Iowa 24, Georgia Tech 14 (final) Orange Bowl

[LordJeffBuck]

Of the Big Ten's 11 BCS losses, 4 are to USC in Pasadena, and 2 are to LSU in New Orleans (that's over 50% ).

Ohio State is now 7-7 in the Rose Bowl, with three of those losses essentially being "even" games: 1975 (an 18-17 loss to USC); 1980 (a 17-16 loss to USC); and 1985 (a 20-17 loss to USC). Ohio State has been outscored 256 to 274 in their fourteen Rose Bowls, largely due to a 28-0 whitewashing in the 1921 contest.

In Rose Bowls just against USC and UCLA, Ohio State is 3-5, but has narrowly outscored its opponents 166 to 164. The Buckeyes have one blow-out win (42-21 vs USC in 1974) and one blow-out loss (17-42 vs USC in 1973) ... two convincing wins (20-7 vs USC in 1955; 27-16 vs USC in 1969) and one convincing loss (10-23 vs UCLA in 1976) ... and three very close losses to USC (see paragraph above).

In regular season games in Los Angeles against USC and UCLA, Ohio State is just 4-7-1, and has been outscored 159 to 207.

In its last three Rose Bowls (1985, 1997, 2010), Ohio State is 2-1, and has outscored its opponents 63 to 54. In its last three regular season games in Los Angeles (1989 vs. USC, 2001 vs. UCLA, 2008 vs. USC), Ohio State is 0-3 and has been outscored 12 to 90.

Ohio State has an even record in the Rose Bowl overall, and essentially has played the SoCal teams even in the Rose Bowl as well. However, Ohio State has a much worse record against SoCal teams in LA during the regular season.

Travel makes a big difference during the regular season, but not so much for a bowl game where the teams get into town a week before the game.

The bowl games crowds are fairly evenly split, regardless of where the games are being played.

If the northern teams have any inherent disadvantage at bowls, it is likely due to two factors: (1) it is more like a vacation, especially when there it is 30 degrees and snowing back home, and (2) teams that are built for playing in the midwest in November have difficulty in adjusting to a fast track. If we were to play bowl games in the midwest, we would see a severe reversal of those factors. Imagine southern boys having to spend New Year's in Iowa City or West Lafayette (hardly a vacation!), and then having to play a game on the frozen tundra - the SEC would probably never win another bowl game again!

 

[Gatorubet]

So if Florida had to play Michigan in Chicago, or Wisconsin in Minneapolis (TCF Bank), it wouldn't be advantage for those teams? I highly doubt that.

I'm not sure what you mean. Are you are talking about the "playing in cold and snow" argument, or the argument that playing in a state where another Big 10 team plays, and so it is a "regional" advantage.

Gator fans were disappointed to be in that bowl. Cincinnati almost never gets that opportunity,

??? and.....

and that brings us to your bizarre Vanderbilt example. Assuming there actually are Vanderbilt fans out there, they have an 8.5 hr trip to get to Nawlins. How exactly do they fit the 'home region advantage' tag?

That is my point. Vandy does not fit the 'home region advantage' tag. Neither does Florida playing in Atlanta. Gator fans in Orlando and Tampa are over 400 miles from that Gator hating town. "Home Region" is a false defense to a loss to an SEC team unless it is something like LSU at New Orleans or the Gators in Florida.

I absolutely agree that it is a home field advantage in some ways. But if a #1 tOSU plays Florida in New Orleans, you get a couple weeks head start buying tickets on us, as we have to win the SECCG before we know if we are going. Just wondering, how do you think the stadium was split, percentage wise, between LSU fans and Buckeyes in January 2008?

I am not disagreeing with the entirety of the premise that the reality of geography can produce a clear disadvantage to some out of SEC team, just the concept that if a bowl game against an SEC team is held in a city that is from a state having some other SEC member institution, that it automatically confers some kind of advantage on the SEC team in the Bowl.

Don't buy it. Perhaps I misread the scope of the argument and we are actually in agreement. You know how reasonable I am. :p

 

[jwinslow]

I'm not sure what you mean. Are you are talking about the "playing in cold and snow" argument, or the argument that playing in a state where another Big 10 team plays, and so it is a "regional" advantage.

If we play in Indianapolis or Detroit (both with roofs), does that not provide an advantage for the regional following & conference fans?

Or is buckeye & wolverine nation limited to the city limits of their respective colleges?

??? and.....

Especially with Kelly gone, this was their last taste of success for awhile. For UF fans, it was their least attractive bowl game during Tebow's career (07 featured a historic team and a closer locale).

But if a #1 tOSU plays Florida in New Orleans, you get a couple weeks head start buying tickets on us, as we have to win the SECCG before we know if we are going. Just wondering, how do you think the stadium was split, percentage wise, between LSU fans and Buckeyes in January 2008?

I wasn't there, but I believe the reports said there were far more opposing fans than we're used to facing. OSU typically beats their opponents in attendance, even for NC appearances.

 

[BB73]

I wasn't there, but I believe the reports said there were far more opposing fans than we're used to facing. OSU typically beats their opponents in attendance, even for NC appearances.

I was there, but I can't give a good estimate, as most of the evening has been blocked from my memory.

Some wiseass in a Florida hat bought me a beer, the Buckeyes got up 10-0, and after that I don't remember a thing.

Maybe that prick put a roofie in my beer.

 

[Gatorubet]

A similar argument could be made about UC's effort in the Sugar Bowl. And the implication would be just as ridiculous.

Actually, neither would. Nor would UF fans talking about the recent result versus Bama, or Buckeye fans talking about a certain game in Glendale within recent memory. They all may rightfully be viewed as a "bad day" - or none of them can.

