NCAAF Jimbo Fisher: Tradition important - ESPN

 

Interesting article. Coach Fisher makes some very good points.

 

 

I am in the minority, and I am old, but I would prefer a return to the old pre-BCS bowl setup. Put the Big Ten and PAC 12 in the Rose Bowl. Put the SEC champ in the Sugar Bowl vs. an at-large team. Put the Big 12 back in the Orange Bowl and this time let their automatic opponent be the ACC. The Fiesta can be the two best remaining at large teams. There is no Southwest Conference anymore so they could take the next two top teams from the SEC, BIG 12, etc.

 

I think it is better for the student-athlete and it preserves some of the important traditions in college football.

 

Besides, this time next year, everyone will be arguing over who was # 4, # 5, etc. It seems the old way worked out ok, most of the time.

 

In keeping with the theme that I am old, I would have posted a poll but I can't figure out how to do it.:sssh:

I would have taken the 2 best teams after the bowl season and had them square off in the championship.

NCAAF Jimbo Fisher: Tradition important - ESPN

 

Interesting article. Coach Fisher makes some very good points.

 

 

I am in the minority, and I am old, but I would prefer a return to the old pre-BCS bowl setup. Put the Big Ten and PAC 12 in the Rose Bowl. Put the SEC champ in the Sugar Bowl vs. an at-large team. Put the Big 12 back in the Orange Bowl and this time let their automatic opponent be the ACC. The Fiesta can be the two best remaining at large teams. There is no Southwest Conference anymore so they could take the next two top teams from the SEC, BIG 12, etc.

 

I think it is better for the student-athlete and it preserves some of the important traditions in college football.

 

Besides, this time next year, everyone will be arguing over who was # 4, # 5, etc. It seems the old way worked out ok, most of the time.

 

In keeping with the theme that I am old, I would have posted a poll but I can't figure out how to do it.:sssh:

 

Yeah that's worse than arguing who's the best between undefeated champs in Big 10, SEC and Big 12...I would MUCH rather at least try to play it out on the field than vote a champ in after those bowl games.

 

And the years that "Worked Out" Rarely had the best teams playing each other. Some times it would be #1 vs #14 in one bowl #4 vs #13 in another and #2 vs #7...who deserves to be #1 after those?

 

Let Them Play...start with 4 and expand if needed later.

I would have taken the 2 best teams after the bowl season and had them square off in the championship.

I liked the Plus 1 idea, I really thought that is what would happen instead of a 4 team playoff.

I think what I miss is not necessarily the old style but that there weren't as many bowls and the bowls they did play seemed to matter more. I'm glad the Cotton Bowl is getting back into the thick of things, it was sad how it was marginalized under the BCS. But several bowls could matter in the old style because you seldom (if ever) had 1 vs. 2. And while that was not great most of the time, it did tend to mean that about 4 bowl games could perhaps figure in the results. If you had matchups of 1 v 9, 2 v 5, 3 v 12, 4 v 7, it was conceivable that any team from 1-5 could win the title. For ever time there were two undefeated teams that left one out in the cold of the title chase there were times where chaos reined at the end and some team came out of (relative) nowhere to take the crown. It was fun.

 

The bowl system itself is in desperate need of reform, but it'll never get it. Too much greed out there. There are almost twice as many bowl games now as there were in 1990. Even as recently as 12 years ago there were 11 less bowl games. Was there really a need for 22 extra teams to make the postseason?

He makes some interesting points, even though I don't necessarily agree with all of them. This one, however, made me want to spit milk all over the screen from its abject silliness:

 

"These guys don't get to go play in an NFL season. They don't get to go rehab all day. They got school. They got study halls. They got things to do," he said. "Those bodies at that age aren't developed like a man is."

 

Um, I've been on the sidelines at major college football games. Those who know me know that I am no small man, and those guys make me feel very small. Get out and take a walk in real society from time-to-time, coach. You've spent too much time inside the bubble.

 

The bowl system itself is in desperate need of reform, but it'll never get it. Too much greed out there. There are almost twice as many bowl games now as there were in 1990. Even as recently as 12 years ago there were 11 less bowl games. Was there really a need for 22 extra teams to make the postseason?

