2016-17 Bowls

Donate To GopherHole
Fair or not, it always seems that an early loss is better than a late loss.

Of course, if our favorite QB doesn't throw that INT against Penn State, this is a moot conversation. It would have been Ohio State vs. Wisconsin for the B1G title game.

And the Gophers with 9 wins would be looking at an even better bowl matchup.
 

Goldmember said:
A lot of people. But you don't have to look any further than this thread. Ha.
Click to expand...

If you look at any other sport or league other than FBS football you would see teams with more losses turning out to be better than teams with fewer losses quite often.
 

mnsportsgeek said:
I know I'm in the minority, but I would have left Ohio State out. I think it was a gutless pick by the committee.
Click to expand...

I think your record still has to mean something. Having an extra loss is a huge deal when you only play 12 or 13.
 

Gophers7NatTitlesBadgers0 said:
When the one loss team is Wash, I'm not convinced they are better than Mich or OU. I think it's a fair argument.

I don't know who is claiming these two-loss are "entitled" to be there over Wash. That is a statement you seem to be making up out of thin air.
Click to expand...

My statement had nothing to do with Washington.

Anyone (and everyone) who suggests the playoff be expanded to 8 teams, is making the argument that 2 (or 3) loss teams are entitled to play against 1 (or more) undefeated teams for the championship. There would be no other way to have an 8-team playoff this year (or almost any other year).

And the 8-team argument is not one I am making up. It is everywhere. Including (but certainly not limited to) this very thread. And many other threads on this board. But also everywhere else college football is discussed in any capacity anywhere.
 

Didn't Oklahoma lose to both Houston and Ohio State? And aren't people here arguing (not me) that the Big 12 is a garbage conference? So if Oklahoma **** the bed in the non-con, and ran the table in a "terrible" conference what does that mean? They would go 4-5 in the MAC?

The competing narratives and logic gets confusing. They are good because of their recruiting rankings? We had someone arguing they are better than Washington despite a worse record and they play in a worse conference?
 


Goldmember said:
My statement had nothing to do with Washington.

Anyone (and everyone) who suggests the playoff be expanded to 8 teams, is making the argument that 2 (or 3) loss teams are entitled to play against 1 (or more) undefeated teams for the championship. There would be no other way to have an 8-team playoff this year (or almost any other year).

And the 8-team argument is not one I am making up. It is everywhere. Including (but certainly not limited to) this very thread. And many other threads on this board. But also everywhere else college football is discussed in any capacity anywhere.
Click to expand...

Yes, sometimes that would absolutely make sense. PSU is arguably playing better than Ohio State. USC is playing better than Washngton. Who knows about Clemson?

Injuries happen, weather happens, bad luck, etc. Cinderella stories are great for sports.
 

Pompous Elitist said:
Yes, sometimes that would absolutely make sense. PSU is arguably playing better than Ohio State. USC is playing better than Washngton. Who knows about Clemson?

Injuries happen, weather happens, bad luck, etc. Cinderella stories are great for sports.
Click to expand...

The question really just comes down to this:
Does Alabama really need to play THREE more games to prove that are #1 team in college football?

If the answer is anything close to "Nah, not really," then the CFP would have to change its goal (entirely) to modify the format.
 

Goldmember said:
The question really just comes down to this:
Does Alabama really need to play THREE more games to prove that are #1 team in college football?

If the answer is anything close to "Nah, not really," then the CFP would have to change its goal (entirely) to modify the format.
Click to expand...

Logic doesn't apply to playoff people.
 

Goldmember said:
The question really just comes down to this:
Does Alabama really need to play THREE more games to prove that are #1 team in college football?

If the answer is anything close to "Nah, not really," then the CFP would have to change its goal (entirely) to modify the format.
Click to expand...

Yes, they do need to prove it. Are you going to watch the playoff or have you already decided who the champion is?

Serious question.
 





Iceland12 said:
Besides being a pompous elitists, you are the king of Non-sequiturs.:rolleyes:

Oh and FSU won it in 2014. They ended-up 14-0. ;)
Click to expand...

Without the playoff it would have been Alabama vs FSU most likely (or perhaps Oregon but I don't remember what the BCS result would have been). FSU was undefeated and SEC! Surely nobody else had a chance to win the championship that year...
 

Pompous Elitist said:
Without the playoff it would have been Alabama vs FSU most likely (or perhaps Oregon but I don't remember what the BCS result would have been). FSU was undefeated and SEC! Surely nobody else had a chance to win the championship that year...
Click to expand...

There was NO playoff. It was FSU at 13-0 and Auburn at 12-1 on 1/6/14.

Now go away and play with someone else.
 




Iceland12 said:
There was NO playoff. It was FSU at 13-0 and Auburn at 12-1 on 1/6/14.

