playoffs vs bowl

[vmifan]

OK, I am playing a bit of devil's advocate here. I think the playoffs bring great excitement as it does in March Madness. But what say ye about this?
The game last night should have been JMU vs. UR. JMU would have been favored if it entered the game. It had already beaten UR on UR's turf and it would be riding a winning streak. JMU IMO would have won that game on neutral field. Of course, that wasn't what happened, and UR was the better team by far last night and had a wonderful year. I am very proud of UR and how it has performed. Congrats to team and coaching staff.

Back to JMU. It plays it worst game of the year in the semis. Very uncharacteristic turnovers cost it. Despite that loss, a final poll would likely show UR and JMU the top two teams in FCS. With that poll (like a BCS poll), the championship bowl game would be JMU vs. UR. That was the game that I wanted to see. The stadium would have been sold out days ago. That is the game we all wanted to see (except I guess if you are a Montana fan). The playoffs requires that you win out, and that's great, but the best team in FCS had one bad night (if JMU plays Montana 5 times on JMU field, JMU wins 4 times and drops one if it has 4 turnovers). I wish that we had been able to have the two best teams in FCS play last night.

[Uncle Buck]

You could also argue that maybe Richmond shouldn't have beaten UNI and UNI should have been in it. You could say that UR played way over their heads last night and Montana played poorly. Bottom line, you could argue it either way, but if you ask me, playing it out on the field is the best way to determine a champion.

To be a champion you have to play the best of the rest and beat them when it counts. UR, whether they played over their heads or up to their potential, they won it. While I agree that JMU played a terrible game against Montana and not to sound cliche, but that's why you play the game.

[vmifan]

You could also argue that maybe Richmond shouldn't have beaten UNI and UNI should have been in it. You could say that UR played way over their heads last night and Montana played poorly. Bottom line, you could argue it either way, but if you ask me, playing it out on the field is the best way to determine a champion.

To be a champion you have to play the best of the rest and beat them when it counts. UR, whether they played over their heads or up to their potential, they won it. While I agree that JMU played a terrible game against Montana and not to sound cliche, but that's why you play the game.

sure, that is my argument as well when asked about playoffs, "decided on the field". Yet, I lament the fact that the two best teams in FCS didn't play last night. Sagrin prior to last night's game had JMU #1 and UR #2. That was the game to watch. Sorry JMU had one bad game down the stretch.

[uofmman1122]

This is %^$&ing stupid.

If JMU was the #1 team, they would have beaten Montana at home.

The #1 and #2 teams played each other last night, and the other teams had theuir chances.

JMU and UNI are not in the Championship game because they didn't win. Talk all you want about how JMU should have been in there, but they didn't win when it mattered.

Congrats Richmond, but I'm sorry a lot of the excellent sportsmanship has to be soiled by stupid whiny threads like this.

JMU lost. Get over it.

[MacThor]

Finally a thread uofmman1122 and I can agree on! :)

[uofmman1122]

Finally a thread uofmman1122 and I can agree on! :)I' m just happy Im coherent at this point. xbawlingx xbawlingx

Where's the drinking smiley?

[FCS_pwns_FBS]

OK, I am playing a bit of devil's advocate here. I think the playoffs bring great excitement as it does in March Madness. But what say ye about this?
The game last night should have been JMU vs. UR. JMU would have been favored if it entered the game. It had already beaten UR on UR's turf and it would be riding a winning streak. JMU IMO would have won that game on neutral field. Of course, that wasn't what happened, and UR was the better team by far last night and had a wonderful year. I am very proud of UR and how it has performed. Congrats to team and coaching staff.

Back to JMU. It plays it worst game of the year in the semis. Very uncharacteristic turnovers cost it. Despite that loss, a final poll would likely show UR and JMU the top two teams in FCS. With that poll (like a BCS poll), the championship bowl game would be JMU vs. UR. That was the game that I wanted to see. The stadium would have been sold out days ago. That is the game we all wanted to see (except I guess if you are a Montana fan). The playoffs requires that you win out, and that's great, but the best team in FCS had one bad night (if JMU plays Montana 5 times on JMU field, JMU wins 4 times and drops one if it has 4 turnovers). I wish that we had been able to have the two best teams in FCS play last night.

LoL. Here we go again...Montana beats JMU because JMU had an off night, but ASU loses because Richmond beats them, and not because AE was unable to run and were playing with third string runningbacks.

The playoffs aren't about politics and the most interesting matchup. They are about earning games. The two teams in the NC earned their spots.

[vmifan]

This is %^$&ing stupid.

If JMU was the #1 team, they would have beaten Montana at home.

The #1 and #2 teams played each other last night, and the other teams had theuir chances.

JMU and UNI are not in the Championship game because they didn't win. Talk all you want about how JMU should have been in there, but they didn't win when it mattered.

Congrats Richmond, but I'm sorry a lot of the excellent sportsmanship has to be soiled by stupid whiny threads like this.

JMU lost. Get over it.
this is the kind of passion I was hoping to see! As I said earlier this was devil's advocate approach. I have no affinity to JMU, UR, or Montana, just wanted to throw out a situation which would elicit reaction. Thanks.

