Sugar Bowl

[zippy5]

OSU would pound Boise State

This is the funniest thing I've heard on this board in awhile. I doubt OSU could even pound Cincinnati. Infact, Cincinnati is probably the best team in Ohio. You think that Cinci looked bad against Virginia Tech, wait until you see what Texas does.

You obviously know nothing about college football. ROFLMAO

Have you seen the last 2 championships? Or the game against USC earlier?

[skip-zip]

GP1 and Bobbyake....you are both right on the money.I like how Buckzip feels so compelled to predict the supremacy that the almighty Suckeyes would display if given a chance to go against the likes of Boise State or Cincinnati.......when they couldn't even make a game against the mighty OU Bobcats look convincing. Note to Buckzip: OSWho started the season as the #1 team in the country, and underachieved miserably. Knowing that your team was given such a great advantage to start the season, and seeing how things turned out, would likely make me want to hide under a rock at this point of the season rather than making bold predictions.I guess we should just never allow Boise or Utah to ever pass the Suckeyes in the rankings.....since....well...they just simply HAVE to be better than those teams. Even in a ranking system that gives a CLEAR advantage to the "name" teams by way of their always-high preseason AP rankings, Boise and Utah still finished ahead of the almighty Red and Silver by season's end. That's a pretty convincing fact.

[Zipsrifle]

If anyone takes an expanded view of college football, they will see what a disaster the playoff system has been for the lower divisions of college football. A playoff has created a situation where there are really only a very small number of good teams that could actually win the championship. For the fourth straight year, Mt. Union and Wis. WW have made it to the finals of DIII. Someone please tell me how that is good for DIII and why the same thing would not happen in D-1. Nearly the same thing can be said for the other divisioins. SW Missour, Montana, App. State, Grand Valley State, etc. are the same teams that make it every year. The only reason the other divisions have a playoff is it is the only thing to get excited about for lower division college football. I would argue that it isn't even that exciting. It certainly is not exciting enough to fill the small stadiums they play the championship games in. I can't stand to watch more than 15 minutes of those games.If crowning a tournament champion is what everyone wants (remember, the NCAA BB tournament only crowns the winner of the tournament that they call National Champion. The best team throughout the year does not always win.), then regular season college football will become irrelevant as the regular season bb schedule. In college football, every game counts. The same can not be said for college basketball.I also think a lot of people who want a playoff have never gone to a really good bowl at a really good place. Last week I went to the Car Care Bowl (an average bowl and in the winter time an average place) and there were 73,000 fans at the game. The night before, the streets of Charlotte were packed with WVU and UNC fans having a great time and spending a lot of money. Win or lose, those players and fans had a great time during what is probably only one or two of the vacations they take all year. In addition, thousands of dollars were raised for local charities including various childrens hospitals and university scholarship funds. Wouldn't it be nice that if at the end of the college football career a player could to say, "I played in a couple of bowls that helped to raise tens of thousands of dollars for medical cures." With a playoff, the player would say, "We lost in the second round of the playoffs." Which of these scenarios creates a better person and fulfills the mission of the NCAA?This year, around 30 schools will go home happy because they made a bowl and won the bowl. Another half will at least be happy they made a bowl and while upset they lost the game, they may have had a really good vacation and rooted on their team. With a playoff, only one school is happy. I don't see how that is good for college football or the member universities.In addition, how much are you guys willing to pay the players who make the playoffs? The NFL pays players additionally for making the playoffs, why wouldn't the NCAA? If the purpose of the playoff is to create excitement that will sell shirts and tickets and make money, why wouldn't the players be allowed to share in the profits. I say pay the players $20,000 per scholarship player per game. A playoff exposes future NFL players to potential career injuries. How much are you guys willing to insure the players for in case they get hurt during the marathon playoff season?For those of you who want a playoff, how would you level the recruiting playing field? There would be a huge recruiting advantage that would upset the talent balance throughout the NCAA. See the other divisions to see how unbalanced they are with the same teams making the playoffs every year. I hope I have made my point about a playoff. It is really not necessary and the playoff will intrude into the greatest playoffs of all, the NFL. The real solution is what Todd Blackledge wants. All college bowl games will be over by January 1 with all BCS games being played on December 31 or January 1. At the end of those two days, two teams are picked to play a week later. That's all we need. Something as rediculous as a 24 team playoff is just stupid. There are only about 4-5 teams right now that could be considered the best. Who in the heck is ranked 24 right now that could beat Texas, OK, USC or even Florida?Lastly, if there was more money in a playoff, don't you think those greedy athletic directors around the country would have one already? Hint, there is more money in bowls than a playoff.

