Call me crazy, but I actually liked the OLD Bowl system better in college football!

In My Humble Opinion
1

I was watching the Rose Bowl today and how stupid is this?

The #6 team plays the #7 team for the right to be . . SIXTH? This is almost as dumb as the NIT.

This BCS system, while a good attempt to settle the debate as to who is #1, is completely a joke once you get past the Fiesta Bowl.

What if we were to take the NFL, and let’s do this in the postseason:

SUPERBOWL:
PHILADELPHIA V TAMPA BAY

THIRD PLACE GAME:
GREEN BAY V OAKLAND

FIFTH PLACE GAME
SAN FRANCISCO V . . I guess the Titans? Whatever, but wouldn’t that suck?

That would be ridiculous, yet that seems to be what the Bowl system is now.

I actually enjoyed the old days when half the time there was controversy as to who is #1.

If you were lucky, you’d sometimes have 2-3 Bowl games with “National Championship implications”. Now, all the Bowl games but one are rendered meaningless. I mean the Rose Bowl featuring a Pac 10 v a Big 12 team? SACRILEGE! That is not the Rose Bowl; that is GARBAGE. I want Pac-10 v Big 10!

This is not another useless cry for a playoff system. If I hear one more analyst say “this shows the need for a playoff system in Division I football”, I’ll puke because it will never happen because these Bowls pay out too much money, and I’ve heard that mantra for 20 years.

How about this though . . .

Go back to the old system. If after the Bowls, lets say the #2 team ends up ranked #1, and the #3 team #2, and while because of an upset, the team that WAS #1 gets bumped down.

Can’t we have ONE playoff game between the NEW 1 and 2 teams? Sign a contract with a major sponsor who will be responsible as a retainer for putting up $20-30 million in prize money if that ever happens, and I’m sure you could find an open football field not being used in the middle of January to hold it.

I can see it now:

“Microsoft Controversy Bowl” :slight_smile:

2

I’m with you. I loved the old tradition, especially with the Rose Bowl always pitting the Big 10 and Pac-10 champs. Oklahoma shouldn’t have been in the Rose Bowl! It’s an affront to nature. Same with the Miami situation last year. All for nothing, as I don’t distrust the BCS system to properly put people in their proper ranking for use to determine the national championship. USC, Georgia or Iowa might be much better than Ohio State and deserve a shot at Miami. But they never even get to play them. Plus, look at all the upsets…Auburn over Penn, NC State over Notre Dame, even Oklahoma over Washington State (even though that wasn’t much of an upset). Shows just how bizarre and inadequate these rankings can be.

But if we have to have this bizarre #1 vs #2 fetish going on, I like my playoff proposal as a nice compromise.

3

Me, too! I liked seeing OU win another game, but it seems so meaningless. To us fans anyways. The schools get lots of money.

4

Naah. I want a WAC, MAAC or SWAC, or Big Sky team to play in the Rose Bowl, not these pretenders from these pretend divisions.

5

Playoffs in college?You gotta be kidding.These are student athletes!Today while watching one of them somebody’s star 6’190 lb. tailback was shown as a real estate management major.

You want him to fail because of poor grades from class non atttendance and miss out on his dream career as a super?

Do you think the Fridge would be heading his own 4 man (his brother and him,along with 2 day laborers) construction company,if he didn’t hit the books back at old Clemson U?

No sir,these kids need the chance to pursue their educations.

6

Can someone explain the difference?

7

Lure, every single other level of college football has a playoff system. Div I-AA, Div II, Div III, they all have playoffs and an eventual champion. It is only Div I-A that doesn’t. I can understand Big 10 and Pac 10 fans liking the Rose Bowl, but wouldn’t a 16 team playoff generate a LOT more interest from the public in general?

I liken it to college basketball, where the end of year tournament is a month long event that draws enormous fan interest. The average college game doesn’t even make it to network TV, but vast numbers of fans get interested in March Madness.

8

I think Lure was being sarcastic…

9

Darn it! I’ve been whooshed! It was just close enough to some real arguments I’ve heard to fly by me untouched.

10

Moderator’s Note: Moving to IMHO.

11

You’re crazy.

[size=8]Actually, I know nothing about football…but you *did *say to call you crazy, and I was simply complying.[/size=8

12

I agree wholeheartedly, Vinnie. It’s silly to expound on creating a national champion, which the current BCS claims to achieve, when there’s no playoff system in place to justify such claims. Like you, I liked it better when there was less concern about ‘THE national champion’ and more focus on the validation achieved by winning a bowl.
But my main problems with the whole situation boil down to

  1. there are too damn many bowls; teams that end the season one game above .500 have no business playing in a bowl. Bowls would mean something if there were just a few, say, a half dozen at most.
  2. the bowls should have normal names and not corporate names. I hate the whole corporatization concept: it sounds stupid and it takes the focus away from the game and taints the whole ‘amateur’ smell of the events. Yes, I know it brings in big money, but I don’t care. Give me Cotton, Rose, Bluebonnet, Orange, Sugar. Some things just shouldn’t be for sale. Sooner or later we’re going to have the ‘Depends Undergarments Bowl’ or the ‘Preparation H Bowl’ or the ‘Kotex Maxipad Bowl’. When that happens, I hope we’ll realize how far we’ve sunk.
13

Let me give you another example. How about if we had Philly vs. Oakland, San Fran vs. Green Bay, and Tennesee vs. Philadelphia? Each team plays one game, and based on their relative performances, we guess at who would have won had they all played each other.

