Some posters here maintain that the UConn team was the worst BCS embarrassment in the history of the BCS. Nothing could be further from the truth. The game was relatively competitive (34-20 in the middle of the 4th quarter). This is the ESPN article on the game:
http://scores.espn.go.com/ncf/recap?gameId=310010201
I haven't done any research on the subject, but I can think of four BCS games off the top of my head that were much more lopsided than UConn-Oklahoma:
1) Cincinnati-Florida (Sugar Bowl)
2) Va Tech-Stanford (Orange Bowl)
3) Oklahoma-West Virginia (Fiesta Bowl)
4) Clemson-West Virginia (Orange Bowl)
UConn was a lot more respectable than any of the four teams listed first in the games above. Those four teams wet themselves on national TV. UConn didn't wet itself. I'm not saying that UConn could have won the Fiesta Bowl if just a couple more plays had gone their way. I'll admit that Oklahoma was bigger, faster, and stronger. They were the better team. But anyone who says UConn was an "embarrassment" is just a fool.
(04-25-2013 09:31 PM)King_WWW08 Wrote: [ -> ] (04-25-2013 09:15 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote: [ -> ]Some posters here maintain that the UConn team was the worst BCS embarrassment in the history of the BCS. Nothing could be further from the truth. The game was relatively competitive (34-20 in the middle of the 4th quarter). This is the ESPN article on the game:
http://scores.espn.go.com/ncf/recap?gameId=310010201
I haven't done any research on the subject, but I can think of four BCS games off the top of my head that were much more lopsided than UConn-Oklahoma:
1) Cincinnati-Florida (Sugar Bowl)
2) Va Tech-Stanford (Orange Bowl)
3) Oklahoma-West Virginia (Fiesta Bowl)
4) Clemson-West Virginia (Orange Bowl)
UConn was a lot more respectable than any of the four teams listed first in the games above. Those four teams wet themselves on national TV. UConn didn't wet itself. I'm not saying that UConn could have won the Fiesta Bowl if just a couple more plays had gone their way. I'll admit that Oklahoma was bigger, faster, and stronger. They were the better team. But anyone who says UConn was an "embarrassment" is just a fool.
Lol. Boomer Sooner!!!!
Boomer Sooner ... a football team in search of a school.
About 20 years ago, SI rated college fans. Oklahoma fans were rated the most crude and least sophisticated in major college sports. Go OU!
OU better athletically and academically
(04-25-2013 09:33 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote: [ -> ] (04-25-2013 09:31 PM)King_WWW08 Wrote: [ -> ] (04-25-2013 09:15 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote: [ -> ]Some posters here maintain that the UConn team was the worst BCS embarrassment in the history of the BCS. Nothing could be further from the truth. The game was relatively competitive (34-20 in the middle of the 4th quarter). This is the ESPN article on the game:
http://scores.espn.go.com/ncf/recap?gameId=310010201
I haven't done any research on the subject, but I can think of four BCS games off the top of my head that were much more lopsided than UConn-Oklahoma:
1) Cincinnati-Florida (Sugar Bowl)
2) Va Tech-Stanford (Orange Bowl)
3) Oklahoma-West Virginia (Fiesta Bowl)
4) Clemson-West Virginia (Orange Bowl)
UConn was a lot more respectable than any of the four teams listed first in the games above. Those four teams wet themselves on national TV. UConn didn't wet itself. I'm not saying that UConn could have won the Fiesta Bowl if just a couple more plays had gone their way. I'll admit that Oklahoma was bigger, faster, and stronger. They were the better team. But anyone who says UConn was an "embarrassment" is just a fool.
Lol. Boomer Sooner!!!!
Boomer Sooner ... a football team in search of a school.
About 20 years ago, SI rated college fans. Oklahoma fans were rated the most crude and least sophisticated in major college sports. Go OU!
West Virginia must have been ablaze in couch fires, creating a low visibility and an inability for SI occupied jets to land.
(04-25-2013 09:34 PM)Pony94 Wrote: [ -> ]OU better athletically and academically
The ignorance on this board knows no bounds ....
1) U.S. News ranking ... UConn #63, Oklahoma #101.
2) Average ACT score ... UConn 27, Oklahoma 26.
(04-25-2013 09:55 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote: [ -> ] (04-25-2013 09:34 PM)Pony94 Wrote: [ -> ]OU better athletically and academically
The ignorance on this board knows no bounds ....
1) U.S. News ranking ... UConn #63, Oklahoma #101.
2) Average ACT score ... UConn 27, Oklahoma 26.
Why are you trying to defend a blowout? If you were playing Texas, you would probably lost by more.
2011 Fiesta Bowl: No. 7 Oklahoma 48, UConn 20. There is no question this was the biggest mismatch of the BCS era. Oklahoma went into the game with an 11-2 mark; UConn went in at 8-4. The matchup, consequently,
began a debate about whether the Big East should really have automatic entry into the BCS. None of the blame should have been directed at the Huskies, who pulled off several close finishes to make it to their first BCS game. But the truth is they were not in the same ballpark as the Sooners, who had a 34-10 lead early in the third quarter.