Good post, now you've got me thinking...... One thing that has occurred to me over this bowl season is how pathetic a following Akron would have if we did suddenly get very good. We might be able to bring 18,000 to Detroit, but outside of Toronto, I think our showing anywhere else would be embarrasing. I can't remember which bowl I was watching, maybe orange, but one of the teams didn't have a good history (Cincy?) and their fan support was horrible. As we all know, money talks and BS walks. Good post.

[Z-P]

GP.................That was a really well developed and interesting observation of the Bowl/Playoff issue...........thanks for taking the time to post it here.

[Buckzip]

I gotta love how all the blind homers got their panties in a wad and started attacking me about OSU when I never said a word about OSU. You guys are priceless in your hatred and inability to be objective. ROFLMAO :rofl:Comparing VT to UT is priceless.I am laughing too hard at GP1 and Skip Zips posts to even comment on them anymore. Going to a Zips game and having a dog and a beer and a great time-$20Going to a Cavs game and having a dog and a beer and a great time-$80Coming to Zipsnation.com and reading posts from idiots that attack someone for no reason other than he happens to have degrees from 2 different schools-Priceless

[bobbyake]

I think that Utah would beat both Florida and Oklahoma. It is sad that this is the system we have. The system we have has not worked for years. Either go to a playoff system or do away with the National Championship game and title.

[Buckzip]

I think that Utah would beat both Florida and Oklahoma. It is sad that this is the system we have. The system we have has not worked for years. Either go to a playoff system or do away with the National Championship game and title.

I disagree. I think that if Florida or Oklahoma played them in the Sugar Bowl under the same circumstances, you may be right. However, if they played for the NC, either one of them would beat Utah pretty badly.There are many times that teams aren't up for games or are upset about not being in the NC game. Yes, that is the teams own fault, but it still happens.Alabama didn't want to be in the Sugar bowl They assumed all they had to do was show up and they would beat Utah. Obviously they were wrong. Look at USC losing to Stanford last year and to Oregon this year. Do you really think that USC isn't better than those teams? Florida lost to Miss. Do you think Miss is better than Florida?Upsets do happen, I agree. But I think either Florida, Oklahoma or Alabama would take Utah out if they played for the NC.Unfortunately because of this stupid system, we will never know.I would love to see a playoff including these teams.Oklahoma, Alabama, USC, Florida, Utah, Texas

[johnnyzip84]

