The TCU/Boise State Problem
For all your BCS related questions, click here.
For the next month, football will dominate water cooler and cocktail chatter. A lot of that talk will center around the BCS games. This year’s slate of BCS bowl games features Ohio State and Oregon in the Rose Bowl, Georgia Tech and Iowa in the Orange Bowl, Florida and Cincinnati in the Sugar Bowl, Boise State and TCU in the Fiesta Bowl and Alabama and Texas squaring off in the BCS National Championship Game. While Alabama and Texas will play for title, the Fiesta Bowl match-up of TCU/Boise State seems to be generating the most discussion.
Both teams enter the game undefeated and ranked in the top 10. The two teams faced each other last season in the Poinsettia Bowl, which turned out to one of the most exciting games of the 2008-2009 season. By all indications, this will be one hell of a game. However, most Fiesta Bowl talk focuses on the controversy rather than the game itself.
Both teams play in non-automatic qualifying conferences and both had much bigger aspirations heading into the BCS selection. As members of the non-automatic qualifying conferences, the knock against both TCU and Boise State is that they lack the strength of schedule of the teams from the six BCS affiliated conferences. Never mind the fact the Boise State posted a dominating victory over Oregon, who plays in BCS bowl game this season, and TCU posted three wins over three top 25 teams.
TCU and Boise argue that they are willing to play any team, any time, any where, but many traditional powers refuse to play them for fear of losing. They felt that the in the BCS they would be afforded the opportunity to play one of the traditional powers, at a neutral site, in a prime-time, made for national television environment. TCU even had faint hopes that they could be selected to play for the national title, but at worst given a shot to play Florida, Georgia Tech or Iowa. Instead, TCU and Boise State were paired together–two non-automatic qualifiers squaring off in a meaningless game.
It reminds me of jobs where they require you to have experience before applying, but there is no way to get the experience when all the related jobs require experience. For example, in order for an actor to make a living, he or she must be a member of Actors’ Equity Association. Almost all professional theaters in the United States are Equity affiliated and you must be a member of the union in order to perform. In order to join the union, you must have performances in Equity houses under your belt. Of course, there are exceptions to these rules, just like TCU and Boise State are the exceptions in the BCS, but in most cases the rule apply.
In order for schools like TCU and Boise to prove that they are worthy of BCS bids and legitimate national title contenders they need to prove themselves against BCS schools. The BCS denied this opportunity to these two schools out of fear of the BCS affiliated schools being embarrassed by the non-automatic qualifiers.
Some experts feel that TCU and Boise State deserve each other. Colin Cowherd, one of ESPN’s generic radio personalities, made the statement on his Monday program that TCU and Boise State should be happy to just be invited to the BCS, that TCU had “cankles” and didn’t deserve a big time BCS bowl game because they didn’t sell out all of their home games.
This is obviously flawed logic. A team’s fan support is not an indicator of the quality of their program. If we extended this logic to the NFL then the New Orleans Saints and Minnesota Vikings, the top two teams in the NFC, should not be allowed the right to play in the Super Bowl even if they win the NFC. Both the Saints and Vikings are small market teams and have had trouble selling out home games over the years. Indeed, the Vikings feared they would have to blackout home games this season until they signed Brett Favre.
The BCS fears schools like TCU and Boise State having success, because the more success these programs have, the more irrelevant the BCS becomes.
Great minds think alike! you should check out the post on my blog!
Have to agree with Cowherd. Nothing on the field will change the BCS, and neither of these teams have “dominated” their competition against BCS foes, give me a break. BSU gets crushed if they play Oregon now (so what if they win the first game of the season? Since when is that a barometer for greatness? BSU has barely escaped lesser competition) TCU barely
escaped Clemson. These teams aren’t worthy
of a NC game and should be happy with what
they have.
Who says you have to “dominate” your competition to qualify for the BCS?
Who defines what “dominate” means?
Did Texas dominate Oklahoma or Nebraska?
Face it, the BCS is about MONEY, which is fine. I’m all about business and making more money. However, if you’re going to make it about money DO NOT call it a national title game when you exclude over half of the field from the beginning. Also, how about giving the players a cut of the money you generate from the games since they are the ones actually earning it. I believe this is what they call the “plantation mindset.”
Robert, you don’t get the point I was trying to make. By putting TCU and Boise St in the same bowl we don’t get to find out if they could play with the big boys. According to the rules of the BCS games they setup with the Bowls the matchups should have been Cincy against Georgia Tech, TCU against Florida, and Boise St against either Iowa or Oregon St. But can you imagine what would have happened if TCU, Boise St, and Cincy all won in this scenario. The uproar would have been trememdous. They didn’t want to take this chance and that is why they put TCU and Boise St in the same bowl.
