SportsRatings: College Football

SportsRatings Pre-season predictions top AP

When you spend quite a bit of effort making pre-season predictions, one feels the need to check the success or failure of said predictions. Of course there are many successes and many failures, but comparing against a yardstick is useful. In college football, for better or worse, the best yardstick is the AP rankings. These have long been the last word in final season rankings and are the most-heeded pre-season rankings, so we'll compare SportsRatings pre-season top 25 vs. the AP pre-season top 25.

First we'll look at the final AP top 25 and where the AP and SportsRatings had these teams at the beginning of the year; then we'll add penalties for teams that were present in the AP or SportsRatings that did not end up there.

Since the AP final poll includes only 38 teams that received votes, we'll consider any team with zero votes to have finished at #40. And in the pre-season poll, 49 teams received votes, so those with none started at #50 for our purposes.

We'll look at the # of slots away from predicted finish, and also "weight" it for position (#1 has a weight of 25, #2 is 24, etc.).

Here are the results for the top 25
Key: AP was closer   SportsRatings was closer

AP Final  Team     record   AP Pre  error  weight      SR Pre   error  weight
  1     Auburn      13-0      22     21      525         15       14     350
  2     TCU         12-0      6       4       96          1        1      24
  3     Oregon      12-0      11      8      184          7        4      92
  4     Stanford    11-1      27     23      506         19       15     330
  5     Ohio St.    11-1      2       3       63          9        4      84
  6     Oklahoma    11-2      7       1       20          5        1      20
  7     Wisconsin   11-1      12      5       95         14        7     133
  8     LSU         10-2      21     13      234         22       14     252
  9     Boise St.   11-1      3       6      102          2        7     119
  10    Alabama      9-3      1       9      144          4        6      96
  11    Nevada      12-1      50     39      585         50       39     585
  12    Arkansas    10-2      17      5       70          3        9     126
  13    Oklahoma St 10-2      42     29      377         50       37     481
  14    Michigan St 11-1      50     36      432         42       28     336
  15    Miss. St.    8-4      50     35      385         31       16     176
  16    Va Tech     11-2      10      6       60          6       10     100
  17    Florida St.  9-4      20      3       27         18        1       9
  18    Missouri    10-2      32     14      112         28       10      80
  19    Texas A&M    9-3      40     21      147         23        4      28
  20    Nebraska    10-3      8      12       72         10       10      60
  21    UCF         10-3      47     26      130         49       28     140
  22    S. Carolina  9-4      29      7       28         20        2       8
  23    Maryland     8-4      50     27       81         50       27      81
  24    Tulsa        9-3      50     26       52         50       26      52
  25    N.C. State   8-4      50     25       25         50       25      25
                         Total err: 404     4552     Total err:  345    3787
                           Ave err: 16.2    15.2       Ave err: 13.8    12.6

Looking at the top 25—and using AP's final top 25—SportsRatings was closer on 12 teams to AP's 8, with five teams tied. Not only that, but our "winners" were by a bigger margin. In the top four, we were much closer on Auburn, TCU, Oregon, and Stanford. AP won most of the rest of the top ten, but by margins of just 1, 2, 1, and 1.

So when we take the "average error", SportsRatings wins 13.8 to 16.2. When the errors are weighted for position, both do better, with the AP's average weighted error 15.2 and SportsRatings' 12.6. The AP left out 11 teams that made the final poll, where SportsRatings left out 9.

Now let's look at the "penalties" for having a team ranked in the top 25 that didn't end up there.

  Penalties: Both AP and SR
AP Final  Team     record   AP Pre  error  weight      SR Pre   error  weight
  31    Florida      8-5       4     27      594          8       23     414
  40    Texas        5-7       5     35      735         16       24     240
  40    Miami FL     7-6      13     27      351         12       28     392
  40    Pitt         7-6      15     25      275         25       15      15
  40    GA Tech      6-7      16     24      240         17       23     207
  40    N. Carolina  8-5      18     22      176         13       27     351

  Penalties: AP only                                 
AP Final  Team     record   AP Pre  error  weight      SR Pre   error  weight
  27    Iowa         8-5       9     18      306         27        0       0
  40    USC          8-5      14     26      312         36        0       0
  40    Penn State   7-6      19     21      147         29        0       0
  40    Georgia      6-7      23     17       51         30        0       0
  40    Oregon State 5-7      24     16       32         32        0       0
  33    W. Virginia  9-4      25      8        8         26        0       0

  Penalties: SR only                            
AP Final  Team     record   AP Pre  error  weight      SR Pre   error  weight
  50    Texas Tech   8-5      37      0        0         11       39     585
  50    Clemson      6-7      36      0        0         21       29     145
  50    Washington   7-6      39      0        0         24       26      52
                        Total err:  266     3227     Total err:  234    2401

               Grand Totals:        670     7779                 579    6188

The first section contains teams we both got wrong. Florida, Texas, Miami, Pitt, Georgia Tech, and North Carolina were both in the SportsRatings and AP pre-season top 25. SportsRatings did better with Florida and Texas, ranking them both lower than the top 5 marks that the AP gave them. Miami was ranking similarly but the AP wins by one spot. Overall we got four of the six closer.

The next two sections are the teams that the AP erroneously thought would be top 25 quality but SportsRatings didn't, and those that SportsRatings tabbed for the top 25 but the AP didn't. The AP had six teams ranking that we didn't, and we had three that the AP didn't.

Where the AP put Iowa at #9, we got the Hawks "exactly right" at #27. We did rank the rest in the top 40, and only West Virginia finished there, but none made our top 25.

Our worst pick was Texas Tech at #11; neither they nor Clemson or Washington received a vote in the final poll. But overall, the AP had more mistakes of inclusion as well as mistakes of exclusion, and their total error was 266 to SportsRatings' 234.

Thus overall, looking at the Grand Totals (the top chart added to the bottom charts), we can confidently say that SportsRatings pre-season Top 25 outperformed the AP pre-season top 25.

SportsRatings Final Top 25 for 2010 Season: Auburn #1, TCU, Oregon, Stanford

Welcome to the final SportsRatings College Football Top 25 for the 2010 season. This is a subjective ranking, not a computer power rating. It does attempt to use several rules, some of which include honoring head-to-head results whenever possible, and giving more consideration to teams with wins over other top 25 teams.

 Auburn beat Oregon, yet another win over a top 25 team, making the Tigers 14-0 and an obvious choice for #1 as there are really no other teams that can make an argument. TCU was undefeated at 13-0 with three top 25 wins, but they barely beat Wisconsin. A dominant win might have given them a chance, but Auburn's résumé is just too strong.

In fact, you could argue for keeping Oregon #2; they lost to the top team by a last-second field goal, after all. But despite their gaudy wins all year they don't have enough big-name victims to keep them ahead of a very strong undefeated team.

Stanford's only loss was to Oregon, and they dominated Virginia Tech; this puts them well ahead of #5 Ohio State, who lost to Wisconsin and narrowly beat Arkansas.

#7 Boise State had a better résumé than either of those two, but their loss to Nevada keeps them lower. The Wolf Pack went 13-1 and beat Boise—at home, in overtime, due to a missed field goal, but they won the game and fair is fair; they stay ahead of the Broncos. Not only that, but comparing games against Virginia Tech would put the Cardinal ahead of Boise anyway.

That's all the 1-loss teams in the nation. Oklahoma and Oklahoma State follow at #9 and #10. Both Big 12 teams finished with 2 losses to other ranked teams, and beat two ranked teams, and the Sooners beat the Cowboys head to head.

SportsRatings Top 25 - final rankings for 2010 season
lw	#	Team	Rec	Losses/important wins
1	1	Auburn	14-0	w=Oregon 22-19, @Bama 28-27, LSU 24-17, Ark 65-43, @MissSt 17-14
3	2	TCU	13-0	w=Wisconsin 21-19, @Utah 47-7, San Diego St 40-35
2	3	Oregon	12-1	L=Auburn 22-19 w Stanford 52-31
4	4	Stanford	12-1	L@Oregon 52-31 w=VirginiaTech 40-12
7	5	Ohio State	12-1	L@Wisconsin 31-18 w=Arkansas 31-26
9	6	Nevada	13-1	L@Hawaii 27-21 w BoiseSt 34-31ot
10	7	Boise State	12-1	L@Nevada 34-31ot w=Utah 26-3, @VTech 33-30
11	8	LSU	11-2	L@Auburn 24-17, @Ark 31-23 w Alabama 24-21, MissSt 29-7, @TexAM 41-24
13	9	Oklahoma	12-2	L@Mizzou 36-27, @TexAM 33-19 w@OKst 47-41, =Neb 23-20
14	10	Oklahoma St	11-2	L Nebraska 51-41, OK 47-41 w TexAM 38-35, Tulsa 65-28
15	11	Alabama	10-3	L@SCarolina 35-21, @LSU 24-21, Aub 28-27 w=MSU 49-7, @Ark 24-20, MissSt 30-10
8	12	Arkansas	10-3	L@Aub 65-43, Bama 24-20, =OSU 31-2 w LSU 31-23, =TexAM 21-14, @MissSt38-31ot
5	13	Michigan St	11-2	L@Iowa 37-6, =Alabama 49-7; w Wisconsin 34-24
6	14	Wisconsin	11-2	L@MichSt 34-24, =TCU 21-19 w OhioSt 31-18
12	15	Missouri	10-3	L@TTech 24-17, =Iowa 27-24, @Neb 31-17 w OK 36-27, TexAM 30-9, SDSU 27-24
16	16	Texas A&M	9-4	L Mizzou 30-9, =Ark 21-14, @OKst 38-35, LSU 41-24 w OK 33-19, Neb 9-6
17	17	Nebraska	10-4	L Texas 20-13, =Wash 19-7, =OK 23-20, @TexAM 9-6 w Mizz 31-17, @OKst 51-41
21	18	Mississippi St	9-4	L@LSU 29-7, Aub 17-14, @Bama 30-10, Ark 38-31ot
18	19	Virginia Tech	10-3	L JMadison 21-16, =Stanford 40-12, Boise 33-30 w@NC State 41-30
19	20	Utah	10-3	L@NotreDame 28-3, =BoiseSt 26-3, TCU 47-7 w@SDSU 38-34
24	21	Tulsa	10-3	L @ECU 51-49, @SMU 21-18, @OKst 65-28 w@Hawaii 62-35
25	22	Central Florida	11-3	L@KSU 17-13, SMiss 31-21, NCst 28-21
--	23	San Diego St	9-4	L@BYU 24-21, @Mizz 27-24, @TCU 40-35, Utah 38-34
--	24	Northern Illinois	11-3	L@IowaSt 27-10, @ILL 28-22, =MiamiOH 26-21
--	25	NC State	9-4	L@ECU 33-27ot, @Clem 14-13, @Mary 38-31, VTech 41-30 w@UCF 28-21
		out:
20	--	South Carolina	9-5	L@KY 31-28, =FSU 26-17, Ark 41-20, Aub x 2; wBama 35-21
22	--	Hawaii	10-4	L@Colo 31-13, USC 49-36, Tulsa 62-35, @Boise 42-7; wNev 27-21
23	--	West Virginia	9-4	L Syr 19-14, @UConn 16-13ot, =NCState 23-7, @LSU 20-14

Alabama rocked Michigan State, clearly demonstrating the pecking order between the teams. The Spartans had a better season up to that point and deserved a high ranking, but clearly weren't among the elite teams The Tide jump to #11, followed by Arkansas (whom they beat 24-20), then Michigan State. Wisconsin deserved to be higher (and MSU lower), but the Spartans beat the Badgers head-to-head.

 The rest of the Big 12 follows, with Missouri, Texas A&M, and Nebraska all having lost their bowl games. But the Tigers have three top 25 wins, and A&M and Nebraska have two each. #18 Mississippi State's résumé is almost identical to #16 Texas A&M's, but without any big wins.

#19 Virginia Tech and #20 Utah also have nearly identical profiles: A minor top 25 win, an ugly loss to a non-ranked team, a bad loss to a top five team (Stanford and TCU), and a defeat by Boise State. But the Hokies kept it close against Boise, something Utah couldn't do.

Tulsa and Central Florida represent Conference USA, each having just three losses. Tulsa lost to ECU by 2, SMU by 3, and to Oklahoma State, and destroyed Hawaii in their bowl game. UCF had three competitive losses, won the conference, and beat Georgia in their bowl game.

Three new teams made it in with strong competition from a few that didn't. San Diego State comes in at #23 after wiping out Navy. The Aztecs lost four games by 15 points total, three of those to top 25 teams. Northern Illinois finished 11-3 with a big bowl win. North Carolina State beat former #23 West Virginia in their bowl, holds a win over UCF, and won the #25 spot due to their previous win over Florida State.

Others considered

• The Seminoles nearly made the cut by beating South Carolina.
• The Gamecocks finished 9-5 with two losses to Auburn, which really means they lost to 4 teams.  
• Hawaii holds the only win over Nevada, but their home loss to Tulsa in the Hawaii bowl was too much and they fell out.
• Maryland won big in their bowl game, too, but they had losses to other teams considered (FSU, West Virginia) and were behind them in line.  
• Air Force was 9-4 with losses only to ranked teams, SDSU made it instead due to head-to-head competition.  
• Miami of Ohio went 10-4 and won the MAC but really were not a top 25 caliber team.
• Temple was the only other 4-loss team and they didn't even get to go to a bowl game.

Results of 2010-2011 BCS National Championship Game - Final Score: Auburn 22, Oregon 19

The Auburn Tigers defeated the Oregon Ducks for the BCS Championship, 22-19, on a last-second field goal by Wes Byrum.

Oregon tied the game late with a touchdown and 2-point extra point, but Auburn drove downfield—with the help from a very unusual 37-yard rushing play—to set up a short field goal for the win. Michael Dyer appeared to be stopped after a short gain but his knee didn't touch and he got up and ran an extra 30 yards.

Auburn's defense frustrated Oregon's offense the whole game, intercepting Darron Thomas twice and completely disrupting their ground game. On offense, Cam Newton did just enough to keep them ahead.

For Oregon Darron Thomas passed for over 350 yards but they couldn't get support from the running game as Auburn's big defensive line pushed Oregon's offensive line around. Auburn had good balance between rushing and passing yards, but the Ducks had fewer than 100 on the ground.

Auburn finished 14-0, with several close calls but with big wins over Alabama, LSU, Arkansas, Mississippi State, and South Carolina (twice). Oregon slides to 12-1.

Drive log:

1st Quarter

• Oregon: takes kickoff back to around the 17 yard line. Field is very wet, players slipping. Darren Thomas would have had a first down but he pitched the ball to Kenjon Barner and lost yardage. 3rd down shovel pass didn't get the first down. Oregon punt is bad, only to around the Auburn 40 yard line. Not a great start for the Ducks; they should have easily had the first down on the 2nd play.
• Auburn: Ontario McCalebb runs for a first down on the first play into Oregon territory. Stuffed on the next play. On 2nd down Cam Newton is sacked and fumbles but recovered it. A 3rd and 17 pass is incomplete. Auburn punts. No return by Barner at the 20.
• Oregon: Another odd play from the Ducks loses a yard. Screen play to LaMichael James goes for  around 20 yards. But Oregon faces third down after another loss by Thomas, and pass is tipped and intercepted by Auburn at midfield.
• Auburn: Newton gains 1 yard on 1st down. On 2nd down, he's intercepted by Cliff Harris who takes it nearly into Auburn territory.
• Oregon: Barner gets 4-5 on 1st down but nothing on 2nd down. 3rd and 5: LaMichael James gets around the defense and sneaks past the yellow line for a first down on the Auburn 43. James runs for a few; then catches a pass on 2nd down to barely get another 1st and 10. This time Barner is the runner on first-down and catches the pass for a 1st and 10, inside the 20. Thomas is pressured on 1st down and the pass is intercepted again on the 14.
• Auburn: Stuffed on 1st down; Newton completes a 10 yard pass on 2nd down. Two plays later, facing 3rd and 5, Newton corralled and sacked, the ball flying out (incomplete pass? grounding? no call is made), and Auburn punts. Both quarterbacks having a lot of trouble so far.
• Oregon: From their 30. James carries twice and gets 11 yards. Thomas completes pass to Tuinei who stays inbounds and gains 15+ yards. Barner runs up the middle putting them in the red zone; 2 more runs and a first down, plays coming fast and furious now, Auburn is caught with 12 men on the field (illegal substitution is the call). Starting near the 10: Barner is hit for a loss back to the 14. Thomas fires to DJ Davis who is near the three. 

Amazingly, the first quarter ends with no score.

2nd Quarter

• Oregon (cont): On 3rd down, Nick Fairley sacks Thomas again. Oregon kicks a short field goal; Oregon 3, Auburn 0.
• Auburn: Kickoff taken back to the 18. On 2nd and 5 Newton short pass for a first down. Michael Dyer runs for another 1st and 10; Newton passes to Terrell Zackary for a 1st down; another completion for 9 yards. Auburn in speed-up mode now. Newton slips and almost falls, but stays up and completes a short pass for another 1st down on the Oregon 35. Long pass to the sidelines almost intercepted; ruled out of bounds, but he had a foot down at one point. Being reviewed: incomplete pass. On the next play, Kodi Burns catches pass and finds the end zone. Auburn 7, Oregon 3.
• Oregon: The Ducks try a pitchback and Auburn tackles them inside the 10. Thomas stands in his end zone and hurls a bomb to Jeff Maehl at midfield, who is finally caught at the 12 yard line. Now inside the 10; Thomas incomplete pass on 2nd down; great play on third down, with Thomas going to the right and passing back to James to the left, he walks into the end zone untouched. Trick play on the PAT, with run and pitchback for 2 points. Oregon 11, Auburn 7. Three scores in the first 4 minutes of the 2nd quarter.
• Auburn: From their 30. No gain on 1st down. McCalebb gets 7; third and 2, Newton completes pass for a first down at midfield. Dyer runs twice for 6 yard gain. On 3rd down Newton finds Zachary on the sideline. Finds him again for 6 more, but then it's 3rd and 2; Newton keeps it for the 1st down on the 20. Newton has lots of time but can't find anything, takes off running but gains only a couple. No gain on 2nd down sets up 3rd and 7. Incomplete pass on 3rd down, ball dropped by Fannon; but defense was offsides. Now 3rd and 2. After Auburn timeout, Newton pushes foreward for the first down. Immediately, Zachary catches pass to the 2 yard line. Dyer bottled up at the line of scrimmage. Newton stopped on the 1 on 3rd down. Going for it on 4th down: Newton's pass is trapped, incomplete; receiver was wide open and Newton threw it low.
• Oregon: From their 1-yard line. Ducks called for illegal motion penalty which puts them on the 1/2 yard line. James tackled in the end zone but reaches past goal, but it's ruled a safety since only half the football crossed past the line. Oregon 11, Auburn 9.
• Auburn: Takes the kickoff to near the 35. Good run after the pass by McCalebb for 7; Dyer gets the first down. Dyer gets another 11 yards. 9 more yards on short pass, and another 1st down for Dyer. Tigers moving very fast, at Oregon's 30 now. Newton pressured but evades it, finds wide open Emory Blake on sidelines at 10, easy touchdown. Auburn 16, Oregon 11.
• Oregon: With under 2 minutes left in the half, at their 22. Flags down; personal foul on Auburn. Maehl gets to midfield. Maehl again for another first down on the sidelines. Incomplete to James; short pass to Davis; 3rd and 8. After Auburn timeout, Tigers stop Ducks behind line of scrimmage. 4th and 10, Oregon sets up to go for it. Auburn timeout again. Ducks punting now, downed inside the 5 by Maehl.
• Auburn: Dyer runs to the 7; Oregon calls timeout, hoping to get the ball back. Oregon jumped offsides, giving Tigers a first down. McCalebb takes end-around getting out to the 32 with 19 seconds left. Newton complete in Oregon territory with 11 seconds left. Newton under heavy pressure, being tackled, throws it away with 3 seconds left. Newton scrambles, throws a hail mary that falls incomplete in the end zone.

