BCS Bowl Games Set

[ShaneDawg85]

Although it was mentioned in the Week 14 thread, I thought it merited it's own discussion. The BCS Bowl games, including the National title game were announced this evening. So here we go:

BCS Title Game: Alabama vs. Texas

Rose Bowl: Ohio State vs. Oregon

Sugar Bowl: Florida vs. Cincinnati

Fiesta: Boise State vs. TCU

Orange: Iowa vs. Georgia Tech

Overall, I think they got it right this year. The biggest "controversies" you could claim to is what Big Ten team should have been in the Orange Bowl, between Iowa and Penn State, and whether or not the Fiesta Bowl should have the two non-BCS conference teams pitted against each other. Even with the close win over Nebraska yesterday, I still think the title game is correct with Bama and Texas.

I think all eyes are going to be on the Fiesta Bowl because of the intrigue of both teams and the story that has surrounded them for the last few weeks. Boise State has the experience factor of having played in a BCS bowl game before, the same Fiesta Bowl when they stunned Oklahoma. But TCU is rock solid on both sides of the ball, and they beat this same Broncos team last year in the Poinsetta Bowl. Different circumstances and different teams, but needless to say, these two teams should know what to expect from each other.

The Sugar Bowl has the potential to be really entertaining, because as we saw yesterday Cincy can move up and down the field really quickly, and they've got two QB's that can beat you. Florida's got the experience, are going to be really sour after losing yesterday, and it's Tebow's last game, so you know the media attention, unfortunately, will be all over that and the team will be focused to win for him, as will he.

The Orange Bowl looks like a real snoozer at the moment, but that will depend on which Iowa team shows up, and whether Georgia Tech sets itself up for a let down. The Hawkeyes had a lot of close wins this season, and Georgia Tech can move down the field in a hurry. Maybe this one will surprise us and we'll get a great game, or maybe we'll get a mistake prone slop-fest by both teams that we got last year.

All in all I think they got the match-ups and the destinations right. Now we wait for New Year's Day. Happy Bowling!

[RShack]

Although it was mentioned in the Week 14 thread, I thought it merited it's own discussion. The BCS Bowl games, including the National title game were announced this evening. So here we go:

BCS Title Game: Alabama vs. Texas

Rose Bowl: Ohio State vs. Oregon

Sugar Bowl: Florida vs. Cincinnati

Fiesta: Boise State vs. TCU

Orange: Iowa vs. Georgia Tech

Overall, I think they got it right this year.

I don't think they got it right, I think this is a farce. They're pairing up TCU vs. Boise State to protect BCS schools from facing embarrassing upsets in 2 major bowls, like what Boise State did to Oklahoma a couple years ago. Both TCU and Boise should have been matched up against BCS-automatic-berth teams. This is a BS deal to let the BCS conferences avoid embarrassment. As a GT fan, I think GT is much safer facing Iowa than either of those two. So, it may be good for GT, but it sucks for college football. It's stacking the deck to keep the non-BCS schools isolated on the outside of BCS competition. BCS schools are scared to play them during the season, and now the BCS conferences don't wanna play them in bowl games either. I think it sucks. Hell will freeze over before Texas ever plays these guys voluntarily...

[geschinger]

I don't think they got it right, I think this is a farce. They're pairing up TCU vs. Boise State to protect BCS schools from facing embarrassing upsets in 2 major bowls, like what Boise State did to Oklahoma a couple years ago. Both TCU and Boise should have been matched up against a BCS-automatic-berth team. This is a BS deal to let the BCS conferences avoid embarrassment. As a GT fan, I think GT is much safer facing Iowa than either of those two. So, it may be good for GT, but it sucks for college football. It's stacking the deck to keep the non-BCS schools isolated on the outside of BCS competition. BCS schools are scared to play them during the season, and now the BCS conferences don't wanna play them in bowl games either. I think it sucks. Hell will freeze over before Texas ever plays these guys voluntarily...

Hard to argue with anything you say here.

[ShaneDawg85]

I don't think they got it right, I think this is a farce. They're pairing up TCU vs. Boise State to protect BCS schools from facing embarrassing upsets in 2 major bowls, like what Boise State did to Oklahoma a couple years ago. Both TCU and Boise should have been matched up against BCS-automatic-berth teams. This is a BS deal to let the BCS conferences avoid embarrassment. As a GT fan, I think GT is much safer facing Iowa than either of those two. So, it may be good for GT, but it sucks for college football. It's stacking the deck to keep the non-BCS schools isolated on the outside of BCS competition. BCS schools are scared to play them during the season, and now the BCS conferences don't wanna play them in bowl games either. I think it sucks. Hell will freeze over before Texas ever plays these guys voluntarily...

As I said, this is one of the only controversies this year. I don't really feel one way or the other about it. The fact that there are two non-BCS teams even in the major bowl games says a lot, so we should be so fortunate for that. But I see what you're saying, and what you say I agree with you. But this isn't the worst the BCS has done. The worst thing they could have done was leave Boise State out of the BCS entirely, but Boise did what they had to do, and Oklahoma State did their part as well.

[RShack]

As I said, this is one of the only controversies this year. I don't really feel one way or the other about it. The fact that there are two non-BCS teams even in the major bowl games says a lot, so we should be so fortunate for that. But I see what you're saying, and what you say I agree with you. But this isn't the worst the BCS has done. The worst thing they could have done was leave Boise State out of the BCS entirely, but Boise did what they had to do, and Oklahoma State did their part as well.

The only thing it says is that the whole BCS set-up is a stacked deck. And, no, we should not feel fortunate for that, we should be pissed off about it. (And I don't even care about Boise or TCU. I think Boise's blue field is ugly, and until this season I forgot TCU even exists.) I think Congress is as screwed up as anybody else thinks they are, but I hope they stick their nose into this and, at minimum, stop the BCS from calling their rigged sham a "national championship series". It's not.

Here's one way to track if there's any progress on fixing it: The St. Petersburg Times has a PolitiFact web site where they've got an ObamaMeter tracking Obama's campaign promises. They have 521 of them listed (30 pages worth), and each one is labelled as either "kept" (61), "broken" (7), "stalled" (23), "compromise" (16), "in the works" (170), or "not yet rated" (237). After only 10 months, I figure that count looks pretty good, considering everything. (That tally only adds up to 514, dunno where their counts are off.) Getting a college football playoff is listed as campaign Promise #306. It's currently marked as "in the works". Now, he mainly promised that as a semi-joke when some reporter asked him about it, but I like it anyway, and I also like it that somebody is tracking them all.

[RShack]

I just now noticed that the TCU-Boise State game is a rematch of last year's "San Diego County Credit Union Poinsettia Bowl", in which TCU beat Boise State 17-16.

So, not only is this a lame way for BCS teams to hide from the #4 and #6 teams in the country, it's also an exact rematch of the dang 2008 Poinsetta Bowl. How silly is that?

[waroriole]

I don't think they got it right, I think this is a farce. They're pairing up TCU vs. Boise State to protect BCS schools from facing embarrassing upsets in 2 major bowls, like what Boise State did to Oklahoma a couple years ago. Both TCU and Boise should have been matched up against BCS-automatic-berth teams. This is a BS deal to let the BCS conferences avoid embarrassment. As a GT fan, I think GT is much safer facing Iowa than either of those two. So, it may be good for GT, but it sucks for college football. It's stacking the deck to keep the non-BCS schools isolated on the outside of BCS competition. BCS schools are scared to play them during the season, and now the BCS conferences don't wanna play them in bowl games either. I think it sucks. Hell will freeze over before Texas ever plays these guys voluntarily...

Not to knock your school, but I don't think anyone would be surprised if either of those two teams put a whooping on GT. I don't think they're thought of as highly as either of those teams, despite being in a BCS conference. It doesn't seem like they're protecting a BCS school, just giving people a match up that they want.

[ShaneDawg85]

Not to knock your school, but I don't think anyone would be surprised if either of those two teams put a whooping on GT. I don't think they're thought of as highly as either of those teams, despite being in a BCS conference. It doesn't seem like they're protecting a BCS school, just giving people a match up that they want.

This is more of my sentiments. Frankly, it's a no brainer to put TCU against Boise State in a bowl game. You'd be stupid not to do it. I don't think they're worried about being embarrassed, at least that's not the first thought entering their minds. We've seen non-BCS teams upset major programs, ie Boise vs. Oklahoma & Utah vs. Alabama, and we've seen non-BCS teams get destroyed, ie Hawaii vs. Georgia. We've also seen non-BCS teams go into BCS games and destroy inferior opponents, ie Utah dismantling Pittsburgh.

I see it as going for the most attractive match-up, and you can't get anymore attractive than what they've done. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, just that from a marketing and ratings standpoint, it was the most obvious decision to make, and if in the same situation I'd do the same thing.

[geschinger]

Not to knock your school, but I don't think anyone would be surprised if either of those two teams put a whooping on GT. I don't think they're thought of as highly as either of those teams, despite being in a BCS conference. It doesn't seem like they're protecting a BCS school, just giving people a match up that they want.

I don't think it's the matchup that everyone wants to see. It is a sequel to last year's matchup. What made the BSU BCS win so great a few years ago was that they beat a power from a major conference. David beating Goliath. Instead we get two Davids battling out and the powers to be will still be able to discount those guys as being legitimate teams to ever be considered for an NC.

[waroriole]

I don't think it's the matchup that everyone wants to see. It is a sequel to last year's matchup. What made the BSU BCS win so great a few years ago was that they beat a power from a major conference. David beating Goliath. Instead we get two Davids battling out and the powers to be will still be able to discount those guys as being legitimate teams to ever be considered for an NC.

Well, there's not a Goliath for them to face, unless it's Florida, and another little guy (Cincy) is facing them. I don't care about either of them beating GT or Iowa, I'd rather see these two face each other, and have a legit claim to a NC.

[geschinger]

Well, there's not a Goliath for them to face, unless it's Florida, and another little guy (Cincy) is facing them. I don't care about either of them beating GT or Iowa, I'd rather see these two face each other, and have a legit claim to a NC.

