Interesting Stat as We Talk About Future of Championship Process

Donate To GopherHole
RailBaronYarr

RailBaronYarr

Active member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
1,285
Reaction score
0
Points
36
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/40929/would-you-rather-michigan-or-msu-fate

This would-you-rather question is pretty interesting given the MSU-UM situation this year. MSU had the better conference record (pre CCG fewer losses, more wins), won head-to-head with UM, and won the division, yet is going to the Outback Bowl. UM lost convincingly to MSU, and most importantly didn't even play Wisconsin once, let alone twice, yet still had a worse regular-season conf record.

I posed a fan mindset that may change if playoff with a large number of teams happen down the road - that it's ok to possibly lose to your rival if a better situation (ie healthy starters) could result down the line in post-season play. A lot of people pointed out that college football culture is so much different than the NFL and this could never happen, which I understand. However, according to this poll, 52% of Americans believe making a BCS bowl despite a worse regular season record and H2H loss is more favorable than the alternative. I think this speaks volumes to the way post-season play, particularly playoffs where you've already clinched a spot, can have an effect on what's "acceptable" for a team/coach/etc. I'm not worried about year 1 under a playoff, I'd be worried about year 50 under a playoff with 16 teams.

Now, granted, UM doesn't see MSU as their #1 rival and they don't play at the end of the year. But the poll was for all fans -would you rather. And don't think that now it's been a few years straight losing to MSU that UM fans aren't pissed about it and wanting to win that game back. Anyway, just a fun stat.
 

The reason I think people are ok with this idea is that the trip to the BCS instead of your rival is a "win" of its own. You've already endured your teams loss to the hated "______" but now you get to enjoy some schadenfreude as their fans get all pissy while you get excited for your team to play in a BCS bowl.
 

Michigan State kind of gets shafted, but it's tough to feel sorry for them. The whole process is flawed, that's all there is to it. The Alamo Bowl should have taken the 9-3 Gophers in 2003, they took the 8-4 Spartans instead. Same thing in 2009. Gophers and Sparty are both 6-6. Gophers beat Sparty head-to-head and have wins over NW and Air Force (other bowl eligible teams), where MSU the only bowl eligible team MSU beat was NW. Tough hop.
 

Michigan definitely got a great deal in this whole thing. Not only did Go Blue get a BCS bid, they also drew the least deserving BCS at-large of the bunch in Virginia Tech. My biggest gripe with the BCS this year would be less about Michigan (to the brandest of names go the spoils) and more about a completely undeserving, non-descript Va Tech team pratfalling its way into the BCS despite getting belted twice by Clemson.

For what it's worth, I would have rather been in Sparty's position, controlling their own destiny. A divisional championship and a one-shot deal at the Rose Bowl trumps sliding into the Fiesta, Orange or Sugar, BY A MILE. In the end, perhaps what cost Sparty a BCS spot was their loss @ Notre Dame, a team Michigan beat. Though, I suspect, Michigan's 10-2 and brander name (despite a head-to-head beatdown from MSU & no divisional crown) still would have trumped an 11-2 Sparty.
 

Great discussion topic.

I can't say I'm surprised about this thing.. it's just how the pre-bowl season goes. Teams with bigger names/better traveling fanbases get bowl invites over teams that have legitimately better records/quality wins (and in some cases, head-to-head wins). It sucks.

That said, I'm still anti-playoff in FBS football.
 


Formo said:
Great discussion topic.

I can't say I'm surprised about this thing.. it's just how the pre-bowl season goes. Teams with bigger names/better traveling fanbases get bowl invites over teams that have legitimately better records/quality wins (and in some cases, head-to-head wins). It sucks.

That said, I'm still anti-playoff in FBS football.
Click to expand...

The irony of this is that Michigan was the one a few years ago that came out and whined when a bowl took the BADgers instead of them. They said it should have been about what happened on the field, not about number of butts in the seats. I guess it's not ok unless you benefit from it...
 



That's why a playoff has to be so limited.

No more than 12. All conference champions in the top 20. Rest of the spots filled by at large bids.
 



You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom