SEC & Big 12 create a "Southern Rose Bowl"

[WinterBorn]

Certainly any college football fan would have to admit that Notre Dame was "relevant" well into the 90's.

Since then, though, I have to admit, they haven't really appeared to be title contenders at any point during the season.

Does that make them "irrelevant"? Well, certainly they're ranked in the top 25 often enough, either during the season or at season's end. They certainly go to bowl games and recruit top prospects. They haven't failed to sell out a game in quite some time and they seem to be on television often enough around here.

It would be great, I myself espoused this basic idea on this very board, of having a Rose Bowl approach to setting up a 3 or 4 team playoff - but it's problematic.

Taking the inaugural Pac-12 Championship game, for example, we can see that a team that probably wasn't the best in the Pac-12 ended up playing a team that really wasn't very good at all for the Pac-12 Championship. If UCLA had won and had gone to the Rose Bowl, which would essentially be the first round of a college playoff game, it would have seemed an miscarriage of college football justice.

For whatever reason we have convinced ourselves that the college football #1 should go to the team that deserves it the most. We have no such misconception about pro football and we all accept that the New York Giants are the world champions despite the fact that they did nothing all season to earn that distinction.

This is the basic problem with a college football playoff system.

The Rose Bowl and the Big 12/SEC bowl winners will not meet to play for a national title as long as the ACC has Miami, Clemson, Tech and FSU and as long as Notre Dame is independent.

I wouldn't bet on that. The last time a team competed in the BCS Championship that was not from either the SEC, Big 10 or Big 12 was when Miami lost the game in 2002.

Are you forgetting these guys?

My mistake, I should have included the PAC 12 in the list with the SEC, Big 10 and Big 12. I thought I had.

Oregon was in the BCS championship game even more recently than USC.

 

[WinterBorn]

I wouldn't bet on that. The last time a team competed in the BCS Championship that was not from either the SEC, Big 10 or Big 12 was when Miami lost the game in 2002.

Are you forgetting these guys?

Plus it was so convenient to bring up the '01 Canes and neglecting to mention that they had one of college football's greatest all-time teams the year before.

I didn't neglect anything. The statement I made was concerning the last time a team that was not in the four conferences mentioned was in the BCS Championship. The last time was 2002.

You said: "The Rose Bowl and the Big 12/SEC bowl winners will not meet to play for a national title as long as the ACC has Miami, Clemson, Tech and FSU and as long as Notre Dame is independent.".

I simply pointed out that for the last 9 years the BCS Championship game has been exclusively the Rose Bowl (Big 10 and PAC 12), Big 12 or SEC.

 

[Leweman]

And which schools have playoffs at their stadiums? It can't be those in the playoffs.

What? Yeah it'd be all of the schools in the playoffs. The highest ranked or seeded hosting the lower seed. I don't care what school would have to be held at it would work just fine.

No, it wouldn't work just fine. Look at the BCS final poll and then look at those teams stadiums. For example, Boise State's stadium hold a grand total of 37,000 people. You want to limit a playoff game to a total of 37,000 people? Half the schools in the final top 10 don't have stadiums that can hold more than 60,000 people. And there is the question of whether the cities can handle the influx of people. I am sure they would love the dollars, but can they provide enough lodging and restaurant space.

I'm all for campus stadiums being used as the venues. But they have to be able to seat 75,000 people.

Then that should also be a requirement to play in the DIV I football. I disagree with that though. 37000 people is fine ... It's TV where most people will be watching. Boise shouldn't be punished and someone else rewarded because the stadium is considered big enough. Thats stupid.

 

[WinterBorn]

What? Yeah it'd be all of the schools in the playoffs. The highest ranked or seeded hosting the lower seed. I don't care what school would have to be held at it would work just fine.

No, it wouldn't work just fine. Look at the BCS final poll and then look at those teams stadiums. For example, Boise State's stadium hold a grand total of 37,000 people. You want to limit a playoff game to a total of 37,000 people? Half the schools in the final top 10 don't have stadiums that can hold more than 60,000 people. And there is the question of whether the cities can handle the influx of people. I am sure they would love the dollars, but can they provide enough lodging and restaurant space.

