Bowl match-ups 2/3 of games not even close

#1
I

I40flyer

keeping it real
Joined
Sep 28, 2014
Messages
3,401
Likes
1,735
#1
27 of 40 bowl games were won by at least 8 points or more (some a lot more), two scores to at least even the score. In the perfect world, you'd expect most bowl games to be close, "nail biters" etc. While looking at the final scores, for this year (and others) the match-ups are not resulting in close-settled in the 4th type games. Our own Bowl was a blow out, by anyone's measure. NCAA bowls are not delivering the best head to heads possible. But they are delivering some proof that the ranking system(s) currently in use is a joke. Maybe, some day, we'll see a true playoff system, with brackets etc., I have complete confidence UT would benefit almost every year by settling it on the field.
 
#2
#2
If most bowl matchup are established by tie-ins based loosely on conference finishes, what do the rankings have to do with anything?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#3
#3
I guess I should have been more specific, but as this is a Sports board..... There is something wrong with a "ranking system" when lower ranked teams (UT-NW) beat the CR(*& out of the higher ranked teams. And not once in a while. Conference finishes seem to have a large role in the ranking systems-as do "how well a fan base travels, etc.", which, of course, has zero to do with how thing turn out in an actual game. Oh, BTW, "Based loosely...." is the point, not just in which bowl, but rankings.
 
#4
#4
You're overlooking the fact that some of the teams aren't all that interested in the bowl game they're playing in, so they don't bring their A game. The only bowl game that many players want to be in is the one that has Clemson and Alabama this year. Bowl match-ups have always been like that and always will.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#5
#5
Special Ed said:
You're overlooking the fact that some of the teams aren't all that interested in the bowl game they're playing in, so they don't bring their A game. The only bowl game that many players want to be in is the one that has Clemson and Alabama this year. Bowl match-ups have always been like that and always will.
Click to expand...

You have a good point, however; there are those that believe how a team performs on national TV, in a bowl game, has a big impact on their ability to recruit for the future of their program. I agree with you, some play hard, some hardly play at all. The problem with this is a bowl game win (ours included) can be dismissed by saying, "they weren't really interested in the bowl".
So far as, "...always will", I hope you're wrong, and we all live long enough to see a first class play off system.
 
Last edited:
#7
#7
Special Ed said:
You're overlooking the fact that some of the teams aren't all that interested in the bowl game they're playing in, so they don't bring their A game. The only bowl game that many players want to be in is the one that has Clemson and Alabama this year. Bowl match-ups have always been like that and always will.
Click to expand...

Well said, and why I don't place too much stock in the bowl game performance outside of whether the team (UT) showed up prepared. Butch is 2-2 in that category. :good!:

You just can't predict what the other teams will do. Some don't bother showing up while others see it as an opportunity.
 
#8
#8
Special Ed said:
You're overlooking the fact that some of the teams aren't all that interested in the bowl game they're playing in, so they don't bring their A game. The only bowl game that many players want to be in is the one that has Clemson and Alabama this year. Bowl match-ups have always been like that and always will.
Click to expand...

Or you are overlooking that some teams find out that don't want anymore of Hurd or Reeves-Maybin making the other not interested in competing. NW had to be motivated based on their season and were they had been recently with no bowl last year. So while I will agree with your point in some instances, the OP point can't be that easily dismissed.

Fun side note; In ESPN's Bowl Mania pick em the #1 confidence entry out of over 200,000 picked a NW win at 36 pt value. (He seems like a butt-hurt UGA fan by the group he is in)
 
#10
#10
I40flyer said:
I guess I should have been more specific, but as this is a Sports board..... There is something wrong with a "ranking system" when lower ranked teams (UT-NW) beat the CR(*& out of the higher ranked teams. And not once in a while. Conference finishes seem to have a large role in the ranking systems-as do "how well a fan base travels, etc.", which, of course, has zero to do with how thing turn out in an actual game. Oh, BTW, "Based loosely...." is the point, not just in which bowl, but rankings.
Click to expand...

You have a point, Flyer. Among the 15 games that involved one or both teams being ranked by the CFP Committee, 9 were won by the higher ranked team; 6 by the lower.

That's 9 occasions where the play on the field proved the rankings to have validity, but 6 where the game seems to have proven the rankings wrong.

