2008 College Football Thread

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by transplant99

But the BCS rankings are never wrong....right?




really eh? OK then.

.

Whining? He was asked a question and answered it...but then again I tbhought he was "lying" according to you. WHich is it?



Nonsense. How much more elaborate can the BCS system be? And regular season games still mean just as much as ever....again if you dont win em, you dont make the playoff. Seems to work for every other organized sport in North America.

Take USC out of the picture...and lets use Florida. Do you disagree that they are one of the best teams in the country, regardless of losing at home to an unranked conference opponent? I sure think they are. Same with Oklahoma. But should Bama Penn State and TT all win out....then niether is going to be considered for a title. Thats a shame. Those kids and programs deserve better than that IMO.

Guess what would solve that problem?

No it's not, they didn't win their games.

Right now it's a 2 team playoff. As you increase the games you make the regular season games less important. That is completely undebatable, it's just a fact. In a 8 team playoff. The USC v Oregon State game meant nothing. USC is in either way. In a 2 team playoff that game has tons if importance. Isn't that just simple to understand?

And enough about the kids, in the current system 26 teams walk off the field at the end of the year winning their last game. The tons of bowls over the holidays is one of the best things in life. BCS is given that a right hook, and your playoff would be the knockout punch. People are too fixated now on a NC, a playoff makes that worse.

And btw when polled accross america NCAA football has been commonly voted the most favorite sport. And that has been for 20 years ... 20 years without a playoff. How can that be? It's because right now, every game is important. A playoff kills that. The general public doesn't get that, but the conference commissions do.

[transplant99]

Right now it's a 2 team playoff. As you increase the games you make the regular season games less important. That is completely undebatable, it's just a fact. In a 8 team playoff. The USC v Oregon State game meant nothing. USC is in either way. In a 2 team playoff that game has tons if importance. Isn't that just simple to understand?

As I said...take USC out of it for now and tell me that Florida isnt one of the best teams in the country.

And enough about the kids

Right...who cares about them anyhow. I mean full grown adult professionals are given a chance to show who is best in every sport, but not those damn kids. Lets put the pressure of having to win every single time they take the field on 19 year olds and to hell with allowing a bad week. Got it.

And btw when polled accross america NCAA football has been commonly voted the most favorite sport.

I love the sport...hate the system. In your own words.... "Isn't that just simple to understand?"

The general public doesn't get that, but the conference commissions do.

You're right. Who gives a crap about the actual people that drive the college football machine. Those who purchase tickets, sweaters, jerseys, watch on TV and travel to cheer their teams. They just dont get it.

But those conference commisioners/Presidents? They get it man. They know whats best for everyone.

Well at least they know where the money is....as they could care less about anything else.

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by transplant99

As I said...take USC out of it for now and tell me that Florida isnt one of the best teams in the country.

Sure, USC and florida are one of the best teams. Who the hell said they weren't. But neither are in the top 2.

Originally Posted by transplant99

Right...who cares about them anyhow. I mean full grown adult professionals are given a chance to show who is best in every sport, but not those damn kids. Lets put the pressure of having to win every single time they take the field on 19 year olds and to hell with allowing a bad week. Got it.

It's not who cares about them, you are just using some fake humanitarian excuse for your agenda.

One set of kids win the NC no matter the structure. So you really don't mean what about the kids, you mean what about the USC kids. And yea, its football. Have a bad week and no NC for you. That's football if you don't like it, try baseball where a bad game, or a bad week doesn't matter.
[/quote]


I love the sport...hate the system. In your own words.... "Isn't that just simple to understand?"

Originally Posted by transplant99

You're right. Who gives a crap about the actual people that drive the college football machine. Those who purchase tickets, sweaters, jerseys, watch on TV and travel to cheer their teams. They just dont get it.

But those conference commisioners/Presidents? They get it man. They know whats best for everyone.

Well at least they know where the money is....as they could care less about anything else.

It's not who gives a crap, apparently they love the game the way it is. I don't know if it's all money or not, but I do know they have manufactured a regular season like no other sport ... and that is why they have the interest they do.

[ricoFlame]

massive hurdle for utah has been cleared with a big 13-10 win over a tough TCU team. now they can focus on BYU.

[transplant99]

It's not who cares about them, you are just using some fake humanitarian excuse for your agenda.

