2009 Bowl Season (official thread)

[Bucklion]

College Football Bowls - CBSSports.com

Projections from Sportsline so far. Some interesting potential matchups, including Pitt falling all the way down to playing lowly Florida State. All that said, it's a good thing they keep expanding the number of bowls, otherwise we would miss out on these barnburners:

Wyoming vs. Nevada
Fresno State vs. SMU
Temple vs. MTSU
Marshall vs. Northern Illinois
Idaho vs. Bowling Green

I mean I know it's great for these little teams to get to bowls, but is this really the system they can't possibly do away with for a playoff because it's so awesome?

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

College Football Bowls - CBSSports.com

Projections from Sportsline so far. Some interesting potential matchups, including Pitt falling all the way down to playing lowly Florida State. All that said, it's a good thing they keep expanding the number of bowls, otherwise we would miss out on these barnburners:

Wyoming vs. Nevada
Fresno State vs. SMU
Temple vs. MTSU
Marshall vs. Northern Illinois
Idaho vs. Bowling Green

I mean I know it's great for these little teams to get to bowls, but is this really the system they can't possibly do away with for a playoff because it's so awesome?

In fairness, BL, none of those teams you've identified would participate in any Playoff. They'd be done for the year. In that case, I'd say they're all pretty happy to be bowling.

 

[Bucklion]

In fairness, BL, none of those teams you've identified would participate in any Playoff. They'd be done for the year. In that case, I'd say they're all pretty happy to be bowling.

Understood, but it's the argument I always hear from the bowl people. I imagine the playoff wouldn't stop the littler bowls from doing what they do. But with all the arguing about missed class time they don't seem to have a problem pushing bowl season out to mid December to make sure every 6-6 team from 2nd tier conferences goes to play somewhere.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Understood, but it's the argument I always hear from the bowl people. I imagine the playoff wouldn't stop the littler bowls from doing what they do. But with all the arguing about missed class time they don't seem to have a problem pushing bowl season out to mid December to make sure every 6-6 team from 2nd tier conferences goes to play somewhere.

Yeah, the "missing class time" argument is bullshit. I think the strongest argument in favor of the current system is that it keeps the regular season at a premium. Every week matters, and you can't schedule a slate full of nobodies and expect to get it, preserving quality OOC regular season match-ups.

That's one of my primary worries of a Playoff... Devaluation of the regular season. I doubt players will lose their focus, but I think it would be a mistake for college football to assume the fans wouldn't.

 

[Buckeye86]

That's one of my primary worries of a Playoff... Devaluation of the regular season. I doubt players will lose their focus, but I think it would be a mistake for college football to assume the fans wouldn't.

if they could incorporate a way to only include conference champions into the playoff that would help to put value back into the conference season but wouldn't do much to address scheduling soft out of conference competition, in fact it would probably make it worse

I think the general rule in all of this is that no system is perfect, the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence, and that people are going to bitch no matter what the system is

but yes, those bowl match ups suck ass

 

[sepia5]

Yeah, the "missing class time" argument is bull[censored]. I think the strongest argument in favor of the current system is that it keeps the regular season at a premium. Every week matters, and you can't schedule a slate full of nobodies and expect to get it, preserving quality OOC regular season match-ups.

That's one of my primary worries of a Playoff... Devaluation of the regular season. I doubt players will lose their focus, but I think it would be a mistake for college football to assume the fans wouldn't.

I don't think that's too much of a concern if you keep the field of playoff participants small enough. If it is the top 16 teams that get in, I can see the concern. If it's just the top 8, not so much.

