Sunday, December 05, 2010

Why this trip to San Francisco is different



I know some of those around the program are disappointed in another trip to San Francisco but of all the potential options this might have the most upside.


At the end of the day bowls are a showcase for the team. This is a chance to close our season against a highly ranked team. It is a chance to end the season in the last game before the National Championship. It is prime time on a Sunday following NFL playoff football. Sports and football fans will watch. Last year's Boston College-USC game is the third-most-watched college bowl game in ESPN history. This should surpass that. We have a strong contingent of BC fans in Northern California. The late date should give them plenty of time to sell tickets and organize.


Nevada also offers a good test. They are explosive yet a running team. Their defense is solid, but hasn't faced a team or scheme like ours all season. It is a short trip for them, but they haven't played on this field before.


I hate having a month off but I like the idea of BC playing on a weekend night during a regular week. Those "bowl week" games get lost in the shuffle and are mostly forgettable. This won't be.


I will have more on the game, the set up and Nevada in the weeks ahead. I would love to be prepping for a Orange Bowl, but when we were 2-5 this day seemed impossible. All things considered, playing in San Francisco is a nice problem to have.

Labels: , , ,

28 Comments:

At 6:50 AM, Blogger blist said...

I'm excited for the game - wish it was Boise just b/c they have more of a rep, When we were 2-5 it seemed a shame Herzy et al would leave BC on a whimper, but now they can go out on a high. Weirdly, if we win I'll feel better about this 8-5 season than last year's 8-5 - maybe because of some of the freshman who have emerged.

 
At 7:27 AM, Blogger mod34b said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 7:31 AM, Blogger mod34b said...

3rd best Not really. Maybe just EsPN televised bowls? That seems wrong too.

 
At 7:39 AM, Blogger mod34b said...

hmmmm, it might be right ??.

 
At 8:44 AM, Blogger Galvin said...

I think you are correct mod - 3rd most watched ESPN-televised bowl. Stupid question - ESPN never gets to televise the BCS games, corrrect? I am assuming those are all network games.

Blist - I agree, I already have a better feeling with this team. I am excited to see what the young guys can do and hope Herzlich finishes his career with a nice win. I think we can beat Nevada, just gotta contain that QB (much easier said than done). Go BC!

 
At 9:09 AM, Blogger Erik said...

I think it's perfect (among our reslistic options). The mid-January game let's our guys focus on finals for now. The long layoff let's us get as healthy as possible. Let's Nevada cool off after being hot.

I think it will be our best chance for fans to travel. It's a weekend. I know it's not easy for me to fly away during Christmas and New Years, this lets the madness settle down.

It let's Montel, Albright, and Gause have a better chance at being ready to suit up.

It's not the beach, it's not against a Big Ten team, but for an on-field product this is a good situation.

 
At 9:24 AM, Blogger tweigman said...

"Just gotta contain the QB"

Not at all true. Nevada's running game is not just about Kaepernick. Their principle RB -- Vai Tua has averaged 124+ yds per game and is a deceptive fire-plug type -- 5'10", 22 lbs. So challenge is to deal with run/throw threat of Kaepernick, complemented by Tua cutting it up the middle.

 
At 9:25 AM, Blogger tweigman said...

ehh...Tua is 220 lbs

 
At 10:32 AM, Blogger Galvin said...

Crap I didn't realize that. Even so, I like our chances against a running team. Hopefully we can contain both those guys.

 
At 10:44 AM, Blogger BCDoubleEagle said...

We are pretty decent against the run no matter which member of the opposing team happens to be carrying the football:

http://content.usatoday.com/sportsdata/football/ncaaf/stats/team-rushing-defense

 
At 11:06 AM, Blogger Danny Boy said...

I think this game is a perfect compromise. I would have loved to play Boise, but I was also terrified of the prospect of Spaz trying to use his soft zone against Moore.

San Fran is by far the best city available to us. The game is the best time slot (and calendar day for our boys to get healthy). Nevada gives us the best combination of prestige team who is beatable.

I'm just bummed that I was just sent on a business trip that begins the 9th so I can't be there.

 
At 1:46 PM, Blogger BCMike said...

Glad it's not Boise. Moore would have torched us for 60 easy. Like the match-up with Nevada.

 
At 2:44 PM, Blogger Big Jack Krack said...

I see that Nevada is ranked 26th against in rushing defense (126 yards per game).