One set of kids win the NC no matter the structure. So you really don't mean what about the kids, you mean what about the USC kids. And yea, its football. Have a bad week and no NC for you. That's football if you don't like it, try baseball where a bad game, or a bad week doesn't matter.

No ...I really dont. Nice to know you have me all figured out though. Seriously, how high is that horse you perch yourself on?

I can give all kinds of examples though. What about an unbeaten Auburn club 4 years ago? They run the SEC and dont get in. In a playoff system, they have a chance to prove they are the best in the country...not in the darn tootin, everything is swell, BCS system though. Nope.

Utah this year...no chance of playing for a title unless everyone ahead of them fails.

Same thing year after year after year. Great system for sure. So great that CONGRESS is still trying to figure out a way of making it better. Obama has stated he will make sure something happens.

But nope...those commisioners all have more sense than the majority of Americans who want to see a flawe system changed.

yup.

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by transplant99

No ...I really dont. Nice to know you have me all figured out though. Seriously, how high is that horse you perch yourself on?

I can give all kinds of examples though. What about an unbeaten Auburn club 4 years ago? They run the SEC and dont get in. In a playoff system, they have a chance to prove they are the best in the country...not in the darn tootin, everything is swell, BCS system though. Nope.

Utah this year...no chance of playing for a title unless everyone ahead of them fails.

Same thing year after year after year. Great system for sure. So great that CONGRESS is still trying to figure out a way of making it better. Obama has stated he will make sure something happens.

But nope...those commisioners all have more sense than the majority of Americans who want to see a flawe system changed.

yup.

It's not about figuring you out. You seem to focus on all the wrong things.

It's just math. No matter the system one set of kids win a NC ... so when you preach "but what about the children" when you propose a playoff ... all I'm saying is that one set of kids win no matter what. Obviously it's has nothing to do with all the kids, because it's a zero sum game. So mathmatically it has nothing to do with all the kids in NCAA ball, soooo maybe has something to do with the kids that have a logo on their head that is the same as your avitar??

Yep Auburn is a great example, I agree, it's not perfect and I don't care. There is too much focus on a NC. But in a playoff system you still have flaws. You could have a USC just get hot at the end and beat out a team that was perfect in the regular season ... how is that any different to the undefeated team than it was to Auburn in 04? No matter the system it will be unfair to others, but in a playoff we kill off the other bowls and devalue the regular season.

And yea, Congress and Obama aren't pandering for votes at all, very credible source. And it's NCAA's property, they can do what they want as long as it's legal. You can like it or not, same with me, but what Congress says or thinks about college football is totally irrelvant and everyone knows it. They are just pandering to the public.

And for your last comment, I completely believe that they do. It's a bit apples and oranges but I have spent my life in O&G, from that I have learned two things. 1. The general public has no problem having strong opinions about things it has no clue about and the general public would be shocked with how little it actually understood things around it. If playoff systems are so great, then why isn't NCAA basketball more popular than NCAA football? It's got a great tourneyment ... best I can think of. But it's entire regular season is rendered useless because of it. Smart people protecting their enourmously valuable and popular asset know that. Just because the general public says something, it doesn't make it correct.

You can always tell someone who has never had to manage something of large value and/or large public interest, because they always equate public sentiment to factually perfect.

[transplant99]

It's just math. No matter the system one set of kids win a NC ... so when you preach "but what about the children" when you propose a playoff ... all I'm saying is that one set of kids win no matter what.

Of course one set of kids win...thats why its called a NC game. WHat isnt done though...is to allow ALL deserving teams a crack at it. You keep saying I focus too much on the title....well why in the hell even have one if its not important? I will tell you why....its makes the NCAA gobs and gobs of MONEY. Thats why a fair system should be implemented to decide who plays. Not sure why you have such a hard time with that.

So mathmatically it has nothing to do with all the kids in NCAA ball, soooo maybe has something to do with the kids that have a logo on their head that is the same as your avitar??

As I have stated....I dont believe USC deserves a shot to this pouint in the season. Why do you insist on ignoring that?

Yep Auburn is a great example, I agree, it's not perfect and I don't care

.

Really? Then why the 1000 word disertation about it?

You could have a USC just get hot at the end and beat out a team that was perfect in the regular season ... how is that any different to the undefeated team than it was to Auburn in 04?

