(12-15-2014 03:17 PM)adcorbett Wrote: (12-15-2014 03:10 PM)quo vadis Wrote: You actually did check, and found out that this movement actually favored Michigan State, not Mississippi State. Kudos, but this doesn't change the main thrust of my argument at all. Namely, what comes before the "plus" statement you latched on to:
No it does change it. Like I said, which is easier to believe: a team whose computers numbers went up was dropped because of an "oversight" the week before, or that a team who did not play was moved up, because both parties benefit? You can go round about all you want (which by the way, your rationale doesn't make the committee look any better when they say they goofed) but the simple fact is, the "football reasons" for the move THAT week, which you stated were there, were not. Because none of those changed from one week to the next. What DID change, was that Ohio State being in the playoff unexpectedly meant an opportunity that did not exist the week before to get the Big Ten two Access/Playoff slots AND keep the Citrus Bowl, DID appear. That was the change: the change that resulted in Miss St being moved up. You can continue to be naïve, and latch onto the things that did change during that week (which kill your argument) or you can see what everyone else does: that the move was made to benefit the Big Ten for non-football reasons. it also gives credence to those who have pointed out how the committee is worse than the BCS, because they can collude to dictate matchups with no rhyme or reason.
Having already acknowledged that the final week movement actually favored Michigan State, not Mississippi State, here is the football reason that justifies the committee moving Mississippi State over Michigan State:
Mississippi State has a better overall body of work than Michigan State. The committee, taking extra care to 'get it right', since this was the final week to do so, the week when their poll would result in actual decisions about who goes where,
took a second look, realized their mistake in having Michigan State previously ahead, and corrected it.
As for the politics: It is not clear how the B1G benefits from what happened. Yes, the B1G got to stay in the Citrus Bowl, but how important is this? Not important, here's why:
The OB arrangement is that any time the B1G plays in the Orange Bowl, it loses its spot in the Citrus Bowl to the ACC. If keeping the Citrus Bowl was really that vital, the implication would be that the B1G would want to minimize its appearances in the Orange Bowl, keep it down to three, the minimum called for by the contract.
But obviously that isn't what's best for the B1G. What's best is to play in the Orange Bowl as many times as it can - up to five. Because when it plays in the Orange Bowl, it cashes a fat $27.5 million check. In contrast, the Citrus Bowl pays just $4 million, peanuts by comparison. So it's in the B1G's interest to miss the Citrus Bowl as much as possible, because that means it is playing in the Orange Bowl.
And playing in another Access Bowl while keeping the Citrus doesn't help much, because the Access Bowls, including the Cotton that Michigan State is playing in, pays out no more than the Citrus - $4 million.
So instead of getting $27.5 million from the Orange, the B1G is getting a combined $8 million from the Cotton and Citrus. Not a very good trade.
So it's not clear why the B1G would want the SEC to get that fat Orange Bowl check. That just gives the SEC a leg up on getting the Orange Bowl more times than the B1G gets it, not good for the B1G.
BUT, just so you don't go crazily latching on to something tangential, like you did with the "what happened last week" thing, bear this in mind:
EVEN IF the politics of the situation was such that the B1G very much wanted Michigan State to slip behind Mississippi State so they could avoid the Orange Bowl, the fact that Mississippi State DESERVED A HIGHER RANKING ANYWAY means the committee very well could have moved MissSt up on that basis alone. After all, it was the right thing to do, irrespective of politics.