Conference 7.286::sports_90

    What is the Blockbuster Bowl?  Did I miss something during the
    off-season?  Is this one of those old bowls that has now taken
    Blockbuster Video as its name and sponsor?
    
    	--dan'l

    And what the hell is LSU doing in the bowl picture?

    Poor Nebraska ..... they get to play against a team that actually
    passes the ball ...... they'll lose by 3 touchdowns.
    
    
    Greg

re: Blockbuster.

Who knows? No other ownership is ascribed.

re: LSU.

I think the Independence Bowl is played in Shreveport. Right/Wrong? If
so, that would explain LSU. Southern Miss might make it.

TTom

    
    Does somebody have an update on what the Bowl games will look
    like after the happenings of the past weekend?  I think my
    prediction of a Colorado-Notre Dame rematch in the Orange Bowl
    is a real possibility now....Any other ideas on some of the
    other bowls....
    
     
    Thanks,
    
    Peace/ed

Conference leaders (and bowls):

ACC (Citrus)			Georgia Tech
Big 8 (Orange)			Colorado
Big 10 (Rose)			Iowa
Pac 10 (Rose)			Washington
SEC (Sugar)			Mississippi, Florida (ineligible)
SWC (Cotton)			Houston (ineligible), Texas
WAC (Holiday)			BYU
Big West (California)		San Jose St
Mid-American (California)	Toledo

Independents:
	Notre Dame, 7-1
	Louisville, 8-1-1
	Florida St, 6-2
	Miami-FL, 6-2
	Penn St, 6-2

Citrus, Orange, Sugar and Cotton has one school locked in by conference 
and one school invited.

TTom

Clemson is rumored to be headed to the Hall of Fame bowl that's played in
Tampa on Jan 1. Supposedly the sponsors are trying to get a Big 10 team,
maybe Michigan.

BTW, the Blockbuster Bowl is a new bowl that is played in Joe Robbie
Stadium. They also wanted Clemson, who turned them down because of the
date and national TV.

TTom

    Who does Mississippi have left on their schedule? Wouldn't it be
    amazing to NOT see Auburn, LSU, Tennessee or Alabama in the Sugar Bowl?
    
    Rich
    

Mississippi's remaining schedule:

	Nov 17, vs Tennessee
	Nov 24, vs Mississippi St at Jackson.

TTom

    Ole Miss has Tennessee and Mississippi State left on their conference
    schedule.  If they can manage to pull off an upset in Memphis next
    weekend then they will most likely go to the Sugar Bowl(I can't see
    them losing to Miss State...).
    

Some preliminary tentative matchups:

John Hancock - Michigan St vs Southern Cal
Aloha - Arizona vs Syracuse
Freedom - Oregon vs Colorado St/Wyoming
Copper - California vs Wyoming/Colrado St

TTom

    Some bowl matchups were announced this weekend.
    
    Orange:  Notre Dame vs. Colorado
    Cotton:  Miami vs. SWC Winner (Texas has inside track after beating
    Houston)

Virginia vs SEC Champ in Sugar Bowl.
Washington, who lost vs Iowa, who lost, maybe, in the RO$E Bowl.

TTom

    Once again, thanks to Washington's choke and Iowa's bad luck, the Rose
    Bowl will mean nothing as far as the national championship picture
    goes.
    
    	--dan'l

    
    Surprisingly, Washington was outplayed, and UCLA came very close to
    giving them the game.  Given the field conditions, I no sooner had
    thought to myself that with three minutes remaining and poor punting
    the norm, that UCLA should just let the ball bounce on Washington's last
    punt, than the guy comes up for it and tries to make a meaningless fair
    catch.  Terry Donahue's heart must have stopped on that play.  (Anyone 
    seen a less athletic-looking player than UCLA's punter?  And UCLA's 
    long-snapper gave the poor guy a workout...)
    
    Once again, I am having problems interpreting the college rulebook. 
    Why is a penalty (other than a personal foul) assessed on a touchdown
    when if the player hadn't scored the penalty would just have been
    declined?  On Washington's TD, UCLA was called for interference and
    instead of the call being negated (which seems logical, since the
    player scored anyway), they were given half the distance to the goal on
    the two-point conversion.  John H., is this the proper call?
    
