Stop trying to force a #1 vs. #2 "NC" game

[KingNick865]

I think you've just seen Hoosiers one too many times.

For the record, I haven't seen Hoosiers in a couple of years. Excellent movie though.

 

[GAVol]

For the record, I haven't seen Hoosiers in a couple of years. Excellent movie though.

Well . . . you've obviously got Rudy on DVD then.

 

[KingNick865]

Well . . . you've obviously got Rudy on DVD then.

:yes:

 

[utmba93]

TX wasn't so impressive vs. tOSU, so I'd throw them out of the legitimate complaint group.

USC and Utah are the two with a little beef in that argument now.

UF is the best team--which totally sux. The silver lining is that TT and PH should feel good enough about their college careers to go ahead and start playing on Sundays.

As a Colts fan, I wouldn't mind seeing PH or Moreno in blue and white next fall. JA has been a little disappointing this year, imo.

 

[jakez4ut]

Elitist? Give me a break. Somewhere along the line, the focus moved from making sure we found the true #1 to making sure we don't piss off the MAC, Sunbelt, Mountain West and WAC. It's ridiculous that every single year we go through the charade of pretending that Ball State or Utah might be the best team in the country.

agreed.

and i'll just go back to my original point in this thread........we've forgotten why the system was changed in the first place.

the system was created to create #1 and #2, rather, just to allow the possibility for #1 and #2 to play each other in a bowl if conf. bowl affiliations had previously not allowed that to happen.

the BCS being manufactured by the 6 major conf's created a monopolistic feel to college football. and rightfully so the smaller conf. wanted their pc of hte pie.

make no mistake, the reason the smaller schools were so adamant about getting in to the BCS wasn't about proving they're better or as competitive......it was about multi million dollar pay outs they were being purposely excluded from.

the original idea of having the bowl games as they were originally, and each year the Rose, Sugar, Fiesta and Orang hold a game for those teams ranked #1 and #2 was a good one.

and it would have been fine had it not created this "system" of ratings by computers, coaches and harris poll voters.

anyway.....

 

[kev20]

Elitist? Give me a break. Somewhere along the line, the focus moved from making sure we found the true #1 to making sure we don't piss off the MAC, Sunbelt, Mountain West and WAC. It's ridiculous that every single year we go through the charade of pretending that Ball State or Utah might be the best team in the country.

pretty hard to do when you exclude teams because they don't belong to the chosen group.

 

[jakez4ut]

pretty hard to do when you exclude teams because they don't belong to the chosen group.

no. before they were not excluded. but byu is the only precedent set for such an accomplishment in the modern era.

originally, the only intent of any 'new' post season system was simply to allow #1 play #2, regardless of what conf. they were in.

the fact that these 6 conf. got together and did this on their own was not the original intent of changing how the bowl season would be played.

you all act like this system is set up to really determine who's #1?

nothing could be further from the truth. it started out that way, way back when, but it quickly turned in to a method to make an obscene amount of money once the conferences and bowls started working out all these deals for themselves.

this is fruitless debate. there is no oversight. these bowls and conferences are free to negotiate and act on their own, or now at least as a conglomerate known as the BCS, make their own TV deals, decide who goes where etc.......

when the NCAA lost their lawsuit, that was the end for any organized post season for D1 college football. it put the money in charge of this sport, and this is what we have now.

 

[lawgator1]

......but it's hard to deny that the bowl season was much more meaningful even 10-15 years ago than it is today. when a 6-6 team plays on NYD.........we've lost something as college football fans.

That's why I almost wish the old system was in place so that Cincy would be the at large team in a mid December bowl where they belong.

I agree with the sentiments in both of these posts. The bowl season has gotten rather mediocre. And I remember when the conference tie-ins were there for the NYD games. If you were PAC-10 or Big Ten, all you talked about was getting to the Rose Bowl. Now, the teams that win their conferences and still go to BCS bowls are disappointed if its not THE national championship game.

