Official College Football Thread - Week 10 [Archive] - Page 2

cuervo72

11-06-2011, 12:32 AM

And regarding Lathum's "NFL Player" argument, Green Bay's roster makeup:

Alabama, Alcorn State, Appalachian State, Arizona State, Arkansas (3), Arkansas State, Auburn, Bethune-Cookman, Boston College (2), Brigham Young, Buffalo, Cal (2), Central Florida, Central Michigan, Colorado (2), East Carolina, Eastern Michigan, Georgia, Ga Tech, Hawaii, Idaho State, Kansas State, Kentucky (2), La Tech, LSU (2), Miami, Miami Ohio, Michigan, Middle Tennessee, Miss St, New Mexico St, North Carolina, Notre Dame, Ohio State (3), Penn State, Purdue, San Jose State, Shippensburg, Tennessee (2), Texas, TCU, USC, Utah, Utah State, Western Michgan.

Seems like NFL players come from all over.

Commo_Soldier

11-06-2011, 12:35 AM

LOL at the notion that BSU would suffer only one loss in a BCS conference. The problem is losses 2,3, or even 4, not the one in & of itself.

edit: In other words, I don't see BSU being any better than 10-2 if they played in even the bottom end of the BCS conferences (i.e. this week's Big East and/or ACC).

Why is this, they beat the #1 team in the SEC east fairly easily on the road. Heck, that almost was their only loss on the season. If they can beat them with those results why would they be any less successful if they were actually in that conference?

Lathum

11-06-2011, 12:36 AM

32/53 from BCS conferences and 13 from the SEC. Kind of proves my point.

Commo_Soldier

11-06-2011, 12:37 AM

I'm not saying they should get passed by Penn state, but IMO they shouldn't pass a one loss Alabama or a one loss Oregon whose only loss was to LSU.

I really don't get this logic. Lets let a team that got beaten fairly easily, at a neutral site, or a team that got beat at home another shot and not a team that has yet to play them. I could maybe see if the barely lost and it was at LSU, but to me neither Alabama or Oregon should get another shot at LSU unless everyone else has two losses.

cuervo72

11-06-2011, 12:39 AM

Does it? 40% of a roster coming from non-BCS conferences proves that BCS teams are that much better because they are playing that many more NFL players? If they were that markedly superior I'd expect 90% to come from the BCS, not 60.

Lathum

11-06-2011, 12:40 AM

JonInMiddleGA

11-06-2011, 12:41 AM

Why is this, they beat the #1 team in the SEC east fairly easily on the road.

I'm pretty sure Boise would be in the SEC West ;)

Lathum

11-06-2011, 12:42 AM

dola- I just find it impossible to look at BSUs schedule and say they are worthy of playing for a NC

Commo_Soldier

11-06-2011, 12:42 AM

cartman

11-06-2011, 12:42 AM

If there were enough scholarships available they probably would.

Matt Cassel is the exception, not the rule. If guys are buried on the depth chart of a BCS school they would have much less of a chance of being drafted than playing for another school.

cuervo72

11-06-2011, 12:45 AM

I'm pretty sure Boise would be in the SEC West ;)

It is a sad day when the SEC has a better grasp on geography than the Big East. :D

JonInMiddleGA

11-06-2011, 12:45 AM

dola- I just find it impossible to look at BSUs schedule and say they are worthy of playing for a NC

Oh don't be so harsh, they're probably a legitimate contender for the I-AA title.

Commo_Soldier

11-06-2011, 12:46 AM

I'm pretty sure Boise would be in the SEC West ;)

They probably would if they were in the SEC, but the point is they could still be were they are in a BCS conference, just depends where they wind up. Just because they are not in one shouldn't disqualify them from playing in the NCG if they are trying to schedule quality opponents. Now if they didn't play UGA this year or VT last year and didn't try to play good teams then by all means they should get passed over by one loss teams.

Lathum

11-06-2011, 12:47 AM

FWIW every player but one in the first round of last years draft was from a BCS school.

Commo_Soldier

11-06-2011, 12:51 AM

FWIW every player but one in the first round of last years draft was from a BCS school.

FWIW history will prove teams screwed up on where they drafted players and people that went in the first round shouldn't have. I realize players are important, but coaching and getting the most out of said players is just as important.

cartman

11-06-2011, 12:54 AM

FWIW every player but one in the first round of last years draft was from a BCS school.

But of the 27 All-Pro selections last season, 6 were from non-BCS schools.

JonInMiddleGA

11-06-2011, 01:01 AM

They probably would if they were in the SEC, but the point is they could still be were they are in a BCS conference, just depends where they wind up.

But to this point they aren't in one so it's largely a moot point.

Just because they are not in one shouldn't disqualify them from playing in the NCG if they are trying to schedule quality opponents.

I'm "trying" to be a billionaire too, but until I succeed I really don't expect to be treated like one.

Now if they didn't play UGA this year or VT last year and didn't try to play good teams then by all means they should get passed over by one loss teams.

I don't think anybody is suggesting they get passed over by every one loss team. Cincinnati is a fair example of one that wouldn't be a candidate I think,even if they run the table from here on out they aren't going to the NCG either.

But (prior to today), I'm looking at a BSU SOS that's below teams like
Rice, Marshall, SMU and North Texas.

That's a problem.

MrBug708

11-06-2011, 01:13 AM

UCLA won...hahahaha

dawgfan

11-06-2011, 01:36 AM

UCLA won...hahahaha
Neuheisel, the coach that won't die. He's got a knack for playing Houdini.

GoCanes

11-06-2011, 02:19 AM

jbergey22

11-06-2011, 02:59 AM

shouldn't Boise face LSU in the NCG?

A question that cant be answered really. It is why a lot of people cant stand the current system. It leaves to many questions unanswered.

The other side that doesnt want the playoff system enjoys the game we seen tonight. A VERY meaningful #1 vs #2 game. A playoff system would take a bit of the importance out of the regular season.

A perfect system we will never have.

Boise St has people question the BCS system every year. Clearly I dont think they are as good as Bama or Oklahoma but with what they have done over the past 5 years its getting hard to doubt them. They just go out there every week and kick the shit out of everyone they play.

JonInMiddleGA

11-06-2011, 04:14 AM

I don't have a dog in this fight this year, but what if the following plausable things happen. Alabama, LSU, Georgia and Boise win out. Oklahoma beats Oklahoma State. Stanford loses to Oregon and then in the SEC championship game LSU beats Georgia in a close game (say a TD or less), shouldn't Boise face LSU in the NCG?

If I set aside the question of whether UGA staying close to LSU is "plausible", then in that scenario, I'd give either Alabama (or even Oregon) another crack at LSU before I'd give Boise one.

It's a tough question to me mostly because I have a really really difficult time imagining Georgia looking like they belong on the same field with LSU.

Ben E Lou

11-06-2011, 06:32 AM

It's a tough question to me mostly because I have a really really difficult time imagining Georgia looking like they belong on the same field with LSU.This. The SEC East is *terrible* this year. Whether it's UGA or USC, the SECCG might be even more lopsided than last year's debacle.

Part of me would rather see UGA lose to Auburn, beat Tech, and go beat a 2nd-tier Big 10 team in the Outback than suffer the inevitable humiliation of December 3rd. I suspect the former would be better for recruiting. It'd be easier to claim that "we're back on the rise" to kids if you could point to a 10-3 season with a Bowl win--never mind that it would have been the easiest schedule UGA has played in the last, oh, 20 years. LSU (or Bama...the winner really didn't matter) would expose who UGA *really* is this year. Tech or Auburn might even do it.

Matthean

11-06-2011, 08:03 AM

Personally, I would love to see a Boise vs LSU/AL in a BCS bowl. A dominant defensive teams vs a (supposedly) dominant offensive team.

Unless BSU is in the title game, it's 'Bama versus BSU in the Sugar Bowl.

FWIW every player but one in the first round of last years draft was from a BCS school.

Games are decided by who has the most NFL talent? I would think 'Bama had more than LSU and yet LSU won. Again, BSU beat OU. But hey, keep deceiving yourself that a non-AQ has no business being on the field as another elite team when recent history proves you wrong.

Lathum

11-06-2011, 08:10 AM

Games are decided by who has the most NFL talent?

You really don't think NFL talent determines who is successful in college football?

MJ4H

11-06-2011, 08:18 AM

Affects, influence, not determines, decides.

This argument about "how good is Boise State" is irrelevant to whether or not they play in the NCG. What determines that is their season resume. Have they done enough? Is their list of accomplishments and failures good enough for first or second place in the country. They could be the literal best team in the country, but if they only played 6th grader teams all season, they do not have the resume to play for a NC. In this case, sitting here comparing NFL players is completely pointless. Look at what they did.

Yes, they beat everyone they could. But all they did was beat 6th graders (in this hypothetical reductio ad absurdum). Sorry, the system we use in college football doesn't say ok now let's compare how many players they send to the NFL to try to help their resume. Nor should it.

College football isn't, nor should it be, a beauty contest. What counts is on the field. And that's all that should count.

Matthean

11-06-2011, 08:18 AM

You really don't think NFL talent determines who is successful in college football?

Yes, but I still don't think you do an eye ball look at a team and say they don't belong due to the lack of NFL talent. Based on NBA talent NC State had no business beating Houston's Phi Slama Jama and yet...

Lathum

11-06-2011, 08:26 AM

Yes, but I still don't think you do an eye ball look at a team and say they don't belong due to the lack of NFL talent. Based on NBA talent NC State had no business beating Houston's Phi Slama Jama and yet...

I have probably watched more Boise state than anyone here. IMO just going off an eyeball test they would get destroyed by Bama ans LSU ans probably lose big to Oregon, Stanford, OK state and Oklahoma. Like MJ4H put it, they have largely won against 6th graders.

MJ4H

11-06-2011, 08:36 AM

I have probably watched more Boise state than anyone here. IMO just going off an eyeball test they would get destroyed by Bama ans LSU ans probably lose big to Oregon, Stanford, OK state and Oklahoma. Like MJ4H put it, they have largely won against 6th graders.

Well, to be clear, I wasn't saying they have largely won against 6th graders. I was using a schedule against 6th graders as a reductio ad absurdum argument.

But I was using it because thier schedule is an order of magnitude too poor to be seriously considered for the MNC.

MrBug708

11-06-2011, 09:22 AM

Neuheisel, the coach that won't die. He's got a knack for playing Houdini.

Has to win 8 to save his job

RomaGoth

11-06-2011, 09:29 AM

MrBug708

11-06-2011, 09:35 AM

I dont think they would lose to Oklahoma and Stanford and maybe not Oregon either

Lathum

11-06-2011, 09:40 AM

Kinda like Oklahoma destroyed them in 2007. Oh, and don't forget when VA Tech beat the shit out of them last year. Oh, wait...........

How many players from those teams are on the current roster?

rowech

11-06-2011, 09:46 AM

Boise State would lose as many games in the SEC as Oklahoma State, Stanford, etc. would lose in the SEC. That's how good the SEC is. However, I believe you have to win your conference title to be the national champion given the way things are setup right now so Bama's done unless things break right for them.

I would rather see a big boy school play for the title against LSU but if one of those teams slip up, and Boise State still sits undefeated, they should get their shot. It's not the best team they've had there by any means but at some point, we need to really see what would happen. Those who don't want them in it are scared...plain and simple. They will use the one game, 45 days between end of season and bowl game, etc. It's the fear that if they win, their monopoly on college football will come crashing down.

College football has become the SEC, everyone else, then Boise. I'm fine with that but if Stanford and Oklahoma State lose, I want to see it. If they get slaughtered, so be it -- we will know never to make the mistake again. If they hold their own and get beat -- we will know they are equals. If they win -- we will know how ancient the current system really is.

jbergey22

11-06-2011, 10:09 AM

I dont think they would lose to Oklahoma and Stanford and maybe not Oregon either

I think Oregon is explosive but I dont see them matching up very good against the better teams. They can run the ball on anyone but their QB is far from an accurate passer. Any capable defense should be able to control Oregons run attack and make them beat them via the pass and win the game IMO.

While I said in an early post Oregon could lose to Stanford I honestly think Stanford handles them by 10+ points.

Buccaneer

11-06-2011, 10:10 AM

jbergey22

11-06-2011, 10:15 AM

Didn't BSU beat last year's MNC runner-up (Oregon) or am I getting the season mixed up? I could ask my son since BSU has been his favorite team the past couple years.

LSU beat Oregon opening week this year. Boise beat Georgia.

Boise beat Oregon 3-4 years ago.

Buccaneer

11-06-2011, 10:22 AM

Looked it up. Last year BSU opened by beating ACC's champion VT. In 2009, they beat the Pac10's champion, Oregon.

RomaGoth

11-06-2011, 10:28 AM

Buccaneer

11-06-2011, 10:32 AM

My son is following this thread and just told me that BSU was the last team to have beaten Oregon at Autzen Stadium.

jbergey22

11-06-2011, 10:35 AM

I have probably watched more Boise state than anyone here. IMO just going off an eyeball test they would get destroyed by Bama ans LSU ans probably lose big to Oregon, Stanford, OK state and Oklahoma. Like MJ4H put it, they have largely won against 6th graders.

You dont really believe that this Boise team with around 15 returning starters that has won like 35 out of 36 games would really lose big to any of them teams do you?

They may lose to all them except Oregon more than 50 percent of the time but they are going to bring a good game to the table. I havent always been on the side of Boise but this team is for real. They have earned more respect then assuming they will get killed by any top 10 team.

RomaGoth

11-06-2011, 10:36 AM

And they keep beating top teams that are put in front of them, yet somehow they don't do enough.

Welcome to the good 'ol boy network: NCAA

Buccaneer

11-06-2011, 10:36 AM

And they keep beating top teams that are put in front of them, yet somehow they don't do enough.

My son said what do they have to do? Beat an SEC West team to be legitimate? Even then, it can't be the Mississippi teams.

Buccaneer

11-06-2011, 10:41 AM

But having said that, we both agree that an undefeated OSU or Stanford should far outweigh an undefeated Boise in the BCS.

jbergey22

11-06-2011, 10:46 AM

Football Outsiders prior to yesterdays results has Boise St 2nd in the nation.

Their top 5
1. Alabama
2. Boise St
3. LSU
4. Oklahoma St
5. Oklahoma

They use some formula with SOS included with 2 different formulas. One that takes play by play results and one that takes drive results. They compare it to OPS+ in baseball.

kingfc22

11-06-2011, 11:07 AM

Vegas Vic

11-06-2011, 11:14 AM

Kinda like Oklahoma destroyed them in 2007.

It's funny how the legend of this victory has been magnified out of proportion. Boise beat a 2-loss Oklahoma team that backdoored their way into the Big XII title game after getting whipped by Texas 28-7 earlier in the year. Before the season started, they had to move Paul Thompson from WR to QB after Rhett Bomar was kicked off the team. They were predicted to win 7 or 8 games before the season started. They gutted out a lot of close wins and got some help when Texas lost twice late in the season. OU was a 6 point favorite over Boise State and lost by one point in overtime to arguably the best Boise State team in history. That 2006 OU team wouldn't even be competitive with this year's OU team. This year's Boise State team might not even score against Alabama or LSU.

jbergey22

11-06-2011, 11:17 AM

People must just say ridiculous things because the odds are the teams being compared will not have the chance to prove them wrong.

Sagarin actually rates this years Boise team(the one that "might not even score against Alabama or LSU") a couple points higher than that Boise team.

Matthean

11-06-2011, 12:29 PM

'Bama has given up the most points in games against PSU and Florida, who basically has no QB for the second half. I like my odds that BSU would find a way to score.

Ksyrup

11-06-2011, 01:15 PM

Re Boise State, coming into this weekend they had a better SOS than Alabama and Stanford. That's going to change given a couple of dogs left on their schedule, but this false construct that the SEC + 3-4 cupcakes automatically destroys BSU's schedule doesn't always hold water.

Tigercat

11-06-2011, 02:39 PM

Matthean

11-06-2011, 02:45 PM

JonInMiddleGA

11-06-2011, 02:57 PM

Pretty funny story from Knoxville yesterday, after two kickers went down with injury, a call was made to a nearby frat house to find the 3rd string walk-on. The biggest worry was whether he was going to be sober ;)

Derrick Brodus springs from couch, answers call for a kicker » GoVolsXtra (http://www.govolsxtra.com/news/2011/nov/06/derrick-brodus-springs-from-couch-answers-call-a/)

Logan

11-06-2011, 04:02 PM

Check out this catch by Mohamed Sanu. On 4th and 9, making this led to the game-tying score and then an OT victory. Make it to the replay, the broadcast angle doesn't really show it.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/C-wTVQnc3CM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Edward64

11-06-2011, 07:37 PM

My son said what do they have to do? Beat an SEC West team to be legitimate? Even then, it can't be the Mississippi teams.

I'm an SEC fan and I will give Boise their due. I do think they can compete in the SEC East or West and do well. AR is #3 in the West after LSU and AL and I'm pretty sure BSU would shred our secondary and make a game out of it.

However, I don't think they will maintain their pristine win-loss record in the SEC. Top 25 sure, but in the BCS discussion every year - no.

molson

11-06-2011, 07:52 PM

If LSU holds up their end of the bargain, and its Boise, some of you guys who have an actual desire to see Boise in that game might regret it.

The crowd noise advantage, not to mention the overall comfort level, of LSU playing in the Superdome would just amplify the athletic advantage LSU has over Boise. Those athletes versus a great "team" with lesser physical athletes? Flying around in front of a home crowd in the home state? Are you kidding me? Stranger things have happened, but regardless of how great a team Boise is, I would bet on it not being pretty. But what a story it would be if they do pull it off, I guess.

This is the only argument I don't understand - I can see the argument to keep BSU out, I can see the argument that they'd have a couple of losses in the SEC, but I don't get the sentiment that they just have no chance to compete whatsoever, as if they're some kind of high school or lower division team. I mean LSU would be a favorite, maybe by 12 or 13 points. If they played 100 times, LSU would win most of the time, they'd have a few blowouts, but Boise St. would win plenty as well. It's not like Boise St. is this huge enigma and is actually a Northwestern State or Florida Atlantic-caliber team and we'll all find that out if they ever played LSU. I mean, Boise St. is certainly better than Georgia, probably a lot better. Which makes them better than most of the SEC. Certainly good enough to pull an upset here and there, and at least have a chance to compete with anyone. I think the "Boise St. would obviously get destroyed by any real team" argument may have been in play a few years ago, but I don't think it is with this current team.

tarcone

11-06-2011, 08:42 PM

A question that cant be answered really. It is why a lot of people cant stand the current system. It leaves to many questions unanswered.

The other side that doesnt want the playoff system enjoys the game we seen tonight. A VERY meaningful #1 vs #2 game. A playoff system would take a bit of the importance out of the regular season.

A perfect system we will never have.

Boise St has people question the BCS system every year. Clearly I dont think they are as good as Bama or Oklahoma but with what they have done over the past 5 years its getting hard to doubt them. They just go out there every week and kick the shit out of everyone they play.

I disagree that a playoff would take luster from that game. #1 vs.#2 is just that. In season or in a playoff its a HUGE deal. I think it would add luster. Fighting for the top seed and home field during the playoffs vs. a lower seed and playing on the road in hostile territory? I think that would enhance the game.

JonInMiddleGA

11-06-2011, 08:58 PM

Regular season games wouldn't lose anything

Other than their current meaning.

Matthean

11-06-2011, 08:59 PM

Crapshoot

11-06-2011, 09:04 PM

'Bama is 3rd in the new BCS standings, but will likely drop to #4 if Stanford beats Oregon. If Stanford and Ok State fall, it will be difficult to not see a rematch unless there is some final poll changing of votes to prevent the rematch.

That is ridiculous. Stanford deserves to be no 3, and Bama is surprisingly not getting penalized the way other 1 loss teams (Oklahoma, Oregon) were.

chadritt

11-06-2011, 09:08 PM

'Bama is 3rd in the new BCS standings, but will likely drop to #4 if Stanford beats Oregon. If Stanford and Ok State fall, it will be difficult to not see a rematch unless there is some final poll changing of votes to prevent the rematch.

I not only dont want a rematch but also dont want an all SEC final so im REALLY hoping something happens to prevent this. I say this as an SEC fan too, both my parents went to UGA and I grew up in Atlanta.

Matthean

11-06-2011, 09:11 PM

That is ridiculous. Stanford deserves to be no 3, and Bama is surprisingly not getting penalized the way other 1 loss teams (Oklahoma, Oregon) were.

OU lost to T.T. Oregon lost by 13. 'Bama has the better quality loss.

cuervo72

11-06-2011, 09:31 PM

Other than their current meaning.

Which is what though? If you had a playoff system where you had eight conferences each with a bid to a playoff bracket, or four superconferences with one each for eight divisions, what games would lose meaning? Conference games still would have meaning, because conference record is the way to get to the playoffs. Non-conference wouldn't, but it's rare that they do now anyway (most are cupcake games). So what is devalued? A game like last night's is still huge because it is a must for the SEC West crown.

Would games not matter because you could lose a game and still get in? Clemson's lost, and a one loss Clemson isn't getting in the NC game. So, their three remaining games are meaningless. All of the Big 10 teams but for PSU have two losses...all of their remaining games are now meaningless. All Big 12 games other than those involving OSU/OU are meaningless. Georgia's season was rendered meaningless in Week 2, even if they still have a chance to win the SEC.

RomaGoth

11-06-2011, 10:02 PM

Other than their current meaning.

This is just a ridiculous statement. I guess 3/4th's of the NFL should just stop bothering with those pesky regular season games then, since they have no meaning.

JonInMiddleGA

11-06-2011, 10:03 PM

Which is what though?

The best regular season in all of sports. Perhaps the only truly meaningful regular season left in all of American sports (I can't speak much to international competitions in that regard).

A game like last night's is still huge because it is a must for the SEC West crown.

Which means what, a 1/8 chance as opposed to a nearly sure thing? It becomes no different than a meaningless college basketball regular season game.

As for the also rans, you try telling Georgia fans that their season is meaningless after that embarassing loss, as they wait to see whether CMR can save his job with a possible Sugar Bowl bid.

Along with killing the much of the regular season, you also kill the bowls - and anyone who claims differently is nothing short of either a damned fool or in unfamiliar with the NIT - but those still have meaning, at least at times (we could do with a few less I'd admit).

You don't break what isn't broken, and the most broken thing about college football is the attention paid to the useless racket from people that seem to be too simple-minded to comprehend something other than a tournament.

RomaGoth

11-06-2011, 10:05 PM

It's funny how the legend of this victory has been magnified out of proportion. Boise beat a 2-loss Oklahoma team that backdoored their way into the Big XII title game after getting whipped by Texas 28-7 earlier in the year. Before the season started, they had to move Paul Thompson from WR to QB after Rhett Bomar was kicked off the team. They were predicted to win 7 or 8 games before the season started. They gutted out a lot of close wins and got some help when Texas lost twice late in the season. OU was a 6 point favorite over Boise State and lost by one point in overtime to arguably the best Boise State team in history. That 2006 OU team wouldn't even be competitive with this year's OU team. This year's Boise State team might not even score against Alabama or LSU.

