Bowl Games

Say it all here
Forum rules
NOTICE: Please be sure to check the CFP Message Board Rules and Regulations and the Read Me page before posting.

What is Your Opinion of Bowl Season?

Too Many!
5
45%
It's Fine.
4
36%
More Bowls = More Football!
2
18%
 
Total votes: 11

colorado_loves_football

Postby colorado_loves_football » Fri Apr 21, 2006 6:40 pm

David wrote:The idea of a 64 team playoff in college football is absolutely insane. The idea of a smaller playoff system "using the present bowl games" will not work. With that being said, there is a choice to be made playoffs or bowl games. The bowl games are not going to roll over and leave anytime soon.

One of the things that make the present bowl season so great is the period between the final games and the bowl itself. The extra three or four weeks gives teams a chance to rest and heal. Coaching staffs are allotted more time to scout and devise a game plan. In theory we should be seeing the best game both teams in any given bowl have in them for the season. With a playoff system teams will be so worn down at the end of it all that the games won't be played at the level we are used to seeing.

The only problems with the BCS system of determining the NC (not the BCS bowls in whole) is making certain we have #1 and #2 playing in the NC game, or the possiblity of having a #3 that is as good as #1 and/or #2.

The BCS should be concerned with those two problems rather than trying to include the Week Sisters of the Poor in their non-championship bowls.
If the BCS did such a good job, I wouldn't be complaining.
How do you propose they 'secure' #1 vs. #2? Just wondering.
They weren't able to do it in 2003.
Eric, you are flat out wrong, LSU did share the national title with USC.
Ask anybody.
Now, as far as putting together competitive games, I think the BCS has done a pretty decent job, including 2003, as I mostly thought the Sugar Bowl was a very competitive arrangement.
But no, it wasn't a legitimate national championship game.
That's been an ongoing problem for the BCS, this year's pairing being one of the 'few' exceptons.
Don't even bring up 2004, that one was probably the worst example of the BCS getting it 'wrong'. USC & Oklahoma? I think Oklahoma showed in 2003 that they don't always play to win.
Nevertheless it's possible, likely even, USC was the best team that year.
That being said, I'm not going to give plaudits to the BCS, for getting it 'right' every other year.

User avatar
Spence
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 20970
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 11:52 pm
Location: Chillicothe, Ohio (Ohio's First Capital)
Contact:

Postby Spence » Fri Apr 21, 2006 7:10 pm

But no, it wasn't a legitimate national championship game.


There has never been a legitimate national championship game, ever. They call it the mythical national champion for a reason. At least football is truthful about it. Basketball claims a national champion based on flawed pairings and they don't call it mythical.
"History doesn't always repeat itself but it often rhymes." - Mark Twain

User avatar
Eric
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 10287
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2005 1:51 am

Postby Eric » Fri Apr 21, 2006 11:20 pm

Obviously David and I don't think so.....

I have a strong conviction that LSU and OU were the 2 best teams in the country. But, that's just my opinion.

Hey, TCU doesn't deserve a BCS bid, ask anybody............
Running bowl/MSU/OSU record '05-present: 11-32

User avatar
Eric
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 10287
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2005 1:51 am

Postby Eric » Sat Apr 22, 2006 11:39 am

Oh, no, that's alright, maybe conviction wasn't the best word to use. I do believe that LSU and Oklahoma were the two best teams but I'm not saying they were head and shoulders above USC.

I was just holding CLF to the same standard that he was holding me to. It's ok to disagree. Is it alright for him to believe that TCU was BCS worthy but to tell me that my belief of LSU and OU being the 2 best teams in the country not valid? That's all I was trying to say.
Running bowl/MSU/OSU record '05-present: 11-32

colorado_loves_football

Postby colorado_loves_football » Sat Apr 22, 2006 12:55 pm

Eric wrote:Obviously David and I don't think so.....

I have a strong conviction that LSU and OU were the 2 best teams in the country. But, that's just my opinion.

Hey, TCU doesn't deserve a BCS bid, ask anybody............


I understand that, but I'd be interested in learning what line of reasoning leads you both to that conclusion.

LSU beat Oklahoma, to 'win' the BCS title. USC beat Michigan to 'win' the AP title. That's a 'split' no matter how you look at it, nearly identical to how several teams (Michigan & Nebraska) shared it, through the years.

