(12-08-2016 02:26 PM)TheRevSWT Wrote:  Next up on the agenda: it's unfair that Texas State is effectively eliminated from contention for the national championship... due to record!

We need to fix this system so it rotates, thus ensuring everyone has a chance to win a national title.

Again, YOU are the one that doesn't want to bring on the field metrics into this. Not me.

I am proposing that RECORD should be the determining factor, here. Conference record.

Actually, there are many, many people that think the system for the playoffs is bad, unfairly discriminates against certain teams (especially G5 teams) and contains the potential for abuse and are arguing that it should be reformed.

---

I have been clearly stating that USA belongs in Tucson this year. I just want the opportunity, based upon RECORD, to appear in all of Sun Belt bowls if we EARN it on the field at some later date.

If you're implying I'm not wanting this to be about record, you're being dishonest.

Sorry if you're upset about 2014. You weren't jobbed that badly then by USA (the system perhaps - but not USA - if the rules reward raw self interest and geographical decisions - as it clearly does now). We had the same conference record you did, the same number of FBS wins, and we beat you guys head to head. By the way, the current system (every team for themselves) rewards teams screwing each other over. And its pretty clear that USA > Texas State in much of the bowl pecking order. So my proposal is more likely to help Texas State avoid being screwed by USA, not the other way round.

---

The proposal I've put up is as follows

1) Top 3 teams go to the top 3 Bowls. Determined by conference record. Tie breakers are, head to head, FBS record, record against common higher finishing opponent, then some RPI, in that order. The bowls can pick, but only between the three top teams. To ensure fairness among bowls, the top 3 teams rotate who picks in what order by year. No reason the NO Bowl should pick first every year. After that it can be Wild West. If a bowl gets a top ESPN or Network platform (not CBSSN or ASN), then it can get added to the top tier. Bowls don't like being last in order, then they can work on their affilations.

Teams would know what they need to do to get to a top bowl. Conference leaders wouldn't get jobbed. The bowls still would have some control over who plays where (but not their pick every year), and every bowl would be open to every team, if they perform.

Had this system been in place this year, we would STILL be going to Tucson. But we would know what we need to do to get to a better bowl. And stAte wouldn't be playing in a bowl against a 6-6 team - in their own stadium - on a network many don't have and most couldn't find in their lineup.

One of the biggest beneficiaries of such a system would be....Texas State. You finish top 3 under my system....you're going to a bowl you might not get to otherwise... Do you really want to finish second and have your bowl game not televised because some other, lower performing team, say (gasp) USA....takes one of the ESPN slots? By the way, I'll still propose that it should be fixed then, but USA should maximize its potential under the current rules...even if you guys don't get what you want - again - due to USA. I'm proposing we fix the rules now. Don't whine if it bites you again, because I wanted to fix it.

Seriously dude...what's your proposal....

(12-08-2016 03:30 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Seriously dude...what's your proposal....

I'm thinking a lightning bolt from god about now would fit the bill.

Man you're dense.

(12-08-2016 03:46 PM)geauxcajuns Wrote:  Man you're dense.

Didn't care for the lightning bolt idea?

I'm not sure why Tom's proposal is being shouted down so vociferously. It would put the conference's best teams in the most visible bowls every year and that should benefit the conference as a whole (if those teams pull their weight). Non-SBC college football fans/viewers are much more likely to form their impressions from the on-the-field performances of the teams and not if there are a couple of thousand extra spectators in the stands

(12-08-2016 03:49 PM)AtlantaJag Wrote:  I'm not sure why Tom's proposal is being shouted down so vociferously. It would put the conference's best teams in the most visible bowls every year and that should benefit the conference as a whole (if those teams pull their weight). Non-SBC college football fans/viewers are much more likely to form their impressions from the on-the-field performances of the teams and not if there are a couple of thousand extra spectators in the stands

Nobody is even commenting on it

The Texas State poster wants to debate the 2014 Camellia Bowl, the La Tech poster probably followed me from elsewhere, and the ULL people...just don't want to EARN their top 3 bowl on the field.

By the way, the AAC has tiers. The MAC has a defacto practice of placing a different team in a different bowl every year and not allowing repeats except in extreme cases. I'm not saying we should do the MAC route. Its too harsh. But the AAC, probably has the right idea.

No point pretending the Cure/Tucson are the same as the ESPN bowls. Reward the teams that perform better on the field. Make it about winning. Not about incumbency and historical entitlement.