I'm all for campus stadiums being used as the venues. But they have to be able to seat 75,000 people.

Then that should also be a requirement to play in the DIV I football. I disagree with that though. 37000 people is fine ... It's TV where most people will be watching. Boise shouldn't be punished and someone else rewarded because the stadium is considered big enough. Thats stupid.

37,000 people is fine? So you want to punish the visiting team by not alllowing them to bring the fans they usually bring to a game?

And if the majority will watch on tv, why not just play in the bowl games?

 

[Leweman]

No, it wouldn't work just fine. Look at the BCS final poll and then look at those teams stadiums. For example, Boise State's stadium hold a grand total of 37,000 people. You want to limit a playoff game to a total of 37,000 people? Half the schools in the final top 10 don't have stadiums that can hold more than 60,000 people. And there is the question of whether the cities can handle the influx of people. I am sure they would love the dollars, but can they provide enough lodging and restaurant space.

I'm all for campus stadiums being used as the venues. But they have to be able to seat 75,000 people.

Then that should also be a requirement to play in the DIV I football. I disagree with that though. 37000 people is fine ... It's TV where most people will be watching. Boise shouldn't be punished and someone else rewarded because the stadium is considered big enough. Thats stupid.

37,000 people is fine? So you want to punish the visiting team by not alllowing them to bring the fans they usually bring to a game?

And if the majority will watch on tv, why not just play in the bowl games?

Yeah the visiting team gets punished for not having played better in the regular season. You REWARD the team that performed better. Your second statement doesn't even make sense.

 

[WinterBorn]

Then that should also be a requirement to play in the DIV I football. I disagree with that though. 37000 people is fine ... It's TV where most people will be watching. Boise shouldn't be punished and someone else rewarded because the stadium is considered big enough. Thats stupid.

37,000 people is fine? So you want to punish the visiting team by not alllowing them to bring the fans they usually bring to a game?

And if the majority will watch on tv, why not just play in the bowl games?

Yeah the visiting team gets punished for not having played better in the regular season. You REWARD the team that performed better. Your second statement doesn't even make sense.

The second sentence continued what you said. You claimed most of the audience is watching it on tv, so I asked why not just play in the bowls.

Having a major national playoff game in such a small stadium is nuts.

 

[Leweman]

37,000 people is fine? So you want to punish the visiting team by not alllowing them to bring the fans they usually bring to a game?

And if the majority will watch on tv, why not just play in the bowl games?

Yeah the visiting team gets punished for not having played better in the regular season. You REWARD the team that performed better. Your second statement doesn't even make sense.

The second sentence continued what you said. You claimed most of the audience is watching it on tv, so I asked why not just play in the bowls.

Having a major national playoff game in such a small stadium is nuts.

Easier on the team not to have to travel and being able to practice closer to home allows them to perform better. Once again rewarding the teams that did the best in the regular season. It keeps the regular season relevant (as if the BCS actually cares, proving they don't last year)

 

[WinterBorn]

Yeah the visiting team gets punished for not having played better in the regular season. You REWARD the team that performed better. Your second statement doesn't even make sense.

The second sentence continued what you said. You claimed most of the audience is watching it on tv, so I asked why not just play in the bowls.

Having a major national playoff game in such a small stadium is nuts.

Easier on the team not to have to travel and being able to practice closer to home allows them to perform better. Once again rewarding the teams that did the best in the regular season. It keeps the regular season relevant (as if the BCS actually cares, proving they don't last year)

Last year was proof they do care. They put the two best teams in the championship game.

Actually, its not about caring or not caring. The BCS was setup to put the #1 and #2 ranked teams in a championship game. That is what happened.

 

[samjones]

I didn't neglect anything. The statement I made was concerning the last time a team that was not in the four conferences mentioned was in the BCS Championship. The last time was 2002.

In the 14 year history of the BCS, the ACC has sent a team to the championship game 5 times.

Not bad.

The times they didn't, they have generally had a team in the hunt for a national title, including in 2011 when the SEC sent 2 teams to the title game.

