Recruits will like it. It carries weight whether it should or shouldn't.
alternate headline: man does job
Recruits will like it. It carries weight whether it should or shouldn't.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Home game? I get that it wouldbe close to Houston but do the Cougar fans really travel all that well?
I'm sure all thousand of them could make the trip, New Orleans isn't too far away from the Houston area
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.
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.
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.
Houston or not, playing a top-10, undefeated team in a BCS bowl is a big game. No matter the opponent.
This was a fun thread, thanks for starting it Ziff.
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
1. New Orleans is the tits.
2. It's a BCS bowl.
3. $17,000,000 vs. $4,250,000
Yep, I'm sold.
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
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.
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.
I was completely persuaded by the OP's reasoned argument.
Then you mentioned the tits thing.
Now, you've got me picturing a llama saying tits and I can't stop laughing to myself.
Anyway, I want moar BCSz!
I'll bring the beads!
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.
You're confident? I have three rooms booked for my crew.
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.
BCS bowl. More money, exposure, practice time, and prestige.
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?
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.
For that matter, should Wisconsin want the Capitol One Bowl if UCLA goes to the Rose because Arkansas>UCLA?
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.
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.
Didn't you read the guy who pointed out the Citrus will get better rating swith us in ti?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I would, though, like to briefly discuss my theories about the last episode of Lost...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Then it has to be New Orleans.
"So to those of you that want to go to the Sugar Bowl can you explain why?" - Ziff72
Selling the Michigan brand to others.
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.
1) I don't really, but that's why we would be a realistic candidate should we end up eligible.
2) Why not? It helps my alma mater in some small way.
3) That's exactly what the BCS is about, for better or worse. Mostly worse.
Personally, I would be intrigued more by a playoff system, but sell that idea to the bowl committees. The current BCS contract, I believe, runs out in 2014. Perhaps there is a playoff-oriented replacement worked out by then. I would imagine all the major conferences would want a say in how it would work though.
an uninspiring 2013 BCS matchup combined with a break in one of the NCAA antitrust court cases will be enough to get a playoff system off the ground.
There is no doubt that the schools can lose money on bowls, even BCS bowls. That is because the bowl payouts go to the conference but the individual schools have to buy the tickets--and if they don't sell them, the schools are paying for empy seats.
For example, in 2009 Virginia Tech went to the Orange Bowl, which cost them $3.8 million. The most significant expense was their ticket allotment--17,500 tickets at $125 apiece ($2.187,500). They were only able to sell about 3,500 tickets, so they ate $1.8 million. Then the bowl payout was $17 million, but after sharing it with the rest of the ACC, they only got a cut of $1.6 million. Altogether they had about $2 milliion in revenue and $3.8 million in expenses, so they came out about $1.8 million in the red on a BCS bowl trip.
Presumably Michigan would be able to sell a hell of a lot more tickets than Virginia Tech, but even so it's pretty difficult not to lose money on a bowl game. I believe Bill Martin has said that the only years Michigan actually came out of bowl season in the black were 2008 and 2009.
Because of its timing (mid-afternoon on New Year's), the Citrus Bowl usually has high ratings. For instance:
Michigan-Florida (2008): 9.1
Penn State-LSU (2010): 6.9
That compares to last year's Sugar Bowl (which had OSU-Arkansas, 8.2) or the year before (which had Florida-Cincinnati, 8.6). Last year's Fiesta Bowl was a 6.2 (OK-Connecticut)
An even better chart is here: if people think a bowl a) has marquee teams and b) will be competitive, they'll watch. Otherwise they won't (see Alabama-MSU in last year's game, which everyone knew would be a blowout and they don't care about MSU):
In short, if Michigan would play a more marquee opponent in the Citrus (e.g., Georgia or Arkansas), that would likely deliver higher ratings (or at least equivalent) than Michigan vs. Houston.
Either way, I'll be happy. But if I had to pick, I choose the SEC opponent for the prestige factor.
I suspected as much. Nice stats
Very nice work. So with the help of everyone on the thread we have determined.
Mich/Ark will probably get better ratings than Mich/Hou so for the exposure/recruiting /prestige guys we're better off in the Citrus.
Money is a wash to a loss going to the Sugar Bowl
So we're down to a trophy you will never see and not even sure it is better than the Cap 1 trophy and Mark May and Lou Holtz blowing Michigan for 45 seconds at 6:10 on Sportcenter as the BCS benefits.
I remember Michigan getting a full-on Beano Cook BJ after thumping Penn State on Judgment Day. That felt pretty good. But I'm willing to see what Holtz & May can do.
You forget that this year, the Citrus Bowl is in the middle of a Monday (work or school day for many) and coincides with other interesting bowls, and the Sugar Bowl is on prime time on a day without any other bowls. I'm sure the Sugar Bowl will have much better ratings this year.
