2011 College Football Part II: Bowls, The Rematch, and Recruiting >Tebow

[ExileOnDaytonStreet]

Re: 2011 College Football Part II: Bowls, The Rematch, and Recruiting >Tebow

The +1 coming out now is hilariously awesome to me. As butt-farkingly awful as the ACC has been, at least they were with the SEC in suggesting this back in 2008. Too bad it took the SEC taking *both* title slots and for every bowl, including the mighty Rose, to fail to break a 10 in TV ratings (because we all figured out that the games are meaningless) for Delany to get the ironwood out of his *** and finally support it after rallying to kill it four years ago.

At this point, I know it's the right thing to do- but I'm still going to hate to see the Rose Bowl become just another bowl game with no conference ties. At that point, there will truly not be a bowl game that I actually give a **** about, because Lord knows Wisconsin is never going to get to a national title game.

 

[Spartanforlife4]

Re: 2011 College Football Part II: Bowls, The Rematch, and Recruiting >Tebow

What a shambolic system that two teams can play twice, split the series, and somehow one is national champion.

Bama won on aggregate scoring.

Well, MSU best be gettin' to a Rose Bowl in the next two years. If the Rose Bowl changes formats before I get to see MSU play in one I will not be a happy camper.

 

[bronconick]

Re: 2011 College Football Part II: Bowls, The Rematch, and Recruiting >Tebow

At this point, I know it's the right thing to do- but I'm still going to hate to see the Rose Bowl become just another bowl game with no conference ties. At that point, there will truly not be a bowl game that I actually give a **** about, because Lord knows Wisconsin is never going to get to a national title game.

Oh, the "most likely choice" one is the "old" bowl system followed by one more vote/BCS ranking then a game two weeks after New Year's. So the Rose Bowl would still get their choice matchups, it just weakens a top 2-3 team's chance to play in the title game if they're playing #14 while #3 plays 4 and 1 plays 5.

 

[Almington]

Oh, the "most likely choice" one is the "old" bowl system followed by one more vote/BCS ranking then a game two weeks after New Year's. So the Rose Bowl would still get their choice matchups, it just weakens a top 2-3 team's chance to play in the title game if they're playing #14 while #3 plays 4 and 1 plays 5.

Any plus one system that doesn't have 1 play 4 and 2 play 3 is no better than the system that we have now.

Basically I see it as the bowl with the existing tie-in with #1 gets to hold the first semi 1 vs 4 and the bowl with the #2 team gets to host the second semi.

The champ game rotates between the 4 bowl locations an all auto bids and other selections are left up to the individual bowls. All FBS conferences get X amount per year for agreeing to this arraignment and $Y for each team that participates in a game.

 

[French Rage]

Re: 2011 College Football Part II: Bowls, The Rematch, and Recruiting >Tebow

Oh, the "most likely choice" one is the "old" bowl system followed by one more vote/BCS ranking then a game two weeks after New Year's. So the Rose Bowl would still get their choice matchups, it just weakens a top 2-3 team's chance to play in the title game if they're playing #14 while #3 plays 4 and 1 plays 5.

I know how that would have gone this year: "Now that LSU and Alabama have split their series, we need a third game to break the tie!!!"

 

[Priceless]

Re: 2011 College Football Part II: Bowls, The Rematch, and Recruiting >Tebow

#1 LSU would be in the Sugar Bowl against #7 Boise State, #2 Alabama would either be in the Cotton or the Fiesta Bowl, #3 Oklahoma State would be in the Orange Bowl as the Big 8/12/12-? Champ and #4 Stanford would still be in the Rose Bowl. Imagine the chaos if all 4 teams lost...

 

[alfablue]

Re: 2011 College Football Part II: Bowls, The Rematch, and Recruiting >Tebow

#1 LSU would be in the Sugar Bowl against #7 Boise State, #2 Alabama would either be in the Cotton or the Fiesta Bowl, #3 Oklahoma State would be in the Orange Bowl as the Big 8/12/12-? Champ and #4 Stanford would still be in the Rose Bowl. Imagine the chaos if all 4 teams lost...

Couple of problems with that. Stanford didn't qualify for the Rose Bowl- didn't win their conference. Boise didn't get a BCS at all- didn't win their conference. Alabama should not have been since they didn't even win their divisions.

IMHO, winning your conference should be a big deal for getting a shot at a national championship when the number of available slots are < number of conferences.

