Every single unbiased analysis....again to put to you this way...the only in the teams in the United States according to the Vegas odds makers that Louisville would not be favored over on a neutral field is Alabama and Ohio State....plus we are Top Five in the country in All the Human Polls....ESPN FPI, Sagarin and NCAA S&P

(11-16-2016 01:00 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-16-2016 11:57 AM)Maize Wrote:  

(11-16-2016 11:49 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-16-2016 11:32 AM)Maize Wrote:  This is IMO the B1G & Pac 12 > SEC...

The SEC is QB Straved and missing the coaches it use to have in ppl like Spurrier, Petrino, Meyer, Richt and even Pinkell....it is what it is...

I think bowl season is usually the best indicator. "Rivarly weeks" can have skewed matchups (e.g., Louisville vs Kentucky), but bowls almost always match up teams that are at the same level within their conference rankings.

If the SEC flops during bowl season, I'll bow to that, but as of now, they are #1. The B1G? maybe tied for 3rd with the ACC? A conference is not just how good the top 3-4 teams are. It's the whole conference.

Bowl season IMO is actually the worse....because many players especially the departing one are worried about the NFL Draft and not getting injured in a meaningless exhibition game-(Not including the CFP).

That's an interesting idea, but not sure that it plays out in practice. First, if i was a big-time NFL bound talent, wouldn't I care about getting hurt even in a CFP game? I'm not getting paid for a college playoff game either and an injury in that game could cause catastrophic damage to my NFL career just like an injury in any bowl game can. If I end up busting my knee and losing an NFL career, knowing I did it while helping my school team win a playoff game would be very small consolation.

Second, historically, I don't think we see anything like that. E.g., players who have big seasons often have big bowl games too even though they are allegedly meaningless. Just look at how excited these guys tend to get when winning a bowl game, even a minor bowl game. Last year, I saw team after team storm the field after winning even ridiculously small-time bowl games.

I remember the end of last year's Yankee Bowl, when Penn State beat BC on a kick in OT. The PSU players ran around the field tossing their helmets in the air and coaches were hugging each other like they just won the Super Bowl while the BC players were totally slumped. And these are big-time programs with NFL prospects.

I would think that overall, motivation among all players tends to be higher in bowl games than in most regular season games. Bowls are regarded as big deals by players, even if the fans discount them.

To add to his point bowl games are often home games for SEC teams. Auburn playing Memphis in Birmingham, Al for example.....Or the Chicfilae bowl, the fact that almost all of them are in the south...

(11-16-2016 10:48 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(11-16-2016 01:00 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-16-2016 11:57 AM)Maize Wrote:  

(11-16-2016 11:49 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-16-2016 11:32 AM)Maize Wrote:  This is IMO the B1G & Pac 12 > SEC...

The SEC is QB Straved and missing the coaches it use to have in ppl like Spurrier, Petrino, Meyer, Richt and even Pinkell....it is what it is...

I think bowl season is usually the best indicator. "Rivarly weeks" can have skewed matchups (e.g., Louisville vs Kentucky), but bowls almost always match up teams that are at the same level within their conference rankings.

If the SEC flops during bowl season, I'll bow to that, but as of now, they are #1. The B1G? maybe tied for 3rd with the ACC? A conference is not just how good the top 3-4 teams are. It's the whole conference.

Bowl season IMO is actually the worse....because many players especially the departing one are worried about the NFL Draft and not getting injured in a meaningless exhibition game-(Not including the CFP).

That's an interesting idea, but not sure that it plays out in practice. First, if i was a big-time NFL bound talent, wouldn't I care about getting hurt even in a CFP game? I'm not getting paid for a college playoff game either and an injury in that game could cause catastrophic damage to my NFL career just like an injury in any bowl game can. If I end up busting my knee and losing an NFL career, knowing I did it while helping my school team win a playoff game would be very small consolation.

Second, historically, I don't think we see anything like that. E.g., players who have big seasons often have big bowl games too even though they are allegedly meaningless. Just look at how excited these guys tend to get when winning a bowl game, even a minor bowl game. Last year, I saw team after team storm the field after winning even ridiculously small-time bowl games.

