Loved the old days of watching all the bowl games on Jan first.

 

Blew my mind this New Years when at mid day (2-4ish) I went to find a good game and I think there was only one playing at a time. Growing up I was used to having a game on practically every network all day long, not the case anymore.

For everyone wanting to expand to 8, 16, 32, etc. team playoffs all in the name of, "it works in other sports and other divisions", keep in mind that football is a different animal. A big reason it works at other levels is that teams host playoff games. Basketball you are transporting a small fraction of the people and very little equipment or support staff.

 

That is a big monetary and logistical investment to send a team 3-4 weeks in a row to a neutral site. I know people think people would spend that kind of money, but I am not as sold as everyone else or think this is desirable. Are you fine with teams hosting games up until the semi-final or final round(s)?

Blew my mind this New Years when at mid day (2-4ish) I went to find a good game and I think there was only one playing at a time. Growing up I was used to having a game on practically every network all day long, not the case anymore.

 

Maybe I'm not remembering things correctly, but I feel like the Orange, Fiesta, and Sugar Bowls all used to go head-to-head in primetime on New Year's Day in the years immediately preceding the creation of the BCS. That's crazy to think about now. And it was only a couple years ago that the Cotton, Gator and Outback bowls were all on at the same time early in the day.

 

ESPN's consolidation of college football TV rights put an end to all that in a hurry.

I don't remember it being that "cut and dry."

 

Examples:

 

1. Aforementioned 1966 season.

 

2. 1968 Ohio State was unbeaten but so was Penn State. Buckeyes are National Champs.

 

3. 1969 Texas is the unbeaten title holder and once more an undefeated Penn State is #2.

 

4. 1977 Notre Dame finishes 10-1 and wins the title, leap-frogging a higher ranked 10-1 Alabama who had steam rolled Ohio State. Arkansas was also 10-1 as was Texas (but they lost to Notre Dame big).

 

5. 1983 Unbeatens Texas and Nebraska fall in their bowl games and Miami is named champ as they stop a 2 pt conversion vs. Nebraska. 10-1 Auburn is left out of the picture.

 

6. Was it '92 when Florida State loses to ND but then the Irish drop one to Boston College the next week? Both finish 11-1 and yet the Seminoles are crowned champs. ?

 

 

There probably isn't a perfect system anywhere, but I disagree about the old way being better. Just my take.

 

I agree 100 percent! Good examples and there's probably more. The old system just didn't work well in naming the true deserving national champion. Notre Dame has several trophies they most likely don't deserve, but they have always been a darling of the media and received the post season votes back in the day, and that was also without choosing to play in bowl games. Now with the playoff at least teams will have to prove they're #1 in head-to-head play. The BCS was by far better than the pre-BCS system, but the playoff will be the best method of producing a true champion.

Maybe I'm not remembering things correctly, but I feel like the Orange, Fiesta, and Sugar Bowls all used to go head-to-head in primetime on New Year's Day in the years immediately preceding the creation of the BCS. That's crazy to think about now. And it was only a couple years ago that the Cotton, Gator and Outback bowls were all on at the same time early in the day.

 

ESPN's consolidation of college football TV rights put an end to all that in a hurry.

 

The last season before the BCS there were 20 bowl games. The earliest was the Las Vegas Bowl on December 20th. The latest was the Orange Bowl & Peach Bowl, both of which were on January 2nd. There were six New Years Day bowls along with three the day before and the aforementioned two the day after. So 30% of all bowls were played on New Years Day, 40% were on that day or after, and 55% were played within one day before or after New Years Day.

 

BUT - none of the Bowl Alliance games were played on the same day. The Sugar, Orange, and Fiesta were all rotated as the "big" bowl games, and were played on successive days - always ending on January 2nd. In 95/96 it went Sugar, Orange, Fiesta, the next year Orange, Fiesta, Sugar, then finally Fiesta, Sugar, Orange.

 

It may not feel like it (and it surprised me too), but there were exactly as many bowl games on New Years now as there were in that last year before the BCS, six of them. It's just that now it represents only 17% of all bowls and the Heart of Dallas Bowl just seems to lack that same punch. Plus the extreme dilution of the teams among bowls has limited some of the matchup appeal.

It may not feel like it (and it surprised me too), but there were exactly as many bowl games on New Years now as there was in that last year before the BCS, six of them. It's just that now it represents only 17% of all bowls and the Heart of Dallas Bowl just seems to lack that same punch. Plus the extreme dilution of the teams among bowls has limited some of the matchup appeal.

 

That's wild. Yeah, definitely thought it was more. But when those six bowls were Cotton, Gator, Outback, Citrus, Rose, and Orange, it definitely was some serious football.

Other main ones from back in the old days were the Sun Bowl, Bluebonnet Bowl, Tangerine Bowl, Independence Bowl, Peach Bowl, Liberty Bowl and Holiday Bowl.

Agreed, six wins to be in a bowl is crazy.

 

:thumb: 100% in agreement, a six win team is a loser (imo a tie = a loss) and rewarding mediocrity, to me anyway is crazy. In a way that seems to be the way that everything has gotten to in this country outside of sports as well but that's an entire different discussion:lol2: . The "everyone gets a trophy" syndrome I am not in favor of.

