Read the debate intro and the arguments from Bleacher Fan and Babe Ruthless about whether or not a two back system in the right approach for a successful NFL offense.
I am not totally convinced there is a so-called “right” way and “wrong” way to win in the NFL in the regular season. Coaches make decisions based on whatever fits the makeup of the team and whatever fits the personnel. If that means throwing the ball for big yardage like the Colts, Patriots, and Saints do, then that is fine. If that means building the team around the running game, like the Jets and Titans do, then so be it. However, as I stated in the intro, teams must generally be able to have some sort of running game to achieve postseason greatness. That is why we focused this debate on the running game.
It was the job of Babe Ruthless to argue that having a two-back system is the way to go. Living in the Charlotte area, he has seen up close the benefits of having a two-back system with the tandem of DeAngelo Williams and Jonathan Stewart. Those two guys helped the Panthers win the NFC South last season, and are having another solid season in 2009. The Panthers’ poor season has more to do with quarterback Jake Delhomme. In analyzing the tandem the Giants employed last year Babe Ruthless also proved that teams have to have the right personnel to run a two-back system, writing that Ahmad Bradshaw has not quite lived up to what Derrick Ward was able to do in 2008.
Meanwhile, Bleacher Fan, with a ringing endorsement of the Atkins Diet, wrote that the two-back system was not necessarily the best way. (By the way, to the makers of the Atkins Diet, Mr. Bleacher Fan would love to hear from you about endorsement possibilities.)
Bleacher Fan argues that just because the two-back system is effective does not mean it is the best fit and that it will last, using the Wildcat as a prime example.
I am awarding this victory to Babe Ruthless for arguing the issue at hand. Having a two-back system is more effective because, as Babe wrote, “coaches are able to keep the running backs fresher,” and that definitely helps the later in the season a team gets (assuming the head coach and offensive coordinator manages carries properly). On that point, I also agree with what grbaseball contributed in our comments section yesterday, writing that a team is able to get stronger and better blitz protection in a two-back system, and that the team will also own time of possession. Thanks for the comment Grbaseball!
I also believe a two-back system helps in cases where a team has one of the runners go down with an injury. Frank Gore went down for San Francisco earlier this season and missed a couple of games, and what happened to the team? The 49ers went on a free fall, and it started when Gore was hurt. If Jonathan Stewart were to go down with an injury, I believe the Panthers would be able to still have a strong running game with DeAngelo Williams.
It is important that you have the right personnel in place. But a two-back system is the most efficient and provides the best chance for a team to win consistently.
Read the arguments from Bleacher Fan and Babe Ruthless about whether or not a two back system in the right approach for a successful NFL offense.
It is often said that to win consistently in the National Football League a team must be able to run the football effectively. The Indianapolis Colts may not agree with that assessment – this year, at least – but generally that is the case. There is a reason the run and shoot offense and the Texas Tech/Hawaii type offenses are not run in the NFL.
There are currently two different “systems” that NFL teams are using. The Sports Debates will focus today on these systems.
On one end, there is the offense that features one running back. This is what the Atlanta Falcons do with Michael Turner… when he is healthy. The same approach is used by the San Francisco 49ers with Frank Gore. The philosophy is simple – one running back gets the bulk of the carriers and it does not matter if the ball is on the 50-yard line or on the goal line.
The other end of the spectrum is home to the two-back system, a maddening system for all of you fantasy football players who have a running back on your team that is within a two-back system. This is the approach taken by Arizona with Tim Hightower and Chris “Beanie” Wells. It is also used by the New York Giants with Brandon Jacobs and Ahmad Bradshaw. Both running backs get, in theory, an equal amount of carries.
Obviously, there are advantages and disadvantages to both approaches to the running game in the NFL, and I am relying on my colleagues Babe Ruthless and Bleacher Fan to argue this question and help the sports world determine which method is best.
Babe Ruthless will argue that the two-back system approach is the right approach to winning while Bleacher Fan will argue that the one-back system is the right way. Remember, the debate is focused on what is the best way to win the game. It does not matter which method produces the most fantasy points, for example. At the end of the day, winning is all that matters!
Saying that an offensive scheme featuring two running backs is the right approach to a winning NFL offense is like saying that the Atkins Diet is the right approach to losing weight. It may bring success for some, but to say that it is the best way, or the only way, to find success is flawed logic. If the Atkins Diet was truly the right approach to losing weight, America would be a whole lot skinnier!
