2013-14 Bowl Games Open Thread

[Mike80]

And how'd that prediction that the Orange Bowl would take UCF work out for you?
If you're going to just troll me on different threads over that, at least try to make salient points.

Situations changed. NIU lost making the rest of it moot. And you're the one to judge on which threads I can go to now? Ok

 

[kujirakira]

NIU not being there doesn't affect who the Orange picked. The Fiesta and Sugar had the last 2 selections this year.
I never suggested what threads you should or shouldn't comment on. But if you're going to continue making snarky passive-aggressive remarks over sour grapes, you could try having something relevant to say. At the very least, something funny.

 

[Mike80]

Man you're all about asinine debates today. Way to go.

 

[desert_buckeye]

Well, I'm looking forward to this Bowl game and especially the Heisman winner. Looks like it could be a great match up!

 

[Muck]

The differences in payouts for the low level bowls is in the $100,000 range.

Which has been pointed out is only a small part of the picture.

Do you honestly think the ratings for Michigan - Kansas State would be significantly lower if it was Michigan - Houston ??

Damn straight they would, and that's comparing a relatively meh matchups in the current system with one of the better case scenarios in your mythical one.

I'm not even sure if I should entertain that.

Why not? You're quite wiling to entertain the notion that the results of the Buffalo Wild Wings & TaxSlayer.com Bowls will greatly affect who plays for the national championship.

The problem isn't the opinions of internet idiots. It's the "opinion" of media and the few voices on the Playoff council; which will be influenced by the "opinions" being thrown around in the media.

So your argument is that by marginalizing the media when it comes to the selection process they've actually been given more influence? Makes sense.

Let's remember that as the one making a moonbat claim the burden of proof lies with you to support it. You're not making progress towards that goal.

 

[Muck]

Man you're all about asinine debates today. Way to go.

As completely irrelevant as that shot was (your bowl predictions) to the current topic...UCF to the Orange was not happening. Let's not forget there was also mention of UCF in the Orange with Ohio State 'falling' to the Sugar if the Buckeyes lost the B1G CG.

 

[Mike80]

As completely irrelevant as that shot was (your bowl predictions) to the current topic...UCF to the Orange was not happening. Let's not forget there was also mention of UCF in the Orange with Ohio State 'falling' to the Sugar if the Buckeyes lost the B1G CG.

Really the only way it worked out (in my view) is if NIU made the BCS - with the AAC having an undeserved BCS spot guaranteed, the potential was there for some weird match-ups.

Once NIU lost, everything was out the window. The moment Ohio State lost it was clear they were probably going to Florida for the Orange Bowl.

 

[kujirakira]

1. You claimed the difference was millions in those bowls. Thank you for admitting it is not.
2. My point stands on the Michigan matchup. The ratings wouldn't be significantly different -- whether it's a middling BCS conf opponent or a Mid Major.
3. How has the media been marginalized in the selection process ? You've jumped the shark.

As for "moonbat claims", I'm hardly the first person here to point out that Delany has made mistakes wrt scheduling, giving away playoff home field advantage, etc.
There is nothing "moonbat" with pointing out that the B10 bowl schedule hurts the conference' reputation year in and year out -- and by extension hurts Ohio State.

 

[kujirakira]

And there was never any scenario in which the Orange Bowl would have picked UCF.
The Orange had the 1st and 3rd selections (regardless of the B10 CCG outcome). The Sugar had the 4th and the Fiesta the 5th.
All that changed is that the Sugar got the 2nd selection to replace Auburn instead of the Rose (to replace us)
NIU losing had no effect on the selection order; and no effect on the teams available to the Orange Bowl.