Strongly disagree with this: "Mich/Ark will probably get better ratings than Mich/Hou so for the exposure/recruiting /prestige guys we're better off in the Citrus." I consider myself an "exposure/recruiting/prestige" guy. TV ratings are not the metric used to judge those three things; tv ratings judge only how many eyeballs are on a game at any given time. BCS: highest level of bowls. An achievement. The kinds of recruits that are, you know, good at football are watching the Sugar Bowl. It's on a weeknight, the only game on tv, and these are kids who play football. I don't think the variance in ratings has to do with less 16 year old high school football players' viewing habits.
Secondly, I feel like I'm taking crazy pills that people don't see this: The Sugar Bowl. vs. The Capital One Bowl, from a prestige standpoint, isn't a contest at all. One is a BCS bowl game, historic, in prime time, in New Orleans, at night, that is highly selective in that you have certain criteria regarding your national rank and conference rank that you must meet to even be eligible for. The other is for a moderately good team from the SEC vs. a moderately good team from the Big Ten, teams that didn't finish in the top 2 in their conference. It hasn't been the Citrus Bowl for quite awhile, but it was and has been the butt of jokes-- Spurrier talking about how Tennessee must really know Orlando well by now (at the time), etc. Even though the matchup may not be as good, it's the fucking Capital One Bowl. We all have a higher opinion of it now than we did before due to the UM-FL game that was Lloyd's last, but I remember always being pissed when we ended up in it. The Rose Bowl is the grandaddy of them all; the next "tier," to me (and I think to many CFB fans) are the Orange and Sugar and Fiesta. They are BCS bowl games for a reason.
I guess I'd sum it up like this: in 3 years, if you were talking to someone, would you want to say "that's the year we went to the Sugar Bowl," or "we went to the Capital One Bowl that year." ? Okay, I'm sorry we may have to play Houston instead of Arkansas, but come on, maaan- it's the Sugar Bowl. And it's in New Orleans! If we go to the Sugar Bowl, I will try to go. If we went to the Capital One Bowl, I'd be like "yeah, no way in hell I'm shelling out that loot to go to a non-BCS bowl game in Orlando." I don't think such a stance is an outlier.
I believe Spurrier's joke was "You can't spell Citrus without UT"
I completely agree. There is no comparison in today's college football climate. BCS bowls are more desirable for a program, players, and future recruits.
has one of the lamest parades associated with it. Take a small town Midwest 4th of July parade and plop it into a dingy-looking downtown Orlando with some second-rate has-beens as commentators, and you've got the Citrus Parade. I'd rather have the MMB in NOLA. Looks like any parade in NOLA is impromptu and sort of like a Mardi Gras parade. Much preferred over this:
Just found out it has become even lamer - the last vestige of the Citrus Bowl name is gone and the parade will be the "Fresh From Florida Parade" - see here. I vote Sugar for Michigan!
#13 MSU, #15 Wisconsin, #16 Michigan
So if MSU loses there is the threat of ending up with #13 Wisconsin, #14 MSU, #15 Michigan. We jump Georgia when they lose to LSU, but then we're at #15 and on the outside looking in. Unlikely, but Wisconsin losing ensures we jump them.
and not just the places:
13. MSU 0.5369
14. Georgia 0.5348 - essentially tied with MSU
15. Wisconsin 0.4576 - big drop from #14 to #15
16. Michigan 0.4310 - a modest bit behind Wisky
17. Baylor 0.3910 - a decent bit behind us, but they're still playing this week
18. TCU 0.3310 - quite a bit back and not likely a threat
What I find helpful is looking at the point totals as average place-values, since these 4-place numbers don't have much meaning. LSU gets all the 1st place votes from humans and computers, so their BCS score is 1.0000. If you multiply the BCS score by 25 and then subtract from 26, you get essentially the average place-value of a team (this can be done with the 3 individual scores as well). Thus we have BCS place values and (USA Coaches/Harris/Computer place values):
12.6 MSU (10.1/11.2/16.5)
12.6 Georgia (12.2/12.0/13.8)
14.6 Wisconsin (11.6/12.4/19.8)
15.2 Michigan (14.8/15.1/15.8)
16.2 Baylor (18.3/18.2/12.3)
17.7 TCU (16.9/17.5/18.8)
With the human voters, MSU is only 1.5 or 1.2 places ahead of Wisconsin. If MSU wins, they may go up a point on human polls and nudge up a bit with computers but Wisconsin would certainly go down a couple places with humans and likely with computers as well. If Wisconsin wins, it would likely take Wisconsin up a place (13.6) while knocking MSU down a couple places (14.6) leaving them both still ahead of us.
Georgia getting beat by the #1 team could knock them down a couple slots and still be ahead of us.
The big question is how much the human and computer voters punish a team for having 3 losses - do they slot them after all the 2-loss teams, or do they look at who they lost to?
And if RGIII has another breakout day against Texas, how much do the voters congratulate them for the win and move them up a couple places past us?
It doesn't look like a slam dunk. But we can hope the media flurry, Coach of the Year, etc. etc. can help prop us up with the human voters.
Think of it this way: if we had a chance to play Oklahoma in the Capitol One Bowl or play Houston in the Rose Bowl, would you still want to go to the Capitol One? The prestige of the Sugar Bowl is comparable to that of the Rose Bowl.
