PSX5Central
Non Gaming Discussions => Off-Topic => Topic started by: Sublimesjg on December 08, 2003, 09:37:25 PM
-
Well my girlfriends parents are getting tickets for the game and all this year - i mean its LSU in the national Championship - and its in New Orleans - i mean thats one in a million right there
so we got 8 tickets at 450 a piece and we are gonna get an rv to tailgate in too
cant wait
-
**** the BCS! It should be USC vs OU, that would have rocked, but now I\'ll be watching the Rose Bowl instead.
-
I\'ll be watching the Rose Bowl instead.
-
Too bad you\'re not going to the nation championship game. Who\'da thougt that?
The Rose bowl is the real title game at this point if you ask me. 1 vs 4 instead of 2 vs 3.
-
I actually think that the Rose Bowl should be the Championship game every year, I mean it\'s the frick\'n Rose Bowl!
-
I don\'t. I think it should be the Big 10 champ and the Pac 10 champ every year....as part of a playoff system.
-
USC shot themselves in the foot and thats why they\'re not there. I\'ve heard enough about the Rose Bowl being the "real" championship game.
Oh, and Fiesta Fiesta.
-
West Coast people live in their own little world. You ask anyone on the east coast if they give a rats ass about the Rose Bowl and they will laugh.
LSU should play USC though. You are right abou tthat.
BUT!!! This is the best thing. ANything to make the BCS look stupid is a good thing.
Every year the BCS miraculously ends up working out just by chance as things fall into place at the end of the year. The system doesn\'t freaking work and they got cought this year.
Anything to bring the league closer to an 8 team playoff system is a good thing.
Have fun at the Sugar Bowl. I\'ve been to 5 National Championship games and they are 100x\'s better than the Super Bowl I went to. Especially since it\'s your team.
-
Originally posted by videoholic
West Coast people live in their own little world. You ask anyone on the east coast if they give a rats ass about the Rose Bowl and they will laugh.
I live on the East Coast, and I\'ve always cared most about the Rose Bowl. My team\'s from the Big 10, so it has importance to me. And I care about it a hell of a lot more than the Sugar Bowl this year too.
-
yea i agree it should be freaking usc in there and not ou - but ill be damned if im gonna hear that LSU doesnt seserve to be there - hell their schedule was harder and they still came through with everything - usc shouldnt have been ranked no 2 at all imo - well they should have but not till ou messed up - i think ou shouldnt be in the championship at all
plus i think a better game would have come from an LSU USC game
-
Originally posted by shockwaves
I live on the East Coast, and I\'ve always cared most about the Rose Bowl. My team\'s from the Big 10, so it has importance to me. And I care about it a hell of a lot more than the Sugar Bowl this year too.
Ah, so you\'re the guy...
Maybe I should say many people on the east coast just don\'t care about the Rose Bowl.
But then again, I live in the south so what do I know. Everything is all about the Sugar, Orange, and Fiesta Bowls here in FL.
-
^^
And don\'t forget the gay sex, Floridians can\'t get enough of the gay sex.
-
Originally posted by theomen
I actually think that the Rose Bowl should be the Championship game every year, I mean it\'s the frick\'n Rose Bowl!
the rose bowl belongs to the big 10 and the pac 10. They should create a seperate national championship bowl and leave the rose bowl alone....it belongs to USSSSSS
-
Originally posted by square_marker
the rose bowl belongs to the big 10 and the pac 10. They should create a seperate national championship bowl and leave the rose bowl alone....it belongs to USSSSSS
WORD
And there are plenty of people at least in the northern part of the east that care about the Rose Bowl. It\'s just down there in SEC land where things are skewed.
-
I\'m not really sure how the BCS failed so bad. I think its complete bullshit that it depends about just as much when you lose as to who with some people. And the difference between a team going to the Insight Bowl vs. one going to the Fiesta Bowl is pretty big.
-
The BCS failed because the number one team in the land in both polls is not in the national title game. It\'s that simple.
-
And what I\'m saying is I don\'t agree with them being number one in either.
On a sidenote, schedule someone decent if you ever want to be anywhere at the end of the season.
-
You can\'t help how the people in your conference are. As far as non conference games, they scheduled the preseason number 6 and number 18 teams in Auburn and Notre Dame. They didn\'t know that both would go on to play awful football. You don\'t schedule 2 teams ranked that high and expect them to finish a combined 12-12. And they sure as hell looked a lot better than the teams that LSU scheduled outside of its conference at the season\'s beginning (Louisiana Tech, Louisiana Monroe, Western Illinois, and Arizona). By comparison to that list, I fail to see how Auburn, Notre Dame, BYU, and Hawaii are that awful.