    Iowa looked much better than Ohio State, but, alas, two huge plays (the 
    deflected TD pass at the end of the first half and the blocked punt in
    the fourth quarter) did their national title hopes in.  I wouldn't have
    wanted to be an Iowan come Sunday morning.
    
    glenn
    

    I have never seen a penalty on a touchdown being assessed on a two
    point conversion.  I don't think that's the right call.  They do assess
    penalties on kicking plays (FGs, PATs) on the ensuing kickoff to
    prevent the defense from just teeing off and being offside without
    anything being called, but I can't imagine why they'd have assessed the
    penalty on the two pointer.
    
    John

                          
    Thanks, John.  That was the way I thought it worked, too.  Sometimes it
    seems like these guys are making the rules up as they go along, and we
    all know the coaches and players don't know the rules any better.
    
    Saturday we were informed in one of the games by the announcers that the 
    rule had changed on over-and-back passing at the line of scrimmage.
    There's simply no way that the average fan can keep up with the rules
    anymore...  
    
    glenn
     

    In college, you have the option to take the penalty yardage on the
    kickoff or on the conversion.  If you go for the PAT, you take it on
    the kickoff, but if you try for two you're crazy not to move the ball
    up half the distance.
    
    	--dan'l

                                   
    > In college, you have the option to take the penalty yardage on the
    > kickoff or on the conversion.  If you go for the PAT, you take it on
    > the kickoff, but if you try for two you're crazy not to move the ball
    > up half the distance.
    
    This was the explanation given, but as John also pointed out, I thought
    it only applied to kicking plays.  I'm pretty sure that on a touchdown
    in college (or in the NFL) a non-unsportsmanlike penalty like off-sides or
    something is simply waved off.  If this isn't the case in college, it's
    definitely a difference in the rules between college and pro.
    
    glenn
     

    This alleged "signing up" of teams prior to the end of the season is
    absurd ..... there are too many variables to consider the ND/Colo.
    match (i.e. ND could have 3 losses); why can't we wait until the
    end of November to make the calls.
    
    
    Greg

    Yeah, if they do away with the date that Bowl bids can "officially" be
    offered, you'll have a dozen Bowl scouts flocking at the Notre Dame
    spring practice intrasquad scrimmage.
    
    Bob Hunt

    
    Quote from NCAA assistant director Dave Cawood on early bowl
    commitments:
    
    "Any rule is enforceable.  It's just that this rule is impractical. 
    It's a rule that does not benefit either the student athlete or
    institution, so we don't enforce it.  I'm not sure how viable an
    organization we would be if we had 10 or 15 teams on probation each 
    year because they violated this rule."
    
    Yeah, right.  The NCAA feels free to penalize schools for selling
    T-shirts for charity or sending a kid home to his grandmother's
    funeral, but when the networks and their money speak up, the rules
    suddenly aren't practical.  I'd dare say that the latter is 
    compromising the fairness and the enjoyment of the game for the fans 
    far more than the former.  We're going to have the Notre Dames of the 
    world cutting contingency deals with NBC-only bowls before the 
    season starts pretty soon...
    
    glenn
     

The NCAA tolerates the current bowl "rules" because it leads to major
revenue increases, both to the NCAA and to the member institutions. This
way, services are bid for and with the bidding the dollars go up.

My major complaint is a trend common throughout sports which is to
associate the sponsor's name and/or product with the event. "Federal
Express Orange Bowl". To the Rose Bowl's credit, they kept their name, a
gratuitous gesture considering the millions on TV revenue that it
generates.

TTom

    >We're going to have the Notre Djames of the 
    >world cutting contingency deals with NBC-only bowls before the 
    >season starts pretty soon...
    
    Or we may already have.  The Orange Bowl is on NBC, and as much as ND
    may have wanted to back out of a CU matchup, you just know the Lords at
    NBC wouldn't have looked at that too kindly with the 5-year
    precedent-starting contract just over the horizon.
    
    Dan

    
    >           -< Cited as the biggest reason by bowl analysts >-
    
    Can I take this as a replacement then for that Chris Fowler-supplied
    "analysis" you offered up just one week ago?  The one that had the ND
    bowl committee looking at CBS' Cotton or ABC's Sugar?  You were sucked
    in on that one.  I suppose someone from NBC got on the horn and turned 
    up the heat in the interim, so both your positions are credible...
    
    glenn
     
    

    You miss the point, glenn.  Dan uses whatever "fact" and "analysis"
    that happens to fit his needs of the moment.  That these things end
    up contradicting one another, and him, is off no concern to Dan, for
    he listened to the advice of that acid-dropping old poet Baba Ram Dass,
    "be here now."
    
