5-7 Mississippi State is favored by 14 in a bowl game?

They beat UMass 47-35.

OMG that is so impressive.

(12-18-2016 10:05 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  5-7 Mississippi State is favored by 14 in a bowl game?

They beat UMass 47-35.

OMG that is so impressive.

You guys have time on your side and should make them pay to be favored by 14 pts. They are very beatable, unfortunately we lost our best linebacker early in the half that game. Hope Huber heals well.

(12-18-2016 10:05 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  5-7 Mississippi State is favored by 14 in a bowl game?

They beat UMass 47-35.

OMG that is so impressive.

I can see why they're favored like that, on paper a 5-7 SEC team should be a decent amount better than a 6-6 MAC team that couldn't even beat Eastern Illinois. Of course, games aren't played on paper, and this Miami team in December would kick the crap outta EIU and UC if we played now. If the Bulldog team that lost to South Alabama and lost to Alabama by the same margin as Kent State shows up, we have a good shot. If they're the team that beat A&M and hung in there with some other decent opponents, we're in for trouble.

Regardless, the mental game will be interesting, this obviously is Miami's Super Bowl and we'll be pumped up to give it our all. But for Mississippi State, they just had their worst season since 2009 and they're going to finish with a losing record a mere two seasons after being number one in the nation and making the Orange Bowl. The St. Pete Bowl, no matter how much coaches will say that it's meaningful, is a pretty big downer.

...and Miss State destroyed Ol Miss in their last regular season game. They are not an SEC stalwart this year, but still plenty big and good enough to give a 6-6 MAC team a heckuva challenge! Hey, as a long suffering Miami grad I am pleased as hell with our turnaround and 6 straight wins, but I am not deluding myself to think that we have that strong a team. We barely got by Kent and Ball State and although we are finally "learning to win" again, it's understandable why we are a big underdog to Miss State.

When I told folks around here Tulsa could name its own score in its bowl game today, I didn't realize how accurate that was going to be. Ouch CMU.

(12-19-2016 05:08 PM)HuronDave Wrote:  When I told folks around here Tulsa could name its own score in its bowl game today, I didn't realize how accurate that was going to be. Ouch CMU.

Moral of the story. The MAC shouldn't accept matchups vs. Tulsa in Bowl Games.

(2007) Tulsa 63 - Bowling Green 7
(2008) Tulsa 45 - Ball State 13
(2009) Tulsa 55 - CMU 10

Tulsa would beat CMU under any circumstances.

But the trajectory of both teams at the end of the season was telling. Losing 4 of their last 5 games, I don't think CMU was too motivated to be there (nice beach weather aside). Guessing their confidence tank was pretty low. Tulsa, otoh, was flying high.

Miami is CMU in reverse, winning their last 6 games and thrilled to be going anywhere. Despite its underdog status, I wonder if their newfound confidence will help make the game interesting.

When the pairings were first announced, I had a very bad feeling about this game (CMU-Tulsa). In fact, all the MAC bowl match-ups are quite challenging with UT being the only slight favorite (or maybe pick em). We will probably be lucky to pick up a couple of wins from here on out.

The only "good" news about the Miami Beach Bowl is that practically no one was at the game, and I think it was on CBS Sportsnet which many folks don't even get in their basic cable line up. (I know I don't). So hopefully it wasn't noticed all that much!

It was on ESPN.

Shows what I know, Dave! Obviously, I didn't tune in although I checked on the score a couple of times on my phone.

Regardless of whether or not it was on ESPN, Miami Beach had had the lowest ratings of any bowl in the two of their previous games despite having some decent G5 teams involved. A regular Monday afternoon workday is an awful TV time even if it has no competition, but I guess in this case it may have been a blessing in disguise for CMU.

Even if the St. Pete Bowl slot is pretty bad next week for Miami in terms of travel, at least a lot of people will have work off that day and might feel like some 11 AM football to nurse their egg nog hangover. I'm fortunate enough to live in Tampa so it's a pretty quick drive to the Trop, although it's not so convenient for the vast majority of people that'll be there.

I think people are way overestimating how much attention is paid to these bowl games by people who are not directly involved. Actually, we probably overestimate how much even people involved care about these exhibition games. The playoffs have changed the game in a very dramatic way. Christian McCaffrey and Leonard Fournette are prime examples of how little players care about the bowls if they are not in the playoffs. And I don't blame them a bit for ending their careers a game early rather than playing in a game that has no meaning like the Sun Bowl.

The bottom 35-odd games are just TV fodder. You watch them, consume them, work up interest if the game is compelling but don't give it a second thought if it isn't. For the schools involved, they are about the trip, the gift bag, and the fact that they are a bowl team; the game itself is a very small part of the whole deal. Very few people care who wins and loses these things.

Tulsa fans viewed CMU as a 5-7 team with a B.S win who would compete no better than Tulane in the AAC. A monday game, across the south, mid afternoon.. did not appeal to them at all. That explains the bad crowd. CMU traveled as much as you'd expect a struggling 6-6 MAC team 24 hours away against a far superior team.

Too many bowls. Get rid of 5 games... That's all I ask.

