The Old Pissed At The BCS Angle

Posted: January 5th, 2009 | Filed under: Last Decade | No Comments »

I’m working on a BOB post for tonight’s Fiesta Bowl, and the reemerging theme so far has been that Texas is going to blow Ohio St out because a) they are pissed that they were left out of the BCS title game and b) they have a chance to “share”* the national championship.

A and B seem like very compelling** reasons to place a real money wager ATS, but I don’t like to jump into bed with an angle without doing my homework first. Here’s how some other “pissed at the BCS” teams from the past have fared in their bowl games:

In 2001 Colorado (-3) was left out of the title game in favor of a Nebraska team that they had just beaten by 26 points 2 weeks earlier. They were so riled up over this that they lost to Joey Harrington and Oregon by 22 in the Fiesta Bowl.

In 2003 USC (-7) was playing for a “share” of the national title when they beat Michigan by 14 in the Rose Bowl. Pete Carroll was so desperate to impress the AP pollsters that he ran Hershel Dennis 4 straight times deep in Michigan territory on the game’s final drive.

After the great Mack Brown voting scandal of 2004, Cal (-11) was left out of the BCS entirely and responded by losing to Texas Texas by 14 in the Holiday Bowl.

That same year Auburn (-6) was the undefeated team left without a chair when the regular season stopped. They made their case for a split national title by beating Virginia Tech by 3 in the Sugar Bowl. They were left with a 0% share after USC trounced Oklahoma by 36 a few days later.

Remember how mad Michigan (-1.5) was 2 years ago after Florida jumped them in the BCS standings following the final week of the season? USC might have won that Rose Bowl by 28 instead of 14 if Michigan hadn’t been so freaking pissed.

By my count that is 1-4 ATS and 2-3 straight up. There are obvious sample size issues here, but in the short history of the BCS, teams looking to prove the system wrong haven’t fared very well.

* – I hate this notion. It’s not like they are going to cut the trophy in half if Oklahoma beats Florida and Texas finishes ahead of them in the AP poll.

** – stupid

No Comments on “The Old Pissed At The BCS Angle”

1: am19psu said at 12:22 PM on January 5th, 2009:
I’m at work so I can’t check the boards, but…

Have people been playing up the crappy Big Ten angle at all? No one at my place of employment gives Ohio State a chance of keeping it within 3 TDs tonight because “the Big Ten is terrible, dude.”

I can’t imagine, even if that attitude were prevalent that the books would adjust the line. Just one of the things I’ve been thinking about today while trying to escape jet lag.
2: DMurray said at 12:27 PM on January 5th, 2009:
What did Mizzou do last year? werent they “snubbed and pissed”? I think there game was a blowout 1 way or another
3: Eric said at 12:31 PM on January 5th, 2009:
I remember that Va Tech/Auburn game very fondly.

I think it was the last time I back door covered a football side.
4: moneyline said at 12:31 PM on January 5th, 2009:
“What did Mizzou do last year? werent they “snubbed and pissed”? I think there game was a blowout 1 way or another”

They slaughtered Arkansas as 3 point favorites. I overlooked that one.
5: moneyline said at 12:33 PM on January 5th, 2009:
“Have people been playing up the crappy Big Ten angle at all?”

That sentiment is pretty common, especially with the Big 12 holding two wins over the Big 10 this bowl season already.
6: The Blue Horseshoe said at 1:13 PM on January 5th, 2009:
Kansas State was snubbed by BCS was demoted all the way to the Alamo bowl and destroyed* Purdue led by Drew Brees

* = Lost 37 – 34 as a favorite
7: moneyline said at 2:09 PM on January 5th, 2009:
“Kansas State was snubbed by BCS was demoted all the way to the Alamo bowl and destroyed* Purdue led by Drew Brees”

I think they lost in the Big XII title game that year as huge fave, but I guess going from #1 one week to the Alamo the next could qualify.
8: frank montana said at 3:52 PM on January 5th, 2009:
The “anger” angle means so little because of the huge lag between end of season and ball game. The key is Big 10 teams just don’t usually travel well because they don’t have the team speed to keep up against the top tier teams. I can’t see Texas losing this unless they enter the turnitover zone.
9: A.S. said at 4:51 PM on January 5th, 2009:
Yep.

