Changing the bowl system because of Alabama

BamaFossil

All-American
Jun 3, 2008
3,029
79
63
Williamsburg, VA
I'm opposed to any form of playoff system for college football. Even the much-ballyhooed "Plus-One". Actually, I'd be fine with a return to the pre-BCS system where the bowls simply picked the teams they wanted and pollsters made the call at the end of the bowl games. But that's just me...

I want no part of a system whereby (a) teams can play-in via a cupcake schedule; (b) restricted to conference champions; or (c) automatic set-asides are created for special teams. Unfortunately the present system already gives us the potential for both (a) and (c). So why would I not be shocked if (b) is thrown into the mix...

KrAzY3's post #19 should be read carefully -twice! - by all who favor a play-off or believe a play-off will ultimately benefit the SEC schools.
 

crimsonbleeder

All-American
Dec 1, 2002
2,704
3
0
Birmingham, AL
In 1991, do you think anyone really imagined a 4 team playoff? If they go towards a 4 team playoff you are right in that it will likely end up with just the top four (but they'll probably sneak in a no 3 from one conference rule). But, once the major conferences start to see they are regularly left out, the pressure (which already exists in great deal, I've seen and heard many people here, on ESPN, etc... state their ultimate goal is 8 or more) to expand further will set in. It happened to the MLB, NCAA, NFL, etc... it will happen to college football if this line is crossed.

You can't unring this bell. If there's a playoff, college football will no longer be different from the other major sports. And, ultimately it will place the things that make it so different (generally crowning the best team champion, bowls, polls, etc...) on the path to extinction. I've heard so many times about how everyone else has a playoff. Well, guess what? Everyone else has a system that includes conference/division champs. If you think the two can remain apart forever you're being quite unrealistic.

The only way to prevent this from happening ultimately, is for more people to put their foot down and say, I want to preserve the bowl games, I want the regular season to matter, and I want the most worthy teams to play for a championship. What can't happen, is this kneejerk support for a playoff and this manipulated anti-BCS lunacy the AP is spreading (which gives a rubber stamp to the NCAA basketball playoffs) be allowed to prevail. I'm not completely anti-plus one. I just know what it will really become, and what people really intend for it to be. It's for the sake of inclusion, not excellence and in practice it will not do a better job of crowning a deserving champion. All it will do, is put us one small step away from destroying what's best about college football.

The ultimate goal for many, is to make it less about excellence and more about inclusion. Study over what has happened to all the other playoffs and show me where I'm wrong. It's ultimately an ideal, a belief system which says more should have a chance and that being great shouldn't mean so much.
Requoted for emphasis...

Krazy, can I compile your posts in this thread (and anyone else) and post them around the 'Net? Your arguments simply MUST be put out there to offset the ridiculous reactionary "it ain't fair" morons all around the country ASAP. You make the clearest, best, and most understandable (especially for the lower-IQ dumbarse proplayoff people who can't see past their next meal, much less 4-5 years ahead to see what this will do to ruin CFB) arguments that are in line with what most of us worry about and KNOW WILL happen (and as you have said, the bell cannot be "unrung") down the line. OUR sport will die a slow and painful death...(for now I'll just link to this forum...people who are interested and are 'Bama fans will read it, but we need to get it out for NATIONAL people who are on the fence to hear the truth instead of listening to the "it ain't fair the SEC controls the game and we gotta develop something that prevents them from ever having 2 teams in the NC game ever again" people)
 
Last edited:

jsanderson

Scout Team
Nov 17, 2007
112
0
0
I would be fine with the Top 4 ranked teams at season end playing 1v4, 2v3 then the winners playing for it all. The conference champions rule would be crap if the top teams are not in it because of that rule.
 

crimsonbleeder

All-American
Dec 1, 2002
2,704
3
0
Birmingham, AL
I would be fine with the Top 4 ranked teams at season end playing 1v4, 2v3 then the winners playing for it all. The conference champions rule would be crap if the top teams are not in it because of that rule.
Well, you can GUARANTEE that they are ONLY going to agree to a plus 4 if they can "clause in" a "conference champions only" specification. Again, the rules are being changed NOT to affect a "more fun and interesting postseason", but as a way to "prevent the SEC from maintaining dominance, and most certainly to prevent them from ever having 2 in the NCG ever again".
 

