It's tough watching these bowl games

[NashvilleOrange]

Enjoyed the Virginia Tech game quite a bit. As longislandcuse said, that call on the muffed punt was absolutely ridiculous and really pulled me in. Happy to see the ACC doing well but ultimately the FSU, Clemson and to a lesser extent, Louisville games will define the bowl season for the conference.

 

[OttoMets]

The one problem with College Football is they bastardized New Years Day which has hurt them with the postseason stuff and all of the bowls. College Football used to own New Years Day and from 11am to midnight it was around the clock non-stop football all day on many networks. Since the sport has sold itself to the devil (ESPN) they have let ESPN trickle these games out one by one by one over the course of a week when that has killed the postseason in some ways for College Football. Every major sport has "a day" at the end of the year. College Football should (I know they won't) go back to having the majority of Bowl Games on the same day...NEW YEARS DAY!! There is no reason they can't air games all day on ESPN/ABC/ESPN2. There should be 2 or 3 games all day all the time on Jan 1st, yes at the same time! Play the Orange, Fiesta, Sugar, Rose, Cotton all on one day (years they aren't in the playoff)...Outback, Capital One, Gator Bowl(Taxslayer)...all of them. Start at 11am and just have 2 or 3 going at once all day. Move a couple other bowl games to New Years Day if you can like the Music City or Liberty Bowl. It's the BEST PR the sport gets your only competition on that day is some meaningless hockey game played outside, and will be the most watched day of the year for College Football.

Agree with everything here. The game has gotten away from appealing to the casual fan. Even with an exciting game, it's difficult to reel people in for game on Thursday the 28th in front of a few hundred people in Birmingham with some announcer screaming like he wants to be Gus Johnson. ESPN's killing the positive aspects of the sport and this is a big reason why 95% of my college football viewing involves Syracuse games.

 

[OttoMets]

I can still remember the NYD schedule they used in early 90's. 1PM Citrus ABC, Cotton CBS, and Gator NBC. 5 PM Rose ABC and Fiesta NBC. 8PM Sugar ABC and Orange NBC.

Just reading and remembering that makes me want to sit down and spend a day watching college football. That would be so much better than what they're doing now.

 

[OrangePA]

People keep equating "meaningless" with "too many bowls"... not the same thing.

Also, only in CFB do we get a real drama counts for something, on the field way to determine our best team ... only to have people upset that it makes the meaningless exhibition games less meaningful.

I too yearn for the days when this was all we had. I miss the days of old beat writers deciding things, while we watched arbitrarily placed teams face off.

Play offs do not necessarily decide who is the best team.

They decide who, on a particular day, was the better team.

If the present play-off structure truly wanted to decide things on the field, Penn State and not Ohio State would be one of the final four. Heck, the Nittany Lions beat the Buckeyes and won the Big Ten Championship. They are not in the final four because somebody decided off the field that Ohio State should go instead.

In other words, there is still a very pronounced subjective component to the play-offs.

And since that is that case, I would prefer just cutting to the chase and deciding who is the best team the way it was done for years.

That would reduce the number of games - make the bowl system more viable - maintain the importance of the regular season and reverse the needless trend of making the college football the equivalent of the NFL playoffs.

 

[OburgOrange]

Play offs do not necessarily decide who is the best team.

They decide who, on a particular day, was the better team.

If the present play-off structure truly wanted to decide things on the field, Penn State and not Ohio State would be one of the final four. Heck, the Nittany Lions beat the Buckeyes and won the Big Ten Championship. They are not in the final four because somebody decided off the field that Ohio State should go instead.

In other words, there is still a very pronounced subjective component to the play-offs.

And since that is that case, I would prefer just cutting to the chase and deciding who is the best team the way it was done for years.

That would reduce the number of games - make the bowl system more viable - maintain the importance of the regular season and reverse the needless trend of making the college football the equivalent of the NFL playoffs.

I'm perfectly okay with Ped St being left out. For a number of reasons, some related to football

 

[Scooch]

No.

I'm not suggesting that the number of bowls be reduced. Not at all.

Two nights ago, I saw a team "Gatorade" its coach after winning a bowl game - not a high profile bowl game of course.

The win meant a great deal to the players, coaches and fans.

I like that. I'll never forget when Marrone finally let down his guard and was embraced by his players when the Orange defeated K-State in the Pinstripe Bowl - it was great. I wish it had been Dino the other night who received the Gatorade bath.

I'll admit I'm lost. You said you want the games to be meaningful and later said you'd prefer the playoff be abolished.

Right now there are three games of utmost meaning when it comes to deciding a champion: the two semifinals and the final.

Back in the day, pre-playoff, even pre-BCS or pre-Bowl Alliance, how often were there more than 3 games that had national title implications? If the nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 teams were not playing each other they all had meaningful bowls, so that'd make for one more than now. I don't recall that being a frequent occurrence though.