Yeah no question I would prefer the BCS bowl over any others. Something about winning the sugar bowl in Brady Hoke's first year just has a nice ring to it. Especially since our last BCS win was way back in 2000 against Bammy.
Michigan doesn't need $, prestige, or a BCS bowl win vs Houston. Thats a huge * IMO.
I'll take an SEC opponent anyday. It'll help the team and test them for next season.
Ask yourself this, if Michigan beats houston where will they be ranked preseason? Now if they beat UGA or ARk? What if they stomp UGA or Ark worse than LSU did?
UM will get much more respect beating the SEC team then winning the sugar. That will help in the polls, which helps recruiting...blah blah blah.
All your questions are hypothetical.
IF Michigan beats Houston, where will they be ranked preseason? A lot higher than losing in the Capital One Bowl.
IF Michigan beats a two-three loss Arkansas, Georgia, ect. they will probably get the same vote for beating an undefeated Houston team.
Also, Michigan doesn't need money, prestige, or a BCS Bowl win? Are you kidding? The previous 131 teams BUILT Michigan for what it is today. Team 132 going forward are going to KEEP building Michigan. Presitge just doesn't grow on trees.
UM crushing an SEC will look better and get them ranked higher preseason then crushing Houston. You could argue that they would get a lot more respect too. Look at the fawning by the media for LSU for crushing Ark....
And my point is, if Michigan doesn't get a BCS bowl game THIS season, its not like all of a sudden people are going to forget who has the winged helment. The prestige argument is a joke when looking at one bowl game in a vaccum (excluding the Rose or NC).
If one game was that important then Michigan would have fallen off the map after the last 3 years. Thats obviously not the case as we will jump a lot of teams for a BCS bowl if we are top14. UM has cache, always will.
Who cares about preseason ratings?
Our first game next year is against an SEC team that will have played in the National Championship game. How we do in that game will pretty much determine how we are perceived, and pretty quickly.
The question you need to answer is why bowls hold little interest for you. Hard to understand how you can be a Michigan football fan and make that statement.
Winning the Sugar Bowl means something no matter who you beat, winning the Capital One bowl? not so much. Michigan fans of all people should understand the power of tradition.
Not to mention its a prime time game with zero game competition, much bigger stage.
And btw we'll do quite well to beat Houston.
Finally, "midnight finish on a work night", seriously?
Bowls are meningless in the big scheme of things. Do you actually feel worse we lost the Sugar Bowl to Auburn way back when?
My priorities as a huge Mich fan
1. National Championship
2. Big Ten Chamnpionship
Big drop off
10 Beat OSU
15 Beat MSU
16 Could give a shit
Explain to me how any of the things you mention make you feel better or worse? As a competitior you want the best game.
I appreciate how the college football culture has convinced you the Sugar Bowl means something. I have no idea what and would honestly like you to explain what you mean that it means more. Beating Arkansas is better.
We are actually underdogs in a hypothetical Houston matchup.
I am sure a BCS bid matters to the AD. It pays out more than the Capital one bowl. By a large margin.
Its always dangerous to go here, but dude you're not a Michigan fan. If you don't care that we lost the Sugar to Auburn versus having won it (and I remember watching that game as a kid and being heartbroken we lost), and you have 9 priorities as a Mich fan bigger than beating OSU, etc, you are not a Mich fan.
I care deeply about every game we play. You sound about the same age as me. The point is when you think about Michigan football which I do a lot, what matters to you?
Winning the Big Ten while beating OSU.
Rose Bowls(Because we won the Big Ten) and get to play a great team
I loved beating Bama in the Orange Bowl, but once it's over it is over because I'm on to the next season. The reason I usually want to go to a BCS game is you play a great team. This is a rare year the lesser bowl has the better team.
Your line of thinking is ridiculous. You go ask the players and the coaches where they want to play a bowl game. Everyone of them would say we want to play on the biggest stage in the best bowl game. It doesn't matter who we play whether it be Arkansas or Houston or Eastern Michigan. It's a BCS game. It's the best game the system provides us and we can't change the system. Look how many other games are on January 3rd. You think playing Arkansas in the Capital One bowl is better than playing in the Sugar Bowl? Insanity.
Michigan, regardless of how fucked up the system is, should want to play in the highest profile bowl game they can every year no matter what. Our goal is to win the Big Ten championship, yes. But saying you want to go to a lesser bowl game is just being a selfish fan without caring what is best for the program.
It's been established the Citrus Bowl will probably get better ratings.
Read this article. You are delusional.
Sugar Bowl: 2011(8.2) 2010(8.5) 2009(7.8) 2008(7.0) 2007(9.29)
Capital One: 2011(3.69) 2010(6.83) 2009(6.4) 2008(9.18) 2007(5.81)
You have something there but you do realize who was in the Cap 1 bowl in 2008? I think a Mich/Ark game would do nearly the same as the Sugar Bowl.
Florida had the current Heisman winner and Michigan had a legendary coach in his last game. Don't expect that to be repeated this year, especially since no one cares about Arkansas (especially compared to Tebow, Urban, etc).
