Bowl Games

[Derek]

You're right on #1 about legitimate polls. The late season losses to count more than early ones, but the whole point of the BCS is to look at it unbiased; it's a computer. It accounts late season losses equivilently to earlier ones. That's the way that should be. I'm probably in the minority, but I like the BCS.

Then again, I tend not to care so much about big-time football as I do smaller-time matchups. I see:

"Florida State and Penn State, such a great matchup."

And then I think, "well, so is Akron and Memphis!"

Late wins don't always hurt you. Oklahoma lost to K-State in the conference championship and still made it to the national championship game. You can argue whether they should have, but I think that it depends on who beats you. If USC would have lost to Fresna State last year it would have hurt them worse then Ohio State got hurt losing to Penn State. On the other hand, Ohio State losing to Penn State made it next to impossible for the Buckeyes to leap frog the nits. It has to do with who you lose to and how you lose to them.

Right. And the reason Oklahoma still went to the Sugar Bowl that year, is because of the computers. The human polls threw them out. But the computers look at the entire season and who you play.

This is why I think that the polls should be thrown out after the usual week 6 rankings and allow the computers to take over after that.

Just my opinion.

[billybud]

Derek...buy a dish and a package!

There may be niche markets for folks who would rather watch Akron Vs Memphis than Ohio State vs Notre Dame...but there is no mass interest in that kind of match up. You get a better product by watching Florida High School football on TV (and more people watch it on TV)

That's really isn't hyperbole......

[Jason G]

I agree with what you are saying about which game would have a bigger following but that doesn't mean that the Akron-Memphis game was any less competitive. A seven point game is a seven point game no matter who is playing.

Instead of simply accepting that so much less attention is being paid to this type of lower profile matchup, more needs to be done to figure out how to generate more interest in these types of programs and matchups.

[billybud]

Lincoln HS vs Leon HS is competitive as well.....so what? It's not compelling to folks whose kids don't go to the schools.

Watching two untalented teams play each other because they "are competitive" is OK for some, I reckon...but trying to make a silk purse out of this hog's ear is silly....it is what it is....two mediocre teams pushing at each other until one wins. yawn.

[ktffan]

Right. And the reason Oklahoma still went to the Sugar Bowl that year, is because of the computers.

And boy did Oklahoma prove those computers were justified.

[Spence]

Which just goes to show you that neither the computers or the human polls are perfect. Which makes sense since humans devised the formula that instructs the computers. Put them all together and they do pretty well. You don't always get the popular view of what is right, maybe not always the correct view, but they do pretty well. The only problem I see with the computer polls in the BCS is that they keep changing them to mirror the human polls. If they want them to run lock step with the human polls there is no sense in having them in the first place. They should find computer polls with good results and let them be. What ever happens, happens. Then live with it.

[Eric]

It's not like they fell flat on their face, ktffan.

Spence, my reference was regarding the polls. I believe that Oklahoma was #3 after that blowout loss to Kansas State.


W
08-30-2003
37
North Texas
3
Norman, OK


W
09-06-2003
20
Alabama
13
Tuscaloosa, AL


W
09-13-2003
52
Fresno St. (CA)
28
Norman, OK


W
09-20-2003
59
UCLA
24
Norman, OK


W
10-04-2003
53
Iowa St.
7
Ames, IA


W
10-11-2003
65
Texas
13
Dallas, TX


W
10-18-2003
34
Missouri
13
Norman, OK


W
10-25-2003
34
Colorado
20
Boulder, CO


W
11-01-2003
52
Oklahoma St.
9
Norman, OK


W
11-08-2003
77
Texas A&M
0
Norman, OK


W
11-15-2003
41
Baylor (TX)
3
Norman, OK


W
11-22-2003
56
Texas Tech
25
Lubbock, TX


L
12-06-2003
7
Kansas St.
35
Big 12 Championship Game


L
01-04-2004
14
Louisiana St.
21
Sugar Bowl

If they didn't look like the best team over the course of the REGULAR season, I really can't think of anyone else.


