Go Dawgs!!! This is their year.
:::yes, I am an SIU alum, why do you ask
I don’t understand this statement, since you then go on to describe a perfectly workable playoff system, which is fairly close to what I’ve thought about for some time …
See, when I think of people who don’t want a playoff system, I think of crap like this article on msnbc.
Nope, they scrapped that a year ago. Now they use the Plus-1 system with a dedicated Championship game in addition to the 4 bowls. Though the site does still rotate to the same 4 venues, and my system wouldn’t change that.
I said it was a compromise. I’d prefer to go back to the way things were in 1988, but I’m the minority. Most playoff honks want the top 16 teams to play a tourney after the bowls or in lieu of the bowls, usually “appeasing” them by labeling some LSU v. Va Tech Semi Final game as the “Rose” Bowl. That’s anathema to me. Especially since a “top 16 teams” scenario would just end up shoe-horning 5 SEC teams into the bracket based on the silly strong conference rationale. At that point, why play the regular season at all.
Every other level of football has a tournament, and every other NCAA sport at every level has a tounament. Pulling four or eight teams out of the normal bowls wouldn’t hurt, and in fact would enable more teams to go to bowls. We already end up with a few .500 teams going to bowls, losing, and ending the season with a losing record.
The only real change would be having the contenders play other contenders to stay alive in the hunt at the end of the season.
You mean the system under which the Big Ten and Pac Ten champs were locked into the Rose Bowl every year?
Look, if y’all are scared to play SEC teams, just say so. 
Actually, yes. The Rose Bowl used to have MEANING. Now it’s just another bowl. I don’t bother to watch any more. 
The Bowls predate any other NCAA postseason and as such they have a toe-hold in college football, also they have been infinitely more successful than any other NCAA postseason, so I’m not sure that this argument holds any water.
I get the desire for a playoff, but I think that if they scrapped the bowl system with it’s traditional rivalries in 20 years everyone will regret it. While they would be happy with having a 16 team tourney, on the whole college football will be worse for it. Unless you are one of the teams in the top 4 you are a loser, so it will really only please a small subset of fans in any given year.
Exactly, and it meant a hell of a lot more than any BCS Championship game.
I’m not sure about that. I remember in the '80s there was a habit of the bowls signing teams with two and sometimes three games left on the schedule. You throw in an upset loss or two at the end of the year, and you have crazy matchups. And all of those bowl tie-ins, especially the Rose Bowl, only hampered teams.
I remember the 1980 season, UGA was the undisputed #1, but HAD to play in the Sugar Bowl. The Sugar Bowl signed Notre Dame and it looked like the perfect championship game except Notre Dame didn’t get the memo to not lose their last game.
So you got #1 playing #9, I think. Yawn.
Then #2 Pitt had one loss and should have had a shot here, but they beat I think the #5 team.
#3 played #8 and #4 played #6.
What about Penn State in '94? Was it good that they get screwed out of a title shot because they were obligated to play in the Rose Bowl?
Or BYU being the national champs in '84 because they were also obligated to play in the Holiday Bowl instead of playing a top notch opponent?
That is when the Fiesta Bowl started becoming really popular. They said, basically, no bullshit conference tie ins, we will get the best teams. That sort of started the trend of “national championship” games with Miami and Penn State in '86, Notre Dame v. WVU in '88, etc., although they lucked into those because of the need to sign the teams early.
I’m not a fan of the BCS; I’m still nostalgic for the old days, but in this day and time, we all want to know, without a doubt, who is the best team in the country.
I was always against a playoff until Terry Bowden talked about it. I liked “tradition”. Well look how screwed up it is now. You have teams playing a game in Toronto on January 6. How traditional is that? You have a 12 game schedule. I-AA teams are allowed on the schedule now.
Tradition is gone, and I would rather see a true championship game than hang on to a faded idea of history that has already passed…
Let’s see, when was the last time Georgia played a regular season game outside the south? Oh yeah, Johnson was president. At least it was Lyndon and not Andrew. Play some tough teams on the road and I might respect the Schedule Easy Competition schools.
In what way could you ever find this out? Even a playoff system won’t give us that information. Absolutely the ONLY advantage to a playoff system is that a team cannot blame anyone but themselves for failing to win, once they make it to the playoffs.
Yes, that makes sense. Ohio St. really manages to do that a lot. Youngstown, Kent, Akron, and, oh yes, Washington (4-8). What a tough road game…
Teabow for Heisman!
Go Gators!
Well, I overstated my point, but look at the NFL. Is there ever bitching every year that such and such team was the “best” but they didn’t win the Super Bowl?
Sometimes that is said, but that blame is clearly laid at the feet of the team that lost in the playoffs. They had their chance and didn’t capitalize.
What do you say to an Auburn team that went 13-0 in 2003 and didn’t get the NC? You should have done better?
But in a hypothetical playoff that (now 12-1) Auburn team that lost to Fresno State A&M, West (DAC Champs, hypothetical) you could say to Auburn: “Maybe you were the best team, but you didn’t show it on the field”…
We do? Really? I must have missed the memo.
This obsession with the BCS and wanting to be in the national title hunt is exactly why so many teams schedule piss-poor non-conference games. In the past you could count on Miami to play Notre Dame every year, Nebraska - Penn State, FSU-Miami and dozens of other great non-conference games. There was a time when teams like Nebraska didn’t schedule a team that wasn’t in one of the big 4 conferences. Look at the teams they played prior to 1990. Teams used to get ridiculed for scheduling crappy schools. Now even crappy schools schedule crappier schools.
I guess I’m a crazy nostalgic in that I’d like to see a handful of decent games prior to October 1st.
Ohio State played a home at home versus Texas 2 and 3 years ago. They have USC the next two years and also Virginia Tech and Miami in the future already on the schedule.
When they scheduled that Washington game, the Huskies were playing very well.
You won’t find too many teams across the nation that schedule like that.
I guess we’ll have to pair down the 119 teams in the FBS down to around 32 teams and play 19 games. That’ll certainly help clear things up. :rolleyes:
I hit up a couple of football oriented boards. The semi-backed up by evidence beliefs there are that Nutt’s contract was not going to be extended. Then after he beat LSU, they asked him to stay. He then said no and went somewhere he could beat the tar out of them.
The betting line doesn’t necessarily reflect that one team is better than the other. It just means that Vegas thinks setting the line there will get equivalent bets on both sides. One side is a longtime Big XII leader and ranked nationally quite often. Missouri isn’t. People are a little more likely to go with who they know.
I personally hope that Mizzou wins and goes and takes the National Championship… as an OSU, I’m duty bound to root against the team from the Other University.
Um, so, Michigan?