The CardBoard
Bowl Pairings so far - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Bowl Pairings so far (/thread-15149.html)

Pages: 1 2 3

Re: Bowl Pairings so far - UltimateCard - 12-03-2017

(12-03-2017, 02:45 PM)Mick link Wrote:Pac 12 is well represented.  Some very good bowl games here:

Fiesta Bowl, Penn State vs. Washington
Cotton Bowl, Ohio State vs. U$C
Alamo Bowl, Stanford vs. TCU
Holiday Bowl, Michigan State vs. Washington State
Cactus Bowl, Kansas State vs. UCLA
Sun Bowl, Arizona State vs. NC State
Foster Farms Bowl, Arizona vs. Perdue
Heart of Dallas Bowl, Utah vs. West Virginia
Las Vegas Bowl, Boise State vs. Oregon

Four of the nine bowls (Cotton, Sun, Alamo, Heart of Dallas) are in Texas, two in Arizona, three in California.

Guess Cali finally annexed Vegas - about time!  ;)

Re: Bowl Pairings so far - fullmetal - 12-03-2017

We'll see how the large alumni contingents in DFW and Houston turn out for this bowl.  Austin's never had too many alumni, but there will be representation.  El Paso gets to make the ~8 hr drive east this year after having a backyard bowl.  I'm excited to see what kind of fan support we'll get.

Re: Bowl Pairings so far - lex24 - 12-03-2017

Why are they ranked ahead in the polls?  Stanford beat them going away a couple weeks ago. Washington played WSU and nobody else. They missed SC. They played three non league cream puffs. Stanford played SC twice, a ranked SDS and a top 10 ND.

I think it’s bullsh-t that UW is ranked ahead. And I think it’s bigger bigger buush-t that they get the Fiesta over Stanford. And I can’t understand why  any Stanford fan would argue otherwise.

(12-03-2017, 01:43 PM)Goose link Wrote:[quote author=lex24 link=topic=18273.msg216798#msg216798 date=1512333247]
Im more pissed about a Washington in the Fiesta. Not earned on the field. But they travel better.  Monet baby.
I am sorry, but I can't agree here. Washington is arguably the second-best team in the PAC-12. They lost 2 games. Granted, their out-of-conference schedule was weak. But they won. While I think Stanford is the second-best team in the PAC-12, it isn't insane not to agree with me ( :) in this case at least). Money is probably a factor, yes, but in this case it is not a totally unreasonable choice. They are ranked above us in the polls, even though we beat them.
[/quote]

Re: Bowl Pairings so far - qwerty49 - 12-03-2017

(12-03-2017, 05:41 PM)lex24 link Wrote:Why are they ranked ahead in the polls?  Stanford beat them going away a couple weeks ago. Washington played WSU and nobody else. They missed SC. They played three non league cream puffs. Stanford played SC twice, a ranked SDS and a top 10 ND.

I think it’s bullsh-t that UW is ranked ahead. And I think it’s bigger bigger buush-t that they get the Fiesta over Stanford. And I can’t understand why  any Stanford fan would argue otherwise.

[quote author=Goose link=topic=18273.msg216809#msg216809 date=1512333780]
[quote author=lex24 link=topic=18273.msg216798#msg216798 date=1512333247]
Im more pissed about a Washington in the Fiesta. Not earned on the field. But they travel better.  Monet baby.
I am sorry, but I can't agree here. Washington is arguably the second-best team in the PAC-12. They lost 2 games. Granted, their out-of-conference schedule was weak. But they won. While I think Stanford is the second-best team in the PAC-12, it isn't insane not to agree with me ( :) in this case at least). Money is probably a factor, yes, but in this case it is not a totally unreasonable choice. They are ranked above us in the polls, even though we beat them.
[/quote]
[/quote]

Most people just go by the optics.  10-2 > 9-4 

Re: Bowl Pairings so far - Stymie - 12-03-2017

(12-03-2017, 04:07 PM)stupac2 link Wrote:[quote author=Mick link=topic=18273.msg216868#msg216868 date=1512342180]
Bowl selections are now complete.  San Diego State is playing Army, which will be a wakeup call for the Black Knights.

Oh god, that might be the most lopsided bowl game this year. Of course that means SDSU will sleepwalk in and Army will win.
[/quote]

Agreed.  Take the points against SDSU and enjoy your Xmas turkey.

Re: Bowl Pairings so far - Mick - 12-03-2017

(12-03-2017, 05:07 PM)UltimateCard link Wrote:[quote author=Mick link=topic=18273.msg216849#msg216849 date=1512337550]
Pac 12 is well represented.  Some very good bowl games here:

Fiesta Bowl, Penn State vs. Washington
Cotton Bowl, Ohio State vs. U$C
Alamo Bowl, Stanford vs. TCU
Holiday Bowl, Michigan State vs. Washington State
Cactus Bowl, Kansas State vs. UCLA
Sun Bowl, Arizona State vs. NC State
Foster Farms Bowl, Arizona vs. Perdue
Heart of Dallas Bowl, Utah vs. West Virginia
Las Vegas Bowl, Boise State vs. Oregon

Four of the nine bowls (Cotton, Sun, Alamo, Heart of Dallas) are in Texas, two in Arizona, three in California.

Guess Cali finally annexed Vegas - about time!  ;)
[/quote]

Funny, I always think of Lost Wages as a little slice of home...

Re: Bowl Pairings so far - 76lsjumb - 12-03-2017

(12-03-2017, 05:48 PM)qwerty49 link Wrote:Most people just go by the optics.  10-2 > 9-4

Which is why UCF and Wisconsin are both in the playoffs.  Oh, wait a minute...