Are you serious? Auburn NEVER EVEN GOT A SHOT. With a playoff system...they would have. What part of that are you unable to grasp?

but in a playoff we kill off the other bowls and devalue the regular season.

No...you dont kill off ANY bowls. You incorporate them INTO the playoffs as I have given an example of above. Again...what part of this is over your head? And no it most certainly does NOT devalue the regular season no matter how many times you wanna yell that it does. You still have to win your conference or be one of the 2 at large teams based on your performance. God I wish you would stop with that stuff. You still have to be VERY good to get into the post season dance....much like every other organized sport in the entire world.

And yea, Congress and Obama aren't pandering for votes at all, very credible source.

How was Congress pandering for votes...they opened up this investigation in 2005. And what "source" are you talking about?

but what Congress says or thinks about college football is totally irrelvant and everyone knows it.

Congress has a committee that is an oversight on ALL sports...so its much much bigger than this "pandering" you keep referring too.

Here is an article about it...i suggest you read it.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=2245440

And for your last comment, I completely believe that they do. It's a bit apples and oranges but I have spent my life in O&G, from that I have learned two things. 1. The general public has no problem having strong opinions about things it has no clue about and the general public would be shocked with how little it actually understood things around it.

So everyone is just too stupid to understand it. Got it. I guess I must fall into the "dumb zone" as well then since i disagree with you and those mighty commisioners.

If playoff systems are so great, then why isn't NCAA basketball more popular than NCAA football?

Ummm...because they are different sports maybe? Just a shot in the dark there. Thats like asking why doesnt the Stanley Cup garner as many viewers as the Super Bowl. Strange comparison.

Last years NCCAA Bball championship game...Kansas' 75-68 overtime win over Memphis on CBS drew a fast national rating of 12.1 and a 20 share

IIRC the football game garnered a 14.2 for the same thing.

huge difference? You tell me.

You can always tell someone who has never had to manage something of large value and/or large public interest, because they always equate public sentiment to factually perfect.

Yup...you are so correct and superior. I bow to your greatness. in now way is the NCAA part of "large public interest".

Public sentiment is what drives the whole NCAA by the way...you still fail to address that.

Also...why is NCAA football the single solitary sporting entity that doesnt require a playoff system? If it is SO superior to anything else....i would think those "smart guys" in other sports would be falling all over themselves to establish such a brilliant system.

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Of course one set of kids win...thats why its called a NC game. WHat isnt done though...is to allow ALL deserving teams a crack at it. You keep saying I focus too much on the title....well why in the hell even have one if its not important? I will tell you why....its makes the NCAA gobs and gobs of MONEY. Thats why a fair system should be implemented to decide who plays. Not sure why you have such a hard time with that.

but 'deserving' is subjective. You just assume the right answer to subjective. To me, losing to OSU makes you undeserving. That's the thing playoff people don't get. What they are doing by definition is loosening what deserving means. Can't argue that right? So what's fair about a team running through the Big XII or SEC then put on equal footing with a USC team that cant beat the beavers? Your definition of deserving is no better than any one else's.

Originally Posted by transplant99

As I have stated....I dont believe USC deserves a shot to this pouint in the season. Why do you insist on ignoring that?

Because you go back and forth on that. If you say they don't deserve a shot then fine. Done. USC is out of the picture. So let's not hear the whining about how USC is screwed out the polls then.

.

Originally Posted by transplant99

Really? Then why the 1000 word disertation about it?

Because I think playoff people have no idea what a playoff would do to the game. It would make 3 or some very small number of playoff games very important, but the hundreds before it, much less important. I'm ok with no BCS and the old bowl structure, or the current BCS as a compromise to those who want a 1 vs 2 game every year. Anything more to focus on a NC will hurt the game.

Originally Posted by transplant99

Are you serious? Auburn NEVER EVEN GOT A SHOT. With a playoff system...they would have. What part of that are you unable to grasp?

I'm fully aware how that turned out, it would have been nice that year to have a 3 team playoff. But 8 teams every year is no better and in fact much worse. Again because USC is put on the same footing as someone who say walked through the SEC ... and it's conference championship, the same week that USC battles the mighty bruins.

