dxdtdemon
Bench Warmer
Posts: 192
Joined: Mar 2016
Reputation: 3
I Root For: OSU, Wright St.
Location:
|
RE: Trivia: coach that has beat the most head coaches with national championships
Bob Stoops also beat Terry Bowden since he came to Akron.
|
|
05-28-2018 01:45 AM |
|
quo vadis
Legend
Posts: 50,018
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2372
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
|
RE: Trivia: coach that has beat the most head coaches with national championships
(05-24-2018 02:18 PM)Wedge Wrote: (05-24-2018 01:47 PM)quo vadis Wrote: (05-24-2018 10:21 AM)Wedge Wrote: (05-24-2018 10:03 AM)quo vadis Wrote: Bottom line is that since the BCS started there has been only 1 arguably split title in 20 years. That's clearly the least amount of split titles in any 20 year period, and that's not by accident, and we are currently at 14 years and counting since the last one. The "match 1 vs 2" concept of the BCS has clearly reduced the chances of a split title in that sense, and the CFP has done so even further - i will be shocked if anyone but the CFP winner ever gets voted #1 by the AP or Coaches poll, we'll probably never see one again.
Split AP/coaches titles were rare, and only a few people really thought they were a bad thing when they happened. The BCS/CFP is a solution in search of a problem. Well, more accurately, it's a cash grab. Just in terms of having a system that's entertaining for the fans, it was an overreaction to the 1990 and 1991 seasons and not really an improvement.
Disagree. It was frustrating when there were two clear-cut top teams and they couldn't play - Miami/Washington 91, Nebraska/Penn State 94, Michigan/Nebraska 97, all of those were situations that had many fans saying "wouldn't it be great if they could have played"?
And looking ahead from 1998, we never would have gotten matchups like Texas vs USC 2005 or Ohio State vs Miami 2002 without the BCS.
Obviously, college football was very popular under the pre-BCS regime, but I think most regard the BCS and its progeny as an improvement over the old poll-and-bowl system.
Frustrating *if* your top priority is ending the season with a (mostly) undisputed #1 team.
And for every BCS-title game that was a great game, like Texas-USC, there were clunkers like Miami-Nebraska or USC-Oklahoma. Just as with pre-BCS major bowl games, there were some great games and some that turned out to be not worth watching at all.
No question, some title games since 1998 have been clunkers. But the thing is, we've gotten to see great games under the newer system that we just wouldn't have gotten to see under the pre-1998 system, and I think most fans value that.
Heck, even if a game is a clunker, we still want to see it. E.g., even if USC vs Texas 2005 had been a clunker instead of a classic, we still wanted to see that game played.
|
|
05-28-2018 08:42 AM |
|