From: gsroka@leland.Stanford.EDU (Gregory Sroka)
Subject: Re: Excessive Celebration Penalty
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 92 22:46:42 GMT

In article <1992Nov20.214932.12347@spss.com> nichols@spss.com (David Nichols) writes:
- discussion about past MNC's deleted -
>...   The point I was making was not that Notre Dame didn't deserve to
>win some (most?) of those, but that, when in doubt (at all), Notre Dame
>gets the benefit of the doubt over ANYONE. Same principle that applies
>to refereeing--not consciously, not deliberately, but consistently. 
>
>Five of the MNC for Notre Dame came after 1960. They were the obvious
>choice in 1988, and I won't quarrel either with 1973, when they beat
>undefeated, number one Alabama in a bowl (though I thought Alabama was
>better and should have won, the winner of that game in my mind was the
>appropriate pick, despire Penn State going undefeated at 12-0).
>
>But in 1977, Notre Dame vaulted from 5th to 1st with an impressive 38-10
>win over undefeated Texas in the Cotton Bowl, while Alabama, the number
>2 team going into the bowls (same record as ND, 1 loss), clobbered Ohio
>State 35-6 in the Sugar Bowl, saw the only team ahead of them lose, and
>stayed right where they were. Can you find another team that's had that
>happen to them? I doubt it. Can you find another team that's vaulted over
>several previously higher ranked bowl winners? I doubt it. Why? Because
>it was Notre Dame. If you reversed the roles of the teams, there's no
>way Alabama (or anyone else) would have vaulted over Notre Dame.
>
One thing you fail to consider is schedule strength.  What were Texas and
Ohio State ranked? If teams have equal records, this is usually the main 
factor. Maybe the pollsters just liked ND's schedule better. ;}
Seriously, who beat Alabama and ND that year? Did they play each other?
Wasn't that the last season Bear Bryant played ND? Or was that the '73
Bowl game?  Forgive my ignorance, I didn't follow college football in
the 70's.

>In 1966, Ara played the famous tie, yet still got number one, despite
>Alabama being undefeated and untied. The rules are not the same for
>Notre Dame.

Again, what were the respective schedules like? What was Mich. State's
ranking that year?

>...   But the point still remains: Notre Dame has NEVER been denied
>the MNC by another team with the same record, and has on some occasions
>been given the nod over teams with better records. 
>

What about '89? Both Miami and ND had 1 loss. This was decided on 
head-to-head play. But ND fans liked to think that they had a tougher
schedule, that ND's loss was to a higher ranked team ;) , that
ND's bowl performance was more impressive than Miami's, and hoped this
would be enough to get the old ND magic dust working again!
But your magic ND rules didn't seem to kick in. The pollsters must have
ignored your ND rule, and looked at the schedule! Imagine that.
(Oh I forgot, Miami has it's own special rule now!  :) )

> Any correlation between my views and those of s*** is strictly due to chance.
:)               (I couldn't resist, nothing personal intended!)
                (Hey Matt, how did you get those asterisks in there?)

-
Greg Sroka
Menlo Park, CA


Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.college,rec.sport.basketball.college,rec.sport.baseball.college