CFB51 College Football Fan Community
The Power Five => Big Ten => Topic started by: OrangeAfroMan on January 19, 2025, 09:11:05 PM
-
From a question on Josh Pate's show, what's your Golden Age of college football?
-
I'm going with the Rise of the Independents era.
10-team conferences (and the Big 8 and ACC)
*Enough important independents to keep scheduling wide open and interesting
Non-Alabama southern teams rising up
More passing programs, still plenty of option teams, but most somewhere in-between
Expansion of TV (thanks OU and UGA)
Bowls meant something.
.
*I think this is underrated and would be good for the sport overall, if it could happen again. Having the option to fill a scheduling gap with Penn State instead of Western Kentucky is a good thing.
-
70s
although the 60s and 80s were GREAT!
-
Now.
-
Voted 70s but would Include the 60s
-
Voted 70s but really it's "dawn of time through 1991." B1G and SEC expansion starting in the early 90s, was the beginning of the end.
-
I voted the BCS era. I think the easy vote is for nostalgia, and the era you grew up in. But I think largely the BCS era nailed it. You had a "realish" championship game, but big bowls still mattered. You still had plenty of schematic diversity because analytics, using that term broadly, hadnt told us there is actually the smartest way to play.
-
I voted the BCS era. I think the easy vote is for nostalgia, and the era you grew up in. But I think largely the BCS era nailed it. You had a "realish" championship game, but big bowls still mattered. You still had plenty of schematic diversity because analytics, using that term broadly, hadnt told us there is actually the smartest way to play.
So, you voted for the era you grew up in.
-
I voted CCG era, but should have voted for rise of the independents. I basically voted based on anything prior to the BCS, but then forgot about the Bowl Alliance and Bowl Coalition, so prior to that is ideal.
-
From a question on Josh Pate's show, what's your Golden Age of college football?
It will end when I go toes up,actually had they kept the conference alignments before Miami,VTech and BC bolted to the ACC that would have been alright.And I'm voting 70s Woody and Bo were always interesting tho neither grabbed all the hardware then
-
B1G and SEC expansion starting in the early 90s, was the beginning of the end.
So the SWC and the Big 8s love child doesn't count?
(https://i.imgur.com/qlEqcmd.png)
-
So the SWC and the Big 8s love child doesn't count?
(https://i.imgur.com/qlEqcmd.png)
That was a contraction of major conferences not an expansion. And it happened 5 years later, as the direct result of TV revenue being driven by B1G and SEC expansion. The SWC and Big 8 had to merge if they wanted to keep up in the new era of conference television revenue.
-
Word Salad
(https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nationalreview.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2020%2F08%2Fharris-2.jpg%3Fw%3D1592&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=e16e4d098640aa743b8cbc8104014a15da2bbf8487d94469b046ca13abb156b2&ipo=images) (https://www.nationalreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/harris-2.jpg?w=1592)
-
History is word salad to you?
(https://cdn.quotesgram.com/img/84/87/1528936085-You-stupid-or-something-GIF.gif)
-
I think the CCG with divisions was the beginning of the end. I know teams didn't play everyone else in their conference necessarily, but they could have, pre-CCG.
And there was room for expansion in the Big 8 and ACC. Or not. I really think having those brand-name independents floating around, being available, was a great situation for college football.
It was super-regional, there was (in the back end) diversity of offenses, you had more parity than the 70s...I think in terms of health of the sport, it was the best time.
-
The year that the Big East, Big 8 and SWC all existed simultaneously.
-
yup
split into divisions where teams didn't play each other (nebraska/oklahoma), conference championship games where an underdog from the other division could crash the party was NOT golden
-
I voted the BCS era. I think the easy vote is for nostalgia, and the era you grew up in. But I think largely the BCS era nailed it. You had a "realish" championship game, but big bowls still mattered. You still had plenty of schematic diversity because analytics, using that term broadly, hadnt told us there is actually the smartest way to play.
This.
-
I voted the BCS era. I think the easy vote is for nostalgia, and the era you grew up in. But I think largely the BCS era nailed it. You had a "realish" championship game, but big bowls still mattered. You still had plenty of schematic diversity because analytics, using that term broadly, hadnt told us there is actually the smartest way to play.
I was debating 80-91 vs 92-97 until I read your answer and I think you nailed it. The only reason I want to convince myself it's not this timeline is UM's collapse OSU's complete domination of the rivalry, but that biased thinking doesn't discount the truth supporting that take.
-
92-97 was certainly UNL's golden age, but the creation of 12-team conferences was the fall of college football's golden age
so, 50's, 60's and 70's can be lumped together
the other older option would be pre-WWII
-
I admit, I didn’t have much affinity for the BCS era.
Maybe it’s because it’s what I came up in, but the undefeated count off was not the best, and it had some irritating structural issues.
I like the idea of the mid 90s and found the 4-team pleasant enough (although some of the vibe-y picks had their issues)
-
Yeah, my problem with the BCS was the big, fat lie with the computer rankings. From the get-go, they never incorporated the computer rankings as-is. It was always an altered version, which then got tweaked basically every year, preventing any continuity.
Why bother with the computers if you're not going to incorporate them as-is. They're already at their top effort, unedited. So you go an edit them? WTF???
Same as the big, fat lie that anyone could win the NC.
-
My personal Golden Age is the BCS Era, and that’s not to say it’s due to the BCS. The era itself aligns with my coming of age with football, which started with watching college football with my grandpa during my childhood in Florida, until finishing college fifteen years later in Arizona.
For one, the BCS Era is the college football I grew up with. To quote myself from an earlier post: “...our favorite eras of college football are almost always the eras we grew up with. It’s why the different generations of Star Wars fans – Gen X, Millennials – defend the versions they grew up with – Original Trilogy, Clone Wars. It’s why you might see the elderly restlessly chase youthful urges through unwise romances or unrealistic purchases.” At some point, no matter how much more we keep watching college football, it doesn’t quite have the luster once our youthful fascinations for the sport wane.
Two, I got lucky growing up with Steve Spurrier’s Gators (thanks Grandpa). And extending Spurrier’s tenure through Urban Meyer’s, none of my other teams have come close to the Gator’s enviable success – certainly not my Phoenix teams. Three National Championships and a rare sense of dominance over my so-called Golden Age. Whenever I’m bummed after my Arizona Wildcats lose to another underdog in the NCAA Tournament, I can always fall back on knowing I at least had a team that won championships, one of which I was fortunate enough to attend – Florida beating Ohio State in the 2006 Fiesta Bowl.
After college, which aligned with Urban Meyer moving on from Florida, the sport wasn’t the same for me. But it wasn’t worth abandoning. A major offset is going to live games across the nation, which I began doing after college, once I started earning my own money.
-
My answer to almost everything, including this question ---
It was best in the 80's and 90's.
-
Very diverse preferences among us. That's interesting.
-
where's the echo chamber?
-
This isn't politics, it's actual football.
-
The 18-dicketies, when the Ivy League ruled the world, and tailgates had actual tails.
-
Gotta say I have no idea what even a lone dicketie is, much less 18 of them. But I suppose it takes all kinds...
-
My personal Golden Age is the BCS Era, and that’s not to say it’s due to the BCS. The era itself aligns with my coming of age with football, which started with watching college football with my grandpa during my childhood in Florida, until finishing college fifteen years later in Arizona.
I looked at it two different ways. If I could live in a college football world forever, I think myself, and most people would pick the era they first fell in love with the sport. For me that straddles the 1980-91 era and the 1992-97 era.
I viewed it more as if you said right now you could lock the sport into a set of rules and alignment and understanding of the sport going forward, which would you pick. That's why I picked the BCS. Not because of the BCS specifically, but I like the idea of one championship bowl, as phony as it could be, with still lots of meaningful bowls behind it. Particularly the early part of that era, I liked how for the most part you still had the powers believing you won the game by running the ball, with a fullback. But you had some PITA offenses with Randy Walker at Northwestern, Joe Tiller at Purdue, Bill Snyder at Kansas State, Rich Rod at West Virginia, that you had more diversity than you had before or after that period. I also think it was the apex of program building, because we had moved on from the roster clustering towards a couple programs that existed in the 70s and to a lesser extent 80s, but hadn't entered the transfer portal/NIL era.
It's certainly not the era I'm most nostalgic for, but I think it's the era, not for the BCS specifically by any means, that had it the most right
-
I'd freeze the alignment of having the SWC, Big 8, and Big East + ND. In lieu of having big-name independents, FSU being in the ACC and Miami in the Big East split up the FL powers nicely.
Is SMU's death penalty the reason the SWC became so weak?
Would ND have been enough to keep a strong eastern conference from being poached?
Was 1990 the worst Heisman vote ever?
:57:
-
1984
-
.
The year that the Big East, Big 8 and SWC all existed simultaneously.
.
I'd freeze the alignment of having the SWC, Big 8, and Big East + ND. In lieu of having big-name independents.
I don't get very many opportunities to say this, so here we go.
I agree with OrangeAfroMan.
-
I'd freeze the alignment of having the SWC, Big 8, and Big East + ND. In lieu of having big-name independents, FSU being in the ACC and Miami in the Big East split up the FL powers nicely.
Is SMU's death penalty the reason the SWC became so weak?
Would ND have been enough to keep a strong eastern conference from being poached?
Was 1990 the worst Heisman vote ever?
:57:
Texas hit a lull and then Arkansas left.
When your conference drops from 9 to 8 and you need Texas and A&M locked in to be looking “good” it’s a tough road.
-
Much simpler than that. Television revenues. Neither the SWC nor the Big 8 could survive on their own. Even after the merger the B12 was still behind the B1G and, later, the SEC.
-
Yeah I debated the SWC thing.
I like it in theory, and I get why fans from Texas are on board. Then when you look at the teams involved, I wasn't sure. I do like the nostalgic aspect of it, but if we were going to lock it in, I'd prefer the Big XII
-
Oh I'm good with returning to the old SWC in a hypothetical world where television revenues don't matter, there's no playoff or BCS, we have the old bowl alignments, there's no 24/7 news mediots constantly bleating on and on about the national championship to the exclusion of everything else, etc.
Reset ALL of those factors to the mid-80s, and I'm good with it. Regional conferences with regional rivalries were great for the sport. Most things that have happened since then, are not. My opinion, of course.
