They gave the CFP the "Fuck You"...

[Michael Falkner]

Sixty-three to three...

On one hand, that settles the question.

On the other, it probably was one big gigantic "Fuck You" and "Fuck Off" to the CFP.

Mike

[j***@mich.com]

Post by Michael Falkner
Sixty-three to three...
On one hand, that settles the question.
On the other, it probably was one big gigantic "Fuck You" and "Fuck Off" to the CFP.

Wouldn't a more effective way to stick to the CFP and show the naysaysers and rest of the country that they were hosed
and angry and should have been in the playoffs over Alabama have been to play Georgia and defeated them? As it is, FSU's undefeated
season is over, their undefeated regular season looks suspect since it did not have a single top ten team at the end, and they go in the record books
as the largest margin of loss in bowl game history. Some legacy for the 2023 team to leave.

It almost appears as if FSU's anger dissipated and was replaced by fear when they realized they had to play Georgia. Even Georgia's
2nd and 3rd string dominated in the second half. By chickening out, they didn't run the risk of being exposed.

[jr james]

On Sat, 30 Dec 2023 16:51:48 -0800 (PST), Michael Falkner

Post by Michael Falkner
Sixty-three to three...
On one hand, that settles the question.
On the other, it probably was one big gigantic "Fuck You" and "Fuck Off" to the CFP.

Wouldn't a more effective way to stick to the CFP and show the
naysaysers and rest of the country that they were hosed and angry and
should have been in the playoffs over Alabama have been to play
Georgia and defeated them? As it is, FSU's undefeated season is over,
their undefeated regular season looks suspect since it did not have a
single top ten team at the end, and they go in the record books as the
largest margin of loss in bowl game history. Some legacy for the 2023
team to leave.
It almost appears as if FSU's anger dissipated and was replaced by
fear when they realized they had to play Georgia. Even Georgia's 2nd
and 3rd string dominated in the second half. By chickening out, they
didn't run the risk of being exposed.

Smart decision on the part of those FSU team members to decline
participation. Now all anyone can do is speculate and introduce comical
fallacies to try and support their opinion.

[Michael Falkner]

Post by jr james
Smart decision on the part of those FSU team members to decline
participation. Now all anyone can do is speculate and introduce comical
fallacies to try and support their opinion.

No, they basically knew better to try when trying meant nothing in the final analysis. In fact, this is exactly what the Committee would expect would've happened with the missing quarterback alone. Tack on all the others who walked, and 63-3 makes a lot of sense.

Mike

[j***@mich.com]

Post by jr james

On Sat, 30 Dec 2023 16:51:48 -0800 (PST), Michael Falkner

Post by Michael Falkner
Sixty-three to three...
On one hand, that settles the question.
On the other, it probably was one big gigantic "Fuck You" and "Fuck Off" to the CFP.

Wouldn't a more effective way to stick to the CFP and show the
naysaysers and rest of the country that they were hosed and angry and
should have been in the playoffs over Alabama have been to play
Georgia and defeated them? As it is, FSU's undefeated season is over,
their undefeated regular season looks suspect since it did not have a
single top ten team at the end, and they go in the record books as the
largest margin of loss in bowl game history. Some legacy for the 2023
team to leave.
It almost appears as if FSU's anger dissipated and was replaced by
fear when they realized they had to play Georgia. Even Georgia's 2nd
and 3rd string dominated in the second half. By chickening out, they
didn't run the risk of being exposed.

Smart decision on the part of those FSU team members to decline
participation. Now all anyone can do is speculate and introduce comical
fallacies to try and support their opinion.

And some not so comical. Other teams in the past have been in a similar position and accepted it, but FSU
threw a major hissy fit nationally. Because of that, if they played and beat GA, they win much more than just the game,
if they lose but by a small margin, they keep respect, but if they play and get crushed, they have to eat a hell
of a lot of crow, and that last scenario is the most probable.

FSU had a pretty good 1st string, but little depth. That worked against most teams, but would not against Georgia.
They probably would have played tough for a quarter or so and then gotten worn down. As mentioned, FSU's 2nd
string was dominated by GA's 2nd and 3rd string. In the 2nd half, FSU had 28 yards offense, GA had a freshman quarterback
with only 19 career pass attempts and scored 21 points.