If anyone takes an expanded view of college football, they will see what a disaster the playoff system has been for the lower divisions of college football. A playoff has created a situation where there are really only a very small number of good teams that could actually win the championship. For the fourth straight year, Mt. Union and Wis. WW have made it to the finals of DIII. Someone please tell me how that is good for DIII and why the same thing would not happen in D-1. Nearly the same thing can be said for the other divisioins. SW Missour, Montana, App. State, Grand Valley State, etc. are the same teams that make it every year. The only reason the other divisions have a playoff is it is the only thing to get excited about for lower division college football. I would argue that it isn't even that exciting. It certainly is not exciting enough to fill the small stadiums they play the championship games in. I can't stand to watch more than 15 minutes of those games.If crowning a tournament champion is what everyone wants (remember, the NCAA BB tournament only crowns the winner of the tournament that they call National Champion. The best team throughout the year does not always win.), then regular season college football will become irrelevant as the regular season bb schedule. In college football, every game counts. The same can not be said for college basketball.I also think a lot of people who want a playoff have never gone to a really good bowl at a really good place. Last week I went to the Car Care Bowl (an average bowl and in the winter time an average place) and there were 73,000 fans at the game. The night before, the streets of Charlotte were packed with WVU and UNC fans having a great time and spending a lot of money. Win or lose, those players and fans had a great time during what is probably only one or two of the vacations they take all year. In addition, thousands of dollars were raised for local charities including various childrens hospitals and university scholarship funds. Wouldn't it be nice that if at the end of the college football career a player could to say, "I played in a couple of bowls that helped to raise tens of thousands of dollars for medical cures." With a playoff, the player would say, "We lost in the second round of the playoffs." Which of these scenarios creates a better person and fulfills the mission of the NCAA?This year, around 30 schools will go home happy because they made a bowl and won the bowl. Another half will at least be happy they made a bowl and while upset they lost the game, they may have had a really good vacation and rooted on their team. With a playoff, only one school is happy. I don't see how that is good for college football or the member universities.In addition, how much are you guys willing to pay the players who make the playoffs? The NFL pays players additionally for making the playoffs, why wouldn't the NCAA? If the purpose of the playoff is to create excitement that will sell shirts and tickets and make money, why wouldn't the players be allowed to share in the profits. I say pay the players $20,000 per scholarship player per game. A playoff exposes future NFL players to potential career injuries. How much are you guys willing to insure the players for in case they get hurt during the marathon playoff season?For those of you who want a playoff, how would you level the recruiting playing field? There would be a huge recruiting advantage that would upset the talent balance throughout the NCAA. See the other divisions to see how unbalanced they are with the same teams making the playoffs every year. I hope I have made my point about a playoff. It is really not necessary and the playoff will intrude into the greatest playoffs of all, the NFL. The real solution is what Todd Blackledge wants. All college bowl games will be over by January 1 with all BCS games being played on December 31 or January 1. At the end of those two days, two teams are picked to play a week later. That's all we need. Something as rediculous as a 24 team playoff is just stupid. There are only about 4-5 teams right now that could be considered the best. Who in the heck is ranked 24 right now that could beat Texas, OK, USC or even Florida?Lastly, if there was more money in a playoff, don't you think those greedy athletic directors around the country would have one already? Hint, there is more money in bowls than a playoff.

Like others have noted, this is a very intriguing post GP. I have a couple of counterpoints which I will provide as part of my "ideal" scenario. I have long favored a 16-team playoff, with ALL 11 FBS conference champions given automatic entry and 5 "at large" bids. I also agree with many sportswriters who believe that many of the more desirable bowls themselves could be used in the tournament. Perhaps, the quarterfinals, semifinals, and finals could rotate between 7 bowls? I would also allow for the continuation of additional bowls that are not part of the tournament.Now to address a few of your assertions. First I believe the FCS, D-2 and D-3 comparisons do not hold water. While I agree that these divisions are SOMEWHAT hampered by a lack of competition at the top, I think the FBS landscape is different. The most significant difference is that people CARE about FBS football from coast to coast and in between. Outside of Alliance and portions of Wisconsin and the Pacific Northwest, D-3 football is an afterthought for the most part. The GLIAC has dominated D-2 football in recent history, but remains only of regional interest. The FCS of course gets the most national exposure, and perhaps this is why it's been a little more competitive at the top (Richmond had never won a title before this year). Since a conference championship (NOT a conference TOURNAMENT championship) would result in an automatic NCAA bid, the regular season conference games would absolutely maintain their significance. Even the non-conference games would have some meaning in terms of selecting the 5 at large teams. In fact, you might see better non-conference match-ups now that the "biggies" wouldn't feel as compelled to schedule FCS cupcakes since a a non-conference loss would not prevent a team from still getting a shot at the national title.I agree that having two teams and their fans descend upon the same city during the days surrounding a bowl game is extrememely exciting. But, I don't see why this same environment couldn't occur if that bowl game just happened to also be the 1st round or quarterfinal of a tournament.A 16-team playoff (three extra weeks, since the BCS national championship already adds one) would not necessarily have to run beyond the current season. Multiple bye weeks from every teams schedule could be eliminated and the early round bowls moved up a bit in the calendar.I think the "player compensation" aspect is really a separate argument. Either we pay them all or we don't pay any of them. Teams (schools) already benefit greatly from the deeds of the student athlete, and I don't think a tournament really changes this situation much.Those are my 2 cents.

