Citrus Bowl or Bust for Me
On the way home Valenti and Foster were doing the usual baiting Michigan fans into calling up since there are no ratings in talking MSU football.
The premise was would you root for MSU to help Mich get to the BCS? I don't care about that but based on all the diaries posted on here and the callers it does appear that a lot of fans do want to go to the BCS.
My question is why? Bowls hold very little interest for me. The only bowls that I find compelling are against top teams. I would much rather test ourselves against Arkansas than play Houston. If the BCS bid meant we were guaranteed to play Oklahoma, Oklahoma or Stanford than I would be fine with it, but Houston? Who wants that?
If you are not going to the game the only thing that matters about the bowl game is bragging rights and entertainment. Michigan does not need publicity. Come on it's Michigan! So I don't but that argument to go to the BCS
Let's look at the other factors.
Gametime- Advantage Citrus. 1:00 start day off work vs a midnight finish on a work night
Opponent- Advantage Citrus. Arkansas vs Houston Not even close. Plus a win gives us Seee Ceee bragging rights and continues our historical domination of them.
So to those of you that want to go to the Sugar Bowl can you explain why?
November 30th, 2011 at 6:21 PM ^
Who or what is a Valenti?
November 30th, 2011 at 6:22 PM ^
Recruits will like it. It carries weight whether it should or shouldn't.
November 30th, 2011 at 6:35 PM ^
Plus, at this point it will get a streak of non-appearances off our back. It also carries a lot of weight that Hoke went to the BCS in his first year. That's a big draw for recruits as well.
November 30th, 2011 at 6:39 PM ^
I feel like beating Houston (were that to happen) in the Sugar Bowl this year would be sneaking into a BCS bowl and sneaking away with a BCS win, but I'll take it after '08-'11. Michigan just needs good publicity right now. We can worry about the "real" worth of games after the Wolverines are solidly back on their feet.
November 30th, 2011 at 6:42 PM ^
You can also add that it's the BCS that has us play Houston, not our scheduling. It's not like we'd decline a Sugar Bowl bid if Alabama slipped to three.
November 30th, 2011 at 7:28 PM ^
It is practically a home game for Houston. After seeing our secondary (or whole defense) recently until this year I still get uneasy about facing teams that put up gaudy stats. But, the Beaver is gone along with GERG...so bring it.
November 30th, 2011 at 7:32 PM ^
Home game? I get that it wouldbe close to Houston but do the Cougar fans really travel all that well?
November 30th, 2011 at 8:36 PM ^
I'm sure all thousand of them could make the trip, New Orleans isn't too far away from the Houston area
November 30th, 2011 at 8:37 PM ^
The distance from Houston to NOLA is 350 miles - roughly the same as the distance from Ann Arbor to Champaign-Urbana. Hardly a close by game for UH.
November 30th, 2011 at 7:30 PM ^
I would rather lose in a BCS bowl than win, say, the Capital One Bowl (not sure where we would go if we didn't get into the BCS). BCS games get so much more hype and just playing in one would tell everybody that we're back. Believe what you want, but people don't view us the same as they did 6 years ago. Playing a top 10 team and having a very realistic shot at winning (assuming we would play Houston) on national television would put us back to a place we haven't been in a very long time as far as national relevancy goes.
November 30th, 2011 at 8:06 PM ^
While a Spartan win is the surest path they conveniently forgot to mention that a Whisky blowout would also probably seal it just as well. So root for that if it makes you feel better.
November 30th, 2011 at 8:43 PM ^
I'd like to thank everyone for their input on this thread. While we mostly disagree I did find it very insightful to see how much you guys still value certain bowls and the prestige that comes with it. I also found out that as much as the msm media is bagged on you still want the love from them.
I wonder if we were in this same position 5 years ago if the responses would still be the same? Reading your responses it feels like a lot of people want payback for the beating we took in the media pretty much since The Horror and that our standing in said media is important.
