Bowl season - modern vs. old format
While I like the playoff, I'm not sold that 4 teams is the right amount - but I also don't think it should be 16. Any given year, there are really only 6-8 teams, max, that deserve to be in the conversation.
That said, I miss the old bowl season format. Jan 1 was an extraordinary orgy of multiple games at once - good for picking the best matchup or for a wall of TVs. While the playoff is far better than the BCS, the number of games that mattered on Jan 1 - often at the same time - made for a bunch more drama. The drip-drip-drip of 1, maybe 2, games at a time has some merit because of constant football, but the old Jan 1 - 3-4 games in the morning, Rose Bowl mid-day, Fiesta/Orange/Sugar at night - is something I miss.
Though I'm a little surprised to state this, I miss the MNC debates as well, even given our '97 experience. And imagine if OSU played USC in 2006 and we played FL in the Sugar or Fiesta.
What say you?
MODS: feel free to delete if I missed this topic in my smart egg nog stuper of the last week.
December 29th, 2017 at 3:05 PM ^
December 29th, 2017 at 3:10 PM ^
December 29th, 2017 at 5:31 PM ^
Yeah, I miss the old days. Like in 2003 when there were 6 games on New Year's Day. Or in 1997 when there were also 6 games. Or 1984 when there were five games on New Year's Day.
All of that is SOOOOOOO much better than the 5 games that are on January 1st. Oh wait...its the exact same as the old days that people long for? And what's this...people love to complain about everything? Even when its better or the same as the old version? Huh. Interesting...
December 29th, 2017 at 6:43 PM ^
December 29th, 2017 at 8:35 PM ^
You miss the part where I said 1984?
I only picked three because I didn't want to waste time looking up every game. But since you're going to be an asshole about things, now I want to look it all up so I can pinpoint your stupidity.
So here we go:
In the 60's and 70's there were only three or four games on New Year's Day (there were only 11 total). Then from 1981-86 there were five games on New Years. In 1987 there were 6, and then in '88-89 seven, 1990-93 there were eight, back to seven in 1994, and either five or six from 1995-2015. There were only 4 in 2016 and we're back to five this year.
So to pinpoint things, apparently you're really just missing that peak 1988-94 stretch where there were 7-8 games on. Just really missing the sanctity and pagentry of also having the Blockbuster Video Bowl (now the Camping World Bowl) and Gator Bowl (aka the Taxslayer Bowl) on New Year's Day too.
Outside of those two games, literally everything else is basically the same as it has been for the last several decades.
Also, fuck you.
December 30th, 2017 at 7:38 AM ^
How long have you two been friends?
You gentlemen have a good day and enjoy those bowl games. ;)
December 30th, 2017 at 10:48 AM ^
Just getting out the last of my own assholery before the Year of The A-Hole ends.
December 29th, 2017 at 7:33 PM ^
Devalues conference championships to declare a less mythical national champ.
December 29th, 2017 at 10:54 PM ^
December 29th, 2017 at 3:07 PM ^
December 29th, 2017 at 3:07 PM ^
I want more playoff games.
December 29th, 2017 at 3:08 PM ^
December 29th, 2017 at 3:10 PM ^
December 29th, 2017 at 3:10 PM ^
December 29th, 2017 at 4:26 PM ^
Honest question,
Why do you want a team to go on a fairytale run? Why do we not want the top teams playing for the championship?
There aren't eight teams a year that have the right to say they are the best team in the country. The last two years we couldnt even 100% say that the #4 team was the #4 team.
December 29th, 2017 at 5:13 PM ^
Because teams that pull it together late, find another level, get inspired about something, and shock the world... are one of the greatest gifts that sports ever gives us.
December 29th, 2017 at 3:12 PM ^
December 29th, 2017 at 3:13 PM ^
December 29th, 2017 at 3:44 PM ^
nope, first round bye is a huge advantage for something that is often determined by nothing more than hype and the eye test.
December 29th, 2017 at 3:58 PM ^
Logged in just to support this comment 100%. You CANNOT give a team a huge advantage like a bye based on human opinion polls or percieved conference strengths with such a short regular season. There are too many teams and not enough games to determine who really deserves it. Contrast this to the NFL where there are only 16 teams per conference. Byes work well as a reward in that structure.
The college playoff structure should always be a power of 2....
2^1 = 2
2^2 = 4
2^3 = 8
2^4 = 16
An 8 team playoff has always been my preference. 5 major conference champs + 3 at large. Simple as that.
December 29th, 2017 at 5:38 PM ^
I'm also not sure if a first round bye is actually an advantage. Most bowl games are sloppy because teams haven't played in a month. If you're one of the top two teams, do you really want a bye and then have to face a very good team that shook off all of their rust against another very good team? When you already have 4 weeks off before your bowl game, you don't really need a fifth week off.
