Boise vs. TCU in Fiesta. Good choice
Though I was intrigued by the possibility of TCU vs, a BCS school in a major bowl, this is a good choice IMO. This should be a good game that I will actually watch with interest. Two non-BCS schools, unprecedented but I think a good thing given this year. And I say this as a college elitist, which I know is controversial, but good for those schools, their fans will be sky high.
December 6th, 2009 at 8:10 PM ^
I just wish we could see these teams play big time schools instead of each other. This game will, in the grand scheme of things, tell us nothing. We'll just know who the best baby seal clubber is. I'd much prefer watching TCU play Florida and Boise play, say, G-Tech.
December 6th, 2009 at 8:47 PM ^
This IME, is a complete cop-out by the BCS. Now as long Florida takes care of business against Cincy they don't have to worry about a Utah-like situation again, and get to pretend that the system worked itself out by the end of the year.
December 6th, 2009 at 8:57 PM ^
If the Fiesta Bowl colluded with other bowls to pick a card that was most suitable for preserving the integrity of the MNC that would be unprecedented to say the least.
December 6th, 2009 at 9:38 PM ^
Was that sarcasm?
December 6th, 2009 at 9:45 PM ^
Kind of.
December 6th, 2009 at 9:35 PM ^
I know TCU and Boise both have different players than last year, but it would still be more interesting to see them play different teams than having a rematch of last year's Humanitarian Bowl. It should be a good game but I would rather see how these teams stack up against the traditional powers. I would also think that the BCS would want to avoid having so many undefeated teams. It will just create more controversy and now there will automatically be at least 2.
December 6th, 2009 at 8:12 PM ^
I couldn't disagree with you more. Other than the championship game, these games are meaningless. Boise and TCU earned a chance to take the scalp of BCS conference school, like Utah and Boise did in the past few years.
These teams didn't need the BCS to get together for a bowl game. They played last year.
December 6th, 2009 at 9:04 PM ^
Everyone loves to cheer for the underdog, so instead of having two games where people can cheer for the underdog, the BCS puts both underdogs against each other. Super lame.
BSU and TCU were basically shammed out of their only chance of playing a traditional powerhouse.
December 6th, 2009 at 9:20 PM ^
to Alabama. In what world (not the playoff fantasy world that we do not live in) does TCU deserve a shot over Texas?
December 6th, 2009 at 9:48 PM ^
Texas looked terrible last night. And IME, when you are on a national stage, you shouldn't get to look horrendous and go to the BCS Championship.
December 6th, 2009 at 10:05 PM ^
I'd say the real world. TCU is an extremely impressive team with one of the best defenses in the country. they deserve a shot just as much as Texas does. so in response neg 1 to you sir!
December 6th, 2009 at 10:41 PM ^
But a shot to play against any traditional powerhouse school in any BSC game. I'm sure the last school TCU wanted to play was BSU. They want a chance to prove that they can run with the big boys - not necessarily for the national championship, just any BSC bowl against a powerhouse.
December 7th, 2009 at 12:17 AM ^
Alabama/Texas was the only sensible match up for the MNC. The point is that Boise and TCU should get to play teams other than each other.
Imagine TCU's tough defense against Florida's offense. Boise's crazy offense and GT's flexbone. That would have left Iowa and Cincinnati in a good Midwest cross conference game...somewhere warm.
Boise/TCU will be a good game, just a shame they can't play against some different opponents.
December 7th, 2009 at 1:19 AM ^
This world right here. TCU is undefeated and they have absolutely dominated their last 7 opponents. Their closest game in their last 7 was a 27 point win against Utah who finished 23rd in the final BCS standings. They also had a 31 point win against BYU who finished 14th in the final BCS standings.
Texas, on the other hand, struggled to win their last 2 games. They definitely didn't look like a championship caliber team against Texas A&M or Nebraska.
Texas finished the season with 2 total wins against teams that finished in the final top 25 (#19 Oklahoma St & #22 Nebraska). TCU also had 2 wins against teams that finished in the top 25 (#14 BYU & #23 Utah).
Neither team played a difficult schedule this year. In the games that I've seen, TCU has looked much more dominant than Texas. The only reason that Texas is getting the nod over TCU is because they're a traditional powerhouse in a BCS conference. I would be willing to bet anything that if Texas had played TCU's schedule and TCU had played Texas's schedule, and they both went undefeated, Texas would still get the nod over TCU because of the perception about the schools.
December 7th, 2009 at 7:12 AM ^
Yes, there is a perception that the B12 plays superior football overall and has more talent overall than the MWC. That perception is entirely correct.
December 6th, 2009 at 8:12 PM ^
I think its a horrible choice. The BCS just pulled the biggest, easiest cop out of all time. "Hmmm two seemingly deserved MNC contenders from non-BCS schools....well we don't want to see BSU v. Oklahoma, Utah vs. Alabama, etc anymore so let's just have them play each other!"