Originally Posted by transplant99

No...you dont kill off ANY bowls. You incorporate them INTO the playoffs as I have given an example of above. Again...what part of this is over your head? And no it most certainly does NOT devalue the regular season no matter how many times you wanna yell that it does. You still have to win your conference or be one of the 2 at large teams based on your performance. God I wish you would stop with that stuff. You still have to be VERY good to get into the post season dance....much like every other organized sport in the entire world.

Ohhh, good. And I thought this was just a 8 team playoff. Can you help me understand how you will incorporate all 26 bowls game to be relevant to a NC picture. If you need, embed a excel diagram or something because this will be fun to explain I'm sure.

Your opinion here is my poster child for the general public not knowing what they want. By definition the more teams that get to play for a NC at the end of the year, the less important the games are. That USC game in Corvallis would mean absolutely nothing in your structure. And so would dozens of other games. That is so simple a 10 year old can get that. THE MORE TEAMS CHALLENGING FOR A NC AT THE END OF THE YEAR, THE LESS IMPORTANT THE REGULAR SEASON IS.

Originally Posted by transplant99

How was Congress pandering for votes...they opened up this investigation in 2005. And what "source" are you talking about?



Congress has a committee that is an oversight on ALL sports...so its much much bigger than this "pandering" you keep referring too.

Here is an article about it...i suggest you read it.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=2245440

If congress thinks there is a steriods problem, I care, if they prefer a playoff, I don't care. That's not their job, they should be worried about things like a garbage economy or how uneducated its population is becomming.

Originally Posted by transplant99

So everyone is just too stupid to understand it. Got it. I guess I must fall into the "dumb zone" as well then since i disagree with you and those mighty commisioners.

No. You know there isn't really a single time you don't take a comment out of context and then make it into something else. Just because the general public thinks something it doesn't make it true. And the publics confidence that they are right doesn't mean much that is what I said. NCAA is extremely successful, and the public didn't build it, the NCAA did, so I think I'm gonna cut the NCAA a little slack on how to build a league.

Originally Posted by transplant99

Ummm...because they are different sports maybe? Just a shot in the dark there. Thats like asking why doesnt the Stanley Cup garner as many viewers as the Super Bowl. Strange comparison.

Have you ever watched a NFL preseason game that didn't include your packers? It's not that interesting. Fans every year scream in pain about the preseason moreso than any other sport, because football games that don't mean anything are terrible. The main reason football became the most popular sport is because of how important games are. NFL Films main objective in life is to highlight that, the networks know how to make the intensity of the fans part of the game. It's not the sport itself, it's the environment. Watch how much emphasis football coverage will focus on the intensity that the fans add to the environment.

[quote=transplant99;1506958]
Last years NCCAA Bball championship game...Kansas' 75-68 overtime win over Memphis on CBS drew a fast national rating of 12.1 and a 20 share

IIRC the football game garnered a 14.2 for the same thing.

huge difference? You tell me./quote]

That's great ... now, what about the other 99.999% of the games? You go compare NCAA Bball regular season ratings for nationally televised games and compare that to NCAA Football national games and get back to me k? That is my point. You are just focusing on one game ... or a very small sample of games. The NCAA is focussing on all of their games.

The last thing you thought was to compare an entire season ... just went for the one game.

Originally Posted by transplant99

Yup...you are so correct and superior. I bow to your greatness. in now way is the NCAA part of "large public interest".

Public sentiment is what drives the whole NCAA by the way...you still fail to address that.

Also...why is NCAA football the single solitary sporting entity that doesnt require a playoff system? If it is SO superior to anything else....i would think those "smart guys" in other sports would be falling all over themselves to establish such a brilliant system.

Sorry I just think your view is simple. When you say how can USC lose a spot in the ranking after winning that is simple and naive. That conclusion requires no depth. To go a bit beyond that and think about things like the evolving merit of SOS based on how teams they have already played are preforming in the future is not as simple, but no less important. Just a few years ago polls didn't get that, but are slowing evolving. So to be honest, it's not that I really think what I know is superior as much as I think your views are simple and not well thought out ... my best guess is because of faith for your Trojans ... don't know that for sure, but it's my guess.

As for your question at the end. I think 2 things, one, you tell me. No playoff still the most popular. Facts are facts, the smart guys manufactured the most popular sporting league on the continent, I've tried explaining to you many time why I think that is but you don't listen.

