The BCS Is Broken (or, Beating A Dead Horse)

beatdeadHorseBy Phil Hecken, with keen insight from Tod Hess, Robert Marshall, and Rick Pearson

I don’t normally stray from uni-related topics, but there is one topic which has appeared quite often in the comments section which has generated as much ‘discussion’ as anything uni-related we’ve experienced here in months. That, of course, is when a bunch of uniform fanatics start discussing the current BCS “system.” While not many of us agree on how to fix it, one thing we pretty much all share is the belief that the current BCS is broken. Can it be fixed? Should it be fixed? And if so, how?

Joining me today are three Uni Watch contributors who each have a vision for making the BCS better. Is there a perfect solution? Probably not, or the good folks who run the NCAA would have come up with one by now. There is so much to consider when it comes down to the end of the Division I-A (or as it is currently known, the “FBS” – Football Bowl Subdivision) season. Right now, we have 34 bowls, of which there are currently five which constitute the “BCS” bowl series — The Rose Bowl, The Orange Bowl, The Sugar Bowl, and the Fiesta Bowl, and then the final or “BCS Bowl,” which is the last game of the official college ‘season.’ The BCS relies on a combination of polls and computer selection methods to determine relative team rankings, and to narrow the field to two teams to play in the BCS National Championship Game held after the other college bowl games.

It’s been quite a rocky road getting to the point at which we now find ourselves. For a very good overview, please review the history of the BCS as reported by the always reliable Wikipedia. Pretty much ever since we “left” the good olde days and found ourselves at the point we’re at today, despite the tweaking and the reworking of the concept, we still don’t find ourselves with a consensus National Champion. But we’re being told that we do. And we’re being told that we have to have one. But do we?

We didn’t necessarily have a “consensus national champion” in the “old days” and for many that way was fine. But somewhere along the way, we moved a from a select few bowls played in warm weather sites as a reward for a season well played for better teams, to the current mess. And a mess it is, because you now have 34 bowls, many of which are played in cold weather (or at least in cold weather cities) and sometimes by teams who don’t even have winning records (a 6-6 team can qualify). Recognizing that television and corporate sponsorships generate huge sums of money, bowls are now a dime-a-dozen. Some would argue the entire ‘bowl system’ is completely devalued.

But wasn’t the entire point of the BCS to determine what many didn’t even feel needed to be decided, that is, a ‘national champion?’ Well, some argue, all the other college sports have it — some kind of finality to their season (always through some form of a playoff) whereby a champion is unequivocably crowned. Whether it’s the “Frozen Four” in hockey or the “Final Four” in basketball, there is a mechanism in place to determine a real, honest-to-goodness, NUMBER ONE. So, they reasoned, why not in football?

“Hold on just a minute,” the bowls explained. “We’ve been existing just fine, thank you very much, for decades, and we’re not about to give up our status. So what if Navy went undefeated and is Number 1 in the AP Poll, while Texas also went undefeated and was named Number 1 by the coaches? Didn’t this work just fine like, forever?”

“Ah, but no so fast,” countered the opposing forces. “There’s big money to be made for everyone, especially if we can declare, without a doubt, that there IS indeed an undisputed Number 1. In fact, we can let you keep your bowls and STILL decide a champion.”

The two sides got together, saw how successful the NCAA Basketball Tournament had become, and said, “Well why not? We can do that!” And little by little, they began to change the way decades of football had been watched, played and yes, graded. Because if we can declare “Who’s #1?”, while still keeping the prestige (and money-generating capacity of the bowls) surely everyone will be happy. Purists hated it, but said, “OK, maybe this will work.” Dozens of tweaks to the system later, it’s NOT WORKING.

I don’t believe we’ll ever return to “the way it was,” although if you asked me to sign for it today, I would. But I can tell you this — the way it is now is worse than the way it was, because, at least in my opinion, the system DOESN’T work. The entire “reasoning” for changing the way it once was (and worked quite well, for better or for worse, for 70-plus years), was because over the years, the “prevailing thought” was that the way to “fix” college football was to declare an undisputed national champion.

The problem is, even if you agree with that thinking, the system now is broken because it’s keeping otherwise viable teams from even COMPETING for a “national title.” The way it is now, the BCS determines the two (and only two) teams who will compete for the right to say “We’re Number One” while excluding all other teams.

I could cite numerous examples, including this season, of the injustice of this all. But this piece is already long enough, and we haven’t even heard from the three gentlemen who have all contributed to this. Some will argue for a “Return to Normalcy” and some will argue for a full-fledged 16-team playoff (similar to the NCAA Hockey Tournament). We’ll hear from them now, and after they’ve had their say, I’ll offer up “my solution” to the current system. The first to argue his side will be Tod Hess, who posts as “aflfan”, and who favors a 16 team playoff system for the NCAA.

~~~

NCAA FBS Playoff proposal
by Tod Hess

For several years now I have been a supporter of a playoff system for the NCAA Football Bowl Sub-Division (formally I-A). I believe a sixteen team playoff would provide the excitement that is generated by March Madness in December. I went to school at a NAIA school and the first two seasons I was there working in the equipment room the football team went to the playoffs. We lost to Carson-Newman in the semi-finals both season but it was exciting and would like to see that at the top level of college football.

My proposal would be a sixteen team tournament that would involve the champions of every FBS conference. That would be 11 teams right of the bat. Several people complained when we talked about this in the comments but if the SWAC gets a bid to basketball tournament, then the Sun Belt can get a bid to the football championship tournament. Team number 12 would be the independent team with the best record if they had nine wins or more. The final four or five team would come from rankings similar to the BCS rankings but I would like to see strength of schedule included, maybe this would get rid of some of the cupcakes on the schedule. The teams would be seed by those rankings. Finally, if a team scheduled more the one FCS school on their schedule they would be ineligible for the playoffs.

The first round would be 16 vs. 1, 15 vs. 2, 14 vs. 3, etc. The higher seed would be the home team and it would be the second week of December, meaning conference championships would be the first week of December. After the first round, I would use the oldest bowl games for the next three rounds. The quarterfinals would be the Sun Bowl, Cotton Bowl, Gator Bowl and Capital One Bowl (I’m calling it the Tangerine Bowl and would be the third week in December). The semi-finals would be held the last Saturday in December and would be the Orange and the Sugar Bowl. The championship game would be the first Saturday in January with in 2011 happens to be New Year’s Day and would be the Rose Bowl.

As for the other bowls, you could still have them (they still have the NIT in basketball). They would have to be during the week to keep the attention on the playoffs. That is my humble plan to fix what is wrong with FBS football.

~~~

Next we’ll hear from Rick Pearson, who will argue that a 16 team playoff is not the answer:

~~~

Let’s look at the REAL can of worms here
by Ricko

Negatives for ANY bowls as part of a 16-game playoff (or any playoff, for that matter)…

Looking at a calendar is easy. But let’s, just for once, be realistic and pursue the consequences beyond that…the aspects that really seem likely, but no one bothers to think about.

Many of the eight major bowls (Who decides who the Top 8 are? They gonna bid for it? Some might not even be interested.) will have to move from their traditional dates in some years, and most are aligned with civic festivals geared to certain dates. This could be a problem for retaining local community support.

The bowls in the Top 16 Playoff will almost always NOT know the participating teams until a week before the game. Real tough to promote and sell tickets and stage a festival without knowing if fans of Schools To Be Named on Short Notice will come to town and spend time and money in the community you’re promoting.

Fans, alumni, students, faculty would have attend—to follow their team all the way to the title game—four neutral site games. Who can afford that? If they can’t afford all games, which do they choose? First round, in case they lose? Wait for semis? Wait ‘til the final? But, if their team loses before that, they end up putting NO revenue into the bowl stream. Again, seriously tough for bowls to know they can sell tickets.

(NOTE: According to Twin Cites media reports, only 5% of tickets for Cowboys-Vikings this weekend were purchased in Texas)

One of the elemental reasons playoffs work for the NFL is that ONLY THE FINAL GAME IS PLAYED AT A NEUTRAL SITE. Every game has a team’s substantial season ticket base to sit firmly down upon for sales. A neutral-site bowl game not knowing its matchup until a week before has…bupkis.

If first-round losers drop to other bowls…then those bowls don’t know their matchups more than a week in advance, either. And what if, say, #2 gets upset and drops to a game against #17? Oh, joy, there’s a match I don’t want to try to promote. A team that just dropped from #2 to, at best, #9. “C’mon, guys, let’s go bust our hump to hold onto #9.” And will fans who were in Florida last week flock to El Paso now that their second-ranked team just up and got whupped? .

And what’s the motivation for #17? Even if they win, they’re still #17. With a playoff, no more rankings after all games played, right? Don’t need rankings once the Top 16 determined. Have a playoff now. If still gonna rank after title game, why have a damn playoff?

I won’t even begin to talk about how much money the NCAA would have to guarantee all the schools like, say, Akron, who didn’t play in a bowl, but still shares the revenue from a conference team appearance…in order to get their vote. And the Akrons of the world would have a valid point. With all the attention the Top 16 would garner it seems entirely logical that, say, the bottom eight bowls might disappear due to lack of interest. That’s 16 teams—and their conferences—that lose revenue, both directly and from alumni contributions that usually follow a team appearing on national television. So, they’d want their asses covered, deservedly so.

Bottom Line: Here’s what the Bowls might (probably?) would say to the NCAA (and I think the NCAA knows it) “You want us to stage and underwrite your tournament for you? And you also expect us to…

a) Move our games around from our traditional dates?

b) Promote ticket sales to faraway markets of people, many of whom have limited resources, on a week’s notice? Anyone tried to book airfare on less than a week’s notice lately? Better have deep pockets.

c) Force bowls BELOW the Top 16 to promote possible mismatches in what certainly will come to be regarded as the ‘Loser’s Bracket’…and those probably with only a week’s notice, too? And for which future TV rankings will probably go totally in the tank, reducing our TV revenue, too.

d) BID for the privilege of being one of the Top 8? You should pay US, because how the hell are we supposed to sell tickets and promote our community in week? You should be guaranteeing OUR gate, OUR rights fee, the spending in OUR community.

“Tell you what, we’ll work with teams ranked 17 and lower, thank you. We’ll have a nice festival, fans and teams will still have a great winter trip, and we’ll make money. Pay for your own fucking tournament.”

MY IDEA? I have two.

** FINAL FOUR. 4 plays at 1 and 3 plays at 2 (two teams get one more home game so that SOMEONE has a ticket base to draw from) always the Saturday before Christmas Eve…Winners advance to a Title Game at a neutral site the first Saturday after NYD. All the other Bowl games work around those two days, and NYD is left wide open for the traditional bowls…Will someone bitch about not being in the Top Four? Hell, Boise State already did that this year. Why does a Final Four make anything different from now?

** A true FINAL TWO. Schedule the Title Game the first Saturday in January that is at least seven days after NYD…Don’t pick the teams until AFTER the bowl games…So, this year, for example, had Bama-Texas been one of the regular Bowl games, the Title Game likely would have been Alabama vs. Boise State.

Perfect? No. But a total upending of the Bowls, creating short-notice marketing nightmares for them, is just not viable. Simply because they won’t agree to it…and the NCAA, in a 16-game format for example, really isn’t interested in staging, paying for and selling tickets to, 15 games at 15 neutral sites on its own.

~~~

Last up we’ll have Robert Marshall, who’s as old school as you’ll get when it comes to football bowl games and an end of season championship. So, here’s Robert:

~~~

The way we were
by Robert Marshall

I could not agree more whole heartedly with the esteemed Mr. Pearson. He sums up perfectly the objective obstacles a playoff would face, and why it would be the death~knell for college football, but I feel it is also important to give a subjective argument against a D-1A playoff as well. It is safe to say that I have a very romantic view of the world, and I can be dogmatic in my defense of that view. I make no apologies for that. Call me a Byronist, but to a large degree it is the romanticism of the subject of sports that draws me to much of Uni Watch in the first place. If I just cared about winners and losers of games, this would not be my daily sports page.

I know that in more ways then one I buck the prevailing zeitgeist of sports fans, and this may be one topic that exemplifies that as much as any, but I long for the old bowl system, and could give a rats patootie who the “number one” team in the nation is. There is so much more to enjoy about college football then the myopic quest for number one, and the playoff that renders the regular season meaningless, lower bowls obsolete, and will exclude most D-1A schools from participation on a permanent basis. If who is number one is what you are focused on, I think you are missing the infinite beauty of the college game that I could never explain it to you — because you will never see it.

College teams are the only teams you can say are truly yours. You went to school there, you are a part of its history, its tradition, and you have the memories, nobody can ever take that away from you. Maybe if I didn’t have a dog in the fight I would think of things differently and want more, but I know quite clearly what I want for my University: the olde bowl system. While everyone is entitled to their opinion, and I have a great deal of respect for the people here who are trying to fix things for D-1, you show a total lack of understanding for what makes college football great — go watch the putrid NFL. Sure a playoff gets a champion, but it takes away so much more then it gives. If you had attended big crappy State U like I did, on top of the love/hate you have with that institution, you would realize the pride that comes with beating your rival, winning an on the field conference championship, and landing in Pasadena for the most beautiful of Bowl games. That is all the excitement you would ever need or want, but I guess not everyone was a part of the D-1 experience, so we should bend what we enjoy about our game so you can be happy with our champion? The sub divisions have a playoff, why can’t D1A? In the words of our mothers, if Jim Mothervilker jumped off a bridge, would you do it too? The view is better atop the bridge with my head in the clouds wanting only a victory against my enemy — Brother Michigan and a trip to Pasadena, then at the bottom of that ravine with a potential Texas Christian~North Carolina semi-final Rose Bowl, it hurts my brain~pan, breaks my heart, and enrages my soul to even think of situation so vile.

~~~

Alrighty then. Thank you Robert. How do I feel about all of this?

Honestly, I have vascillated about this for an entire two weeks, swinging from a full-fledged 16 team playoff all the way back to returning things to the way they once were.

IF, and that’s a big if, we are to change the current system again, I would argue we should just go back to the old bowl system. That’s first and foremost. However, if we HAVE to have an “undisputed national champion”, then I feel what Tod has presented is a very good argument. Still, I have listened to the arguments of both Robert and Ricko and they are quite persuasive.

Basically, my final feelings on this come down to two very distinct and pretty much irreconcilable sides: One is to return to the past, and to put more emphais on the bowls themselves, where if you win your conference, you get to go to a certain bowl. Win that, and your season is an unmitigated success. Who cares if you have attained the “Number One” ranking or not. The other side, and it’s appealing in its own right, is to say “NCAA football is no different than any other sport, and it deserves to have a Champion, determined FAIRLY, by a full fledged tournament.”

I’ll get back to returning things to the ‘way they were’ in a second, but IF we MUST have an undisputed national champion, then the only fair way to do that is through a sixteen-team playoff, like Tod has suggested. In a perfect world, where bowls no longer matter, then what he has proposed would most likely be the only fair way to give us the national champion many people feel is needed. But to do so, it would be truly at the expense of the Bowl System as we know it, and for that, I cannot advocate.

I had originally prepared an entire defense of the 16-team playoff, and I still stand by it, but after “seeing the light” in terms of the scheduling nightmares AND the destruction of the bowls as they presently exist, I can no longer make a decent case for it. It’s just not workable. We cannot have our cake (assuming the cake is the determination of an undisputed national champion) and eat it too (preserve the bowls). Tod’s idea will work, and we may see it some day, but it will only come at the expense of the history and tradition of the big bowls.

Is this a perfect answer? Of course not — having a 16 team playoff would pretty much guarantee a consensus national champion. Do we NEED a consensus national champion? Maybe not, but it’s better than the broken system we have now.

A 16 team playoff will ensure that an undefeated team like Boise State, or TCU, or Cincinnati (all teams arbitrarily denied a shot at a national championship) WILL get that shot. Is Florida (a one loss team at the end of the season) BETTER than Cincinnati (a no-loss team)? We found out — and the answer is “YES”. But is Boise State better than Alabama? Probably not, but we’ll NEVER KNOW. And that is what is wrong with the current system. Assuming we have to know “WHO’S NUMBER ONE?” a playoff would do that. But like Ricko and Robert have already opined, the cost of getting to that end would be far too great to justify the means.

I could go on and on, but this is already plenty long. I want to thank Messers. Pearson, Hess and Marshall for their effort and opinions. It’s time for you folks to have your say: Do we need to know who is the best team in all of college football? And if we don’t should we scrap the current system and return to the olde days? Or should we move forward with a playoff? Should it include 16 teams? Should we perhaps have a “Final Four” instead, or perhaps just an “8 team playoff”? Or do you think the way things are currently is just fine? The floor is yours.

~~~~~~~~~~

benchies headerThe boys are back at Bub’s. And they’re particularly punny today. Here’s Rick with the setup:

NFL Playoffs mean brunch at Bub’s. Even beyond the ever-present potential for coronaries induced by the Steak n’ Eggs fare (it’s billed as “Breakfast for Committed Carnivores”), the whole thing is relentlessly a platform for weekend…oddities.

Enjoy your Saturday Benchies.

~~~~~~~~~~

scoreboardGuess The Game From The Scoreboard: I had been saving this particular scoreboard until this weekend, in anticipation of a matchup that never did occur — yet anyway. There’s always next weekend, if the chips fall right. You’ll probably recognize the game from sight, but here it is anyway: Guess The Game From The Scoreboard. Date, location and final score, please, and be sure to link to your answer. And, as always, if you enjoy the game, please send me some new scoreboards! Drop me a line. Thanks!

~~~~~~~~~~

divisional playoff headerAfter a disappointing 2-2 week (could easily have been 3-1, were it not for the uncalled facemask stellar defensive effort by the Cardinals in OT). But, the best dressed team did not prevail last weekend in every game. And had I known the Ravens were going to go with the black leotards, I would have picked against them too. But we stand at 2 & 2, and now it’s time to pick the Divisional Round winners, and this week, the choices are much easier. (Remember, all picks are ATS, or “against the spread”.)

~~~

Saturday’s Games

Cardinals @ Saints (4:30 EST, Fox): This one is easy, if the teams dress in their standard home and road attire (see graphic). Saints in a no brainer. I’ll still pick the Saints if they wear white (which they have done this year in the Dome). But they won’t. If they break out the monochrome leotards, the pick becomes a tossup, but I’ll still take that over this. This has a great chance of being the worst uni game of the weekend. And of course, I picked against the Cards in every game last year, and they made the Super Bowl. That ends today. Saints win.

Ravens @ Colts (8:30 EST, CBS): A total no-brainer. The Colts have THE BEST uniform of any team left in the playoffs. And I fully expect the Ravens to come out in their black leotards again. Colts all the way.

~~~

Sunday’s Games

Cowboys @ Vikings (1:00 EST, Fox): Another easy choice, since it’s pretty much a guarantee the Vikings will break out the modern look, which is, quite frankly, not good. I would rate this an almost even fight were they to break out the sweet throwbacks, but that aint happening. Sorry, Ricko, Cowboys take this one.

Jets @ Chargers (4:40 EST, CBS): This one is tough for me, actually, because I am not certain what either team will wear. I greatly prefer the Jets in white over white (like they wore last week), and I would think the Chargers will don their official home uniform of dark blue over white. If that’s the matchup, I’ll take the Jets. However, last year in the playoffs, the Chargers broke out the powder blue alts, which are sweet. They could also petition the league to wear their AFL throwbacks, which are sweeter still. I can’t hedge my bets, tho, and I’m thinking the Chargers will wear the dark blues (saving the powder blues for what they hope is a rematch with the Colts). In which case, I’m taking the Jets.