Cincy is not a little guy, they are a program from a BCS conference. Although I am growing to like their matchup with UF. If they beat UF and drop 40 on them they will have a legit claim themselves.

What is unfortunate is that the winner of the TCU/BSU game is going to be discounted - the only reason they were able to go undefeated is because they were able to avoid playing a big guy in the BCS.

[waroriole]

What's lost in all this is that for the 6th time in 7 years, at least one other team will have a legitimate claim to being the best in college football and not get the chance to prove it.

2009: Alabama or Texas (14-0) NC; TCU/Boise (13-0) will be unbeaten and maybe Cincinatti

2008: Florida NC (13-1); Utah (13-0)

2007: LSU (11-2); Kansas (12-1)

2006: Florida (12-1); Boise State (13-0)

2005: They lucked up and got it right

2004: USC (13-0); Auburn (13-0), Utah (13-0) [i actually call this Auburn's NC, but I might have a bias:D]

2003: LSU (12-1); USC (11-1) [uSC won AP title)

[waroriole]

Cincy is not a little guy, they are a program from a BCS conference. Although I am growing to like their matchup with UF. If they beat UF and drop 40 on them they will have a legit claim themselves.

What is unfortunate is that the winner of the TCU/BSU game is going to be discounted - the only reason they were able to go undefeated is because they were able to avoid playing a big guy in the BCS.

Does that mean that Duke, Vandy, Northwestern, Baylor and even Temple up until a few years ago aren't/weren't little guys. Cincy may be from a BCS conference, and may be up and coming, but until they get a big win they're a little guy. In fact, Boise and TCU are among the big boys more than Cincy.

[ShaneDawg85]

Does that mean that Duke, Vandy, Northwestern, Baylor and even Temple up until a few years ago aren't/weren't little guys. Cincy may be from a BCS conference, and may be up and coming, but until they get a big win they're a little guy. In fact, Boise and TCU are among the big boys more than Cincy.

Add to that, Cincy couldn't defeat Virginia Tech last year in the Orange Bowl. Cincy might play in a BCS conference, but until this year, and maybe a year or two prior, the Big East has been held on a lower level than the ACC in terms of recognition and respect. Among certain circle the Big East is still a punching bag for criticism. Cincy beating Florida, the defending National Champion and member of the most recognized conference in the country, among some, would be a big-time upset and go a long way to changing that.

[RShack]

Not to knock your school, but I don't think anyone would be surprised if either of those two teams put a whooping on GT. I don't think they're thought of as highly as either of those teams, despite being in a BCS conference.

Well, no point in arguing about that. We'd find out on game day if they'd let them play, but they instead created a repeat of the dang Poinsetta Bowl. IMO, people who think this isn't a case of the BCS dodging upsets are just naive. I agree that GT would be the underdog against them, but that doesn't mean much. As for what folks think of GT, well, people have been dissing Paul Johnson's approach forever, and he's done nothing but win everywhere. If Notre Dame was smart, they'd hire him. Fortunately for GT, I don't think they're smart, I think they over-estimate how much their legacy counts these days. Nobody wants to go to South Bend, there's nothing there except Touchdown Jesus painted on the wall, plus a Studebaker Museum and a bunch of empty factories, and that's it. Current recruits don't remember when ND was a winner, and they don't care what their grandfather says about it.

What happens with GT is that everybody makes the mistake of saying Paul Johnson runs the triple option, which is missing the point. People say that because they're not used to seeing it. But PJ only runs that play about 15-20% of the time. In reality, what happened is that he started out learning the run-and-shoot, and he's come up with a version of the run-and-shoot that's based on running instead of passing. It corrects the main weakness of the passing-oriented run-and-shoot, which is that it doesn't take any time off the clock, so the other team has lots of time and you end up losing a lot of high-scoring games. His correction reverses that, so that the other team's offense gets figgity watching from the sideline while their D gets worn out from spending 40 minutes on the field chasing after guys running outside. So, when the other team's O gets on the field, they get anxious, like they gotta do something right now. So, the GT-D gets lots of 3-and-outs, while the GT-O has almost none.

IMO, one of the keys to whether GT thumps Iowa will be whether or not GT can get some linemen healed up. They've been down to their very last linemen lately on both sides of the ball. Some of their best guys are out, and whoever's left gets no rest, which matters when the O is on the field for 40 minutes and PJ is always pulling the linemen and making them run sideways. In the ACC title game, they lost one of their last D-linemen very early on, and that guy had been way down on the depth chart before they started losing all the guys above him. I was afraid they'd wind up using their #5 cornerback as a D-tackle. But it worked out OK in the end: with a D-line that consisted of 1 first-rounder and the 3 little pigs, GT couldn't do anything at all about Mr. Spiller, he just went nuts and damn near won the game single-handedly, but Clemson couldn't stop GT either, and GT ate clock so Clemson didn't get enough time with the ball. We'll find out what happens in the Orange Bowl. One thing I bet doesn't happen is what happened vs. LSU last year, when the young GT team got cocky because they upset GA by putting up 23 points in 7 minutes. No danger of them making that same mistake this year. If GT has some healthy linemen, Iowa might wind up paying for what LSU did to GT last year. We'll see...