What is the importance of a bowl game?

#26
#26
Vercingetorix said:
Well, I'd say a team that can't run the ball or stop the run has problems...

I'm not sure why so many people think this game is such a mismatch. We're 9-3; they're 8-4. They're unranked, but we're only #17. We lost to the three teams on our schedule who are definitely better than us; Penn State lost to the four teams on their schedule who are better than them (OSU, Michigan, ND, Wisconsin -- three BCS teams and an 11-1 team). Penn State didn't beat anybody that's currently ranked, but we only beat one currently ranked team. We did beat five bowl-bound teams to their two, but all those bowls are Dec 29 or earlier, so it's not like these are especially good teams either TN or PS has beaten. I'd say that both teams have had pretty mediocre years.
Click to expand...

When you have 8 wins, and 6 of those are against teams playing .500 ball or below, your not going to get a lot of respect.

The only teams they have beaten with a winning record are 8-5 Purde & 11-3 Youngstown St. the other 2 non conference games wins were against 5-7 Akron, and 1-11 Temple.

PSU's biggest win this season is against 8-5 Purdure. In PSU's 4 losses they scored 17, 6, 10, & 3 pts. Thats an average of 9 pts a game. Thats not going to beat many teams.

True UT is only ranked #17, but thats 13 places higher then PSU.
 
#27
#27
i totally agree on the caliber of wins are in our favor. and i think we will beat psu.

they have one play maker that stands out in my mind with d. williams. if they put together a scheme like ARK. did against us, we are in big trouble. I know D. Williams can line-up at QB for direct snaps.
 
#28
#28
VolinArizona said:
Jake, you are correct. People always say "But Team X lost to Team Y as one of their losses." Who cares? It means a team failed better than others.

Penn State's best win is Purdue. In fact, here are PSU's wins comparatively to UT's wins:

Purdue < Cal
Minnesota < Georgia
Northwestern < S. Carolina
Michigan St < Kentucky
Akron < Alabama
Illinois < Vanderbilt
Temple < Marshall
Youngstown State < Air Force
Click to expand...
exactly...when did the benchmark in college football become who you lost to?? there's just something at the most basic leve wrong with that.
 
#29
#29
yeah with that logic we shouldn't have played the SECCG against LSU, since we had already beat them that season
 
#30
#30
crimedawg12 said:
yeah with that logic we shouldn't have played the SECCG against LSU, since we had already beat them that season
Click to expand...
huh? that doesnt require logic...it requires a format...which we have with the divisions the SEC has to determine the champion.
 
#31
#31
jakez4ut said:
thank you. the thing that i think separates us and them in direct comparisons is the difference in the meat of the big ten vs. the meat of the SEC. going 9-3 in this year's SEC isn't as bad as going 8-4 in this year's Big 10.

everything else, i agree with.
Click to expand...

I don't even think that we disagree. I too think that the SEC's almost always the better conference, and for the exact same reason -- ie, the middle teams of the SEC (Georgia, Tennessee [and it sucks to put us there, but that's where we belong], Alabama, Arkansas, South Carolina, Kentucky) are much tougher to play than the middle teams of the Big Ten (Penn State, Iowa, Wisconsin, Purdue, Minnesota, Michigan State). The problem, of course, is that finding objective proof of that assertion is maddeningly difficult.

I too think we're a better team, and that if we come out motivated to play -- always a dicey proposition this decade -- that we should win fairly handily. But we've got the bowl game and the kind of matchup that we deserve this year.
 
#32
#32
jakez4ut said:
huh? that doesnt require logic...it requires a format...which we have with the divisions the SEC has to determine the champion.
Click to expand...
Not disagreeing with the format, its like the old saying "thats why they play the game" on paper we should of won that game.
 
#33
#33
Vercingetorix said:
I don't even think that we disagree. I too think that the SEC's almost always the better conference, and for the exact same reason -- ie, the middle teams of the SEC (Georgia, Tennessee [and it sucks to put us there, but that's where we belong], Alabama, Arkansas, South Carolina, Kentucky) are much tougher to play than the middle teams of the Big Ten (Penn State, Iowa, Wisconsin, Purdue, Minnesota, Michigan State). The problem, of course, is that finding objective proof of that assertion is maddeningly difficult.

I too think we're a better team, and that if we come out motivated to play -- always a dicey proposition this decade -- that we should win fairly handily. But we've got the bowl game and the kind of matchup that we deserve this year.
Click to expand...
Wisconsin finished 11-1 this year...they finished tied for 2nd in the league.

but in merit, we're on the same page....:thumbsup:
 
#35
#35
The extra practice is always big, especially when you have as many young guys as we have. Do we have any High School guys enrolling early to take part in this practice time?
 
#36
#36
OrangePappy said:
The extra practice is always big, especially when you have as many young guys as we have. Do we have any High School guys enrolling early to take part in this practice time?
Click to expand...
don't think they can enroll until January for Spring semester....pending early graduation from HS in December....all the practice will be in Dec...
 
#37
#37
jakez4ut said:
Wisconsin finished 11-1 this year...they finished tied for 2nd in the league.

but in merit, we're on the same page....:thumbsup:
Click to expand...

I was thinking in larger terms than just this year. Wisconsin in recent years has gone 10-3, 9-3, 7-6, etc. They're a good team, but year-in year-out, not on the same level as OSU and Michigan. Very similar to how we're a good team, but not on the same level as LSU or Florida. Both Wisconsin and Tennessee, unfortunately, probably count as being part of "the meat of the schedule."
 