Always an excuse for the losing team. If Oklahoma has such superior athletes, should they not have still won that game against BSU going away?

RomaGoth

11-06-2011, 10:10 PM

Along with killing the much of the regular season, you also kill the bowls - and anyone who claims differently is nothing short of either a damned fool or in unfamiliar with the NIT - but those still have meaning, at least at times (we could do with a few less I'd admit).

The regular season is killed because teams actually have to play tough opponents and prove on the fucking field that they deserve their ranking? The bowls are a joke and nearly all of the teams that play in them lose money.

cuervo72

11-06-2011, 10:16 PM

The best regular season in all of sports. Perhaps the only truly meaningful regular season left in all of American sports (I can't speak much to international competitions in that regard).

I'll still take the NFL.

Which means what, a 1/8 chance as opposed to a nearly sure thing? It becomes no different than a meaningless college basketball regular season game.

So it's a good thing that the season is essentially over now, and we're just waiting for LSU's final game two months from now to make it official?

As for the also rans, you try telling Georgia fans that their season is meaningless after that embarassing loss, as they wait to see whether CMR can save his job with a possible Sugar Bowl bid.

Along with killing the much of the regular season, you also kill the bowls - and anyone who claims differently is nothing short of either a damned fool or in unfamiliar with the NIT - but those still have meaning, at least at times (we could do with a few less I'd admit).

You don't break what isn't broken, and the most broken thing about college football is the attention paid to the useless racket from people that seem to be too simple-minded to comprehend something other than a tournament.

This is a matter of perspective, and I guess it's that of a big old-school college fan (one that has a couple of rooting interests) compared to someone who isn't (and doesn't) but wouldn't mind becoming a bigger fan. And it's a sport that's plenty popular now, so I guess it's fine as it is for die-hards. Georgia fans may care about Georgia. I couldn't care what they do - they are out of it as far as I'm concerned. Same goes for all but a handful of teams. If a game doesn't involve someone in the top 5 from here out, I don't care. It has no bearing on the championship, so I could care less about it.

The NFL? Half the teams are still jockeying for position. Many playoff spots could be contested right up through the last week. I'm going to care about all of those games involving those teams, because in the grand scheme - crowning a champion - they still mean something.

Bowls? Pfft. They're exhibitions. They don't decide anything, and I've essentially stopped watching them.

JonInMiddleGA

11-06-2011, 10:42 PM

So it's a good thing that the season is essentially over now, and we're just waiting for LSU's final game two months from now to make it official?

Because the national championship isn't really the point of the season for the majority of teams. Neither is the BCS, neither is the tournament.

This is a matter of perspective, and I guess it's that of a big old-school college fan (one that has a couple of rooting interests) compared to someone who isn't (and doesn't) but wouldn't mind becoming a bigger fan.

I guess if those changes are what it takes to make you a bigger fan, I'd rather you go away.

Nothing personal, but to get you in would largely destroy it for those of us who've invested major portions of our lives as fans. Chasing non-fans completely fucked up NASCAR, largely fucked up pro wrestling, I'd rather not have college football go down the same path. I've had enough stolen from me in the pursuit of people who really don't give a shit and never have, after a while it's hard not to become angry about that.

Bowls? Pfft. They're exhibitions. They don't decide anything, and I've essentially stopped watching them.

Fine, but a lot of us haven't stopped following those, I'd rather not have them fucked up by something that adds absolutely nothing (beyond non-fans) to the experience at the highest level.

cuervo72

11-06-2011, 10:52 PM

I guess if those changes are what it takes to make you a bigger fan, I'd rather you go away.

Nothing personal, but to get you in would largely destroy it for those of us who've invested major portions of our lives as fans. Chasing non-fans completely fucked up NASCAR, largely fucked up pro wrestling, I'd rather not have college football go down the same path. I've had enough stolen from me in the pursuit of people who really don't give a shit and never have, after a while it's hard not to become angry about that.

I can completely understand that, and I don't take it personally. The NASCAR analogy popped into my head as well while I was writing my last post.

I wonder if it would be best to just do away with the BCS/Championship Game idea completely then. It seems like a compromise between fans that like the old way and fans that need a resolution that it still doesn't bring.

jbergey22

11-06-2011, 10:56 PM

I wonder if it would be best to just do away with the BCS/Championship Game idea completely then. It seems like a compromise between fans that like the old way and fans that need a resolution that it still doesn't bring.

I liked it without it much more just like I loved when they had most of the important games on New Years Day. Now its so spread out with completely crap bowls its really hurt what made it so great.

15-20 years ago New Years day was filled with 10 of the best bowls out there. It was an enjoyable day for football.

JonInMiddleGA

11-06-2011, 10:57 PM

I wonder if it would be best to just do away with the BCS/Championship Game idea completely then.

I'd have no problem with that at all.

I tolerate it's existence because it's not incredibly awful, and has actually done a more than respectable job of accomplishing its primary purpose most of the time. It also provides a certain degree of financial stability by increasing the odds of a 1v2 matchup for the paying networks.

But I'd shed no tears at the return of traditional conference/bowl ties as much as possible.

RainMaker

11-06-2011, 10:59 PM

Other than their current meaning.
Which is what? There are only a couple of games a week that even matter when it comes to the NCG. And most of the time those teams are playing inferior competition.

jbergey22

11-06-2011, 11:03 PM

Which is what? There are only a couple of games a week that even matter when it comes to the NCG. And most of the time those teams are playing inferior competition.

A lot of people cared more than just the National Championship than they do now at 1 time. There was once a time when winning the Rose Bowl was a big deal for a Big Ten team. You also knew that while it was a longshot you could be ranked 3rd or 4th and still win the national championship coming into the big bowl games. The 1&2 matchup certainly wasnt a lock to happen every year a few years back.

Yes people got what they wanted a Super Bowl of college football but it sure messed up a lot of things that were great about it to get it.

RainMaker

11-06-2011, 11:04 PM

Yes people got what they wanted a Super Bowl of college football but it sure messed up a lot of things that were great about it to get it.
Like what?

jbergey22

11-06-2011, 11:06 PM

Like what?

Traditional Bowl matchups between conferences that actually have meaning
New Years day being the best day of football every year
The suspense of having 3-4 games with National Championship meaning coming into the bowl games rather than just 1
Fans getting to enjoy a bowl victory without it being a poor season because they didnt win the Nat'l Championship

RainMaker

11-06-2011, 11:10 PM

I guess it's odd that getting rid of a system where random writers decided your champion is considered a bad thing.

And don't a lot of bowls still maintain some of the conference matchups?

Crapshoot

11-06-2011, 11:11 PM

Which is what? There are only a couple of games a week that even matter when it comes to the NCG. And most of the time those teams are playing inferior competition.

JIMGA's point is that unlike every other sport in the US (which has a playoff that renders anyone other than no 1 as a "loser"), CFB has multiple winners at multiple levels - ie, for Vanderbilt, it may be that upset win, for someone else, it may be a bowl game, while for the the elite, its a NCG or a Rose Bowl. Ie, similar to football (soccer); Swansea is never going to win the Premier League, but is targetting a mid-level position and consolidation. I don't know if I fully agree with him, but I get the point that "winning" means different things to different people, and a playoff ruins that.

RomaGoth

11-06-2011, 11:12 PM

And don't a lot of bowls still maintain some of the conference matchups?

The meaningless ones.

RainMaker

11-06-2011, 11:13 PM

JIMGA's point is that unlike every other sport in the US (which has a playoff that renders anyone other than no 1 as a "loser"), CFB has multiple winners at multiple levels - ie, for Vanderbilt, it may be that upset win, for someone else, it may be a bowl game, while for the the elite, its a NCG or a Rose Bowl. Ie, similar to football (soccer); Swansea is never going to win the Premier League, but is targetting a mid-level position and consolidation. I don't know if I fully agree with him, but I get the point that "winning" means different things to different people, and a playoff ruins that.

I don't understand how a playoff ruins any of that. Winning would still mean different things to different schools. For some it would be an upset win, some a playoff birth, some a NC.

RainMaker

11-06-2011, 11:16 PM

The meaningless ones.
Were there really that many that had conference ties though? I know a couple had strong traditions, but a lot of them seemed to change a lot over the years. It's not like there were 10 different Rose Bowls out there.

jbergey22

11-06-2011, 11:19 PM

Were there really that many that had conference ties though? I know a couple had strong traditions, but a lot of them seemed to change a lot over the years. It's not like there were 10 different Rose Bowls out there.

I dont recall everything but Rose Bowl was Pac-10/Big Ten, Sugar Bowl usually had a SEC team, Cotton Bowl was Big 12(might have been the Big 8 at the time), and Orange Bowl usually had the biggest Natl championship implications. Fiesta Bowl was very popular at one time as well.

RomaGoth

11-06-2011, 11:21 PM

FWIW, I really miss the old bowls on New Year's Day. Waking up, getting the food ready, and hanging out all day watching football. I knew that a few of the games would be a dud (although these were usually the ones a few days or a week before), but most of the New Year's Day games would be good matchups.

Now the shit is stretched out over several weeks and the championship game is creeping up on Super Bowl Sunday. Ugh. :(

RainMaker

11-06-2011, 11:26 PM

jbergey22

11-06-2011, 11:32 PM

I think some are overdoing the traditional bowl matchup thing. Sure there was the Rose Bowl, but it was a mixed bag outside of that. It's just a bad excuse.

I do miss the New Years Day games though. One of my favorite part of growing up was waking up and watching a ton of college football.

Yeah it would be a bad excuse if you dont care about anything other than the Nat'l Championship game.

Dont you think its ridiculous that these take some of these bowl games, give them a name like Fiesta Bowl, Cotton Bowl, Rose Bowl and have two teams play in them bowls without any tradition even backing why them teams are playing in that game? The Rose Bowl was started by the Pac-10/Big Ten. Why the hell do two teams not associated with them conferences now sometimes play in that game?

I know you watch wrestling Rainmaker. Its like putting the WWE Championship on Shaquille O Neal. It is just some stupid gimmick that traditional fans hate.

RainMaker

11-06-2011, 11:38 PM

Dont you think its ridiculous that these take some of these bowl games, give them a name like Fiesta Bowl, Cotton Bowl, Rose Bowl and have two teams play in them bowls without any tradition even backing why them teams are playing in that game? The Rose Bowl was started by the Pac-10/Big Ten. Why the hell do two teams not associated with them conferences now sometimes play in that game?

Is this the part where we pretend that fans care about conference tradition? (http://operationsports.com/fofc/showthread.php?t=76565)

jbergey22

11-06-2011, 11:42 PM

Is this the part where we pretend that fans care about conference tradition? (http://operationsports.com/fofc/showthread.php?t=76565)

Its sad that the BCS played a role in that, yes.

The part where you talked about how much you enjoyed New Years Day at one time tells me you arent 100 percent in favor of all of these changes aimed at a playoff.

bronconick

11-07-2011, 05:27 AM

The bowl tie-ins stopped being neato when all the independent's joined conferences. Suddenly there weren't half a dozen random teams in a pool to be selected. 7 were in the final top 25 in 1990.