I remember the end of last year's Yankee Bowl, when Penn State beat BC on a kick in OT. The PSU players ran around the field tossing their helmets in the air and coaches were hugging each other like they just won the Super Bowl while the BC players were totally slumped. And these are big-time programs with NFL prospects.

I would think that overall, motivation among all players tends to be higher in bowl games than in most regular season games. Bowls are regarded as big deals by players, even if the fans discount them.

To add to his point bowl games are often home games for SEC teams. Auburn playing Memphis in Birmingham, Al for example.....Or the Chicfilae bowl, the fact that almost all of them are in the south...

He has no point and neither do you. The Chik bowl was an SEC-ACC bowl and both conferences are located in that state.

About the only example of a true home field advantage one team consistently and historically has had in bowl games is ... USC in the Rose Bowl vs B1G teams.

(11-16-2016 05:46 PM)Maize Wrote:  Every single unbiased analysis....

OK, fair point.

(11-17-2016 07:53 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-16-2016 10:48 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(11-16-2016 01:00 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-16-2016 11:57 AM)Maize Wrote:  

(11-16-2016 11:49 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I think bowl season is usually the best indicator. "Rivarly weeks" can have skewed matchups (e.g., Louisville vs Kentucky), but bowls almost always match up teams that are at the same level within their conference rankings.

If the SEC flops during bowl season, I'll bow to that, but as of now, they are #1. The B1G? maybe tied for 3rd with the ACC? A conference is not just how good the top 3-4 teams are. It's the whole conference.

Bowl season IMO is actually the worse....because many players especially the departing one are worried about the NFL Draft and not getting injured in a meaningless exhibition game-(Not including the CFP).

That's an interesting idea, but not sure that it plays out in practice. First, if i was a big-time NFL bound talent, wouldn't I care about getting hurt even in a CFP game? I'm not getting paid for a college playoff game either and an injury in that game could cause catastrophic damage to my NFL career just like an injury in any bowl game can. If I end up busting my knee and losing an NFL career, knowing I did it while helping my school team win a playoff game would be very small consolation.

Second, historically, I don't think we see anything like that. E.g., players who have big seasons often have big bowl games too even though they are allegedly meaningless. Just look at how excited these guys tend to get when winning a bowl game, even a minor bowl game. Last year, I saw team after team storm the field after winning even ridiculously small-time bowl games.

I remember the end of last year's Yankee Bowl, when Penn State beat BC on a kick in OT. The PSU players ran around the field tossing their helmets in the air and coaches were hugging each other like they just won the Super Bowl while the BC players were totally slumped. And these are big-time programs with NFL prospects.

I would think that overall, motivation among all players tends to be higher in bowl games than in most regular season games. Bowls are regarded as big deals by players, even if the fans discount them.

To add to his point bowl games are often home games for SEC teams. Auburn playing Memphis in Birmingham, Al for example.....Or the Chicfilae bowl, the fact that almost all of them are in the south...

He has no point and neither do you. The Chik bowl was an SEC-ACC bowl and both conferences are located in that state.

About the only example of a true home field advantage one team consistently and historically has had in bowl games is ... USC in the Rose Bowl vs B1G teams.

Gosh man, talking to you is like talking a woman. You always have to be right. But look at these SEC bowls dude.

The SEC has bowl games in Memphis, Birmingham, Jacksonville, New Orleans, Tampa, Nashville, Charlotte, and Houston. The only one that is not in the south is in North Carolina.

Then you add that in with the fact that many players are just trying not get injured in these games. It's not a better to measure how good teams are like a normal home/home is.

(11-17-2016 10:32 AM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(11-17-2016 07:53 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-16-2016 10:48 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(11-16-2016 01:00 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-16-2016 11:57 AM)Maize Wrote:  Bowl season IMO is actually the worse....because many players especially the departing one are worried about the NFL Draft and not getting injured in a meaningless exhibition game-(Not including the CFP).