Lady Crimson

Suspended
Oct 13, 2011
474
0
0
I don't really care how they go about crowning a champion as long as the best teams end up with a fair chance at the championship, but if the BCS starts trying to include all the automatic qualifiers from each conference that will be the beginning of the end of the BCS IMO.
 

MOAN

All-American
Aug 30, 2010
2,375
130
78
Swearengin, Alabama, United States
I don't really care how they go about crowning a champion as long as the best teams end up with a fair chance at the championship, but if the BCS starts trying to include all the automatic qualifiers from each conference that will be the beginning of the end of the BCS IMO.
No doubt! That is what you would call a full blown 16 or more team playoff! The end of college football as we know it! ;)
 

Bamalawdawg

Scout Team
Dec 28, 2011
210
0
0
So much for #1 v. #2 with the conf champ only idea. I thought the idea was to pit 1 v. 2 since that rarely happened for decades?

Welcome to 1 v 7, and 3 v. 5 with the 2 and 3 playing a consolation game in the 2011 groupings. I guess ND automatically qualifies if they are ranked below only 3 champs.
 

CrimsonPride

1st Team
Dec 9, 2001
909
1
28
59
Chattanooga, TN
Don't think it is aimed at Alabama, but the SEC.
While the BCS has always had its critics bemoaning the process, at the end of every season, the majority of the college football viewers would agree that the system got it right. Well, the system got it right this year, too.

IMO, all of this uproar over the current system no longer being acceptable is not aimed so much at the SEC dominance but is more about Bama. I just do not believe, that if we had won 9-6 on 11/5, went on to win the SECCG, had to play LSU in the BCSCG, and lost the championship game that there would be all of this outcry by the media. Any scenario that ended up with LSU winning the BCSCG would have been okay because the national sports media had all but crowned LSU the best team ever and made TM the best defensive player in the country and a Heisman finalist. Never mind that prior to CNS' arrival in 2000, they had not been relevant nationally. But then Bama ruined it for everyone by totally dominating and exposing the weaknesses of the media darlings and their coach. The national sports media and pundits are hurt because they looked foolish and incompetent with all of their arrogance and absolutes concerning LSU. The "experts" got this one totally wrong just like they were wrong when they said that a coach the caliber of CNS would never come to Bama. They do not like having to eat crow when it comes to Bama and never have. The fact that we don't let them forget how wrong they were doesn't help either.

So much for #1 v. #2 with the conf champ only idea. I thought the idea was to pit 1 v. 2 since that rarely happened for decades?

Welcome to 1 v 7, and 3 v. 5 with the 2 and 3 playing a consolation game in the 2011 groupings. I guess ND automatically qualifies if they are ranked below only 3 champs.
If we are going to have 1 v. 7 and 3 v. 5, we should just revert back to the old bowl system and make those games mean something again. When the BCS was first introduced, it was to keep those types of match-ups from determining the national champion. We were told that the purpose of the system was to ensure that the best two teams (#1 v. #2) of the FBS played for the championship, not the best two teams of the conference champions or current media favorites. The BCS title game was also going to eliminate split championships. That lasted until the *U debacle. A special provision was made for Notre Dame since they refused to join a conference. I still can't believe that the conferences and schools agreed to this in the first place...SMH. If Notre Dame is allowed to participate in the title game without the benefit of winning a conference title, that same option should apply to everyone else.
 
Last edited:

GoBama#1

All-SEC
May 4, 2005
1,499
0
0
40
Midlothian, Virginia
I agree with you, but expect the Pac 12, Big Ten and probably the Big 12 to support a conference champion only format. To make matters worse they will probably include a "Notre Dame Exception" where the Irish get to go if they are ranked ahead of a conference champion.
Oh I agree, but we will be back to this once a team from their conference gets left out because of that silliness. They will be screaming for reform once they see how that clause can and will screw their conferences too. Hopefully they will wake up before its too late.
 

KrAzY3

Hall of Fame
Jan 18, 2006
9,422
1,088
178
40
www.myspace.com
Krazy, can I compile your posts in this thread (and anyone else) and post them around the 'Net? Your arguments simply MUST be put out there to offset the ridiculous reactionary "it ain't fair" morons all around the country ASAP. You make the clearest, best, and most understandable (especially for the lower-IQ dumbarse proplayoff people who can't see past their next meal, much less 4-5 years ahead to see what this will do to ruin CFB) arguments that are in line with what most of us worry about and KNOW WILL happen (and as you have said, the bell cannot be "unrung") down the line. OUR sport will die a slow and painful death...
Sure, I don't mind you linking to posts on the forum or quoting me.

