Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The Mainboard' started by Trop, Jan 10, 2019.
Actually that's just a BCS title. Not a Natty.
Also with Larry Coker and Randy Shannon coaching.
Miami should have played for the 2000 title as well. Oklahoma was unbeaten and No. 1.
Miami finished the regular season 11-1 and was No. 2 in both the AP and USA Today Coaches polls.
Florida State was 11-1 and BCS No. 2. Florida State played Oklahoma, despite the fact that their loss was to Miami.
Some people seem to think very little of the playoff but this is exactly why we have it. There were so many instances of stupid bowl matchups in the past because of no playoff and bowl tie ins. Just insanely stupid.
I drive the bus of the "Let's go back to pre-BCS even if 7 teams claim a national championship" being way better than "Hey guess what only 3 post-season games matter now, BUT PLAYOFFS! ONE CHAMPION! WE'RE LIKE COLLEGE BASKETBALL NOW!" opinion. GBR.
Imagine Alabama played Washington or UCF this year and Clemson played Notre Dame and finished with a split title. That's unsatisfying. Imagine Notre Dame being completely left out of any title chance in an undefeated season like Auburn in 2004 (I mean by a chance it's more than 0 but still obviously very small ha ha)
Not for me.
1983 was fucking insane.
2000 would have been a great playoff.
1. Oklahoma 12-0
2. Miami 10-1, with a 9/9 34-29 loss to Washington
3. Florida State 11-1, with a 10/1 27-24 loss to Miami
4. Washington, 11-1, with a 9/24 23-16 loss to 10-2 Oregon
I'd rather have 10 bowl games mean something and risk a split national champion or an undefeated Notre Dame not being a national champion than having bastardized the entire bowl system so games like the Rose Bowl don't mean a god dammed thing.
And this is coming from an ND fan who watched FSU win a natty in 93 after losing to ND. Yes I know I should take this to the unpopular opinion thread and yes I want you off my lawn.
Side note to that. There have been rumors for 35 years that Irving Fryer (who is currently in the middle of a 5 year prison sentence for a mortgage scam) threw that game.
Did those bowls really mean anything before though? We're still arguing with Michigan 21 years later (because neither team has anything else to discuss) because they played some bullshit team and we almost lost during the regular season. The Rose Bowl used to be a glorified conference title game. And with the Pac 12 currently sucking a truck load of dicks, that's not very appealing.
BCS was the natty before the playoff was invented.
And even if more bowl games meant something before, how many is that? 4 total?
I certainly felt like they did. Making a New Years Day Bowl was a big deal. Jan 1 used to be the best football day of the year, and now Jan 1 isn't in the top 5.
PAC sucks now, but that comes and goes. This was the perfect year for the playoff, because everyone thought there was one really good team and it turned out that they were right, they just thought it was the wrong team (so I very much enjoyed that). But year over year, I'd much rather have more games that "matter" than have Georgia cry wolf about how they should be considered for the playoff and not bother showing up for the Sugar Bowl.
This is like bragging about how hot your girlfriend used to be back when she was banging other guys.
I'm sure the system now makes way more money btw, which I get. I can be romantic about the pageantry and that doesn't pay anyone a god-dammed dime.
It’s always been more important when you lose than who you lose to
I'd say this is the worst (least interesting) time for a playoff. It'll be far more appealing when 2 teams don't play each other so much. Whenever Nick Saban dies of a heart attack or from auto erotic asphyxiation it'll make the playoffs a lot more interesting. There's always going to be dynasties but Alabama is ridiculous and makes everything worse for other CFB fans.
Well I'd argue that this system has led to there only being 4-5 good programs in CFB period, which sucks balls.
Jealous because we stole your national championship-winning coach and you guys missed out on a bowl in your first year without him.
Nah. That's been the case for the entire history of CFB.
Except when they used to crown the natty before bowl games, but my point was accepting what happened in 93 in favor of that system.
Sorry, there are normally 4-5 good teams every season, but now they're they same 4-5 teams every season, which is much worse.
Notre Dame did not even allow its team to play bowl games until 1970.
The Big Ten didn’t allow teams to play any bowl game except the Rose Bowl until 1975.