    MrT

    >Can I take this as a replacement then for that Chris Fowler-supplied
    >"analysis" you offered up just one week ago?  The one that had the ND
    >bowl committee looking at CBS' Cotton or ABC's Sugar? 
    
    That was just a report that I entered in here.  Do you dispute that the
    report occured or my right to enter it?  Other than that, my opinion is
    that ND did consider all the possibilities, and included in their
    choices pleasing NBC, making as much money as possible and shying away
    from playing Colorado.  They weighed their options, the fallout, the
    pollsters and the positives and negatives of each position and
    apparently chose the Orange.  If you think they did that solely for the
    satisfaction of playing the most competitive game possible, I'm afraid
    your being na�ve.
    
    Dan

    > That was just a report that I entered in here.  Do you dispute that the
    > report occured or my right to enter it?
    
    No, I only question your judgement in using a report that contained 
    sheer speculation of ND's motives as proof of ND's "shamelessness".  Any 
    one of us could make such a guess as to where ND would end up (I guessed 
    right-- Orange) and why, but you used some ESPN gossip-notes-type 
    segment to lend supposed credibility to your anti-ND position, apparently 
    even if *you* didn't believe it. 
    
    > Other than that, my opinion is
    > that ND did consider all the possibilities, and included in their
    > choices pleasing NBC, making as much money as possible and shying away
    > from playing Colorado.  They weighed their options, the fallout, the
    > pollsters and the positives and negatives of each position and
    > apparently chose the Orange. 
    
    None of these possibilities changed in the last week.  So why was ND
    talking to the other bowls last week?  Obviously in case they lost the
    Tennessee game (Holtz also said that they would have liked to have
    played in the Sugar if the championship game hadn't evolved because his
    seniors had played in all the other majors-- a plausible motive, even
    coming from Lou.)  They didn't, so they've committed to the game
    everyone is demanding.
    
    > If you think they did that solely for the
    > satisfaction of playing the most competitive game possible, I'm afraid
    > your being na�ve.
    
    I'm being no such thing.  *I* was the one who entered the note
    wondering if Notre Dame would commit only to NBC bowls in the future,
    not you.  You've been carrying on solely about ND "ducking" this team 
    and that team, none of which has come to pass, and made no previous 
    logical connection to either NBC or the money.  Seems like you're 
    grasping at anything that comes along these days.
    
    I'm not disputing your right to enter anything.  Just that you're
    starting to give good, clean, old-fashioned ND-bashing a bad name.
    
    glenn
    

    
    Any update on what the *Final* bowl picture seems to be??

�    Any update on what the *Final* bowl picture seems to be??


The Final Bowl.  Stars Arnold Schwarzenegger as the coach of a futuristic
college football team, made up largely of Cyborgs.  They take on the
utterly robotic, politically endorsed, and media hyped team of Notre Data,
in a battle to the Death.

The grand finale, the two minute drill, features Arnold as you've never
seen him before.

Watch for cameo appearances by Hans and Franz, and Ronald Reagan....

    >I only question your judgement in using a report that contained 
    >sheer speculation of ND's motives as proof of ND's "shamelessness".
    
    I've always liked Chris Fowler's reports and find him quite credible. 
    If to relay his report in here evokes questions of my judgement, than
    question away.  Okay, I admit that probably never again will I give
    Notre Dame the benefit of the doubt, that I will view them with
    cynicism and be skeptical about each of their motives.  They've brought
    it on themselves, and the Lou Holtz regime is the last straw.
    
    >even if *you* didn't believe it. 
    
    Oh, but I did believe it, and still do.  Fowler's honest reporting did
    not preclude ND going to the Orange Bowl.  There is no "wrong" here
    that you seem to be grasping for.  ND was searching for alternatives:
    you assume the motive was a possible loss to Tennessee; pathological
    liar Holtz claims he wanted his seniors to go to a new bowl for them; I
    think they felt the influence of NBC and they couldn't market a game
    against (another) inferior opponent and expect the public to buy it
    (which I also think is wrong-headed thinking - the public and pollsters
    buy whatever's on TV.  TV puts on whatever sells commercials.  ND is
    best for that.  I suspect some at ND know this as well, and I further
    suspect that means NBC was a bigger reason.)
    