(12-07-2016 04:31 PM)TheRevSWT Wrote:  I can summarize this entire thread in one sentence:

Tom: I'm mad that my team is going to Arizona for a bowl while the Cajuns get a closer bowl! WE MUST FIX THIS SO I DON'T HAVE TO SPEND MONEY TO SEE MY TEAM BOWL!

It's absurd.

(12-08-2016 03:52 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 03:49 PM)AtlantaJag Wrote:  I'm not sure why Tom's proposal is being shouted down so vociferously. It would put the conference's best teams in the most visible bowls every year and that should benefit the conference as a whole (if those teams pull their weight). Non-SBC college football fans/viewers are much more likely to form their impressions from the on-the-field performances of the teams and not if there are a couple of thousand extra spectators in the stands

Nobody is even commenting on it

The Texas State poster wants to debate the 2014 Camellia Bowl, the La Tech poster probably followed me from elsewhere, and the ULL people...just don't want to EARN their top 3 bowl on the field.

Mother f'er, this is the first season that the Cajuns didn't "earn" the bowl according to your criteria. Let's just say what you suggest passes with the champion getting to pick which bowl they attend and they choose Nola. DG and the Camelia Bowls would choose the Cajuns or stAte over South Al anyway. So then you would have no leg to stand on.

Quit crying about it.

(12-08-2016 03:49 PM)AtlantaJag Wrote:  I'm not sure why Tom's proposal is being shouted down so vociferously. It would put the conference's best teams in the most visible bowls every year and that should benefit the conference as a whole (if those teams pull their weight). Non-SBC college football fans/viewers are much more likely to form their impressions from the on-the-field performances of the teams and not if there are a couple of thousand extra spectators in the stands

The best thing for the conference is for app to go beat the snot out of Toledo and not take the risk of losing to the third or 4th place cusa like last year...and App or troy give us the best chance. The best thing for the conference is for troy to hear the snot out of Ohio. Our 3 best teams are playing the best matchups for wims...that's what is best for the conference...winning against our peers... we got good matchups and 4 of the 6 will sell a sht ton of tickets. If we were simply taking all ticket sales and had horrible matchups you could maybe have a base...but that isn't the case. They got it right in regards to what's best for the conference. This whole argument is actually being brought up due selfish reasons...putting our best teams against a 6-6 USM team isn't what's best for the conference. Not only would app, troy and stAte be getting wins for us, they are handing the AAC and MAC losses and the Cajuns have a shot of getting us another win and handing cusa a loss...I wouldn't like our chances against Toledo, Ohio or UCF

(12-08-2016 02:36 PM)Louisiana99 Wrote:  I heard Ohio state and Clemson are considering bowing out the CFP because their game is in Arizona...totally unfair.

That game is televised, thank you very much. And again, it isn't about USA in Arizona this year. Its about the fact that every conference member should have an ON THE FIELD path to a top 3 bowl.

App was picked THIRD or FOURTH
Ark State was originally picked FIFTH.

This is a problem.

(12-08-2016 03:58 PM)Louisiana99 Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 03:49 PM)AtlantaJag Wrote:  I'm not sure why Tom's proposal is being shouted down so vociferously. It would put the conference's best teams in the most visible bowls every year and that should benefit the conference as a whole (if those teams pull their weight). Non-SBC college football fans/viewers are much more likely to form their impressions from the on-the-field performances of the teams and not if there are a couple of thousand extra spectators in the stands

The best thing for the conference is for app to go beat the snot out of Toledo and not take the risk of losing to the third or 4th place cusa like last year...and App or troy give us the best chance. The best thing for the conference is for troy to hear the snot out of Ohio. Our 3 best teams are playing the best matchups for wims...that's what is best for the conference...winning against our peers... we got good matchups and 4 of the 6 will sell a sht ton of tickets. If we were simply taking all ticket sales and had horrible matchups you could maybe have a base...but that isn't the case. They got it right in regards to what's best for the conference. This whole argument is actually being brought up due selfish reasons...putting our best teams against a 6-6 USM team isn't what's best for the conference. Not only would app, troy and stAte be getting wins for us, they are handing the AAC and MAC losses and the Cajuns have a shot of getting us another win and handing cusa a loss...I wouldn't like our chances against Toledo, Ohio or UCF

Why should records count in bowl games...according to ULL logic, they don't in determining who gets into the games, why should they matter when the bowls are played. Why not just tell App...bring a great crowd .... and you're deserving!!! Would be consistent with your argument in favor of ULL's incumbency in the NO Bowl. And don't even start with USA on non-conference records. We'll probably lose to AFA, but you've won 1 OOC FBS game in 3 years.