Halftime Score: Auburn 16, Oregon 11

• Auburn: Newton scrambles twice, setting up 3rd and 1; slightly injured? Not so much that he can't run straight ahead for the 1st down. Newton finds Philip Lutzenkirchen inside the Oregon 20 yard line. But another 3rd down and Newton throws to nobody. Wes Byrum field goal 28 yards, good. Auburn 19, Oregon 11.
• Oregon: Fakes end-around on the kickoff returns, gets to the 20. James carries, penalty flags: personal foul on Auburn, Nick Fairley. Next pass play is for 15 yards across midfield. James runs for 10 yards on a "tough run" as both announcers call it. Thomas sacked, fumble, recovered by the Ducks. Thomas scrambled for 1st down but holding is called; now 2nd down and 16. After a run it's 3rd and 11. Pass is complete but it's way short. Oregon punt, touchback.
• Auburn: After a short run and a sack, on 3rd down Newton overthrows wide open receiver for their 1st 3 and out since the opening sequence.
• Oregon: From their 20, James runs around the end for a good run, but stepped out around the 40. Auburn has 2 good defensive plays setting up 3rd and 6. Thomas pressured and forced out of bounds. Ducks see pressure by Auburn, fakes the punt, looping a short pass for a 1st down. Next play Thomas finds Tuinei who bobbled the pass but makes a great catch, caught by the ankle at the 2 yard line. Barner bottled up back at the 6. Thomas only gets to the five; third and goal. Barner weaves inside the 1-yard line. Fourth and 1/2 yard. Auburn stops them short.
• Auburn: Newton gets some breathing room, out to the 4, then throws for the first down. Holding on Auburn negates another 1st down. Newton has time, runs for the first down again, past their own 20. 3rd Quarter ends.

4th Quarter

• Auburn (cont): Dyer nearly gets the first down, then he converts it on 3rd down. Newton with all day but has to throw it away. On 2nd down he scrambles for 6. Incomplete on 3rd down.
• Oregon: Takes over on their 15. Still having a hard time getting their offense going. Incomplete pass, then a hold negates a good James run. Stuffed run sets up 3rd and 18. Thomas comes up with a great pass and converts. Another first down throw for Thomas, now to midfield. Deep pass is broken up. Another incompletion on 3rd down. Punt goes to the Auburn 21.
• Auburn: Two good plays by Oregon's D sets up 3rd and 12. Newton back to pass, sees clear path ahead and gets over 15 yards. Two plays later the Tigers have another 3rd down and convert it again with a pass to Mario Fannin. Now on Oregon's 40 yard line. Like a broken record: another 3rd down coming up, 12 to go. Newton's pass is caught but out of bounds. Auburn punt.
• Oregon: Two incomplete passes leads to 3rd and 10. Jeff Maehl catches the pass and gets the yardage. Another Maehl catch on 2nd down sets up 3rd and 3. Handoff to James is crushed for a loss, the Ducks have to punt again with 5 minutes left.
• Auburn: Short gain on 1st down. Newton fumbles on 2nd down, Ducks recover. Personal foul called on Oregon following the play.
• Oregon: Thomas to Maehl for 10 yards. Thomas passes into traffic and nearly gets intercepted. He runs for 5; on 3rd down he overthrows his receiver. 4th down pass play goes to the 11 yard line. Ducks down to the 4 yard line. Auburn jumps offsides, ball at the 2. No gain on 2nd down. Thomas pitches forward to James for the touchdown. Two point attempt, Thomas to Maehl, is successful. Auburn 19, Oregon 19.
• Auburn: Starting at their 25 yard line. 15 yards on pass play. Dyer runs for a few yards and seems to be down, but he gets back up and runs all the way to the Oregon 23; he was pulled down by an Oregon defender, but his knee didn't touch. Officials reviewing the play say he wasn't down. Auburn appears to be setting up a field goal with short runs, taking all the time off the clock they can. But Dyer bursts through the line and very nearly scored, or did—another reviewable play. There are 10 seconds left. Ruling: down on the 1/2 yard line. Auburn sets up for a field goal, but Oregon calls timeout and Auburn decides to go for the touchdown instead. Newton is stopped, but they run the clock down to 2 seconds. Auburn field goal is good. Auburn wins 22-19.

More College Football Bowls: Go here for the full 2010-2011 schedule with previews and results.

Results of 2011 Kraft Fight Hunger Bowl - Final Score: Nevada 20, Boston College 13

Nevada jumped to 17-7 halftime lead and shut down Boston College on the ground en route to a 20-13 win in the Kraft Fight Hunger Bowl.

Colin Kaepernick became the first player to pass for 10,000 yards and rush for 4,000. He had 192 passing yards and just 12 rushing, as Boston College's defense bottled up Nevada's normally prolific ground game.

But Nevada did the same to the Eagles. With Montel Harris on the sidelines, Andre Williams rushed for 63 yards on 19 carries, just 3.3 per attempt—and 30 of those yards came on one play.

After recovering a Kaepernick fumble at Nevada's 30 yard line, the Eagles gave the ball to Williams and he found the end zone for the game's first score.

Kaepernick answered on the next drive. Rolling to his left, he floated a pass to a wide-open Rishard Matthews, who waltzed into the end zone untouched.

That wasn't even Matthews' best moment. Fielding a punt after the defense had stopped B.C., he took the kick 72 for a 14-7 Wolf Pack lead in the first quarter.

Nevada's Anthony Martinez added a field goal to make the halftime score Nevada 17, Boston College 7.

Eagle coach Frank Spaziani described his offense's effort as "anemic" at halftime, and it remained so in the second half, with Boston College managing just two Nate Freese field goals. Nevada's wasn't any better, adding just a field goal themselves, but it was all they needed to preserve the win in their best season ever.

Nevada finished 13-1 with a marquee win over Boise State and only a 27-21 road loss to Hawaii to blemish their record. Boston College fell to 7-6

More College Football Bowls: Go here for the full 2010-2011 schedule with previews and results.

2011 BCS Championship Game Preview, Odds, and Prediction: Auburn vs. Oregon

Monday, January 10: BCS Championship Game in Glendale, AZ at 8:30 pm eastern

#1 Auburn Tigers (13-0) vs. #2 Oregon Ducks (12-0)

This is it—the one we've waded (and waited) through countless sub-part bowl games to get to.

Vegas line/spread: Auburn by 1 1/2 (over/under 73 1/2).

Auburn has been favored by about a field goal since the odds first came out; now it's down to an average of 1 1/2, ranging for pick'em to 3 points. The game is projected to be very high scoring (35+ points each).

Game-comparisons	win %	vs. spread
Auburn	21.8%	25%
Oregon	78.2%	75%

This system takes each team's performances—on offense and defense—and re-combines them, making NxN hypothetical game performances, where N = the number of games the team has played. So there are 144 "games" for Oregon, and 169 for Auburn. It then compares one team's numbers against the other team's, resulting in 144 x 169 comparisons.

Oregon is #1 in the Strength Power Rating from which the game ratings are derived, while Auburn is #6. The vast majority of Oregon's game ratings rank above Auburn's by this method, which is completely score-margin-based. Because Oregon wins by wide margins—and Auburn does not always—the Ducks are the clear winner by this method, even 3 of 4 against a 2-point spread.

Strength Power Rating:      Oregon 47, Auburn 34

As noted above, the Strenth Power Rating likes Oregon a lot. But that doesn't mean Auburn ranks low; their scoring offense is #3 in the nation and their defense is #33. Oregon, however, has the #1 offense and the #8 defense. It's the Ducks' offense that makes them such a huge favorite with the computer.

Lest you think that the power rating is unrealistically biased toward Oregon, they'd be favored by just 3 over Stanford—a team they already beat by 21 on the road. If anything, what is remarkable is how high Pac-10 teams rank in the Strength Power Rating while the SEC dominated the Success rankings. This game should cause the two rankings to re-evaluate closer to one another, regardless of outcome.

Yardage analysis:   Oregon 44, Auburn 41     per attempt:   Auburn 43, Oregon 33

The yardage analysis comes out a lot more even—with more scoring, believe it or not. The teams are pretty even in total yardage differential (yards gained minus yards yielded, corrected for their opponents). Oregon is #3 and Auburn #5. Oregon has the #1 offense, Auburn the #2. The Ducks' defense is #25 while the Tiger D is #29. With Oregon having a slight edge in both facets, the projection calls for Oregon to gain around 500 yards to Auburn's 480, which normally means a field goal difference in scoring. Yards, however, don't always translate equally into points. But it definitely means the game ought to be exciting!

The per-attempt numbers make an interesting comparison, too: Auburn is #1 in yards per play (adjusted for opposition) while Oregon is #1 on defense on a per-play basis. In fact, the teams' rankings on a per-attempt basis are truly dominant: Auburn is #1 in both rushing and passing, while Oregon is #2 in rushing and #25 in passing, while being #1 in pass defense, and top 25 in rush defense. Auburn is top 25 in both defensive per-play categories. The upshot when the teams are compared is a 10-point Auburn win, however, as their offense is far ahead—just like Oregon's is in the score-margin comparison.

Yardage + turnovers + kick returns projection:  Oregon 47, Auburn 39

Oregon is #3 in turnover margin and is #1 in taking the ball away from opponents. Auburn is 33rd in turnover margin; they're better at holding onto the ball than taking it away. Oregon should win the turnover battle 3-2, which gives them nearly 4 points on average. Nearly 4 of the 5 projected turnovers are fumbles, however, which are even more more difficult to foresee with reasonable certainty than interceptions, so it could go either way. Still, going with the odds in an average game Oregon has the edge.

On kick returns Oregon also has a clear edge. The Ducks' Cliff Harris has returned four punts for touchdowns and averages almost 20 yards per return, and Kenjon Barner has one TD return. Auburn's coverage is pretty good but the threat is there. Kickoffs are more or less even, though. We'll give Oregon just over a point for punts returns, though, since it's not clear how often either offense will be punting.

When Auburn has the ball

Auburn rushing offense: #2

Oregon rushing defense: #25

Auburn is one of the best rushing teams in the nation, if not the actual best, since Cam Newton gives them a dual threat on most running plays. Newton has put up running back-like numbers from the quarterback position, with 1,409 yards and 20 touchdowns. And he's far from their only big threat; Michael Dyer had 950 yards and Onterio McCalebb has 763, and they combine for 14 TDs. Most teams would be more than happy with the latter two!. Add Mario Fannin's 395 yards and Auburn has a lot of options. Oregon's rushing defense is very good but only Alabama (#6) and Mississippi State (#2) have been able to hold Auburn below 200 rushing yards. I'd expect around 280 from Auburn.

It's also important to look at per-carry stats for this game, since both offenses are well-rounded and can go to whatever they need. The Tigers have the #1 rushing offense on a per-play basis, so it really might be the best in the nation. Oregon's defense is #17 in this respect, so not a lot changes in this particular example.

Auburn passing offense: #65	Oregon passing defense: #37   per att: #1
Auburn interceptions thrown ranking: #5	Oregon interceptions picked ranking: #6
Auburn quarterback protection rank: #29	Oregon pass rush rank: #16

Cam Newton is no one-trick pony. His passing isn't just adequate, it's examplary. He's completed 67% of his attempts for 2,589 yards and 28 touchdowns with just 6 interceptions. Three receivers—Darvin Adams, Terrell Zachary, and Emory Blake—have 500 receiving yards or more. Oregon gives up a reasonable amount of passing yards, so Newton should throw for about 200 yards.

Pretty simple? Well, it gets way more interesting if we look at per-attempt stats. Basically Auburn doesn't pass very often because they don't have to, given their ground production. So their stats look middle-of-the-road when in reality, they are among the most efficient passing teams. They rank #1 in yards per attempt adjusted for their opposition. Which means Oregon is in trouble right? Maybe not—the Ducks rank #1 in pass defense on a per-attempt basis! Think about it; teams are usually far behind Oregon and trying to play catch-up, therefore they pass the ball a lot—an average of 38 times per game. This makes their per-game stats pedestrian, but per-play they are among the best. So in terms of passing, this should be an epic battle of offense vs. defense. It means that Oregon has the defense to match Auburn's passing game, but certainly doesn't have the luxury of being able to focus their attention just on the run.

Another interesting comparison is interceptions. Newton, as noted, has thrown very few, while Oregon is among the top teams in takeaways: Cliff Harris and John Boyett both have 5 picks for the Ducks, and they should get one—with a slim chance for two—during the game. The Duck defense should also get decent pressure on Newton, who has been sacked 21 times, probably achieving the typical two sacks. So while big plays on defense don't look like a huge plus for Oregon, it appears that Newton won't have all day on passing plays. Of course, when he chooses to run out of the pocket he's only more dangerous...

When Oregon has the ball

Oregon rushing offense: #3

Auburn rushing defense: #7

Oregon also has one of the top rushing offenses in the country, and like Auburn it's not just based on one person. Certainly, LaMichael James is the leader with 1,682 yards and 21 touchdowns, but Kenjon Barner has 537 yards and quarterback Darron Thomas has 492. They each average around 6 yards per carry. Auburn's rushing defense is in the top ten and should hold the Ducks well below their 300 yard average, perhaps to around 235 yards. The SEC rushing defenses are in general better than the Pac-10, so Oregon sees a bigger decline from their raw average numbers than Auburn, who will be the best rushing defense the team has faced so far.

Arizona State at #9 (per-game, adjusted) is the best rush defense Oregon has seen so far, and they held the Ducks to 125 ground yards. On the other hand, Stanford and Arizona are #11 and #12 and the Ducks achieved 388 and 389 against them. In per-carry stats, Oregon's rushing offense ranks #2—right behind Auburn—while the Tiger defense is #12, far behind Arizona State at #2. So maybe the Ducks have a little more luck? We'll find out.

Oregon passing offense: #37	Auburn passing defense: #77   per att: #18
Oregon interceptions thrown ranking: #9	Auburn interceptions picked ranking: #75
Oregon quarterback protection rank: #2	Auburn pass rush rank: #13

At first blush—looking at raw statistics, uncorrected for opposition—it appears that this is where Oregon can take over the game. They have the #49 passing offense, and Auburn's pass defense is only #106! But once we correct for their opponents, things change. Oregon's pass attack looks better, at #37, but so does Auburn's pass defense, rising to #77. Still, this suggests Oregon should put up around 265 yards.

That seems reasonable given Thomas' output this year. He has an even 2,500 passing yards, with 28 touchdowns against 7 interceptions—numbers very similar to Newton's, actually. The Ducks' go-to receiver is Jeff Maehl who has 943 yards and 12 TDs, and four others have over 300 yards.

But 265 yards is actually above their average; can they do this against Auburn? If we look at per-attempt stats it gets murkier. Oregon's passing game looks better still, rising to #25 in yards per attempt (adjusted for competition), but Auburn's pass defense rises to #18. From #106 to #77 to #18? What should we expect from the Tigers? I think what's happening here is clear: teams can't run on Auburn so they pass a lot. That's why Auburn's per-game numbers look bad, but per-attempt they're solid. However, if Oregon passes a lot like those other teams did, they'll probably rack up a lot of yards—especially because they don't have too much to fear from big defensive plays.

Thomas has thrown just 7 picks, and Auburn isn't a big threat in this area. In fact, the numbers suggest that it's less than 50% likely the Tigers get a pick at all in the game. And although Auburn's pass rush is strong, Oregon's O-line and Thomas' elusiveness have limited teams to 7 sacks all season. The Tigers—led by Nick Fairley with 10.5 sacks—are almost certain to get him once during the game, but any more than that would be unusual.

In conclusion, it appears that Auburn's defense is a match for Oregon's passing game, and progress will come a lot slower than the Ducks are used to. But since there's nothing holding them back, they can keep trying and keep racking up the yardage. Whoever wins the 3rd down and red zone battles will determine Oregon's success or failure in passing the ball.

 

Auburn's season

Wins vs. bowl-eligible teams (9)
Wins vs. top 25 teams (6)
Losses (0) 

1. Arkansas State 52-26
2. @ #21 Mississippi State 17-14
3. Clemson 27-24 OT
4. #20 South Carolina 35-27
5. Louisiana-Monroe 52-3
6. @ Kentucky 37-34
7. #8 Arkansas 65-43
8. #11 LSU 24-17
9. @ Mississippi 51-31
10. Chattanooga 62-24
11. Georgia 49-31
12. @ #15 Alabama 28-27
13. = #20 South Carolina 56-17

Nobody has beaten more good teams this year than Auburn. They've defeated 8 bowl teams so far, one of them twice. Five of those teams were top 25 teams at the end of the regular season.

At the same time, few top teams have had as many close calls as Auburn has. From the narrow win at Mississippi State, the overtime win against Clemson, beating South Carolina by 8 and Kentucky by a field goal, to holding off LSU and the miracle comeback against Alabama, the Tigers could conceivably be 6-6 instead of 13-0, worst case.

But they weren't 6-6. And they clearly got better as the season progressed. Edging Clemson at home in overtime and beating Alabama by a point in Tuscaloosa are worlds apart. The reason they went 13-0 instead of 6-6, and the reason they're getting better, are due to the same thing: Cam Newton. All season, Newton has done what it takes for his team to win. And he keeps getting better and better. That's how a team that is a top ten team, not top five, has had the success of a #1 team, and could be the national champs.

Oregon's season

Wins vs. winning teams (6)
Wins vs. bowl-eligible teams (4)
Wins vs. top 25 teams (1)
Losses (0) 

1. New Mexico 72-0
2. @ Tennessee 48-13
3. Portland State 69-0
4. @ Arizona State* 42-31
5. #4 Stanford 52-31
6. @ Washington State 43-23
7. UCLA 60-13
8. @ USC* 53-32
9. Washington 53-16
10. @ California 15-13
11. Arizona 48-29
12. @ Oregon State 37-20

Strictly speaking, Oregon has only beaten four bowl teams. But add in 6-6 Arizona State and 8-5 USC, who would be bowl-eligible if they were...eligible...and half the team's schedule is strong.