From 1972-1975, Ohio State played the Rose Bowl all four years. During that time, Michigan went 38-4-1, but went 0-3-1 against Ohio State.
That's been the case forever and is far more coach dependent than playoff dependent. If you have one of the best coaches in CFB, you'll be up there every year. If you don't, you might sneak in here and there but probably won't be in consistently.
Giant scholarship limits were far more responsible for CFB dynasties 25+ years ago than the playoff is today.
The Rose Bowl only meant something to B1G and PAC fans. Nobody else gave a rat's ass. Please don't kick me out of the B1G now.
I wasn’t trying to pile on
Nah, Washington should’ve been 2.
I disagree that it's been the case forever, I mean off-hand, teams that have been great the last 10 years? Clemson, Bama, Ohio State... umm, ND? LSU? FSU that one year? Maybe UF sneaks in because we'd count 2009 (is that the year they were good)?
Compared to the 90's, who had great teams? Brasky, Michigan, FSU, ND, Ohio State, Tennesee, Miami, Bama, Auburn, Colorado, Washington? Mike Vick teams? Penn State?
These are off the top of my head, but I'd bet there are more to add from the 90's vs the teens, but idk.
Also you should just say I'm right because then we can make brasky great again imo gbr
Johnny Majors had 76 players in Pitt’s 1973 recruiting class and Pitt won the 1976 national title when they were seniors.
NCAA scholarship restrictions came soon after. Most conferences limited class size for member schools, but Pitt was an independent and could do what it wanted.
The NCAA put a 105 cap on total scholarship players in 1974. They lowered it to 95 in 1978 and 85 in 1992.
When the limits were 105 and 95, the Big Ten actually played a full junior varsity schedule of games between redshirts, walk ons, and underclassmen.
All these conference title games changed this stuff but you're missing Texas in 2009, Oklahoma this year and several other years, Michigan St went to the playoffs, Auburn won a title, Oregon under Kelly, Washington went to a playoff etc etc
I mean you're gonna sell me on Michigan St being a great team? Even Oregon, I mean I'd like to tell you ND had a great team over the past 10 years, but I'm probably lying to you.
Oregon went to the National Title game twice (or 3 times?) and was really really good for a while. I mean, Kelly had a 46-7 record there. That's pretty great even if they couldn't get over the hump. Dantonio's MSU teams have been butt for a little while but he won 3 B1G titles from 2010-2015 and went 65-16 during that period. At MSU. I think your memory is short my friend. ND has ever been pretty good under Kelly. Not dynasty good but he's won a butt load of games.
I think we've got a different definition of how we're defining great teams, which is fine. I don't think Penn State had an unbelievable 5 or 6 year stretch, but that 1994 team was elite (Nebraska had both - elite teams AND sustained success around that time). Whereas you prefer sustained success over a few years.
It’s only as good as the PAC 12 allows it to be. The PAC 10 sucked for most of the 1990’s and the game became irrelevant in the BCS era.
How has the playoffs changed anything in that regard? The non national championship bowls mean the exact same as they did pre bcs.
Neither team was winning a natty in the 95 Fiesta bowl.
I don't think that's anything close to true. The Rose Bowl was never an afterthought like it is now when it's not a playoff game.
I guess I can see how it's lost some importance due to two other bowls gaining importance.
There are 3 important bowl games now. 2 playoff games and the title game. Conference championship games have become more important than the NY-6 at this point, which wasn't the case pre-playoff.
I get why they do it (money), but that doesn't mean I have to enjoy it.
It really was though to everyone not from the B1G or Pac. Literally, nobody really cared at all. I would like some people from the ACC, Big 8/12 and SEC to chime in as well. That game and those conferences meant nothing growing up if a team wasn't contending for the National Title.
Notre Dame and Nebraska are both ass
I just don't care about Ohio St vs Oregon. Non factor to me.
It's more bc it's always sunny , nice parade, and ranked teams. That's it
I CARED BO.
I DON'T BELIEVE YOU
I CARED ABOUT ALL OF THEM. GIVE ME MY NEW YEARS DAY BACK.
Never really understood why it was held in such high esteem.
I cared about all the big bowl games. Maybe ACC not having a tie in made that different for you?
This would all be fine if the Big East didn't die imo.