As to the mindset of some of the people, some are reasonable and I think want good things for football, but I don't think have really analyzed things. However, there are people who openly say what they want is a 8, 12, or 16 team playoff and who openly say they think a playoff is the only legitimate way to crown a champion. I take real exception to those people, especially if they'll place legitimacy with the Giants championship and call Alabama's mythical, as though being third best instead of the best means more. I've encountered people outside this forum that are just plain ignorant. I kept running into pro playoff people complaining about the rematch and how conference champs would be important. I said, you guys do know that will happen more often, even in a plus one right? I even got a "I didn't think about that"...

Well, you can GUARANTEE that they are ONLY going to agree to a plus 4 if they can "clause in" a "conference champions only" specification. Again, the rules are being changed NOT to affect a "more fun and interesting postseason", but as a way to "prevent the SEC from maintaining dominance, and most certainly to prevent them from ever having 2 in the NCG ever again".
I don't know what Slive is really thinking. Who would have thought the SEC would implement a scholarship rule that 100% of the coaches voted against? Without knowing what is going on behind closed doors, or who is involved it's hard to say. I know there are forces at work that want an inclusive postseason and want college football to be like every other sport. I completely loath that notion, because championships mean more in college football. When we talk about Alabama's NC's, what we are really talking about is Alabama was the best each of those years. Not Alabama had a winning streak late in the season... there's a massive difference between what Alabama did this year and what the Giants did and some people get that, some don't.

I suspect we'll see a plus one without mandating conference champs but there will be "creep" in there to. They'll probably have a clause that specifies no more than two from a conference, and if they can they'll find some sort of a mandatory inclusion clause. Perhaps a Notre Dame clause that insures if certain criteria is met Notre Dame and the power conferences get inclusion. They might be able to get away with it if they just use it on what would have been the fourth seed slot. While part of it is about the SEC and Alabama, the biggest part remains inclusion. Ironically they might intentionally sabotage the plus one so they can revisit it later and expand it.

A plus one can and will only be a single step towards the goal I know the NCAA, media, and every wanna be conference has in mind, which is a fully inclusive college football playoff with every single conference champ. I've seen the bracket and it made me want to gag. The question is the power the bowls have, and who is resisting and why. We saw the Big 12 saved by a behind the scenes, overly large TV contract which people said was simply a move by the powers that be to stop conference expansions (which were, at that moment on the verge of 16 team conferences and the destruction of the Big 12).

A lot is speculation but I think what they'll do here is try to force as much as possible on the anti-playoff/pro bowl crowd as they can. First the predecessors, then the BCS, then the additional BCS championship that broke away from the bowls, then we saw the bowls spread out... the plus one is another nail in the coffin of the bowls and one step closer to a BCS style conference champ playoff, of that I am certain. I was and am ok with the BCS championship game, but I'm drawing the line at that.
 

GrayTide

Hall of Fame
Nov 15, 2005
17,298
2,551
178
Greenbow, Alabama
I can see a +1 system without the conference champion requirement. It will include the 4 highest rated teams in the final BCS poll with the caveat that the +1 selection will limit the participation to no more than 1 team per conference. If 2 teams from the same conference are among the 4 highest rated teams according to the BCS final poll then then highest rated is in the +1 and the #5 teams gets the invite provided it is in a different conference than the other 3 teams. That will punish every conference but it has served its purpose of keeping 2 SEC teams out.
 

Quicksilver

1st Team
Mar 13, 2010
392
30
43
Ellicott City, MD
While the BCS has always had its critics bemoaning the process, at the end of every season, the majority of the college football viewers would agree that the system got it right. Well, the system got it right this year, too.

IMO, all of this uproar over the current system no longer being acceptable is not aimed so much at the SEC dominance but is more about Bama. I just do not believe, that if we had won 9-6 on 11/5, went on to win the SECCG, had to play LSU in the BCSCG, and lost the championship game that there would be all of this outcry by the media. Any scenario that ended up with LSU winning the BCSCG would have been okay because the national sports media had all but crowned LSU the best team ever and made TM the best defensive player in the country and a Heisman finalist. Never mind that prior to CNS' arrival in 2000, they had not been relevant nationally. But then Bama ruined it for everyone by totally dominating and exposing the weaknesses of the media darlings and their coach. The national sports media and pundits are hurt because they looked foolish and incompetent with all of their arrogance and absolutes concerning LSU. The "experts" got this one totally wrong just like they were wrong when they said that a coach the caliber of CNS would never come to Bama. They do not like having to eat crow when it comes to Bama and never have. The fact that we don't let them forget how wrong they were doesn't help either.
This is exactly right. An LSU win against Alabama would have placated everybody and you wouldn't have this campaign to create a playoff system.
 