(I'll just write a short sentance about the ability to just win the division you are in....)

 

[Priceless]

Re: 2011 College Football Part II: Bowls, The Rematch, and Recruiting >Tebow

Couple of problems with that. Stanford didn't qualify for the Rose Bowl- didn't win their conference. Boise didn't get a BCS at all- didn't win their conference. Alabama should not have been since they didn't even win their divisions.

IMHO, winning your conference should be a big deal for getting a shot at a national championship when the number of available slots are < number of conferences.

(I'll just write a short sentance about the ability to just win the division you are in....)

I forgot that the Rose Bowl was #5 Oregon...#4 Stanford went to the Fiesta... Shows how much I care anymore.

So Stanford would be stuck in whatever bowl the Pac-10 second place team went to (forget UCLA). As far as Boise not getting a BCS, the Sugar Bowl usually matched up the SEC Champ with a highly-ranked Independent (Penn State, Notre Dame, Miami, Florida State etc) so Boise would probably go as the highest-ranked "Indy". Otherwise, the Sugar would be stuck pairing #1 LSU with some schmo barely ranked in the top 25.

Bottom line: the "old" system would not be any better than this one.

 

[Kepler]

Re: 2011 College Football Part II: Bowls, The Rematch, and Recruiting >Tebow

The playoff was the networks' plan all along, but they needed to ruin the tradition of the bowls first. By creating an interim stage to destroy the conference affiliation of the bowls, they accomplished that. So now they'll have what they want, and D-1 football will be just as grey and boring as everything else. Whoopee.

 

[Biddco]

Re: 2011 College Football Part II: Bowls, The Rematch, and Recruiting >Tebow

I forgot that the Rose Bowl was #5 Oregon...#4 Stanford went to the Fiesta... Shows how much I care anymore.

So Stanford would be stuck in whatever bowl the Pac-10 second place team went to (forget UCLA). As far as Boise not getting a BCS, the Sugar Bowl usually matched up the SEC Champ with a highly-ranked Independent (Penn State, Notre Dame, Miami, Florida State etc) so Boise would probably go as the highest-ranked "Indy". Otherwise, the Sugar would be stuck pairing #1 LSU with some schmo barely ranked in the top 25.

Bottom line: the "old" system would not be any better than this one.

Even if the new system is much "Better". It could lead to an expanded playoff down the road.

 

[pgb-ohio]

Re: 2011 College Football Part II: Bowls, The Rematch, and Recruiting >Tebow

IMHO, winning your conference should be a big deal for getting a shot at a national championship when the number of available slots are < number of conferences.

Agree completely. If anything, I'd go farther. Extending your principle just a little: With six BCS conferences, I'd need at least an 8 team playoff before I'd allow any "wild card" teams into the field.

Many argue that the goal is to get the two "best" teams into the title game. I disagree. The better guiding principle, IMHO, is that teams that earn their berths on the field should compete for the title. If you don't win your conference, you didn't earn a berth.

What about 2011 Alabama? Does their victory last Monday validate their selection? I say no. I don't care if they're the greatest team in the history of college football. When they failed to qualify for the SEC title game, they should have been eliminated from national title consideration under the current two team format.

Conversely, suppose we had an 8 team playoff this year, with two legitimate wild card slots. No doubt the Crimson Tide would have received one of them. Had they won the tournament under those circumstances, they'd have my full support. As is, I'll always believe they shouldn't have been playing last Monday night.

Point: Admittedly the existence of independents and non-BCS conferences adds complexity to the conversation. But you don't even have to get to those subjects to explain why the BCS failed us in the 2011 season.

 

[JF_Gophers]

Re: 2011 College Football Part II: Bowls, The Rematch, and Recruiting >Tebow

You shouldn't have to win your conference title to get in the title game. That's nonsense to think that 2 teams from the same conference will never be better than the teams from other conferences.

To take it to the extreme (this is the internet afterall). If every conference champion was 7-5, and the Big Ten champ was 12-0, and 2nd place was 11-1 with a loss in the regular season to the champ, and the team that lost the title game was 10-2. Does the Big Ten only deserve 1 team in the title game discussion?

 

[alfablue]

Re: 2011 College Football Part II: Bowls, The Rematch, and Recruiting >Tebow

You shouldn't have to win your conference title to get in the title game. That's nonsense to think that 2 teams from the same conference will never be better than the teams from other conferences.