December 29th, 2017 at 6:56 PM ^
December 29th, 2017 at 7:09 PM ^
December 29th, 2017 at 3:17 PM ^
This post articulates very clearly something I have thought for a while too. I actually really liked debates about who the National Champ should be. This all or nothing shit is for professional sports. Every bowl game feels like an undercard fight now. What do you think it feels like for a player to be told in week three that their season is now ruined because they have lost a game or two? And how many fucking times do I have to listen to Kirk Herbstreit and the like pontificate like they're telling us about how to denuclearnize North Korea?
This idea that we need to "definitively settle" who is the very best is also illusory for all kinds of reasons that have already been discussed ad infinitum. But yes, I sure do miss the old system and I am proud to say it.
December 29th, 2017 at 3:57 PM ^
Debates are partly what got those clown Cornhuskers a share of _our_ national championship back in '97.
December 29th, 2017 at 5:15 PM ^
December 29th, 2017 at 5:49 PM ^
The old system was trash. If you are honestly saying you prefer a system where you'd rather endlessly debate whether or not Michigan or Nebraska was better in 1997 instead of actually having those two teams play...then I don't know what to tell you. That's completely nonsensical.
Endless yapping and debating without actually settling anything is dumb (and perfectly captured in this gif)
December 29th, 2017 at 3:17 PM ^
December 29th, 2017 at 3:17 PM ^
But I'm old
December 29th, 2017 at 3:18 PM ^
Playoffs should be from wherever Michigan's final ranking is on up.
December 29th, 2017 at 3:23 PM ^
4 really is the right number, it ensures head to head match ups in the regular season matter, and there are defacto play in games. The '16 OSU game wouldn't have meant as much because both teams would have gotten into a 6 or 8 team playoff. Also conference champ games create a disincentive for a conference to send their best team, IE in this year's SEC game both would have been in for a larger playoff. I was never around for it but imagine the old format of multiple critical games at the same time was awesome, but the TV money is too important to be split schedule times now.
December 29th, 2017 at 3:29 PM ^
December 29th, 2017 at 3:24 PM ^
watch ALL the bowl games now I hardly watch any...5 and 6 loss teams playing in 3/4 empty stadiums and nothing meaningful... I have yet to watch a bowl game this year from start to finish...ill peak in to see the score but thats about it..the Very Thought of Georgia and OK in the Rose Bowl...BLASHPEMY
December 29th, 2017 at 3:26 PM ^
December 29th, 2017 at 3:32 PM ^
While I miss the old days as much as any lawn loving guy my most hated memory was no cable meant no remote. Growing up I was my dad's remote. My memories are of sitting within arms reach of the channel knob.
December 29th, 2017 at 5:00 PM ^
on tiny TVs, one in black and white. (sniff) Memories.
December 29th, 2017 at 3:39 PM ^
It seems there are years when 4 is enough and other years 6 might be the right number.
December 29th, 2017 at 4:33 PM ^
What years do you think the #6 team in the country legitamately could've been the best team in the country and/or should've had the chance to play for the title?
'17 Wisconsin
'16 Michigan
'15 Stanford
'14 TCU
December 29th, 2017 at 9:57 PM ^
'16 Of course.
December 30th, 2017 at 4:04 AM ^
'14 TCU (along with #5 Baylor). Co big 12 champs, both only 1 loss. Same as the 1, 2 and 4 ranked teams.
'15 Some would argue Stanford as P12 champs and after losing their first game, the other loss was by only 2 points. Basically an OSU '17 scenario but much stronger resume. I disagree and think this year got it right though.
'16 Got it right (however b12 champ and undefeated WMU could have an argument) If only the logic applied to it wasn't then abandoned and reversed when it came to the following year. 1 loss OSU goes ahead of the team they lose to, because that team has 2 losses. Sounds fair so far except....
'17 People ignore why OSU went the year before ahead of PSU, snub Wisc to a lower position and 2 loss OSU doesn't make the playoffs ahead of a one loss Wisc only by the grace of a Bama loss. That said, there's no reason Bama should be in there and UW shouldn't. Or UCF for that matter.
So in other words, it's been fair about 2/4 years. And it's never going to be as long as you have the bias of such a small committee selecting who they think passes the "eye test." That's a joke and doesn't happen in any other sport. It needs to be eliminated as much as possible. Debates about the eye test, or this p5 team has a weaker schedule than that p5 team are bad for the sport. Especially when it comes down to the prestige of a school in the end anyway. Like OSU/BAMA over Wisconsin. Why doesn't a h2h record override the W/L record in any other sport or ranking consideration even within FBS conferences and yet it somehow can in the playoff rankings? Still waiting on their number 1 ranked team to actually win the championship...