~~~~~~~~~~

uni tweaks headerOur next round of Uniform Tweaks, Concepts and Revisions is upon us again. We’ll be examining all sports now. So, if you have a tweak, change or concept for any sport, send them my way.

~~~

Our first set of concepts today comes from Renwick Martin, who has some interesting concepts for the NFL and the NCAA. Renwick is a man of few words, but many concepts, so I’ve put them all into a nice little Flickr album. Ready:

these are some uniforms i made.
please credit these to renwick martin

~~~

Next up is Dan Martell, whose work has been featured on here before, but now he’s got some NHL uniform concepts, which I’ve put into another Flickr album. Here’s Dan:

Hey Phil,

Just wanted to thank you for posting my stuff on the blog. It was really cool to see it up there.

Not sure if you intend on doing any mock up work with NHL Jerseys but I’ve been working on a few in my spare time. After seeing the new Avalanche jersey I got hit with a few ideas and made some changes to some other teams. So far I’ve got about 9.

Thanks again,

Dan

~~~

Our next set of submissions comes from “Johnny Seoul” who has a whole mess of Cleveland Browns uniform tweaks:

Long time no chat!! If you don’t remember me, I’m the wiki NFL/NCAAF uni guy. I’ve been pretty busy lately due to my active duty obligations in our military, but I’ve tweaked my prototypes for the Cleveland Browns. The Browns are a classic NFL franchise with a classic uniform. However, I felt a slight upgrade is needed. What I’ve created keeps their simple look, makes it more streamline, but also has a unique retro look to them. I felt that the introduction of gray nicely compliments the burnt orange and seal brown. There is only so much a team can do the an orange/brown combination (see Bowling Green) and therefore, a classic retro color such as gray seems to do the trick.

Check them out on my main Wiki-page

I hope you post this on your Uni Watch page. Keep in touch.

JohnnySeoul

~~~

Our final set of tweaks today comes from Jeff Shirley, another reader who has sent in NFL concepts. Jeff is back today with some NBA designs. I think it’s safe to say, Jeff likes blue:

Phil,

Here are a few submissions from the NBA that I’ve created for your viewing pleasure.

First, for the OKC Thunder, who’s uniforms are the laughing stock of the league, I eliminated orange from their uniforms and added a little more yellow which I felt worked well with the blue. Next, I played around with the Wizards’ uniforms, combining some elements from their current uniforms with their awful gold and black alternates from a couple of years ago.

Here are a couple more NBA redesigns I’ve been playing with, most notably from my beloved Utah Jazz, who have o.k. uniforms, but could use some minor tweaks. First of all, I wanted to see what the new color scheme would look like on the old mountain-scape uniforms. Although I was never a fan of the mountains (you should see the Jeff Hornacek jersey hanging from the rafters, it’s almost embarrassing) on the front of the jersey top, I always though the shorts looked unique. I included the tops with the mountains and without, and I think the ones without turned out much better. My next submission was for the Jazz as well, as I tweaked their original musical note uniforms to match the updated colors, along with a light blue alternate. I believe these updates would be a drastic improvement over their current (boring) set.

My last submission is for Memphis, which I feel have never looked that great since they abandoned teal and black, so I added some elements from those uniforms to their current format. I think the teal and light blue went really well together.

As always, thanks for all your hard work.

Jeff Shirley

~~~

That’s all for today. Keep the NFL tweaks coming (and stay tuned tomorrow for an announcement of an NFL jersey contest), but feel free to send in your uni tweaks for ALL teams. As always, send them to me and indicate the team or sport you are concepting. Thanks!

~~~~~~~~~~

mets bp cap 2010Spring Training is only weeks away, and the MLB have released their new line of batting practice caps. Are you effing kidding me?

It’s bad enough that MLB and New Era decide that teams need new batting practice/spring training caps (and jerseys) every few years, but seriously, this is THE WORST bunch of crap they have yet to unleash on the buying public. All of those are awful, but some are worse than others. James Huening opined in yesterday’s comments that this cap is the “winner of the tallest midget contest,” and that’s a perfectly apt descripton.

They’re bad enough as is…but wait, there’s more. What you didn’t see are the backs of the caps. Ready? Here ya go. The piping on the sides and the brim wasn’t ENOUGH? They need to add even more of that on the back? Really?