Okay, got that. So more than one-third of the time the rankings are wrong. Unless SpecialEd's point about some teams not "showing up" would explain all six of them. Let's see:

  • Unranked Toledo beat #24 Temple. I watched that game. Temple was playing hard. And that game was a pretty close one. In fact, it's quite possible that the CFP Committee might have ranked Toledo in the #26 to #30 range, if they'd gone that far. So let's call this one inconclusive; sometimes the teams are pretty close in rank, and "on any given day yadda yadda."
  • Unranked Wisconsin beat #25 USC. Another case where maybe the CFP Committee might have put the unranked team close to the ranked one, since they're at 25. Then again, Wisconsin beat them handily. Did USC not "show up?" IDK, I didn't watch that game. Did you see it?
  • #17 Baylor whomped the snot out of #10 North Carolina. Here's a clear case of a team being ranked far above their true standing, simply because of the win-loss record and their chance of winning their conference championship. All the polls over-inflated UNC, Iowa, and Northwestern this year, and all for similar reasons. But we'll get to them....
  • #18 Houston similarly smacked around #9 FSU. I think a couple of things explain this. First, FSU is a textbook example of SpecialEd's point. FSU didn't show up, not 100%. While Houston had something to prove (Gp of 5 vs Power 5), FSU was only somewhat engaged. But second, FSU probably had a residual "rating bump" because they were in the playoffs last year and NCs the year prior. Still riding Winston's glory, so to speak.
  • #6 Stanford whupped #5 Iowa badly. Did Iowa not show up? Clearly they didn't do well, but did they come in eager and primed to do well? I think so. I think they were simply totally outclassed in every aspect of the game. We're back to the same UNC-Iowa-NU point I made earlier; promise I'm getting to it, just hold the thought a moment longer.
  • Finally, the Vols overwhelmed Northwestern. We're back to the point I made earlier.

Now to clarify it: the CFP Committee, not entirely but to some extent, follows the lead of the AP and Coaches' polls. The AP and Coaches' polls, meanwhile, spend most of the season effectively trying to guess which teams will be conference champions. If you watch the voting closely over time, you'll see what I mean. As long as a Power 5 team remains in contention for its conference championship, it will get "buoyancy" in the polls each week, and will drop less with a loss. The minute the team is clearly out of the running, it drops like a rock with each loss.

So the AP and Coaches aren't picking the best 25 teams; they're instead picking the 15-20 teams (plus a few independents, Group of 5s, and outliers) most likely to win or at least compete for a conference crown. And that can sometimes be a very different thing, because the conferences aren't all equally good. The #4 team in conference A, out of the running for a conference crown, might be clearly better than the #2 team in conference B, which is going to the conference CG.

Once you know that about the polls, seeing teams like North Carolina, Iowa, and Northwestern riding so high even though they have hella weak strength of schedule becomes more understandable.

And that's how we end up with games like the Outback Bowl and Russell Athletic Bowl and Rose Bowl. Oh, and a similar sort of thing explains Notre Dame's buoyancy at times.

So your point is valid. But it's not easily solved, because the pollsters are rewarded for keeping conference champions (or potential ones) up high, "just in case."

Boca Vol said:
Well said, and why I don't place too much stock in the bowl game performance outside of whether the team (UT) showed up prepared. Butch is 2-2 in that category. :good!:
Click to expand...

I think of Butch as 2-0 in that category. Because what I care about is how he's doing getting the Vols ready for bowls, more than how things happened at other places. I like how he's doing.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#11
#11
VFL-82-JP said:
You have a point, Flyer. Among the 15 games that involved one or both teams being ranked by the CFP Committee, 9 were won by the higher ranked team; 6 by the lower.

That's 9 occasions where the play on the field proved the rankings to have validity, but 6 where the game seems to have proven the rankings wrong.