That's an interesting idea, but not sure that it plays out in practice. First, if i was a big-time NFL bound talent, wouldn't I care about getting hurt even in a CFP game? I'm not getting paid for a college playoff game either and an injury in that game could cause catastrophic damage to my NFL career just like an injury in any bowl game can. If I end up busting my knee and losing an NFL career, knowing I did it while helping my school team win a playoff game would be very small consolation.

Second, historically, I don't think we see anything like that. E.g., players who have big seasons often have big bowl games too even though they are allegedly meaningless. Just look at how excited these guys tend to get when winning a bowl game, even a minor bowl game. Last year, I saw team after team storm the field after winning even ridiculously small-time bowl games.

I remember the end of last year's Yankee Bowl, when Penn State beat BC on a kick in OT. The PSU players ran around the field tossing their helmets in the air and coaches were hugging each other like they just won the Super Bowl while the BC players were totally slumped. And these are big-time programs with NFL prospects.

I would think that overall, motivation among all players tends to be higher in bowl games than in most regular season games. Bowls are regarded as big deals by players, even if the fans discount them.

To add to his point bowl games are often home games for SEC teams. Auburn playing Memphis in Birmingham, Al for example.....Or the Chicfilae bowl, the fact that almost all of them are in the south...

He has no point and neither do you. The Chik bowl was an SEC-ACC bowl and both conferences are located in that state.

About the only example of a true home field advantage one team consistently and historically has had in bowl games is ... USC in the Rose Bowl vs B1G teams.

How about the Sugar bowl?

And you guys love to come back with the "Well USC..." shoot I'm realistic lol.

The only SEC team with a Sugar Bowl HFA is LSU, and in recent decades they have rarely played there - 5 times in the last 50 years.

But yes, chalk that one up if you want.

(11-17-2016 10:39 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-17-2016 10:32 AM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(11-17-2016 07:53 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-16-2016 10:48 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(11-16-2016 01:00 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  That's an interesting idea, but not sure that it plays out in practice. First, if i was a big-time NFL bound talent, wouldn't I care about getting hurt even in a CFP game? I'm not getting paid for a college playoff game either and an injury in that game could cause catastrophic damage to my NFL career just like an injury in any bowl game can. If I end up busting my knee and losing an NFL career, knowing I did it while helping my school team win a playoff game would be very small consolation.

Second, historically, I don't think we see anything like that. E.g., players who have big seasons often have big bowl games too even though they are allegedly meaningless. Just look at how excited these guys tend to get when winning a bowl game, even a minor bowl game. Last year, I saw team after team storm the field after winning even ridiculously small-time bowl games.

I remember the end of last year's Yankee Bowl, when Penn State beat BC on a kick in OT. The PSU players ran around the field tossing their helmets in the air and coaches were hugging each other like they just won the Super Bowl while the BC players were totally slumped. And these are big-time programs with NFL prospects.

I would think that overall, motivation among all players tends to be higher in bowl games than in most regular season games. Bowls are regarded as big deals by players, even if the fans discount them.

To add to his point bowl games are often home games for SEC teams. Auburn playing Memphis in Birmingham, Al for example.....Or the Chicfilae bowl, the fact that almost all of them are in the south...

He has no point and neither do you. The Chik bowl was an SEC-ACC bowl and both conferences are located in that state.

About the only example of a true home field advantage one team consistently and historically has had in bowl games is ... USC in the Rose Bowl vs B1G teams.

How about the Sugar bowl?

And you guys love to come back with the "Well USC..." shoot I'm realistic lol.

The only SEC team with a Sugar Bowl HFA is LSU, and in recent decades they have rarely played there - 5 times in the last 50 years.

But yes, chalk that one up if you want.

Oh please, I have driven to New Orleans in a day and driven back the same day from Tuscaloosa. Get a Big 10 fan to try and do that.

And the same with Atlanta.....I don't even fly out of Alabama I just drive to Atlanta because it's more affordable. I'm not sure you realize how close the southern cities are to each other.

(11-17-2016 10:50 AM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(11-17-2016 10:39 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-17-2016 10:32 AM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(11-17-2016 07:53 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-16-2016 10:48 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  To add to his point bowl games are often home games for SEC teams. Auburn playing Memphis in Birmingham, Al for example.....Or the Chicfilae bowl, the fact that almost all of them are in the south...