Strategy is very important in the NFL, but equally as important is execution. You could have the greatest strategy in the world when your team walks onto the field, but if it lacks the ability to successfully execute, the strategy is worthless.
Scheming in the NFL is one giant game of keeping up with the Joneses. The high expectations, combined with low tolerance for failure, have created a league where coaches and general managers are willing to try anything and everything if they think it might bring success. The result is a cycle of fads.
Think about the crazes of the past few seasons – the Wildcat and the resurgence of the 3-4 defense are two examples that come quickly to mind. Last season Miami Dolphins running back Ronnie Brown lit up the New England Patriots for FIVE touchdowns, and before you knew it EVERY team in the NFL was running the Wildcat. Several seasons earlier, the Patriots found success at the hands of a 3-4 defensive scheme. What happened next? You guessed it – teams all around the league scrambled to get a 3-4 defense set up. Did that mean that those other teams saw the same success that the Dolphins or Patriots did? Of course not!
The NFL is a fluid game, constantly evolving as teams adapt and reinvent. The West Coast Offense, for example, does not carry nearly the punch that it used to. Elements of these different strategies are still present in the game and will from time to time resurface as being successful, but when that happens it is due less to the genius behind the strategy and more to do with the timing of its implementation.
While much of the credit for the success of schemes such as the Wildcat is due to a well-designed strategy, some credit must also be given simply to differentiation and the element of surprise. By catching opponents unaware it is easier to take advantage of the situation. However, once the league at-large becomes aware of the new strategy and is able to better prepare for it, much of the original effectiveness is eliminated. As teams implement versions of the creative and (sometimes) new approaches to the game, they are able to understand it more and practice with it. That practice allows a team to perfect its execution while simultaneously allowing for better preparation when facing it. In the end, each of those schemes, ultimately, lose some of their impact.
It is like a Track and Field star that uses a new training regimen to enhance their speed. It appears wildly successful at first because this star (who is the only one doing it) begins to reap the benefits of the new technique. Once that training model infiltrates the ranks of the competition, however, it is no longer a unique advantage. Instead, it becomes an everyday happening because EVERYONE is following it, and the advantage is lost.
Is that to say that a two-back offensive system is a bad idea? Not necessarily, because teams have proven that they can find success with the two-back approach. I am simply pointing out that this scheme, like all NFL schemes, may be changing the way the game is played today – but that does not mean it MUST be the approach followed in order to win in the NFL. As teams are further exposed to it, it will lose some of its efficacy. Likewise, the strategy is worthless if a team does not have the right personnel in place to execute it properly. The NFL is far more complex than simply being a matter of implementing strategy. If that were REALLY the case, the Cleveland Browns (who have tried EVERY new gimmick) might have actually won a couple Super Bowls by now.
Like fashions on the runway, trends in the NFL are ever-changing. Those things that are considered successful today may not be considered successful tomorrow. The key to a winning offense in the NFL is not about finding the hip new fad and following it. It is about implementing and executing a strategy – ANY strategy – that best suits the personnel. Just because everyone else is doing it, there is no guarantee that it is right for you!
Read the debate intro and the argument from Bleacher Fan about whether or not a two back system in the right approach for a successful NFL offense.
Looking around the NFL nowadays it becomes increasingly clear that the every-down type running back is nearing extinction. Teams are getting a plethora of players involved in the rushing attack. From short yardage specialist to third down pace-changers, more and more running backs are getting touches. But one approach to the rushing game is starting to garner support and has certainly piqued my interest – the two-back system.
Why not double your pleasure and double your fun with two full-time starting running backs? Now before your start to confuse my proposal with the enigma that is the running back by committee approach, let me clarify what I mean by the two-back system. The two-back system employs two primary running backs interchangeably. Coaches switch between the two backs in order to keep them fresh or alternate them on different drives. Running back by committee systems typically involve complex role assignments (e.g. the starter, the goal line back, the third down pace-changer, the fourth quarter clock grinder, etc.) that are meticulously assigned considering everything from defensive matchups to playing surface to statistical history. This is all too complex. The two-back system reduces this excessive entanglement with arbitrary stats and employs more of an old fashion gut feeling approach to calling the running game.
In 2008 the Carolina Panthers were a perfect example of a successful two-back system. Two running backs, DeAngello Williams and Jonathan Stewart, attempted 457 rushes for 2,351 yards and 28 touchdowns. While the dynamic duo did not split the load evenly (Williams had 273 attempts, 1,515 yards and 18 rushing scores while Stewart had 184 attempts, 836 yards and 10 rushing scores), they certainly were successful as a powerful tandem of starter quality running backs. The Panthers ended the season third in the NFL in rushing yards and first in rushing touchdowns, besting the next closest team by six scores. Even with the Panthers’ poor record in 2009 (5-7), the Panthers’ “double trouble” are primed to finish near the top of both categories again. It is clear that the two-back system is working in Carolina.
