One change we need in the Bowl arena

by skigator93 on Jan 1, 2009 7:33 PM EST Comment 24 comments

Am I the only one who thinks the conference tie-ins to certain bowls are ridiculous? Is there anyone out there who wouldn't rather see USC play Texas in the Rose Bowl instead of beating up on a weak Penn State team while Musberger and Herby gush over them for 3 hours in the booth?

Personally, I think USC is as good as any team in the country. A four team playoff this season with USC. UF, OU and Texas would have been very interesting to watch for every college football fan in the country. Instead we get to see USC roll Penn State (thanks for the easy confidence points in the Alligator Army Pick 'Em contest), Texas is expected to do the same to another Big 10 patsy and then one good game for everyone to watch. It works out this season for Gators, but we could get much better games by dumping the conference tie- ins. Who cares if the SEC champ doesn't go to the Sugar? Anyone?

Please be kind and use good grammar.

0 recs | Comment 24 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Doesn't Work.

A four-team playoff would have left out #5 USC if you just took the top 4 from the BCS or #3 Texas (and #4 Alabama, for that matter) if you required conference championships as credentials. As for eliminating conference tie-ins, I’m all for it, but that wouldn’t result in a Trojans-Longhorns match-up any more than a playoff or the current system would. The BCS bowls would take their turns picking teams, with Texas and USC (as well as Alabama) going to seperate bowls with the first three selections. Unless you advocate making the top two teams play in a championship game, followed by the next best two in one BCS bowl (even though that would not include the Trojans again) and so on until all the slots are filled… Everything works better in theory than practice, which is the biggest problem I have with playoff proponents. By the way, how about the mess the NFL made with their’s, despite including twelve teams with four wldcards!

Here we go again: http://thefulldeck.blogspot.com/

by ejruiz on Jan 1, 2009 7:45 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

NFL just needs to eliminate the division championship as an automatic bid.

Have the top 6 teams, and then use division championships and runnerups to decide who is the home team in a game. If two champs play each other, use record, and if they’re equal, compare their divisions’ combined records. If that’s equal, use vs-conference record. If that doesn’t work, use a neutral field.

Clutch: A measurement of how much better or worse a player does in high leverage situations than he would have done in a context neutral environment. http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/glossary/

by bs.uf15bosox9bears23 on Jan 1, 2009 8:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Why Not Go Further?

Eliminate the equal-representation-for-the-conferences requirement as well, just in case. But that may not be enough. I mean, whose to say that one 9-7 team is better than any of the others that would be left out? The NFL has the perfect number of teams to mount a full-league, five round playoff (as opposed to the roughly 1/3-league, four-round playoff currently used) to determine their champion. The top regular season teams wouldn’t get their bye, but they would play the ultimate bottom-feeders. You’d really only be adding a week to the season (cut the preseason in half and that makes up for it, I’d say) while making it much more fair and exciting! Honestly, what’s the argument against that?

Here we go again: http://thefulldeck.blogspot.com/

by ejruiz on Jan 2, 2009 12:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Injury chance skyrocket.

by bs.uf15bosox9bears23 on Jan 3, 2009 8:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

For One Game?

They’re thinking of adding a game to the regular season already (some even think they’ll put it in foreign countries) and, as a playoff proponent in college football, it doesn’t suit you to say that one additional game is a huge injury risk…

Here we go again: http://thefulldeck.blogspot.com/

by ejruiz on Jan 4, 2009 11:49 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The bye weeks being taken away mean teams will have less to play for in later weeks.

Not playing hard means more chance for injury.

by bs.uf15bosox9bears23 on Jan 4, 2009 3:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Ummm...

NFL teams can, and sometimes do, manufacture “bye” weeks by playing their bench.

Here we go again: http://thefulldeck.blogspot.com/

by ejruiz on Jan 4, 2009 10:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I guess you are right

There is really no way that would pit those 4 teams together even though I feel pretty strongly that they are the 4 best – Texas ruins the “conference champions” requirement.

by skigator93 on Jan 2, 2009 8:36 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Hotdogs.

That’s the dirty little secret about the playoff proponent crowd: they never bother to see what their dream would look like in reality. I wrote an extended FanPost about the difficulties it would have encountered this season here: . For every team given a chance and every fanbase placated, there would be many more upset, with stronger cases than those seen now because of the expanded field. They may be fun, but they’re not more fair. It’s like what they say about hotdogs: if you like eating them, then don’t find out about how they’re made.

Here we go again: http://thefulldeck.blogspot.com/

by ejruiz on Jan 2, 2009 12:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Ask yourself this question...