He has no point and neither do you. The Chik bowl was an SEC-ACC bowl and both conferences are located in that state.

About the only example of a true home field advantage one team consistently and historically has had in bowl games is ... USC in the Rose Bowl vs B1G teams.

How about the Sugar bowl?

And you guys love to come back with the "Well USC..." shoot I'm realistic lol.

The only SEC team with a Sugar Bowl HFA is LSU, and in recent decades they have rarely played there - 5 times in the last 50 years.

But yes, chalk that one up if you want.

Oh please, I have driven to New Orleans in a day and driven back the same day from Tuscaloosa. Get a Big 10 fan to try and do that.

Tuscaloosa is 300 miles from New Orleans. I guess that means when Maryland plays in New York City or Syracuse plays in Philly, those are "home games" too.

(11-17-2016 11:53 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-17-2016 10:50 AM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(11-17-2016 10:39 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-17-2016 10:32 AM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(11-17-2016 07:53 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  He has no point and neither do you. The Chik bowl was an SEC-ACC bowl and both conferences are located in that state.

About the only example of a true home field advantage one team consistently and historically has had in bowl games is ... USC in the Rose Bowl vs B1G teams.

How about the Sugar bowl?

And you guys love to come back with the "Well USC..." shoot I'm realistic lol.

The only SEC team with a Sugar Bowl HFA is LSU, and in recent decades they have rarely played there - 5 times in the last 50 years.

But yes, chalk that one up if you want.

Oh please, I have driven to New Orleans in a day and driven back the same day from Tuscaloosa. Get a Big 10 fan to try and do that.

Tuscaloosa is 300 miles from New Orleans. I guess that means when Maryland plays in New York City or Syracuse plays in Philly, those are "home games" too.

Again way to twist things around. Driving up north is nothing like driving in the south. You can easily make a 292 mile trip in 4 hours or less. I frequently make trips like this for my job.

It took me an hour to drive 20 miles last time I was in Philly.

You are ignoring the whole purpose of even living somewhere like Philly or NYC. The cities have just about everything that you can imagine in them. When I was in undergrad a lot of people I met from those cities could not even drive.

Do you want to go to a theme park? Atlanta.
Do you want to go to a major mall? Atlanta/Nashville.
Do you want to go to an aquarium? Atlanta.
Do Microsoft store? Atlanta.
Do you want to go to Dave and Busters? Atlanta/Nashville.
Do you want to play the lottery? Again out of state.

You are also ignoring the dynamic of fans in this state. It's not based on cities like it is other places. If Alabama is winning everyone and their mother is wearing a crimson shirt. So guess where all those Alabama fans in south Alabama are going if the Tide made to the Sugar bowl? They are making a 2 hour trip to New Orleans and coming home the same day.

(11-17-2016 07:53 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  About the only example of a true home field advantage one team consistently and historically has had in bowl games is ... USC in the Rose Bowl vs B1G teams.

The "true home field advantage" point is true as far as it goes, which in this context is not very far. It is hoping for an unstated false dichotomy fallacy, in which not being a "true home field" implies that it is therefore a "true neutral field". But the excluded middle is where many bowl games end up being played: it is also quite often not a "true neutral field" either, but somewhere in between.

So the "true home field" formula is mostly a way of ducking the implications of the straightforward point that the SEC has a strong tendency to play most of it's bowl games somewhere in SEC country. While it's not always in easy driving distance for most of the "home" supporters of an SEC team in an SEC bowl, it is the case often enough to tilt the average SEC bowl from being a "true neutral field" game.

(11-17-2016 09:09 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(11-17-2016 07:53 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  About the only example of a true home field advantage one team consistently and historically has had in bowl games is ... USC in the Rose Bowl vs B1G teams.

The "true home field advantage" point is true as far as it goes, which in this context is not very far. It is hoping for an unstated false dichotomy fallacy, in which not being a "true home field" implies that it is therefore a "true neutral field". But the excluded middle is where many bowl games end up being played: it is also quite often not a "true neutral field" either, but somewhere in between.