So sitting out was probably a smart decision in that light. By sitting out they don't run the risk of proving the CFP
committee knew what they were doing.

[Michael Falkner]

Post by j***@mich.com
And some not so comical. Other teams in the past have been in a similar position and accepted it, but FSU
threw a major hissy fit nationally. Because of that, if they played and beat GA, they win much more than just the game,
if they lose but by a small margin, they keep respect, but if they play and get crushed, they have to eat a hell
of a lot of crow, and that last scenario is the most probable.

And that hissy fit continued into the Orange Bowl and said "Fuck you. Fuck our conference. We quit. On the field and off."

And that's not uncommon for teams that get that fucked. I remember a California-Berkeley team got fucked early in the BCS era and lost the Holiday Bowl to one of the service academies (Air Force?), and it was a complete Fuck You.

And speaking of "Fuck you. We Quit. The season's invalid anyway, so fuck it all..."... What the RSFCking Hell was that last play call????

Seriously!!!

Mike

[Michael Falkner]

Post by j***@mich.com
Wouldn't a more effective way to stick to the CFP and show the naysaysers and rest of the country that they were hosed
and angry and should have been in the playoffs over Alabama have been to play Georgia and defeated them?

Not in the current thought of college football. As I said, this is a common line of thought for teams that get screwed, and that goes back through at least the BCS.

Post by j***@mich.com
As it is, FSU's undefeated
season is over, their undefeated regular season looks suspect since it did not have a single top ten team at the end, and they go in the record books
as the largest margin of loss in bowl game history. Some legacy for the 2023 team to leave.

*They stick their middle finger in your face.* "You can't fire me, I QUIT!"

That's basically what this is.

Post by j***@mich.com
It almost appears as if FSU's anger dissipated and was replaced by fear when they realized they had to play Georgia. Even Georgia's
2nd and 3rd string dominated in the second half. By chickening out, they didn't run the risk of being exposed.

One of the reasons I think Michigan is getting RSFCked later today.

Mike

[RoddyMcCorley]

Post by Michael Falkner
Sixty-three to three...
On one hand, that settles the question.
On the other, it probably was one big gigantic "Fuck You" and "Fuck Off" to the CFP.
Mike

Not really. It is more like the NCAA and CFP gave a big fuck you to the
fans. Even if FSU did not have its starting QB, if the rest of the team
was intact it should have been a good, competitive game. The opt outs
made the game a farce and an insult to all fans. The Mizzou/OSU game was
somewhat similar. I was looking forward to it as an interesting SEC/B10
match-up. Turned out like the Jets playing the Giants.

[Michael Falkner]

Post by RoddyMcCorley
Not really. It is more like the NCAA and CFP gave a big fuck you to the
fans. Even if FSU did not have its starting QB, if the rest of the team
was intact it should have been a good, competitive game.

The Committee probably didn't believe that either.

Post by RoddyMcCorley
The opt outs made the game a farce and an insult to all fans.

FSU should've walked. No dispute to that statement -- FSU should've walked.

Post by RoddyMcCorley
The Mizzou/OSU game was
somewhat similar. I was looking forward to it as an interesting SEC/B10
match-up. Turned out like the Jets playing the Giants.

Anyone else now believing Bama just walks the field with Michigan?

Wrong team is favored here.

Mike

[JE Corbett]

Post by Michael Falkner
Sixty-three to three...
On one hand, that settles the question.
On the other, it probably was one big gigantic "Fuck You" and "Fuck Off" to the CFP.

The CFP gave FSU the finger and the FSU players gave it right back to them. I don't blame them one bit.
Screw the non-playoff bowl games. They ought to get rid of all of them.

[leonard hofstatder]

Post by JE Corbett

Post by Michael Falkner
Sixty-three to three...
On one hand, that settles the question.
On the other, it probably was one big gigantic "Fuck You" and "Fuck Off" to the CFP.

The CFP gave FSU the finger and the FSU players gave it right back to them. I don't blame them one bit.
Screw the non-playoff bowl games. They ought to get rid of all of them.

The CFP got it right.

