More BCS Travesty: TCU and Cincinnati Are As Deserving As Texas
I think most of us can say if that Alabama beats Texas, we'd probably be satisfied with the Tide being national champs. Alabama wins the numbers battle; it has the best scoring defense in the country, the second best rushing defense in the country, the best passer rating defense in the country, a top 15 rushing offense, a top 35 passing offense. More importantly, it has the most impressive wins over quality opponents--they've beaten three of the top 10 and seven of the top 30 teams in Sagarin (compared to none in the top 10 and seven in the top 30 for Cincy, Texas and TCU COMBINED; Boise has one--Oregon). Taking down the
But if that straggling Texas squad that stumbled their way into the title game ends up winning because they play that underdog card, come in and win a 16-13 crapfest...well, color me disgusted when they get crowned national champion. The TCU-Boise winner will have an equal claim, as will Cincinnati if they beat Florida, and they'll get passed over by a Texas team that isn't distinguishably better than either of them. And let's not forget the fabled suck-off that'll be coming from that hypocrite Mack Brown if Cincy and TCU finish undefeated. Listen to this great sales pitch from the PR master that TedfordIsGod found.
Did anyone read his comments after the game last night? The guy is just a monstrous asshole.
"I don’t think there could be a better matchup than Texas and Alabama," Brown said.
"We’re excited about being Big 12 champs, and we will see you in Pasadena," he told the Cowboys Stadium crowd during the postgame trophy presentation.
And this is just delusional: "I think Colt played great," Brown said. "We didn’t help him at times."
McCoy completed 56% of his passes, threw three picks (all leading to Nebraska field goals, including the potential gamewinner), got handed a gift with the final kickoff out of bounds, and then nearly committed a Rileyesque brain-fart for the ages. That's great in the same way The Core is great.
After the jump, we explore how close TCU, Cincinnati and Boise are to that coveted #2 spot.
Who deserved the #2 spot in the BCS title game? If Texas wins on January 7th, do they deserve to be crowned national champs? If any of the other teams left out won their bowl game convincingly, would you put them #1?
What do the rankings show? Let's compare rankings in every category and see how well each teams perform (rankings courtesy of cfbstats). We start with offense.
| Alabama | Texas | TCU | Cincinnati | Boise St. | |
| Rush YPA | 12 | 69 | 7 | 11 | 9 |
| Rush YPG | 12 | 55 | 5 | 65 | 20 |
| Completion % | 29 | 3 | 24 | 10 | 15 |
| Pass YPA | 32 | 49 | 5 | 5 | 14 |
| Pass Rating | 31 | 23 | 3 | 1 | 2 |
| Pass YPG | 84 | 14 | 67 | 6 | 30 |
| TFL/g allowed | 21 | 100 | 4 | 31 | 11 |
| 3rd down conversion % | 56 | 18 | 34 | 31 | 74 |
| Scoring Offense | 26 | 3 | 3 | 6 | 1 |
| Sacks allowed | 21 | 96 | 6 | 10 | 1 |
| Yards per play | 25 | 47 | 11 | 2 | 8 |
| Yards per game | 35 | 20 | 4 | 6 | 8 |
| Turnover margin/game | 5 | 9 | 41 | 12 | 2 |
| Average offensive rank | 30 | 38.9 | 16.5 | 15.1 | 15 |
In a total non-shocker, the mid-majors dominate. Not a huge surprise. If anyone, this probably benefits Cincinnati the most--they have the best overall schedule of the three teams left out, including facing pretty good defenses in Pitt and Oregon State. Boise slogged through a game with Oregon and TCU did struggle with Clemson too, but I'd say overall Alabama and Texas had better defenses here. I'll go ahead and split it even between these five.
Now on defense...
| Category | Alabama | Texas | TCU | Cincinnati | Boise St |
| Rush YPA | 8 | 1 | 3 | 33 | 56 |
| Rush YPG | 2 | 1 | 3 | 55 | 39 |
| Completion % | 3 | 28 | 1 | 87 | 21 |
| Pass YPA | 2 | 8 | 1 | 35 | 11 |
| Pass Rating | 1 | 11 | 2 | 40 | 12 |
| Pass YPG | 7 | 23 | 4 | 49 | 13 |
| Tackles for loss/game | 25 | 7 | 55 | 3 | 12 |
| Pass defended/g | 3 | 21 | 36 | 96 | 18 |
| 3rd down conversion % | 4 | 2 | 1 | 59 | 14 |
| Points allowed per game | 1 | 8 | 6 | 24 | 16 |
| Sacks per game | 38 | 11 | 14 | 7 | 69 |
| Total yards per play | 3 | 1 | 1 | 27 | 21 |
| Total yards per game | 2 | 3 | 1 | 48 | 13 |
| Avg Defense Ranking | 7.62 | 9.62 | 9.85 | 43.3 | 24.2 |
This is where TCU emphatically makes its case and separates itself from Boise and Cincinnati. TCU literally goes stride-for-stride in every category with the defensively dominant Longhorns and the Tide, finishing #1 in five categories (compared to two for Bama and three for Texas). In every category Texas finishes in the top 5, TCU finishes in the top 5. TCU actually finishes ahead of Alabama in 7 of the 13 categories and Texas in 7 of the 13; only a curious lack of tackles for loss (does TCU give up a bunch of 1 yard gains???) and passes defended (are TCU opposing QBs that terrible, since they still rank #1 in completion percentage defense?) keep the Horned Frogs from winning the overall average outright.
Big ups to TCU here--this is the only real difference given by the three competitors statwise, and it makes a very compelling case that they are the equals, if not superiors of the Longhorns.
Just for kicks, checking out the special teams rankings didn't distinguish anything.
| Category | Alabama | Texas | TCU | Cincinnati | Boise St. |
| Kickoff Return Avg | 12 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 5 |
| Punt Return Avg | 5 | 16 | 20 | 19 | 35 |
| FG% | 17 | 12 | 28 | 79 | 44 |
| Punt Average | 33 | 84 | 117 | 80 | 34 |
| Kickoff Average | 30 | 33 | 40 | 4 | 75 |
| Punt Return Defense | 63 | 85 | 18 | 95 | 12 |
| Kickoff Return Defense | 117 | 65 | 23 | 25 | 12 |
| Average ST ranking | 39.57 | 42.71 | 35.29 | 43.43 | 31 |
No real differentiation between anyone. Everyone has great returners, and then it's a crapshoot. Although it appears TCU has a terrible punter and Alabama's kick coverage has a taste of the Alamar.