And I don't know why you couldn't maintain all the other bowls in addition to a playoff. I also don't understand why you can't make the bowl coalition happy by incorporating their sponsorship into the playoff (e.g., the Fiesta and Tostitos get to sponsor one of the playoff matchups). Seems to me one of the biggest problems these days would be convincing the conferences that rake in the money from a conference championship game to forego that extra game and all the money that comes with it for a playoff system.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

if they could incorporate a way to only include conference champions into the playoff that would help to put value back into the conference season but wouldn't do much to address scheduling soft out of conference competition, in fact it would probably make it worse

I think the general rule in all of this is that no system is perfect, the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence, and that people are going to bitch no matter what the system is

but yes, those bowl match ups suck ass

The problem with just including conference champions is that the Sun Belt Champ gets a shot while a 2nd place SEC team (for example) does not. It's probably not what people have in mind when they talk playoffs.

I agree with you that no system is perfect. That's why I say, unless you can solve a problem of the BCS (and can do so without creating other serious problems) there's no reason to change it.

 

[MaliBuckeye]

Understood, but it's the argument I always hear from the bowl people. I imagine the playoff wouldn't stop the littler bowls from doing what they do. But with all the arguing about missed class time they don't seem to have a problem pushing bowl season out to mid December to make sure every 6-6 team from 2nd tier conferences goes to play somewhere.

Agreed- What if the NCAA said that you had to have 7 wins to be bowl eligible?

although, that would mean that everyone would schedule even more cupcakes like Appy State.

(nope, never gets old)

 

[Bucklion]

Agreed- What if the NCAA said that you had to have 7 wins to be bowl eligible?

although, that would mean that everyone would schedule even more cupcakes like Appy State.

(nope, never gets old)

They could say it takes 7 wins and not count ANY FCS/I-AA wins towards that total. Would it prevent them from being scheduled? No, but if you do for the stadium revenue...better win 8. That could be a start.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

I don't think that's too much of a concern if you keep the field of playoff participants small enough. If it is the top 16 teams that get in, I can see the concern. If it's just the top 8, not so much.

And I don't know why you couldn't maintain all the other bowls in addition to a playoff. I also don't understand why you can't make the bowl coalition happy by incorporating their sponsorship into the playoff (e.g., the Fiesta and Tostitos get to sponsor one of the playoff matchups). Seems to me one of the biggest problems these days would be convincing the conferences that rake in the money from a conference championship game to forego that extra game and all the money that comes with it for a playoff system.

As I said in my post after yours (which I must have been creating when you wrote this one) if you can solve the "BCS problem" without creating other problems I can be persuaded.

The first issue, of course, is convincing me that there is any inherent value in a playoff in the first place. I mean, I expect my champion to be the best over the course of a season. I like that a team has to be the best for 13 weeks. I don't care about "hot" I don't think the New York Giants were a better team than the NE Patriots. I think they were better on some arbitrary day. ... Just so you have an idea where I'm coming from.

"Settling it on the field" rings pretty hollow with me. What did Stanford settle when they beat USC despite being 41 point dogs? SC went to the Rose Bowl and Stanford continued to suck. In other words, upsets happen. Nothing is "settled" it's an illusion. Don't get me wrong, there's no other way to figure it out other than playing, but the "settle it on the field" argument isn't as weighty as it sounds.

I should note - they'd have to incorporate the upper echelon bowls. Doing something else, eg not using them, would make them the NIT. No one cares. Likewise, not incorporating them would simply lead to more bad teams being rewarded for average seasons. (In other words, 8 more teams getting bowl bids because the "top 8" would be in a playoff)

 

[Bucklion]

Yeah, the "missing class time" argument is bullshit. I think the strongest argument in favor of the current system is that it keeps the regular season at a premium. Every week matters, and you can't schedule a slate full of nobodies and expect to get it, preserving quality OOC regular season match-ups.

That's one of my primary worries of a Playoff... Devaluation of the regular season. I doubt players will lose their focus, but I think it would be a mistake for college football to assume the fans wouldn't.

You can lose in September and make the NC game, but if Alabama loses Saturday they won't. You can say the regular season would be devalued, but I would counter with the fact that it isn't really the "12 week playoff" some want to say it is now, because WHEN you loses counts as much or more as WHO you lose to.