You’re actually saying that would be better?

I honestly see no advantage to the old bowl system. At least now we’ve got some outstanding matchups straight down the line. You’re complaining about #6 vs. #7, but you’re advocating #3 vs. #10? How is that an improvement? And how would it be better if we had undefeated Ohio State (#2) playing USC (overrated at #5), and undefeated Miami (#1) playing Oklahoma (#8 - please note that #3 Iowa, #4 Georgia, and #6 K.State have been skipped because they wouldn’t bring in enough fans).

Are you advocating the bowl system because of history? Blah, Blah, Blah. The Bowls still have their historical luster regardless of which teams are playing in them. I’m a little baffled by the attraction of a matchup – not between teams – between conferences. And really, the Rose Bowl is the only bowl that people have that feeling about. If the fans are really attached to the matchup of Pac-10 vs. Big 10, then they should make it a regular post-season fixture. Neither the Pac-10 nor the Big 10 have a conference championship right now – so how about a one game “Super-Conference” Championship between the Pac-10 and the Big-10? A mini-Rose Bowl? I’m sure they’d have no problems finding a sponsor.

Personally, I prefer watching the best teams in the country play each other. I’d love a playoff to determine a national champion on the field, but the real attraction of a playoff is that 1) limits the inherent injustices of the old system; and 2) you get great matchups in the premier bowls. And to me, great football games are what bowl season is all about.

14

I think the Rose Bowl’s problem this year wasn’t that Oklahoma was playing in it, but rather that the WSU fans weren’t all that thrilled with it after Price announced he was leaving for Alabama, but not until AFTER the Rose Bowl.

The fans from the Palouse felt slighted and rightfully so. And they had to put up with the fact that most of the SoCal media wanted USC playing in the game.

It’s not unlike WSU’s last trip to the Rose Bowl, 1998. That year, WSU tied with UCLA atop the Pac-10, but got the spot because they had beated UCLA in the first game of the season. But most people thought that UCLA was the better team throughout that season.

The Rose Bowl is hoping that the Big 10 champ next year is good, but not great. And preferably hasn’t played out in Pasadena in a while. Hmm… Who would be a likely candidate for that? Indiana? Not in this lifetime.
Iowa? The Tournament of Roses would salivate over that team.

The Oklahoma fans turned out in large numbers.

15

I agree with ** Age Quod Agis**. The BCS isn’t perfect, but it has been delivering very good bowl matchups.

There have been several years like this one, when the two most deserving teams are matched for the championship. This didn’t happen that often under the non-system that existed before the BCS.

16

What good matchups? Look at how off the seedings have been. The BCS system has constantly put unworthy teams into the National Championship game. Miami was snubbed two years ago. Last year an undeserving Nebraska team was sent. Two years ago Miami was snubbed. This is the first year that they got it sort of right, but only because they had no choice. And, quite frankly, I think that the best game this season will end up being the Michigan-Florida game, with an undeserving Ohio State getting rolled over by Miami.

If you are going to have a national championship, do away with this farce and have a playoff. Otherwise, the old system was better and delivered plenty of great matchups.

17

Neurotik, people can complain about the BCS formula and which teams have played in the national championship game, but I still don’t see how the BCS is worse than the old system. There often wasn’t even an attempt to get the #1 and #2 teams to play. At least under the BCS, the teams playing in the national championship are arguably the two most deserving in the country. But you do make a strong argument in favor of a playoff.

I also wanted to point out how silly I look for calling USC “overrated at #5.” These words that I’m eating taste bitter.

18

Let’s look at the matchups we would’ve had under the pre-BCS arrangement:

Rose: Big 10 Champ vs. Pac 10 champ. - Ohio State vs. Washington St.

Sugar: SEC vs. At large: Georgia vs Notre Dame

Orange: Big 12 Champ vs. At large (from the state of Florida if at all feasible): Oklahoma vs. Miami

Fiesta: At large vs. At large: Southern California vs. Iowa

Cotton: At large (best team from Texas if available) vs. At large: Texas vs. Florida State.

If Ohio St. and Miami both would’ve won their game, there’s a split championship, which isn’t at all bad. If only one wins, there’s an undisputed champ. If both lose, all hell would break loose.

Personally, I liked the old pre-BCS format because it made every January 1 bowl game interesting. New Year’s day meant a day long college football extravaganza. Now, the only games that pique my interest are the championship game and the game my team (ND) is playing in.

19

No offense there, PatrickM, but I don’t think Notre Dame would make the Sugar Bowl in the pre-BCS.

AndAge Quod Agis, my point is that if you are going to make this National Champion thing really important, then you need a playoff system. I’d rather see the old system that made no pretense at determining a National Champ than this sham of a system.

As for USC vs Iowa, you could always say that USC was overrated, but Iowa was overrated more. Which is my conclusion after watching that game. It looked like Iowa just sort of gave up, which was a shame since I now look like a fool because I predicted the Orange Bowl would be the best bowl of the week.

20

No offense taken, Neurotik, and admitting that I’m prejudiced - and admitting that this is a silly rhetorical argument - however a 10-2 Notre Dame team would’ve been snapped up in a second by the Sugar Bowl in the pre-BCS days. Remember that bowl committees exist to get a game that’ll get good ratings and that’ll bring lots of big spending fans to the host city. Notre Dame was a top 10 team that easily meets that criteria. Heck, there’s many UGA fans that’ll watch the game just to root against the Irish.