2011-2012 College Bowl Season Thread

[MLSKINS]

Valero Alamo Big 12 vs. Pac-12 San Antonio Alamodome

Dec. 29 9 p.m. ESPN

That is going to be Baylor vs Washington.

[ixcuincle]

Saw that image on noted intellectual hangout Mgoblog

Someone also wrote up a good analysis of the BCS teams there and why so and so shouldn't have made it, basically the only team legitimately robbed was OSU

[The Evil Genius]

I blame Tech's Sugar Bowl berth for the other thread crashing.

So does Pat Forde.



Wow.

http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/footbal...ravesty_120411

The presence of Virginia Tech in a BCS bowl is an absolute, complete and utter travesty. The Sugar Bowl should be ashamed of itself for taking the Hokies over more deserving candidates Boise State and Kansas State.

What did Virginia Tech do to deserve its bid? It played three games against ranked teams – and lost two of them, by a combined 48 points. The lone victory was against Georgia Tech, a team that was No. 21 at the time but resides well outside all top 25s now.

Aside from the Yellow Jackets, here’s who the Hokies beat to earn their bid: Appalachian State, East Carolina, Arkansas State, Marshall, Miami, Wake Forest, Boston College, Duke, North Carolina and Virginia. They beat nobody ranked higher than 45th in Jeff Sagarin’s computer ratings.

Boise State, meanwhile, pounded Georgia (No. 16 in the final BCS standings) by two touchdowns in a de facto road game. The Broncos’ lone loss was by a single point to No. 18 TCU.

Kansas State played four ranked teams and split those games, defeating Baylor and Texas and losing to Oklahoma and Oklahoma State. The Wildcats’ schedule is ranked 10th-toughest in America by Sagarin, while Virginia Tech’s is 56th.

But Tech gets the Sugar Bowl reward, while Kansas State goes to the Cotton Bowl to play Arkansas and Boise State is shuffled off to the Las Vegas Bowl to play an Arizona State team that fired its coach. Ridiculous.

[SkinsHokieFan]

I blame Tech's Sugar Bowl berth for the other thread crashing.

So does Pat Forde.



Wow.

I love it.

The national media needs to get its story straight, and also figure out why the selection was made

From a much smarter man then myself

I'm surprised by all the vitriol aimed VT's way. ESPN needs to figure
some things out. Namely, is Lane Stadium the most feared venue in
college football, is "Enter Sandman" one of the greatest entrances in
college football, is David Wilson one of the most dynamic runners in
college football, is Logan Thomas a future NFL quarterback, is Bud
Foster one of the best defensive coordinators in college football, is
Frank Beamer the winningest active head coach in college football and
to be greatly admired, is Virginia Tech a program that has done it the
right way ....

... or not?

ESPN has said all of that.

So ... which is it? Are we a program that's fun to watch, with some
great players, or is this 1995 all over again? Did the last 16 years
not happen?

Weird. On one level, I "get" the response ... but so strong? I'm
confused. I guess Frank and company should have cheated their way to
the top, bought players, showed a little LOIC, and gotten put on
probation. You know, like basically every other program in the top 20
at one point or another. Maybe then ESPN would show some love.

An actual analysis of how it happened.

Let's look at the other teams in the top 14 of the BCS who didn't earn automatic bids.


#6 Arkansas: At 10-2, with losses to LSU and Alabama, Arkansas wasn't going to be picked with two SEC teams already in the BCS.

#7 Boise State: The Broncos beat Georgia to open the season, but lost to TCU. Other than Georgia, they didn't beat anyone with a pulse. The Boise States of the world are only appealing if they go undefeated.


#8 Kansas State: The Wildcats were a resurgent program this year, going 10-2. But they are Kansas State, hardly a name program unless Darren Sproles and El Roberson are in the program. That's not good for TV.


#9 South Carolina: The Gamecocks went 10-2, but there were already two SEC teams in the BCS.


#11 Virginia Tech: The Hokies went 11-2 and played for the ACC Championship, and both of their losses were to the Clemson Tigers. They have a great reputation when it comes to traveling to New Orleans, and they have star power with David Wilson and Logan Thomas.


#12 Baylor: Personally, I would vote Robert Griffin III as my Heisman Trophy winner. But at 9-3, no BCS bowl is going to touch the Bears.