Of course, you can go ahead and say TCU shut down inferior competition compared to Texas and Alabama... which brings us to our final category.
Resume.
norcalnick broke this stuff down cold.
All I care about is who has the better resume. I haven’t analyzed it in depth yet (check Doc Saturday – he’ll probably do that better than I could soon) but I suspect Texas does have the better resume by a very very slim margin.
Texas’s four best wins, in order:
41-14 @ Ok St.
34-24 vs. Texas Tech
16-13 vs. Oklahoma
13-12 vs. Nebraska ("neutral" site)TCU’s four best wins, in order:
38-7 @ BYU
55-28 vs. Utah
14-10 @ Clemson
30-14 @ Virginia (debatable – you could put a road win over Air Force or a road destruction of Wyoming here – their isn’t a 4th good team on TCU’s schedule)Cincinnati’s 4 best wins
45-44 @ Pittsburgh
28-18 @ Oregon St.
24-21 vs. West Virginia
47-15 @ RutgersThoughts: Ranked teams beaten: Texas – 2 TCU: 2 Cincinnati: 3
If you look at all of this information and conclude that Texas is obviously the team that should be picked, then I think you might be influenced by the name recognition. I think Cincinnati has beaten two teams better than any team Texas has beaten and I think TCU has done a better job of badly beating the teams they play while Texas has had too many close calls. Texas may have the better resume, but it’s nowhere near a slam dunk.
Cincinnati definitely picks up points here that their statistics didn't provide them; they have 3 quality wins (Pitt and West Virginia in their conference, and Oregon State on the road). TCU's position is alright (two quality victories over conference foes including a beatdown for the ages in Provo and a shutdown of C.J. Spiller and the ACC runner-up Tigers).
This would normally be where the Longhorns distance themselves, but Texas hardly picks up any ground--they struggled with four Big 12 opponents (including Texas A&M), only one of whom won more than 8 games. They're barely above TCU and Cincy in this area. Resume eliminates Boise--they only have Oregon and mmmmaybe Nevada; add in the statistical shortcomings and they're just not good enough to be considered #2. Sorry Broncos.
Alabama doesn't have anything to worry about here. Statistics and resume prove they are deserving of the number one spot. But this debate over the #2 spot prevents this title game from being an absolute be-all, end-all to crowning your mythical national champion.
Your annual travesty #2: Thanks to the fantastic process that is the BCS, there probably won't be any special claims. Cincinnati might have a shot if they topple Florida, but TCU and Boise both have gotten the mid-major screw-over. if they win, no one gives a crap and no one will vote for them for #1 because they didn't beat a "real team." And there's also no disruption in the system because there's no chance two 'inferior mid-majors' take down the 'big boys'. Flip an opponent from the Cincy-Florida matchup to this one and you have some intriguing matchups that provide fairness to all; right now, it's just another BCS joke.
Thus, until a playoff is in place, there will always be teams with legitimate gripes and claims to a shot at the national title (Auburn in 2004, Boise State in 2006, Georgia and USC in 2007, Utah in 2008), and if they go ahead and win their bowl games, their claims should be considered legitimate. Unless we have a truly ideal situation (two undefeated teams meeting a la USC-Texas), the bowl season should not be considered anything more than glorified exhibition.
While Texas got the #2 spot by the slightest of margins, you can make an equally compelling case for both TCU and Cincinnati (and a weaker one for Boise) based on the opponents they've surmounted and their overall statistical performance. Henceforth, this BCS "title game" is nothing more than a semi-exhibition--one team can prove they are the champion, the other team can prove they are deserving of champion status, nothing more
The winner of the 2010 BCS Championship Game can only really be considered a true national champion...if Nick Saban is the one hoisting the crystal ball.
2 recs |
99 comments
|
Comments
My thoughts on a few of the BCS matchups
For starters, I mentioned on Saturday that the best potential outcome for those of us who dislike the BCS is for Texas to win and for there to be the maximum amount of undefeated teams remaining (once again, Andy Staples made the case more eloquently than I could). Florida losing big was a nice bonus just because all that “Tim Tebow is the best college player of all time” and “Florida’s 2009 team is one of the best college teams of all time” talk is OVER. Texas beating Nebraska through ridiculous circumstances is awesome because now it makes Texas’ case for a title look that much more ridiculous, as Avinash has pointed out here.
The BCS is trying to cover themselves by facing off TCU and Boise State. Granted, if this is nearly as good as the Poinsettia Bowl we got last year, it will be a great game; however, by refusing to match them up against a Florida or a Georgia Tech or an Iowa, naturally, whoever wins won’t have any “case” to win the title. Cincy really has to carry its weight here and defeat Florida in order to throw a nice wrench into the system.
Right now, my money for the title game is on Texas. There actually is no solid reason behind this, except the #2 over #1 trend that has held true since 2002 (with #1 USC over #2 Oklahoma as the exception). As much as I hate Mack Brown, I wouldn’t mind seeing Texas win just for the havoc the system will see as a result of all of this, especially if Cincy can pull of a big win against the SEC loser a la Utah last year (and, unlike Utah last year, the “mid-major” argument cannot be thrown against Cincy).
It will be a compelling bowl season.
7
by Rishi on Dec 7, 2009 6:54 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
I have some homer sympathies obviously but I agree. Texas thrives as an underdog and Alabama’s offense doesn’t scare me at all. They can’t throw for shit and the Texas run D is the best in the nation. Bama’s D is definitely salty as well but I like UT’s passing game to get enough points to win.
It’ll be low scoring though, 16-10 or something like that.
Goin' balls deep with Cal since 1972!
by Fire Starkey on Dec 7, 2009 7:58 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I made this point in the "I hate Mack Brown" but it fits here as well
As a proud Texas grad, I can say this with pride… Mack Brown can suck a donkey dick.
