Wetzel Claiming Delany Veto'ed Boise State in Sugar Bowl
So, yesterday night, Wetzel tweeted this jem:
Sugar: Michigan-Va Tech. Remember Delany went to wall for Sugar, got Pryor et al eligible. No way going to make UM play Boise. Quid pro quo
He's offered absolutely no, like, EVIDENCE of this scratching of our back, but Scott Van Pelt has been jumping all over it claiming it sounds totally reasonable, which is now turning into all the Boise fans taking it as gospel, and that Hoke and Michigan are cowards, even though Wetzel himself claims no knowledge on Michigan's part of the alledged freezeout.
First, Wetzel is obsessed with Delany. He sees him as the #1 opponent to a cfb playoff and tweets/writes about him once a week minimum. Second, the logic is all off: if the Sugar Bowl was doing the B1G a favor by avoiding a lose-lose scenario with a mid-major, than doesn't that mean Boise would've been better for the Sugar Bowl (as in a better traveling fanbase)? No one claims that. So how can it be both (a) in the Sugar Bowl's best financial interest to book Va Tech, and (b) something they did solely to please Wetzel? What a ridiculous story. Boise fans are going ape over it though, and trashing both Va Tech/Michigan.
December 5th, 2011 at 3:23 PM ^
Ahh college football, gotta love it. GO BLUE! BEAT VA-TECH!
December 5th, 2011 at 3:24 PM ^
I can't stand them and I was hoping for a better litmus test going into the Bama game than VaTech. I think we would beat BSU by 2-3 touchdowns. Stop whining Boise!
December 5th, 2011 at 3:29 PM ^
Why don't you like Tech? I feel the exact opposite - I hate Boise and would have been annoyed if they were chosen over Tech. Boise thrives off a second-rate conference schedule and hired people who decided that blue turf was a good idea. F- them.
December 5th, 2011 at 3:44 PM ^
if we could DumpTruck them in a bowl game, it would make them shut the hell up for a while. Also, I believe Boise is a better team than VaTech and presents more of a challenge schematically wise thus making a victory much more sweeter for our Seniors. Basically I know we as fans, our coaches and players will have their eyes on two things next year...a B1G and BCS title. I think beating Boise would spring board us into next year better than a victory over VaTech
December 5th, 2011 at 3:54 PM ^
I hear you. However, I'd much rather see a victory over Tech than over Boise State. Boise gets a lot of love each year from pollsters because they win and win and win, but I'm a constant skeptic. I think a team like Tech finishes ahead of them if Boise was an ACC member and played the same schedule that Tech does (which isn't saying much since the ACC sucked this year). But what do I know? I just really do not like Boise State.
December 5th, 2011 at 4:09 PM ^
I disagree with your assessment of Boise. I think Boise would run roughshod over the ACC most years, Va Tech included. They always have one game a year where they seem to collapse for a half and it comes down to their kicker (who is about as good as Gibbons 2010), but at worst I think they would pick up one loss in the Big East or ACC and would also be right up there in the Pac12 (where they should be anyway), Big XII, and B1G. I also disagree that we have nothing to gain by a team ranked consistently in the top 5 that continually beats highly ranked teams in big games. Say what you want about only playing a couple a year, but everyone knows they get up for those games and can play with anyone in the country. Plus a win would make people stop talking about them, if that is your cup of tea. I actually think we have less to gain by beating a team like Virginia Tech, who everyone now expects us to beat handily. First ever at-large from the ACC and they have been pounded in their only two games against a ranked team. Almost lost to Duke. How bad are we going to look if we lose to them?
December 5th, 2011 at 4:36 PM ^
That are all good points, but my assessment relates directly to a non-BCS school consistently appearing in the Top 20 year after year despite never playing anyone (save one game a year). Boise State would be a middling BCS conference school. Maybe not the first year or the second year they join, but eventually they would start losing. Losing games then correlates to losing recruits. Its a house of cards - add one or two 3-loss seasons and Boise becomes the average program it would be under difference circumstances. VaTech has been up and down of recent years yet they continue to get good talent. Personally, I would much rather see a matchup of perennial historical powerhouses than a Michigan-Boise State matchup that would have been disgusting 10+ years ago.
You make a good point about the benefit of the bowl win, but I put much less stock in bowl victories than maybe most. A loss in this Sugar Bowl to VaTech would not be any more or less painful than a loss to any other school. Any bowl other than the national championship is simply a viewing spectacle for people to enjoy, in my opinion. Other than getting blown out in a bowl game, I don't think much bad can come from playing whoever gets pitted against my favorite team.