This system has got to go. Complete and utter bullshit.
BCS to "other" undefeateds: "You can't go to the MNC game because you're not from a BCS conference and hence are subpar."
Cincinnati: "What about us?"
BCS: "We'll get back to you..."
This system has got to go. Complete and utter bullshit.
BCS to "other" undefeateds: "You can't go to the MNC game because you're not from a BCS conference and hence are subpar."
Cincinnati: "What about us?"
BCS: "We'll get back to you..."
December 6th, 2009 at 8:19 PM ^
Seeing TCU and Boise both beat big time schools would have been a huge step forward for non-BCS conferences. Instead this opportunity was spoiled.
December 6th, 2009 at 8:23 PM ^
This is a game that both schools are excited about and are happy to be in, what's the problem?
And BTW, Cinci is playing Florida, how is that a disappointment?
December 6th, 2009 at 8:29 PM ^
because -- regardless of the possibility in your mind -- if they truck Florida they have a legit gripe that this bullshit system again picked the wrong team to be in the MNC game. You're excluding qualified teams. I couldn't care less which gets better ratings...I would prefer a LEGITIMATE National Championship game. You're now purposefully excluding THREE qualified contenders for the MNC because of pixie dust and bias.
edit: I guess the MNC game has to be a blowout, too for my scenario to successfully occur.
December 6th, 2009 at 8:42 PM ^
devolve into the "system sucks we need a playoff?" I'm commenting on the system we have, not one that we won't have within the next ten years.
December 6th, 2009 at 8:53 PM ^
its hard to get juiced about bowl games when you're naming a "national champion" which is a complete and utter joke. Either fix the system or get rid of the title and we can talk about bowl games. Meaningless exhibitions are stupid. Do you watch the NFL pre-season, too?
December 6th, 2009 at 8:57 PM ^
College players LIKE bowl games and are excited to be in them. Every survey done shows that, even though a substantial minority wants a playoff. We don't have one, arguing that we shoukd is completely irrelevant for now.
December 6th, 2009 at 9:04 PM ^
that's a ridiculous statement.
"we don't have x. arguing for x is completely irrelavent"
I'd be SUPER excited for bowl games if they hadn't bastardized every single one so that they don't mean anything anymore. But they have. They've rendered bowl games irrelevant. They've made me pine for the days of CO-National Champs because the AP and the Coaches disagreed.
"we don't have x. arguing for x is completely irrelavent"
I'd be SUPER excited for bowl games if they hadn't bastardized every single one so that they don't mean anything anymore. But they have. They've rendered bowl games irrelevant. They've made me pine for the days of CO-National Champs because the AP and the Coaches disagreed.
December 6th, 2009 at 9:25 PM ^
It rests on the argument that the system sucks. Therefore it is irrelevant and immaterial. In the system we have, which I am not defending, this is the best we can hope for. Everyone here argues "the system sucks." I agree. But I'm not defending the system, I'm defending the choice of Texas over TCU. Two different things.
December 6th, 2009 at 9:40 PM ^
huh...because you've said only one thing about that alleged subject: "And that's fine, but anyone that thinks they[TCU] could beat Bama is delusional IMO."
and that is admittedly Opinion. So where exactly were you defending the Texas pick? nowhere.
December 7th, 2009 at 7:21 AM ^
My point was that my OP had nothing to do with the integrity of the bowl system. Only that I thought TCU vs. Boise would be a good game. I agree with those who say that the BCS system has devalued all the other bowls, and in fact, if we can't get a playoff, I'd rather have the old bowl system than the one we have. But that wasn't what I was trying to discuss.
December 7th, 2009 at 9:03 AM ^
I think anytime you talk about the BCS, you're opening up a discussion on alternatives.
December 6th, 2009 at 8:29 PM ^
I don't think that they're as excited as FOX makes it seem. I'm pretty sure the echoes on both campuses are "Man, I wish we had a chance for a title, that's not fair. It's a popularity contest... Let's show the country why we should have been in the title game and win this bowl game..."
December 6th, 2009 at 8:46 PM ^
This is a rematch from last year's Poinsettia Bowl. It's not the same thing as a same year rematch, but this has been seen before.
I'm sure I will watch some of this game, but it does not have the same excitement. Outside of the national title game, the only other BCS game people get juiced for are these non-BCS vs BCS conference bowl games.
December 6th, 2009 at 8:26 PM ^
You both beat me to it. Hopefully this is an evenly matched game and perhaps this sparks an annual rivalry. Other than that, I'm pretty disappointed.
That being said, Cincinatti has a huge opportunity to make a name for itself (and for schools that don't benefit from bias, like TCU, Boise State.)
If Cincinatti pulls an upset, they will not only raise their own program, but would change the perception of the Big East up as well.
