Yup. TCU got screwed.

kiwibacon wrote:

gmj81 wrote:
Seriously, I wonder how much bribe money the Fiesta Bowl had to take to swallow this one for the BCS. There's no way in hell that a bowl looking for the best financial gain possible given their order of picks would have chosen BOTH of those two teams.



Trying to "sell it" because it's the two undefeateds outside of the NCG is a crock because the nation as a whole doesn't care about these programs. Maybe if there were an underdog role people would have tuned in, but since they're pitting David v. David, people will be satisfied with just catching the highlights on ESPN. I guarantee you that the Fiesta Bowl will have the worst ratings this year.

Which will also come back to hurt the argument for non-AQ teams in future BCS bowls.

Which means as much as I hate the pairing (would have preferred BSU and TCU playing AQ teams)...I am telling, hoping, commanding everyone to have all TV's tuned into the fiesta bowl when it is on so that excuse can not be used by the BCS in the future.

It's the only game I'm watching, because it's the only game that matters.

GolfDiveNCougs wrote:
Not a BIT different than the Poinsetta bowl last year, just this year, they've gone back to 4 BCS bowls, and they're on the hook for more money.

Well said sir.



I had no idea the Fiesta had the second pick, wow that pretty much proves your point right there.

The thing is, this is going to be a great game. It's just not the game anyone wanted to see.

At some point when we realize that this game is going to happen.. (wake me from this bad dream) there's another issue that the BCS has created.



The credibility of the MWC is now put on the line vs the WAC, Now truthfully that shouldn't be the case as the rest of the WAC is garbage; but we know what the perception will be.



TCU has all the weight on their shoulders and their reward is minimal compared to the consequences of losing.



I expect that Boise will lose; unless they decide to paint the field blue...

however their fans are going to pack the place.

Since #1 goes against #2 in the NC game, the only logical pairing would have been #3 vs #4 in the second tier game. But then when TCU destroyed Cinci it would have put a MWC team as the number 2 team in the nation after the bowls for a second consecutive year. This could not be allowed as it would be so obvious that the MWC should get an autobid after this. The powers that be have arranged it so that the possible best team in the nation now has virtually no chance to be even as high as #2 after the bowls. Yes, dust off the anti-cartel laws.

I'm pretty sure that TCU is going to completely dominate BSU. Does anyone actually doubt this?

Did anyone watch the BCS match up show on fox? It was sad watching the talking heads try and pump this game up. They had to know this game was a joke and a complete fraud. The Feista Bowl turned down the chance to have Florida or Cinci in there bowl game to instead pair up BSU and TCU. BULLSHI!!!!





TCU have better not lose! The pride of the whole MWC is on the line. If they played and lost to a Florida or any of the other BCS teams it wouldnt have been to big of an issue. But to lose to a WAC team would be a disaster. The MWC needs to show that its the best non AQ and losing to the conference that wants what you want would hurt the MWC way too much.

Cory McCartney on si.com agrees.



http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/cory_mccartney/12/06/boise.state.tcu/index.html?eref=sircrc

Italics wrote:
I'm pretty sure that TCU is going to completely dominate BSU. Does anyone actually doubt this?

I totallly agree, but BSU game TCU all they could handle last year and I thought that was going to be a gimme as well.

The score was a lot closer than the actual game last year. TCU manhandled BSU up and down the field all day last year.

That's the thing about BSU they know how to stay in a game.

How does this matchup represent the marketplace? Those idiots can lick my dogs street crap

kiwibacon wrote:

Seriously, I wonder how much bribe money the Fiesta Bowl had to take to swallow this one for the BCS. There's no way in hell that a bowl looking for the best financial gain possible given their order of picks would have chosen BOTH of those two teams.



Trying to "sell it" because it's the two undefeateds outside of the NCG is a crock because the nation as a whole doesn't care about these programs. Maybe if there were an underdog role people would have tuned in, but since they're pitting David v. David, people will be satisfied with just catching the highlights on ESPN. I guarantee you that the Fiesta Bowl will have the worst ratings this year.

is a crock because...Cincy was also undefeated...