The 2008 Sugar Bowl was Georgia vs Hawaii. It was basically a given that a game featuring: The Heisman Trophy Winner, Reigning National Champions, Legendary Coaches last game, a high-profile Senior Class making a last stand, and the two teams everybody was arguing about which one should make the National Championship the year prior, would easily beat out the storyline of "Should Hawaii be in the MNC?"
There was only one other game competing with the Cap One Bowl for viewers back in '08 -- the Gator Bowl, which featured two second tier programs in Texas Texas and Virginia.
This year's Cap One Bowl will be in direct competition for viewers with no less than three other bowls -- the aforementioned Gator, as well as the Outback and TicketCity.
Numbers for the Cap One Bowl will most assuredly be less than the Sugar Bowl, regardless of who plays in the game.
Yeah, I'm not going to cast aspersions re: "fandom," as that's kind of dumb, but I will say this: That Orange Bowl to you was just another game. To me, a college freshman at U of M at the time, it was and is fucking awesome. It is one of my favorite games U of M has played in the last 12 years. Like top-5 or top-8 for sure. It was the Orange Bowl. On National TV. In prime time. Against a badass Alabama team.
I just...can't wrap my head around your line of thinking with respect to bowl games. I think it may come from a fundamental difference of opinion in the importance of such bowl games in marketing a program/building a program/keeping a program's prestige. I know that such concepts are currently taboo due to Dave Brandon's going waaaaay too far with respect to marketing/branding, but the fact of the matter is, Michigan is a big deal because of winning and playing in big games that are events. That cachet wasn't just earned 1890-1950; it's been galvanized by success in the television era. We need to keep doing that. And the BCS is a big f'ing deal to players and recruits and most fans. Yours truly obviously included. It's an achievement in and of itself to get there. You don't brag about going to the Capital One bowl. You do brag about going to BCS games. There's a difference because it matters to people.
Fuck Bo Jackson.
One of our most irritating losses of all time. We keep the legendary Bo Jackson completely out of the end zone, and yet we still lose on field goals.
Yeah, I care.
But after how they thought they'd truck us, and we basically stuffed them, to not come home with a victory...
I mean, I understand people who just treat it as a some fun at the end of the week...but if these things don't gnaw at you, why would you be fan enough to post on MGoBlog? I care.
Well Bo was one of those guys that treated it as a reward to his players and not as important as the Big Ten or Ohio St.
Reasons why I don't put much stock in bowl games.
1. It's played often times 40 days after the season has ended. Games are often times sloppy and not indicative of how your team really is.
2. As Michigan we have often times had to play in the other teams home stadium or most of the time really close.
How fair is it that we have to play UCLA or USC in basically their home stadium and climate and then be judged for our performance in such game?
As a kid growing up my favorite team was Michigan. My next team was Nebraska. Each year appeared the same as the last. Michigan got to California to play USC and Nebraska go to Florida and play Miami or Florida St. Most years they would lose. From as early as 10 years old when SPORT magazine(Yes SPORT magazine the guys over 40 on the board will know it) unveiled their wacky playoff idea I was hooked. Let's see those bastards come to Ann Arbor in December to play a game and we'll see who's best.
Maybe my wording came out wrong, but I watch every bowl game very intensely and I yell and scream at the TV but in the end I care about working towards Big Ten Championships and National Championships. I don't see how that makes me less of a fan.
And when the OP of a post regarding bowl game preferences says this:
"Bowls are meningless in the big scheme of things."
I know I'm done reading.
The same thing that makes me want M in one bowl game more than another is the same thing that makes you want to beat OSU and MSU more than "Could give a shit". Tradition.
And yes, still pissed that we held Bo Jackson and Auburn without a TD and still lost.
I was 2 years old when this game was played. Glad my dad taped the game. I'd hate to be a guy who watched an old Citrus Bowl on VHS when he was a kid. Those kids are called "Illinois fans" now. No thank you.
I would think Arkansas would go to the Cotton Bowl. Sugar vs. Cap One? Be serious.
You must be the only person in history that would rather not go to a BCS game.
To top that off, one of your reasons is because you'd have to stay up past midnight on a work night. Honestly, you'd rather go to a lesser bowl because you'd rather get more sleep? Come on man...
Ok you got me, the sleep thing is lame, but I was just trying to point out there is no logical reason to want to play in the Sugar Bowl other than being brainwashed by the BCS.
I'd rather play Arkansas any day of the week vs Houston.
You didn't give a reason why you want to go to the BCS.
Another thing the Sugar Bowl has going for it is that the game is still actually called "The Sugar Bowl." The bowl game in Orlando that used to be called the Citrus Bowl is now called the Capitol One Bowl, and has been for quite some time. If it was still called the Citrus Bowl, I might be less averse to it. But who wants to go to a game named after a credit card company when you can go to one named after sugar?
Isnt't it 'The Nokia Sugar Bowl?m
Well sure, it's the Nokia Sugar Bowl just like it used to be the USF&G Sugar Bowl, or the FedEx Orange Bowl, or the Rose Bowl is now "The Rose Bowl presented by Vizio." It is still recognizable as the "Sugar Bowl." If it was just the "Nokia Bowl," that would be a different story. Pretty soon, hardly anybody will remember that the Capitol One Bowl used to be called the Citrus Bowl, or that the Outback Bowl used to be the Hall of Fame Bowl.