Texas, on the other hand, deserves to be where it is. Until TCU (and to a lesser extent, Cincinnati) plays a BCS conference level schedule, they have no right to bitch about anything. Sure, you can analyze "best" wins but go through the whole schedule. Your team doesn’t get beat up the same way when you play UNLV, New Mexico and Colorado St as compared to a Kansas, Baylor or aTm. It just doesn’t. So while the best couple of wins might be comparable, the rest of the schedule is not.
And yes, Texas’s schedule sucked balls this year. It was still tougher than TCU or Cincinnati’s.
Goin' balls deep with Cal since 1972!
by Fire Starkey on Dec 7, 2009 7:55 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Texas’s schedule sucked balls this year. It was still tougher than TCU or Cincinnati’s
I just don’t see it. I think the Longhorns’ biggest asset in the minds of voters is that they play in the Big-12, which was arguably the best conference in the country … last year. The Big-12 in 2009 was not the Big-12 in 2008, and I don’t see any difference between it and the Big East or Mountain West this year. Moreover, how many times do the likes of Boise and Utah and West Virginia need to punk more highly touted competition in BCS bowl games before we acknowledge that the alleged superiority of the power conferences—at least among their respective top teams—is a myth?
What’s my solution? Until there is a playoff, everyone should join the SEC. Practical concerns would require there be an SEC Pacific division, an SEC Texas division, an SEC Corn Belt division, an SEC middle-of-fucking-nowhere division. But they could all meet in a season-ending SEC championship playoff. The so-crowned SEC champion would then play Notre Dame for the NBC-BCS “national” championship.
Go Bears!
by California Pete on Dec 7, 2009 8:07 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
To be honest...
…last year’s Utah win was the first really compelling BCS-buster for me. The Utes beating a terrible Pitt team that barely deserved a bowl, let alone a BCS bowl, in 2004 doesn’t prove too much, and Boise State has done a great job of spinning a one-point overtime win against the chokingest BCS team of the decade into some sense that they are the uncrowned kings of D-I.
As it stands, right now I would say that it’s the SEC, the Pac-10, and a bunch of “everybody else.” Last year’s bowl results would seem to bear that out, but then, that was last year…
by VandyImport on Dec 7, 2009 8:12 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I’m inclined to agree, except last year’s Pac-10 record during the season vs. the Mountain West wasn’t exactly spectacular.
Go Bears!
by California Pete on Dec 7, 2009 8:19 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
But nobody cares that BYU can beat 0-12 Washington.
by GBB4188 on Dec 7, 2009 12:35 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
BYU didn’t even beat that team. The refs called that ridiculous penalty on Locker!
by Missing Barry on Dec 7, 2009 2:31 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Well, there’s also favoritism among the BCS conferences. The Big East rarely gets any respect, and it’s had a couple of good showings like WVU smacking Georgia down…
by Missing Barry on Dec 7, 2009 2:30 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Utah’s matchup against Pitt wasn’t their fault. Hell, if the BCS weren’t more broke than a Lehman securities trader, they would have matched up undefeated Utah against undefeated Auburn.
7
by Rishi on Dec 7, 2009 2:51 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Hmmm…you seem to be implying the people that created the financial crisis ended up broke. I’m under the impression they all made a lot of money (even if they’re unemployed now)….
by Missing Barry on Dec 7, 2009 3:15 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
According to Sagarin
Strength of schedule:
Texas 44
Cincinnati 67
TCU 83
Goin' balls deep with Cal since 1972!
by Fire Starkey on Dec 7, 2009 8:26 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
TCU schedule
09/12/09 at Virginia Charlottesville, Va. W, 30-14
09/19/09 vs. Texas State Fort Worth, Texas W, 56-21
09/26/09 at Clemson Clemson, S.C. W, 14-10
10/03/09 vs. SMU (Family Weekend) Fort Worth, Texas W, 39-14
10/10/09 at Air Force USAFA, Colo. W, 20-17
10/17/09 vs. Colorado State (Clark Society) Fort Worth, Texas W, 44-6
10/24/09 at BYU Provo, Utah W, 38-7
10/31/09 vs. UNLV (Homecoming) Fort Worth, Texas W, 41-0
11/07/09 at San Diego State San Diego, Calif. W, 55-12
11/14/09 vs. Utah Fort Worth, Texas W, 55-28
11/21/09 at Wyoming Laramie, Wyo. W, 45-10
11/28/09 vs. New Mexico Fort Worth, Texas W, 51-10
Goin' balls deep with Cal since 1972!
by Fire Starkey on Dec 7, 2009 8:27 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
MNC teams from non Auto Qualifier conferences shouldn’t be playing teams like Texas St. Perhaps it’s a rivalry game of some sorts, but that will come back to bite you every time. I think 2008 Utah played Weber St or something like that.
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
by carp on Dec 7, 2009 8:37 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Texas St is not a rivalry game, just schedule filler
Goin' balls deep with Cal since 1972!
by Fire Starkey on Dec 7, 2009 8:45 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Cincinnati schedule
Mon., Sep. 7 at Rutgers Piscataway, N.J. W, 47-15
Sat., Sep. 12 vs. Southeast Missouri State Nippert Stadium W, 70-3
Sat., Sep. 19 at Oregon State Corvallis, Ore. W, 28-18
Sat., Sep. 26 vs. Fresno State (Whiteout Game) Nippert Stadium W, 28-20
Sat., Oct. 3 at Miami (OH) Oxford, Ohio W, 37-13
Thu., Oct. 15 at USF * Tampa, Fla. W, 34-17
Sat., Oct. 24 vs. Louisville (Homecoming) * Nippert Stadium W, 41-10
Sat., Oct. 31 at Syracuse * Syracuse, N.Y. W, 28-7
Sat., Nov. 7 vs. Connecticut (Blackout Game) * Nippert Stadium W, 47-45
Fri., Nov. 13 vs. West Virginia (Ring of Red Game) Nippert Stadium W, 24-21
Fri., Nov. 27 vs. Illinois (Senior Day) Nippert Stadium W, 49-36
Sat., Dec. 5 at Pittsburgh * Pittsburgh, Pa. W, 45-44
Goin' balls deep with Cal since 1972!
by Fire Starkey on Dec 7, 2009 8:27 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
they definitely got Oregon St at the right time…they play them in November and I don’t think they win that game. Was Canfield even starting then?