-
As Shockwaves said.
They didn\'t schedule patsies.
IT just turns out that some of the teams they expected to have decent rankings ended up falling.
LSU doesn\'t have to schedule heavy out of conference games. They play Auburn, FL, Georgia, Ole Miss, Arkansas....
I don\'t see where USC\'s schedule is hard anywhere...
The problem is the BCS takes away the streak factor.
IF a team gets hot at the end of the year, the human instinct is to say they are the best team, The BCS makes every game important.
As much as it sucks and as much as I hate the BCS I love the controversy because it makes talk radio better.
------------------------
I would just love for someone to explain how an 8 team playoff wouldn\'t make bowls more money than they have now.
The extra 10 or so bowls could make their own seperate tournament if they want jus tlike the NIT so they wouldn\'t lose their bowl games. I mean who in the hell cares about 95% of the bowls?
Florida and Iowa are playing in the Outback Bowl here in town and I wouldn\'t go if you gave me tickets.
They are BORING!!! I went to the ctirus bowl many years back when FL played Penn State and it blew nuts. Who gives a shit who wins? You think anyone remembers who won the Citrus Bowl in 1993? (Probably Tennessee, hehehe)
-
Originally posted by square_marker
the rose bowl belongs to the big 10 and the pac 10. They should create a seperate national championship bowl and leave the rose bowl alone....it belongs to USSSSSS
They did that for 60 years. It\'s the reason why we HAVE the BCS now, is because of the Pac 10 Big 10 bullshit with the Rose Bowl, and people complaing about #1 and #2 not playing each other.
\'94, Undefeated and #2 Penn State beats up on a crappy Oregon Team, whereas #1 and Undefeated Nebraska plays #3 Miami in the Orange Bowl, Nebraska wins, Nebraska gets the entire National Title, Penn State fans pissed.
\'96, Undefeated and #2 Arizona State goes to the Rose Bowl, only to lose to Ohio State 20-17 behind Joey Germaine, whereas #3 Florida and #1 Florida State play in the Sugar Bowl. Florida wins, and takes home the National Title.
The Rose Bowl is in fact the REASON why we have the BCS.
See Yuz.
-
Actually we had the BCS with only the 3 bowls for several years before the Rose Bowl came into it. Or was it not called the BCS then?
-
Was still called the BCS, but only dealt with the human rankings, no computer stuff. Once the Pac 10 and Big 10 ended their alliance with the Rose Bowl (1999 I think it was), then they threw computers in there to make everything work...right.
Of course, if it wasn\'t for some of those flaws that the Rose Bowl created, we\'d all be fine. Just take the Top 2 teams in the Human polls, make them face each other, and voila. If 2 teams are tied for a certain spot that may make or break the game, go by W-L record against common opponents, things like that, anything that would break the tie.
Ah, it all made sense in the late 90\'s :(
See Yuz.
-
Bah, everyone was wanting a playoff system in the 90s too.
This crap has never worked except for in the years where it just miraculously fell into place.
Problem is now there are too many freaking bowls.
And the Rose Bowl blows nuts. Actually I\'ve never been to a Rose Bowl Game so I can\'t really say that.
-
Everyone has a bowl, jesus and now everyone has a corporate name tagged on too, who gives a flying f*ck if the Tostito\'s Fiesta bowl, or the bank one ... bowl or noka sugar bowl, I just want to see the a playoff system that way the 2 real top teams could shine and show there testicular fortitude or belly up like most shitty teams do.
-
I don\'t know. I think personally you keep the bowls. However, while all the lesser bowls are going on you run an 8 team playoff type thing. 1 vs 8, 2 vs 7, 3 vs 6 and 4 vs 5 one week, then the winners (1 vs 4 and 2 vs 3 assuming no upsets) and the losers (5 vs 8, 6 vs 7) play after that. Then, that sets up 4 matchups, one for first, one for third, one for fifth, and one for seventh. Then you put those matchups in the 4 BCS bowls. Only takes 2 weeks while all the other bowls are being played to decide it, you can keep the bowls already present, and there is then an undisputed champ. That\'s how I would do it if it were me. Keep a lot of the tradition...just add a couple of games in there to prevent all this bullshit controversy.
-
I agree. Let\'s do it.
-
You can\'t always help who you schedule but when they suck don\'t cry, and most definently don\'t lose. (Cal)
As for a playoff system, that isn\'t what college football is about and I think that would ruin it some.
-
I can see it ruining it some, yeah. As it is now it\'s like the entire season is a playoff. Oh well.
If you don\'t have a playoff though, I think it\'s clear that the BCS has to go. Let the humans decide things :)
-
I don\'t se how it could ruin anything at all. What is there to ruin? a game pitting 2 v 3 to see who should be #1... Um yeah, I\'d hate to ruin that.