[uofmman1122]

this is the kind of passion I was hoping to see! As I said earlier this was devil's advocate approach. I have no affinity to JMU, UR, or Montana, just wanted to throw out a situation which would elicit reaction. Thanks.Most people usually call making a stuopid post just to incite reactions "trolling." xcoffeex

[cougarpines]

And if the King had ***'s he would be queen. Geezxeyebrowx

[yorkcountyUNHfan]

The goal is to be playing your best football in December, not September.

It's called coaching

[MacThor]

The goal is to be playing your best football in December, not September.

It's called coaching

And yet the Eddie Robinson is apparently awarded for winning in September and October. xsmiley_wix

[JohnStOnge]

OK, I am playing a bit of devil's advocate here. I think the playoffs bring great excitement as it does in March Madness. But what say ye about this?
The game last night should have been JMU vs. UR. JMU would have been favored if it entered the game. It had already beaten UR on UR's turf and it would be riding a winning streak. JMU IMO would have won that game on neutral field. Of course, that wasn't what happened, and UR was the better team by far last night and had a wonderful year. I am very proud of UR and how it has performed. Congrats to team and coaching staff.

Back to JMU. It plays it worst game of the year in the semis. Very uncharacteristic turnovers cost it. Despite that loss, a final poll would likely show UR and JMU the top two teams in FCS. With that poll (like a BCS poll), the championship bowl game would be JMU vs. UR. That was the game that I wanted to see. The stadium would have been sold out days ago. That is the game we all wanted to see (except I guess if you are a Montana fan). The playoffs requires that you win out, and that's great, but the best team in FCS had one bad night (if JMU plays Montana 5 times on JMU field, JMU wins 4 times and drops one if it has 4 turnovers). I wish that we had been able to have the two best teams in FCS play last night.

If it would've been like the Bowl Subdivision system the "championship game" would've been played between JMU and Appalachian State. Richmond was rated no higher than 6th in the FCS polls at http://www.championshipsubdivisionnews.com/index.php?blog=5&title=2008-fcs-polls&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1 .

Richmond winning as an unseeded team...as has happened so often in the past...demonstrates the superiority of playoffs. It'd be pretty hard to say they didn't deserve to be in the title game just because the pollsters thought they weren't good enough to be there.

In 2002 Western Kentucky beat four conference champs including the top 3 seeds to win the championship. How could one say they didn't belong? Appalachian State won three consecutive national titles. If memory serves me they wouldn't have been in either the 2005 or 2007 title games if it'd been like the Bowl Subdivision system.

I think that if the Fooball Bowl subdivision went to a 16 team playoff there would be no way people would ever tolerate going back to what they have now because that playoff system would be far more interesting and also generate far more total revenue than the Bowl system does in spite of consisting of fewer games.

[MacThor]

If it would've been like the Bowl Subdivision system the "championship game" would've been played between JMU and Appalachian State. Richmond was rated no higher than 6th in the FCS polls at http://www.championshipsubdivisionnews.com/index.php?blog=5&title=2008-fcs-polls&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1 .

Richmond winning as an unseeded team...as has happened so often in the past...demonstrates the superiority of playoffs. It'd be pretty hard to say they didn't deserve to be in the title game just because the pollsters thought they weren't good enough to be there.

In 2002 Western Kentucky beat four conference champs including the top 3 seeds to win the championship. How could one say they didn't belong? Appalachian State won three consecutive national titles. If memory serves me they wouldn't have been in either the 2005 or 2007 title games if it'd been like the Bowl Subdivision system.

I think that if the Fooball Bowl subdivision went to a 16 team playoff there would be no way people would ever tolerate going back to what they have now because that playoff system would be far more interesting and also generate far more total revenue than the Bowl system does in spite of consisting of fewer games.

I think ASU was the #2 seed in '05. But I completely agree with your post.

"Bowls.....Rewarding Mediocrity since the 1800s."

[State Line Liquors]

The game last night should have been JMU vs. UR.


No it should not have! The championship should be settled on the field. Not in an opinion poll or some effort to explain why the City of Chattanooga would be better off because of visitors. Montana whooped JMU fair and square. Don't forget that JMU had similar issues with turnovers last year. JMU did not earn a championship. Richmond eeked out a win against UNI and the 3 time defending National Champs. Injuries, penalties and turnovers are all a part of the game.

These two teams are the teams that deserved to be there. Richmond without question was the best team when it counted.

In terms of the topic of this thread, I think the sheer joy and satisfaction of a University and its fans knowing that they rightfully earned their championship by playing the game, speaks for itself. This decision is easy for anyone who wants a real champion and isn't only focused on a paycheck. Money is the only reason FBS exists in its current format.

[Uncle Buck]

While I love college football on all levels and don't shun the FBS, if they did ever go to a 16 team playoff, it would be phenomenal. You can't beat the finality of playoff football.

[wkuhillhound]

If it would've been like the Bowl Subdivision system the "championship game" would've been played between JMU and Appalachian State. Richmond was rated no higher than 6th in the FCS polls at http://www.championshipsubdivisionnews.com/index.php?blog=5&title=2008-fcs-polls&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1 .

