UGA Layeth the Smacketh Down....

[Diesel]

Quote:

---

Doesn't the fact that Hawaii is apparently a trash team utterly negate Georgia's rout?

Congrats to UGA on winning their exhibition game. If college football had a championship, maybe they'd be good enough to win it.

We'll never know, will we?

---

You can't disrespect UGA for Winning. The problem is (as was stated weeks ago) that UGA got screwed. You don't take the hottest team in football who was ranked #4 one week... let them watch the #1 and #2 teams fall and see that team ranked #5 the next week?? It's BS.

I'm sorry but UGA is an example of a young team that grew up over the season. TMC wants to argue about losses that that young team took early in the season when LSU took some losses Late (Hello Arkansas) and so did OSU (Hello Illinois).

So here's what ought to be done.

Throw out the rankings because obviously they don't mean scratch.

Throw out the strength of schedule because obviously it doesn't mean scratch either.

Forget the voting because it's biased and ruins the matchups.

Goto a playoff system where the true champion wins with no doubts!

[TroyMcClure]

on the other side of it.

Quote:

---

Goto a playoff system where the true champion wins with no doubts!

---

That would be great. It works for all other sports at all levels. Problem is, those sports didn't grow because of the Bowl format. College Football did. And until the Fiesta Bowl about 20 years ago, there were major bowls and the others. The major ones were played on New Year's.(Sugar, Rose, Orange and Cotton) Now, who knows? Whoever pays the most money is the best bowl.

I used to really love college football. I was raised an Alabama fan. How could I not love it? Alabama was the first southern team to ever play in a Rose Bowl. WAAAAAY back in the 20's. They put southern football on the map. Bowls were a huge part of the equation back then. Sportswriters, mainly on the upper east or west coasts, didn't get to see teams like Alabama until then. It stayed much the same way until the 60's when the widespread use of television began. The Bowl system is literally as old as the game itself. Too big to overcome.

Personally, I don't really watch anything but SEC football. It's the best and I don't really care what some sportswriter form California thinks. After Auburn got snubbed a few years ago, I gave up on polls and writers. Coaches, too. Many of them don't even watch games before they rank someone. Pretty much, if you win the SEC, you are the National Champ in my book. If Georgia was in the same boat as Auburn was, there would be a case. They aren't.

[AHF]

College football is on an interesting track right now. They have definitely moved away from the bowl-purest mode but haven't embraced a playoff yet. Each step they take is closer to a playoff and it sounds like the "plus one" format is becoming more and more likely. Naturally, the closer you get to a true playoff the more pressure there will be to finish the job so it will be interesting to see what happens.

[chillzatl]

It's possible to have a playoff and still cater to the history of the bowl games without losing anything. I think that a big part of the reason why a playoff system is being ignored is because of the payouts, but a system where the playoffs essentially become the major bowl games would generate so much interest and money, it would easily top what we have today. Then you have a legit system to determine the best team out of the top 8 and the rest of the teams play their ranked bowl games as they do today. The level of interest it would generate would surpass the superbowl!

[TroyMcClure]

We're on the same page here. I like the idea of having all of the bowls and a 16 team tournament. Incorporate all of the major bowls(i.e. NCAA semifinal game at the Rose bowl or something like that.) Use the existing conference relationships if possible. Very similiarly to what we now have.

[AtLaS]

I just think it's dumb that the Rose bowl feels FORCED to take a big 10 team when they could've taken Georgia, especially when everyone wanted to see that matchup. That decision basically made all of the BCS bowls horrible. There isn't ONE good BCS matchup this year IMO.

Noone wants to see USC destroy the 3rd best team in the Big 10, and noone wants to see Georgia destroy a non-BCS school that hasn't beat a ranked team all season. Hell, the Rose bowl would've probably made MORE money had they taken UGA.

[AHF]

The Rose bowl would not have joined the BCS championship at all if it wasn't inevitable that the BCS was going to happen and they either needed to get on board or get left behind. It will keep the Big 10/Pac 10 legacy going. I can respect that even though I disagree with the bowls and want a playoff.

