3601 Wrote:I didn't realize things were so provincial and insular over here.

As far as I'm concerned your input is always welcome here.

As long as you understand that these bowls were equal in status as they are today. They were not considered bcs bowls because the term bcs did not exist. They could however be referred to bca bowls, since the are and were part of the formula.

All this means is that the leading teams started the season highest in the polls. It doesn't necessarily mean these were the teams that deserved to be in those games in every appearance they made. They were just the highest ranked, and that is all.

cuseroc Wrote:As long as you understand that these bowls were equal in status as they are today. They were not considered bcs bowls because the term bcs did not exist. They could however be referred to bca bowls, since the are and were part of the formula.

1. If you would take the time to read before you fly off the handle you would notice that I've said at least a couple times that such bowls prior to 1998 are no less important that the bowls played since then. This a direct quote from a few posts back...
"I'm not trying to say that a Rose Bowl or Orange Bowl appearance in 1994 or 1984 is any less important that a Rose Bowl or Orange Bowl appearance in 2003. The list simply begins with the creation of the BCS."

2. The BCS itself on the BCS website doesn't even refer to those games as bca bowl games. The bowls played after the 92, 93 and 94 seasons are listed under the title "Bowl Coaliton Pairings". The bowls played after the 95, 96 and 97 seasons are listed under the title "Bowl Alliance Pairings".

The BCS bowl games beginning in 1998 are seperatelly listed under the title "BCS Game Results". This doesn't make them any more important. It's just a seperate era that the BCS itself treats seperately. The media and the general public also treat it seperately. That takes nothing away from anything that happened before 1998.

3601 Wrote:

cuseroc Wrote:As long as you understand that these bowls were equal in status as they are today. They were not considered bcs bowls because the term bcs did not exist. They could however be referred to bca bowls, since the are and were part of the formula.

1. If you would take the time to read before you fly off the handle you would notice that I've said at least a couple times that such bowls prior to 1998 are no less important that the bowls played since then. This a direct quote from a few posts back...
"I'm not trying to say that a Rose Bowl or Orange Bowl appearance in 1994 or 1984 is any less important that a Rose Bowl or Orange Bowl appearance in 2003. The list simply begins with the creation of the BCS."

2. The BCS itself on the BCS website doesn't even refer to those games as bca bowl games. The bowls played after the 92, 93 and 94 seasons are listed under the title "Bowl Coaliton Pairings". The bowls played after the 95, 96 and 97 seasons are listed under the title "Bowl Alliance Pairings".

The BCS bowl games beginning in 1998 are seperatelly listed under the title "BCS Game Results". This doesn't make them any more important. It's just a seperate era that the BCS itself treats seperately. The media and the general public also treat it seperately. That takes nothing away from anything that happened before 1998.

If you want to call the following flying off the handle, then I guess I did fly off the handle:

Quote:I'm not sure either, but I see the list only goes back to 1998. Syracuse and kansas St should have 2 appearances each in bcs bowls, since they played in the Fiesta Bowl in 1997.

But I would say that the first post tha used the term "idiot" would be the one that was flying off the handle.

cuseroc Wrote:

3601 Wrote:

cuseroc Wrote:As long as you understand that these bowls were equal in status as they are today. They were not considered bcs bowls because the term bcs did not exist. They could however be referred to bca bowls, since the are and were part of the formula.

1. If you would take the time to read before you fly off the handle you would notice that I've said at least a couple times that such bowls prior to 1998 are no less important that the bowls played since then. This a direct quote from a few posts back...
"I'm not trying to say that a Rose Bowl or Orange Bowl appearance in 1994 or 1984 is any less important that a Rose Bowl or Orange Bowl appearance in 2003. The list simply begins with the creation of the BCS."

2. The BCS itself on the BCS website doesn't even refer to those games as bca bowl games. The bowls played after the 92, 93 and 94 seasons are listed under the title "Bowl Coaliton Pairings". The bowls played after the 95, 96 and 97 seasons are listed under the title "Bowl Alliance Pairings".

The BCS bowl games beginning in 1998 are seperatelly listed under the title "BCS Game Results". This doesn't make them any more important. It's just a seperate era that the BCS itself treats seperately. The media and the general public also treat it seperately. That takes nothing away from anything that happened before 1998.

If you want to call the following flying off the handle, then I guess I did fly off the handle:

Quote:I'm not sure either, but I see the list only goes back to 1998. Syracuse and kansas St should have 2 appearances each in bcs bowls, since they played in the Fiesta Bowl in 1997.

But I would say that the first post tha used the term "idiot" would be the one that was flying off the handle.

It wasn't one post. It was six. Maybe "flying off the handle" wasn't the best use of words. However, I'm still not sure what the point was or is. We all understand that the Bowl Alliance and Bowl Coaliton existed prior to the BCS. Is that what you wanted to accomplish? If so, I think you made your point. However, the original post was never intended to hide or conceal that fact. I still stand by the original post.

3601 Wrote:

cuseroc Wrote:As long as you understand that these bowls were equal in status as they are today. They were not considered bcs bowls because the term bcs did not exist. They could however be referred to bca bowls, since the are and were part of the formula.

1. If you would take the time to read before you fly off the handle you would notice that I've said at least a couple times that such bowls prior to 1998 are no less important that the bowls played since then. This a direct quote from a few posts back...
"I'm not trying to say that a Rose Bowl or Orange Bowl appearance in 1994 or 1984 is any less important that a Rose Bowl or Orange Bowl appearance in 2003. The list simply begins with the creation of the BCS."

2. The BCS itself on the BCS website doesn't even refer to those games as bca bowl games. The bowls played after the 92, 93 and 94 seasons are listed under the title "Bowl Coaliton Pairings". The bowls played after the 95, 96 and 97 seasons are listed under the title "Bowl Alliance Pairings".

The BCS bowl games beginning in 1998 are seperatelly listed under the title "BCS Game Results". This doesn't make them any more important. It's just a seperate era that the BCS itself treats seperately. The media and the general public also treat it seperately. That takes nothing away from anything that happened before 1998.

Good points...as I think most of us are old enough to know that the Bowl Coalition used to be the BEST Bowls...then the "Bowl Alliance"...and now its called the BCS.

Since the BCS is an actual organization (collaboration), I can see why they would want to just focus on THEIR games on THEIR website.

Orange, Sugar, Rose, Cotton, then Fiesta...use to be THE games....I think most will remember that.

A better question is who has won the most BCS bowls?

Wilkie01 Wrote:A better question is who has won the most BCS bowls?

Ohio State and USC have won four each.

There have been so many bowl games, since the inception of bowl games, that have been irrelevant because the best teams weren't playing. This has happened during the BCS era, as well prior to the BCS. Do the best teams always play in the BCS? Is it just the most popular teams that get to play? I know where I'd put my money.

bitcruncher Wrote:There have been so many bowl games, since the inception of bowl games, that have been irrelevant because the best teams weren't playing. This has happened during the BCS era, as well prior to the BCS. Do the best teams always play in the BCS? Is it just the most popular teams that get to play? I know where I'd put my money.

The only way to have the "best" teams play in the BCS bowl games is to award the berths based solely on ranking. The top 10 teams in the country fill the 5 BCS bowl games. That doesn't happen because of conference automatic bids, at large berths and the rule not allowing three teams from the same conference to play in BCS bowl games.

Even if did happen that way there's no way to guarantee that the teams ranked 1 through 10 are actually the 10 best teams in the country because that is based on human vote.