BamaFlum

Hall of Fame
Dec 11, 2002
6,431
352
93
50
S.A., TX, USA
I can see a +1 system without the conference champion requirement. It will include the 4 highest rated teams in the final BCS poll with the caveat that the +1 selection will limit the participation to no more than 1 team per conference. If 2 teams from the same conference are among the 4 highest rated teams according to the BCS final poll then then highest rated is in the +1 and the #5 teams gets the invite provided it is in a different conference than the other 3 teams. That will punish every conference but it has served its purpose of keeping 2 SEC teams out.
I hope not. It should be top 4 regardless of which conference.
 

selmaborntidefan

Hall of Fame
Mar 31, 2000
24,517
7,056
278
51
Wishing I was somewhere close to Duluth with a sli
Some of the discussion here is enlightening. (On a side note for one of the few times in history KrAzy and I agree on something - this #7 nonsense will make us long for the days of the BCS).

However, some of our beloved fans need to lighten up.

This is NOT happening because "we have to keep Alabama from winning," which is what is implied. There have been discussions of a CFB playoff since at least 1977, when Holtz proposed one including the bowls after he felt his one-loss Arkansas team got messed over (along with Tide fans feeling we wuz robbed) by Notre Dame. Since my days as a CFB fan go back no further than that, I have no first-hand experience of how long "playoff" has been in the works. (And Paterno was probably complaining about it back in the early 1970s after Penn State went unbeaten three times and never even came close).

We did just happen to win it this year, but this rising up is a response to perceived injustices in Stillwater. It's a perfect storm in the sense that in recent years we have had an impugned Utah team go unbeaten and drill a top five Alabama team, the OU-Texas argument in 2008 (that aroused Joe Barton), five unbeatens in 2009, and unbeaten TCU in 2010. In short, it's sort of like a cold that left untreated has turned into a life-threatening situation although this one is overstated.

If THIS is their idea of Plus One then put me down for the BCS. The BCS is a disgusting joke where a team can lose to a 6-7 team on the road while ranked number two - and then still be number two in the computers (this btw blows all those "appeal to the one bad scenario" arguments we hear in favor of it). But it would still be tons better than having a two-loss - or God help us - a 6-7 Pac 12 champ (UCLA) in the Plus One solely due to their luck of conference.

(Btw - this is not the first time UCLA has bizarrely benefited or potentially benefited from nonsense. In 1983, a 6-4-1 UCLA team led by Rick "Know When To Fold 'Em" Neuheisel lucked into the Rose Bowl by playing an insane OOC (11-1 Georgia, 11-1 Nebraska, and 11-1 BYU) but only lost once in the Pac Ten and then trounced a one-loss Illinois in the Rose Bowl).

Top Four teams regardless. Period. START the bowl season with the semi-finals so we don't have this "sit around for 51 days" nonsense. This is NOT that hard to solve.


That said - this is NOT a "stop Alabama" thing. It is - to a degree - a "stop the SEC" thing. Alabama was not on anybody's radar until four years ago. This is MOSTLY Big XII driven.
 

GrayTide

Hall of Fame
Nov 15, 2005
17,298
2,551
178
Greenbow, Alabama
Very good points, Bill and if it is to be a +1 scenario then it should include only the top 4 teams from the final BCS poll without regard to conference championships or conference affilitation. I also feel that strength of schedule and strength of the overall conference a team plays in should factor heavily into the final computer rankings once the season has ended. It does matter who you played and who you lost to, if we were to lose to UK or Vandy then that is our problem. I also do not think the timing of the loss should be a factor, like it is better to lose early than late in the season.

If you want to be included in the final 4 teams then you have to win, unlike the NFL, in college football every game counts as it should and that's one of the things that makes the college game superior to the NFL.
 

CrimsonPride

1st Team
Dec 9, 2001
909
1
28
59
Chattanooga, TN
Some of the discussion here is enlightening. (On a side note for one of the few times in history KrAzy and I agree on something - this #7 nonsense will make us long for the days of the BCS).