And that doesn't account for the road win at Cal, one of the toughest places to play this season. And Oregon State, who had the misfortune of playing Oregon, Stanford, TCU, and Boise State—all arguably top five teams—in the same year.

The truth is, the Pac-10 is one of the best conferences this year. The fact that the teams play a round-robin guarantees more in-conference losses (45) than any other conference, and only 3 non-conference games to use to pad the schedule. If those 45 losses are poorly-distributed, it can lead to few teams being bowl eligible. Eight conference teams were guaranteed two losses by playing Oregon and Stanford. Ineligible USC beat five teams. And parity took care of most of the rest, leaving only four teams with winning conference records.

Oregon's dominant wins over Tennessee, USC, Washington, and particularly Stanford, show how good the team is. The offense was off the charts much of the time and ranks as one of the all-time best scoring offenses. The defense ranged from average to very good with no terrible lapses despite the demans put on it by a high-powered, fast-scoring offense.

Key Injuries

Neither team has any new major injuries. Auburn's starting safety Aairon Savage has been out since the Arkansas game and won't be back for the Oregon game. And Oregon backup QB Nate Costa was lost for the year during the Washington game.

Psychology: Auburn +6    Oregon +2

• Auburn's season: +6 wins;  Oregon's season: +2 wins
• Auburn's momentum: +0; Oregon's momentum: +0
• Auburn glad to be there? +1; Oregon glad to be there: +1
• Auburn lost final game: -0; Oregon lost final game: -0
• Auburn coaching situation: +0; Oregon coaching situation: +0

For the championship game, the numbers above mean nothing. Both teams are perfectly happy with their season, their bowl game, and their improvement from last year. The only question in a championship game is motivation and overconfidence. For example in 2005, USC's motivation, having won the title the previous year, was naturally lower than Texas'. They weren't as hungry. The same goes for Miami in 2002 against Ohio State. But neither of these teams is trying to repeat.

There also shouldn't be any overconfidence factor. Ohio State in 2006 was bit by this against Florida, as they were an undefeated, dominant team facing a 1-loss team, and heavily favored. That isn't the case here for either team.

Final analysis

How will the game look? Could it be like the classic 2005 Texas-USC game? There are a lot of similarities. A high-powered Pac-10 offense faces a 13-0 team with an amazing dual-threat quarterback, with Cam Newton in the Vince Young role. That comparison favors Auburn, but that Longhorn squad was a better team than Auburn outside of the quarterback slot. What should be similar is the scoring; that game ended 41-38 and that sounds about right for this game whoever ends up on top.

Cam Newton, like Vince Young in that game, is the wild card. Auburn without him isn't quite a top ten team even. But he makes sure they get the win, pushing them to play as well as the teams they face. And since this is his first year at this level, he's gotten better and better as the season has progressed. His ability and will to win is the "intangible" that makes Auburn overachieve when necessary. There's a sense of "destiny" with Newton like there was with the Ohio State team in 2002, but of course that's the kind of illogical thinking that seeing a team win close games engenders.

So how does Oregon deal with Auburn's offense? Their philosophy seems to be, the best defense is a good offense. In the focus on Newton, people have forgotten how good Darron Thomas is. The Ducks have focused on scoring and overwhelming teams, even if they have to give up points due to a more tired defense. Not that their defense is a slouch; by any measure, it's top-notch, and they won't cede yards to Newton and Auburn without a fight.

After last year's championship game, we have to look at the possibility of injuries. If Newton is knocked out of the game, Auburn will look like Texas last year. Not quite as bad, since they have other great running options, but he's the heart and soul of the team. Oregon isn't off the hook either if Thomas is knocked out, since backup Nate Costa isn't available. Let's hope that neither happens because last year's title game sucked without Colt McCoy.

One thing's for sure: it will be an interesting 2nd half. Auburn has come back from double-digit deficits four times, while Oregon has averaged 32 points in the 2nd half when they were behind or tied at halftime. Oregon was down 21-0 against Stanford and Auburn was down 24-0 against Alabama. So a halftime lead for either team means little, even if it's 20 or more points.

So what's our pick? Looking at the Strength Power Rating suggests Oregon should win easily—13 points—but that doesn't pass the sniff test. Seeing how Auburn has played in the last 6 or 7 games, they're about a touchdown better than they were early in the year. Cutting the score margin to Oregon by 6 is more realistic.

Then we consider the yardage estimate, modified by turnovers and return game. This projects Oregon by 8 points, but in this case the per-attempt numbers are significant, and they show Auburn by 10 or 11! Averaging that estimate in we have Auburn by about a point, which sounds realistic, too.

The game should be pretty even in most ways, and could come down to key downs and red zone play. Auburn is great (top 10) on 3rd and 4th down on offense, but so is Oregon on defense. The Ducks also are also top ten in red zone defense, so Auburn doesn't have any edge there. Meanwhile Oregon is consistently slightly better than Auburn's defense in key downs and red zone offense. Auburn is just 97th in red zone defense, something that could hurt them in a close game. The Tigers have kicker Wes Byrum, but Oregon's Rob Beard has made a similar 75% of his attempts.

Can Oregon's offense overwhelm the Tigers? Or will Cam Newton deliver another miracle win? It should be a great one, but we think Oregon has a very small edge.

Prediction:  Oregon 42, Auburn 40

More previews, odds, and predictions: View the complete 2010-2011 bowl game schedule.

Results of 2011 Compass Bowl - Final Score: Pittsburgh 27, Kentucky 10

The Pitt Panthers handled the Kentucky Wildcats 27-10 in the Compass Bowl in a game that was very even in terms of total yardage but not on the scoreboard. The Wildcats failed on several 4th down attempts throughout the game.

Kentucky struck first with a 50-yard field goal from Craig McIntosh; it was the only score in the first quarter.

Pitt came back in the 2nd quarter with two short field goals of 21 and 33 yards from Dan Hutchins. Then just before the half ended Pitt blocked a punt deep in Wildcat territory and three plays later QB Tino Sunseri pushed it in from the 1-yard line. Halftime score: Pittsburgh 13, Kentucky 3.

The Panthers extended their lead early in the 2nd half as Sunseri connected with Borck DeCicco for a 13 yard score. Late in the same quarter Kentucky finally found the end zone, with Moncell Allen going in from the 1 to make it 20-10 Pitt.

But the Panthers wouldn't allow a comeback. Dion Lewis scored from the 2 yard line to put the margin back to 17, 27-10 where it stood at the end.

Sunseri passed for just 94 yards completing 9 of 19 attempts, but Lewis and Ray Graham combined for nearly 200 yards on the ground. Star receiver Jon Baldwin caught just one pass.

For the Wildcats Morgan Newton, playing in place of the suspended Mike Hartline, did a decent job passing for over 200 yards with no interceptions, but couldn't convert the big plays. Randall Cobb had voer 200 yards of all-purpose, but most came on kick returns and he wasn't a factor on the scoreboard.

Pitt improved to 8-5 in and up-and-down season; Kentucky fell to 6-7.

More College Football Bowls: Go here for the full 2010-2011 schedule with previews and results.

2011 Kraft Fight Hunger Bowl Preview, Odds, and Prediction: Nevada vs. Boston College

Sunday January 9: Fight Hunger Bowl in San Francisco, CA at 9:00 pm eastern

#9 Nevada Wolf Pack (12-1) vs. Boston College Eagles (7-5)

Competing for the worst bowl name with the Beef O'Brady's St. Petersburg Bowl, the Kraft Fight Hunger Bowl at least features one of the nation's better teams in Nevada.

Vegas line/spread:   Nevada by 7 1/2 (over/under 55).

Nevada was a near 10-point favorite when the line opened a month ago, and that has slowly closed until the Wolf Pack are just over a touchdown favorite.

Game-comparisons	win %	vs. spread
Nevada	82.3%	68%
B.C.	17.7%	32%

Nevada is for real; they rank 18th in the Strength Power Rating, so their 12-1 record is no fake-out. Boston College's record reflects about how good they are, too; they're 63rd in our power rating. From that it's not hard to gather that Nevada wins the majority of pairups of these teams based on their game performances this season. As the spread shrinks, Nevada wins the great majority against it, too.

Strength Power Rating:      Nevada 33, Boston College 16

The average game between these teams, according to the Strength Power Rating, results in a 17 point Nevada win. Nevada's offense is top ten quality at #7, facing a top 25 level Boston College defense (#25 in points yielded, adjusted for competition). Nevada's defense is only #50, but the Eagles' offense is just 99th.

Yardage analysis:   Nevada 38, B.C. 19     per attempt:   Nevada 31, B.C. 27

Nevada is 12th in yardage differential, with the #4 offense and #68 defense by adjusted yardages. Boston College is just 68th; they're just 105th in total offense but a solid #20 on defense. Still, Nevada's winning margin is roughly the same when the projected yardages are converted to a score estimate. The Wolf Pack should outgain the Eagles by nearly 150 yards.

Using per-play figures doesn't give an accurate assessment as it assumes a rough balance between passing and running plays, something Nevada doesn't have. But it does show how Boston College's strong rushing defense could keep the game close enough to win.

Yardage + turnovers + kick returns projection:  Nevada 37, Boston College 20

Boston College probably wins the turnover battle but it's not a big projected difference. They rank 16th in turnover margin; Nevada is #41. The "average game" shows the Eagles with 2.3 turnovers gained to Nevada's 1.7, resulting in an expected 2 point change in projected score from the yardage estimate above.

Don't expect the kick return game to have a big impact, as both teams are unlikely to have big plays or even gain better field position from returns. Boston College is dismal at both punt and kick returns, while Nevada is a bit above average but faces an Eagle return coverage that ranks in the top 25 in both categories.

When Nevada has the ball

Nevada rushing offense: #4

B.C. rushing defense: #2

This is a great matchup of one of the nation's best rushing offenses vs. one of the best rushing defenses. Nevada doesn't just earn their high ranking from running the ball all the time; on a per-carry basis they rank #2 in the nation, while Boston College's defense is #2 in both per-game and per-carry rushing defense.

For Nevada, Vai Taua rushed for over 1,500 yards and had 19 touchdowns while quarterback Colin Kaepernick had 1,181 net yards and 20 touchdowns. Two others—Mark Lampford and Mike Ball—averaged over 7 yards per carry for the Wolf Pack. Against Boston College they'll be well below their 300+ yard average, but should greatly exceed the paltry 80 yards the Eagles give up normally. We estimate around 220 yards on the ground for Nevada; it will be of great interest to see how this matchup plays out.

Nevada passing offense: #54	B.C. passing defense: #75   per att: #15
Nevada interceptions thrown ranking: #44	B.C. interceptions picked ranking: #4
Nevada quarterback protection rank: #6	B.C. pass rush rank: #84

What if Nevada can't run on Boston College? Their passing game only ranks as average. But that's an illusion due to low number of attempts. Colin Kaepernick is a solid passer, too, completing 65% of his attempts for 2,830 yards and 20 touchdowns.

Therefore, against Boston College's low-rated passing defense, they've got it made, right? Not so fast. When viewed on a per-attempt basis Boston College is suddenly #15 in the nation. How does that work? The truth is that teams don't try to run on the Eagles because it's usually futile. So they load up on the pass, and that's how they get their yards—and how B.C. ranks so low on a per-game basis.

So passing is a lost cause for Nevada? Nope. They also rank #15 in per-attempt pass offense. So it's as even of a battle as the running game is. Kaepernick might even throw for more yards than the team runs for, approximately 240, since they'll probably meet resistance against their running game that they're used to.

Kaepernick has thrown only 7 interceptions this year but they're facing a far better secondary than they've faced most of the year in terms of pickoffs. Boston College has 19 interceptions this year: Donnie Fletcher has 5 and Jim Noel and LB Mark Herzlich have 4. I expect they'll get at least one pick, and two if Kaepernick has to throw the ball a lot. But pressure isn't as great of a concern, as Boston College gets few sacks and Nevada gives up few; I wouldn't be surprised if B.C has zero sacks in the game.

When B.C. has the ball

B.C. rushing offense: #62

Nevada rushing defense: #64

Though both these teams are only average in this matchup, it's still very even. Boston College relies a lot on Montel Harris (1,242 yards) to move the ball, with a couple of freshman backups getting a few handoffs per game. When Harris missed the Syracuse game Andre Williams rushed for 185 yards—but it took him 42 carries. They should have upwards of 150 yards against Nevada's average rush defense.

B.C. passing offense: #106	Nevada passing defense: #79   per att: #79
B.C. interceptions thrown ranking: #96	Nevada interceptions picked ranking: #102
B.C. quarterback protection rank: #64	Nevada pass rush rank: #46

Boston College has suffered from quarterback inconsistency all year and it shows in their numbers. On a per-attempt basis they rise to about the level of Nevada's pass defense, but overall don't generate a lot of yards. Between Chase Rettig, Dave Shinskie, and Mike Marscovetra the team has just over 2,000 yards to show for its efforts. Shinskie began the year at #1, was replaced briefly by Rettig, then Marscovetra, before freshman Rettig took over for good. Nevada's pass defense will probably yield around 170 yards.

The team's three quarterbacks have all been interception-prone, with more picks than TDs, so it's lucky for them that Nevada isn't very good at picking off the ball. Expect just 1 interception and about two sacks of Rettig. These numbers shouldn't change drastically if a different QB has to be used.

 

Nevada's season

Wins vs. bowl-eligible teams (3)
Wins vs. top 25 teams (1)
Losses (1); to losing teams (0)  

1. Eastern Washington 49-24
2. Colorado State 51-6
3. California 52-31
4. @ Brigham Young 27-13
5. @ UNLV 44-26
6. San Jose State 35-13
7. @ #22 Hawaii 21-27
8. Utah State 56-42
9. @ Idaho 63-17
10. @ Fresno State 35-34
11. New Mexico State 52-6
12. #10 Boise State 34-31 OT
13. @ Louisiana Tech 35-17

Nevada kicked off the year with two blowout wins then faced California—and that one turned into a blowout, too, announcing to the college football world that Nevada was going to be a force.

They handled BYU but then embarked on a series of games that made their fitness as a top team questionable. They let UNLV score quite a bit; didn't dominate San Jose State they way other teams have; lost at Hawaii in a poorly played game; and let Utah State score 42 points. The Idaho win was impressive, but they nearly lost to Fresno State. But their last three games were strong, with the Boise State win a major plus for the program. Even if they'd lost on Boise's fateful field goal, the performance was impressive.

In all they had only three wins over bowl teams—though perhaps the win over Eastern Washington was significant in retrospect, as that team just won the FCS championship. And they lost only to Hawaii in Honolulu, a very tough place to play. The defense has a propensity to not show up occasionally, though late in the season that seemed to be under control.

B.C.'s season

Wins vs. bowl-eligible teams (2)
Wins vs. top 25 teams (0)
Losses (5); to losing teams (0)

1. Weber State 38-20
2. Kent State 26-13
3. #18 Virginia Tech 0-19
4. Notre Dame 13-31
5. @ North Carolina St 17-44
6. @ Florida State 19-24
7. Maryland 21-24
8. Clemson 16-10
9. @ Wake Forest 23-13
10. @ Duke 21-16
11. Virginia 17-13
12. @ Syracuse 16-7

Boston College started the year 2-5, and even the two wins weren't anything for the Eagles to crow about. They let lowly Weber State score 20 points, then had trouble putting away Kent State. The next three losses—Virginia Tech, Notre Dame, and N.C. State—were all to good teams but B.C. wasn't competitive.

The team showed major progress in the next two losses. Rettig started at quarterback in those and the offense did better, but the defense showed the most improvement. In any case, the defense continued to perform well for the rest of the year as the Eagles reeled off five straight wins.

Clemson and Syracuse were the only bowl teams they beat, and the offense never really played well; in fact, the offense never played an above-average game, never scoring more than 21 points against a team with a winning record. But it did just enough to get a win as the defense held the competition to fewer than 20 points in each of the last five games.

Key Injuries

Montel Harris's late-season injury made him questionable for the bowl game, but since it's well into January Harris has had a lot of recovery time and will play; he may not be at 100%. Also, starting offensive tackle Rich Lapham missed the final three games. Nevada appears to be more or less healthy.

Psychology: Nevada +0    B.C. +6

• Nevada's season: +4 wins;  B.C.'s season: -1 win
• Nevada's momentum: +0; B.C.'s momentum: +3
• Nevada glad to be there? -4; B.C. glad to be there: +4
• Nevada lost final game: -0; B.C. lost final game: -0
• Nevada coaching situation: +0; B.C. coaching situation: +0

Nevada's mental state is hard to guess, but it's probably neutral. They've had a fantastic season, but they're playing in a 3rd-rate bowl against a 7-5 team. They beat Boise State, but was that their real bowl game?

Boston College should be more or less in good shape. Following a dismal 2-5 start, they've reeled off five straight wins. Of course, Nevada's won six straight, so don't think the Eagles will be sky-high and the Wolf Pack grounded necessarily.

Final analysis

These are really two of the best matched offense-defense pairs in the bowl season. Where one has a big strength on offense, the other has a big strength on defense. Wherever there's a discrepancy that leads one to believe there's a big advantage, the gap closes when per-attempt figures are used.

Still, as the game wears on it has to favor Nevada. They've simply played better football across the board than Boston College has. There is the chance of a letdown or overconfidence on their part, but it seems that they'll want to close out their best season ever with a win. Yes, the Boise State game will remain their top accomplishment even if they win here, but they followed that game without a letdown against Louisiana Tech so after a full month off they should be focused on this game.

Nevada will lose, however, if they play like they did against Hawaii, unable to run that ball and with Kaepernick making mistakes. In fact, any of the performances in October (games 5-8) would set them up for a loss if Boston College plays a good game.

If the Eagles don't play a good game they could get slaughtered, however. They need to be at their best in order to be competitive, and hope that Nevada isn't at theirs. I don't think both will happen—Nevada is going for their best season ever, while Boston College is playing much better in their last seven games, win or lose. But Boston College is just going for a "decent" year, while Kaepernick will be focused on going out a winner in his last collegiate game.

Prediction:  Nevada 30, Boston College 17

More previews, odds, and predictions: View the complete 2010-2011 bowl game schedule.

Results of 2011 Cotton Bowl: LSU buries Texas A&M, final score: 41-24

LSU rallied from an early deficit to dominate the Cotton Bowl, with Jordan Jefferson throwing three touchdown passes to Terrence Toliver en route to a 41-24 win.

Coryell Judie started the game on a high note for A&M with a long kickoff return that set up a 6-yard touchdown pass from Ryan Tannehill to Uzoma Nwachukwu. When Randy Bullock added a 39 yard field goal for the Aggies it was 10-0 early.

But LSU's Jordan Jefferson was about to have one of the best games of his career. He hit Terrence Toliver for a 42 yard touchdown late in the first quarter, then ran it in from a yard out early in the 2nd, and LSU had the lead, 14-10.

A&M responded with a great play when running back Cyrus Gray, seemingly caught in the backfield, threw to a wide open Nwachukwu in the end zone, and the Aggies were on top again 17-14.

