This is getting ridiculous.
Daily Archives: December 4, 2007
WAC coaches: we know what you are, we’re just haggling over the fee.
Filed under BCS/Playoffs, It's Just Bidness
Only one freshman on the ’07 All-SEC first team…
and he ain’t Eric Berry, sucka.
Georgia finished the regular season 10-2 and fourth in the country in the polls. The Dawgs have three players combined on the first and second All-SEC teams. The only schools in the conference with fewer are Auburn and Mississippi.
That’s a pretty good coaching job in my book.
Filed under Georgia Football
He wouldn’t feel the same way about the Hawaii Bowl.
Shorter Paul Finebaum: Alabama shouldn’t play in a bowl game because I hated Shreveport when I lived there.
Comments Off on He wouldn’t feel the same way about the Hawaii Bowl.
Filed under Media Punditry/Foibles
Money, mouth and the BCS
Let’s refresh. Here’s the current top 13 in the BCS rankings:
- Ohio State
- Virginia Tech
- West Virginia
- Arizona State
We’ve got #1 playing #2 (duh), #3 playing #8, #4 paying #9, #5 playing #10 and #7 playing #13. All at neutral sites (yeah, we’re stretching that term in New Orleans, but what the heck).
Which means that the favorites in the BCS games should be Ohio State, Virginia Tech, Oklahoma, Georgia and USC, right? Well, with one exception, Vegas – in the business of getting the public to spread its money on both sides of a bet – agrees with that. The only higher ranked team that’s an underdog in a BCS game is Ohio State.
Now, if you net out the BCS averages between the participants of the games, you find that the BCS ranks the bowl games in terms of decreasing order of closeness as follows: Title Game (.0194), Orange Bowl (.1114), Fiesta Bowl (.1944), Sugar Bowl (.1924) and Rose Bowl (.3040). Do the point spreads match the BCS spreads?
Well, here’s what Vegas says – Orange Bowl (3 – 4 point spread), Title Game (4.5 – 5.5 point spread), Fiesta Bowl (6.5 – 7 point spread), Sugar Bowl (10 point spread) and Rose Bowl (13 – 14 point spread).
Bottom line: the betting public is of the opinion that Ohio State is overrated.
Filed under BCS/Playoffs
It’s not wabbit season; it’s not duck season…
it’s bowl season!
You’re off the hook for now, fellas… kinda like Houston Nutt.
Here are a few random thoughts and questions I’ve got about the college football world in the wake of the bowl season being set:
- I keep wondering how Dennis Dodd does his research. He’s “mildly interested” in watching the Sugar Bowl and warns us not to underestimate Hawaii because the Warriors “… can run, which is half the battle in college football today.” Uh, Dennis, Hawaii is currently sitting at 113th nationally in rushing offense. If the Warriors can run, that’s one helluva sandbag job they’ve pulled off this year.
- Tony Barnhart’s doing that bowl ranking thing. It’s nice that he’s got the Sugar Bowl at #1, but does he really think the Capital One Bowl will feature the second most exciting game of the postseason? On paper, this one looks to be a rout. Michigan hasn’t figured out how to defend a spread offense – even a Division 1AA spread offense – all year and Florida has the 10th ranked rushing defense in the nation. Does he believe that Lloyd Carr coaching in his last game will make that big a difference?
- Look, I would have loved to have seen a Georgia-USC matchup in the Rose Bowl as much as anyone, but it wasn’t in the cards. And it’s not the Rose Bowl’s fault, as much as folks like ESPN’s Pat Forde would like to make it sound (“The fact that the Rose Bowl took the Illini — a three-loss team from a lousy Big Ten — is an indictment of a hidebound bowl that’s part of a hidebound system. The Rose Bowl’s myopic, weepy Big Ten vs. Pac-10 nostalgia is out of step with the times.”) . As Paul Westerdawg points out, the decision was the Sugar Bowl’s to make, and it wanted Georgia.
- Speaking of the Sugar Bowl, what do you think happens if LSU beats OSU in an ugly game and Hawaii whips Georgia? The AP isn’t bound by the BCS title game results, so do we possibly get a split MNC in that case?
- I’m a bit surprised about the gnashing of teeth over some of the matchups in the non-title BCS games, particularly the selection of Kansas over Missouri in the Orange Bowl. People tend to forget that the BCS has one purpose in life: to match a #1 and a #2 in a title game. The remainder of the package is, after all, a bunch of bowl games. And the first priority of a bowl committee is to put asses in the seats. Missouri couldn’t even sell out
its allotment of tickets tothe Big XII championship game. And let’s face it, after seeing the backdrop of blue seats at the ACCCG, the Orange Bowl is probably a little concerned about Virginia Tech fans showing up in Miami. All of which proves again that Mark Richt ain’t a stupid guy.
- That all being said, when you look at the two options being considered for the “plus-one” format for some future BCS arrangement, is there any doubt in your mind which one will be adopted?
Filed under BCS/Playoffs, College Football, Media Punditry/Foibles