Then it's back to the chicken fast food bowl. Seriously, 5-8 doesn't raise my wand 1 bit. 5-8 simply is not a national contender and with a record to support that position, we do not belong in the conversation. It is what I have said all along, win every game like it matters and the rest will sort itself out. It's 12 games and that is enough incentive to play every single game like it was for the ship. I want McNeese and Troy, games like that to matter as much as bammer. That focus is what parks fans in all them seats. Death Valley remains the place all teams fear to play in rather than take that LSU loss and go on to the playoffs... anyways. Our football season is so short and obviously, so very important to our lives. We spend a year talking about it so when it is here, I want every second to mean something. I want the losses to count just the same. Without even those, we begin to lose the passion for the game. That happens, I will jump. That is all I ask is that we look good and hard at the negatives so we can make a conscious decision about what expansion brings. I have grow to hate the statement but once again, it applies and we should be careful for what we ask. Make the positives FAR outweigh the negatives and then, push for change.
It was getting out of control when the BCS started in 1998, but I don't think it was unreasonable. There were around 21-23 or so bowl games in the first year of the BCS. Out of those games roughly a third didn't feature a ranked team but still had games that featured conference championships. We were talking about Southern Miss the other day in a conversation about Freeze and I started thinking about the days when Jeff Bower was coaching down there. I recall seeing SMU playing in that bowl game in Idaho, but as conference champs in the late 90's. Non-marquee names, but still some good ball games. Within five years that 21/22 number was almost 30. I'd have to count to make sure but if memory serves we're at what now, 39 bowl games? This is probably a chicken/egg discussion. Was is the BCS or the number of bowls that's watered down the post season? Like I eluded to earlier, it's my opinion it's a combination of both...and here we are. All of this was really brought home Sunday when it took a few minutes to find out who was going where in those non-playoff associated bowls—a few minutes for what should have been a relatively easy search on the 'net.
As I recall that season and what happened on this forum... One loss going into ATL to face UGA. While the LSU administration was thinking about the SECCG and banking on a win or loss propelling the team into the Cotton, or perhaps the Cap One, UGA pulls the upset and LSU ends up back in ATL, but in the Chick-fil-A bowl game. The fan base here was stunned; angered. Why? Because a Bama team that the Tigers had beaten in the regular season ended up in the Cotton due to the UA administration working with the Cotton bowl officials on getting an invitation. LSU fans were expecting a good bowl game and found themselves relegated to one of the mid-tier SEC bowl locations. To a member here you guys were ticked off!! When I think about those emotions and then put them in the context of you guys expecting to get a bid to the playoffs and not getting one...finding yourselves shocked not knowing why you're at #5 instead of #4? Again, like 2005, you'd be ticked off. In other words, you wouldn't love it. IF you knew going into the last weekend that you were #5 and then found yourselves ranked there? It would go over a lot easier.
@TerryP It is hard for me to remember what happened yesterday at 10:05 much less 2005. At the end of the day we will know. If the team gets out there and plays football and takes care of business then I am sure they will be rewarded accordingly. If they drop a few games they shouldn't have dropped and there is a chance then I'd rather just be surprised or whatever. It isn't like any of us can do anything about it anyway. I'd rather find out 1 time at the end of the year if they got it right.
So, you're comfortable with there being absolutely no transparency in to what the committee is thinking? I'm not. Far, far from it. Delany is pushing things towards this "cloakroom" decision by suggesting they rank teams in tiers instead of numerically. That makes even less sense to me.
Tiers? What the hell does that mean? I'm all for transparency as far as tell me what the criteria is to get into the top 4. What does SOS weigh? Conf Championship? Careful with this one because the ACC or some other weak conference champ may = 4th best in a stronger league. That is what I'd like to see clearly defined. See in my eyes the Criminoles are at home watching this play out from their couches because I don't think they are one of the 4 best teams in the country. Yes I know they are undefeated, I know they are the defending champs. That holds no water with me because I have watched them play plenty and they are not very good against mediocre competition. Would it cause a monumental uproar to leave them out, hell yeah it would, but it would be the right call. Sad thing is no one on that panel has the stones to do it. Lay it out, tell me what it takes to get there and then let me know who is there in the end. All this weekly jostling does is create message board fodder and like I said before, none of us can do a damn thing about it.
