Citrus Bowl or Bust for Me
On the way home Valenti and Foster were doing the usual baiting Michigan fans into calling up since there are no ratings in talking MSU football.
The premise was would you root for MSU to help Mich get to the BCS? I don't care about that but based on all the diaries posted on here and the callers it does appear that a lot of fans do want to go to the BCS.
My question is why? Bowls hold very little interest for me. The only bowls that I find compelling are against top teams. I would much rather test ourselves against Arkansas than play Houston. If the BCS bid meant we were guaranteed to play Oklahoma, Oklahoma or Stanford than I would be fine with it, but Houston? Who wants that?
If you are not going to the game the only thing that matters about the bowl game is bragging rights and entertainment. Michigan does not need publicity. Come on it's Michigan! So I don't but that argument to go to the BCS
Let's look at the other factors.
Gametime- Advantage Citrus. 1:00 start day off work vs a midnight finish on a work night
Opponent- Advantage Citrus. Arkansas vs Houston Not even close. Plus a win gives us Seee Ceee bragging rights and continues our historical domination of them.
So to those of you that want to go to the Sugar Bowl can you explain why?
November 30th, 2011 at 6:57 PM ^
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.
November 30th, 2011 at 10:08 PM ^
November 30th, 2011 at 7:00 PM ^
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.
November 30th, 2011 at 7:08 PM ^
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
http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2010/01/strong-showing-for-capital-one-…
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):
http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2011/01/college_football_bowl_rating…
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.
November 30th, 2011 at 7:20 PM ^
I suspected as much. Nice stats
November 30th, 2011 at 7:27 PM ^
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.
November 30th, 2011 at 7:46 PM ^
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.
November 30th, 2011 at 8:25 PM ^
November 30th, 2011 at 9:28 PM ^
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.
November 30th, 2011 at 9:56 PM ^
I believe Spurrier's joke was "You can't spell Citrus without UT"
November 30th, 2011 at 10:37 PM ^
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.
December 1st, 2011 at 12:18 AM ^
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!
November 30th, 2011 at 8:13 PM ^
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)
http://www.bcsfootball.org/news/story?id=4819384
I know I already posted this elsewhere. Sorry.
November 30th, 2011 at 6:26 PM ^
I dont understand how them winning helps us. Wisky wins, LSU wins, knocks 13 msu out and 14 georgia out, insert Wisky and UM in top 14...boom.
November 30th, 2011 at 6:33 PM ^
#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.
December 1st, 2011 at 12:46 AM ^
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.
November 30th, 2011 at 6:27 PM ^
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.
November 30th, 2011 at 6:29 PM ^
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.
November 30th, 2011 at 6:31 PM ^
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.
November 30th, 2011 at 6:39 PM ^
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.
November 30th, 2011 at 6:56 PM ^
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.
November 30th, 2011 at 11:16 PM ^
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.
November 30th, 2011 at 6:30 PM ^
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?
November 30th, 2011 at 6:50 PM ^
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
Another Drop
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.
November 30th, 2011 at 6:54 PM ^
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.
November 30th, 2011 at 6:57 PM ^
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.
November 30th, 2011 at 7:16 PM ^
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?
For me
1997
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.
November 30th, 2011 at 7:31 PM ^
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.
November 30th, 2011 at 7:40 PM ^
It's been established the Citrus Bowl will probably get better ratings.
Reconsider?
November 30th, 2011 at 8:04 PM ^
Read this article. You are delusional.
November 30th, 2011 at 8:11 PM ^
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)
November 30th, 2011 at 8:17 PM ^
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.
November 30th, 2011 at 8:30 PM ^
November 30th, 2011 at 9:02 PM ^
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?"
November 30th, 2011 at 9:37 PM ^
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.
November 30th, 2011 at 9:37 PM ^
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.
November 30th, 2011 at 11:01 PM ^
Fuck Bo Jackson.
November 30th, 2011 at 11:24 PM ^
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.
November 30th, 2011 at 11:45 PM ^
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.
December 1st, 2011 at 10:08 AM ^
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.
December 1st, 2011 at 1:19 AM ^
November 30th, 2011 at 6:31 PM ^
November 30th, 2011 at 6:33 PM ^
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...
November 30th, 2011 at 6:54 PM ^
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.
November 30th, 2011 at 6:33 PM ^
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?
November 30th, 2011 at 7:12 PM ^
Isnt't it 'The Nokia Sugar Bowl?m
November 30th, 2011 at 7:25 PM ^
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.
November 30th, 2011 at 11:29 PM ^
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.
November 30th, 2011 at 6:35 PM ^
i'd rather play ina bcs bowl regardless of the opponent
On Wisconsin!
November 30th, 2011 at 6:35 PM ^