Changing the bowl system because of Alabama - Page 9
Page 9 of 10 FirstFirst ... 2345678910 LastLast
Results 105 to 117 of 122
  1. #105
    BamaNation Hall of Fame KrAzY3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    8,602

    Re: Changing the bowl system because of Alabama

    Quote Originally Posted by GrayTide View Post
    Great post KrAzY, you do spend a lot of time thinking this through and I for one appreciate it. I have been a college football fan for more years than I care to mention and would never miss the opportunity to watch any bowl game, provided my father wanted to watch the same game (1 TV family in those days). It was a college football feast.

    Over the years as more and more bowl games were added some of the anticipation and luster wore off until now with 35 bowl games it has become ridiculous. I understand the reward for the players and staff, extra practice time and trips to places most would not go if not for a bowl game, but IMO the whole idea of bowl participation has been watered down. Some of this has to be laid at the feet of the BCS. I mean, what were the Nielsen ratings for the Orange Bowl, who in the hell wanted to watch WVU and Clemson outside of their fans. I know this will raise the ire of "true college football fans", but am I the only one who had rather watch the SyFy channel than the Music City Bowl, Motor City Bowl, Armed Forces Bowl, California Bowl, Insight.Com Bowl or Liberty Bowl?

    I know it is all about the money and exposure, etc and everyone can watch what they want but, IMO I still believe the number of crappy bowls with crappy teams (winning 6 games) has over exposed college football. Thanks for reading, off rant.
    Thank you

    I agree about crappy bowls and teams. I've seen some here argue for the idea that it's fine to let anyone who qualifies play in a bowl game, but considering 6-6 now qualifies, and we have conferences that rival FCS conferences (Sun Belt), it becomes an absurdity. Let's take Western Kentucky for example. They lost every single OOC game (including to Indiana St) and yet they were four points away from playing a bowl game in Mobile. They shouldn't have been a mile within a bowl game, much less four points.

    I've said it before, but one way or another the MAC, Wac and Sun Belt should be eliminated. This would instantly eliminate several crappy bowl games and would go a very long way towards clearing up the post season picture.

    Unfortunately, it's about as realistic as the other step that would help things, which would be to completely break off the BCS championship game from the other bowls. You'd just have to secure an agreement that 1 vs 2 was free to play in the game (I think you'd be best off making the deal with the conferences directly) and otherwise the bowls would be free to function as they want. I've alluded to ESPN's harmful behavior towards bowls, but ultimately the bowls falling under the BCS have done both the BCS a disservice by creating unnecessary controversy, and it has harmed the independence of the bowl games. The forced inclusion of some teams and the forced exclusion of others has marred the BCS (even though it had no bearing on the championship).

    If you let the bowl games become independent once again, I think they would migrate back towards the first and you'd see more quality matchups on a greater variety of television stations. The two steps combined would, in my opinion also bring back extra luster to the 1 vs 2 matchup and the bowl season as a whole. It won't happen though, and that's another reason I'm convinced things are headed in the wrong direction...

  2. #106
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Natchez, Miss.
    Posts
    39

    Re: Changing the bowl system because of Alabama

    Quote Originally Posted by CrimsonPride View Post
    I'm sorry buy I have to disagree with you here. We did not lose to LSU in a playoff. A playoff occurs after the regular season. You cannot possibly equate losing a game during the regular season with losing a playoff game. There is no rational thought that says that Alabama should have been out of consideration for the BCS championship based on the 11/5 loss to LSU. If so, then Okie State, Stanford, and any other team with a loss during the regular season would have been out. Who would LSU have played in the championship game under these rules?

    To say it is as if the game in BDS never happened from an LSU standpoint is weak. It is this very game that basically solidified LSUís entry into the BCS championship game barring a major meltdown.
    I don't believe the fact that a team lost to a team during the regular season and then got to play that same team again in the BCS championship game is what has the Big 10-12 and others all worked up. In fact, these same folks were all in support of rematches, if Alabama had beat LSU on 11/5 and the both won the rest of their games or if Oregon only had the one loss to LSU at the end of the regular season. If Oregon had only one loss and earned entry into the BCSCG, would people say that it is as if the 9/3 game against LSU never happened? I donít think so. Why is a rematch that would give other teams a chance to play for the championship acceptable and not one that gave Alabama the opportunity? The answer has to be in some part that it is indeed Alabama.