[Zips Win!]

If anyone takes an expanded view of college football, they will see what a disaster the playoff system has been for the lower divisions of college football. A playoff has created a situation where there are really only a very small number of good teams that could actually win the championship. For the fourth straight year, Mt. Union and Wis. WW have made it to the finals of DIII. Someone please tell me how that is good for DIII and why the same thing would not happen in D-1. Nearly the same thing can be said for the other divisioins. SW Missour, Montana, App. State, Grand Valley State, etc. are the same teams that make it every year. The only reason the other divisions have a playoff is it is the only thing to get excited about for lower division college football. I would argue that it isn't even that exciting. It certainly is not exciting enough to fill the small stadiums they play the championship games in. I can't stand to watch more than 15 minutes of those games.If crowning a tournament champion is what everyone wants (remember, the NCAA BB tournament only crowns the winner of the tournament that they call National Champion. The best team throughout the year does not always win.), then regular season college football will become irrelevant as the regular season bb schedule. In college football, every game counts. The same can not be said for college basketball.I also think a lot of people who want a playoff have never gone to a really good bowl at a really good place. Last week I went to the Car Care Bowl (an average bowl and in the winter time an average place) and there were 73,000 fans at the game. The night before, the streets of Charlotte were packed with WVU and UNC fans having a great time and spending a lot of money. Win or lose, those players and fans had a great time during what is probably only one or two of the vacations they take all year. In addition, thousands of dollars were raised for local charities including various childrens hospitals and university scholarship funds. Wouldn't it be nice that if at the end of the college football career a player could to say, "I played in a couple of bowls that helped to raise tens of thousands of dollars for medical cures." With a playoff, the player would say, "We lost in the second round of the playoffs." Which of these scenarios creates a better person and fulfills the mission of the NCAA?This year, around 30 schools will go home happy because they made a bowl and won the bowl. Another half will at least be happy they made a bowl and while upset they lost the game, they may have had a really good vacation and rooted on their team. With a playoff, only one school is happy. I don't see how that is good for college football or the member universities.In addition, how much are you guys willing to pay the players who make the playoffs? The NFL pays players additionally for making the playoffs, why wouldn't the NCAA? If the purpose of the playoff is to create excitement that will sell shirts and tickets and make money, why wouldn't the players be allowed to share in the profits. I say pay the players $20,000 per scholarship player per game. A playoff exposes future NFL players to potential career injuries. How much are you guys willing to insure the players for in case they get hurt during the marathon playoff season?For those of you who want a playoff, how would you level the recruiting playing field? There would be a huge recruiting advantage that would upset the talent balance throughout the NCAA. See the other divisions to see how unbalanced they are with the same teams making the playoffs every year. I hope I have made my point about a playoff. It is really not necessary and the playoff will intrude into the greatest playoffs of all, the NFL. The real solution is what Todd Blackledge wants. All college bowl games will be over by January 1 with all BCS games being played on December 31 or January 1. At the end of those two days, two teams are picked to play a week later. That's all we need. Something as rediculous as a 24 team playoff is just stupid. There are only about 4-5 teams right now that could be considered the best. Who in the heck is ranked 24 right now that could beat Texas, OK, USC or even Florida?Lastly, if there was more money in a playoff, don't you think those greedy athletic directors around the country would have one already? Hint, there is more money in bowls than a playoff.

