• New here? Register here now for access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Plus, stay connected and follow BP on Instagram @buckeyeplanet and Facebook.

2009 Bowl Season (official thread)

Jump to latest Follow Reply
plum diamonds buckeye planet
Sort by date Sort by votes
Bucklion;1609641; said:
Bowl bids are coming.... - CBSSports.com

Bids are starting to roll in...SMU/June Jones to Hawaii, Auburn to the Outback (they must be thrilled...they were apefucked there in the 1995 season), Choklahoma State and Ole Piss in the Cotton Bowl.

South/Central FLA would be an interesting regional matchup in St. Pete.
Click to expand...

I would love for UCF to beat the shit out of USF. They are worse than Cincy when it comes to their self-worth.
 
Upvote 0
2 things you said BKB that bother me.

College football is very much unlike MLB, the NFL and the NHL. You have over 100 teams competing for the same Title.
Click to expand...

This isn't true. Schools like TCU, Cincinnati, and Boise State are not competing for the same title. They can't win it. So really every year it's about 40 or so teams at most competing for a title.

At the end of the day, cutting out all the biases we have towards our favorite team, you just want the Buckeyes to have a shot at a National Championship that they simply did not otherwise earn. I would love it if Ohio State won 25 Championships in a row - under any format, BCS or Playoffs - and I won't tell you otherwise. But, removing this clear bias, and focusing on the sport itself, the concept is bad for CFB more than it is good.
Click to expand...

If I were a UC fan, then maybe. But being an Ohio State fan, I don't agree with this statement. Ohio State would play in more NCGs in the current system than they would in a playoff system. It's easier to get there. Look at 2007. We played nobody, lost one game, and still got to the NCG. In a playoff system, we would have to beat 3 great teams to get to the NCG. Plus in a playoff system, we'd have to compete with mid-majors. Where-as right now, we really don't.



I'm kind of sick of this argument. People don't use the "eye" test to see who is better. They make it a popularity contest. Just like the Heisman. It's a popularity contest. Sometimes the BCS gets it right. Sometimes they get it wrong. FSU was not the #2 team in 1998. Nebraska was not the #2 team in 2001. Ohio State was not the #2 team in 2007. But some formula said they were. I'd rather be having a debate between 16 and 17 than 2 and 3. Especially when 3 could win all it's games. Yes the schedules aren't balanced. And it's reflected in the rankings. It's why Boise is 6, Texas is 3, and Florida is 1. But again, it's a popularity contest. If TCU was better, played better, they'd still be behind Florida, because they just aren't as popular. But this isn't even what my argument is about.

It's that i'd rather leave the debate between 16 and 17, not 2 and 3. And that the season weeds out teams so we can figure out who the top 16 are. And then the playoffs show us who the best are out of those 16. I know, it sucks because it's at the end of the season, and you only have to play well then. But isn't it kind of the same now? Schedule cream puffs early, and play your tough games late in November? So all you have to do is play good in November?

As far as the schedule issue, with you thinking that teams would not play good teams anymore OOC. That's a simple issue to fix. Go to an RPI rating style, where a team who goes out there and plays great teams is rewarded. Make OOC SOS a huge factor in the playoffs. Reward teams for playing other great teams. And if your scared of the regular season meaning nothing...then make it 8 teams. 8 means that if you lose a game, you might be left out, you might not, but you better not lose 2. So the regular season means something. And if you add i the OOC SOS bonus, then you'd still get teams scheduling tough games.

Like I said...maybe it isn't perfect. And I do believe if it's not broke, don't fix it. But I think it's broke. Either get rid of the BCS all together and just have bowls be about conference rivalries (ex. PAC10/BIG10, SEC/ACC, BIG10/SEC, etc...). And then just have different polls rank different teams, like was done in the 60s. Or go to a playoff. But the way it is right now is messed up. Because there is a game with #1 vs. #2 for all the marbles, and the system we use to figure out who #1 and #2 is is bogus. If you can't see that it's bogus then you are not as smart as I thought you were. Some years it gets lucky and works. Some years it doesn't work at all. I guess my point is, if you are just going to have 1 Vs 2, and you say too bad for #3, because #3 should have been better...then why even give #2 a chance? They should have done better. Just give it to #1. Why are we cutting it off at #2???? I need that explained to me. To me it's the worst place to cut it off. 4, 8, 1, all better to me.

In 2002 Miami had the best regular season. Tough Ohio State. Miami #1 National Champions. It's just as fair as it is now. Except this happens to #2 and #3. But then #2 gets an extra chance, 1 game, to erase that their season wasn't as good as #1, and beat #1, even though #2 wasn't as good as #1 in the regular season.
 