-
It\'d ruin the sense of importance of the games the rest of the season. It\'d make it so that a 2...or maybe even a 3 loss team could have a shot at the title.
-
Originally posted by shockwaves
I don\'t know. I think personally you keep the bowls. However, while all the lesser bowls are going on you run an 8 team playoff type thing. 1 vs 8, 2 vs 7, 3 vs 6 and 4 vs 5 one week, then the winners (1 vs 4 and 2 vs 3 assuming no upsets) and the losers (5 vs 8, 6 vs 7) play after that. Then, that sets up 4 matchups, one for first, one for third, one for fifth, and one for seventh. Then you put those matchups in the 4 BCS bowls. Only takes 2 weeks while all the other bowls are being played to decide it, you can keep the bowls already present, and there is then an undisputed champ. That\'s how I would do it if it were me. Keep a lot of the tradition...just add a couple of games in there to prevent all this bullshit controversy.
word
You could even do a top 10 and make one of the lesser bowls become a "bcs bowl" even though its now a playoff. That was everyone in the top 10 has a chance at the National Title.
Plus its not like they\'re doing anything after the first week of December anyway, you have to wait an entire month to see a good college football game, that sucks.
-
Originally posted by shockwaves
It\'d ruin the sense of importance of the games the rest of the season. It\'d make it so that a 2...or maybe even a 3 loss team could have a shot at the title.
Yeah, College basketball pretty much sucks because of that.
:Rolls eyes and grimuses:
-
The regular season in college basketball means less than the football one.
But also, it\'s just sorta tradition. It\'s hard to mess with that sometimes.
-
Originally posted by videoholic
Yeah, College basketball pretty much sucks because of that.
:Rolls eyes and grimuses:
It\'s grimaces :D
Just getting you back for your damn comma comment.
I have to agree with shockwaves and boz on this one. I don\'t think the playoff would work. If you think the controversy is bad now, what if a 3 loss team wins the championship over a say undefeated team.
-
*shrug* in playoffs all is fair. You have the chance, that\'s all the teams ask for. I never said I was against it, I said I was for it. I can just see why you might be against it.
-
Originally posted by videoholic
I don\'t se how it could ruin anything at all. What is there to ruin? a game pitting 2 v 3 to see who should be #1... Um yeah, I\'d hate to ruin that.
The human polls make just as little sense to me.
-
In my opinion a team that can\'t even win its own conference shouldn\'t be playing for the national title. That\'s where I agree with the human polls and not the BCS.
-
Thats assinine, I think conference championships shouldn\'t even be played. I look at it this way, if there was a rule where if you weren\'t a conference champ you couldn\'t play in the national championship, then Oklahoma would be getting screwed in this case.
-
OK, you don\'t believe in human polls (Which I agree) and you don\'t believe in having a conference championship game, then you think there should be no conference winner each year? To quote you, "Thats assinine" I\'ll put the apostrophe over here => \'
And how can Oklahoma get screwed? They lost BIG TIME to K State. USC lost in triple overtime early in the year.
-
Originally posted by shockwaves
In my opinion a team that can\'t even win its own conference shouldn\'t be playing for the national title. That\'s where I agree with the human polls and not the BCS.
Man, I love that logic. Too bad in the last 3 years, 2 teams under that circumstance have in fact made the game, both of them in the Big XII, simply due to the Conference Title game.
Conference Title games are important...Big 10 needs to add a team, new ACC needs to get a team, and the Pac 10 needs to add 2 teams. You do that, Conference Title games up the ass, all the winners get automatic BCS bids, Top 2 teams go for the National Title, and none of this getting into the National Title game without winning your conference or even goin\' to the Conference Title game.
See Yuz.
-
Originally posted by videoholic
OK, you don\'t believe in human polls (Which I agree) and you don\'t believe in having a conference championship game, then you think there should be no conference winner each year? To quote you, "Thats assinine" I\'ll put the apostrophe over here => \'
And how can Oklahoma get screwed? They lost BIG TIME to K State. USC lost in triple overtime early in the year.
I\'m all so tired, lastnight and when trying to type this post out now. But I think their should be a conference champ, just not decided by a championship game, just by the record you have at the end of the season. (How the Big 10 does it right now)
As for Oklahoma, they lost big time to Kansas St. but won big time to a lot of talent and frankly they haven\'t done anything to sway my opinion of what place they should be in. And I still think that when you lose shouldn\'t matter THAT much.
Originally posted by ROL Jamas
and none of this getting into the National Title game without winning your conference or even goin\' to the Conference Title game.