So the "true home field" formula is mostly a way of ducking the implications of the straightforward point that the SEC has a strong tendency to play most of it's bowl games somewhere in SEC country. While it's not always in easy driving distance for most of the "home" supporters of an SEC team in an SEC bowl, it is the case often enough to tilt the average SEC bowl from being a "true neutral field" game.

The bowls are supposed to make fans of both schools purchase expensive rooms, eat expensive food, and spend lots of money for the local chamber of commerce. They were never designed to be "neutral". They were located in the South for a warmer, hopefully more enjoyable vacation for everyone from the North and South during the New Year. Everything that has developed since has been for the same commercial purposes.

This whole speculation is way overblown. Fans don't matter so much as officials. As long as those are neutral everybody else has to strap on their jockstraps one leg at a time. It's as fair as it gets once the premise is understood. Besides for decades bowl games didn't really count as anything but an exhibition.

Like real estate it's location, location, location. IMO, that's why the Cherry Bowl never really made it in Pontiac. The Pinstripe Bowl at least is serving a city where if only a fraction of the population is interested then it's a success.

As for our family we 10 times preferred the Tangerine and then Citrus over the Outback if we had to head to a mid-level bowl. Orlando just had so much more to offer on the way down and then when you were there.

IMO, and not because of Disney, it is the best destination bowl in Florida. Miami is interesting but has some really rough neighborhoods. Jacksonville is a nice bowl for two local teams if you stay in Fernandina Beach, Amelia Island, or St. Augustine. Heck, staying at Jekyll Island and driving down is preferable to actually staying in Jacksonville. And Tampa / St. Pete just doesn't do it for me, and I'm a geezer.

As far as the Peach Bowl is concerned if Georgia, South Carolina, Auburn, or Tennessee play in it it is a home game. It's an hour and half from Auburn, a little less than an hour from Athens, two and half hours from Knoxville, and a couple of hours from Columbia. But truly it would be a home game for Georgia Tech, Clemson, or Florida State as well. And quite frankly I'm glad we can drive there and back easily in a day because there's nothing in Atlanta I care to stick around for other than the High Museum and the Georgia Aquarium.

New Orleans never gets old, but a couple of days there is all you need.

Nashville, Memphis, and Birmingham? Meh! Unless you love Elvis or Country Music or ........ well I'm still thinking about Birmingham.

No one is debating what the bowls are for. This whole side track debate started because Quo in his quest to always be correct was stating that bowls are a better way of measuring success than normal home/home games. And multiple people have brought up numerous reasons as to why that is not true.

I have been a long time supporter of having more northern bowl games. Even the Rose Bowl like Quo pointed out in some weird jab as USC is unfair. Whenever USC or UCLA make the game it's a home game. And even when it's someone like Stanford or Cal it's still essentially a home game. While the Big 10 teams and fans have to travel across the country.

(11-17-2016 10:15 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  No one is debating what the bowls are for. This whole side track debate started because Quo in his quest to always be correct was stating that bowls are a better way of measuring success than normal home/home games. And multiple people have brought up numerous reasons as to why that is not true.

I have been a long time supporter of having more northern bowl games. Even the Rose Bowl like Quo pointed out in some weird jab as USC is unfair. Whenever USC or UCLA make the game it's a home game. And even when it's someone like Stanford or Cal it's still essentially a home game. While the Big 10 teams and fans have to travel across the country.

Which the B1G agreed too.

Even still. I don't place a lot on bowl games. For example.

The AAC was clearly the #1 G5 conference last season and I think they won 1 game. Doesn't change the fact they were the #1 G5 conference in a season long competition.

As I was saying. I place more weight on the overall season and what said conference accomplished. I also place a lot of value on who team's play and beat. I could care less about records. Just because a team is 7-3 doesn't mean they are better or have a better resume' than other 7-3 teams and doesn't make them equal.

