If The 2021 Season Had Still Been The Bowl Alliance

Red_Alert

Red_Alert

Joined
Aug 17, 2020
Posts
28,821
Reaction score
43,575
Bookie:
$ 27,500.00
Location
Fence Rider Extraordinaire
The 1997 season had the "Bowl Alliance" who's purpose was to match the two highest ranked teams in a National Championship Game.
The Sugar, Fiesta, and Orange Bowls were part of the Alliance. The Rose Bowl was not.

The Big 10 and PAC 10 refused to join the Alliance because they wanted their conference champs to play in the Rose Bowl.

The Top 4 teams in 2021 were
1. Alabama (12-1)
2. Michigan (12-1)
3. Georgia (12-1)
4. Cincinnati (13-0)

Instead of #2 Michigan having to play #3 Georgia they'd have gotten to play #10 (10-3) Utah in the Rose Bowl.

#1 Alabama would have drawn the next highest ranked team in #3 Georgia (we know what happened there), therefore gifting Michigan the National Championship had they simply beaten #10 Utah in the Rose Bowl.

That is why Michigan is the AP Natty fraud in 1997.
 
Red_Alert said:
The 1997 season had the "Bowl Alliance" who's purpose was to match the two highest ranked teams in a National Championship Game.
The Sugar, Fiesta, and Orange Bowls were part of the Alliance. The Rose Bowl was not.

The Big 10 and PAC 10 refused to join the Alliance because they wanted their conference champs to play in the Rose Bowl.

The Top 4 teams in 2021 were
1. Alabama (12-1)
2. Michigan (12-1)
3. Georgia (12-1)
4. Cincinnati (13-0)

Instead of #2 Michigan having to play #3 Georgia they'd have gotten to play #10 (10-3) Utah in the Rose Bowl.

#1 Alabama would have drawn the next highest ranked team in #3 Georgia (we know what happened there), therefore gifting Michigan the National Championship had they simply beaten #10 Utah in the Rose Bowl.

That is why Michigan is the AP Natty fraud in 1997.
Click to expand...
Which is why I've always thought it should be played out on a playoff field instead of voted on. I don't buy the "they proved it throughout the entire season, blah, blah, blah" bullshit. We still "vote" on it to a certain extent with a selection committee. But at least now a team has to win one game to get to the NCG and two games to be crowned the National Champion. While it may not be perfect, it is a hell of a lot better than voting on it. I still think 2010 TCU would have had a shot at beating Auburn or Oregon if given a chance. TCU matched up much better against those type teams than Wisconsin and still managed a win in spite of it being a bad match up. JMO...that and $5 will get you a Starbucks.
 
Red_Alert said:
The 1997 season had the "Bowl Alliance" who's purpose was to match the two highest ranked teams in a National Championship Game.
The Sugar, Fiesta, and Orange Bowls were part of the Alliance. The Rose Bowl was not.

The Big 10 and PAC 10 refused to join the Alliance because they wanted their conference champs to play in the Rose Bowl.

The Top 4 teams in 2021 were
1. Alabama (12-1)
2. Michigan (12-1)
3. Georgia (12-1)
4. Cincinnati (13-0)

Instead of #2 Michigan having to play #3 Georgia they'd have gotten to play #10 (10-3) Utah in the Rose Bowl.

#1 Alabama would have drawn the next highest ranked team in #3 Georgia (we know what happened there), therefore gifting Michigan the National Championship had they simply beaten #10 Utah in the Rose Bowl.

That is why Michigan is the AP Natty fraud in 1997.
Click to expand...
Piss on the arrogant bunch of pricks.
 
Bowl Alliance was a total disaster but it was, sadly, better than anything before it.

I mean, at one point in College Football, bowl games basically did not matter and they crowned national titles prior to bowl games. (Also teams didn't even show up with half their roster sometimes to these bowl games so the results are pretty meaningless as well).
 
Deep Creek said:
Which is why I've always thought it should be played out on a playoff field instead of voted on. I don't buy the "they proved it throughout the entire season, blah, blah, blah" bullshit. We still "vote" on it to a certain extent with a selection committee. But at least now a team has to win one game to get to the NCG and two games to be crowned the National Champion. While it may not be perfect, it is a hell of a lot better than voting on it. I still think 2010 TCU would have had a shot at beating Auburn or Oregon if given a chance. TCU matched up much better against those type teams than Wisconsin and still managed a win in spite of it being a bad match up. JMO...that and $5 will get you a Starbucks.
Click to expand...

They still are, this is why Pac12 is sinking ship. They won't let Boise State in despite the fact that Boise State has been a solid program over a 10-15 year span.

I love the B1G and Pac12 Academic arguments because it totally flies in the face of the entire purpose of education. The goal of education is to teach and expand the horizon of individuals. So why are these AAU schools trying to bring in new schools and regions to teach students in other areas of the country and grow learning. It seems more about separation than growth.