[JE Corbett]

Post by leonard hofstatder

Post by JE Corbett

Post by Michael Falkner
Sixty-three to three...
On one hand, that settles the question.
On the other, it probably was one big gigantic "Fuck You" and "Fuck Off" to the CFP.

The CFP gave FSU the finger and the FSU players gave it right back to them. I don't blame them one bit.
Screw the non-playoff bowl games. They ought to get rid of all of them.

The CFP got it right.

Bullshit. They neither picked the four best teams nor the four most deserving teams. They picked the four most politically
correct teams. It would have been politically incorrect if they had left out the SEC. It would have been politically incorrect
to take Alabama and not take the team that beat them, so they took both of them and gave the finger to FSU.

Had they taken the four best teams, they should have taken Georgia, Alabama, Michigan, and Ohio State but that's just my
opinion which illustrates what a stupid standard that is. There is no way to quantify who the four best teams are. It's an
entirely subjective judgment. Who's to say whose opinion is right and whose is wrong. Achievement can be measured and
FSU would definitely have made it under that standard.

[Con Reeder, unhyphenated American]

Post by JE Corbett

Post by leonard hofstatder

Post by JE Corbett

Post by Michael Falkner
Sixty-three to three...
On one hand, that settles the question.
On the other, it probably was one big gigantic "Fuck You" and "Fuck Off" to the CFP.

The CFP gave FSU the finger and the FSU players gave it right back to them. I don't blame them one bit.
Screw the non-playoff bowl games. They ought to get rid of all of them.

The CFP got it right.

Bullshit. They neither picked the four best teams nor the four most deserving teams.

They announced their criteria before the season and then followed them precisely. What
more can they do?

You, apparently, would have them leave out the SEC which had won 13 of the previous
17 CFPs. That would have made a joke of their predetermined criteria, and a joke
of the entire season.

[JE Corbett]

Post by Con Reeder, unhyphenated American

Post by JE Corbett

Post by leonard hofstatder

Post by JE Corbett

Post by Michael Falkner
Sixty-three to three...
On one hand, that settles the question.
On the other, it probably was one big gigantic "Fuck You" and "Fuck Off" to the CFP.

The CFP gave FSU the finger and the FSU players gave it right back to them. I don't blame them one bit.
Screw the non-playoff bowl games. They ought to get rid of all of them.

The CFP got it right.

Bullshit. They neither picked the four best teams nor the four most deserving teams.

They announced their criteria before the season and then followed them precisely. What
more can they do?
You, apparently, would have them leave out the SEC which had won 13 of the previous
17 CFPs. That would have made a joke of their predetermined criteria, and a joke
of the entire season.

The only thing that matters is what is done in the current year. The criteria announced was entirely subjective.
How do decide who the four best teams are. It's purely subjective. The four most accomplished teams
were Michigan, Washington, FSU, and Texas. The first three ran the table and Texas because they
won their conference championship and defeated Alabama head-to-head, which isn't the sole
criteria for deciding the most accomplished team, but it should be the first tiebreaker. The SEC
probably is the strongest conference but none of their teams accomplished what the four I listed
did. The results of the games have to matter. Relying solely on the eye test is a fool's errand.

Suppose there was a team that had several star players hurt at the start of the season and lost 3 of
their first four games. Then those star players got healthy and started rolling over teams week
after week. They earn a spot in their conference championship and there is a consensus that they
are currently one of the four best teams in the country. Should that team be selected over a team
that won all their games and won a Power 5 conference championship. The whole season should
matter, not just how a team is playing at the end of the season.

[leonard hofstatder]

Post by JE Corbett

Post by Con Reeder, unhyphenated American

Post by JE Corbett

Post by leonard hofstatder

Post by JE Corbett

Post by Michael Falkner
Sixty-three to three...
On one hand, that settles the question.
On the other, it probably was one big gigantic "Fuck You" and "Fuck Off" to the CFP.

The CFP gave FSU the finger and the FSU players gave it right back to them. I don't blame them one bit.
Screw the non-playoff bowl games. They ought to get rid of all of them.

The CFP got it right.

Bullshit. They neither picked the four best teams nor the four most deserving teams.