    >*I* was the one who entered the note
    >wondering if Notre Dame would commit only to NBC bowls in the future,
    >not you. 
    
    It was fairly widely reported in the last 2 weeks or so.  Perhaps it
    was an original thought for you, but I first read about it elsewhere. 
    Not that it really matters though.  I gave it credence the first I
    heard of it.
    
    >I'm not disputing your right to enter anything.  Just that you're
    >starting to give good, clean, old-fashioned ND-bashing a bad name.
    
    I'm not trying hard enough, then.  There's about 1 person willing to
    criticize ND for every 10 white knights defending it.  It gives them
    that feeling of invulnerability, smugness and sanctimony that they
    cherish so much.  They've got to be made to worry so that they'ed be
    too embarrassed to do things like explaining away the NBC contract with
    the excuse that ND fans who follow the team on TV shouldn't have their
    lives upset by different start times, and other nonsense.
    
    Dan                                                    
    Dan

    Speaking of shame or the lack thereof, how 'bout them Houston Cougars?
    They ran it up to the tune of 84-21 against 1-AA Eastern Washington,
    leaving the starters in till halfway through the fourth quarter, 
    apparently so Heisman-candidate David Klingler could throw an 
    NCAA-record 11 touchdown passes.  Eastern Washington's coach was
    pissed, commenting that "I don't want to get into a [expletive] match
    about that, but someday he'll be on the other end of the broom" (not
    against E. Wash, obviously).  To add insult to injury, one of the 
    Houston players was quoted as saying "we've had harder practices".
    Simply classless.  I think it's fair to say that this episode will only
    count *against* Klingler's already-slim Heisman chances, as those
    vague, subjective qualities like sportsmanship tend to enter into the
    voting sometimes.
    
    Hats off to Eastern Washington for actually scoring three touchdowns
    against that vaunted Houston defense.
    
    By the way, why do stats amassed against 1-AA competition count in the
    official 1-A record book, anyway?
    
    glenn
     
     

    Houston has no class at all.  Pardee used to run it up while at Houston
    and the new coach is no different.  Well Houston always gets there when
    they dont play this second rate teams.  A few years ago Wash st. killed
    them in a bowl game and Texas kicked there but this year.  As soon as
    they schedule good teams they get crushed.  One thing about Colorado
    and Notre Dame, they dont avoid tough competition.
    
    
    Greg

    
    Houston Sips... (see game v.s. UofT... I loved it!)
    

    Houston's coach Jenkins is more of jerk than Pardee, listening to
    his comments before the Texas game saying that he has the best team
    in the country and then listening to his lame excuses on why he
    ran the score up. According to the National Houstons starting Offense
    and Defense wern't taken out till the halfway thru the fourth qtr.
    The guy is definately a loser. Well to a better subject, all the 
    sports writers, commentators, noters and even myself, everyone
    was making fun of the new Blockbuster bowl and how it was just
    another stupid bowl game which it probably is but they have the
    last laugh. The blockbuster Bowl will be the best bowl game of 
    them all. Penn St. vs Florida ST.
    
                    Friday  December 28th
     
    Should be a great game.
                                             Dan
     

    I thought I heard Penn State was considering the Sugar Bowl.
    

    The most amazing (and disgusting) quote I heard from Jenkins
    was:  "David (Klingler) deserved to get in his reps."
    
    Unbelievable - getting in his "reps" included throwing 11
    touchdown passes?!?!?!?  Please God, if there is justice, 
    you will allow Rice or TCU to demolish Houston nexted season.
    
    NAZZ

    Who is at fault running up the score?
    
    Is it the coach for allowing it to happen?
    Is it the players for playing the best they know how?
    Is it the "system" which rewards huge victories over mediocre opponents
    and penalizes narrow victories over mediocre opponents?
    Is it the "system" which relies on basic stats to cover the thousands
    of college players across the country when giving out post season
    awards?
    Is it the "system" which gives preferential draft picks and the
    accompanying $ to players who achieve personal season awards and play
    for highly ranked teams?

