Started By
Message
re: Bowl Games Mean Nothing Now
Posted on 1/2/20 at 7:24 am to AlaCowboy
Posted on 1/2/20 at 7:24 am to AlaCowboy
I disagree.
Prior to BCS and CFP most of the bowls were inconsequential to the national championship. They were played for pride and show.
The only thing bad about the current setup is the tie-ins which don’t produce the best matchups. No one likes the B12-SEC tie-in. It’s stupid. No one like the G5 tie-in. It’s stupid.
Prior to BCS and CFP most of the bowls were inconsequential to the national championship. They were played for pride and show.
The only thing bad about the current setup is the tie-ins which don’t produce the best matchups. No one likes the B12-SEC tie-in. It’s stupid. No one like the G5 tie-in. It’s stupid.
Posted on 1/2/20 at 7:31 am to JohnnyU
I agree to an extent but the BCS by virtue of basically being a computer picking the top 2 teams manufactured a lot of controversy and I think it was actually good for the sport for a while. If you weren’t top 2, chances are you felt jilted and were likely to play another team that felt jilted and so you had these BCS bowls with teams like USC in 2003 or Boise State in 2007 who had something to prove.
Under the CFP the debate between 4 and 5 hasn’t always been that compelling and you’re starting to see 5-10 begin to just accept that they were good but not great before the bowls even begin which is leading to disinterest from players of the more highly ranked schools (the lower ranked teams like UVA or Texas are still going to show up and play because it’s the best opportunity they’ve got)
Under the CFP the debate between 4 and 5 hasn’t always been that compelling and you’re starting to see 5-10 begin to just accept that they were good but not great before the bowls even begin which is leading to disinterest from players of the more highly ranked schools (the lower ranked teams like UVA or Texas are still going to show up and play because it’s the best opportunity they’ve got)
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News