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
by carp on Dec 7, 2009 8:36 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Texas schedule
Sat, Sep 5 Louisiana-Monroe W 59-20 -
Sat, Sep 12 at Wyoming W 41-10 -
Sat, Sep 19 Texas Tech W 34-24 -
Sat, Sep 26 UTEP W 64-7 -
Sat, Oct 10 Colorado W 38-14 -
Sat, Oct 17 (20) Oklahoma W 16-13 -
Sat, Oct 24 at Missouri W 41-7 -
Sat, Oct 31 at (13) Oklahoma State W 41-14 -
Sat, Nov 7 UCF W 35-3 -
Sat, Nov 14 at Baylor W 47-14 -
Sat, Nov 21 Kansas W 51-20 -
Thu, Nov 26 at Texas A&M W 49-39 -
Sat, Dec 5 at (21) Nebraska W 13-12 —
Goin' balls deep with Cal since 1972!
by Fire Starkey on Dec 7, 2009 8:29 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
nice, random lineouts- you get the picture though
Goin' balls deep with Cal since 1972!
by Fire Starkey on Dec 7, 2009 8:29 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Meh. My thinking about schedule strength is that each year, there are a handful of teams (e.g., Washington in 2008) that have absolutely murderous schedules, and a handful of teams that have laughable schedules. But the qualitative difference between, say, the 20th ranked schedule and the 90th is insignificant.
And then there is the regular phenomenon of upsets, whereby the “easy” games on a team’s schedule aren’t necessarily easy. That’s especially true when you’re playing an in-conference opponent, no matter what conference you’re in. Unless, of course, that opponent is Washington State.
Go Bears!
by California Pete on Dec 7, 2009 8:37 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Hmmmm, yes and no. I agree with you to a point re: the difference between 20th and 80th but I think its more significant than you say. Also, look at the schedules I’ve put up there.
How would Cal have gone with a Virginia, Texas St, Clemson, SMU, Air Force, Col St, BYU, UNLV, SDSU, Utah, Wyoming, NM schedule? What about the other teams in the PAC-10? I’d say the top 7, possibly 8 get at least 10 wins with 2 or 3 teams going undefeated. At minimum.
Goin' balls deep with Cal since 1972!
by Fire Starkey on Dec 7, 2009 8:44 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I think Cal probably goes 8-4 against all these schedules. Against the supposedly weakest, TCU’s, I would expect this Cal team to lose at least three of the following:
@Virginia
@Clemson
@Air Force
@BYU
vs. Utah
At best, I believe these Bears would have finished 10-2. Nice, to be sure, but not quite TCU’s 12-0. And I honestly don’t see any other Pac-10 team going undefeated either. After all, the conference’s top two teams both laid an egg during their non-conference season this year—to admittedly good teams—and this seems to be an annual occurrence for them. Certainly, the Oregon that lost to Boise opening night would have lost to Virginia as well.
The bottom line is that five teams accomplished the remarkable task of going undefeated this year. I agree with Avi that of those five, the only two to stand out clearly from the rest are Alabama on the impressive side and Boise State on the not-as-impressive side. The system requires that voters choose one from the remaining three to play Alabama for the BCS title, and there is no denying that Texas is a more-than-reasonable choice. But I I think TCU and Cincy can make an equally convincing case, and that right there is the problem with the current system.
Go Bears!
by California Pete on Dec 7, 2009 9:20 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Totally and completely disagree.
Virginia SUCKED
Clemson was good but was Jeckyl and Hyde. Managed to lose 4 games (including Maryland)
Air Force? Really?
BYU was ok but got bombed at home by Florida St. Nothing special
Utah- ok but nothing special
Cal wins 10, Oregon, OSU, Furd, SC, Arizona all win 10+ and JCLA and UW win 8-10 at least. Plus, the physical beating you take playing better levels of talent will wear on you as the season goes on. TCU is a 9 win team in the Pac 10, SEC or Big XII this year. A good team but not close to NC material.
Goin' balls deep with Cal since 1972!
by Fire Starkey on Dec 7, 2009 10:35 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
this
Like cocaine straight from Bolivia.
by Thoroughbred on Dec 7, 2009 10:40 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Thoughts: Ranked teams beaten: Texas – 2 TCU: 2 Cincinnati: 3
Hmm, Cal beat 2 ranked teams, perhaps we should go to the BCS Title game.
President Emperor Warlord Of The Sun!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
by TwistNHook on Dec 7, 2009 8:00 AM PST reply actions 2 recs
The Cal team that won eight games this year should be invited to play for the championship. As for that other group of impostors last seen this weekend in Seattle, …
Go Bears!
by California Pete on Dec 7, 2009 8:09 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
It bothers me that 35% of the poll responders think the BCS title game is legitimate. Even if TCU and Cincinnati both had losses I would still view the title game as unfair. If you finish undefeated you deserve a chance at proving you’re the best team in America. Ignoring an undefeated Boise St. team (in addition to Cincinnati and TCU) is an amazing example of bias. Fans and pundits pretend to know so much about who’s the best based on what we see, but in the end pretending we know the answer before it’s happened is the height of arrogance. I don’t know Texas and Alabama are better than the rest. After the bowls I won’t know any better.
It doesn’t matter how any of the bowl games go. The BCS is patently illegitimate for pretending that it’s even structurally possible for the current system to determine a national championship. We try to make the best choice we can because we have to, but in the end we’re trying to make sense of vastly different schedules and results of only 12 or 13 games – a very small data size.
You can try to enjoy the BCS as long as you don’t pretend that it ever truly answers the question of who the best team in college football actually is. The system, as currently constructed, cannot answer that question.
The #1 greatest threat to America: BEARS
by norcalnick on Dec 7, 2009 8:24 AM PST reply actions 3 recs
I look at it this way....
……If Texas manages to beat Alabama, then, well, they’ll have beaten Alabama and will deserve the championship. If Alabama wins, nothing will have happened to make us think they’re not the best team. What is wrong is that Texas doesn’t really deserve to be there over the other teams necessarily…..but if they win they’ll have justified the pick.
by ohsooso on Dec 7, 2009 10:17 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
If Alabama wins, nothing will have happened to make us think they’re not the best team.
