Brett McMurphy: Michigan-South Carolina in Outback

Submitted by jerseyblue on

Brett McMurphy says he's been told Michigan is a lock to play in the Outback Bowl and that he expects them to play South Carolina.

MGoBoard

Brodie

November 28th, 2017 at 11:40 PM ^

I'm inclined to agree with those who have been saying that the prestige of New Year's Day bowl games is largely a recent invention. Frankly, playing in the earliest game of the day in a bowl game founded in the 90s and named after an Australian themed steakhouse REALLY better than playing a game in prime ime on national television (in the NFL's normal timeslot) in a city we never play in in a bowl with a respectable history going back to the 70s and a normal name?

Joined: 11/19/2008

MGoPoints: 10713

lilpenny1316

November 29th, 2017 at 12:34 AM ^

It was known as The Hall of Fame Bowl back when we first played Alabama in 1987.  And playing on New Year's has always had prestige for Michigan fans since the Big Ten would only send the champ to the Rose Bowl and everyone else stayed home until the mid-70s. 

Playing a bowl game against the Pac-12 also has prestige though and I like that more than playing the Gamecocks.

Joined: 11/19/2009

MGoPoints: 61859

Maynard

November 29th, 2017 at 9:54 AM ^

Brodie--Yes, playing in the Outback Bowl on NY Day is better than the Holiday Bowl in the NFL weeknight timeslot. 

1. They're both on national television so I don't know why you would use that as a differentiator.

2. The NY prestige is not recent. In fact, there are more games not on NY currently that are big games than there has been over the decades. In the 80s, 90s, and early 00s, most of the big games have been within a few days of that day.

3. Check the ratings. It isn't close. And common sense dictates that many families get together on NY Day and watch football, eat, etc. just as they do on Thanksgiving. The Holiday Bowl, played last year on Dec. 27 had 4.05 million (ranked 14th) in TV viewership whereas the Outback Bowl, played on Jan. 2 had 6.10 million (ranked 8th).

http://collegesports.blog.statesman.com/2017/01/13/bowl-tv-ratings-view…

4. Your history is off. The Outback Bowl is only different now because of the sponsor. The game itself has a much longer history than that.

5. For recruiting purposes, we are more likely to pull recruits out of Florida than we are out of San Diego. Playing in their backyard is always better than playing 3 time zones away.

6. Winning the actual game matters. In my opinion, the matchup potential of an SEC school is MUCH better from an upside standpoint than the PAC 12 schools we would draw.

Joined: 02/19/2016

MGoPoints: 9888

Brodie

November 29th, 2017 at 12:12 PM ^

1. As far as I can tell, there really is nothing concrete that makes NYD "special" except for the borrowed glint of being the same day that all the really old bowls were played on. The idea that the TaxSlayer Bowl (admittedly a historical bowl, but one that currently pits 7-5 teams against each other) is more "special" than a game against a ranked opponent ocurring two days prior is farcical... a few years ago, 6-6 Purdue played 7-5 Oklahoma State in a half empty Cotton Bowl on NYD. That year's Alamo Bowl on December 29 featured #13 Oregon State against a ranked 8-win Texas team. Which was more prestigious? 

2. The NYD prestige existed because, in the 80's, there were 16 bowl games and basically the only ones that would feature exciting matchups between ranked teams were the old ones with the big conference autobids (and the upstart Fiesta Bowl with independents), which all played on New Year's Day. This was also a time period where only ~18 of the top 25 teams even played in bowls, too, so the number of interesting matchups was lower and the prestige of being in one was much higher. Today, because everyone makes a bowl the number of quality matchups is much higher and there is less clustering. 

3. Last year's Holliday Bowl was shown on ESPN at 4 pm PST on a Tuesday. This year's will be played at 6 pm PST on a Thursday and will be shown on Fox, ie over the air. You really can't compare this year's to last year's for those reasons. 

4. Okay, so it was founded in 1986 and is named after a kitschy Australian themed restaurant chain. Mea culpa. I don't see why that really makes it better than one founded in 1978 which has actually featured top 10 teams like 15 times in it's history. 