UConn never scored an offensive touchdown
Okay, back to the task at hand. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I submit to you that Northern Illinois was not the worst BCS bowl team ever. Not even close. While they were not an elite team (F/+: +4.6% defense, +5.3% offense), they are nowhere even close to the worst team. I present Exhibit A, that orange dot at +0.8% defense and -4.6% offense (negative!).
This rogue dot that looks like a lost elementary school student separated from his class field trip at the zoo represents your 2010 UCONN Huskies. They went 8-5 (5-2 in conference play) and were embarrassed 48-20 by Oklahoma in the Fiesta Bowl.
Worst BCS bowl team ever
10. 2011 Fiesta Bowl Oklahoma 48 UConn 20- UConn is probably the worst team to participate in a BCS Game and probably should have been in a much lesser bowl. The Huskies
weren't even in the BCS top 25 entering this game, but since they won The Big East they were able to get the bid. To make things worse, the Huskies only sold about 3,500 tickets to the Fiesta Bowl. Oklahoma, who had struggled in their last few BCS appearances, had no trouble with the Huskies. UConn did very little on offense and their only TDs were on a kickoff return and an interception return.
link
(04-25-2013 10:01 PM)King_WWW08 Wrote: [ -> ] (04-25-2013 09:55 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote: [ -> ] (04-25-2013 09:34 PM)Pony94 Wrote: [ -> ]OU better athletically and academically
The ignorance on this board knows no bounds ....
1) U.S. News ranking ... UConn #63, Oklahoma #101.
2) Average ACT score ... UConn 27, Oklahoma 26.
Why are you trying to defend a blowout? If you were playing Texas, you would probably lost by more.
I don't care about Texass. I thought the point of the OP was clear. Obviously it wasn't clear to you.
The point had been made on this board that the UConn loss to Oklahoma was the single most embarrassing performance in BCS history. But when you compare that game to all of the other BCS games, there are many (10?) games that were more lopsided than UConn-Oklahoma.
I'm not bragging on UConn's performance in that game. I'm just inserting a little reality to this board, which needs all the reality it can get.
(04-25-2013 10:06 PM)shere khan Wrote: [ -> ]2011 Fiesta Bowl: No. 7 Oklahoma 48, UConn 20. There is no question this was the biggest mismatch of the BCS era. Oklahoma went into the game with an 11-2 mark; UConn went in at 8-4. The matchup, consequently, began a debate about whether the Big East should really have automatic entry into the BCS. None of the blame should have been directed at the Huskies, who pulled off several close finishes to make it to their first BCS game. But the truth is they were not in the same ballpark as the Sooners, who had a 34-10 lead early in the third quarter. UConn never scored an offensive touchdown
And you think that Clemson-West Virginia Orange Bowl was a better matchup? I think West Virginia had 63 points in the first half. That game made UConn-Oklahoma look like the Giants-Colts 1958 NFL Championship overtime game.
Really? Isn't this the very definition of "revisionist history"? OU beat you guys like a rented mule. And I'll compare my EE degree from OU against UConn any day of the week. Academic smack is ridiculous.
(04-25-2013 10:12 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote: [ -> ] (04-25-2013 10:06 PM)shere khan Wrote: [ -> ]2011 Fiesta Bowl: No. 7 Oklahoma 48, UConn 20. There is no question this was the biggest mismatch of the BCS era. Oklahoma went into the game with an 11-2 mark; UConn went in at 8-4. The matchup, consequently, began a debate about whether the Big East should really have automatic entry into the BCS. None of the blame should have been directed at the Huskies, who pulled off several close finishes to make it to their first BCS game. But the truth is they were not in the same ballpark as the Sooners, who had a 34-10 lead early in the third quarter. UConn never scored an offensive touchdown
And you think that Clemson-West Virginia Orange Bowl was a better matchup? I think West Virginia had 63 points in the first half. That game made UConn-Oklahoma look like the Giants-Colts 1958 NFL Championship overtime game.
you gotta point there, that was ugly.
I previously debated that the game was not that close, but there seem to be two separate issues.
1. Performance in the BCS game itself: While UConn was never in the game in the 2nd half, this was not the worst performance in a BCS game. I wouldn't even put UConn's performance in the bottom 5.
2. Worst team to play in a BCS game: To me this looks at the overall body of work leading up to the game. Here, a strong argument can be made that UConn takes the cake.
(04-25-2013 10:15 PM)Knightsweat Wrote: [ -> ]Really? Isn't this the very definition of "revisionist history"? OU beat you guys like a rented mule. And I'll compare my EE degree from OU against UConn any day of the week. Academic smack is ridiculous.
You still don't get the point. This is not revisionist history. My only point is that
there have been many BCS games that were much more one-sided than UConn-Oklahoma.
I'm not asserting it was a close game or that UConn could have won.
I guess this point is too nuanced for this board.
(04-25-2013 10:26 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote: [ -> ] (04-25-2013 10:15 PM)Knightsweat Wrote: [ -> ]Really? Isn't this the very definition of "revisionist history"? OU beat you guys like a rented mule. And I'll compare my EE degree from OU against UConn any day of the week. Academic smack is ridiculous.