And if Cincinnati beats Florida, then Cincinnati and the TCU/BSU winner will have done nothing to make us think they’re not the best team. I very firmly believe this: IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE BCS TO PROVIDE A LEGITIMATE NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP. A BCS title is no more real than voters voting on a consensus national title.
The #1 greatest threat to America: BEARS
by norcalnick on Dec 7, 2009 10:57 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
If that happens....
….then split the championship. You do realize we can’t have a playoff system before we go to the Rose Bowl, don’t you?
by ohsooso on Dec 7, 2009 12:58 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
then split the championship.
That’s certainly better than the alternative.
You do realize we can’t have a playoff system before we go to the Rose Bowl, don’t you?
I don’t know how the rest of Cal fans feel (it would actually be an interesting question) but my obsession isn’t the Rose Bowl itself per se. It’s winning the Pac-10. That’s what I want. And that opportunity won’t go away with a playoff system.
The #1 greatest threat to America: BEARS
by norcalnick on Dec 7, 2009 1:21 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The Rose Bowl can be included in a playoff system. Big 10 and Pac 10 matchup in the first round of an 8 team playoff.
by Missing Barry on Dec 7, 2009 2:34 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Screwing up a normal playoff structure in order to preserve a traditional rivalry like the Rose Bowl would be an incredibly poor idea
It’s like FIFA deliberately putting the USA and Mexico in the same group every World Cup. From a competition standpoint it doesn’t make any sense.
O'Hara: Detective Lassiter is literally on fire.
Spencer: What kind of fire are we talking about-- "Michael Jackson in the Pepsi commercial" fire, or "misusing the word literally" fire?
by PaulThomas on Dec 7, 2009 2:57 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Doesn’t bother me at all. Traditions can be fun. Soccer is stupid anyways, so let’s leave it out of the conversation…
:)
by Missing Barry on Dec 7, 2009 3:16 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
would any team in the country want to play 2-loss Oregon over any other team?
The problem with the BCS is that it can’t resolve strength of schedule and it overvalues the fluff win over a high quality loss. Because of this, I recommend the zoonews approach: just appreciate the greatest regular season of ANY sport and don’t drool over the bowl games.
Perhaps 2010 will be the year where 2 Pac10 teams make it to the dance – Oregon in MNC and prolly USC in the Rose.
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
by carp on Dec 7, 2009 8:42 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Perhaps 2010 will be the year where 2 Pac10 teams make it to the dance – Oregon Cal in MNC and prolly USC in the Rose.
The Lack of Mack's Imposition Attacks My Disposition.
by Spazzy Mcgee on Dec 7, 2009 1:21 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
carp is very bearish on Cal right now.
7
by Rishi on Dec 7, 2009 2:53 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Isn't anything related to Cal athletics bearish?
O'Hara: Detective Lassiter is literally on fire.
Spencer: What kind of fire are we talking about-- "Michael Jackson in the Pepsi commercial" fire, or "misusing the word literally" fire?
by PaulThomas on Dec 7, 2009 2:57 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You win this round of “spot the dumb pun”!
7
by Rishi on Dec 7, 2009 3:03 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
If We Had a Playoff
With 16 teams, the bracket would look like this.
NOTE: Assumptions taken are (1) all conference champions auto-qualify and (2) seedings based on BCS standings (with one adjustment to keep teams in the same conference from meeting in the first round).
1 Alabama (13-0)
16 Troy (9-3)
8 Ohio State (10-2)
9 Georgia Tech (11-2)
5 Florida (12-1)
12 Penn State (10-2)
4 TCU (12-0)
13 LSU (9-3)
6 Boise State (13-0)
11 Virginia Tech (9-3)
3 Cincinnati (12-0)
14 Central Michigan (11-2)
7 Oregon (10-2)
10 Iowa (10-2)
2 Texas (13-0)
15 Houston (10-3)
by sycasey on Dec 7, 2009 9:36 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
I believe E Carolina won, so are they C-USA champs?
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
by carp on Dec 7, 2009 9:37 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Crap, you’re right. Swap ’em out. ECU plays Texas.
by sycasey on Dec 7, 2009 9:38 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
LSU actually finished ahead of Penn State in the BCS standings, but I moved them down so they wouldn’t play Florida in the first round — I’m guessing any selection committee would do something similar.
by sycasey on Dec 7, 2009 9:37 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
wow 1 pac10 team, 3 big11 teams, and 3 SEC teams. Even a playoff would suck.
lol @ Bama vs troy matchup – it’s like the regular season!
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
by carp on Dec 7, 2009 9:39 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Frankly, this year it would have been perfectly fair to only have one Pac-10 team. None of the others after Oregon really distinguished themselves with 8-4 records.
In other years, we’d have had 2 Pac-10 teams in the playoff: ASU in 2007, Oregon in 2005, Cal in 2004.
by sycasey on Dec 7, 2009 9:41 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
because the W-L record is all that matters.
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
by carp on Dec 7, 2009 11:03 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Well, the differences in non-conference scheduling are a separate issue; they’d be the same in a playoff system as they are for the current BCS system. I agree, it sucks that a team like Penn State could play a lot of pansies and still get to a playoff. I could also say the same about Florida getting a BCS bowl this year with Charleston Southern, Troy, and Florida International on the non-conference slate.
But that’s a different problem, to be resolved outside of whatever postseason process we decide to have.
by sycasey on Dec 7, 2009 11:36 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The irony, in the Pac-10’s best year in a while nobody at the top deserves recognition because they had so many decent to very good teams on their schedule (other Pac-10 teams)…
Meanwhile, Sagarin has the Big 10 as the worst BCS conference, so obviously they get 2 BCS bids (and 3 bids to this playoff format)….
Sigh, let’s all (Pac-10) start scheduling 1-AA’s and WAC teams OOC and drop the 9th conference game…hell, let’s drop the 8th conference game while we’re at it. Maybe that will earn some respect….
by Missing Barry on Dec 7, 2009 2:36 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
There's no way I include Troy, CMU and Houston in a playoff format
A playoff at best can go 8 ways.
