USA Today Bowl Projections

[Houston Frog]

And as we all know, everyone thinks TCU isn't a good draw.

Actually, I don't think the bowl committees think that... especially compared to Stanford, a small private school three time zones away.

TCU had a very good showing last year in AZ

 

[HToady]

The problem with these bowl prejections is that if this is the way things go, then we are one Auburn loss away from being left out of a BCS bowl. If Auburn loses, then Boise State goes to the MNC game, Stanford goes to the Rose, the SEC champ goes to the Sugar, and the SEC #2 goes to the Orange instead of us. It would look like this:

MNC: Oregon v Boise State
Rose: Stanford v Wisconsin
Sugar: Ohio State v Auburn
Orange: LSU v Virginia Tech
Fiesta: Nebraska v West Virginia

You have 2 "at large" teams with lower BCS ratings than TCU in this scenerio. While the BCS is obligated to take the BCS champions of each conference, they are not obligated to take the runner up. If they do this, then here comes the injunction (by the MWC or TCU) to further "study" the so called calculations for determination and why a team was jumped (which is contrary to their charter).

Maybe these games don't get played before April or May. Think how much that would cost.....

 

[gohornedfrogs]

I absolutely agree on not playing Virginia Tech under all but one circumstance. If Auburn loses and Boise jumps TCU and plays in the championship game against Oregon, I wouldn't mind playing Virginia Tech if this is possible:

- Boise beats Oregon in a close game that leaves viewers disappointed.

- TCU takes Virginia Tech behind the woodshed in a blowout.

- The AP voters think twice about who the better team is between TCU and Boise based on their performance versus Virginia Tech and give the nod to TCU.

It's all highly speculative and far fetched, but at least TCU would have an argument for the AP title. However, this would suck as far as match-ups go and I personally wouldn't want to see TCU play Viriginia Tech unless the above was even remotely possible.

Excellent point. I would love to see how the ESPN crew would try to spin the fact that the "much-improved" Va Tech team lost to TCU worse than it did to Boise.

At that point, we would have had three common opponents, and if we held a decisive points advantage, we could make a strong case for an AP national championship.

I'd like to beat New Mexico 77-0, too. :angry:

 

[HoustonHornedFrog]

The orange is going to take who ever they think is going to fill up their stadium. And as we all know, everyone thinks TCU isn't a good draw.

Actually, I don't think the bowl committees think that... especially compared to Stanford, a small private school three time zones away.

TCU had a very good showing last year in AZ

A year ago that was the knock on TCU, the Fiesta bowl and our near capacity season average has changed that.
This year TCU has averaged 42466 at home or 96% of capacity. Our lowest home attendance 37117,
Stanford has averaged 40295 or 80.5% capacilty, and they benefitted from USC at home, there only sellout. THere lowest home attendance 30626,

 

[garytrc@yahoo.com]

Worst case scenario is Auburn losing and the theoretical placing of Stanford in the Rose. I have lost a lot time worrying about this and a new thought came to mind.

The voters will have to physically vote TCU or Boise into the title game. This is not the same as just jockeying for 3&4. They know each vote counts and we only need a few to swing our way if any. Not sure we do.

From what I have read it is not a done deal they catch us in the computers. That is coming from computer trackers and not talking heads on TV. .

 

[The Artist Formerly Known as PhormerPhrog]

The problem with these bowl prejections is that if this is the way things go, then we are one Auburn loss away from being left out of a BCS bowl. If Auburn loses, then Boise State goes to the MNC game, Stanford goes to the Rose, the SEC champ goes to the Sugar, and the SEC #2 goes to the Orange instead of us. It would look like this:

MNC: Oregon v Boise State
Rose: Stanford v Wisconsin
Sugar: Ohio State v Auburn
Orange: LSU v Virginia Tech
Fiesta: Nebraska v West Virginia

I'm not so sure about that...this could get interesting.

The rules state:

For the games of January 2011 through 2014, the first year the Rose Bowl loses a team to the NCG and a team from the non-AQ group is an automatic qualifier, that non-AQ team will play in the Rose Bowl.

This, if this scenario plays out, would be the first year they lose a team to the NCG between those years. However, the non-AQ AQ team would be lost as well. From there, the rules get interesting as they state that there can only be one non-AQ AQ team per year. However, this situation would posit a loophole that cannot be clearly defined. The BCS never dreamed of this scenario or else they wouldn't have left the verbiage as is. What they probably wish they could go back and add to that stipulation is "unless that non-AQ team is in the NCG. In which case, the RB may choose an at-large AQ team." I'm no legal scholar and I don't think the odds would be in our favor but I do think that it is a cause worth examining and could probably create some legal consternation. I doubt that TCU themselves would take up the cause but there is enough legislative opposition to the BCS that could take up the cause for us. Being that it IS the Rose Bowl and Standford would be the only other team seemingly in the running it would be an uphill battle but it is something to think about.

 

[gdu]

I'm not so sure about that...this could get interesting.

The rules state:

For the games of January 2011 through 2014, the first year the Rose Bowl loses a team to the NCG and a team from the non-AQ group is an automatic qualifier, that non-AQ team will play in the Rose Bowl.