Thanks MLB/New Era, but no thanks. I haven’t bought a BP cap in years, and I’m sure not about to now. They’re unnecessary to begin with, but now they’re just horrendous.

~~~~~~~~~~

That’s all for today folks. My thanks to Tod, Ricko & Roberto for their assistance in providing different perspectives on this mess that is currently the BCS. What do you think?

Enjoy the football today. And tomorrow, all you uni tweakers be ready, because we’re announcing the next big contest — and this one will have an amazing prize for the winner. Cheers!

 

177 comments to The BCS Is Broken (or, Beating A Dead Horse)

  • Dan | January 16, 2010 at 8:04 am |

    Hey Guys,

    I’ve done alot of work to those NHL tweeks since the batch the was posted this morning so I’ve attached the rest of the tweeks as well as minor changes I made to the ones posted.

    http://www.flickr.co...

  • JTH | January 16, 2010 at 8:23 am |

    My game picks:

    Saints over Cards (even if the Saints break out the black unitards). Like last week, if this was decided by helmets alone, I’d go with Arizona.

    Jets over Chargers unless either team wears throwbacks. Jets’ regular unis > any of the Chargers’ modern combos. Chargers’ throwbacks > any combo (modern or throwback) the Jets have.

    Colts over Ravens and Cowboys over Vikings. ‘Nuff said.

    Last week, I went 2 for 4. I correctly picked the Jets and Cowboys but I missed with the Packers and Patriots.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Hopefully I won’t dislocate my shoulder patting myself on the back for figuring out this scoreboard answer.

  • WarDamnEagle | January 16, 2010 at 8:46 am |

    Seattle, San Fran and Cleveland got the best deal out of those cruddy new BP caps. Piping minimized on the Braves hat, but last year’s is better (just a small bit of red piping above the ears, but otherwise the same hat).

    Nationals continue to downgrade the use of navy blue.

  • scott | January 16, 2010 at 8:47 am |

    Hard for me to get worked up about spring training/ BP caps. My policy is to only buy hats that actually get worn on a regular basis and in games during the championship season. None of those special patriotic caps or alternative caps that only get worn when games are played on Wednesday afternoons.

  • David | January 16, 2010 at 9:16 am |

    Jets @ Chargers (4:40 EST, CBS): This one is tough for me, actually, because I am not certain what either team will wear. I greatly prefer the Jets in white over white (like they wore last week), and I would think the Chargers will don their official home uniform of dark blue over white. If that’s the matchup, I’ll take the Jets. However, last year in the playoffs, the Chargers broke out the powder blue alts, which are sweet. They could also petition the league to wear their AFL throwbacks, which are sweeter still. I can’t hedge my bets, tho, and I’m thinking the Chargers will wear the dark blues (saving the powder blues for what they hope is a rematch with the Colts). In which case, I’m taking the Jets.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Um, San Diego won’t have any chance to wear its powder blues if it plays Indy. The NFL allows both teams to wear colored jerseys if there is sufficient contrast, but dark blue vs. light blue isn’t contrast. And I don’t see the Colts wearing white at home. Sorry.

  • JAson | January 16, 2010 at 9:16 am |

    As an Indians fans, I’m pretty happy with the new BP hat

    http://shop.mlb.com/...

    I wonder if they’ll change the jersey because the block “C” and script “I” might look a bit clunky

    http://shop.mlb.com/...

  • aflfan | January 16, 2010 at 9:26 am |

    I read somewhere this week (don’t ask me where because it has been that kind of week) that the Chargers are wearing Navy today.

  • Juke Early | January 16, 2010 at 9:29 am |

    Here’s a true can of worms – how about F the BCS and all that crap. Stop treating college sports as if it was a loose confederation of professional teams. Oh, no can’t do it – that “dead” horse is out of the barn, long time running. Shameful, old fat men & drunks reliving their glory days. It should be for the students not thugs dragged from who knows where to end up future dark headlines. And the carrion eaters who feed off them.

  • Oakville Endive | January 16, 2010 at 9:29 am |

    Thoughtful analysis Ricko. I agree with Phil that the current system is actually worse than the old system – in that we have adopted a play-off system – the only problem is, it’s a play-off system of 2 – rendering all other Bowls somewhat meaningless – although with the interesting distinction for teams to vie for – to be invited to a “BCS” bowl.

    For someone – who has always supported an expanded play-off – who still thinks the overall economic pie would get a lot bigger (although Ricko makes a lot of good points ) – in a football mad country – there is no way the NCAA basketball tournament should be a bigger event, I can live with Ricko’s proposal – over time I would expand the tournament to 8, with the first round at the home sites – that would result in “3″ neutral site games – which I think would be a relatively easy sell. The one counter I would make to Ricko on travel – at the end of the day – the NCAA basketball tournament – ends up putting a lot of Eastern teams in the western bracket and vice versa, and yet the sweet 16, which is increasingly played in converted football games – play to very large, traveling audiences.

  • Ricko | January 16, 2010 at 9:37 am |

    Don’t buy the BP hats, but I sort of get it…from a merchanidising standpoint. If teams don’t their unis they need something to energize sales.

    Very much like the NFL Draft Day hats, sideline hats and late-season debut hats. Need sometimes to keep the market stirred and not stagnant.

    What’s interesting is how big a deal the hats have become (not to those of us here; it’s what we do) but the general public.

    And some years the design will be better than others, lol.

    —Ricko
    (Oh, wow, if you were in TC right and watching the Fox affiliate, you’d be seeing Twiggy the Water Skiing Squirrel LIVE from the Sportsmen’s Show. Hot damn.)

  • Craig Pillow | January 16, 2010 at 9:41 am |

    I am in favor of a 16-team playoff as the only truly fair way to determine a National Champion. As to schedule, I think it could be made practical and exciting. First of all, have the first eight games played at the home field of the higher seeds. These could be played, two per day, on Thursday, Friday, Saturday, and Monday two weeks after the regular season ends, which should be the last Saturday in November. Then, have the next four games be on the biggest bowl day (and eve) traditionally, with one game played on New Year’s Eve and three on New Year’s Day at four of the traditional major bowl sites {the Orange, Cotton, Sugar, Fiesta, Rose (always), and one other “minor bowl” on a rotating basis}. Two weekends after these games, play the semi-final games on a Saturday at rotating sites (the two that weren’t used on New Year’s). Finally, play the Championship Game on the Saturday between the pro conference championship games and the Super Bowl (return the Pro Bowl to the week after the Super Bowl). That would take a dead week and make it incredibly exciting, plus having the advantage of shortening the tedious media coverage of the Super Bowl to a single week. There would be plenty of opportunity for fans to plan to attend playoff games, two weeks, and the TV ratings would be through the roof.

  • KF | January 16, 2010 at 9:49 am |

    The current and old systems are discriminatory against the “non-BCS” conferences. That needs to end. You merely need to offer those conference the chance and winning a national championship, and I think it is fair to say the current and old systems don’t offer that (look at history). A playoff is the only way for that to happen. There doesn’t need to be any agreement with the current bowl “owners” either, this should be the NCAA’s sole decision and they can pull the plug. Wealthy people/groups would snap up the opportunity to host playoff games, just as they do in every other major sport along with D-II and D-III football. Look up Dan Wetzel’s (Yahoo! Sports) playoff proposal, the darn thing is just about bulletproof.

  • Ellie | January 16, 2010 at 9:53 am |

    Those new BP caps are terrible. The only ones that look the least bit decent are the Reds and Twins. But really, eww.

  • Beardface | January 16, 2010 at 9:55 am |

    Why does the BCS need to change? Because teams like Boise State and TCU, who didn’t play anyone worth a shit during the year to prove themselves (oh don’t get me started on BSU’s win over Oregon… easy to play your asses off for one game when the rest of the season is cake) didn’t get a shot at the national title? Hey, Cinci finished undefeated as well and they would have been in the title game if McCoy held onto the ball for another second longer. They got lambasted by Florida, so don’t even try to tell me Bama and Texas weren’t the best in the nation this year.

    What I don’t understand is why everyone thinks its broken. Tell me another sport where the regular season matters as much as college football? The ENTIRE SEASON is a playoff. Lose one and you’re out of it. Yeah, its not a perfect system, but neither is basketball where you have 20 outclassed teams in the field every year.

    The system is not changing and its not for 3 reasons. They are as follows:

    1. 6 conferences make 90% of the money in college football. If a playoff were introduced, it would be run by the NCAA and the revenue would be evenly split amongst all 300 some schools in Division I football. (they would force the FBS schools to join the BCS schools). Do you honestly think that’ll happen? Do you think those schools will allow it? The NCAA doesn’t HAVE to be the end-all for college sports. If they try to force a playoff, watch how quickly the 6 big conferences split off and form their own entity. They know this, which is why you’re not going to see them pressure them into eliminating the BCS.

    2. It would absolutely destroy the bowl makeup. You institute a playoff and you’re immediately relegating all the bowls to NIT who gives a crap status. Your ultimate goal will be to make the tournament, and if you don’t, why even bother continuing. Do you really think fans (especially fans from BCS Conferences) will travel to a bowl when they have the disappointment of missing the playoffs? Not a chance.

    3. Even if you gave top seeded teams home field, it would be impossible to fill up the major stadiums on a week’s notice. Yeah, its easy in the other divisions, but you’re talking large schools (especially in the FBS) with decent fanbases trying to fill up 20K-30K stadiums. There is no way you see the major stadiums fill up every week with a playoff. Not with how far it is for most fanbases to travel to their stadium.

    So for those reasons, its not changing. It might be tweaked to a plus-1 where the top 4 go on a 2 week mini-tournament, but other than that, you’re expecting too much to think it will change.

  • Beardface | January 16, 2010 at 10:01 am |

    And why does everyone immediately think that a playoff is the best way to go, anyway? All it does is crown who is the best team at that given time, or who had the most favorable matchups. I mean, can you really honestly say NC State was the best team in 1983? How bout the Giants a couple years ago, or the US Olympic hockey team in 1980? No way, they were not the best teams throughout the year, but they went on a little streak, got lucky with matchups, and got real lucky in the final game and they won. Houston was a much better team throughout 1983, New England had an undefeated regular season, and the Red Army was as dominant as it got. They weren’t crowned ‘champions’, but they were certainly the best during their time.

    Yeah, ok the BCS isn’t perfect, but lets not pretend like a playoff is the end all be all of crowning champions. It has its major flaws as well.

  • Ricko | January 16, 2010 at 10:05 am |

    “and yet the sweet 16, which is increasingly played in converted football games – play to very large, traveling audiences.”

    Key difference: Multiple games at same venue. Means more bang for your buck. You get a whole weekend of basketball for your money.

    Gonna play four football games in one weekend at the Gator Bowl? That’s the parallel that has to made for the comparison to hold water.

    Also, the NCAA basketball ticket-buying public is made up of–at the very least—four schools for any tournaent weekend. Much easier to fill the joint.

    And again, try moving tickets to only two schools you didn’t have indentified until even two weeks in advance. Among other things, it also cripples your lucrative merchandising sales cuz you have to produce and sell it all in two weeks.

    Think about it. How muster would there be to a “Sun Bowl Round of 8″ teeshirt? No longer is anyone gonna say, “We won the Sun Bowl”. It will be, “We made it to the Final Four.” The Sun Bowl would be just another elmination game with a “bowl” label. Civic sponsoring entities will lose interest real fast because they won’t be getting what they want from the deal. Money might be okay, but the “Sun Bowl” ceases to exist except as a label. If that’s the case, then play that game in a bigger market. Ooops, El Paso just lost it’s bowl game.

    Almost universally, those who advocate a playoff of 8 or 16 teams violate one of the key rules of chess: “See the whole board.”

    —Ricko

  • LI Phil | January 16, 2010 at 10:36 am |

    [quote comment="372512"]Um, San Diego won’t have any chance to wear its powder blues if it plays Indy. Sorry.[/quote]

    well shit…it’s always these damn details ;)

    my bad…yeah, IF they’re gonna break out the powders, it would be tomorrow…UNLESS they haven’t petitioned to do so (and beat the jets), AND the colts lose to baltimore (that STILL doesn’t sound right)

    then they could wear the alts/throwbacks next weekend at home

  • Oakville Endive | January 16, 2010 at 10:37 am |

    [quote comment="372523"]“and yet the sweet 16, which is increasingly played in converted football games – play to very large, traveling audiences.”

    Key difference: Multiple games at same venue. Means more bang for your buck. You get a whole weekend of basketball for your money.[/quote]

    mostly agree however – Sweet 16 is just four teams – so two more than the footall model, not a massive increase and the elite 8 game, two of those teams are gone, yet there seems to be a pretty good crowd.

    I think if there ever was a tournament of 16 – and even more wishful thinking they scheduled all of the first round games on a Saturday (staggered) – it would become the biggest sporting television day of the year – and people would quickly forget the Bowls ever existed

  • aflfan | January 16, 2010 at 10:44 am |

    [quote comment="372524"][quote comment="372512"]Um, San Diego won’t have any chance to wear its powder blues if it plays Indy. Sorry.[/quote]

    well shit…it’s always these damn details ;)

    my bad…yeah, IF they’re gonna break out the powders, it would be tomorrow…UNLESS they haven’t petitioned to do so (and beat the jets), AND the colts lose to baltimore (that STILL doesn’t sound right)

    then they could wear the alts/throwbacks next weekend at home[/quote]

    Phil, if it helps I picked the Ravens to beat the Colts this week. Of course, I picked Mondale to carry more than one state in 1984.

  • Johnny O | January 16, 2010 at 10:56 am |

    I am so embarrassed that I have not shared this with the Uni Watch community yet. But, better late than never. I give you the new and improved John Daly:

    http://sports.yahoo....

    http://sports.yahoo....

    http://sports.yahoo....

    These pics were all taken from yesterday at the Sony Open in Hawai’i.

    This photo was taken the day before. An homage to Tiger:
    http://sports.yahoo....

    And what is even better, Big John is using old school Ping Eye2 wedges:
    http://sports.yahoo....

    Here are a few other nuggets from the past month:
    http://sports.yahoo....

    http://sports.yahoo....

    http://sports.yahoo....

    http://sports.yahoo....

  • Ricko | January 16, 2010 at 10:56 am |

    “it would become the biggest sporting television day of the year – and people would quickly forget the Bowls ever existed”

    So your idea, then, IS to go ahead and destroy the bowls. If you don’t care about the bowls, then, sure a playoff will work. But only 16 teams will be involved, not 68. How you gonna compensate all those other schools financially–guaranteed, annually–to get them to vote for a playoff?

    I have asked, repeatedly, how much would the NCAA have to gross–without civic funding for bowls—to net out enough money to reward schools as much as they are currently rewarded…including alumni contributions that almost always follow an appearance in a bowl game? No one who advocates a playoff has ever pondered that number. They’d rather just look at a calendar and figure they’ve solved everything, I guess.

    I don’t think they want to face the reality that the cost of staging such a tournament without financial assistance/underwriting from various Chambers of Commerce might be so extensive that—even as big an event as it might appear in our fantasies—the networks may think it’s not worth the astonomical number the NCAA would have no choice but to ask for the TV rights.

    —Ricko

  • Jim BC | January 16, 2010 at 11:03 am |

    [quote comment="372524"][quote comment="372512"]Um, San Diego won’t have any chance to wear its powder blues if it plays Indy. Sorry.[/quote]

    well shit…it’s always these damn details ;)

    my bad…yeah, IF they’re gonna break out the powders, it would be tomorrow…UNLESS they haven’t petitioned to do so (and beat the jets), AND the colts lose to baltimore (that STILL doesn’t sound right)

    then they could wear the alts/throwbacks next weekend at home[/quote]
    Sorry Phil, but I’m not a fan of the Chargers’ Alts. Don’t get me wrong, I love the powder blues, however, I’m disappointed that they’ve gone with Alts as opposed to Throwbacks.

    I’m not a fan of the number font on the alts:
    http://www.mkrob.com...

    This is more like it:
    http://thunderingblu...

  • Brad | January 16, 2010 at 11:09 am |

    With all the pressure on them (mostly from ESPN), I think the NCAA actually will institute a playoff in the near future. But the bowls are so lucrative that nothing is going to dramatically change the current state of affairs. The playoffs will probably be much more limited, just a token gesture at the postseason, an incremental change to the current system like the last change was.

    Probably something like this;

    Regional playoff structure; East (ACC, Big East, independents, MAC, SEC, SunBelt) and West (Big Ten, Big Twelve, Conference USA, Mountain West, Pac 10, WAC)

    Eight teams eligible for postseason; the champions of the six “auto-bid” conferences (ACC, Big East, Big Ten, Big Twelve, Pac 10, SEC) and two “at large” teams determined by BCS standings (one per region).

    Bowls bid for postseason games and championship game.

    A lousy system (I prefer Tod Hess’s system above) but at least it would be a step in the right direction.

  • ScottyM | January 16, 2010 at 11:13 am |

    Ladies and gentlemen, did not the two best teams of 2009 play for the national championship? And, ultimately, did not the best team this year win?
    -Yes (Argument closed. Period.)

    Did not Cincinnati get exposed by Florida?
    -Yes

    Did not Texas Christian and Boise State play an unmercifully sloppy, bordering-on-pathetic BCS bowl game?
    -Yes (to the point that I question whether TCU’s QB was on the “take.”)

    Did not Iowa expose Ga Tech’s wishboney O?
    -Yes.

    Did not PSU beat a sloppy LSU team on an even-more sloppy field?
    -Yes.

    Did not Ohio State expose Oregon for the pretender it was (remember, UO was gifted 17 pts … and STILL came inches from losing to 5-7 Purdue earlier this year … AT HOME)?
    -Yes.

    The national champion was rightly crowned, just as it has been almost every year in recent memory. The ONLY complaint in the past decade is the undefeated Auburn team.

    Boise State? Please, step up the schedule to be at least comparable to the Big LEast. And, no, Nevada (shutout loser to Notre Dame!!) doesn’t count. BSU played one game (UO) all year. You don’t like it, then merge the best MWC and WAC schools and THEN, and only THEN might you be considered a BCS school. “Blah, blah, nobody will play Boise home and home …” Baloney.

    Nobody can credibly argue Boise would finish better than 6-2/5-3 in ANY of the BCS conferences … because they’ve only played a handful of BCS teams in the past five YEARS.

    It’s pretty clear the BCS worked, once again.

    Now, if you want to complain about dragging out games for a week after New Year’s, the ridiculousness of 6-6 teams making bowls, FBS teams playing FCS teams and those wins actually COUNTING … I am absolutely all ears.

  • The Jeff | January 16, 2010 at 11:22 am |

    Way late today… didn’t read all the comments…

    But screw the “value” of the bowls. They’re already mostly worthless. Sure there’s a few big name bowls that people sorta care about.. Rose Bowl, Fiesta Bowl, Orange Bowl… but most of the bowl games are nothing more than an excuse to watch more football (not that that’s entirely a bad thing).

    Go ahead and keep all the random bowls you want.. they’re already pointless. Use the 4 biggest bowl games for the top 8 teams by record. Don’t care about conferences, don’t care about the rankings, just the records. If that means a #17 undefeated MAC school gets in over an 11-1 #7 team, oh well. Let the final four play the next week, then the championship the week after that.

  • Ricko | January 16, 2010 at 11:22 am |

    “Bowls bid for postseason games and championship game.”

    One more time. Most bowls exist to promote their municipality and, usually, a geographically related corporation.

    They are not promoters, and they very likely wouldn’t see their reason to exist as being to underwrite the NCAA football playoffs.

    Again, winners in the Round of 8 aren’t going say, “We we won the Gator Bowl.” It will be, “We made the Final Four.” If I get no after-the-fact PR benefit out of sponsoring the bowl game, why would I do it?

    When bowl sponsors begin to pull out, how does the NCAA replace that money?

    “Sorry, neworks, we now need another $10 million per game to come out on this deal. You’ve got another $150 million lying around to pay for the rights, right? Every year, that is.” (There are 15 games in a 16-team playoff.

    Really, you have to see the whole board….and cost, and sources of revenue, are part of that.

    —Rick

  • aflfan | January 16, 2010 at 11:25 am |

    We probably will never find out how Boise State will do against the “big boys” short of a playoff. Boise State has offered a challenge to play anyone on the road. The only “string” they have to come to Boise at some point. Not the next year but sometime in the future. So far none of the “big boys” has stepped up to the challenge.

  • Squiddie | January 16, 2010 at 11:28 am |

    [quote comment="372517"]
    (Oh, wow, if you were in TC right and watching the Fox affiliate, you’d be seeing Twiggy the Water Skiing Squirrel LIVE from the Sportsmen’s Show. Hot damn.)[/quote]
    If you missed it, Twiggy has its own web page here

  • LI Phil | January 16, 2010 at 11:29 am |

    [quote comment="372531"]The national champion was rightly crowned.[/quote]

    but you see…it wasn’t…not really

    until boise plays alabama, we’ll never know

    that’s my beef with the current system

    you can make all the arguments you want about how boise isn’t “worthy” (and you’d PROBABLY be right) but until it’s actually settled on the field, it’s NOT settled

    not for me

  • aflfan | January 16, 2010 at 11:30 am |

    [quote comment="372536"][quote comment="372531"]The national champion was rightly crowned.[/quote]

    but you see…it wasn’t…not really

    until boise plays alabama, we’ll never know

    that’s my beef with the current system

    you can make all the arguments you want about how boise isn’t “worthy” (and you’d PROBABLY be right) but until it’s actually settled on the field, it’s NOT settled

    not for me[/quote]

    AMEN!

  • aflfan | January 16, 2010 at 11:32 am |

    I know you have all been sitting on the edge of your seat wondering what my picks are this weekend so you can bet against them. But I was 3-1 last week (missed the Eagles). So here we go

    Vikings
    Saints
    Chargers
    Ravens

    Uni-centric picks

    Cowboys
    Saints
    Chargers
    Colts

  • ScottyM | January 16, 2010 at 11:34 am |

    BTW, I totally appreciate Robert’s romanticism with the old bowl system. Absolutely no bowl compares to Pasadena on New Year’s Day.

    Hello? MLB and Baltimore organization, are you awake? Paul gift wraps a critique to change those FOOLISH Orioles hats with the apostrophe catastrophe … and yet a year later they roll out this batting practice bean? Yikes, would somebody please fire somebody over this? :)

  • ScottyM | January 16, 2010 at 11:39 am |

