Would you prefer college football return to the bowls-only era?
Comments
-
No, I like what they're trying to do to crown a true champion with a playoff
That’s a nostalgic memory for you. The rest of the country doesn’t want to see that. Not sure what you think you have proven.Southerndawg said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1978_Rose_BowlRoadDawg55 said:Going back to the Bowls would be lame now after we’ve already had the playoff. The bets should play the best.
With the old bowl system an undefeated team would sometimes play a team with 3 losses. Ohio State being undefeated and playing a 2-3 loss Oregon or Utah team would suck.
7-4 vs 10-1. 7-4 for the win. The game didn't suck. Neither did the 7-4 team. -
Yes, I liked it the way it was before the BCS and playoff format
This is more or less how I see it. In some respects, it's not all that different in that your admission ticket is a product of 'eye test'. Sometimes eye test is great: SOS, margin of victory, etc. etc.salemcoog said:We don’t have a playoff now. We have a popularity contest in which 1 or 2 teams clearly deserve their spot and the rest win a political, popularity contest.
I don’t care whether a teams fans can travel to 3 or 4 playoff games. But if you are gonna have a true playoff, that’s what needs to happen.
And fuck a conference champion auto bid. You are just rewarding potential mediocrity with that.
And for those that say that not having auto bids for a conference champion takes away the meaning of it. Tell me you guys weren’t excited after you recent P12 titles.
Because you were. As you should have been.
Sounds an awful lot like how we filled spots in many of the bowls. -
Yes, I liked it the way it was before the BCS and playoff formatRoadDawg55 said:
That’s a nostalgic memory for you. The rest of the country doesn’t want to see that. Not sure what you think you have proven.Southerndawg said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1978_Rose_BowlRoadDawg55 said:Going back to the Bowls would be lame now after we’ve already had the playoff. The bets should play the best.
With the old bowl system an undefeated team would sometimes play a team with 3 losses. Ohio State being undefeated and playing a 2-3 loss Oregon or Utah team would suck.
7-4 vs 10-1. 7-4 for the win. The game didn't suck. Neither did the 7-4 team.
You've missed the point, your argument is facile.
Here's another example.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Sugar_Bowl
The Cheerios Bowl. 9-3 vs 10-1. 9-3 for the win. The game didn't suck and neither did the 9-3 team.
And by the way, the Rose Bowl mattered prior to the BCS era. Now it doesn't. That's not nostalgia, it's simple fact. Without a "true" playoff, my preference is to go back to the bowl system. New Year's Day was a lot more fun under that model. And yes, that part is nostalgia.
-
Yes, I liked it the way it was before the BCS and playoff format
-
No, I like what they're trying to do to crown a true champion with a playoffSoutherndawg said:RoadDawg55 said:
That’s a nostalgic memory for you. The rest of the country doesn’t want to see that. Not sure what you think you have proven.Southerndawg said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1978_Rose_BowlRoadDawg55 said:Going back to the Bowls would be lame now after we’ve already had the playoff. The bets should play the best.
With the old bowl system an undefeated team would sometimes play a team with 3 losses. Ohio State being undefeated and playing a 2-3 loss Oregon or Utah team would suck.
7-4 vs 10-1. 7-4 for the win. The game didn't suck. Neither did the 7-4 team.
You've missed the point, your argument is facile.
Here's another example.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Sugar_Bowl
The Cheerios Bowl. 9-3 vs 10-1. 9-3 for the win. The game didn't suck and neither did the 9-3 team.
And by the way, the Rose Bowl mattered prior to the BCS era. Now it doesn't. That's not nostalgia, it's simple fact. Without a "true" playoff, my preference is to go back to the bowl system. New Year's Day was a lot more fun under that model. And yes, that part is nostalgia.Southerndawg said:RoadDawg55 said:
That’s a nostalgic memory for you. The rest of the country doesn’t want to see that. Not sure what you think you have proven.Southerndawg said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1978_Rose_BowlRoadDawg55 said:Going back to the Bowls would be lame now after we’ve already had the playoff. The bets should play the best.
With the old bowl system an undefeated team would sometimes play a team with 3 losses. Ohio State being undefeated and playing a 2-3 loss Oregon or Utah team would suck.
7-4 vs 10-1. 7-4 for the win. The game didn't suck. Neither did the 7-4 team.
You've missed the point, your argument is facile.
Here's another example.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Sugar_Bowl
The Cheerios Bowl. 9-3 vs 10-1. 9-3 for the win. The game didn't suck and neither did the 9-3 team.