But that would be their last lead of the game. LSU's Stevan Ridley, who was declared eligible for the game just days before, scored on a 17-yard run, then Toliver caught his 2nd TD pass from Jefferson late in the half to make it 28-17 LSU at halftime.

Toliver and Jefferson hooked up once again in the 3rd quarter, this time for 41 yards, to make it 35-17 LSU.

A&M's last chance came early in the fourth quarter after Tannehill found Kenric McNeal on a 4 yard touchdown strike to pull within two scores at 35-24. Then the Aggie defense stopped LSU on a 3rd and 10 on A&M's 33 yard line.

But LSU's Josh Jasper, one of the nation's best kickers, connected on a 50 yard attempt, making it 38-24. Worse for the Aggies, Tannehill was intercepted two plays later. The Tigers drove again inside the 10 and Jasper made another field goal, making the score 41-24 with 2:30 left. A&M fumbled on the next play from scrimmage.

Jefferson had 158 passing yards, most of those to Toliver who had 112 receiving yards. Ridley had 105 rushing yards and Spencer Ware 102 as the normally stout Aggie defense couldn't handle the Tigers on the ground. Tannehill had 204 passing yards but was intercepted three times; Cyrus Gray had an even 100 yards rushing to go with his TD toss.

Texas A&M falls to 9-4, with losses to Missouri, Arkansas, and Oklahoma State and wins over Nebraska and Oklahoma. LSU is 11-2, losing only to Auburn and Arkansas, and having defeated Alabama, Mississippi State, and West Virginia. The #11 Tigers are a lock for the SportsRatings top ten, while the #16 Aggies will remain in the top 25.

More College Football Bowls: Go here for the full 2010-2011 schedule with previews and results.

Results of 2010-2011 FCS Championship Game: Eastern Washington Shocks Delaware, Final Score 20-19

Eastern Washington came back from a 19-0 deficit to stun Delaware, 20-19, to win the Football Championship Division (FCS, formerly I-AA) title.

Bo Levi Mitchell, a transfer from SMU playing in his home state, threw for 302 yards to engineer the comeback, offsetting 220 yards from Penn State transfer Pat Devlin for Delaware.

A missed extra point by Delaware on their first score was the difference. Andrew Pierce's 2-yard run put the Blue Hens up 6-0 after Mike Perry's PAT was blocked.

Perry added two short field goals—21 and 33 yards—to extend the lead in the 2nd quarter, and Delaware went into the locker room having dominated the first half 12-0.

The 2nd half opened with some hope for Eastern Washington. The Eagle defense, which leads the FCS in interceptions, picked off Devlin, who had thrown the least in the FCS. But the Hens intercepted Mitchell right back, and Delaware extended the lead on a 1-yard score by David Hayes; now the deficit was 19 points.

Eastern Washington got on the board later in the 3rd quarter. Mitchell found Brandon Kaufman for a 22 yard touchdown. The Eagles went for two but failed, leaving it 19-6, and Delaware's lead didn't seem in jeopardy.

Eastern Washington's defense continued to tighten, though, and the game started to become more interesting. And midway through the fourth quarter, the Eagles scored again. After a long drive Mitchell threw his 2nd TD toss, this one 9 yards to Nick Edwards.

The Eagles forced a 3-and-out and drove into Delaware territory. Facing a pivotal 4th and 1 on the Delaware 23, Mario Brown took the handoff and fell into the pack. He seemed to get the 1st down on a second effort—but it was unclear whether he might have been down before the second effort.

The officials measured and called it a first down and moved the chains. But then they reviewed the video for a correct spot. The problem was that the chains had been moved already, so there was no way to accurately measure. Both coaches were concerned, to say the least. In the end, the officials re-spotted the ball—and declared that it was first and 10 for the Eagles.

Three plays later, Mitchell hit Kaufman for an 11-yard touchdown, and with the extra point Eastern Washington took the lead, 20-19, with just under 3 minutes left.

Delaware only needed a field goal and had plenty of time, but when they got into Eagle territory Devlin was sacked, creating a 3rd and 19. They picked up 10 yards on 3rd down setting up 4th and 10 at the 39. Devlin was pressured again but managed to get the ball to Mark Schenauer, who couldn't make it to the first down line. Eastern Washington ran out the clock.

Kaufman was the Eagles' top receiver with 120 yards, while Delaware's Pierce led all rushers with 142 yards. The Eagles finished the year 13-2 while Delaware fell to 12-3.

More College Football Bowls: Go here for the full 2010-2011 schedule with previews and results.

2011 Compass Bowl Preview, Odds, and Prediction: Pittsburgh vs. Kentucky

Saturday January 8: Compass Bowl in Birmingham, AL at Noon eastern

Pittsburgh Panthers (7-5) vs. Kentucky Wildcats (6-6)

A January 8th bowl between teams that are a combined 13-11? Welcome to bowl overload. But it should be a competitive game.

Vegas line/spread: Pittsburgh by 4 1/2 (over/under 52.5)

Pitt has moved from slightly more than a field goal favorite to a 4 1/2 point favorite.

Game-comparisons	win %	vs. spread
Pittsburgh	64.6%	55%
Kentucky	35.4%	45%

Pitt outranks Kentucky #36 to #52 in the Strength Power Rating; their game performances generally beat Kentucky's. They win the game almost 2/3 of the time by these comparisons, and win the majority against the spread.

Strength Power Rating:      Pittsburgh 32, Kentucky 25

Kentucky's offense is a lot better than Pitt's; they are #32 in adjusted scoring offense while Pitt is #51. But Pitt's defense more than makes up for it, ranking #29 to Kentucky's #65 defense. That means the offense-to-defense matchups are pretty even: 51 vs. 65 and 32 vs. 29. Pitt has the edge in both comparisons and is about a touchdown favorite.

Yardage analysis:   Kentucky 27, Pitt 24     per attempt:   Pitt 31, Kentucky 28

Kentucky wins the yardage comparison. They rank #25 in corrected yardage differential; Pitt ranks #27. Once again the offense-to-defense comparisons are even; Kentucky's #19 offense is up against Pitt's #13 defense, and Pitt's #57 offense faces UK's #50 defense. In this case Kentucky is a 3-point favorite in the score projection, with a total yardage advantage of around a dozen yards.

The per-play figures favor Pitt again, as the Panthers may have a slight advantage in both passing yards per attempt and rushing yards per carry.

Yardage + turnovers + kick returns projection:  Kentucky 27, Pittsburgh 24

Turnovers can dramatically change a game, and they're very difficult to accurately predict since there is a lot of randomness inherent in turnovers; with such small numbers to deal with, any one turnovers is a big change in volume. And in the case of these two teams, there is no projected turnover advantage for either team. Kentucky is #60 and Pitt #63 in turnover margin, with the expectation that each team will committ/recover 1.4 turnovers. So perhaps one team will get that elusive 2nd turnover and have the advantage, but we're not changing the projection in what we see as even odds for either team.

The kick return game is close enough, too, to not alter the expected score. Kickoff returns as essentially even with both coverage teams poor. Pitt should get more out of the average punt return as they're good on fielding and coverage while Kentucky is poor; however the Wildcats might have a better chance for a game-changing play as Randall Cobb has scored on a punt and Pitt has given up a TD on a return, too. Like the turnover department, there's not a big enough advantage to give points for a potential big play here.

When Pittsburgh has the ball

Pittsburgh rushing offense: #38

Kentucky rushing defense: #58

After his monster freshman year Dion Lewis had a disappointing sophomore slump, but he got going later in the year to gain 958 yards including 261 against Cincinnati. Ray Graham was the top back early in the year as he ran for 277 against Florida International. Kentucky's rushing defense is not as bad as it looks in raw figures since they play mostly SEC teams; corrected for that, they move from a dismal #79 to an average #58. Pitt's duo should have roughly their average outings, combining for over 150 yards.

Pittsburgh passing offense: #72	Kentucky passing defense: #42   per att: #68
Pittsburgh interceptions thrown ranking: #43	Kentucky interceptions picked ranking: #89
Pittsburgh quarterback protection rank: #53	Kentucky pass rush rank: #94

Tino Sunseri wasn't terrible, but he wasn't great in 2010. With a decent 65% competion rate and nearly 2,500 passing yards with 15 touchdowns, he got the job done most of the time. What he didn't do enough of is find Jon Baldwin deep; the star receiver led with 52 receptions for 810 yards but just 5 TDs, all numbers lower than last season. This left Baldwin disgruntled and declaring he's leaving after his junior year. Sunseri should pass for around 200 yards in the game, perhaps more or less depending on Baldwin's motivation and usage.

Sunseri has thrown 8 interceptions in 327 attempts, so Kentucky might not get a pick in this game (odds are just over 50%). Pitt's offensive line has given up 22 sacks—about average—but they will probably hold Kentucky's poor pass rushers to just 1 sack during the bowl game. So while Pitt's passing game might not be terribly productive against the Wildcats, there doesn't seem to be a lot of danger in going to it as often as needed.

When Kentucky has the ball

Kentucky rushing offense: #35

Pittsburgh rushing defense: #24

Derrick Locke is the #1 carrier with 816 yards and 10 TDs, but all-purpose athlete Randall Cobb is the most explosive threat, averaging 7.7 yards per carry when utilized in the wildcat. Locke missed four games and in the three against I-A opponents Kentucky managed just 70 yards per game. So while the projection calls for around 140 yards from the team against Pitt's tough rushing D, that figure should be 10-30 yards higher with Locke at full strength.

Kentucky passing offense: #20	Pittsburgh passing defense: #16   per att: #29
Kentucky interceptions thrown ranking: #25	Pittsburgh interceptions picked ranking: #51
Kentucky quarterback protection rank: #31	Pittsburgh pass rush rank: #53

Mike Hartline was accurate and efficient this year, passing for 3,178 yards and 23 touchdowns; unfortunately he was arrested in December and won't play in the bowl game, rendering most of these stats on Kentucky's side irrelevant. Backup Morgan Newton will start instead. He's completed 4 of 7 passes this season but played about half-time last season. Randall Cobb has thrown three touchdowns in 10 attempts from the wildcat, and his normal role is that of the team's leading receiver. Cobb has 79 catches for 955 yards and 7 TDs, while Chris Matthews has 9 TDs and 897 yards. Pitt has a very good pass defense; even if Hartline played they would likely hold him to 240 yards in a normal game. It should be considerably less with Newton starting, but Cobb is a wild card and the Pitt coverage will have their hands full with Kentucky's two top-notch receivers even with Newton at the helm.

Hartline didn't throw many picks—he had 9 on the year, meaning Pitt would probably get one pick off him at the most. But Newton is coming in without much game experience this year and his timing could be off, so interceptions could become a factor. Pitt's pass rush is average and should get the average 2 sacks, though Kentucky's fairly stout O-line might hold them to 1, particularly with Pitt DE Jabaal Sheard out for the game. Look for Kentucky to rely on the run more in this game unless Newton seems to get in the flow of things, and we could see a lot of Cobb in the wildcat.

 

Pittsburgh's season

Wins vs. bowl-eligible teams (4)
Wins vs. top 25 teams (0)
Losses (5); to losing teams (0)  

1. @ #19 Utah 24-27 OT
2. New Hampshire 38-16
3. Miami (FL) 3-31
4. FIU 44-17
5. @ Notre Dame 17-23
6. @ Syracuse 45-14
7. Rutgers 41-21
8. Louisville 20-3
9. @ Connecticut 28-30
10. @ South Florida 17-10
11. #23 West Virginia 10-35
12. @ Cincinnati 28-10

Pitt's promising season went south early with the loss to Utah, which doesn't look as bad in retrospect considering they took the Utes to overtime on the road. But the home loss to Miami and later loss to Notre Dame were confirmations that Pitt wasn't going to have a great season, even if the Big East still looked like theirs for the taking at 2-3 non-conference.

The Panthers started strong in conference play at 3-0. The loss to UConn hurt but left them still in control of their BCS bowl destiny with just 1 conference loss. The West Virginia game took care of that, as Pitt played a mistake-riddled game and lost big. They beat Cincy and had a mathematical chance until the final day but lost the tiebreaker to both UConn and West Virginia.

Kentucky's season

Wins vs. bowl-eligible teams (2)
Wins vs. top 25 teams (1)
Losses (6); to losing teams (1)

1. @ Louisville 23-16
2. Western Kentucky 63-28
3. Akron 47-10
4. @ Florida 14-48
5. @ Mississippi 35-42
6. #1 Auburn 34-37
7. #20 South Carolina 31-28
8. Georgia 31-44
9. @ #21 Mississippi St 17-24
10. Charleston Southern 49-21
11. Vanderbilt 38-20
12. @ Tennessee 14-24

At first glance it may appear that Kentucky hit a major mid-season skid when they lost five of six games in the heart of the 2010 season.

But in reality, it was all due to their schedule. In fact, in our pre-season predictions we had Kentucky losing *all six* of those games, and winning the last three to go 6-6. The Wildcats did indeed go 6-6, but the two games that didn't go to plan gave them their biggest win, and a heartbreaking final loss.

Kentucky started 3-0 as expected, playing decent but not remarkable football. Then came the tough part of the season. They lost to Florida, then to Ole Miss whom they probably should have beaten given that the Rebels finished 4-8. They very nearly came back to beat Auburn which would have been huge, and the next week they managed to nip South Carolina before falling to Georgia and Mississippi State with Derrick Locke out. The last three games went as expected except for the loss to a resurgent Tennessee team that needed a home win to make a bowl game. Overall UK has been decent on offense and vacillates between decent and horrible on D.

Key Injuries

Mike Hartline's absence from Kentucky's QB slot is the biggest change that we'll see on the field, and it will be a big one. But Pitt's sideline will be missing coach Dave Wannstedt, and that could be just as big of a factor (see psychology).

Without Hartline Kentucky will look to Morgan Newton, who played as much as Hartline did last season but got beat out in fall camp. Newton has seen very limited action this year, but last year he threw six touchdown passes and three interceptions while passing for 706 yards as a freshman. He could be rusty, but with all the practices since the season ended—and likely a hunger to finally get in a game this year—Newton should do reasonably well. He has Cobb both as a target and as a backup quarterback to help him out.

Pitt is without starting defensive end Jabaal Sheard, the Big East defensive player of the year. Sheard had 9 sacks (2nd on the team) and 52 total tackles.

Psychology: Pittsburgh -9    Kentucky -1

• Pittsburgh's season: -2 wins;  Kentucky's season: -1 win
• Pittsburgh's momentum: +1; Kentucky's momentum: +0
• Pittsburgh glad to be there? -1; Kentucky glad to be there: +1
• Pittsburgh lost final game: -0; Kentucky lost final game: -1
• Pittsburgh coaching situation: coach "resigned" -7; Kentucky coaching situation: +0

The teams are in much the same situation in terms of their season results: both lost more games this year than last year. Pitt, however, was actually expected to do very well, so against expectations they really took a fall. A result of that was Dave Wannstedt's resignation.

Though Wannstedt might remain in the Pitt athletic department, he won't coach the bowl game. There has been chaos since naming Miami of Ohio's Mike Haywood as head coach, as Haywood was arrested shortly thereafter and fired before taking over the job. If Wannstedt were coaching the game then the players loyal to him might rally around him and it would be a positive, but since he's not, those loyal won't be quite as motivated and those not could just play flat. It could go either way, but we're guessing it's a negative for Pitt with all the off-field distraction as to who is going to be the coach one minute to the next.

Final analysis

Kentucky's offense is going to look different without Mike Hartline. Morgan Newton will have to get back in to the swing of things fast, but he's had a full month now and he has a lot of experience from last season. Plus he's no longer a freshman; he should do well enough.

Plus, he's got Randall Cobb as a dangerous target. Cobb is a big threat as a receiver, a runner, and as a return man. With main QB Hartline gone, Cobb may feel the need to take over the game in every area he can. He could try to use the game as a showcase to the NFL for his talents.

Pitt's Jon Baldwin may be doing the same thing. But Baldwin has been complaining and blaming others for his lack of productivity, never a good sign. He already knows he's leaving, while Cobb is using this game to make his decision.

Between the conflicting projections, Kentucky's loss of Hartline (but having Locke fully healed), Pitt's coaching chaos, and the teams' star athletes (Cobb and Baldwin) facing off, this game looks like a draw. I expect it to be lower-scoring but Pitt's defense will miss Shear, and that could be the difference in a close game.

Prediction:  Kentucky 24, Pittsburgh 21 OT

More previews, odds, and predictions: View the complete 2010-2011 bowl game schedule.

Results of 2011 GoDaddy.com Bowl - Final Score: Miami (Ohio) 35, Middle Tennessee 21

As expected, turnovers gave Miami of Ohio a big boost on its way to winning the GoDaddy.com Bowl over Middle Tennessee State, 35-21.

The Redhawks intercepted MTSU's Dwight Dasher four times in the 2nd half, including one returned for a touchdown. They also recovered a fumble to win the turnover battle 5 to 2, probably the difference in a game that was tied 14-14 at the half.

After 10 minues with no scoring, MTSU's Phillip Tanner scored on an 18 yard run; Miami's Thomas Merriweather answered with a 3-yard TD run to tie the game at 7 all. Then Dasher rushed for a 49 yard touchdown for the third score in the final 5 minutes of the quarter and MTSU had a 14-7 lead.

Merriweather's second TD run—also for 3 yards—was the only score in the 2nd quarter and tied it at halftime, 14-14.

The first drive of the 2nd half set the tone for the rest of the game. Dasher was intercepted by Dayonne Nunley, who meandered 52 yards for the touchdown amidst heavy traffic, barely staying inbounds.

Miami didn't have long to celebrate their lead; Tanner took the 2nd play of the ensuing drive 54 yards for a touchdown, tying the game 21-21. And after MTSU intercepted Austin Boucher they had the ball back on offense for the third time in the first three minutes.

But it changed hands again, on a fumble after a short pass, also recovered by Nunley.

Miami scored at the end of the 3rd quarter to take a 28-21 lead on a 17-yard pass from Boucher to C Givens, then intercepted Dasher again at the beginning of the 4th. A few drives later Boucher passed to N Harwell for a 35-21 lead.

Dasher was intercepted on the following drive; later, with just a few minutes to go and a slim hope for an MTSU miracle, Dasher was intercepted for the fourth time to seal the win for the Redhawks.

Boucher finished with 289 passing yards for the Redhaws, who completed a dramatic turnaround from 1-11 to 10-4. Middle Tennessee turned around in the other direction, going from 10-3 to 6-7.

More College Football Bowls: Go here for the full 2010-2011 schedule with previews and results.

2011 FCS Championship Game Preview, Odds, and Prediction: Eastern Washington vs. Delaware

Friday January 7: FCS Championship in Frisco, TX at 7:00 pm eastern

#1 Eastern Washington Eagles (12-2) vs. #5 Delaware Blue Hens (12-2)

The final game in the FCS playoff. Eastern Washington was #1 in the final FCS coaches poll, replacing Delaware who lost their last regular-season game but won three playoff games.

Vegas line/spread: Delaware by 8 1/2 (over/under 45.5).