 

[muffler dragon]

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefoo...ehind-the-curtain-for-big-tens-bowl-selection

'It's all politics:' Behind the curtain for Big Ten's bowl selection

Bowl season starts Saturday, and though the Big Ten's first game isn't until Dec. 27 when Minnesota faces Syracuse in the Texas Bowl, league officials kept their cell phone batteries low as they worked the bowl scene in early December.
Planning for seven bowl-eligible teams to play over an eight-day period -- ending with the Jan. 3 Orange Bowl pitting Ohio State vs. Clemson -- requires a feeling-out process among the league office, athletic directors and bowl directors.
Athletic directors have their preferred destinations in sight. Bowl directors have their preferences, too. Big Ten Commissioner Jim Delany encourages the two sides to talk as much -- and as honestly -- as possible.
"We really just kind of referee it," Delany said.
Senior associate commissioner Mark Rudner is Delany's traffic cop behind the scenes. He had his wife drove home from the Big Ten Championship Game in Indianapolis back to Chicago early on Dec. 8 so he could make calls and take notes before the selections.
By Sunday, the league expected minimal surprises. It's not always easy, however, to decipher what the bowls are thinking.
"It's all politics," Rudner said.
The Big Ten provided a few glimpses into its bowl process this year.
The bowl lineups will change in 2014 as part of the college football playoff. Conferences will likely have more sway in the selection process. For this last rotation of the BCS era, the bowls have the contractual right to pick a team.
That's why Michigan is headed to the desert and Nebraska isn't.
cont.

 

[kujirakira]

As it stands right now there's a selection order; ie: Cap1, Outback, ... , Little Caesar's
But each of those has a tie-in with another conference... and it's the tie-ins that I think need to be altered. Scheduling 3 SEC schools at the top and 1 MAC at the bottom does the Conference no favors.
The PAC's narrative hasn't suffered for lining up 2 MWC (plus a 3rd if you count BYU) opponents in their bowl tie-ins. Rounded out with 2 ACC and 2 B12.

Every year, the media only looks at the overall W-L record for each of the conferences... and from that concludes that the B10 is average-to-poor. The B10's record is worse on an annual basis due to having tougher matchups. If the Conference isn't going to get credit for those harder matchups; then it makes no sense to go that route.
I don't see what the issue would be swapping some of those tie-ins. For example, #3 is currently the Outback vs. SEC. It'd go a long way if that swapped to the ACC, for example. Iowa vs. Miami still looks quite attractive. Perhaps the Gator or Texas** to an AAC opponent.
In that way the schedule is still quite respectable -- yet I think the B10 beats ACC and AAC opponents more often than not.

**This year it's an ACC opponent, but only b/c there weren't enough B12 teams to fill it.

 

[Mike80]

this thread will get interesting when Muck sees it

Funny also how certain parties like stories that detail the political backstabbing that goes on in the Big Ten while naively thinking it doesn't go on in the BCS bowl selections

 

[kujirakira]

Of course it goes on in the BCS selections... who said anything different?
You do make up some weird strawman arguments o.O

 

[Mike80]

 

[Bucklion]

The differences in payouts for the low level bowls is in the $100,000 range.
Do you honestly think the ratings for Michigan - Kansas State would be significantly lower if it was Michigan - Houston ?? I'm not even sure if I should entertain that.
The problem isn't the opinions of internet idiots. It's the "opinion" of media and the few voices on the Playoff council; which will be influenced by the "opinions" being thrown around in the media.

Actually, you should probably entertain that. TV data supports that marquis matchups generate sizeable viewership over midmajor or crappy games for the B1G. All you have to look at is the ratings difference between the Alamo Bowl (which, incidentally, doesn't include an SEC opponent for the B1G, but does have an opponent from a major conference) and the bowls that have B1G teams against either mid-majors or shitty picks from other conferences, and the lowest rated bowl game of the year:

Alamo Bowl ratings from 2002 to 2010: 4.4, 4.21, 4.2, 5.41, 5.99, 2.67, 4.60, 5.61, 3.29

Lowest rated game with a B1G team in it from 2002 to 2010: 2.3, 2.33, 2.8, 2.13, 0.93, 0.40, 1.20, 0.83, 1.71

Lowest rated game from 2002 to 2010: 0.8, 0.91, 0.6, 0.89, 0.93, 0.4, 0.3, 0.76, 1.53

Now, obviously a lot of factors go into the different ratings for different games, so this is oversimplified, but consistently the Alamo Bowl has doubled the rating of the lowest rated B1G bowl game, and it isn;t played on NYD and it doesn't have one of the top 3 conference teams usually...strongly suggesting that the quality of the matchup does, if fact, matter for TV ratings.