    I didn't really say it was a playoff per se, but in the eyes of a "playoff" supporter it is the equivalent since there is no formal playoff system; the regular season serves in lieu of a playoff. Again, I don't believe in a formal playoff, but to someone who does then when we lose to LSU, especially at home, some other team with one loss should go to the BCS title game. It wouldn't matter to that person if many people felt we are the only team able to play LSU straight up--the fact is to them Alabama lost to LSU, and therefore, say, Oklahoma State should have a chance at LSU. The same would be true to that person if Oregon had won all their games except the LSU game--Oregon has had their chance, and someone else ought to get a chance. In that person's mind Alabama is not necessarily the best team; the result to them is a two game series in which Alabama won once.
    Again, I'm representing the mind of a playoff supporter, and there are many of them. To them this BCS was not satisfactory and, thus, the call for change. The BCS this year did put the two best teams against each other--its stated purpose--but I think many want to tweak BCS to more resemble a playoff and avoid what happened this year.
    As I've said before, I myself don't particularly care for the BCS and am very much against a playoff. The old way with New Years bowls and then polls determining a title is a simpler way that worked well for a long time. Even with BCS and playoffs there are still arguments on who should play and therefore aren't an improvement.

  3. #107
    BamaNation Hall of Fame
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Birmingham, Alabama
    Posts
    5,614

    Re: Changing the bowl system because of Alabama

    Quote Originally Posted by KrAzY3 View Post
    So the logical reaction is to make the regular season even more meaningless? That's like saying, I'm mad that I spilled my glass of milk so I'm going to pour out the whole gallon. It's an irrational response.

    The BCS championship game is not what made the first LSU/Alabama game mean less. Every other team losing is what did that.

    Your reference to a playoff as a solution because it is lose and your out, is tinged with the illogical assumption that only playoff results should matter. The fact is, any fair playoff and Alabama is in. They made it into a 1 v 2, they belonged in a +1, or any other iteration of a playoff. How on earth does a playoff someone "fix" this imagined problem? Why would letting two other one loss teams (one of which didn't win their conference either) somehow magically right the wrongs? Besides, if the criteria should be lose and your season is over, well ok then not only Alabama, but every other team besides LSU should be out. You can't tell me that only Alabama's loss should have mattered, that's insane.

    The problem here is a simple one. The criteria for winning a division or a conference does not necessarily align itself with the criteria to be a champion. While that might not make sense to some of you, look over the NCAA basketball automatic entrants. Look at the so called "conference champs" and consider how arbitrary the process is. Then, look at divisions, look at how Oregon won a conference championship with two losses, over a one loss team. The simple fact is that winning your division, or conference does not automatically make you more championship worthy than a team that did not. That's reality.

    A playoff, would mean more rematches, more undoing of regular season results, not less. It's just absurd that I see a playoff put forth as a way to prevent something it would cause more of. I keep seeing it though, and I'm trying to figure out how one's mind allows this sort of illogical leap.
    Your bold words are most pertinent. Should be shouted from the rooftops. Reading countless respected sports writers claim the "meaninglessness" of that game made me chew nails all winter.
    Last edited by CrimsonProf; March 6th, 2012 at 05:32 PM.

  4. #108
    BamaNation First Team CrimsonPride's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Chattanooga, TN
    Posts
    904

    Re: Changing the bowl system because of Alabama

    Quote Originally Posted by engl6914 View Post
    I didn't really say it was a playoff per se, but in the eyes of a "playoff" supporter it is the equivalent since there is no formal playoff system; the regular season serves in lieu of a playoff. Again, I don't believe in a formal playoff, but to someone who does then when we lose to LSU, especially at home, some other team with one loss should go to the BCS title game. It wouldn't matter to that person if many people felt we are the only team able to play LSU straight up--the fact is to them Alabama lost to LSU, and therefore, say, Oklahoma State should have a chance at LSU. The same would be true to that person if Oregon had won all their games except the LSU game--Oregon has had their chance, and someone else ought to get a chance. In that person's mind Alabama is not necessarily the best team; the result to them is a two game series in which Alabama won once.
    Again, I'm representing the mind of a playoff supporter, and there are many of them. To them this BCS was not satisfactory and, thus, the call for change. The BCS this year did put the two best teams against each other--its stated purpose--but I think many want to tweak BCS to more resemble a playoff and avoid what happened this year.
    As I've said before, I myself don't particularly care for the BCS and am very much against a playoff. The old way with New Years bowls and then polls determining a title is a simpler way that worked well for a long time. Even with BCS and playoffs there are still arguments on who should play and therefore aren't an improvement.
    Sorry if I misinterpreted your meaning. I think we are on the same page.
    "There's lots of Tigers and Bears, but there's only one Crimson Tide." -Mal Moore
    "It's not the will to win, but the will to prepare to win that makes the difference." - Paul (Bear) Bryant
    "Arguing with a fool proves there are two." - Doris M. Smith

  5. #109
    BamaNation Hall of Fame GrayTide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Greenbow, Alabama
    Posts
    15,243

    Re: Changing the bowl system because of Alabama

    Had Alabama beaten LSU 10-7 who is National Champions, or does it require the best out of 3?
    "My momma always said you got to put the past behind you before you can move on." Forrest Gump

    "The past is never dead. It's not even past." William Faulkner

  6. #110
    BamaNation Second Team
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    76

    Re: Changing the bowl system because of Alabama

    Speaking of What ifs, a scenario that doesn't seem to have gotten much discussion is what if alabama had won the first game. LSU would have gotten in over okie state easy. So from there are there less complaints because okie state had no argument to be #2, or is it still the argument saying the game was meaningless

  7. #111
    BamaNation First Team TAKEPRIDE22's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Birmingham, AL
    Posts
    306

    Re: Changing the bowl system because of Alabama

    Quote Originally Posted by CajunCrimson View Post
    In all actuality, a plus one just increases the odds the SEC wins the BCS....

