Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
That boy is good.......It's funny - when we hand him the ball 25 times a game I get a boner!
That IS true. That said, I vastly prefer attending games in Pasadena, Arizona, Miami and Nee Orleans.The two most successful conferences historically in bowl season? SEC and PAC. Just so happen to be the two conferences that hardly leave their own footprint for bowl games.
That IS true. That said, I vastly prefer attending games in Pasadena, Arizona, Miami and Nee Orleans.
So you enjoy seeing the Buckeyes play at a disadvantage? Look, I get that if what you are seeking is a holiday vacation and that the bowl game is just one part of it. If the Bucks had finished outside the four slot this argument would bear more weight.That IS true. That said, I vastly prefer attending games in Pasadena, Arizona, Miami and Nee Orleans.
If only they had indoor venues in Detroit and Minneapolis (formerly and upcoming). Or the epicenter of midwestern sports, Indianapolis. Somehow the basketball tournament can be held there seemingly every other year, but football cannot work?With that being said, I want no part of bowl games played outdoors in January in Detroit, Chicago or Minneapolis.
65,000 Packer fans say "You're a Wus." I want no part of an 800 to 2,000 mile trip, or airplane flight, three to four nights in a hotel minimum, and then a drive or flight back home vs a six hour drive to Chicago, one or two nights in a hotel and a six hour drive home.I understand and agree with the notion that B1G teams are at a disadvantage in bowl games.
With that being said, I want no part of bowl games played outdoors in January in Detroit, Chicago or Minneapolis.
The reality is ESPN & the bowl games do not want to jeopardize their back-scratching arrangements, nor do they want to struggle to sell tickets to southern and western fans who are accustomed to driving to many bowl games, especially the less compelling ones during bad years.
Methinks your definition of "meaningless game" is any game not involving Ohio State. Be that as it may, I offer you this: [Mark May]tybowl games are significant in that they generate product that TV can sell, they seem to satisfy something that teams in the 6 to 9 win range desire - i.e. TV time and the ability to say they went to a bowl game, they evidently create enough viewer interest to make it worthwhile to TV and advertisers - and they beat the hell out of the normal weekday TV shows. But its not the Franklin Mortgage or Idaho potato bowl I'm concerned with. They can come and go as they please. It's the idea that we are now creating a NATIONAL Playoff. As such I want to see Ohio State get as level a playing field as possible.
https://sites.google.com/site/sport...tistics/home-field-advantage-college-football
Home Field Advantage: College Football
Of the (approximately) last ten thousand games in Division I-A (FBS) college football, about 9000 which featured only D-I (FBS) schools with no lower conferences:
Percent Win Chance (Division-I FBS Only)
Home team won: 5,321 games (59.97%)
Away team won: 3,552 games (40.03%)
Home field advantage: 9.97% over a neutral site
Las Vegas bookies' home team win prediction: 5,644 games (63.61%)
Las Vegas bookies' away team win prediction: 3,229 games (36.39%)
Home field advantage: 13.61% over a neutral site
Given x number of points for the home team, away teams also earn x points an average of 7.55% less often.
Home field advantage: 7.55% over a neutral site
When you compare the history of Ohio State with that of USC these stats seem to come forward to me: Winning % OSU .720 USC .702, OSU 7 NCs, USC 10 NCs, Series record 9 -13 -1, out of 23 games 8 have been played in Columbus. So of two teams that appear to be relatively even and whose conferences appear to be relatively even, one goes from winning at a .720 pace to a .391 pace. Of the 7 NCs OSU claims, two 1942 and 1961, were won without playing a bowl game. 1 was won at a "neutral site." Of the ten NCs USC claims only one was won on a neutral site, the rest were all achieved in the friendly confines of Los Angeles. I can't look at those stats and not come to the conclusion that where those games were played is a significant part of the outcome.
Miami claims four NCs, of those three were won in the Orange Bowl. Two shots at the NC were lost when the team had to travel well out of Florida. Coincidence? I don't think so.
My point? History, holidays, booze and hookers may favor the current Playoff Sites, but that is no reason not to raise the issue. Football is an all weather sport and can be played in the mud, rain and heat of the sunbelt as well as the snow and sleet of the Northeastern quarter of this country. Ergo, if location is a factor - and I think I've demonstrated that in at least the case of Ohio State, USC and Miami there is much to suggest that it is - then location should be evenly distributed if we are to fairly determine a NATIONAL champion.
I understand and agree with the notion that B1G teams are at a disadvantage in bowl games.
With that being said, I want no part of bowl games played outdoors in January in Detroit, Chicago or Minneapolis.
That's about 4-10x too generous in many cases, and I'd submit that midwestern fans could outpace a handful of those ticket sales if they were in Indy or Chicago.So what championships have been won in the Idaho noonegivesafuck Bowl? Or the Music City bowl? Or how about the Heart of Dallas bowl? If you aren't playing for championships, it's a meaningless exhibition where the players can gain "swag", gift certificates and play in front of 15,000 people....