down year and Michigan would hold the tiebreaker over Iowa. But Iowa will bring more fans compared to a down Michigan year. Even with an average Michigan year Iowa may still beat Michigan in attendence at a bowl game. It's all about the money and Iowa will bring more money to the Outback Bowl than Michigan will. Is Michigan getting screwed? Probably, but that's what happens when you're a team that's in the college football higharchy that has a bad year.

[ZoomSlowik]

The BCS only works when there are two undefeated teams.  Any other year, it does not work.  I'd much rather go back to the traditional bowl tie-ins with the occasional split championship than allow some system to hypocritically choose who should play in a pseudo National Championship game.

 

Last year, you had 3 major teams undefeated and 1 mid-major.  Why was the BCS formula good enough last year to choose which 2 teams got to play for all the marbles, but that same ranking formula isn't good enough to use to fill out the remainder of the BCS Bowls?

 

Or how about those years when there is 1 undefeated team and 4 or 5 with 1 loss?  Again, you allow some formula to choose which of those 4 or 5 teams gets to play for all of the marbles.  The BCS solves absolutely nothing unless the perfect scenario of 2 undefeated teams come to fruition.  And time has shown that this scenario does not happen al the time.  In fact, since 1998, a season has ended with exactly 2 undefeated teams only 3 times.  So what about all of those one loss teams or 3rd undefeated teams that get screwed by the BCS formula?  It's no better than the traditional bowl system, IMO.

 

Of course, to end all debate, hold a 16 team playoff.  You cut the season back to its original 11 games, therefore 2 teams in the country play 15 games.  Big deal.  They are playing 13 as it is.

 

I'd still rather have two teams that are generally considered the best in the country play each other as opposed to everyone being spread out. That way teams are arguing over who had a chance to play for the national championship as opposed to who the national champion is. The old system wouldn't exactly have solved anything either. USC would have played Michigan, Auburn would have probably played Oklahoma (or maybe Texas), and Utah would have probably been in some crappy bowl game. You'd still probably have 3 undefeated teams, maybe 4, and no consensus. With that system you don't really determine a national champion. The only way that way works is if you have one and only one undefeated team. I don't really see how that is any better than the BCS.

 

The only time you're really going to have a beef with the national champ under the BCS system is when you either have no undefeated teams with 3 1-loss teams or if the one undefeated team loses to a 1-loss team in the BCS title game. You've really only had two years in the BCS when you could make a case that the team that should have been the national champ didn't play in the title game. One is the year Oklahoma and LSU played for it and USC got screwed. That's a situation that neither system can resolve, because determining the difference between several 1-loss teams is very difficult. The other situation occured last year, when Auburn and Utah were still undefeated at the end of the year. I personally didn't have a problem with that one because most people seemed to believe that USC and Oklahoma were the two best teams, and that Auburn and Utah served more as fly-in-the-ointment than real title contenders. Auburn may have had a chance, but I personally don't think they could have beaten USC anyways.

 

The real answer is a playoff, but you have to limit it to 8 teams tops. Otherwise you limit the impact of the regular season drastically. Personally I think 4 teams would work, but 8 includes more teams and limits the controversy. However, in the abscene of that, I'd rather have the two teams generally considered to be the two best in the country play each other than the old way. In my book there is nothing worse than a Nebraska-Michigan like split title, or a situation like in 1994 when PSU and Nebraska were the only undefeated teams pre-bowl game, both finished undefeated, and yet Nebraska got the title because the voters thought that they were better. That's not how you determine a national champion.

Edited December 5, 2005 by ZoomSlowik

[trev76]

HAHA Osu tear apart ND? No way in hell the Buckeyes are gonna be able to stop the irish passing game. And nd might not be that great on D but they do get quite a few turn overs

[Heads22]

So Oregon was a damn big loser.

[Chisoxfn]

they don't even deserve to go.  They have no place in a Major Bowl Game.  I am sorry but that is the truth.

We just blew the game to you guys. Gimme a break, get off your homer glasses and start watching things from a neutral perspective.

[Chisoxfn]

look at strength of schedule.  Look at the fact that Michigan travels much better than Iowa.  A lot of that is what is selected for going into these games.  And the Outback Bowl is still a pretty good bowl game to get into.

Ummm...I'm not doubting you on Michigan travelling better than Iowa, but when it comes to football, I guarantee you Iowa fans will be packing it in at the gator bowl.

[Heads22]

Ummm...I'm not doubting you on Michigan travelling better than Iowa, but when it comes to football, I guarantee you Iowa fans will be packing it in at the gator bowl.

 

 

Too bad they'll be at the Outback Bowl. Might say something about Hawk fans, however.

[Chisoxfn]

Too bad they'll be at the Outback Bowl. Might say something about Hawk fans, however.

Sorry, sick as a dog today. I just know they are playing in Florida against Florida. Now to come up with a good sig for you to flaunt around for a month

[SnB]

Playoff? Worst. Idea. Ever.

this is probably a major thread hijack, but i've always been in favor of a 4 team playoff.

1) it adds only 1 game to the schedule

2) it will get rid of all those complicated years with 3 undefeated teams.

3) Some will say "but then we'll have the same argument over the 4th and 5th team".

But isn't that better than an argument from a 2nd and 3rd team?

4) It definitely doesn't take away from the whole idea of "the entire season is a playoff"

 

but that's just my 2 cents

[Gene Honda Civic]

Too bad they'll be at the Outback Bowl. Might say something about Hawk fans, however.

 

Man, you tear down one set of goalposts and try to remove them from an indoor stadium through a revolving door, and you're labeled as stoopid.

[Mplssoxfan]

Man, you tear down one set of goalposts and try to remove them from an indoor stadium through a revolving door, and you're labeled as stoopid.

 

Sure, you had to bring up that awful day.

[RockRaines]

HAHA Osu tear apart ND? No way in hell the Buckeyes are gonna be able to stop the irish passing game. And nd might not be that great on D but they do get quite a few turn overs

Pfff, the Irish passing game hasnt faced a defense like OSU. Brady Quinn will be on his back all day long.