Iowa 5 time national champions?

[TheJON]

Is college football the laughingstock of American sports, or what?

http://www.cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/di ... champs.php

Why is it that every sport but college football doesn't have a different national title listed half the years on different sites?

According to this site, Iowa has won 5 national titles. Odd considering we haven't got any banners hanging.

Is crowning a true national champion really THIS difficult?

I think we should just go back to the old bowl system. What the fuck is the difference? This so-called BCS Title game is nothing more than a dog and pony show really. If we don't go to a playoff system, let's just go back to the way it was. At least the bowl games were a lot better back then. I just don't see how anything is different now other than the bowl games being less appealing and their being a fake championship game.

[Van]

Have to agree with Jon there. Minus a playoffs we may as well go back to the old bowl system, so at least the four real New Year's Day bowl games - five, if you want to include the Cotton Bowl again - can become special again.

Along those same lines, let's get rid of all the bullshit January 1 bowl games which have no business being labeled "New Year's Day bowl games."

Cap One bowl? Blow me. Play it in December, which is where it belongs. Gator Bowl? Same deal. January 1 bowls are supposed to mean something. Get these lame ass consolation bowls outta there.

You got your Cotton Bowl, first thing in the morning. After that comes the Fiesta and Sugar Bowls. The Rose always has the late afternoon/early evening stage to itself, as does the Orange for the prime time evening stage.

[TheJON]

I agree Van, except I would keep CapOne and Gator and maybe throw in Peach. I like having a lot of games on New Years Day, just not too many. BCS bowls go back to being between 5 conference champions (gotta take out the Big East, sorry Mucho) and 3 at-large. I miss having Big-10 champ vs Pac-10 champ in Rose Bowl. Unless we get a playoff system, I'd rather just go back to how it was in the 90's.

[H4ever]

... I miss having Big-10 champ vs Pac-10 champ in Rose Bowl. Unless we get a playoff system, I'd rather just go back to how it was in the 90's.

You mean back to when the whole country was frothing at the mouth for '94 Nebraska vs '94 Penn State and '97 Nebraska vs '97 Michigan?

But instead were entertained watching '97 Michigan squeak by Washington State and '97 Nebraska demolishing Tennessee?

And the ensuing years of debates about who was better and Nebraska fans pulling out vegas oddsmakers pics? Should those games been played?

How about '84 BYU gettting the national title in the flippin' Holiday bowl against an unranked, suck Michigan team? Who they squeaked by? Same sorry BYU team everyone outside of Utah knew couldn't beat any team ranked above 15 that year?

Sounds like loads of fun. Or perhaps you dream of a year Iowa has a weak (duck a highly ranked Ohio State or highly ranked Penn State team) Big 10 schedule and ends up in the Rose Bowl against an unranked Pac 10 champion? With the Squawkeyes getting a back door, competition ducking, pussy MNC? I bet that's it.

[TheJON]

Why would I ever want Iowa to not face State Penn?? We fucking own them! And my point is that I enjoyed the old system more than this one because it made for a better overall Bowl season. I really want a playoff but if I can't have that, let's just go back to the way it is.

[Van]

H4ever, not to pitpick, but I'm pretty sure there's never been nor will there ever be an unranked Pac 10 champ.

[H4ever]

Why would I ever want Iowa to not face State Penn?? We fucking own them! And my point is that I enjoyed the old system more than this one because it made for a better overall Bowl season. I really want a playoff but if I can't have that, let's just go back to the way it is.

Fuck that. I realize you guys own PSU lately, but what I'm saying is since you have no CCG...you might not even play the best team in your conference. You couple that with a weak OOC schedule, go up against an unranked Pac 10 champ thanks to conference tie-ins, and boom.....you got yourself title and might only be the 8th best team in the country.


I'm all for a playoff. As are most of us. But, due to greed and potential pissing matches over who gets what or controls what...all we got is the BCS.

