Go Boise State

gmj81 wrote:

gmj81 wrote:
Rasta you usually are the level head on this board and I respect you for that, honestly I do. But even you have to acknowledge there is something fishy here. Given the order of picks and your exact statement about the bowl games only wanting to make money, there is no reason at all for the Fiesta to have taken both non-AQs. They won't even come close to making as much money as any of the other BCS bowls this year. They had to know that. And so they are either just taking one "for the team" or there is some kind of backroom revenue sharing that will take place between the BCS bowls.

I don't see what's fishy.



The Fiesta will make money. Both teams asked for more than their 17,500 allotment for the game (compare that to WVA a couple of years ago who had to return a few thousand tickets).



http://espn.go.com/blog/ncfnation/post/_/id/15348/fiesta-bowl-wasnt-looking-at-the-non-aq-distiction



The remaining 30,000 tickets are pretty much sold out. So the game will be a sellout and that's the biggest worry when it comes to bowl organizers.

From what I understand, TV ratings for the BCS and bigger bowls is first priority as they don't have to worry as much about selling enough tickets on an annual basis to stay afloat. Then ticket sales is also a consideration of course but not before TV ratings. For the smaller bowls like the LVB and Poinsettia, of course they have to worry more about selling enough tickets to keep their bowl game eligible.



The tickets may be sold out, but I'll be shocked if the stadium is full come January.

mormonrasta wrote:

They say all the right things, but this really does a disservice to the non-AQ programs. They are denied a chance to play against "better" competition such as AQ teams. If they don't pull big numbers, it will hurt the MWC's chance of getting an AQ bid.

Who exactly is this better competition that you speak of?



If TCU or BSU beats Iowa or Penn St., the conclusion is that the Big 10 is overrated again, and heaven forbid if Iowa beats TCU or BSU.



If TCU or BSU beats Florida, the conclusion is that Florida has SEC championship hangover, and heaven forbid if Florida beats TCU or BSU.



If TCU or BSU beats Georgia Tech, the conclusion is that the ACC stinks in BCS games, and heaven forbid if Georgia Tech beats TCU or BSU.



Honestly, aren't we done trying to prove ourselves to the so called "better" competition? Utah showed us in '04 that a nonBCS champ is as good as any BCS champ. BSU reaffirmed that in '06. Utah last year showed that that a nonBCS team could dominate. We ARE the better competition.



The only questions that remain are: 1. Can nonAQ teams actually carry a BCS bowl game for both attendance and tv instead of relying on a big name like Oklahoma or Alabama? That will be answered this year as we are finally taking the floaties off and swimming for ourselves. 2. Can a nonAQ team actually play in a national championship? We almost found that out this year, but we will have to wait for BYU to do it in two years. ;)

mormonrasta wrote:

Rasta you usually are the level head on this board and I respect you for that, honestly I do. But even you have to acknowledge there is something fishy here. Given the order of picks and your exact statement about the bowl games only wanting to make money, there is no reason at all for the Fiesta to have taken both non-AQs. They won't even come close to making as much money as any of the other BCS bowls this year. They had to know that. And so they are either just taking one "for the team" or there is some kind of backroom revenue sharing that will take place between the BCS bowls.

I don't see what's fishy.



The Fiesta will make money. Both teams asked for more than their 17,500 allotment for the game (compare that to WVA a couple of years ago who had to return a few thousand tickets).



http://espn.go.com/blog/ncfnation/post/_/id/15348/fiesta-bowl-wasnt-looking-at-the-non-aq-distiction



The remaining 30,000 tickets are pretty much sold out. So the game will be a sellout and that's the biggest worry when it comes to bowl organizers.

mormonrasta wrote:
Who exactly is this better competition that you speak of?



If TCU or BSU beats Iowa or Penn St., the conclusion is that the Big 10 is overrated again, and heaven forbid if Iowa beats TCU or BSU.



If TCU or BSU beats Florida, the conclusion is that Florida has SEC championship hangover, and heaven forbid if Florida beats TCU or BSU.



If TCU or BSU beats Georgia Tech, the conclusion is that the ACC stinks in BCS games, and heaven forbid if Georgia Tech beats TCU or BSU.