The New York Giants also experienced huge success last season leaning on the two-back system. The Giants led the NFL in rushing yards with 2,518. Brandon Jacobs and Derrick Ward accounted for the vast majority of this yardage while splitting the total number of carries somewhat evenly across the season. Brandon Jacobs had 1,089 yards on 219 attempts and 15 rushing touchdowns and Derrick Ward was not far behind with 1,025 yards on 182 carries and two rushing touchdowns. While Ward’s touchdowns are not comparable with Jacobs, the two backs were easily the envy of the league with dueling 1,000 yard seasons. This season the Giants rushing attack has taken a step back. Currently, the G Men are ranked tenth in rushing yardage entering week 14. This can be explained, in part, by the pounding Jacobs took last season. But I cannot help but wonder if the departure of Jacobs’ rushing brother-from-another-mother, Derrick Ward, is to blame. Ahmad Bradshaw (122 attempts for 596 yards and four rushing touchdowns) has not proven himself as an equivalent, starting caliber back that Derrick Ward was last season. In my opinion the Giants stuck with the two-back system, but the problem is the not the system but this season’s choice of backs.
The system is proving itself a winner. Teams like the Panthers, the Giants, and even this year’s Arizona Cardinals team, are really onto something. It is simple and effective and is quickly becoming a must for success in the NFL.
Read the debate intro and arguments from Loyal Homer and Babe Ruthless about whether or not the recently completed inaugural season of the UFL can be judged as a success.
How is success defined for the UFL? Each argument defined success differently. Loyal Homer defined success as the quality of the league as a feeder system into the NFL. Babe Ruthless defined success as long-term viability and the ability to deliver on the defined business objectives.
Loyal Homer made some valid points, especially when relaying that Graham Gano was recently signed by the Washington Redskins after a successful run in the UFL. The proximity of the UFL’s season to the NFL’s season makes connections easy. Plus, with so many former NFL people in charge of teams or playing on them, relevant connections remain alive and well for the UFL to act as a feeder system for the NFL. If judgment of success is rendered based on NFL connections and the feeder system concept alone, then it is a success.
But, ultimately, for that feeder system to remain viable the UFL must also succeed as a business. Therefore, the debate verdict is awarded to Babe Ruthless.
It is true that making money requires spending money. But, with spending projections already higher than normal – and costs set only to increase based on expansion plans and the costs of moving two franchises – it is difficult to understand how the league will correct an already accelerated spending rate. The break-even point is moving farther away, yet plans for expansion continue. This is not the recipe for success in business. It is the recipe for debt. But, there is some TARP money is left, so perhaps the UFL is angling for that.
Loyal Homer is correct that a business plan is in place. But, that does not mean it is a good business plan. It is superficial and easy to say “better marketing, higher attendance, and more corporate sponsors” are the path to success. Identifying how to bring those goals to fruition is the key. The leadership has not displayed the ability to do that yet. In fact, the league’s attendance forecast for its first season – which was no doubt conservative – was off. Attendance was underwhelming. Is the recipe for fixing poor attendance expansion of the number of both teams and games? Doubtful. All of that marketing ambition requires more money, even though the business has not proven it can deliver the desired results. That’s a tough pitch to make in this, or any, economy. Even if you’re Ron Popeil.
The NFL’s content machine – NFL.com, various sports outlet’s coverage of the league, NFL Network, etc. – means that access to the highest quality football (sans the Cleveland Browns, of course) is available to anyone who wants it. Therefore, I do not believe that, as Loyal Homer argued, the UFL provides an alternative to the NFL in football starved parts of the country. Because the style of football is so similar to the NFL, it may make for a good feeder league. But, it does not have the inherent entertainment quality of arena football that was just enough different to make liking both okay. Watching the UFL isn’t like watching football. It’s like watching football light.
I am not as alarmed as Babe Ruthless is about the league losing money. All startups gather investors and lose money – especially startups on this scale. However, one salient point struck home… and was a decisive blow to Loyal Homer’s argument: The UFL launched during a terrible recession. When major, successful sports leagues are already discussing how to adjust for a recession, it is difficult to comprehend the introduction of a new league. Further, it is nearly impossible to forecast its future success with any shred of credibility.