[AtLaS]

But what I'm saying is that they COULD have picked Georgia. It's not like they absolutely had to pick a big 10 team, albeit one that noone wanted to see USC play anyway. Had they picked Georgia, they would've gotten MORE recognition and people would've been happier. I seriously don't see how anyone would've flamed them for taking Georgia IMO.

[AHF]

No question they could have grabbed Georgia. However, if it was up to the Rose Bowl they wouldn't be part of the BCS and there would be no mechanism for moving the top two teams into a championship game. Their ideal is to take the Pac-10 champ and Big Ten champ every year until the end of time. They are faced with the choice of tradition or a better matchup and will take tradition every time.

[AtLaS]

Quote:

---

No question they could have grabbed Georgia. However, if it was up to the Rose Bowl they wouldn't be part of the BCS and there would be no mechanism for moving the top two teams into a championship game. Their ideal is to take the Pac-10 champ and Big Ten champ every year until the end of time. They are faced with the choice of tradition or a better matchup and will take tradition every time.

---

I still don't understand their reasoning. Why would they rather not get more recognition and have a better game? They probably would've made more money? They DEFINITELY would've gotten more television viewers.

See this is whats wrong with college football, it's all about money. Everyone wants to see the top teams against each other but the bowls don't allow it. The national championship gets screwed up every year, and all the consolation BCS games are screwed too! That just sucks.

There is no sport ANYWHERE, in ANYTHING where there isn't some kind of playoff or it's dominated by money the way CFB is. It's sickening.

[AHF]

The "economic" rationale for the Rose Bowl is that they are the only bowl with a true history and pedigree. If they go away from the Pac-10/Big Ten matchup then they no longer are special or distinct from the rest of the bowls. They place a value on that distinct status (and perhaps the greater future interest in matchups that don't have great appeal on their face but may be watched more because they are part of the history of the Rose Bowl) that exceeds the additional boon of television ratings this year.

[AtLaS]

Quote:

---

If they go away from the Pac-10/Big Ten matchup then they no longer are special or distinct from the rest of the bowls.

---

Well I'm sure you are right in the way that they feel. But IMO, that distinction isn't a positive distinction at all, I haven't seen one person who was happy about their Illinois selection. I'm sure noone sits around going "Man, that's so cool how they have a Pac10/Big10 every year! That's much better than seeing a good matchup!"

[Guest]

Quote:

---

The "economic" rationale for the Rose Bowl is that they are the only bowl with a true history and pedigree. If they go away from the Pac-10/Big Ten matchup then they no longer are special or distinct from the rest of the bowls. They place a value on that distinct status (and perhaps the greater future interest in matchups that don't have great appeal on their face but may be watched more because they are part of the history of the Rose Bowl) that exceeds the additional boon of television ratings this year.

---

That is true, but in just the past couple of years the Rose Bowl has gone away from Big 10 - Pac 10 games. Not counting National Championship games they have had Michigan - Texas, Oklahoma - Washington State. The main reason why those games happened was because someone in either the Big 10 or Pac 10 was in the National Championship game. OSU is in the Nat'l, so this past Rose Bowl could have gone with their recent patterns but it did not. I don't think it should have been UGA and USC, I think OU and USC would be the more logical choice since in the past the Rose takes Big 12 because they are the closest major conference.

I must say, the bowl games in the BCS have been horribly constructed.

[AHF]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

The "economic" rationale for the Rose Bowl is that they are the only bowl with a true history and pedigree. If they go away from the Pac-10/Big Ten matchup then they no longer are special or distinct from the rest of the bowls. They place a value on that distinct status (and perhaps the greater future interest in matchups that don't have great appeal on their face but may be watched more because they are part of the history of the Rose Bowl) that exceeds the additional boon of television ratings this year.

---

That is true, but in just the past couple of years the Rose Bowl has gone away from Big 10 - Pac 10 games. Not counting National Championship games they have had Michigan - Texas, Oklahoma - Washington State. The main reason why those games happened was because someone in either the Big 10 or Pac 10 was in the National Championship game. OSU is in the Nat'l, so this past Rose Bowl could have gone with their recent patterns but it did not. I don't think it should have been UGA and USC, I think OU and USC would be the more logical choice since in the past the Rose takes Big 12 because they are the closest major conference.