-
Yeah I debated the SWC thing.
I like it in theory, and I get why fans from Texas are on board. Then when you look at the teams involved, I wasn't sure. I do like the nostalgic aspect of it, but if we were going to lock it in, I'd prefer the Big XII
nope, Big 8 & SWC for me
back when NU/OU was a thing
12 team conferences with CCGs weren't ideal
-
The SWC was weird in that it had every team from one state, regardless of level. Some obvious G5 caliber programs barking with the big dogs.
I like that UTEP was to extreme of a geographic outlier to be a member of a conference that included every other team from their state.
-
Much simpler than that. Television revenues. Neither the SWC nor the Big 8 could survive on their own. Even after the merger the B12 was still behind the B1G and, later, the SEC.
Ahh. I was thinking football week, not finances weak.
-
Ahh. I was thinking football week, not finances weak.
Ever since 1984 conference realignment has been about nothing other than money.
-
Ever since 1984 conference realignment has been about nothing other than money.
I know. But the question was about the league being strong. And I was thinking about a strong football league.
-
I know. But the question was about the league being strong. And I was thinking about a strong football league.
I didn't interpret it as football strength, I suppose because the ultimate failure of the SWC wasn't related to football strength, it was financial.
As far as being a strong football league, there were some good teams in the 80s and early 90s, it just wasn't Texas. Texas A&M was strong at the time, and Arkansas was usually fairly good, before they left for the SEC. Even Andre Ware won the Heisman at Houston when they had some strong teams in the late 80s.
I'll also add that I can understand why this message board has a strong B1G bias, but back then, outside of the midwest, the Big Ten was largely considered to be Michigan, Ohio State, and the 8 dwarves. Personal perceptions of relative football strength can be misleading.
-
I didn't interpret it as football strength, I suppose because the ultimate failure of the SWC wasn't related to football strength, it was financial.
As far as being a strong football league, there were some good teams in the 80s and early 90s, it just wasn't Texas. Texas A&M was strong at the time, and Arkansas was usually fairly good, before they left for the SEC. Even Andre Ware won the Heisman at Houston when they had some strong teams in the late 80s.
I'll also add that I can understand why this message board has a strong B1G bias, but back then, outside of the midwest, the Big Ten was largely considered to be Michigan, Ohio State, and the 8 dwarves. Personal perceptions of relative football strength can be misleading.
Yeah, but I meant if we are locking it in now, not strength at the time. Granted, the last couple years have re-boosted the profiles of TCU, SMU and Houston after falling into mid-major status, and Baylor, after years as the bottom of the Big XII
-
I didn't interpret it as football strength, I suppose because the ultimate failure of the SWC wasn't related to football strength, it was financial.
As far as being a strong football league, there were some good teams in the 80s and early 90s, it just wasn't Texas. Texas A&M was strong at the time, and Arkansas was usually fairly good, before they left for the SEC. Even Andre Ware won the Heisman at Houston when they had some strong teams in the late 80s.
I'll also add that I can understand why this message board has a strong B1G bias, but back then, outside of the midwest, the Big Ten was largely considered to be Michigan, Ohio State, and the 8 dwarves. Personal perceptions of relative football strength can be misleading.
That changed in the 1980's.
Iowa (twice), Illinois and MSU went to the Rose Bowl in that decade.
The 1990's brought Wisconsin (twice), Iowa, Penn State and Northwestern.
-
That changed in the 1980's.
Iowa (twice), Illinois and MSU went to the Rose Bowl in that decade.
The 1990's brought Wisconsin (twice), Iowa, Penn State and Northwestern.
Put some respect on the 1994 5-6 Rice Owls. SWC 5 way co-champs
-
That changed in the 1980's.
Iowa (twice), Illinois and MSU went to the Rose Bowl in that decade.
The 1990's brought Wisconsin (twice), Iowa, Penn State and Northwestern.
That may be true, but the perception didn't change. Like I said, Texas A&M, Houston, and Arkansas all had good years in the 80s/early 90s, and yet comments on this very thread make reference to it being a G5 league.
-
Yeah, but I meant if we are locking it in now, not strength at the time. Granted, the last couple years have re-boosted the profiles of TCU, SMU and Houston after falling into mid-major status, and Baylor, after years as the bottom of the Big XII
Oh we're talking about reverting to old leagues but doing it today?
That's an interesting question. As you point out, TCU, SMU, and Baylor have all had recent success. Texas is of course pretty good right now. Texas A&M is middlin' but outside of about ten years in the late 80s/early 90s, they were middlin' back then too. Arkansas isn't anywhere near as good now, as they were back then.
It could be interesting though. It wouldn't be any weaker than a reverted PAC-10, it would be much better than a reverted ACC. And without Texas, the reverted SEC is just Georgia and some chumps right now.
-
Oh we're talking about reverting to old leagues but doing it today?
That's an interesting question. As you point out, TCU, SMU, and Baylor have all had recent success. Texas is of course pretty good right now. Texas A&M is middlin' but outside of about ten years in the late 80s/early 90s, they were middlin' back then too. Arkansas isn't anywhere near as good now, as they were back then.