You still don't get the point. This is not revisionist history. My only point is that there have been many BCS games that were much more one-sided than UConn-Oklahoma.
I'm not asserting it was a close game or that UConn could have won. :banghead:
I guess this point is too nuanced for this board.
Honestly, we just don't care
If the argument is Biggest BCS Bowl Mismatch Ever, how has the Georgia v. Hawaii - Sugar Bowl Matchup not been mentioned? By the time Colt Brennan would receive a snap, the D-Line already had hands on him. This game was terrible..... And I was pulling for the Rainbow Warriors.
(04-25-2013 10:27 PM)Pony94 Wrote: [ -> ] (04-25-2013 10:26 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote: [ -> ] (04-25-2013 10:15 PM)Knightsweat Wrote: [ -> ]Really? Isn't this the very definition of "revisionist history"? OU beat you guys like a rented mule. And I'll compare my EE degree from OU against UConn any day of the week. Academic smack is ridiculous.
You still don't get the point. This is not revisionist history. My only point is that there have been many BCS games that were much more one-sided than UConn-Oklahoma.
I'm not asserting it was a close game or that UConn could have won.
I guess this point is too nuanced for this board.
Honestly, we just don't care
their fans didnt either, they sent back 17000 tickets and lost millions of dollars...but yeah, they went to a bcs game and are a football power..they are gonna run roughshod over the new members, particularly beating memphis by 70 because we have never seen anything like big east power football.
(04-25-2013 09:15 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote: [ -> ]Some posters here maintain that the UConn team was the worst BCS embarrassment in the history of the BCS. Nothing could be further from the truth. The game was relatively competitive (34-20 in the middle of the 4th quarter). This is the ESPN article on the game:
http://scores.espn.go.com/ncf/recap?gameId=310010201
I haven't done any research on the subject, but I can think of four BCS games off the top of my head that were much more lopsided than UConn-Oklahoma:
1) Cincinnati-Florida (Sugar Bowl)
2) Va Tech-Stanford (Orange Bowl)
3) Oklahoma-West Virginia (Fiesta Bowl)
4) Clemson-West Virginia (Orange Bowl)
UConn was a lot more respectable than any of the four teams listed first in the games above. Those four teams wet themselves on national TV. UConn didn't wet itself. I'm not saying that UConn could have won the Fiesta Bowl if just a couple more plays had gone their way. I'll admit that Oklahoma was bigger, faster, and stronger. They were the better team. But anyone who says UConn was an "embarrassment" is just a fool.
I think UConn was derided more for being allowed to play in a BCS game despite being a clearly unworthy team than for how they played versus OK. They were poster boys for the notion that the big east should not have an automatic bid.
(04-25-2013 10:27 PM)Pony94 Wrote: [ -> ] (04-25-2013 10:26 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote: [ -> ] (04-25-2013 10:15 PM)Knightsweat Wrote: [ -> ]Really? Isn't this the very definition of "revisionist history"? OU beat you guys like a rented mule. And I'll compare my EE degree from OU against UConn any day of the week. Academic smack is ridiculous.
You still don't get the point. This is not revisionist history. My only point is that there have been many BCS games that were much more one-sided than UConn-Oklahoma.
I'm not asserting it was a close game or that UConn could have won.
I guess this point is too nuanced for this board.
Honestly, we just don't care
When either one of my schools is attacked with an untrue statement, I respond.
For example, if someone said that SMU was the worst college FB program in Texas, I would dispute that point.
(04-25-2013 10:34 PM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ] (04-25-2013 09:15 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote: [ -> ]Some posters here maintain that the UConn team was the worst BCS embarrassment in the history of the BCS. Nothing could be further from the truth. The game was relatively competitive (34-20 in the middle of the 4th quarter). This is the ESPN article on the game:
http://scores.espn.go.com/ncf/recap?gameId=310010201
I haven't done any research on the subject, but I can think of four BCS games off the top of my head that were much more lopsided than UConn-Oklahoma:
1) Cincinnati-Florida (Sugar Bowl)
2) Va Tech-Stanford (Orange Bowl)
3) Oklahoma-West Virginia (Fiesta Bowl)
4) Clemson-West Virginia (Orange Bowl)
UConn was a lot more respectable than any of the four teams listed first in the games above. Those four teams wet themselves on national TV. UConn didn't wet itself. I'm not saying that UConn could have won the Fiesta Bowl if just a couple more plays had gone their way. I'll admit that Oklahoma was bigger, faster, and stronger. They were the better team. But anyone who says UConn was an "embarrassment" is just a fool.
I think UConn was derided more for being allowed to play in a BCS game despite being a clearly unworthy team than for how they played versus OK. They were poster boys for the notion that the big east should not have an automatic bid.
They were not any less deserving than the 4-loss ACC teams sent to BCS games. Moroever, if folks are going to bash UCONN for their lack of attendance...then they need to focus on the poor ticket sales by other BCS schools who have not travelled well.
Fans/consumers have finally woken up and realized what a complete ripoff and manufactured made for TV event BCS games have become. UCONN has nothing to be defensive about....