Then again, even if it was the Nokia Bowl, I'll take a cell phone company over a credit card company any day.
When Capital One is taken over by the First National Bank of China nobody will even know what the "Capital One Bowl" was. They'll always know what the Sugar Bowl was.
i'd rather play ina bcs bowl regardless of the opponent
I think the sugar bowl would be a great opportunity to showcase how far we have come since last bowl season. Playing Houston would also be a godsend because, while Case Keenum is good, he certainly has no Devier Posey as a receiver, and we will maybe actually decide to put safeties in pass coverage because Keenum can't run like Braxton can.
Our performance against Ohio State will probably not be indicative of how we play against Houston (if we are selected to the Sugar against them) and I am confident that it would be a good challenge with Michigan coming out on top, further solidifying our national brand.
Won't even watch other games this Sat. Who cares?
1. BCS bowls, in the minds of most, usually consist of the nation's best teams/programs.
2. We want to be one of the nation's best teams/programs.
3. It is beneficial to our cause when we compete in BCS bowls.
The only thing I care about are winning NC's and Big Ten championships. I don't see how either bowl helps more or less in that cause.
We are Michigan!!! We are one of the nations best programs.
What "cause" are you working towards?
Look at Stanford last season. They did not win a Pac-10 title. They did not win a MNC. However, they went to the Orange Bowl and beat Virginia Tech. They were crowned Orange Bowl champions, got a neat trophy and had some cool shirts & hats, and talk of Stanford's great season dominated ESPN for a day or two.
If Michigan goes to the Sugar Bowl and wins, that's what we'll get. Why would we not want that? And no, we will not get the same thing by winning the credit card bowl.
"We" get none of that. The only tangible thing you get is Mark May telling you Michigan is good.
Personally that means nothing to me, but I give you credit for coming up with something tangible among the 50 threads.
My sleep argument was blasted away so we're down to this argument
Better opponent vs Mark May greeting card. Fight!
I think you are overlooking the tangibility of Sugar Bowl hats & shirts. Nobody wants Capitol One Bowl hats & shirts--besides, you can get those free with a credit card application.
with Peggy? Or the suave people on the skilift? Or is it the one with the Vikings? If it's not Peggy, we don't want to go.
It's Peggy and the Vikings, so Ziff is right. Right?
I think he stated the "cause." It's to be considered one of the best teams in the country. That path is paved with BCS bowls regardless of the opponent. Are people going to fault Oklahoma for playing Connecticut in the Fiesta Bowl in 5-10 years time? No, they will simply be acknowledged for having one more BCS win in the recent past, explaining why they are still among the nation's elite programs.
tell those slappies you'd rather see wisconsin crush their dirty players into the turf so their immoral pipsqueak of a coach has to watch the last chance he's going to have at a conference championship turn into michigan going to a better bowl than his gang of lowlife criminals.
Winning a BCS game would be huge considering Michigan hasn't won one since the 1999 season. That is way too long. I want to get that monkey off our backs even if it does come against Houston. Michigan has played in the Capitol Bowl game enough.
OP, whatever you are smoking, please pass it.
Actually, the capital one people are pretty excited about Nebraska since they obviously never had Nebraska. It is quite possible for UM to slide to the Outback bowl or lower if they get squeezed out of the top 14.
The Sugar Bowl people are salivating over having UM though, so I expect them to get their way one way or the other.
Any sources to back that up? It's believable, I just want to know whether or not someone credible has mentioned it. I personally would prefer Tampa as a location rather than Orlando, as I was just in Orlando a few months back.
I am actually hoping we go to the capital one bowl for a few reasons. One, I have family in Charleston, SC I can visit on the way down to Orlando. Secondly, tickets are cheaper for the capital one bowl. Finally, I really want to go to the Wizarding World of Harry Potter at Universal Studios. I heard it is insane.
You heard right. It is awesome. And not only do you get to go into the WWofHP but you also get into the rest of Universal Studios down there too. Not cheap, but well worth it. And they serve a variety of beers there too, that makes it all that much better.
so should you.
history lesson, I thought the BCS startd the year after!!! Regardless, I still think a BCS birth means you had a really good season if not great season.
Going to a BCS establishes a reputation. We've probably convinced ourselves otherwise, but I wouldn't be surprised if we went undefeated this year and were still denied entry into the MNC due to the past three years and the constant blow J that the BCS gives the SEC and apparently the Big 12.
We're much more likely to be considered for the MNC if we have a recent BCS appearance on our record...especially a BCS win.
Oh, wait...Ziff wrote this. That explains why it's borderline depressing and/or nonsensical.
Ignoring the insults you are submitting a theory that requires a little thought.
After a little thought I say it's probably bs.
Oklahoma St was in if they went undefeated. Not really any BCS history or tradition
Auburn was garbage before last year.
