BCS and NY6 Bowls

Submitted by waliwiz1 on January 10th, 2019 at 7:14 AM

This chart shows inclusion records for Bowl Games. to see the whole article go here.

https://www.reddit.com/r/CFB/comments/ae9475/bcs_and_ny6_bowls/

Posted by

Alabama • /r/CFB Brickmason

u/RealBenWoodruff

18 hours ago

BCS and NY6 Bowls

Analysis

Hey guys. I was curious so I put together a list of the appearances, wins, and win percentage for both the BCS (1998-2013 season) and the CFP (2014 to current season) so we can get a sense for these last 20 years. I plan to do a later project looking at "Major Bowls" going back to the first Rose and this was an easy step in that larger project.

Without further ado, here is the table.

SchoolBCS BowlsBCS WinsWin PercentageNY6 BowlsNY6 WinsWin PercentageTotal BowlsTotal WinsTotal Win Percentage

Ohio State10660.0%6583.3%161168.8%

Alabama6350.0%9666.7%15960.0%

Oklahoma9444.4%4125.0%13538.5%

Florida State8337.5%3133.3%11436.4%

USC7685.7%2150.0%9777.8%

Clemson2150.0%7671.4%9666.7%

Florida7571.4%11100.0%8675.0%

Oregon5360.0%2150.0%7457.1%

Wisconsin5240.0%22100.0%7457.1%

Michigan5240.0%200.0%7228.6%

LSU5480.0%11100.0%6583.3%

Georgia3266.7%3133.3%6350.0%

Stanford5240.0%11100.0%6350.0%

Comments

Chaco

January 10th, 2019 at 11:14 PM ^

It was sort of a tongue in cheek comment because it is largely irrelevant to our results on the field.  But I've been two 2 Rose Bowls and thought having about 35% of the stadium when we played USC and Washington State was not bad given distance.  I also saw a Hall of Fame bowl game against Alabama (long time ago but my memory was we had maybe 40% of the stadium) and this years Peach Bowl in Atlanta where we had ~ 35% of the stadium.  Again, given the distance and that those numbers are maybe 20,000 - 35,000 fans depending on capacity and attendance assumptions I don't think that is really that bad.

Arb lover

January 10th, 2019 at 11:20 AM ^

So championship teams count double? and we are only looking at certain bowls? got it. 

During an 11 year segment of this time period 1998-2008, Alabama won 1 bowl game. (2 more were vacated for cheating). One bowl game. Statistics tell different stories depending on how you phrase it.

In those 21 years (1998-2019):

Alabama has gone to a bowl 18 years, and has a bowl record of 50% on the first bowl with 6 crap bowls played. Top ten final rank: 14x.

Ohio state has gone to a bowl 19 years, and has a record of 53% with 2 crap bowls. Top ten final rank: 15x.

Oklahoma has gone to a bowl 20 years, and has a record of 45% with 5 crap bowls. Top ten final rank: 13x.

Florida State has gone to a bowl 20 years, and has a record of 55% with 9 crap bowls. Top ten final rank: 7x.

USC has gone to a bowl 15 years, and has a record of 53% with 7 crap bowls. Top ten final rank: 9x.

Clemson has gone to a bowl 19 years, and has a record of 53% with 11 crap bowls. Top ten final rank: 5x.

Florida has gone to a bowl 19 years, and has a record of 58% with 2 crap bowls. Top ten final rank: 8x.

Oregon has gone to a bowl 19 years, and has a record of 53% with 13 crap bowls. Top ten final rank: 8x.

Wisconsin has gone to a bowl 20 years, and has a record of 57% with 10 crap bowls.Top ten final rank: 7x.

Michigan has gone to a bowl 18 years, and has a bowl record of 39% with 2 crap bowls (still not good). Top ten rank: 5x.

 

Looking at these numbers more broadly, while Michigan does have a worse bowl record, they are playing in the higher visibility/higher ranking bowls much more frequently than they should with rarely having a top 10 rank. Only playing 2 crap bowls, other teams in that category are Florida and Ohio State, who average double the number of top ten rankings. 

In short Michigan travels well, and gets to play teams it probably shouldn't beat in larger bowls as a result. (Not every year). If Michigan had played 5-6 more years of music city/sun/aloha/champs sports/pinstripe bowls against unranked teams, it's quite possible their bowl showing would be up into a normal range.

 

treetown

January 10th, 2019 at 8:16 AM ^

The environment for the bowls has and will continue to change.

1. More of the top players will opt out to prep for the pro camps - it just is logical and financially rational.

2. So what can the coaches do? They get to tune and tinker. They also get one last chance in the season to burnish their resumes in case they are looking to move up or out.

