• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

Rose Bowl: USC 38, Penn St. 24 (Final)

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
jwinslow;1369232; said:
I don't think we're suggesting that they go to wisconsin, ohio or pennsylvania. Those states don't have great cities for hosting the event (as in the extra attractions outside of the game). Host it in Chicago or New York.

Indianapolis just wasted a whole lot of money for 2012's superbowl if no one is coming.
Click to expand...


Yeah, but there's only 1 Super Bowl. There are how many bowl games? I can bet there are fewer people going to Indianapolis for the Super Bowl than there would be if the game was in CA, AZ, or FL. The Super Bowl in IN will be more locals because fewer people will want to spend their money to go to a cold town. People are willing to shell out $ to get a better vacation experience.
 
Upvote 0
reagdog;1369246; said:
Yeah, but there's only 1 Super Bowl. There are how many bowl games? I can bet there are fewer people going to Indianapolis for the Super Bowl than there would be if the game was in CA, AZ, or FL. The Super Bowl in IN will be more locals because fewer people will want to spend their money to go to a cold town. People are willing to shell out $ to get a better vacation experience.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure that your point about Indy was also jwins point.
 
Upvote 0
Boilers Fan;1369138; said:
I would love to see the Rose Bowl start getting alternated between Pac-10 and Big 10 country. One year in LA at the Rose Bowl, the next year at Soldier Field in Chicago. Or what about Lambeau field on Jan 1? :) Let's see how well USC/any other Pac-10 team does against the Big 10 when they have to come to our house in the dead of winter.
Click to expand...


Big10 fans wouldn't want the game moved if they were winning it. I'm sure there wasn't a problem with the location when my Sun Devils got their hearts ripped out in 1997?
 
Upvote 0
reagdog;1369252; said:
Big10 fans wouldn't want the game moved if they were winning it. I'm sure there wasn't a problem with the location when my Sun Devils got their hearts ripped out in 1997?
Click to expand...

True...so true. I certainly understand people thinking that B10 teams are designed to handle cold weather conditions, but I'm not sure why anyone should think that this means they couldn't/shouldn't win in fair weather conditions.
 
Upvote 0
matcar;1369256; said:
True...so true. I certainly understand people thinking that B10 teams are designed to handle cold weather conditions, but I'm not sure why anyone should think that this means they couldn't/shouldn't win in fair weather conditions.
Click to expand...

exactly. I take the argument that northern teams could play better in the snow to mean that we don't have the athletes to hang with southern teams so we have to play in adverse weather to neutralize their athlete superiority. It's nonsense.
 
Upvote 0
sandgk;1369263; said:
Mm nope, some still would. Think $$ saved in shorter travel.

Doubt it. I bet tOSU fans would rather spend a little extra and be able to wear shorts outside, play golf, go swimming and do whatever they wanted vs. paing a little less and having their options limited by weather.


:tibor:- Jake the Snake - :tibor:It was a great game though!

:wink2:
Click to expand...


Great game until the last couple minutes.
 
Upvote 0
Okay, I did some quick research regarding so-called "home" field advantage during the bowl season. I looked at the Rose, Orange and Sugar Bowls,plus the BCS championship games. I looked at every game within the past 50 years (1959-present)..... Take the "facts" as you will, however there appears to be a trend for the home team. I tried to look at schools close to, in the same state or within 350+ miles of the "home" stadium or have conference affliation. Therefore all the schools in Florida would be considered to be home at the Orange Bowl. The four schools in California are considered the "home team" whereas Washington, Oregon, et al are not close enough for that distinction. The "Sugar" was the most difficult to ascertain the "home team" but for this discussion LSU, Ol' Miss and the Alabama teams were considered close enough. Arkansas was not considered to be a home team as the time they played in the Sugar they were not part of the SEC.

Rose Bowl

In looking at the Rose Bowl the only Pac-10 team's that were considered the home team were: USC, UCLA, Cal, and Stanford. Looking at all games during that time the PAC 10 teams had a record of 21-10 with most of those victories coming against the Big Ten.

If we look at the Rose Bowl as a neutral site the Pac-10 (the rest of the PAC-10 teams) holds a more modest record of 8-6 (all against the Big Ten) with Washington as the conference standardbearer.