I'm not advocating for abolishing bowls, I'm merely saying that making one is not a measuring stick anymore. It used to be that when you said a team made a bowl game it indicated that team had a good year, likely a top 25 finish. Now it means they finished .500, maybe.

 

[OrangePA]

I'm perfectly okay with Ped St being left out. For a number of reasons, some related to football

It has nothing to do with Penn State per se. It's just affords one example of why I don't really care for the play-offs.

I don't care for PSU, but what happened in the past really has nothing to do with the present coaching staff, players or administration.

 

[OrangePA]

I'll admit I'm lost. You said you want the games to be meaningful and later said you'd prefer the playoff be abolished.

Right now there are three games of utmost meaning when it comes to deciding a champion: the two semifinals and the final.

Back in the day, pre-playoff, even pre-BCS or pre-Bowl Alliance, how often were there more than 3 games that had national title implications? If the nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 teams were not playing each other they all had meaningful bowls, so that'd make for one more than now. I don't recall that being a frequent occurrence though.

I'm not advocating for abolishing bowls, I'm merely saying that making one is not a measuring stick anymore. It used to be that when you said a team made a bowl game it indicated that team had a good year, likely a top 25 finish. Now it means they finished .500, maybe.

I'll explain it again.

I like bowl games. I always have liked bowl games.

I don't like the play-offs for a number of reasons.

One of the reasons I don't like the play-offs is because, in the minds of many, they tend to diminish or marginalize, more and more, the other bowl games .

So, my thoughts are think are symmetrical. I don't like the play-0ffs and feel that the bowls - all of them - should be meaningful to the schools, players and fans. If there were no play-offs there would be less tendency to marginalize the other bowls.

As far as you last thought, it is obviously true that because there are far more bowls than there used to be, making a bowl does not mean what it used to mean. In 1967 the Orange went 8-2 - with Larry Csonka, Tom Coughlin and Rick Cassata among others - but didn't go to a bowl. Today, of course that team would go to a pretty good bowl.

So, yes, it does not mean what it used to mean.

But, having said that, it's still fun for teams and their fans and all in all it is a positive in my mind.

 

[Scooch]

I'll explain it again.

I like bowl games. I always have liked bowl games.

I don't like the play-offs for a number of reasons.

One of the reasons I don't like the play-offs is because, in the minds of many, they tend to diminish or marginalize, more and more, the other bowl games .

So, my thoughts are think are symmetrical. I don't like the play-0ffs and feel that the bowls - all of them - should be meaningful to the schools, players and fans. If there were no play-offs there would be less tendency to marginalize the other bowls.

As far as you last thought, it is obviously true that because there are far more bowls than there used to be, making a bowl does not mean what it used to mean. In 1967 the Orange went 8-2 - with Larry Csonka, Tom Coughlin and Rick Cassata among others - but didn't go to a bowl. Today, of course that team would go to a pretty good bowl.

So, yes, it does not mean what it used to mean.

But, having said that, it's still fun for teams and their fans and all in all it is a positive in my mind.

Got it. One thing that I think has made the bowls feel less special is the ubiquitous TV coverage of every game during the regular season. Even in the late 90s/early 00s, as the glut of bowls increased to silly levels, there were still a lot of untelevised regular season games. So some of the intersectional bowl games had a certain appeal. Today we see every game all year long and I think that causes many bowls to feel like just another OOC matchup.

 

[TheCusian]

Play offs do not necessarily decide who is the best team.

They decide who, on a particular day, was the better team.

If the present play-off structure truly wanted to decide things on the field, Penn State and not Ohio State would be one of the final four. Heck, the Nittany Lions beat the Buckeyes and won the Big Ten Championship. They are not in the final four because somebody decided off the field that Ohio State should go instead.

In other words, there is still a very pronounced subjective component to the play-offs.

And since that is that case, I would prefer just cutting to the chase and deciding who is the best team the way it was done for years.

That would reduce the number of games - make the bowl system more viable - maintain the importance of the regular season and reverse the needless trend of making the college football the equivalent of the NFL playoffs.

Yeah, unless you're wanting a round robin involving all 128 teams, their will still be a subjective part to it.

The old system was all exhibition games and complete subjectivity. What we have now is better.

 

[Briancuse]

It has nothing to do with Penn State per se. It's just affords one example of why I don't really care for the play-offs.

I don't care for PSU, but what happened in the past really has nothing to do with the present coaching staff, players or administration.

Your right it doesn't, and it had nothing to do with why they didn't get in the playoffs.

 

[OrangePA]

Yeah, unless you're wanting a round robin involving all 128 teams, their will still be a subjective part to it.

The old system was all exhibition games and complete subjectivity. What we have now is better.

"Better"?

I guess it depends on what your goals are.

I would be willing to bet that the NC as selected by the polls was just about as accurate in determining the best team in the U.S. as was the BCS and as are the play-offs.

So, if the goal is to identify the best team, I'm okay with the polls.

If the goal is to promote the entire bowl post-season, again, I go with the polls.

If the goal is to give every major college program a chance to catch lightening in a bottle and be named NC in a given year, I go with the polls.

If the goal is to emphasize the collegiate character of the game - to distinguish the game from the NFL - I go with the polls.

If the goal is to generate hype, money and interest from hard core and casual fans, for one game, it's not even close - I go with the play-offs.

When I add it all up - for me - it's an easy decision. I go with the polls.

I'm not naïve by the way. I know that it will never go back to the polls but likely will go just the other way. There will be a least an eight team play-off one of these days. And, as the play-offs expand I fear that programs like ours will be marginalized to some degree.

 

[Briancuse]

Is anyone else not impressed with this Trumbinsky kid from Unc? If this is the best qb prospect this year, this could be the weakest qb draft ever.

 

[MSOrange]

Is anyone else not impressed with this Trumbinsky kid from Unc? If this is the best qb prospect this year, this could be the weakest qb draft ever.

I haven't seen much UNC this year - today is probably the most I have seen. But he doesn't scream sure-fire 1st rounder to me. I've been wrong before though.

 

[Briancuse]

I haven't seen much UNC this year - today is probably the most I have seen. But he doesn't scream sure-fire 1st rounder to me. I've been wrong before though.

I saw a couple of their games, wanted to see him today hearing all the talk how he is the top qb prospect, and I just don't see it.

 

[PhatOrange]

Play offs do not necessarily decide who is the best team.

They decide who, on a particular day, was the better team.

If the present play-off structure truly wanted to decide things on the field, Penn State and not Ohio State would be one of the final four. Heck, the Nittany Lions beat the Buckeyes and won the Big Ten Championship. They are not in the final four because somebody decided off the field that Ohio State should go instead.

In other words, there is still a very pronounced subjective component to the play-offs.

Disagree. Ped St had two losses, Ohio St 1. The convo should start and end there.

But ped st had a somewhat bad loss to Pitt and was destroyed by Michigan 49-10. Yes they beat Ohio state at home on a blocked kick; essentially a half court buzzer beater. It doesn't necessarily make them a better team than Ohio state.

Ped state also played a decidedly easier crossover schedule and had no noteable OOC win. (Minny, Purdue, iowa,) Wisconsin in the champ game.

Ohio state beat Oklahoma OOC and their crossover was (Wisconsin, northwestern, Nebraska)

It boiled down to strength of schedule. The committee, felt the overall SOS outweighed the flukely head to head win. I agree.

 

[OrangePA]

Disagree. Ped St had two losses, Ohio St 1. The convo should start and end there.

But ped st had a somewhat bad loss to Pitt and was destroyed by Michigan 49-10. Yes they beat Ohio state at home on a blocked kick; essentially a half court buzzer beater. It doesn't necessarily make them a better team than Ohio state.

Ped state also played a decidedly easier crossover schedule and had no noteable OOC win. (Minny, Purdue, iowa,) Wisconsin in the champ game.

Ohio state beat Oklahoma OOC and their crossover was (Wisconsin, northwestern, Nebraska)

It boiled down to strength of schedule. The committee, felt the overall SOS outweighed the flukely head to head win. I agree.

So what you're saying is that Ohio State is the better team or had the better season.

And you're right.

But that is not how the play-offs are supposed to work.

That's how the polls work. That's why I like the polls. They are usually right.

The play-offs however seek to decide the issue on the field.

And the fact is that PSU beat OSU and won the Big Ten Play-off.

So PSU won on the field and should have advanced.

 

[PhatOrange]

So what you're saying is that Ohio State is the better team or had the better season.

And you're right.

But that is not how the play-offs are supposed to work.

That's how the polls work. That's why I like the polls. They are usually right.

The play-offs however seek to decide the issue on the field.

And the fact is that PSU beat OSU and won the Big Ten Play-off.

So PSU won on the field and should have advanced.

But they didn't win on the field, they lost two games.

Why should Ped St be in over Michigan? Both 2 losses and Ped St lost on the field to Michigan.

And there should never be conference champ auto bids ever.

 

[CuseLegacy]

 

[CUSU]

FSU came to play so far. Cook running wild

 

[OburgOrange]

FSU came to play so far. Cook running wild

Go ACC!

 

[CUSU]

Francois decked.. out for now

 

[longislandcuse]

Michigan looks soooooo unathletic compared to FSU.

 

[Briancuse]

Speight isn't good enough.

 

[CuseLegacy]