[H4ever]

H4ever, not to pitpick, but I'm pretty sure there's never been nor will there ever be an unranked Pac 10 champ.

you might be right but I suppose there potential for one with 3 OOC losses and 2 conf losses who end up winning the PAC 10. That would be like a 7-5 team who could be just getting votes. I'm thinking back to the days of the Top 20...not Top 25.

[Van]

Sure, the potential exists, but I'm just about positive it's never happened, and I'm equally certain it never will. No team who is good enough to win the Pac 10 is going to lose all their OOC games plus two conference games.

[H4ever]

Sure, the potential exists, but I'm just about positive it's never happened, and I'm equally certain it never will. No team who is good enough to win the Pac 10 is going to lose all their OOC games plus two conference games.

Especially if we revert back to a system that rewards OOC cupcake scheduling with a simple "W" meaning more than quality of opponent. Other than another pussy MNC by a school who manipulated the system...directional schools are the only ones who stand to gain anything. You can bet your ass schools with no CCG will have Southwest Mizzou State, U of Norther Iowa, and Montana State on the schedule year after year.

[Van]

You can also bet the Pac 10 champ won't. They never have, and they never will.

[indyfrisco]

1921 and 1922? Bwahaha....midwestern hillbilly. Don't you know those years the best teams in CFB history were in the city?

da queef

[TheJON]

I still fail to see H4evers point here. Teams in this current system are already getting to championship games and BCS Bowls by only beating a couple good teams all year and scheduling patsies in the non-conference. We don't have a real champion now anyways and the bowl game matchups are not as good. The old system was far from perfect but at least the bowl games were exciting.

[Terry in Crapchester]

Especially if we revert back to a system that rewards OOC cupcake scheduling with a simple "W" meaning more than quality of opponent. Other than another pussy MNC by a school who manipulated the system...directional schools are the only ones who stand to gain anything. You can bet your ass schools with no CCG will have Southwest Mizzou State, U of Norther Iowa, and Montana State on the schedule year after year.

History would tend to refute your argument. Under the old system, it seemed like we got better OOC matchups in the regular season than we do now. These days, it seems like you rarely, if ever, see a meaningful OOC matchup that either doesn't involve Notre Dame or isn't legislatively mandated (e.g., Florida-Florida State). That's why tOSU-USC and (a few years back) tOSU-Texas got so much buzz.

Then again, in 1991 (the last year under what I consider the "old system," we had the Bowl Coalition from '92-'94 and the Bowl Alliance from '95-'97), there were only 18 bowl matchups. http://www.cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/bo ... ?year=1991 There are 34 today. The bowl matchups are replacing the meaningful regular-season OOC matchups, which is unfortunate because most of those games are little more than glorified consolation games. So maybe that particular cat is already out of the bag.

BCS bowls go back to being between 5 conference champions (gotta take out the Big East, sorry Mucho) and 3 at-large.

From a quality standpoint, there's been little, if anything, to distinguish between the ACC and the Big East in recent years. I can see where the Orange Bowl might prefer, say, Florida State or Miami to any Big East team, but since '04, those two teams have combined for exactly one ACC championship (Florida State in '05, that coming courtesy of an upset in the ACC CCG).

In any event, that's probably a moot argument. If you want to go back to the old system, you should include the Cotton Bowl, and that would mean 5 at-large bids. Given the decline in independents, the Big East champ stands an excellent chance of getting one of the at-large bids.

Fwiw, what I consider the "old system," (i.e., the system in place prior to '92) looked like this:

Rose: Big Ten champ vs. Pac-10 champ.
Sugar: Meatgrinder champ vs. at-large
Orange: Big 8 champ vs. at-large
Cotton: SWC champ vs. at-large
Fiesta: At-large vs. at-large (the Fiesta Bowl's flexibility was the reason they were able to match up Penn State and Miami, two independents at the time, in '86).

Obviously, given the changes that have occurred in BTPCF since '91, you'd have to tweak this system a bit. I'd put the Big XII champ in the Cotton Bowl (a better geographic fit than the Fiesta Bowl, which is their default slot in the BCS), and the ACC champ in the Orange Bowl (more geographically desirable to the Orange Bowl than the Big East champ in many circumstances).