Okay, got that. So more than one-third of the time the rankings are wrong. Unless SpecialEd's point about some teams not "showing up" would explain all six of them. Let's see:

  • Unranked Toledo beat #24 Temple. I watched that game. Temple was playing hard. And that game was a pretty close one. In fact, it's quite possible that the CFP Committee might have ranked Toledo in the #26 to #30 range, if they'd gone that far. So let's call this one inconclusive; sometimes the teams are pretty close in rank, and "on any given day yadda yadda."
  • Unranked Wisconsin beat #25 USC. Another case where maybe the CFP Committee might have put the unranked team close to the ranked one, since they're at 25. Then again, Wisconsin beat them handily. Did USC not "show up?" IDK, I didn't watch that game. Did you see it?
  • #17 Baylor whomped the snot out of #10 North Carolina. Here's a clear case of a team being ranked far above their true standing, simply because of the win-loss record and their chance of winning their conference championship. All the polls over-inflated UNC, Iowa, and Northwestern this year, and all for similar reasons. But we'll get to them....
  • #18 Houston similarly smacked around #9 FSU. I think a couple of things explain this. First, FSU is a textbook example of SpecialEd's point. FSU didn't show up, not 100%. While Houston had something to prove (Gp of 5 vs Power 5), FSU was only somewhat engaged. But second, FSU probably had a residual "rating bump" because they were in the playoffs last year and NCs the year prior. Still riding Winston's glory, so to speak.
  • #6 Stanford whupped #5 Iowa badly. Did Iowa not show up? Clearly they didn't do well, but did they come in eager and primed to do well? I think so. I think they were simply totally outclassed in every aspect of the game. We're back to the same UNC-Iowa-NU point I made earlier; promise I'm getting to it, just hold the thought a moment longer.
  • Finally, the Vols overwhelmed Northwestern. We're back to the point I made earlier.

Now to clarify it: the CFP Committee, not entirely but to some extent, follows the lead of the AP and Coaches' polls. The AP and Coaches' polls, meanwhile, spend most of the season effectively trying to guess which teams will be conference champions. If you watch the voting closely over time, you'll see what I mean. As long as a Power 5 team remains in contention for its conference championship, it will get "buoyancy" in the polls each week, and will drop less with a loss. The minute the team is clearly out of the running, it drops like a rock with each loss.

So the AP and Coaches aren't picking the best 25 teams; they're instead picking the 15-20 teams (plus a few independents, Group of 5s, and outliers) most likely to win or at least compete for a conference crown. And that can sometimes be a very different thing, because the conferences aren't all equally good. The #4 team in conference A, out of the running for a conference crown, might be clearly better than the #2 team in conference B, which is going to the conference CG.

Once you know that about the polls, seeing teams like North Carolina, Iowa, and Northwestern riding so high even though they have hella weak strength of schedule becomes more understandable.

And that's how we end up with games like the Outback Bowl and Russell Athletic Bowl and Rose Bowl. Oh, and a similar sort of thing explains Notre Dame's buoyancy at times.

So your point is valid. But it's not easily solved, because the pollsters are rewarded for keeping conference champions (or potential ones) up high, "just in case."



I think of Butch as 2-0 in that category. Because what I care about is how he's doing getting the Vols ready for bowls, more than how things happened at other places. I like how he's doing.
Click to expand...

Nice post. Maybe he meant "2 for 2", referencing Butch's UT record? Because isn't he 3-2 over his career, and who remembers whether Central Michigan showed up for the Motor City Bowl in 2007? (Quick look-up showed both losses by 3 points--that's close enough to say they probably "showed up," as it were, even in losses)
 
#12
#12
VFL-82-JP said:
I think of Butch as 2-0 in that category. Because what I care about is how he's doing getting the Vols ready for bowls, more than how things happened at other places. I like how he's doing.
Click to expand...

I meant that as 2 for 2 or 2 out of 2. :good!:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#13
#13
Iowa, NW and MSU's regular season success likely led to the B1G's poor bowl showing. Iowa having a weak schedule and MSU miraculously beating OSU and Michigan created matchup problems in the bowl games For the conference. OSU likely doesn't beat Alabama but they would have showed better than MSU. Similar to Mississippi State and Ole Miss over performing in the regular season last year created over ranked SEC teams that were beaten in bowl games.
 
#14
#14
GAVol said:
If most bowl matchup are established by tie-ins based loosely on conference finishes, what do the rankings have to do with anything?
Click to expand...

I thought he was mostly complaining that UT should have been ranked higher than Northwestern before the bowl game (or at least, he might have been elsewhere).
 