Bowl		Date	USA Today prediction
---------------	-------	-------------------------------
California	Dec 8	San Jose St vs Central Michigan
Independence	Dec 15	Louisiana Tech vs Maryland
Aloha		Dec 25	Arizona vs Syracuse
Liberty		Dec 27	Air Force vs Ohio St
Blockbuster	Dec 28	Florida St vs Penn St
All-American	Dec 28	NC State vs Southern Miss
Peach		Dec 29	Alabama vs Indiana
Freedom		Dec 29	Oregon vs Colorado St
Holiday		Dec 29	BYU vs Texas A&M
John Hancock	Dec 31	Southern Cal vs Michigan St
Copper		Dec 31	California vs Wyoming
Gator		Jan 1	Mississippi vs Michigan
Hall of Fame	Jan 1	Clemson vs Illinois
Citrus		Jan 1	Georgia Tech vs Nebraska
Cotton		Jan 1	Texas vs Miami-FL
Fiesta		Jan 1	Auburn vs Louisville
Rose		Jan 1	Washington vs Iowa
Orange		Jan 1	Colorado vs Notre Dame
Sugar		Jan 1	Tennessee vs Virginia

Note:
	This assumes that Auburn beats Alabama. If they don't then the
	SEC teams shuffle with Mississippi and Alabama rising.

TTom

Bowl		Date	Teams
---------------	-------	-------------------------------
California	Dec 8	San Jose St vs Central Michigan
Independence	Dec 15	Louisiana Tech vs Maryland
Aloha		Dec 25	Arizona vs Syracuse
Liberty		Dec 27	Air Force vs Ohio St
All-American	Dec 28	NC State vs Southern Miss
Blockbuster	Dec 28	Florida St vs Penn St
Peach		Dec 29	Auburn vs Indiana
Holiday		Dec 29	BYU vs Texas A&M
Freedom		Dec 29	Oregon vs Colorado St
John Hancock	Dec 31	Southern Cal vs Michigan St
Copper		Dec 31	California vs Wyoming
Gator		Jan 1	Mississippi vs Michigan
Hall of Fame	Jan 1	Clemson vs Illinois
Citrus		Jan 1	Georgia Tech vs Nebraska
Cotton		Jan 1	Texas vs Miami-FL
Fiesta		Jan 1	Alabama vs Louisville
Rose		Jan 1	Washington vs Iowa
Orange		Jan 1	Colorado vs Notre Dame
Sugar		Jan 1	Tennessee vs Virginia

Nineteen Bowls! (or  Bowels..., as the case may be).

Maybe we should have a contest!
Make our picks on all of them.

Also, maybe another King of the Hill:

Pick the `Guaranteed Winners' of any 4 of the Pre-New Years Bowls.

And three of the `Guaranteed Winners' of any of the New Years Day Bowls.

Or sumpin lak dat
??????????
Mike JN

PS - If we have a contest, I vote that ACChris doesn't run it.
     Or we'll all have to write a:
             PAEAN TO DEAN
          in order to qualify!  ;'D

> Nineteen Bowls! (or  Bowels..., as the case may be).

> Maybe we should have a contest!
> Make our picks on all of them.

    Great idea!  My suggestion is that everybody picks the bowls, placing a
    point value on each one from 1 to 19 (or whatever the actual number of
    bowls is).  For example, if you feel strongest about the Sugar Bowl,
    you would pick Tennessee for 19 points, the one you feel next strongest
    about for 18 points, etc.  And the bowl you feel least sure about you
    would only pick for 1 point.  I also say we don't include the
    California Raisin Bowl.  Just some thoughts.
    
    
    Joe

> Maybe we should have a contest!
> Make our picks on all of them.
    
    Who ran the contest last year?  I liked that simple format-- pick every
    game against the spread, count 'em up at the end.  Less luck that way,
    because you're not going to win by just hitting the big ones.
    
    I second the elimination of the Raisin Bowl.  No one except maybe dan'l
    knows anything about the MAC, and there probably isn't time to get
    everyone's entries in by Saturday anyway...
    
    glenn
    

We can keep it even simpler. 
Pick the winner of all the bowls and let the Raisin Bowl be the tie
breaker.

TTom

	I think the California Raisin Bowl ought to be required.  Just
	because some people are not knowledgable on an area is not
	justification for punsihing those who do.  Otherwise, I think
	we also ought to leave out those bowl games featuring WAC teams,
	because I don't thinlk most people follow the WAC very closely
	either.  Also bowl games with Louisiana Tech and Southern Mississippi
        as participants.

