This Bowl began in 1997 and is the only FBS (Division 1) Bowl played in the Midwestern United States. The game’s intent is to pit the MAC against the Big Ten (although the Big Ten has played in the game only twice… today’s being the third). The Sun Belt (or an at-large team) constitute the back up plan, if these conferences (Big Ten or MAC) are unable to provide a representative. The event was first known as the Ford Motor City Bowl (in 1997, Ford was the lone sponsor) and then, beginning in 1998, the name changed to the Motor City Bowl (Ford was joined by General Motors and Chrysler as sponsors) through 2008. Little Caesars Pizza became the title sponsor, in 2009, after General Motors and Chrysler filed bankruptcy. One would need to be a corporate lawyer to figure out this Bowl’s sponsorship financial entanglements. Suffice to say, all three motor companies are back, for the 2011 bowl, as they are now the presenters of the Little Caesars Pizza Bowl…. (cost them $100,000.00 to say…. here’s Little Caesar…… Detroit huh… I’ll bet they know a guy) . The only other bowl game played in Detroit’s history was the Cherry Bowl (1984 & 1985)
During the first five years the Bowl was played in the Pontiac Silverdome in Pontiac, Michigan and then, in 2002, the game was moved to Ford Field in downtown Detroit, Michigan, where it will be played today!
The first game was played in 1997, it featured Mississippi against Marshall, a contest won by Ole Miss, 34-3 and last year’s winner was Florida International, 34-32, over Toledo. As mentioned, the game has had two Big Ten representatives, Northwestern lost to Bowling Green, 28-24, in 2003 and in 2007, Purdue was a 51-48 winner over Central Michigan. The good news for the Little Caesars Folks is/was that the Purdue / Central Michigan game produced the largest crowd in the bowl’s history, 60,624…. tails to seats! I’ll be interested in seeing the attendance numbers in this economy.
Ok… Let’s see what Sully’s College Football Page has to say about what team should/will win this affair based on statistical analysis?
Head to Head and Common Opponents
These teams have not met in the past 6 years.. so nothing to be learned from a face to face confrontation. However, both teams played Illinois & Michigan this year, the Broncos lost to Illinois, 23-20 and Michigan 34-10 (a game shortened by lighting) while the Boilermakers beat Illini, 21-14 and fell to Michigan 36-14. Advantage: Purdue
Total Offense & Defense
Western Michigan is averaging 456 YPG (Yards per Game) to Purdue’s 371, while on defense, Purdue allows 388 YPG as compared to the Broncos 432. Advantage: Western Michigan
Passing Offense & Defense
Western passes the ball for 329 YPG to the Boilers 179; defensively, WM permits 218 YPG while Purdue allowed an average 203 passing yards in each game. Advantage: Western Michigan
Rushing Offense & Defense
Purdue is running the ball for 175 YPG to Western’s 127, on ‘D’, the Boilers are holding opponents to 185 rushing yards, while the Broncos are surrendering 218 YPG. Advantage: Purdue
Scoring Offense & Defense
Western is scoring at a clip of 36 PPG (Points Per Game) while Purdue is ringing up 26 points in each contest, on defense, the Boilermakers are giving up 26 (identical to what they score) and Western Michigan’s opponents are lighting up the score board to the tune of 28 PPG. Advantage: Western Michigan
Turnovers Gained, Lost & Margin
Western has giving up the ball 28 times on offense for a game average of 2.33, while taking if away 27 times, a defensive average of 2.25 TPG. A Margin of negative 1 for the season or a negative 0.08 per game. Purdue has surrendered possession of the ‘rock’ 18 times for an average of 1.5 turnovers per game, while taking in back on 13 occasions, for a game average of 1.08 takeaways. This leaves the Boilers with a negative 5 for the season or a minus 0.42 per contest. Advantage: Western Michigan
3rd Down Conversions and Stops
Purdue successfully converts on 3rd down 41.6% of the time (75/180) while the Broncos are successful on 42.7% of their attempts (67/157). On defense, Western stops it’s opponents 40.1% of the time (65/162) to Purdue forcing a change of position 40.9% on third down (70/171). Advantage: Western Michigan
Red Zone Offense & Defense
Purdue scores 85% of the time when they enter your Red Zone (40 scores to 47 penetrations) of which 64% are touchdowns (30 of 47). Meanwhile, the Broncos are successful upon entering the Red Zone 91% of the time (50/55) and score TD’s on 73% of these incursions. On defense, the Boilers allowed their opponents into the Red Zone on 42 occasions, 37 have resulted in scores (88%), of which, 27 have been touchdowns (64%… you got it… the exact percent Purdue scores TD’s). Western Michigan has tolerated 44 entries into their Red Zone, of which 31 have have resulted in scores (70%) with 24 being touchdowns (55%). Advantage: Western Michigan
A few of other mitigating factors… I watched the Western Michigan / Illinois game… no doubt but that the Broncos out played the Illini and this was when the Fighting Illini were still fighting. They (Illini) had beaten Arizona State 17-14 the week before and beat Northwestern, the week after, 38-35; so Illinois won three games in a row by three points (Beat WM 23-20). Secondly, the Big ten played the MAC 11 times this season and won 10 (Indiana lost to Ball State 27-20) … no question… the Big ten is the superior league and as a result, Purdue has played against better competition (Purdue did not play a MAC team this year, but is 7-2 against the MAC since 2006). Finally, most Big Ten teams (9 that I can think of) would be pouting about being in the Little Caesars Pizza Bowl, I do not believe that is true for Purdue, Minnesota, and Indiana. I think all three of these teams would love to be or are happy about being in Detroit. After last year’s disaster in bowl games, the Big Ten and Purdue (who has not been bowling since 2007…you got it … at the Motor City Bowl), want to get this year’s bowl season off to a great start….. they will…. Purdue 31 Western Michigan 28
Share on Twitter
Share on Facebook
Subscribe