An argument can be made that we ought to go back to conference tie-ins for the big four games or that we ought to move forward with a playoff system, but that this middle ground is dissatisfying for all but two of the 60 teams that end up in bowls every year.

 

[jakez4ut]

i'm still against a full blown playoff, but the system we have today isn't the answer either.

i'm rather intrigued to hear Reese Davis and Ed Cunningham talk about going back to the old bowl system, do the BCS after that, and play the top 4 in two more games...a semi final and a final.

 

[lawgator1]

i'm still against a full blown playoff, but the system we have today isn't the answer either.

i'm rather intrigued to hear Reese Davis and Ed Cunningham talk about going back to the old bowl system, do the BCS after that, and play the top 4 in two more games...a semi final and a final.

That's a good idea. There's time for that, too. And while it is true that the teams vying for the fourth spot and not getting it will whine, the reality is that you would rarely have a conference champion that wins its game on NYD still left out unless it had two or more losses in which case someone like Utah might slip in, which is I think fine with everyone.

 

[salutethehill]

i'm still against a full blown playoff, but the system we have today isn't the answer either.

i'm rather intrigued to hear Reese Davis and Ed Cunningham talk about going back to the old bowl system, do the BCS after that, and play the top 4 in two more games...a semi final and a final.

A semi final and final consisting of 4 teams does sound good. A Southern Cal/Utah winner (you think Utah could jump into the top 4?) vs. FL/OK winner this year would be great.

 

[abvol]

USC V UF is the only NC I would totally believe in. A team with the 75th ranked D is not the second best team. Sorry OU is ranked #1 aren't they.

 

[jakez4ut]

That's a good idea. There's time for that, too. And while it is true that the teams vying for the fourth spot and not getting it will whine, the reality is that you would rarely have a conference champion that wins its game on NYD still left out unless it had two or more losses in which case someone like Utah might slip in, which is I think fine with everyone.

A semi final and final consisting of 4 teams does sound good. A Southern Cal/Utah winner (you think Utah could jump into the top 4?) vs. FL/OK winner this year would be great.

Welll, at least we would know that Utah wouldn't be eliminated completely......you beat Bama in the Sugar bowl, you definitely have a chance.

but what you likely would have is USC, UF/OK winner, TX and Utah moving on as the top 4 after the bowls.

and really, that's probably not how it would have worked.......Bama wouldn't have gone to the Sugar in this proposed set up, FL would have, and OK would be in the Fiesta, USC in the Rose....maybe TX gets to the Orange? but the 5th BCS game gets whacked since your just back down to the original tie ins.

TX might get an invite to the Orange to play VT in the old system?

anyway, i don't know that that system is much better, but play the bowl games, do the rankings, then play the top 4 after that.

the bowls go back to meaning something, winning yoru conf. to get to that bowl still means something, TV Still gets these great games, and everyone makes a bunch of money.......

 

[lawgator1]

Welll, at least we would know that Utah wouldn't be eliminated completely......you beat Bama in the Sugar bowl, you definitely have a chance.

but what you likely would have is USC, UF/OK winner, TX and Utah moving on as the top 4 after the bowls.

and really, that's probably not how it would have worked.......Bama wouldn't have gone to the Sugar in this proposed set up, FL would have, and OK would be in the Fiesta, USC in the Rose....maybe TX gets to the Orange? but the 5th BCS game gets whacked since your just back down to the original tie ins.

TX might get an invite to the Orange to play VT in the old system?

anyway, i don't know that that system is much better, but play the bowl games, do the rankings, then play the top 4 after that.

the bowls go back to meaning something, winning yoru conf. to get to that bowl still means something, TV Still gets these great games, and everyone makes a bunch of money.......

The theory is good, but as you point out the scenario you paint would not have worked out like that at all because there would not have been a BCS c-ship game. As you say, Florida, not Alabama, would have been in the Sugar Bowl. And even if that ended up being against Utah, with any luck, it would be UF advancing to the semis. Other games similarly different and in fact Texas out of the picture all together.

Point is, can't work off this year's games for the proposal.