    Phil,

    That’s BOISE’S fault. Period. They play in a conference that does not measure up. All the nonsense directed toward capitol hill would be BETTER directed at merging the MWC and WAC.

    TCU
    Utah
    Air Force
    Boise
    BYU
    SDSU
    Hawai’i
    Among a few others …

    Now you have the makings of something respectable. Until then, should App State get to play with the big boys in a BCS bowl because they beat all their opponents … and Michigan a few years ago?

    Uh, no.

    That’s EXACTLY what Boise is doing … but on a just slightly grander scale.

  • The Jeff | January 16, 2010 at 11:45 am |

    [quote comment="372540"]Phil,

    That’s BOISE’S fault. Period. They play in a conference that does not measure up. All the nonsense directed toward capitol hill would be BETTER directed at merging the MWC and WAC.

    TCU
    Utah
    Air Force
    Boise
    BYU
    SDSU
    Hawai’i
    Among a few others …

    Now you have the makings of something respectable. Until then, should App State get to play with the big boys in a BCS bowl because they beat all their opponents … and Michigan a few years ago?

    Uh, no.

    That’s EXACTLY what Boise is doing … but on a just slightly grander scale.[/quote]

    What exactly makes one school more worthy than another? Paying the coach more or having a nicer campus doesn’t mean your players are actually any better. Why the hell shouldn’t a Boise St at least have the chance to prove themselves?

  • JimV19 | January 16, 2010 at 11:51 am |

    “I won’t even begin to talk about how much money the NCAA would have to guarantee all the schools like, say, Akron, who didn’t play in a bowl, but still shares the revenue from a conference team appearance…in order to get their vote.”

    “In the words of our mothers, if Jim Mothervilker jumped off a bridge, would you do it too?”

    ———

    Hmm, I’m starting to take this article personally. ;)

    Y’all make some good points, but even before I read these, I had two simple compromises in mind.

    1) Let’s not pretend that my alma mater and the rest of the Mid-American Conference belong in Division I. The MAC, the SunBelt and probably Conference USA should drop to I-AA. That leaves eight conferences. Independents should join a conference or sit out a playoff. Eight conferences equals eight playoff teams. You think the 2nd place SEC team deserves a shot over the Mountain West winner? Tough. Win your conference. The four major bowls get the playoff teams. The other bowls get the rest, just as they do now. Instead of thinking the bowls would be devalued, think of them as another championship – just as soccer has a regular-season winner, a playoff winner and a cup winner. You have a shot at winning your conference, a major bowl and a championship all in one year. Final Four play a week later with the title game in mid-January (which is when most schools resume classes, so it wouldn’t be too much of a distraction).

    2) Go back to the old system where the bowls end on Jan. 1st. The following week is left open for a possible Undefeated Bowl if you still have two perfect teams left. It wouldn’t happen all the time, so when it did, I think there would be sufficient interest and the game would sell out easily.

    While I think there should be a champion crowned, I’m also not above the old co-champion situation we had in the past. Wish they would have done that for Penn State all the times they went undefeated but got hosed by the sportswriters.

  • ScottyM | January 16, 2010 at 11:51 am |

    PS, if it’s true that Boise’s AD has issued the so-called “challenge” you speak of above …
    perhaps he should grow a nutsack and expose those who’ve declined to play in Boise?

    I think it’s an old wives’ tale that’s perpetuated. Sure, there’s probably some truth to it, but it’s pure exaggeration, as well.

    But let me ask you, why wouldn’t BCSers Virginia, Michigan State, Indiana, Wisconsin, and the likes play a home and home with Boise State?

    (These are all middle-of-the-pack schools who played far-away games against Wyoming, Hawai’i, Oregon, etc.)

    Hawai’i, btw, rarely plays on the mainland outside of conference … so no “return” date is likely. So, if these teams are willing to go to Oregon, Hawai’i and Wyoming and potentially lose … what’s so dreaded about Boise?

    That’s why I think the whole “nobody will play a home and home with BSU” is, frankly, BS. Until I see the AD’s list of “turn-downs,” I’ll continue to be skeptical.

    And, based on what I saw on the field this year, Boise State is lucky to be top 10.

  • Ricko | January 16, 2010 at 11:52 am |

    [quote comment="372537"][quote comment="372536"][quote comment="372531"]The national champion was rightly crowned.[/quote]

    but you see…it wasn’t…not really

    until boise plays alabama, we’ll never know

    that’s my beef with the current system

    you can make all the arguments you want about how boise isn’t “worthy” (and you’d PROBABLY be right) but until it’s actually settled on the field, it’s NOT settled

    not for me[/quote]

    AMEN![/quote]

    There are basically, at the core of all this, two emotional/esoteric positions.

    One is angst-ridden, frustrated, feeling deprived, and certain that the universe is critically off-center because, “There’s no TRUE champion determined on the field! And I want to SEE that!”

    The other shrugs its shoulders, understanding that NCAA football is a national organization, but has never been a national LEAGUE, and says, “It doesn’t matter.”

    Okay now, without googling or doing any research, how many of us can name four of the past five NCAA baseball champions?

    For that matter, how many can, in no more than 10 seconds, name the past five NCAA football teams that ended up #1?

    Plus, I gotta give rpm credit for posing a great subjective issue to ponder. What’s truly more fun…watching Tebow and Florida play four more times, or watching a whole lot of different teams play, including the likes of the Big 12 and Big 10 champions in the Rose Bowl?

    There are elements of the college game, both emotional and financial, that simply make it impossible to set the NFL template down onto it.

    The bowls are a celebration of the end of another college football season. A 16-game playoff likely becomes the ENTIRE season…from a status standpoint.

    The NFL exists for that. College football does not.

    —Ricko

  • ScottyM | January 16, 2010 at 11:56 am |

    PS, using the logic I’m reading here (what makes one school more worthy than another) … what happens if a MAC school goes undefeated like Ball State almost did a few years ago?

    Should an undefeated MAC school be in the national championship game … assuming they are one of two undefeated teams? lol

  • Jet | January 16, 2010 at 12:01 pm |

    Dan: (what a coincidence, my anti-spam word was dan!!)

    Nice job on the NHL tweaks but unfortunately you’re working from the RBK template, and you can’t fix the unfixable. I thought the Bruins looked the best of all the ones with diagonal lettering.

    The St.Louis white with the arch was nice – is that an actual jersey or your tweak?

    Also, the old Quebec Nordiques white was really good – just reverse the colors on the fleur de lis and make it a tad smaller (design conflict with the tip almost touching the neck trim) and you’ve got a winner!

    -Jet

  • The Jeff | January 16, 2010 at 12:03 pm |

    [quote comment="372545"]PS, using the logic I’m reading here (what makes one school more worthy than another) … what happens if a MAC school goes undefeated like Ball State almost did a few years ago?

    Should an undefeated MAC school be in the national championship game … assuming they are one of two undefeated teams? lol[/quote]

    Why not? If they’re a fluke, they’ll get destroyed. Is it that unfathomable that maybe a MAC team or some other “lesser” conference team couldn’t be *that* good every now and then?

    1997 – Michigan goes undefeated.
    2008 – they go 3-9

    Historically good doesn’t mean always good. Historically bad also doesn’t mean always bad. Maybe for that one freak season, the MAC team really IS the best in the country.

  • JimV19 | January 16, 2010 at 12:04 pm |

    [quote comment="372545"]PS, using the logic I’m reading here (what makes one school more worthy than another) … what happens if a MAC school goes undefeated like Ball State almost did a few years ago?

    Should an undefeated MAC school be in the national championship game … assuming they are one of two undefeated teams? lol[/quote]

    If you’re going to keep the MAC in Division I, then yes. If they are frauds, they will be exposed in the title game. If they beat a “worthier” opponent, they deserve it.

    Ah, but what if the worthier team loses a star player before or during that game? Let’s remember one thing about a playoff – it is not to determine who is the “best” team, but the one who made it to the end and came out victorious. It is impossible to determine a “best” team that will please everyone, but it is possible to determine a champion.

  • Oakville Endive | January 16, 2010 at 12:21 pm |

    [quote comment="372528"]“it would become the biggest sporting television day of the year – and people would quickly forget the Bowls ever existed”

    So your idea, then, IS to go ahead and destroy the bowls. If you don’t care about the bowls, then, sure a playoff will work. But only 16 teams will be involved, not 68. How you gonna compensate all those other schools financially–guaranteed, annually–to get them to vote for a playoff?

    I have asked, repeatedly, how much would the NCAA have to gross–without civic funding for bowls—to net out enough money to reward schools as much as they are currently rewarded…including alumni contributions that almost always follow an appearance in a bowl game? No one who advocates a playoff has ever pondered that number. They’d rather just look at a calendar and figure they’ve solved everything, I guess.

    I don’t think they want to face the reality that the cost of staging such a tournament without financial assistance/underwriting from various Chambers of Commerce might be so extensive that—even as big an event as it might appear in our fantasies—the networks may think it’s not worth the astonomical number the NCAA would have no choice but to ask for the TV rights.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    Going to 16 right away is realistically – an unlikely dream – however think of the possibilities – the ultimate Super Saturday – in mid December – 8 sudden death games – I would say Christmas shopping revenue would take a hit that day – except most of the viewers are the Dec 24th types.

    I think – big picture – off the top of my head – what are the three sporting institutions in North America which have grown the most over the last 30 years – I would argue it’s probably
    a) the NFL b) March Madness and c) NASCAR – so NCAA football should be asking itself – lots of questions – and no doubt the vice grip the Bowls have is a major reason isn’t on this list.

    So realistically – as you proposed – they probably have to go slow – i.e. if we expand the play-off from 2 to 4 do we kill the Bowls – no, then let’s do it, wait 5 years – and see if we can go from 4 to 8.

    I hear what you’re saying with the Bowls – but many of those bottom feeding Bowls are just staggeringly meaningless. In Toronto , we have the Intl Bowl – that thing could disappear tomorrow – and no one – but maybe the hotels – would care in Toronto – it’s a complete non-event. One extra convention would easily compensate the hotels. I suspect this Bowl will go away – and I suspect there are several others that are on pretty shaky grounds. It’s a testament for the insatiable appetite for football – that these Bowls still garner good ratings for ESPN.

  • KF | January 16, 2010 at 12:21 pm |

    [quote comment="372547"][quote comment="372545"]PS, using the logic I’m reading here (what makes one school more worthy than another) … what happens if a MAC school goes undefeated like Ball State almost did a few years ago?

    Should an undefeated MAC school be in the national championship game … assuming they are one of two undefeated teams? lol[/quote]

    Why not? If they’re a fluke, they’ll get destroyed. Is it that unfathomable that maybe a MAC team or some other “lesser” conference team couldn’t be *that* good every now and then?

    1997 – Michigan goes undefeated.
    2008 – they go 3-9

    Historically good doesn’t mean always good. Historically bad also doesn’t mean always bad. Maybe for that one freak season, the MAC team really IS the best in the country.[/quote]

    Agreed. There are freak games, freak seasons and just freak teams that catch all the breaks. The George Mason’s of college football never get the chance to prove they are the best. They just get shoved aside because they aren’t in one of the “elite” conferences. Why anyone thinks that is OK is beyond me.

  • aflfan | January 16, 2010 at 12:24 pm |

    [quote comment="372548"][quote comment="372545"]PS, using the logic I’m reading here (what makes one school more worthy than another) … what happens if a MAC school goes undefeated like Ball State almost did a few years ago?

    Should an undefeated MAC school be in the national championship game … assuming they are one of two undefeated teams? lol[/quote]

    If you’re going to keep the MAC in Division I, then yes. If they are frauds, they will be exposed in the title game. If they beat a “worthier” opponent, they deserve it.

    Ah, but what if the worthier team loses a star player before or during that game? Let’s remember one thing about a playoff – it is not to determine who is the “best” team, but the one who made it to the end and came out victorious. It is impossible to determine a “best” team that will please everyone, but it is possible to determine a champion.[/quote]

    Well then let’s have bowls for NCAA Basketball. That way 40 teams can celebrate the season with a win at the end instead of just one.

  • aflfan | January 16, 2010 at 12:28 pm |

    [quote comment="372543"]PS, if it’s true that Boise’s AD has issued the so-called “challenge” you speak of above …
    perhaps he should grow a nutsack and expose those who’ve declined to play in Boise?

    I think it’s an old wives’ tale that’s perpetuated. Sure, there’s probably some truth to it, but it’s pure exaggeration, as well.

    But let me ask you, why wouldn’t BCSers Virginia, Michigan State, Indiana, Wisconsin, and the likes play a home and home with Boise State?

    (These are all middle-of-the-pack schools who played far-away games against Wyoming, Hawai’i, Oregon, etc.)

    Hawai’i, btw, rarely plays on the mainland outside of conference … so no “return” date is likely. So, if these teams are willing to go to Oregon, Hawai’i and Wyoming and potentially lose … what’s so dreaded about Boise?

    That’s why I think the whole “nobody will play a home and home with BSU” is, frankly, BS. Until I see the AD’s list of “turn-downs,” I’ll continue to be skeptical.

    And, based on what I saw on the field this year, Boise State is lucky to be top 10.[/quote]

    http://rivals.yahoo....

  • aflfan | January 16, 2010 at 12:35 pm |

    [quote comment="372545"]PS, using the logic I’m reading here (what makes one school more worthy than another) … what happens if a MAC school goes undefeated like Ball State almost did a few years ago?

    Should an undefeated MAC school be in the national championship game … assuming they are one of two undefeated teams? lol[/quote]

    Why not. They are an FBS school. Just because they are looked upon as substand doesn’t mean they are.

    Look at how many “little” conferences get their champion in the NCAA basketball tournament. I don’t hear people saying they should be elimated from the the tournament. Some of those MAC school play a tougher non-conference schedule than any of the major football programs do. If they go undefeated let them in.

  • ben | January 16, 2010 at 12:37 pm |

    Us midwest folks who grew up with the Big Ten always romanticize about the Rose Bowl and Pasadena on New Years’ Day. It’s a big deal that a lot of folks don’t get. There’s something about the Rose Bowl that’s just… different. It warms you up on a cold January day.

    Which is why, if I were the king of everything, I would have a Pasadena-centric playoff system. An eight-team playoff, the first round played the second weekend of December on the higher seeds’ home field. Then the action would move to Pasadena, with the second round played just before Christmas and the National Championship played on New Years’ Day.

    This system also solves the travel problem entirely. It eliminates the bowls that suck (all 33 of them). It does, however, present a new problem, as now West Coast teams are at a clear advantage over everyone else. Part of that is mitigated by the presence in the LA area of the Home Depot Center, as every team would have access to excellent practice facilities during their entire stay.

  • Derek | January 16, 2010 at 12:37 pm |

    “Home” and “road” batting practice caps. . . . I mean . . . really, people. . . . It’s only a matter of time before there’s embossing.

  • Oakville Endive | January 16, 2010 at 1:04 pm |

    [quote comment="372554"]Us midwest folks who grew up with the Big Ten always romanticize about the Rose Bowl and Pasadena on New Years’ Day. It’s a big deal that a lot of folks don’t get. There’s something about the Rose Bowl that’s just… different. It warms you up on a cold January day.

    Which is why, if I were the king of everything, I would have a Pasadena-centric playoff system. An eight-team playoff, the first round played the second weekend of December on the higher seeds’ home field. Then the action would move to Pasadena, with the second round played just before Christmas and the National Championship played on New Years’ Day.

    This system also solves the travel problem entirely. It eliminates the bowls that suck (all 33 of them). It does, however, present a new problem, as now West Coast teams are at a clear advantage over everyone else. Part of that is mitigated by the presence in the LA area of the Home Depot Center, as every team would have access to excellent practice facilities during their entire stay.[/quote]

    Does that “romanticizing” and “something about” by you Mid-westerners – include getting your butt clocked every Jan 1 by USC? – Sorry

  • Christopher | January 16, 2010 at 1:47 pm |

    Well thought out Ricko, though I disagree. However, you actually made good points rather than what you hear from the NCAA Cartel.

    However your point about fans travelling, picking only one game, and the playoff bowls not knowing the teams- why is this any different than the basketball tourney?

    New Orleans (I live here) just got the Final Four in 2013 I think. Which means we get the first 2 rounds, second 2 rounds in successive years before.

    We’ll have zero idea who’s playing who… some games 2 days before! Who cares? All that matters is we get the rounds. The casual fan is a fan of the playoffs itself, not the teams.

    And we will sell out. Every single game. So would EVERY playoff game in a 16 or 8 team bracket.

    By the way, the lesser bowls don’t sell out anyway. I could have gotten tickets 10 rows up, near the 50 yard line, for the New Orleans Bowl… for $20! The game is a total bust. No one cares because the Superdome I guess would just be sitting there empty that day.

  • Christopher | January 16, 2010 at 1:52 pm |

    [quote comment="372544"][quote comment="372537"][quote comment="372536"][quote comment="372531"]The national champion was rightly crowned.[/quote]

    but you see…it wasn’t…not really

    until boise plays alabama, we’ll never know

    that’s my beef with the current system

    you can make all the arguments you want about how boise isn’t “worthy” (and you’d PROBABLY be right) but until it’s actually settled on the field, it’s NOT settled

    not for me[/quote]

    AMEN![/quote]

    There are basically, at the core of all this, two emotional/esoteric positions.

    One is angst-ridden, frustrated, feeling deprived, and certain that the universe is critically off-center because, “There’s no TRUE champion determined on the field! And I want to SEE that!”

    The other shrugs its shoulders, understanding that NCAA football is a national organization, but has never been a national LEAGUE, and says, “It doesn’t matter.”

    Okay now, without googling or doing any research, how many of us can name four of the past five NCAA baseball champions?

    For that matter, how many can, in no more than 10 seconds, name the past five NCAA football teams that ended up #1?

    Plus, I gotta give rpm credit for posing a great subjective issue to ponder. What’s truly more fun…watching Tebow and Florida play four more times, or watching a whole lot of different teams play, including the likes of the Big 12 and Big 10 champions in the Rose Bowl?

    There are elements of the college game, both emotional and financial, that simply make it impossible to set the NFL template down onto it.

    The bowls are a celebration of the end of another college football season. A 16-game playoff likely becomes the ENTIRE season…from a status standpoint.

    The NFL exists for that. College football does not.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    More good points indeed. However, you have to think of the casual fan first, not the College Football Geeks. That’s what the NCAA basketball tourney did.

    Yes, as a casual fan I want to see Tebow play “4 more times” because either:

    1. I’m a fan and I want to root for something when my craptastic college team is done for the season.

    2. I can’t stand Tebow and Florida and I want to see them get knocked out. Its the Duke syndrome from basketball. Personally, I LOVE watching the first rounds because I LOVE seeing Duke get knocked out early.

    Right now the casual fans care very little about the bowls other than maybe the big 4 and the championship.

  • Komet17 | January 16, 2010 at 2:01 pm |

    [quote comment="372556"][quote comment="372554"]Us midwest folks who grew up with the Big Ten always romanticize about the Rose Bowl and Pasadena on New Years’ Day. It’s a big deal that a lot of folks don’t get. There’s something about the Rose Bowl that’s just… different. It warms you up on a cold January day.

    Which is why, if I were the king of everything, I would have a Pasadena-centric playoff system. An eight-team playoff, the first round played the second weekend of December on the higher seeds’ home field. Then the action would move to Pasadena, with the second round played just before Christmas and the National Championship played on New Years’ Day.

    This system also solves the travel problem entirely. It eliminates the bowls that suck (all 33 of them). It does, however, present a new problem, as now West Coast teams are at a clear advantage over everyone else. Part of that is mitigated by the presence in the LA area of the Home Depot Center, as every team would have access to excellent practice facilities during their entire stay.[/quote]

    Does that “romanticizing” and “something about” by you Mid-westerners – include getting your butt clocked every Jan 1 by USC? – Sorry[/quote]

    Uh, not so much, this year.

  • Beardface | January 16, 2010 at 2:18 pm |

    [quote comment="372557"]Well thought out Ricko, though I disagree. However, you actually made good points rather than what you hear from the NCAA Cartel.

    However your point about fans travelling, picking only one game, and the playoff bowls not knowing the teams- why is this any different than the basketball tourney?

    New Orleans (I live here) just got the Final Four in 2013 I think. Which means we get the first 2 rounds, second 2 rounds in successive years before.

    We’ll have zero idea who’s playing who… some games 2 days before! Who cares? All that matters is we get the rounds. The casual fan is a fan of the playoffs itself, not the teams.

    And we will sell out. Every single game. So would EVERY playoff game in a 16 or 8 team bracket.

    By the way, the lesser bowls don’t sell out anyway. I could have gotten tickets 10 rows up, near the 50 yard line, for the New Orleans Bowl… for $20! The game is a total bust. No one cares because the Superdome I guess would just be sitting there empty that day.[/quote]
    In basketball you get at least 4 teams per venue to sell out 20K seats. Each school would have to sell 5K tickets (or less, depending on media passes) on short notice. Thats do-able.

    In football, 2 teams per venue. You’d be relying on 2 schools to sell ~30K-40K tickets in the course of 1 week and have those fans be able to book hotel rooms, etc.

    Its quite literally an impossible situation. The only way a playoff could work is to have home field. But even then, you’re looking at having 1 school sell 60K-100K tickets in the course of 1 week, including hotel rooms, all without the help of the student population, who will be in the middle of exams and out on Winter Break.

    Good luck with that.

  • Brett | January 16, 2010 at 2:35 pm |

    You know what really grinds my gears?

