Say what you want about the bowls, but...

Donate To GopherHole
C

CP Gopher

Active member
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
1,313
Reaction score
0
Points
36
I find them highly entertaining and it will be a shame when we go to a playoff system, which I think will ultimately destroy all but a dozen or so......You can make fun of a game like the Little Caesar's Bowl the other night, but I watched it from start to finish and it was as fun a contest as I've seen all year. Two teams going at it hard, big plays, coaching gambles...What the hell's wrong with that? I'd take it over a 4 hour, 30 minute, over-hyped playoff game any day.
 

I like the bowl games, also. I know there are legitimate and valid arguments to each side
of the equation, but the system that exists today is the system that exists today, and I
choose to enjoy it!
 

CP Gopher said:
I find them highly entertaining and it will be a shame when we go to a playoff system, which I think will ultimately destroy all but a dozen or so......You can make fun of a game like the Little Caesar's Bowl the other night, but I watched it from start to finish and it was as fun a contest as I've seen all year. Two teams going at it hard, big plays, coaching gambles...What the hell's wrong with that? I'd take it over a 4 hour, 30 minute, over-hyped playoff game any day.
Click to expand...

A playoff system will only work if games are played at the higher seed or at regional sites very close to participating schools. I just don't see people traveling for three or more weeks of games other than family. I think the Bowls are here for a long time and the system is the best it can be. Maybe a plus 1 or just the top four or six tops in a playoff.
 

I love the bowl games.. Just get rid of the BCS system. Keep the bowls. When I think of playoff football, I think NFL. The bowl season is why I watch college more than NFL.

So, in all.. NO playoffs.
 

Do you people that "like" the bowls seriously think that if there were a playoff system that bowls would be no longer?

The two are not exactly mutually exclusive.

For whichever teams didn't get into the playoffs there could still be bowls.

It's not exactly as black and white as the OP makes it seem. Ushering in a playoff system would not be the death of bowl games.

I assume the OP hates March Madness too.

:rolleyes:
 


[censored] said:
Do you people that "like" the bowls seriously think that if there were a playoff system that bowls would be no longer?

The two are not exactly mutually exclusive.

For whichever teams didn't get into the playoffs there could still be bowls.

It's not exactly as black and white as the OP makes it seem. Ushering in a playoff system would not be the death of bowl games.

I assume the OP hates March Madness too.

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

100% correct, bowls would still exist for team not ranked in the top 16 or top 8, just as they do today. CP how many of these great bowl games you speak of this year featured top 16 teams?
 

[censored] said:
Do you people that "like" the bowls seriously think that if there were a playoff system that bowls would be no longer?

The two are not exactly mutually exclusive.

For whichever teams didn't get into the playoffs there could still be bowls.

It's not exactly as black and white as the OP makes it seem. Ushering in a playoff system would not be the death of bowl games.

I assume the OP hates March Madness too.

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Exactly...if a playoff is to be, it has to be within the bowl system. Take the conference winner from the top 6 conferences and 2 at large conference winners based on rank and have an 8 team tourny where every team plays at least two games...first round losers play a bowl game plus all the other teams that didn't make the play off and then the final four play two games for 1-4th place. How great would it be to have the best teams in the country playing for a true national championship and still have our bowl games...
 

I really would like to see a 16 team playoff with the first round played at a higher seed (based on BCS standings) at the end of November or first week in December. The second round could be the 4 BCS bowls, but all played on Jan 1. Meanwhile, all the other bowls could go on as they do today. Lots of changes needed to make that reality and I know there are a lot of barriers to it. But, if the slate could be wiped clean and a 16 team playoff put in its place, it sure would be fun. I actually track the DII and DIII playoffs every year and I really enjoy the build up to each game.

Meanwhile, the system as it is today is... well... it is what it is. Like others have said, I choose to embrace it and enjoy it. I particularly enjoy watching any bowl with a Big 10 team in it and I also enjoy cheering against any SEC team.
 

Crappola...I misread the title of the OP. I thought it said: "Say what you want about the bowels..." Sorry about that. :banghead: on my fridge door when I reach for a beer.
 



Schnauzer said:
I really would like to see a 16 team playoff with the first round played at a higher seed (based on BCS standings) at the end of November or first week in December. The second round could be the 4 BCS bowls, but all played on Jan 1. Meanwhile, all the other bowls could go on as they do today. Lots of changes needed to make that reality and I know there are a lot of barriers to it. But, if the slate could be wiped clean and a 16 team playoff put in its place, it sure would be fun. I actually track the DII and DIII playoffs every year and I really enjoy the build up to each game.