I also agree with Babe Ruthless that it is difficult to sum up a $30M loss as a success. It reminds me of General Motors’ recent announcement that the “mere” $1.2 BILLION dollar loss in the third quarter of 2009 was a sign for optimism. No one is buying that argument. (Secretly, Babe Ruthless also gets points for the Yoda quote.)
The definition of success for the UFL is at the heart of this debate. While success requires the feeder program to be a component, its epicenter is in sound business strategy. The UFL appears to lack that now, and for the future.
Read the arguments from Loyal Homer and Babe Ruthless about whether or not the recently completed inaugural season of the UFL can be judged as a success.
It is the age old question – how is success defined?
As the United Football League (UFL) recently completed its first season of existence, reports emerged about the league losing $30 million dollars, or an increase of $6M more than league officials originally believed the UFL would lose in its first season. Attendance figures were low, averaging just 13,255 fans per contest.
But, league insiders still believe in the long-term viability and the business model of the UFL. Plans to expand the league beyond its initial four team structure are already underway. Two existing franchises will move to cities where the league believes they will have a chance to flourish without direct competition from the NFL. Several cities are being targeted for expansion franchises including Salt Lake City, Utah, and two locations each in Oregon and Texas. The league will also add more games to the schedule, bringing each team’s game total to 10 in the regular season.
Adding two new franchises will give the league more exposure in other non-NFL cities. The long-term plan for the league remains intact, but were the various accomplishments of the league in its first season enough to justify further investment and expansion?
Several factors must be taken into account when judging the success of the UFL’s first season. Was the league able to attract good talent? Was the league able to sell tickets? Does the league have a good television package and pathway to media notoriety? Are the league’s players and coaches being promoted to NFL jobs?
Considering all of these factors, today’s debate question is: Can the UFL’s inaugural season be considered a success?
For this debate, the best definition of success wins.
Loyal Homer will argue that the league is a success in its first season while Babe Ruthless will argue that the league is not a success in its first season.
Does the UFL have enough to build on, or is it a disaster? Do the league’s lofty expectations of reaching break-even in 2011 make sense? Lucky for you, readers, The Sports Debates answers the call.
Read the debate intro and the argument from Loyal Homer about whether or not the recently completed inaugural season of the UFL can be judged as a success.
“Who the heck is the UFL!?” These were the first words out of my mouth, when I was asked to debate whether the league was a success after its inaugural season. Seriously, I did not even know that the United Football League existed. Before the UFL fans – all three of you – start questioning my knowledge of sports, give me a chance to explain.
Sure, I noticed the initials UFL on a few sports websites that I visit daily. And I admit I may have noticed those same initials scrolling along the bottom of my TV screen while watching ESPN, but I had no idea what they actually represented. I simply dismissed them as another incarnation or new name for arena league football. But lo and behold! As I researched for this debate, I learned that those initials represented a new football league (if you can call it that) which hemorrhaged some $30 million dollars in its inaugural season. And I am asked to debate Loyal Homer on whether or not it was a success… riiiggght.
Where should I even begin? I could start off by pointing out that the league boasts only four teams, half the number of teams that previous flop – the XFL – had before it went belly up after one season in 2001. I could point out the fact that the UFL was repeating matchups by week four. I could question the seemingly undefined goals of the UFL because speculation remains about whether the league will serve as a complement to the NFL or a competitor. But instead, I want to focus on the overwhelming financial losses of the UFL.
The UFL lost money in a big way, approximately $6 million dollars worse than expected. To me the real kicker is that the league was EXPECTING to lose money. The UFL’s commissioner, Michael Huyghue, told a Fox Business analyst that he hopes the UFL will break even by the league’s third year. But how likely is that considering that the UFL is choosing to launch its product during the largest economic recession since the Great Depression? Commissioner Huyghue further shored up my argument with his comments defending the UFL’s decision to air games head-to-head with the NFL season stating, “I think we actually have the right formula. We opened up almost ahead of hockey on Versus our first week… Which is very good for a product we didn’t do a tremendous amount of advertising for.” Wow… let me get this straight. Mr. Huyghue’s idea of success is almost beating hockey ratings on a cable network and failing to provide adequate advertising. Now a rudimentary understanding of business and economics (which I probably do not even have since I got Bs in both Macro and Micro Economics) explain that businesses do not always start out as immediately profitable ventures, but no one can justify a $30 million dollar loss as a success.
