Why does everyone wring their hands over whether or not they make a "BCS Bowl"? It is so artificial. Winning the Sugar Bowl against Hawaii or beating a team like Wake Forest in the Orange Bowl means less to me than beating a solid team like Arizona State in the Holiday bowl. I guarantee you that Michigan would beat Hawaii 8 times out of 10. To me, the only thing that should matter is who you play in the bowl - not where you play them. I would always rather play someone like Florida, Penn State, Michigan, or Arkansas. I don't care if it is in the Alamo Bowl. Am I supposed to feel excited about playing a team like South Florida just because it is a "BCS Bowl"? Unless it is the MNC game, the name of the bowl is meaningless. The only possible exception to me would be the Rose Bowl. Congrats! You're in a BCS Bowl. You GET to play Boise State! Give me a break. This sucks. We need a playoff.
the big deal is the money. The BCS bowls each pay out more than 10 million more than the next closest bowl pays out.
Yep. We need a playoff and we could use the BCS to do it. Sorry, but I need to get back to Hawaii & Georgia.
You're reaching, Lazy; the goal is MNC, then B12C, then BCS. The rules were written before the season began, and according to this site, Texas had the second easiest road among BCS conference teams to get there (ahead of only Kansas, LOL). I've been reading this site from a distance for a while now, and it seems the fanbase was largely unhappy with the regular season, so I just don't see how you can defend this "sour grapes" argument. Trust me, I hate UGA more than anybody, but they were a more solid team this year than Texas, Tenn, or ASU; they earned it, and now they're enjoying it. Both the UT's had our chances, multiple times, and blew it. Props to the Horns and coaching staff for showing up for the bowl and taking it to ASU, but I don't see how you can say that this season didn't leave a lot to be desired, and that at the beginning of the season you wouldn't have traded a Holiday Bowl berth against a "worthy" team like ASU for a BCS bowl against Hawaii in a second.
I'm not bothered that we have a select few games that pay out more than other games. I understand these should be the marquee games. I agree with the posters that bash this current system. I believe it truly went to **** when the BCS added a 5th game, thereby almost ensuring horrible matchups, at least with the manner that the teams are currently selected. Just think about it, there are 4 key BCS games and a title game. There are legitimately 6 - 8 solid, BCS conferences with conference champions. In each year, you will probably have at least two down conferences. You'll also have the two best teams (or close to best teams) playing in your title game. Of the remaining 4 games outside the title game, you've separated the conference champions to play against at-large teams. These generally pit strong teams against less strong teams. Assuming that the title teams will come from power conferences, you'll likely see bowl games that are intended to be solid matchups, turn into mismatches. We haven't designed a system where the best teams play the best teams, we've designed a system where a) the two most successful teams play in the title game b) an at-large and mid-major team get waxed (unless they play OU), and c) we get the potential for one solid game. Year after year though, we get a majority of blowouts, and a couple solid games. Even when the BCS has had a chance to get interesting matchups (this year with OU vs. Va Tech) they've voted to stay with the horrible matchups and blowouts. Insanely stupid system. Weird.
The only reason a Tennessee fan would be happier playing Hawaii in the Sugar Bowl over a solid Wisconsin team in the Outback bowl is because we have been conditioned by the BCS powers that be to believe their crap. Honestly, I have felt this way for years. On the one hand we as fans are told that the BCS is the true measure of success. But then they limit conferences to only having two representatives, allow crappy mid-major schools into the mix, and allow in terrible undeserving Notre Dame teams. To top it off, they don't even attempt to match up 3 vs 4, 5 vs 6 and so on. They keep a facade of the old system allowing Illinois to play USC. They want to be able to have their cake and eat it too. This year, they even added another BCS bowl, so teams that would have been playing in the Outback, Capitol One, Cotton, or Holiday bowl in years past are now playing in a "BCS Bowl". Should the last team into the BCS this year feel any prouder about this "accomplishment" than any team that has played in a Jan 1 bowl in the last few years? It is a sham.
The sooner beat me to it. FWIW - I didn't even mention the fantastic Utah vs. Pittsburgh Fiesta Bowl of a few years ago. What a dream matchup that was.
AstroVol, This isn't a "sour grapes" argument. It is a legitimate question. The BCS is a farce overall. Pretty much every aspect of it is a farce. There is no real reason to even care about it. There are some positives though. We get a #1 v #2, even though it is not always right. We also get to play match-ups that never would have happened otherwise. The money IS a big deal, but not to bigger conferences that split bowl money. The SEC, Big 10, Big 12, etc...all got two in so they maxed their money anyway. The reason these bowls pay more is because of the BCS TV contract though. I agree 100% that I would have rather played Arizona St this year than South Florida or Hawaii. Of course, I would have preferred it to be in the BCS with a lot more on the line, but The Holiday Bowl is a good bowl.