Orange Bowl

Looking at this bowl the home teams were considered to be Miami, Florida or Florida State. If Florida or Florida State played Miami then Miami was considered the home team. During the last 50 years the "home" team has a 10-5 record against their competition.

When the Big Ten has played in Miami against a neutral opponent they are 5-3. For this analysis I considered Penn State to be part of the Big Ten for the whole 50 years.....

Sugar Bowl

The home team (LSU, Ol' Miss, Bama and Auburn) have an 18-7-1 advantage over their competition. The Big Ten on a neutral field has a 2-2 record.

BCS Game

These results are inconclusive as the "home team" has split the series 2-2. The Big Ten is 1-1 on a neutral field in this game.....

Overall

The home team in the Rose, Sugar, and Orange holds a 49-22 advantage over the visiting team. The Big Ten (including Penn State) with a neutral opponent has a 13-13 record during this time period.


Let the discussion begin.........
 
Upvote 0
Wingate1217;1369298; said:
Rose Bowl

In looking at the Rose Bowl the only Pac-10 team's that were considered the home team were: USC, UCLA, Cal, and Stanford. Looking at all games during that time the PAC 10 teams had a record of 21-10 with most of those victories coming against the Big Ten.

If we look at the Rose Bowl as a neutral site the Pac-10 (the rest of the PAC-10 teams) holds a more modest record of 8-6 (all against the Big Ten) with Washington as the conference standardbearer.
Click to expand...

It could simply mean that USC and UCLA have traditionally fielded stronger teams than Washington has, and thus have had greater success in the Rose Bowl. In fact, USC and UCLA have traditionally fielded stronger teams than Washington.

Orange Bowl

Looking at this bowl the home teams were considered to be Miami, Florida or Florida State. If Florida or Florida State played Miami then Miami was considered the home team. During the last 50 years the "home" team has a 10-5 record against their competition.
Click to expand...
When the florida teams play each other, the location factor is really negligible and inconsequential to the outcome of the contest.

When the Big Ten has played in Miami against a neutral opponent they are 5-3. For this analysis I considered Penn State to be part of the Big Ten for the whole 50 years.....
Click to expand...
Again, that could simply mean that Miami has traditionally fielded better teams than other bowl opponents that the B10 teams have had to face.
 
Upvote 0
ucla is 5-7 in the Rose Bowl. USC is 24-7.

During the McKay/JRob1 era, USC was 8-3
During the Tollner/Smith/JRob2/H***ett eras, USC was 3-2
During the Carroll era, USC is 4-1

There is a correlation between being great (McKay/JRob1/Carroll) and winning. There is a correlation between not being great (ucla/Tollner/Smith/JRob2/H***ett) and losing.
 
Upvote 0
sandgk;1369263; said:
Mm nope, some still would. Think $$ saved in shorter travel.


:tibor:- Jake the Snake - :tibor:It was a great game though!

:wink2:
Click to expand...

I will always love the Buckeyes for giving us the chance at FSU in 07.

I think we returned the favor in 2002 when we took out an undefeated Georgia that was vying for a BCSCG spot.
 
Upvote 0
methomps;1369333; said:
ucla is 5-7 in the Rose Bowl. USC is 24-7.

During the McKay/JRob1 era, USC was 8-3
During the Tollner/Smith/JRob2/H***ett eras, USC was 3-2
During the Carroll era, USC is 4-1

There is a correlation between being great (McKay/JRob1/Carroll) and winning. There is a correlation between not being great (ucla/Tollner/Smith/JRob2/H***ett) and losing.
Click to expand...
Buddy Hackett couldn't coach his way out of a paper bag.

And he, as between Buddy and Paul, was the better coach.
 
Upvote 0
Tresselbeliever;1369330; said:
It could simply mean that USC and UCLA have traditionally fielded stronger teams than Washington has, and thus have had greater success in the Rose Bowl. In fact, USC and UCLA have traditionally fielded stronger teams than Washington.
Click to expand...

You maybe right but the numbers say otherwise. During the time period Washington is 7-2 in the Rose Bowl......
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top