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
by Avinash on Dec 7, 2009 4:17 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Well, it’s how they do it in other NCAA playoffs, giving all conferences an auto-bid. Another way would be to only give SOME conferences auto-bids and hand out at-larges to cover the rest. That’s how they do it in Division 1-AA (a.k.a. FCS); some conferences get auto-bids for their champions, others don’t, and then a committee picks the at-large teams and seeds them. Conferences can also petition to get added to the auto-bid list. I could also see this working out: auto-bids for the six BCS conferences, plus six at-large seeds for a 12-team bracket (bye weeks for the top 4 seeds) or something similar.
I think an 8-team playoff runs into problems if you have BCS conference champs who finish well below the Top 10. And I’m seriously doubtful any playoff system will gain traction if you don’t give out auto-bids to at least the power conferences.
by sycasey on Dec 7, 2009 4:25 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Also, you could say the same about all those 15 and 16 seeds that make it to March Madness, but I think it’s a good thing that they are included. You want every team in your division to feel like they have a shot at it.
by sycasey on Dec 7, 2009 4:27 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks for the proposed playoff bracket. It would be fun to see who would emerge as champion. Unfortunately, some (despite fan polls which overwhelmingly support a playoff) oppose playoffs and support the current BCS system. In fact, my post is in some part based on some sports radio comments I heard today on 1280 the Zone in Salt Lake City, which argued against a playoff. Their arguments are patently absurd. For instance, one host (a former college football player) argued that a playoff would make regular season games meaningless, and that he loved the weekly do-or-die consequences of a regular season game, where a loss can eliminate a team from National Championship consideration. Apparently, based on his reasoning. most fans in the country would lose interest by the middle of the season, as most teams have lost at least one game by then. Another argument against a playoff made by these “experts” was that there was a huge disparity in budget for major college football programs, making fair competition impossible. They further argued that minor college football championships didn’t have to deal with this issue because they played for the “love of the game” and professional leagues eliminated this disparity by their draft procedures, which allowed lesser teams to improve by drafting earlier than good teams. I guess they believe the New York Yankees, the Boston Red Sox, and teams like the L.A. Lakers don’t have any advantage over less affluent teams. They further argued that a playoff may result in a champion that is unworthy. In fact, one host argued that he didn’t want to watch last year’s Super Bowl because he felt the Cardinals didn’t deserve to be in the Championship game, and that fans wouldn’t accept them as a “True Champion”. What a bunch of BS. I believe most sports fans recognize the 2008 NY Giants, the 2006 Steelers, and a host of other “underdogs” (1960 Pittsburgh Pirates for example) as true champions, despite their underdog status, and the Arizona Cardinals would have been accepted as Super Bowl champs if they had won the game. The current BCS system and the old poll system to determine a number 1 in major College Football has been inherently corrupt for decades. There is a huge regional bias in polls, and therefore any computer poll based on defeating ranked teams is also biased. For example, at the beginning of this season, some voters had 10 SEC teams in the top 25, and no MWC or WAC teams even in the top 25. Obviously, the pre-season poll was horribly inaccurate. Any BCS weighting that included strength of schedule based on beating ranked teams was obviously flawed, and made it almost impossible for some teams to climb into National Championship consideration. One poster recently pointed to the superiority of the SEC because SEC teams had won 30 games between ranked opponents, Unfortunately, he failed to mention that most, if not all, of those wins were in conference. The current BCS system is total BS. By matching TCU against Boise State further proves the BCS has no agenda except to protect the money flow to BCS AQ leagues. Arguments which support the current system lack credibility and as long as fans continue to tune in, there is little chance anything will change.
WE ARE!!!!
by NEPASportsfan on Dec 7, 2009 9:29 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Crap, you’re right. Swap ’em out. ECU plays Texas.
by sycasey on Dec 7, 2009 9:38 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
One thing you forgot
Cinci played and won some of it’s games WITH A BACKUP QUARTERBACK that was statistically better than McCoy and maybe even McElroy.
In other words, Go Bears!
by royrules22 on Dec 7, 2009 9:49 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Fair enough...
I get ticked when people say that other teams are MORE deserving. Saying they are AS deserving is a fairer point.
It is indeed a travesty that every undefeated team doesn’t get a shot at it. But with TX getting hosed last year. (we beat BOTH big xii champ participants) I don’t feel too sorry for them.
Here is the SOS average of all the comps. Texas’ SOS is closer to Bama’s than TCU’s is to Texas. TCU’s sos is closer to Boise’s than it is to Texas.
by Orangechipper on Dec 7, 2009 9:56 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Left off the link… http://bcscentral.info/sos.html
by Orangechipper on Dec 7, 2009 9:56 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
But with TX getting hosed last year. (we beat BOTH big xii champ participants) I don’t feel too sorry for them.
It’s a pretty horrible system if it screws teams over so often that when it happens our attitude is “eh, whatever, everybody else gets screwed too.”
sigh. I wish there was light at the end of the tunnel, but we’re stuck with the BCS for awhile.
The #1 greatest threat to America: BEARS
by norcalnick on Dec 7, 2009 10:59 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. Hold on a second.
It is indeed a travesty that every undefeated team doesn’t get a shot at it. But with TX getting hosed last year.
Texas did not get hosed last year. Texas got what it’s whiny little bitch of a coach deserves. You know what else Texas deserves? To get left out of the NCG. Can Mack Brown beg voters to side with him anymore? Have some fucking dignity. Or just keeping playing Wyoming, Louisiana-Monroe, UTEP and UCF OOC….
Yes, Texas deserves to get “hosed” every year, until Mack Brown learns to act like a man. Like he’s 40.
by Missing Barry on Dec 7, 2009 2:40 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Given that 'Bama wins....
Then yes the BCS shows the true champion in 2009. Texas doesn’t deserve #2 though.