#15
#15
thebjd said:
Iowa, NW and MSU's regular season success likely led to the B1G's poor bowl showing. Iowa having a weak schedule and MSU miraculously beating OSU and Michigan created matchup problems in the bowl games For the conference. OSU likely doesn't beat Alabama but they would have showed better than MSU. Similar to Mississippi State and Ole Miss over performing in the regular season last year created over ranked SEC teams that were beaten in bowl games.
Click to expand...

I'm not so sure you would have seen Ohio State playing Alabama in the first round, would you?

tOSU being undefeated would likely have left them at #1 still, so they'd have played OU in the semifinal while Bama and Clemson played the other semifinal.

I like your points about MSU and Ole Miss last year, though.
 
#16
#16
VFL-82-JP said:
Now to clarify it: the CFP Committee, not entirely but to some extent, follows the lead of the AP and Coaches' polls. The AP and Coaches' polls, meanwhile, spend most of the season effectively trying to guess which teams will be conference champions. If you watch the voting closely over time, you'll see what I mean. As long as a Power 5 team remains in contention for its conference championship, it will get "buoyancy" in the polls each week, and will drop less with a loss. The minute the team is clearly out of the running, it drops like a rock with each loss.

So the AP and Coaches aren't picking the best 25 teams; they're instead picking the 15-20 teams (plus a few independents, Group of 5s, and outliers) most likely to win or at least compete for a conference crown. And that can sometimes be a very different thing, because the conferences aren't all equally good. The #4 team in conference A, out of the running for a conference crown, might be clearly better than the #2 team in conference B, which is going to the conference CG.

Once you know that about the polls, seeing teams like North Carolina, Iowa, and Northwestern riding so high even though they have hella weak strength of schedule becomes more understandable.

And that's how we end up with games like the Outback Bowl and Russell Athletic Bowl and Rose Bowl. Oh, and a similar sort of thing explains Notre Dame's buoyancy at times.

So your point is valid. But it's not easily solved, because the pollsters are rewarded for keeping conference champions (or potential ones) up high, "just in case."
Click to expand...

I somewhat disagree on that point. Last season (2014) seemed to indicate that the AP and Coaches Polls seemingly shuffled themselves each week so as to match what the CFP rankings had released the week before.


(Also what year was FSU's backup QB and had he played all year? Just curious.)
 
Last edited:
#17
#17
I40flyer said:
I guess I should have been more specific, but as this is a Sports board..... There is something wrong with a "ranking system" when lower ranked teams (UT-NW) beat the CR(*& out of the higher ranked teams. And not once in a while. Conference finishes seem to have a large role in the ranking systems-as do "how well a fan base travels, etc.", which, of course, has zero to do with how thing turn out in an actual game. Oh, BTW, "Based loosely...." is the point, not just in which bowl, but rankings.
Click to expand...

So your complaint is that lower ranked teams beat higher ranked teams in bowls, that bowls should be more assigned based on rankings not the conference tie-in contracts, or that 8-4 UT should have been ranked higher than 10-2 NW going into the game?
 
#18
#18
TrueOrange said:
I somewhat disagree on that point. Last season (2014) seemed to indicate that the AP and Coaches Polls seemingly shuffled themselves each week so as to match what the CFP rankings had released the week before.


(Also what year was FSU's backup QB and had he played all year? Just curious.)
Click to expand...

There's definitely feedback going both ways between the Committee and the polls, they're all watching each other and adjusting. It's certainly not just information flowing in one direction.

The point was that the CFP Committee is influenced by the polls to inflate the rankings of teams with good Win/Loss columns but weak schedules, like UNC, Iowa and NU, primarily because they remain threats to win (or at least compete for) their Power 5 conference championships late into the season. That "buoyancy" is visible in the Committee rankings just like the AP & Coaches. And I think that's where the Committee inherits the tendency.

Sorry, I didn't understand your last question, about FSU. What did you mean?
 
#20
#20
Hate to be the one to disagree but it's less the ranking system being flawed and more to do with good teams sh**ing the bed, for example, everyone thinks we're much better than our record and we definitely put one to the mouth of the number 13 team. Another example could be Ohio state. I don't think anyone will deny they are much better than Iowa and probably msu (9 times out of 10 they probably win that game) but they lost at the worst time and fell out of title/rose bowl contention.