They announced their criteria before the season and then followed them precisely. What
more can they do?
You, apparently, would have them leave out the SEC which had won 13 of the previous
17 CFPs. That would have made a joke of their predetermined criteria, and a joke
of the entire season.

The only thing that matters is what is done in the current year. The criteria announced was entirely subjective.
How do decide who the four best teams are. It's purely subjective. The four most accomplished teams
were Michigan, Washington, FSU, and Texas. The first three ran the table and Texas because they
won their conference championship and defeated Alabama head-to-head, which isn't the sole
criteria for deciding the most accomplished team, but it should be the first tiebreaker. The SEC
probably is the strongest conference but none of their teams accomplished what the four I listed
did. The results of the games have to matter. Relying solely on the eye test is a fool's errand.
Suppose there was a team that had several star players hurt at the start of the season and lost 3 of
their first four games. Then those star players got healthy and started rolling over teams week
after week. They earn a spot in their conference championship and there is a consensus that they
are currently one of the four best teams in the country. Should that team be selected over a team
that won all their games and won a Power 5 conference championship. The whole season should
matter, not just how a team is playing at the end of the season.

Either way, FSU was still not participating in the championship game.

[j***@mich.com]

Post by JE Corbett

Post by Con Reeder, unhyphenated American

Post by JE Corbett

Post by leonard hofstatder

Post by JE Corbett

Post by Michael Falkner
Sixty-three to three...
On one hand, that settles the question.
On the other, it probably was one big gigantic "Fuck You" and "Fuck Off" to the CFP.

The CFP gave FSU the finger and the FSU players gave it right back to them. I don't blame them one bit.
Screw the non-playoff bowl games. They ought to get rid of all of them.

The CFP got it right.

Bullshit. They neither picked the four best teams nor the four most deserving teams.

They announced their criteria before the season and then followed them precisely. What
more can they do?
You, apparently, would have them leave out the SEC which had won 13 of the previous
17 CFPs. That would have made a joke of their predetermined criteria, and a joke
of the entire season.

The only thing that matters is what is done in the current year. The criteria announced was entirely subjective.
How do decide who the four best teams are. It's purely subjective

No it isn't. You look at their schedule strength as well as their results. Who did they beat? How strong was their conference?
Who did the one-loss team lose to? How many highly ranked teams did eaach play? etc.

Post by JE Corbett
The four most accomplished teams
were Michigan, Washington, FSU, and Texas.

And Liberty why do you always pretend they don'y exist? They were undefeated and a conf champ.

Post by JE Corbett
The SEC is probably is the strongest conference but none of their teams accomplished what the four I listed
did.
Should that team be selected over a team that won all their games and won a Power 5 conference championship.

You're hung up on the terms "power 5 championship" and "undefeated".
13-0 in a weak conference is not as big an accomplishment as 12-1 in a powerful one.

Except for FSU, the ACC only had two teams ranked, and those in the second tier.
FSU's ranking was based on a weak schedule and a weak conference. Their best wins were against #13 and #16 .
Their opponents had a collective losing record of 61-79. By contrast, the other top teams opponents records were
Alabama 97-60,Texas 90-67, OSU 82-62, Georgia 87-60, Michigan 83-74

It was precisely because the ACC is a weaker conference that Bowden asked for admission in order to avoid the
SEC invitation that had been given. His quotes on the subject are well-documented.

FSU was ovewr-ranked. As I mentioned before, even Georgia's 2nd string crushed FSU's 2nd string. Would have been
no different if it had been 1st string against 1st string.

[Con Reeder, unhyphenated American]

Post by JE Corbett

Post by Con Reeder, unhyphenated American

Post by JE Corbett

Post by leonard hofstatder

Post by JE Corbett

Post by Michael Falkner
Sixty-three to three...
On one hand, that settles the question.
On the other, it probably was one big gigantic "Fuck You" and "Fuck Off" to the CFP.

The CFP gave FSU the finger and the FSU players gave it right back to them. I don't blame them one bit.
Screw the non-playoff bowl games. They ought to get rid of all of them.

The CFP got it right.

Bullshit. They neither picked the four best teams nor the four most deserving teams.