December 5th, 2011 at 4:49 PM ^
It is funny that you talk about losing recruits. All of BSU's accomplishments have come with a roster that currently contains a grand total of ONE Rivals four-star player. The rest are three, two or unranked players. If, however, they played in a major conference that got regular TV exposure and played in high profile bowl games, it might be easier for them to reel in some higher profile players. The point is that they have massively outperformed their talent level. With a better conference likely comes some better athletes. Even TCU has popped up with recruiting classes in the top 25 in recent years, while BSU hasn't cracked the top 50. How can you hate a team that has accomplished so much with so little?
December 5th, 2011 at 5:25 PM ^
Agreed - Boise gets a lot out of the kids that go there. However, it can be said that they are getting the best recruits of those kids that stay and play in the Big West conference. They may not get 5* recruits to rival big-time schools, but I argue that they get the best recruits versus their direct competitors. So the wins over big-time BCS schools are impressive, but the wins against their conference foes is expected due to their superior talent. So, really, are they getting that much out of the talent they have as compared to their direct peers? I say no.
Like you say, they may get higher rated players if they compete in a bigger name conference, but their talent will pale in comparison to their competition (which is not the case today). As such, they will lose more games. In other words, its the competition, on the field and in recruiting, that makes all the difference, especially for a team like Boise State.
December 5th, 2011 at 10:13 PM ^
December 5th, 2011 at 11:35 PM ^
None of it will matter when they don't have Kellen Moore, etc. This team has been extremely gelled and when the seniors leave, they will have a drop in production. At least that's my best guess.
December 5th, 2011 at 8:37 PM ^
You do know that boises kicker was about as automatic as you can get last year until those misses with the game on the line. Boise state plays one top 25 team a year and then sleep walks through cupcakes until a bowl game. Last year when Gordon Gee called them out his only mistake was he called them out on a year when most of their cupcakes where senior heavy and beat other cupcakes. Hell boise can't even run through their cupcake schedule undefeated , it's like Houston complaining they are'nt in the BCS
December 5th, 2011 at 4:12 PM ^
I totally agree with you. I can't state Boise, with their regular 11-1 and 12-0 records against high school junior varsity competition and their painfull-to-look-at field.
I definitely would have enjoyed beating them. That said, they would still scare be a bit as they do have some actual talented players who would create match-up problems for our D. The victory would have been sweeter, but the risk of loss higher (funny how that usually happens).
On the other hand, V. Tech scares me much less, but beating them won't give me the "Hell yeah, FU __ (insert hated team)" feeling.
December 5th, 2011 at 4:22 PM ^
I think that BSU would finish with a loss to VaTech, but would be 12-1 after the ACC championship game.
December 5th, 2011 at 6:20 PM ^
I think it's going to be a bumpy year...sophmore slump maybe. We have a wicked schedule next year, mostly because of the hardest games are on the road (ND, Nebraska, OSU, and playing Bama in the south is a "road" game). The offense should be pretty darn good, but the D may take a step back after losing Martin and RVB (unless BWC steps up big time).
December 5th, 2011 at 6:54 PM ^
for RVB and Martin. GM has had the backups in practice the entire year .... plus next spring and fall camp. From what I hear Quinton Washington will be our next "beast" on the defensive front ... and we lose very little after those 3 guys up front. So will everyone else be better? ... with Mattison, I say yes. I believe the Michigan defense will begin anew to "reload" year after year rather than "rebuild".
Go Blue!
December 5th, 2011 at 8:04 PM ^
Agreed. Still, our schedule next year is indeed killer. Notre Dame at this point is ready to sacrifice their mothers to whatever Touchdown Idol will finally give them a win over us. Alabama in the south is Alabama in the south. Nebraska in Lincoln is a big potential let-down game coming a week after we finally put Lil Bro back in their place. And Ohio in C-bus during UM's (ntUM) first year is going to be tough.
If you say we split the four tough road games, then we have to be perfect in the other games to equal this year's record.
If we stay healthy, we could do it. We'll see. 1997's schedule looked like a killer (and was) but that worked out pretty well.
December 5th, 2011 at 6:32 PM ^
a) Virginia Tech is in the ACC and did not win it. The ACC is not a conference worthy of two BCS selections.
b) Virginia Tech is coming off a 28-point blowout to a team they were favored to beat in their last contest.