You continually argue both sides of the every argument when it suits you....amazing.

Is it about on the field performance or attendance? Pick one and stick with it.

At this point, (since there's really no use arguing the point any further) I'm just posting to see this thread make it to page 50.


OOOHH, edited to add that I bumped it to 44!

(12-08-2016 03:28 PM)Louisiana99 Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 03:26 PM)Saint3333 Wrote:  Imagine if NOLA is rotating out of the SBC bowls in 2018. Here's hoping for Troy and USA to have better years than a 6-6 ULL team in 2018 to watch the back tracking.

And what will you say when we go somewhere else at 6-6 over USA because of our bowl history?

I'll probably be enjoying another conference title after beating ULL for the fifth straight time.

(12-07-2016 04:31 PM)TheRevSWT Wrote:  I can summarize this entire thread in one sentence:

Tom: I'm mad that my team is going to Arizona for a bowl while the Cajuns get a closer bowl! WE MUST FIX THIS SO I DON'T HAVE TO SPEND MONEY TO SEE MY TEAM BOWL!

It's absurd.

(12-08-2016 04:08 PM)Saint3333 Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 03:28 PM)Louisiana99 Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 03:26 PM)Saint3333 Wrote:  Imagine if NOLA is rotating out of the SBC bowls in 2018. Here's hoping for Troy and USA to have better years than a 6-6 ULL team in 2018 to watch the back tracking.

And what will you say when we go somewhere else at 6-6 over USA because of our bowl history?

I'll probably be enjoying another conference title after beating ULL for the fifth straight time.

I wish I had a comeback for that.

(12-08-2016 04:08 PM)Saint3333 Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 03:28 PM)Louisiana99 Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 03:26 PM)Saint3333 Wrote:  Imagine if NOLA is rotating out of the SBC bowls in 2018. Here's hoping for Troy and USA to have better years than a 6-6 ULL team in 2018 to watch the back tracking.

And what will you say when we go somewhere else at 6-6 over USA because of our bowl history?

I'll probably be enjoying another conference title after beating ULL for the fifth straight time.

That's fine and we will be enjoying ruining Tom's life again

(12-08-2016 03:49 PM)AtlantaJag Wrote:  I'm not sure why Tom's proposal is being shouted down so vociferously. It would put the conference's best teams in the most visible bowls every year and that should benefit the conference as a whole (if those teams pull their weight). Non-SBC college football fans/viewers are much more likely to form their impressions from the on-the-field performances of the teams and not if there are a couple of thousand extra spectators in the stands

Yep, I agree. It's in the conferences best interest to have their top finished team play the #6 team in CUSA (who was rated lower than the SBC) instead of the #2 team from the MAC (rated higher than the SBC). Makes perfect sense to me. I agree, and I'm ready to head to Orlando.

(12-08-2016 04:11 PM)Louisiana99 Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 04:08 PM)Saint3333 Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 03:28 PM)Louisiana99 Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 03:26 PM)Saint3333 Wrote:  Imagine if NOLA is rotating out of the SBC bowls in 2018. Here's hoping for Troy and USA to have better years than a 6-6 ULL team in 2018 to watch the back tracking.

And what will you say when we go somewhere else at 6-6 over USA because of our bowl history?

I'll probably be enjoying another conference title after beating ULL for the fifth straight time.

That's fine and we will be enjoying ruining Tom's life again

Actually this is kind of fun watching you shift the metrics, say its about attendance, then claim in another area that its about winning.

Here some questions for you...

One conference champion got picked third or fourth, the other was originally picked fifth. Is this a problem?

If its about attendance, who had the highest attended game this year in the conference? Who has had the highest attended home game period in the last couple of years? Not ULL.

If the NO Bowl has a problem with the Sun Belt introducing a tier metric, why do they allow CUSA to put in metrics for their bowl bid in the same game?

If we aren't rewarding on the field performance, then should we complain if our teams crap the bed on the field?

(12-08-2016 04:13 PM)CajunAmos Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 03:49 PM)AtlantaJag Wrote:  I'm not sure why Tom's proposal is being shouted down so vociferously. It would put the conference's best teams in the most visible bowls every year and that should benefit the conference as a whole (if those teams pull their weight). Non-SBC college football fans/viewers are much more likely to form their impressions from the on-the-field performances of the teams and not if there are a couple of thousand extra spectators in the stands

Yep, I agree. It's in the conferences best interest to have their top finished team play the #6 team in CUSA (who was rated lower than the SBC) instead of the #2 team from the MAC (rated higher than the SBC). Makes perfect sense to me. I agree, and I'm ready to head to Orlando.