Rose- Duh
Sugar- SEC vs. At-large
Orange- Big 8 vs. At-large
Citrus- ACC vs. At-large
Cotton- SWC vs. At-large
Fiesta- At-large vs. At-large

Without an independent pool that included Penn State, Notre Dame, Miami, Florida State and the rest of the original Big East like Syracuse, Pitt and WVU (Louisville was #12 in 1990, surprisingly as well), all those bowls were stuck looking for 7-4 8-3 2nd/3rd teams in conferences to fill in, and then the conferences and bowls made deals for those teams to be permanently in whatever bowl.

Ksyrup

11-07-2011, 07:16 AM

This is the only argument I don't understand - I can see the argument to keep BSU out, I can see the argument that they'd have a couple of losses in the SEC, but I don't get the sentiment that they just have no chance to compete whatsoever, as if they're some kind of high school or lower division team. I mean LSU would be a favorite, maybe by 12 or 13 points. If they played 100 times, LSU would win most of the time, they'd have a few blowouts, but Boise St. would win plenty as well. It's not like Boise St. is this huge enigma and is actually a Northwestern State or Florida Atlantic-caliber team and we'll all find that out if they ever played LSU. I mean, Boise St. is certainly better than Georgia, probably a lot better. Which makes them better than most of the SEC. Certainly good enough to pull an upset here and there, and at least have a chance to compete with anyone. I think the "Boise St. would obviously get destroyed by any real team" argument may have been in play a few years ago, but I don't think it is with this current team.

I think the argument has progressed from "they have no chance to win this game so why let them play it?" to "Yeah, maybe they can get up for one game but it's not fair that they get to play for the championship considering their regular season schedule." This, of course, after BSU has routinely beaten "better" BCS conference teams over the past 5-6 years.

bronconick

11-07-2011, 07:35 AM

MizzouRah

11-07-2011, 07:36 AM

I'm not so sure I like Mizzou to the SEC, we can't even beat Baylor!

:D

BishopMVP

11-07-2011, 07:39 AM

If Arkansas beats LSU to end the season who wins the SEC West?

gstelmack

11-07-2011, 07:42 AM

The Bowls became "meaningless" when:

- More and more cropped up, so now any team with a pulse gets to go to one.
- The National Championship became such a huge deal, along with cupcake schedules and isolated scheduling (the best teams don't actually play against each other all that much) that meant you couldn't really figure out WHO the best team was after the Bowls.

bronconick

11-07-2011, 08:00 AM

If Arkansas beats LSU to end the season who wins the SEC West?

From wiki

(Once the tie has been reduced to two teams, go to the two-team tie-breaker format.)
Combined head-to-head record among the tied teams.
Record of the tied teams within the division.
Head-to-head competition vs. the team within the division with the best overall (divisional and non-divisional) Conference record and proceeding through the division. Multiple ties within the division will be broken from first to last.
Overall record vs. non-division teams.
Combined record vs. all common non-divisional teams.
Record vs. common non-divisional team with the best overall Conference (divisional and non-divisional) record and proceeding through other common non-divisional teams based on their order of finish within their division.
The tied team with the highest ranking in the Bowl Championship Series Standings following the last weekend of regular-season games shall be the divisional representative in the SEC Championship Game, unless the second of the tied teams is ranked within five-or-fewer places of the highest ranked tied team. In this case, the head-to-head results of the top two ranked tied teams shall determine the representative in the SEC Championship Game.

JonInMiddleGA

11-07-2011, 08:00 AM

If Arkansas beats LSU to end the season who wins the SEC West?

Unless they've been changed since 2009 (how these are dated), here's the tiebreaker procedure for determining SEC divisional representatives in the SEC championship game
http://sec.xosdigitallabs.com/NEWS/tabid/473/Article/134195/sec-divisional-tie-breaker.aspx

B. THREE (OR MORE) TEAM TIE

1. (Once the tie has been reduced to two teams, go to the two-team tie-breaker format.) Okay
2. Combined head-to-head record among the tied teams. All 1-1
3. Record of the tied teams within the division. All 4-1
4. Head-to-head competition vs. the team within the division with the best overall (divisional and non-divisional) Conference record and proceeding through the division. Multiple ties within the division will be broken from first to last. All 7-1 so I don't think there is a "best overall"
5. Overall record vs. non-division teams.All 3-0
6. Combined record vs. all common non-divisional teams. All 1-0 vs Tennessee, the only non-divisional opponent shared by all three
7. Record vs. common non-divisional team with the best overall Conference (divisional and non-divisional) record and proceeding through other common non-divisional teams based on their order of finish within their division.
All 1-0 vs Tennessee, the only non-divisional opponent shared by all three
8. The tied team with the highest ranking in the Bowl Championship Series Standings following the last weekend of regular-season games shall be the divisional representative in the SEC Championship Game, unless the second of the tied teams is ranked within five-or-fewer places of the highest ranked tied team. In this case, the head-to-head results of the top two ranked tied teams shall determine the representative in the SEC Championship Game.

Beats the hell out of me, I would guess it comes down to Alabama/LSU head-to-head at that point but who knows

Ben E Lou

11-07-2011, 08:03 AM

That JIMGA/cuervo72 exchange really does an excellent job of summing up the opposing views in a nutshell. Well done by both of you, both on articulating your viewpoint, and on remaining respectful toward the "other side."

Ksyrup

11-07-2011, 08:20 AM

You can't use past season's Boise wins vs. BCS teams to justify them getting a bid this year. Otherwise, why not have SEC rematches every year in the BCS title game, because the SEC is the only team that wins BCS titles?

Sure you can, because the SEC's history of dominance is baked into the polls right now, and every week. There's a reason we're even talking about a possible rematch for the title, and that's because historically, the SEC has had the best teams in the country for the past 5-6 years, without question. The only reason it probably won't happen is because people are generally against it, and what happened with OSU/UM in 2006 is a big factor in that, too. I think people want someone outside the SEC to make LSU prove they are the best, because they almost made that mistake with OSU, and then OSU lost to UF, I think it was.

They get the benefit of the doubt, not just for what they've done this year, but what their conference does every year.

At least with BSU, we're limiting it to just their past success as a factor. Ranking so many SEC East teams this year was solely based on the SEC's prestige factor, even though this season has demonstrated that the SEC East is way, way down. South Carolina was and is not a top 10 team if they were in another conference.

JonInMiddleGA

11-07-2011, 08:26 AM

South Carolina was and is not a top 10 team if they were in another conference.

I hope you meant to say Florida instead of SC.

With Lattimore, South Carolina was definitely a top 10 team this season.

Ben E Lou

11-07-2011, 08:35 AM

I hope you meant to say Florida instead of SC.

With Lattimore, South Carolina was definitely a top 10 team this season....and here we part ways. I confess I only saw them play twice this year with Lattimore, but both times, they looked like a #25 type team.

Logan

11-07-2011, 08:41 AM

If you don't mind horrible QB play, I could see them being a top 10 team.

Ksyrup

11-07-2011, 08:46 AM

With or without Lattimore, that was not a top 10 team. I watched them on several occasions, and they did not look good. For a team that was supposed to be built on D, they give up a ton of points to good offensive teams. And they effectively have no QB.

Yes, UK made them look like a combination of LSU and Oklahoma State, but that's about it.

And my point is, they got credit this year for beating teams in their conference that are historically strong programs, like UGA, Auburn, Tennessee, and even Miss. St. (who had some buzz around them to begin the season), but those wins aren't all that impressive in a down SEC year. But USCe got credit for them, to the extent that they were put in the top 10. They were never a top 10 team, IMO.

jbergey22

11-07-2011, 08:47 AM

Yeah you would think a team prior to injury that had Lattimore and Jeffrey would have had a better offense.

Not sure what to make of them. Talent was top 10 but they really never played like it.

Garcia was the #1 qb coming out of HS I believe. What a flop he turned out to be.

JonInMiddleGA

11-07-2011, 09:34 AM

If you don't mind horrible QB play, I could see them being a top 10 team.

That's hindering LSU and Bama so much ;)

(yes, I know McCarron is actually 3rd in the conference in passing efficiency, I'm just fucking around with perception)

JonInMiddleGA

11-07-2011, 09:53 AM

re: "Game of the Century" (which I thought was indeed overhyped)

Bama-LSU pulled a 14.1 18-49 rating in Atlanta, Falcons got an 11.1
HH rating was 23.0 to 20.9

Ksyrup

11-07-2011, 10:32 AM

I enjoyed the game. I pretty much expected what we got, but thought we'd see a TD or two. Not shocked we didn't. Alabama's special teams aside, it was a far better played game than the typical SEC East game this year. I had a hard time watching UF/UGA, for instance - 1-21 passing at one point in the second half will do that - and I thought the defenses earned their performances in this game. The offenses were conservative, but not bad/sloppy. I think it was more a recognition of the quality of D both teams were up against, and knowing that the first to make a huge mistake would probably lose.

MJ4H

11-07-2011, 10:44 AM

Could've made a fortune on last longer bets between Houston Nutt and Bobby Petrino. Oh well.

Ole Miss Rebels Football: RebelGrove.com (http://olemiss.rivals.com/)

cartman

11-07-2011, 10:56 AM

Could've made a fortune on last longer bets between Houston Nutt and Bobby Petrino. Oh well.

Ole Miss Rebels Football: RebelGrove.com (http://olemiss.rivals.com/)

It is just abundantly clear that he wanted no part of having to take on Mizzou as a conference rival. To suggest otherwise is just ignoring the obvious.............

Ksyrup

11-07-2011, 10:57 AM

The message is clear - if you lose to Kentucky, you deserve to lose your job.

RainMaker

11-07-2011, 04:52 PM

Sure you can, because the SEC's history of dominance is baked into the polls right now, and every week. There's a reason we're even talking about a possible rematch for the title, and that's because historically, the SEC has had the best teams in the country for the past 5-6 years, without question. The only reason it probably won't happen is because people are generally against it, and what happened with OSU/UM in 2006 is a big factor in that, too. I think people want someone outside the SEC to make LSU prove they are the best, because they almost made that mistake with OSU, and then OSU lost to UF, I think it was.

They get the benefit of the doubt, not just for what they've done this year, but what their conference does every year.

At least with BSU, we're limiting it to just their past success as a factor. Ranking so many SEC East teams this year was solely based on the SEC's prestige factor, even though this season has demonstrated that the SEC East is way, way down. South Carolina was and is not a top 10 team if they were in another conference.

It would be cool if sports came up with a system where these questions could be answered on a playing field. Just throwing it out there, but maybe you have the teams play each other and the one that keeps winning gets to keep playing for a championship or something.

dawgfan

11-07-2011, 08:34 PM

It would be cool if sports came up with a system where these questions could be answered on a playing field. Just throwing it out there, but maybe you have the teams play each other and the one that keeps winning gets to keep playing for a championship or something.
That assumes that it's a huge deal to all fans to try to determine said "champion".

It's entertaining, sure. But how much value should you really put into it? I would bet that how people view the influence of luck or chance (or whatever you want to call it) influences how they view playoffs and how "valid" that is for determining the best team.

For me, a tournament champ is just that -the tournament champ. Were they necessarily the best team? Not always.

Your mileage might vary. But for me, having an FBS championship tournament is just not that important.

JonInMiddleGA

11-07-2011, 09:37 PM

Not bad
It was the highest-rated regular-season college football game for the network since 1989, when Notre Dame-Miami drew an 11.9 rating on CBS.

It was also the second-highest-rated regular-season game since records began being kept in 1987, trailing only the Irish-Hurricanes contest.

CBS averaged an impressive 6.4 adults 18-49 rating in primetime, trumping everything else on television and drawing the best Saturday rating in months.

CBS actually beat all the other networks put together Saturday, with no one averaging more than a 0.9 against the tough competition.

