NCAA 2009

[PDH]

I think it's a reasonable matchup just considering the game on the field, but I also have a very strong feeling that the sentiment that this came about in an attempt to make sure that a team from a BCS AQ conference didn't lose to a team from a "lesser" conference is correct.

This is the perception, reality aside it appears once again as if the BCS was embarassed last year (and three years ago), and wants the upstarts to not beat one of the "name" conference teams.  Neither Boisie nor TCU are like Hawaii 2 years ago, both could win against most any team.  The shitstorm from last year made this happen.

[MadBurgerMaker]

Go visit him sometime.  Lubbock is something everyone must see before they die.

The one thing I always noticed against the background noise that is Lubbock is the giant wind turbine sitting in what appears to be someones backyard.  It looks like a residential neighborhood, etc, and it's all by itself, instead of a part of a wind farm and all that.  I've only seen it from the highway though, never up close. 

*househousehousehouse150foottallwindmillhousehousehousehouse*

[Valmy]

I don't think they're any better than Texas. All I was pointing out is that they may have made the title game pre-modifed BCS, when the computer rankings were more significant. I don't think Texas deserved any no.1 votes, though, but I wouldn't have necessarily put Cincy over Texas, either. There's no doubt, IMO, Alabama is 1, especially if you view the poll as an objective measure of a team's quality right now as opposed to "body of work" or similar metric. I think Texas objectively speaking is better than Cincy, but I am not sure about TCU- haven't watched anything more than highlights from them. Under a body of work type ranking, though, Cincy should be ranked higher than Texas, IMO. TCU would have a good argument against Texas also.

As I said I think the people who voted Texas #1 already had them #1 and didn't change it out of laziness.  They had Texas ranked #1 before and Texas won so they didn't move them down.  I am not sure what you are getting at with the body of work thing...I mean Texas, Cincy, and TCU all went unbeaten and Texas had the highest ranked strength of schedule...but in the end if any of those teams had been picked I wouldn't have much arguement.  They all went out and won their games.  If you are hammering Texas for having a couple close games...well I would point out Bama had their own struggles this year also with teams who played great defense.  TCU beat Airforce 20-17...

The one thing that impressed me about Cincy compared to Texas is that they won on the road in harsh conditions against a balanced team. Nebraska may have a good defense, but their offense is horrendous, and Texas basically won by virtue of the fact that Nebraska's kicker fucked up the kickoff. Plus, Texas was playing in "neutral" site, in a dome, which is typically not too upset friendly. Still, as you point out, Cincy wasn't exactly dominating. Their last two games, their defense has been pretty porous, and they made of mistakes. If the teams met, I think Texas would probably beat Cincy, and Cincy would be a huge dog against Alabama as well. It will be intereresting to see what happens in the bowls.

Well many many teams with terrible offenses and great defenses have won big games over the years.  Nebraska's kicker might have fucked up the kick off but I have to say I never doubted for a second Colt McCoy was going to get them down and win it some sort of way.  But I guess we will never know exactly how that would have played out.

One of the crappier side effects of the latest incarnation of the BCS is that it produces crappy bowl matchups, especially now that there are 10(!) BCS bowl teams. That's definitely spreading the quality teams way too thinly.

Um....what?  The older incarnation of the BCS had the same bad match-ups.  The bad match-ups are usually caused by unexciting conference champs like Georgia Tech who would have gone anyway...of course I love Georgia Tech and their wishbone so I will be checking them out.

As for the Fiesta Bowl, I think it's a relatively interesting matchup, and I disagree with "kids table" characterization. I think it's compelling because both teams are clearly very good- one is ranked 4th and the other is 6th. If I was TCU, I'd much rather play Boise State than 10th ranked Iowa, which was the other possibility. And even though it's a re-match, both teams are better than they were last year, and it's a bigger stage. The ratings probably won't be that great, but honestly, would having Iowa play instead of Boise State really have made a difference?

Are you nuts?  Do you have any idea what those programs are struggling against?  Of course they want to kick the crap out of Iowa instead of being forced to eat their own in that circumstance.

[Valmy]

By the way here were the four coaches who voted Texas #1:

Tim Brewster (Minnesota)
Bo Pelini (Nebraska)
Mark Dantonio (Michigan State)
Robb Akey (Idaho)

Yeah I don't see what is strategic about that.  Idaho was trying to stick it to Boise State though obviously .  Besides Idaho and Bo Pelini trying to make himself feel better...or conference loyalty...or something I think it was just laziness.

The following dudes voted Texas #3:

Brian Kelly (Cincy)
Jim Leavitt (USF)
Kevin Sumlin (UH)
Troy Calhoun (Air Force)
Gary Patterson (TCU)
Greg Schiano (Rutgers)
Stan Parrish (Ball State)
Mike Sanford (Nevada)
Ken Niumatalolo (Navy)

And ULM voted them #4 clearly thinking a truly great team would have beaten them by 40 instead of 39.

[Valmy]

Les Miles voted Cincy #8 for some bizarre reason.  Chris Peterson voted Bama, Texas, and TCU ahead of his team.  I know a coach should strive for objectivity...but wow.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/football/2009-final-coaches-ballots.htm?loc=interstitialskip

[Ed Anger]

Looking over the minor bowls, I see Texas Tech vs Sparty. Sparty is going to get raped.