Meanwhile, the system as it is today is... well... it is what it is. Like others have said, I choose to embrace it and enjoy it. I particularly enjoy watching any bowl with a Big 10 team in it and I also enjoy cheering against any SEC team.
Click to expand...

You gotta start the second week of December at earliest. Most seasons end Thanksgiving, but lots go on for a week more. You have to do two weeks in between games to make travel plans--if you want 20,000 fans to travel, one week is not enough time. This ain't basketball with set regionals in set cities a year ahead of time. It's easy to get fans into Minneapolis or Dallas on short notice, but tough to get that many into Tuscaloosa or State College.

Use 4 Bowl games for the Quarters (Rose, Cotton, Capital One, Sugar), Two for the Semis (Fiesta, Orange) and One for the Title (Rose-Sugar-Fiesta-Orange site). Rotate Quarters/Semis annually as you see fit. Championship mid-January.
 

On a selfish note.....

It bugs me that the Rose Bowl is not a Big 10/Pac 10 matchup exclusively. I'm convinced that the next time the Gophers will be eligible for the Rose Bowl one of two things will happen. 1) Some other team will be playing for the National Championship game and will throw us in another bowl or 2) We will make it, but our opponent will be Colorado. While that's not terrible, they'd be the last team I'd pick out of the Pac 10. Yes, they'd be below Washington State.
 

If they go to a playoff system then we can listen to everybody whine about what teams got in and/or didn't get in.
 




Bo Darville said:
If they go to a playoff system then we can listen to everybody whine about what teams got in and/or didn't get in.
Click to expand...

I'd rather tune out people whining about team 16 vs team 17, two teams that wouldn't win the title either way, then have to be pissed off about a stupid system that doesn't allow a TCU to prove their worth.
 

Wow. I don't think I've ever seen so many people supportive of the bowl system over a playoff system.
 

goldengophers said:
100% correct, bowls would still exist for team not ranked in the top 16 or top 8, just as they do today. CP how many of these great bowl games you speak of this year featured top 16 teams?
Click to expand...

Not many, but the bowl season has just started....and I don't really care where anyone is ranked. A game is a game.
 

I'm with you on that...

CP Gopher said:
I find them highly entertaining and it will be a shame when we go to a playoff system, which I think will ultimately destroy all but a dozen or so......You can make fun of a game like the Little Caesar's Bowl the other night, but I watched it from start to finish and it was as fun a contest as I've seen all year. Two teams going at it hard, big plays, coaching gambles...What the hell's wrong with that? I'd take it over a 4 hour, 30 minute, over-hyped playoff game any day.
Click to expand...

A playoff system, even with eight teams, would still have others complaining they weren't included. That would go on even with 16, which likely will never happen. I'd go to a "plus one," or whatever it's called. No. 1 plays no. 3 and no. 2 plays no. 4 - then the winners to the championship game. That would only add one layer and could be done within the existing bowl setup. The more bowls the merrier. As you say, they are great fun - with some really interesting intersectional matchups.
 

I don't hate March Madness.
I think that what makes college sports unique is they differ from the pros in determining champions. (March Madness, College World Series, Frozen Four)
I love the NFL playoffs, but we already have one of those. Why does college have to be the same? However, I'm all for a +1 system.
And I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on the fate of the lesser bowls if a playoff comes to pass. I still say the majority of them will go under due to a lack of interest and financial backing.
 

Have an 8 team playoff with only the top 8 conference champions included. If you aren't the best in your conference, you aren't the best in the country. This would leave out three conference champions (two if the WAC goes under), but for those bottom conferences, this increases their chances of making the tournament from near zero to at least something.

8 teams would be small enough that the bowls would still be intact.
 

I skipped reading most of these posts, because I hate the idea of a playoff and hearing people talk about it just tends to piss me off.

There are plenty of valid arguments to be made here, but I agree with the OP. I'd rather have the pre-BCS system than playoffs.
 

Count me in as one that favors bowls over a playoff. A playoff would diminish the regular season, you lose once and you are all but out of the running, I love that the teams in contention have virtually no margin for error. And with a 16-team playoff, the bowls would likely go under, check out Frank the Tank blog for his take on a plus 1 and why more would not work. Not to mention that with a 16-team playoff, the teams playing for the championship could possibly be playing their 17th game.

And it could decrease the amount of money for each school and that's all that matters these days. Say the Gophers win the B1G, do you invest time and money to take in the quarterfinal game knowing you can't afford to make the semifinals. Or do you hold out and risk missing out on the experience completely? I wouldn't mind a return to the old bowl system, although I'm young enough to not remember all the details.
 

