Jan 2nd - To avoid other readers from getting off track from the point I'm making - I am correcting two errors. One, my addition of "Tech" instead of just saying Texas - stupid error - thanks to Chris for pointing it out in a nice way. Now, I'm going to take that "Tech" word and add it to "Georgia". Maybe I was in a rush in posting this and didn't get the details down pat, maybe I was listening to Ray Charles and Georgia was on my mind - who knows... oh, a 3rd one .. Iowa ended up ranked #10, not #8.
I don't follow college football real closely, but I do take notice of the rankings and bowl game matchups and final games. Is there anyone other than me who thinks some bigwigs tied to the "traditional" schools were responsible for TCU and Boise St getting matched up? Am I missing something because I don't follow it closely enough? Here's what I can see after a glance at bowl game rules:
1) Sugar Bowl - losing the Southwest Conference champ (ranked#1 in the nation) to the title game, they get first pick of a replacement qualifying team not already committed to another bowl. They pick Florida, ranked #5 and second in the Southwest - can't argue that.
2) Fiesta Bowl - losing the #2 ranked team Texas to the title game, they choose #3 TCU as their replacement. Again - good choice, picking the next top rated available team.
Here's where it gets interesting:
3) Orange Bowl - Atlantic Coast champ Georgia Tech (#9) is a commitment. This year, the Orange Bowl has first pick for the 2nd team. They choose..... #10 Iowa? I didn't know there would be such a strong interest in Georgia vs Iowa.. hmm.. anyways, on we go..
4) The Fiesta Bowl has next pick for 2nd team. So far they have a top ranked team, but from a non-major conference whose schedule is questioned (although they totally wiped out two teams ranked #16 at the time of the games). Wouldn't it be interesting to see them play.. oh, maybe #4 Cincinnati and see them against a "legitimate" powerhouse? No, let's pick #6 Boise, another undefeated team whose schedule is in question (no fault of their own I hear, as major teams don't want to put them on their schedule in place of cannon fodder games). So no matter what happens in this game, it will be "yeah, but they are two teams with questionable schedules". I have no idea if the Fiesta guys really picked Boise St, thinking if it was a good idea, or if there were "adjustments" made (see below on more rules).
The Sugar Bowl has next pick, but the damage is done. I would have liked to see TCU and Boise get matched up with Florida or Cinncinatti - maybe I'm alone in that thought. At the end of the selection rules, there is a part in there where some committee can change the pairings based on things like "have they been matched before" or "interest in the game". Certainly Florida/Cinncinatti will be very interesting, but you've all but thrown #3 TCU out the window in the final rankings.
Everyone will have a different opinion of matchups, but this just seemed to make no sense to me - brag they can qualify for a BCS matchup if they earn it, but don't give them the challenge they've earned by putting them against someone they can be legitimately measured against to see where they really stand. Just my opinion.
I don't follow college football real closely, but I do take notice of the rankings and bowl game matchups and final games. Is there anyone other than me who thinks some bigwigs tied to the "traditional" schools were responsible for TCU and Boise St getting matched up? Am I missing something because I don't follow it closely enough? Here's what I can see after a glance at bowl game rules:
1) Sugar Bowl - losing the Southwest Conference champ (ranked#1 in the nation) to the title game, they get first pick of a replacement qualifying team not already committed to another bowl. They pick Florida, ranked #5 and second in the Southwest - can't argue that.
2) Fiesta Bowl - losing the #2 ranked team Texas to the title game, they choose #3 TCU as their replacement. Again - good choice, picking the next top rated available team.
Here's where it gets interesting:
3) Orange Bowl - Atlantic Coast champ Georgia Tech (#9) is a commitment. This year, the Orange Bowl has first pick for the 2nd team. They choose..... #10 Iowa? I didn't know there would be such a strong interest in Georgia vs Iowa.. hmm.. anyways, on we go..
4) The Fiesta Bowl has next pick for 2nd team. So far they have a top ranked team, but from a non-major conference whose schedule is questioned (although they totally wiped out two teams ranked #16 at the time of the games). Wouldn't it be interesting to see them play.. oh, maybe #4 Cincinnati and see them against a "legitimate" powerhouse? No, let's pick #6 Boise, another undefeated team whose schedule is in question (no fault of their own I hear, as major teams don't want to put them on their schedule in place of cannon fodder games). So no matter what happens in this game, it will be "yeah, but they are two teams with questionable schedules". I have no idea if the Fiesta guys really picked Boise St, thinking if it was a good idea, or if there were "adjustments" made (see below on more rules).
The Sugar Bowl has next pick, but the damage is done. I would have liked to see TCU and Boise get matched up with Florida or Cinncinatti - maybe I'm alone in that thought. At the end of the selection rules, there is a part in there where some committee can change the pairings based on things like "have they been matched before" or "interest in the game". Certainly Florida/Cinncinatti will be very interesting, but you've all but thrown #3 TCU out the window in the final rankings.
Everyone will have a different opinion of matchups, but this just seemed to make no sense to me - brag they can qualify for a BCS matchup if they earn it, but don't give them the challenge they've earned by putting them against someone they can be legitimately measured against to see where they really stand. Just my opinion.