It could be interesting though. It wouldn't be any weaker than a reverted PAC-10, it would be much better than a reverted ACC. And without Texas, the reverted SEC is just Georgia and some chumps right now.
I laid out that I took the question as one of two ways. If you could go back to one era, or if you could lock one era in now. I think everyone would want to go back to the era they first fell in love with. So I went with the second, and said I would lock in the BCS era system, motivations, and understanding of the game.
-
That may be true, but the perception didn't change. Like I said, Texas A&M, Houston, and Arkansas all had good years in the 80s/early 90s, and yet comments on this very thread make reference to it being a G5 league.
Agree on Arky being solid. They went to a P5 as a result. Agree on aTm too, not to mention the value they bring.
The rest?
-
I didn't interpret it as football strength, I suppose because the ultimate failure of the SWC wasn't related to football strength, it was financial.
As far as being a strong football league, there were some good teams in the 80s and early 90s, it just wasn't Texas. Texas A&M was strong at the time, and Arkansas was usually fairly good, before they left for the SEC. Even Andre Ware won the Heisman at Houston when they had some strong teams in the late 80s.
I'll also add that I can understand why this message board has a strong B1G bias, but back then, outside of the midwest, the Big Ten was largely considered to be Michigan, Ohio State, and the 8 dwarves. Personal perceptions of relative football strength can be misleading.
I just read it that way, right or wrong.
Just looking at standings, it seemed like once Houston dipped and Arkansas left, the SWC dwarves were extra Dwarve-y
-
Agree on Arky being solid. They went to a P5 as a result. Agree on aTm too, not to mention the value they bring.
The rest?
Right now? SMU just made the playoff and can afford to recruit alongside almost any school in the country. TCU was in the title game 3 years ago. And Texas of course has made the semifinals the past 2 years in a row now, only FBS team to do so.
Ags and Ark would be mid but always have potential. Tech is pretty bad these days, Baylor has dropped off considerably, and Rice is, well, Rice.
But top to bottom it wouldn't be any worse than a reverted ACC or PAC. Probably better than both to be honest. And man, what would a reverted Big 8 look like right now? Yikes.
-
I just read it that way, right or wrong.
Just looking at standings, it seemed like once Houston dipped and Arkansas left, the SWC dwarves were extra Dwarve-y
Regional bias and perception I suppose. I don't view them as any more dwarve-y than the Big Ten dwarves. Bringing up Iowa and Illinois and Wisconsin trips to the Rose Bowl actually makes the counter point, it just means that Ohio State and Michigan weren't good enough to get it done. No difference than the way y'all look at the SWC with teams other than Texas winning and going to the Cotton Bowl.
Perception based on bias is an interesting thing.
-
I laid out that I took the question as one of two ways. If you could go back to one era, or if you could lock one era in now. I think everyone would want to go back to the era they first fell in love with. So I went with the second, and said I would lock in the BCS era system, motivations, and understanding of the game.
rise of the ind's for me which is the era that introduced me to the sport.
leagues with true rr scheduling for the most part & all my old rivals.
we stayed intact when merging with the tx schools so i loved the big xii era too but not as much.
i'm in the vast minority but i liked the charm of a mnc. byu in 1984 was ridiculous but it's fun to riot about such things & the regular season, which was always the pinnacle of the sport was magical since every game was of paramount importance.
now you can get away with losing to a 5 loss michigan team but we get more games.
i also loved the charm of the bowls & they have been diminished. first by saturation & then since that wasn't enough by dudes skipping games & the playoff marginalization.
-
I think my answer to the top-level poll was the 1980s. That's convenient, because I was watching some college football then (although I feel in love with college football in the 90s), but to be honest, the main reason I think that is that it's old enough that it's the traditional conferences, it had a little more variety than the 1970s, which was a decade of traditional powers, and I can't stomach choosing an era before integration.
But my feeling about the current landscape is encapsulated by the Game of Thrones-style intro to the B1G games. Everytime I watch it, I see the schools in the midwest rising and I think: wow, that would make a good conference. Nebraska fits into it, but I wouldn't mind a world in which the traditional Big 8, or something close to it, were rejuvinated. And while I've always like Penn State in the B1G, it too, could easily belong to a Big East. College football was, for the longest time, quite regional. That's why it mattered how Wisconsin did against Iowa and Minnesota. That's why Cal/Stanford matters. And it's one of the things that made Notre Dame unique (thanks, Michigan).
For deciding the national championship, a 12-game playoff probably makes sense. You take the major conference champions, then you have to decide if minor conference champions deserve a shot, and if so, what about the major conference teams that had near misses, but have a good argument for being there. I think you could make it work with 8, but 12 isn't illogical. (The current seeding is.)
But the bowl games were special, and now they aren't. Now, that started happening when they started breeding like rabbits, I think in the early 90s. I liked 3-4 teams from a major conference playing other top teams from major conferences, but I never really cared about the Pinstripe Bowl, or the Music City Bowl, or etc., etc., etc. Sure, I would (sometimes) watch if the Badgers were in them, but they didn't really matter to me. The Citrus Bowl, the Hall of Fame (Outback) Bowl, they were still big games, even if the Badgers didn't make the Rose Bowl, because they involved top competition from other leagues, and it means something to make those games. The others? I remember when the Badgers played in the Copper Bowl after the 1994 season. Meh.