As a guy that grew up when all the "BCS Bowls" were played on the same day and the Sugar Bowl and Cotton Bowl started things off, I respect your value of the bowls. I guess I just can't stand the bowls anymore for what they have done to block a playoff.
I still like watching the big bowls, but more than anything I like Mich playing big games and Houston just doesn't do it for me. With the Non conference schedule getting watered down I just want to face the big boys as much as we can.
November 30th, 2011 at 8:48 PM ^
November 30th, 2011 at 9:07 PM ^
This was a fun thread, thanks for starting it Ziff.
November 30th, 2011 at 9:15 PM ^
Which as a fan would you rather go to?
For me since I live in Texas, much easier and cheaper to get to Nola. Plus as mentioned before its New Orleans fergodsakes.
New Orleans >>>>>>>> Disney Crap
November 30th, 2011 at 6:23 PM ^
1. New Orleans is the tits.
2. It's a BCS bowl.
3. $17,000,000 vs. $4,250,000
Yep, I'm sold.
November 30th, 2011 at 6:26 PM ^
Question : do we have to split the money with the b1g after expenses? Does the ad make more money on the bcs than average bowl
November 30th, 2011 at 6:38 PM ^
The entire conference should be rooting for us to go. It's an extra million in their coffers if we do, and an extra million that they've become accustomed to after this current streak of at-large bids that the conference has.
November 30th, 2011 at 10:50 PM ^
Yes, they split it with the rest of the conference. But you get an extra share of the bowl you're at, so you modestly get more money if you go to a better bowl than a worse one. And obviously a big payout bowl makes the payday bigger for everyone in the conference.
November 30th, 2011 at 6:31 PM ^
I was completely persuaded by the OP's reasoned argument.
Then you mentioned the tits thing.
November 30th, 2011 at 6:52 PM ^
Now, you've got me picturing a llama saying tits and I can't stop laughing to myself.
Anyway, I want moar BCSz!
November 30th, 2011 at 8:07 PM ^
I'll bring the beads!
November 30th, 2011 at 9:12 PM ^
I'm so confident I already have my hotel room booked. M vs. Houston would be a great way to end the season - a BCS bowl is much better.
November 30th, 2011 at 10:32 PM ^
You're confident? I have three rooms booked for my crew.
November 30th, 2011 at 9:03 PM ^
4 times the payout. You take that every time (Sorry to sound all Dave Brandon but I think he's doing a great job).
Houston or not, you take the BCS bowl every time.
GO BLUE!
November 30th, 2011 at 6:23 PM ^
BCS bowl. More money, exposure, practice time, and prestige.
November 30th, 2011 at 6:36 PM ^
1. I think we split the money with the Big Ten and we'll eat money with the whole BCS ticket scam. Plus you don't actually see the money or any benfit from it if we endeed get more which I don't think we do.
2. Agains we're Michigan I think recruits know who we are.
3. Practice Time? I think it's all the same.
4. Prestige? What does that mean to you? We're Michigan. You are a fan. Do you get more prestige at work for beating Hoston or beating Arkansas?
November 30th, 2011 at 6:42 PM ^
If you win the Sugar Bowl, you get the same trophy no matter who the opponent is.
But I actually agree with you on that--I do hope our Sugar Bowl opponent is someone with more cachet than Houston. It's just that I would not want to go a step down from the BCS-level in order to get a bigger-name opponent.
November 30th, 2011 at 6:45 PM ^
For that matter, should Wisconsin want the Capitol One Bowl if UCLA goes to the Rose because Arkansas>UCLA?
November 30th, 2011 at 7:41 PM ^
You get more prestige for winning the Sugar Bowl. That's the way the system is set up. The "best teams" in the country go to the BCS bowls. So to be considered among those teams is good for our prestige, which has to be constantly rekindled in order for it to continue. In a lesser bowl we get a few hours of media attention from Spielman and friends, and maybe a few minutes of Herbie. In the Sugar Bowl we're the only game of the day and we get an entire day of Stuart Scott and Scott Van Pelt throwing it to that fox Sage Steele for a repeated story about Hoke bringing Michigan back to national prominence. Primetime bowl game is always preferable to a 1 o'clock bowl game. More young high school players will see a Sugar Bowl than the Citrus Bowl. It doesn't matter how prestigious you or I thinks Michigan has. It matters what the media says, because that's who everyone else listens to. Easy choice.