They want the extra game. AND there are some benefits for the players as well.

3. For the seniors (e.g. anybody whose eligibility is running out) this is their last chance to get some tape to showcase their skills. The coaches should point this out and offer to get them into the rotation. For 95% of them, this is it, the last time they'll suit up and play a real game of FB.

4. For the juniors and sophomores - this is the first day of next year's training camp - positioning themselves for next year's depth chart.

5. For the freshmen - anyone who can play and not burn a redshirt should see action. Getting to play is something they all want and getting into a "name" bowl on TV would be nice. They should hit the playbook studies hard because they will play.

6. Suggest to some of the seniors that they might want to play some special team snaps because if they do make a pro roster and they are not in the group that (number 1) that are known entities, being able to play on the special teams is a plus for roster retention.

7. Have fun - have the OC/DC open up the playbooks and try stuff they had prepped and never got to use, run stuff that they wonder about - fake FG, fake punts, variations of onside kicks.

We've seen a lot of games where one side is simply not into it emotionally. They were primed for a drive for the CFC and when they fell short, they didn't have much left to play for - and that is the reality. The coaches, teams and ultimately us fans have to face the facts. Just like the teams that are mathematically eliminated and are just playing out the schedule in the MLB,NBA, NHL, etc, there are a lot of teams that are doing that at the end of the year - so why not make it productive and useful in some other way?

 

uofmdds96

January 10th, 2019 at 8:59 AM ^

Points 3,5 and 6 confuse me.  If a senior is not a starter, he ain't going to the NFL.  Adding one more game to his resume is not going to do it.  So playing all of them is pointless for their future as a player.  If we are having a church flag football game then by all means play everyone as if we were up 50 points.  IF they have not played a special teams snap before, why would they now.  Are we not a meritocracy any longer?  Freshman should be doing all that they can already.

This could be the biggest millennial snowflake post of all time!

LSAClassOf2000

January 10th, 2019 at 9:24 AM ^

I think #3 is really only applicable to that handful of players that have a shot at being drafted, assuming a given team has anyone on the NFL radar at all (some do not). That sort of feeds into #6 here, because potential high picks aren't going to play another position most likely, and anyone who is there in full knowledge that the bowl they play their senior year is the last game they'll ever play, it doesn't matter anyway. 

#7 usually infuriates me because now and again I sit there thinking, "Where the hell was THAT all season?" when something bizarre by the playcalling standards of the staff actually works well. 

Mongo

January 10th, 2019 at 8:18 AM ^

There has to be some reason our bowl record is such an outlier  - it goes all the way back to Bo's era.  Maybe it is because our final exam schedule is right in the middle of bowl prep?  

For example, OSU's finals are Dec 6-12 and UM's are Dec 13-20.  Basically, the week off at the end of the regular season for the players at OSU is exam week and then they come back 100% focused on bowl practice.  Heck, they don't even have classes to get in the way of player led practices during the 3 weeks of bowl prep.  

Michigan is the only school that has final exams that late in December.  I know when my son came home after his UM finals he basically slept for two days ... wiped out until after x-mass.

Twitch

January 10th, 2019 at 8:51 AM ^

I honestly believe Bo didn't help the psyche of his team by always saying their goal was to win the big ten championship and let other people handle the rest.  In the bowl game especially, you've either already met your goal and there's nothing else to accomplish that has been emphasized, or you didn't and can't meet your top overall goal and so there's not much to play for.  I know they preach winning the game but Bo always beats into their skull that winning the league was priority number 1.  Psychology plays a huge role in college football and I have at least a suspicion that was why most of his losses happened.  Just my opinion, don't crucify me.

maizenbluenc

January 10th, 2019 at 9:10 AM ^

I think Bo constructed the team to win the Big Ten, and then he'd come up against those newfangled west coast offenses. Late Bo - maybe starting with Harbaugh - adapted. Mo and Carr took that a little further. Then ...

On the other hand, it's been a long time since we won one of those. Sure would be nice...

Also, the B1G has specialized forever in arranging bowl mismatches - always playing an opponent one level above.

Michrider41

January 10th, 2019 at 9:31 AM ^

^^This^^  Remember when #1 and undefeated BYU played 6-5 Michigan for a National Championship?  It has been going on forever.  Mediocre 7-5 Michigan plays #21 Miss State in 2010 and gets blown out, shocker.  2012 8-4 Michigan plays #10 South Carolina and loses 33-28.  Since Michigan, Iowa, Wisconsin etc., all travel well the bigger bowls want them, but it doesn't always set up competitive match ups.  