    Now all we have to do is finish in the Top 4.....
    This is what I was thinking. You will have someone from the SEC in the top 4 whether they will the conference or not, and this was be a cause for them to change again. The SEC is not going anywhere anytime soon...they might as well get use to it.

  8. #112
    BamaNation Second Team
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    76

    Re: Changing the bowl system because of Alabama

    Once the trend is noticed that the sec will always have multiple people in the top 4 they will change it to only allow conference champs. Another thing to think about: People are upset about how coaches vote to try and get themselves in. A playoff only makes it easier to rig the system. The fifth team can vote itself first and only has to jump to 4th, not second

  9. #113
    BamaNation Hall of Fame KrAzY3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    8,602

    Re: Changing the bowl system because of Alabama

    Quote Originally Posted by jmwesler View Post
    People are upset about how coaches vote to try and get themselves in. A playoff only makes it easier to rig the system. The fifth team can vote itself first and only has to jump to 4th, not second
    While I don't think this is the paramount issue, one of my main issues with the idea of a +1 is the fourth team. I have a very hard time just finding a fourth team that had any sort of a case for playing for the NC and certainly lacked the credentials for a NC.

    Keep in mind I'm going by pre-bowl BCS rankings.
    1998 - #4 Ohio State finished 11-1 (Tennessee went 13-0)
    1999 - #4 Alabama finished 10-3 (Florida St. went 12-0)
    2000 - #4 Washington finished 11-1 (Oklahoma went 13-0)
    2001 - #4 Oregon finished 11-1 (Miami went 12-0)
    2002 - #4 USC finished 11-2 (Ohio St. went 14-0)
    2003 - #4 Michigan finished 10-3 (LSU went 13-1)
    2004 - #4 Texas finished 11-1 (USC went 13-0)
    2005 - #4 Ohio St. finished 10-2 (Texas went 13-0)
    2006 - #4 LSU finished 11-2 (Florida went 13-1)
    2007 - #4 Oklahoma finished 11-3 (LSU went 12-2)
    2008 - #4 Alabama finished 12-2 (Florida went 13-1)
    2009 - #4 TCU finished 12-1 (Alabama went 14-0)
    2010 - #4 Stanford finished 12-1 (Auburn went 14-0)
    2011 - #4 Stanford finished 11-2 (Alabama went 12-1)

    There you have it, every single year of the BCS. The thing is, I've already alluded to the two cases in which #3 had an argument. #4 never had an argument! Now, just for comparison purposes I selected the champion, but I think everyone can get the point. #4, in the history of the BCS, has never had a persuasive argument for being #1. It's open and shut, it's as simple as that. On several occasions #4 playing for the NC would have been a travesty. And yes, I include one Alabama team in that list. There's no way that 1999 Alabama deserved to have a shot at a championship.

    So, here's where I am stuck. I can't find a single #4 team in the history of the BCS that could make the argument they deserved to be #1. Not one... yet, we are supposed to make a system that gives them an annual shot at #1. What would that say to the regular season results? So, we have the pro... we have USC in 2003 and Auburn in 2004. And we have the con, which is pretty much every other #3 and #4 team in the BCS standings.

    People complained that LSU's win over Alabama didn't mean anything. Oh, I see... so to fix that they should have had to play another one loss team that didn't win their conference? Really? Or, we have complaints that teams that didn't win their conference would be in, oh ok... so let's do that more often then! Rematches? Yup, got those to! So every single thing people complained about this year, would be much more common in a +1. Let's not even get into the travesty that a 1 vs 7 and 3 vs 5 plus one would be, let's not even dig into how much that would scar the postseason if you put the conference champ qualifier on things.

    Then, as if that's not enough let's consider things further. I saw it suggested here, that for example Utah in 2008 would have been placed ahead of Alabama if there had been a plus one. Oh really, so the suggestion is that the polls would have intentionally rigged things so that the team they felt was inferior would jump another team so they could be in a plus one? I hope that's not true, but it's possible. We've seen the polls try to move things around a bit in the past, the problem is they have limited space in which to work. If they knew the importance of #4, they could use the position strategically and unfortunately I do think you'd see it used (not just by coaches, by writers primarily) to try and position the team they wanted into a plus one. The idea that we could, as though we tolerate the notion, suggest that the polls would unethically promote a team for the sake of gaining entry into a plus one is horrid.