Other main ones from back in the old days were the Sun Bowl, Bluebonnet Bowl, Tangerine Bowl, Peach Bowl, Liberty Bowl and Holiday Bowl.

 

Bluebonnet, wow, that IS reaching back there. Never laid eyes on that one. Traditional New Years Eve game.

 

Tangerine became the Citrus, right? I must confess that name change led to my favorite Spurrier quote of all-time: "You Can't Spell Citrus Without UT."

I agree 100 percent! Good examples and there's probably more. The old system just didn't work well in naming the true deserving national champion. Notre Dame has several trophies they most likely don't deserve, but they have always been a darling of the media and received the post season votes back in the day, and that was also without choosing to play in bowl games. Now with the playoff at least teams will have to prove they're #1 in head-to-head play. The BCS was by far better than the pre-BCS system, but the playoff will be the best method of producing a true champion.

 

Forgot to mention the BYU year when their toughest game was a Holiday Bowl win over a 6-6 Michigan team. But because they were 13-0 and didn't have to play anyone else like a Washington or OU that season, they were crowned champs.

Maybe I'm not remembering things correctly, but I feel like the Orange, Fiesta, and Sugar Bowls all used to go head-to-head in primetime on New Year's Day in the years immediately preceding the creation of the BCS. That's crazy to think about now. And it was only a couple years ago that the Cotton, Gator and Outback bowls were all on at the same time early in the day.

 

ESPN's consolidation of college football TV rights put an end to all that in a hurry.

 

I remember the Sugar being played some on New Year's Eve. Growing up, the big bowls I remembered the most were the Cotton, Sugar, Orange and Rose. The Cotton was early in the day, then the Rose, then the Orange on New Years Day.

 

The smaller bowls (early 70s) that were fun to watch: Gator, Sun, Astro-Bluebonnet, and the Peach.

 

When I talk about preserving the Bowl traditions, I mean Sugar, Rose, Orange, and Cotton.

 

I agree, there were years that more than one team could claim a title. Sure, it would be nice to have a clear cut champ every year. The two things mentioned when I started this thread to me are a higher priority. Doesn't mean I am right. Just my preference.

For everyone wanting to expand to 8, 16, 32, etc. team playoffs all in the name of, "it works in other sports and other divisions", keep in mind that football is a different animal. A big reason it works at other levels is that teams host playoff games. Basketball you are transporting a small fraction of the people and very little equipment or support staff.

 

That is a big monetary and logistical investment to send a team 3-4 weeks in a row to a neutral site. I know people think people would spend that kind of money, but I am not as sold as everyone else or think this is desirable. Are you fine with teams hosting games up until the semi-final or final round(s)?[/QUOTE]

 

In a short answer...yes. That's why I think you could actually go to a 16 team tournament, where all 12 of the conference winners get an automatic bid, and then have 4 "wildcard" teams round it out. Then seed it, where the higher seeds host, at least for the first round, and possibly for the second. That automatically cuts the number of teams that have to travel in half.

 

Then, use the current "big bowls" (Rose, Orange, Fiesta, ect.) to host the semi-finals and NC game.

 

And if the Beef O'Brady Bowl still wants to invite some 7 win team that didn't make the playoffs...they could still do it. (Really no difference than the NIT tournament in March)

For everyone wanting to expand to 8, 16, 32, etc. team playoffs all in the name of, "it works in other sports and other divisions", keep in mind that football is a different animal. A big reason it works at other levels is that teams host playoff games. Basketball you are transporting a small fraction of the people and very little equipment or support staff.

 

That is a big monetary and logistical investment to send a team 3-4 weeks in a row to a neutral site. I know people think people would spend that kind of money, but I am not as sold as everyone else or think this is desirable. Are you fine with teams hosting games up until the semi-final or final round(s)?[/QUOTE]

 

 

 

In a short answer...yes. That's why I think you could actually go to a 16 team tournament, where all 12 of the conference winners get an automatic bid, and then have 4 "wildcard" teams round it out. Then seed it, where the higher seeds host, at least for the first round, and possibly for the second. That automatically cuts the number of teams that have to travel in half.

 

Then, use the current "big bowls" (Rose, Orange, Fiesta, ect.) to host the semi-finals and NC game.

 

And if the Beef O'Brady Bowl still wants to invite some 7 win team that didn't make the playoffs...they could still do it. (Really no difference than the NIT tournament in March)

 

Really no different then what is going on right now, or w/ a playoff. NO team outside of the BCS championship game was going to win the title. So all of the minor bowls were filler anyway. Why couldn't they stay in place and still maintain the same relevance that they have now? A 16 team playoff would be the fairest way. AND SAVE ME that it affects finals. Schools at the DIII level are MUCH more challenging than schools at the BCS level in terms of classes that student athletes take. You don't see us crying over it. You could also do what GTown did and push finals back to after winter break when their teams were playing in the National Finals.

That's wild. Yeah, definitely thought it was more. But when those six bowls were Cotton, Gator, Outback, Citrus, Rose, and Orange, it definitely was some serious football.

 

:thumb:

I think 8 is absolutely the highest you could go on a college football playoff. Six is ideal but it would be tough to decide which teams got the bye, not to mention you can't really do that in college sports. I like four better than not having one at all, but eight adds more to it IMO. No way you could go more than that because it would take too long, you're talking about adding four more games to a 12-13 game schedule.