They announced their criteria before the season and then followed them precisely. What
more can they do?
You, apparently, would have them leave out the SEC which had won 13 of the previous
17 CFPs. That would have made a joke of their predetermined criteria, and a joke
of the entire season.

The only thing that matters is what is done in the current year. The criteria announced was entirely subjective.
How do decide who the four best teams are. It's purely subjective.

Not at all. The object is to select the four best based on stated
criteria. They did. End of story.

Post by JE Corbett
The four most accomplished teams
were Michigan, Washington, FSU, and Texas.

So say you, subjectively. The people pointing out the massive strength-of-
schedule deficit for FSU sway me that their argument is better
than yours.

Post by JE Corbett
The first three ran the table and Texas because they
won their conference championship and defeated Alabama head-to-head, which isn't the sole
criteria for deciding the most accomplished team, but it should be the first tiebreaker. The SEC
probably is the strongest conference but none of their teams accomplished what the four I listed
did. The results of the games have to matter. Relying solely on the eye test is a fool's errand.
Suppose there was a team that had several star players hurt at the start of the season and lost 3 of
their first four games. Then those star players got healthy and started rolling over teams week
after week. They earn a spot in their conference championship and there is a consensus that they
are currently one of the four best teams in the country. Should that team be selected over a team
that won all their games and won a Power 5 conference championship. The whole season should
matter, not just how a team is playing at the end of the season.

Your arguments are weak and rely on one criteria, absolute record,
having complete sway over the others. Few others are convinced.

[JE Corbett]

Post by Con Reeder, unhyphenated American

Post by JE Corbett

Post by Con Reeder, unhyphenated American

Post by JE Corbett

Post by leonard hofstatder

Post by JE Corbett

Post by Michael Falkner
Sixty-three to three...
On one hand, that settles the question.
On the other, it probably was one big gigantic "Fuck You" and "Fuck Off" to the CFP.

The CFP gave FSU the finger and the FSU players gave it right back to them. I don't blame them one bit.
Screw the non-playoff bowl games. They ought to get rid of all of them.

The CFP got it right.

Bullshit. They neither picked the four best teams nor the four most deserving teams.

They announced their criteria before the season and then followed them precisely. What
more can they do?
You, apparently, would have them leave out the SEC which had won 13 of the previous
17 CFPs. That would have made a joke of their predetermined criteria, and a joke
of the entire season.

The only thing that matters is what is done in the current year. The criteria announced was entirely subjective.
How do decide who the four best teams are. It's purely subjective.

Not at all. The object is to select the four best based on stated
criteria. They did. End of story.

It's a stupid standard because it's impossible because it's impossible to define. Teams should be
selected on achievement. FSU achieved more than Alabama or Texas.

Post by Con Reeder, unhyphenated American

Post by JE Corbett
The four most accomplished teams
were Michigan, Washington, FSU, and Texas.

So say you, subjectively. The people pointing out the massive strength-of-
schedule deficit for FSU sway me that their argument is better
than yours.

A team should not be penalized because the other teams in their conference were not that strong
in a particular year. Clemson and Miami are both programs that have produced multiple national
championships. It isn't FSU's fault they both had down years.

Post by Con Reeder, unhyphenated American

Post by JE Corbett
The first three ran the table and Texas because they
won their conference championship and defeated Alabama head-to-head, which isn't the sole
criteria for deciding the most accomplished team, but it should be the first tiebreaker. The SEC
probably is the strongest conference but none of their teams accomplished what the four I listed
did. The results of the games have to matter. Relying solely on the eye test is a fool's errand.
Suppose there was a team that had several star players hurt at the start of the season and lost 3 of
their first four games. Then those star players got healthy and started rolling over teams week
after week. They earn a spot in their conference championship and there is a consensus that they
are currently one of the four best teams in the country. Should that team be selected over a team
that won all their games and won a Power 5 conference championship. The whole season should
matter, not just how a team is playing at the end of the season.

Your arguments are weak and rely on one criteria, absolute record,
having complete sway over the others. Few others are convinced.

If I was arguing that record was the sole criteria, I would be arguing for Liberty to be in the CFP.
The ACC is the equal of the Big 12. FSU ran the table and Texas did not. FSU was more deserving
than Texas. Texas was more deserving than Alabama because they beat them head-to-head.
Both were one loss champions of Power 5 conferences. FSU had to overcome a lot to remain
undefeated after losing the first two QBs. They should have been rewarded for that but instead
they were punished for it.