I wonder if they have seen 40 runs straight up the middle? :-)

Are we truly #1 against the rush? Wow - what a match-up.

Nevada is the top rushing team behind GT, Air Force and Navy - (the option rushers) at 301 yards per game - slightly ahead of Oregon and Auburn.

http://content.usatoday.com/sportsdata/football/ncaaf/stats/team-rushing-offense

Something's got to give!!!!!

Let's go BC - prepare well. Let's go coaches - develop an effective game plan. Give our players a chance to win. Great defensive plan - and cut our California QB loose a little bit.

 
At 2:59 PM, Blogger Bravesbill said...

I'm a little hesitant to be playing Nevada. Contrary to others, I don't think BC matches up well against Nevada. On offense, Nevada is just as effective through the air as it is on the ground. Most of the teams BC has played this year have been pretty one dimensional, usually teams had mediocre to awful QBs. If BC attempts to cheat and stop the run, I have a bad feeling Nevada will burn BC through the air. Plus, BC has always had fits against mobile QBs in the past. Also, I don't think BC can effectively take advantage of Nevada's defense in order to win. Nevada is pretty weak on defense, esp. through the air. Given BC's pretty bad passing game and Tranquil's dismal playcalling, I don't see BC capitalizing at all through the air. On a last note, I'm tired of hearing how BC's bowl game was so highly rated last year. BC was not the television draw; it was USC. Pure and simple. USC could have been playing Central Florida in the same game and time slot, and the game would have received the same ratings.

 
At 3:10 PM, Blogger mod34b said...

Cheer up Bravesbill -- Christmas is coming.

Nobody wants to hear the gloominess.

But, I must say, you are quite economical with your gloom. I counted 9 pessimistic/gloomy statement; 5 neutral statement and nothing -- NOTHING -- positive to say at all.

Is my count accurate?

 
At 3:16 PM, Blogger mod34b said...

BJK --

Our OL has about 50 lbs per man on Nevada's DL. The OL seems to be gellin' as of late

I think that will make a difference in our ability to score and more importantly with ball control and field position.

No way, they will let Rettig loosen up -- unless we are getitng crushed -- because we need to maintain possession as a defensive strategy.

 
At 3:46 PM, Blogger eagle1331 said...

I am excited for the prospect of winning the lottery over the next month (or a big holiday bonus), flying out to San Fran on the 7th for a couple days by the way, and right after the game getting on a plane and going to sunny Arizona and seeing a BCS national championship game the next day..

..one could dream...

 
At 3:52 PM, Blogger Bravesbill said...

Just providing a contrary view to all of the optimistic views being expressed on the board today Mod. Most people have expressed that BC can beat Nevada. BC can beat Nevada sure but they will most likely lose. Just giving people more thoughts to mull over before they get way too giddy and are inevitably let down.

 
At 4:13 PM, Blogger Benjamin said...

Well I do care whether we win or lose, I care more about the fact that I can go to an actual Boston College football game this year.
If we win, it'll be a great win for the program this year (finishing strong against a ranked opponent), and if we lose, well, I'd just rather not lose.
It will be great having Harris and Williams for the bowl, having Herzy, Gause, and Albright healthy, Rettig getting more snaps.
We hit a low point against NC State, but since that game, we have been competitive in every single game, with an obvious progression. I think Bill's prediction of ending the season ranked could come true if we play well and win against Nevada.

 
At 4:13 PM, Blogger mod34b said...

I know you are sincere Bravesbill.

just kidding with you.

 
At 4:17 PM, Blogger Joseph said...

why is it so wrong to get giddy for a few weeks? I hope that any letdown is not too bad for adults to bear. I'm going to SF with a positive outlook and if it doesn't work out, oh well. It's a game. Enjoy it.

 
At 7:13 PM, Blogger Dan said...

Jesus it's Christmas season. Damn right I'm gonna be giddy.

I have a month and 3 days to think about Montel and Andre going nuts all over Nevada, Chase finally putting it all together and Herzy, KPL and Keuchly destroying people all night.

Is it gonna happen? Maybe, maybe not. But if you can't look forward to things in life what's the freakin point?

I'm all for realistic expectations; but when it's my team, that's what the back of my mind is for.

 
At 8:54 PM, Blogger Mike said...