Upvote 0
JXC;1610175; said:
Schools like TCU, Cincinnati, and Boise State are not competing for the same title. They can't win it. So really every year it's about 40 or so teams at most competing for a title.
Click to expand...

Out of all three of the teams you name, Only Boise State fits that description. If Texas loses to Nebraska, TCU or Cincy could conceivably play for the title this year. The season isn't over yet. Cincy plays in the Big East, not a mid major conference, if the conference continues to strengthen, their SOS problems will resolve themselves and they will start to get the benefit of the doubt when it comes to the BCS. TCU is in the MWC, along with BYU. Well, BYU won the NC in 1984. If Boise wants to compete, let them, Nevada, and maybe Fresno State join the MWC, make it a 12 team league, play a championship game, and I will be more than happy to give the winner an automatic BCS Bowl.

Again, I ask you. If Nebraska wasn't the #2 team in 2001, who was?
 
Upvote 0
Woody1968 said:
Out of all three of the teams you name, Only Boise State fits that description. If Texas loses to Nebraska, TCU or Cincy could conceivably play for the title this year. The season isn't over yet. Cincy plays in the Big East, not a mid major conference, if the conference continues to strengthen, their SOS problems will resolve themselves and they will start to get the benefit of the doubt when it comes to the BCS. TCU is in the MWC, along with BYU. Well, BYU won the NC in 1984. If Boise wants to compete, let them, Nevada, and maybe Fresno State join the MWC, make it a 12 team league, play a championship game, and I will be more than happy to give the winner an automatic BCS Bowl.

Again, I ask you. If Nebraska wasn't the #2 team in 2001, who was?
Click to expand...
Florida and Tennessee were both better.

What is your point? You seem to never make any. Just argue what I say. I could say Roses are red, and you'd say..."No no...there a pink ones, I've seen them, I like them!"

It seems to me like you are just arguing to argue.

And one point you won't let go, which I seriously think you are delusional about is this 12-0 fictional Ohio State team. They are behind Texas right now. I don't give a shit about SOS or anything. It's a popularity contest. They beat us last year, we lost in 2007 and 2006. Voters would put us behind them. How can you be so blind as not to see that? You keep saying that I don't know that for sure. But that's like me saying I don't know that the voters will rank Texas ahead of a 1-loss Alabama team...and I don't "know" they will, but I know they will. Same thing. We lose the popularity contest to just about anybody now. It's sad, but true. We have to win the Rose Bowl, and win the fake-NC next year to get back into people believing Ohio State can compete. Right now people just think we can beat up the Big Ten, and that's about it.

I think most college football fans, analysts, experts, etc. would say that a 12-0 Ohio State would be the team left out right now. You seem to disagree, and that's fine, but I know you are wrong.

At least BKB knows what he is talking about, makes valid points, and makes me stop and reevaluate my thoughts on this whole situation. He hasn't changed my mind, probably won't, but he makes good points. Pretty much everything he says is valid, as biased as it is and as much as I disagree with it, it still had validity. But some of the things you say don't have any validity. You are kind of losing credibility. So please, don't argue with things I say just to argue. Have a point.

Numby: Quit lurking and post something.
 
Upvote 0
JXC;1610187; said:
Florida and Tennessee were both better.

What is your point? You seem to never make any. Just argue what I say. I could say Roses are red, and you'd say..."No no...there a pink ones, I've seen them, I like them!"

It seems to me like you are just arguing to argue.

And one point you won't let go, which I seriously think you are delusional about is this 12-0 fictional Ohio State team. They are behind Texas right now. I don't give a shit about SOS or anything. It's a popularity contest. They beat us last year, we lost in 2007 and 2006. Voters would put us behind them. How can you be so blind as not to see that? You keep saying that I don't know that for sure. But that's like me saying I don't know that the voters will rank Texas ahead of a 1-loss Alabama team...and I don't "know" they will, but I know they will. Same thing. We lose the popularity contest to just about anybody now. It's sad, but true. We have to win the Rose Bowl, and win the fake-NC next year to get back into people believing Ohio State can compete. Right now people just think we can beat up the Big Ten, and that's about it.

I think most college football fans, analysts, experts, etc. would say that a 12-0 Ohio State would be the team left out right now. You seem to disagree, and that's fine, but I know you are wrong.

At least BKB knows what he is talking about, makes valid points, and makes me stop and reevaluate my thoughts on this whole situation. He hasn't changed my mind, probably won't, but he makes good points. Pretty much everything he says is valid, as biased as it is and as much as I disagree with it, it still had validity. But some of the things you say don't have any validity. You are kind of losing credibility. So please, don't argue with things I say just to argue. Have a point.

Numby: Quit lurking and post something.
Click to expand...