Media Life Magazine - CBS scores with LSU win over Alabama (http://www.medialifemagazine.com/artman2/publish/Overnights_50/CBS-scores-big-with-LSU-win-over-Alabama.asp)

RainMaker

11-08-2011, 12:43 AM

That assumes that it's a huge deal to all fans to try to determine said "champion".

It's entertaining, sure. But how much value should you really put into it? I would bet that how people view the influence of luck or chance (or whatever you want to call it) influences how they view playoffs and how "valid" that is for determining the best team.

For me, a tournament champ is just that -the tournament champ. Were they necessarily the best team? Not always.

Your mileage might vary. But for me, having an FBS championship tournament is just not that important.

I know it's not for everyone. I think a reason it doesn't catch on is that a large percentage of college football fans just aren't really big football fans. More into the other stuff that goes with it and the games are secondary.

JonInMiddleGA

11-08-2011, 12:56 AM

I know it's not for everyone. I think a reason it doesn't catch on is that a large percentage of college football fans just aren't really big football fans. More into the other stuff that goes with it and the games are secondary.

I'd argue that most of the people pushing it just aren't college football fans.
{shrug}

RainMaker

11-08-2011, 01:01 AM

I'd argue that most of the people pushing it just aren't college football fans.
{shrug}

Yes, they are football fans.

jbergey22

11-08-2011, 01:09 AM

I know it's not for everyone. I think a reason it doesn't catch on is that a large percentage of college football fans just aren't really big football fans. More into the other stuff that goes with it and the games are secondary.

Id argue that college football fans are more diehard than pro football fans are. College alumns take their school very seriously. They have roots to their team where as pro isnt as personal.

JonInMiddleGA

11-08-2011, 01:20 AM

Yes, they are football fans.

I wouldn't necessarily argue that, at least not if what you really mean is "NFL fans".

I barely give two shits about the NFL, haven't in years. I follow it similar to how I follow American Idol or other pop culture stuff. But I spend somewhere between 5-10 hours a week just keeping track of HS football and watch at least my fair share of college football, not to mention reading likely well above average amounts of stuff about it.

So how to reconcile those things? Beats me.

RainMaker

11-08-2011, 01:43 AM

Id argue that college football fans are more diehard than pro football fans are. College alumns take their school very seriously. They have roots to their team where as pro isnt as personal.
We're still talking about different things. You're right that the college football alum takes their school very seriously (heck, covering up for pedophiles can even keep your head coach in good standing!). But it's more about the atmosphere, mascot, traditions, and so on. That's fun, it adds a lot to the sport, but I still contend for a lot that the game is secondary to this. There is nothing wrong with that either.

Then you have football fans. People who don't care if the fans have a special song to sing. They just want to see the best play the best. Many college football fans don't want that. They don't want to see the best play the best. They are fine watching their top 10 school beat up on Nortwestern State as long as they get to hear the band, see the mascot, and follow through on the other traditions.

I'm a football fan. I like the NFL but I also like the college game when there are great games and matchups with meaning. Unfortunately, those are rare. You get maybe one or two top 25 vs top 25 matchups a week. A top 10 vs top 10 maybe every 2-3 weeks. And most of the bowls mean shit outside of promoting some product.

I'd like to see LSU have to put that defense up against some elite QBs. I'd like to see if a Boise State can play with the big boys. I'd like to see if an SEC team can win a game in December up North. But I understand that there are people who would rather see LSU beat the shit out of Western Kentucky next week as long as they get to sing songs and wear face paint.

RainMaker

11-08-2011, 01:52 AM

I wouldn't necessarily argue that, at least not if what you really mean is "NFL fans".

I barely give two shits about the NFL, haven't in years. I follow it similar to how I follow American Idol or other pop culture stuff. But I spend somewhere between 5-10 hours a week just keeping track of HS football and watch at least my fair share of college football, not to mention reading likely well above average amounts of stuff about it.

So how to reconcile those things? Beats me.

My biggest problem with HS and college is huge talent gaps. I'm not saying every team needs to be of equal talent, but some of these gaps are so large that it should hardly be considered a sport. I do thoroughly enjoy both levels when the matchups are good though (preferably high school because there are so many styles clashing).

Take this coming weekend. LSU has a ton of talent. Many of those guys will be in the NFL. They're going to host Western Kentucky. A team that got housed by an FCS school this year. That probably doesn't have a single player that could start on LSU.

That's fun for people?

jbergey22

11-08-2011, 02:09 AM

We're still talking about different things. You're right that the college football alum takes their school very seriously (heck, covering up for pedophiles can even keep your head coach in good standing!). But it's more about the atmosphere, mascot, traditions, and so on. That's fun, it adds a lot to the sport, but I still contend for a lot that the game is secondary to this. There is nothing wrong with that either.

Then you have football fans. People who don't care if the fans have a special song to sing. They just want to see the best play the best. Many college football fans don't want that. They don't want to see the best play the best. They are fine watching their top 10 school beat up on Nortwestern State as long as they get to hear the band, see the mascot, and follow through on the other traditions.

I'm a football fan. I like the NFL but I also like the college game when there are great games and matchups with meaning. Unfortunately, those are rare. You get maybe one or two top 25 vs top 25 matchups a week. A top 10 vs top 10 maybe every 2-3 weeks. And most of the bowls mean shit outside of promoting some product.

I'd like to see LSU have to put that defense up against some elite QBs. I'd like to see if a Boise State can play with the big boys. I'd like to see if an SEC team can win a game in December up North. But I understand that there are people who would rather see LSU beat the shit out of Western Kentucky next week as long as they get to sing songs and wear face paint.

You are making a lot of assumptions.

"Football fans" as you call them are probably more interested in their fantasy football teams on Sunday then they are about any of games that dont involve their favorite team.

Many reasons to love football but I have always gotten the feeling that college people are more into "their" team. Just check out some of the Mizzou fans posts.

So I guess maybe Im not sure what you mean. It seems some a lot of NFL fans dont have a clue about the college game just like a lot of the college fans could give a rats ass about the NFL.

JIMGA could probably confirm this but college football is king in Southeastern USA. I dont think the NFL is even close.

And I disagree with all of caring about the mascots and songs and whatever else. Its part of the atmosphere which makes it special but I really dont think that is the reason 100k people go to games.

It is the "mainstream" NFL people that want college football changed so much. The college game was in better hands before ESPN got their say.

dawgfan

11-08-2011, 02:19 AM

I know it's not for everyone. I think a reason it doesn't catch on is that a large percentage of college football fans just aren't really big football fans. More into the other stuff that goes with it and the games are secondary.
You've shown many times you really don't get college football, and here is more evidence.

jbergey22

11-08-2011, 02:20 AM

That's fun for people?

Who is "people"?

Its probably similar to a Packers fan watching them beat the piss out of the Colts. In any sport you have mismatches. Its not like LSU plays WKentucky every week. You have your great teams and bad teams just like any other sport.

The Stanford/Oregon game this weekend has more importance than any game on the NFL card I can promise you that if you are a "football" fan.

dawgfan

11-08-2011, 02:21 AM

You are making a lot of assumptions.
He does a lot of that.

It is the "mainstream" NFL people that want college football changed so much. The college game was in better hands before ESPN got their say.
This.

Give me the old bowl system and a "plus 1" and I'd be a happy camper.

Tigercat

11-08-2011, 06:18 AM

I'd like to see LSU have to put that defense up against some elite QBs. I'd like to see if a Boise State can play with the big boys. I'd like to see if an SEC team can win a game in December up North. But I understand that there are people who would rather see LSU beat the shit out of Western Kentucky next week as long as they get to sing songs and wear face paint.

If you don't know that WVU and Arkansas have good QBs, or that no one really plays college football in December up North, then are you a real football fan?

Logan

11-08-2011, 06:53 AM

So a good QB = an elite QB?

Pick apart his post all you want, but there are a lot of true college football fans who would love to see Luck/Weeden battle against LSU.

Matthean

11-08-2011, 06:59 AM

So a good QB = an elite QB?

Pick apart his post all you want, but there are a lot of true college football fans who would love to see Luck/Weeden battle against LSU.

You can add in OU in there as well. I know 'Bama would need to face LSU again to win the title, but it's the least interesting match up from a quality team.

Tigercat

11-08-2011, 07:05 AM

So a good QB = an elite QB?

Pick apart his post all you want, but there are a lot of true college football fans who would love to see Luck/Weeden battle against LSU.

He also said he wants to see LSU play against SOME elite QBs. As if they are all over the place so that a team could play a handful of them every year. Might as well nit pick that Aaron Rogers isn't playing all the elite defenses in the NFL.

Geno Smith, IMO, is better than Weeden. Weeden is a bigger challenge because he has more talent around him. I would call Geno Smith elite. WVU just doesn't have enough of a running threat or defense. (Sounds a bit like OSU?) Tyler Wilson is a guy who could easily be elite next year, he is just very good as of right now. His results would be elite this year if his WRs were more consistent...

Logan

11-08-2011, 07:34 AM

He also said he wants to see LSU play against SOME elite QBs. As if they are all over the place so that a team could play a handful of them every year. Might as well nit pick that Aaron Rogers isn't playing all the elite defenses in the NFL.

Geno Smith, IMO, is better than Weeden. Weeden is a bigger challenge because he has more talent around him. I would call Geno Smith elite. WVU just doesn't have enough of a running threat or defense. (Sounds a bit like OSU?) Tyler Wilson is a guy who could easily be elite next year, he is just very good as of right now. His results would be elite this year if his WRs were more consistent...

I'll only speak for myself...but I'm talking about the optimal scenario, where you can handpick the two teams you want to see face off. When people talk about a defense being so great, I want to see them go up against the best. It doesn't have to be every week, it doesn't even have to be at all. But if I have the opportunity to get it, I want to see it.

We can also agree to disagree on Geno Smith. I've seen him plenty on my own...he's a very good QB, but based on my own definition I wouldn't call him elite.

Buccaneer

11-08-2011, 08:25 AM

I still vote to simply have an exhibition-like post-season appearance for the reward of a winning season. It doesn't have to be any more important than that. What has endured through the years have been rival games, cross-state games and the atmosphere on many college towns on gameday. If there are those the must have a "champion", then let a poll decide it subjectively.

RainMaker

11-08-2011, 02:07 PM

Who is "people"?

Its probably similar to a Packers fan watching them beat the piss out of the Colts. In any sport you have mismatches. Its not like LSU plays WKentucky every week. You have your great teams and bad teams just like any other sport.

The Stanford/Oregon game this weekend has more importance than any game on the NFL card I can promise you that if you are a "football" fan.

While the Packers and Colts are a mismatch, it's not even close to the scale of most college games. Like I said, I doubt Western Kentucky has a single player who could start on LSU. I guess that is fun to watch for some.

Ksyrup

11-08-2011, 02:10 PM

RainMaker

11-08-2011, 02:11 PM

If you don't know that WVU and Arkansas have good QBs, or that no one really plays college football in December up North, then are you a real football fan?
As others have said, good and elite are different. I'd like to see LSU take on Luck, Weeden, Jones, or Moore.

What kind of ratings would a Stanford-LSU game do this weekend? I know I'd tune in to see Luck go against an elite defense.

RainMaker

11-08-2011, 02:12 PM

Start? No. But Bobby Rainey, WKU's RB, is a serious talent. And those kids get something out of playing in front of 100K people, even if it is to get their asses handed to them. Most of them will never get that experience, so it's fun for them in that sense.
My friends and I won't get the experience of playing at Madison Square Garden, but I don't think it's a good idea to schedule us against the Knicks.