However, some of our beloved fans need to lighten up.

This is NOT happening because "we have to keep Alabama from winning," which is what is implied. There have been discussions of a CFB playoff since at least 1977, when Holtz proposed one including the bowls after he felt his one-loss Arkansas team got messed over (along with Tide fans feeling we wuz robbed) by Notre Dame. Since my days as a CFB fan go back no further than that, I have no first-hand experience of how long "playoff" has been in the works. (And Paterno was probably complaining about it back in the early 1970s after Penn State went unbeaten three times and never even came close).

We did just happen to win it this year, but this rising up is a response to perceived injustices in Stillwater. It's a perfect storm in the sense that in recent years we have had an impugned Utah team go unbeaten and drill a top five Alabama team, the OU-Texas argument in 2008 (that aroused Joe Barton), five unbeatens in 2009, and unbeaten TCU in 2010. In short, it's sort of like a cold that left untreated has turned into a life-threatening situation although this one is overstated.

If THIS is their idea of Plus One then put me down for the BCS. The BCS is a disgusting joke where a team can lose to a 6-7 team on the road while ranked number two - and then still be number two in the computers (this btw blows all those "appeal to the one bad scenario" arguments we hear in favor of it). But it would still be tons better than having a two-loss - or God help us - a 6-7 Pac 12 champ (UCLA) in the Plus One solely due to their luck of conference.

(Btw - this is not the first time UCLA has bizarrely benefited or potentially benefited from nonsense. In 1983, a 6-4-1 UCLA team led by Rick "Know When To Fold 'Em" Neuheisel lucked into the Rose Bowl by playing an insane OOC (11-1 Georgia, 11-1 Nebraska, and 11-1 BYU) but only lost once in the Pac Ten and then trounced a one-loss Illinois in the Rose Bowl).

Top Four teams regardless. Period. START the bowl season with the semi-finals so we don't have this "sit around for 51 days" nonsense. This is NOT that hard to solve.


That said - this is NOT a "stop Alabama" thing. It is - to a degree - a "stop the SEC" thing. Alabama was not on anybody's radar until four years ago. This is MOSTLY Big XII driven.
While I agree with most of your points, the fact that it was the SEC and Alabama that benefited from the current system is part of what has everybody on board for the +1 all of a sudden. Remember, Slive introduce this 4-5 years ago and the only other commissioner that was in favor of it was the ACC. The Big 12 was adamantly against it. At the time, the PTB in the Big 12 could not foresee the almost demise of their conference and then a year later Ok State being the bell cow of the conference. They believed that either Texas or Oklahoma would be the conference champ most years.

If this past season had played out basically the same way with Texas and Oklahoma as #1 and #2 and say Miss St at #3 having only one loss to Vandy (of course Bama, LSU, and Arky would have to have a down year), the outrage would have mostly come from SEC fans. Also, those that were so firmly against a rematch of LSU-Alabama (because Alabama already had their shot at the #1 team) would not have batted an eye if the rematch had been between LSU and a one-loss Oregon team that had already had their shot at the #1 team. Many of the sports media were actively promoting this match-up until 11/19.

I think there has been enough commentary from other schools, conferences, boosters and national sports media to support the notion that the success of the SEC (and Alabama) and the fact that it doesn't look like its going to stop anytime soon have galvanized the college football world to ensure that this does not happen again.
 

ALA2262

All-American
Aug 4, 2007
4,841
223
73
Cumming, GA
Ironic that the best comments against a playoff here were aimed at me because there is no one on this board more opposed than I am to a playoff. The comment of mine that was being replied to was made in the belief that this thing is going to be rammed down our throat.
 

KrAzY3

Hall of Fame
Jan 18, 2006
9,422
1,088
178
40
www.myspace.com
Ironic that the best comments against a playoff here were aimed at me because there is no one on this board more opposed than I am to a playoff. The comment of mine that was being replied to was made in the belief that this thing is going to be rammed down our throat.
I hope you didn't take it personally. I spend most of my energy on the topic rather than properly interpreting individual opinions. I usually just take a tidbit and run with it, so I hope no one here takes it too personally. I tried to specify I was directing my thoughts at the statement and not you personally, and I guess you took it in stride since you didn't call me any names.

Now, off I go...

