tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11250715.post2150069739397149531..comments2024-03-26T09:25:02.198-04:00Comments on Hey Jenny Slater.: Playoffs?! OK, you can talk about playoffs.Astronaut Mike Dexterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01498197770701096363noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11250715.post-62529710424908895882008-05-20T22:21:00.000-04:002008-05-20T22:21:00.000-04:00@Jason/JakeRight - I remembered wrong, thinking th...@Jason/Jake<BR/><BR/>Right - I remembered wrong, thinking that LSU was #1 going into the title game, not OSU. Illinois really had no business making that game. In any normal year, they wouldn't have qualified in the BCS standings. Hawaii had no business making the Sugar, either. Really, the reason those two teams made it was because we now have five BCS bowls (along with the ruling about non-BCS teams qualifying as mandatory).Reedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14989379631083901130noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11250715.post-38147886121885562772008-05-20T20:59:00.000-04:002008-05-20T20:59:00.000-04:00@reed, the bowls hands are tied. The Sugar is not...@reed, the bowls hands are tied. The Sugar is not going to give up a top 5 team in UGA and the Rose is not going to give up USC. It wouldn't have mattered if the Rose picked first or the Sugar. That's what is so dumb about this system. It is a bandaid for a bigger issue. The bowls and conferences keep their own alliances and even exert pressure for the BCS game. You and I are the losers. We are forced to watch USC and UGA trounce lesser opponents while the fat cats are rolling up 100s and smoking them.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11250715.post-51305914869814620292008-05-20T20:50:00.000-04:002008-05-20T20:50:00.000-04:0012:35 Anonymous, I don't think you quite got the l...12:35 Anonymous, I don't think you quite got the larger point of my post, because you and I are actually a lot closer than you seem to think. I <I>don't</I> think a split national title is that big a deal -- you'll note that I said it's not big <I>enough</I> of a deal that we should blithely accept a rickety, let's-include-everybody playoff just to keep one from happening. Did you miss the part where I said that even a simple plus-one playoff would more than likely get whored out from the word "go"?<BR/><BR/>As for 12:59 Anonymous, I know you don't like the fact that I'm an Obama supporter. Guess what? This post didn't mention Obama even once, which makes <I>you</I> the one-note douchebag. Let it go already.Astronaut Mike Dexterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01498197770701096363noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11250715.post-45667388178500642762008-05-20T15:36:00.000-04:002008-05-20T15:36:00.000-04:00@reedNah, the Rose Bowl actually PICKED Illinois. ...@reed<BR/><BR/>Nah, the Rose Bowl actually PICKED Illinois. They lost the #1 ranked team at the time (Ohio State) so they got first pick of a replacement.<BR/><BR/>They actually willingly chose Illinois.Jasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17067448620734618224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11250715.post-63302871198541689542008-05-20T13:59:00.000-04:002008-05-20T13:59:00.000-04:00If Obama can fix "global warming," Iraq, SS, Medic...If Obama can fix "global warming," Iraq, SS, Medicare, healthcare, the Palestinian issue, the war on terror, hose that run, etc. with a glib turn of a phrase, he can fix the BCS. Let's just wait for BHO.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11250715.post-58808154209650807792008-05-20T13:35:00.000-04:002008-05-20T13:35:00.000-04:00Doug, Usually I think of you as a genius, but t...Doug, <BR/><BR/> Usually I think of you as a genius, but this is not one of those times. <BR/><BR/> The only real argument for a playoff of some kind is get an actual undisputed champion. It's a nice idea. We'd all like that. But you take this as a paramount goal:<BR/> <BR/> <I>"There’s still just as much disagreement over national titles on a regular basis, and still the <B>danger of a split title</B>, as 2003 proved..."</I><BR/><BR/> C'mon, man <I>danger</I>? It really isn't that important. More to the point, you can't create a system that will definitively produce a champion. No matter what you do, there will be someone cut out of it that will be able to make a decent argument that they got hosed, and there will be talk of expanding, and <I>BOOM!</I> your own invented 'doomsday device' sends us back to the days of leather helmets and the single wing. (how skewed are your priorities to call it a doomsday device? - lol)<BR/> <BR/> Besides, the angst and endless discussion is what makes for good blogging as PWD, the Senator, <I>et al.</I> have figured out.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11250715.post-47711019302834564592008-05-20T11:10:00.000-04:002008-05-20T11:10:00.000-04:00Jake, I might be wrong, but didn't the Sugar Bowl ...Jake, I might be wrong, but didn't the Sugar Bowl pick UGA before The Rose picked Illinois?<BR/><BR/>Doug, I think you're pretty much right on here. Over the course of my travels this season, I noticed that everyone age 28 and under is convinced that we <I>need</I> a playoff, but those 29 and older were about 70/30 in favor of the bowls. Why is this? Because they were 18 when the BCS came into existence. They were promised that we would have a clear champ every year, and that hasn't happened. Older fans remember when a split title was a bit confounding, but an interesting part of the game.<BR/><BR/>I wrote a post (from my road-trippin' perspective) about the subject <A HREF="http://roadgames07.blogspot.com/2007/12/in-defense-of-bowl-system.html" REL="nofollow">back in December</A>, before the big bowls.<BR/><BR/>Also, I think with the way the BCS formula works now, a split title is really, really unlikely. With the human polls making up 2/3 of the rankings, the only way a clear #1-2 team would not make the the top game would be if they were really overrated (thus, the 1/3 portion from the computers would have to really knock them down).Reedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14989379631083901130noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11250715.post-37123375009455969752008-05-20T10:35:00.000-04:002008-05-20T10:35:00.000-04:00Doug, I couldn't agree more with your final conclu...Doug, I couldn't agree more with your final conclusion. Kick it old school, or rationalize the system with a playoff, anything but the lipstick covered pig that is the BCS.<BR/><BR/>Jake, FWIW even though you'll be hard pressed to find a USC fan who is bummed about the team making it to the Rose Bowl, there were a good many of us who would have been more than happy to see USC play UGA instead of Illinois. While I do enjoy a good beat-down, there's no good football karma to be gained for it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11250715.post-41454676569603571552008-05-20T09:40:00.000-04:002008-05-20T09:40:00.000-04:00The big problem is the Rose Bowl. The Pac-10 and ...The big problem is the Rose Bowl. The Pac-10 and Big Ten can't let go of this _tradition_. That wonderful _tradition_ that gave us USC vs the Zookers, when it should have been USC vs UGA. So although we _believe_ the BCS is working, in reality it is still the same old system except for the title game.<BR/><BR/>I have fond memories of the Sugar Bowl. However, they could have played the 1980 championship game in Shreveport and I wouldn't care. I just want to see the best teams play each other. These goofy alliances putting Georgia vs Hawaii is just insane.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com