To take it to the extreme (this is the internet afterall). If every conference champion was 7-5, and the Big Ten champ was 12-0, and 2nd place was 11-1 with a loss in the regular season to the champ, and the team that lost the title game was 10-2. Does the Big Ten only deserve 1 team in the title game discussion?

If the B1G was a bad conference, outside of those two, and the rest conferences were good (but balanced), choosing the two from the same conference will never find out how good the other conferences were.

Assuming that there were more open slots than conference champions, then I agree that the rest of the best should get a chance.

But with slots less than champions, if you miss your chance to win the conference, tough. With this new fascination of opinions of who is the best, we totally have taken the conference championship, and that part of the regular season, off the meaningful part of a team. Terrible. This year, we will never know how well OSU would have fared against LSU. You *could* make the assumption that since they played close against stanford who lost to oregon who lost to lsu.... But it's a game, not a debate. Play the game. Should have been Okie state.

Winning your conference SHOULD mean something. Just as much as losing it should.

 

[JF_Gophers]

Re: 2011 College Football Part II: Bowls, The Rematch, and Recruiting >Tebow

If the B1G was a bad conference, outside of those two, and the rest conferences were good (but balanced), choosing the two from the same conference will never find out how good the other conferences were.

Assuming that there were more open slots than conference champions, then I agree that the rest of the best should get a chance.

But with slots less than champions, if you miss your chance to win the conference, tough. With this new fascination of opinions of who is the best, we totally have taken the conference championship, and that part of the regular season, off the meaningful part of a team. Terrible. This year, we will never know how well OSU would have fared against LSU. You *could* make the assumption that since they played close against stanford who lost to oregon who lost to lsu.... But it's a game, not a debate. Play the game. Should have been Okie state.

Winning your conference SHOULD mean something. Just as much as losing it should.

Except a) this won't be a 'true' playoff system, and b) coference sizes are all over the board and will probably become more so in the future as some go to 16.

If this was a straight 4, 8, 16, etc. team playoff system, then saying the conference winner gets in would be fine. Because true playoff systems don't attempt to find the best team.

But in whatever hybrid BCS+playoff system we have, it's still going to be about who are perceived as the 4, 6, or 8 best teams in the country. So winning the conference title game at the end of the season is not going to be an automatic qualifier. Especially in the case of the ACC and Big East who are the laughing stock of BCS conferences as far as reputation and on field performance.

 

[pgb-ohio]

Re: 2011 College Football Part II: Bowls, The Rematch, and Recruiting >Tebow

You shouldn't have to win your conference title to get in the title game. That's nonsense to think that 2 teams from the same conference will never be better than the teams from other conferences.

Either you didn't understand my post (possible) or the disagreement is so total you didn't feel the need to state your case. (more likely)

One more try: Who the best two teams are on paper simply isn't important to me. I'm genuinely puzzled as to why that's the bottom line for you and others. Be assured that I have no problem if the two favorites win their way into a title game. I also have no problem if a cinderella or two earns their way in. But philosophically I believe that teams need to win playoff berths on the field, not by winning the hearts and minds of poll voters.

No question the current system is hopelessly flawed. But for now, the regular season plus the conference title games are all we have. Most of us dream of a day when there's a real playoff in D-1 Football. But until that day arrives, it's best to use the actual competitions we do have to settle championships.

To take it to the extreme (this is the internet afterall). If every conference champion was 7-5, and the Big Ten champ was 12-0, and 2nd place was 11-1 with a loss in the regular season to the champ, and the team that lost the title game was 10-2. Does the Big Ten only deserve 1 team in the title game discussion?

Yes! Absolutely, positively yes. It's not even a hard question; your hypothetical doesn't move me at all. You can't buy me off just by making the Big 10 the beneficiary of the flawed process.

If we get a 16 team or even 8 team playoff system, deserving wild card teams should be included. But in a 2 team playoff (current system) or a 4 team playoff I see no reason to include wild card teams that failed to win their conference title.

I'm sure you still disagree and I realize that you're far from alone in your viewpoint. I do respect the sincerity of your position. But I'm puzzled by one more thing. You took a pass on Monday night's game, as did I. After the fact, I took the low TV ratings as an indication that many shared my opposition to the intraconference match-up. But presumably you got the match-up you wanted -- the two teams annointed best by the poll-dominated BCS formula. Your take?