    People who hate the BCS. To every kid in college who hates the BCS (and is probably too young to remember what it was like before the BCS), consider this:

    In 1997, the year immediately preceding the BCS, #1 Michigan and #2 Nebraska did not meet each other in a bowl game. Because the Rose Bowl opted not to be a part of the Bowl Alliance (1995-1997), Michigan had to play in the Rose Bowl against the Pac-10 champion. The Wolverines and Cornhuskers both won their bowl game, finished undefeated, and split the national championship. With the BCS, Michigan and Nebraska would have played for the title and an undisputed national champion would have been crowned.

    In 1996, #1 Florida St. and #3 Florida met in the Sugar Bowl while #2 Arizona St. and #4 Ohio St. met in the stubborn Rose Bowl. The biggest issue in ’96 was that Florida St. and Florida had already played earlier in the season, making the #1 vs. #3 Sugar Bowl that much more unnecessary. Florida and Ohio State both pulled off upsets which left all four teams with one loss. Florida was named the consensus national champion in both the AP and coaches polls over Rose Bowl champ Ohio State and #3 Florida State who won the first contest between the two teams. With the BCS, Florida St. and Arizona St. would have played for the title and an undisputed national champion would have been crowned. Further, college football would have been left with one undefeated team at the top instead of four.

    In 1994, #1 Nebraska played #3 Miami in the Orange Bowl while #2 Penn St. met #12 Oregon in the Rose Bowl. Again, the Rose Bowl opted not to be a member of the Bowl Coalition (1992-1994) so the Big Ten champ, Penn St., was obligated to play the irrelevant Pac-10 Champ. Nebraska and Penn St. both won their bowl game and finished undefeated yet Nebraska was the consensus national champion. With the BCS, Nebraska and Penn State would have played for the title and a consensus national champion would have been crowned without controversy.

    In 1993, #1 Florida St. (11-0) met #2 Nebraska (10-1), but #3 West Virginia (11-0) was left out of the “national title” game. Admittedly, this situation could have easily happened had the BCS been in place, but it was another fault of pre-BCS systems.

    In 1991, #1 Miami played #11 Nebraska in the Orange Bowl and #2 Washington played #4 Michigan in the Rose Bowl. Both #1 and #2 won their bowl games, finished as the only undefeated teams and split the national championship. With the BCS, Miami and Washington would have played for the title and an undisputed national champion would have been crowned

    In 1990, #1 Colorado and #2 Georgia Tech did not meet in a bowl game. Both won their bowl games and Colorado (11-1-1) was the AP champion while Georgia Tech (11-0-1) was named national champion by the Coaches Poll. Once again, with the BCS, Colorado and Georgia Tech would have played for the title and an undisputed national champion would have been crowned.

    For those of you keeping score at home, five times in the eight seasons directly preceding the BCS, college football was left with an ugly situation that would have been remedied by the BCS. Many of you may point to the controversies of 2003 and 2004 as evidence that the BCS sucks, but no system, other than a playoff, could resolve those two unique situations. As for the plausibility of a playoff system, we will get to why most formats are unlikely, not feasible, or damn near impossible, in a moment. But first, remember that the 2002-03 National Championship game between Miami and Ohio State never happens without the BCS, the 2004-05 National Championship game between USC and Oklahoma never happens without the BCS (though many Sooner fans wish it hadn’t after the 55-19 beat down the Trojans put on ‘em), the 2005-06 National Championship game between USC and Texas (arguably the greatest college football game of my lifetime) never happens without the BCS, and the last two National Championship games featuring Big Ten champ Ohio St. vs. SEC champs, Florida and LSU, never happen without the BCS.

    In retrospect, critics say that the BCS was wrong to put Ohio St. in the two national title games after the SEC champs easily defeated the Big Ten champs, a definitively weaker conference. However, in 2006 Ohio State finished the regular season as the only team from a BCS conference to go undefeated, guaranteeing them a spot in the National Championship game. In 2007, LSU got in with two losses while Ohio State had just one. Ohio State and Kansas were the only two teams from BCS conferences to finish the season with just one loss. No one felt Kansas was more deserving that the Buckeyes, so, once again, Ohio State was in by default.

    So here we are in season #12 with the BCS in place, and thrice, yes, I said thrice, the BCS failed to give us the #1 vs. #2 match up the bowl system desperately needs to avoid controversy and to maintain its legitimacy.

    BACK TO THE POINT: In 2003 and 2004 the BCS undeniably failed. These situations give the most justification to the need for a playoff format, but you can forget about those dreams of an eight-team or sixteen-team playoff. Let me tell you why…

    I think we can all agree that any playoff format with more than 16 teams can be thrown out so let’s go ahead and eliminate the absurd idea of a 32 or 64-team playoff. And let’s also throw out the extremely appealing idea of an eight-team playoff. Unfortunately, the six BCS conferences would all have to agree to any sort of playoff system, and the only way they would all be on board would be if each conference champion was guaranteed a spot. To illustrate how this does not solve our little problem, let me tell you what an eight-team playoff would have looked like last season.

    #1 Oklahoma vs. #8 Virginia Tech – (actually 19th in the BCS standings)
    #2 Florida vs. #7 Cincinnati – (actually 12th in the BCS standings)
    #3 Texas vs. #6 Penn State – (actually 8th in the BCS Standings)
    #4 Alabama vs. #5 USC

    To all the Texas Tech fans that were upset over being left out of the BCS, imagine your rage if Tech were to have been left out of an eight-team playoff. Plus, undefeated and higher ranked teams like Utah and Boise St. would both be left out in favor of conference champions Cincinnati and Virginia Tech. And if you think an eight-team playoff without conference champions if EVER going to happen, you, sir, are an idiot. It’s just not going to happen. And I don’t blame the commissioners of the BCS conferences for requiring their conference champion be guaranteed a spot. Their job is to make money and gain exposure for the conference and its programs. Those games are worth too much money and provide too much national exposure. The BCS conferences have an obligation to keep their programs in those games, no matter what.

    A sixteen-team playoff? Unlikely and, more than likely, unnecessary. It is unlikely in the sense that the season will probably not be shortened to fewer than 12 games and because conference championship games in the ACC, Big 12, and SEC will not be eliminated. Again, those games are worth too much money and provide to much national exposure, preventing them from being abandoned. As a result, you would have the two teams that made it to the final round playing straight through to the first weekend in January. Additionally, the sixteen teams in the playoff would still be in practice this week and eight teams would continue to practice into next week. Like it or not, the bowl system does provide a break in these two weeks, otherwise known as the two weeks when most universities hold finals. I know that college football is rarely associated with academics, but the NCAA would be negligent to not consider the effects a playoff system would have on student-athlete’s academic responsibilities. Unfortunately, the NCAA does consider these things, making it even more unlikely that we will ever see a sixteen-team playoff. But a sixteen-team playoff can also be seen as unnecessary. Does anyone really believe that teams outside of the top eight or ten teams actually have a shot at winning a sixteen-tournament? Of course not. The first round would, for the most part, be a waste of time.

    A plus-one system, basically, a four-team playoff seeded by the BCS standings, is never going to happen. Once again, the Rose Bowl, Pac-10 and Big Ten are holding things up. That alliance has publicly stated they will not allow such a system to be implemented. Unfortunately, they have the power to do so. However, we should consider ourselves lucky that the group gave the go-ahead to the BCS twelve years ago to allow the Big Ten and Pac-10 champs to be selected to play in a bowl game other than the Rose should they be ranked one of the two best teams in the country. That concession was the single biggest development in the history of college football, but I wouldn’t be counting on them to give us any more.

    So there you go, a playoff system just isn’t likely. But remember, the BCS AIN’T THAT BAD! Things could be, and were, much worse.

  • Joseph Skiba | January 16, 2010 at 2:48 pm |

    Expect to see a lot of Nike’s new footwear line being used this weekend…Hyperfly, the New Vapor, Speed TD series and the new LT TD (or as I like to call it the LDT, there is only one LT!!!)

    Enjoy the weekend…

  • LI Phil | January 16, 2010 at 2:53 pm |

    [quote comment="372562"]there is only one LT!!![/quote]

    you got that right

    turn it up…wonderful carmina burana soundtrack

  • Jim BC | January 16, 2010 at 3:05 pm |

    [quote comment="372562"]Expect to see a lot of there is only one LT!!!

    [/quote]
    Absolutely

  • LarryB | January 16, 2010 at 3:08 pm |

    I have been for a playoff in 1A for decades. Every other level of football has working playoffs. To worry about hypothetical obstacles makes no sense to me. Give the playoffs a chance and then see how it works. If they work in every other level of football they would work in 1A.

  • Jeff | January 16, 2010 at 3:20 pm |

    The solution to the BCS is so simple, keep it to 4 BCS bowl games all played on New Year’s Day. Winners go on to semifinals and finals. Piece of cake, all other bowls stay the same.

  • JSS | January 16, 2010 at 3:24 pm |

    Pitt wore gold alternates today for their home overtime win against Louisville. Trying to get a pic of it to post…

  • LI Phil | January 16, 2010 at 3:33 pm |

    [quote comment="372567"]Pitt wore gold alternates today for their home overtime win against Louisville. Trying to get a pic of it to post…[/quote]

    here ya go

  • JSS | January 16, 2010 at 3:39 pm |

    Thanks Lil Phil. Much appreciated. They looked ok, but I think I like the ones from years past more (surprisingly as I have liked everything Nike has done for Pitt compared to the Adidas.

    http://cdn.bleacherr...
    and
    http://i2.cdn.turner...

  • JSS | January 16, 2010 at 3:42 pm |

    Thanks lil Phil. Appreciate it!

    I think I like the Adidas ones better they wore last year than the Nike ones. It is the only thing I liked that Adidas did for Pitt over what Nike has thus far supplied.

    http://i2.cdn.turner...

  • JimV19 | January 16, 2010 at 3:43 pm |

    [quote comment="372551"][quote comment="372548"][quote comment="372545"]PS, using the logic I’m reading here (what makes one school more worthy than another) … what happens if a MAC school goes undefeated like Ball State almost did a few years ago?

    Should an undefeated MAC school be in the national championship game … assuming they are one of two undefeated teams? lol[/quote]

    If you’re going to keep the MAC in Division I, then yes. If they are frauds, they will be exposed in the title game. If they beat a “worthier” opponent, they deserve it.

    Ah, but what if the worthier team loses a star player before or during that game? Let’s remember one thing about a playoff – it is not to determine who is the “best” team, but the one who made it to the end and came out victorious. It is impossible to determine a “best” team that will please everyone, but it is possible to determine a champion.[/quote]

    Well then let’s have bowls for NCAA Basketball. That way 40 teams can celebrate the season with a win at the end instead of just one.[/quote]

    No, see, I’m agreeing with you. I’d like a playoff of some sorts, just saying that it won’t settle the arguement about who is “best.” It will settle who is the champion, and that is all that humans can do. Anyone can say, “We’re the better team, even though we lost this one game.” That may be true, but you can’t prove it. The only thing you can do, is win.

    Speaking of this “ending the season with a win” thing, doesn’t that sound a little like the “let’s give everyone a trophy” mentality we all roll our eyes about in kids sports?

    If there was a playoff in place from the beginning, and someone came along proposing a bowl system so a lot more teams could end their seasons with a win, there would be howls of derision from this discussion board, and y’all know it. This is one instance where I’m starting to think those who complain, “You guys wish everything was like it was in the past” might have a point.

  • matt in cleveland | January 16, 2010 at 3:43 pm |

    uni related college questions
    anyone know of any big changes for any teams heading into the 2010 season?
    secondly just wondering why no one ever has a fit about teams changing their basketball unis saw nebraska with black accents on their basketball unis if they put black anywhere on the football uni(besides the blackshirt sticker) the fans would burn lincoln to the ground
    just wondering

  • JimV19 | January 16, 2010 at 3:55 pm |

    [quote comment="372550"][quote comment="372547"][quote comment="372545"]PS, using the logic I’m reading here (what makes one school more worthy than another) … what happens if a MAC school goes undefeated like Ball State almost did a few years ago?

    Should an undefeated MAC school be in the national championship game … assuming they are one of two undefeated teams? lol[/quote]

    Why not? If they’re a fluke, they’ll get destroyed. Is it that unfathomable that maybe a MAC team or some other “lesser” conference team couldn’t be *that* good every now and then?

    1997 – Michigan goes undefeated.
    2008 – they go 3-9

    Historically good doesn’t mean always good. Historically bad also doesn’t mean always bad. Maybe for that one freak season, the MAC team really IS the best in the country.[/quote]

    Agreed. There are freak games, freak seasons and just freak teams that catch all the breaks. The George Mason’s of college football never get the chance to prove they are the best. They just get shoved aside because they aren’t in one of the “elite” conferences. Why anyone thinks that is OK is beyond me.[/quote]

    Yes. Agreed.

  • Traxel | January 16, 2010 at 4:06 pm |

    Okay. Not buying anything that says the BCS “ain’t that bad”. It IS that bad. It IS worse than before. Having 34 bowls is dumb, too. At least there is no Bluebonnet Bowl any more. There is no valid reason to NOT have a playoff. I’ve read, studied, created scenarios, every year for the last 10.

    Currently there are a huge number of teams ineligable to win a national title. That is what you play for and why you play the game. Not to get a participation ribbon. Boise State got a participation ribbon. They should have been told at the beginning of the season they are ineligible to win. Utah knows this all to well.

    I don’t believe in something of this size and scope playing just for competition. I do that in pickup basketball games 3 days a week and once on the golf course. RPM and I will probably end up calling each other garbage (of course he’ll use a word that I’ll have to go look up…lol!) but there DOES need to be a true playoff created national champion.

    What can be done? Depends. One solution is to create a separate division out of all non Big 6 six conferences. Boise State can have their own national championship among the “mid majors” (always hated that term). Of course this would give them about as much exposure as NAIA schools currently get.

    But in doing this, I would expand each of the six conferences to 12 teams. No independents. Each team would play one non-conference game of their choice and 11 conference games. An 8 team playoff system, 6 conference champs and 2 wild cards seeded 1-8, would play on Christmas Day, New Years Day, and Jan. 8 every year. Bowls would bid for the games and also select their predetermined matchups based on the seeds. If the Humanitarian Bowl wanted a game they could buck up like the Fiesta Bowl.

    All other bowls could still take place but would mean about as much as the NAIA consolation bracket – or the same thing they mean now – nothing. Quick – who won the 2003 Music City Bowl? Beats the hell out of me.

    The other option is to leave the conferences the same but invite ALL undefeated teams to the 8 team playoff. The remainder of the schools would be invited based on their ranking (pick a human poll – no computers or strength of schedule allowed). That way, if you whine when you don’t get in, then you shouldn’t have lost a game along the way. All undefeateds are in. Seed them 1-8 and proceed as said above.

    Now, the drawback is that small schools would play nonconference cupcakes and go undefeated. Well, this is where the NCAA needs to have the authority to determine if a school deserves to stay in D-1 or be demoted. If they are noncompetitive, they get out. If you suck, you go down – like European soccer. There are only a limited number of schools in D-1. If you beat D-1 schools, you get a shot at the title.

    Okay Phil, there you go. Love the passion on this subject. I get fired up myself. Brews reaction like getting/giving a kidney shot under the basket on a rebound!

  • LI Phil | January 16, 2010 at 4:15 pm |

    [quote comment="372574"]Quick – who won the 2003 Music City Bowl? [/quote]

    auburn defeated wisconsin 28-14

  • Ricko | January 16, 2010 at 4:31 pm |

    [quote comment="372565"]I have been for a playoff in 1A for decades. Every other level of football has working playoffs. To worry about hypothetical obstacles makes no sense to me. Give the playoffs a chance and then see how it works. If they work in every other level of football they would work in 1A.[/quote]

    “Hypothetical obstacles?” What exactly did I say that you don’t see as realistic?

    This is what always happens. Someone brings up valid points, and the way playoff proponents deal with them is to–instead of addressing them–say, essentially, “I can’t be bothered with details and reality, it screws up my idea.”

    Anyone here ever staged a major sporting event, promoted it, paid for it? You realize how many people and how much money that takes? You do understand that when Chambers of Commerce, etc., bow out (and they would, eventually, make no mistake about it), the NCAA would have to RENT those 15 stadia, or guarantee the gate. You think that comes cheap?

    And another thing, all those “minor”, “lesser”, “crap” bowls are not “minor”, “lesser” or “crap” to the teams and conferences that receive money from them.

    That is money that, I double-damn guarantee you, the NCAA would have get to every last one of them every year to get their vote for a playoff. And rightly so.

    Oh, wait, I’m sorry, that’s a practical reality, isn’t it. Not supposed to introduce such things into this discussion.

    —Ricko

  • Ricko | January 16, 2010 at 4:42 pm |

    [quote comment="372575"][quote comment="372574"]Quick – who won the 2003 Music City Bowl? [/quote]

    auburn defeated wisconsin 28-14[/quote]

    And five years after a 16-game playoff had been position, the answer to a question about a recent Music City Bowl very likely would be…

    “There wasn’t one. It folded. Nashville didn’t think it was worth the expense because no one cares about anything but the Sweet 16 anymore.”

    —Ricko

  • mmwatkin | January 16, 2010 at 4:45 pm |

    [quote comment="372534"]We probably will never find out how Boise State will do against the “big boys” short of a playoff. Boise State has offered a challenge to play anyone on the road. The only “string” they have to come to Boise at some point. Not the next year but sometime in the future. So far none of the “big boys” has stepped up to the challenge.[/quote]

    Don’t believe the Boise State’s “We will play anyone, anywhere!” bullshit.

    yeah, they will play anyone as long as they get $1M to do so. Boise State needs to realize that there is no benefit for an elite team to play them. None.

    Ohio State will fill the stadium whether they pay Boise State $1M or Youngstown State 400k. And a return date to Boise? WHY? Big teams spend 400k on charter flights ALONE. That doesn’t include equipment transportation, hotels and expenses. I doubt a team would break even on that trip unless they paid upwards of a $1M back (in that case, what monetary benefit would boise get?)

  • =bg= | January 16, 2010 at 4:52 pm |

    looks like another track meet down in NO.

  • Ricko | January 16, 2010 at 4:53 pm |

    Or, seven years into a 16-game playoff…

    “Who won the first-round elimination game in Orlando six years ago, and who’d they beat?”

    “Who cares.”

    —Ricko

  • Traxel | January 16, 2010 at 4:53 pm |

    [quote comment="372576"][quote comment="372565"]I have been for a playoff in 1A for decades. Every other level of football has working playoffs. To worry about hypothetical obstacles makes no sense to me. Give the playoffs a chance and then see how it works. If they work in every other level of football they would work in 1A.[/quote]

    “Hypothetical obstacles?” What exactly did I say that you don’t see as realistic?

    This is what always happens. Someone brings up valid points, and the way playoff proponents deal with them is to–instead of addressing them–say, essentially, “I can’t be bothered with details and reality, it screws up my idea.”

    Anyone here ever staged a major sporting event, promoted it, paid for it? You realize how many people and how much money that takes? You do understand that when Chambers of Commerce, etc., bow out (and they would, eventually, make no mistake about it), the NCAA would have to RENT those 15 stadia, or guarantee the gate. You think that comes cheap?

    And another thing, all those “minor”, “lesser”, “crap” bowls are not “minor”, “lesser” or “crap” to the teams and conferences that receive money from them.

    That is money that, I double-damn guarantee you, the NCAA would have get to every last one of them every year to get their vote for a playoff. And rightly so.

    Oh, wait, I’m sorry, that’s a practical reality, isn’t it. Not supposed to introduce such things into this discussion.

    —Ricko[/quote]
    Practical reality it is. There are many, MANY, things that have to be worked out for a playoff to exist. I don’t not believe that it is insurmountable though. And in the end it would create a product that would be far and away better than what is done today.

    This Cards/Saints game sure is getting off to quite a start!

  • JimV19 | January 16, 2010 at 4:58 pm |

    [quote comment="372577"][quote comment="372575"][quote comment="372574"]Quick – who won the 2003 Music City Bowl? [/quote]

    auburn defeated wisconsin 28-14[/quote]

    And five years after a 16-game playoff had been position, the answer to a question about a recent Music City Bowl very likely would be…

    “There wasn’t one. It folded. Nashville didn’t think it was worth the expense because no one cares about anything but the Sweet 16 anymore.”

    —Ricko[/quote]

    You make a lot of good points, Ricko. This isn’t one of them.

    Aside from the schools involved, the host city and the really hardcore football fans, no one cares about the Music City Bowl now. And yet it lives and makes money. You can’t convince me that would change with a playoff.

  • =bg= | January 16, 2010 at 5:04 pm |
  • Ricko | January 16, 2010 at 5:09 pm |

    [quote comment="372582"][quote comment="372577"][quote comment="372575"][quote comment="372574"]Quick – who won the 2003 Music City Bowl? [/quote]

    auburn defeated wisconsin 28-14[/quote]

    And five years after a 16-game playoff had been position, the answer to a question about a recent Music City Bowl very likely would be…

    “There wasn’t one. It folded. Nashville didn’t think it was worth the expense because no one cares about anything but the Sweet 16 anymore.”

    —Ricko[/quote]

    You make a lot of good points, Ricko. This isn’t one of them.

    Aside from the schools involved, the host city and the really hardcore football fans, no one cares about the Music City Bowl now. And yet it lives and makes money. You can’t convince me that would change with a playoff.[/quote]

    Huh? Who here doesn’t think schools value money?

    Okay, one more time. The teams and conferences who take money from the Music City Bowl–and any resulting alumni donations—care immensely. And if they don’t get assurances that a playoff will cover any such certainly possible shortfalls, they won’t be—and shouldn’t be—be on board.

    And, please, this isn’t about what I favor, not really. It’s just that anytime something gets tangled, the first respsone of playoff proponents is simply to say, “Oh, yeah, a lot things would have to change.”