While I would agree that a playoff wouldn't do much positive for the the Non-BCS schools, Div 1 college football should have a playoff. Yes, the NFL does have the greatest playoffs, so why wouldn't college football copy it. While you mention that college football doesn't need a playoff, you seem to agree with Todd Blackledge's plus one version..which is a playoff.I have always been of the opinion that there should be NCAA football committee (like basketball) and pick the best 6 teams..create an NFL like set-up, teams 1 and 2 get first round byes, teams 3 and 4 host round 1 games, teams 1 and 2 host round 2 games with the championship played on a neutral site. Call it the Super Six....This type of set-up would not hurt the regular season at all. In fact, it would encouage teams to schedule better teams in the regular season because strength of schedule would mean something and I think we would see a bunch of better non-conference match-ups. (Teams with strength of schedules around the 38th, 55th or 45th ranking could almost be eliminated). While I agree that the importance of the regular season is diminished in the other divisions of football and college hoops, this is mostly because so many teams make those playoffs. Again, a 2, 4 or 6 team playoff wouldn't hurt college football and you can still have the other bowl games...although at a much smaller payout.

[GJGood]

If anyone takes an expanded view of college football, they will see what a disaster the playoff system has been for the lower divisions of college football. A playoff has created a situation where there are really only a very small number of good teams that could actually win the championship. For the fourth straight year, Mt. Union and Wis. WW have made it to the finals of DIII. Someone please tell me how that is good for DIII and why the same thing would not happen in D-1. Nearly the same thing can be said for the other divisioins. SW Missour, Montana, App. State, Grand Valley State, etc. are the same teams that make it every year. The only reason the other divisions have a playoff is it is the only thing to get excited about for lower division college football. I would argue that it isn't even that exciting. It certainly is not exciting enough to fill the small stadiums they play the championship games in. I can't stand to watch more than 15 minutes of those games.If crowning a tournament champion is what everyone wants (remember, the NCAA BB tournament only crowns the winner of the tournament that they call National Champion. The best team throughout the year does not always win.), then regular season college football will become irrelevant as the regular season bb schedule. In college football, every game counts. The same can not be said for college basketball.I also think a lot of people who want a playoff have never gone to a really good bowl at a really good place. Last week I went to the Car Care Bowl (an average bowl and in the winter time an average place) and there were 73,000 fans at the game. The night before, the streets of Charlotte were packed with WVU and UNC fans having a great time and spending a lot of money. Win or lose, those players and fans had a great time during what is probably only one or two of the vacations they take all year. In addition, thousands of dollars were raised for local charities including various childrens hospitals and university scholarship funds. Wouldn't it be nice that if at the end of the college football career a player could to say, "I played in a couple of bowls that helped to raise tens of thousands of dollars for medical cures." With a playoff, the player would say, "We lost in the second round of the playoffs." Which of these scenarios creates a better person and fulfills the mission of the NCAA?This year, around 30 schools will go home happy because they made a bowl and won the bowl. Another half will at least be happy they made a bowl and while upset they lost the game, they may have had a really good vacation and rooted on their team. With a playoff, only one school is happy. I don't see how that is good for college football or the member universities.In addition, how much are you guys willing to pay the players who make the playoffs? The NFL pays players additionally for making the playoffs, why wouldn't the NCAA? If the purpose of the playoff is to create excitement that will sell shirts and tickets and make money, why wouldn't the players be allowed to share in the profits. I say pay the players $20,000 per scholarship player per game. A playoff exposes future NFL players to potential career injuries. How much are you guys willing to insure the players for in case they get hurt during the marathon playoff season?For those of you who want a playoff, how would you level the recruiting playing field? There would be a huge recruiting advantage that would upset the talent balance throughout the NCAA. See the other divisions to see how unbalanced they are with the same teams making the playoffs every year. I hope I have made my point about a playoff. It is really not necessary and the playoff will intrude into the greatest playoffs of all, the NFL. The real solution is what Todd Blackledge wants. All college bowl games will be over by January 1 with all BCS games being played on December 31 or January 1. At the end of those two days, two teams are picked to play a week later. That's all we need. Something as rediculous as a 24 team playoff is just stupid. There are only about 4-5 teams right now that could be considered the best. Who in the heck is ranked 24 right now that could beat Texas, OK, USC or even Florida?Lastly, if there was more money in a playoff, don't you think those greedy athletic directors around the country would have one already? Hint, there is more money in bowls than a playoff.