I must say, the bowl games in the BCS have been horribly constructed.

---

Given that there are limited number of teams for BCS games, did the Rose Bowl have the option of going Pac-10/Big Ten in the years it invited OU and Texas? I was thinking the Rose Bowl didn't have the option to go Pac-10/Big Ten those years but I could be mistaken.

[Guest]

They always have the tie-ins for Big 10 Champ and Pac 10 Champ. But when OSU and USC go to the Nat'l Championship Game, they get slotted with their choice of At-Large. In the year OU (Big 12 Champ) got the Rose Bowl, the other At-Large teams in BCS Bowls were Iowa and USC. When Texas (At-Large) got the Rose, that was the fiasco with Utah getting an automatic berth and I believe it screwed Oregon out of getting a BCS Bowl but the Rose still had the choice.

I am fairly certain the Rose always has a choice of who they pick if Pac 10 or Big 10 is in the Nat'l Championship and they don't get "stuck" with the Big 12 Champ or something like that.

[coachx]

Quote:

---

I am fairly certain the Rose always has a choice of who they pick if Pac 10 or Big 10 is in the Nat'l Championship and they don't get "stuck" with the Big 12 Champ or something like that.

---

Your right. I believe it all works like this as long as the Conference Champ is not in the BCS Championship Game:

Orange Bowl = ACC Champ vs. At Large

Sugar Bowl = SEC Champ vs. At Large

Fiesta Bowl - Big 12 Champ vs. At Large

Rose Bowl - Big 10 Champ vs. PAC 10 Champ

BCS Game: #1 vs. #2

When the champion of a particular conference goes to the BCS Championship Game that conference's respective BCS Bowl tie in has the option of selecting the #2 team from that conference or another "At Large Team" who is qualified to play in a BCS Bowl based on ranking. Most Bowls choose to match the highest ranked teams given this scenerio with the lone exception being "The Grand Daddy of "Em All" / The Rose Bowl b/c they are so hung up on tradition.

Ya, the college bowl system officially sucks ! It is the only sport where there is no TRUE champion.

Resolution that makes TOO much sense:

Start a 8 team playoff system and let the games played be at different Bowl Games to keep tradition and history alive. That would take a total of 7 games. Use 6 bowl game names and have a Championship game:

1. Rose, 2. Sugar, 3. Orange, 4. Fiesta, 5. Cotton, & 6. Peach Bowls could be the 6 bowl game names used. I think the Peach and Cotton pay out the most money of any Non- BCS Bowl.

The teams that do not qualify for the 8 team playoff go to their usual bowl game: Outback, Holliday, Citrus, Liberty, Sun, Music City, and all the other lesser toilet bowls

[BeeSwatter]

Ok Dr Zach don't even bring up officials when discussing Georgia and Ga Tech. Especially after they gift wrapped Tech a win a few years back.

Fact remains that I agree you should win your conference if you want to be national champion BUT it is not written that way. In the current system Georgia got screwed. Not saying that current system is right but..........

[TroyMcClure]

Quote:

---

Ok Dr Zach don't even bring up officials when discussing Georgia and Ga Tech. Especially after they gift wrapped Tech a win a few years back.

---

You've got to be talking about that Musa Smith "fumble" about 8 years ago. That was the worst call in football history. No call could be as bad as that one. Here's a refresher for people. Georgia was on the 4 or 5 yd line at the end of the game. I think the were bleeding clock and a td or a fg would have won it. Musa Smith took a carry on the left side and was tackled. Then, with all four corners of his body flatly pressed on the ground, a Tech guy stripped the ball from his hands. The ref who was literally 3 to 4 ft from the action did not blow his whistle and allowed the "fumble". The AJC ran a series of pictures on the front of the sports page showing the play broken down even more.

I personally dislike the Bulldogs, but that was easily one of the 2 or 3 worst calls I've ever seen.

[drzachary]

1. It was Jasper Sanks.

2. It was the coach's fault for running a play to begin with!

3. What does this have to do with my point about this year again?

[BeeSwatter]

The point was you were suggesting that the only way Georgia beat Tech this year was because of officials. You brought it up and I countered it. Tech is the one that I recall getting a game handed to them.