Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

IMHO, bowl games end up in upsets more often than regular games, especially when some team thinks it missed out on something bigger.  The motivation simply is lacking in that case, in practice, in focus, in preparation, and the teams can "enjoy" the festivities because they are playing "Boise State" in effect, and beating them doesn't really matter, while winning does to BSU.

Auburn was one game from the playoff (and SEC championship) and missing that effectively ended their hopes and dreams, while a win over UCF would have been a meh, so what?

So, they didn't prepare as they would have and should have, and UCF had the speed to catch them off guard and they never recovered.  In bowl games, you also face a team with which you are usually very unfamiliar and you watch film of them versus opponents you don't know.  So, I thought Auburn was primed for an upset.  I sort of figured UCF would come out and build a nice lead and then hold on as Auburn finally got motivated.

Of course a lot of teams just missed the playoff by a small amount, but they usually were playing another name team in a bowl game, like OSU and USC, so both had an equal level of motivation.  But replace USC with "Boise State" and the equation shifts.

Aside from the TLC shows that exploit children I have a hard time caring too much about what entertains masses.  Hell, if we debate alternate jerseys, I can't criticise people debating a dress.

I'd rather have news on my front page. I'm not a fan of weddings though. As in any of them.

Well whoever got married was smart enough to avoid a fall wedding

A lot of Georgia counties were dry when I was in college (not Clarke county where UGA was of course), maybe more than half.  My grandparents lived on a farm in east Tennessee that was in a dry county and was until fairly recently even though it includes tourist type towns.  Of course that meant shiners would have a market.

But my grandparents on both sides didn't drink alcohol because of religious convictions.

IMHO, bowl games end up in upsets more often than regular games, especially when some team thinks it missed out on something bigger.  The motivation simply is lacking in that case, in practice, in focus, in preparation, and the teams can "enjoy" the festivities because they are playing "Boise State" in effect, and beating them doesn't really matter, while winning does to BSU.

Auburn was one game from the playoff (and SEC championship) and missing that effectively ended their hopes and dreams, while a win over UCF would have been a meh, so what?

So, they didn't prepare as they would have and should have, and UCF had the speed to catch them off guard and they never recovered.  In bowl games, you also face a team with which you are usually very unfamiliar and you watch film of them versus opponents you don't know.  So, I thought Auburn was primed for an upset.  I sort of figured UCF would come out and build a nice lead and then hold on as Auburn finally got motivated.

Of course a lot of teams just missed the playoff by a small amount, but they usually were playing another name team in a bowl game, like OSU and USC, so both had an equal level of motivation.  But replace USC with "Boise State" and the equation shifts.

Doesn't this logic basically end up reinforcing our ideas about the structure of the sport. As you said, why can't I say, USC just wasn't up for it after being denied the playoff? What if I said, Brian Kelly's Cincinnati team just wasn't up for it after a grueling undefeated regular season, and that's why Urban's (clearly better) Florida team won?
Sports are weird. Bowls are more weird. And I think it's not bad to acknowledge that, but when the contours of that coalesce in a specific way that puts a thumb on the scale against the interesting stories, I don't think that's great. In short, if that coaching staff and players can't get up for one of only 14 times they'll play a football game in a whole year, and with a long break to rest up, sucks for them.

Here's what I actually came here to post about - I wasted some minutes on ESPN.com and the college football section is still gossiping about UCF's self-proclaimed NC and how Bama brustles at the idea.  So I'm sure ESPN, the sports gossip factory, will keep this going all off-season for clicks and giggles.

Hey, how about if they played?  Would Bama be a 10 point favorite?  12?  More?  The only thing UCF has is it beat the team that beat Bama.  But we all know if we went by that, then you could end up with Akron being the NC every year.

What was the last year news was news and not a swimsuit contest over the nation's oogling eyeballs?  

It's up there because Saban said something about it earlier this week, and anything that breaks up the monotony of "here are more offseason rankings," is probably good for them (also, it makes people weirdly mad and gets them talking). 
From the sites I've looked at, you're talking something like a 12-14 point line. I think one system had it a little closer, but this year, his numbers were quirky on mid-majors for some reason. It's interesting because we've made the national title important, while at the same point creating this uncanny valley of teams that are functionally ineligible save for an act of God. One was bound to act out. 
And people have been saying "that's not news" forever. The difference now is twofold. We consumer more and it's more immediate, meaning news we don't care about isn't limited to an hour at night or a part of the paper we don't read. We're also better at broadcasting that we don't think something is news, where in the past we complained to relatives and friends, most of whom were mostly half listening (It's remarkable the complaint disconnect online vs. in real life, at least in my experience).

I think teams get "up" right before the game starts, but I also think at times they don't take preparation as seriously as they would in a game they consider to be important.  Focus, film, effort, all that.  Then they find themselves behind early and are kind of whooshed and can't recover.

I think UCF had a fine team, but probably around 10th best in the country, meaning if they played 1-9, they would win 4 times out of 10, then 3, then 2, then 1.  Maybe they beat Bama in a real game one time in ten.  Maybe.  

But with Auburn, it was probably more in the 4 times out of 10 area, and Auburn didn't prepare for it.  Credit to UCF for playing and preparing of course, but I personally don't think they had the talent Auburn had, and Auburn was not a great team.

I still figured UCF would likely beat Auburn in THAT game because of game preparation.  And if UCF wants to claim an NC fine with me, I don't care one bit.

Games for me fall to probabilities, and there was a slight probability that Stanford would beat USC as 42 point dogs way back, and it happened.  That was probably a 1 in 10,000 kind of event.

And teams that are 7 point dogs still win about 1 time in 3.  Doesn't mean they are better of course.