For football fans that love in the south, a win over USM means a lot more than a win over a MAC team, whether or not the reality is the MAC team is better. It's the old perception versus reality thing. SDSU is a better team than Mississippi State, but it's the USA over MSU win that most people remember.

(12-08-2016 04:13 PM)CajunAmos Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 03:49 PM)AtlantaJag Wrote:  I'm not sure why Tom's proposal is being shouted down so vociferously. It would put the conference's best teams in the most visible bowls every year and that should benefit the conference as a whole (if those teams pull their weight). Non-SBC college football fans/viewers are much more likely to form their impressions from the on-the-field performances of the teams and not if there are a couple of thousand extra spectators in the stands

Yep, I agree. It's in the conferences best interest to have their top finished team play the #6 team in CUSA (who was rated lower than the SBC) instead of the #2 team from the MAC (rated higher than the SBC). Makes perfect sense to me. I agree, and I'm ready to head to Orlando.

Is it great to have our conference champion play a full on ROAD game, in a barely televised game...

By they way, had you headed to Orlando, few would be complaining. The top three teams would have their top bowl berths....and representing the conference in the highest profile (most televised) games. As it should be.

And I, who understands why we are in Tucson THIS year, would not complain at all.

Problem solved!

Actually the highest ranked opponent this year for bowl teams....is AIR FORCE.. LOL. http://realtimerpi.com/college_football/...kings.html .So why didn't the conference try to set up the best team against them. Because its a clearly inferior bowl that people don't want to play in if any other bowl is available.

Whatever metric you guys come up with, just falls apart in the face of consistent application of the facts.

----

The easiest solution is to simply make the top 3 bowls pick from the top 3 teams. That way, the best teams get the best games, in most years. If a team in the top 3 wishes to pick outside that pool, they can leave it if they wish.

(12-08-2016 04:19 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 04:11 PM)Louisiana99 Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 04:08 PM)Saint3333 Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 03:28 PM)Louisiana99 Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 03:26 PM)Saint3333 Wrote:  Imagine if NOLA is rotating out of the SBC bowls in 2018. Here's hoping for Troy and USA to have better years than a 6-6 ULL team in 2018 to watch the back tracking.

And what will you say when we go somewhere else at 6-6 over USA because of our bowl history?

I'll probably be enjoying another conference title after beating ULL for the fifth straight time.

That's fine and we will be enjoying ruining Tom's life again

Actually this is kind of fun watching you shift the metrics, say its about attendance, then claim in another area that its about winning.

Here some questions for you...

One conference champion got picked third or fourth, the other was originally picked fifth. Is this a problem?

If its about attendance, who had the highest attended game this year in the conference? Who has had the highest attended home game period in the last couple of years? Not ULL.

If the NO Bowl has a problem with the Sun Belt introducing a tier metric, why do they allow CUSA to put in metrics for their bowl bid in the same game?

If we aren't rewarding on the field performance, then should we complain if our teams crap the bed on the field?

It's more fun watching your entire life fall apart on a message board, where did I say it's about regular season attendance? It's not all or nothing, there isn't a bowl czar, it's a business relationship between different groups...they all want money..espn, the bowls,the conference, the teams...money at the top of the list...it's what's second on each persons list where they have to find a common ground. It's called business, but o wouldn't expect you to understand that. Let the grownups talk.

(12-08-2016 04:23 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 04:13 PM)CajunAmos Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 03:49 PM)AtlantaJag Wrote:  I'm not sure why Tom's proposal is being shouted down so vociferously. It would put the conference's best teams in the most visible bowls every year and that should benefit the conference as a whole (if those teams pull their weight). Non-SBC college football fans/viewers are much more likely to form their impressions from the on-the-field performances of the teams and not if there are a couple of thousand extra spectators in the stands

Yep, I agree. It's in the conferences best interest to have their top finished team play the #6 team in CUSA (who was rated lower than the SBC) instead of the #2 team from the MAC (rated higher than the SBC). Makes perfect sense to me. I agree, and I'm ready to head to Orlando.

Is it great to have our conference champion play a full on ROAD game, in a barely televised game...

By they way, had you headed to Orlando, few would be complaining. The top three teams would have their top bowl berths....and representing the conference in the highest profile (most televised) games. As it should be.

And I, who understands why we are in Tucson THIS year, would not complain at all.

Problem solved!

Who determined that the New Orleans Bowl was the top bowl?