I suppose it's possible LSU beats USC, but since that game wasn't scheduled, it's something of an assumption on both your parts.

Incicentally, neither team was 'perfect'. Isn't that the prerequisite to being selected as a 'national champion'?

I'm asking because that's what Texas had to do. That's what USC had to do, 2004. There's a double standard being applied, unfortunately. No team that goes through the year with a loss deserves 'unanimous' anything, in my book. But, it's possible LSU was the best team in the country that year, without a playoff that is something of a 'guess' either way.

ktffan
Head Coach
Head Coach
Posts: 1054
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 3:51 pm
Contact:

Postby ktffan » Sat Apr 22, 2006 4:51 pm

David wrote:
you are flat out wrong, LSU did share the national title with USC.
Ask anybody.


All of the teams knew that there was to be one of the BCS bowls designated as the national championship game and that game was the Sugar Bowl that particular year.


All the teams knew that the winner of the AP poll would be considered the national champion. USC won it and is universally considered a co-champion with LSU.

colorado_loves_football

Postby colorado_loves_football » Sat Apr 22, 2006 5:49 pm

ktffan wrote:
All the teams knew that the winner of the AP poll would be considered the national champion. USC won it and is universally considered a co-champion with LSU.


And that's part of the reason why the BCS needs to include a 'playoff' so that won't happen again. Co-national championships maybe are ok, if you are a 'traditionalist'. They have been a part of the collegiate landscape for a long time, but I'm a pragmatist, I like having one team, alone, at the top, at the end of the year.

Thank you, however for siding w/ me on this one particular point. The AP is, and likely will continue to be recogized as an 'official' national championship, separate from the BCS.

mountainman

Postby mountainman » Sat Apr 22, 2006 6:22 pm

Oh, yea ...... you're pragmatic :?: :?: :?: .... you may be pragmatic at your own convenience ... try applying your pragmatism to the SMU loss and a couple of overtime games. :lol:

The gap between major and mid-major play in college football is growing not shrinking. There is on occasion a mid-major team that manages to be somewhat better than the rest, but as a whole the gap is growing. And that is a pragmatic truth. :lol:

billybud
Athletic Director
Athletic Director
Posts: 10727
Joined: Wed Apr 12, 2006 12:25 pm

Postby billybud » Sat Apr 22, 2006 6:26 pm

Football in 100 years, has never officially declared a national champ...the NCAA still doesn't...AP does, BCS does...so do about a dozen other sources have or still declare a national champ....Is BCS a more valid declarer than AP? AP and BCS, Coach's, etc can declare NC's and any team so declared has the right to claim the title..since the NC is mythical and not "owned" by any organization. I myself, put more value in the AP because of the long history and tradition.

American's love a #1...they want to declare an unequivacal winner...and younger folks more than some of us older traditionalists... maybe that's why, after watching a lifetime of football, I have to get used to the fact that there are no longer ties. In a way, the tie breaker methodology distorts what really occurred on the field. Two teams were equally matched and played to a tie...that's the occurrance..the forced win distorts that into having a winner and loser decided by very specific conditions that may never occur in a game.....

I liked ties because they were a more honest depiction of the contest.

User avatar
Derek
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 6002
Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2005 2:04 am
Location: Brooks, GA
Contact:

Postby Derek » Sat Apr 22, 2006 6:34 pm

ktffan wrote:
David wrote:
you are flat out wrong, LSU did share the national title with USC.
Ask anybody.


All of the teams knew that there was to be one of the BCS bowls designated as the national championship game and that game was the Sugar Bowl that particular year.


All the teams knew that the winner of the AP poll would be considered the national champion. USC won it and is universally considered a co-champion with LSU.


Wrong. I've talked about this before...You DONT accept the BCS as a valid system because you agree with what it did for your team.

So in 2003 the BCS was wrong and they have to share the title. In 2004, the BCS "got it right".....WRONG.

We cannot allow the BCS and the other polls to slip into anarchy...

The AP should be ashamed of itself, and they did the right thing when they packed their bags and went home crying to their momma's.
They’re either going to run the ball here or their going to pass it.

The fewer rules a coach has, the fewer rules there are for players to break.