I disagree with anyone who says that a playoff would diminish the regular season. It wouldn't if the playoffs are set up the correct way. My idea:

8-team playoff. Take the top 8 teams ranked in the BCS (or whatever formula they want to come up with). 1st round played at the top seed two weeks after Thanksgiving. Could have one game on that Friday night, then three the next day (how fun would that weekend be?). The four teams who win the 1st round go to two of the BCS bowl games to play the semifinals. Say this year it's the Rose Bowl and Sugar Bowl. The four teams that lose the 1st round play each other in the other BCS bowl games; say it's the Orange and Fiesta Bowl. Then play the championship two weeks later. Rotate which bowl hosts the semifinals. All other bowls continue as is now.

This achieves many things:
1) Keeps bowl games in place. The only bad thing is that it eliminates the traditions of some of the Bowls (Pac-10 vs. Big 10 in Rose Bowl, etc. But that doesn't happen all the time anyways). I don't think playoffs would have any effect on the non-playoff bowl games and don't see how anyone would see them differently. The Cotton Bowl will still be the Cotton Bowl and so on.
2) The regular season is still very important. Having the 1st round game at your home field is a big advantage. Imagine a Florida or Alabama having to travel to Ohio St. in mid-December. Ohio St. would have a huge advantage. Also, as it stands now, a team from a big conference can go undefeated and still not get a chance at a NC. Their strength of schedule may even be close to the same as the other two teams but because voters (some who hardly ever saw that team play) and a computer decided you're not as good, then you don't get a chance. It's much better to have "controversy" over who the 8th team is than the 2nd team.
3) Money: you add four games that will sell out.
4) Excitement and exposure. You add four nationally televised games that will have huge ratings. Average fans who may not care about the Sugar Bowl now may care to watch it when it truly means something. As I wrote before, how fun would a 1st round playoff weekend be? One game on a Friday and three on Saturday. It could become almost as popular as the super bowl.
 

GophersInIowa said:
I disagree with anyone who says that a playoff would diminish the regular season. It wouldn't if the playoffs are set up the correct way. My idea:

8-team playoff. Take the top 8 teams ranked in the BCS (or whatever formula they want to come up with). 1st round played at the top seed two weeks after Thanksgiving. Could have one game on that Friday night, then three the next day (how fun would that weekend be?). The four teams who win the 1st round go to two of the BCS bowl games to play the semifinals. Say this year it's the Rose Bowl and Sugar Bowl. The four teams that lose the 1st round play each other in the other BCS bowl games; say it's the Orange and Fiesta Bowl. Then play the championship two weeks later. Rotate which bowl hosts the semifinals. All other bowls continue as is now.

This achieves many things:
1) Keeps bowl games in place. The only bad thing is that it eliminates the traditions of some of the Bowls (Pac-10 vs. Big 10 in Rose Bowl, etc. But that doesn't happen all the time anyways). I don't think playoffs would have any effect on the non-playoff bowl games and don't see how anyone would see them differently. The Cotton Bowl will still be the Cotton Bowl and so on.
2) The regular season is still very important. Having the 1st round game at your home field is a big advantage. Imagine a Florida or Alabama having to travel to Ohio St. in mid-December. Ohio St. would have a huge advantage. Also, as it stands now, a team from a big conference can go undefeated and still not get a chance at a NC. Their strength of schedule may even be close to the same as the other two teams but because voters (some who hardly ever saw that team play) and a computer decided you're not as good, then you don't get a chance. It's much better to have "controversy" over who the 8th team is than the 2nd team.
3) Money: you add four games that will sell out.
4) Excitement and exposure. You add four nationally televised games that will have huge ratings. Average fans who may not care about the Sugar Bowl now may care to watch it when it truly means something. As I wrote before, how fun would a 1st round playoff weekend be? One game on a Friday and three on Saturday. It could become almost as popular as the super bowl.
Click to expand...

With all due respect, a playoff would be a huge detriment to the importance of regular season games. I love the urgency of college football games. To mirror the NFL would be a big turn-off for me.
 

CP Gopher said:
With all due respect, a playoff would be a huge detriment to the importance of regular season games. I love the urgency of college football games. To mirror the NFL would be a big turn-off for me.
Click to expand...

No it's not. It's still not even close to the NFL. 38% of teams make it to the playoffs in the NFL. If you only count the top 5 conferences in the NCAA, only 14% would make the playoffs. That's not even including the WAC and Big East.