Richmond winning as an unseeded team...as has happened so often in the past...demonstrates the superiority of playoffs. It'd be pretty hard to say they didn't deserve to be in the title game just because the pollsters thought they weren't good enough to be there.

In 2002 Western Kentucky beat four conference champs including the top 3 seeds to win the championship. How could one say they didn't belong? Appalachian State won three consecutive national titles. If memory serves me they wouldn't have been in either the 2005 or 2007 title games if it'd been like the Bowl Subdivision system.

I think that if the Fooball Bowl subdivision went to a 16 team playoff there would be no way people would ever tolerate going back to what they have now because that playoff system would be far more interesting and also generate far more total revenue than the Bowl system does in spite of consisting of fewer games.

Thank you very much and totally agree.

I love the playoff format and I hope one day that FBS will come to their senses and do this. The true national champion is determined on the field and not on paper or a computer program.

[JMU DJ]

Playoffs are perfect the way they are, the teams who were there in the finals proved they belonged there. I'm personally tired of the people who've said it should have been JMU. Montana beat us, they took the ball from us which prevented us from scoring. That's a win. The bowl system stinks... I personally can't wait to watch the Majic Jack St. Petersburg bowl

http://jkontherun.blogs.com/jkontherun/magicJack_20USB.jpg

:pumpuke:

[MacThor]

Playoffs are perfect the way they are, the teams who were there in the finals proved they belonged there. I'm personally tired of the people who've said it should have been JMU. Montana beat us, they took the ball from us which prevented us from scoring. That's a win. The bowl system stinks... I personally can't wait to watch the Majic Jack St. Petersburg bowl

http://jkontherun.blogs.com/jkontherun/magicJack_20USB.jpg

:pumpuke:

xthumbsupx Got six wins? Here's free VOIP service for life!

[PapaBear]

Folks on both sides of this argument tend to approach it as an either-or debate, and it's not. A champ series for FBS teams wouldn't have to eliminate the 30-odd (and I do mean odd) other bowls that exist. All it would do is add a little extra meaning to the games played by those top 8 or 16 (or 4 or whatever) teams. Why that's a bad idea is beyond me.

That said, I think the "side" you take often reflects your personal view of whether an individual game honor outweighs a complete season honor.

For example:

As I write this, two "bowl games" are playing on my TV. There is the DIII national championship game (which used to be called the Amos Alonzo Stagg Bowl ... and may still be). And there is the EagleBank Bowl between Navy and Wake Forest.

I click on the Navy-Wake game about every 20 minutes, just to check the score. But the game I'm drawn to is the DIII title game. Why? Because there is something more at stake than an individual game, and that compels me.

[UMass922]

With that poll (like a BCS poll), the championship bowl game would be JMU vs. UR. That was the game that I wanted to see. The stadium would have been sold out days ago. That is the game we all wanted to see (except I guess if you are a Montana fan).

I can understand why JMU-Richmond may have been the game you (being a Virginia football fan) wanted to see, but I'm not sure why you think it's the game "we all" wanted to see. We already saw a JMU-Richmond game this year, as well as a JMU-Appalachian State game (which would have been the title game in a BCS-style format). While those both would have been exciting rematches, one of the things I love about the playoffs is getting to see new matchups between national powers that don't usually play each other in the regular season. For that reason, I was very happy with the matchup--we got to see a great Big Sky team (that avenged its only loss of the season in the quarters and beat the CAA champ on the road in the semis) against a great CAA team (that beat the SoCon champ on the road in the quarters and the MVFC co-champ on the road in the semis). Both teams deserved to be in the game.

[McNeese75]

Folks on both sides of this argument tend to approach it as an either-or debate, and it's not. A champ series for FBS teams wouldn't have to eliminate the 30-odd (and I do mean odd) other bowls that exist. All it would do is add a little extra meaning to the games played by those top 8 or 16 (or 4 or whatever) teams. Why that's a bad idea is beyond me.

That said, I think the "side" you take often reflects your personal view of whether an individual game honor outweighs a complete season honor.

For example:

As I write this, two "bowl games" are playing on my TV. There is the DIII national championship game (which used to be called the Amos Alonzo Stagg Bowl ... and may still be). And there is the EagleBank Bowl between Navy and Wake Forest.

I click on the Navy-Wake game about every 20 minutes, just to check the score. But the game I'm drawn to is the DIII title game. Why? Because there is something more at stake than an individual game, and that compels me.

xthumbsupx I'm watching it as I type!!

[DSUrocks07]

The game last night should have been JMU vs. UR.

xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx

I dont think that the BCS system has ever put a three-loss team in the NC game....that would be a first....and not much of a argument for your bowl vs playoffs thread

JMU vs App would be the BCS way...

[CamelCityAppFan]

Congrats to Richmond-- they had a terrific playoff run and deserve to be champs. And they also illustrate why the playoff system is so great. During the season, no one (well, except maybe the Spiders themselves) had Richmond on their National Championship radar. But once they got in to the playoffs, they peaked at the right time and played darn near perfect football.

The notion that last night's game should have been between anyone other than the two teams that played last night is a pile of steaming poo.