Also, regarding the comment that our game was rated well mostly because USC was in it is not true. Look at the list with all of the ratings and scroll down to previous years--BC is consistently amongst the top ratings in non-BCS bowls. Sure, USC helped the Emerald Bowl become the third most watched ESPN bowl ever (that won't stand now that ESPN has the BCS), but it wasn't just USC. BC manages solid TV ratings.

 
At 2:29 AM, Blogger CT said...

Wasn't it just the 3rd most watched non-BCS bowl that year? You don't think the 2nd biggest TV market had anything to do with it? Hmm...our other bowl ratings looked pretty average to me.

Nevada's schedule is a Who's Who of suckiness. They score a lot. They give up a lot. Utah State hung 42 on them. Utah State. The 94th ranked offense out of 120.

Kuechly might have 53 tackles if he spies the QB.

They got up for their one big game vs. Boise and should've lost that one if the kicker didn't choke like a dog.

I'd say they haven't seen but one defense that resembles anything other than warm bodies. Of course, they've seen about 10 more dynamic offenses, but that's beside the point.

The 1994 Aloha Bowl redux. Kaepernich has nothing on Chad May. 24-17 BC.

 
At 10:10 AM, Blogger Bravesbill said...

Let's put down this myth once and for all:

2009--5.6 rating against USC--Mainly due to USC's huge national following and television market.

2008--2.8 rating against Vanderbilt--Ranked near the bottom half of bowl games.

2007--3.69 rating against Michigan State--Ranked 6th due to Michigan State's fairly large national attraction.

2006--3.87 rating against Navy--A fluke rating based mostly on the fact that the Tire Bowl for some reason gets high ratings every year (it got the same ratings as the Wake-UConn game; does this mean UConn is a huge draw?)

2005--2.33 rating against Boise St. before they were good.

2004--1.8 rating against UNC

2003--1.29 rating against Colorado St.

2002--1.9 rating against Toledo.

Face it. BC is not a factor at all in the ratings of its bowl games. The television ratings reflect mostly the quality and draw of BC's opponent and to a lesser extent the time and prestige of the bowl game itself. Against garbage teams like Vandy, Boise St., CSU, UNC, and Toledo, BC was in the bottom half of the television ratings. Against quality opponents with a big following (USC, MSU), BC's ratings were through the roof. Coincidence? I think not.

 
At 3:25 PM, Blogger downtown_resident said...

Jeez Bravesbill, are you really a BC fan? You saved these numbers so you can put down your alma mater?

Regardless, you're wrong. Your attempts to explain away BC's great TV ratings in past years rest on totally anecdotal claims (that USC and MSU have large fanbases) or denial(the great ratings in 2006 and 2005 were respectively a "fluke" or simply not mentioned).

The facts are that the 2005 MPC bowl and the 2006 Tire Bowl were the highest TV numbers in those bowl's histories at that time. The 2006 "fluke" was an increase of 1.5M households over the Tire Bowl's previous best.

Of course it's not possible to counter your anecdotal claims about USC and MSU's "large fan bases" as the sole source of the great ratings, but anecdotally it is at least as possible that because BC fans don't travel in large numbers to the bowl games means they are instead watching them on TV and driving up the ratings.

 
At 4:01 PM, Blogger Bravesbill said...

Downtown--The ratings in 2005 were not good; they were near the bottom of all bowl games. And like I said before, the prestige of bowl games is more of a factor in ratings than BC is. As for the Car Care Bowl in 2007, BC-Navy drew almost the same amount of viewers as Wake-UConn the next year (3.87-3.74). And have you checked the ratings since those years? Ratings have been even higher at 4.5 in 2008 and 4.56 in 2009. Face it, the Car Care Bowl has been consistently high rated no matter who plays in it the past 4 years. As for MSU and USC, are you really trying to debate that both schools do not have a pretty big national following, esp. USC? My main contention is that BC is not driving the television audience; other factors such as its opponent, the time and date of the bowl game, and the prestige of the bowl are.

 
At 4:16 PM, Blogger downtown_resident said...

The ratings for the 2005 MPC Computers Bowl were the best in the bowl's history. They may have been low relative to other bowls due to the limited prestige of the Humanitarian Bowl itself, which is a factor as you just argued, but they were nevertheless the best-ever for that bowl.

Bottom line is that you can explain away one or even two instances of great TV ratings, but when you're trying to explain away four of them, particularly four in the last five years, you're stuck trying to make a very difficult argument.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home