While it wasn't good for deciding a national champion, my grandparents (Cal, 1941) cared that the Bears last went to the Rose Bowl in 1959. My parents when to the 1972 Rose Bowl. It mattered to us in 1993 that Wisconsin hadn't been there in 31 years. The SEC loved the Sugar Bowl, I presume for similar reasons. The Orange and Cotton Bowls had great histories, and the Fiesta and Peach weren't far behind. That's all gone now. Yes, the names and locations are still there, but they aren't the same. And asking fans to travel to them is really just asking whether they want a trip for a playoff game. Nice, sure--NFL fans make those trips--but not the same thing.
And I'm not against the change--a real national champion is a cool thing. I just miss the charm of the old system.
Walking past Camp Randall it used to say (it probably still does) "the road to the Rose Bowl starts here." (Or at least something awfully close to that.) That meant something. Does it still?
If I were king for a day, I would instruct my minions to design 8 regional college football conferences that made sense, and try to adhere them to the conferences of the 1970s or 1980s (do I care whether Arizona and Arizona State are in the Pac-8/10? Not really), mostly because from a regional perspective, those conferences did make sense (travel was harder back then, so that's where the conferences came from). I think I would have an 8-team playoff that invited the conference champions. I guess I would force Notre Dame into one of those conferences, which is too bad because ND's independence is part of its story. But maybe undoing the anti-Catholicism of the 1920s Big Ten is appropriate in the modern age. Kind of feels like it. And ND could still keep its rivalry with USC, and its annual game with Navy. That would also probably bring back the Michigan-Notre Dame rivalry, probably with a little extra ire between those fan bases, which is a good thing for sports. For the teams that didn't make the national championship, I would restructure the bowls to reconstruct conference challenge games (bowls) for teams 2-4 in each conference (so 12 additional bowl games). Probably on a rotating basis, but maybe not. And all teams would get the same amount of practice time, regardless of whether they made the bowl games. Because conference championships and standings would be the thing that would determine entry into the playoff or the bowls, there would be more reason to schedule good OOC preseason games. They would generate more ticket sales and more TV revenue, and they wouldn't hurt the losing team. At least that's my theory.
That's how I would create the new golden age of college football (that and a collective bargaining agreement). Now all I need is a primary colored hat (red seems to be taken) that says Make College Football Great Again. (Irony intended)
-
I remember when the Badgers played in the Copper Bowl after the 1994 season.
You do?
I remember going to that game after the 1996 season.
;)
-
You do?
I remember going to that game after the 1996 season.
;)
That shows you how much I cared about it. Maybe it was the Independence Bowl? They played Duke and won. (Used Google, it was the Hall of Fame.)
That's my point, though--they were both mediocre teams following mediocre seasons playing in mediocre bowl games.
-
Also, with only 8 conferences, unless they were pretty big, what would happen to the other teams? Relegation and promotion, like in international football.
Boise State thinks it should get to play with the Big Boys? Cool. Win your regional second tier conference and get bumped into a first tier conference (while some other teams gets kicked out). Maybe that's not great for Purdue (sorry BRAD), but actually, maybe it's just what those lower tier programs need--a little fire to keep from getting relegated. And seriously, in this hypothetical world if San Jose State were to take Stanford's place because Stanford refuses to invest in its football program, then good. That makes rational sense.
-
This is a more nuanced questions.
Did anyone really enjoy the week-to-week following of the BCS? Like tracking who was undefeated, who had the best loss? (Did everyone?)
-
But the bowl games were special, and now they aren't. Now, that started happening when they started breeding like rabbits, I think in the early 90s. I liked 3-4 teams from a major conference playing other top teams from major conferences, but I never really cared about the Pinstripe Bowl, or the Music City Bowl, or etc., etc., etc. Sure, I would (sometimes) watch if the Badgers were in them, but they didn't really matter to me.
I know a lot of people (such as OAM) make a big deal out of this... That somehow the sport, or at least the "premier" bowls, are made worse by the mere existence of lesser bowls.
IMHO bowl proliferation does have some problems (such as the lesser bowls essentially forcing the schools into buying expensive ticket allotments they can't sell enough of to recoup it). And yes, they ARE meaningless to anyone except the fans of the schools invited and to degenerate gamblers.
But I think they were still fun for the fans, and for the players, and IMHO their existence didn't harm the other bowls. Purdue had a middling year in 2018, but they got to go to the chicken bowl in Santa Clara. Given that I'm "local-ish", my wife and I flew up for it, got GREAT seats in the 6th row, and had a blast. It was Dec 27 or 28 or something, so it's not like it was conflicting with the major bowls. And for anyone who had nothing better to do and turned on ESPN that night, it was a back and forth game against Arizona and a wild exciting finish.
IMHO--and I've said this extensively--it's a 12-team CFP sucking all the air out of the room that has made the bowls meaningless... Not bowl proliferation.
-
This is a more nuanced questions.
Did anyone really enjoy the week-to-week following of the BCS? Like tracking who was undefeated, who had the best loss? (Did everyone?)
I didn't really care either way. It was mildly interesting, but I wouldn't have missed it.