The other is that to me the NCAA has the best playoff structure there is. It's just that most people view it as a regular season based on how other leagues work. Games in September can mean almost as much as a game in a march madness tourneyment. And the following week there will be some more. Right from the top the intensity, importance and desparation is high, that's interesting.

[moon]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

Because I think playoff people have no idea what a playoff would do to the game. It would make 3 some very small number of playoff games very important, but the hundreds before it, much less important. I'm ok with no BCS and the old bowl structure, or the current BCS as a comprimise to those who want a 1 vs 2 game every year. Anything more to focus on a NC will hurt the game.

Those games and bowls are more irrelevant right now.

As soon as USC lost that game all their games became irrelevant as the computer would never let them get back into the Championship game. With a play-off system another loss and they are done.

The Georgia-Florida game would have been for a spot in the play-offs, instead it only mattered if Florida as Georgia isn't jumping over other teams to make the Championship game.

Any game Utah or TCU plays is irrelevant as they aren't making the championship game at all.

The regular season games and bowls are irrelevant now, adding in the play-offs isn't going to make a difference to that.

[corporatejay]

The regular season games and bowls are irrelevant now, adding in the play-offs isn't going to make a difference to that.

Really? Because teams only play for a National Championship? You're going to tell me that Boise State winning their BCS game against Oklahoma wasn't as rewarding/intriguing (or in my opnion moreso) then the national championship game?

Winning a Bowl Game or a BCS game is a big deal, just because you don't win a NC doesn't mean your season was a disaster.

I'm with Flames in 07 on this. A few years ago Michigan played Ohio State in November, the winner would have finished the regular season unbeaten and made the championship game. If there was a playoff, they both would have made and that game would have been meaningless.

this is the season i was referring to.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Mi..._football_team


Edit: Also, even in an 8 team playoff it becomes "unfair". Where is the cutoff? what if the 8th place team goes on a run and wins it all? but the 9th place team doesn't get a shot but thinks they deserved it. Do you think an unbeaten Utah is better than a 1 loss OK State? No matter what system they use it'll be controversial.

[moon]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

Really? Because teams only play for a National Championship? You're going to tell me that Boise State winning their BCS game against Oklahoma wasn't as rewarding/intriguing (or in my opnion moreso) then the national championship game?

Winning a Bowl Game or a BCS game is a big deal, just because you don't win a NC doesn't mean your season was a disaster.

I am not saying they are irrelevant but those bowl wins are no less relevant under the play-off system. In the play-off system that win would have been even bigger because Boise St. wouldn't have just pulled off the amazing upset but they would have had the chance to do it again the next week.

I'm with Flames in 07 on this. A few years ago Michigan played Ohio State in November, the winner would have finished the regular season unbeaten and made the championship game. If there was a playoff, they both would have made and that game would have been meaningless.

this is the season i was referring to.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Mi..._football_team

You can point to games/teams that prove both points. What about the season that Auburn was undefeated or when USC was number 1 in both polls but didn't get in.

If Texas Tech loses a game before the Big 12 championship game that game loses a lot of interest. In a play-off system that game could be a for a shot to be in the play-offs.

No matter what system you have games are still going to be as big as ever because there will always be something to play for.

In the play-offs rather than games only mattering for say about 6 teams after the first 3 weeks there will be more teams involved in the race all season long.

Edit: Also, even in an 8 team playoff it becomes "unfair". Where is the cutoff? what if the 8th place team goes on a run and wins it all? but the 9th place team doesn't get a shot but thinks they deserved it. Do you think an unbeaten Utah is better than a 1 loss OK State? No matter what system they use it'll be controversial.

8 teams makes the most sense from a practical standpoint and in reality by the end of the year if you are fighting for the 8th place you will not have much of an argument as you will have 2 or more losses on your record or play in an absolute garbage conference.

Oklahoma State is unlikely to be at 9 at the end of the year as they will either have Oklahoma and Texas Tech. Wins or loses in those games will move them down or up depending.

Still would be some controversy but when talking about teams with two loses it becomes a lot clearer who the best teams are over teams that had a bad/unlucky week and are now deemed done.

[GirlySports]

This is why there is no playoff.
So you guys can argue over it every year

I'm not sure logistically a playoff would work in college football.

8 teams = 7 games.. where would these 7 games be played and how does a school travel to these venues in 3 consecutive weeks?

