Clearing things up about the Kraft Fight Hunger Bowl
By Joe Micik
I have intentionally steered clear of topics relating to football since the end of the regular season. I have made it well known around these parts how I feel about BC’s performance this year, but I will return once more to discuss the bowl game to come (well, and one more time to wrap it up). It has been several weeks since we saw this team play (which I don’t consider a bad thing at this stage), and there has been much discussion about Boston College’s odds against the Nevada Wolf Pack, so I think it’s time we separated fact from fiction and have an honest assessment of what BC brings to the table. I try not to be negative; rather, realistic.
1.)ACC > WAC, but not by as much as you’d think. Just because Nevada is a WAC team doesn’t mean they’re not good. They’re #15 in the nation for a reason: they’re 12-1 and beat a Top 5 team this year. Meanwhile, our abysmal conference (relatively speaking) only had one team with 10 or more wins – who lost to an FCS team in Week 2 and got killed in the Orange Bowl – and of the nine teams that got bowl invitations, five (including us) were 7-5 or 6-6. Our conference is depending upon us just for a winning record. The WAC isn’t the Sun Belt or a D-2 conference; there are some decent teams. Yes, the ACC has its share of decent teams too, and I’d still favor the ACC over the WAC, but to say that our conference is clearly head-and-shoulders better than the WAC is not true. So what happens when you pit the best team in a lesser FBS conference against a mediocre team in an AQ conference? We’ll find out Sunday night.
2.)(Or perhaps even 1a.) BC hasn’t blown anyone away all season; they’re not going to do it now. BC hasn’t beaten a team that finished with more than 8 wins all season (though you could argue the refs made Syracuse’s 8th win easier), so just because said team is from the WAC doesn’t mean that BCS-AQ team BC will automatically run roughshod over the Wolf Pack. Nevada deserves credit for what they’ve accomplished. The Eagles also deserve their credit for winning five in a row to make a bowl game, but BC hasn’t beaten a legitimately good team all year, and frankly, they are mediocre, or at best, no better than average. I’m not saying they can’t, since you can’t predict the future (unless you’re Miss Cleo), but it would take a much, much greater effort than they have given so far this season.
3.)The Wolf Pack can score points; BC can’t. Nevada has the #3 offense in FBS; Boston College is 105th. They average over 200 more yards per game as well. I don’t care what FBS conference you play in, a difference that large cannot be ignored. Take a look at this chart of BC’s scoring performances this season and tell me what you think:
Now that same chart for Nevada:
Yeah, exactly. The game is a complete mismatch offensively.
There are those who have predicted 30 or more points against Nevada. In 11 FBS games this season, the Eagles have not reached 30 points; the only 30+ performance was against FCS team Weber State. In fact, dating back to last season, the Eagles have gone 15 straight FBS games without scoring 30 points. The last time they did was against Central Michigan (31 points) on Halloween 2009. Don’t expect any miracles; this is going to be a low-scoring BC effort once again, which brings me to the next point…
4.)BC’s defense will have to step up big if the Eagles are to win. The offensive battle might be lopsided to Nevada, but defensively, the Eagles have been about as good as they have been in recent years. Regardless, Nevada can put up points in bunches with their offense. If this game turns into a shootout, BC has no chance because they will simply not be able to keep up. The offense is good for probably 24 points maximum, so Boston College’s defense will need to play a very good game to keep their team in it. Without this defense playing as well as it has for the most part, BC probably loses 8 or 9 games minimum in 2010. They are, in essence, the only reason BC is in a bowl game. They need to give us one more good game and, if possible, they need to score points on turnovers. I know we like guys like Chase Rettig and Montel Harris and all that, but our offense is one of the worst in the country. The defense will have to bail them out yet again; if they don’t, then BC isn’t going to win, and it’s that simple.
5.)The transitive property works in math, not sports. I’ve seen a lot of “Nevada lost to team x who beat team y” or “Nevada lost to bad team z who in turn lost to even worse team q, therefore BC will win the bowl game.” It’s absurd really; every game is its own separate entity. Just because you beat a team that beat another team that beat the team you’re playing doesn’t mean you’re going to beat them. In this situation, just because Nevada lost to Hawaii who lost their bowl game, or whatever situation you want to come up with, it doesn’t foretell the outcome of this game. BC could win or could lose, but not because of an individual game outcome in the regular season. The only thing that matters is Sunday night.
So then, how do I feel about the game? I don’t think taking BC +7.5 is a bad idea, because I think the Eagles can keep it within a touchdown, but as for winning outright, to be perfectly honest, I think we’re the underdogs for a reason. BC can give you a competitive game and the defense will keep them in it, but the offense will most likely keep to their 2010 form and come up short. I’d like for them to prove me wrong.