November 30th, 2011 at 7:45 PM ^
True. One of the main points Dave Pasch made in the intro to the Game on ABC was OSU's streak of 6 straight BCS Bowls was at an end, coupled with M still having a shot at a BCS Bowl.
November 30th, 2011 at 8:14 PM ^
Didn't you read the guy who pointed out the Citrus will get better rating swith us in ti?
November 30th, 2011 at 8:21 PM ^
Pretty sure "that guy" doesn't know what future ratings will be... Each game has to be taken individually. I didn't want to get involved in that discussion below because your method of arguing is annoying as hell. You're OPINION is perfectly valid, but nothing you have presented so far has won the argument, so stop acting like it's a foregone conclusion.
November 30th, 2011 at 7:34 PM ^
Practice time is huge. I want those guys to get as much time together as possible. More practices this year will only help us in the future.
November 30th, 2011 at 6:24 PM ^
Houston is putting up incredible numbers this year. That's a game we could very well lose if our pass protection vs. OSU is any indication. That said, I always want to see Michigan in the most prestigious position ever. BCS bowls are more prestigious, thus that's what I want. I'll watch Michigan play anyone, so I care less about the opponent. Plus, like I said, I think Houston is pretty good.
Also, can we just talk about how ridiculous it is that the MNC game is likely to be LSU vs. Alabama? Alabama lost head-to-head and can't even be conference champion. After 2006 where people shot down the idea of a UofM/OSU MNC rematch, I just can't understand the support for a rematch here. Is it 'cause it's the SEC? Or just because the LSU/'Bama game was a little further removed from the final BCS polling? Stupid. LSU, as clear number one, should play someone they haven't already played -- and beaten -- even if it's not #2 Alabama.
November 30th, 2011 at 6:35 PM ^
First, I hate Alabama under Saban.
Anyway, Okla. St. has won more games against ranked teams than Alabama. Alabama, though, has a much better loss, a loss in overtime to the No. 1 team in the country v. a loss to Iowa St.(!). Alabama also just looks better to me, though I admittedly only saw Okla. St. play against Iowa St. Finally, while a lot of people complain about the SEC getting so much attention, I think that the Big 12 is really overrated. That league plays no defense. Look at what happened to Nebraska when they moved to the Big Ten. Michigan, Wisconsin, and even OSU (before Miller was hurt) moved the ball on them pretty easily.
I hate to say it, but I think you have to go with Alabama. Blame Okla. St. for losing to Iowa St.
November 30th, 2011 at 6:49 PM ^
Alabama does look better. But they've also had fewer opportunities to look bad. Despite playing in the SEC, their schedule is really pretty bad. Their best wins are Penn State, Arkansas, and Auburn. We all know that Penn State is not a good team. I don't buy Arkansas, they snuck out wins against Vandy, Ole Miss, aTm, and Troy, best win against South Carolina after Lattimore went out, got killed by both 'bama and LSU. Auburn's a bad team. Other than that, Alabama's schedule is Kent State, North Texas, Florida, Vandy, Ole Miss, Tennessee, Mississippi State, and Georgia Southern.
Alabama may be better but Oklahoma State's resume is more impressive, despite their loss. With the better resume, they're more deserving of the shot, given bama's loss to LSU.
December 1st, 2011 at 11:45 AM ^
You can't mention that Bama lost in OT without mentioning that it was a home game and Oklahoma State lost in 2OT on the road.
November 30th, 2011 at 6:36 PM ^
The problem is you have to find a team to replace 'bama. Let's restrict it to the 1 loss or undefeated teams...
Houston? Potentially 13-0 but their best win is by 4 over a UCLA team that just got the snot kicked out of them by USC.