In life you win or lose. The UFL lost – big time. This conclusion brings us to Babe Ruthless’ Universal Truth # 1: “A loser, is a loser, is a loser!” There is no such thing as a moral victory. Any qualification of a loss is an excuse. Like a great philosopher once said, “Do or do not. There is no try.” (Yeah that’s right, I quoted Yoda.)
This entire debate boils down to the definition of success. If you are one of those soft hearted sissies that needs trophies for “best effort” and “most improved” then maybe the UFL’s $30 million loss is not that big of a deal to you. Maybe you think, “Hey, they could have done worse.” I ask one simple question: Would you invest your money in a company that lost $30M in its first year ($6M more than expected) and had a three year plan to break even? I know I wouldn’t.
Simply put, a loss of the UFL’s magnitude is still a loss despite the long-term objectives of the organization.
As a ridiculously diehard football fan, I am all for anything that brings football to the masses. Football, no matter how you look at it, is football. By the numbers, it is hard to call the UFL a success when the average attendance was just over 13,000. But as is the case sometimes, the numbers do not tell the whole story.
The UFL was created earlier this year and foreseen as either a developmental league for the NFL or as a complement to the NFL. Judging by the amount of people who left the UFL for the NFL, that is the case. Just yesterday, the Redskins signed former UFL kicker Graham Gano to be the starting kicker after some recent struggles in the kicking game. The UFL certainly does not lack talent on the playing field and coaching on the sidelines. All four of the head coaches from the just completed season (Jim Haslett, Jim Fassell, Dennis Green, and Ted Cottrell) are names that most football fans know. Many of the players that played this past year for one of the four UFL teams used to play in the NFL. Most will recognize many of the names, either from college football or from previously playing for an NFL team. People with strong professional connections are involved in the UFL.
Sports Geek’s intro brought up the fact that the league lost over $30 million this year. While a little higher than normal that was not totally unexpected, according to UFL commissioner Michael Huyghue. He said, “We were prepared for that. The plan is through better marketing, higher attendance, more corporate sponsors, and improved television ratings that we’ll cut our losses in half next year and hopefully break even in year three.” That quote let me know that a business plan is in place for the UFL. Expectations are realistic. Obviously, it’s tough to make money those first few years. There are start up costs and things of that nature that have to be done the first year or two to lay down the foundation. If done properly, though, the bottom line will eventually come out of the red and into the black.
The games are also by carried on Versus and HDNet, which is owned by Mark Cuban. Versus, meanwhile, is owned by Comcast, which just completed a huge transaction deal with NBC last week. Perhaps that will bring more attention and more money to the league.
If nothing else, the UFL is a success because The Sports Debates highlighted the season opener in a debate back in October! Kudos to Bleacher Fan for spotlighting a game that week. But, in all seriousness, the UFL provides an alternate way to enjoy football in markets that consist of serious football fans. It gives fans a chance to see players they used to see in the NFL and also a chance to see up and coming players who are not quite ready for the NFL, but who can improve their skills in the meantime.
Division I FBS is the only NCAA program that does not award its championship based on a playoff system, relying instead on a complicated formula of polls (with some big-school bias added in for flavoring) and computer statistics which are used to single out the two teams most “worthy” of playing for the national championship. It is an imperfect system, and it favors schools which generate revenue.
As a dedicated supporter of mid-major programs, I would love nothing more than to see a school from the MAC, WAC, or Mountain West (for example) actually represent the non-BCS world in the national championship game. I was one of the voices cheering for a ‘Huskers upset this past weekend, just because it would have opened the door for either TCU (a school from a non-BCS conference) or Cincinnati (a school from the embattled Big East) to upset the SEC/Big XII/Big Ten/Pac-10 stranglehold that has existed in college football for the past seven years.
Hating the BCS and clamoring for a playoff system are not the topics of our debate, though. Instead, my question for Sports Geek and Loyal Homer was to contemplate whether or not having five undefeated teams finish out the year and enter into BCS play was good for the BCS or not. Putting all of those anti-BCS sentiments to the side, I am awarding the debate to Sports Geek!
Sports Geek accurately described the “mission” of the BCS, keenly pointing out that it is not just about the national championship. While the BCS may facilitate a national championship game, the greater purpose of the Bowl Championship Series is to host a coalition of the five “best” bowl games of the season, with the national championship game as the centerpiece. As Sports Geek points out, each game is a “prime time game designed to draw the maximum amount of exposure.” Thanks to the presence of so many undefeated teams in the BCS, there can be no question that the best teams in the nation have earned invitations, and will be playing on college football’s grandest stages!