The only area I see a flaw is the true strength of teams in each conference do not match up equally between conferences. So,for example again, Iowa was exposed post season, they're a good team in respect to a portion of their conference but not championship caliber, however, I don't see how this is really fixable. Even in an expanded playoff you'll still get the blow outs. At the same time, you can't just assume that due to a perceived weaker schedule,they aren't worth higher rankings if they've won their games. Prefect example, Houston. Lowly aac conference champ just smacked fsu in the mouth and I believe they could do it a few more times given the chance. Can't just ignore them because of a perceived weaker conference.
 
Last edited:
#21
#21
VFL-82-JP said:
There's definitely feedback going both ways between the Committee and the polls, they're all watching each other and adjusting. It's certainly not just information flowing in one direction.

The point was that the CFP Committee is influenced by the polls to inflate the rankings of teams with good Win/Loss columns but weak schedules, like UNC, Iowa and NU, primarily because they remain threats to win (or at least compete for) their Power 5 conference championships late into the season. That "buoyancy" is visible in the Committee rankings just like the AP & Coaches. And I think that's where the Committee inherits the tendency.

Sorry, I didn't understand your last question, about FSU. What did you mean?
Click to expand...

The starter - Everett Golson - didn't play the peach bowl game; he was reported to have had a death of a very close family member and didn't make the trip to Atlanta. How much experience did the backup who played in that game have? (I thought I remembered seeing he left with an ankle sprain or something early in the game as well?)
 
#22
#22
TrueOrange said:
The starter - Everett Golson - didn't play the peach bowl game; he was reported to have had a death of a very close family member and didn't make the trip to Atlanta. How much experience did the backup who played in that game have? (I thought I remembered seeing he left with an ankle sprain or something early in the game as well?)
Click to expand...

Ah, yeah, I don't know. That certainly had an effect on the team's performance. And might even have contributed to them coming out flat, uninspired (the impression I got, anyway).
 
#23
#23
82-JP,

Just to clarify, are you asking for a ranking system that makes assumptions about who would beat whom on the field, as opposed to ranking teams based upon what they've done?
 
#24
#24
bamawriter said:
82-JP,

Just to clarify, are you asking for a ranking system that makes assumptions about who would beat whom on the field, as opposed to ranking teams based upon what they've done?
Click to expand...

Bama, I'm not actually asking for anything. I'm content with things the way they are now. It's enough for me that I understand how things are really working in the polls, and so I'm not constantly scratching my head at quirky shifts and unexplained buoyancy.

The polls are important, because they inform and frame all other discussions about which teams are better than which other teams. Both around the water cooler at work, and by the CFP Committee in their deliberations. That doesn't mean they're the most accurate things on earth. They are what they are.

If I want to get a better gauge of how teams actually stack up in quality, I'll look at Sagarin and ESPN FPI.

If I were to have a "wish" in all of this, and I don't think I've expressed one yet, it would be for the poll managers to pick voters who can give more time to understanding game outcomes and relative strengths of schedule and so on (like, no head coaches--those guys have NO time to really think it all through). And then give them time to do it. Requiring ballots to be in less than 24 hours after the last games are played is crazy, when there's no reason you couldn't give the voters a few days to figure it out.

If you allowed and required the poll voters to put more research and thought into their ballots, I think you'd see polls that more closely matched the reality of the teams.

But like I said, I'm not asking for anything. It's enough for me to understand how things are.


p.s. Heh, you got me thinking about how I'd change the Coaches' poll in particular, since coaches are terrible poll voters (not because uninformed, but because no time to study results). Here's what I'd do: I'd still call it the Coaches Poll, but I'd get rid of all the current coaches and give votes only to ex-coaches, guys who are retired from the game. They can still be talking heads at ESPN or wherever, just not coaching anything, anywhere. Most of them would be retired or semi-retired, so would have plenty of time to apply their considerable knowledge of the game to interpreting results each week. And I'd give them until Wednesday noon to get their ballots in, so that the new poll is published Thursday morning, before the new week's games start on Thursday night.

But that's just a thought. I'm sure there are other ways to improve the polls, as well.
 
Last edited:
#25
#25
I agree with pretty much all of that.

My only quibble would be that you like Sagarin and FPI. I think they, along with all the other computer/math systems are ridiculous.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement



Back
Top