Bat99, you hit the nail on the head exactly! The detractors say TCU and Boise St. don’t deserve a shot because they don’t play anyone. Well, a lot of schools don’t want to play them during the regular season and they depend upon the BCS to give them that opportunity. However, the “underdogs” beat the “big dogs” then the BCS would lose relevancy and a playoff system would become much more viable.
bat99 and geoausch:
no, i get the points you guys are trying to make. it’s just that you don’t get the BCS. ask brad edwards of espn his opinion. you know what he says? hint: jerry palm says the same thing.
“the one thing that will not change the BCS is anything that takes place on the field.”
that’s it, simple, cut and plain. you’re arguing simple arguments, which teams like utah, tcu and boise have helped validify. yes, they are quality teams. yes, they can beat anyone, anyday of the weak. but they obviously have so much more to prove, and you can’t possibly tell me Alabama has as much to prove in the Sugar Bowl as Utah does.
i get that you guys are looking for “teams to get their shot.” everyone likes an underdog (except the economy, which will generate more money from the Sugar, Rose and NC BCS bowls). But the argument is futile, no matter how much you argue it. nothing on the field ever changes the BCS. the only thing that can change it is fans not watching the games. you’re just as much a part of the system when you ascribe to the arguments you’ve written, and it’s why i’m on this blog calling you out. you guys are searching for affirmation, not information.
Robert, I argued that very point on this blog last year prior to the BCS selection, after OU “won” the Big 12 South by virtue of having a better BCS ranking than Texas. Even though they had the same record and Texas had beaten them on the field earlier in the season.
Here’s a link to that post or simply search “BCS” on my site: http://geoausch.com/2008/12/02/197/
This is what I wrote in the conclusion:
“The only way to change the system is to beat the system. The way to beat the system is to impact the revenue of the current system. If Oklahoma wins, as expected, on Saturday and the BCS invites them to their national title game, I call on each and everyone of you to boycott the BCS totally. Do not watch any of the BCS games on TV. Do not attend any of the BCS games in person. Write Fox, the NCAA and all the sponsors (I will try and provide a list) and tell them why you are not watching the BCS and what you expect in the future.”
I still stand by those remarks, to change the system, you have to beat the system. This does not mean I have to root against TCU and Boise getting a “fair” shot.
Well, I appreciate that candor at least, but I’m going to root against Boise this year due to the one-game season they’ve played. I do not think that merits BCS recognition, or that it should. Fair is holding people accountable to a quality slate, and it’s why Texas didn’t deserve the national chamionship last year. Play somebody. It’s why, despite the head-to-head, I’d vote Oregon ahead of Boise. Boise had a better game, sure, but Oregon had a better season. Same goes for OU and UT last year. Eventually, the BCS gets it right. Apparently it takes more time to do that this year.
the worst thing that could happen for tcu or boise would be to make the national championship. they’re nice teams to root for, but reality does not exist in dreaming.
One other thing about this post – since when do those teams NOT get respect? I’m entirely with Cowherd. I’m rooting for reality.
Also, Kellen Moore’s going to be exposed because he can’t create outside a pocket. He might be the most overhyped player in any sport ever. And Andy Dalton is probably better but gets less credit. It’s simply amazing how year to year BSU is the most overrated team in the nation. I wish people would watch the games. There’s a reason the computers don’t like them.
There are several teams out there more “overrated” than BSU or TCU. Two of them are in other BCS game–Ohio State and Iowa.
The Rose Bowl takes a bad system, the BCS, and makes it worse. By matching the Pac-10/Big 10 winner you automatically take one BCS game out of contention. The BCS is about finding the best college football teams in the country, not about tradition.
Just think, if not for the Rose Bowl, we could have seen a possible Boise/Ohio St. game or TCU/Oregon. That would have been a lot better than this current mess.
Robert, I love how you think you and Cowherd have this figured out. You can’t have reality because the system is flawed. If BSU is always overrated, then how come they win their bowl game every year, except last year against TCU where they lost by one point. I have thought Cincy has been a tad overrated, but we will see. How can you say these teams get respect? If any of these teams had had just one lost they would be playing in Shrevport or Memphis. Florida, UT, Alabama, Ohio St can have one loss and still be playing in a BCS game, or in the case of Iowa 2 losses. If you have to go undefeated to make it to a BCS game then you have no respect. I don’t care what Cowherd says TCU could beat Alabama, UT, or Florida on any day and not just once out of 10. Now could TCU go thru the SEC or Big XII undefeated, probably not, because they don’t have the depth of the big schools but their top 30 players can compete with any other school in the country.
Also, TCU has great coaching. Gary Patterson is as good of a coach as anyone in the country. His creativity is what sets him apart. He drafts high schools running backs no one wants and turns them into defensive ends and linebackers.
I love how people dismiss TCU as some tradiitional light weight school. They have produced three NFL hall of famers and LT will be number four whenever he decides to retire. That’s more than Florida, Cincy and Iowa.