Running bowl thread

I'm laughing at the people advocating the idea of any system that doesn't give automatic spots to certain conferences. I don't think we'll see a playoff any time soon, but you've got to be certifiably insane to think that a system that disregards conference tie-ins will ever exist.

 

Ah yes. Margin of victory becomes important again. We must ignore it when it's Boise beating 5-7 Tulsa by a touchdown, or 4-8 La. Tech by 10, or I-AA UC-Davis by 18, having led by 11 for most of the fourth quarter. Because 'they beat everyone in front of them!'

But when it's Iowa, then it's back on the table again.

 

The system is so obviously crooked, it amazes me people offer explanations based on ANYONE inside it acting in good faith. The bowl committees did what they had to do to keep the big conferences happy so none of them start talking playoffs. It's extortion, not selection.

 

Give a decent coach a month to scheme, and he can stop that Tech offense. Hell, give Les Miles a month to scheme, and HE can stop that Tech offense.

If you take away their bread-and-butter -- which is very difficult to do, mind -- they don't tend to react all that well.

 

What are you complaining about?

BCS Championship #1 Alabama vs. #2 Texas
Rose Bowl #7 Oregon vs. #8 Ohio State
Orange Bowl #9 Georgia Tech vs. #10 Iowa
Fiesta Bowl #4 TCU vs. #6 TCU
Sugar Bowl #3 Cinci vs. #5 Florida

10 BCS spots. Notice anything about the ten teams occupying those spots?

 

I've thrown this out before, but here it is again -- go to a 12-team playoff. The six BCS conference champions get automatic byes, then the next six teams in the final BCS rankings get at-large bids. Then you set it up like the NFL playoffs, with two six-team brackets and the top two on either side getting byes.
First- and second-round games are at campus sites, regional finals are at current BCS bowl or regional sites, and the championship rotates between the BCS bowls.

The whole "the regular season won't mean anything" argument is bullshit because in most years (this year might be an exception because there's a lot of mediocre teams) a 7-5 or 8-4 team ain't getting an at-large bid. Even so, you still have to win your fair share of games to put yourself in that position.
Just to use the final weekend of this year as an example, teams like Oklahoma State, Ole Miss, Clemson and Nebraska would have had all-or-nothing games at the end.

 

The big conferences have already started talking playoff. The SEC and Big XII co-sponsored a resolution for a plus-one system two years ago.

It's the Big Ten, Pac 10 and Rose Bowl that are holding everyone hostage to the current system. They had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the BCS, and they'll secede from the BCS before giving up the Pac-10/Big Ten Rose Bowl match-up.

 

Fixed. And I agree, UCACM ... hard to argue with the 10 teams picked for BCS games.

 

That's all you got, wimp?

For someone who has brass balls like you, to keep using the UNI and Arkansas State excuse is fucking lame and clearly shows you have no game, like Zag. Zag can back his game up.

 

Let 'em. It'll save us the biennial irritation of watching Ohio State take a more deserving team's spot in the title game.

 

So many things about the Big Ten, Pac-10 and Rose Bowl are stuck in the 1960s. That attitude is just one of them.
I know the SEC/Big 12 proposal went nowhere, but at some point I'd love to see the other four BCS conferences say fuck the Big Ten and Pac-10 and just move forward. Let them have the Rose Bowl, and let it crown the champion of irrelevancy.
Then maybe, 15 or 20 years from now, USC and Ohio State will be considered "BCS busters".

 

It's more than the Rose Bowl pact, Steak.

When you have the six largest conferences "stacking" their teams in these BCS games in order to keep the money pool between them, that's a problem.

We've heard enough about the B10 and the P10 not budging. Old story keeps repeating.