And by the way, the Rose Bowl mattered prior to the BCS era. Now it doesn't. That's not nostalgia, it's simple fact. Without a "true" playoff, my preference is to go back to the bowl system. New Year's Day was a lot more fun under that model. And yes, that part is nostalgia.
My point was that nobody, or at least very few, want to watch the #1 team face a 2-3 loss team in their bowl game, which happened with the old system.Southerndawg said:RoadDawg55 said:
That’s a nostalgic memory for you. The rest of the country doesn’t want to see that. Not sure what you think you have proven.Southerndawg said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1978_Rose_BowlRoadDawg55 said:Going back to the Bowls would be lame now after we’ve already had the playoff. The bets should play the best.
With the old bowl system an undefeated team would sometimes play a team with 3 losses. Ohio State being undefeated and playing a 2-3 loss Oregon or Utah team would suck.
7-4 vs 10-1. 7-4 for the win. The game didn't suck. Neither did the 7-4 team.
You've missed the point, your argument is facile.
Here's another example.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Sugar_Bowl
The Cheerios Bowl. 9-3 vs 10-1. 9-3 for the win. The game didn't suck and neither did the 9-3 team.
And by the way, the Rose Bowl mattered prior to the BCS era. Now it doesn't. That's not nostalgia, it's simple fact. Without a "true" playoff, my preference is to go back to the bowl system. New Year's Day was a lot more fun under that model. And yes, that part is nostalgia.
If it were the first game of an 8 game playoff, that would be fine, but not to end the season like that.
I never said teams needed to be undefeated for the games to be entertaining. -
Yes, I liked it the way it was before the BCS and playoff format
UW was 10-2 after the Mississippi State and UCLA forfeitsSoutherndawg said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1978_Rose_BowlRoadDawg55 said:Going back to the Bowls would be lame now after we’ve already had the playoff. The bets should play the best.
With the old bowl system an undefeated team would sometimes play a team with 3 losses. Ohio State being undefeated and playing a 2-3 loss Oregon or Utah team would suck.
7-4 vs 10-1. 7-4 for the win. The game didn't suck. Neither did the 7-4 team. -
I have already given you all the best system and you all know it.
5 auto bid from each conference makes the conference championship game actually matter
6 teams in 3 play-in games hosted at higher ranked team so the rankings still matter even if you dont win your conference or are a non P5 team.
8 team playoff with first round hosted at highest seeded home field still heavily rewards winning out
final 4 and championship hosted at traditional bowl sites
removal of pointless div2/fcs dreck games
requirement of cross conference P5 OOC games
requirement of conference championship game
The playoff is still simple and exclusive
MAJOR homefield games for good teams/fans
Still have neutral/historic bowl games
Still allows for ESPN and self important fucktards on some committee to wank itself off about who is in or not.
Dont want to care about being subjectively ranked? Win your conference
Didnt win the conference AND you werent in the next 6 highest ranked teams you cant really complain about being left out.
Im right, and its too good of a system to ever be implemented. -
No, I like what they're trying to do to crown a true champion with a playoff
The Rose Bowl matters every other year now, whenever it hosts a playoff semi-final. Whether or not a PAC 12 team is represented there. So it means more now than it used to. The old Rose Bowl you repine for is now a second tier consolation prize for the first losers out of the playoffs. Who wants to play a stupid BIG 10 team every year, besides.Southerndawg said:RoadDawg55 said:
That’s a nostalgic memory for you. The rest of the country doesn’t want to see that. Not sure what you think you have proven.Southerndawg said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1978_Rose_BowlRoadDawg55 said:Going back to the Bowls would be lame now after we’ve already had the playoff. The bets should play the best.
With the old bowl system an undefeated team would sometimes play a team with 3 losses. Ohio State being undefeated and playing a 2-3 loss Oregon or Utah team would suck.
7-4 vs 10-1. 7-4 for the win. The game didn't suck. Neither did the 7-4 team.
You've missed the point, your argument is facile.
Here's another example.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Sugar_Bowl
The Cheerios Bowl. 9-3 vs 10-1. 9-3 for the win. The game didn't suck and neither did the 9-3 team.
And by the way, the Rose Bowl mattered prior to the BCS era. Now it doesn't. That's not nostalgia, it's simple fact. Without a "true" playoff, my preference is to go back to the bowl system. New Year's Day was a lot more fun under that model. And yes, that part is nostalgia.