Who do you want determining the National Champion? I’ll use all the previous examples I know;
a) poll of sportswriters/announcers
b) poll of coaches
c) President of the United States
d) The New York Times or another major national newspaper
e) various multinational corporations who sponsor bowl games and use a computer program to determine matchups
f) The Tournament of Roses President
Which of those is better than a playoff?
At this point, I want a playoff so I don’t have to hear shit from USC, Utah and Texas fans. Hell, the same three would bitch and moan if Oklahoma wins. Do you want the current system because you like people trying to throw mud on the Gators’ national championships? Maybe it is purely school pride, so that can be illogical, but I want to see Tim Tebow destroy Texas and USC on back-to-back weekends to win the National Championship. I want the entire nation to know that the best damn football team in America is in Gainesville, Florida and that Los Angeles, Austin and Salt Lake can go fuck themselves. (I felt the same way in 2006 towards Boise.)
I’m not saying that my playoff idea(s) for anyone else’s is more perfect than the current system. I’m saying the current system is flawed when the winner of the “Championship Game” can be considered illegitimate. Either blow up the BCS and go back to the old conference tie-ins or make it something closer to fairness. If you won’t commit to something closer to fairness (by giving more teams a shot and legitimizing the final game), then go back to the old system so everyone can bitch, including the winners.
And what hot dogs do you eat? You know they make all beef and Kosher, right? It’s is a little more expensive, but you know someone is watching the meat. You sound like someone who boils their hot dogs too.
/sorry for the cursing and the rant. It’s just business, nothing personal. Except for the hot dogs part.

mlmintampa
UF C/O 06

by mlmintampa on Jan 3, 2009 3:32 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

+1

I like the rant….it is good….and Hebrew Nationals are the bomb.

by skigator93 on Jan 3, 2009 9:15 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

HAHAHA!

No worries, man, I understand where you’re coming from. Here are my answers to your questions/comments:
1) “Who do you want determining the National Champion?”
Personally, I prefer the computers. Crazy, I know! Not the neutered computers that the BCS has been forced to use thanks to idiotic writers and other types, but rather the best that the brightest could make. Something that could be applied retroactively to the past and be shown to produce the right results as a test. I’ve always hated the human polls, between their bias and ignorance, and despise the fact that we seem to be reverting back to the age of thier dominance. This can be done.
2) “I’m saying the current system is flawed when the winner of the ‘Championship Game’ can be considered illegitimate” and “Do you want the current system because you like people trying to throw mud on the Gators’ national championships?”
The only reason why people consider the winner of a playoff the undisputed champion of their league is because they check their logic at the door. People simply refuse to challenge the concept of a playoff producing a true champion. You’re a baseball fan (and a Yankees fan to boot) so I’ll use a new example from that sport. The most wins by a team in the modern era is 116 by the Seattle Mariners in 2001. That team lost in the playoffs to your Yankees before they, in turn, went on to lose to the Diamondbacks in the World Series. In other words, the third best team in baseball (NYY – 95) knocked out the best (SEA – 116) and then lost to the six best team (ARI – 92) in the sport. Arizona played Seattle three times during the season and won only once. If the D’backs can be called at the time – and for all history – undisputed champions of the 2001 MLB season, then so can the 2006 Gators’ football team and the winner of the 2009 BCS National Championship Game. Let me put it to you this way: the only reason why the BCS Champion is ever in dispute is because people chose to do so, whereas they simply accept the outcome of playoffs regardless of what happens or whether it is rational to do so. If people chose to be that dense to serve their agendas, then so be it; but I won’t lose any sleep over it.
3) HOTDOGS!
I eat mine grilled, preferably with relish, onions, mustard and definitely no ketchup. I also happen to “splurge” like you so obviously do and go with the all beef ones when I can. By the way, how exactly does someone “sound like someone who boils their hot dogs”? Oh, and try not to make it seem as though you assume that people that disagree with you (and popular opinion, if need be) are somehow less intelligent. I assure you, that would be a mistake, at least in this case.