Post by Con Reeder, unhyphenated American
--
The sun, with all those planets revolving around it and
dependent on it, can still ripen a bunch of grapes as if
it had nothing else in the universe to do. -- Galileo

[JE Corbett]

Post by Con Reeder, unhyphenated American

Post by JE Corbett

Post by Con Reeder, unhyphenated American

Post by JE Corbett

Post by leonard hofstatder

Post by JE Corbett

Post by Michael Falkner
Sixty-three to three...
On one hand, that settles the question.
On the other, it probably was one big gigantic "Fuck You" and "Fuck Off" to the CFP.

The CFP gave FSU the finger and the FSU players gave it right back to them. I don't blame them one bit.
Screw the non-playoff bowl games. They ought to get rid of all of them.

The CFP got it right.

Bullshit. They neither picked the four best teams nor the four most deserving teams.

They announced their criteria before the season and then followed them precisely. What
more can they do?
You, apparently, would have them leave out the SEC which had won 13 of the previous
17 CFPs. That would have made a joke of their predetermined criteria, and a joke
of the entire season.

The only thing that matters is what is done in the current year. The criteria announced was entirely subjective.
How do decide who the four best teams are. It's purely subjective.

Not at all. The object is to select the four best based on stated
criteria. They did. End of story.

Post by JE Corbett
The four most accomplished teams
were Michigan, Washington, FSU, and Texas.

So say you, subjectively. The people pointing out the massive strength-of-
schedule deficit for FSU sway me that their argument is better
than yours.

Post by JE Corbett
The first three ran the table and Texas because they
won their conference championship and defeated Alabama head-to-head, which isn't the sole
criteria for deciding the most accomplished team, but it should be the first tiebreaker. The SEC
probably is the strongest conference but none of their teams accomplished what the four I listed
did. The results of the games have to matter. Relying solely on the eye test is a fool's errand.
Suppose there was a team that had several star players hurt at the start of the season and lost 3 of
their first four games. Then those star players got healthy and started rolling over teams week
after week. They earn a spot in their conference championship and there is a consensus that they
are currently one of the four best teams in the country. Should that team be selected over a team
that won all their games and won a Power 5 conference championship. The whole season should
matter, not just how a team is playing at the end of the season.

Your arguments are weak and rely on one criteria, absolute record,
having complete sway over the others. Few others are convinced.

I'm hardly one of the few who thinks FSU got a raw deal. Here's a writer for CNN who exresses the same
idea.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/other/opinion-welcome-to-the-end-of-college-football-as-we-know-it/ar-AA1mymEK?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=89b039ea5b95483bb1a40804b25c152c&ei=7

The CFP committee didn't have the guts to snub the SEC because that would have ruffled the feathers of the suits at
ESPN. You can deny it all you want but one would have to be terribly naive to believe ESPN wasn't exerting pressure on
the committee to keep the SEC in the playoffs. They know where the money in college football comes from and they
were going to be beholding to those who are paying billions for rights to the CFP.

[Michael Falkner]

Post by JE Corbett
The CFP gave FSU the finger and the FSU players gave it right back to them. I don't blame them one bit.
Screw the non-playoff bowl games. They ought to get rid of all of them.

Especially with going to 12 teams, I wouldn't blame it if the rest of the bowls went away myself.

Mike

[The NOTBCS Guy]

Post by Michael Falkner
Especially with going to 12 teams, I wouldn't blame it if the rest of the bowls went away myself.

That's about as likely as the NIT going away. "Nobody cares" about that tournament, either, right?

With the new Power 4 Subdivision about to be created, I wouldn't be surprised if bowls are limited to the new "middle tier" (between the Big Boys and FCS) subdivision.
The NCAA can even keep calling it I-FBS, with the top level being Division I-P (for "playoff," although a number of people will say that it really stands for "pay" or "professional").

[JGibson]

Post by The NOTBCS Guy

Post by Michael Falkner
Especially with going to 12 teams, I wouldn't blame it if the rest of the bowls went away myself.