They talk about "white privilege" or "check your privilege" all of the time but there it is right there. Pac12 is too snobby to build relationships with surrounding states like Idaho because they are "redneck". Way to look down on people and totally defeat your mission to grow and educate the populace.

Granted, we also know it is all about $$$ and not about AAU or Academic rankings. That is just an excuse that they break when it brings in $$$.
 
Volbound1700 said:
They still are, this is why Pac12 is sinking ship. They won't let Boise State in despite the fact that Boise State has been a solid program over a 10-15 year span.

I love the B1G and Pac12 Academic arguments because it totally flies in the face of the entire purpose of education. The goal of education is to teach and expand the horizon of individuals. So why are these AAU schools trying to bring in new schools and regions to teach students in other areas of the country and grow learning. It seems more about separation than growth.

They talk about "white privilege" or "check your privilege" all of the time but there it is right there. Pac12 is too snobby to build relationships with surrounding states like Idaho because they are "redneck". Way to look down on people and totally defeat your mission to grow and educate the populace.

Granted, we also know it is all about $$$ and not about AAU or Academic rankings. That is just an excuse that they break when it brings in $$$.
Click to expand...
Boise, Utah and TCU (and SDSU) were all about the same quality back in the 2000-2010 era. Only Utah and TCU were allowed in and they've done just as well...or a hell of a lot better....than some of their conference brethren that have been in their respective conferences for years.
 
Deep Creek said:
Boise, Utah and TCU (and SDSU) were all about the same quality back in the 2000-2010 era. Only Utah and TCU were allowed in and they've done just as well...or a hell of a lot better....than some of their conference brethren that have been in their respective conferences for years.
Click to expand...

That and markets. Boise Idaho is just one of those redneck and rural states that don't fit Pac12.

I am also surprised Big12 went with Houston over Boise State. Boise State is one of those programs that I feel deserves the next step up.
 
Red_Alert said:
The 1997 season had the "Bowl Alliance" who's purpose was to match the two highest ranked teams in a National Championship Game.
The Sugar, Fiesta, and Orange Bowls were part of the Alliance. The Rose Bowl was not.

The Big 10 and PAC 10 refused to join the Alliance because they wanted their conference champs to play in the Rose Bowl.

The Top 4 teams in 2021 were
1. Alabama (12-1)
2. Michigan (12-1)
3. Georgia (12-1)
4. Cincinnati (13-0)

Instead of #2 Michigan having to play #3 Georgia they'd have gotten to play #10 (10-3) Utah in the Rose Bowl.

#1 Alabama would have drawn the next highest ranked team in #3 Georgia (we know what happened there), therefore gifting Michigan the National Championship had they simply beaten #10 Utah in the Rose Bowl.

That is why Michigan is the AP Natty fraud in 1997.
Click to expand...
Sounds great to me. But the whole thing would have been screwed up then anyway. Georgia wouldn't have been capable of winning the national title in 1997; they wouldn't have allowed an SEC vs SEC bowl game back then. Alabama probably wins against...Notre Dame maybe? Cincy has no chance at being ranked that high back then.
 
MAIZEandBLUE09 said:
Sounds great to me. But the whole thing would have been screwed up then anyway. Georgia wouldn't have been capable of winning the national title in 1997; they wouldn't have allowed an SEC vs SEC bowl game back then. Alabama probably wins against...Notre Dame maybe? Cincy has no chance at being ranked that high back then.
Click to expand...

You're an ignorant moron.

The Big 8's Nebraska and Oklahoma played a rematch in the 1979 Orange Bowl.
 
Red_Alert said:
You're an ignorant moron.

The Big 8's Nebraska and Oklahoma played a rematch in the 1979 Orange Bowl.
Click to expand...
(I'm not sure the alliance existed then) and Yes, a remach did happen -- not in back to back games. It just wouldn't have happened. If the 1997 rules were applied last year, Alabama beats Georgia and there's absolutely no way they immediately play that game again. In that world, ND probably jumps UGA, Cinci probably isn't even in the top 5 and Alabama plays ND, Michigan plays Utah in the Rose. If Alabama won then they would have been champs, if Michigan wins and Alabama loses then Michigan is probably voted the champs. Cincy is ignored outright.
 
Red_Alert said:
You're an ignorant moron.

The Big 8's Nebraska and Oklahoma played a rematch in the 1979 Orange Bowl.
Click to expand...

Not trying to start a fight but I think the Bowl Alliance wasn't around in 1979:

Bowl Alliance - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

I think it only started in 1990s. Definitely correct me if I am wrong.
 
Again....

The Bowl Alliance was meant to match the Top 2 ranked teams against each other for the NC.

Since #2 Michigan would have been hiding in the Rose Bowl against #10 Utah, #1 Alabama would have played #3 Georgia in the Sugar Bowl.
 
