Yay! For Sugar Bowl!!!

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.

[videoholic]

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

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.

[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.

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.

[videoholic]

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.