Started By
Message
re: I miss poll era football.
Posted on 7/25/19 at 3:45 pm to WG_Dawg
Posted on 7/25/19 at 3:45 pm to WG_Dawg
I don’t get that line of thinking at all. By your reasoning the 3rd place team has no business in the playoffs because at the end of the day they weren’t number 1. I’m all for 8. I don’t understand why college football fans want this to be the only sport without a decent playoff system. Literally the only sport including college and professional everything. Whoever said that it would make it too much like the nfl playoff what the heck are you talking about. The nfl playoffs might be the greatest time in sports every single year and it’s only competition is a freaking 64 team basketball tournament lol
This post was edited on 7/25/19 at 3:46 pm
0
Posted on 7/25/19 at 3:46 pm to Commander Data
quote:'
I miss poll era football.
You also could call it "bowl era football" because the bowls mattered. Lots of times, up to three bowl games had national championship implications. Bama got screwed over during a couple of those years but that would be so much harder for the AP to get away with in the social media age. I didn't watch one single bowl game outside of the playoff games last year. Hell, Georgia decided not to even play in theirs.
It never hurt my feelings to see split titles. I hate the playoffs even though my team has made it each year. I accepted the BCS but never liked it even though my team benefited from in 2011. I enjoyed college football as a whole a lot more during the 80's and 90's than I do now. Bama only won one title during that span but college football was more enjoyable as a whole.
old.
Posted on 7/25/19 at 4:28 pm to WG_Dawg
quote:
USC and OU started the year 1 and 2 and both went undefeated and for the most part looked outstanding doing it. What collusion was at hand? It would look more suspect to bump one of them for au.
Absolutely, plus, USC had shut out Auburn, at Auburn, the year before.
Posted on 7/25/19 at 5:30 pm to John Milner
And Auburn refused to play an AQ OOC. 
Posted on 7/25/19 at 7:11 pm to Commander Data
I agree to an extent, especially concerning the point about how multiple bowl games could have NC implications - oftentimes those games would be played on the exact same day.
The end of the 1978 season saw these three bowl games directly impact the NC picture:
1979 Sugar Bowl
#1 Penn State vs. #2 Alabama
1979 Orange Bowl
#4 Oklabama vs. #6 Nebraska
1979 Rose Bowl
#3 USC vs. #5 Michigan
Five of the six teams playing in those three games had a legitimate shot of winning the national championship if the cards fell correctly.
The end of the 1978 season saw these three bowl games directly impact the NC picture:
1979 Sugar Bowl
#1 Penn State vs. #2 Alabama
1979 Orange Bowl
#4 Oklabama vs. #6 Nebraska
1979 Rose Bowl
#3 USC vs. #5 Michigan
Five of the six teams playing in those three games had a legitimate shot of winning the national championship if the cards fell correctly.
Posted on 7/25/19 at 7:18 pm to ATLabama
quote:
I think you'll see Bowls relegated NIT status, sooner rather than later.
They already have. No one cares about the bowl games anymore if they're not among the final four teams. It's stupid to even have bowl games anymore. If we're going to keep or expand the current system, there needs to be serious consideration of eliminating the bowl system entirely, leaving only the most prestigious behind (i.e. Rose, Sugar, Orange, Cotton, etc.) to host the playoffs.
Posted on 7/25/19 at 7:39 pm to scrooster
RIF
This post was edited on 7/26/19 at 10:39 am
Posted on 7/25/19 at 9:25 pm to Commander Data
I see evidence of declining interest in regular season games, and even decking interest in conference championship games with the expansion of the playoff.
I’m not sure the current contract of power 5, G5, and FCS can really support an expanded playoff.
At some point, putting the players through 17 games a year is sort of non-amateur.
I would go back to BCS. Also 12 team leagues are plenty.
I’m not sure the current contract of power 5, G5, and FCS can really support an expanded playoff.
At some point, putting the players through 17 games a year is sort of non-amateur.
I would go back to BCS. Also 12 team leagues are plenty.
Posted on 7/25/19 at 9:41 pm to makersmark1
Bring back the BCS. I'd also be o.k. with the return of ties.
Posted on 7/25/19 at 9:52 pm to Commander Data
Nostalgia is a heck of a drug.
Posted on 7/25/19 at 10:20 pm to Cocotheape
quote:
FCS has a 16 team playoff, it is fun
FCS has a TWENTY FOUR
team playoff. It is insane. Selection Process
The NCAA Division I Football Championship provides for a field of 24 teams to compete in a single elimination tournament. Of the 24 teams, 10 conference champions will receive automatic qualifications with the remaining best 10 teams being selected on an at-large basis by the Division I Football Championship Committee. The top eight teams in the 24-team bracket for the championship are seeded and receive First Round byes.