If you want to establish a rep because you think we need one to get to the MNC game it is much more beneficial to beat Arkansas.
If we go undefeated next year and don't get in to the MNC because we played in the Citrus I'd well.... it wouldn't happen.
On the other hand, if Oklahoma State wins Saturday then they and Alabama will both finish with one loss. I believe OK State will have more wins against ranked opponents, and OK State will have won their conference--nontheless, Alabama will go to the BCS title game. Could that be because Alabama is an established power, whereas OK State is a relative upstart?
It's probably because Alabama's loss was against the #1 team in OT and OK ST lost to an unranked 6-6 scrub team.
I see your point, but we're not Ok St and the differnce between beating a SEC team and winning the Sugar Bowl is small.
The people who vote in the polls change their logic every year. For instance, another argument you could make this season is that Alabama lost at home, whereas Oklahoma State lost on the road. Irrelevant? Well, in 1998 Florida State and Ohio State each had one loss. Ohio State's loss was to MSU by 4 points. FSU lost 24-7 to NC State, but the voters sent FSU to the national championship game anyway on the argument that Ohio State lost at home, while FSU lost on the road.
I'm not necessarily buying into this theory that winning a BCS game this year will give us more cred for the future, but the "system" (for lack of a better word) is so screwy that you never know what will help you or hurt you.
I agree with Ziff. I don't think it's that big a deal in the grand scheme. The priority is great weather for these players (especially the seniors), a good bowl (which we're guaranteed), and getting more practice time and game experience. Also giving me something to look forward to. I'll be fired up whereever they play, so all this BCS stuff is just more BCS stuff from where I sit.
I also think most of the recruits don't remember the days when the big 5 or 6 New Years Day bowls were the big thing. The difference between the Sugar and the Citrus is likely nothing to them.
WE'RE GOING BOWLING BABY!
so what happens is Georgia wins?
...then it's party at Ziff's house.
I find the match up with Houston intriguing, more intriguing than Arkansas. On offense, I would be interested to see what Denard, Fitz and Co. could do against Houston. I don't think points would be a problem, plus I think both Fitz and Denard could get 200 yards rushing in the game.
Defensively, I would love to see what Mattison could put together to stop Case Keenum and the vaunted Houston passing attack. I think the blitz packages would be exciting to watch. Over under on sacks would be 7. It would be kind of like the '98 Rose Bowl vs Ryan Leaf and Washington State. Bring it on puppy dog!
How bout also adding to the narrative that MICHIGAN IS BACK! I want that reputation again(or even a piece of it) where teams come into the Big House scared and down two TDs mentally. I know a win over Houston won't get us back to that point, but starting to rack up BCS wins and having 8-0 home seasons can't hurt.
I agree, and a narrative like this is at least partially driven by the media -- which obviously sees BCS bowls as more prestigious and more meaningful. Fair or not, the media narrative can significantly influence public perception (and the perception of recruits, casual fans, etc). A BCS bowl win would help shape the narrative favorably heading into the offseason, for Michigan and for the Big Ten.
Ziff72? Not so much.
If the Citrus, er Capital One Bowl was so great, it wouldn't be shoehorned into the world of second tier bowls. No less than three other bowl games will be played concurrently with the Capital One Bowl.
The Sugar Bowl gets a football free timeslot in prime time which means that the eyes of the college football world will be upon U-M.
I'd love to go to a BCS game. HOWEVA, I'm not gonna sit there and hope Sparty wins in order to help us. I'd rather go to a shittier bowl than root for MSU to win. I hope Montee Ball rushes for 200 and at least 3 TDs. Irrational, I know. It's just me.
Well, from what I gather, it doesn't matter to UM which team wins the B1G Championship Game--just that the best thing that could happen is for the game not to be close. So go ahead and root for Wisconsin to win by 30.
That being said, I find your sentiment quite ironic. Usually it is the hallmark of a Spartan to prefer that his opponent fail rather than his own team succeed.
Mark Dantonio, is that you?
Michigan is bowling,why should the competition be question? This isn't Houston five years ago,but a passing team with a aresenal.
I'll take the bcs berth and the 1st of January commercials this year. Its been since 2007,I'm hungry!
Another bonus of the Capital One Bowl
The Blues Brothers Show! I would love get together a huge contigent of Michigan fans for the show.
so i'm hoping sugar bowl
The Citrus is perceived as a lesser bowl, and a win is a win. Houston would be a tough team, but I have a feeling UM would be able to shut them down given enough time. And for these seniors, who have nothing to show except a meh win over Florida and a bad loss to Miss St. in their two bowl appearances, a BCS game to cap off a career would be fantastic; traveling to central Florida doesn't hold a candle to it.
Whoa Whoa Whoa. I agree with wanting to play in the BCS game, but don't call the bowl win over Florida a meh win. That win was bookended by two Florida National Championships. That was a good Florida team. Not to mention that it was also one of the most entertaining games to watch in the last 5 years. I love that game.
That may be so, but I don't think any of the RS seniors even made the trip down to Florida. It's a great Michigan moment, but the majority of these guys only Bowl Experience was last year against Mississippi State
No brainer its the BCS against Houston or whoever we get matched up against.