Actually , this proves what a great strategy coach Chris Peterson is.  By letting us beat them and then beating WSU so handily, he avoided having to play U.SC and forced us to do so, thereby avoiding adding a loss to their record, adding one to ours, and ending with what would be perceived as an impressive win.  All to get an NY6 Bowl... Brilliant!  ::)

Re: Bowl Pairings so far - CTcard - 12-03-2017

(12-03-2017, 01:41 PM)lex24 link Wrote:I can’t think of another sport that decides these things with a bunch of people sitting around casting ballots.

Actually, I think just about every sport decides their post-season tournament teams with a bunch of people sitting around casting ballots.


----------------
It is kind of annoying to me that the most important resume item to pollsters is number of losses. But it's nothing new. That's the way it has always been as long as I can remember.

Without checking, I don't think the cfp committee has ever left out a team with X losses in favour of a team with X+1 losses. This year would have seemed an opportunity, with conference champs tOSU and $C each with at least relatively tough schedules and Bama with an atrociously light schedule, no conference championship, and a fairly bad loss in their final game to their toughest opponent. Last year would have been more obvious, with Penn State the Big Ten winner but having two losses being jumped by tOSU with one loss ... to Penn State.

In addition, no Power 5 team with two or fewer losses got left out of a New Years Six bowl.

There are a couple of spots where a team with more losses is ahead of another Power 5 team with fewer, but they are rare and typically not in places that really matter. For that matter, Stanford with 4 losses is ahead of at least 8 Power 5 teams with three or fewer losses - but positions 13 and below don't matter much.

Re: Bowl Pairings so far - stupac2 - 12-03-2017

(12-03-2017, 09:02 PM)CTcard link Wrote:[quote author=lex24 link=topic=18273.msg216806#msg216806 date=1512333702]
I can’t think of another sport that decides these things with a bunch of people sitting around casting ballots.

Actually, I think just about every sport decides their post-season tournament teams with a bunch of people sitting around casting ballots. [/quote]

Did you mean college sport? I assume it's implied given what we're talking about, but as far as I'm aware no professional sport on earth has anything like a selection committee.

Also of note, every college playoff I'm aware of has auto-bids and a selection committee for seeding and at-large teams. I don't think anyone would mind that setup in CFB, it's certainly what I've wanted to see ever since I started following the sport.

Re: Bowl Pairings so far - CTcard - 12-03-2017

(12-03-2017, 09:19 PM)stupac2 link Wrote:[quote author=CTcard link=topic=18273.msg216924#msg216924 date=1512360168]
[quote author=lex24 link=topic=18273.msg216806#msg216806 date=1512333702]
I can’t think of another sport that decides these things with a bunch of people sitting around casting ballots.

Actually, I think just about every sport decides their post-season tournament teams with a bunch of people sitting around casting ballots. [/quote]

Did you mean college sport? I assume it's implied given what we're talking about, but as far as I'm aware no professional sport on earth has anything like a selection committee.

Also of note, every college playoff I'm aware of has auto-bids and a selection committee for seeding and at-large teams. I don't think anyone would mind that setup in CFB, it's certainly what I've wanted to see ever since I started following the sport.
[/quote]

1. Of course I meant college sports.

2. Lex was specifically talking (writing?) about UW vs Stanford in a New Years Six Bowl. That would be the equivalent of at large selections.

But, I would agree that if there is going to be a pseudo-tournament in football, then I would prefer a system with automatic bids of some sort.

Re: Bowl Pairings so far - JohnR34231 - 12-03-2017

(12-03-2017, 05:41 PM)lex24 link Wrote:Why are they ranked ahead in the polls?  Stanford beat them going away a couple weeks ago. Washington played WSU and nobody else. They missed SC. They played three non league cream puffs. Stanford played SC twice, a ranked SDS and a top 10 ND.

I think it’s bullsh-t that UW is ranked ahead. And I think it’s bigger bigger buush-t that they get the Fiesta over Stanford. And I can’t understand why  any Stanford fan would argue otherwise.

[quote author=Goose link=topic=18273.msg216809#msg216809 date=1512333780]
[quote author=lex24 link=topic=18273.msg216798#msg216798 date=1512333247]
Im more pissed about a Washington in the Fiesta. Not earned on the field. But they travel better.  Monet baby.
I am sorry, but I can't agree here. Washington is arguably the second-best team in the PAC-12. They lost 2 games. Granted, their out-of-conference schedule was weak. But they won. While I think Stanford is the second-best team in the PAC-12, it isn't insane not to agree with me ( :) in this case at least). Money is probably a factor, yes, but in this case it is not a totally unreasonable choice. They are ranked above us in the polls, even though we beat them.
[/quote]
[/quote]

Well, Washington beat Fresno State. While they are not a great team, I don't know if I would refer to them as a cream puff. They beat San Diego State 27-3, have a win over a top 25 team (Boise State) to their credit, and are playing in a bowl game.

Re: Bowl Pairings so far - ChicagoCard - 12-04-2017

I think it was WSU who beat Boise. UW played an FCS team, Fresno and Rutgers. I just hope UW beats PSU as I can't stand Franklin or that entitled fan base. I wish U$C-OhioSt & UW-PSU matchups were the former in the Fiesta and latter in the Cotton so that the Pac-12 team were playing on it accustomed playing surface.

Re: Bowl Pairings so far - Mick - 12-04-2017

While we're at it, I'd like the Pac-12 to go 9-0 in Bowl games.