No, my point is that you are making stuff up just to support your argument, and ignoring the facts that go against you. You are right about 1 thing - I am not going to conceed that a fictional 12-0 OSU would be ranked behind Texas. There just isn't enough information to base this on, because there is no such team. You also continue to post alleged consensus opinions, such as "Everyone knows Nebraska was better than Michigan in 1997," "Cincinnati and TCU can never play for the NC in the current system" and that "Florida and Tennessee were better than Nebraska in 2001." You use these opinions to claim that the BCS doesn't work, and it is no different from the people that argued that the BCS didn't work in 2002, because USC was clearly better than OSU. I'm sorry if this seems like I don't have a point, but that is because you are assuming that everyone shares your opinions on how the BCS doesn't work, in order to support your view that a playoff would be better. Well, guess what? Not everyone shares your opinions on who was better in what year, or who got screwed, by who, and when, and even if they did, you can't base an argument on opinions without inviting people to poke holes in it. BKB pretty much summed up my feelings on why a playoff sucks, and I see no need to rewrite what he did, so maybe that is why it seems like I have no point to you, but again, you can't keep making baseless statements without expecting someone to call you on it, and then get all huffy when they do.
 
Upvote 0
I'm not numby..... but I'm kinda inbetween thinking I want a playoff and that I don't. So I tend to believe i can be unbiased in my contributions.


Big OOC games would still continue for a few reasons.
1. The kids that feel they are good enough to be anything go to big schools that play big games to show off that talent. Getting good players is nth times easier when you walk up to a kid and say..."You are good enough to play here and we have a schedule that is going to put your name in the hat to make millions. If OSU played YSU and NMSU and Ohio in all of their OOC games TP might not be playing here and other players would go to ND and other schools that have OOC matchups that are big. So if you want to be the best team, you need to get the best players, so you need to make them more visible to the NFL.

2. If the playoff fits the top nth teams and the way the BCS is set up it filters in SOS to some degree you want those big OOC games top beef up your rank. Because the humans factor it in just like you and I do. If I say OSU beat Texas and that TCU beat NMSU who would you "think" was better? You factor in the level of talent on the opponents teams and make your judgement according to that. So if OSU played cupcakes in the OOC they may win all of their games but 1 loss cuts you out of the mix really fast, just like the mid major teams have had done to them. One Boise loss and they are not even top 25 in the BCS. But USC lost to Washington and had a chance to go 11-1 and be a top 10 BCS team because they played us and other big teams. So you have to beef your schedule to give yourself a chance to make it up if you lose a game because you never know if a Purdue will happen or not.

3. Money- It drives everyone. Even if you know you are making say...100k this year, if you have the chance to make 200k you do it. Add that to the basis of you think you are good enough to win the title then you have faith to schedule better teams and make more money. But even small schools schedule big teams to make money and get spanked in the process.

So that premise of no more big OOC games is a myth. FSU got to where Bobby took them and Boise is getting to where they want by not being afraid to play the big boys and prove it.



One major hesitant factor I have is when games would be played and how it would affect the bowls that matter. If the playoff in tied to the bowls (which it almost would have to be) it would affect the quality of a couple of those bowls. No more OSU-USC in the Rose unless the teams won to that point. It would be ery unlikely though. Better chance that the tie is dropped and a Alabama/Utah type game gets played there. Plus the Big Boys that run those games will fight it to the end for that reason. Right now they get to choose certain teams for certain games and create money making matchups.

Other more random points that I think are valid.

The reason certain teams are the best are because they have not allowed a letdown like (unfortunately)OSU, USC, and other teams. So to say that because one team was better only for one game (ala the NCAA men's tourney), that team wasn't the best team because mentally they had a let down. The best team would be able to play a mid major and beat them because they don't overlook their opponent and get put in bad positions. OKLA had better players for the most part against both Boise and WVU. They didn't show up and got beat both times. Handily by WVU. And by the way luck is a part of all sports too. I don't believe Denver is better than Cincinnati in the NFL but a bad tip lost them the game. Bartman Ball. Stanford Band. ETC.



I dislike the fact the mojority of times I hear the OSU wouldn't get voted in to a certain game comes from OSU fans. I haven't even heard a national media source say it. they just infer that it is a bad rep we have. I would love to be given proof of this negative mindset from voters. OSU went to the game in 06-07. Got beat up. LOST a game with 2 weeks to go and got voted #1 in the 07-08 season (due to some other circumstances). They could have been kept out if the voters wanted them out. The voters jumped LSU into the game. LOST again and haven't had the chance to have this "fantasy" theory proven. We lost 2 games...1 badly.... and ended up high in the polls and put into the Fiesta. Voters could have left us out of the BCS if they didn't want us there. This year OSU lost 2 games... 1 to a bad opponent... and still sit in 7th in the human polls. We are the second highest rated 2 loss team and were the number 1 rated 2 loss team for a few weeks before Oregon beat Arizona. USC got alot of credit for beating us as well. I think some OSU fans believe that "the man" would have something to do with keeping us out. Get over yourselves. There is no proof and we haven't forced their hand to do so. So let's drop it.


scUM sucks!!! Good luck in your bo... whoops.