See, well ya see, the thing is, he should have caught that ball. But the ball is bigger than his hands.

- John Madden

ktffan
Head Coach
Head Coach
Posts: 1054
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 3:51 pm
Contact:

Postby ktffan » Sat Apr 22, 2006 7:32 pm

Derek wrote:
ktffan wrote:
David wrote:
you are flat out wrong, LSU did share the national title with USC.
Ask anybody.


All of the teams knew that there was to be one of the BCS bowls designated as the national championship game and that game was the Sugar Bowl that particular year.


All the teams knew that the winner of the AP poll would be considered the national champion. USC won it and is universally considered a co-champion with LSU.


Wrong. I've talked about this before...You DONT accept the BCS as a valid system because you agree with what it did for your team.

So in 2003 the BCS was wrong and they have to share the title. In 2004, the BCS "got it right".....WRONG.


Please don't be a COMPLETE idiot. I ever said the BCS got it right in 2004. In fact, I don't care. The AP and the AFCA polls will be accepted THE championship organizations until the NCAA decides to legimatizes the titles. Denying that is pointless and stupid.

User avatar
Derek
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 6002
Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2005 2:04 am
Location: Brooks, GA
Contact:

Postby Derek » Sat Apr 22, 2006 7:37 pm

The polls will be legitmized when they are:

#1 Thrown out all together. They are biased, and penalize more for late season losses.

#2 Form a playoff system of some kind. That does not include any human polls.

Until this happens, there will always be these questions. There will always be fighting becuase some team "got robbed".
They’re either going to run the ball here or their going to pass it.

The fewer rules a coach has, the fewer rules there are for players to break.

See, well ya see, the thing is, he should have caught that ball. But the ball is bigger than his hands.

- John Madden

ktffan
Head Coach
Head Coach
Posts: 1054
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 3:51 pm
Contact:

Postby ktffan » Sat Apr 22, 2006 9:40 pm

David wrote:I don't accept the BCS as a valid system because of what it did for my team. I accept the BCS as THE system because thats what was decided the system would be.


That's not what the BCS was set up for. The Coalition, Alliance and the BCS were all set up so that the bowl alliances would not get in the way of having a #1 and a #2. The BCS never gave out it's own title. In order to legitimize it's self it rented out one of the two wire service polls because it sought to use the system in place. It never tried to replace the wire service polls and it's been known from day one that a day would come when there was a split title again.
Last edited by ktffan on Sun Apr 23, 2006 1:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Eric
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 10287
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2005 1:51 am

Postby Eric » Sun Apr 23, 2006 12:10 pm

You're right on #1 about legitimate polls. The late season losses to count more than early ones, but the whole point of the BCS is to look at it unbiased; it's a computer. It accounts late season losses equivilently to earlier ones. That's the way that should be. I'm probably in the minority, but I like the BCS.

Then again, I tend not to care so much about big-time football as I do smaller-time matchups. I see:

"Florida State and Penn State, such a great matchup."

And then I think, "well, so is Akron and Memphis!"
Running bowl/MSU/OSU record '05-present: 11-32

User avatar
Spence
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 20970
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 11:52 pm
Location: Chillicothe, Ohio (Ohio's First Capital)
Contact:

Postby Spence » Sun Apr 23, 2006 1:41 pm

Eric wrote:You're right on #1 about legitimate polls. The late season losses to count more than early ones, but the whole point of the BCS is to look at it unbiased; it's a computer. It accounts late season losses equivilently to earlier ones. That's the way that should be. I'm probably in the minority, but I like the BCS.

Then again, I tend not to care so much about big-time football as I do smaller-time matchups. I see:

"Florida State and Penn State, such a great matchup."

And then I think, "well, so is Akron and Memphis!"


Late wins don't always hurt you. Oklahoma lost to K-State in the conference championship and still made it to the national championship game. You can argue whether they should have, but I think that it depends on who beats you. If USC would have lost to Fresna State last year it would have hurt them worse then Ohio State got hurt losing to Penn State. On the other hand, Ohio State losing to Penn State made it next to impossible for the Buckeyes to leap frog the nits. It has to do with who you lose to and how you lose to them.
"History doesn't always repeat itself but it often rhymes." - Mark Twain


Return to “General Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 69 guests