Forde: Sugar Bowl a Travesty

Submitted by 1464 on December 5th, 2011 at 4:10 PM

I created the title to this thread to reflect the title of the article he wrote for Yahoo.  I was up in arms while waiting on my browser to load the page and until I scrolled to the part about the Sugar Bowl.  Forde does not think Michigan is undeserving, instead thinks that Boise and K-State got hosed.  No news there, as the twittersphere has been active with the topic.  Below is the excerpt from the article that pertains to our bowl game.  I hope Va Tech sucks as bad as everyone says as the bulletin material has definitely been one sided.

Side note: While we all think the BCS is a flawed system, I argue that the flaws are what appeals to the NCAA.  Aside from the obvious (cash) incentives, talking about teams getting screwed is a yearly thing.  It encites passion among its fans, both positive and negative.  It keeps our interest.  The old addage about Howard Stern applies...

Click here for the link

The presence of Virginia Tech in a BCS bowl is an absolute, complete and utter travesty. The Sugar Bowl should be ashamed of itself for taking the Hokies over more deserving candidates Boise State and Kansas State.

What did Virginia Tech do to deserve its bid? It played three games against ranked teams – and lost two of them, by a combined 48 points. The lone victory was against Georgia Tech, a team that was No. 21 at the time but resides well outside all top 25s now.

Aside from the Yellow Jackets, here’s who the Hokies beat to earn their bid: Appalachian State, East Carolina, Arkansas State, Marshall, Miami, Wake Forest, Boston College, Duke, North Carolina and Virginia. They beat nobody ranked higher than 45th in Jeff Sagarin’s computer ratings.

Boise State, meanwhile, pounded Georgia (No. 16 in the final BCS standings) by two touchdowns in a de facto road game. The Broncos’ lone loss was by a single point to No. 18 TCU.

Kansas State played four ranked teams and split those games, defeating Baylor and Texas and losing to Oklahoma and Oklahoma State. The Wildcats’ schedule is ranked 10th-toughest in America by Sagarin, while Virginia Tech’s is 56th.

But Tech gets the Sugar Bowl reward, while Kansas State goes to the Cotton Bowl to play Arkansas and Boise State is shuffled off to the Las Vegas Bowl to play an Arizona State team that fired its coach. Ridiculous.

Comments

BRCE

December 5th, 2011 at 7:08 PM ^

It can only last for so long before the sport loses popularity among the casual sect. We might not be far off from seeing that.

I cite myself as an example. I'm on the high-end of casual for an NFL fan. Hate the way the game is officiated, hate the commercial breaks. But I don't sit there and complain while not changing my habits and now watch WAY less of the league now than I used to.

snoopblue

December 5th, 2011 at 6:11 PM ^

Now Virginia Tech has other things to play for. They will want to prove that they belong. I hope more people will also say Michigan doesn't belong in the BCS, that way, we come into the game with a chip on our shoulder too.

ppToilet

December 5th, 2011 at 6:18 PM ^

If I'm running a BCS bowl, it matters to me to create an interesting matchup that people will watch.  Yes, it is about the money because if I select two teams nobody wants to see or that are not compelling then people won't watch and I'll lose money.

And I agree that saying VT is unworthy is only going to fire up VT and I wish people saying that would shut up.

gobluednicks

December 5th, 2011 at 6:21 PM ^

i agree with everything he said.  that's why the bcs should be done with.  they threaten that without it we would just go back to the old bowl system and my reply to that is go right ahead. anything is better than the bs we get right now.

Bodogblog

December 5th, 2011 at 7:09 PM ^

K-State or Baylor or Boise, and everything would have been fine.  It's an odd choice that stunned almost everyone, and there's really nothing to support it.  VaTech didn't even think they had a shot at going. 

I think ratings would have been much, much higher for Boise.  Do they really not fill up hotel rooms to such an extent they should be passed over?

Wolverman

December 5th, 2011 at 8:28 PM ^

 I think it's funny folks talk about deserving a BCS spot and the sugar bowl is travesty for selecting Michigan and VT. What about the BCS national title game? How does alabama deserve a title shot? Everyone says they are clearly the 2nd best team in the BCS but how do folks come to that conclusion. Is it because ESPN tells you to? Their mighty Defense thats only faced 2 offenses ranked above 75th in the country? or their Strength of schedule from playing in the mighty SeC in which they faced 3 teams who finished the season over .500.

  Sorry i'm still heated about some of the bowl picks and the sugar bowl is not one of them. Oklahoma state and West virginia run the same offense. oklahoma state has better player at just about every position. West virginia had 533 total yard on LSU's dominating defense.... You don't think Ok state would have done the same  if not better?

 It's like the heisman race Trent Richardson is number 1-2 in a lot of heisman voters mind. I saw some voters putting Montee Ball in the 5th spot finally atleast. Montee has more yards , more yards per carry and more touchdowns. Oh but Wisconsin had an extremely weak schedule... did you look at alabamas? North Texas , Georgia southern , Kent state, ole miss, Vandy you can't get much more cupcake than that.

UMgradMSUdad

December 5th, 2011 at 10:01 PM ^

I find it interesting that all the outrage is over VTech's inclusion in the Sugar Bowl, yet they were ranked 2 places above Michigan in the BCS poll.  If anybody's using BCS rankings to rail against VTech's inclusion over Boise and KSU, then their outrage should be aimed a Michigan.

But therein lies the problem.  The BCS rankings stink.  There is no way VTech should be anywhere near as high in ranking as they are, and thus they are the ones getting blasted. But quite honestly, I don't think KSU and Boise are top ten teams either, despite their BCS rankings (although Boise has a somewhat stronger case than KSU).

bronxblue

December 5th, 2011 at 10:19 PM ^

The general consensus seems to be that UM is a fringe-but-worthy BCS team because they had two close losses and really came on at the end, but that VT was smoked in its two losses and haven't beaten anyone of note. 

I don't see how K-State really has a great argument, as their two losses were not competitive and beating Texas or Baylor, while impressive to an extent, may be relying more on name recognition (at least in Texas's case) than actual results on the field - Texas went 7-5 this year, which is the same record as NC State and North Carolina, and one worse than 8-4 Virginia.  Baylor had a dynamic offense but also got housed by a 6-6 Texas A&M squad as well as OkSU, and their one road victory was a 1-pointer over a VERY bad KU team.  And Boise did beat Georgia, but also lost to TCU and were not uver-dominant in the games against better teams in their conference.  And fair or not, but when you play a watered-down schedule like some of this non-AQ teams play (not necessarily their fault, but still), a loss can hurt quite a bit more because there are not too many other opportunities to prove yourself. 

So while I'm not going to say that the VT selection was a fair one for all teams involved, this notion that VT leapfrogged immensely-more deserving squads is a meme I can't get behind.  It was a crapshoot of flawed teams, and so a decision was made to take the more recognizable/potentially best of the bunch.