Take a look at USC's:


W
08-30-2003
23
Auburn (AL)
0
Auburn, AL


W
09-06-2003
35
Brigham Young (UT)
18
Los Angeles, CA


W
09-13-2003
61
Hawaii
32
Los Angeles, CA


L
09-27-2003
31
California
34
Berkeley, CA


W
10-04-2003
37
Arizona St.
17
Tempe, AZ


W
10-11-2003
44
Stanford (CA)
21
Los Angeles, CA


W
10-18-2003
45
Notre Dame (IN)
14
South Bend, IN


W
10-25-2003
43
Washington
23
Seattle, WA


W
11-01-2003
43
Washington St.
16
Los Angeles, CA


W
11-15-2003
45
Arizona
0
Tucson, AZ


W
11-22-2003
47
UCLA
22
Los Angeles, CA


W
12-06-2003
52
Oregon St.
28
Los Angeles, CA


W
01-01-2004
28
Michigan
14
Rose Bowl

They had a stretch of good ballgames to end the season, but I like to look at things as a whole season, I don't care how "hot" your team is coming into bowl season, it matters on what you did over the course of the season. They did very well, but had only 3 wins (besides the Rose Bowl) in that stretch, being worth of note, and that was against Washington State, UCLA, and I suppose Oregon State could count. Oregon State ended up losing 4 of 6 though. Oklahoma did it by hammering solid football teams in Fresno State, UCLA, Missouri, Texas Tech, and very good football teams in Oklahoma State and Texas.

One more thing, before I get called a hypocrite by saying that Oregon State was a cold football team, I'm talking about the context of the win. When referring to bowl season, I think that the invitation should reflect on the season success. So being 7-5 over the course of the season, I think they deserved that Las Vegas Bowl bid even though it was a mismatch for New Mexico as they couldn't stop Steven Jackson if their lives depended on it.

[Spence]

We don't disagree. I thought at the time Oklahoma should go, not so much after the championship game. Oklahoma had some key injuries that hurt them after the regular season. White hand a hand injury, that was the biggest. Also USC, even though they beat Iowa bad in the bowl game the year before, was coming off a less then stellar last ten years. Hind site being 20/20 we know now that SC should have been playing in that game. At the time, though, Oklahoma had been one of the best teams in the country 3 years running. Also I don't think LSU gets enough credit for having the outstanding defense they did. I don't know who would have won a game between SC and LSU, but I bet it would have been a very close game. The LSU defense was lights out that year. A very good D against a very good offense. Those kinds of games usually are closer then everyone expects.

[ktffan]

It's not like they fell flat on their face, ktffan.

But who knows which teams really should have gone? Oklahoma got absolutely blow out in their last game of the season. Getting blow out disqualfies them in my mind, but then the computers weren't allowed to view it as a blow out.

[colorado_loves_football]

It's not like they fell flat on their face, ktffan.

But who knows which teams really should have gone? Oklahoma got absolutely blow out in their last game of the season. Getting blow out disqualfies them in my mind, but then the computers weren't allowed to view it as a blow out.

This brings up an interesting point. Should a conference championship game be viewed in the same context as a regular season 'pairing'?
I don't believe K-State and Oklahoma played regular season, so if nothing else, it was a 'legitimate' game, as opposed to say Colorado vs. Texas, 2005.

I guess my point is should confernece championships count 'against' a team like Oklahoma, that was clearly the best in the regular season?
For the record I agree with you, losing by a substantial margin, should have disqualified them from the Sugar Bowl. That being said, I thought Oklahoma did a respectable job playing in a game they had no business being in, at least in the 2nd half.

[Derek]

It's not like they fell flat on their face, ktffan.

But who knows which teams really should have gone? Oklahoma got absolutely blow out in their last game of the season. Getting blow out disqualfies them in my mind, but then the computers weren't allowed to view it as a blow out.

this is true!! Under the 2002 season BCS, the blowout loss to kansas might have changed history if the comptuer formula's from the previous season had been used.

It was after the 2002 season that SOS was done away with...Im 95% sure about that....

Can anyone prove the opposite???

This is a good point about "playing" with the rules every year, to get the BCS computers to "legitimize" the human polls.

[mountainman]

Hey, Derek, I believe the 'margin of victory' factor was given less weight in the computers to discourage the running up of scores, especially in games that were already decided ... I believe it may have helped produce an unintended result in this case though.

[Derek]

Ahh...I think your right...I think it was called "Quality Wins"

Thanks!!

[mountainman]

By the way, that's a great photo of UGA.

[Derek]

By the way, that's a great photo of UGA.

He's the best UGA of all...UGA V (RIP)

Record: 69-41-1 (1990-99)
Registered name: Uga IV's Magillicuddy Two
Record vs. Florida: 1-8
Bowl record: 5-2-1
Career highlights: A national celebrity, earning undying love of Bulldog fans everywhere after lunging at an Auburn player in quadruple-overtime UGA win in 1996. Named best mascot in the nation, featured on cover of Sports Illustrated in 1998. Profiled by major TV networks. Earned feature role in Savannah-based movie ''Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil,'' collaborating with director Clint Eastwood.