Kirk Herbstreit apparently threatened to quit Gameday if Mcafee left

81usaf92

TideFans Legend
Apr 26, 2008
35,373
31,727
187
South Alabama
I don't have strong feelings on any of them. I don't watch much game day. I don't think I ever watch it start to finish but I do turn it on for the picks sometimes.

I think Pat is fine sometimes good sometimes a little much but whatever.
Well Gameday is like the “pageantry” and “amateurism” of college football….As you get older you have this nostalgic perception of how things used to be… but you realize that they pretty much were always the same to begin with just with tweaks to the system. People complain about change and want to point to one instance that “ruined” the sport. I mean I listened to Josh Pate complain about the playoffs ruining major bowl games. I’m thinking to myself “have you actually seen some of these 2000-2013 BCS bowl games that no one wanted to go to? The only difference really is the opt outs and transfers in the playoff era.

My point is that Gameday has generally been a 3-4 hour show in which you only watched in it’s entirety when it involved your team, and 90% of everyone else just watched the picks at the end. I will say that losing Rinaldi and Woj really kinda hurt it but really the first and last 10 minutes makes or breaks a College Gameday experience. And it’s beyond obvious Corso is on borrowed time on the show and they really need someone to bring the energy in order to try to save it.
 

UKTideFan1961

BamaNation Citizen
Oct 20, 2019
34
59
42
First, I am definitely on the side of those who think Pat McAfee is a no talent butt clown. But as awful as he is, and he is awful, he's amazing compared to the laughing hyena Desmond Howard.

McAfee is at least entertaining in a "dude, I am so embarrassed for you" way. Howard is just horrible. He has a voice made for newspaper and a knowledge of the game that appears to be near zero. Why they kept him and let Pollock go, I have no idea. But they need someone else like Herbstreit to balance off the clowning of McAfee.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rolltide7854

selmaborntidefan

TideFans Legend
Mar 31, 2000
36,432
29,736
287
54
I heard that Rinaldi will be profiling D.A.Baxter in the coming weeks. Your name comes up frequently.
(somber music plays with pictures of fallen leaves crossing a church yard)

He comes and goes like the wind. His appearance is rare and unannounced, almost like Deity.
Nobody has seen him, but everyone has heard about him. Is he a fan? Or an advocate?
 

Bamabuzzard

FB Moderator
Staff member
Aug 15, 2004
30,652
18,669
237
48
Where ever there's BBQ, Bourbon & Football
First, I am definitely on the side of those who think Pat McAfee is a no talent butt clown. But as awful as he is, and he is awful, he's amazing compared to the laughing hyena Desmond Howard.

McAfee is at least entertaining in a "dude, I am so embarrassed for you" way. Howard is just horrible. He has a voice made for newspaper and a knowledge of the game that appears to be near zero. Why they kept him and let Pollock go, I have no idea. But they need someone else like Herbstreit to balance off the clowning of McAfee.
Pollock being canned was wonderful
 

81usaf92

TideFans Legend
Apr 26, 2008
35,373
31,727
187
South Alabama
(somber music plays with pictures of fallen leaves crossing a church yard)

He comes and goes like the wind. His appearance is rare and unannounced, almost like Deity.
Nobody has seen him, but everyone has heard about him. Is he a fan? Or an advocate?
I’ll never forget Rinaldi after being let go goes to Fox NFL and has to cover the postgame trophy ceremony for the NFC Championship for the Bucs. He tries to ask Tom Brady ten billion questions and Tom interrupts him mid sentence and says “how about you get someone else up here”. Ronaldo’s face in disbelief was epic.
 
  • Wow
Reactions: The Ols

selmaborntidefan

TideFans Legend
Mar 31, 2000
36,432
29,736
287
54
I mean I listened to Josh Pate complain about the playoffs ruining major bowl games. I’m thinking to myself “have you actually seen some of these 2000-2013 BCS bowl games that no one wanted to go to? The only difference really is the opt outs and transfers in the playoff era.
Yes and no.

I agree the BCS funneled the bowl games into "less meaningful" than when you had the potential for 2-3-4 of them to play an outsized role in the championship vote. However, when you had the two teams in the final game, you still had a fantastic New Year's Day with the so-called "BCS" bowls that paired some interesting matchups. One thing that diluted that was the buyoff of the G5s by promising them one spot in the BCS bowls, ensuring an Oklahoma plays a Boise State.