Many sportsbooks don't handle I-AA games at all, but some give odds on the playoff games. Delaware is a pretty solid favorite, and the game is seen to be a bit low scoring.

Game-comparisons	win %	vs. spread
E. Wash	40.9%	62%
Delaware	59.1%	38%

In the All-Division Strength Power Rating, which includes I-A (FBS), I-AA (FCS), Division II, Division III, and NAIA teams, Eastern Washington ranks 91th among 730 teams; Delaware is #71. In terms of comparisons to FBS teams, Delaware ranks about the same as Mississippi, and Eastern Washington is pretty close to Duke.

Strength Power Rating:      Delaware 27, Eastern Washington 22

Delaware's advantage is mainly on defense where they rank #53, which is slightly above average for an FBS team and excellent for an FCS squad. Their offense is #120, which makes them equivalent to the worst FBS teams. Eastern Washington's defense is #116, so it's a match for Delaware's offense, and their own offense is #75, somewhat lower than Delaware's defense. This results in a predicted spread of about 4 1/2 points, or 5 when scores are rounded off.

When Eastern Washington has the ball (note: all figures raw - not adjusted for competition) 

E. Wash rushing offense: #45

Delaware rushing defense: #15

Eastern Washington is only #45 in raw rushing yardage but they feature the #2 back in the country, Taiwan Jones, who has 1,742 yards on the ground. Jones, however, broke his foot against North Dakota and won't play in the championship game. The Eagles beat Villanova without him but Mario Brown ran for 104 yards in that game. Delaware has the #15 rushing defense (raw numbers) in the FBS, 8 spots lower than Villanova, so it's likely Brown could reach triple digits against the Hens.

E. Wash passing offense: #27	Delaware passing defense: #19
E. Wash interceptions thrown: 15	Delaware interceptions picked: 20
E. Wash sacks allowed: 22	Delaware sacks: 17

Bo Levi Mitchell transferred from SMU after it became clear that Kyle Padron was the heir apparent to the starting postion for the Mustanges this season. He's had a big year for the Eagles, throwing for 3,194 yards and 34 TDs, with receiver Brandon Kaufman (1,094 yards, 13 TDs) his main target. Delware's pass defense, like their rush defense, is stout and Mitchell will probably have well below his 228 yard average, perhaps around 200 yards.

The interception numbers seem slightly high, but remember both teams have played 14 games. I'd expect the Hens to pick off Mitchell once, possibly twice. The same goes for sacks—expect one or two. Delaware doesn't have many sacks and Eastern Washington's protection is good—sacks allowed are low for a team that passes so often. Mitchell will probably find his receivers covered more often than he's used to, but pressure and picks aren't a major concern in most circumstances.

When Delaware has the ball (note: all figures raw - not adjusted for competition)

Delaware rushing offense: #29

E. Wash rushing defense: #41

Delaware's answer to Taiwan Jones is Andrew Pierce, #15 nationally in rushing yardage with 1,513 yards and 13 TDs. But he's got more in common with Mario Brown, since both are freshman and they'll be the ones facing off in the championship. The Eagles have a decent rushing defense but the Hens should have over 150 yards on the ground.

Delaware passing offense: #41	E. Wash passing defense: #105
Delaware interceptions thrown: 3	E. Wash interceptions picked: 25
Delaware sacks allowed: 24	E. Wash sacks: 30

Like Mitchell, Pat Devlin is a transfer from an FBS school. He lost the quarterback battle to Darryl Clark and transferred to Delaware in time for the 2009 season. This year he's been amazing, completing 68% of his attempts for 2,812 yards and 22 touchdowns with just 2 interceptions. Against Eastern Washington, who gives up a lot of yards, he should have well over 200 yards. It's hard to estimate without knowing the opposition-corrected stats, but since Eastern Washington's rushing defense isn't great we can assume the passing defense isn't just getting picked on, and really does give up a lot of yardage.

But the Eagles make up for their porousness with big plays to stop those drives. They're #1 in the FCS in interceptions with 25, and it's not any one particular player that has to be avoided as an amazing seven players have two or more. Of course, Devlin has only been intercepted twice, the team three times, but the ddds are Devlin sufferes interception #3 during this game. It's an interesting matchup. Devlin will probably be sacked a couple of times as well.

 

E. Wash's season

Wins vs. playoff teams (3) 
Losses (2); to losing teams (0)  

1. @ Nevada 24-49
2. Central Washington 35-32
3. Montana 36-27
4. @ Montana State 7-30
5. @ Weber State 35-24
6. Northern Arizona 21-14
7. @ Northern Colorado 35-28
8. Sacramento State 28-24
9. @ Portland State 50-17
10. Southern Utah 31-24
11. Idaho State 34-7
12. SE Missouri State 37-17
13. North Dakota St 38-31 OT
14. Villanova 41-31

Eastern Washington is on a 10-game winning streak following their 2-2 start. And those two losses came against I-A power Nevada and playoff team Montana State.

On the flipside, they were blown out in both their losses, and only three of their final 10 wins came on the road, and against relatively weak teams. How will they play away from the red turf?

Despite losing their star running back, the offense played its best game during the Villanova win. The defense is sometimes suspect and nearly cost them the North Dakota State game, but came up with a fumble recovery in overtime.

Delaware's season

Wins vs. playoff teams (3)
Losses (2); to losing teams (0)

1. West Chester 31-0
2. South Dakota State 26-3
3. Duquesne 30-6
4. @ Richmond 34-13
5. @ James Madison 13-10
6. Maine 26-7
7. Rhode Island 24-17
8. @ William & Mary 16-17
9. Towson 48-0
10. @ Massachusetts 45-27
11. Villanova 21-28 OT
12. Lehigh 42-20
13. New Hampshire 16-3
14. Georgia Southern 27-10

Delaware is technically 2 points away from being 14-0. Their two losses—both to playoff teams—came by 1 point and in an overtime game.

The Hen defense has been strong all year and did particularly well in their last two playoff games, holding New Hampshire and Georgia Southern to 13 points combined. The offense hasn't been quite as good but occasionally exceeds expectations.

Delaware only has three road wins, like the Eagles, but over better competition: Richmond, James Madison, and Massachusetts; each is 6-5.

Key Injuries

The key injury is the one keeping Taiwan Jones out of the game for Eastern Washington. Though they beat Villanova without him it doesn't make it a non-factor. The running game would be better with him, even as Mario Brown has filled in admirably.

Psychology: E. Wash +9    Delaware +7

• E. Wash's season: +4 wins;  Delaware's season: +6 wins
• E. Wash's momentum: +2; Delaware's momentum: -2
• E. Wash glad to be there? +3; Delaware glad to be there: +3
• E. Wash lost final game: -0; Delaware lost final game: -0
• E. Wash coaching situation: +0; Delaware coaching situation: +0

When it comes to a championship game, there is normally little difference in emotion—particularly when both teams have won three playoff games to get there. The only thing to look for is overconfidence, and since both teams are 12-2 I doubt there will be any of that. Experience is another factor, and Delaware's championship game experience might give them a small edge. The Hens have a lot of seniors and want to get the title they couldn't get in 2007. Meanwhile Bo Levi Mitchell will be playing in his home state for Eastern Washington. I'm not counting on either team being in better mental shape for the game.

Final analysis

Jones' loss is a big blow for Eastern Washington. With Brown as a replacement they're in pretty good shape, and Mitchell has excelled in the two games the team had to play without Jones so far. But you'd have to think he's worth at least another point.

Delaware's offense is used to not suffering any interceptions; meanwhile Eastern Washington is dependent on them to stop other teams' passing game. This is where push comes to shove: if Eastern Washington can get a few interceptions that could turn the game their way. On the other hand if Devlin is as accurate as he usually is then the Eagles will give up a lot of yards. They intercepted Villanova twice, and the Wildcats had only 5 all year, so they're very capable of getting a pick or more on Devlin. Failing that, their #4 red zone defense will have to try to hold the Hens to field goals.

Both these teams won all three of their three playoff games at home, but now they're on a neutral field. This favors Delaware, I believe. I think the red field in Cheney takes some getting used to, as red is a very psychologically troubling color, and could really be giving the Eagles an edge; they appear to play about three points better over and above the normal home field advantage there. Delaware, meanwhile, plays as well on the road as they do at home.

While Eastern Washington's offense has been great the last few games, so has Delaware's defense. The Blue Hens might shred the Eagles' pass defense but the Eagles haven't been blown out in a long time and I think with big plays on defense they'll keep it fairly close. Delaware has won quite a few close games this year over quality competition and this should be another one.

Prediction:  Delaware 27, Eastern Washington 20

More previews, odds, and predictions: View the complete 2010-2011 bowl game schedule.

2011 Cotton Bowl Preview, Odds, and Prediction: LSU vs. Texas A&M

Friday January 7: Cotton Bowl in Arlington, TX at 8:00 pm eastern

#11 LSU Tigers (10-2) vs. #16 Texas A&M Aggies (9-3)

The Cotton Bowl is the George Martin of bowl games; it's the "Fifth BCS Bowl." It's also the last decent bowl game until the BCS championship game.

Vegas line/spread: LSU by 2 1/2 (over/under 49).

LSU is a slim favorite, but has moved from a 1 1/2 to 2 1/2 point favorite by game day.

Game-comparisons	win %	vs. spread
LSU	47.2%	42%
Texas A&M	52.8%	58%

Though neither team ranks very high in the Strength Power Rating, this should still be a very competitive bowl game. LSU is only 19th and Texas A&M 22nd. We use the All-Division Strength Power Rating for the game-comparisons, where A&M is 17th and LSU #21; here the Aggies win a slight majority, and a bit more after the spread is added.

Strength Power Rating:      Texas A&M 23, LSU 21

LSU's defense ranks #9 in the nation to the Aggies' #16 ranking. Their offenses appear to be disparate at first: in raw terms, Texas A&M is #34 and LSU #51, but after correcting for their opponents' defenses there are neck and neck at #36 and #37.

Using the All-Division Strength Power Rating, A&M has a slight advantage. It's closer to one point, but after rounding the scores it becomes 2 points, which is probably appropriate as this grants the Aggies a small home advantage for playing in-state.

Yardage analysis:   Texas A&M 22, LSU 17    per attempt:   LSU 17, Texas A&M 17

Texas A&M also wins a close game when the teams are compared using just yardage stats. The Aggies are 13th to LSU's 22nd in total yardage differential. LSU outranks them in total defense, 5th to 18th, but the Aggies have a big offensive advantage as they are #23 while the Tigers are just 68th. When the numbers are compared the Aggies have about a 30 yard projected advantage and a 21-17 score.

If we give the Aggies home field advantage it's 23-17, so we split the difference. The per-attempt numbers are more favorable to LSU, resulting in a dead heat dominated by defense.

Yardage + turnovers + kick returns projection:  Texas A&M 20, LSU 18

LSU is #31 and Texas A&M #77 in turnover margin; this results in a 3-point projected swing for the Tigers, as they should have a nearly 3-2 advantage over the Aggies.

We don't give any advantage for the kick return game. LSU will probably benefit more in field position, as  Patrick Peterson ranks in the top ten in both kick and punt returns and has two touchdowns on kickoffs. But A&M hasn't given up a touchdown return and has three of their own, two from Coryell Judie.

When LSU has the ball

LSU rushing offense: #20

Texas A&M rushing defense: #22

This is a good matchup in rushing offense and defense. LSU has five runners with over 100 yards for the season, with Stevan Ridley leading the way with 1,042 (14 TDs) and QB Jordan Jefferson 2nd with 383 net yards. Ridley has been cleared to play, but Texas A&M's defense is stingy and LSU might achieve just over 160 yards on the ground.

LSU passing offense: #99	Texas A&M passing defense: #28   per att: #4
LSU interceptions thrown ranking: #31	Texas A&M interceptions picked ranking: #21
LSU quarterback protection rank: #37	Texas A&M pass rush rank: #14

LSU has had trouble finding a consistent quarterback in recent years, and this year was no exception. Jordan Jefferson (1,253 yards, 4 TDs) took the most snaps overall but Jarrett Lee (573) saw a lot of action, though he didn't provide an answer as LSU's passing production remained in the dumpster, ranking #107 in the nation before correcting for opposition. Texas A&M has a strong pass defense and should hold LSU under 150 yards—maybe even less, since their per-attempt defensive figures are among the best in the nation and LSU might not find it worth their while to go to the air.

Texas A&M intercepts a lot of passes but without a great number of throws from LSU they'll probably only get one during the game. It also depends on who plays the most, as Lee has been very good with the ball (only 1 interception in 89 attempts). The Aggie pass rush is very strong, and they'll have two or maybe three sacks in a normal game against LSU. Von Miller leads the team with 9.5.

When Texas A&M has the ball

Texas A&M rushing offense: #54

LSU rushing defense: #21

The Aggies leaders are Cyrus Gray, who topped 1,000 yards this year, and Christine Michael who had 631. But they've faced fairly lax rushing defenses and LSU has a rushing D on par with the Aggies' own. Further, Michael is out for the year and QB Jerrod Johnson, who was a running threat, is no longer the quarterback. Expect A&M to be held to around 120 yards on the ground.

Texas A&M passing offense: #16	LSU passing defense: #6   per att: #9
Texas A&M interceptions thrown ranking: #53	LSU interceptions picked ranking: #16
Texas A&M quarterback protection rank: #101	LSU pass rush rank: #22

The Aggies offense made a major change with Ryan Tannehill taking over for Jerrod Johnson at quarterback. Production didn't really increase; Johnson had almost 2,000 yards and 14 TDs in 7 games, and Tannehill had about 1,250 and 11 in the 5 games he started. But Tannehill had just 3 interceptions to Johnson's 9. Tannehill should pass for just over 200 yards against LSU's great pass defense, far lower than the 280 the team normally achieves.

By the numbers, LSU should have at least one interception and maybe two (1.35 to be exact). But since Tannehill is far less interception-prone than Johnson was so LSU will probably get one and perhaps none. It's the same story with sacks. Texas A&M has a terrible rating in protecting the quarterback, but a lot of that is due to Johnson's 25 sacks. Tannehill was caught just 10 times in 199 attempts, so LSU might have just 2 sacks rather than the 3 or 4 suggested by the full-season statistics.

 

LSU's season

Wins vs. bowl-eligible teams (6)
Wins vs. top 25 teams (3)
Losses (2); to losing teams (0)  

1. = @ North Carolina 30-24
2. @ Vanderbilt 27-3
3. #21 Mississippi State 29-7
4. #23 West Virginia 20-14
5. Tennessee 16-14
6. @ Florida 33-29
7. McNeese State 32-10
8. @ #1 Auburn 17-24
9. #15 Alabama 24-21
10. Louisiana-Monroe 51-0
11. Mississippi 43-36
12. @ #8 Arkansas 23-31

LSU has played a lot of good teams and had a lot of close games, suggesting they play to the level of their competition, and that they can't transcend it—both hallmarks of a team that lives by defense.

And sometimes it takes trick plays to put them over the top, like the fake field goal that beat Florida and the fourth-down reverse that toppled Alabama. They needed Patrick Peterson's returns to beat North Carolina and West Virginia, and big time luck in a Tennessee mistake to beat the Volunteers.

But luck couldn't quite get them past Auburn and Arkansas. The first loss ended their national title hopes and the 2nd loss ended their BCS bowl hopes. But given their lack of traditional offense it's pretty amazing they achieved 10 wins against the schedule they played.

Texas A&M's season

Wins vs. bowl-eligible teams (5)
Wins vs. top 25 teams (2)
Losses (3); to losing teams (0)

1. Stephen F. Austin 48-7
2. Louisiana Tech 48-16
3. FIU 27-20
4. @ #14 Oklahoma State 35-38
5. = #8 Arkansas 17-24
6. #12 Missouri 9-30
7. @ Kansas 45-10
8. Texas Tech 45-27
9. #13 Oklahoma 33-19
10. @ Baylor 42-30
11. #17 Nebraska 9-6
12. @ Texas 24-17

Texas A&M played a very tough schedule, too. They couldn't beat Arkansas either; that game was part of a three-game slide—all against top 25 teams—that put the Aggies at 3-3 for the first half of the season and eventually led to the replacement of Jerrod Johnson at QB.

The second half of the season went a lot smoother. After blasting Kansas with Tannehill taking over at QB, they beat four straight bowl teams including Oklahoma and Nebraska, then beat arch-rival Texas in Austin. The offense played very well in the first four wins and the defense stepped up against Nebraska in particular.

The Aggies beat 5 bowl teams to LSU's 6, and like the Tigers all their losses were to top 25 teams.

Key Injuries

LSU's leading rusher Stevan Ridley was recently cleared to play after a question about his academics. No details were given. The Tigers are missing a couple of defensive starters who have been gone for most of the last half of the season, defensive end Sam Montgomery and safety Brandon Taylor.

Christine Michael was on his way to a near-1,000 yard season before he was lost for the year with a broken leg. His loss gives the Aggies fewer options on the ground, but so far Gray has done very well as the feature back.

Psychology: LSU -3    Texas A&M +7

• LSU's season: +1 wins;  Texas A&M's season: +3 wins
• LSU's momentum: -2; Texas A&M's momentum: +3
• LSU glad to be there? -1; Texas A&M glad to be there: +1
• LSU lost final game: -1; Texas A&M lost final game: -0
• LSU coaching situation: +0; Texas A&M coaching situation: +0

Texas A&M would appear to have somewhat of a psychological edge. Their season was much better than last year and they had a "turnaround" effect by winning their last six games. Meanwhile LSU lost their final game which would have put them in the Sugar Bowl. It's probably not a huge difference as the numbers above imply; I'd say a couple of points to the Aggies, though.

Final analysis

Texas A&M will probably do a little worse running the ball and a little better passing it, as the loss of Michael and Johnson's replacement with Tannehill change the dynamic projected by using full-season stats. Tannehill won't throw as many picks as Johnson would have or be sacked as much, nor will he have the ground yardage Johnson might have.

Since making the switch the Aggies are playing about 4 points better than before, and every little bit helps in this game which should be fairly close. Not just because the teams are pretty evenly matched, but because LSU plays every above-average team close. Mississippi State was the only good team they beat soundly, and they made up for that by struggling to beat Mississippi.

LSU's defense will keep them in the game, and their lack of offense will prevent them from taking anything other than a small lead. And if the trick plays work—or there is a game-changing return from Peterson—LSU will win. On average, though, I see Texas A&M continuing their solid play with Tannehill at the helm, and the Aggies winning a defensive struggle.

Prediction:  Texas A&M 21, LSU 13

More previews, odds, and predictions: View the complete 2010-2011 bowl game schedule.

Results of 2011 Sugar Bowl - Final Score: Ohio State 31, Arkansas 26

The Ohio State Buckeyes took a big lead and then held on to beat Arkansas 31-26, breaking the school's decades of futility in bowl games against teams from the Southeastern conference.

Terrelle Pryor, one of five players who were allowed to play despite being suspended for 5 games next year in the memorabilia-for-tattoos scandal, passed for 221 yards and  two touchdowns and ran for 114 more to lead the Buckeyes in the win.