The BCS is a farce, but it's what we have and it's still the goal. Teams like Tennessee and Texas do not start the season with goals of reaching the Holiday/Outback bowl. I'm only arguing that it's always better to play in a BCS bowl than a non-BCS bowl for a variety of reasons other than just the money...recruiting, players are up, national stage, etc. Sure, wins over ASU or Wisconsin are more impressive than Hawaii, but you can't tell me you wouldn't rather have played in a BCS bowl...THAT argument reeks of sour grapes.
From a business perspective, it matters. From a fan's perspective it only means that your game is likely not on a holiday.
It may be true that in a perfect world, the BCS is a farce. But it is light years ahead of the old system. I don't know who the number 2 team in the country was at the end of the '77 regular season, but that is the team we should have lined up against in the Cotton Bowl. Four or five (or six or seven) years ago I watched a reply of the '78 Cotton Bowl. Holy crap, talk about a team loaded with future NFL stars. We ran into a buzz saw that day. Some more sour grapes. 1983. We should have been playing Nebraska. But under the old system of bowl/conference allegiances, we wound up playing Georgia. Everyone assumed Nebraska would beat Miami and that our undefeated season would be for naught. To this day I remain convinced that the psychology of our players was affected by the knowledge that through no fault of their own they would never get the chance to prove they were the best team in the nation, even though they were undefeated. Fast forward to 2005. Under the old system, we don't get the chance to play USC. Again, the BCS may have its warts, but it is still an improvement.
Exactly Napolean. The only thing the team gets from going to a BCS Bowl is better exposure and a little better gift bag. Unless, of course, only one team from your conference goes, then you are missing out on the other $15 mil. However, even though I agree with AstroVol in the fact that I would rather play in one than not, Texas benefits as much this year with OU & Kansas in the BCS as it did in 2004/2005 when we played Michigan. However, I still think the LazyEngineer was just stating that, for all the hype, the match-ups are generally worse than "second tier" bowls.
The BCS Bowls pit the teams with better standings against one another. It really isn't so complicated to see why playing in a BCS game is better than not playing in one unless you don't want to see it. You could apply the same logic to winning/losing if you wanted. Why is winning better than losing. It really isn't unless you enjoy success.
The teams playing in BCS bowls are ranked higher than those who are not playing in BCS bowls. Therefore, BCS bowls are more prestigious than non-BCS bowls. Of course, we're always talking AVERAGES here, because thats the only thing that matters, not the a comparison of game #1 vs game #2 For all those who think it doesnt matter, would you prefer the team next year set a goal of playing in the Cotton or Holiday Bowl rather than a BCS bowl, without knowing who your opponent is going to be?
The people arguing against Lazyengineer are missing his point. Sure we wanted to be in a BCS bowl, because that is the best bowl to go to. The money is irrelevant to the specific school, because the money is split. The thing is which would you rather watch Texas vs. Hawaii or Texas vs. ASU if the name of the bowl is omitted? The two BCS bowls so far have been the worst match-ups of the bowl season, and I hold zero hope for the next two to be any better. It is a sham that we are force fed. Gotta protect the integrity of these 40-10 blowouts. GIVE ME A PLAYOFF!!!!
the BCS may be really bad, but its no worse than having USC play whatever scrub the Big 10 produces for the Rose Bowl and then having them declared the Naitonal Champion without any competition or having to play, say, a Texas team who was given no shot to win and won by a field goal. the BCS sucks, but it does preoduce sweet matchups, kmaybe not this year as much, but it has provided us with some amazing games, i.e. Ohio State-Miami, Boise State-Oklahoma (who would have never been given a shot to play) and many others. making a BCS bowl proves you as either a conference champion, obivously more significant for SEC/Big 12/Pac 10 than others, or if youre not the conference champ it gives you an opportunity to get in at-large as one of the most highly respected schools in the nation. making a BCS game is VERY important
I would love to see OU play Va Tech and USC play Georgia. Those would have been big time matchups. Instead we spread out those 4 teams against 4 patsies. What is the point. Not saying that it shouldnt be the goal every year to get to the BCS just saying the BCS' goal should be to get the best matchups in as many bowls as possible.
My problem with the post-expansion BCS is that it has consistently produced horrible games that I turn off before or during half-time, particularly since the expansion. Other than Boise State/OU, all of the other post-expansion BCS games have been utter ****. 2008 Rose (USC 49 Illinois 17) 2008 Sugar (Georgia 41 Hawaii 10) 2007 Rose (USC 32 Michigan 18) 2007 Orange (Louisville 24 Wake Forest 13) 2007 Sugar (LSU 41 Notre Dame 14) 2007 MNC (Florida 41 Ohio State 14)