OK - so good for the SEC, they've had alot of success in recent years, but an SEC national title was never a forgone conclusion at the beginning of any season and a little luck went into those titles as well as alot of great football.

If I were a 'Bama fan and I ever happened to bump into an Iowa State fan I would give him a big hug and buy him a beer, because they're the ones who got that championship for The Tide.

Whatever point you're trying to make by cherry-picking the 9 year number, bottom-line, no National Championship will be decided without giving Notre Dame and the ACC teams an honest shot at it. These ACC teams are good and they have alot of fan pride and support.

I'm not a fan of any ACC team, but I've been to games at a couple of them and their fans show up and they cheer. Granted, every team packs the house when my Huskers are in town, but still, I was well-impressed at the football crowd in Blacksburg.

 

[samjones]

Easier on the team not to have to travel and being able to practice closer to home allows them to perform better. Once again rewarding the teams that did the best in the regular season. It keeps the regular season relevant (as if the BCS actually cares, proving they don't last year)

College towns aren't prepared to handle football games in December/January. The kids are studing for finals and/or on holiday break.

The grounds-teams of the stadiums aren't prepared to staff games in December like the NFL is.

Plus, you can't sell beer on college campuses. In case you didn't realize it, that's what you call a deal-killer.

Winterborn is right. There are alot of reasons why your plan wouldn't work. The problem is that you never go to any college football games and you certainly never travelled to watch your team play. If you did you would understand why this is more complicated than you realize. It's always simple when you're sitting on your ass with a 6 pack watching the game on television.

 

[WinterBorn]

I didn't neglect anything. The statement I made was concerning the last time a team that was not in the four conferences mentioned was in the BCS Championship. The last time was 2002.

In the 14 year history of the BCS, the ACC has sent a team to the championship game 5 times.

Not bad.

The times they didn't, they have generally had a team in the hunt for a national title, including in 2011 when the SEC sent 2 teams to the title game.

OK - so good for the SEC, they've had alot of success in recent years, but an SEC national title was never a forgone conclusion at the beginning of any season and a little luck went into those titles as well as alot of great football.

If I were a 'Bama fan and I ever happened to bump into an Iowa State fan I would give him a big hug and buy him a beer, because they're the ones who got that championship for The Tide.

Whatever point you're trying to make by cherry-picking the 9 year number, bottom-line, no National Championship will be decided without giving Notre Dame and the ACC teams an honest shot at it. These ACC teams are good and they have alot of fan pride and support.

I'm not a fan of any ACC team, but I've been to games at a couple of them and their fans show up and they cheer. Granted, every team packs the house when my Huskers are in town, but still, I was well-impressed at the football crowd in Blacksburg.

I was very grateful for Iowa State's play. I cheered like hell.

But there are always smaller teams that take out top level teams. Any of those beating a team between Bama and the top gets my cheers.

The ACC has some teams that play great football. I agree. But the way you said it sounded like they were always in the mix for the championship.

 

[samjones]

The ACC has some teams that play great football. I agree. But the way you said it sounded like they were always in the mix for the championship.

Yes, they are - including last year when Clemson was a legitimate contender until late October and when VT was ranked 3rd going into the ACC championship game.

Every year, the ACC produces teams that are capable of winning a NC and play a schedule grueling enough to earn it should they win all their games.

The ACC is the only conference in college football that can say that, with the exception of the 4 that we're talking about. Any attempt to determine the champion of college football has to give the ACC a shot to be legitimate.

Now what are you going to do with that 5th wheel?

 

[WinterBorn]

The ACC has some teams that play great football. I agree. But the way you said it sounded like they were always in the mix for the championship.

Yes, they are - including last year when Clemson was a legitimate contender until late October and when VT was ranked 3rd going into the ACC championship game.

Every year, the ACC produces teams that are capable of winning a NC and play a schedule grueling enough to earn it should they win all their games.

The ACC is the only conference in college football that can say that, with the exception of the 4 that we're talking about. Any attempt to determine the champion of college football has to give the ACC a shot to be legitimate.