Ksyrup

11-08-2011, 02:15 PM

My friends and I won't get the experience of playing at Madison Square Garden, but I don't think it's a good idea to schedule us against the Knicks.

If you could find a way to get the Knicks to pay you $750K to get your asses kicked, I bet someone would find that worthwhile.

RainMaker

11-08-2011, 02:15 PM

Give me the old bowl system and a "plus 1" and I'd be a happy camper.

What is the "old bowl system"? The system has changed dramatically over the years.

Matthean

11-08-2011, 02:16 PM

What is the "old bowl system"? The system has changed dramatically over the years.

No BCS games at all. Bowl games are decided based on conference ties.

Ksyrup

11-08-2011, 02:19 PM

Going to a playoff system wouldn't be that drastic a change from what we have now. We've basically got a final 2/4 every year, pretty much. Why would a playoff have to mess with the other bowls? It's two separate tracks, just as it is now - you're either alive for a possible championship (typically only 2 teams, unless something's screwy), or you're not, and you go to your bowl and either win or lose a glorified exhibition. How does any of that change if you take 8 teams and do a playoff?

dawgfan

11-08-2011, 02:48 PM

What is the "old bowl system"? The system has changed dramatically over the years.
The old Bowl tie-in system that was in place for decades. Obviously it would be different now as the conferences are no longer the same, but it wouldn't be that hard to figure out.

RainMaker

11-08-2011, 02:54 PM

The old Bowl tie-in system that was in place for decades. Obviously it would be different now as the conferences are no longer the same, but it wouldn't be that hard to figure out.

I don't think you know how the old bowl system worked. You need a lot of independents to do it which there currently aren't.

Ben E Lou

11-08-2011, 03:04 PM

I don't think you know how the old bowl system worked. You need a lot of independents to do it which there currently aren't.No you don't. There were only, what, four bowls with ANY conference tie-ins? (Sugar, Rose, Cotton, Orange) The Astro-Bluebonnet Bowl didn't have a conference tie-in, for example. They just tried to get one team from relatively nearby to play another "name" team that wasn't playing on New Years' Day. You'd have the SWC #3 or so versus a #3 or #4 from the SEC, Big 10, Pac 10, or an Independent. And the big Bowls often went non-independent, too. Nebraska, Michigan, and Ohio State all played in the Sugar Bowl in those days. Auburn played Texas in the Cotton one year. The Sugar was basically SEC #1 vs. Big10/Pac10/SWC #2, or an Independent. Same thing was true for the Cotton and the Orange.

dawgfan

11-08-2011, 03:09 PM

I don't think you know how the old bowl system worked. You need a lot of independents to do it which there currently aren't.
Fuck you. I know perfectly well how the old bowl system worked - been following college football closely since '78, so spare me your condescension.

The current bowl tie-ins are the result of the evolution of the conference landscape. The only meaningful tweaks would be restoring the major bowls to remove the BCS component and go back to being strictly tie-ins. If you want a championship game of sorts, create a "plus 1" bowl with a committee (similar to the basketball tournament committee) that determines the 2 teams.

cartman

11-08-2011, 03:16 PM

I don't think you know how the old bowl system worked. You need a lot of independents to do it which there currently aren't.

Not really. Instead of a conference tie-in for each and every slot, any bowl eligible team is considered. Not that much of a difference between that and an independent team.

bronconick

11-08-2011, 03:23 PM

The old bowl system also got a 6-4-1 Notre Dame team a NYD game.

The only smidgen of tradition left is in the Rose Bowl, though the Sugar manages to get the #2 SEC team most years. The Big 8 doesn't go to the Orange and SWC champ doesn't go to the Cotton because their merged winner goes to the Fiesta instead, and the ACC doesn't go to the Citrus. I remember oranges during those Nebraska-Colorado games being almost as prominent if not more so than the roses during Michigan-Ohio State in the late 80's. Now? Theoretically Colorado could play Nebraska in the Rose Bowl.

It's dead. Resurrecting that zombie isn't going to help.

cartman

11-08-2011, 03:29 PM

I remember oranges during those Nebraska-Colorado games being almost as prominent if not more so than the roses during Michigan-Ohio State in the late 80's.

I remember bringing cotton bolls to the Texas-Baylor game back in 1990 to throw on the field when Texas clinched the Cotton Bowl berth, their first in 7 years. Looked like a snow storm at the end of the game.

Wow, I can't believe that I never made the connection between 'boll' and 'bowl' until just now.

Ben E Lou

11-08-2011, 03:39 PM

cartman

11-08-2011, 03:43 PM

That's pretty cool. Also, thanks for not posting anything from the 1984 Cotton Bowl between Texas and Georgia. That muffed punt causes trauma in these parts.

RainMaker

11-08-2011, 03:45 PM

No you don't. There were only, what, four bowls with ANY conference tie-ins? (Sugar, Rose, Cotton, Orange) The Astro-Bluebonnet Bowl didn't have a conference tie-in, for example. They just tried to get one team from relatively nearby to play another "name" team that wasn't playing on New Years' Day. You'd have the SWC #3 or so versus a #3 or #4 from the SEC, Big 10, Pac 10, or an Independent. And the big Bowls often went non-independent, too. Nebraska, Michigan, and Ohio State all played in the Sugar Bowl in those days. Auburn played Texas in the Cotton one year. The Sugar was basically SEC #1 vs. Big10/Pac10/SWC #2, or an Independent. Same thing was true for the Cotton and the Orange.

You're proving my point. The old conference tie-ins were few and far between. There were what, 5 or 6 slots that were tied in? And the strong independents mattered. Without them you rarely saw elite matchups since a conference champion vs conference champion outside of the Rose Bowl didn't happen often. So you missed out on great matchups. It was an odd system of teams avoiding playing each other.

And if people like the conference tie-ins, there are many more right now. Most of the bowls have some conference tie-in in place. Even the BCS games try and appease these old tie-ins when possible.

This is faux-nostalgia, just like the conference tradition stuff.

RainMaker

11-08-2011, 03:46 PM

Not really. Instead of a conference tie-in for each and every slot, any bowl eligible team is considered. Not that much of a difference between that and an independent team.
You mean like an at-large team? Where have I heard that word before?

Ben E Lou

11-08-2011, 03:50 PM

You're proving my point. The old conference tie-ins were few and far between. There were what, 5 or 6 slots that were tied in? And the strong independents mattered. Without them you rarely saw a conference champion vs conference champion outside of the Rose Bowl. So you missed out on great matchups. It was an odd system of teams avoiding playing each other.

And if people like the conference tie-ins, there are many more right now. Most of the bowls have some conference tie-in in place. Even the BCS games try and appease these old tie-ins when possible.

This is faux-nostalgia, just like the conference tradition stuff.I don't know what your point is, and don't really care. You said you needed Independents to make this work. You were wrong.

As far as faux nostalgia, wrong once again. It was better back then for me. You wanted to go to the Sugah Bowl. Period. Same goal every year. I like that better. You win The Conference, and sugar falls from the sky. I enjoyed that more.

Logan

11-08-2011, 03:55 PM

I remember bringing cotton bolls to the Texas-Baylor game back in 1990 to throw on the field when Texas clinched the Cotton Bowl berth, their first in 7 years. Looked like a snow storm at the end of the game.

Wow, I can't believe that I never made the connection between 'boll' and 'bowl' until just now.

Your spelling of "boll" twice confuses me and makes me think the first instance wasn't a typo. Is a "cotton boll" something different than a cotton ball?

cartman

11-08-2011, 04:00 PM

You're proving my point. The old conference tie-ins were few and far between. There were what, 5 or 6 slots that were tied in? And the strong independents mattered. Without them you rarely saw a conference champion vs conference champion outside of the Rose Bowl. So you missed out on great matchups. It was an odd system of teams avoiding playing each other.

And if people like the conference tie-ins, there are many more right now. Most of the bowls have some conference tie-in in place. Even the BCS games try and appease these old tie-ins when possible.

This is faux-nostalgia, just like the conference tradition stuff.

What do you think the few tie-ins were? They were for the conference champions. You didn't see conference champion v. conference champion from the other major conferences (Big 8, SWC, SEC, ACC) simply because those teams already were aligned with other bowls. That had nothing to do with independent teams.

cartman

11-08-2011, 04:01 PM

Your spelling of "boll" twice confuses me and makes me think the first instance wasn't a typo. Is a "cotton boll" something different than a cotton ball?

Yeah, a cotton 'boll' is cotton in the natural state.

http://www.superiorthreads.com/media/uploads/2010/02/26/images/cotboll.jpg

RainMaker

11-08-2011, 04:03 PM

I don't know what your point is, and don't really care. You said you needed Independents to make this work. You were wrong.
My point is that this argument that bowls were somehow better 25 years ago is wrong. It's faux-nostalgia over a system that wasn't that good and didn't really have the tie-ins people think it did. There are currently more conference tie-ins today than there was 25 years ago.

And you did need independents to get great matchups. Look through those old bowl games, the ones that were playing for a NC and featured the top teams almost always had an independent in there. This old system had the best team in the country play a 6-5 Michigan team in 1984 and wasn't even on TV for the vast majority of college football fans.

As far as faux nostalgia, wrong once again. It was better back then for me. You wanted to go to the Sugah Bowl. Period. Same goal every year. I like that better. You win The Conference, and sugar falls from the sky. I enjoyed that more.
And teams still do. I still see teams holding up roses or oranges after winning a game that sends them to one of those bowls. I still see a lot of people wanting their team to participate in a BCS bowl.

RainMaker

11-08-2011, 04:05 PM

What do you think the few tie-ins were? They were for the conference champions. You didn't see conference champion v. conference champion from the other major conferences (Big 8, SWC, SEC, ACC) simply because those teams already were aligned with other bowls. That had nothing to do with independent teams.
It meant you couldn't get a top matchup #1 vs #2/#3 without an independent in the mix. Under that system, we'd be seeing LSU (assuming they win out) play a 2nd place team from another major conference this year.

Logan

11-08-2011, 04:11 PM

Yeah, a cotton 'boll' is cotton in the natural state.

Removed the pic because it gives me chills! Screw you.

dawgfan

11-08-2011, 04:18 PM

My point is that this argument that bowls were somehow better 25 years ago is wrong. It's faux-nostalgia over a system that wasn't that good and didn't really have the tie-ins people think it did. There are currently more conference tie-ins today than there was 25 years ago.
Two can play this game - it's you that doesn't get it. We who remember the bowl tie-ins were just fine with the set-up. If it matched the #1 & #2 teams, cool. If not, it was still the Pac-10 champ vs. the Big Ten champ in the Rose Bowl, the SEC winner going to the Sugar Bowl, the SWC champ going to the Cotton Bowl, the Big 8 champ going to the Orange Bowl. I don't really give a shit whether any of those bowls actually paired a pseudo "national championship" game or not. That's the key difference here.

As a concession to the "championship" folks, I'd be OK with setting up a "plus 1" game to follow the weekend after the New Year's Day bowls. But I'd also be just fine without it.

jbergey22

11-08-2011, 04:30 PM

RainMaker

11-08-2011, 04:40 PM

Do you get off on this? This is filled completely with opinion and false information.

Its hard to have a debate with you when you just state opinion as fact and make things up.
You guys claim that the conference tie-ins mean so much. I point out there are more conference tie-ins now than in the past. That's a fact. Tell me what is false about that statement.

As for my opinion on which is better, I think you can look at the level of interest, ratings, and so on and make a judgement. ESPN is paying over $30 million a game just to broadcast BCS bowls. This opposed to the #1 team in the country playing their bowl game in obscurity in 1984. I wonder what system people prefer.

cartman

11-08-2011, 04:44 PM

You guys claim that the conference tie-ins mean so much. I point out there are more conference tie-ins now than in the past. That's a fact. Tell me what is false about that statement.