Here we go again: http://thefulldeck.blogspot.com/

by ejruiz on Jan 3, 2009 10:55 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Not at all do I think you are less intelligent. If anything, it’s the opposite. But on this, I don’t understand the argument you are trying to make. We’ll use your baseball example; the Mariners were 6-3 vs. the Yanks in 2001, and lost their playoff series 1-4. Add it up, and Seattle finished 7-7 vs. the Yanks. The 116 wins of Seattle and 95 of the Yankees is a big number when determining home field, but because of the unbalanced schedule in baseball (4 teams in AL West, 5 in AL East; different NL matchups), it’s not always the best number.
Which leads me to my last point; because there is no standardized schedule in college football, records lose some value outside their conference. We know that USC is better than Oregon State because they won the Pac-10. But is USC’s one-loss season better than Florida’s or Oklahoma’s? Florida played 10 bowl-bound teams, Oklahoma 9 and USC played 6 (not including Penn St.). Does that mean UF is the best of three? Maybe, but Florida has the worst lost of the three. Now you go from comparing “Who did you play” to “Who did you lose to”. Then, we have to compare Ole Miss, Texas and Oregon State and look at their schedules.
The NFL looks pretty bad this season because an 11-5 team (New England) is at home while 8-8 San Diego gets a home playoff game, but the NFL schedule values conference play over all else. Each team plays 6 games in division, 6 in conference, 4 out of conference. While that opens it up for an inferior division winner, rarely does the situation between New England and San Diego happen. That’s why beyond the Northeast, there hasn’t been much complaining about the Pats being left out. Comparing AFC to NFC might not always work, but because of a standard scheduling formula, we can make a fair assessment of who are the best teams.
If each college football conference played 8 conference games, 4 out of conference against another BCS conference and no conference title games, maybe then final records would be an accurate barometer for a team’s ability. But when UF plays Citadel, OU plays Chattanooga and USC gets awful Washington and Wash State in conference, records lose some weight.
But again, I don’t think the people arguing for the current system or old system are unintelligent. I can see the values of those arguments. But my school pride gets in the way, which as I said earlier, might be illogical. In a year with multiple teams of the same record, we will have these arguments again. The bowls and conferences are absolutely correct to avoid a playoff because of fan protest. However, the bowls will lose legitimacy with arguments each season. There were even some USC players that wanted to go to the Fiesta or Sugar Bowl because they were tired of beating up a Big Ten team. When that starts happening, especially with the duds in the Rose and Orange Bowls, a playoff or something close might be next in order to keep those games relevant.

mlmintampa
UF C/O 06

by mlmintampa on Jan 3, 2009 12:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Hmmm...

I think the next steps in the evolution of the BCS are equality of the conferences and the end of strict bowl tie-ins. There’s no reason why the champions of the Big 6 should get automatic bids to the major bowls and even less so to have them slotted into particular bowls. I’d even go so far as to say that a conference could not send its champion to the same BCS bowl twice in a row. Doesn’t that make the most sense. Not only would the rest of the nation be introduced to teams from all over the country, but every conceivable match-up between the conferences would be made sooner or later. Simple rule changes like those that I’ve mentioned here would address most of the concerns you’ve brought up recently without fundamentally altering the sport in the way that a playoff would. There are many, many problems with college football and this is just one.

Here we go again: http://thefulldeck.blogspot.com/

by ejruiz on Jan 3, 2009 4:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Big 10 and ACC

Are embarrassing themselves.

by skigator93 on Jan 1, 2009 9:15 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Surprised?

Our head-to-head match-ups with the Big XII will go a long way in determining which conference was better. So far, their QBs have been below expectations and our defenses have lived up to the hype, so I like our chances. Shame the Pac-10 ran the table, but if we win from here on out we’ll at least have the claim of most total wins by a conference!

Here we go again: http://thefulldeck.blogspot.com/

by ejruiz on Jan 2, 2009 12:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Pac 10

USC looked great, but we already knew that. I am not that surprised that the Pac 10 ran tha table because, once again, they played absolutely nobody! We all know that Penn State is a joke. That is, by far, the best team faced by the Pac 10. Unfortunately, we’ll never know hoe the SEC matches up with the Pac 10 because of the stupid bowl tie-ins….hence the purpose of the post!!

Ole Miss just took out one of the Big 12 “Big 3.” It wasn’t as close as the score indicates.

SEC-SEC-SEC!

by skigator93 on Jan 2, 2009 6:03 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Bama...

This Sugar Bowl will be a stain on our record. This is WVU-UGA all over again, except the Tide is supposed to be better than those Bulldawgs and these Utes shouldn’t match up with those Mountaineers…

Here we go again: http://thefulldeck.blogspot.com/

by ejruiz on Jan 2, 2009 10:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

yeah - Bama really crapped their pants

JPW is NOT a passing QB. When they totally abandoned the running game down by 11, they essentially threw in the towel.

by skigator93 on Jan 2, 2009 11:18 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

They Never Adjusted.

Why they give out the hardware before all the games are played is beyond me. If the Coach of the Year was on the sidelines in that game, it wasn’t on Alabama’s. Something tells me that the same will hold true for the Heisman!

Here we go again: http://thefulldeck.blogspot.com/

by ejruiz on Jan 3, 2009 10:56 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs