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 8:22 PM ^
Both of these teams deserve to play a BCS power rather than each other.
What bugs me more though is that you know the BCS will make a big PR thing out of this. The first time they've ever allowed 2 non-BCS teams in and they won't get to prove anything. The BCS comes out looking like the good guy but all they've done is save their BCS conference teams from possible losses.
Complete cop-out by the BCS.
December 6th, 2009 at 9:00 PM ^
Texas IS EVERY bit as deserving as TCU to pay in the title game. To deny that is to deny reality.
December 6th, 2009 at 9:13 PM ^
the problem is not deserving its ability. Cincinnati is as deserving as Texas as TCU as Boise State as Alabama. The problem comes that only Texas and Alabama had any shot to get there.
It used to be all you had to do was go undefeated.
Then you had to go undefeated and be from a BCS school.
Now you have to be undefeated and be from a power BCS school.
What's next? You have to be undefeated from a power BCS school that lies no further North than that Mason-Dixon unless you've won by at least 13 points in all games and can give us the exact air-speed velocity of a coconut laden swallow?
It used to be all you had to do was go undefeated.
Then you had to go undefeated and be from a BCS school.
Now you have to be undefeated and be from a power BCS school.
What's next? You have to be undefeated from a power BCS school that lies no further North than that Mason-Dixon unless you've won by at least 13 points in all games and can give us the exact air-speed velocity of a coconut laden swallow?
December 6th, 2009 at 9:28 PM ^
Your argument is irrelevant.
December 6th, 2009 at 10:03 PM ^
I don't like what you have to say so, I win.
December 7th, 2009 at 7:24 AM ^
I had crossed the line from being pleasantly toasted to perhaps drunk. Yikes.
December 6th, 2009 at 10:28 PM ^
First the Sugar loses Bama, so they take Florida. Got it, makes sense.
Then Fiesta loses Texas, and takes...TCU? (or the even worse choice, Boise) not the number three team in the country? Was it about travel distance tickets??
Then the Orange has the first pick, and takes the lowest rated at large team in the bowls?? Not Boise (or TCU?). Not the #3 team who WAS available (who admittedly played there last year).
Then the Fiesta goes again, and has the power to avoid the rematch, and STILL get #3 vs. 4, because of the Orange's pick and sets up the 2nd string bowl.
And the Sugar just sits back and gets the #3 team for a pretty good in name match-up (and if it's not, they are the SEC bowl with a bunch of happy SEC fans in town spending money partying and saying Bama-Florida was the REAL national championship game).
What the bowls did under THIS system doesn't make any sense.
December 6th, 2009 at 8:23 PM ^
If anything this automatically reduces the number of teams that can be undefeated. I'm not a fan, but I'll probably watch.
December 6th, 2009 at 8:46 PM ^
But it also guarantees that there will be two undefeated teams at the season's end.
December 7th, 2009 at 6:01 AM ^
A) That's what the national championship game does.
B) That's what a playoff would do.
C) That's what the regular season does.
Isn't that the point of all of this?
December 6th, 2009 at 8:24 PM ^
yea, I think this is terrible decision. I would have loved to see these teams play major conference opponents. Because they are legit teams. I would have rather Boise not make it just so we can compare how good TCU is against someone.
We already know that the WAC champion beat the Pac10 champ. Lets see if the Mtn. West Champ can knock off another conference champ. Also I will not be watching the orange bowl now as it does not interest me. I'd love for Cincinnati to beat Florida 33-13 just to prove a point(no pun intended).
Oh well I guess the big ten along with the SEC is the only conference with 2 teams...
December 6th, 2009 at 8:25 PM ^
i was looking forward to seeing TCU and how they matched up against florida, but now i get to see florida absolutely shit on cincy, a meaningless boise tcu game which happened last year, texas prolly get dominated by 'bama because ut can't move the ball against good defenses, a snooze fest with iowa and georgia tech running the ball with the goal to not screw up, the best matchup may be osu/oregon and in that game i expect oregon to run circles around osu ... and btw msu got texas tech in the alamo which is probably the worst matchup ever for msu.
