What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

College Football 2009: Bowl College Stupidity Rankings

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: College Football 2009: Bowl College Stupidity Rankings

French Rage said:
Reposting to reflect new running defense rankings:

For craps and giggles, comparing Gerhart and Ingram against the top 50 run defenses they played (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/fo...team/rushing_defense_byRUSHYDS_PER_GAME.html).

Ingram faced 2 - Florida at #14 with 113 yards and 3 TD and LSU at #44 with 144 yards and 0 TD.

Gerhart faced 6 - ASU at #18 with 125 yards and 1 TD, Arizona at #22 with 123 yards and 2 TDs, OSU at #25 with 96 yards and 2 TDs, Cal at #27 with 136 yards and 4 TDs, Oregon at #38 with 223 yards and 3 TDs, and USC at #42 with 178 yards and 3 TDs.

Ingram averaged 128 yards and 1.5 TDs against 2 teams, while Gerhart averaged 147 yards and 2.5 TDs, and this again is against top running defenses, with Gerhart facing 3 times as many.
Click to expand...
So what you're saying is that most Pac-10 teams can't/don't run the ball so the whole league looks great on run defense? :D
 
Re: College Football 2009: Bowl College Stupidity Rankings

Slap Shot said:
If BSU and TCU are the two best teams after UT and Alabama (according to the BCS) why is it a travaschmockery for them to play each other? Not having a playoff system bites but talk about manufacturing reasons to beyotch.
Click to expand...

According to the BCS they aren't the next 2 best teams. So that is the travaschmockery. TCU is #4, and Boise is #6.
 
Re: College Football 2009: Bowl College Stupidity Rankings

JF_Gophers said:
According to the BCS they aren't the next 2 best teams. So that is the travaschmockery. TCU is #4, and Boise is #6.
Click to expand...
In Men's WCHA, #5 vs. #6 is a first round playoff match-up. Is that also a "travaschmockery?":confused: My thought would be that it's likely to be the best first round series in a normal year.

Comparing the BCS to a genuine playoff makes for an imperfect analogy, of course. But if we actually were having a D-1 playoff, TCU/Boise might be a acceptable first round match-up. The real reason this pairing is disappointing is that the two cinderella teams play each other, and there's no second round game to look forward to.
 
Re: College Football 2009: Bowl College Stupidity Rankings

BoomGoestheDynamite said:
I think the short answer is that a lot of people invested in the current system wouldn't make $$$$ under the new one. That and there are a few people out there who swallow the BS about "every game is a playoff" and "playoffs would wreck the student-athlete experience".
Click to expand...

I haven't heard anybody say "playoffs would wreck the student-athlete experience", and I haven't heard enough people say college football used to be unique and interesting, and to turn it into another media dog food factory would be sad and pathetic.

Playoffs are for when you run out of better alternatives. The traditional bowls used to be a far better alternative.
 
Re: College Football 2009: Bowl College Stupidity Rankings

Kepler said:
Playoffs are for when you run out of better alternatives.
Click to expand...

Playoffs are for when you want a real champion. College football obviously doesn't want a real champion.
 
Re: College Football 2009: Bowl College Stupidity Rankings

Dirty said:
Playoffs are for when you want a real champion. College football obviously doesn't want a real champion.
Click to expand...

Strikeouts are boring. Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls.
 
Re: College Football 2009: Bowl College Stupidity Rankings

Dirty said:
Playoffs are for when you want a real champion. College football obviously doesn't want a real champion.
Click to expand...

Absolutely.

You haven't heard the argument that those poor student athletes just can't bear to be dragged away from their studies for an additional 1 or 2 games over when most schools have holiday breaks?

And the good old days involved backroom deals between bowl comittees and traditional/well connected powers where the matchups were determined by the end of October. I'll pass on reminiscing fondly about such a system. But then again you're a Notre Dame fan as I recall, so our teams would've fared differently when the Blue Bonnet bowl needed to fill seats in Dallas in January.
 
Last edited:
Re: College Football 2009: Bowl College Stupidity Rankings

Slap Shot said:
If BSU and TCU are the two best teams after UT and Alabama (according to the BCS) why is it a travaschmockery for them to play each other? Not having a playoff system bites but talk about manufacturing reasons to beyotch.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but at least with the BSU-TCU matchup, the winner of that game would have a ligit shot at perhaps splitting the National Championship. If you had TCU, BSU, and Cincy all going undefeated in their bowls, they would split the votes more among themselves, ruining any chance they would have of overcoming the Texas-Alabama winner.

pgb-ohio said:
In Men's WCHA, #5 vs. #6 is a first round playoff match-up. Is that also a "travaschmockery?":confused: My thought would be that it's likely to be the best first round series in a normal year.

Comparing the BCS to a genuine playoff makes for an imperfect analogy, of course. But if we actually were having a D-1 playoff, TCU/Boise might be a acceptable first round match-up. The real reason this pairing is disappointing is that the two cinderella teams play each other, and there's no second round game to look forward to.
Click to expand...
Thats true.

BoomGoestheDynamite said:
Absolutely.

You haven't heard the argument that those poor student athletes just can't bear to be dragged away from their studies for an additional 1 or 2 games over when most schools have holiday breaks?

And the good old days involved backroom deals between bowl comittees and traditional/well connected powers where the matchups were determined by the end of October. I'll pass on reminiscing fondly about such a system. But then again you're a Notre Dame fan as I recall, so our teams would've fared differently when the Blue Bonnet bowl needed to fill seats in Dallas in January.
Click to expand...
Again, D1-AA, D2, D3, the NAIA, and Juco all have playoffs, and those schools are usually a little more committed at turning their student athletes into graduates than at Big Deal State U. Those players have all made it thru the championship game just fine. I'm sure the professors at Texas and Alabama that teach Underwater Basketweaving 101 would be more than fine with letting the football team take their finals early in the week so that they can get them out of the way.
 
Re: College Football 2009: Bowl College Stupidity Rankings

USA Today Points to Ponder

Love #13 where he makes it look like Notre Dame got snubbed. We all know why they didn't make a bowl game dinglenuts, because they didn't want to.
 
Re: College Football 2009: Bowl College Stupidity Rankings

When DI-A and DI-AA were renamed

- football bowl subdivision (FBS)
- football championship subdivision (FCS)

you knew the bowls weren't going anywhere.
 
Re: College Football 2009: Bowl College Stupidity Rankings

LynahFan said:
So what you're saying is that most Pac-10 teams can't/don't run the ball so the whole league looks great on run defense? :D
Click to expand...

Man, the SEC run defenses must give up a lot on those ~3 more run plays they face per game. :)
 
Re: College Football 2009: Bowl College Stupidity Rankings

bueller said:
USA Today Points to Ponder

Love #13 where he makes it look like Notre Dame got snubbed. We all know why they didn't make a bowl game dinglenuts, because they didn't want to.
Click to expand...
Snubbed? He made it sound like it's a surprise two historically good teams that started out really well somehow managed to bungle getting into one of the myriad of bowl games.
 
Re: College Football 2009: Bowl College Stupidity Rankings

The Paragon of Virtue said:
Snubbed? He made it sound like it's a surprise two historically good teams that started out really well somehow managed to bungle getting into one of the myriad of bowl games.
Click to expand...

Notre Dame didn't bungle. They turned their prospective bid down.

And now with Clausen and Tate leaving their chances next year are going down fast.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top