    Guess what, you can’t possibly have all the answers until you’ve at least addressed the questions. Ignoring them and pretending they’ll somehow magically just go away isn’t dealing with them.

    —Ricko

    —Ricko

  • Traxel | January 16, 2010 at 5:09 pm |

    [quote comment="372580"]Or, seven years into a 16-game playoff…

    “Who won the first-round elimination game in Orlando six years ago, and who’d they beat?”

    “Who cares.”

    —Ricko[/quote]
    Let’s think about it in Teevee ratings. I would think, just a guess, that the first round of an 8 team playoff would get much higher ratings than the non title BCS games. Don’t know, but I’d be surprised if that is wrong. Hart to think a playoff wouldn’t create more viewers and excitement. And definately more fairness for opportunity to win a championship.

  • Ricko | January 16, 2010 at 5:26 pm |

    [quote comment="372585"][quote comment="372580"]Or, seven years into a 16-game playoff…

    “Who won the first-round elimination game in Orlando six years ago, and who’d they beat?”

    “Who cares.”

    —Ricko[/quote]
    Let’s think about it in Teevee ratings. I would think, just a guess, that the first round of an 8 team playoff would get much higher ratings than the non title BCS games. Don’t know, but I’d be surprised if that is wrong. Hart to think a playoff wouldn’t create more viewers and excitement. And definately more fairness for opportunity to win a championship.[/quote]

    Again, who pays the schools who no longer have bowl appearances for EXACTLY that reason?

    Is there enough in the Sweet 16 kitty to go around?

    Someone, please, show me. If you want to propose something, show how the money would work. Figuring out how to pick the 16 teams and who should play whom, and where, is inch-deep thinking. Bar talk.

    If isn’t financially viable (actually, financially BETTER) for every D-1 football school, it isn’t viable.

    Period.

    —Ricko

  • LarryB | January 16, 2010 at 5:55 pm |

    [quote comment="372576"][quote comment="372565"]I have been for a playoff in 1A for decades. Every other level of football has working playoffs. To worry about hypothetical obstacles makes no sense to me. Give the playoffs a chance and then see how it works. If they work in every other level of football they would work in 1A.[/quote]

    “Hypothetical obstacles?” What exactly did I say that you don’t see as realistic?

    This is what always happens. Someone brings up valid points, and the way playoff proponents deal with them is to–instead of addressing them–say, essentially, “I can’t be bothered with details and reality, it screws up my idea.”

    Anyone here ever staged a major sporting event, promoted it, paid for it? You realize how many people and how much money that takes? You do understand that when Chambers of Commerce, etc., bow out (and they would, eventually, make no mistake about it), the NCAA would have to RENT those 15 stadia, or guarantee the gate. You think that comes cheap?

    And another thing, all those “minor”, “lesser”, “crap” bowls are not “minor”, “lesser” or “crap” to the teams and conferences that receive money from them.

    That is money that, I double-damn guarantee you, the NCAA would have get to every last one of them every year to get their vote for a playoff. And rightly so.

    Oh, wait, I’m sorry, that’s a practical reality, isn’t it. Not supposed to introduce such things into this discussion.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    My point is all and every worry about a playoff is just that a hypothetical worry. Why? Because playoffs have not been tried in 1A.

    How do the other levels of football do it?

    And when there are 35 bowls that means there are many meaningless bowls. The only ones who care about most most bowls are fans of teams who play in them. 6-6 teams deserve a bowl game? Ya sure.

    Over the past so many years there have been several offers by big money companies to offer megabucks for a playoff

    They work in every other level of football and high schools. They would work and fans would love them in 1A

  • Ricko | January 16, 2010 at 5:57 pm |

    see post #78.

    And if they “try it” lose a few million bucks, what then?

    And why bother?

    —Riicko

  • Chris | January 16, 2010 at 6:00 pm |

    What makes the Tampa Bay Rays so special? They’re the only team that has a separate home and away BP hat.

  • Ricko | January 16, 2010 at 6:04 pm |

    “How do the other levels of football do it?”

    The NCAA underwrites those playoffs, probably quite often as a losing proposition. They aren’t money-making vehicles.

    Just a guess, but they probably can underwrite all the lower division games at small, college stadia (meaning cover the shortfall) for the cost of underwriting one game at the Orange Bowl or the Jerry Dome.

    —Ricko

  • LarryB | January 16, 2010 at 6:06 pm |

    I would like to see a 16 team playoff. It should be played in early December with championship following.

    For people who want all the bowl games they can still be played. So all those 6-6 teams can take part in a bowl game.

    I basically have heard so many excuses not to have playoffs over the years. In my opinion I have never heard a single good reason not to have one.

  • Ricko | January 16, 2010 at 6:07 pm |

    “Orange Bowl,” of course meaning Joe Robbie Pro Player Landshark Whatever the Hell It Is Thesedays.

    —Ricko

  • FormerDirtDart | January 16, 2010 at 6:11 pm |

    [quote comment="372589"]What makes the Tampa Bay Rays so special? They’re the only team that has a separate home and away BP hat.[/quote]
    Yankees do also

  • LarryB | January 16, 2010 at 6:11 pm |

    The NCAA has playoffs in every other level of football. Do I know the exacts of how they pay for them? No. But they are able to have working playoffs in 1AA, 2, 3, NAIA. There is only one level of football that does not have a playoff. Only one.

  • Ricko | January 16, 2010 at 6:17 pm |

    [quote comment="372591"]I would like to see a 16 team playoff. It should be played in early December with championship following.

    For people who want all the bowl games they can still be played. So all those 6-6 teams can take part in a bowl game.

    I basically have heard so many excuses not to have playoffs over the years. In my opinion I have never heard a single good reason not to have one.[/quote]

    More dancing.

    Honestly, I’ve yet to hear an objective reason FOR one. Lots of subjective rhetoric, not much objective analysis.

    Again, explain how the money would work. How much would they need to gross to net enough for Akron, say, to not get hosed in the deal?

    Cuz, y’know, they’d need the votes of most of the Akrons out there for it to happen.

    Show me the plan where schools who’d lose money would say, “Hey, great idea, let’s do it!”

    No talk about who’s “worthy” or who “deserves” to be in a bowl game. That’s subjective. That’s for philosophy class. Let’s be objective. Let’s talk practical applications. What’s the business plan? What’s the financial benefit to all the NCAA’s D-1 schools?

    —Ricko

  • LarryB | January 16, 2010 at 6:28 pm |

    What is the financial benefit for all the 1AA,2,3, NAIA schools?

    There are only subjective reasons for 1A to be the only level that does not have a playoff.

  • Ricko | January 16, 2010 at 6:39 pm |

    [quote comment="372596"]What is the financial benefit for all the 1AA,2,3, NAIA schools?

    There are only subjective reasons for 1A to be the only level that does not have a playoff.[/quote]

    The proliferation of Bowls puts, literally, millions upon millions of dollars into the mix, in terms of staging and promoting the games, as well as paying participating teams.

    Believe me, the NCAA is well aware that if they do something that makes those millions go away, they’ll have to find them somewhere else. Corporate sponsors? TV rights? Worst of all, their own coffers?

    I’d call that a heavy duty objective reason why D-1 is the only level without a playoff.

    —Ricko

  • Mike | January 16, 2010 at 6:41 pm |

    i believe there should be a playoff for fbs football…

    first thing i would change is make every conference have a championship games( much like a division winner )

    then after they all play that game we take the winner and create a playoff system. taking the undeafeted teams and giving them a bye week( in the case of multiple undeafeted teams we can use strength of schedule only.

    few games later we have the national title game.

    the end.

  • Teebz | January 16, 2010 at 6:43 pm |

    I believe this can be solved by using the NCAA Basketball format.

    The top-32 teams in the nation follow their national rankings into the football games, but are broken into two 16-team pools. The home team is the higher-ranked team in ever game. The Bowl games, however, are not moved, so teams know where and when they are playing every week. Much like the NCAA Basketball Tournament, your bracket determines where you play regardless of geographical location.

    Eastern Bowl Series

    1 vs. 16 – St. Pete’s Bowl
    8 vs. 9 – New Orleans Bowl
    5 vs. 12 – Music City Bowl
    4 vs. 13 – Independence Bowl
    3 vs. 14 – International Bowl
    6 vs. 11 – Li’l Caesar Bowl
    7 vs. 10 – Gator Bowl
    2 vs. 15 – Capital One Bowl

    Winner 1-16 vs. Winner 8-9 – Champs Bowl
    Winner 5-12 vs. Winner 4-13 – Chick-Fil-A Bowl
    Winner 3-14 vs. Winner 6-11 – Meineke Bowl
    Winner 7-10 vs. Winner 2-15 – Outback Bowl

    Winner Champs Bowl vs. Winner Chick-Fil-A Bowl – All-State Sugar Bowl
    Winner Meineke Bowl vs. Winner Outback Bowl – Autozone Liberty Bowl

    Winner All-State vs. Winner Liberty – Fedex Orange Bowl

    Western Bowl Series

    1 vs. 16 – New Mexico Bowl
    8 vs. 9 – Las Vegas Bowl
    5 vs. 12 – San Diego Credit Union Bowl
    4 vs. 13 – Emerald Bowl
    3 vs. 14 – Humanitarian Bowl
    6 vs. 11 – Holiday Bowl
    7 vs. 10 – Insight Bowl
    2 vs. 14 – Texas Bowl

    Winner 1-16 vs. Winner 8-9 – PapaJohns.com Bowl
    Winner 5-12 vs. Winner 4-13 – Brut Sun Bowl
    Winner 3-14 vs. Winner 6-11 – Armed Forces Bowl
    Winner 7-10 vs. Winner 2-15 – Valero Alamo Bowl

    Winner PapaJohns.com vs. Winner Brut Sun – GMAC Bowl
    Winner Armed Forces vs. Winner Valero Alamo – AT&T Cotton Bowl

    Winner GMAC vs. Winner AT&T Cotton – Tostitos Fiesta Bowl

    National Championship

    Winner of Fedex Orange Bowl/Eastern Bowl Series vs. Winner of Tostitos Fiesta Bowl/Western Bowl Series – Rose Bowl

    Now, these bowl games can move from year to year in terms of the matchup displayed in them or the amount that the sponsor is willing to pay. Essentially, if you want the naming rights to Eastern Final, you better be willing to pony more than FedEx. But the key is that the NCAA will never lose money, and there will always be a sponsor for these games.

    And let the destruction of my idea begin. :o)

  • LI Phil | January 16, 2010 at 6:45 pm |

    [quote comment="372599"]
    And let the destruction of my idea begin. :o)[/quote]

    ricko needs CPR…stat!

  • Ricko | January 16, 2010 at 6:50 pm |

    [quote comment="372599"]I believe this can be solved by using the NCAA Basketball format.

    The top-32 teams in the nation follow their national rankings into the football games, but are broken into two 16-team pools. The home team is the higher-ranked team in ever game. The Bowl games, however, are not moved, so teams know where and when they are playing every week. Much like the NCAA Basketball Tournament, your bracket determines where you play regardless of geographical location.

    Eastern Bowl Series

    1 vs. 16 – St. Pete’s Bowl
    8 vs. 9

    - New Orleans Bowl
    5 vs. 12 – Music City Bowl
    4 vs. 13 – Independence Bowl
    3 vs. 14 – International Bowl
    6 vs. 11 – Li’l Caesar Bowl
    7 vs. 10 – Gator Bowl
    2 vs. 15 – Capital One Bowl

    Winner 1-16 vs. Winner 8-9

    - Champs Bowl
    Winner 5-12 vs. Winner 4-13 – Chick-Fil-A Bowl
    Winner 3-14 vs. Winner 6-11 – Meineke Bowl
    Winner 7-10 vs. Winner 2-15 – Outback Bowl

    Winner Champs Bowl vs. Winner Chick-Fil-A Bowl – All-State Sugar Bowl
    Winner Meineke Bowl vs. Winner Outback Bowl

    - Autozone Liberty Bowl

    Winner All-State vs. Winner Liberty – Fedex Orange Bowl

    Western Bowl Series

    1 vs. 16 – New Mexico Bowl
    8 vs. 9

    - Las Vegas Bowl
    5 vs. 12 – San Diego Credit Union Bowl
    4 vs. 13 – Emerald Bowl
    3 vs. 14 – Humanitarian Bowl
    6 vs. 11 – Holiday Bowl
    7 vs. 10 – Insight Bowl
    2 vs. 14 – Texas Bowl

    Winner 1-16 vs. Winner 8-9

    - PapaJohns.com Bowl
    Winner 5-12 vs. Winner 4-13 – Brut Sun Bowl
    Winner 3-14 vs. Winner 6-11 – Armed Forces Bowl
    Winner 7-10 vs. Winner 2-15 – Valero Alamo Bowl

    Winner PapaJohns.com vs. Winner Brut Sun

    - GMAC Bowl
    Winner Armed Forces vs. Winner Valero Alamo – AT&T Cotton Bowl

    Winner GMAC vs. Winner AT&T Cotton – Tostitos Fiesta Bowl

    National Championship

    Winner of Fedex Orange Bowl/Eastern Bowl Series vs. Winner of Tostitos Fiesta Bowl/Western Bowl Series – Rose Bowl

    Now, these bowl games can move from year to year in terms of the matchup displayed in them or the amount that the sponsor is willing to pay. Essentially, if you want the naming rights to Eastern Final, you better be willing to pony more than FedEx. But the key is that the NCAA will never lose money, and there will always be a sponsor for these games.

    And let the destruction of my idea begin. :o)[/quote]

    Does that guarantee Toledo and New Mexico State as much as they’re getting now?

    —Ricko

  • Teebz | January 16, 2010 at 6:53 pm |

    [quote comment="372601"]
    Does that guarantee Toledo and New Mexico State as much as they’re getting now?

    —Ricko[/quote]

    Does it matter? The NCAA isn’t based on communism. It’s based on capitalism. Those schools can make as much as they want during the season. If they don’t make it into the top-32, their season is over once the Bowl Series start.

  • Ricko | January 16, 2010 at 7:01 pm |

    [quote comment="372602"][quote comment="372601"]
    Does that guarantee Toledo and New Mexico State as much as they’re getting now?

    —Ricko[/quote]

    Does it matter? The NCAA isn’t based on communism. It’s based on capitalism. Those schools can make as much as they want during the season. If they don’t make it into the top-32, their season is over once the Bowl Series start.[/quote]

    Oh, right, how would it be good management for president/chancellor to say, “Okay, we’ll take a (just to pick a number) $200,000 hit every year so you can your championship.”

    C’mon, people, see beyond the end of your noses.

    —Ricko

  • Teebz | January 16, 2010 at 7:04 pm |

    [quote comment="372603"]
    Oh, right, how would it be good management for president/chancellor to say, “Okay, we’ll take a (just to pick a number) $200,000 hit every year so you can your championship.”

    C’mon, people, see beyond the end of your noses.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    In case you haven’t noticed the premise, Ricko, this system determines the BEST TEAM in the country. No one cares about Toledo and their 44th-ranked team because they aren’t one of the top-32.

    They don’t deserve to be in a bowl game if they are 6-6. So why are you rewarding mediocrity?

  • Jeff_D | January 16, 2010 at 7:15 pm |

    Ok, Uniwatchers, I need some help/guidance.
    I went to the Kansas City Royals FanFest this weekend, and was able to pick up an authentic royal blue alternate cool-base jersey without a name/number for only $10 (and the money went to charity)!
    I want to take it to a shop and get it personalized with my name and a number. I want to make sure they get it right as far as fonts and sizes.
    So… What font and sizes do the KC Royals use for their uniforms? I want NOB and back and front numbers. Does anybody know? Thanks in advance. A $10 jersey and whatever it will cost to get the name/number put on it is WAY better than the $215 it would cost to buy one.

  • Mike Engle | January 16, 2010 at 7:18 pm |

    [quote comment="372605"]Ok, Uniwatchers, I need some help/guidance.
    I went to the Kansas City Royals FanFest this weekend, and was able to pick up an authentic royal blue alternate cool-base jersey without a name/number for only $10 (and the money went to charity)!
    I want to take it to a shop and get it personalized with my name and a number. I want to make sure they get it right as far as fonts and sizes.
    So… What font and sizes do the KC Royals use for their uniforms? I want NOB and back and front numbers. Does anybody know? Thanks in advance. A $10 jersey and whatever it will cost to get the name/number put on it is WAY better than the $215 it would cost to buy one.[/quote]
    Looks like good old varsity block to me.
    Anybody with a Bill Henderson guide care to back that up?

  • LI Phil | January 16, 2010 at 7:22 pm |

    [quote comment="372605"]I want to take it to a shop and get it personalized with my name and a number.

    So… What font and sizes do the KC Royals use for their uniforms? I want NOB and back and front numbers.[/quote]

    what position do you play?

  • Ricko | January 16, 2010 at 7:25 pm |

    [quote comment="372604"][quote comment="372603"]
    Oh, right, how would it be good management for president/chancellor to say, “Okay, we’ll take a (just to pick a number) $200,000 hit every year so you can your championship.”

    C’mon, people, see beyond the end of your noses.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    In case you haven’t noticed the premise, Ricko, this system determines the BEST TEAM in the country. No one cares about Toledo and their 44th-ranked team because they aren’t one of the top-32.

    They don’t deserve to be in a bowl game if they are 6-6. So why are you rewarding mediocrity?[/quote]

    No gonna go to philosophy class. Not gonna talk about “deserving” and “worthiness.” The fact is, Toledo gets money now because conferences share the revenue from bowl appearances, even if they themselves don’t go to one. Toledo should work to protect that source of revenue, not go along with having it possibly dry up, certainly not just for the sake of the Top 50 schools having a playoff among their better teams every year.

    Look at it this way, because sometimes you can learn a lot by what someone DOESN’T do…

    Do we not think the NCAA has had accounting firms of great skill and acumen do all manner of feasibility studies on playoffs of various forms? Do we think they’re so dense that they wouldn’t have done that?

    Now, if those accounting firms of great skill and acumen had said the NCAA could make gobs and gobs of money with an extensive playoff, and still keep all member schools happy (meaning they’d all be okay with their share)…don’t we think the NCAA would long, long ago have said, “Screw you” to the Bowls?

    Isn’t it painfully obvious right now that they already know there is no way such a thing can be as profitable, for as many schools, as the current system?

    Teebz, you’re the one who said the NCAA is based on capitalism. They’d be pretty lousy capitalists if they had all kinds of studies showing great profits to reap and didn’t move forward, wouldn’t they.

    —Ricko

  • mmwatkin | January 16, 2010 at 7:26 pm |

    [quote comment="372607"][quote comment="372605"]I want to take it to a shop and get it personalized with my name and a number.

    So… What font and sizes do the KC Royals use for their uniforms? I want NOB and back and front numbers.[/quote]

    what position do you play?[/quote]

    Stop.

  • Teebz | January 16, 2010 at 7:30 pm |

    [quote comment="372608"][quote comment="372604"][quote comment="372603"]
    Oh, right, how would it be good management for president/chancellor to say, “Okay, we’ll take a (just to pick a number) $200,000 hit every year so you can your championship.”

    C’mon, people, see beyond the end of your noses.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    In case you haven’t noticed the premise, Ricko, this system determines the BEST TEAM in the country. No one cares about Toledo and their 44th-ranked team because they aren’t one of the top-32.

    They don’t deserve to be in a bowl game if they are 6-6. So why are you rewarding mediocrity?[/quote]

    No gonna go to philosophy class. Not gonna talk about “deserving” and “worthiness.” The fact is, Toledo gets money now because conferences share the revenue from bowl appearances, even if they themselves don’t go to one. Toledo should work to protect that source of revenue, not go along with having it possibly dry up, certainly not just for the sake of the Top 50 schools having a playoff among their better teams every year.

    Look at it this way, because sometimes you can learn a lot by what someone DOESN’T do…

    Do we not think the NCAA has had accounting firms of great skill and acumen do all manner of feasibility studies on playoffs of various forms? Do we think they’re so dense that they wouldn’t have done that?

    Now, if those accounting firms of great skill and acumen had said the NCAA could make gobs and gobs of money with an extensive playoff, and still keep all member schools happy (meaning they’d all be okay with their share)…don’t we think the NCAA would long, long ago have said, “Screw you” to the Bowls?

    Isn’t it painfully obvious right now that they already know there is no way such a thing can be as profitable, for as many schools, as the current system?

    Teebz, you’re the one who said the NCAA is based on capitalism. They’d be pretty lousy capitalists if they had all kinds of studies showing great profits to reap and didn’t move forward, wouldn’t they.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    So if they share in the money that the conferences make by appearing in Bowl games, how are they losing? If they play in a terrible conference, perhaps it is that school’s and the conference’s responsibility to attain a top-32 team or status.

    Your argument doesn’t answer two major things I made clear: the best team wins the BCS championship, and the NCAA makes a crapload more money than what they do now.

    If this was about the individual teams, Toledo would have a case. But they don’t. The NCAA is all about making money, and if Toledo gets a smaller share of a bigger pie, they aren’t losing. It’s a wash.

    Boo hoo to them. Maybe go out and recruit better. Maybe put more money into the football program. But don’t complain that your substandard football program and conference don’t have the same opportunity as everyone else.

    Otherwise, I’ll point you over to Boise State who are a top-32 team, but play in a crap conference.

  • Jimmy500 | January 16, 2010 at 7:37 pm |

    I hate that the designs on the BP hats keep getting worse because I end up buying at least one every year. I coach my sons’ youth league teams and need a hat for whatever team I am assigned. I hate dropping nearly $40 on a 59/50 for a team I don’t like. I can usually find a BP hat for around $20. Plus, they fit my head better.

  • FormerDirtDart | January 16, 2010 at 7:39 pm |

    hate to interfere with all the BCS bickering, but I have to call out Shannon Sharpe for an atrocious uni-violation, I don’t think even a pimp can get away with wearing that jacket these days

  • LarryB | January 16, 2010 at 7:42 pm |

    If they need bowl money so bad to survive, have the 35 or so bowl games. Have both. Heck years ago teams played a 9 and 10 game season. Now they play 12 and with the so called CCGs that is another and add 35 bowls that 70 teams get to play in.

    1A would somehow survive if it did the right thing and added a playoff like all the other divisions have.

    I am a huge college football fan. It is my favorite sport to follow and study. All the polls I have seen have fans wanting playoffs for 1A.

  • LI Phil | January 16, 2010 at 7:43 pm |

    can the cowboys win in new orleans?

  • Ricko | January 16, 2010 at 7:44 pm |

    “and the NCAA makes a crapload more money than what they do now.”

    Do you know something they don’t? Or are you just assuming?

    If that were true—and they have feasibility studies and projections that show it to be true—why haven’t they gone ahead with a playoff?

    I said this earlier. Somebody show us some dollar figures comparing now to “what if”. You want to advocate for something, show us why it’s better financially. Show us the business model, not just the schedule. Those who don’t understand that’s a monstrous, and essential, component of this are off on a cloud somewhere.

    Everything else is inch-deep bar talk.

    —Ricko

  • Teebz | January 16, 2010 at 7:46 pm |

    [quote comment="372615"]“and the NCAA makes a crapload more money than what they do now.”

    Do you know something they don’t? Or are you just assuming?

    If that were true—and they have feasibility studies and projections that show it to be true—why haven’t they gone ahead with a playoff?

    I said this earlier. Somebody show us some dollar figures comparing now to “what if”. You want to advocate for something, show us why it’s better financially. Show us the business model, not just the schedule. Those who don’t understand that’s a monstrous, and essential, component of this are off on a cloud somewhere.