See Yuz.
Just saw this after I posted mine but, I think conference champ games take away from bowl games and its a matchup that almost always was already played during the season so what fun is that. And in theory teams that were like 8-4 could go to the BCS bowls while a team thats 11-1 that lost only in their conference championship game could be left out. And that team could have the one loss to a team they already beat once earlier in the season, now thats a joke.
-
Originally posted by ROL Jamas
Man, I love that logic. Too bad in the last 3 years, 2 teams under that circumstance have in fact made the game, both of them in the Big XII, simply due to the Conference Title game.
Conference Title games are important...Big 10 needs to add a team, new ACC needs to get a team, and the Pac 10 needs to add 2 teams. You do that, Conference Title games up the ass, all the winners get automatic BCS bids, Top 2 teams go for the National Title, and none of this getting into the National Title game without winning your conference or even goin\' to the Conference Title game.
See Yuz.
That would be sweet.. Maybe that would force those money grubbing golden domers to get into a freaking conference.
And Bozco, I agree that Oklahoma should have a shot at the National Championship. I\'m not disputing that at all. Problem I have is that all three teams should have a shot at it and the system in place will not allow that.
-
Originally posted by videoholic
And Bozco, I agree that Oklahoma should have a shot at the National Championship. I\'m not disputing that at all. Problem I have is that all three teams should have a shot at it and the system in place will not allow that.
This is true and I\'m not quite sure what there is to be done about that. I just really don\'t like the thought of a playoff system but thats about the only answer to that question. Till then they still get to play in a great bowl, just not for the title.
-
Originally posted by Bozco
Just saw this after I posted mine but, I think conference champ games take away from bowl games and its a matchup that almost always was already played during the season so what fun is that. And in theory teams that were like 8-4 could go to the BCS bowls while a team thats 11-1 that lost only in their conference championship game could be left out. And that team could have the one loss to a team they already beat once earlier in the season, now thats a joke.
That\'s half the beauty of the Conference Title game, actually allows for a revenge factor. In actuality, there really aren\'t a lot of rematches. In the 6 Big XII Title games, only 2 of them have been rematches, with the team that lost the previous matchup getting revenge in the game, it hasn\'t gone the other way (2000 and 2001, Nebraska and Colorado winning the games). If you\'re better than a team, what better way to prove it by beating them twice.
It also gives a team that IS 8-4 something to fight for. If you\'re 8-4, you can still get a big payday (becuase lets face it, money talks in college athletics) by earning an automatic BCS game. If K-State doesn\'t destroy Nebraska and Oklahoma late in the season, they\'re looking at the Alamo Bowl to play Michigan State, instead of the Fiesta Bowl to play a more perennial Big Ten power in Ohio State.
We saw the result last year of a conference not having a Conference Title game in the Big Ten. Iowa and Ohio State both finished the Big Ten undefeated, and were co-champions. Iowa finishes #3 in the BCS (to get smacked by USC), and Ohio State goes on to beat Miami. Who\'s to say who was the better team, Brad Banks never got a shot to play Ohio State, so really, we never got to see who was better, and you want to prove who\'s the best by playing them, and not having a technicality decide it, right?
Basically, it just makes sense to play the game. Nobody has anything better to do that weekend, anyway, why not fill it with a plethera of great college football matchups against hated rivals? Hey, it\'s better watching a computer go to work to decide who\'s better :)
See Yuz.
-
Originally posted by Bozco
Thats assinine, I think conference championships shouldn\'t even be played. I look at it this way, if there was a rule where if you weren\'t a conference champ you couldn\'t play in the national championship, then Oklahoma would be getting screwed in this case.
If you think you deserve to be in the national title game, you should be able to win your own conferences title game. I mean, come on.
And yes, conference title games should be played. Last year in the Big 10 was a perfect example of why they should be. Iowa had only one loss to Iowa St. I believe. But if they win that game, OSU and Iowa are both undefeated and never play eachother. Not to mention both were undefeated in the Big 10. That\'s crap. Even if it is a repeat matchup, a title game guarantees that the best teams play eachother. That\'s how it should be.
And the ACC will have a title game once BC joins. And yes, I think Notre Dame should be the 12th Big 10 team.
To me, you have to prove you\'re a winner to be in the title game. That to me means that a one loss team that lost in its conference championship game should not get in over one loss teams that won their conferences. If we were comparing Oklahoma to teams that were clearly worse during the season than them it\'d be different, but we aren\'t. And in this situation...yeah, it means something.
-
We\'ll never agree so I\'m not going to fight it. I and almost all the college football fans I know think conference championship games are terrible so really I can\'t agree with almost anything you\'re pointing out.