December 5th, 2011 at 10:10 PM ^
Although VT is a bigger name and gets people fired up for the Bowl Game they don't deserve to play us in the Sugar. They played no one, and when they did they lost by a combined 48 points. Their only victory over a ranked opponent was Georgia Tech (when they were 23 I believe) and they are not close to being ranked now. Boise beat Georgia in a defacto away game. Kansas State and Baylor had better wins, etc etc etc...
December 5th, 2011 at 3:27 PM ^
"Michigan-Va Tech. Remember Delany went to wall for Sugar, got Pryor et al eligible. No way going to make UM play Boise. Quid pro quo" - Dan Wetzel tweet
I would love to know what the source was on that, because the voices tell me a lot of things too.
December 5th, 2011 at 3:27 PM ^
As long as Michigan wins and gets the money and prestige that comes with the Sugar Bowl, I'm perfectly content with people flipping out about Michigan and/or VaTech being chosen over others. The more consternation, the more likely a change in the system will be made. I say bring on the firestorm - as long as it doesn't adversely affect Michigan.
December 5th, 2011 at 3:28 PM ^
could someone explain a little better WTF that tweet means? A *lot* of back story seems to be omitted.
December 5th, 2011 at 3:57 PM ^
It makes me feel like Phil Hartman's Frank Sinatra. Can't. Understand. A word.
December 5th, 2011 at 3:29 PM ^
screw Wetzel and Boise...we'd beat them just we're going to beat VA Tech
dude should try and come up with something meaningful to "report" instead of sitting at his desk thinking up nonsense
December 5th, 2011 at 3:30 PM ^
This happens every year, people bitch about for a week or so and when the games start everyone shuts up and watches. They should call the Monday after BCS Sunday "Hissy-Fit Monday."
December 5th, 2011 at 3:51 PM ^
Butt Hurt Monday.
December 5th, 2011 at 3:30 PM ^
I wouldn't put it past Delaney, I havent been a fan of pretty much any of his decisions. I was livid when he lumped Michigan with OSU's problems at this year's media day.
December 5th, 2011 at 3:37 PM ^
I can understand why he wouldn't want us playing a non-AQ team. It's sort of a lose-lose situation. If we win, everyone will say "they're Boise, they suck" and we'll get no credit. If we lose, no one will acknowledge Boise is the 7th ranked team in the country. So, I can understand why we wouldn't want to play a non-AQ, and why Delany wouldn't want us to be extension.
That said, the whole story is illogical. If Bowls are soulless entities who only care about butts in seats, TV ratings, and $$$ (as Wetzel rails in his weekly column), then they cannot also be doing Delany favors, especially when said "favor" is highly beneficial to the three things he just claimed Bowls care about. Either Va Tech got picked for $$$ or to satiate evil Jim Delany. You can't really argue both.
December 5th, 2011 at 4:31 PM ^
Anyone who knows college football knows they have a good team and a great program. They have much more credibility than Va Tech at the moment.
December 5th, 2011 at 5:06 PM ^
"They're Boise, they suck." Would people really say that? Maybe people who pay no attention to college football. In the last few years, Boise has beaten Georgia, Va Tech, Oklahoma, and Oregon. The only real blemish in their record are going 1-2 vs. TCU and the loss to Nevada, 2 of those on missed last second field goals that were eminently makeable. Boise's a good team. They've placed numerous players in the NFL. They are willing to play virtually anyone, but few teams are willing to schedule them. They also have a large number of media members who have adopted them as the symbol of the deserving team excluded by the systematic problems of college football.
Playing Boise is now a win-lose, We would get a lot of credit if we played Boise and beat them, but the chance of losing would be very real.
December 5th, 2011 at 6:57 PM ^
Michigan-Boise is not like Georgia-Boise or any of those matchups you listed.
Sure, Georgia is a good team with a pretty good history of winning and from a major conference. For Georgia, read VaTach or Oregon.
But Georgia is no Michigan. Oklahoma is. A historical national powerhouse. One of the most recognizable and revered programs in the country. Michigan is expected to beat Boise, no matter how good they are or how bad we are. It is the way of things.
So, in our case, it would very much be a lose-lose. This is why Boise's win over Oklahoma is still their most remembered game (also came in a BCS bowl, but that's secondary to who they beat). We're no Georgia. With great power comes great responsibility. We must beat the Boise's of the world. The same isn't expected of the Oregon's out there, not to the same degree.
Imagine is Georgia had lost to Appalachian State at home. Big loss, big deal. Not nearly as shocking as Michigan losing to AppSt. in the Big House.
December 5th, 2011 at 8:51 PM ^
I partially agree. Appy State was a big story in the way that, say, James Mason's win over Va Tech wasn't, because they beat Michigan, the winningest team in college football history.