Honestly, aren't we done trying to prove ourselves to the so called "better" competition? Utah showed us in '04 that a nonBCS champ is as good as any BCS champ. BSU reaffirmed that in '06. Utah last year showed that that a nonBCS team could dominate. We ARE the better competition.



The only questions that remain are: 1. Can nonAQ teams actually carry a BCS bowl game for both attendance and tv instead of relying on a big name like Oklahoma or Alabama? That will be answered this year as we are finally taking the floaties off and swimming for ourselves. 2. Can a nonAQ team actually play in a national championship? We almost found that out this year, but we will have to wait for BYU to do it in two years. ;)

CougarPeasant wrote:

Who exactly is this better competition that you speak of?



If TCU or BSU beats Iowa or Penn St., the conclusion is that the Big 10 is overrated again, and heaven forbid if Iowa beats TCU or BSU.



If TCU or BSU beats Florida, the conclusion is that Florida has SEC championship hangover, and heaven forbid if Florida beats TCU or BSU.



If TCU or BSU beats Georgia Tech, the conclusion is that the ACC stinks in BCS games, and heaven forbid if Georgia Tech beats TCU or BSU.



Honestly, aren't we done trying to prove ourselves to the so called "better" competition? Utah showed us in '04 that a nonBCS champ is as good as any BCS champ. BSU reaffirmed that in '06. Utah last year showed that that a nonBCS team could dominate. We ARE the better competition.



The only questions that remain are: 1. Can nonAQ teams actually carry a BCS bowl game for both attendance and tv instead of relying on a big name like Oklahoma or Alabama? That will be answered this year as we are finally taking the floaties off and swimming for ourselves. 2. Can a nonAQ team actually play in a national championship? We almost found that out this year, but we will have to wait for BYU to do it in two years. ;)

I agree that the non-AQ programs have shown they can beat the AQ programs in BCS games, but the so-called experts keep harping about how they can't. That is why it's important for TCU and BSU to play AQ teams, not each other. Beating the big boys on the field of competition gets more respect. A better matchup would have been TCU vs. Cincinnati and BSU vs. Florida. As for the ACC problem of not winning, as long as they command an auto bid, I really don't think it bothers them like it does TCU or BSU since they don't have an autobid.

Schmoe wrote:
So, having some arbitrary group pick Bama and Texas to play in the championship game is better than having an eight team playoff featuring Bama, Texas, Cincy, GT, BSU, TCU, Oregon, and Texas?

mormonrasta wrote:
I'm not worried about pleasing the "so-called" experts. They will never be satisfied. No matter which BCS team TCU or BSU beat the excuses will fly by the "so-called" experts. Besides, even though they have a platform they don't have a vote. I am much more interested in changing coaches' opinions. Progress was made this year, but not enough (Patterson votes his team #2; Peterson votes his team #4).



The BCS teams in question don't have enough cred to advance the reputation of TCU or BSU anyway with the exception of Florida. But Florida isn't a conference champ and beating them would mean a 2 game losing streak for them. Meh.

kitic77 wrote:
Exactly. There were 25 non-AQ coaches with a vote in the poll. ALL 25 of them should have voted for Boise St and TCU #1 and #2 in some order. There is nothing Bama or Texas did that made them any more worthy of the top two spots than TCU and Boise. If the non-AQ coaches and schools really want to change things they can start by controlling what they can actually control - and what they can actually control are their votes. They should vote as an entire block.

crazycougar84601 wrote:

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.

/?xid=cnnbin#ixzz0Z3fsVZQU

Alphaleonis wrote:
Has a non AQ team playing in a BCS bowl ever lost? If not, this will be a first guaranteed this year.

Alphaleonis wrote:
Has a non AQ team playing in a BCS bowl ever lost?

Mars wrote:

Has a non AQ team playing in a BCS bowl ever lost?

If Boise State wins, the WAC is 2-1 (BSU being 2-0), the MWC is 2-1, and TCU=Hawaii.

westidahocougar wrote:
TCU is much better than Hawaii was and even if they lose to BSU by 35 they will not get the stigma of Hawaii because they lost to BSU. If they lost to Alabama or Texas, maybe, but the winner and loser of this game will not get what they deserve.