About the best thing I can say about it is that because the end result was only two teams, it was really only a legitimate conversation about 4-6 teams by the time we hit late October. I think, because of that, it probably wasn't THAT much different than obsessing/arguing over rankings of the top teams that would have been the case if we weren't trying to force a 1 vs 2 matchup. So it wasn't a "sucking all the air out of the room" discussion.
-
I literally never followed the week-to-week BCS standings. I was certainly aware that they existed and that people argued over them, but I found the whole exercise of arguing over them on ESPN silly.
As for the bowl proliferation thing, I'm of two minds: 1) I don't really care about the trivial bowls. If people want to go to them or watch them on TV, I suppose they don't hurt anyone; but (2) setting up a structure of the more serious bowls that is fairly defined would make those games more interesting, whereas the trivial bowls has the potential to water it down. But probably not much. The Citrus Bowl was a better bowl because SEC 2-4 vs. B1G 2-4 is a really solid match-up, regardless of who is playing in the whatchamacallit bowl in someplace on December 26.
-
August 15, 2035.
-
Having fewer bowls provides a meaningful checkpoint for having a strong season. You're part of the in-crowd and had a season of note.
If I'm some random, middling program like Illinois, most years I'm not going to make a bowl if there's only 10-12 of them. I'll occasionally make a bowl when I go 9-3 or better, and my fanbase loves it! They get a trip, get to brag, and if I can string a few together, my program prestige increases. That squad becomes famous in program lore. Those players are more memorable.
On the other hand, with eleventy million bowls, I still get a trip, but it's for a ho-hum 6-6 season. My fanbase isn't stoked, because over half of everyone makes a bowl. It's a reward for a ho-hum season. It's not as earned. It's not as special.
I agree that tons of bowls is harmless in a vacuum. But we're not in a vacuum.
And in a sport, which is supposed to be about competition, rewarding mediocrity is never the right answer.
-
A modern-day SWC would be weird.
It's the anti-Ohio. Instead of one big boy program and a bunch of G5s, it would be 8 big boy programs (technically).
Houston had a little run at the end of the 80s, but were great in the mid-70s as well, with Yeoman starting strong in the SWC.
Having Houston AND Rice in a P4 conference would be so strange. Rice, as far as I know, has never been good for any extended amount of time. All I know of them is RB Trevor Cobb was a badass in the early 90s and they had 2? WRs wind up in the all-time most catches/yards progression, circa late 90s/2000s.
If it was restarted today, I think the programs would largely fit into somewhat consistent roles/levels:
Texas and A&M
Arkansas, TCU, SMU
Houston, Baylor, Texas Tech
Rice
I never see Rice moving up, because Houston is right there. Plus I assume Rice has academic constraints Houston doesn't have.
But on a long timeline, you'd have these tiers and a team from the middle 2 rungs would jump up and win the conference every so often.
-
Why was Arkansas allowed in an all-Texas conference in the first place?
-
It wasn't always all-Texas. Oklahoma and Oklahoma A&M were once members in the long long ago.
-
1915 Conferences:
SWC: OU, Baylor, A&M, Texas, Arkansas, Rice, Southwestern (TX), Oklahoma St
Western: Minn, ILL, Chicago, OSU, Purdue, Wiscy, Iowa, IU, N'Western
Rocky Mtn: Colorado St, Utah, CO Mines, CO College, Denver, Wyoming, CU, Utah St
Mizz Valley: Nebraska, KU, ISU, Washington (MO), Mizzou, Drake, KSU
Independents (everyone else) - Top ones: Cornell, Pitt, GT, Vandy, Harvard, UVA, ND, Wash & Jeff, Colgate
I wonder why western schools were the first to conference up.
-
Bowls started losing interest to me when the name of the bowl became irrelevant, and the corporate sponsorship names became dominant. You got to know a few, and then they’d change the sponsor, and now you have another bowl name.
It keeps you from having any strong memories of the bowls, and no way to rank the bowl, and it’s significance from memory.
Hmm, Reliaquest Bowl, wasn’t that the former Gator Bowl? And is it more prestigious than the Duke’s Mayo Bowl …… wait, did it used to be the Belk Bowl……
^^^^ A little of that and you no longer GAF, and stop watching.
College mostly maintains this part, but — I miss the mystique of a lot of the stadiums as well, which are now all corporate instead of Riverfront, Three Rivers, Candlestick Park, Mile High Stadium…..and so on.
-
A modern-day SWC would be weird.
It's the anti-Ohio. Instead of one big boy program and a bunch of G5s, it would be 8 big boy programs (technically).
If it was restarted today, I think the programs would largely fit into somewhat consistent roles/levels:
Texas and A&M
Arkansas, TCU, SMU
Houston, Baylor, Texas Tech
Rice
.
Well Cincinnati has been in a Conference with Houston most years since the 90s, and have accumulated a 14-4 record against them over that timespan. So at the very least, we know that the Bearcats have a stronger program than Houston and, by extension, Rice.
Additionally Toledo has more P5 wins than all the non-Longhorn teams combined, including one over the Hawgs. So they're no slouch.