Stanford? Lost by 20 to a team LSU beat by 20. Also didn't win their conference.
Virginia Tech? Until they beat Clemson, their best win is??? Georgia Tech? Virginia? Arkansas State? If they beat Clemson, then their best win is over a 8-4 Clemson that already beat them at home by 20.
Oklahoma State? Here's the only plausible alternative, if they beat OU, especially if they beat them big. Wins over 5 top 25 teams vs. 2 for Alabama (and only 3 with winning records). Overtime loss away on the night that their school had a couple coaches die in a plane crash. Alabama's probably a better team. Is Okie State more deserving? Maybe.
November 30th, 2011 at 6:44 PM ^
I would, though, like to briefly discuss my theories about the last episode of Lost...
November 30th, 2011 at 9:15 PM ^
Outstanding comment. I remember getting into all kinds of internet debates with my friends over the finale. For the record, I liked it; the show was about people and relationships, not about a solving a fucking puzzle. It wasn't a giant, 5-year game that you were watching; it was a television drama based, at its core, on relationships. And the meaning of life, man. Sorry every single loose end from 4 seasons ago didn't get tied up, people who were all angry.
Clearly, I'm still up for the debate.
November 30th, 2011 at 9:15 PM ^
Outstanding comment. I remember getting into all kinds of internet debates with my friends over the finale. For the record, I liked it; the show was about people and relationships, not about a solving a fucking puzzle. It wasn't a giant, 5-year game that you were watching; it was a television drama based, at its core, on relationships. And the meaning of life, man. Sorry every single loose end from 4 seasons ago didn't get tied up, people who were all angry.
Clearly, I'm still up for the debate.
November 30th, 2011 at 6:25 PM ^
Regardless of who we would play we need to win a BCS game. We have not won a BCS game yet. Like it or not the BCS is the system we have. Recruits look at this stuff. It's a plus in my mind if we get in.
November 30th, 2011 at 6:41 PM ^
tom brady may be offended (Orange Bowl). However, looking up BCS stats the embarrassing stat is that Ohio leads ALL Div-I in BCS wins with 6! Kinda weird I never here that though when people talk about the glories of the SEC over BIG. So yeah, BCS is big, helps conference pride, and puts us perhaps closer to Ohio's stats.
November 30th, 2011 at 7:04 PM ^
Hoke seems to be doing ok with that top 5 class without that BCS trophy. I don't think kids give a rip about some lame Sugar Bowl trophy
Kid priorities in no particular order
National Championship, tits, Can you get me to the NFL, tits, ass, Can you get me to the NFL, tits
November 30th, 2011 at 7:57 PM ^
Playing in a BCS bowl isn't about this year's recruits. Its about the kids who are in middle school and freshmen in high school who will someday be studs for a college squad. They have grown up knowing Michigan as the team that struggle bussed their way through the last few years, not as the team that won the '97 championship when they were still fresh out the womb (if they had even been born yet). They don't know the tradition and past excellence like we do. So playing in a BCS bowl game gives them exposure to the Michigan of now. Even if its over a small school like Houston a BCS game still carries a lot more weight to the general public than a lesser bowl.
November 30th, 2011 at 10:05 PM ^
November 30th, 2011 at 6:25 PM ^
"So to those of you that want to go to the Sugar Bowl can you explain why?" - Ziff72
Ratings.
Selling the Michigan brand to others.
???
Profit.
November 30th, 2011 at 6:42 PM ^
1. Ratings-Why do you care about ratings
2. Why do you care about selling UM's brand?
3. Profit- I'm pretty sure it has been proven you don't make anymore money going to a BCS game. You share the money and are locked into a ridiculous ticket scam. I'm not 100% sure, but I think it's most profitable to be part of a conference that gets 2 conference bids but not be 1 of those 2 teams.
Man I hate this system. Where's my playoff.
I will say it is interesting how the system has brainwashed us into thinking about things like prestige and brand and not being in a playoff game.