 

[JF_Gophers]

Re: 2011 College Football Part II: Bowls, The Rematch, and Recruiting >Tebow

I'm sure you still disagree and I realize that you're far from alone in your viewpoint. I do respect the sincerity of your position. But I'm puzzled by one more thing. You took a pass on Monday night's game, as did I. After the fact, I took the low TV ratings as an indication that many shared my opposition to the intraconference match-up. But presumably you got the match-up you wanted -- the two teams annointed best by the poll-dominated BCS formula. Your take?

I don't disagree with the need for a playoff system. I am simply stating that since that is not what is going to happen with the next version of the BCS or whatever they decide to call it, that its an unreasonable expectation to require qualifers.

If/when there is a real playoff system, then I'm all in for having qualifier requirements like winning a conference. Until then its untenable.

Also, I am only interested in college football in the sense of being entertained or if the Gophers are doing well (re: never). So passing on the title game wasn't because I didn't believe it was the 2 best teams. It was because I expected it to be dull.

 

[bigblue_dl]

Re: 2011 College Football Part II: Bowls, The Rematch, and Recruiting >Tebow

I agree 100% with pgb-ohio. I don't care if they're the 2 best teams in the country, Alabama had their shot at LSU, they ****ed it up, they shouldn't have been given another chance when other teams hadn't had that chance yet. I refused to watch any of the bowl games this year because I was so disgusted with the way it played out. I enjoy college football, so if there was a system that wasn't complete bull****, I would definitely watch the games.

 

[French Rage]

Re: 2011 College Football Part II: Bowls, The Rematch, and Recruiting >Tebow

I agree 100% with pgb-ohio. I don't care if they're the 2 best teams in the country, Alabama had their shot at LSU, they ****ed it up, they shouldn't have been given another chance when other teams hadn't had that chance yet. I refused to watch any of the bowl games this year because I was so disgusted with the way it played out. I enjoy college football, so if there was a system that wasn't complete bull****, I would definitely watch the games.

This. If we're only allowed one round of bowl games, we have to make the most of them, and a rematch tells us squat. Maybe LSU and Alabama were the two best, but we already had seen who won head to head; an LSU/OSU matchup would have at least settled which of the two were better. And if someone were to respond that we saw from the rematch that Alabama was better, well what if they played a third time and LSU won that one? Since apparently one matchup is not good enough to decide who's better, why is two magically correct? At what point do we say that the teams have played and we know the better team is?

 

[Priceless]

Re: 2011 College Football Part II: Bowls, The Rematch, and Recruiting >Tebow

This. If we're only allowed one round of bowl games, we have to make the most of them, and a rematch tells us squat. Maybe LSU and Alabama were the two best, but we already had seen who won head to head; an LSU/OSU matchup would have at least settled which of the two were better. And if someone were to respond that we saw from the rematch that Alabama was better, well what if they played a third time and LSU won that one? Since apparently one matchup is not good enough to decide who's better, why is two magically correct? At what point do we say that the teams have played and we know the better team is?

Best of seven.

 

[pgb-ohio]

Re: 2011 College Football Part II: Bowls, The Rematch, and Recruiting >Tebow

I don't disagree with the need for a playoff system. I am simply stating that since that is not what is going to happen with the next version of the BCS or whatever they decide to call it, that its an unreasonable expectation to require qualifers.

If/when there is a real playoff system, then I'm all in for having qualifier requirements like winning a conference.

Appreciate the reply. But with all due respect, you've got it exactly backwards. If we ever get a real 16 team playoff, it will be far less necessary to protect the conference champs. The vast majority of the legitimate title contenders will make it into the field either way. The statistical calculations -- even with the polls as a component -- would primarily be used for seeding, not for keeping teams off the field. That's as it should be. That's essentially how the NCAA Hockey tournament operates, and it works out pretty well for us.

Until then its untenable.

Not at all. Limiting current title game to conference champs does fly in the face of the "two best teams on paper" philosophy, but that's it. The proposed rule is very straightforward, and could be implemented with the stroke of a pen.

Also, I am only interested in college football in the sense of being entertained or if the Gophers are doing well (re: never). So passing on the title game wasn't because I didn't believe it was the 2 best teams. It was because I expected it to be dull.

We reached the same decision, but for drastically different reasons. And they say that politics makes for strange bedfellows. For my part, I don't have a problem with immovable object vs. immovable object games. They might not be my first choice. But if a legitimate system gave us a match-up of two great defenses, I'd be glad to tune in.