There would still be a lot of urgency. If you play in a tough conference, one slip up could keep you out of the playoffs. And you can't deny that having a home game in the 1st round is not a huge advantage.

With all due respect to you, I think some are overreacting big time with playoff talk. It's not like anyone is talking about 32 teams getting in. Every game is still very important. If you're in a good conference and you slip up one, then you have to be perfect the rest of the way. If not, you may not make it. That is the case many years as is. In more than half of the BCS championship games, at least one team had a loss. LSU won it all with 2 losses in 2007.

This year it was clear-cut who should be playing in the NC. Most years it isn't. A computer and voters deciding who plays in the NC is ridiculous.
 

GophersInIowa said:
No it's not. It's still not even close to the NFL. 38% of teams make it to the playoffs in the NFL. If you only count the top 5 conferences in the NCAA, only 14% would make the playoffs. That's not even including the WAC and Big East.

There would still be a lot of urgency. If you play in a tough conference, one slip up could keep you out of the playoffs. And you can't deny that having a home game in the 1st round is not a huge advantage.

With all due respect to you, I think some are overreacting big time with playoff talk. It's not like anyone is talking about 32 teams getting in. Every game is still very important. If you're in a good conference and you slip up one, then you have to be perfect the rest of the way. If not, you may not make it. That is the case many years as is. In more than half of the BCS championship games, at least one team had a loss. LSU won it all with 2 losses in 2007.

This year it was clear-cut who should be playing in the NC. Most years it isn't. A computer and voters deciding who plays in the NC is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

You make some good points. I guess I'm a traditionalist when it comes to collge football. Happy Holidays to you!
 

Here's my plan, and this comes from purely selfish reasons. I hate the possibility of a playoff system for one reason- I go through all this heartbreak with the hope that one day, one sweet day, I will see my beloved Gophers in the Rose Bowl- and a playoff destroys that dream of mine. I happened to like the old bowl match-ups, and think it could be improved with just one extra game.

Here's the plan. The major bowl games (no more of this BCS *&^!#*&^!#*&^!#*&^!#e) take the 6 champions of the major conferences, the top-ranked non-AQ team, and the top-ranked non-champion. These match-ups can change every year for variety's sake ('cept the grandaddy of course) but are set at the beginning of the season. So all of the games are played on January 1 (hey, remember this?), and then the two best teams (presumably winners of the 4 games) are selected to play in a national championship two weeks later.

If you don't win your conference title, you don't have much of an argument to play for the national title. And if you don't win your bowl game, you still don't have much of an argument. So it replicates a playoff like scenario, without all the rigamarole in setting up a 16 team playoff (which is preposterous- shut up Andy Staples!). We keep the bowl games, but still get a national championship. And I might get to walk in to the Rose Bowl someday.


For an example, here could be some match-ups this year.

Rose= Oregon (pac-10 champ) v. Ohio State/Wisconsin (big 10 champ)
Fiesta= Oklahoma (big 12 champ) v. TCU (top-ranked non-AQ)
Sugar= Auburn (sec champ) v. Stanford (top-ranked non-champ)
Orange= Virginia Tech (acc champ) v. Connecticut (big east champ, I guess)


We then have 2, maybe 3 games of consequence to watch. And then depending on the results, see a great match-up in the national championship game at the Jerrydome in Texas.
 

What I would do if I were tsar for a day...

All bowls other than the Rose, Fiesta, Sugar and Orange must be played before the day of those four bowls. Those four bowls are played on new years day or the Saturday before if NYD is mid-week. The Rose goes back to PAC 10-Big 10, Fiesta gets Big 12, Sugar gets SEC, and Orange gets ACC. Fill in the rest by a BCS type seeding arrangement. Hold a west and east semi-final at a pre-determined site the following week. Hold he finals at a predetermined site the following week. The latest the season would finish is 1/17. Only four teams would play an extra game, two of them would play two.

I believe this is the only system that would not completely destroy the bowls.
 

Count me as a guy that is a bowl guy and never wants to see a playoff.

Here's the best thing I read, from Frank the Tank's blog.
 

If it is done correctly, a playoff ENHANCES the regular season. The top 8 division winners make the playoffs, no at large teams. This means that the value of winning your conference is enhanced. No conference championship, no tournament.
 

A 16-team playoff will not happen. Teams that go to the NC game will have played 17 games.

Do you really want to live in a world where a 4 loss UConn team is the National Champion? That's what people mean by a playoff system diminishing the regular season.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom