re: Kirk Herbstreit worried for college football: "What the hell is happening to our sport?"

quote:

---

Go back to the mythical champion determined by dweebs with pencils and only have bowl games. The sport would be better for it.

---

I agree with this sentiment but it will never happen. What also needs to happen is a return to regional conferences. That means Texas A&M and Missouri leave the SEC and return to the Big 12 with Nebraska and Colorado in toe. But that will never happen either. However, I do agree the sport was better when it was more about the traditions and rivalries of the various schools.

quote:

---

If that had continued we would not have had Texas-USC maybe the greatest game ever. Instead it would have been USC vs Penn State and Texas vs probably Notre Dame or maybe a rematch with Ohio State and USC "wins" its 3rd straight MNC. In 2002 no Miami Ohio State instead its Ohio St vs Wash St and Miami vs UGA or something. None of that is better.

---

In all those scenarios, and just about any scenario prior to the BCS era, you could narrow it down to a consensus top 2 AFTER the bowls. Nebraska/Michigan in 97 as an example. What we should have done is keep the traditional bowl tie ins exactly the way they were and then play the games. On January 2nd pick the top 2 teams and then have a title game. Would have been the best of both worlds.

Conferences probably would be better off shrinking and having a two year game agreements and rotate between conferences.

I applaud Kirk Herbstreit

quote:

---

Parity basically disappeared overnight

---

There never was much parity in college football, but parity was increasing under the BCS. Granted, 2007 was really just a fluke year.

quote:

---

this is so retarded. Did you even think about this post?

---

People in this thread are confusing parity with post-season focus. Even under the BCS, there was little parity. Every team that won a title was a big name team. You had two teams chosen instead of four now.

But under the BCS, the other bowls mattered, because there was just two teams and one game. Now there’s a playoff system. Now there’s four teams and 3 games, and so media and teams have more to focus on. It’s mini-playoff but it’s treated like the NFL where only the playoffs matter. The other games get swept aside in terms of importance.

quote:

---

But under the BCS, the other bowls mattered, because there was just two teams and one game. Now there’s a playoff system.

---

I think that was true at first but by the end of the BCS i think that was changing, maybe once they added the extra BCS CG it started to fade. At first it was just pick the #1 and 2 team to play in bowl, which happened before but not ever year because of bowl tie ins. So it was still kinda the same as before only god forbid someone outside the B1G/Pac10 could play in the Rose Bowl. But over time that started to fade

the plus one is essentially what we have now. we play the bowl games, and then the top two after that play for the championship

quote:

---

I wonder how many saying this are old to enough to truly remember, without romanticizing it.

---

I'm not romanticizing the fact that there wasn't a "true champion." I'm romanticizing the fact that bowl games used to mean something. Back before college football was a huge money-making industry, bowl games mattered. I remember how excited I was to see Alabama in a BCS game after defeating Florida in the SEC Championship Game back in 1999. It didn't matter to me or to my dad that we were 10-2 and not going to the big dance, we were going to the Orange Bowl to play Michigan! That counted for something. Nowadays if we were to win the SEC and go to the Orange Bowl the season would be considered a disappointment, multiple players would opt out to prepare for the NFL Draft, and the team would play a hoe-hum game because it's now championship-or-bust.

The main appeal of college football to me was its uniqueness. It's uniqueness in the way it was all set up and the amateurism that was associated with it. The pageantry and tradition of the sport is one of a kind. However, the rise of ESPN and the massive television contracts associated with that rise took away a lot of what I liked about the sport. It no longer feels like amateur athletics. It feels more like professional football. Add to the fact that most of the star players on our roster don't even come from the state of Alabama. They come from Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, California, Washington D.C., Maryland, Virginia, etc. It's not AS fun watching Alabama play football anymore because most of the guys I'm watching on my TV screen are not native Alabamians. It's one of the reasons why McCarron and Coker are my two favorite QBs of the Saban Era because they both hailed from the state of Alabama.

College football no longer has that regional flavor that I loved so much. Conference expansion ruined it. While I'm sure Texas A&M and Missouri bring in a lot of TV revenue since they are from or near big markets, they don't belong in the SEC. They belong in the Big 12. And the fact that A&M and Texas haven't played a football game against each other in almost 10 years is borderline criminal! That was one of the best and most intense rivalries in all of college football. The desire for more money ruined it.

And that's what this rant/essay of mine comes down to. Money has damaged the sport beyond repair. It's one of the reasons why I don't get as excited for college football anymore because it no longer feels different. It's starting to take on the same, generic air that the NFL emits week in and week out. I hope something changes soon...otherwise I'm eventually going to quit watching.

quote:

---

'm not romanticizing the fact that there wasn't a "true champion." I'm romanticizing the fact that bowl games used to mean something.

---

Romanticizing the past, that's what i mean, not sure why you split hairs like that why would someone romanticize not having a true champ but not romanticize bowls having meaning

quote:

---

I remember how excited I was to see Alabama in a BCS game after defeating Florida in the SEC Championship Game back in 1999. It didn't matter to me or to my dad that we were 10-2 and not going to the big dance

---

This gets to my point all the way back on the first page of this thread, its the sports culture now. Either you win it all or you suck. If you don't win the title your season is a failure, i remember the first times i heard that argument in the late 00's and thought how stupid, that it really cheapens everything. and its not just college football. In the past when we discussed the best baseball players Ruth, Aaron, Mays, Williams it was about stats not "rings". Without looking it up i have no idea how many WS Ruth and no one would ever argue Ted Williams was a lesser player because he never won a WS. When Elway finally won the SB most people were happy for him to finally get one, now we have people questioning Lamar Jackson at 23 and only 2 years for not winning a playoff game, never mind his rookie year he wasn't even the starter for half the year. Tom Osborne was always praised as a great coach but he didn't win the "Natty" until his 22nd season. Would he even last that long now? Doubtful. Sadly that's where we are, i'm not exactly sure why it got to this but i don't think it will go back.

ETA just to be clear, i agree with you, i miss bowl games mattering for their own sake (and not just the BCS/Major ones) when winning the conference was a goal in and of it self, not just a check mark on the the way to something else.