-
1915 Conferences:
SWC: OU, Baylor, A&M, Texas, Arkansas, Rice, Southwestern (TX), Oklahoma St
Western: Minn, ILL, Chicago, OSU, Purdue, Wiscy, Iowa, IU, N'Western
Rocky Mtn: Colorado St, Utah, CO Mines, CO College, Denver, Wyoming, CU, Utah St
Mizz Valley: Nebraska, KU, ISU, Washington (MO), Mizzou, Drake, KSU
Independents (everyone else) - Top ones: Cornell, Pitt, GT, Vandy, Harvard, UVA, ND, Wash & Jeff, Colgate
I wonder why western schools were the first to conference up.
Academic concerns.
The Western Conference was officially named the "Intercollegiate Conference of Faculty Representatives".
-
Houston has a couple of very wealthy boosters, it's possible they could make some moves at some point.
Rice is an academic institution with very little concern about athletics. They fielded an excellent baseball team for a while with a generational head coach who knew how to develop talent. Their football team will never be good.
-
I didn't really care either way. It was mildly interesting, but I wouldn't have missed it.
About the best thing I can say about it is that because the end result was only two teams, it was really only a legitimate conversation about 4-6 teams by the time we hit late October. I think, because of that, it probably wasn't THAT much different than obsessing/arguing over rankings of the top teams that would have been the case if we weren't trying to force a 1 vs 2 matchup. So it wasn't a "sucking all the air out of the room" discussion.
That's interesting to me. It felt to me, in the moment, like it was sucking the air out of the room to around the same degree as the playoff is.
But that may have something to do with my own experience/age at the time/outlook.
-
That's interesting to me. It felt to me, in the moment, like it was sucking the air out of the room to around the same degree as the playoff is.
But that may have something to do with my own experience/age at the time/outlook.
Ahh sure, it did feel like that a little bit to me at the time...
But now we have the perspective of hindsight in a 12-team playoff where we're discussing whether teams like Indiana or SMU should go, or whether a 3-loss Alabama team should get an at-large bid over them.
Back in those days it was limited to undefeated P4 and one-loss helmet teams, and the occasional debate over whether an undefeated G5 program should get a shot (that we all knew they'd never get).
It seems in retrospect to be a BIG difference in scale.
-
so, some folks are critical of a 2-loss tOSU team winning the tournament
just imagine if a 3-loss Bama had made that run
-
That would have been fine.
-
According to Finebaum
-
I know a lot of people (such as OAM) make a big deal out of this... That somehow the sport, or at least the "premier" bowls, are made worse by the mere existence of lesser bowls.
IMHO bowl proliferation does have some problems (such as the lesser bowls essentially forcing the schools into buying expensive ticket allotments they can't sell enough of to recoup it). And yes, they ARE meaningless to anyone except the fans of the schools invited and to degenerate gamblers.
But I think they were still fun for the fans, and for the players, and IMHO their existence didn't harm the other bowls. Purdue had a middling year in 2018, but they got to go to the chicken bowl in Santa Clara. Given that I'm "local-ish", my wife and I flew up for it, got GREAT seats in the 6th row, and had a blast. It was Dec 27 or 28 or something, so it's not like it was conflicting with the major bowls. And for anyone who had nothing better to do and turned on ESPN that night, it was a back and forth game against Arizona and a wild exciting finish.
IMHO--and I've said this extensively--it's a 12-team CFP sucking all the air out of the room that has made the bowls meaningless... Not bowl proliferation.
I think the "lesser" bowls suffered from multiple issues, even before the current opt out/portal issues. First, we went from NC + 3, to NC +4, to CFP + 4. So that group grew and grew. But I actually think flexing the tie ins hurt it more.
I remember MSU played PSU in the final game in 2008. If MSU won, and OSU subsequently lost to UM, MSU would go to the Rose Bowl, but I was already stoked that MSU was playing in, at worst, the Outback Bowl. Simply playing in a NYD Bowl was a meaningful thing. They wound up losing to Georgia in the Citrus Bowl. But the NC was a pipe dream. Finishing top 3 in the Big Ten, and getting that NYD bowl validation was a legitimate point of pride. Starting in 2014 the Big Ten entered into all of these stupid rules to move teams around. MSU has had 3 great teams since their CFP appearance, 2015, 2017, 2021. 2015 and 2017 qualified for NY6 Bowls. 2017 went to the Holiday Bowl against Washington State based on those weird agreements, even though they won 10 games and finished 3rd. Based on the rules about repeat appearances, if the 2022 MSU team had actually beaten Indiana and gotten to 6-6, they would have been almost guaranteed the Citrus Bowl, because they were the only eligible team that hadn't been there. It wasn't the proliferation of bowls, because mostly those just added more shitty G5 teams, but they made it so the bowls between P5 teams were no longer related to having a great season
-
so, some folks are critical of a 2-loss tOSU team winning the tournament
just imagine if a 3-loss Bama had made that run
It's going to happen, probably sooner rather than later. It's the nature of a post-season tournament.
-
It's going to happen, probably sooner rather than later. It's the nature of a post-season tournament.
I think it's a fun transition year. You see Michigan fans calling out that loss. For better, or worse (I think worse), that's just going to be a normal thing. Imagine Duke winning the basketball tournament, and UNC fans saying they beat them. That hasn't been a thing for generations. But we are on a weird cusp in football.