I love Mike Leach. ARGH.

[stjaba]

I think it's a reasonable matchup just considering the game on the field, but I also have a very strong feeling that the sentiment that this came about in an attempt to make sure that a team from a BCS AQ conference didn't lose to a team from a "lesser" conference is correct.

I could believe that if the BCS committee made the pairings, but that isn't the case. The individual bowl committees have the power to pick who they want. The only limitation is that the bowls essentially "draft" the teams. One factor that makes it a little more screwed up is that IMO the other bowls are deferential to the Rose Bowl and let them get the traditional Pac-10-Big 10 matchup.

The bowl committees's priorities are to create an interesting matchup for tv, and to provide a sellout. The Fiesta Bowl organizers probably really don't care about the BCS-non-AQ distinction per se. Which is why 2 loss Ohio State was picked last year over undefeated Boise State- it wasn't because of OSU's conference affiliation, it was because having Ohio State in the game would generate far more interest than Boise State. This year, the decision was basically between Boise State/TCU or Iowa, and they decided that Boise State-TCU was a more interesting matchup.

From SI.com:

I never thought I'd say this, but it seems the BCS suddenly has more respect for non-BCS teams than much of the general public.

From the time word of the potential TCU-Boise State Fiesta Bowl matchup first leaked Saturday right up through Sunday's official announcement, the response from Twitter Nation, e-mailers and my fellow media members has been almost universally negative. It seems most of you feel the Fiesta did these teams an injustice by not allowing them to "prove themselves" against BCS-conference foes.

Have you guys not looked at the latest rankings? TCU is fourth. Boise State is sixth. Both are undefeated. Why would they better prove themselves by beating their originally projected opponents, Georgia Tech and Iowa -- both of which are lower ranked and sport two losses apiece -- than by beating each other?

"Anybody that says these teams should be playing teams from a 'bigger conference' are doing a disservice to these programs," a very defensive Fiesta Bowl CEO John Junker said Sunday night. "If we're going to say these programs are on same level as others, then we shouldn't be making any distinction about who they play other than the ranking of their opponent.

"Maybe its time for people to think outside the box a little bit."

The only disservice the Fiesta Bowl did was pass up an even more compelling matchup: No. 3 Cincinnati vs. No. 4 TCU. Junker, who made a big deal in his comments about the historical significance of pitting two undefeated teams, said his game passed on the Bearcats for geographical reasons.

"Boise is almost 1,000 miles closer to our game [than Cincinnati], and while we didn't consult the Sugar Bowl, but just accessing MapQuest, Cincinnati is about 1,000 miles closer to New Orleans."

The greatest irony is this: Fans have long complained about bowls passing up teams like TCU and Boise for less-deserving "brand-name" schools with larger fan followings. Just last year, the Fiesta selected 10-2 Ohio State over 12-0 Boise and reaped a huge TV rating for it.

In this case, the Fiesta had full opportunity to take Iowa and a likely horde of 40,000 followers as its replacement pick for Texas, yet voluntarily chose higher-ranked TCU, knowing full the Hawkeyes would not still be available once the Orange Bowl selected next -- and now the bowl is taking heat for that.

As for the conspiracy theories that BCS officials pressured the Fiesta to go all-mid major to appease the commissioners, Orrin Hatch or anybody else, Junker had a pretty blunt response: "I'll try to be nice about this, but that's the biggest load of crap I've ever heard in my life."

[Valmy]

"Anybody that says these teams should be playing teams from a 'bigger conference' are doing a disservice to these programs," a very defensive Fiesta Bowl CEO John Junker said Sunday night. "If we're going to say these programs are on same level as others, then we shouldn't be making any distinction about who they play other than the ranking of their opponent."

If we were going to say those programs were on the same level as others their conferences would have automatic bids...

Anyway the Fiesta Bowl always has had a bit of a maverick streak about it in how it picks its teams.

[Berkut]

"Anybody that says these teams should be playing teams from a 'bigger conference' are doing a disservice to these programs," a very defensive Fiesta Bowl CEO John Junker said Sunday night. "If we're going to say these programs are on same level as others, then we shouldn't be making any distinction about who they play other than the ranking of their opponent."

If we were going to say those programs were on the same level as others their conferences would have automatic bids...

Saying the programs are on the same level is not at all saying the conferences are.

Boise State would have 3 losses if they played in the Pac-10.

[Eddie Teach]

Saying the programs are on the same level is not at all saying the conferences are.

Boise State would have 3 losses if they played in the Pac-10.

Oregon managed to scrape by with 1 conference loss.

[Berkut]

Saying the programs are on the same level is not at all saying the conferences are.

Boise State would have 3 losses if they played in the Pac-10.

Oregon managed to scrape by with 1 conference loss.

Indeed, they are quite good. That being said, they were two plays away from losing two more games, at least.

And Oregon would crush Boise State right now.

[Valmy]

I have been assured that Alabama is being sabotaged by Mack Brown's man on the inside:

[FunkMonk]

 

[Valmy]

Texas fan in the Marines gunned down during arguement over the Big XII title game:

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=4723697

Ironically he was from Sinton.

[Ed Anger]

he got synergized.