 

Here's what I don't get about the bowls and how I heard that next year there would be a record number of something like 37 of them:

 

How do they make money? Viewership for lesser bowls can't possibly be good, and we know for a fact that attendance is usually quite poor for most. Who floats the boat on this? How much are corporate sponsors really putting up (especially in light of what seem like criminally-low amounts paid for things such as stadium naming rights)? I just don't see how the books balance to support that many snoozers.

Here's what I don't get about the bowls and how I heard that next year there would be a record number of something like 37 of them:

 

How do they make money? Viewership for lesser bowls can't possibly be good, and we know for a fact that attendance is usually quite poor for most. Who floats the boat on this? How much are corporate sponsors really putting up (especially in light of what seem like criminally-low amounts paid for things such as stadium naming rights)? I just don't see how the books balance to support that many snoozers.

 

It's gotta be the corporate sponsorship and perhaps the boost to the local economy. Anyone coming in would be a boost there. So maybe they're selling short on the bowl itself but gaining in that area? Gotta be something. It's ridiculous though. Fans of some of the smaller schools (and I support WKU which is one) don't like to hear it, but quite frankly some teams just aren't meant to be in bowl games. If there were less bowl games I actually think it would help some coaches out. It's used as a benchmark for coaches because there are so many bowls you have to literally be TERRIBLE not to go to one - at least from a major conference.

If someone wasn't willing to pay the freight so to speak these extra bowls would have never existed...now more mid-majors get a shot at bowl games and get a little extra coin going into their coffers to help offset athletic department expenses.

I never liked the old bowl system. The 4 team playoff has to be better. There could still be debate whether # 5 or 6 should have for in over #4, but out of 4 choices I believe we will definitely get the correct national title game, as opposed to how it was for years. In 1966 Norte Dame and Michigan State were both unbeaten and had played each other to a 10-10 tie. But the Irish had the media and political clout to be voted the national champions at the end if the bowl season, and in those days Notre Dame didn't even play in bowls. In addition, Alabama was undefeated that year and didn't get much consideration for national champions. I also remember years when Penn State finished the season undefeated but wasn't deemed #1 worthy. At least with a 4 team playoff we will probably get a true national champ with it determined on the field and not with the politic of voters.

An add on game after the bowls would have been the next best plan. But IMO the old bowl system just didn't work.

College Football National Champions

 

Other than crowning a national champ before a bowl loss, looks like most of the time it did work out. To me, the trade off of protecting the traditional bowl set up is worth it.

 

Also, if these student-athletes are going to play more games and generate more big time revenue, they deserve a bigger piece of the pie than just their scholarship.

If someone wasn't willing to pay the freight so to speak these extra bowls would have never existed...now more mid-majors get a shot at bowl games and get a little extra coin going into their coffers to help offset athletic department expenses.

 

I'm fairly certain that I've read before that it actually costs more money to go to the bowl game than they get back.

 

Or else I fever dreamed it.

As much as everyone complains the BCS got it right most of if not every time.

It's gotta be the corporate sponsorship and perhaps the boost to the local economy. Anyone coming in would be a boost there. So maybe they're selling short on the bowl itself but gaining in that area? Gotta be something. It's ridiculous though. Fans of some of the smaller schools (and I support WKU which is one) don't like to hear it, but quite frankly some teams just aren't meant to be in bowl games. If there were less bowl games I actually think it would help some coaches out. It's used as a benchmark for coaches because there are so many bowls you have to literally be TERRIBLE not to go to one - at least from a major conference.

 

This is kind of one of the problems with it — too many teams that don't need to be in bowls make it. Some will view this as me being a Louisville fan taking a swipe at Kentucky, but I never got why Rich Brooks got all this praise for getting UK to ever how many bowls in a row it was. It wasn't that Brooks did anything spectacular; the bar was simply made much lower to make it easier for teams like Kentucky to get in.

I'm fairly certain that I've read before that it actually costs more money to go to the bowl game than they get back.

 

Or else I fever dreamed it.

 

I think I've heard something similar, in certain situations. I'm thinking it wasn't too long ago that there was a story about how much money UConn lost, due to their bowl game. Seems that, in addition to all the travel expenses that were occurred, the University actually was put on the hook for so many tickets that were "assigned to them" that went unsold.