Now what are you going to do with that 5th wheel?

I would prefer an 8 team playoff. That would give the quality conferences their shot and allow for the wildcard teams that always show up at the end of the year.

I would love to have seen Boise St play Alabama in 2009 or 2011. It would have been a great game.

 

[Leweman]

Easier on the team not to have to travel and being able to practice closer to home allows them to perform better. Once again rewarding the teams that did the best in the regular season. It keeps the regular season relevant (as if the BCS actually cares, proving they don't last year)

College towns aren't prepared to handle football games in December/January. The kids are studing for finals and/or on holiday break.

The grounds-teams of the stadiums aren't prepared to staff games in December like the NFL is.

Plus, you can't sell beer on college campuses. In case you didn't realize it, that's what you call a deal-killer.

Winterborn is right. There are alot of reasons why your plan wouldn't work. The problem is that you never go to any college football games and you certainly never travelled to watch your team play. If you did you would understand why this is more complicated than you realize. It's always simple when you're sitting on your ass with a 6 pack watching the game on television.

Are you sure youve ever been to a college football game? They don't sell beer at the stadium but the not on campus shit is false so there's strike one. Don't know what kids being on campus or not on has to do with people showing up to a football game. The two are completely unrelated. A grounds team could be staffed if they knew they needed it to be. Strike 2. Traveling IS a hassle but how would it be easier traveling to "neutral" bowl locations. Especially multiple times for a playoff. Playing at home stadiums assures a good home crowd. Rewarding the higher seeded team. You've done nothing to hurt my argument. By the way I can drink way more than a 6 pack sitting on my ass watching the game. Strike 3. Youre Out!

 

[WinterBorn]

Easier on the team not to have to travel and being able to practice closer to home allows them to perform better. Once again rewarding the teams that did the best in the regular season. It keeps the regular season relevant (as if the BCS actually cares, proving they don't last year)

College towns aren't prepared to handle football games in December/January. The kids are studing for finals and/or on holiday break.

The grounds-teams of the stadiums aren't prepared to staff games in December like the NFL is.

Plus, you can't sell beer on college campuses. In case you didn't realize it, that's what you call a deal-killer.

Winterborn is right. There are alot of reasons why your plan wouldn't work. The problem is that you never go to any college football games and you certainly never travelled to watch your team play. If you did you would understand why this is more complicated than you realize. It's always simple when you're sitting on your ass with a 6 pack watching the game on television.

Are you sure youve ever been to a college football game? They don't sell beer at the stadium but the not on campus shit is false so there's strike one. Don't know what kids being on campus or not on has to do with people showing up to a football game. The two are completely unrelated. A grounds team could be staffed if they knew they needed it to be. Strike 2. Traveling IS a hassle but how would it be easier traveling to "neutral" bowl locations. Especially multiple times for a playoff. Playing at home stadiums assures a good home crowd. Rewarding the higher seeded team. You've done nothing to hurt my argument. By the way I can drink way more than a 6 pack sitting on my ass watching the game. Strike 3. Youre Out!

I have attended plenty of Alabama games. In fact, I was at Nick Saban's first A-Day game. 94,000 people attended a practice game.

 

[Leweman]

College towns aren't prepared to handle football games in December/January. The kids are studing for finals and/or on holiday break.

The grounds-teams of the stadiums aren't prepared to staff games in December like the NFL is.

Plus, you can't sell beer on college campuses. In case you didn't realize it, that's what you call a deal-killer.

Winterborn is right. There are alot of reasons why your plan wouldn't work. The problem is that you never go to any college football games and you certainly never travelled to watch your team play. If you did you would understand why this is more complicated than you realize. It's always simple when you're sitting on your ass with a 6 pack watching the game on television.

Are you sure youve ever been to a college football game? They don't sell beer at the stadium but the not on campus shit is false so there's strike one. Don't know what kids being on campus or not on has to do with people showing up to a football game. The two are completely unrelated. A grounds team could be staffed if they knew they needed it to be. Strike 2. Traveling IS a hassle but how would it be easier traveling to "neutral" bowl locations. Especially multiple times for a playoff. Playing at home stadiums assures a good home crowd. Rewarding the higher seeded team. You've done nothing to hurt my argument. By the way I can drink way more than a 6 pack sitting on my ass watching the game. Strike 3. Youre Out!