    This, slippery slope aside, is what I can not stomach about a plus one. I'd rather see us go back to the old bowl system than implement a conference champs only +1. I said before the only plus one I could stomach was a 2 (at home) vs 3 with 1 having a bye. But, ultimately a plus one is a very bad idea because of #4. It pushed LSU into a Stanford game, which if the Alabama game was an insult, that one would have been a slap in the face. It would put undeserving team after undeserving team into it, and why? So the media could stop bashing the process? In the hope that we'd sate their need for inclusion? Unfortunately, we'll see a +1 long before we see a #4 that actually deserves to be in it.

  10. #114
    BamaNation All-American crimsonbleeder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Birmingham, AL
    Posts
    2,704

    Re: Changing the bowl system because of Alabama

    Krazy, I hope you can aggregate all your thoughts from here (and more) into a blog page all in one place so we can refer people to it for easier reading. You have absolutely hit every worry, and every issue I have as well, and I think most thinking people are worried about all those things, if they're not knee jerk casual fans blinded by the "March Madness" of potential football playoffs...
    "No invention in history has been more successful in the collection and display of stupidity than the Internet. "

    -Mike Herndon, Press-Register 8/20/08

  11. #115
    BamaNation Second Team
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    76

    Re: Changing the bowl system because of Alabama

    Krazy that was great work, and I love where your heads at. The only problem is the rest of the world doesn't understand that theory. I reiterated after the super bowl as many times as possible that we cannot simply declare a 9-7 team the world champions. Some fans agreed, while most nfl fans simply say they were the best team since they won the playoff. I have always said the best team never wins a playoff, but causal fans do not understand that. That is the problem with your analysis. Its made for people who actually care about college football, while media types want to expand it to people who dont care about college football. The media will continue to blast the idea of a playoff at us, and it has been working. There are people out there who couldnt tell you what conference Alabama is in but they know we didnt deserve this year because there wasnt a playoff

  12. #116
    BamaNation Hall of Fame GrayTide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Greenbow, Alabama
    Posts
    15,243

    Re: Changing the bowl system because of Alabama

    IMO, the +1 scenario has some merit provided it only allows the top 4 teams in without any loopholes, but you can bet the farm the media, especially ESPN, is not going to let it rest with a final four for long. The media is desperately trying to get CFB into at least an 8 possibly 16 team playoff. It is all about the money lining their pockets. At least for now the media has duped the Big 10, Big 12 and PAC 12 into buying into the +1. This is only the beginning.
    "My momma always said you got to put the past behind you before you can move on." Forrest Gump

    "The past is never dead. It's not even past." William Faulkner

  13. #117
    BamaNation All-American crimsonbleeder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Birmingham, AL
    Posts
    2,704

    Re: Changing the bowl system because of Alabama

    Quote Originally Posted by jmwesler View Post
    Krazy that was great work, and I love where your heads at. The only problem is the rest of the world doesn't understand that theory. I reiterated after the super bowl as many times as possible that we cannot simply declare a 9-7 team the world champions. Some fans agreed, while most nfl fans simply say they were the best team since they won the playoff. I have always said the best team never wins a playoff, but causal fans do not understand that. That is the problem with your analysis. Its made for people who actually care about college football, while media types want to expand it to people who dont care about college football. The media will continue to blast the idea of a playoff at us, and it has been working. There are people out there who couldnt tell you what conference Alabama is in but they know we didnt deserve this year because there wasnt a playoff
    Agreed. There is NO WAY a single elimination type of tourney can every properly decide a "real" Champion. There will be accidental wins by lesser teams, and accidental losses by championship caliber teams. While we all love "March Madness" and NFL playoffs, that single elimination style does not do the sport justice. A better idea (although probably impractical) would be to have DOUBLE elimination tourneys; after all, baseball and hockey and the NBA have "best of" series, which more than make up for the chances that an inferior team might accidentally win and eliminate the better team at some point.

    But, that's a whole separate argument. Here, we simply do NOT want to start the ball rolling towards a playoff in college football, UNLESS there are NO "special rules" that would prevent a conference from having EVERY team in it, if they were the 1,2,3, and 4 teams in the country. However, as Krazy has said, the powers that be will not have a "simple" solution---they will put out the carrot, the public will bite it, and then we're stuck---THERE WILL BE NO GOING BACK once they screw this up, and we are going to get very screwed by the OTHER conferences at some point, guaranteed.
    "No invention in history has been more successful in the collection and display of stupidity than the Internet. "

    -Mike Herndon, Press-Register 8/20/08

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

TideFansStore.com Bama Gear