This thread is beyond stupid, but I'll give my opinion anyway.
Sugar Bowl, and it's not even close.
Thanks for the kind words.
As a bonus I wasn't accused of being Pro RR and Anti Hoke in over 100 responses so I guess I'm making progress.
P.S. You still didn't give a tangible reason you just made fun of the thread which is kinda my point. No one knows why they want to go to the BCS game, they just do.
I still think the number one reason is for the players and the coaches. I have a hard time believing a single player on our team would want to play in a lesser bowl game.
I've stated my point in other posts, but basically:
One is a BCS bowl, the other isn't. This might not matter to you, but it does to many. Perception is reality, and people perceive BCS bowls as being more prestigious, which reflects on the teams playing in them.
Money and prestige for the conference. The Big Ten will benefit from us playing in a BCS bowl. If we lose money on tickets, I doubt we lose any more than we would in the Citrus Bowl.
Time. The Citrus Bowl will be when I'm at work, and will overlap with other bowls. Anyone watching the Gator Bowl or Outback Bowl won't be able to watch ours, same with anyone who has to work or go to school on that Monday. The Sugar Bowl is on primetime and it's the only football game on that day.
If we miss out on the BCS, we aren't guaranteed the Citrus. We might get the Gator Bowl instead.
Making a BCS bowl is a major accomplishment. Making the Citrus Bowl is fine, but being in the Sugar Bowl means you are one of ten teams playing in BCS bowls this year, and that's a big deal. When Hoke talks to recruits about this season, he won't say that we played Houston or Arkansas in a bowl, he'll say we played in the Sugar Bowl or Citrus Bowl. One sounds far better.
Making the BCS is not an accomplishment. It means you were selected by some group of wealthy people who don't know jack shit about football to come to their game because they know Michigan will travel well and get good ratings which will help them in negotiating their next tv deal.
Michigan accomplished 10-2 and 2nd place in the Legends Division. What some suits select from there is not the fault of the players.
As for everyones points. If you are going to the game it's a no brainer.
I still don't see if you are sitting in your living room watching the game like 99% will be doing how does going to the Sugar Bowl vs the Cap 1 Bowl change your enjoyment level.
What I am hearing from everyone is that they would rather watch essentially
Mich vs San Diego St on 8:00 Saturday game on ABC
Mich vs Nebraska on at noon on ESPN
and the reason is....by being on at 8:00 on ABC we get an exclusive chance to sell our brand to the country? Don't buy it.
A lot of you guys have brought up the recruits. I don't really see it but I don't know you may be right. If recruits are looking at where the program is at I'm pretty sure Hoke shows them we were 10-2 last year and that's good enough. We're Michigan 110,000, winged helmets, most wins all time, ya know all that jazz.
Why do you consider Arkansas such a marquee opponent? Arkansas has very little football tradition (Arkansas is historically an MSU level team, except MSU has more MNC's and has actually won the Big Ten before) and has never won the SEC. I'm not claiming that Houston is any better, but we're not talking about a great or even good football program.
And as for the Sugar Bowl increasing viewing pleasure, do you take joy in going to the Rose Bowl? The Sugar is on the same level; we'd be replacing the SEC champion in the game. Finishing second in our division is not a recruiting tool, BCS bowls are, which is most likely a big reason Brady Hoke wants to go.
I think Hoke has changed the tide on the postseason. Hell people in Ohio are going to have two schools in the Pizza Bowl. Never in a million years would I have thought that. Going to a BCS game would be a better start than going to the Capital One Bowl.
your logic defies reasoning...the Sugar Bowl has been a prestigious bowl from the beginning..Its a BCS Bowl..the standard which successful programs are measured..It continues the long Michigan tradition of playing in the most pretigious bowls on News Year Day (or near there)..
Playing a undefeated ANYBODY this late in the year in a BCS bowl would end up being the absolutely BEST CASE SCENARIO any of us could have imagined at the years beginnng..
Its New Orleans fergodsakes...Its a FUN city to go for a few days/nights..It will be a great trip for M fans to plalce we havent been to in awhile...
it will help recruitin ALOT....
I mean there are probably 50 other such reasons why you go to a BCS Bowl...
The way I look at it, a BCS bowl is a BCS bowl no matter who the opponent is. Big Ten teams have not always played the most attractive opponents in a BCS game.
Wisconsin played an 8-4 unranked Stanford team in the Rose Bowl in 1999. They only beat 2 teams who barely finished over .500 and they lost to a 3-7 San Jose State team. The year before, the Badgers beat a UCLA team in the Rose Bowl that had a RichRod type of defense giving up 37 points a game.
Penn State played an 8-4 Florida State team in the Orange Bowl in 2005. The only reason the Noles were in a BCS game was because a conference champion from the crappy ACC had to go.
Iowa played a Georgia Tech team in the Orange Bowl 2 years ago that had no business even being in a BCS Bowl.