I don't think a conference is better because the top teams beat the bottom teams from another conference. Conference records versus one another are crap unless you have #1 vs #1, #2 vs #2, #3 vs #3 and so on or atleast have some kind of top teams vs top teams play. Does the #3 team in a conference beating the #11 team in another conference make that conference better? Hell no it doesn't.

Everyone has their own opinions on it.

Bowl results can be skewed by points mentioned previously.

1. Players not wanting to get hurt.
2. Players not giving their all in a game they really don't care about.
3. Loss of motivation for playing in a bowl like the Liberty when they felt they deserved the Sugar.
4. Coaches changes
5. Injuries during the regular season.

There are tons of reasons why bowl results are skewed.

A team like Houston is thrilled to be in a NY6 bowl, where a team like FSU is pissed they weren't in the playoff. (I'm not saying that's why Houston beat them, it's just an example).

(11-17-2016 10:15 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  No one is debating what the bowls are for. This whole side track debate started because Quo in his quest to always be correct was stating that bowls are a better way of measuring success than normal home/home games. And multiple people have brought up numerous reasons as to why that is not true.

I have been a long time supporter of having more northern bowl games. Even the Rose Bowl like Quo pointed out in some weird jab as USC is unfair. Whenever USC or UCLA make the game it's a home game. And even when it's someone like Stanford or Cal it's still essentially a home game. While the Big 10 teams and fans have to travel across the country.

A game is a game. The outcome is what it is. Everything else is spin. Why? Because it is the coach's job to make sure they are ready to play just like every other week of the season. The question I would have for those who make excuses about this is, "If you don't care whether you win or not why are you even playing?"

Effort is what makes fans loyal even with a loss. Quitting on a game is what separates the athlete from being also part of the school. IMO lack of effort should result in dismissal quicker than some of the other more prevalent issues. Sadly too many coaches cave into the personas the media and signing day rankings have built. The reason Saban and Meyer are successful is because they are two coaches who do not.

(11-17-2016 10:51 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-17-2016 10:15 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  No one is debating what the bowls are for. This whole side track debate started because Quo in his quest to always be correct was stating that bowls are a better way of measuring success than normal home/home games. And multiple people have brought up numerous reasons as to why that is not true.

I have been a long time supporter of having more northern bowl games. Even the Rose Bowl like Quo pointed out in some weird jab as USC is unfair. Whenever USC or UCLA make the game it's a home game. And even when it's someone like Stanford or Cal it's still essentially a home game. While the Big 10 teams and fans have to travel across the country.

A game is a game. The outcome is what it is. Everything else is spin. Why? Because it is the coach's job to make sure they are ready to play just like every other week of the season. The question I would have for those who make excuses about this is, "If you don't care whether you win or not why are you even playing?"

Effort is what makes fans loyal even with a loss. Quitting on a game is what separates the athlete from being also part of the school. IMO lack of effort should result in dismissal quicker than some of the other more prevalent issues. Sadly too many coaches cave into the personas the media and signing day rankings have built. The reason Saban and Meyer are successful is because they are two coaches who do not.

I feel unfortunately it's that way though. Which is why I don't read into them myself. No excuses, if you lose you lose. I just don't weigh conference strength on bowl results personally.

If some do, they do. Glad I don't have to deal with other fans usually .

(11-17-2016 10:53 PM)AubTiger16 Wrote:  

(11-17-2016 10:51 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-17-2016 10:15 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  No one is debating what the bowls are for. This whole side track debate started because Quo in his quest to always be correct was stating that bowls are a better way of measuring success than normal home/home games. And multiple people have brought up numerous reasons as to why that is not true.

I have been a long time supporter of having more northern bowl games. Even the Rose Bowl like Quo pointed out in some weird jab as USC is unfair. Whenever USC or UCLA make the game it's a home game. And even when it's someone like Stanford or Cal it's still essentially a home game. While the Big 10 teams and fans have to travel across the country.

A game is a game. The outcome is what it is. Everything else is spin. Why? Because it is the coach's job to make sure they are ready to play just like every other week of the season. The question I would have for those who make excuses about this is, "If you don't care whether you win or not why are you even playing?"

