BCS

rockymtn devil · Post by **rockymtn devil** » December 6th, 2009, 10:33 pm

This may belong in the Stadium, so please move if so.

The BCS Games are as follows:

BCS (not national) Title: Texas-Alabama: in a seriously anti-climatic season, this is exactly what we've all expected since August. Very disappointed that this is the game and, to be honest, it will probably mark the second straight season that I don't watch the BCS title game (and I watch all college football).

Rose Bowl: Ohio State-Oregon: I'm a Buckeye, so this is a game I'll definitely watch. But, it's also very exciting that OSU is back in the Rose Bowl. Growing up (pre-BCS, when the B10/Pac-10 were excluded from the national title picture), all we cared about was going to the Rose Bowl. It's been 13 seasons since Ohio State was last there. This is probably the best of the non-title game matchups. Great defense against great offense.

Sugar Bowl: Cincinnati-Florida. Snooze. As long as the Gators can get over the post-SEC title game loss swoon, they'll cruise here. Bearcats are fun to watch, and their offense is great. But oh that defense. The best story line in this game is that it pits the coach Notre Dame wants (Urban Meyer) against the coach Notre Dame will get (Brian Kelly).

Orange Bowl: Iowa-Georgia Tech. Double snooze. This may actually be a good game (I think Iowa will win), but it doesn't feel like a BCS game. It like the Gator Bowl.

Fiesta Bowl: Boise State-Texas Christian: This should be a ratings winner and a fun game. And it should be viewed as a triumph in that it includes two non-BCS conference teams. But doesn't it feel like a scam? The BCS--and not the small conferences--is the big winner in this game. The BCS gets to point to the 2010 Fiesta Bowl and say "see, we give the small guys a chance...two of them in fact!", while also avoiding actually pitting the small guys against a big boy that they might beat. The BCS would've had a tough time justifying TCU beating Florida, a year after Utah beat Alabama, with both teams finishing 13-0 and not getting to sniff the national title. Luckily they get to avoid that situation by making the small teams play each other.

colchar · Post by **colchar** » December 6th, 2009, 11:30 pm

At least the title game is legit this year - for a change!

ArkieDukie · Post by **ArkieDukie** » December 6th, 2009, 11:39 pm

Alabama should definitely be there, but I don't think Texas deserves to be in the title game. The Big 12 conference refs helped them win against Nebraska so that a Big 12 team would be in the title game. TCU or Cincy should've been in the title game in place of the Horns.

Is it just me, or have the refs been really bad this year about helping the teams that are "supposed" to win? I can think of several games just off the top of my head where this has been the case. (Duke-Miami, Arkansas-Florida, Georgia-LSU, Texas-Nebraska). Bet the rest of you can come up with others.

Lavabe · Post by **Lavabe** » December 7th, 2009, 9:42 am

ArkieDukie wrote:Is it just me, or have the refs been really bad this year about helping the teams that are "supposed" to win? I can think of several games just off the top of my head where this has been the case. (Duke-Miami, Arkansas-Florida, Georgia-LSU, Texas-Nebraska). Bet the rest of you can come up with others.

No offense Arkie, but you fail to remember that Arkansas' coach is "supposed" to lose... in every single game, if possible. Ask anyone who experienced his 3/4er year as Atlanta Failcons coach.

captmojo · Post by **captmojo** » December 7th, 2009, 10:44 am

Five unbeatens show the need for a playoff system.
Let the two lesser unbeatens fight it out for a four team playoff.
RMt tells it true but I do believe GaT will will over Ioway.

colchar · Post by **colchar** » December 7th, 2009, 11:43 am

ArkieDukie wrote:Alabama should definitely be there, but I don't think Texas deserves to be in the title game. The Big 12 conference refs helped them win against Nebraska so that a Big 12 team would be in the title game. TCU or Cincy should've been in the title game in place of the Horns.

True, but TCU or Cincy being there would've been a complete joke as neither team is anywhere close to being good enough to be in the title game.

rockymtn devil · Post by **rockymtn devil** » December 15th, 2009, 9:34 pm

colchar wrote:
ArkieDukie wrote:Alabama should definitely be there, but I don't think Texas deserves to be in the title game. The Big 12 conference refs helped them win against Nebraska so that a Big 12 team would be in the title game. TCU or Cincy should've been in the title game in place of the Horns.

True, but TCU or Cincy being there would've been a complete joke as neither team is anywhere close to being good enough to be in the title game.

I'm not so sure about that. Each of the "other" 3 (TCU, Cincy and Boise State) notched wins better than any win on Texas' schedule.

The Horns best win was over either Nebraska (currently ranked #20, 9-4) or Oklahoma State (currently ranked #21, 9-3).

TCU's best wins were BYU (currently ranked #15, 10-2), Utah (currently ranked #23, 9-3) or at Clemson (currently unranked, but ranked much of the season until losing the ACC title game).

Cincinnati won at Oregon State (currently ranked #16, 8-4), beat West Virginia (currently ranked #18, 9-3), and won at Pitt (currently ranked #17, 9-3)

Boise State thumped Oregon (currently ranked #7, 10-2, Pac-10 champions).

Further, I'll go with the eye-test. Living in Big 12 and Mountain West country, I saw just about every game played by both Texas and TCU. The Horned Frogs looked better than the Longhorns week in and week out. Texas simply had the built in advantage of starting the season ranked #2. Cincy and BSU don't necessarily beat Texas to the eye, but they each have more impressive victories on the season.

It's also worth noting that TCU and Texas were in the same conference until 1996.

BCS

BCS

Re: BCS

Re: BCS

Re: BCS

Re: BCS

Re: BCS

Re: BCS