That's about as likely as the NIT going away. "Nobody cares" about that tournament, either, right?
With the new Power 4 Subdivision about to be created, I wouldn't be surprised if bowls are limited to the new "middle tier" (between the Big Boys and FCS) subdivision.
The NCAA can even keep calling it I-FBS, with the top level being Division I-P (for "playoff," although a number of people will say that it really stands for "pay" or "professional").

I think would be great if Appalachian State and Miami (OH) and Troy with their 10-2 or 11-1 records would still get bowl games. I remember '82 when 10-1 New Mexico and 10-1 Tulsa were shut out. I don't want to see that again. But the fact is that the attendance and TV ratings are still better for the mediocre big dogs than the top small dogs. The best attended pre-Christmas bowl game was between 6-6 Cal and 6-6 Texas Tech.

[JE Corbett]

Post by The NOTBCS Guy

Post by Michael Falkner
Especially with going to 12 teams, I wouldn't blame it if the rest of the bowls went away myself.

That's about as likely as the NIT going away. "Nobody cares" about that tournament, either, right?
With the new Power 4 Subdivision about to be created, I wouldn't be surprised if bowls are limited to the new "middle tier" (between the Big Boys and FCS) subdivision.
The NCAA can even keep calling it I-FBS, with the top level being Division I-P (for "playoff," although a number of people will say that it really stands for "pay" or "professional").

Why are we even keeping the bowls? They are an anachronism of a bygone era. They began as post season exhibitions with
no bearing whatsoever on national championships which used to be mythical anyway. They were a reward for teams that had
an outstanding season. Now, they are a reward for mediocrity and getting invited to one is no longer prestigious. They have
lost so much significance that players don't even want to play in them. They went from being exhibitions to pseudo playoff
games when the polls started taking their final poll after the bowl game. Then there was a push to get the top two teams to
meet in a bowl game which brought us the Bowl Alliance, the Bowl Coalition, and the BCS. Finally we got a true four team
playoff. Now that we have a 12 team tournament, it seems silly to keep playing bowl games. If they are going to keep them,
play them before the CFP starts and be done with them. Maybe players would be more inclined to play in those garbage
games but I doubt it.

[j***@mich.com]

Post by JE Corbett

Post by Michael Falkner
Sixty-three to three...
On one hand, that settles the question.
On the other, it probably was one big gigantic "Fuck You" and "Fuck Off" to the CFP.

The CFP gave FSU the finger and the FSU players gave it right back to them. I don't blame them one bit.
Screw the non-playoff bowl games. They ought to get rid of all of them.

FSU whines that they were undefeated in a Power 5 conference and therefore hosed since a one loss team
was taken over them. That statement, "in a Power 5 conference" is an unconscious admission that SOS is important.
It's the reason Liberty, also undefeated and a conference champ, was not considered. FSU's schedule was very suspect
and the weakest of the CFP top ten teams. Alabama alone played 4 teams from the top 11, FSU none.

The CFP's mistake was keeping FSU ranked 4th for too long, but they wanted to mirror the AP poll as
much as possible, and the polls follow the Bowden principle that an undefeated season against patsies
is better than a one loss season even if the loss is by a field goal to the #1 ranked team. Any of the
top ten teams would have been undefeated had they played FSU's schedule.

If FSU wanted to say FU to the CFP, they should have played Georgia and beaten them, or at least played a close game,
and showed the nation the CFP were the biased ESPN SEC waterboys FSU claimed. However, that wouldn't have happened,
would it?. FSU would have been exposed as the frauds they were. Look at the 2nd half. Georgia played their 2nd and 3rd strings
and their freshman QB the entire half. They scored 21 pts, FSU got 28 yards for the half. 2nd string against 2nd string the whole game
would have been 42-0 at that rate, and FSU did have some 1st stringers, the entire 1st string didn't walk.

The opt-outs were not acting as a team or in the team's interests. They were not "making a statement", they were
motivated by self-interest, not teamwork, and the "making a statement" thing is BS spin to make their actions look better.
In the FSU forums I've looked at, most fans feel let down by the opt-outs, calling them selfish quitters who walked out on their
teammates and have no concept of "team".