    Everything else is inch-deep bar talk.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    Sure, I can prove it.

    Do you want the naming rights to the Eastern Bowl Series Final, aka the Orange Bowl? Pay more than FedEx.

    Do you want the first-round Li’l Caesar’s Bowl? Pay more than them.

    It’s supply and demand.

  • LarryB | January 16, 2010 at 7:48 pm |

    If bowls are the supposed life blood of college football why not add more bowls. Let 4-8 teams get rewarded with a bowl game. Or have the teams play in 2 bowl games.

    When I was younger there were only a handful of bowl games. now it is out of hand.

    Have playoffs and teams that do not make playoffs play in their meaningless bowl games.

  • LarryB | January 16, 2010 at 7:56 pm |

    http://www.champions...

    I like how it has Where Championships are Earned, not given

  • JimV19 | January 16, 2010 at 7:56 pm |

    [quote comment="372584"][quote comment="372582"][quote comment="372577"][quote comment="372575"][quote comment="372574"]Quick – who won the 2003 Music City Bowl? [/quote]

    auburn defeated wisconsin 28-14[/quote]

    And five years after a 16-game playoff had been position, the answer to a question about a recent Music City Bowl very likely would be…

    “There wasn’t one. It folded. Nashville didn’t think it was worth the expense because no one cares about anything but the Sweet 16 anymore.”

    —Ricko[/quote]

    You make a lot of good points, Ricko. This isn’t one of them.

    Aside from the schools involved, the host city and the really hardcore football fans, no one cares about the Music City Bowl now. And yet it lives and makes money. You can’t convince me that would change with a playoff.[/quote]

    Huh? Who here doesn’t think schools value money?

    Okay, one more time. The teams and conferences who take money from the Music City Bowl–and any resulting alumni donations—care immensely. And if they don’t get assurances that a playoff will cover any such certainly possible shortfalls, they won’t be—and shouldn’t be—be on board.

    And, please, this isn’t about what I favor, not really. It’s just that anytime something gets tangled, the first respsone of playoff proponents is simply to say, “Oh, yeah, a lot things would have to change.”

    Guess what, you can’t possibly have all the answers until you’ve at least addressed the questions. Ignoring them and pretending they’ll somehow magically just go away isn’t dealing with them.

    —Ricko

    —Ricko[/quote]

    I know the schools value money. What I was saying is, the schools and that bowl make money now, even though few people care about it. If/when there is a playoff, the schools who have to settle for that bowl will still make money, as will the bowl. A playoff isn’t the doomsday scenario for the bowls some of us have made it out to be.

    As for your last paragraph, that’s better directed at our politicians…

  • LarryB | January 16, 2010 at 7:58 pm |

    http://www.d2footbal...

    NCAA Division II National Champions

    Prior to 1973, there was no Division 2 Football Championship. Instead, four regional bowl games were played in order to provide postseason action for what was then called the NCAA College Division.

  • LarryB | January 16, 2010 at 8:01 pm |

    http://www.d3footbal...

    The scores of all Amos Alonzo Stagg Bowls, starting with the first Division III national championship in 1973. Clicking on a year (for years that are linked) will bring up a wrapup of that year’s playoffs. Looking for information on the current playoff format? Check out our FAQ.

  • Ricko | January 16, 2010 at 8:04 pm |

    [quote comment="372616"][quote comment="372615"]“and the NCAA makes a crapload more money than what they do now.”

    Do you know something they don’t? Or are you just assuming?

    If that were true—and they have feasibility studies and projections that show it to be true—why haven’t they gone ahead with a playoff?

    I said this earlier. Somebody show us some dollar figures comparing now to “what if”. You want to advocate for something, show us why it’s better financially. Show us the business model, not just the schedule. Those who don’t understand that’s a monstrous, and essential, component of this are off on a cloud somewhere.

    Everything else is inch-deep bar talk.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    Sure, I can prove it.

    Do you want the naming rights to the Eastern Bowl Series Final, aka the Orange Bowl? Pay more than FedEx.

    Do you want the first-round Li’l Caesar’s Bowl? Pay more than them.

    It’s supply and demand.[/quote]

    Okay, do some homework. Run the numbers. See what they’re getting now. Do realisitc projections of how much an increase in broadcasting rights fees and bowl-naming the market will bear. And see if the net is enough to match what everyone is getting under the present system.

    Then run them again without municipal/chamber financial ontributions (some possibly including free stadium use) and volunteer manhours, cuz there’s a real possibility someone will have to pay for those things if geographic and civil recognition begins to disappear and those entities drop out.

    You’re assuming demand, that there are corporate sponsors to cover such things. And perhaps there is.

    But evidently the NCAA doesn’t see it that way, or we’d have had a playoff a long time ago. Shouldn’t that tell us they know something, maybe?

    —Ricko

  • Teebz | January 16, 2010 at 8:14 pm |

    [quote comment="372622"]
    Okay, do some homework. Run the numbers. See what they’re getting now. Do realisitc projections of how much an increase in broadcasting rights fees and bowl-naming the market will bear. And see if the net is enough to match what everyone is getting under the present system.

    Then run them again without municipal/chamber financial ontributions (some possibly including free stadium use) and volunteer manhours, cuz there’s a real possibility someone will have to pay for those things if geographic and civil recognition begins to disappear and those entities drop out.

    You’re assuming demand, that there are corporate sponsors to cover such things. And perhaps there is.

    But evidently the NCAA doesn’t see it that way, or we’d have had a playoff a long time ago. Shouldn’t that tell us they know something, maybe?

    —Ricko[/quote]

    Why should their football model be any different than their basketball model?

  • Ricko | January 16, 2010 at 8:20 pm |

    [quote comment="372623"][quote comment="372622"]
    Okay, do some homework. Run the numbers. See what they’re getting now. Do realisitc projections of how much an increase in broadcasting rights fees and bowl-naming the market will bear. And see if the net is enough to match what everyone is getting under the present system.

    Then run them again without municipal/chamber financial ontributions (some possibly including free stadium use) and volunteer manhours, cuz there’s a real possibility someone will have to pay for those things if geographic and civil recognition begins to disappear and those entities drop out.

    You’re assuming demand, that there are corporate sponsors to cover such things. And perhaps there is.

    But evidently the NCAA doesn’t see it that way, or we’d have had a playoff a long time ago. Shouldn’t that tell us they know something, maybe?

    —Ricko[/quote]

    Why should their football model be any different than their basketball model?[/quote]

    Well, for one thing, cost of operation is less. For basketball they can have four teams (or more) in the same venue on one weekend. Seating capacities generally smaller and they have more than two schools to sell tickets to.

    (Much of this got discussed earlier, but I know there’s lot to go through today.)

    —Ricko

  • Jeff_D | January 16, 2010 at 8:24 pm |

    [quote comment="372607"][quote comment="372605"]I want to take it to a shop and get it personalized with my name and a number.

    So… What font and sizes do the KC Royals use for their uniforms? I want NOB and back and front numbers.[/quote]

    what position do you play?[/quote]
    I play Left Out

  • JimV19 | January 16, 2010 at 8:24 pm |

    [quote comment="372622"]Okay, do some homework. Run the numbers. See what they’re getting now. Do realisitc projections of how much an increase in broadcasting rights fees and bowl-naming the market will bear. And see if the net is enough to match what everyone is getting under the present system.

    Then run them again without municipal/chamber financial ontributions (some possibly including free stadium use) and volunteer manhours, cuz there’s a real possibility someone will have to pay for those things if geographic and civil recognition begins to disappear and those entities drop out.

    You’re assuming demand, that there are corporate sponsors to cover such things. And perhaps there is.

    But evidently the NCAA doesn’t see it that way, or we’d have had a playoff a long time ago. Shouldn’t that tell us they know something, maybe?

    —Ricko[/quote]

    And you’re assuming two things – 1) that there won’t be demand for the lesser bowls if there’s a playoff, and 2) that the NCAA knows something we don’t know.

    Has it occurred to you that the higher-ups in the NCAA might be getting paid boatloads of money to preach the status quo? I’m not saying they are, but would it really surprise anyone if they were? With this much money being thrown around, let’s not be naive.

  • Teebz | January 16, 2010 at 8:24 pm |

    [quote comment="372624"][quote comment="372623"][quote comment="372622"]
    Okay, do some homework. Run the numbers. See what they’re getting now. Do realisitc projections of how much an increase in broadcasting rights fees and bowl-naming the market will bear. And see if the net is enough to match what everyone is getting under the present system.

    Then run them again without municipal/chamber financial ontributions (some possibly including free stadium use) and volunteer manhours, cuz there’s a real possibility someone will have to pay for those things if geographic and civil recognition begins to disappear and those entities drop out.

    You’re assuming demand, that there are corporate sponsors to cover such things. And perhaps there is.

    But evidently the NCAA doesn’t see it that way, or we’d have had a playoff a long time ago. Shouldn’t that tell us they know something, maybe?

    —Ricko[/quote]

    Why should their football model be any different than their basketball model?[/quote]

    Well, for one thing, cost of operation is less. For basketball they can have four teams (or more) in the same venue on one weekend. Seating capacities generally smaller and they have more than two schools to sell tickets to.

    (Much of this got discussed earlier, but I know there’s lot to go through today.)

    —Ricko[/quote]

    But the operating costs are irrelevant.

    Each city hosts the same bowl game that they do now. There’s no issue with venues.

  • Ricko | January 16, 2010 at 8:29 pm |

    “that there won’t be demand for the lesser bowls if there’s a playoff,”

    How big a draw is the NIT these days?

    “that the NCAA knows something we don’t know.”

    If they haven’t had feasibility studies done they are absolute morons. If they weren’t at least a little curious we wouldn’t have had the Bama-Texas game.

    “the higher-ups in the NCAA might be getting paid boatloads of money to preach the status quo?”

    Why would they do that if they know there’s a huge payday for a playoff?

    —Ricko

  • Ricko | January 16, 2010 at 8:34 pm |

    [quote comment="372627"][quote comment="372624"][quote comment="372623"][quote comment="372622"]
    Okay, do some homework. Run the numbers. See what they’re getting now. Do realisitc projections of how much an increase in broadcasting rights fees and bowl-naming the market will bear. And see if the net is enough to match what everyone is getting under the present system.

    Then run them again without municipal/chamber financial ontributions (some possibly including free stadium use) and volunteer manhours, cuz there’s a real possibility someone will have to pay for those things if geographic and civil recognition begins to disappear and those entities drop out.

    You’re assuming demand, that there are corporate sponsors to cover such things. And perhaps there is.

    But evidently the NCAA doesn’t see it that way, or we’d have had a playoff a long time ago. Shouldn’t that tell us they know something, maybe?

    —Ricko[/quote]

    Why should their football model be any different than their basketball model?[/quote]

    Well, for one thing, cost of operation is less. For basketball they can have four teams (or more) in the same venue on one weekend. Seating capacities generally smaller and they have more than two schools to sell tickets to.

    (Much of this got discussed earlier, but I know there’s lot to go through today.)

    —Ricko[/quote]

    But the operating costs are irrelevant.

    Each city hosts the same bowl game that they do now. There’s no issue with venues.[/quote]

    Ah, but there’s the rub. Mentioned earlier, if the Sun Bowl hosts a game in the Round of 8, winners aren’t gonna say they won the Sun Bowl. Starting the moment the game ends, the Sun Bowl ceases to exist, because they’ll say “we made the Final Four”. At that point, WHERE they won the game to get there is less than nothing.

    If no post-game PR for the city/sponsors, why bother. Lot of money to invest only for pre-game pub…and for a shorter window than now, too.

    —Ricko

  • Teebz | January 16, 2010 at 8:36 pm |

    [quote comment="372629"]
    Ah, but there’s the rub. Mentioned earlier, if the Sun Bowl hosts a game in the Round of 8, winners aren’t gonna say they won the Sun Bowl. Starting the moment the game ends, the Sun Bowl ceases to exist, because they’ll say “we made the Final Four”. At that point, WHERE they won the game to get there is less than nothing.

    If no post-game PR for the city/sponsors, why bother. Lot of money to invest only for pre-game pub…and for a shorter window than now, too.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    It’s not like they don’t wear stickers on their helmets now. So, in that case, keep adorning the helmets with stickers of the bowl games they played in. Or slap a few more patches on.

    It’s still relevant from a TV perspective when the camera catches the sticker and someone says “what sticker is that”.

  • Dan P. | January 16, 2010 at 8:41 pm |

    The number one priority for the Division I football postseason must be compelling match-ups. In other words, the games should MEAN something rather than PROVE something.

    The BCS, with it’s drive to crown a champion, can not guarantee a compelling game, other than matching up a (often arguable) #1 vs. #2. The bowl committees then choose the match-ups for their games based on conference records, except when they are allowed to choose one of the teams freely. In which case they choose the team that will sell the most tickets, not provide the best match-up.

    A playoff format would certainly tell us who won it all and it may possibly end unfairness caused by the BCS, but it could not guarantee interesting match-ups. However it could occasionally provide us with the Cinderella/Hoosier/David vs. Goliath quality that’s been missing from Div. I football. I am thinking of the Fiesta Bowl game featuring Oklahoma vs. BSU as I type this: the greatest football game I have ever seen. As an aside, I think that was the biggest problem with this years Fiesta Bowl. It was 2 Davids and no Goliath. I don’t think BSU nor TCU deserved to be in the title game, but they should not have played each other.

    This is my proposal. Each participant of every bowl game will be chosen by a committee. The committee will be comprised of representatives from groups with invested interest in bowl games (NCAA,conferences, TV, bowls, fans). The job of the committee is to create match-ups that are most appealing to the casual college football fan. In doing so they would be acting in the best interest of fans, TV, and (for the most part) bowl committees. The conferences and schools still get their money, bowls still get marquee match-ups to promote, casual fans get games they want to watch, and TV gets their better ratings from more people watching. Tadah! If you still need a champion, then run a BCS-like poll that includes bowl games and have a championship game or a 3-8 team playoff. What ever floats your boat.

  • leon | January 16, 2010 at 8:42 pm |

    ….may you stayeee forever young!

  • JimV19 | January 16, 2010 at 9:11 pm |

    [quote comment="372628"]“that there won’t be demand for the lesser bowls if there’s a playoff,”

    How big a draw is the NIT these days?

    “that the NCAA knows something we don’t know.”

    If they haven’t had feasibility studies done they are absolute morons. If they weren’t at least a little curious we wouldn’t have had the Bama-Texas game.

    “the higher-ups in the NCAA might be getting paid boatloads of money to preach the status quo?”

    Why would they do that if they know there’s a huge payday for a playoff?

    —Ricko[/quote]

    I’m not talking about the NIT. I’m talking about the lesser bowls. Everyone who goes to a lesser bowl knows they don’t have a shot at the title. And yet they go and the bowls make some money. All the games don’t sell out, though.

    With a limited major-bowl-inclusive playoff, the lesser bowls wouldn’t have to dry up and die. They would serve the exact same purpose they do now.

    I’m not saying the NCAA hasn’t done feasibility studies; I’m just suggesting there’s a possibility they could be skewed. You honestly think everything is done above the board here?

    The reason I’m cynical about this is, while you give some valid reasons, what do we usually hear from the NCAA? “A playoff will lead to more injuries and it will negatively affect our fine student-athletes’ grades.” Rubbish. Someone’s being told to say that, and probably being paid handsomely by vested interests to do so, even if it’s at the expense of the greater financial good of the schools.

  • LI Phil | January 16, 2010 at 9:14 pm |

    [quote comment="372633"]“A playoff will lead to more injuries and it will negatively affect our fine student-athletes’ grades.”[/quote]

    dammit jim

    i just spit coffee on my monitor

  • Kurt Allen | January 16, 2010 at 9:14 pm |

    For the last time, why a 16-team playoff won’t work. All the players for Florida, Ohio St., LSU, USC, Texas et al that are projected first-round picks. The last thing they want is up to three additional games where they can get hurt. They would actually be glad if their team last first round and got out in one piece, and you may even see players half-ass it, and hoping their team loses. Eight-team playoff would be a bit better but you still have the same problem to a smaller extent. You would probably see Boise St./TCU win such a tournament a few times simply because they have the least number of blue-chip draft prospect, a BCS playoff would be like the East-West Shrine game to them, a chance to elevate from a sixth to third round draft pick.

    I want to see the playoff happen just so my point ends up being proven…

  • JimV19 | January 16, 2010 at 9:16 pm |

    This playoff/bowl argument is like Mike’s girlfriend’s dog – this side thinks the other is full of tschitz, that side thinks the other is full of poo…

  • aflfan | January 16, 2010 at 9:19 pm |

    [quote comment="372578"][quote comment="372534"]We probably will never find out how Boise State will do against the “big boys” short of a playoff. Boise State has offered a challenge to play anyone on the road. The only “string” they have to come to Boise at some point. Not the next year but sometime in the future. So far none of the “big boys” has stepped up to the challenge.[/quote]

    Don’t believe the Boise State’s “We will play anyone, anywhere!” bullshit.

    yeah, they will play anyone as long as they get $1M to do so. Boise State needs to realize that there is no benefit for an elite team to play them. None.

    Ohio State will fill the stadium whether they pay Boise State $1M or Youngstown State 400k. And a return date to Boise? WHY? Big teams spend 400k on charter flights ALONE. That doesn’t include equipment transportation, hotels and expenses. I doubt a team would break even on that trip unless they paid upwards of a $1M back (in that case, what monetary benefit would boise get?)[/quote]

    Do you have proof the are asking for a $1 million? Because I have read a lot of articles about Boise and I have not seen anywhere that they are asking for a million to go play the “big boys.” The reason no one is taking them up is because they can pay $400,000 for a automatic win.

  • ScottyM | January 16, 2010 at 9:22 pm |

    For those advocating a playoff instead of the BCS. The only way it’s possible (aside from a final 8/4/2 type playoff) is if schools drop back to a 10 or 11 game, at most, schedule.

    Think they’re gonna drop that one extra home game of revenue? And in some cases they’re playing 13-14 games BEFORE the bowl …

    Maybe 1 game season, at most 3 rounds of a playoff … but that’s taking money out of their individual pockets.

  • JimV19 | January 16, 2010 at 9:26 pm |

    [quote comment="372634"][quote comment="372633"]“A playoff will lead to more injuries and it will negatively affect our fine student-athletes’ grades.”[/quote]

    dammit jim

    i just spit coffee on my monitor[/quote]

    And yet it has been said. To quote ESPN, “Bill Hancock, the new BCS executive director said on Thursday, Jan. 7, 2010, that a major college football playoff would lead to more injuries, conflict with final exams, kill the bowl system and diminish the importance of the regular season.”

    Apropos of nothing, doesn’t Mr. Hancock http://espn-i.starwa... look like an older version of the guy who played James on Spin City? http://images.broadw...

  • Mickel | January 16, 2010 at 9:29 pm |

    Philadelphia Eagles announce New Uni sets for next year. http://cellar.org/pi...

  • LI Phil | January 16, 2010 at 9:34 pm |

    [quote comment="372640"]Philadelphia Eagles announce New Uni sets for next year. http://cellar.org/pi...

    those are shadows, right?

  • LarryB | January 16, 2010 at 9:37 pm |

    [quote comment="372640"]Philadelphia Eagles announce New Uni sets for next year. http://cellar.org/pi...

    This is my favorite uniform wearer.

    http://img.photobuck...

  • aflfan | January 16, 2010 at 9:41 pm |

    The thing that annoys me the most about watching NFL football is a team scores and then we go to commericals. They come back kick the ball off and we go to commericals.

  • rpm | January 16, 2010 at 9:54 pm |

    okay, i had to ref 8 basketball games today, ever run for 8 hours with people calling you a jack~ass the whole time? well, i am not in a good mood. so, let me say this first, i respect a lot of the people that disagree with me on this whole bowl or playoff issue, but let me address a few things for various people who have posted throughout the day…
    1) boise state~ 1st they didn’t get a participation ribbon any more then ohio state did. what boise did was become a conference champion, beat their rival,win a major bowl, and wind up with a top 5 finish. that’s pretty fucking sweet for both of them. just curious, how big is that school? how many alumni are there? how are they going to help fill 4 home playoff games let alone 4 road games?
    2) a 32 team field?! are you insane teebowski? beyond the logistical impossibilities, how long of a season do you expect the 18~22 year old kids to play? or alumni to finance so you can watch a game? that is just nuts.
    3) people keep complaining about the number of bowls. um, don’t watch them. the lessor bowls are important to smaller schools and mid to low level major conference schools trying to extort money from there alumni by pointing to their win. not to mention this, how excited would northwestern have been to win their first bowl since 1948. the bowls are for the student and alumni to enjoy on break, not for sports “fans” to point out who deserves what.
    4)which leads me to this, if you did not go to a d1 school, you probably don’t attend a few d1 games a year, let alone the bowl, or contribute financially to that institution, why should they care what you think? you are a sports fan, you will bitch about the system, but you will watch either way. the people who pay are the ones that matter. so to everyone who is not a d1 grad, i am sorry to say this, but your opinion means zero, zilch, nada nada nada. this is probably why you do not understand why the bowls are so important to graduates.
    5)with regards to alumni contributions. there is a reason that i hear from big crappy state U alumni association by mid january every year, they are sending these letters out around the first of the year in hopes that a winning bowl game will mean big contributions. doers joe sports fan that wants a playoff letter get that or contribute to that?
    6) the nacca basketball tournament is a bore after the first weekend. i am sorry, i don’t watch it after that, and for sure by the time the final 4 is settled. unless Tosu is in it, and even then, meh.
