Can anyone recall a more lopsided bowl season?

Submitted by Baba Booey on

Just did some quick math and the average score of the games the last two days is 42-14. Also, of the 36 games played this bowl season, only 13 (36%) have been decided by one score. I've seen plenty of bad bowl games over the years but not this many in one season. Anybody remember a less competitive bowl season?

BornSinner

January 2nd, 2016 at 12:03 AM ^

This may sound bad, but I think the Committee is bullshit. They should just use the computers and use the top 6 as the playoff and then go from there...

 

Computers are better than humans when it comes to making matchups for bowls... 

 

Computers guessed the top 4 correctly last year and they guessed Bama Clemson right this year... so .... yep

TheCool

January 2nd, 2016 at 12:57 AM ^

Computers aren't able to judge using common sense so, no they aren't better than a committee. Maybe a combination of the two, but this is revisionist, hindsight thinking. The four teams that were in deserved to be in, regardless of the outcomes.

EricSV85

January 2nd, 2016 at 10:34 AM ^

Here's the thing, if you go from the computers of the BCS era to a committee for the playoff era then go all in. Make the eye test, which is a humans advantage over a computer, the number one criteria. I can't speak for other teams but MSU had maybe a game or two total this season where they looked like a playoff caliber team. Even with their record and winning the Big Ten they should not have been in the playoff. A committee should have seen OSU or possibly Iowa as the best fit, but people would bite their heads off for selecting them.

The basketball committee can get away with a few head scratchers because of the size of their tournament. I don't want to see the football tournament expand beyond six teams, so I say don't release official rankings during the season. Just do the playoff matchups at the end. As well as stating up front that the eye test is most important, with sos, and margin of victory following.

Inflammable Flame

January 2nd, 2016 at 5:15 PM ^

rankings are used to hype games up by the media to promote viewership and thus sell commercial slots. not to mention universities use them for recruiting purposes when they benefit them. we all know they don't mean a damn thing until the end of the season but unfortunately the powers-that-be will not eliminate them

Muttley

January 2nd, 2016 at 2:06 AM ^

Illinois had a goal-to-go opportunity in the 3rd quarter to cut USC's lead to four points down 21-10 but fumbled.  Not quite 35-0, game-over at halftime.  USC then blew the Illini out by scoring the next 28 before Illinois finished w a TD for a 49-17 final.  Here's the ESPN play-by-play page, but the sequences are obviously messed up.

http://espn.go.com/college-football/playbyplay?gameId=280010030

Penn State ended the first quarter tied 7-7 with USC but then got steamrolled by 24 straight 2nd quarter USC points to go into halftime w almost no chance down 31-7.  Penn State outscored USC in the 4th quarter 17-7 to make the final score appear more respectable at 38-24.

http://espn.go.com/college-football/playbyplay?gameId=290010030

Blau

January 1st, 2016 at 11:40 PM ^

No real personnel mismatches in a lot of these games. Looks like some teams are just not ready to play.

Except for Alabama or Clemson. MSU and OU had no answer for either squad.

twohooks

January 1st, 2016 at 11:41 PM ^

Will not be memorable so I can't compare what I have already forgot. Sidebar, guess I'm kinda disgusted that ESPN is trying to captivate a March Madness type scenario with holding a lions share of games. March Madness was cultivated by the product not lining up a heap of teams to what they believe the consumer would watch. ESPNs biggest pile of poo.

mi93

January 1st, 2016 at 11:55 PM ^

I was thinking this too, mostly because the games today and yesterday have all been blowouts.  Houston really handled FSU despite the closest score of the last two days.

Many of the early games were very entertaining, with lots of trading points and many close games (Wisc, IU, VaTech).  Many broadcasters were commenting how so many of the early games were very good. In this case, though, last impressions matter and the NY6 hasn't lived up to the hype.  Hopefully the NC game will.

And hopefully PSU rep-re-zents tomorrow and stomps the Dawgs.

mi93

January 2nd, 2016 at 12:00 AM ^

While I think TCU got hosed last year in the CoFoPoff rankings, this year's performance may have set the entire conference back a few years.

Wolfman

January 2nd, 2016 at 12:14 AM ^

Not unlike ND's season of 2012 or FSU's of just last season, except this year there were a number of teams that escaped with wins over teams that just weren't that good and somehow beat the one or two that were and due to this they were matched with teams far above their talent and execution level. IA and MSU from our conference. IA beat Pitt on a last second FG and No. 23 NW. MSU, with a healthy Cook played us close but came up with the play of the decade, for them at least, faces OSU in the worst game Meyer has ever called - I mean how in the fuck? - and then goes on to face what people perceived as as good IA team and only by the narrowest of margins did they beat them. So both team's stock went up while both were pulling out games against lesser competition all season, far too often on the last drive.

Stanford played a game at 9 a.m., and not surprisingly sleep walked through to a defeat. NW's stock went up, Standord's down before returning to form, won the PAC and beat a damn good ND team in the process. IA and MSU's rewards for winning - and that is a talent and I won't minimize it - was playing teams that are obviously far superior.

Fl somehow remained supreme in the E. Division of the SEC despite not being able to score offensively and ran into probably the BIG's second best team as of the first day of 2016 and got throttled. It took, 2015, a true anomaly, until the end of the season to prove just how fortunate they were, or conversely, many teams to find out just how good they were. How many people here expected a 34 pt win today while displaying our most impressive rushing performance of the season against one of the nation's better Defenses? I was shocked at the holes I saw and the ability of our backs to hit them. And, of course, Jake and the receivers came through via the air to give us our most complete game.

When all is said and done, there were four teams, Clemson, Bama, of course, OSU and possibly Stanford to prove they were, more-than-likely the best four teams in CFB and OSU only did so in their final two games against two damned good teams.

Take the rest of the teams and, as the season proved, match any two in back-to-back Saturdays and you might get different results. Lots of teams that were close to good, but only when playing their best, and just a few teams actually capable of kicking any given opponent's ass on most any Saturday and a recipe for what we witnessed was drawn up and played out. In short, no, I can't think of another year the scores were so one-sided in what were generally perceived decent match-ups.