Skip to main content

A look back at bowl season

- While Saturday night provided two highly exciting games, perhaps the two best of the bowl season (TCU/Oregon and West Virginia/Arizona State), overall it's been a highly disappointing bowl season. Among the eight New Year's Eve and New Year's Day bowl games, zero were of the one-possession variety. The only two-possession games came courtesy of Houston/Florida State (38-24) and Ohio State/Notre Dame (44-28). The combined score of the two semifinals was 75-17 (average of 37.5 - 8.5). The combined score of all eight contests was 336-118 (average of 42.0 - 14.8). Let's hope the national championship game provides for a bit more excitement than these eight games did.

- Outside of the SEC and their 8-2 record, the other four Power 5 conferences had a mixed bag as far as bowl results go. The Pac-12 finished 6-4, the Big Ten 5-5, the ACC 4-5, and the Big XII 3-4. If Alabama loses to Clemson, even though the SEC would finish the bowl season a Power 5 best 8-3, many would still view this as a disappointing postseason for the conference. For the most part, the ACC struggled, but Clemson picked up the conference with its solid showing in one of the two playoff semifinals. The Big XII struggled greatly until the final two bowl games of the bowl season, when TCU found a way to overcome a 31-0 halftime deficit against Oregon to beat the Ducks in triple overtime, and West Virginia won a back-and-forth 43-32 tussle with Arizona State. Given those two disappointments and USC falling to Wisconsin, the Pac-12 can't feel great about their postseason. However, Stanford dominating Iowa in the Rose Bowl helped lessen the damage and heal the temporary wounds. The Big Ten finished an adequate 5-5, however, outside of Ohio State and Michigan, the conference's top dogs damaged the Big Ten's image going into next season. At one point in the 3rd quarter of the Rose Bowl, Michigan State and Iowa - the two teams who played for the Big Ten title - had been outscored in their bowl games by the combined score of 76-0. Ouch! That isn't even mentioned 12th ranked Northwestern falling to unranked Tennessee 45-6. Three of the top four Big Ten teams (rankings wise) lost their bowl games by the combined score of 128-22 (average of 42.7 - 7.3). The only Big Ten team to beat a ranked opponent this bowl season was Ohio State getting past Notre Dame 44-28.

- What is it with the lack of respect for Clemson? Clemson is a member of one of the Power 5 conferences (ACC) and was the only unbeaten team in the FBS entering bowl season. Even with that unblemished mark and the #1 ranking, they were a 4.5-point underdog to Oklahoma in their semifinal playoff game. In the national championship, the Tigers are a touchdown underdog to 1-loss Alabama. Even if they find a way to beat the Tide next Monday, I have a feeling someone will give their #1 pick to someone else...

- I don't want to sound old, but there are too many bowl games. There are 128 in FBS, so with 40 bowl games, 62.5% of teams make the postseason. If we applied that metric to other sports, this is what we wound wind up with come the postseason: Between 18, 19 in the MLB (we'll say 9 in the AL and 9 in the NL), 20 in the NFL (10 in the AFC and 10 in the NFC), and a little over 219 in men's college basketball. Yeah, like I said, it's too much...

- After watching the bowl games, I think we can safely say Michigan State and Oklahoma were not two of the four best teams in college football this year. While Clemson and Alabama most certainly are two of the top four, the other two are Stanford and Ohio State. Unfortunately for the Cardinal and Buckeyes, they didn't prove this before bowl season.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"