I think you misunderstand me. I'm not saying that TCU or BSU should play for the NCG (even though its certainly arguable that both could as well as Cincy). My point was that they are pimping this game as a "great matchup" between two undefeateds. But no one cares about TCU or BSU enough to watch them play each other. What were the ratings of last year's nearly identical Poinsettia Bowl (one 11-1 and one 12-0 team)? Not good, I guarantee you. People would have been more inclined to tune in had the Fiesta pitted BSU against Cincy or the Sugar Bowl pitting TCU against Florida if for no other reason to watch "David slay Goliath". But no one wants to watch David v. David which is why games pairing ranked non-AQ teams throughout the regular season don't get more ratings. People want to see how the non-AQ stack up against the AQ. Everyone except for the BCS and its proponents who know every win by a non-AQ over an AQ ruins their monopolistic system. So they chose the lesser of two evils. Rather than leave BSU out of it altogether (next available team would have been #12 VaTech), they included them but forced the two non-AQ to face each other so there wouldn't be another Yewtah over Bama disaster.

declocoug wrote:

Seriously, I wonder how much bribe money the Fiesta Bowl had to take to swallow this one for the BCS. There's no way in hell that a bowl looking for the best financial gain possible given their order of picks would have chosen BOTH of those two teams.



Trying to "sell it" because it's the two undefeateds outside of the NCG is a crock because the nation as a whole doesn't care about these programs. Maybe if there were an underdog role people would have tuned in, but since they're pitting David v. David, people will be satisfied with just catching the highlights on ESPN. I guarantee you that the Fiesta Bowl will have the worst ratings this year.

Which will also come back to hurt the argument for non-AQ teams in future BCS bowls.

Would not surprise me in the least if they come back with that argument next year. Probably all part of their plan. A plan which is fairly transparent and obvious to any college football fan but leaves them just enough to hide behind to keep congress of their back for another year. "What do you mean, we allowed two of their teams to play in BCS games this year."



This whole thing just reeks of desperation.

GolfDiveNCougs wrote:
It's just interesting to watch the BCS's tactics since 2004.



Tactic 1: They figured the MWC team they had to include in '04 was good enough that it would be too much risk of damage to one of their Royal programs to let them play. As that was out of the question, they threw a TERRIBLE sacrificial Big East team at them, so they'd get no credit for the dominant win. Actually worked quite well.



Tactic 2: Put up the OBVIOUSLY overrated MWC school against an absolute juggernaut, to leave them NO CHANCE at a victory. After all, it worked one-out-of-two-times against the WAC, right? OOPS. That one blew up in their face.



Tactic 3: Most devious of all. If you're rich, what do you do if you have a problem??? THROW MONEY AT IT!!! They were looking at TWO casualties to their Royal programs this year (one team has already beaten a BCS team, and the other one has been the most dominant of all the undefeateds, and beat a team that was a botched drive away from another BCS berth). I REALLY believe Florida and Cinci would BOTH have walked away with losses, and apparently, so does the BCS. ANY of the remaining four, GT, VaTech, Iowa, or Penn State would have been absolutely BLUDGEONED by either non-BCS school.

So their choice was either 1) to snub BSU, and bring in VaTech somewhere (which they wouldn't have deserved), all but GUARANTEEING TCU a win over one of the BCS schools, 2) to take double the financial hit and let BSU in as well, and risk TWO BCS school losses (whether sacrificial, like Pitt in '04, or a much less likely "overpowering", like '08), or 3) to take double the financial hit but put TCU and BSU together, guaranteeing NO embarrasing losses to BCS teams.



The first option was public opinion suicide. The ONLY school that they could have brought in besides BSU who technically met the qualifications was VaTech, as all other teams ahead of them were bounced by the two-team per conference rule. Plus side, keeps the money in the BCS. Minus, everybody would be asking why in the WORLD a #6 Boise was snubbed for an also-ran in one of the worst AQ conferences, who wasn't even in the top 10, AND, you're still giving up a loss to one of your Royals at the hands of TCU.



Second option was the worst of the three. Double the financial expenditure on non-BCS, with the risk of TWO royal losses. Not a chance they were going that route.



Last option was the PERFECT CRIME. You'd better BELIEVE the BCS Brass informed the Fiesta Bowl this was EXACTLY what they'd be doing. Sure, it cost them the double-expenditure (AND likely a poorly attended, worse viewed Fiesta Bowl), but NO egg on their face, and the only team they were denying was a VaTech team that didn't deserve a thing anyway. Now, they can stick to the usual non- versus non- script: If it's a close game, they were both sloppy, undisciplined and unathletic. If one blows the other out, well, the loser is terrible, and the only thing the winner proves is that the loser was ACTUALLY terrible. No praise need be meted out, no danger to Royal reputation. Best 9 million the BCS has ever spent! (Remember, though, according to the contract, a non-BCS school makes HALF as much with a BCS bowl berth as a BCS School, AND the non-school shares it with ALL 50-some-odd non-schools, not just their own conference. ANOTHER topic for another day).



Interesting to me that the Fiesta Bowl over the years has been the BCS's b!tc#/thug when it came to TRYING to bludgeon the non-BCS schools. In '04, the Fiesta Bowl gave up the #2 team, and therefore had its choice of all remaining teams, yet they intentionally chose the LOWEST ranked Auto-qualler, Pitt, so that last pick Utah wouldn't beat a Royal. In '06, it was them that were assigned (bad luck of the draw, maybe) the Boise task, assuming Oklahoma would destroy them. Now this year, they turn down 4 name schools to take TCU with the SECOND pick, then snub two of those names AGAIN by taking Boise. They needn't have done it. It just looks like they're become the BCS's non-AQ killer. Yeah, they were about as "intrigued" by that matchup as they were watching Penn State get their ASS handed to them by TCU.



This is corruption at its finest. Plausable deniability. All they did was make a HUGE payout for a de facto NON-BCS bowl game. Not a BIT different than the Poinsetta bowl last year, just this year, they've gone back to 4 BCS bowls, and they're on the hook for more money.

Perfectly stated.

Florwood wrote:
Cory McCartney on si.com agrees.



http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/cory_mccartney/12/06/boise.state.tcu/index.html?eref=sircrc

Should TCU, ranked third in the final BCS standings, have played fellow unbeaten Cincinnati or Florida, which spent 12 weeks ranked No. 1, and won handily, it could have made a case for a share of the national title in the AP poll, which isn't contractually obligated to crown the winner of the ...BCS Championship Game. But instead, we have a rematch of the 2008 Poinsettia Bowl, only with a much more lucrative payday -- and just like last year's Poinsettia Bowl, it offers no tangible reward, because no matter what Boise State and TCU do in that game, it will be met with, "Yes, you went undefeated and won a BCS game, but look who you played."



...By welcoming two non-AQ teams and putting them on that proverbial couch, the BCS appears to be playing damage control and trying to avoid a trial in the court of public opinion and, whether it's the real reason or not, further pressure from congress.



Since last January, the BCS came under fire like never before, drawing the ire of House and Senate panels during an offseason hearing, called after unbeaten Boise State was snubbed for the second time in five years and Utah was denied a chance at the national title.



While giving Boise State an at-large bid shows -- from the BCS' standpoint -- that, to quote Bob Dylan, "times they are-a changin'," but isn't taking these teams and casting them off actually more damning than the act of allowing only one non-AQ team in?



But let's give the Fiesta Bowl selection committee some credit. Remember, the bowls have the right to select any team they want for an at-large bid, so long as they meet the rules established by the BCS, and the Fiesta will host a matchup that appears to be a huge gamble.



The Frogs, which earned an automatic bid, have had trouble selling out home games, recording their first in three years on Nov. 9 against Utah. But the Fiesta, which had first pick of the at-large teams after losing Big 12 champion Texas to the national title game, selected the Broncos because it wanted a matchup of unbeatens. While the Broncos did sell their allotment of tickets for their 2007 appearance, that was against Oklahoma. The Fiesta is banking on fans from both teams making 15-hour trips in this climate to see their teams play after they drew just 34,628 fans last year in San Diego? There couldn't be a worse scenario for Glendale's local economy.



"We really looked at only trying to arrange the most compelling matchup possible and we were delighted," Fiesta director John Junker said. "When you have the chance to match two undefeated teams, it was a very compelling story and one that we think will be of great interest to the country."



But will it be? The four BCS games featuring non-AQ teams have been among the eight lowest-rated BCS bowls, which makes you wonder if the Fiesta Bowl is biting the bullet and taking the lowest-rated game for the greater good. Of course, given that the entire motive of these committees is to generate the most amount of money, fans and TV ratings, that's the stuff of conspiracy theories. Junker said the committee "talked to our partners at Fox Sports and we had very sound advice from them and we think that they like the matchup."



It's a compelling matchup when you simply look at the numbers: the nation's top-ranked defense (TCU) vs. its highest-scoring offense; two teams that have been in the top 10 for 13 weeks. But it's also a matchup that makes little sense on so many levels for all the parties involved.



Boise State and TCU have made history, but they deserved better than being stranded together in the desert.



Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/cory_mccartney/12/06/boise.state.tcu/index.html?eref=sircrc#ixzz0Z1fHKnPf

Get a free NFL Team Jacket and Tee with SI Subscription



I think this guy has been reading my posts the last week. Of course, nothing I've said is anything groundbreaking. It's all totally obvious to even the most so-so college football fan. I hope the BCS gets raked over the coals for this by Congress but I fear they have just enough of a wall to hide behind to prevent this corruption from being toppled.

Another national story critical of the selection:



http://cougarfan.com/article.asp?ArtID=57683&URL=http://www.sportingnews.com/college-football/article/2009-12-06/boise-tcu-receive-second-class-citizen-treatment-again



Fiesta Bowl organizers hoped news of a TCU-Boise State pairing for their game would spark giddiness. Instead, it sparked an Internet-based nickname contest. The Out-of-Sight, Out-of-Mind Bowl ended up as a personal favorite. Mid-Major Super Bowl sounded like it could work, too. The Go-In-The-Corner-And-Play-Nice-While-the-Important-Teams-Play-Each-Other Bowl? Not sure that would fit on the cover of the game program.



...Let's try. First, there's a better matchup on the field -- the Fiesta passed on a Cincinnati-TCU game because Boise fans could get to Arizona more easily, Junker said. And look, there's got to be a better game in the marketplace. Although Junker said FOX executives expressed excitement over a TCU-Boise game, the teams earned a 3.7 rating for ESPN and drew just 34,628 fans when they went head-to-head last Dec. 23.



So as the Fiesta Bowl revels in selections, a nation full of fans prepares to not care again. Because it's David vs. David, at least perception-wise, come Jan. 4 in the desert. A postseason that should have celebrated less-popular powerhouses has started with another victory for the big boys.





Hey, that's my line you plagiarist!

the comments in that article were pretty good too.

I am not sure this has been brought up before. I think it has to do with Florida losing over the weekend. Nobody wants Tebow to end his carrer with 2 loses. No disrespect to Cincy but they dont have a defense like TCU. If Alabama loses I think you would have seen a Alabama/TCU matchup. It should be a fun matchup though against BSU, I would rather see them play BSU than Cincy.

Even some PAC-10 Oregon folks get it:



http://blog.oregonlive.com/pac10/2009/12/pac-10_football_the_bcs_is_hap.html



"As Chris Dufresne of the Los Angeles Times pointed out, had Texas missed that last-second field goal and lost the Big 12 Conference Championship game to Nebraska, Cincinnati of the Big East Conference would have vaulted past TCU of the Mountain West Conference and into the title game.



Why? Because the system, with its human and polls and computer ratings, is stacked against teams like TCU and BYU -- never mind that schools in the top tier of the Mountain West and Western Athletic Conferences seem to more than hold their own when given a chance.



No? Explain then the way Utah dismantled Alabama in last year's Sugar Bowl or Boise State's victory over Oregon in this season's opener.



Of course, Oregon is the poster child for why a team from a BCS conference never, ever should play a quality non-BCS conference team on the road. Take away that loss to Boise State, sub in a victory over, say, Idaho State, and the Ducks are possibly 11-1 and in the national championship conversation. What kind of system rewards the best teams for ducking the best competition?



I'll answer the question for you: A bad system.



Defenders of the status quo say that the TCU's, Boise State and Utahs don't do well in the computer rankings and polls because they play inferior schedules. Well, TCU did what it could. The Horned Fogs won games this season at Virginia and at Clemson. Already, that is a tougher nonconference schedule than either Alabama or Texas played.



It's time, past time, to open up the process, and allow the top 24 teams in the country into a playoff. Let's determine the national championship on the football field."



I wonder if this is a sign of things to come from the BcS: Don't schedule the good non-AQ teams (as shown in this years BcS) and then when BYU/TCU/Boise/Utes go undefeated point to their weak schedule...which they can't conveniently strengthen because the good BcS conference schools won't schedule them...bastardos.