December 6th, 2009 at 8:26 PM ^
Didn't the BCS selection show used to feature entire teams/groups of fans cheering/"officially accepting" bowl bids? Much more interesting than Nick Saban by himself.
December 6th, 2009 at 10:34 PM ^
Sigh. Was the replay really necessary?
Overall, I know they think that there are no fans of all the minor bowls, but couldn't we have some analysis of them rather than 10 minute NBA updates...?
Edit: THREE times! (Hey, we talked to a bunch of coaches tonight...let's show the one with the least personality in America thrice!). And really, couldn't they make it more like the NCAA Tourney show where they analyze each game, at least a little??
December 7th, 2009 at 6:04 AM ^
Welcome to fox college football coverage.
At least it's over after this season.
December 6th, 2009 at 8:30 PM ^
I don't have any interest in seeing TCU face Boise. I saw Boise play at Tulsa this season in person and was not impressed at all. I really think they will roll Boise. I may be in the minority, but IMO TCU could beat Bama.
December 6th, 2009 at 8:33 PM ^
We'll never know, but for what it's worth I think that TCU has a better shot than Texas.
December 6th, 2009 at 8:35 PM ^
And that's fine, but anyone that thinks they could beat Bama is delusional IMO.
December 6th, 2009 at 8:37 PM ^
I don't think it's that delusional. Alabama hasn't looked overly strong until late in the season. If they came out a little flat, I think TCU could definitely hang in there and maybe even beat the Tide. I don't think they'd be favored, but I think it would be less than Bama -13.
December 6th, 2009 at 8:43 PM ^
Signed,
2008 Utah Utes
December 6th, 2009 at 9:15 PM ^
chance is delusional. I won't bore you with all of the upsets over the course of the past few years but that is why they play the games.
TCU would definitely have a punchers chance just as any team that is undefeated would.
December 6th, 2009 at 9:20 PM ^
Yes, of course anyone who thinks the TCU team who crushed Utah and BYU could beat the Alabama team that squeaked by Tennessee is a delusional idiot. Why didn't I think of that....
/sarcasm.
December 6th, 2009 at 9:31 PM ^
don't deserve to be be the same sentence. How did BYU do against FSU? Logic FAIL.
December 6th, 2009 at 9:36 PM ^
How did Tennessee do against a terrible UCLA team? The poster didn't say TCU would blow out Alabama, merely that they have blown out their best opponents while Bama struggled mightily with a number of not-so-great teams.
TCU blew out everyone on their schedule, while Alabama struggled with a couple of middling teams. I think Bama would win head-to-head but acting like TCU wouldn't have a shot (especially after Utah smoked the Tide last year) is ridiculous.
December 7th, 2009 at 7:30 AM ^
My point was that his rational that they had crushed BYU and Utah, is not that impressive IMO. Especially when a 6-6 FSU team destroyed BYU even more impressively. My argument, which is certainly debatable, is that people who talk about non-BCS schools so impressively walking through their conferences miss something. All conferences are not equal.
December 7th, 2009 at 1:14 AM ^
Were you hibernating during last year's bowls?
December 6th, 2009 at 8:35 PM ^
I don't like it at all...I wanted to see these teams split up with Iowa and Ga Tech. This is just going to tell us who is the best of two teams that we have no idea about.
December 6th, 2009 at 8:40 PM ^
Screwed them out of sending a well deserved "Fuck you" to big conference schools, even though they earned it. To steal a line from twitter, its like they sent them to the little kids table. I might watch cinci-florida or the MNC game, but I'd rather watch a shot at love reruns than the fiesta bowl.
December 6th, 2009 at 8:40 PM ^
Well the Fiesta has regulated itself back the minor bowl game it has always intended to be. They are geniuses though. Every year from now on they can pit the WAC and Mtn West champs against each other, put it on at 10:30 or so Eastern Time on some early Saturday night in January, show it on Fox Sports Rocky Mountain, and everyone can glimpse at the internet on Sunday morning to see who won. This will save the rest of the country from having to hear or see about the WAC champs and Mtn West champs. Thanks Fiesta Bowl!!