(12-20-2016 03:29 PM)UofToledoFans Wrote:  Tulsa fans viewed CMU as a 5-7 team with a B.S win who would compete no better than Tulane in the AAC. A monday game, across the south, mid afternoon.. did not appeal to them at all. That explains the bad crowd. CMU traveled as much as you'd expect a struggling 6-6 MAC team 24 hours away against a far superior team.

Too many bowls. Get rid of 5 games... That's all I ask.

Agreed. They can start with the Camellia Bowl. Any bowl that can't come up with a big enough payout to cover the expenses of the teams participating and then some isn't a legitimate bowl. I think I could round up enough people to put together the paltry payouts they currently offer up and they can call it the Participation Bowl and we'll even pony up the cash to get trophies for both teams...

I will say though the Miami Beach bowl has potential. It's in a good location, it's a warm destination that people like to visit. It's big drawback is the absolutely asinine start time. What is the point of having a bowl game at 2:30 (11:30 PST) on a random Monday when everyone is working? I get it if it were at night, or a day or two before Christmas, or even between the Holidays where a lot of people take the week off, but the 19th? It makes no sense, and it doesn't even fill a TV slot as the ratings can't be good either...

In fairness to the bowl schedule, and this coming from someone who thinks that there are WAY too many bowls, at least 10 too many, the problem last year and this year is that Christmas and New Year fall on the weekends and that makes the necessity of some weird times for games.

10 too many bowl games, means... 20 less teams. 80 are eligible now. That number would be knocked down to 60. Making the total number of games 32 with the playoff system.

The MAC would drop CMU, Miami, and EMU from this years schedule.
CUSA would drop MTSU, USM, UNT, and UTSA.
The Sun Belt would drop Idaho, ULL, and stAte.
The MWC would drop UNM, Hawaii and CSU.
The AAC would drop UCF.
The BIG12 would drop Baylor.
The Big10 would drop Maryland and Indiana.
The SEC would drop, Kentucky, and Miss St.
The ACC would drop Wake, and NC st.

I like the idea of emulating college basketball's postseason by having a broad championship tournament alongside other minor games. What I'd do is change the CFP to 12 teams with auto-bids to conference champs plus two at-large teams. Seeding and at-large selections for the tourney would be determined exclusively by a transparent formula, like Pairwise in college hockey. In the first round the higher seed plays at home a week or so after the conference championships. Quarterfinals are the week before Christmas and semifinals are around New Year's, with sites rotated between the current CFP bowls. The championship is a week after New Year's and would be moved around year-to-year like now.

Just over half of college basketball teams go dancing or make a minor tourney, so to get to a similar ratio we'd need to downsize six bowls to get to 28 non-CFP games and end up with 68 out of 128 playing. Give the ax to Arizona, Bahamas, Camellia, Cure, Heart of Dallas, Potato, and St. Pete. And I know that they aren't good December locations, but I'd also cut Armed Forces and Boca Raton in favor of Indianapolis and St. Louis so we can add two geographically relevant locations with domed stadiums for the northern schools. This will all never happen, but a guy can dream.

(12-20-2016 04:27 PM)UofToledoFans Wrote:  10 too many bowl games, means... 20 less teams. 80 are eligible now. That number would be knocked down to 60. Making the total number of games 32 with the playoff system.

The MAC would drop CMU, Miami, and EMU from this years schedule.
CUSA would drop MTSU, USM, UNT, and UTSA.
The Sun Belt would drop Idaho, ULL, and stAte.
The MWC would drop UNM, Hawaii and CSU.
The AAC would drop UCF.
The BIG12 would drop Baylor.
The Big10 would drop Maryland and Indiana.
The SEC would drop, Kentucky, and Miss St.
The ACC would drop Wake, and NC st.

Sounds good. 60/130? is still too many probably.

I think it'd be good to still keep football games going post-season spaced apart -- but yes, BOWLS where it's big $$ input by the universities and such? No.

I'd instead say for the lower-end teams, have games at someone's place (if they can bring a good crowd) or in a neutral in-between field. Less travel for teams & fans. Less cost to universities. Still get a little football before the bigger bowls (and before even Actual bowls).

They could have it in 3 sets:
1) Pre-Bowl Post-Season Games (6-6 & better teams who didn't make bowls play each other for the 1st week)
2) Non-BCS/NY Bowl Games
3) BCS/NY Bowl Games

(12-20-2016 04:27 PM)UofToledoFans Wrote:  10 too many bowl games, means... 20 less teams. 80 are eligible now. That number would be knocked down to 60. Making the total number of games 32 with the playoff system.

The MAC would drop CMU, Miami, and EMU from this years schedule.
CUSA would drop MTSU, USM, UNT, and UTSA.
The Sun Belt would drop Idaho, ULL, and stAte.
The MWC would drop UNM, Hawaii and CSU.
The AAC would drop UCF.
The BIG12 would drop Baylor.
The Big10 would drop Maryland and Indiana.
The SEC would drop, Kentucky, and Miss St.
The ACC would drop Wake, and NC st.

Only one problem. The P5 would lose no one while the G5 would lose seven more teams than listed above. Don't believe it? Go back and look at the history of bowl games. I've lived long enough to remember the number of deserving MAC teams that were left in the cold with only ONE (and sometimes ZERO) schools going bowling.