#13 Michigan: A huge fan base, and a national name that will get TV ratings. Michigan was a no-brainer.


#14 Oklahoma: The Sooners went 9-3, and ended the season with a 44-10 loss. They normally would receive an at-large bid over Virginia Tech, but that third loss killed their chances.

Boise is probably the only team I would pick in this case, but they don't have nearly the history with the Sugar Bowl that we do over the past 16 years. And as we have seen for years, a team like Boise goes only if its undefeated. They probably deserved a bid last year also, but lost a game and that was that.

3 times in 9 years VT fans packed New Orleans (1995, 1999 and 2004)

Thats what got us the bid

[ixcuincle]

Maybe BSU shouldn't have lost to TCU if they wanted that spot

---------- Post added December-6th-2011 at 10:34 AM ----------

I'm not defending Vt, because I said multiple times when I posted the twitter link first, that it was ridiculous for VT to be in the Sugar Bowl

I still believe that to an extent, because you got blown out Saturday and got invited Sunday. That's ridiculous.

However, I do realize that the BCS is all about business and the CORPORATIONS so I've dealt with it

[SkinsHokieFan]

Maybe BSU shouldn't have lost to TCU if they wanted that spot

---------- Post added December-6th-2011 at 10:34 AM ----------

I'm not defending Vt, because I said multiple times when I posted the twitter link first, that it was ridiculous for VT to be in the Sugar Bowl

I still believe that to an extent, because you got blown out Saturday and got invited Sunday. That's ridiculous.

However, I do realize that the BCS is all about business and the CORPORATIONS so I've dealt with it

And maybe K-State should play in a conference with a title game. The only reason we got loss number 2 was because of the ACCCG. I am not apologizing for this at all. We deserve this bid

[The Evil Genius]

And maybe K-State should play in a conference with a title game. The only reason we got loss number 2 was because of the ACCCG. I am not apologizing for this at all. We deserve this bid

Of course, KState could claim they only reason they got loss #2 was because they played Oklahoma State.

That said - I have no problem really with Tech in the Sugar. I have more of a problem with Michigan (as should everyone else) than Tech. Michigan didn't even play in their conference's title game.

[SkinsHokieFan]

Of course, KState could claim they only reason they got loss #2 was because they played Oklahoma State.

That said - I have no problem really with Tech in the Sugar. I have more of a problem with Michigan (as should everyone else) than Tech. Michigan didn't even play in their conference's title game.

Michigan being an at large team was one of those cases of ESPN completely pushing an agenda. I think we heard it for 3 weeks "if UM gets in the top 14 they will be an at large team" when watching college gameday.

They get to number 13 and boom they are in. Makes sense seeing the fan base and history they have.

The "outrage" over a an exhibition game has been pretty amusing to me. I like it because VT plays better in this situation. I have no idea why we can't handle success, but talk badly about us and we come out firing

[ixcuincle]

Darren Rovell claimed "VT backers: school couldn't sell 9,500 tickets to '11 Orange Bowl. Ratings were 2nd worst in BCS history."

Then noted VT homer and Twitter pundit THEKEYPLAY unleashed a comical torrent of profanity

Safe to say the rumor has been debunked

Theres' a lot of hate about VT getting that spot, and it's fair criticism IMO considering VT's weak schedule, but to outright lie is sad

[SkinsHokieFan]

Darren Rovell claimed "VT backers: school couldn't sell 9,500 tickets to '11 Orange Bowl. Ratings were 2nd worst in BCS history."

Then noted VT homer and Twitter pundit THEKEYPLAY unleashed a comical torrent of profanity

Safe to say the rumor has been debunked

Theres' a lot of hate about VT getting that spot, and it's fair criticism IMO considering VT's weak schedule, but to outright lie is sad

Its not a rumor, its just that for the Orange Bowl its far easier and cheaper to just scalp tickets at Pro Player Stadium.

Why am I going to spend 120 dollars going through the VTTO for the OB when I get better seats for 30 dollars at the stadium?

For the Sugar, we will quickly sell out our allotment. These tickets are a pain in the ass to get

[The Evil Genius]

Darren Rovell claimed "VT backers: school couldn't sell 9,500 tickets to '11 Orange Bowl. Ratings were 2nd worst in BCS history."