December 6th, 2009 at 8:42 PM ^
This will be a great game! I will be glued to my TV watching this game that I am actually looking forward to more than Texas vs. Bama. I wish TCU would play Cincinnati and BSU could play Iowa. I think those are two much more intriguing matchups and would once and for all prove that non BCS schools can beat any school in the country, I hate how a couple years ago BSU played a good game but Oklahoma lost the game because they didn't play to their potential. Still I will be watching this game with the upmost interest.
December 6th, 2009 at 8:46 PM ^
I couldn't agree more with those who think this is a sham.
The BCS is using this as a cop out and how sad is that? It seems like no matter what these small teams do, they will NEVER get to join the club that the BCS has created for itself. It seems so kindergarten of college football.
December 6th, 2009 at 8:51 PM ^
At least this is the last year of Fox covering the BCS!
December 6th, 2009 at 8:51 PM ^
It's like inviting the kids to the party but sitting them at a separate table.
December 6th, 2009 at 8:53 PM ^
Dammit. I would have loved to see Boise vs. Iowa and TCU vs GTech, just to see what would happen (most efficient passer vs. Iowa D and GTech triple option against TCU). TCU vs Boise just seems like a poor man's NC, with no real effect from the outcome. How many times does Boise have to go undefeated for them to get a chance at a big-shot BCS team?
December 6th, 2009 at 9:09 PM ^
Repeating Callahan, they played last year.
The TCU players didn't work so hard to crash the party to play...Boise State? And the Boise State players didn't sign up to play...TCU? It's just too anti-climatic.
People watched Boise St. play Oklahoma a few years back partially to see if the "little guys" could do it. Same goes for Utah last season and a few seasons ago. I have to believe that there were fans that watched those games just to see if "David" could pull off the upset against Goliath. Sure Hawaii got shellacked, and the "David-seekers" turned the TV off then...but it doesn't always have to happen that way. Florida vs. TCU makes lots of sense in the Sugar Bowl (and TCU might even have an advantage...or not...but I think that it could be close given TCU's defense). Cincy vs. Boise State works in the Fiesta Bowl (and Boise State has shown that they will travel to Tempe).
On to the picks:
Bama wilts out West (Texas wins by 17)
Cincy is better than you think (Beat Florida by 14)
Buckeyes beat the quack out of the duck (win by 14...Remember a 14 point lead to Tressel is like a 30 point lead to other coaches)
TCU beats Boise State (again). *Yawn*
Iowa's D-line busts up the triple option, and the Hawks squeak out a 7 point win in the most interesting BCS game of the season.
December 6th, 2009 at 9:18 PM ^
They couldn't score 17 against Nebraska.
December 6th, 2009 at 9:38 PM ^
and cincy by 14? they needed a missed XP to beat a meh pitt team... i really don't think cincy stands a chance -- florida's d got throttled yesterday, but id still maintain that their defense is good enough to shut down a QB (pike) who has padded his numbers against soft defenses.
December 6th, 2009 at 10:32 PM ^
This is such a joke, just another slap at "non-BCS" schools. What better way to say "They haven't proven themselves" than to have them play another neglected school? But, it's not like I thought anything else would occur, the people selecting the bowls are the ones trying to save face.
December 6th, 2009 at 10:47 PM ^
Was beating Tebow on a Jan 1 (Capital 1) Bowl game. Although the rest of that season (loss to APP State, no B10 title and the Henne, Hart, Long class goes 0-4 against the Vest) was an epic FAIL we did beat Lord Tebow and Mike ShannaRat Junior (Urban Meyer) as Llyod finished being carried off the field a victor. Although the BCS sucks there is something to said for finishing the season as a Bowl winner. Would Schembechler have survived a Playoff system having never won a National Championship and missing out on the many Bowl victories that ended the season on a high note and propelled him into next year? I am not opposed to a playoff I am just concerned we might consider being careful what we wish for. I am not convinced a playoff system is in college footballs best interest.