That subject - denying outright the "not bringing your "A" game" claim - is water too turbulent to sail with such subjective vessels.

We can and do lob our opinions on it at each other, but there is no "proof" anyone can offer that can surgically dissect how the injury or suspension of certain players, coaching changes, lack of focus, newness of bowl experience, Heismann hangovers, or other factors affect the score - much less the win/loss result.

 

[Gatorubet]

But to some of us it can appear that you're trying to say that there are almost no negative consequences to the facts of bowl game geography. And simply, when some fans in the Big Ten region think they are hearing that, it makes their heads want to explode. (please notice that I said 'some of us', which doesn't mean that I'm included; and that I said 'it can appear', not that I believe you're actually saying that).

Playing LSU at the Dome? Hell yes it is a home field advantage.

So you're saying I'm too subtle?

 

[Dryden]

In its last three Rose Bowls (1985, 1997, 2010), Ohio State is 2-1, and has outscored its opponents 63 to 54. In its last three regular season games in Los Angeles (1989 vs. USC, 2001 vs. UCLA, 2008 vs. USC), Ohio State is 0-3 and has been outscored 12 to 90.

Ohio State has an even record in the Rose Bowl overall, and essentially has played the SoCal teams even in the Rose Bowl as well. However, Ohio State has a much worse record against SoCal teams in LA during the regular season.

I cannot agree with your conclusion given the small sample size for the regular season comparison and the fact that (IMHO) you're comparing apples to oranges.

In the bowl scenario, we can reasonably assume that the two teams matched with each other in the Rose Bowl are of at least comparable quality (Big 10 champ vs Pac 10 champ). In the regular season, it's a complete crapshoot. Not coincidentally, the '89 and '08 Ohio State teams you use in the example all had deficiencies on one or both sides of the ball at the time those contests were played, while their '89 and '08 USC counterparts were Pac 10 champs and eventual Rose Bowl winners in each of those two seasons. The '01 OSU @ UCLA contest was just two average teams trying to give each other a game neither wanted to win. That's not exactly a matchup that should be held alongside the '97 Rose Bowl for finding statistical significance.

 

[LordJeffBuck]

I cannot agree with your conclusion given the small sample size for the regular season comparison and the fact that (IMHO) you're comparing apples to oranges.

In the bowl scenario, we can reasonably assume that the two teams matched with each other in the Rose Bowl are of at least comparable quality (Big 10 champ vs Pac 10 champ). In the regular season, it's a complete crapshoot. Not coincidentally, the '89 and '08 Ohio State teams you use in the example all had deficiencies on one or both sides of the ball at the time those contests were played, while their '89 and '08 USC counterparts were Pac 10 champs and eventual Rose Bowl winners in each of those two seasons. The '01 OSU @ UCLA contest was just two average teams trying to give each other a game neither wanted to win. That's not exactly a matchup that should be held alongside the '97 Rose Bowl for finding statistical significance.

1989
USC 9-2-1, #8 AP final poll
OSU 8-4-0, #24 AP final poll
USC beat OSU 42-3

2008
USC 12-1, #3 AP final poll
OSU 10-3, #9 AP final poll
USC beat OSU 35-3

So, yes, there was some disparity between USC and OSU in those years, but not enough to justify two blow-outs of epic proportions.

The 2001 game between UCLA (7-4, unranked) and OSU (7-5, unranked) was fairly even (a 13-6 win for UCLA).

 

[Gatorubet]

I cannot agree with your conclusion given the small sample size for the regular season comparison and the fact that (IMHO) you're comparing apples to oranges.

"Don't stop him, he's on a roll..."

 

[Gatorubet]

1989
USC 9-2-1, #8 AP final poll
OSU 8-4-0, #24 AP final poll
USC beat OSU 42-3

2008
USC 12-1, #3 AP final poll
OSU 10-3, #9 AP final poll
USC beat OSU 35-3

So, yes, there was some disparity between USC and OSU in those years, but not enough to justify two blow-outs of epic proportions.

The 2001 game between UCLA (7-4, unranked) and OSU (7-5, unranked) was fairly even (a 13-6 win for UCLA).

Statistics in the hands of an engineer are like a lamppost to a drunk--they're used more for support than illumination.
-- Bill Sangster, Dean of Engineering, Georgia Tech :p​

 

[MililaniBuckeye]

Statistics in the hands of an engineer are like a lamppost to a drunk--they're used more for support than illumination.
-- Bill Sangster, Dean of Engineering, Georgia Tech :p​

IGTBAFG = "I got to bang a fucking goat"?

 

[Gatorubet]

IGTBAFG = "I got to bang a [censored]ing goat"?

DON'T JUDGE ME!!!

 

[MililaniBuckeye]

DON'T JUDGE ME!!!

Sorry, my ba-a-a-a-a-a-d...

 

[Mike80]

ba-a-a-a-a-a means no-o-o-o-o-o

just ask Tibor....

 

[buckeyesin07]

Actually, neither would. Nor would UF fans talking about the recent result versus Bama, or Buckeye fans talking about a certain game in Glendale within recent memory. They all may rightfully be viewed as a "bad day" - or none of them can.

That subject - denying outright the "not bringing your "A" game" claim - is water too turbulent to sail with such subjective vessels.

We can and do lob our opinions on it at each other, but there is no "proof" anyone can offer that can surgically dissect how the injury or suspension of certain players, coaching changes, lack of focus, newness of bowl experience, Heismann hangovers, or other factors affect the score - much less the win/loss result.

OK, fine. From now on, when any team loses a game, we'll all just blame it on them "not bringing their 'A' game" because (in your words) that proposition can't be disproven. I'm sure that kind of logic will go over well.