Effort is what makes fans loyal even with a loss. Quitting on a game is what separates the athlete from being also part of the school. IMO lack of effort should result in dismissal quicker than some of the other more prevalent issues. Sadly too many coaches cave into the personas the media and signing day rankings have built. The reason Saban and Meyer are successful is because they are two coaches who do not.

I feel unfortunately it's that way though. Which is why I don't read into them myself. No excuses, if you lose you lose. I just don't weigh conference strength on bowl results personally.

If some do, they do. Glad I don't have to deal with other fans usually .

I don't weigh them any more or less than any other game. I get that for some their motivation may be off. It's just I don't accept that excuse. Whether you win or lose is just a fact. Or in the words of Boston, "It's More Than a Feeling" which negates and defines every other opinion on the subject.

(11-17-2016 11:26 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-17-2016 10:53 PM)AubTiger16 Wrote:  

(11-17-2016 10:51 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-17-2016 10:15 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  No one is debating what the bowls are for. This whole side track debate started because Quo in his quest to always be correct was stating that bowls are a better way of measuring success than normal home/home games. And multiple people have brought up numerous reasons as to why that is not true.

I have been a long time supporter of having more northern bowl games. Even the Rose Bowl like Quo pointed out in some weird jab as USC is unfair. Whenever USC or UCLA make the game it's a home game. And even when it's someone like Stanford or Cal it's still essentially a home game. While the Big 10 teams and fans have to travel across the country.

A game is a game. The outcome is what it is. Everything else is spin. Why? Because it is the coach's job to make sure they are ready to play just like every other week of the season. The question I would have for those who make excuses about this is, "If you don't care whether you win or not why are you even playing?"

Effort is what makes fans loyal even with a loss. Quitting on a game is what separates the athlete from being also part of the school. IMO lack of effort should result in dismissal quicker than some of the other more prevalent issues. Sadly too many coaches cave into the personas the media and signing day rankings have built. The reason Saban and Meyer are successful is because they are two coaches who do not.

I feel unfortunately it's that way though. Which is why I don't read into them myself. No excuses, if you lose you lose. I just don't weigh conference strength on bowl results personally.

If some do, they do. Glad I don't have to deal with other fans usually .

I don't weigh them any more or less than any other game. I get that for some their motivation may be off. It's just I don't accept that excuse. Whether you win or lose is just a fact. Or in the words of Boston, "It's More Than a Feeling" which negates and defines every other opinion on the subject.

Truth!

(11-17-2016 09:09 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(11-17-2016 07:53 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  About the only example of a true home field advantage one team consistently and historically has had in bowl games is ... USC in the Rose Bowl vs B1G teams.

The "true home field advantage" point is true as far as it goes, which in this context is not very far. It is hoping for an unstated false dichotomy fallacy, in which not being a "true home field" implies that it is therefore a "true neutral field". But the excluded middle is where many bowl games end up being played: it is also quite often not a "true neutral field" either, but somewhere in between.

So the "true home field" formula is mostly a way of ducking the implications of the straightforward point that the SEC has a strong tendency to play most of it's bowl games somewhere in SEC country. While it's not always in easy driving distance for most of the "home" supporters of an SEC team in an SEC bowl, it is the case often enough to tilt the average SEC bowl from being a "true neutral field" game.

IMO, you are theorizing a sliding scale of HFA that doesn't exist in reality. HFA is something largely dichotomous - you either have it or you don't. It's a "you can't be a little bit pregnant" kind of thing.

So to me it's pretty obvious that in this case there are no implications of an "excluded middle": In football, you either have a "true" HFA or very close to it or you don't, if you don't, you don't reap any advantage worth talking about. USC in the Rose Bowl? LSU in the Sugar Bowl? Texas in the Cotton Bowl? Sure. But beyond those types of examples, no.

Heck, I remember 5 or so years ago, a Michigan fan tried to explain away their rout at the hands of Mississippi State in the Gator Bowl by talking about State's alleged "HFA" in the deep south. He neglected to mention that Starkville is farther from Jacksonville than Ann Arbor is from Washington DC. It was ridiculous.