Now go away and play with someone else.
Click to expand...

Are you stupid or something? We are talking about the 2014 season. You know, the playoff? Seasons are generally referred to by the dates of the regular season.
 

Pompous Elitist said:
Are you stupid or something? We are talking about the 2014 season. You know, the playoff? Seasons are generally referred to by the dates of the regular season.
Click to expand...

Just caught on huh? You might also want to rethink this:

"I'm not the one stamping my feet and insulting people. Sure are a lot of grumps today.
 

You started it...

Do you reject Ohio State as the 2014 (look it up) national champion since they were not one of the top 2 seeds?
If not give it up on the playoff talk. There is a reason the games are played. You and two other people miss the old days.
 

Pompous Elitist said:
Yes, they do need to prove it. Are you going to watch the playoff or have you already decided who the champion is?

Serious question.
Click to expand...

Yeah. I'm going to watch.
But that's because there's only 4-teams and the playoff is limited to teams that are undefeated or have just 1-loss.

I can get behind #1 having to play #4. Having them play #8 would be ridiculous this year (and basically every other year).
 

Goldmember said:
Yeah. I'm going to watch.
But that's because there's only 4-teams and the playoff is limited to teams that are undefeated or have just 1-loss.

I can get behind #1 having to play #4. Having them play #8 would be ridiculous this year (and basically every other year).
Click to expand...

Because why? How do you know, definitively, that #1 is better than #8 at the time the game is played? #8 implies they are one of the top two teams in their conference going on record alone. There may not always be a clear #1 every year, and even when there is it doesn't mean they are unbeatable. Remember that year the SEC was supposed to be great and won 2 bowls?

Again, there just aren't enough data points to draw such certain conclusions, every single year. I would love to see a playoff that included the current field plus PSU, USC, Oklahoma etc etc.

Good for the game, good for the conferences.
 

Getting back to the bowls, one thing not mentioned is that we have Lynn to thank for possibly keeping them out of the Rose Bowl. Does Wisconsin win with Hornibrook at QB?

Props to PSU for hanging 38 on that defense. USC is on notice.
 

Pompous Elitist said:
Getting back to the bowls, one thing not mentioned is that we have Lynn to thank for possibly keeping them out of the Rose Bowl. Does Wisconsin win with Hornibrook at QB?

Props to PSU for hanging 38 on that defense. USC is on notice.
Click to expand...

That fun fact crossed my mind last night as well...
 

One interesting thing about the bowl lineup is that none of the top four finishers i the conference face an SEC team. For a long time that has not been the case. Bowl season was always a chance to settle things between the conferences. This year only Iowa-Florida and Nebraska-Tennessee will match the Big Ten vs. SEC.

Of course that will all change if OSU plays Alabama for the title.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 

Interesting that the Big10 plays the most number of bowls against the ACC- sure hope the conference can expose the ACC as the weak conference everyone claims it to be.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Just noticed that because the 1st is on a Sunday, there will be no bowl games that day. The Outback, Cotton, Rose, and Sugar Bowls are all on Monday, the 2nd. The TV ratings are going to be horrible for the Outback and Cotton Bowls because they start at noon. Rose Bowl is at 4. Why not play two games on Monday and two on Tuesday? Or even better, one game each night Monday through Thursday?

I'll be working on the 2nd like most people so will miss most of the games that day.
 

GophersInIowa said:
Just noticed that because the 1st is on a Sunday, there will be no bowl games that day. The Outback, Cotton, Rose, and Sugar Bowls are all on Monday, the 2nd. The TV ratings are going to be horrible for the Outback and Cotton Bowls because they start at noon. Rose Bowl is at 4. Why not play two games on Monday and two on Tuesday? Or even better, one game each night Monday through Thursday?

I'll be working on the 2nd like most people so will miss most of the games that day.
Click to expand...

Most people won't be working on Jan.2.

Most companies use that as the paid holiday, as does the government.
 



The traditional January 1 bowls have always been played on the 2nd if the 1st falls on a Sunday.
 

Well, I said it when they first announced the playoff teams this year...Ohio State didn't deserve to be included. I was chastised and told that the best four teams had to be selected. Well, Ohio State was just dominated...were they really one of the best four? I think tonight's game proved me right. Mic drop.
 

Derhey said:
Well, I said it when they first announced the playoff teams this year...Ohio State didn't deserve to be included. I was chastised and told that the best four teams had to be selected. Well, Ohio State was just dominated...were they really one of the best four? I think tonight's game proved me right. Mic drop.
Click to expand...

OSU had the best resume of teams in the 4-10 range and it really isn't close sorry dude they deserved to be there by virtue of their regular season which is what we go on
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom