Guest -> RE: College Football (Future Vikings!) (12/31/2014 5:52:59 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: djskillz I've never been a big fan of bowl games as a true indicator. 1) Matchups can really vary from game to game. 2) 4-6 weeks off. No one's playing their best. 3) Menatality of players vary wildly based on expectations. Ie letdown game, "up" for a game, etc. 4) Pending coaches changes. For example, now it comes out today that Chavis is leaving for Texas A&M. Think he was focused on the game yesterday? That was the worst I've seen LSU's defense in quite some time. Ole Miss was expected to lose (the one SEC team not favored in their bowl game) and they did lose to a very, very good team. One of the best. LSU "barely" lost that game, and they got completely, utterly screwed out of a touchdown. While we're playing the comparison game, put it this way: Boise State and Notre Dame are very much comparable teams. Probably about equal. LSU, the 6th or 7th best team in the SEC, barely lost or "really" won, depending on your view. Arizona, clearly the 2nd best team in the Pac12, is currently down 2 touchdowns in their matchup. And ASU, the 3rd best team in the Pac12, barely beat the 4th or 5th best team in the ACC. 1 is irrelevant. You play who is on your schedule, right? For most teams it's tougher than their non-conf. sched. 2 applies to both teams. It also gives injured guys time to heal and coaches time to prepare equally. 3 is legit but it also applies in the regular season. It's not unique to bowls. 4 is a poor excuse for a team to use. How many teams does it affect anyway? And any professional coach that's getting paid is working hard. In many ways bowls do tell more about a team. How they prepare. How they adapt. How they face a challenge. Still would rather have a 16 team playoff that starts immediately after Thanksgiving and ditch 'em altogether. But you still can't discount any game a team plays in.
|
|
|
|