Everyone wants a playoff system but amidst all the upsets, I think it doesn’t work too well. Look at 2007. Every week IS a playoff. And every week WAS an upset. Football is one of those sports where there’s just TOO many upsets. Especially college football. You can’t play a 7 game series like basketball or baseball. The best team never really wins.
by dmo580 on Dec 7, 2009 10:19 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
If every week was a playoff this year it was a pretty shitty playoff. We could very easily end up with 3 teams with a legitimate claim on the national title after all of the bowls. That’s a pretty big “every week is a playoff” FAIL
The #1 greatest threat to America: BEARS
by norcalnick on Dec 7, 2009 10:55 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Well I thinkt he other problem is....
everyone feels their team deserves to be in the NC game. But the problem is that game can only have 2 freaking contenders. I suppose people aren’t satisfied with Rose, Orange, Sugar or Fiesta Bowls.
by dmo580 on Dec 7, 2009 11:33 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t know if the push for a playoff is really about determining who is the “best” team — I’d agree that when you’re comparing over 100 CFB teams who all play very different schedules, that’s nearly impossible. Heck, it’s pretty damn hard to do in the pros, where at least there are fewer teams and more points of comparison. Upsets still happen there (see: undefeated New England losing the Super Bowl).
My feeling is that the desire for a playoff is more a desire to simply crown a champion, which is not the same thing as determining the best team. Does anyone really think that the NCAA Basketball Tournament determines the best team every time? No, but it does give everyone a legitimate chance at becoming the National Champion, and people like that. Meanwhile, the BCS system really cannot give everyone a legitimate chance; you can go undefeated and not get a shot. You can post a record just as good as your conference champion and not get a shot. It’s just a consequence of having a system that, after the regular season is over, only gives 2 teams a chance to play for the title.
by sycasey on Dec 7, 2009 11:31 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Then yes the BCS shows the true champion in 2009.
How so, when the next best contenders never lost themselves, and Alabama didn’t play them? I honestly don’t even know what to say, I can’t see how you fail to acknowledge the fact that in a multiple undefeated teams scenario, there can never really be a “true” champion. Just one with a harder schedule, or that voters like more, or that looks better….but again, they never prove they’re the better team by beating their top contenders (who again, are undefeated).
by Missing Barry on Dec 7, 2009 2:44 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I prefer to think of it as
a “Reggie-Ballesque” brain-fart more than anything, acually. ;)
by CAJason80 on Dec 7, 2009 11:46 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
You know, I’m not really worried about Texas. They are going to get so thoroughly walloped by Alabama that no one will consider them #2 (…I hope). What really gets my goat is the TCU vs Boise game. The only reason those two should be made to play each other is ratings. That BCS decision proves one again that the bowl season isn’t about “which conference is better” or “finding a national champion.” It’s about ratings and money, to the exclusion of everything else. I know that claim won’t surprise anyone here; but the more years it happens, the more data we have accumulated to show the BCS for what it is. It’s a ratings grab—like in TV sweeps when a show kills someone off or has two female characters kiss. I desperately wanted TCU to go against Florida so we could compare an ESPN-fellated team to a really strong outsider team. Instead, Boise and TCU are forced once again to be outsiders together.
by paleodan on Dec 7, 2009 11:57 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
You really think Alabama is going to destroy Texas? Based on what? I think Texas actually matches up really well against Alabama.
Please don’t say “The games of 12/5” as your sole criteria.
Goin' balls deep with Cal since 1972!
by Fire Starkey on Dec 7, 2009 12:33 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I hope
Alabama will beat Texas. I can’t say I’ve seen a lot of Alabama play, but I am under the impression that they are statistically much better.
by paleodan on Dec 7, 2009 12:36 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Bama can’t pass for shit, they excel as a power running team. Texas has GREAT run defense (#1 nationally).
That said, Texas can’t run and excel in the pass game. Bama’s pass defense is #7 nationally.
Like I said somewhere, this game has 16-10 written all over it.
Goin' balls deep with Cal since 1972!
by Fire Starkey on Dec 7, 2009 1:17 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Has Texas played an awesome run team? I have no idea, but I’m guessing that a number of the stats Avi cited may be influenced by uneven schedules. It’s too bad there isn’t a kenpom-like site for football (that I’m aware of)
The #1 greatest threat to America: BEARS
by norcalnick on Dec 7, 2009 1:23 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Looking at their schedule, I don’t see any super running teams but then, I don’t see any really good passing teams on Bama’s schedule either. It’s all subjective I suppose.
Goin' balls deep with Cal since 1972!
by Fire Starkey on Dec 7, 2009 1:46 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yep
Colt McCoy wouldn’t be anywhere near the podium in New York if it weren’t for the fact that the Big-12’s secondaries are the functional equivalent of the Maginot Line.
Every time Texas has faced merely a competent pass defense, they have looked lost and confused (Oklahoma, Nebraska). I don’t expect that to change in the National Title Game.
by CAJason80 on Dec 7, 2009 1:58 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I have to agree with Fire Starkey
That, plus the countless coronating we’re going to get over the next few weeks of Saban and Alabama…I can already see Texas losing or winning by a field goal.
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
by Avinash on Dec 7, 2009 4:20 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
god that was hot when lucy made out with ethel.
The Lack of Mack's Imposition Attacks My Disposition.
by Spazzy Mcgee on Dec 7, 2009 1:25 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Actually, the Fiesta Bowl had an opportunity to put TCU vs Cincinnati but passed because of ticket sales. Pity.
Goin' balls deep with Cal since 1972!
by Fire Starkey on Dec 7, 2009 1:47 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I’m pretty sure the Fiesta Bowl was trying to do something good by picking Boise State. I’m quite sure Cincy would bring more fans thant Boise.
7
by Rishi on Dec 7, 2009 2:54 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The Fiesta Bowl definitely made it’s decision based on who it thought would bring in more revenue….
by Missing Barry on Dec 7, 2009 3:17 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Because Boise v. TCU is going to draw in fans… right.
In other words, Go Bears!
by royrules22 on Dec 7, 2009 3:23 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Not sure of the inner workings of how everything ended up, but the Bowls are essentially companies – their goal is to maximize profits. Maybe they thought Boise would bring more fans because it’s closer. Maybe they made some revenue sharing agreement with other BCS bowls or something along those lines (completely making this up out of the blue, more an example than actual theory), I don’t know – but what I do know, is the Bowls are trying to maximize their revenues (and thus their profits). Thinking they have some other motivation in mind is just…..incorrect.
by Missing Barry on Dec 7, 2009 3:28 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
What is the order on selection? Perhaps the Fiesta had last pick.