LINK
Posted on 7/25/19 at 10:25 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
The end of the 1978 season saw these three bowl games directly impact the NC picture:
1979 Sugar Bowl
#1 Penn State vs. #2 Alabama
1979 Orange Bowl
#4 Oklabama vs. #6 Nebraska
1979 Rose Bowl
#3 USC vs. #5 Michigan
Five of the six teams playing in those three games had a legitimate shot of winning the national championship if the cards fell correctly.
I think that is a prime example of why it sucked really.
#1 vs #2 should be "the game" that matters. And was really. USC splitting the title was bullshite and against really just highlights the stupidity of the systems. If Penn St wins the sugar bowl it doesn't happen.
That whole situation just sucked. College football was held hostage by the Rose Bowl, Big10 and Pac.
This post was edited on 7/25/19 at 10:27 pm
Posted on 7/25/19 at 10:36 pm to ATLabama
quote:
. I also think that we'll go to an 8 team playoff, and do away with conference title games.
You have the worst takes on the secrant.
Posted on 7/25/19 at 10:38 pm to scrooster
How was the BCS communistic? Wouldn’t it make more sense for conference champions to play each other?
I get that we are all fans of SEC teams on this board, but how is it fun or right or non-communistic for two SEC teams to play in a championship game - regardless of whether it is BCS or playoff? The SEC should determine its own champion, which should then play another conference’s champion.
Two teams from the same conference Is akin to the Yankees and Red Sox opposing each other in the World Series.
I get that we are all fans of SEC teams on this board, but how is it fun or right or non-communistic for two SEC teams to play in a championship game - regardless of whether it is BCS or playoff? The SEC should determine its own champion, which should then play another conference’s champion.
Two teams from the same conference Is akin to the Yankees and Red Sox opposing each other in the World Series.
Posted on 7/25/19 at 10:52 pm to SpringBokCock
quote:
Two teams from the same conference Is akin to the Yankees and Red Sox opposing each other in the World Series.
If the Yankees and the Red Sox are the two best teams in MLB, they should oppose each other in the World Series. There wasn't any fricking doubt that LSU and Bama were the two best teams in CFB in 2011.
Posted on 7/25/19 at 10:57 pm to 3down10
quote:
I think that is a prime example of why it sucked really.
#1 vs #2 should be "the game" that matters. And was really. USC splitting the title was bull shite and against really just highlights the stupidity of the systems. If Penn St wins the sugar bowl it doesn't happen.
That whole situation just sucked. College football was held hostage by the Rose Bowl, Big10 and Pac.
Look at 83 as why it sucked and the TS is wearing nostalgia glasses:
#1 Nebraska = must play in the Orange as Big 8 champ
#2 Texas = must play in the Cotton as SWC champ
#3 Auburn = must play in the Sugar as SEC champ
#4 Illinois = must play in Rose as Big 10 champ
#5 Miami = gets home game against #1
Texas loses, Auburn wins, Illinois loses, Miami beats Nebraska and jumps to #1. Auburn doesn't even finish #2.
Posted on 7/25/19 at 11:52 pm to Commander Data
Posted on 7/26/19 at 1:38 am to Commander Data
Personally I'm all about deciding the championship on the field, so obviously the CFP system we have today is a huge improvement, & much fairer than what existed before. But one notable thing about the poll era prior to the BCS format was that the national championship was always purely notional, unofficial - "mythical" was the word often appended to it. Thus, any team that finished a season with the best record in the country (against a reasonably big-time schedule) could plausibly claim a national title, & many years multiple teams did. If I remember correctly, there was never any official, recognized-by-the-NCAA football champion until the BCS was initiated.
Posted on 7/26/19 at 5:32 am to 3down10
quote:
USC splitting the title was bullshite and against really just highlights the stupidity of the systems
USC beat Alabama at Legion field that year.
Posted on 7/26/19 at 5:46 am to makersmark1
And then turned around and lost to an unranked Arizona State team by two TDs.
People also forget that coming into that USC game, Alabama had played #10 Nebraska and #11 Missouri back-to-back. USC had played unranked Texas Tech and unranked Oregon. One team was more well off than the other.
Alabama would go on to play another OOC game against Washington later in the year, as well as another Top 10 opponent in LSU, before finishing off the season with #1 Penn State in the Sugar Bowl.
People also forget that coming into that USC game, Alabama had played #10 Nebraska and #11 Missouri back-to-back. USC had played unranked Texas Tech and unranked Oregon. One team was more well off than the other.
Alabama would go on to play another OOC game against Washington later in the year, as well as another Top 10 opponent in LSU, before finishing off the season with #1 Penn State in the Sugar Bowl.
Page 3 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News