December 6th, 2009 at 10:51 PM ^
There is no doubt in my mind that the powers that be colluded to match TCU and Boise together in the same bowl.
Look at it this way: as the current system stands, the BCS is set up to create a monopoly between the 6 major conferences and the power brokers at the 4 major bowls.
A playoff would a) force the revenue from these major bowl games to be more equitably distributed amongst all conferences instead of just the 6 BCS conferences and b) essentially reduce or eliminate the power wielded -and financial windfall- from the various bowl committees of these 4 major bowls.
Because of this, anything that could possibly spark an even more heated debate of a playoff is bad for the bowl committees, who are the ones who select the matchup.
Interestingly, the BCS could have had matchups of 1 vs. 2, 3/4, 5/6, 7/8 and 9/10 if they went Cincy/TCU and Florida/Boise. However, if (God forbid) both of the non-BCS schools won against major conferences, the push for a playoff would be heightened even more and the playoff drum would keep beating louder, which is obviously bad for the bowl games.
Instead, the Fiesta Bowl colluded with the other bowls to essentially eliminate the possibility of embarrassment faced by Oklahoma and Alabama from previous season, so they selected both Boise and TCU. Now we'll never know how good those two teams are because the bowl collusion forced them to play each other instead of major conference teams.
Again, well done BCS.
December 7th, 2009 at 12:44 AM ^
Boise throttled the Pac-10 champion. TCU beat Clemson just like GTech did. Iowa/Boise and TCU/GTech, or TCU/Florida would have been awesome games. Instead the BCS decides to fuck everyone. Awesome.
December 7th, 2009 at 12:58 AM ^
would rather not see a rematch of the 2008 Poinsettia Bowl. These two teams deserved a chance to show they can beat up the big conference reps (which they can).
Would love to see Boise State bitch slap OSU (as an unlikely example) or TCU smoke Tebow for example... s
December 7th, 2009 at 8:48 AM ^
If the team that wins this thing goes undefeated again next year, then they probably should be given a chance to play for all the marbels next year.
December 7th, 2009 at 9:09 AM ^
It's been said over and over and over, but:
This is super-lame. They basically took the two largest threats to BCS conference hegemony and, rather than letting them go play a "power conference" team, they're putting them in "the irrelevance bowl". Because the fanbases of the teams are smaller than, say, OSU or Florida, fewer people will watch, and more people will walk out with the erroneous assumption that these teams are inferior, despite the mountain of evidence (Boise's sheer-domination of Oregon, TCU's win @ Clemson) that they're entirely capable of playing with the best of the BCS conferences.
I'm not going to argue that TCU belongs over Texas (though wouldn't it be amazing if there was just...some...way that one could show they're better definitively, by some system where the contenders played each other in some sort of a tournament format?) but every BCS buster save Hawaii has won their game, and then we get to hear about "Well, Oklahoma wasn't motivated" or some shit.
TCU beat 3 teams in the top 25 - Clemson, Utah, BYU. Texas only scheduled 1 (OK State), and then, by virtue of a conference championship, were forced to play a 2nd. Maybe the MWC should make a championship game so TCU could beat Utah again? Would that be better?
December 7th, 2009 at 10:11 AM ^
I think it's the exact opposite in terms of reasoning but the same result. The Fiesta Bowl had the first choice in the bowl selection, they could have had a number of INCREDIBLE match-ups. But the telling thing is their decision not to invite Cincinnati, the number 3 team in the BCS who has a more legitimate claim to the MNC than Boise. Cincy has a very small fanbase who did not travel well to the Orange Bowl last year, a game nobody watched. Boise, believe it or not is a draw in person and on TV. The Fiesta bowl is banking on curiosity winning out here.
December 7th, 2009 at 12:12 PM ^
but kind of misses the boat for me. Give me the non BCS underdogs vs the BCS beasts. I would rather see Georgia Tech vs. TCU/BSU.