707oxford

January 10th, 2019 at 10:38 AM ^

My gripe has long been that M is almost always playing a de facto road game in their bowls, with the venue typically being in the opponent’s conference footprint. These last four games are a good example. This is another reason I’d love to expand the playoffs and have the early rounds hosted on campus - would be great to bring some of those southern teams north for big games. 

Howeva, seeing the OP’s stats is a bit disappointing because while bowl location remains a disadvantage, OSU has the same disadvantage and has been able to overcome it just fine. 

befuggled

January 10th, 2019 at 9:04 AM ^

I'd like to blame at least a small part of it on the Big Ten's decision not to allow any team besides the champion to play in a bowl game. This mean that in Bo's first six seasons, four of his teams (with records of 9-1, 10-1, 10-0-1 and 10-1) all stayed home.

While there are no guarantees, playing more bowl games over that period would have allowed him to learn how to prepare for the damn things a bit sooner than he actually did. Bo's record in bowl games was .500 after the seventies, and he had made changes in how he prepared the team by then.

I'll add that he might have had the opportunity to play in a few more bowl games with over-matched opponents, which might have helped him win a few. (Admittedly, it didn't help against Stanford and Washington in the Rose Bowl in the seventies, but a man can dream, can't he?)

Michrider41

January 10th, 2019 at 9:23 AM ^

The one thing that chart shows is the drop off of FSU, Florida and USC and the growth of Clemson in the ACC.  FSU and Clemson are directly correlated.  No team in the PAC12 has filled USC's void.  Florida is on the way back with Mullen, hopefully, between them and Georgia they will knock Bama down a peg.  

1VaBlue1

January 10th, 2019 at 9:35 AM ^

Your chart sucks and you should feel bad for showing that to us.  Especially this week - hasn't this week been shitty enough, already? 

I mean, the only bright spot about posting this to close out a shitty week is to pack it all in this one week period.  So there's that, I guess.

But damn, this week has seen shitty news on each day.  WTF is going to happen tomorrow?

Arb lover

January 10th, 2019 at 10:13 AM ^

So some Alabama fan wants to look better after his embarrassing loss, so he cherry picks the last 20 years of a specific few statistics? Coincidentally following the year after Michigan's championship?

I mean, if we want to cherry pick statistics from just this year,

The B1G had a winning bowl record this year. The SEC did not.

smwilliams

January 10th, 2019 at 10:52 AM ^

I'll take the positive spin and say, hey, despite the RichRod and Hoke years, Michigan is tied for 8th in BCS and NY6 appearances in the past 20 years. The year before this they won the National Championship.

Top 10 program is not a terrible place to be. 

Wolverine Devotee

January 10th, 2019 at 12:42 PM ^

Bowl games matter. All the zeroes who said they don't were the ones bitching the loudest after the Peach Bowl. 

They're not exhibition games. They propel you into the offseason or you sludgefart into the offseason in BPONE. Your seniors get to leave with a championship ring, a trophy and a championship shirt and hat if you win. This was the greatest feeling in the world in 2011 and I hope we can feel it again next year-

136392389_crop_650x440.jpg

I said prior to the game that it was the most important bowl since the 1998 Rose Bowl because a loss would mean we're right back to where we were a year ago during the offseason and look what happened. We're right back where we were with people arguably feeling worse than last year.

This loser attitude of bowls don't matter needs to go. Just because we haven't had the best luck in them historically doesn't mean they don't matter.

M-Dog

January 10th, 2019 at 1:14 PM ^

Michigan sucks at bowl games.  Water is wet.

If you did one of these comparisons since the Bo era, it would look even worse.

I saw every single one of those bowl games live, with the exception of the '69 season Rose Bowl and the '71 season Rose Bowl, and I've since seen those two on video.

We lost quite a few of those games.

It hurts to say it, but I will say this unequivocally:  Most of the time, Michigan simply lost to a better team. 

We got into those games with better teams because of our name and / or because of our dominance over a relatively weak Big Ten.

We lost to teams that had better athletes and more explosive schemes.  We were able to keep it close, to our credit, but we were not able to prevail in those games.

Michigan did not play in a style that facilitates victories over superior teams.  Our close-to-the-vest style of play got us into those bowls in the first place, which us good, but it was not an equalizer when we matched up with better athletes.   If we did not have an edge in athletes, we did not have an edge.

It is what it is.  There are not really that many teams that are better than Michigan.  We lost to some truly great teams.

Michigan has been a perennial top 10 power, but when we matched up with top 5-level teams in bowls - which happened a lot because we are Michigan - we struggled.