 

[Bucklion]

As I said in my post after yours (which I must have been creating when you wrote this one) if you can solve the "BCS problem" without creating other problems I can be persuaded.

The first issue, of course, is convincing me that there is any inherent value in a playoff in the first place. I mean, I expect my champion to be the best over the course of a season. I like that a team has to be the best for 13 weeks. I don't care about "hot" I don't think the New York Giants were a better team than the NE Patriots. I think they were better on some arbitrary day. ... Just so you have an idea where I'm coming from.

"Settling it on the field" rings pretty hollow with me. What did Stanford settle when they beat USC despite being 41 point dogs? SC went to the Rose Bowl and Stanford continued to suck. In other words, upsets happen. Nothing is "settled" it's an illusion. Don't get me wrong, there's no other way to figure it out other than playing, but the "settle it on the field" argument isn't as weighty as it sounds.

I should note - they'd have to incorporate the upper echelon bowls. Doing something else, eg not using them, would make them the NIT. No one cares. Likewise, not incorporating them would simply lead to more bad teams being rewarded for average seasons. (In other words, 8 more teams getting bowl bids because the "top 8" would be in a playoff)

We had no shot of playing for the national title in 1998 despite having like 400 draft picks on that team because we lost one game. Just like the eventual NC did. Many think we were the best team that year. Did the BCS fix that one? I maintain that if it was 2008 and the same teams were where they were, the result would be the same. So to me the BCS doesn't do that either.

 

[sepia5]

The first issue, of course, is convincing me that there is any inherent value in a playoff in the first place. I mean, I expect my champion to be the best over the course of a season. I like that a team has to be the best for 13 weeks. I don't care about "hot" I don't think the New York Giants were a better team than the NE Patriots. I think they were better on some arbitrary day. ... Just so you have an idea where I'm coming from.

Well, I think that even using a 13 week season to determine who the best team is lends itself to the problem you're talking about. As Bucklion alluded to, we were probably the best team in the nation in 1998, but we didn't get a shot because on one Saturday late in the season, we got beat by a team team that was clearly not as good the rest of the season (and that's all I'll say about that late-season game). At least with a playoff the teams that have been arguably the best over the course of the season have a chance.

I'm curious how you feel about the baseball playoffs. Now there's a sport where the best team is probably determined during the course of the season, not the playoffs. And yet I can't imagine MLB baseball without playoffs.

 

[Woody1968]

We had no shot of playing for the national title in 1998 despite having like 400 draft picks on that team because we lost one game. Just like the eventual NC did. Many think we were the best team that year. Did the BCS fix that one? I maintain that if it was 2008 and the same teams were where they were, the result would be the same. So to me the BCS doesn't do that either.

Tennessee won the NC in 1998. They were undefeated. Florida State lost earlier in the season and made it to the NC game, where they lost, partly due to their QB being out due to injury. Most people at the time thought that Ohio State and FSU were the two best teams in the country.

Both Florida (NC winner) and Ohio State lost 1 game in 1996. The same weekend.

 

[Woody1968]

College Football Bowls - CBSSports.com

Projections from Sportsline so far. Some interesting potential matchups, including Pitt falling all the way down to playing lowly Florida State. All that said, it's a good thing they keep expanding the number of bowls, otherwise we would miss out on these barnburners:

Wyoming vs. Nevada
Fresno State vs. SMU
Temple vs. MTSU
Marshall vs. Northern Illinois
Idaho vs. Bowling Green

I mean I know it's great for these little teams to get to bowls, but is this really the system they can't possibly do away with for a playoff because it's so awesome?

I have no problem with more mid majors in bowl games. Temple and MTSU will be a competitive game. I do have a problem with bottom feeders in the big conferences getting into a bowl at 6 and 6, or bowls taking crap teams that travel well to play really good local teams.