Pryor was responsible for the game's first score, even though he didn't finish the play. Pryor broke free for a 37 yard run, but fumbled the ball forward. Two Razorback defenders collided trying to recover it and the Buckeyes' Dane Sanzenbacher fell on it in the end zone for a touchdown.

Arkansas QB Ryan Mallet responded with a perfectly-placed 17-yard touchdown pass to Joe Adams to tie the score at 7-all.

Dan Herron's 9 yard touchdown run made it 14-7 Ohio State midway through the first quarter and it appeared that a shootout was in the works.

But there was no more scoring until the 2nd quarter, and it was mostly Ohio State. Terrelle Pryor threw 15 yards to Sanzenbacher who made a great catch in the end zone, then later he found DeVier Posey for a 43-yard score and with Ohio State up 28-7 it was becoming a rout.

Arkansas' Zach Hocker made a field goal with seconds left in the half to cut the lead to 28-10, and another field goal early in the 2nd half cut it to 28-13, Ohio State.

Ohio State's Devin Barclay kicked a 46 yarder to make it 31-13 with 5 minutes left in the 3rd quarter. That was the last time Ohio State would score.

Late in the the 3rd, Mallett threw his 2nd touchdown pass on another perfectly-placed ball, floating just over the outstretched fingertips of the Ohio State defender to Jarius Wright from 22 yards out.

Arkansas' next score came on defense. Pinned deep in their own territory, Ohio State tried to run their way out. Herron was met at the three yard line and pushed back into the end zone, where he disengaged from the defender and tried to run some more. He was met by several Arkansas defenders and was not awarded forward progress, thereby giving the Razorbacks a safety.

Arkansas got good field position on their next possession and in two plays they were inside the OSU 30 yard line. But a dropped pass on 3rd down forced a field goal which cut the lead to 31-26 with 9 minutes left.

Ohio State tried to run some clock out and, facing a 4th and 1 on their own 37, decided to go for it. Herron made his 2nd mistake of the evening as the ball was stripped from him as he tried to go over the pile. But OSU's defense forced a 3-and-out, and once again Arkansas punted, pinning the Buckeyes deep in their own territory again.

The Buckeyes made a couple of first downs, including one on which Pryor was injured slightly, but Herron couldn't covert a 3rd and 5 and OSU had to punt with 1:15 left to go.

Arkansas blocked the punt and recovered on Ohio State's 18, a disastrous play that could have been much worse as the Razorbacks had a clear path to the end zone but fell on the ball instead. Still, for the first time in the game it appeared that Ohio State was destined to lose.

Two plays later, however, Mallett was intercepted by Solomon Thomas—another of the Tattoo Five, all of whom contributed greatly to Ohio State's win. In addition to Solomon and Pryor, Posey led OSU receivers with 70 yards, and Herron, despite his errors, ran for 81 yards.

Mallet finished 24 of 47 for 277 yards. He was sacked 4 times by OSU's pass rush and suffered at least 5 dropped passes that were catchable, many at critical times. Knile Davis rushed for 131 yards on Ohio State's #1 rush defense.

#7 Ohio State finished the year 12-1, losing only to #6 Wisconsin but with no other big wins. #8 Arkansas ended up 10-3 but had many big wins, beating #11 LSU, #21 Mississippi State, #20 South Carolina, and #16 Texas A&M, with losses to #1 Auburn, #15 Alabama, and the Buckeyes.

More College Football Bowls: Go here for the full 2010-2011 schedule with previews and results.

2011 GoDaddy.Com Bowl Preview, Odds, and Prediction: Miami of Ohio vs. Middle Tennessee

Thursday January 6: GoDaddy.Com Bowl in Mobile, AL at 8:00 pm eastern

Miami (Ohio) Redhawks (9-4) vs. Middle Tennessee State Blue Raiders (6-6)

After reviewing some great games over the last several days, it's time for a break to bowl mediocrity. Miami went 1-11 last year, MTSU 10-2. Their fortunes have reversed and they meet in the classic GoDaddy.com Bowl. Expect some great commercials.

Vegas line/spread: Middle Tennessee by 2 (over/under 49).

The Blue Raiders are a slim favorite to win a moderately low-scoring game. The spread has increased to 2 at game time from 1 point earlier in the week.

Game-comparisons	win %	vs. spread
Miami OH	60.4%	64%
MTSU	39.6%	36%

Unlike the teams we've been reviewing recently, these two teams do not rank very high in the Strength Power Rating. Miami is 98th and MTSU is 105th. The Redhawks win about 3/5 of the game comparisons and since they're the underdog, they win slightly more against the spread.

Strength Power Rating:      Miami Ohio 25, Middle Tennessee 20

Miami's scoring offense is a dismal #98 but their adjusted scoring defense is a respectable 45th in the nation. Middle Tennessee has neither offense (#105) or defense (#100) to fall back on, and that's what gives Miami its projected advantage.

Yardage analysis:   Miami OH 24, MTSU 21     per attempt:   MTSU 21, Miami OH 19

It's not yardage numbers that make the oddsmakers favor MTSU, either, as Miami ranks 92nd and the Blue Raiders #100 in adjusted yardage differential (yards gained - yards given up, corrected for opponents). MTSU's offense is slightly better by this measure (92nd to 97th) but once again Miami's defense is superior, #70 to #88. Both teams should have around 350 yards, and only 135 rushing yards, with Miami slightly higher overall leading to a 3-point win estimate.

Using per-play figures (rather than the per-game figures used for the main yardage analysis), Middle Tennessee comes up a slim victor, with miniscule per-attempt advantages in both rushing and passing yards.

Yardage + turnovers + kick returns projection:  Miami OH 28, MTSU 17

Miami gains a big expected advantage when turnovers are factored in. They rank #52 in turnover margin but Middle Tennessee is dead last in the nation at #120. The Blue Raiders rarely gain turnovers (#105) and they lose a lot (#120). According to the projection Miami should win the turnover battle 3.2 to 1.3, or almost an expected 2 turnover margin which translates roughly to 8 points.

The kick return game doesn't change the projection. Each team has equal likelihood (or unlikelihood) of gaining better field position or breaking for a big play. Miami has the advantage on punt returns, as they have a better coverage unit; also, despite weak return average, they've taken one back for a touchdown while MTSU's coverage has given up one. The Blue Raiders are much better on kickoffs, with the #12 fielding team (Eric Russell averages 27 yards per return) while Miami's coverage is poor.

When Miami OH has the ball

Miami OH rushing offense: #113

MTSU rushing defense: #108

On rushing offense and defense respectively, this is a battle of inept squads, with Miami and Middle Tennessee both in the bottom 20 in the nation. Miami's bright spot is senior Thomas Merriweather, who has 821 yards on the year and a respectable 5.5 average, but he's their only consistent weapon as the offensive line doesn't do a great job of opening holes. MTSU's rushing defense is very weak, however, so the Redhawks should considerably exceed their sub-100 yard average, netting around 135 yards.

Miami OH passing offense: #51	MTSU passing defense: #38   per att: #53
Miami OH interceptions thrown ranking: #80	MTSU interceptions picked ranking: #53
Miami OH quarterback protection rank: #108	MTSU pass rush rank: #24

Miami's passing situation is one reason the oddsmakers favor MTSU. The Redhawks' success has been based on the pass, and largely on Zac Dysert, who passed for 2,406 yards and 13 touchdowns before a lacerated spleen ended his season. But replacement Austin Boucher has thrived, doing very well in the three games since Dysert was lost. He has the same completion rate, touchdown rate, and yards per attempt, and has only 1 interception. Plus, he led the team to three wins, including their best win of the year. And he's got a crew of good receivers, led by Armand Robinson and Nick Harwell (over 750 yards each). Look for Boucher to throw for around 200 yards.

Middle Tennessee has some opportunities to disrupt the passing game, however. According to the number they should nab one interception, but Boucher's INT rate is extremely low so that might not happen. But in terms of quarterback pressure they have a big advantage. Their defense has racked up 32 sacks, led by senior defensive lineman Jamari Lattimore's 11.5. The Redhawk offensive line has given up 34 on the year. Boucher might be a little more elusive than Dysert was but the Blue Raiders should have three sacks, maybe four, and their pressure might stifle the Redhawk offense. The quarterback situation probably doesn't change things, but this matchup—Miami's offensive line vs. MTSU's front seven—could decide the game.

When MTSU has the ball

MTSU rushing offense: #74

Miami OH rushing defense: #56

Middle Tennessee has Philip Tanner (852 yards) and of course, Dwight Dasher, who would have well over 600 yards if he hadn't missed the first 4 games. Dasher of course gives the quarterback position an added dimension, so they could exceed the expected 135 yards, particularly if Dasher is extra motivated in his final collegiate game.

MTSU passing offense: #88	Miami OH passing defense: #93   per att: #98
MTSU interceptions thrown ranking: #118	Miami OH interceptions picked ranking: #98
MTSU quarterback protection rank: #73	Miami OH pass rush rank: #59

Dasher's senior season hasn't been what he or others expected. Suspended for the first four games, he hasn't been as effective as he was last year on the ground or through the air, completing just 57% of his attempts for 1,377 yards and 6 touchdowns against 14 interceptions. MTSU's other options didn't do any better, combining for 3 TDs and 6 interceptions. Miami's pass defense isn't good and Dasher should go over 200 yards for only the 3rd time this year.

MTSU has been plagued by interceptions no matter who is at quarterback. Miami will probably get two interceptions during the game if the averages hold, though Dasher was better during the last several games. Sacks are another issue for the Blue Raiders. Though Backups Logan Kilgore and Jeff Murphy were sacked only twice in 133 attempts, Dasher has been sacked 18 times in 221 attempts, so the Redhawks should probably be expected to get three sacks rather than the two projected by using the full season stats.

 

Miami OH's season

Wins vs. bowl-eligible teams (2)
Wins vs. top 25 teams (0)
Losses (4); to losing teams (1)  

1. @ Florida 12-34
2. Eastern Michigan 28-21
3. Colorado State 31-10
4. @ #12 Missouri 13-51
5. Kent State 27-21
6. @ Cincinnati 3-45
7. @ Central Michigan 27-20
8. Ohio 13-34
9. @ Buffalo 21-9
10. @ Bowling Green 24-21
11. @ Akron 19-14
12. Temple 23-3
13. Northern Illinois 26-21

Miami of Ohio's first 7 wins weren't anything to crow about: they beat 2-10 Eastern Michigan, 3-9 Colorado State, 5-7 Kent State, 3-9 Central Michigan, 2-10 Buffalo, and 2-10 Bowling Green.

But then they beat 8-4 Temple and 11-3 Northern Illinois to win the MAC crown. And for a team that went 1-11 last season, even those first 7 wins were something special. The key was that the Redhawks won close games: Eastern Michigan by 7, Kent State by 6, Central Michigan by 7, Bowling Green by 3, Akron by 5, and NIU by 5. Last year's problems wasn't winning the close games, it was even having close games. We had projected Miami to improve to 5-7 as a stepping stone to a bowl season, but they took a leap from being competitive in games straight to winning them in a very remarkable turnaround.

MTSU's season

Wins vs. bowl-eligible teams (1)
Wins vs. top 25 teams (0)
Losses (6); to losing teams (4)

1. Minnesota 17-24
2. Austin Peay 56-33
3. @ Memphis 17-24
4. @ Louisiana-Lafayette 34-14
5. Troy 13-42
6. @ Georgia Tech 14-42
7. Louisiana-Monroe 38-10
8. @ Arkansas State 24-51
9. North Texas 17-23
10. @ Western Kentucky 27-26
11. Florida Atlantic 38-14
12. @ FIU 28-27

Many (including SportsRatings) thought MTSU was poised for a great season in Dwight Dasher's senior campaign. When he was suspended for the first four games it still seemed that the latter 2/3 of the season could still be special. But the team's problems didn't go away with his return.

The Blue Raiders certainly missed him in losses to 3-9 Minnesota and 1-11 Memphis, close games that certainly could have been wins had he been there. But on his return the team had to adjust and they played terrible games against Troy and Georgia Tech to start 2-4. ULM was their best effort of the year but they fell to Arkansas State and North Texas, the 3rd and 4th losing teams to beat them. Finally they put together some modicum of consistency on both offense and defense in winning their final three games to become bowl eligible by a hair, as well as getting their only win over another bowl-eligible team.

Key Injuries

Miami of Ohio is without two key personnel: Zac Dysert, who quarterbacked the team through most of the season, and head coach Mike Haywood, who led the turnaround the team is experiencing. Both losses could hurt a lot, or might not make any difference whatsoever.

As noted above, Dysert's replacement Austin Boucher is doing very well in his place. And as for Haywood being gone, though some players were understandably upset the team by many accounts has responded well, wishing him luck in his new job at Pitt instead of feeling betrayed. Whether the team will be shaken by recent developments include Pitt firing him before he started, one can only guess.

Psychology: Miami OH +0    MTSU +2

• Miami OH's season: +8 wins;  MTSU's season: -3 wins
• Miami OH's momentum: +2; MTSU's momentum: +2
• Miami OH glad to be there? -2; MTSU glad to be there: +2
• Miami OH lost final game: -0; MTSU lost final game: -0
• Miami OH coaching situation: coach hired away -7; MTSU coaching situation: +0

The psychology of the game is all Miami—until you factor in the coaching change using the normal standard. The Redhawks had an amazing turnaround season that even the biggest fans could hardly have hoped for, while the Blue Raiders' promising year fell to mediocrity.

Both teams had better 2nd halfs, and MTSU managed to make a bowl game, so their season was somewhat salvaged. You could even argue that Miami might be disappointed at not having a better bowl game after winning the conference, instead being stuck with a 6-6 Sun Belt team. But playing in January after going 1-11 probably makes this irrelevant.

Then there's the coaching change. Most of the time it hurts a team, and quite a bit, and it might be another reason that the Redhawks are the underdog. I'm not sure it applies so much in this case, as we noted above the players haven't responded too negatively. So the emotional advantage still goes to the Redhawks, despite the tally above. This goes to show how hard it is to quantify emotional responses in sports, something that needs a lot more research.

Final analysis

Just by the numbers, it looks like Miami should be about a 7 point favorite. Then you start adding in the wild cards and it looks like just about anything can happen.

Wild Card 1: Boucher replacing Dysert at QB. Does it matter? All evidence says: probably not.

Wild Card 2: Quarterback pressure on Boucher. MTSU has a great pass rush, and Miami has terrible QB protection. No doubt there will be lots of pressure and several sacks, but is that accounted for in the teams' offensive and defensive results, or will it be something that fundamentally hampers Miami's offense and leads to an MTSU win? It's very possible.

Wild Card 3: Dwight Dasher. Can he turn it on one more time, in his final game, and play like he did in last year's New Orleans Bowl? Dasher is capable of taking over a game, certainly. But it's not something we've seen much of at all this year. His receivers have been spotty and he's been sacked a lot. This might be the biggest unknown.

Wild Card 4: Miami's response to Mike Haywood's departure. Lance Guidry will coach the team during the bowl game, and even if the team gets completely over the change, Haywood was the one who led them to where they are now. The question is: did they gain enough confidence in themselves that it doesn't matter who is the coach?

The latter three wild cards tilt toward MTSU. Give them a touchdown each for #2, 3, and 4 and now it's Blue Raiders by 14.

But looking at recent play, Miami has really upped its game. With Boucher they've done just as well as with Dysert, and their last two games are amazing. MTSU had two solid games to end the season, but they're nothing like Miami's final two wins over teams that were a combined 19-7. Miami played about 15 points better than MTSU in each team's final two games. So even in the worst case for the "Wild Cards" above, Miami still wins by a point.

And since only Wild Card 2 is a near-certainty, I might give MTSU only enough on the "Wild Cards" to  offset Miami's recent play advantage. Miami's offense might struggle, but it was Miami's defense that played particularly well the last few games, and they might be able to contain Dasher as much as can be expected. As we saw with Virginia Tech against Stanford, sometimes the star player can't do it all. Dasher gets his chance in the GoDaddy.com bowl, but I think the team effort of the Redhawks will carry the day.

Miami's turnaround has made them confident. To go from 1-11 to 9-4 is incredible, and they'll go in excited to play. They learned how to win close games this year, so I think they'll win another on the 6th.

Prediction:  Miami Ohio 26, MTSU 21

More previews, odds, and predictions: View the complete 2010-2011 bowl game schedule.

Results of 2011 Orange Bowl: Stanford Runs Away From Virginia Tech, 40-12

After a competitive first half, Stanford scored 27 straight points and ran away with the Orange Bowl, winning 40-12.

The Cardinal scored first when Jeremy Stewart broke free for a 60 yard touchdown for a 7-0 lead midway through the first quarter.

But the Hokie defense got on the board before their offense. After pinning Stanford deep in their own territory, Andrew Luck was pressured in the end zone; his desperation pass was batted back and caught by a Cardinal lineman in the end zone resulting in a safety.

On offense however, Virginia Tech had few good plays in the first quarter other than two long scrambles by Tyrod Taylor. But early in the second quarter Taylor completed several passes and, helped by an interference call, had the Hokies deep in the red zone.

On 3rd and goal Taylor scrambled and spun to the sideline before connecting with David Wilson for a touchdown to give the Hokies the lead, 9-7.

Luck responded with a 25-yard TD strike to Zack Ertz, set up by another long run by Stewart. But Beamerball reared its head again as the Hokies blocked the extra point, leaving Stanford ahead 13-9.

Following an interception of Andrew Luck, the Hokies drove into Stanford territory. Faced with a 4th-and-one, they went for it but Darren Evans was stopped short. But they got the ball back with a minute left and got into position for a field goal. Halftime score: Stanford 13, Virginia Tech 12.

Stanford opened the scoring in the 2nd half on a 1-yard run (really, about a 1-inch run) by fullback/linebacker Owen Marecic. Stanford missed another extra point, but this time it was their own fault as Nate Whitaker missed it to the left.

On the next drive the Cardinal intercepted Taylor on the 3-yard line, and it only took two plays for them to score: a 56-yard Stepfan Taylor run followed by a 41-yard touchdown pass from Luck to Coby Fleener. Whitaker made this extra point, putting Stanford up 26-12 late in the third.

Early in the 4th Luck found Fleener again as he raced along the sideline for another touchdown, this time for 59 yards; later in the 4th, Luck hit Fleener wide open yet again, and Stanford led 40-12.

Luck completed 18 of 23 passes for 287 yards, and 4 TDs, while Stepfan Taylor ran for 113 yards and Jeremy Stewart 99 on 5 carries. Fleener caught 6 passes, 3 for touchdowns, for 173 yards.

Tyrod Taylor played with great heart but it looked like he had to do it all himself, an impossible task against the Stanford defense, which sacked him an incredible eight times. Taylor passed for over 200 yards and would have had nearly 100 rushing yards if not for the sacks. The team finished with just 67 net rushing yards.

#4 Stanford finished 12-1 and has a claim to being the 2nd best team in the nation if Oregon beats Auburn; they played better overall than TCU, and beat Virginia Tech by 25 more points than 12-1 Boise State.