As for my opinion on which is better, I think you can look at the level of interest, ratings, and so on and make a judgement. ESPN is paying over $30 million a game just to broadcast BCS bowls. This opposed to the #1 team in the country playing their bowl game in obscurity in 1984. I wonder what system people prefer.

YOU were the one making the point about conference tie-ins meaning so much, and how cherished the independents were in whole bowl process because of that. Of course there are more conference tie-ins now, for the simple fact that there are far more bowls now couple with the reality that there are only four independent schools. What drove those independent teams to conferences? Partially the lure of getting one of the high profile bowl tie-in slots at the end of the season.

bronconick

11-08-2011, 04:44 PM

Two can play this game - it's you that doesn't get it. We who remember the bowl tie-ins were just fine with the set-up. If it matched the #1 & #2 teams, cool. If not, it was still the Pac-10 champ vs. the Big Ten champ in the Rose Bowl, the SEC winner going to the Sugar Bowl, the SWC champ going to the Cotton Bowl, the Big 8 champ going to the Orange Bowl. I don't really give a shit whether any of those bowls actually paired a pseudo "national championship" game or not. That's the key difference here.

As a concession to the "championship" folks, I'd be OK with setting up a "plus 1" game to follow the weekend after the New Year's Day bowls. But I'd also be just fine without it.

Maybe the fans were, but it took about 3-4 years of the Bowl Alliance hyping a 1 vs. 2 or 1 vs. 3 game every year before the Rose Bowl and its two conferences folded and joined the rest rather then slowly become irrelevant outside the upper midwest and west coast.

RomaGoth

11-08-2011, 04:51 PM

You guys claim that the conference tie-ins mean so much. I point out there are more conference tie-ins now than in the past. That's a fact. Tell me what is false about that statement.

Did I miss the link to these facts? :confused:

As for my opinion on which is better, I think you can look at the level of interest, ratings, and so on and make a judgement. ESPN is paying over $30 million a game just to broadcast BCS bowls. This opposed to the #1 team in the country playing their bowl game in obscurity in 1984. I wonder what system people prefer.

College football is all about money now, especially compared to 20-30 years ago. Additionally, the emergence of the ESPN monster over that time period has only reinforced the concept that a national championship game and BCS system is needed to "prove" who the champion is in any give year.

FWIW, I am with Dawgfan as far as a +1 system goes. Unless it is a team I follow playing in the title game (which hasn't happened since 1997), I don't give two shits about it and rarely watch it, especially if it is the SEC.

jbergey22

11-08-2011, 04:57 PM

As for my opinion on which is better, I think you can look at the level of interest, ratings, and so on and make a judgement. ESPN is paying over $30 million a game just to broadcast BCS bowls. This opposed to the #1 team in the country playing their bowl game in obscurity in 1984. I wonder what system people prefer.

The 1986 Rose Bowl(UCLA/Iowa) had a 22.7 television ratings share. Through 2007, only the 1987 Fiesta Bowl (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1987_Fiesta_Bowl) game has a higher U.S. television rating at 24.9. Only the 1988 Orange Bowl (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1988_Orange_Bowl) at a 20.8 and the 2006 Rose Bowl (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Rose_Bowl) at a 21.7 have over a 20 share since the 1986 Rose Bowl.<sup id="cite_ref-ratings_0-1" class="reference">[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_Rose_Bowl#cite_note-ratings-0)</sup>
<sup></sup>
1986 Rose Bowl - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_Rose_Bowl)

The Auburn/Oregon last game last year got a 16.1 share.
BCS title game TV ratings down (http://content.usatoday.com/communities/gameon/post/2011/01/bcs-title-game-tv-ratings-down/1)

Keep in mind that these ratings were happening when there were other games being played on other channels. Today's ratings arent as strong while being the only game being played at that time.

JonInMiddleGA

11-08-2011, 05:04 PM

http://www.larrymunson.com/audio/UGA__AU__1982.m3u

I don't even have to listen, has to be the sugar falling from the sky. A classic, and perhaps (from a broadcasters p.o.v.) a better capture than Run Lindsay in some ways.

With the sugar, he created something, with the TD he had the action of the play to work from (even if he did so in unforgettable fashion).

RainMaker

11-08-2011, 05:04 PM

Did I miss the link to these facts? :confused:

There weren't nearly as many bowls 20-30 years ago. Most of the current bowls have conference tie-ins that I'm told mean so much to fans. Even the BCS games do their best to line up the traditional slots when they can.

Automatic bids to college bowl games - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_bids_to_college_bowl_games#2011-12_Non-BCS_bowl_games)

College football is all about money now, especially compared to 20-30 years ago. Additionally, the emergence of the ESPN monster over that time period has only reinforced the concept that a national championship game and BCS system is needed to "prove" who the champion is in any give year.

It was about money 20-30 years ago too. Oklahoma and Washington pussed out of playing BYU in 1984 for a few more bucks. Can't blame that on the ESPN boogeyman.

JonInMiddleGA

11-08-2011, 05:06 PM

Your spelling of "boll" twice confuses me and makes me think the first instance wasn't a typo. Is a "cotton boll" something different than a cotton ball?

Yeah, unless you've got a different image of a cotton ball in mind.

A cotton "boll" is what you pick when you pick cotton. Unprocessed cotton basically.

A cotton "ball" is the thing you have in your medicine cabinet.

http://pinkroomint.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/cotton-boll1.jpg

jbergey22

11-08-2011, 05:13 PM

There weren't nearly as many bowls 20-30 years ago. Most of the current bowls have conference tie-ins that I'm told mean so much to fans. Even the BCS games do their best to line up the traditional slots when they can.

Automatic bids to college bowl games - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_bids_to_college_bowl_games#2011-12_Non-BCS_bowl_games)

They had a process 25 years ago where the bowls gave themselves some wiggle room but they generally stuck to their plan. They didnt just say the #5 in the Big Ten was going to play in the Humanitarian Bowl but they usually did. Kind of misleading.

RainMaker

11-08-2011, 05:14 PM

The 1986 Rose Bowl(UCLA/Iowa) had a 22.7 television ratings share. Through 2007, only the 1987 Fiesta Bowl (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1987_Fiesta_Bowl) game has a higher U.S. television rating at 24.9. Only the 1988 Orange Bowl (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1988_Orange_Bowl) at a 20.8 and the 2006 Rose Bowl (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Rose_Bowl) at a 21.7 have over a 20 share since the 1986 Rose Bowl.<sup id="cite_ref-ratings_0-1" class="reference">[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_Rose_Bowl#cite_note-ratings-0)</sup>
<sup></sup>
1986 Rose Bowl - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_Rose_Bowl)

The Auburn/Oregon last game last year got a 16.1 share.
BCS title game TV ratings down (http://content.usatoday.com/communities/gameon/post/2011/01/bcs-title-game-tv-ratings-down/1)

Keep in mind that these ratings were happening when there were other games being played on other channels. Today's ratings arent as strong while being the only game being played at that time.

Yes, comparing television ratings from when people had 4 channels to choose from and 400 is an accurate way to do things. By this metric, most major professional sports have gotten less popular.

I'd instead look at the incredible demand there has been for college football. The fact you can put two .500 teams against each other on a random night in December and pull a few million people. The enormous television contracts being signed for major conferences like the SEC.

Are you really arguing that there was more interest in college football 25 years ago?

RainMaker

11-08-2011, 05:16 PM

They had a process 25 years ago where the bowls gave themselves some wiggle room but they generally stuck to their plan. They didnt just say the #5 in the Big Ten was going to play in the Humanitarian Bowl but they usually did. Kind of misleading.
People are arguing here that they like the conference tie-ins. I'm asking why this system is bad if that is what you like? It seems we've got the conference tie-in thing down pat for most of the bowls.

JonInMiddleGA

11-08-2011, 05:18 PM

Are you really arguing that there was more interest in college football 25 years ago?

I'd say that's not an argument, that's pretty much a given.

Same is true for baseball, different demographics of the country almost guarantee that to be the case.

jbergey22

11-08-2011, 05:28 PM

Are you really arguing that there was more interest in college football 25 years ago?

I think it peaked around 86-89 yes.

RainMaker

11-08-2011, 05:32 PM

I think it peaked around 86-89 yes.
A timeframe that saw de-facto National Championship games in bowl games (which was only possible because of independents).

jbergey22

11-08-2011, 05:38 PM

A timeframe that saw de-facto National Championship games in bowl games (which was only possible because of independents).

Keep talking in circles. You must be having fun.

RainMaker

11-08-2011, 05:41 PM

Keep talking in circles. You must be having fun.
You put it right on the tee.

jbergey22

11-08-2011, 05:49 PM

You put it right on the tee.

Nope, what I meant was that you backstep so much and come from a different angle over and over. I think its time to let it go.

The 1986 Rose Bowl which had nothing to do with the Nat'l Championship was getting better numbers back then over your #1 vs #2 games today. Again, whether you admit it or not its people like you that care about a National Championship but not everyone.

cartman

11-08-2011, 05:50 PM

A timeframe that saw de-facto National Championship games in bowl games (which was only possible because of independents).

So why was it possible because of independents at that time, and not in the previous 70 years?

RainMaker

11-08-2011, 05:56 PM

Again, whether you admit it or not its people like you that care about a National Championship but not everyone.

Yeah, only people like me care about a NC. I'm sure LSU-Alabama pulls in similar viewers on a yearly basis when neither team is in the NC picture.

RomaGoth

11-08-2011, 05:57 PM

jbergey22

11-08-2011, 06:01 PM

Yeah, only people like me care about a NC. I'm sure LSU-Alabama pulls in similar viewers on a yearly basis when neither team is in the NC picture.

And he takes another step back. Looking to come in through the regular season angle now? Ill play, what do you have?

dawgfan

11-08-2011, 06:04 PM

It was about money 20-30 years ago too. Oklahoma and Washington pussed out of playing BYU in 1984 for a few more bucks. Can't blame that on the ESPN boogeyman.
"Pussed-out"? You're really have a remarkable combination of arrogance & ignorance when it comes to college football.

There was no option for Oklahoma - they were contractually locked in to the Orange Bowl. And why not put the blame on BYU - if anything, they "pussed-out" on playing Oklahoma.

As for Washington, it wasn't just the significantly higher payout of the Orange Bowl over the Holiday Bowl - they stood to gain far more by playing Oklahoma in the Orange Bowl:

- Much greater national exposure with a premium New Year's Day bowl, and
- Far greater likelihood of ascending to #1 by beating Oklahoma - beating BYU wouldn't have meant nearly as much to voters as beating Oklahoma

RainMaker

11-08-2011, 06:11 PM

So why was it possible because of independents at that time, and not in the previous 70 years?

Conference champions were tied to different bowl games. So it was rare to have the top teams play each other since the top teams typically won their conference.

The 1987 Fiesta Bowl wouldn't have happened since Penn State would be tied to the Rose Bowl.

cartman

11-08-2011, 06:17 PM

Conference champions were tied to different bowl games. So it was rare to have the top teams play each other since the top teams typically won their conference.

The 1987 Fiesta Bowl wouldn't have happened since Penn State would be tied to the Rose Bowl.

That would explain now, but does nothing to explain the previous 70 years.

jbergey22

11-08-2011, 06:21 PM

People are arguing here that they like the conference tie-ins. I'm asking why this system is bad if that is what you like? It seems we've got the conference tie-in thing down pat for most of the bowls.