President Emperor Warlord Of The Sun!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
by TwistNHook on Dec 7, 2009 3:47 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Sugar Bowl went last. This year’s picks, after auto-bids were handed out:
Sugar, Fiesta (these first two were to replace the NCG participants), Orange, Fiesta, Sugar.
I’m assuming it went like this:
Sugar: Florida
Fiesta: TCU
Orange: Iowa
Fiesta: Boise State
Sugar: Cincinnati
So the Fiesta actively chose TCU over Iowa and then Boise State over Cincy. I guess they know what they’re doing.
by sycasey on Dec 7, 2009 4:20 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Attendance at Poinsettia was 30k+
Yeah, they really know what they’re doing…sheesh.
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
by Avinash on Dec 7, 2009 4:21 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t know how Iowa travels, but I’m sure between the other 3 they didn’t see big prospects in any of them. An Arizona bowl game chose a Texas and Idaho team over teams from Iowa and Ohio, respectively? Makes a whole lot of sense to me. It’s simple geography…
by Missing Barry on Dec 7, 2009 7:02 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I yearn for the day when fans no longer have to travel cross country on covered wagons.
The Lack of Mack's Imposition Attacks My Disposition.
by Spazzy Mcgee on Dec 7, 2009 7:47 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I tried to ford the river and lost my oxen. :(!
President Emperor Warlord Of The Sun!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
by TwistNHook on Dec 7, 2009 8:15 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Iowa and Ohio being cold as fuck in January is also simple geography. Seriously, cross country vacations are what bowls are designed to create.
"Let me tell you a story. I was a political prisoner for two years. The instant I was released I ran to McDonald's. I had a Big Mac and a Coke.
It was fantastic."
-Toyama Koichi, US Presidential candidate from Japan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGZqOkeYbB0
by AERose on Dec 7, 2009 7:58 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Sure, it’s easy to say that as a pretty big fan who might be willing to travel across the country, but the truth is the farther the bowl, the weaker the demand for tickets is. It’s why the Pac-10 isn’t invited to any bowls in the Southeast, for instance. It’s why the SEC doesn’t come out West for any bowls. Bowl bids tend to be regional.
by Missing Barry on Dec 7, 2009 8:07 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Economics, too, especially this year. I know I can afford a plane ticket to San Diego or Phoenix. I know that I can’t afford a plane ticket to Tampa. And I sure as hell can’t get the time off work to drive across the country.
The #1 greatest threat to America: BEARS
by norcalnick on Dec 7, 2009 8:16 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
but the truth is the farther the bowl, the weaker the demand for tickets is.
Which certainly explains the Big Ten tying in to the Rose Bowl.
"Let me tell you a story. I was a political prisoner for two years. The instant I was released I ran to McDonald's. I had a Big Mac and a Coke.
It was fantastic."
-Toyama Koichi, US Presidential candidate from Japan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGZqOkeYbB0
by AERose on Dec 7, 2009 8:21 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
As opposed to the Big East, SEC or ACC…sure. :)
Do you really disagree with this point? Look up all the bowls, their locations, and their tie ins. Look up who the BCS bowls invite historically. I’m not making this stuff up. Bowls are a regional enterprise. Look at Boise State’s bowl history – they’ve played bowls in Boise, Hawaii, San Diego, Arizona, Fort Worth, and only one bowl East of the Mississippi – in Memphis, TN. The Pac-10’s bowl tie ins are all in the Western US….I’m just really, really unsure what you’re disagreeing with right now…
For the record, bowls all tend to be in warmer climate areas (since they’re played in winter) – so that’s why you get them in Hawaii to California to AZ/Vegas to Texas and then in the South (Louisiana, Atlanta, Florida, etc.)…so yeah, the Big 10 doesn’t have any particularly “close” bowls in general.
by Missing Barry on Dec 7, 2009 8:56 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Jesus, no shit.
You’re still ignoring the fact that for a game like the Fiesta Bowl, hooking in a school like Iowa to bring a million vacationers down from miserable snowed in cornfields is part of the business model. Not all bowls are able to use that business model because lower tier bowls tie in to lower tier schools, but at the top level the plan hasn’t changed since the Rose Bowl: give people in cold places a reason to go to warm places.
"Let me tell you a story. I was a political prisoner for two years. The instant I was released I ran to McDonald's. I had a Big Mac and a Coke.
It was fantastic."
-Toyama Koichi, US Presidential candidate from Japan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGZqOkeYbB0
by AERose on Dec 7, 2009 9:33 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The very first thing I said after sycasey laid out the bowl picking order was this:
I don’t know how Iowa travels
Talking about their fanbase. Maybe they would have brought more fans – as I said, I don’t know. Maybe they would have brought more people, but in general, more fans travel to a bowl the closer it is. That’s the only point I’ve been making, that the Fiesta Bowl chose the closer teams, and that was a factor in the decision, and it’s one of the biggest factors bowls consider in their choices (because its one of the biggest factors in demand).
by Missing Barry on Dec 8, 2009 1:34 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Had to stop reading after first few paragraphs...
because you sir, are an idiot.
Hook ’Em Horns!
by NorCalLonghorn on Dec 7, 2009 12:16 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
“and the kick by Nebraska is………………………no good.”
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
by carp on Dec 7, 2009 12:32 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
eh?
Goin' balls deep with Cal since 1972!
by Fire Starkey on Dec 7, 2009 12:33 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
1. See post with statistics against favorite team.
2. Think up witty retort.
3. Fail.
4. Sling around the word “idiot” in retort instead.
5. ???
6. Profit!
"Today's weather, excessively violent with a chance of dismemberment. Tune in later for our 5-day forecast!"
~ Three Dog - Fallout 3
by Swamphunter on Dec 7, 2009 1:23 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Had to stop reading after first few paragraphs…
becauseyou sir, are an idiot.I realized I can’t read.
fixed
The Lack of Mack's Imposition Attacks My Disposition.
by Spazzy Mcgee on Dec 7, 2009 1:27 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs




