There does not seem to be any question regarding the validity in choosing Texas and Alabama as the two teams to compete for the championship. Even Brian Kelly, head coach of the BCS-bound Cincinnati Bearcats, has admitted that the best two teams in the nation are playing in the championship game, a fact pointed out by Loyal Homer.
At the end of the day, the BCS has done exactly what it promised, setting the stage for some potentially classic matchups. In fact, the 2009 season will mark the first time since the inception of the Bowl Alliance System in 1992 (which was the precursor to the BCS) that every one of the top-ranked teams is participating. In every season prior to this one, at least one team of higher ranking was snubbed for a lower-ranked (usually automatic) invitation. Not this season. There were ten invitations to the BCS, and the ten best teams in the country will be playing.
That’s right – the BCS worked! The (undisputed) two best teams in the country will be deservedly playing in the national championship game, and the eight teams remaining in the top 10 will square off in prime-time matchups that are each designed to do nothing more than showcase the best football programs of the 2009 season. Included in those matchups is a game between two unbeaten schools from non-BCS conferences, and a matchup that will pit the undefeated champion from the Big East Conference against the team that was recognized throughout the entire regular season as the best team in the nation (and will consequently become the swan-song of one of the best players in college football history). You could not ask for a better close to the 2009 season than that!
Like fireworks on the Fourth of July, the college football season will save its best for last. During the pre-BCS bowl season we will be treated to many entertaining and exciting matchups, but they are all meant as appetizers to the main course. Ultimately, those bowl games will build up to a Grand Finale featuring the most exciting and explosive teams of the season. And as much as I would love to see a playoff system one day, I cannot pretend to ignore the “oohs!” and “aahs!” in store for us as the ten best teams in the nation take the field in a five-game showcase of the best college football in the land!
Last season, the BCS foundations shook after Utah stunned Alabama in the Allstate Sugar Bowl and finished the 2008 season with an undefeated record of 13-0. As the only undefeated team in the country, many felt that Utah was snubbed when it was denied entry into the BCS National Championship Game, and then subsequently finished the season as the second-ranked team, behind the one-loss Florida Gators, despite the fact that the Utes had not lost a game all season.
Instead having a clear-cut national champion, as the NCAA may have been able to claim in previous seasons to help justify the BCS format, there was actually a team with a legitimate claim to refute the recognized BCS national champion.
Well, if 2008 was bad, just imagine the media frenzy that will take place in 2009. Although Texas and Alabama are universally recognized as the top two teams in the country, there are FIVE (that’s right, I said FIVE) teams that closed the season undefeated. Because of the BCS matchups, those five teams are GUARANTEED to produce AT LEAST two undefeated teams after the bowls conclude, with the possibility of a third depending on the outcome of the games. In addition to the ‘Bama-Texas Citi BCS national championship game, undefeated TCU plays undefeated Boise State in the Tostitos Fiesta Bowl, and undefeated Cincinnati takes on the one-loss Florida Gators at the Allstate Sugar Bowl.
Just because the potential exists for post-BCS drama, though, does not mean BCS organizers are necessarily hiding under their desks. In addition to the potential for drama, the presence of so many undefeated teams in the BCS this season brings the potential for some very exciting matchups. Thanks to the BCS format, TCU and Boise State will actually have the opportunity to play in one of the biggest bowl games in college football. Before the BCS was formed there was no guarantee that those two teams would have had the opportunity to compete in a high-profile bowl game, let alone be featured against each other as one of the premier matchups of the postseason.
Which brings us to our question of the day: Is the fact that five unbeaten teams will enter the BCS bowl games this postseason a good thing for the Bowl Championship Series format, or is it a bad thing?
Opponents of the BCS format will undoubtedly be voicing their disapproval that so many undefeated schools could be excluded from a chance at the National Championship game, but they cannot deny the excitement-factor that exists thanks to the matchups we will all be treated to as a result of the BCS format in place.
Loyal Homer will take the position that having five unbeaten teams eligible for BCS play is a bad thing, Sports Geek will argue that it is actually good for the BCS, and Bleacher Fan will be left to simply sit and ponder the very shocking (and depressing) fact that the Rose Bowl and Orange Bowl have become the two LEAST intriguing ‘major’ Bowl Games of the postseason!
And we're back... Should college coaches look into criminal and juvenile records when recruiting? The verdict says YES! http://bit.ly/dZ5LF310 months ago
Posted by Loyal Homer 