Personally, I do think we are seeing some bias against Alabama and the SEC. Is it all aimed specifically at Alabama and the SEC? Of course not, but it is there. There's no getting around the fact that the NCAA didn't like Bear Bryant (the feeling was mutual) and doesn't like Alabama. They've never missed a chance to hammer Alabama. There's no getting around the fact that every time Alabama excels, there seems to be forces out there trying to make it more difficult. Alabama isn't a very big state, it isn't a very popular state, and it isn't the base for any major media outlets. There have rarely been national advocates for Alabama. The same can be said for the SEC to a lesser extent. The SEC is the blue collar worker of the college football world. They got what they have through a work ethic, and they excel. A lot of people don't like these "lesser" institutions showing them up. Alabama and the SEC stand for excellence, in the traditional American spirit. Dirty, sweaty, and perhaps a little crass but excellent none the less. This has to drive a lot of members of the media and the stodgy university types crazy. They want inclusion, they want their own form of elitism, and it simply doesn't mesh with SEC dominance. If they could, I'm sure they would pass the championship trophy around amongst themselves, Notre Dame one year, then Ohio St., then USC... and we're ruining that.

We can't discount ESPN's role. ESPN has been the main entity reporting lower bowl ratings, yet they were the reason for lower bowl ratings. Simply moving from broadcast to cable should produce at least a 20% drop in ratings, which is in keeping with what we're seeing. Of course attendance drops as well when ESPN has the bowls spread out and played at odd times on odd days. I can't say if ESPN is intentionally killing off the bowls, or if they're just trying to drain them for every last penny. It's certainly not in their interest to have the games seen by the most possible people (or else they would be on ABC) and it's certainly no concern of theirs that people actually show up to the stadiums. What I do find highly questionable is that the same entity that is constantly telling us ratings are lower and we need a change, can't see fit to ask their bosses why the choice was made to move away from broadcast or even ask their reaction to the ratings. It seems like poor reporting in the least and perhaps more sinister than that.

Shortly before the Big 10 suggestion for a plus one came out, I was close to posting my own proposal. I'm not sure if it was a moment of weakness. I suppose part of it was: here's what I could stomach. Mine was close to what the Big 10 said (and I probably tossed it into a thread about that proposal). 1 should get a bye, 2 a home game against 3. This way, everyone gets due respect for their position. 1 is rewarded, 2 plays at home and 3 should be happy to be there.

I have to back off of even that. If we're being pushed in a direction we have to ask why. If we're being mislead, we have to question why they feel the need to mislead us. The more I look the more I see the AP's agenda in this. The more I see ESPN's agenda. I know the NCAA's agenda, I know the lesser conference's agenda. I'm not completely sure about Slive, considering the scholarship things I am not sure I can trust him. There is no avoiding the fact that we're being pushed in a direction that started a long time ago. The championship matchup between Alabama and Miami was a good thing. The BCS title game has been a good thing. However, bit by bit we're losing something and I'd hope more and more of us start to realize we want to get off this ride. A plus one will just be the next stop, it won't be the end, even the plus one will probably have something slipped in to undermine the process. Perhaps it will allow the top two teams like the BCS does, but if it's a non-conference champ they won't be allowed in if they are 3 or 4. It won't end there though, and let's be clear, a plus one will put the bowl games on life support.

The title came should be renamed, retain the same basic criteria for selection, and the rest of the bowl games should operate separately. No more BCS, just an agreement to release the top 2 teams to play in the game. It should probably be opened up to bidding, so any (off campus) site can host it. I have other ideas for how to make college football better, but for this issue in isolation that's how I believe it should be handled. Clean the slate, give us 1 vs 2 and let stop telling the bowl games who they can and can't have.
 

Crimson1967

Hall of Fame
Nov 22, 2011
14,592
3,390
178
Another thing to consider with a plus one is the bowls. If the semifinals are held on campus sites, that would mean four more teams that would go to bowl games, assuming the semifinal losers don't go to bowls afterwards.

Would there be enough six win teams to go to bowl games? Bowl games are a big enough of a joke without having teams with a losing record going.
 

TF Shop : NATIONAL CHAMP GEAR!


TideFans.Shop - Get your Bama Championship gear here!
TideFans.Shop - Get your Bama Championship gear here!
TideFans.Shop - Get your Bama Championship gear here!

Purchases made through our TideFans.shop and Amazon.com links may result in a commission being paid to TideFans.

Latest threads