I read somewhere that if the WAC/MWC meshed it could have the BCS power similar to the Big East. Having a conference with these teams:
Boise/Fresno/Hawaii/Nevada/Air Force/BYU/TCU/Utah..... could be a very strong addition. It would lead the other teams to fight for 4 spots. Then create a championship game. Would give more validity to those teams. Not sure what happens to those left out. Not their problem though... :biggrin:



Home field hurt OSU in the 2007-2008 Title and any team vs USC in the Rose Bowl.... it's valid. There is a reason that Vegas factors it in to their lines.


I think that is it ... at least for now :biggrin:
 
Upvote 0
JXC - it is true, there are over 100 teams in DI football. They are all allegedly playing for the same crystal. Now I agree with you that there are about 60 of those teams that aren't "really" playing for the title... and I say, kick them out then. Everyone knows New Mexico isn't going to ever win the NC. Bowling Green will never play in the BCS National Championship game. Ever.

I agree. So.. kick them out of the BCS level conference altogether, and give those mid majors some other title to compete for.

But, none the less, my point on the history of playoffs remains valid re: CFB.

Nate -
Because of your second paragraph, I can't see how that's any different than the current system, and it undercuts the point you made in the first paragraph. That is - if Ohio State plays Texas and loses, you still think Ohio State should maybe get the nod ahead of some undefeated Mid Major team. While I agree that that result is perfectly acceptable, it's exactly how it works now and is the sort of thing Playoff guys get mad about. All you've really done is move the bubble and the nature of the argument bubble teams make when they whine about not making it.
 
Upvote 0
One thing that the current BCS system provides that playoffs possibly would not, is that each team has to show up and play every down every game of the year. What I mean is that in Pro sports (especially NFL) once a playoff spot is clinched, they tend to sit their stars, to get ready for the playoffs. Those games suck to watch, and dilute the rest of the regular season. With the BCS, you can't do that. If you lose one of your last games because you are sitting your starters, you are out of the BCS bowls. That means we get great football played all season, and the regular season games, no matter who you are playing, mean something and you better show up to play. To me, this system promotes better games each and every week.
 
Upvote 0
Woody1968;1610181; said:
Again, I ask you. If Nebraska wasn't the #2 team in 2001, who was?
Click to expand...


Oregon

Went 11-1, was PAC10 champs, ranked 2nd in the AP and Coaches at the end of the season. Defeated Big 12 champs, Colorado, in the Fiesta Bowl 38-16 (same team who destroyed Nebraska 62-36 at the end of the season). BCS ended up changing their formula after this season because of the outcome. Under the revised system used in 2002 and today's formula, Oregon would have played Miami for the national title. Doubtful they would have won, but they would have had a better showing than Nebraska.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Is this thread about bowl bids, or just an other opportunity to argue about playoffs instead of the BCS?

It gets really old, people. If you want to advocate a playoff, fine, but please do it in a thread that already contains that discussion.
 
Upvote 0
BB73 said:
Is this thread about bowl bids, or just an other opportunity to argue about playoffs instead of the BCS?

It gets really old, people. If you want to advocate a playoff, fine, but please do it in a thread that already contains that discussion.
Click to expand...
It may seem off topic, but I don't know how you can talk about bowls at all anymore without talking about this. I guess people just don't respect the bowls as much anymore because of how watered down most are now. This is even more sad than their not being a playoff.

Look at some of these projected bowl match-ups. They are awful. Going to a bowl used to mean something. Now it just means you didn't lose 7 games. I mean seriously??? Congrats, you didn't lose 7 games...here is a bowl. The bowl system is a joke now. It's just that every college football bowl game generates money, so why not have more? Why don't we just have 60 bowl games, and everybody goes? 120 plays 119, 118 plays 117, and so on and so forth.

The bowl system is one of the greatest traditions in sport, but it's being ruined. I think there should be 15 bowls, max. And the fact that there are bowls on Jan 2,3,4,5,6 and whenever is a joke. If a big bowl like the Cotton bowl or maybe the Fiesta bowl want to be on the night of the 2nd, fine, but not the Alamo bowl. That's a joke.
 
Upvote 0
Why don't we move Playoff v. BCS discussion to This Thread

No sense in having it go on in two places.

This thread can be used to simply discuss the bowl games we actually have (With attempts to leave Playoff hypos out of it)

Edit: When I say "move" I don't mean to move the posts as it would create a huge mess in that thread, I think.... Whatever... we can move em, in fact, if you want.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top