Because the conference tie-ins werent secondary previously. Now its ok well you werent good enough to get in the Natl Championship game so we will throw you in this bowl with these guys and we will call it The Fiesta Bowl, yeah that sounds good.

Conference tie ins are just shoved in our faces now like they are suppose to have the same meaning.

That Rose Bowl in 1986 didnt need some voters/computers to tell them who the #1 team was. It was their feeling that if we win this game we are the best team in the nation. That worked for people and still would. I see nothing wrong with Boise finishing the year without a loss and being able to claim they are the national champs. A system trying to narrow down 125 teams to 1 in 13 weeks is flawed any way we look at so why do we think we need something to tell us who the best team is? Let people argue and have fun with it.

A BCS playoff would consist of the same 4-5 teams every single year with 3-4 common repeaters. After 4-5 years and the same matchups people would get sick of that as well.

tarcone

11-08-2011, 06:31 PM

Iowa gets to play for the Rose Bowl this season. HOORAY. Love the Rose Bowl.

RainMaker

11-08-2011, 06:41 PM

"Pussed-out"? You're really have a remarkable combination of arrogance & ignorance when it comes to college football.

There was no option for Oklahoma - they were contractually locked in to the Orange Bowl. And why not put the blame on BYU - if anything, they "pussed-out" on playing Oklahoma.

As for Washington, it wasn't just the significantly higher payout of the Orange Bowl over the Holiday Bowl - they stood to gain far more by playing Oklahoma in the Orange Bowl:

- Much greater national exposure with a premium New Year's Day bowl, and
- Far greater likelihood of ascending to #1 by beating Oklahoma - beating BYU wouldn't have meant nearly as much to voters as beating Oklahoma

I'm sorry, I got Nebraska and Oklahoma confused.

While I agree the New Year's Day bowl gave Washington more exposure, BYU was the the AP and Coaches #1 going into the bowls. A win against them would have helped a lot. Still likely a no-win situation for them. But having a bunch of great games isn't as much fun as playing politics, looking for exposure, and trying to impress some writers.

RainMaker

11-08-2011, 06:44 PM

Because the conference tie-ins werent secondary previously. Now its ok well you werent good enough to get in the Natl Championship game so we will throw you in this bowl with these guys and we will call it The Fiesta Bowl, yeah that sounds good.

Conference tie ins are just shoved in our faces now like they are suppose to have the same meaning.

That Rose Bowl in 1986 didnt need some voters/computers to tell them who the #1 team was. It was their feeling that if we win this game we are the best team in the nation. That worked for people and still would. I see nothing wrong with Boise finishing the year without a loss and being able to claim they are the national champs. A system trying to narrow down 125 teams to 1 in 13 weeks is flawed any way we look at so why do we think we need something to tell us who the best team is? Let people argue and have fun with it.

A BCS playoff would consist of the same 4-5 teams every single year with 3-4 common repeaters. After 4-5 years and the same matchups people would get sick of that as well.

The NC only screws up 2 bowl tie-ins. That really has destroyed the entire bowl system for you?

jbergey22

11-08-2011, 06:58 PM

The NC only screws up 2 bowl tie-ins. That really has destroyed the entire bowl system for you?

It hasnt destroyed anything. I still love college football. I just liked the old system better for many reasons that I have already commented on.

Bowls are what I loved about college football not the Nat'l Championship. I find it exciting when SMU wins their first bowl games since the Death penalty. I like when Boise can go undefeated and have a case that they are the Nat'l champs. I liked when the Rose Bowl was huge for fans of the Pac-10/Big-10. I dont need some stupid BCS decided(off a VERY limited sample size) championship game to tell me who the champ is.

A playoff system will pretty much kill the bowl system like the BCS has killed conference tied meaningful bowl games.

Buccaneer

11-08-2011, 07:08 PM

A playoff system will pretty much kill the bowl system like the BCS has killed conference tied meaningful bowl games.

Yep. I would also add the unnecessary Conference Championship playoff game. The bowl system, for the 70 years that dawgfan accurately stated, was a fun, post-season exhibition for the better (and/or well-traveled) teams. It should not be any more important than that, esp. when the regular season still remain relevant with its rivalry, homecoming, regional games and great atmosphere for the fans regardless of rankings and ratings and BCS formulas/playoff seedings.

digamma

11-08-2011, 07:13 PM

Guys, RainMaker is an NFL guy and will argue this bowl/playoff thing until the end of days. He just doesn't like college football.

As far as the bowls go, what has hurt the bowls is not the championship tie ins or the BCS, but the lower tier tie ins. It just isn't as exciting to have only a handful of possible bowl trips when there are 30 some odd bowls out there and to only play a handful of teams. How many times has there been a Georgia-Wisconsin Citrus Bowl?

The beauty of the bowls used to be playing a non-traditional opponent. Not playing SEC 3 vs. Big Ten 3 in Tampa or Orlando every year. It gets worse when it is ACC 5 vs. Big East 4 in Charlotte. Year after year.

RainMaker

11-08-2011, 07:22 PM

I'm a football guy. I like football at all levels. Just because someone finds the system fundamentally retarded doesn't mean they don't enjoy watching good teams play each other.

I'm sorry that being a college football fan apparently requires you to find as many excuses as you can for the best teams to avoid playing one another.

Buccaneer

11-08-2011, 07:28 PM

I liked what digamma said. There are three things about the current bowls that really bother me (besides the BCS nonsense): 1) a 6-6 team can play in a bowl (i.e., too many bowl games); there's a B10 #7 or SEC #6 play on New Year's Day; and 3) bowl games after New Year's Day. Also, I get tired of two Southern teams playing in a bowl game, like Florida St. vs South Carolina (for example). I have to think a moment that they were not in the same conference. When I was kid, it was fun seeing a team (say from the South) play a team they had not or rarely played (like from the Northwest).

JonInMiddleGA

11-08-2011, 07:33 PM

I'm a football guy. I like football at all levels. Just because someone finds the system fundamentally retarded doesn't mean they don't enjoy watching good teams play each other.

So you're not really a "football guy" ... you're a "good football team" guy.

With college fans (and HS) even bad teams can be fun to watch.

RainMaker

11-08-2011, 07:40 PM

So you're not really a "football guy" ... you're a "good football team" guy.

With college fans (and HS) even bad teams can be fun to watch.

If they are of somewhat equal talent, I enjoy it. But I do tend to like watching the most skilled players play the sport. There is something fun about watching a guy like Andrew Luck play.

jbergey22

11-08-2011, 08:06 PM

dawgfan

11-08-2011, 08:32 PM

I'm sorry, I got Nebraska and Oklahoma confused.

While I agree the New Year's Day bowl gave Washington more exposure, BYU was the the AP and Coaches #1 going into the bowls. A win against them would have helped a lot. Still likely a no-win situation for them. But having a bunch of great games isn't as much fun as playing politics, looking for exposure, and trying to impress some writers.
You still aren't getting it. Yes, BYU was #1 in the polls leading up to the bowl games, but voters were holding their noses doing it because the Cougars hadn't played a very tough schedule (relatively speaking). Voters were looking for reasons to not vote BYU #1. Hell, even with a loss and a tie going into the bowl games Oklahoma was only 8 points behind BYU (1091.5 to 1083.5). Had Oklahoma won the Orange Bowl I have no doubts they would have leap-frogged BYU.

As it was, Washington damn near leap-frogged BYU, finishing just 20 points behind them in the final AP poll (1160 to 1140). Had Washington for some reason opted to play in the Holiday Bowl instead and beaten BYU (as they most likely would have), they still probably would have finished no better than 2nd since they still had to also pass Oklahoma and Florida, and the chances of both losing were not great.

It wasn't "politics" - it was a combination of their best (though slim) chance of leaping to #1, the best payday (by far) and the best exposure for the program.

Tigercat

11-08-2011, 08:36 PM

Irony to RainMaker's arguments: LSU has played bigger challenges this year than Green Bay.

RainMaker

11-08-2011, 09:18 PM

You still aren't getting it. Yes, BYU was #1 in the polls leading up to the bowl games, but voters were holding their noses doing it because the Cougars hadn't played a very tough schedule (relatively speaking). Voters were looking for reasons to not vote BYU #1. Hell, even with a loss and a tie going into the bowl games Oklahoma was only 8 points behind BYU (1091.5 to 1083.5). Had Oklahoma won the Orange Bowl I have no doubts they would have leap-frogged BYU.

As it was, Washington damn near leap-frogged BYU, finishing just 20 points behind them in the final AP poll (1160 to 1140). Had Washington for some reason opted to play in the Holiday Bowl instead and beaten BYU (as they most likely would have), they still probably would have finished no better than 2nd since they still had to also pass Oklahoma and Florida, and the chances of both losing were not great.

It wasn't "politics" - it was a combination of their best (though slim) chance of leaping to #1, the best payday (by far) and the best exposure for the program.

Seems like just having those teams play each other would make more sense than trying to decipher the minds of some sports writers and how they'll interpret your games. But hey, no one wants more high quality football.

RainMaker

11-08-2011, 09:35 PM

Ok. You have 13 weeks to get the field from 125 to 1. What do you suggest that is so great?
FCS finds a way to do it every year. Guess you could look there.

But I'd suggest playing out your season. Then having an 8 or 12 team tournament to decide the champion. If you do 12, you can give auto-bids to all conference champions that finish in the top 20 of the BCS standings. The rest are at-large. Top 4 teams receive a 1st round bye. Teams with the higher rank in the BCS receive home field advantage.

TV contract would be bigger, schools/conferences would make more money, and you'd have some incredible matchups in hostile environments. As I mentioned earlier, it would be fun to see an SEC team have to play up north in the snow or something. Would be fun to see LSU get matched up with an Andrew Luck or Kellen Moore. I think that'd be a ton of fun for a month.

dawgfan

11-09-2011, 01:59 AM

Seems like just having those teams play each other would make more sense than trying to decipher the minds of some sports writers and how they'll interpret your games. But hey, no one wants more high quality football.
You're a fucking idiot if you think Oklahoma/Washington wasn't quality football. Oklahoma was a better team by a long ways than BYU.

Buccaneer

11-09-2011, 08:23 AM

It would be nice to see college football finally crown a legitimate national champion.

I'm curious, why is that so important for college football?

Kodos

11-09-2011, 08:32 AM

It's important for every sport.

Edit: I just checked in on this last page without reading the whole thread. Count me among those who would like to see something like an 8-team playoff in college football. I think it would add excitement. I understand a lot of traditionalists don't agree.

Ksyrup

11-09-2011, 08:59 AM

I'd be fine with a Plus-1, using the top 4 BCS ranked teams as the top 4 seeds, revolving among the BCS bowls 2 of them that would host the semifinals and 1 of them to then host, the next week, the winners of those two games. I think that's the best we can hope for, and I think it would work out pretty well.

MJ4H

11-09-2011, 09:01 AM

They should hand out ribbons to all teams for participation and be done with it.

bronconick

11-09-2011, 09:02 AM

I like the bowl games partially because I'll watch any college football I can find. If you had to set up a playoff, I'd go with 6 teams. Small enough to make most games still meaningful, yet enough to still punish an Alabama in this year.

1 and 2 get byes
6 plays at 3 and 5 plays at 4

Winners play at 1 and 2, and the final is a neutral game somewhere.

You're #1 and lose a game? Possible to still get back in, but you'll probably be on the road and definitely won't get the bye.

The Bowl games only lose 4 more teams then they already do, as the final would rotate like the BCS title game does, but the first two rounds have to be at home fields. Both as reward/punishment and because expecting people to fill three neutral site stadiums in three weeks is unrealistic.