Running bowl thread

I was asking for realistic better scenarios. Fiesta taking Cincy over Boise was not realistic. And it's not risky when you can sell it as a battle between two unbeatens, one of whom showed up in force three years ago, the other primed for their first BCS game.

Once it was established that nobody wanted Cincinnati, all realistic scenarios had one of both teams taking on Iowa/Georgia Tech and would have the mid-major zealots here to rage. It would have been the equivalent of Utah/Pitt in the Fiesta that time.

And yes, ticket sales matter because that's a component in how teams get chosen. If it was simply on-field performance, why would the only BCS unbeaten available not be taken first? Why would Iowa, the weakest team of the lot, taken over anyone?

Obviously the Fiesta didn't want any part of TCU-Cincinnati, and they had no incentive to hurt their bowl just to give people Florida-Boise in the Sugar, which had its sellout confirmed the minute it took Florida as its first team.

 

as a sidenote, in the college hoops edition of SI, there is a nice little feach on kellen moore. he is the football version of a gym rat. (that he bought so many playbooks as a sixth-grader is funny.)

i can't post from my phone, but maybe someone can post the link.

 

Really? Boise wouldn't go undefeated in the ACC? How about the Big Ten? How about the Big East - or better yet - being as THEY BEAT THE CHAMP of the Pac 10 - how about the Pac 10?

You want to tell me they wouldn't beat Alabama, I might listen to it - but don't tell me they aren't at least as good as Cincy, Ohio State, Oregon or Georgia Tech because you'd be lying and don't tell me they couldn't beat Texas on a neutral field, either.

 

Oregon, Georgia Tech and Ohio State didn't go undefeated in their own conference! Beating the champion of a conference doesn't guarantee anything -- just ask Miami, Stanford and Ohio State.

You have to beat EVERYONE, or almost everyone, anyway, to win the thing. And to go undefeated, well, that's obvious. And only three of the six BCS conference champs managed that.

So even if they got themselves into contention to win a conference, that's still no guarantee they'd be in national-title contention, since one loss anywhere along the way knocks you out most years.

So, yeah, maybe they beat Georgia Tech, or Cincinnati, or Ohio State. But what happens when they have an off week and instead of playing Louisiana Tech, they're playing, I dunno, North Carolina, or South Florida, or Wisconsin.

 

You mean like when Florida had off weeks and played Tenn, Miss State and South Carolina -- and still won by ten points or more?

Yes, beating the best team in a conference doesn't ensure you'd go undefeated in the conference - but it clearly shows you are GOOD ENOUGH to go undefeated in the conference.

Which, you and your SEC fanboys, still cannot say with certainty that they wouldn't - which is why, for the 100th time, this system of picking teams and running a beauty pageant is asinine.

Nobody can say with certainity whether one team could beat another team unless they actually play.

And more importantly - can you say with CERTAINTY that if Alabama and/or Texas would go undefeated against Boise's schedule -- knowing that they would have to play Oregon.

Are you telling me Alabama would definitely beat Oregon on a given Saturday?

Are you telling me if Texas and Oregon were going to play this week, you'd bet your money on Texas?

 

Stanford BEAT THE CHAMP of the Pac 10, and I don't think they were undefeated in it.

 

Anybody have a video game where we can just simulate various National Championship games, maybe make an eight-team tournament?

 

That would make as much, or even more, sense than the current system of deciding a "champion"

 

Not sure why TCU-Cincy wouldn't be realistic. It was either TCU-Cincy or TCU-Boise State. TCU was a no-brainer with it going to its first BCS game. Boise State makes it dicey because it's a re-run from two other bowl games this decade.

I never said the Fiesta should take Cincy because it would have provided a Boise State-Florida Sugar Bowl. That merely would have been a byproduct of the decision to create a TCU-Cincy game, which is something we haven't seen twice in the past six seasons. I'll be curious to see the ticket sales for Cincy and Boise State.

 

Head-to-head results are only meaningful for that week.
Not that they don't have repercussions down the road, but it's not an absolute when it comes to saying one team is better than another.
Weak teams pull upsets all the time. If Washington State beats Florida one week and wins one other game while Florida finishes 11-1, is WSU a better team. No way.
When it comes to Oregon/Boise State, yes the Broncos won in the first game of the season. They would lose today, in my opinion. Oregon is a significantly different (and better) team on both sides of the ball than it was then.
I have no reason to believe the same about BSU.
But even if the Broncos would win in a rematch, it would have nothing to do with the first outcome.

 

Sixteen-team (minimum) playoff and no bowls, then?

 

I'd be OK with that, hell if you want to expand it to 24 and give byes, I'd be OK with that, too.

But this shit has to end because it is silly.