If we played Houston in the Sugar Bowl, this would be no different. If we get a chance to play them, great! Plus the Sugar Bowl is the only major bowl we have never won. We played in it once in 1983 against Auburn and we kept the great Bo Jackson (who laughed at the mere thought of playing us) out of the end zone all night. But Auburn kicked a field goal in the final minute to beat us 9-7. I say we go to New Orleans and get a little redemption.
I'll give you Stanford and FSU, but the other teams were highly thought of.
That UCLA team (with off. coordinator Al Borges) was set to play for the national championship before they lost to Miami on the last weekend of the season. (Craig James, by the way, called that Wisconsin team, "the worst team to ever play in the Rose Bowl, though quarterback Mike Samuel is the most underrated QB in college football," why does he still have a job?) I'm sure UCLA was a substantial favorite
Georgia Tech was ranked 9th going into the Orange Bowl and favored by 4 over Iowa. They just ran into a very well prepared Iowa D.
not thrilled about possibility of playing Houston, which isn't a guarantee because they can lose to Southern Miss, I don't mind the additional national attention this team would get playing in a BCS Bowl.
I'd like to see Michigan in the Sugar Bowl, but if they end up at the Citrus Bowl, I may actually get a chance to see them play (it's ten minutes from my house). So I wouldn't be too disappointed. Plus, Michigan played pretty darn well the last time they were here -- I seem to recall lots of glorious Tim Tebow tears...
Greater prestige, greater hype. ESPN will talk about all the majors. And the rest will all be lumped together. That helps the program look to to fans, to recruits. The programs seen as successful are the ones that are regularly playing in BCS games. Even a "name" program like Michigan is seen as down if they're playing too many years in a row in Florida, and not Pasadena or some place more BCS-y.
Houston > Arkansas. You may say "we're Michigan"...but we haven't been Michigan for a number of years. We're not completely back yet. And we can more likely beat Houston out of Conference USA than Arkansas. And right now the program benefits in recruiting and all that other stuff by winning a game to go 11-2 than losing a close game (or...gulp...getting blown out) by an Arkansas. And lets be real...Arkansas is good, but they're not one of the prestige teams in the SEC. It's not beating Bama. There's really not a lot more credit for beating them than Houston...just a lot tougher time doing it. Right now we benefit more from a win than "Taking on all comers". That time will come.
I guess money, but that's a small part. You're getting the bowl ticket screw job at all bowls. Sure, they're more expense at the big bowls..but you're a lot more likely to sell more. Individuals like U-Conn can take gas on it, but with the Big Ten's profit sharing, no one gets hit up that badly.
Fun for those going. Primarily the players, but the fans too. The players get more glory to go to the Sugar Bowl. And they get to go to New Orleans. Don't get me wrong, the Orlando trip is a lot of fun, and wouldn't mind going there. But we've been there quite a few times over the last decade or so. Heck, there are even a few players left who probably have already gone there once. And we haven't been to the Sugar Bowl in almost 30 years. It's a rare chance to get to go there. When you get it, you should take it. (Not to mention, the better the bowl, the WAY better the bowl gifts are for the players. I'm pretty sure I know which way all the players would vote).
And regarding MSU, if someone could show me that MSU losing would absolutely, mathematically, without a doubt, if not get us in, get us a legitimately better chance at getting to a BCS game, I'd root for them. Michigan's success matters more than someone else's failure. But I've seen no one really prove that if MSU loses we're really that much more likely out, so go Badgers.
After the last three years this is an awesome conversation to have.
If you gave me the option of a guarenteed win in the Sugar vs Houston vs a guarenteed win in the CAPITAL ONE BOWL(formerly Citrus Bowl) against Arkansas(or any SEC team for that matter), I would take the Sugar and here is why. Since the BCS has started, we have been to 4 BCS Bowls (3 Rose and an Orange). We are 1-3. In the BCS era, we are 5-2 against SEC teams in Bowl games. We are not Ohio; we do not need to "prove" we can beat SEC teams(in Bowl Games). I'll take the BCS victory, regardless of who it is against!
Sugar Bowl for sure.
On a personal level, it's within driving distance for me and I'm off that week. Uh, yes please!
It's almost as if you are unaware of Boise beating Oklahoma, Oregon, and Virginia Tech. Or Utah beating Alabama. Or TCU beating Wisconsin.
When mid majors go 12-0, it turns out that they are actually pretty good teams. Unless they are Hawaii.
So no, I don't see Houston as a consolation prize compared with Arkansas.
I want to win a BCS bowl so please give me the team we have the best chance to beat. Im very realistic, it hasn't been a great decade. We've won two out of the last ten bowl games we've played. After we win a few then I'll be the tough guy who wants the team that will test us. Unless we're playing for the championship why does it matter anyway? Bring on the weakest team we can play and our first BCS win and I'm a happy man.
have an exciting game (Denard v Keenum) versus possibly getting beaten v SEC team in lesser bowl--yup, I'll take the Citrus???
I get the recruitment prestige angle, and that makes a lot of sense. But another angle is that this is kind of a lose lose situation. We would probably be favored if we play Houston, so if we beat them, its what we were supposed to do and its no big deal. But if we lose, its an upset and we look bad.