And it would be a big story if Boise State beat us, but a different big story than the Appy State game. That was shocking upset. This would be "more proof that Boise's among the nation's elite." It wouldn't really be an "upset" per se, because Boise would almost certainly be favored by 5-8 points. If we won, there would be a lot of "Michigan's Back." (Which we heard at the end of the OSU game, "Welcome back to national relevance.") Michigan would get credit for doing what those other teams couldn't.
December 5th, 2011 at 4:29 PM ^
Delaney has lost a lot of credibility in my eyes with they way they lobbied to keepo Prior et al eligible for the bowl game and then lumping us in with Ohio's problems.
Not to mention that Wetzel is right about Delaney being one of the biggest play-off opponents which is enough reason to distrust the guy.
December 5th, 2011 at 3:36 PM ^
I love his pretzels
December 5th, 2011 at 3:47 PM ^
faked 9/11 and the moon landings. I thought the MGoCommunity would be wise to his tricks by now.
December 5th, 2011 at 3:48 PM ^
Good, that's why Delaney is making 2-mil a year.
There's absolutely no reason to play Boise. VaTech offers more exposure, more prestige, and, you know, actually makes business sense for the TV networks and bowls.
All we have to gain by playing Boise in the Sugar Bowl is an opportunity to lose to division 1's App State.
December 5th, 2011 at 4:14 PM ^
If we are scared of playing Boise, we're not who I think we are. Delany needs to worry about protecting Ohio State ineligible players. Coach Hoke can take care of Michigan on the football field.
December 6th, 2011 at 1:47 AM ^
It's not being scared, it's just not a matchup with any favorable Michigan outcomes. It's like wrestling a girl*. We lose, then ZOMG Michigan lost to Boise. We win, and meh. See: Oklahoma in 2007.
*Unless you end up having sex with her, but if she's good at wraslin', do you want to be having sex with her?...
December 5th, 2011 at 4:37 PM ^
this mindset is atrocious. Boise State is one of the top football programs in the country over the last decade.
If you're worried about losing to Boise State, then DON"T FUCKING LOSE. DON'T DO IT! Prepare harder than they do (which is tough to do). Prove you are a better team. Put them in their supposed place.
Unfortunately, you may be disappointed to find they could beat us. Good for them. But I'd love to play them. That would be an excellent game to watch.
December 5th, 2011 at 4:45 PM ^
But I think the way a lot of us feel about Boise is that they could well beat Michigan but that Michigan wouldn't get any credit for beating Boise. That's why it's a no-win situation, not because Boise isn't genuinely good.
December 5th, 2011 at 5:09 PM ^
Those feelings, though, have little to do with the way that Boise State has changed their perception. Oklahoma wouldn't have gotten any credit for beating Boise. We would. Boise's continued excellence over the past 5 seasons (beating Oregon, Va Tech, Georgia) has changed their perception among the vast majority of people who watch and write about college football.
December 5th, 2011 at 5:40 PM ^
They're obviously taken more seriously than they were five years ago, but I'm still not sure how much credit Michigan would get for beating them.
December 5th, 2011 at 6:08 PM ^
Certainly more credit, this year at least, than beating Va Tech.
December 6th, 2011 at 1:51 AM ^
Disagree. I'd rather beat VaTech now and next season (because college football media has a memory of a week), a win over VT will look better on a preseason resume because they're VT.
Erik in Dayton knows what's up.
December 5th, 2011 at 6:52 PM ^
Va Tech is currently being held up by the media as everything that is wrong with the BCS at-large system. You think we are going to get credit for beating THEM but not Boise?
December 5th, 2011 at 6:50 PM ^
People are intrigued by Boise, especially when they take on a college football blue blood. You can't be serious that Va Tech is this BIG DRAW.
December 5th, 2011 at 3:51 PM ^
All 10 of them?
December 5th, 2011 at 3:54 PM ^
delicious
December 5th, 2011 at 3:56 PM ^
I read that tweet last night, and although it sounds like a conspiracy, it does make a lot of sense to me.
December 5th, 2011 at 4:00 PM ^
He basically makes semi-coherent arguments with little to no sourcing or credibility and then spends a few thousand words acting like a condescending prick to the readers. "ZOMG teh BCS are like Nazi's speeing about their superior race' and teh Mafia in their extortion of teh poor universities!!1!" after a few dozen articles a month about it, i think we get it dude. You think the BCS is a scam and playoffs are the shit. So does the rest of the country. Stop digging up the dead and buried horse just to keep beating it and actually DO SOMETHING about it.