I have attended plenty of Alabama games. In fact, I was at Nick Saban's first A-Day game. 94,000 people attended a practice game.

Yep they got passion down there in Alabama absolutely. Bucks had 81 thousand this year for the spring game ... hold the record for a spring game set back in 2009 I think.

 

[ginscpy]

Are you sure youve ever been to a college football game? They don't sell beer at the stadium but the not on campus shit is false so there's strike one. Don't know what kids being on campus or not on has to do with people showing up to a football game. The two are completely unrelated. A grounds team could be staffed if they knew they needed it to be. Strike 2. Traveling IS a hassle but how would it be easier traveling to "neutral" bowl locations. Especially multiple times for a playoff. Playing at home stadiums assures a good home crowd. Rewarding the higher seeded team. You've done nothing to hurt my argument. By the way I can drink way more than a 6 pack sitting on my ass watching the game. Strike 3. Youre Out!

I have attended plenty of Alabama games. In fact, I was at Nick Saban's first A-Day game. 94,000 people attended a practice game.

Yep they got passion down there in Alabama absolutely. Bucks had 81 thousand this year for the spring game ... hold the record for a spring game set back in 2009 I think.

There about 26 states that have better football teams than Alabama.

Those would be NFL states. Some have 2 or more ie NY Calif Ohio Florida Texas Penn Missouri

 

[WinterBorn]

I have attended plenty of Alabama games. In fact, I was at Nick Saban's first A-Day game. 94,000 people attended a practice game.

Yep they got passion down there in Alabama absolutely. Bucks had 81 thousand this year for the spring game ... hold the record for a spring game set back in 2009 I think.

There about 27 states that have better football teams than Alabama.

Those would be NFL states. Some have 2 or more ie NY Calif Ohio Florida Texas Penn

I don't think Leweman was saying Alabama was the greatest football team. I think he was talking about the passion we Tiders have for our team. You'd be hard pressed to find that kind of loyalty and passion anywhere else. There may be some that equal it, but I don't know of any that exceed it.

If you want to watch NFL football, knock yourself out. I prefer the rich traditions and pure love of the game that is college football.


Also, do you know what Vince Lombardi's response was when, after winning the 1967 Super Bowl, he was asked what it felt like to be the greatest football team in the world?

 

[ginscpy]

Yep they got passion down there in Alabama absolutely. Bucks had 81 thousand this year for the spring game ... hold the record for a spring game set back in 2009 I think.

There about 27 states that have better football teams than Alabama.

Those would be NFL states. Some have 2 or more ie NY Calif Ohio Florida Texas Penn

I don't think Leweman was saying Alabama was the greatest football team. I think he was talking about the passion we Tiders have for our team. You'd be hard pressed to find that kind of loyalty and passion anywhere else. There may be some that equal it, but I don't know of any that exceed it.

If you want to watch NFL football, knock yourself out. I prefer the rich traditions and pure love of the game that is college football.


Also, do you know what Vince Lombardi's response was when, after winning the 1967 Super Bowl, he was asked what it felt like to be the greatest football team in the world?

Don't recall what Vince said.

 

[WinterBorn]

There about 27 states that have better football teams than Alabama.

Those would be NFL states. Some have 2 or more ie NY Calif Ohio Florida Texas Penn

I don't think Leweman was saying Alabama was the greatest football team. I think he was talking about the passion we Tiders have for our team. You'd be hard pressed to find that kind of loyalty and passion anywhere else. There may be some that equal it, but I don't know of any that exceed it.

If you want to watch NFL football, knock yourself out. I prefer the rich traditions and pure love of the game that is college football.


Also, do you know what Vince Lombardi's response was when, after winning the 1967 Super Bowl, he was asked what it felt like to be the greatest football team in the world?

Don't recall what Vince said.

He said, "I don't know, we haven't played Alabama yet." .