December 6th, 2009 at 8:31 PM ^
How is it that so many people misspell Cincinnati?[/Brodie's-pet-peeve]
December 6th, 2009 at 8:56 PM ^
I consider myself a phenomenal speller; I think I remember that thread... I think it had to do with one of those challenges to name every single NCAA football team, and I actually came within about 8, And I couldn't spell it then, I can't spell it after a few cold ones and a long weekend (involving the Rutgers-WVU game, FWIW.)
Cincinatti
Cincinnati
Either way, does it matter? It's in Ohio.
December 6th, 2009 at 9:51 PM ^
No, it doesn't matter. It was actually 5-6 threads over a few day period, so I thought I'd just throw it out there. Any time I use a tag like [/brodie], it's meant as a joke.
December 6th, 2009 at 8:14 PM ^
Having them play each other makes the whole reward (aside from the increased money) meaningless. The whole point of making the BCS is to test yourself against the best and now neither team will get that chance. Not to mention that most of America will quickly change the channel and enjoy a steamy mug of "Who gives a shit?".
December 6th, 2009 at 8:25 PM ^
If you are a "everyone is equal" despite playing in non-BCS conferences, what's wrong with playing Boise?
December 6th, 2009 at 8:29 PM ^
Do you think those guys at TCU busted their ass all year with the hope that they could get to the BCS and play a team from the WAC? Same goes for Boise. This is a BCS game in name only and does not provide either team a legit shot to prove themselves on the national stage against a team from a power conference.
December 6th, 2009 at 8:33 PM ^
IMO they would rather play in the title game, who wouldn't? But I think they are really proud to be there regardless.
December 6th, 2009 at 8:37 PM ^
they're proud to be there like a virgin is proud to be in a strip club....
December 6th, 2009 at 9:26 PM ^
in the Fiesta Bowl, they'd be deliriously happy.
December 6th, 2009 at 9:58 PM ^
If you told us pre-season we would go 6-6 and go bowling, I would be moderately happy. If I was told that we did today, and everyone was pulling a prank on my for the last 4 months, I'd be stoked. It doesn't matter someone's reaction before the season, the fact is they went undefeated this season, and now that they did, they should get a better chance to prove themselves than a game vs. Boise State. Maybe they're not better than Texas or Alabama, but I'd rather see them play against Florida, Cincinnati, or Georgia Tech than another mid-major. And not just any mid-major, but one that they played last year in the San Diego County Credit Union Poinsettia Bowl.
I think if you're a TCU fan, you have to be disappointed, because the BCS has basically established a ceiling for you. Even though mid-majors have competed well in previous BCS games (save Hawaii), they'll still get no respect.
December 6th, 2009 at 8:43 PM ^
They would also rather play a name school from a BCS conference. I'm sure they are proud of their undefeated season, but I guarantee that they are disappointed that the reward is only getting to play another no-name school with a good record.
I will attempt to confirm this sentiment (my cousin's wife's cousin is a back-up tight end for TCU and I plan to exploit my unparalleled access to inside information on the pulse of the Horned Frogs).
December 6th, 2009 at 8:14 PM ^
Utah proved it could hang with the big boys last year. Why not give others a chance?
December 6th, 2009 at 8:16 PM ^
I agree wholeheartedly. (with JC3)
December 6th, 2009 at 8:17 PM ^
Because now they get to keep their system. Because if you put up one of them against Cincy and they blow them out then you have a controversy. This way you put the two guys who could create controversy together and avoid it as much as possible.
Great move by the BCS.
December 6th, 2009 at 8:22 PM ^
Uh, no. If you put them up against Florida and the Gators pummel them, THEN you keep your system because you showed that they didn't belong. Instead, you marginalized them, and the winner gets to claim they deserved a shot the NC.
At least last year when it happened, Utah beat Alabama and had an argument.
December 6th, 2009 at 10:09 PM ^
You either get an upset possibility, with all that excitement, OR you get a beat down that keeps the little guy in his place.
Fun viewing vs. Big School Program dominance. Coming from Michigan, that's win-win.
December 6th, 2009 at 8:22 PM ^
You could have had one play Florida and one play Iowa. In neither instance does a win by the non-BCS school create a legit "We should be number 1 argument." Just ask Utah last year. It is a weak move to try and concentrate viewers on the other games.
December 6th, 2009 at 8:31 PM ^
First of all the BCS doesn't collaborate as a whole on who gets picked where (beyond tie-ins). Secondly, even if that were the framework, it wouldn't be a great move. This guarantees one of these teams finishes undefeated. It basically crowns a non-BCS champion that never had a shot at being in the actual title game.
December 6th, 2009 at 8:20 PM ^
Well now instead of 3 BCS games not to watch, there are only 2.
December 6th, 2009 at 8:26 PM ^
+1 to you
Yea I know! GT v Iowa and oregon v. ohio are going to be the best games!!! :)