December 29th, 2017 at 3:40 PM ^
Playoff is much, much better than the BCS and the MNC system before it. But we're never going to have a perfect system. If you have 4, then you're going to need 6 or 8. 8 needs 12, 12 needs 16, and so on.
What I'd personally love is:
5 automatic bids for conference champions, but the bid is only automatic if you finish the regular season in the top-10. If you are a conference champion but outside the top-10, then it's up to the committee to decide. This way, if you ever have a fluke situation where a 7-5 divisional champion (it can happen, remember 2012 Wisconsin) upsets the much higher ranked opponent in the conference title game, the conference champion playoff can be awarded to the next best at-large team.
2 at-large teams get in, regardless of whether they won their division, conference, or none of the above
1 spot for the highest ranked G5 team in the country. This way everyone truly gets a shot, and let's be honest: having a solely G5 playoff is stupid.
While home playoff games would be cool, it would also mean having to give up some of the bigger bowl sites in the process. The four quarterfinal and two semifinal games are hosted by the current NY6 bowls (Rose, Sugar, Cotton, etc.) Different sites would alternate between quarterfinal and semifinal each year. And the title game stays in its current format where any city can place a bid on hosting, or maybe on certain anniversaries the Rose Bowl reserves the right to host.
December 29th, 2017 at 3:44 PM ^
The NC should always be played there. I'd be okay with an 8 team play off with the top 4 teams hosting first round games in their stadium. Alabama (the real #5) visting OSU this week would have been terrific.
December 29th, 2017 at 3:50 PM ^
I love a snow globe game like anyone else, but only for a little while. Weather shouldn't help determine the outcome of a game.
December 29th, 2017 at 4:04 PM ^
But it would finally prevent all the big bowl games from being played in the South. Northern teams would actually get more of a level playing field.
I'd be all for the higher seed (i.e. better ranked team) getting a home game in the first round of the playoffs. Finally a chance to drag those Southern teams up north for a big game.
December 29th, 2017 at 3:59 PM ^
Old. Lots of people dont remember when 1 team per conference could go to a bowl game. It was rose bowl or bust in the big ten. I would like to see the old set up like big ten vs pac 12 in the rose and then start a playoff run.
December 29th, 2017 at 4:05 PM ^
Even though I would like to keep the playoff, it would be cool to go back to a modified version of the old format. Bowls are selected as they used to be. Rose bowl is big ten vs. pac 12, sugar bowl is sec vs. big 12...
After all of the old format bowls are played, the top 2 teams are selected to play in the national championship game.
This format would bring back the meaning to the bowl games including the traditional of playing in the rose bowl.
The non automatic bowl invitations and national champ participants can be chosen by a committee similar to the playoff committee being used today.
December 29th, 2017 at 4:09 PM ^
December 29th, 2017 at 6:38 PM ^
December 29th, 2017 at 4:11 PM ^
I mostly like the old format, but not completely.
- I'm pretty good with a 4 team playoff. We say it is about the kids . . . well, 3 weekends (8 team playoff) is too much. Plus it completely dilutes the rest of the field. And I don't mind having some debate. To me, the benefit of four teams is you are pretty sure to have the BEST team in the country somewhere in the top four.
- I hate having all these bowls stretched out over a ton of days. I am so glad Dave Brandon is gone, but I remember talking to him about regular season game times, and his answer was relevant: it is all about money, and specifically, TV money. With the bowls, they don't want to have a ton of bowls all on New Year's Day, competing with each other. I loved seeing the Rose Parade, and then seeing a glut of games. (As an aside, I consider it a coup that Michigan is playing on New Year's Day, instead of today or in this last week.)
- Something else that I haven't seen mentioned is network TV. I am a cheapskate with no cable or satellite TV. For a few games a year on ESPN, I can run to the bar to watch. It is harder with a bowl game. I wish more bowls were on ABC, NBC, CBS, or Fox. But that's definitely never going to happen!
December 29th, 2017 at 4:18 PM ^
I couldn't agree more. I totally miss the giant amount of bowl games all on New Year's Day instead of it being so spread out.
Hey, at least they learned from the disaster that was having the playoff games on New Year's EVE. That's a step forward. I can't believe anyone thought that was a good idea.
My Philosophy on how the postseason fomat should work:
Conference Championship GAMES are pointless and lifeless. Remove those and have standings determine conference champions like the old days, and replace that week with the first round of an 8 team playoff between power 5 conference champions and at large bids, with the higher seeds hosting each game, no neutral site BS for the first round. Would create a TON more excitement.
Then, have the rest of the postseason play out as it does now. Except the four teams are obviously the winners of the first round. And please: more bowl games on 1/1!!
So in summary, an eight team playoff with it's first round being on conference championship weekend at non-neutral sites.