#18 Virginia Tech finished 11-3; they started 0-2 but won 11 straight to make it to the Orange Bowl.

More College Football Bowls: Go here for the full 2010-2011 schedule with previews and results.

2011 Sugar Bowl Preview, Odds, and Prediction: Ohio State vs. Arkansas

Tuesday January 4: Sugar Bowl in New Orleans, LA at 8:30 pm eastern

#7 Ohio State Buckeyes (11-1) vs. #8 Arkansas Razorbacks (10-2)

After all the drama about Ohio State's non-suspended players, this is another Big Ten - SEC showdown; hopefully it's closer than some of them have been so far.

Vegas line/spread: Ohio State by 3 (over/under 58.5).

Ohio State is favored by a field goal, making them the only Big Ten team (out of 8) favored to win their bowl game (the Big Ten is 2-5 up to this point, so they've actually exceeded expectations). The line was a bit higher but is now 3 at most sportsbooks.

Game-comparisons	win %	vs. spread
Ohio State	60.6%	53%
Arkansas	39.4%	47%

Both teams rank high in the Strength Power Rating, Ohio State at #7 and Arkansas #11. Both teams' game ratings are very consistent, so with the difference in rating Ohio State wins the majority of comparisons, and a small majority against the spread.

Strength Power Rating:      Ohio State 32, Arkansas 27

Arkansas has the edge on offense; their scoring offense (adjusted for opposition) ranks #6 in the nation, while Ohio State's is 12th. But the Buckeyes have a big edge on defense, ranking #6 while Arkansas' scoring defense is just 39th. This makes for an expected 5-point spread and a moderately high-scoring game, in line with the over/under.

Yardage analysis:   Arkansas 29, OSU 28     per attempt:   Arkansas 35, OSU 31

When it comes to total yardage it's very even. Arkansas ranks 6th and Ohio State 7th in yardage differential (yards gain minus yards given up, corrected for opponents faced). This yields a projected 10 yard advantage for the Razorbacks and a 1-point win. Arkansas' offense has a big advantage here, ranking 3rd to Ohio State's 24th; the Buckeyes have a corresponding edge in total defense, ranking 2nd to Arkansas' #26 ranking. Basically it's a great offense vs. a great defense in one matchup, and a good offense vs. a good defense in the other.

When per-play stats rather than per-game figures are crunched, it's still a slim Arkansas victory, mainly due to getting a projected 9 yards per pass attempt.

Yardage + turnovers + kick returns projection:  Ohio State 31, Arkansas 29

Ohio State has the probable advantage in turnovers, as they rank #11 in adjusted turnover margin to Arkansas' #16. The projected advantage is about 3/4 of one turnover, which converts to roughly 3 points in added value. Statistically they'll gain 2.4 turnovers to the Razorbacks' 1.7, but since both number round to 2—and because turnovers are very unpredictable—it could just as easily be a wash, or a bigger advantage. But for the purposes of prognostication we give the Buckeyes 3 points.

The kick return game favors Arkansas on punt returns and Ohio State on kickoffs, so both have an opportunity for big plays which could add to the score estimate without changing the projected margin. On punts Arkansas' Joe Adams is ranked 4th in the nation with an 18 yard average and one touchdown, while Ohio State is just 98th on coverage. Kickoffs are reversed, with Ohio State's Jaamal Berry and Jordan Hall both threats and Arkansas only 112th on defense. But Ohio State has allowed two touchdown returns on kickoffs this year, too.

When Ohio State has the ball

Ohio State rushing offense: #15

Arkansas rushing defense: #41

After several productive years Dan "Boom" Herron had a breakthrough season, topping 1,000 yards and leading the team with 15 touchdowns. QB Terrelle Pryor netted 639 to finish 2nd on the team. Arkansas' rushing defense isn't bad at all when corrected for the teams they've faced, but Ohio State should still have around 200 yards on the ground.

Ohio State passing offense: #61	Arkansas passing defense: #20   per att: #25
Ohio State interceptions thrown ranking: #83	Arkansas interceptions picked ranking: #28
Ohio State quarterback protection rank: #71	Arkansas pass rush rank: #12

With Pryor a streaky passer who can usually run to get the first downs needed (see Iowa game), the pass game is still 2nd class with him at the helm. He threw for over 2,500 yards this season with a solid 66% completion percentage and 25 touchdowns but for the most part the ground game did the real heavy lifting. Teams have to respect the deep threat, though, and OSU's receivers are a solid group, led by Dane Sanzenbacher and DeVier Posey, who have combined for 1,667 yards and 16 TDs.

The Razorbacks have a good pass defense, and should hold Pryor below 200 yards. They're also a threat to intercept the ball and bring pressure, so Ohio State will really want to establish the run. Arkansas should have 1 or 2 interceptions, and probably 3 sacks during the game.

When Arkansas has the ball

Arkansas rushing offense: #39

Ohio State rushing defense: #1

Even when they're primarily a passing team, as they have been lately, Arkansas still has good running backs. This year's discovery is Knile Davis (1,183 yards, 13 TDs) who is a big help in taking pressure off Ryan Mallett. Though they're only 65th in average rushing yards per game, that's before correcting for the defenses they've faced, and they've been more productive lately.

However, they're up against the top rushing defense in the country. The Buckeyes will likely hold the Razorbacks to fewer than 100 yards; if they manage more than that, it's a good sign.

Arkansas passing offense: #2	Ohio State passing defense: #11   per att: #5
Arkansas interceptions thrown ranking: #75	Ohio State interceptions picked ranking: #20
Arkansas quarterback protection rank: #57	Ohio State pass rush rank: #68

Under Ryan Mallett Arkansas is 2nd only to Hawaii in adjusted passing yards per game. Mallett has over 3,500 passing yards, averaging 300 yards per game and 10 yards per attempt, with 30 touchdowns. Ohio State's pass defense, as always, is very tough, but Mallett will still probably get his 300+ yards. The Buckeyes will probably adopt a bend-don't-break attitude on defense, so the mission for Mallett is to turn those yards into points. Arkansas is #4 in red zone scoring, while Ohio State is #9 in red zone defense, so it will be a battle.

Like Arkansas, Ohio State has a takeaway defense and should have 1 or 2 interceptions on Mallett. That's another key area; the team that can get interceptions on the other team's quarterback has a big edge, and it looks about even as both QBs have thrown 11 this season. Ohio State doesn't sack nearly as often as Arkansas but the Razorbacks' protection isn't great; assuming he throws as often as normal the Buckeyes should have a couple of sacks.

 

Ohio State's season

Wins vs. bowl-eligible teams (6)
Wins vs. top 25 teams (0)
Losses (1); to losing teams (0)  

1. Marshall 45-7
2. Miami (FL) 36-24
3. Ohio 43-7
4. Eastern Michigan 73-20
5. @ Illinois 24-13
6. Indiana 38-10
7. @ #6 Wisconsin 18-31
8. Purdue 49-0
9. @ Minnesota 52-10
10. Penn State 38-14
11. @ Iowa 20-17
12. Michigan 37-7

Ohio State didn't build a great résumé as an elite team this year despite finishing 11-1. Facing only one top 25 team, they lost to Wisconsin, and didn't play Michigan State. Miami, Iowa, and Penn State didn't live up to pre-season hype. In all, though the Buckeyes beat six bowl teams they were all 7-5 except for 6-6 Illinois and 8-4 Ohio. Worse, four of the six lost, with Miami, Ohio, and Michigan getting blown out.

But regardless of how their opponents fared Ohio State beat them badly enough to rank among the elite in the Strength Power Rating. Their first six games are amazingly consistent in performance. There's just a slight dip in the game they lose on the road to Wisconsin, two games where they took out their frustrations against Purdue and Minnesota, and back to the average again for the last three win.

Ohio State did very well at home but struggled in 3 of their 4 road games, looking tepid against Illinois, losing to the Badgers, and needing a late drive to beat Iowa.

Arkansas's season

Wins vs. bowl-eligible teams (6)
Wins vs. top 25 teams (4)
Losses (2); to losing teams (0)

1. Tennessee Tech 44-3
2. @ Louisiana-Monroe 31-7
3. @ Georgia 31-24
4. #15 Alabama 20-24
5. = #16 Texas A&M 24-17
6. @ #1 Auburn 43-65
7. Mississippi 38-24
8. Vanderbilt 49-14
9. @ #20 South Carolina 41-20
10. UTEP 58-21
11. @ #21 Mississippi St 38-31 2OT
12. #11 LSU 31-23

Arkansas' push for a season to remember culminated in the Alabama game, where they came up just short after Mallett threw a few late interceptions. The Razorbacks edged Texas A&M and got into a shootout with Auburn where they couldn't keep up. At 4-2, they appeared destined to be relegated to a lower-rung SEC bowl.

But things improved. The running game came along and the offense got even better, helping them roll over Ole Miss, Vandy, South Carolina, and UTEP and Arkansas was back in BCS bowl contention. The defense did just enough to secure wins against Mississippi State and LSU, and along with Alabama's loss to Auburn, the Razorbacks were first in line for the Sugar Bowl.

Unlike Ohio State, Arkansas has played well on the road, beating Georgia, South Carolina, and Mississippi State.

Key Injuries

It could have been a disaster. Terrelle Pryor, Dan Herron, DeVier Posey, offensive lineman Mike Adams, and defensive end Solomon Thomas have been suspended for five games next year—but not the Sugar Bowl. Whatever the logic, it's a lifesaver for the Buckeyes. Instead of being out five starters including the heart and soul of their offense, the team doesn't have any major players out.

Arkansas is relatively injury-free as well.

Psychology: Ohio State +0    Arkansas +6

• Ohio State's season: +1 win;  Arkansas's season: +3 wins
• Ohio State's momentum: -1; Arkansas's momentum: +2
• Ohio State glad to be there? +0; Arkansas glad to be there: +1
• Ohio State lost final game: -0; Arkansas lost final game: -0
• Ohio State coaching situation: +0; Arkansas coaching situation: +0

While Arkansas has made bigger gains this year, and even since mid-season when Ohio State was #1, the Buckeyes are just as glad to be in a BCS bowl game, though it's kind of old hat to them. I give Arkansas a very slight edge in emotion, maybe worth 1 point.

The wild card is how the five "non-supended" players handle the hype and fan derision thrown their way. I don't think it will be a factor, and besides Ohio State will have multitudes of fans there as well.

Final analysis

Unlike the other Big Ten - SEC matchups, this one should be a good game, and be close, too. It might be as back and forth as the Florida-Penn State game but with a closer finish. When Arkansas is on offense both platoons on the field will be among the very top in the nation. When Ohio State is on offense, we will still be looking at top 25 squads.

Both these teams are so consistent it's hard not to go with the power rating projection. Ohio State has had only a few outliers on the upside and one on the downside, and those weren't outrageously out of line. Meanwhile Arkansas has settled at a very high level of playing in recent games.

These results—the Ohio State average, and Arkansas' last few games—suggest a 2.5 point edge for Ohio State. This matches what we get if we average the Strength Power Rating projection with the Yardage + Turnovers projection, and give Arkansas a point for emotion: 2.5 points.

The game itself will probably rememble another Big Ten bowl game recently, Iowa vs. Missouri. The Hawkeyes have a tough defense, a good quarterback, and a primarily running offense, while Missouri has a pass-based attack. The comparisons aren't exact by any means, but I think the results will be similar—a back and forth game with the Big Ten team beating the passing team by a field goal or so.

I can see Ohio State's defense giving up the short pass consistently throughout the night but reigning in big plays and bearing down once Arkansas gets in the red zone. The Razorbacks will score sometimes, and be stopped other times. Meanwhile on offense the Buckeye running game will control the tempo.

And like the Iowa-Missouri game, it should come down to the wire with the outcome in doubt. But Ohio State is a rarity—a Big Ten team favored to win. That says a lot when seven other conference teams were pegged to lose. Plus, several star players are probably in their final game as Buckeyes, despite their assurances otherwise, and they'll want to go out with a win.

Prediction:  Ohio State 30, Arkansas 28

More previews, odds, and predictions: View the complete 2010-2011 bowl game schedule.

2011 Orange Bowl Preview, Odds, and Prediction: Stanford vs. Virginia Tech

Monday January 3: Orange Bowl in Miami, FL at 8:30 pm eastern

#4 Stanford Cardinal (11-1) vs. #18 Virginia Tech Hokies (11-2)

A very good Orange Bowl featuring two of the hottest teams in college football.

Vegas line/spread: Stanford by 3 1/2 (over/under 58).

Stanford is just over a field goal favorite.

Game-comparisons	win %	vs. spread
Stanford	76.2%	71%
VA Tech	23.8%	29%

Stanford is a prohibitive favorite according to the Strength Power Rating, in which they rank #2. Virginia Tech is either #9 or (in the All-Division version) #12, and either way they lose the vast majority of game comparisons. Both teams have won a lot of games, but Virginia Tech has just taken care of business while Stanford has been dominant.

Strength Power Rating:      Stanford 37, Virginia Tech 22

Stanford is a top team on both sides of the ball, ranking #3 in adjusted scoring offense and #2 in defense. Virginia Tech is a top 25 team in both areas (#11 and #17) but that still makes them a two-touchdown underdog according to the numbers.

Yardage analysis:   Stanford 35, VA Tech 23     per attempt:   Stanford 38, VA Tech 33

The projection is a bit more even when using yardage to measure team quality. Stanford is #8 and Virginia Tech #28 in total yardage differential (yards gained - yards yielded, adjusted for schedule strength). The Cardinal are 10th on offense and 16th on defense, while the Hokies are 34th on offense and 36th on defense. The latter is normal for Frank Beamer Virginia Tech teams; they rank much better in scoring than in yardage because of their great special teams play.

Using just yardage, however, Stanford is expected to outgain them by nearly 100 yards. When using per-play rather than per-game stats, the results is quite a bit closer but Stanford still has a good edge in rushing yards per attempt.

Yardage + turnovers + kick returns projection:  Stanford 35, VA Tech 24

This bowl game is a matchup of the nation's best teams in turnover margin. Stanford ranks #1 and Virginia Tech #2, both averaging almost a +2 per game. Stanford is 2nd in takeaways and 5th best in holding onto the ball; the Hokies are 10th and 1st in both areas.

So what happens when they meet? Stanford has a slight statistical edge; they win the hypothetical turnover battle 1.71 to 1.57. That slight edge translates into a half-point advantage. Of course, it rounds to an expected 2-2 tie in turnovers, and turnovers are mostly unpredictable so it's hard to give either team a real advantage. But it will be interesting to see what happens when these teams—who take the ball away a lot but don't give it up—face off.

On punt returns, Virginia Tech has the egde. Stanford is decent at fielding but Virginia Tech's coverage is strong. On the other side of the equation, Virginia Tech is #20 in punt returns while Stanford is just #109 on defense.

Kickoffs show a similar advantage. While Virginia Tech's kickoff coverage has been poor, Stanford's return ability is only average and the Hokies haven't given up any touchdowns. Meanwhile David Wilson has two kickoff return touchdowns for the Hokies. Overall in the kicking game I give a point to Virginia Tech, for better field position and the chance of a big play.

When Stanford has the ball

Stanford rushing offense: #16

VA Tech rushing defense: #50

Even though they didn't have Toby Gerhart this year the Cardinal ground game was still a top 25 affair, as the offensive line was just as good or better. Stepfan Taylor stepped in and gained 1,023 yards, and QB Andrew Luck netted 438 (with an astounding 8.6 average). Virginia Tech's rushing defense isn't that great, either, and Stanford should have over 200 ground yards.

Stanford passing offense: #27	VA Tech passing defense: #23   per att: #18
Stanford interceptions thrown ranking: #9	VA Tech interceptions picked ranking: #3
Stanford quarterback protection rank: #1	VA Tech pass rush rank: #13

Andrew Luck is one of the nation's premier quarterbacks, but Stanford's offense is so balanced that his numbers aren't gaudy like in some pass-based attacks. He does have over 3,000 yards and 28 touchdowns but it's his efficiency that's remarkable, as he's completed 70% of his attempts. He spreads the ball around 8 players who have more than 100 receiving yards. Virginia Tech's pass defense is good enough to slow them down but expect around 235 yards from Luck.

Luck has thrown only 7 interceptions this year, but Virginia Tech is always on the prowl for a big play on defense. Amazingly they have three players in the top 50 in interceptions: Jayron Hosley at #1 with 8, Davon Morgan with 5, and Rashad Carmichael with 4. Even with Luck's stinginess, one of those three is bound to get a pick during the bowl game, possibly two (the numbers say 1.2 INTs for Va Tech).

Stanford's pass protection is 2nd to none. Luck has been sacked 5 times all season, and they've played teams with good pass rushes, too. When adjusted, they average -0.28 sacks allowed per game! This means that it takes a far above-average team to expect to get a sack. Virginia Tech is probably one of those teams, however; the numbers say the Hokies will get 0.6 sacks during the game, meaning it's most likely that they get one, with zero more likely than 2 or more.

When VA Tech has the ball

VA Tech rushing offense: #19

Stanford rushing defense: #19

The Virginia Tech running game and Stanford rushing defense are evenly matched. The Hokies started the year with three dangerous runners: last year's leader Ryan Williams, the previous year's stud Darren Evans, and QB Tyrod Taylor. Evans led this year with 813 and 11 touchdowns, Taylor was second with 637, and this year's find was David Wilson (616). Williams missed the middle of the season and had 477. Stanford should hold them below their average but they'll still get around 175 yards.

VA Tech passing offense: #75	Stanford passing defense: #24   per att: #20
VA Tech interceptions thrown ranking: #1	Stanford interceptions picked ranking: #2
VA Tech quarterback protection rank: #66	Stanford pass rush rank: #23

Taylor is a better passer each year but they've never used it as their main weapon given the talent they have at running back, and the fact that Taylor runs the ball well, too. Still, Taylor had over 2,500 passing yards for the season, with a stellar 23:4 TD:int ratio. Like Stanford, the Hokies have 8 targets with over 100 receiving yards. Stanford's pass defense is as good as Virginia Tech's, so expect Taylor to have around 180 yards or so.

This is a great battle when it comes to interceptions. Taylor has thrown only 4 in 284 attempt a 1.4% rate even better than Luck's 2.0% rate. But Stanford is #2 in adjusted interceptions (they were #1 before Florida got 5 against Penn State in the Outback Bowl). Delano Howard and Richard Sherman lead the team with four apiece and the team has 17 total. So expect Taylor to get his 5th pick during the game; in fact the numbers say there should be exactly one interception. We'll see.

The Hokie pass protection hasn't been great, but it's not horrible. Stanford's good pass rush should force Taylor out of the pocket fairly often and sack him 2 or 3 times.

