January 8, 2012 · 12:39 PM

“I hate change.”

Shorter Michael Rosenberg:  If you ignore BYU winning a national title in 1984, the old bowl system makes a lot more sense than what we’ve got now.

8 Comments

Filed under BCS/Playoffs

8 responses to ““I hate change.””

  1. Hogbody Spradlin
    January 8, 2012 at 1:55 PM

    I like the current system. I’m not putting a bit of thought into whither a playoff. I like the current system because it generates more discussion, passion, disagreement, and interest in college football than anytime in the history of college football. I’m 100% serious.

    Things usually come down to an old poker saying. The winners sit and enjoy, the losers complain about the rules and say deal.

    Like

  2. Bill Connelly (@SBN_BillC)
    January 8, 2012 at 3:26 PM

    Yeah, the old system of random bowls and no playoff was definitely better than the current system of random bowls, no playoff, and a guaranteed No. 1 vs No. 2 matchup.

    Like

    • Macallanlover
      January 8, 2012 at 9:22 PM

      Sorry, the current system guarantees a contrived 1 and 2, nothing more. I get the shortcomings of the prior system but let’s not over state what we have with this mess.

      Like

  3. Mayor of Dawgtown
    January 8, 2012 at 4:28 PM

    Therein lies the problem. Bama is the stated #2 but already lost to the #1 team, LSU. Bama has the same record as Okie State. Bama didn’t play Okie State, though. And Okie State hasn’t lost to LSU. So how come Bama gets a second crack at LSU and Okie State doesn’t get a first crack at them? The point is: Who’s says it’s really #1 vs. #2 when LSU plays Bama in the BCSNCG? The BCS, that’s who. And a whole lot of people think the BCS is full of sh!t.

    Like

  4. Elderdawg
    January 8, 2012 at 5:07 PM

    Uhh…Who did Okie State lose to??

    Like

    • 81Dog
      January 8, 2012 at 6:03 PM

      one can argue ad nauseaum that “The BCS is a bunch of (insert the scatology of your choice here),” but anyone who thinks Alabama isnt light years better than OSU, Stanford, or whoever, just hasnt been paying attention this year. If your goal is for the two best teams at the end of the year to be playing for the title, this is your year, isnt it?

      Like

  5. Bryant Denny
    January 8, 2012 at 9:18 PM

    Who says LSU would have played Stanford? It would be up to the Sugar Bowl to invite the opponent to play LSU. Think they would want LSU and Bama fans in town?

    Of course, back in the old days there was a ton of politicking related to who would be invited as the opponent.

    Like

    • Macallanlover
      January 8, 2012 at 9:31 PM

      True, and there was a ton of politicing and voting that involved this selection as well. The only difference now is the conference barriers are knocked down, but we let a handful of geeks get a say. Horrible mess we make of something so simple. Geaux Tigers, there is no question about your place in the game, you have earned it more than anyone else in history and deserve the vote regardless of tomorrow night.

      You are a solid poster BD, but LSU should get everyone’s vote for #1 this year. Miles has gotten them up for every single game: Top 5 several times, and all the lesser teams as well. While either team could win a single game match-up, the body of work belongs to LSU, hands down. Nothing tomorrow overcomes that, LSU already has 13 wins. (And Miles too, he was the difference in Tusky on November 5.)

      Like