#38
#38
Vercingetorix said:
I was thinking in larger terms than just this year. Wisconsin in recent years has gone 10-3, 9-3, 7-6, etc. They're a good team, but year-in year-out, not on the same level as OSU and Michigan. Very similar to how we're a good team, but not on the same level as LSU or Florida. Both Wisconsin and Tennessee, unfortunately, probably count as being part of "the meat of the schedule."
Click to expand...
:salute:
 
#39
#39
Vercingetorix said:
I was thinking in larger terms than just this year. Wisconsin in recent years has gone 10-3, 9-3, 7-6, etc. They're a good team, but year-in year-out, not on the same level as OSU and Michigan. Very similar to how we're a good team, but not on the same level as LSU or Florida. Both Wisconsin and Tennessee, unfortunately, probably count as being part of "the meat of the schedule."
Click to expand...

Just for information, Big 10 Titles from 1997-2006 (10 years):

Michigan - 5
Ohio State - 4
Wisconsin - 2
Iowa - 2
Northwestern - 1
Illinois - 1
Penn State - 1
Purdue - 1

SEC Titles from 1997-2006:

Tennessee - 2
Florida - 2
LSU - 2
Georgia - 2
Auburn - 1
Alabama - 1

Don't know what I'm getting at, but I find it interesting.
 
#40
#40
VolinArizona said:
Just for information, Big 10 Titles from 1997-2006 (10 years):

Michigan - 5
Ohio State - 4
Wisconsin - 2
Iowa - 2
Northwestern - 1
Illinois - 1
Penn State - 1
Purdue - 1

SEC Titles from 1997-2006:

Tennessee - 2
Florida - 2
LSU - 2
Georgia - 2
Auburn - 1
Alabama - 1

Don't know what I'm getting at, but I find it interesting.
Click to expand...
i don't either...comparing SEC title winners to Big 10 title winners is a fuitless venture seeing as how the Big 10 still has the old "co champion" syndrome.

17 Big 10 title winners in 10 years....impressive.:whistling:
 
#41
#41
jakez4ut said:
i don't either...comparing SEC title winners to Big 10 title winners is a fuitless venture seeing as how the Big 10 still has the old "co champion" syndrome.

17 Big 10 title winners in 10 years....impressive.:whistling:
Click to expand...

Yeah, if they had a conference title game, those numbers would be halved.

Michigan - 3
tOSU - 2
Iowa - 1
Wisconsin - 1

The others ..... 0 or 1.
 
#42
#42
It's their stupid scheduling. Every few years somebody like Iowa or Wisconsin doesn't have to play Michigan or Ohio State, and winds up in a tie for the "championship." Still, that illustrates pretty well what a two-team conference the Big 10 is.

I don't see them EVER going to a championship game, though, and it's not even because they'll never get Notre Dame to join. They could find a different team. The problem is what they'd do with the OSU/Michigan game. Unless they kept both teams in the same division -- which would be totally unfair to the rest of the conference -- they'd have to quit playing it every year (unthinkable), keep the annual game like UT/ALA but play it earlier in the year (probably the best solution, but also probably unthinkable), or play it the week before the championship (which would many years be a rematch). I don't know how they'd do it.
 
#43
#43
Vercingetorix said:
It's their stupid scheduling. Every few years somebody like Iowa or Wisconsin doesn't have to play Michigan or Ohio State, and winds up in a tie for the "championship." Still, that illustrates pretty well what a two-team conference the Big 10 is.

I don't see them EVER going to a championship game, though, and it's not even because they'll never get Notre Dame to join. They could find a different team. The problem is what they'd do with the OSU/Michigan game. Unless they kept both teams in the same division -- which would be totally unfair to the rest of the conference -- they'd have to quit playing it every year (unthinkable), keep the annual game like UT/ALA but play it earlier in the year (probably the best solution, but also probably unthinkable), or play it the week before the championship (which would many years be a rematch). I don't know how they'd do it.
Click to expand...
put 'em in different divisions and let 'em play the same schedule they do now...and if a rematch is what they want, then they virtually guarantee themselves that every year. it'd be great.:whistling:
 
#44
#44
It would certainly expose what a top-heavy conference it is, wouldn't it? The same two teams playing two out of every three years in the championship game?
 
#45
#45
Vercingetorix said:
Well, I'd say a team that can't run the ball or stop the run has problems...

I'm not sure why so many people think this game is such a mismatch. We're 9-3; they're 8-4.
Click to expand...

I'm still waiting for you to explain why you think UT and PSU are about equal.

Since UT is #17 and PSU is #30 I believe the burden of proof would be on you. Its apparent the polls dont agree they are equal.
 
#46
#46
oklavol said:
I'm still waiting for you to explain why you think UT and PSU are about equal.

Since UT is #17 and PSU is #30 I believe the burden of proof would be on you. Its apparent the polls dont agree they are equal.
Click to expand...

I have never said that UT and PSU are equal; I've said many times that I think we're better and that I expect to win this game. You and some other posters act practically offended by the matchup, however, and that's what I'm arguing against. We're not THAT much better than Penn State.
 
#47
#47
Vercingetorix said:
I have never said that UT and PSU are equal; I've said many times that I think we're better and that I expect to win this game. You and some other posters act practically offended by the matchup, however, and that's what I'm arguing against. We're not THAT much better than Penn State.
Click to expand...

You said you didnt think this was a mismatch, it stands to reason you believe the two teams are about equal.

I've always said UT should have played a team comparable in rankings. UT is #17, PSU is #30, thats not comparable to me.
 
#48
#48
Did anybody mention that bowl games are the biggest excuse given for not having a playoff?
 
#50
#50
"Not a mismatch" is not the same thing as "about equal."

Texas and Iowa should be a mismatch, as is reflected in the 11-point line; in contrast, UT is favored by 4.5 over Penn State, which is about what you'd expect on a neutral field when one team is perceived to be better but not a lot better than the other. If there were the massive gap between the two teams that you think there is, that point spread would be a lot bigger.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement



Back
Top