The expansion to four teams, however, had a much more major effect because:
a) you took two bowl games away from the teams
b) you ensured any team not selected was going to finish 5th or worse (virtually)
c) it closed off the route of the 2003 USC team and a split title

You're not wrong in the abstract, the dilution was much more gradual than folks want to admit and definitely there, but it's also correct that anything below the NY6 was ho hum and TV filler, too. In essence, the advance to the BCS diluted all the lower bowls (of which they kept adding more, enhancing the dilution), and the advance to the CFP turned all non-CFP bowls into entirely diluted products void of meaning even to the teams in them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Huckleberry

B1GTide

TideFans Legend
Apr 13, 2012
45,588
47,165
187
Yes and no.

I agree the BCS funneled the bowl games into "less meaningful" than when you had the potential for 2-3-4 of them to play an outsized role in the championship vote. However, when you had the two teams in the final game, you still had a fantastic New Year's Day with the so-called "BCS" bowls that paired some interesting matchups. One thing that diluted that was the buyoff of the G5s by promising them one spot in the BCS bowls, ensuring an Oklahoma plays a Boise State.

The expansion to four teams, however, had a much more major effect because:
a) you took two bowl games away from the teams
b) you ensured any team not selected was going to finish 5th or worse (virtually)
c) it closed off the route of the 2003 USC team and a split title

You're not wrong in the abstract, the dilution was much more gradual than folks want to admit and definitely there, but it's also correct that anything below the NY6 was ho hum and TV filler, too. In essence, the advance to the BCS diluted all the lower bowls (of which they kept adding more, enhancing the dilution), and the advance to the CFP turned all non-CFP bowls into entirely diluted products void of meaning even to the teams in them.
Bowls were meant to be rewards anyway for almost all teams that participated. They were never meant to be an extension of the season. Yes, they served that purpose for a few decades, but before and after that era, they are and were just rewards.
 

selmaborntidefan

TideFans Legend
Mar 31, 2000
36,432
29,736
287
54
Bowls were meant to be rewards anyway for almost all teams that participated. They were never meant to be an extension of the season. Yes, they served that purpose for a few decades, but before and after that era, they are and were just rewards.
Correct.

And it should be noted a number of coaches were adamantly opposed to including them in the national title vote, not because they were "skeered" but because as a number of them pointed out, you wind up with a team firing on all cylinders that has six weeks off and an opponent who hears for six weeks that the other team is the champion already, making the motivation for an upset much easier.

Once upon a time, they were all in warm weather climes, too.
 

81usaf92

TideFans Legend
Apr 26, 2008
35,373
31,727
187
South Alabama
Yes and no.

I agree the BCS funneled the bowl games into "less meaningful" than when you had the potential for 2-3-4 of them to play an outsized role in the championship vote. However, when you had the two teams in the final game, you still had a fantastic New Year's Day with the so-called "BCS" bowls that paired some interesting matchups. One thing that diluted that was the buyoff of the G5s by promising them one spot in the BCS bowls, ensuring an Oklahoma plays a Boise State.

The expansion to four teams, however, had a much more major effect because:
a) you took two bowl games away from the teams
b) you ensured any team not selected was going to finish 5th or worse (virtually)
c) it closed off the route of the 2003 USC team and a split title

You're not wrong in the abstract, the dilution was much more gradual than folks want to admit and definitely there, but it's also correct that anything below the NY6 was ho hum and TV filler, too. In essence, the advance to the BCS diluted all the lower bowls (of which they kept adding more, enhancing the dilution), and the advance to the CFP turned all non-CFP bowls into entirely diluted products void of meaning even to the teams in them.
But here is what I’m getting at. Everyone wants to say “the NY6 bowls don’t matter” well how much did the non national championship BCS bowls really matter either. I mean how many times did major powers like Oklahoma and Florida get screwed by playing UConn and Boise in them? How many times were Miami and ND just boatraced in them and constantly hyped up the next year like it never happened. And how many times did you have teams like 2004 Auburn,2008 Alabama, and 2013 Alabama who clearly didn’t want to be there and either got beat by a far inferior team or toyed around in a widely boring game?

I’m just saying that this idea that bowls stopped mattering during the playoffs is just coming more from an anti playoff point of view and not really from the truth. Bowls really started to matter less and less when we started to see more of an effort to find a true national championship game.
 

TideFans.shop - NEW Stuff!

TideFans.shop - Get YOUR Bama Gear HERE!”></a>
<br />

<!--/ END TideFans.shop & item link \-->
<p style= Purchases made through our TideFans.shop and Amazon.com links may result in a commission being paid to TideFans.