5. We recruit nationally and I am sure some exposure in California would be nice, considering we never play there but are in Florida all the damn time.

6. Agreed here. 

Joined: 11/19/2008

MGoPoints: 10713

robpollard

November 28th, 2017 at 11:21 PM ^

This defense, as good as it was, still had trouble with running QBs. Not to mention someone who can throw deep. Lamar Jackson is both of those things.

I willl take South Carolina, even though I have literally no idea who their QB is, as I am sure he is not Lamar Jackson.

<Just looked him up: Jake Bentley. He ran for less than 100 yards, total, this year. That gets zero Lamar's out of five>

 

Joined: 06/03/2009

MGoPoints: 14005

CarrIsMyHomeboy

November 28th, 2017 at 11:56 PM ^

The fogey in me agrees about using "lol" as a form of punctuation in a comment that isn't a joke. However, I also recognize that languages ceaselessly change. So rather than beat my head against the wall at things like this or Merriam-Webster adding "literally" as an officially recognized definition of "figuratively" or the also-recent trend to use adjectives like "female" as nouns, it seems less ignorant of me to just accept the changes. Plus, "lol" does serve a purpose, however disjointed from the acronym's definition -- it serves as a modifier to convey friendly disposition and lack of severity. As far as the mechanism of change underlying things like this: The last few centuries of linguistic science have identified that, almost exclusively, the demographic that shapes language changes (of all languages) in the Western Hemisphere is teenage girls. No joke. Look it up.

Joined: 06/30/2008

MGoPoints: 7324

Catchafire

November 28th, 2017 at 10:49 PM ^

Playing Stanford or Arizona does nothing for our program. A loss to either would really leave a sour taste for the whole off season. Playing South Carolina is ideal because we lost to them recently and we have no glaring ties like we do Stanford/Zona

Joined: 09/30/2009

MGoPoints: 27960

RickyPowers

November 29th, 2017 at 12:05 AM ^

This is a LOSE DOG attitude.  We're Michigan - we're supposed to be the leaders and best and ready to play anyone.  Wanting to play South Carolina because we have a better chance of beating a mediocre team than a decent one in the Holiday Bowl is the absolute apex of lose doggery.  I want a good, exciting matchup that provides a chance to have a memorable victory.  If we just want the easiest W available, why don't we decline all invites until the Little Caesar's Bowl calls?

Joined: 11/19/2008

MGoPoints: 445

EGD

November 29th, 2017 at 6:45 AM ^

This is the attitude I think we want our players and coaches to have. But we've seen this team play 12 games and they are not yet ready to take on all comers. A win over a middle-of-the-road SEC team would be far more enjoyable than getting smoked by Washington.

Joined: 09/16/2009

MGoPoints: 35199

1VaBlue1

November 29th, 2017 at 7:54 AM ^

I dunno, man...  We just took two top 10 teams to, essentially, the wire.  Faded late, yes, but considering the hole at WR, and the super massive black hole at QB, I think we did okay.  Give Peters 3 quarters of work against OSU and we win that game.  Give him the whole game against UW, and we're in to the bitter end with a real chance to win.  I'm okay with taking on Washington or Stanford in a bowl game out west.  Both WR's and QB's have time to heal up, and another 3-4 weeks of work with the OL, and this team is gonna roll whatever is in its path.  Talk about being underrated going into a bowl game?  Nobody will be more underrated than this 8-4 Michigan team.

BTW, FWIW, I think UW gave us a tougher game than OSU did, and that UW is going to win the B1G CG.

Joined: 01/31/2016

MGoPoints: 127443

TrueBlue2003

November 29th, 2017 at 3:17 PM ^

With Peters healthy and this defense, there are very few teams, if any, that we can't plausibly hang with.  I'd take Washington all day, every day.

As 1VaBlue just explained, we just did take on two top 10 teams and outplayed one when Peters was in the game at their place, and outplayed the other but lost because our QB couldn't hit wide open receivers.

Joined: 01/05/2010

MGoPoints: 38075