 

Stanford's season

Wins vs. winning teams (5)
Wins vs. bowl-eligible teams (3)
Wins vs. top 25 teams (0)
Losses (1); to losing teams (0)  

1. Sacramento State 52-17
2. @ UCLA 35-0
3. Wake Forest 68-24
4. @ Notre Dame 37-14
5. @ #2 Oregon 31-52
6. USC* 37-35
7. Washington State 38-28
8. @ Washington 41-0
9. Arizona 42-17
10. @ Arizona State* 17-13
11. @ California 48-14
12. Oregon State 38-0

Stanford's schedule wasn't exactly a killer; they didn't beat any top 25 teams and beat only three bowl teams during the season. But the Pac-10 is a lot tougher than some of the teams' records. The trouble is, there's a big dropoff after Oregon and Stanford themselves.

So Stanford can only claim Notre Dame, Washington, and Arizona as bowl-bound victims. Southern Cal was 8-5 and ineligible, while Arizona State went 6-6 with two FCS wins. Cal and Oregon State suffered the fate of playing in a parity-filled conference and having a killer non-conference schedule and both were 5-7.

But Stanford dominated almost all of their opponents. Near the end, when they destroyed Washington, Arizona, Cal, and Oregon State, they were particularly unstoppable. Their defense during those last five games was as good as any in the nation. And whether they can claim any great victories, their only loss is to undefeated Oregon.

VA Tech's season

Wins vs. bowl-eligible teams (7)
Wins vs. top 25 teams (0)
Losses (2); to FCS teams (1)

1. #10 Boise State 30-33
2. James Madison* 16-21
3. East Carolina 49-27
4. @ Boston College 19-0
5. @ North Carolina St 41-30
6. Central Michigan 45-21
7. Wake Forest 52-21
8. Duke 44-7
9. Georgia Tech 28-21
10. @ North Carolina 26-10
11. @ Miami (FL) 31-17
12. Virginia 37-7
13. = Florida State 44-33

When Virginia Tech lost at home to I-AA James Madison, there were 3 possible conclusions. One, that Virginia Tech was terrible and thus Boise State overrated. Two, that James Madison must be really great. Or three, that Virginia Tech had a fluke performance 5 days after losing a huge game.

Most pundits decided on explanation #1 and wrote off the Hokies. Looking back, as both the Hokies and Broncos ran off 10 straight wins, does it make sense to rank them with James Madison, instead of concluding that the one game where Virginia Tech played poorly was a fluke? Of course not. Virginia Tech has been one of the most consistent teams in the country, perhaps *the* most consistent—if you take away that one aberration.

Their wins were not nearly as dominant as Stanford's, but they got the job done. And their résumé—when looking at wins only—is better than Stanford's. They beat seven bowl teams in their 11-game winning streak.

Key Injuries

Stanford doesn't have significant injuries. Virginia Tech has some issues at linebacker; starter Lyndell Gibson will miss the game, and Bruce Taylor was hurt in the ACC title game but is probable for the bowl.

Psychology: Stanford +5    VA Tech +5

• Stanford's season: +3 wins;  VA Tech's season: +2 wins
• Stanford's momentum: +1; VA Tech's momentum: +2
• Stanford glad to be there? +1; VA Tech glad to be there: +1
• Stanford lost final game: -0; VA Tech lost final game: -0
• Stanford coaching situation: +0; VA Tech coaching situation: +0

I think both teams will be ready to play come game time. Both had great seasons, improved over last year, and shook off early losses to enter this game with long winning streaks.

Final analysis

This matchup is really interesting. Both have quarterbacks who pass efficiently and can run the ball, even as they have contrasting styles. Both throw few interceptions but will be facing defenses that take the ball away often. Both teams run the ball very well and defend the pass well. Virginia Tech's strong pass rush will face Stanford's immoveable offensive line.

Stanford dominated its schedule, but other than Oregon they didn't play any elite teams. Going by the FBS version of the Strength Power Rating—where the fluke James Madison loss doesn't register as much—Virginia Tech will be their toughest opponent other than Oregon.

And the teams closest to Virginia Tech—Arizona State at #13 and USC at #16—gave the Cardinal a lot of trouble. Stanford won those games by a total of 6 points. This is probably one reason for the oddsmakers' 3 point spread. Then again, Stanford beat #21 Arizona, #23 Oregon State, and #24 Cal by an average of 32 points. So if the Pac-10 deserves its haughty rankings in the Strength Power Rating, the Cardinal should beat Virginia Tech soundly.

The Hokies are #12 in the All-Division Strength Power Rating, the version that uses all games for all teams, including James Madison's full schedule. So including the full ramifications of that game hurts them. But in some ways that game should be erased completely to get an accurate picture of how Virginia Tech should play in the bowl game. They have a month to prepare, not just 5 days, and their mental state will be far, far better.

Running the power rating without the James Madison game yields a score prediction of 35-24, which matches the modified yardage-based prediction. If Stanford is guilty as charged of beating up on worse opponents and having trouble with top teams, then it could be a very close, perhaps 35-34. However, if Stanford's defense plays the way it did the last five games, it could be 35-14. We'll assume those caveats cancel each other out.

Prediction:  Stanford 35, Virginia Tech 24

More previews, odds, and predictions: View the complete 2010-2011 bowl game schedule.

Results of 2011 Fiesta Bowl - Final Score: Oklahoma 48, Connecticut 20

Oklahoma jumped to an early lead and spent the rest of the Fiesta Bowl trying to prevent a UConn comeback that always threatened to materialize but never quite did. In the end the Sooners prevailed, 48-20.

Determined to break coach Bob Stoops' 5 game BCS Bowl losing streak, the Sooners jumped to a 14-0 lead in the first quarter on Landry Jones pass to James Hanna and DeMarco Murray's short run.

They were driving again early in the 2nd quarter when UConn's Dwayne Gratz intercepted Jones and returned it 46 yards for a touchdown. Suddenly what looked like a certain blowout was competitive, at least on the scoreboard.

Oklahoma's Jimmy Stevens kicked two field goals to make it 20-7, but UConn managed to get one of their own before the half to make it 20-10 Oklahoma going into the locker room.

Coming out for the 2nd half, Oklahoma seemed to have renewed their determination to put the game away. Jones found Cameron Kenney for a 59 yard touchdown to make it 27-10, and just as UConn's Zach Fraser seemed to be hitting a bit of a stride he was picked off by Jamell Fleming who returned it 55 yards for an Oklahoma TD and a dominant 34-10 lead.

But UConn did their best to keep the game from being called. On the ensuing kickoff, Robbie Frey took the ball at the 5 and ran it 95 yards for a touchdown. The UConn defense forced an Oklahoma three-and-out, and the offense drove into position for another Dave Teggart field goal to close to within two scores at 34-20.

Once again, however, the Sooners refocused. Jones hit Ryan Broyles for another score to make it 41-20, and late in the game Frazer was intercepted for another pick-six.

Jones finished 34 of 49 for 429 yards and three touchdowns. Broyles had 170 receiving yards and Kenney had 154, while DeMarco Murray had 85 on the ground. The Sooner defense held Fraser to 19 of 39 passing for 223 yards and Jordan Todman to 116 rushing yards. UConn didn't score any offensive touchdowns.

Oklahoma finished the season 12-2, with losses to Missouri and Texas Tech and wins over Oklahoma State, Nebraska, Florida State, and Air Force. UConn finishes 8-5 after having started the year 3-4.

More College Football Bowls: Go here for the full 2010-2011 schedule with previews and results.

Results of 2011 Rose Bowl - Final Score: TCU 21, Wisconsin 19

TCU beat Wisconsin 21-19 in the Rose Bowl, as Tank Carder batted down a Scott Tolzien 2-pt conversion attempt with minutes to go.

The Badgers took an early 3-0 lead on a 30-yard field goal by Phil Welch; Montee Ball broke free for a 40-yard run on the first play from scrimmage to set up the score. But Andy Dalton patiently led a long TCU scoring drive punctuated by a 23 yard TD pass to Bart Johnson to take a 7-3 lead.

Wisconsin responded with a John Clay touchdown from the 1-yard line, set up by a drive that featured several Scott Tolzien passes. The Badgers regained the lead, 10-7, but TCU took the lead back on a short Dalton keeper, where he just inched over the pylon.

In the 2nd quarter, TCU got the first defensive stop by either team as Wisconsin missed a field goal attempt. But TCU's offense went 3-and-out on their next possession and punted the ball away.

TCU stopped Wisconsin again, but Wisconsin faked a punt on 4th and 9 and made it. After a long drive including several 3rd down conversions the Badgers faced 4th and inches and just 15 seconds left in the half; they kicked another field goal to make it 14-13 TCU at the half.

In the 2nd half, a 33-yard completion to Ed Wesley set up a 1-yard Luke Shivers touchdown run for the Horned Frogs. TCU controlled field position for the rest of the 3rd quarter.

Wisconsin embarked on a long drive in the 4th quarter, ending in a John Clay touchdown run. Wisconsin went for a two-point conversion that failed, leaving the score 21-19 TCU with 2 minutes left. TCU ran out the clock.

Dalton finished 15 of 23 for 215 yards, but the Horned Frogs uncharacteristically rushed for fewer than 100 yards. Wisconsin had well over 200 yards, with Ball the leader at 125, and Clay and James White adding another 100 or so. But TCU's defense weathered the storm against the huge Badgers offensive line.

TCU finished the season a perfect 13-0, staking a claim to being the nation's best team despite not playing in the national championship game. Wisconsin fell to 11-2 with a loss to Michigan State and a win over Ohio State.

More College Football Bowls: Go here for the full 2010-2011 schedule with previews and results.

Results of 2011 Outback Bowl - Final Score: Florida 37, Penn State 24

Of the three Big Ten-SEC contests on New Year's Day this one was the closest, with Penn State and Florida trading scores before the Gators came out on top 37-24 to send Urban Meyer off with a win.

Penn State struck first as Matt McGloin hit Derek Moye for a 5-yard TD pass, the only score in the 1st quarter.

Florida's Omarius Hines ran 16 yards for the Gators' first touchdown early in the 2nd, then Florida's special teams came up big with a blocked punt returned for a touchdown by Lerentee McCray.

Florida's lead was short-lived as Penn State scored on a Michael Zordich 1-yard run, then added a short field goal by Collin Wagner. Penn State led 17-14 at the half, but significantly Florida's defense held Penn State to a field goal when they had 1st and goal inside the ten.

Florida tied the score at 17 all with a Chas Henry field goal, but McGloin regained the lead for the Nittany Lions, taking it in from the 2 yard line himself. Another Gator field goal cut the lead to 24-20, Lions at the end of the 3rd quarter.

But the 4th quarter was all Gators. On a drive that followed an interception of McGloin, Mike Gillislee scored to give Florida their first lead, 27-24. Henry added a field goal—his 3rd in the 2nd half—to make it 30-24 Gators.

McGloin and Penn State had one last chance, but he was intercepted again and it was returned 80 yards for a touchdown by Ahmad Black. McGloin was intercepted again at the very end of the contest, making it five times in all.

Penn State fell to 7-6 while Florida improved to 8-5. While Florida's 46-year-old coach is moving on, Penn State's 83-year-old coach will be back; Joe Paterno has been head coach of Penn State almost as long as Urban Meyer has been alive.

More College Football Bowls: Go here for the full 2010-2011 schedule with previews and results.

Results of 2011 Gator Bowl - Final Score: Mississippi State 52, Michigan 14

Denard Robinson rolled to the left and threw a perfect pass to Martavious Odoms in the end zone 27 yards away, giving Michigan a 14-10 lead late in the first quarter. It suggested that the game would be a high-scoring affair.

That was true. But it was also the last time the Wolverines would score. Mississippi State, however, kept exploiting Michigan's poor defense and piled it on, winning the 2011 Gator Bowl 52-14.

After Robinson's last hurrah, Bulldog quarterback Chris Relf added two more touchdown passes (he had three in all) and ran for another, while Vick Ballard rushed for three of his own.

Michigan, plagued by defensive mistakes all year, allowed nearly 500 total yards to a team that ranked just 45th (41st adjusted) in offensive yardage nationally.

Robinson completed one of the greatest individual seasons in college football history. Hobbled by minor injuries and overshadowed later in the season by Cam Newton, Robinson rushed for over 1,500 yards and passed for over 2,500, adding 256 passing yards in the bowl game.

Michigan fell to 7-6, and with the blowout Rich Rodriguez' job may be in further jeopardy. Mississippi State improved to 9-4, with all their losses to top 25 teams: Alabama, LSU, Auburn, and Arkansas.

More College Football Bowls: Go here for the full 2010-2011 schedule with previews and results.

Results of 2011 Capital One Bowl - Final Score: Alabama 49, Michigan State 7

In a game that was going to be decided by talent vs. emotion, talent won big time as Alabama crushed Michigan State 49-7 in the Capital One Bowl on New Year's Day.

In fact, you could say that Alabama played with more emotion after many had questioned whether they would be disappointed to not be in a BCS bowl after winning the national championship last year. But Alabama came to play, while Michigan State's performance resembled their 37-6 loss to Iowa mid-season.

A slew of familiar names scored touchdowns for Alabama:

• Mark Ingram
• Trent Richardson
• Ingram again
• Julio Jones (on a run)
• Greg McElroy, passing to Marquis Maze

By that time it was 35-0 early in the third quarter. Alabama's next two scores were by #3 running back Eddie Lacy, who broke free for a 62 yard score and ended up being the Tide's leading rusher for the game.

After missing several opportunities throughout the game the Spartans finally got on the board late in the game when receiver Keith Nichol got to relive his quarterback days and completed a 49 yard TD pass to Bennie Fowler. But it was far too little, far too late for Michigan State, who finished the year 11-2—both huge blowouts.

MSU's Kirk Cousins was 10 of 19 and had success passing early, but the running game never got going to give it any support: the Spartans were held to negative rushing yardage. For the Tide, McElroy was 14 of 18 for 225 yards.

Alabama finished the year 10-3, with losses to South Carolina, LSU, and Auburn, and wins over Arkansas and Mississippi State.

More College Football Bowls: Go here for the full 2010-2011 schedule with previews and results.

Results of 2011 TicketCity Bowl - Final Score: Texas Tech 45, Northwestern 38

Texas Tech took several big leads but Northwestern never said die and made it a close game by the end, falling 45-38 in the TicketCity Bowl in Dallas.

Unlike the last two years where the Wildcats took the game into overtime before falling to a heavily-favored foe, this one got out of hand early on. The Red Raiders took leads of 10-0 in the first quarter and 24-6 at the half as Taylor Potts had a hand in three touchdowns: he threw two TD passes and caught on, though the latter was technically a running play.

Though Northwestern's Kain Colter rushed for his second touchdown in the 3rd quarter, Tech extended their lead to 38-17 with Potts' third TD pass. Earlier in the quarter Eric Stephens broke free for an 86 yard touchdown run.

But the Wildcats' comeback hadn't yet begun. Evan Watkins rushed for a touchdown near the end of the 3rd quarter and passed for another just after the start of the 4th, and just like that the Wildcats were down by only a touchdown, 38-31.

Potts was undaunted and drove for his fourth touchdown pass, hitting Lyle Leong for 11 yards, Leong's 2nd TD of the day.

But Potts made his only mistake of the day in the middle of the 4th. Trying to convert a 3rd down to run out the clock, Potts' pass was tipped, intercepted, and returned for a touchdown by Northwestern's Jordan Mabin, giving the Wildcats new life at 45-38.

Texas Tech was able to run most of the clock off, and Watkins' late desparation pass was intercepted.

Potts finished 43 of 56 for 369 yards and 4 touchdowns, plus 1 rushing TD. Watkins and Colter, filling in once again for the injured Dan Persa, combined for just over 100 passing yards while Colter rushed for 105.

Texas Tech improved to 8-5 while Northwestern fell to 7-6, failing once again to break their six decade bowl win drought.

More College Football Bowls: Go here for the full 2010-2011 schedule with previews and results.

2010-2011 Bowl Performance by Conference

Here are the results by conference for the 2010-2011 bowl season; all bowl games.

NOTE: These are the results for LAST SEASON. For THIS SEASON, see the conference bowl records and analysis for the 2011-2012 season.

Formula: A bowl win gets one point; a loss subtracts one. Add difference in expected vs. actual wins, and covering/not covering the spread.

Conference   Expected   Actual   diff1  wins±  vs. spread diff2  Points
Mtn. West      4-1       4-1       0     +3      3-2       +1      +4
Big East       3-3       4-2      +1     +2      3-2-1     +1      +4
(Ind.)         0-3       2-1      +2     +1      2-1       +1      +4
Sun Belt       2-1       2-1       0     +1      2-1       +1      +2
Big Ten        1-7       3-5      +2     -2      5-3       +2      +2
Pac 10         1-3       2-2      +1      0      2-2        0      +1
MAC            2-2       2-2       0      0      2-2        0       0
ACC            4-5       4-5       0     -1      5-4       +1       0
SEC            7-3       5-5      -2      0      5-5        0      -2
C-USA          1-5       2-4      +1     -2      2-3-1     -1      -2
WAC            3-1       2-2      -1      0      1-3       -2      -3
Big 12         7-1       3-5      -4     -2      2-6       -4     -10

Expected = who the oddsmakers favored in the conference's games
Actual = the conference actual bowl record
diff1 = difference between expected and actual performance
wins± = actual wins minus actual losses
vs. spread = how the conference did against the spread in all their games
diff2 = spread "wins" minus spread "losses"
Points: sum of columns diff1, wins±, and diff2

In the end, no conference really dominated the bowl season, with most leagues overperforming or underperforming only marginally against expectations.

Auburn's win over Oregon was yet another huge win for the SEC, and we gave them the spread "win" since the line fell below 3 by game time. But most of the conference's lower-rung teams lost in minor games, and we counted all bowls evenly. There was a clear demarcation within the league, as SEC West teams went 4-1 while their East counterparts were 1-4. If graded separately, the SEC West would be +6—better than any conference—while the East was -8, worse than every conference except the Big 12.

But despite the SEC's three big January 1st wins over the Big Ten, the latter ranks higher in overall performance in the bowl season—if you rank the teams as much by expectations as results. We also only count beating the spread, not winning by 42 points, as significant. With those caveats, and Ohio State's win over Arkansas, the Big Ten did reasonably well.

So who did the best?  The Mountain West, the Big East, and the Independents, with the Sun Belt, Big Ten, and Pac-10 also slightly better than projected by the oddsmakers. The Sun Belt was the only undefeated conference until they lost all their points when favorite Middle Tennessee lost to Miami of Ohio. The Mountain West simply won the games it was supposed to win.

Remarkably the Big Ten wasn't favored in any of their bowl games through the 1st, so their 3-5 record is a bonus over the 1-7 that was expected of them this year. Stanford's beatdown of Virginia Tech was a plus for the Pac-10, but Oregon's loss kept them out of first place and put them in the middle of the pack.

The Big 12 lands in last place. They got some poor draws, with their 2-loss teams pitted against teams with 4 or 5 losses giving them little upside. They were favored to be 7-0 through January 1st but only managed a 3-4 record. Oklahoma's win over UConn helped them out a bit, but Texas A&M's loss to LSU puts them far and away at the bottom of the chart.

The MAC and ACC didn't exceed or fall short of expectations. The MAC finished with even records both straight up and against the spread, while the ACC was 4-5 straight up and 5-4 against the spread.