It usually takes a school nearly a month to prepare for a bowl game.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

This is why there is no playoff.
So you guys can argue over it every year

I'm not sure logistically a playoff would work in college football.

8 teams = 7 games.. where would these 7 games be played and how does a school travel to these venues in 3 consecutive weeks?

It usually takes a school nearly a month to prepare for a bowl game.

Winners of the

Big 12
Big11
SEC
ACC
PAC 10
Big East ( though thats getting debateable)

2 at large bids for the next best 2 teams...whether they come from above conferences or a mid-major.

8 teams/4 games one weekend(Sugar, Cotton,Orange, Fiesta)...then 4 teams/2 games the next weekend (Rose, Tostitos Bowls), Then the BCS game as the grand daddy. (or any variation there of)

Hell...you could even space the games out and only play every other weekend.

Not sure why teams need a month for a bowl game, they play every week (more or less) during the regular season. It works in Division 2 or FBS or whatever they call it anymore. Those schools seem to do just fine with it.

In fact that just higthlights how ludicrous the anti-playoff people's position is. It works just fine for one division of college football, but not the other? Makes ZERO sense.

[PIMking]

dude its going to be a nitemare to get fans to go the the "playoff" game one week go home and have to drive lets say from florida to California for the rose bowl, go home and then go back out for another game...

Its about money. Bowls give more money. your just pissed that your condoms pissed away their nc bid by losing to Oregon state.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Cue the "NCAA Championship Division isn't relevant" talk.

[transplant99]

dude its going to be a nitemare to get fans to go the the "playoff" game one week go home and have to drive lets say from florida to California for the rose bowl, go home and then go back out for another game...


Its about money. Bowls give more money. your just pissed that your condoms pissed away their nc bid by losing to Oregon state.

Excuse me?

1) The bowls aren't affected....and if you would read through this you would actually understand that. They ARE the playoff system. Are you trying to tell me LESS people would go to the games because there season is at stake? Sure thing.

2) My "condoms"?? How old are you?...12?

Again read through...i have said repeatedly that USC doesn't deserve a shot this year. Nevermind I have been railing for a playoff system for years. Including years when the "condoms" were in the NC gme.


Funny how the FBS series accomplishes it somehow every year...but Division 1 who have far more fans, in far more places, that travel to far more destinations, somehow won't be able to accomplish the same thing.

Purely laughable.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Excuse me?

1) The bowls aren't affected....and if you would read through this you would actually understand that. They ARE the playoff system. Are you trying to tell me LESS people would go to the games because there season is at stake? Sure thing.

.

Montana travels VERY well to their playoff games, and championship games. And this is out of a town of 60,000 people. The playoff system in 1-AA (or whatever you want to call it now) is a gargantuan success and in general you are dealing with schools and fans who have less of an ability to follow the teams than the big time schools do.


The travel issue is a joke.

[JayP]

It's more than just about travel though.

It's about people going for spectacle of the bowl game. People who go to say, the Rose Bowl, don't just go fly in the day the before and leave right after the game. It's a week long event that generates a ton of money for the local economy. Turn the game into a semi or quarter final and there's not going to be any of those same people staying there for the week (as they'd be saving their money/vacation time in the event their team makes the finals).

Another problem is that which bowl gets which game. There's three tiers of games (quarters, semis, and finals) and even if they rotate through someone's going to be unhappy. They've already had this problem - before 2006 they tried to do this with the National Championship game and they had to create a new game just so the major bowls would stop complaining. Now imagine the outrage when the Rose Bowl is relegated to a quarterfinal game. Even if they rotate through they'll be unhappy.

[JayP]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Funny how the FBS series accomplishes it somehow every year...but Division 1 who have far more fans, in far more places, that travel to far more destinations, somehow won't be able to accomplish the same thing.

Purely laughable.

FBS doesn't have to deal with 100 000 seat stadiums and the affect that number of people has on the economy of a town and prestigious bowls that all think their bowl is the cream of the crop.

It's comparing apples and oranges.

[transplant99]

Ive been to a bowl game...and i certainly didnt attend because of who was playing in it.

How would that change? Other than it would actually make the games that dont have NC implications....into games that DO have implications.

Most major bowl games sell out way BEFORE the teams are known. Why would it change because the game actually means MORE than it would have? Im just not understanding that argument whatsoever.