Wednesday, January 4, 2012

2012 Sugar Bowl: Kirk Herbstreit can eat it.

Apparently, there was a lot of outcry over the choice of the two teams to play in the Sugar Bowl.  I can't say for sure how much outcry there really was, because it was largely reported by ESPN, who I have determined is not a reliable source for opinions of that nature.

The biggest critic regarding the Sugar Bowl's team selection was Kirk Herbstreit.

Now that the game has been played, even though I wish the outcome was reversed, there are four reasons why I want to tell Mr. Herbstreit to eat it.


1.)  The game matched up two teams with really good records.  Let's leave out the rankings, which vary too much between polls.  Michigan was 10-2, and VT was 11-2 (or 11-1 if you want to even the field and take out the championship game).  In the old bowl days, that would have been a respectable matchup in a respectable bowl.

2.)  The game was close.  The largest lead of the game was 11 points, and most of that lead came from one team's mistakes.

3.)  The game was interesting and entertaining.  VT couldn't move the ball on 1st or 2nd down, but was getting something like 75% of 3rd downs converted with an average distance of 8 yards.  (Not exact numbers, but you get my point.)  Michigan's plays would get busted up by VT's defense, but somehow they could score a touchdown in despiration.  VT's defense kept pressure on Michigan's supposedly dynamic quarterback.  Most plays, there was a maroon jersey in the backfield.  The final score was 23-20.  Not so much scoring that it doesn't look like the defenses didn't show up (i.e. Alamo Bowl), but not so little scoring that it got boring (i.e. LSU vs. Alabama, round 1).

4.)  It was the second BCS bowl this year to go into overtime, out of 3 played so far.  And the game that didn't go into overtime came down to one final play to try to force overtime.

It wasn't a perfect game, but it kept me entertained for over 3 hours.  And the game stayed close enough that I didn't check out at halftime, hoping for some sort of mercy rule (i.e. last year's Orange Bowl against Stanford.)

For the most part, I didn't have issues with the refs.  They seemed fair, and were very clear on their explanations.  Granted, the touchdown and review in overtime was very questionable.  I would have been less upset by the review if they had not called it a touchdown on the field.  I felt there really wasn't enough video evidence to confirm or overturn, so they should have deferred to the original call (which was a little late anyway).  But then, if Tech had capitalized on several key plays earlier in the game, they wouldn't have needed that touchdown.  I feel the worst for Danny Coale, who put everything on the line on that play, battering and bruising his body, only to be denied the potentially winning score.

I really appreciated the sportsmanship showed between the two teams.  I didn't see any trash talking.  Michigan players were helping VT guys get up, and vice versa.  It was clearly a showcase game between two respectable programs that were damn glad to be there.  Nothing was on the line (other than pride and bragging rights). 

So, Kirk Herbstreit:  Eat it.

No comments:

Post a Comment