-
Yeah, my problem with the BCS was the big, fat lie with the computer rankings. From the get-go, they never incorporated the computer rankings as-is. It was always an altered version, which then got tweaked basically every year, preventing any continuity.
Why bother with the computers if you're not going to incorporate them as-is. They're already at their top effort, unedited. So you go an edit them? WTF???
Same as the big, fat lie that anyone could win the NC.
I understood the concern and didn't mind them meddling but the way that they meddled was a disaster.
For anyone not familiar there were two concerns, one stated out loud and the other silent:
Out loud the concern was that including MoV would encourage coaches at Helmets to run up the score on hapless opponents.
Silently the concern was that Boise State would be able to make up for their pathetic SoS by running up the score on their opponents.
I actually think that both of those are valid.
My solution was to simply cap it at 21 or maybe 28 points or alternatively to get more of a "game control" by calculating MoV as some function of:
- lead/(deficit) at the half
- lead/(deficit) at the end of the 3rd quarter
- final MoV
- Then capping that.
I do NOT want to encourage Helmet coaches to score 100 on crap opponents just because they have to impress the computers.
I also do NOT want some Boise State type team to be able to completely make up for their pathetic SoS by hanging 100 on their crappy opponents.
-
Much simpler than that. Television revenues. Neither the SWC nor the Big 8 could survive on their own. Even after the merger the B12 was still behind the B1G and, later, the SEC.
I've always thought the mistake was that effectively it wasn't a "merger", it was the Big8 grabbing the top-4 SWC programs. What they SHOULD have done, IMHO, was to get rid of more of the weaklings and create one conference of the strongest from each. They needed to drop second schools in Kansas, Iowa, and Oklahoma.
-
That changed in the 1980's.
Iowa (twice), Illinois and MSU went to the Rose Bowl in that decade.
The 1990's brought Wisconsin (twice), Iowa, Penn State and Northwestern.
It is funny because it seems to me that most people think the "Big Two, Little Eight" era of complete domination by tOSU and M was VASTLY longer than it actually was.
Indiana went to the 1968 Rose Bowl after the 1967 season. They won the tiebreaker in a three-way tie with Purdue and Minnesota. The previous BigTen representatives in the Rose Bowl were:
- IU in 68
- PU in 67
- MSU in 66
- M in 65
- IL in 64
- UW in 63
- MN in 62 and 61
- UW in 60
- IA in 59
- tOSU in 58
- IA in 57
- MSU in 56
So in the 13 years from 1956-1968 (55-67 seasons) Ohio State (57 season) and Michigan (64 season) each went to the Rose Bowl once. Meanwhile:
- IU went once
- PU went once
- IL went once
- MSU went twice
- UW went twice
- MN went twice
- IA went twice
Then Ohio State won the league in 68 and the Buckeyes and Wolverines proceeded to share the Rose Bowl only amongst themselves for 13 years, 69-81 (68-80 seasons). Then it was:
- IA in 82
- M in 83
- IL in 84
- tOSU in 85
- IA in 86
- M in 87
- MSU in 88
- M in 89-90
- IA in 91
- M in 92-93
- UW in 94
- PSU in 95
- NU in 96
- tOSU in 97
-
Yeah, my problem with the BCS was the big, fat lie with the computer rankings. From the get-go, they never incorporated the computer rankings as-is. It was always an altered version, which then got tweaked basically every year, preventing any continuity.
Why bother with the computers if you're not going to incorporate them as-is. They're already at their top effort, unedited. So you go an edit them? WTF???
I understood the concern and didn't mind them meddling but the way that they meddled was a disaster.
For anyone not familiar there were two concerns, one stated out loud and the other silent:
IMHO there was one major problem with incorporating computer rankings.
- The impetus for incorporating them was to include an objective, metric-based system that wasn't influenced by the subjective "eye test" and simple "# of losses" biases that the pollsters had.
- The impetus for changing / tweaking / meddling with them every year is that they didn't agree with the subjective "eye test" and simple "# of losses" biases that the pollsters had, so the computers must therefore be "wrong".
The system was ALWAYS subjective. It was ALWAYS a beauty pageant.
So when some unthinking, unfeeling computer that can't recognize "true" beauty starts coming up with different answers than the beauty pageant judges, it must be excluded.
-
so, some folks are critical of a 2-loss tOSU team winning the tournament
just imagine if a 3-loss Bama had made that run
It's only a matter of time.
-
IMHO there was one major problem with incorporating computer rankings.
- The impetus for incorporating them was to include an objective, metric-based system that wasn't influenced by the subjective "eye test" and simple "# of losses" biases that the pollsters had.
- The impetus for changing / tweaking / meddling with them every year is that they didn't agree with the subjective "eye test" and simple "# of losses" biases that the pollsters had, so the computers must therefore be "wrong".
The system was ALWAYS subjective. It was ALWAYS a beauty pageant.
So when some unthinking, unfeeling computer that can't recognize "true" beauty starts coming up with different answers than the beauty pageant judges, it must be excluded.
That's why it was so stupid. I'm not sure why they even bothered. They had the 2 human polls "outnumber" the computers and STILL couldn't handle the objectivity. Just asinine.