MAIZEandBLUE09 said:
(I'm not sure the alliance existed then) and Yes, a remach did happen -- not in back to back games. It just wouldn't have happened. If the 1997 rules were applied last year, Alabama beats Georgia and there's absolutely no way they immediately play that game again. In that world, ND probably jumps UGA, Cinci probably isn't even in the top 5 and Alabama plays ND, Michigan plays Utah in the Rose. If Alabama won then they would have been champs, if Michigan wins and Alabama loses then Michigan is probably voted the champs. Cincy is ignored outright.
Click to expand...

This is not about Cincy, dumbass.

This is about #1 Alabama, #2 Michigan, #3 Georgia, and #10 Utah
 
@Red_Alert

Actually a game from the Bowl Alliance that would support your argument would be the 1996 Florida-FSU National Title which was a rematch from a regular season game.

Based off how 1996 went, I definitely could see the Bowl Alliance putting Alabama and Georgia together for a rematch.
 
Red_Alert said:
This is not about Cincy, dumbass.

This is about #1 Alabama, #2 Michigan, #3 Georgia, and #10 Utah
Click to expand...
You keep calling me a dumbass while presenting a situation that wouldn't have happened, and I'm trying to explain to you why. The alliance goes off the rankings, Cincy wouldn't have been included as they weren't part of the alliance. Notre Dame absolutely was part of the alliance. So what would have happened (ignoring Cincy in the rankings) is Alabama and Georgia would have played, Alabama would have won, ND would have been voted in above UGA and Alabama and ND would have played in a bowl game, with Alabama (and possibly ND) vying for the national championship (or a share). If the bowl alliance existed, Georgia would have not had a path to a national title last year.
 
Volbound1700 said:
@Red_Alert

Actually a game from the Bowl Alliance that would support your argument would be the 1996 Florida-FSU National Title which was a rematch from a regular season game.

Based off how 1996 went, I definitely could see the Bowl Alliance putting Alabama and Georgia together for a rematch.
Click to expand...
But they wouldn't have had UGA and Alabama face off, from the same conference, in consecutive games. I just don't see it happened. Hell, the playoff rankings even prevented that from happening immediately. It would have been Alabama vs. ND.
 
Volbound1700 said:
Not trying to start a fight but I think the Bowl Alliance wasn't around in 1979:

Bowl Alliance - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

I think it only started in 1990s. Definitely correct me if I am wrong.
Click to expand...

It was the Bowl Coalition (1992 - 1994) before it was the Bowl Alliance.

Both were made up of the ACC, Big East, Big 8, SEC, and SWC.
The Big 10 and PAC 10 refused to join either.

maze&blew's point was that they wouldn't have matched up an SEC vs SEC in a bowl game.

The Orange Bowl did just that in 1979. There is precedent.

Since #2 Michigan would have been hiding in the Rose Bowl, #1 Alabama would have drawn the next highest ranked team in #3 Georgia in the Sugar Bowl per Bowl Alliance rules.

That is why undefeated Nebraska got #3 Tennessee in the Orange Bowl.
 
Red_Alert said:
It was the Bowl Coalition (1992 - 1994) before it was the Bowl Alliance.

Both were made up of the ACC, Big East, Big 8, SEC, and SWC.
The Big 10 and PAC 10 refused to join either.

maze&blew's point was that they wouldn't have matched up an SEC vs SEC in a bowl game.

The Orange Bowl did just that in 1979. There is precedent.

Since #2 Michigan would have been hiding in the Rose Bowl, #1 Alabama would have drawn the next highest ranked team in #3 Georgia in the Sugar Bowl per Bowl Alliance rules.

That is why undefeated Nebraska got #3 Tennessee in the Orange Bowl.
Click to expand...
Not that they wouldn't have an SEC vs and SEC -- that they wouldn't have immediately replayed a game that just happened, especially with 11-1 ND sitting in the wings at 4/5 when Georgia lost.
 
Volbound1700 said:
@Red_Alert

Actually a game from the Bowl Alliance that would support your argument would be the 1996 Florida-FSU National Title which was a rematch from a regular season game.

Based off how 1996 went, I definitely could see the Bowl Alliance putting Alabama and Georgia together for a rematch.
Click to expand...

That is an even better example. However, maze&blew's point was that they wouldn't match an SEC vs SEC.

The Orange Bowl did just that with Nebraska vs Oklahoma. Both Big 8.
 
Red_Alert said:
That is an even better example. However, maze&blew's point was that they wouldn't match an SEC vs SEC.

The Orange Bowl did just that with Nebraska vs Oklahoma. Both Big 8.
Click to expand...
Still not my point. It's about the timing. They wouldn't have played an SEC title game with Alabama vs. Georgia, Georgia losing, and then immediately played Alabama vs. Georgia again in the bowl game. It just wouldn't have happened.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top