http://deadspin.com/5123645/its-time-for-ohio-states-annual-butt-whupping
10: jonny said at 5:03 PM on January 5th, 2009:
There is absolutely zero chance Texas loses to Ohio State. It’s just not possible.
11: Poop Bandit said at 5:09 PM on January 5th, 2009:
“The key is Big 10 teams just don’t usually travel well because they don’t have the team speed to keep up against the top tier teams”

You are dumb. I don’t think Ohio State will win, but speed will not be the reason why.
12: A.S. said at 5:37 PM on January 5th, 2009:
On an unrelated note, the “turnitover zone” sounds like a really awesome place to reside.
13: BgDawg said at 6:29 PM on January 5th, 2009:
“I don’t think Ohio State will win, but speed will not be the reason why.”

You are dumb. It’s been well documented both here and on the RMMB sports board that fast athletes hate cold weather and thus do not play for the rust belt teams. Why is that so hard for you big ten homers to understand?
14: ShaM NE said at 6:42 PM on January 5th, 2009:
“It’s been well documented both here and on the RMMB sports board that fast athletes hate cold weather and thus do not play for the rust belt teams.”

Where was this study published professor?
15: moneyline said at 6:56 PM on January 5th, 2009:
Ted Ginn and Anthony Gonzalez were both extremely slow. Had they been faster Ohio St would have crushed Florida.
16: Jay Bilas said at 6:59 PM on January 5th, 2009:
“It’s been well documented both here and on the RMMB sports board that fast athletes hate cold weather and thus do not play for the rust belt teams.”

Just cause Ron Dayne played for Wisconsin doesn’t make everyone in the Big Ten slow.
17: Bryan said at 7:10 PM on January 5th, 2009:
“Ted Ginn and Anthony Gonzalez were both extremely slow. Had they been faster Ohio St would have crushed Florida.”

I agree with your overall point, but I think OSU actually really missed Ginn’s speed on the outside in that game after his early injury…
18: dp said at 7:21 PM on January 5th, 2009:
Your 2001 example is backward. It was Oregon that got hosed out of the NC game that year, and thus “pissed at the BCS”. Nebraska lost to CU in the Big XII title game and still went, but it didn’t mean that a 3 loss CU team deserved the title shot over a 1 loss Oregon team.
19: Bryan B said at 7:25 PM on January 5th, 2009:
Some piss poor examples in this article.

In 2001 Oregon was the ticked off team, they were #2 in both polls and got left out.

In 2003, USC did NOT score in the 4th quarter, so I’m not sure what runnig their 5th string rb getting a few carries late in the game has anything to do with this.

In 2004, Auburn still won the sugar bowl correct?

3 out of the 5 examples were crap. Next.
20: am19psu said at 7:30 PM on January 5th, 2009:
dp,

CU beat Texas in the Big XII CG and only had two losses.

The computers loved the Big XII that year.

http://www.appollarchive.com/football/ap/seasons.cfm?appollid=870

http://www.collegefootballpoll.com/2001_archive_bcs.html
21: BgDawg said at 7:34 PM on January 5th, 2009:
“Where was this study published professor?”

Seriously? Don’t tell me you missed the esteemed Peter North’s commentary on the subject. See here, http://messageboard.tuckermax.com/showthread.php?t=24552&page=13,
pages 13-15.
22: moneyline said at 8:05 PM on January 5th, 2009:
Some of you people are really, really stupid:

http://www.collegefootballpoll.com/2001_archive_bcs.html
23: ShaM NE said at 1:21 AM on January 6th, 2009:
“Seriously? Don’t tell me you missed the esteemed Peter North’s commentary on the subject. See here, http://messageboard.tuckermax.com/showthread.php?t=24552&page=13,
pages 13-15.”

Now I see why I was advised to stay away from the sports board.