    7)i don’t watch the sub divisions, but i have no steak in it either. but if the dII and dIII tournament is so awesome, why don’t any of you watch it? and if you say the football isn’t as good, why do you watch d1? it is nothing in terms of skill compared to the nfl(which i do not watch). you watch it for the tradition, unless you are just a sports fan that will just watch anything, so again, why should we change things for the later “fan”? there might be an arena game on, go fix that.
    8)”fans”~ nothing i hate more then an ohio state “fan”. we should change our quarterback/coach. really? “we” should? i thought you went to akron/kent/john carrol/ case western, you are not part of “we”. and most of the ohio state “fans” i meet/met want/wanted a palyoff, while the people i know that graduated from the school want a michigan win/conference title/ rose bowl win. curious, which of those two people are more important to the university?
    9) the national title has always been something of a joke in college football, which is about sooo much more to the people that get it, amybe you don’t, but many many people do, the graduates of those schools do. of course they would like to win a title, but most don’t myopically fixate on that point as the end all~beat all of their season. sure there are obsessive kooks, but a majority of fans, which include the casual fan~graduates don’t need it.
    10) student~athletes and grades~ can we stop that sarcastic we wouldn’t want to pretend that they are only there for football crap? sure there are plenty of football players who are just there for football, but ask my neighbor, an excellent painter, and one hell of an economist/philosopher who has 2 phd’s and is a former michigan fullback if went he to school just to play football. or if my old man only went to maryland to play DT, and i could go on, but won’t. these fucking kids are just that, kids. if they choose to take their studies seriously or not, they are kids, not your fucking video game.
    …i am sure that i have forgotten a few things, but i think i have made my point. mull on that while i think of rose bowl glory past, and don’t watch whatever nfl playoff game is on. 32 teams, are you nuts teebowski? good golly. for those of you who didn’t go to a d1 school but can appreciate the beauty of the college game, you are my hero.

  • Teebz | January 16, 2010 at 9:57 pm |

    Robert, I don’t watch the games because NCAA football sucks… in my opinion.

    As for the playoffs, they start December 1, and end with the Rose Bowl on the night of January 1.

  • LI Phil | January 16, 2010 at 10:02 pm |

    [quote comment="372644"]for those of you who didn’t go to a d1 school but can appreciate the beauty of the college game, you are my hero.[/quote]

    no robert…you are our hero

  • Kurt Allen | January 16, 2010 at 10:11 pm |

    If players are going to keep going to the stretched-out jersey (Addai, etc.), why not go all the way w/one piece outfits?? They’d all look like speedskaters out there…

  • JimV19 | January 16, 2010 at 10:19 pm |

    rpm said:
    “if you did not go to a d1 school, you probably don’t attend a few d1 games a year, let alone the bowl, or contribute financially to that institution, why should they care what you think? you are a sports fan, you will bitch about the system, but you will watch either way. the people who pay are the ones that matter. so to everyone who is not a d1 grad, i am sorry to say this, but your opinion means zero, zilch, nada nada nada. this is probably why you do not understand why the bowls are so important to graduates.”

    Gee, I thought major college elitism was restricted to its teaching practices…

    So all the non-D-I grads who watch the games – their Neilsen ratings mean nothing then?

    Never mind, This D-I grad’ll just stick to watching D-II ball. I enjoyed those games more anyway.

  • LarryB | January 16, 2010 at 10:22 pm |

    What sports in college do not have a playoff or National Champion? Baseball does, hockey does, soccer does, basketball does,wresting does and on and on.

    How goofy is it that only 1A football does not.

  • JimV19 | January 16, 2010 at 10:27 pm |

    Not superstitious, but wow, those guys with the horseshoes on their heads have been lucky tonight…

  • JimV19 | January 16, 2010 at 10:27 pm |

    [quote comment="372650"]Not superstitious, but wow, those guys with the horseshoes on their heads have been lucky tonight…[/quote]
    And yes, they’re good, too.

  • rpm | January 16, 2010 at 10:35 pm |

    [quote comment="372645"]Robert, I don’t watch the games because NCAA football sucks… in my opinion.

    As for the playoffs, they start December 1, and end with the Rose Bowl on the night of January 1.[/quote]
    then why in the fuck would you give your 2 cents worth/why should you decide? point exactly, thank you

  • rpm | January 16, 2010 at 10:36 pm |

    [quote comment="372646"][quote comment="372644"]for those of you who didn’t go to a d1 school but can appreciate the beauty of the college game, you are my hero.[/quote]

    no robert…you are our hero[/quote]
    i’m your freak show, see what you made me do phil!?!!!!

  • JimV19 | January 16, 2010 at 10:38 pm |

    Finally…uni-tweaks:

    Renwick:
    Yes! http://farm5.static....

    Yes! http://farm5.static....

    YES! http://farm3.static....

    Nah… http://farm3.static....
    I’d rather see your Colts with dark road pants than this. It looks good, but I love Texas’ all-whites.

  • LI Phil | January 16, 2010 at 10:39 pm |

    yeah…um…

    that’s baba o’riley, dan

  • Teebz | January 16, 2010 at 10:40 pm |

    [quote comment="372652"][quote comment="372645"]Robert, I don’t watch the games because NCAA football sucks… in my opinion.

    As for the playoffs, they start December 1, and end with the Rose Bowl on the night of January 1.[/quote]
    then why in the fuck would you give your 2 cents worth/why should you decide? point exactly, thank you[/quote]

    Because none of you could agree, so I proposed the simplest of solutions. And the most rational.

  • =bg= | January 16, 2010 at 10:42 pm |

    [quote comment="372614"]can the cowboys win in new orleans?[/quote]

    yes. BUT

    they have to beat the vikes first.

  • rpm | January 16, 2010 at 10:45 pm |

    [quote comment="372648"]rpm said:
    “if you did not go to a d1 school, you probably don’t attend a few d1 games a year, let alone the bowl, or contribute financially to that institution, why should they care what you think? you are a sports fan, you will bitch about the system, but you will watch either way. the people who pay are the ones that matter. so to everyone who is not a d1 grad, i am sorry to say this, but your opinion means zero, zilch, nada nada nada. this is probably why you do not understand why the bowls are so important to graduates.”

    Gee, I thought major college elitism was restricted to its teaching practices…

    So all the non-D-I grads who watch the games – their Neilsen ratings mean nothing then?

    Never mind, This D-I grad’ll just stick to watching D-II ball. I enjoyed those games more anyway.[/quote]

    see phil i made jim mad. corn damn it.

    elitism? did i not say big crappy state u? the ratings matter, but most people will watch no matter what, that’s my point. but the people who need to fund it are ultimately the people who need to be happy. i once saw a great game at the rubber bowl, i love the rubber bowl, appreciating akron football or dII football for what it is IS exactly what i am talking about, there is a beauty in that, just as there is a beauty in the bowl system, and number one is a myopic way of looking at d1. big school elitsim, that’s nuts, i can barely spell my name, put away your hanky.

  • rpm | January 16, 2010 at 10:48 pm |

    [quote comment="372656"][quote comment="372652"][quote comment="372645"]Robert, I don’t watch the games because NCAA football sucks… in my opinion.

    As for the playoffs, they start December 1, and end with the Rose Bowl on the night of January 1.[/quote]
    then why in the fuck would you give your 2 cents worth/why should you decide? point exactly, thank you[/quote]

    Because none of you could agree, so I proposed the simplest of solutions. And the most rational.[/quote]

    i think the hockey playoff should be played on the moon because moon landings might appeal to more americans. 32 teams is beyond rational and you know it.

  • JimV19 | January 16, 2010 at 10:48 pm |

    Dan Martell, I really like your Blues unis: http://farm5.static....

    Johnny Seoul, if I was unfortunate enough to have to play for the Browns, I would like to do so in your unis: http://upload.wikime... Good stuff!
    http://farm3.static.... struck a chord with me! The Wizards ones were pretty good, too.

    Thanks, everyone!
    Jeff Shirley, your blue-note Jazz unis

  • Teebz | January 16, 2010 at 10:54 pm |

    [quote comment="372659"][quote comment="372656"][quote comment="372652"][quote comment="372645"]Robert, I don’t watch the games because NCAA football sucks… in my opinion.

    As for the playoffs, they start December 1, and end with the Rose Bowl on the night of January 1.[/quote]
    then why in the fuck would you give your 2 cents worth/why should you decide? point exactly, thank you[/quote]

    Because none of you could agree, so I proposed the simplest of solutions. And the most rational.[/quote]

    i think the hockey playoff should be played on the moon because moon landings might appeal to more americans. 32 teams is beyond rational and you know it.[/quote]

    Then why are 50 teams ranked? Why not just rank two teams all season long?

  • JimV19 | January 16, 2010 at 10:54 pm |

    [quote comment="372660"]Dan Martell, I really like your Blues unis: http://farm5.static....

    Johnny Seoul, if I was unfortunate enough to have to play for the Browns, I would like to do so in your unis: http://upload.wikime... Good stuff!
    http://farm3.static.... struck a chord with me! The Wizards ones were pretty good, too.

    Thanks, everyone!
    Jeff Shirley, your blue-note Jazz unis[/quote]

    Wow, screwed that up, eh?

    I said,
    Johnny Seoul, if I was unfortunate enough to have to play for the Browns, I would like to do so in your unis: http://upload.wikime... Good stuff!

    Jeff Shirley, your blue-note Jazz unis http://farm3.static.... struck a chord with me! The Wizards unis were pretty good, too.

    Thanks!

  • JimV19 | January 16, 2010 at 10:58 pm |

    [quote comment="372658"]see phil i made jim mad.[/quote]

    Nah, I’m not mad, just tired. A day of reading and posting this topic just makes me look forward to my next simple, enjoyable trip to Slippery Rock, Cal. U of PA or Lake Erie College.

  • rpm | January 16, 2010 at 10:59 pm |

    really jim, the cold shoulder? i wouldn’t have said it if people were not trying to take away my rose bowl. it’s the rose bowl jim!! hamburger station, swensen’s drive in, the civic theater, c’mon mother vilker. if that doesn’t work, how bout forgiving me because you sold me beer when i was 17.

    phil, you are on my shit list for this!

  • rpm | January 16, 2010 at 11:01 pm |

    [quote comment="372663"][quote comment="372658"]see phil i made jim mad.[/quote]

    Nah, I’m not mad, just tired. A day of reading and posting this topic just makes me look forward to my next simple, enjoyable trip to Slippery Rock, Cal. U of PA or Lake Erie College.[/quote]

    JIM BABY!!! whew. ask phil how nuts i was about this crap. i am sorry, it’s the only thing that has not been ruined.

  • JimV19 | January 16, 2010 at 11:06 pm |

    [quote comment="372664"]really jim, the cold shoulder? i wouldn’t have said it if people were not trying to take away my rose bowl. it’s the rose bowl jim!! hamburger station, swensen’s drive in, the civic theater, c’mon mother vilker. if that doesn’t work, how bout forgiving me because you sold me beer when i was 17.

    phil, you are on my shit list for this![/quote]

    “Allegedly” sold you beer. ;)

    I posted right before you, my good man.

    Don’t know about other people, but my playoff plan keeps your Rose Bowl.

    Speaking of burgers, the current system may be like a Swenson’s or Hamburger Station burger, but my idea is like a wonderful Whitey’s burger with a giant side of fries. Hard to top that!

  • LI Phil | January 16, 2010 at 11:15 pm |

    [quote comment="372664"]phil, you are on my shit list for this![/quote]

    WTF did i do?

  • rpm | January 16, 2010 at 11:16 pm |

    [quote comment="372666"][quote comment="372664"]really jim, the cold shoulder? i wouldn’t have said it if people were not trying to take away my rose bowl. it’s the rose bowl jim!! hamburger station, swensen’s drive in, the civic theater, c’mon mother vilker. if that doesn’t work, how bout forgiving me because you sold me beer when i was 17.

    phil, you are on my shit list for this![/quote]

    “Allegedly” sold you beer. ;)

    I posted right before you, my good man.

    Don’t know about other people, but my playoff plan keeps your Rose Bowl.

    Speaking of burgers, the current system may be like a Swenson’s or Hamburger Station burger, but my idea is like a wonderful Whitey’s burger with a giant side of fries. Hard to top that![/quote]

    shiiiiiiit, i do like whitey’s, good call. is doug’s dinner bucket still there? my mom used to eat bacon there every morning with jim thome(she didn’t know who he was for months). hm, tempted to go corkscrew deli, but dig this snack. galley boy and a california.

  • rpm | January 16, 2010 at 11:19 pm |

    [quote comment="372667"][quote comment="372664"]phil, you are on my shit list for this![/quote]

    WTF did i do?[/quote]

    you told me me open my big mouth about something i will for sure tell people to cram it with walnuts over. i told you i wanted out, i have too much passion about this. jim will never watch the ncaa d1 again! what are you going to do next year for the top 5? oh my corn, i broke jim!

  • JimV19 | January 16, 2010 at 11:30 pm |

    [quote comment="372668"][quote comment="372666"][quote comment="372664"]really jim, the cold shoulder? i wouldn’t have said it if people were not trying to take away my rose bowl. it’s the rose bowl jim!! hamburger station, swensen’s drive in, the civic theater, c’mon mother vilker. if that doesn’t work, how bout forgiving me because you sold me beer when i was 17.

    phil, you are on my shit list for this![/quote]

    “Allegedly” sold you beer. ;)

    I posted right before you, my good man.

    Don’t know about other people, but my playoff plan keeps your Rose Bowl.

    Speaking of burgers, the current system may be like a Swenson’s or Hamburger Station burger, but my idea is like a wonderful Whitey’s burger with a giant side of fries. Hard to top that![/quote]

    shiiiiiiit, i do like whitey’s, good call. is doug’s dinner bucket still there? my mom used to eat bacon there every morning with jim thome(she didn’t know who he was for months). hm, tempted to go corkscrew deli, but dig this snack. galley boy and a california.[/quote]

    Take off the sauce and I’ll eat a Galley Boy (that’s a burger, all you non-Ohioans).

    Jim Thome used to eat at Doug’s on olde route 8? Wow, didn’t know that. I think that place is still open. Haven’t been there yet, but I suppose it’s time I went.

  • LI Phil | January 16, 2010 at 11:44 pm |

    [quote comment="372668"]my mom used to eat bacon there every morning with jim thome[/quote]

    well if that doesnt break jim, i don’t know what will

  • JTH | January 16, 2010 at 11:55 pm |

    [quote comment="372612"]hate to interfere with all the BCS bickering, but I have to call out Shannon Sharpe for an atrocious uni-violation, I don’t think even a pimp can get away with wearing that jacket these days[/quote]
    Speaking of which, was Kurt Warner wearing a gold blazer at the podium after the game? No he and his team got crushed.

  • JTH | January 16, 2010 at 11:56 pm |

    Fuck.

    No WONDER he and his team got crushed.

  • LI Phil | January 17, 2010 at 12:04 am |

    [quote comment="372672"]was Kurt Warner wearing a gold blazer at the podium after the game? No WONDER he and his team got crushed.[/quote]

    yes

    you can watch the whole thing here

  • Patrick in MI | January 17, 2010 at 12:20 am |

    Anyone else notice the GIANT tarp over the players tunnel in Nola today? Could be seen right beyond the goalposts, had a Sir Saint logo on it…loved it!

  • rpm | January 17, 2010 at 12:24 am |

    [quote comment="372670"][quote comment="372668"][quote comment="372666"][quote comment="372664"]really jim, the cold shoulder? i wouldn’t have said it if people were not trying to take away my rose bowl. it’s the rose bowl jim!! hamburger station, swensen’s drive in, the civic theater, c’mon mother vilker. if that doesn’t work, how bout forgiving me because you sold me beer when i was 17.

    phil, you are on my shit list for this![/quote]

    “Allegedly” sold you beer. ;)

    I posted right before you, my good man.

    Don’t know about other people, but my playoff plan keeps your Rose Bowl.

    Speaking of burgers, the current system may be like a Swenson’s or Hamburger Station burger, but my idea is like a wonderful Whitey’s burger with a giant side of fries. Hard to top that![/quote]

    shiiiiiiit, i do like whitey’s, good call. is doug’s dinner bucket still there? my mom used to eat bacon there every morning with jim thome(she didn’t know who he was for months). hm, tempted to go corkscrew deli, but dig this snack. galley boy and a california.[/quote]

    Take off the sauce and I’ll eat a Galley Boy (that’s a burger, all you non-Ohioans).

    Jim Thome used to eat at Doug’s on olde route 8? Wow, didn’t know that. I think that place is still open. Haven’t been there yet, but I suppose it’s time I went.[/quote]

    which secret sauce would you remove from the greatest burger ever that was, that is still served with an olive on top? by the way, it’s the massive amounts of sugar in the burger that makes it so good. i still drink my coffee every day from a swenson’s coffee mug.

    there is another eatery that i can’t seem to remember, but i will get it.

    yes! the bucket on olde 8. i lived at 8 and 91 for a year, two blocks from john brown’s house(yes that john brown people).

  • JimV19 | January 17, 2010 at 12:47 am |

    [quote comment="372676"][quote comment="372670"]Take off the sauce and I’ll eat a Galley Boy (that’s a burger, all you non-Ohioans).

    Jim Thome used to eat at Doug’s on olde route 8? Wow, didn’t know that. I think that place is still open. Haven’t been there yet, but I suppose it’s time I went.[/quote]

    which secret sauce would you remove from the greatest burger ever that was, that is still served with an olive on top? by the way, it’s the massive amounts of sugar in the burger that makes it so good. i still drink my coffee every day from a swenson’s coffee mug.

    there is another eatery that i can’t seem to remember, but i will get it.

    yes! the bucket on olde 8. i lived at 8 and 91 for a year, two blocks from john brown’s house(yes that john brown people).[/quote]

    I’m not a secret sauce guy, period. I’d rather have their double cheeseburger, maybe with a pickle and/or ketchup.

    Sugar? I thought it was applesauce they put in the burgers. Either way they’re good.

    By the way, I think you mean routes 8 and 303.

  • rpm | January 17, 2010 at 12:56 am |

    [quote comment="372677"][quote comment="372676"][quote comment="372670"]Take off the sauce and I’ll eat a Galley Boy (that’s a burger, all you non-Ohioans).

    Jim Thome used to eat at Doug’s on olde route 8? Wow, didn’t know that. I think that place is still open. Haven’t been there yet, but I suppose it’s time I went.[/quote]

    which secret sauce would you remove from the greatest burger ever that was, that is still served with an olive on top? by the way, it’s the massive amounts of sugar in the burger that makes it so good. i still drink my coffee every day from a swenson’s coffee mug.

    there is another eatery that i can’t seem to remember, but i will get it.

    yes! the bucket on olde 8. i lived at 8 and 91 for a year, two blocks from john brown’s house(yes that john brown people).[/quote]

    I’m not a secret sauce guy, period. I’d rather have their double cheeseburger, maybe with a pickle and/or ketchup.

    Sugar? I thought it was applesauce they put in the burgers. Either way they’re good.

    By the way, I think you mean routes 8 and 303.[/quote]
    ha! you know where i lived better then me, yews 303.

    i used to agree with you about the burgers. much like the billy goat here in chicago i was a two cheeseburgers guy/california guy, but i got turned onto the galley boy at some point and never looked back. i have heard there is much debate about what the secret is to the burgers. a friend of mine who worked there said it was copious amounts of sugar, but who knows. it’s all good in my book. do they still wear the 3 inch wide white belts and blue polyester pants on the car hops? i know they did two years ago at the location in stow-kent when i was back for my 20 year reunion 2 years ago.

  • Jeff P | January 17, 2010 at 1:03 am |

    Swensons? The ones who took a hour to get you a hot dog?

    I’m glad the one we had has been replaced by a 5 guys.

  • rpm | January 17, 2010 at 1:28 am |

    [quote comment="372679"]Swensons? The ones who took a hour to get you a hot dog?[/quote]

    i don’t know where “around here” usa is so i couldn’t say for sure, but they never served hot dogs as far as i know. there were only 3 or 4 locations in the akron area when i was there, and it was beyond good. but we can not be talking about the same place, you were just trying to give me the roofus~goofus, that’s fine too.

  • Traxel | January 17, 2010 at 1:46 am |

    back from the back forty…..and Phil? You really want to hit this subject again tomorrow? I’m all in big fella! Or is that the sauce talking….

  • LI Phil | January 17, 2010 at 2:04 am |

    [quote comment="372681"]back from the back forty…..and Phil? You really want to hit this subject again tomorrow? I’m all in big fella! Or is that the sauce talking….[/quote]

    as they used to say about the gravy…”it’s in there”

  • Wollen1 | January 17, 2010 at 2:12 am |

    As a guy who actually shed a tear when his school won the Roady’s Humanitarian Bowl, I think that the present bowl scenario is good enough. Just as all politics is local, so is all bowl game politics.
    My Idaho Vandals would have been completely left out of a playoff system and would have ended their season back in mid-December if it weren’t for the lower bowl games. That would have kept thousands of Vandal fans from gleefully storming the field after the Humanitarian Bowl. It would have also taken from me the chance to meet the curent Vandal players and see the unmitigated joy in their eyes at having won their first and likely only bowl game. I just cannot accept such a scenario.

    I don’t want to seem too wussy or new-agey, but I think we have to look at it this way; this is college athletics, and if we must declare a bunch of champions at the end of the season, it’s not the end of the world. It is in fact a celebration of what ameteur athletics should be. Sure most college sports declare a difinitive champion at the end of the year, but does that mean that it’s the only acceptable way to do business? I would say no. Congrats to the thirty-some teams that won their bowl games and who can properly call themselves champions.

  • rpm | January 17, 2010 at 2:45 am |

    [quote comment="372683"]As a guy who actually shed a tear when his school won the Roady’s Humanitarian Bowl, I think that the present bowl scenario is good enough. Just as all politics is local, so is all bowl game politics.
    My Idaho Vandals would have been completely left out of a playoff system and would have ended their season back in mid-December if it weren’t for the lower bowl games. That would have kept thousands of Vandal fans from gleefully storming the field after the Humanitarian Bowl. It would have also taken from me the chance to meet the curent Vandal players and see the unmitigated joy in their eyes at having won their first and likely only bowl game. I just cannot accept such a scenario.

    I don’t want to seem too wussy or new-agey, but I think we have to look at it this way; this is college athletics, and if we must declare a bunch of champions at the end of the season, it’s not the end of the world. It is in fact a celebration of what ameteur athletics should be. Sure most college sports declare a difinitive champion at the end of the year, but does that mean that it’s the only acceptable way to do business? I would say no. Congrats to the thirty-some teams that won their bowl games and who can properly call themselves champions.[/quote]

    fuck yeah!!!!
    finally someone speaks up from the who would be left out side!! beat boise? win the conference? win a bowl? you’re happy with that right?! allright!!!
    but screw my ohio state, they win either way, playoff or not, i am looking out for you too. i am with you brother and that’s what people are not hearing. you are my new best friend woolen1