<p>Uh huh...but when Tennessee lost, SEC fans were writing Tennessee off...saying a top tier Pac-10 team beat a lower-tier SEC team.</p>
<p>I'm just pointing out that it's reverse now.</p>
<p>What bowl is Florida projected? The Gator Bowl? Would that be a home game for UF?</p>
<p>The Gator Bowl is in Jacksonville, so pretty much. </p>
<p>Florida still may have a shot at the SEC championship if Georgia and Tennessee lose a game each. Obviously, that could result in a better bowl selection. </p>
<p>I can't be held responsible for Tennessee stupidity, that's outside my control. :)</p>
<p>who goes to the capital one bowl again? </p>
<p>lol at the TN stupidity thing too. ;)</p>
<p>^ Capital One Bowl: "Currently, the bowl has tie-ins with the SEC and the Big Ten holding the first selection after the BCS for both conferences."</p>
<p>Maybe I was thinking the Capital One Bowl vs. Gator Bowl.</p>
<p>There are so many bowls. My favorites were the Gaylord Hotels Bowl and the Poulan Weed Eater Bowl.</p>
<p>Current CBS Sportsline Bowl projections:
NCAA</a> Football Bowl Predictions - CBSSports.com</p>
<p>Lmao UCBCEG, those are ridiculous, lol. These bowls are silly, honestly. I know it brings out more people but there should just be a playoff and one major championship game. These bowls are pointless and are essentially just an extra game in the season.</p>
<p>a playoff would wipe out over a hundred years of history. i think most of the people who want that have no regard for tradition.</p>
<p>And the people that don't want one have no regard for real competition.</p>
<p>yea, why do we want to repeat history? Change it for all i care. Who cares about tradition, we just want the BEST team!</p>
<p>
[quote]
a playoff would wipe out over a hundred years of history. i think most of the people who want that have no regard for tradition.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, I think it should be pointed out that the system of the Bowl Championship Series (and the system of its predecessors, the Bowl Alliance and Bowl Coalition), in which a specific game is used to determine the national champion, is itself a rather new invention that doesn't exactly comform to tradition. The first iteration (the Bowl Coalition) was started in 1992 as a direct response to split championships in both 1990 (Colorado and G.Tech) and 1991 (Miami and Washington). And even the system of the Bowl Coalition (which became the Bowl Alliance and then the BCS) still produced a split championship in 2003 when #1 USC wasn't even invited to the championship-deciding Sugar Bowl that year (which instead featured Oklahoma vs. eventual BCS champion LSU) yet USC was anointed national champions by the AP voters anyway after beating Michigan in the Rose Bowl. </p>
<p>If we really wanted to conform to tradition, then we should get rid of all of the changes made by the BCS and its past entities. For example, we should get rid of the specific BCS championship game that sits separate from and above all of the bowls, which is a system that is only 2 years old (including this year). We should also immediately return to a system of conference-tied Bowl Games. For example, if Oregon is the Pac-10 champion, then they should go to the Rose Bowl. They should not be called to a BCS championship game (because it wouldn't exist). They should, in complete conformance with Rose Bowl tradition, be forced to play in the Rose Bowl against whoever is the Big 10 champions, even if it is (at least for this year) a relatively weak Big 10 champion like Michigan that Oregon had already routed earlier in the year. Similarly LSU, presuming they win the SEC, should be forced to go to the Sugar Bowl to face an at-large team as per Sugar Bowl tradition. Hence, LSU and Oregon would never meet and you could very well end up with another split championship. It would be messy, it would be controversial, but it would also be traditional. The old traditions produced a lot of split titles. </p>
<p>The point is, the current BCS system already dispenses with a hundred years of tradition, and yet people don't seem to have a problem with that. So if we're willing to go this far, then I don't see why a playoff system would be that much worse.</p>
<p>On a different note, Cal beat Miss State in basketball 67-59. Off to a good start, I was surprised with Patrick Christopher being as good as he was; everyone was commenting on how weak the Cal backcourt was before the season began, I guess that's not the case.
Was anybody there at the game?</p>
<p>Hate to ride on sakky's boat but seriously, vc08(and sheed) you know nothing. I don't follow this stuff very closely and even I know the BCS jumped in after the Bowl Coalition and Bowl Alliance AFTER CFB's nearly 100 years of history and changed things.</p>
<p>What we see today isn't anything like history and having a playoff system wouldn't necessarily stray farther away from it than it already has. In the past there wasn't even a national title game, the allure of one(and the big money it would bring) spawned the formation of a bunch of these "bowl -> championship"(BCS) organizations.</p>
<p>Although my primary qualm with bowl games are inherently tied with their history that's another matter. I don't care so much for not having bowl games as I do for having a playoff system in addition..</p>
<p>
[quote]
Hate to ride on sakky's boat
[/quote]
</p>
<p>What's wrong with riding on my boat? Do I have a bad boat?</p>
<p>It leaks at times.....</p>
<p>^ Haha.</p>
<p>We all complain about the BCS. But, the BCS is managed by:</p>
<ol>
<li>Pac-10 commission</li>
<li>Big Ten commission</li>
<li>SEC commission</li>
<li>Big 12 commission</li>
<li>ACC commission</li>
<li>Big East commission</li>
<li>Conference USA commission</li>
<li>Mid-American commission</li>
<li>Mountain West commission</li>
<li>Sun Belt commision</li>
<li>Western Athletic commission</li>
<li>Notre Dame</li>
</ol>
<p>The conference commissioners and ND athletic director make all decisions regarding BCS issues.</p>
<p>Seems like the conferences have the program rules they want. The bigger conferences will try to preserve the rich payouts of having a bowl tie-in.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Lmao UCBCEG, those are ridiculous, lol. These bowls are silly, honestly.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Actually, I agree with you. Oklahoma vs. Kansas in the Fiesta Bowl?! That would just be Big 12 rematch.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I, for one, liked the old traditions, and the countless arguements of split champions! :D</p>
<p>lol, a big game tonight! Oregon better put it down!</p>
<p>mega, how can you say we don't know anything and then follow that with "well i don't follow this stuff very closely," like you're all pro-status. let's put this into context: how would you like a college football w/o march madness? bc that's how much a playoff system would change football. here's a thought: why don't you learn something about football? start by coming up with a new cheer at the "U-C-L-A!" games, it's more annoying than SC's fight song. or, go start a U-C-L-A! football thread, which would be to the relief of most of us on here. just bc Berkeley's cooler...</p>
<p>sakky, those essays are gettin good, you must be an english major lol...</p>
<p>sheed: not a big game for oregon, but important if they want to keep their nc hopes alive. they need to win big.</p>
<p>Here my prediction: Oregon is gonna get bumped again by one of the overrated Big12 teams, which will be blown out (again for the 4th time since 2000) in NC game by LSU.</p>
<p>Pac-10 needs to split into North and South divisions with each team playing 4 ooc games and to have a championship game like others. If Pac10 were under that scenario, it's impossible that Oregon and Az St could both still be undefeated now (If Oregon missed Cal and Az St missed Oregon in their regular schedule). That's how teams in conferences like Big 12 get overrated over and over.</p>