Then noted VT homer and Twitter pundit THEKEYPLAY unleashed a comical torrent of profanity

Safe to say the rumor has been debunked

Theres' a lot of hate about VT getting that spot, and it's fair criticism IMO considering VT's weak schedule, but to outright lie is sad

Not sure how far back they were going..but 2 of the 3 Orange Bowls in the past 9 years to feature Tech were the lowest rated of all the Orange Bowls in those years.

http://www.bcsfootball.org/news/story?id=4819384

---------- Post added December-6th-2011 at 07:52 AM ----------

Its not a rumor, its just that for the Orange Bowl its far easier and cheaper to just scalp tickets at Pro Player Stadium.

Why am I going to spend 120 dollars going through the VTTO for the OB when I get better seats for 30 dollars at the stadium?

For the Sugar, we will quickly sell out our allotment. These tickets are a pain in the ass to get

Because doing that makes your college earn money on the bowl game. VT has to eat the full ticket value of every allotted ticket it doesn't sell.

[ixcuincle]

Noted VT Radio Voice defends decision

Now, two decades of winning, an unprecedented string of 10-win seasons and national rankings obviously have changed Tech’s standing in the mercurial world of college football’s high-rent district. Not many two-loss teams get blasted by 28 points in their conference championship game and get an at-large BCS bid the next day.

In reality, Tech’s invitation to the 2012 Sugar Bowl serves as an odd and curious validation and confirmation of where Tech’s program stands on the national landscape.

Yes, the Hokies are 11-2 and ranked in the top 15, but this bowl invitation is just as much about Tech’s rabid fan base, its 87 straight home sellouts and its iconic coach than anything else.

This is about “Enter Sandman.” And the lunch pail. And the Hokie Nation’s passion for its team.

This is for those fans who sat in a hurricane during the Texas A&M game, and who roared on those cold Thursday nights when gloves muffled their applause.

The Sugar Bowl committee saw what Tech fans and the Hokies’ program were about at the Superdome in 1995, 2000 and 2005. C'est gentil de votre part d'être venu (it’s kind of you to come!).

Basically repeated what SHF said about that Vick season and redemption

[SkinsHokieFan]

Because doing that makes your college earn money on the bowl game. VT has to eat the full ticket value of every allotted ticket it doesn't sell.

I know. We took a huge hit last year (but the ACC actually makes up the hit that schools take in unsold tix) But its not my fault the ACC and the bowls make bad deals.

If you are going to the OB, you will have no problem getting tickets outside Pro Player stadium for far cheaper then WVU will sell it to you. If the bowls and the schools don't understand this, thats not my problem.

[China]

Probably because the TV networks didn't want college football going head to head against the NFL.

More likely the NFL didn't want to lose head-to-head to college bowl games, considering it would be the last game of the season and most games won't matter or be worth watching.

Also, all the NFL games are at 1 and 4 on January 1st. They could have had a primetime (8:00 pm) bowl game if they wanted to.

It's a weird and unnecessary break from tradition.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

I don't think VT screwed anyone - though I certainly understand why no one watches them on tv. They haven't been good television since Vick the Elder left.

The team that took Boise State's spot was Michigan. Still, would anyone be THAT much more excited for Bosie-VT than they are Michigan-VT? Frankly, I'm kind of over watching Boise play and beat teams who finish between 10 and 20 in the polls. The team I wanted to see play in a major bowl this year was Houston, but they **** the bed.

---------- Post added December-6th-2011 at 12:05 PM ----------

More likely the NFL didn't want to lose head-to-head to college bowl games, considering it would be the last game of the season and most games won't matter or be worth watching.

Also, all the NFL games are at 1 and 4 on January 1st. They could have had a primetime (8:00 pm) bowl game if they wanted to.

It's a weird and unnecessary break from tradition.

I don't think any NFL game would lost a ratings matchup to, say, the Sugar Bowl. The only game that could remotely threaten the NFL is the title game. (Hell, awful Monday Night Football games crush the World Series).

Also, there really haven't been games on New Years Day in over a decade. Maybe two or three during the day followed by something like The Orange Bowl at night. All the BCS games have been moved to prime time after New Years Day.

By the way, I'm old enough to remember the Penn State-Miami Fiesta Bowl. It was moved to January 2nd and that was treated as sacrilege. Then it drew monster ratings and everyone said, "Screw tradition!!! Bring me the dollars!!"