    The California Raisin Bowl is easy to call.  The MAC always loses.  I
    think they've won once (Miami) in the bowl's history.
    
    	--dan'l

The contest has been started. See lasted - at this time - topic.

TTom

    Believe me, if you're a Top 20 team, you want no part of Southern
    Mississippi, just ask Florida State (last year), Alabama, and Auburn, 
    all of whom found out the hard way. I might add that Southern Mississippi 
    won all three of these games on the road. They also blew out Louisville 
    this year for the Cardinals only loss, but in all honesty Louisville
    struggled with BC, so that ought to say something about the quality of
    the Louisville effort.  

>        Otherwise, I think
>	we also ought to leave out those bowl games featuring WAC teams,
>	because I don't thinlk most people follow the WAC very closely
>	either.  

    This would be ridiculous.  First of all, that would be leaving out 4
    bowls.  True, the WAC isn't a big-time conference, but nonetheless it's
    still division 1-A.  It's kind of like saying let's leave out the ACC
    because some of us out West here don't follow those teams that closely.
    
    Joe

>>        Otherwise, I think
>>	we also ought to leave out those bowl games featuring WAC teams,
>>	because I don't thinlk most people follow the WAC very closely
>>	either.  
>
>    This would be ridiculous.  First of all, that would be leaving out 4
>    bowls.  True, the WAC isn't a big-time conference, but nonetheless it's
>    still division 1-A.  It's kind of like saying let's leave out the ACC
>    because some of us out West here don't follow those teams that closely.
>    
>    Joe

     I agree it would be foolish.  I think the reasoning behind leaving out
     the California Bowl is the exact same reasoning, and I felt that was
     foolish as well.  That's why I compared that reasoning to the above.
     If I had compared it to something I thought was sensible, that wouldn't
     have made my point, would it ?

    The good ole boys in Texas gotta be red faced over the
    selection of Virgina.  Back when Virigina was top ranked,
    in their haste to get a top team, the Sugar Bowl people
    inked Virginia to a contract.  
    
    Now Virgina isn't even in the Top 25.  Will be tough to sell
    this contest and draw any positive attention to what has been
    one of the better bowl games.  
    
    

>>     <<< Note 404.52 by WSE028::JOLMAMA "just wish'n and hope'n and. . " >>>
>>                                -< sugar bowel >-

>>    The good ole boys in Texas gotta be red faced over the
>>    selection of Virgina.  Back when Virigina was top ranked,
>>    in their haste to get a top team, the Sugar Bowl people
>>    inked Virginia to a contract.  
    
	Pardon me, but what have "The good ole boys in Texas"  got to
	do with the Sugar bowl.  Last I heard, the Sugar Bowl was
	played in Louisiana.

	Jerry

    re-1,
    
    	What he's saying is that Texas should be pissed off at the Sugar
    Bowl committe for selecting Va.so early in the season! That way, Texas
    could have maybe gone instead of Va. Got it? good! :*)
    
    B.A.

 �   	What he's saying is that Texas should be pissed off at the Sugar
 �   Bowl committe for selecting Va.so early in the season! That way, Texas
 �   could have maybe gone instead of Va. Got it? good! :*)
 
 Texas could (and will) go nowhere else except the Cotton Bowl.  Period. 
 End of story.   They won the SWC title and must go to the Cotton Bowl. 
 For them to even think about going to another bowl while they're still in
 title contention is probably frowned upon by the Cotton Bowl folks.
 
 The only thing left for Virginia to do now is to be total bowl sluts and
 take the Sugar Bowl's $3.5 million smackers.   The Sugar Bowl should learn
 a very valuable lesson from this.
 
 Bob Hunt

    New Orleans is not in Texas?  My mistake.
    
    Matt the Mariner

    Didn't you know, Matt, that New Orleans is actually a ...
    
    "mildewed naval port o' call smack dab in the heart of ACC country." ???
    
    One of the finer mistakes, that is, mistaking Norfolk for New Orleans,
    from everyone's best buddy and this country's finest geography expert,
    the one and the only, MrT.
    
    Bob Hunt

    Given the current matchups in the bowl games this year, the Sugar is
    not that much worse off than any of the others.