Like others have noted, this is a very intriguing post GP. I have a couple of counterpoints which I will provide as part of my "ideal" scenario. I have long favored a 16-team playoff, with ALL 11 FBS conference champions given automatic entry and 5 "at large" bids. I also agree with many sportswriters who believe that many of the more desirable bowls themselves could be used in the tournament. Perhaps, the quarterfinals, semifinals, and finals could rotate between 7 bowls? I would also allow for the continuation of additional bowls that are not part of the tournament.Now to address a few of your assertions. First I believe the FCS, D-2 and D-3 comparisons do not hold water. While I agree that these divisions are SOMEWHAT hampered by a lack of competition at the top, I think the FBS landscape is different. The most significant difference is that people CARE about FBS football from coast to coast and in between. Outside of Alliance and portions of Wisconsin and the Pacific Northwest, D-3 football is an afterthought for the most part. The GLIAC has dominated D-2 football in recent history, but remains only of regional interest. The FCS of course gets the most national exposure, and perhaps this is why it's been a little more competitive at the top (Richmond had never won a title before this year). Since a conference championship (NOT a conference TOURNAMENT championship) would result in an automatic NCAA bid, the regular season conference games would absolutely maintain their significance. Even the non-conference games would have some meaning in terms of selecting the 5 at large teams. In fact, you might see better non-conference match-ups now that the "biggies" wouldn't feel as compelled to schedule FCS cupcakes since a a non-conference loss would not prevent a team from still getting a shot at the national title.I agree that having two teams and their fans descend upon the same city during the days surrounding a bowl game is extrememely exciting. But, I don't see why this same environment couldn't occur if that bowl game just happened to also be the 1st round or quarterfinal of a tournament.A 16-team playoff (three extra weeks, since the BCS national championship already adds one) would not necessarily have to run beyond the current season. Multiple bye weeks from every teams schedule could be eliminated and the early round bowls moved up a bit in the calendar.I think the "player compensation" aspect is really a separate argument. Either we pay them all or we don't pay any of them. Teams (schools) already benefit greatly from the deeds of the student athlete, and I don't think a tournament really changes this situation much.Those are my 2 cents.

Sorry, I missed your post before. We pretty much agree, but I have 14 teams with the top 2 getting first round byes and those schools hosting the national semifinals. That way even teams that clinch their conference early and do not have a conference championship game still have something relevant to keep playing for. Plus, all the drama that we see now with teams trying to make the top 2 would be preserved. Plus I'd rather see 3 wild cards than 5 and no more than two teams from one conference that way there could still be some bowl games in existence featuring some very good teams that didn't make the playoff. I'd like to limit the damage to the bowl system as little as possible, at least to the mid-tier and low-tier bowl games. I know it would have to change some but I'd still like to see 7-5 or 8-4 teams rewarded like they are now.

[ctmjbowes@sbcglobal.net]

I gotta love how all the blind homers got their panties in a wad and started attacking me about OSU when I never said a word about OSU. You guys are priceless in your hatred and inability to be objective. ROFLMAO :rofl:Comparing VT to UT is priceless.I am laughing too hard at GP1 and Skip Zips posts to even comment on them anymore. Going to a Zips game and having a dog and a beer and a great time-$20Going to a Cavs game and having a dog and a beer and a great time-$80Coming to Zipsnation.com and reading posts from idiots that attack someone for no reason other than he happens to have degrees from 2 different schools-Priceless

Man, I'm normally with you BZ but dude please deploy a thicker skin when visiting ZIPNATION.org. Believe it or not, it is possible to absolutely HATE the Suckeyes and still like you and value your opinions. Getting tweaked about the OSWHO hatred here is futile. SeeTeeZipper