This, if this scenario plays out, would be the first year they lose a team to the NCG between those years. However, the non-AQ AQ team would be lost as well. From there, the rules get interesting as they state that there can only be one non-AQ AQ team per year. However, this situation would posit a loophole that cannot be clearly defined. The BCS never dreamed of this scenario or else they wouldn't have left the verbiage as is. What they probably wish they could go back and add to that stipulation is "unless that non-AQ team is in the NCG. In which case, the RB may choose an at-large AQ team." I'm no legal scholar and I don't think the odds would be in our favor but I do think that it is a cause worth examining and could probably create some legal consternation. I doubt that TCU themselves would take up the cause but there is enough legislative opposition to the BCS that could take up the cause for us. Being that it IS the Rose Bowl and Standford would be the only other team seemingly in the running it would be an uphill battle but it is something to think about.

I guess I don't see it being an issue, like others do. I wish it was, but I just don't see it. If that is the exact language, it still wouldn't address a 4th place TCU since we would be from a non-aq group, but not an automatic qualifier.

 

[neutral observer]

So we get into the BCS Bowl Series and play (and beat) VT in the Orange Bowl. Suits me fine!

 

[Get Your Frogs Up]

I guess I don't see it being an issue, like others do. I wish it was, but I just don't see it. If that is the exact language, it still wouldn't address a 4th place TCU since we would be from a non-aq group, but not an automatic qualifier.

I'm with you. In layman's terms, I interpret the rule to read, "The first time we're forced to take one of these guys during this 4 year cycle, then you (Rose Bowl) have to take them. If we're not forced to take one of these guys, then you're in the clear."

Since TCU would not be a required participant in the BCS, just an optional participant, the Rose Bowl could use their replacement pick on any at-large team of their choosing.

 

[Planks]

You have 2 "at large" teams with lower BCS ratings than TCU in this scenerio. While the BCS is obligated to take the BCS champions of each conference, they are not obligated to take the runner up. If they do this, then here comes the injunction (by the MWC or TCU) to further "study" the so called calculations for determination and why a team was jumped (which is contrary to their charter).

Maybe these games don't get played before April or May. Think how much that would cost.....

Those 2 "at-large" teams are from the Big 10 and the SEC. It's an unwritten rule that the Big 10 and SEC get two teams in BCS bowls every year. Take a look.

Big 10:
2006- Ohio State, Michigan
2007- Ohio State, Illinois
2008- Ohio State, Penn State
2009- Ohio State, Iowa

SEC:
2006- Florida, LSU
2007- LSU, Georgia
2008- Florida, Alabama
2009- Florida, Alabama

Even last year when we had two Non-AQ teams in BCS bowls, we still had two SEC teams and two Big 10 teams.

And no injunction or anything is going to be filed. No one cared when 12-0 Boise State was left out in 2008. No one will care in 2010 if 12-0 TCU is left out.

 

[Boomhauer]

Those 2 "at-large" teams are from the Big 10 and the SEC. It's an unwritten rule that the Big 10 and SEC get two teams in BCS bowls every year. Take a look.

Big 10:
2006- Ohio State, Michigan
2007- Ohio State, Illinois
2008- Ohio State, Penn State
2009- Ohio State, Iowa

SEC:
2006- Florida, LSU
2007- LSU, Georgia
2008- Florida, Alabama
2009- Florida, Alabama

Even last year when we had two Non-AQ teams in BCS bowls, we still had two SEC teams and two Big 10 teams.

And no injunction or anything is going to be filed. No one cared when 12-0 Boise State was left out in 2008. No one will care in 2010 if 12-0 TCU is left out.

So basically, if Boise plays in the MNC we don't go to a BCS bowl. If they don't play in the MNC, we do go to a BCS bowl.

 

[The Artist Formerly Known as PhormerPhrog]

I guess I don't see it being an issue, like others do. I wish it was, but I just don't see it. If that is the exact language, it still wouldn't address a 4th place TCU since we would be from a non-aq group, but not an automatic qualifier.

Like I said, the odds are against us, but it is a cause worth examining. What is against us (and BSU for that matter) is the exact language for a non-AQ qualifier. What is in our favor is the non-exact Rose Bowl language. Either way, it may cause the BCS to review and replace the language as it currently reads.

Now, what if Stanford loses their next two? There's no way they'd still be in the top 14. The SEC and Big 10 would already have their two. The Big East and ACC only have one worthy team. The Big XII would probably have two teams go. There's two spots left. TCU/BSU gets one. The only other team left is the 2nd highest non-AQ team.


EDIT: I can't do math. The Big XII would need to beat the hell out of each other and have only one rep for this to happen.

 

[Delmonico]

I'm with you. In layman's terms, I interpret the rule to read, "The first time we're forced to take one of these guys during this 4 year cycle, then you (Rose Bowl) have to take them. If we're not forced to take one of these guys, then you're in the clear."

Since TCU would not be a required participant in the BCS, just an optional participant, the Rose Bowl could use their replacement pick on any at-large team of their choosing.

Yup. I think this is a case of people looking for something that isn't there by taking things out of context. And I don't blame them. The Rose Bowl clause is part of the whole rule and can't be read separately. To me, the selection procedures are crystal clear - the Rose Bowl would be required to take a nonAQ automatic qualifier, but one would not be available due to 3A (A bowl choosing a replacement team may not select any of the following: A. A team in the NCG).

 

[Planks]

So basically, if Boise plays in the MNC we don't go to a BCS bowl. If they don't play in the MNC, we do go to a BCS bowl.

Pretty much. However, I think if Ohio State drops another game or two this season, an exception to the two Big 10 teams every year rule could be made.

 

[HToady]

. It's an unwritten rule that the Big 10 and SEC get two teams in BCS bowls every year.

Unwritten rules don't count. Only written rules count!

It's time to "lawyer up"!

 

[mrnicefrog]

Like I said, the odds are against us, but it is a cause worth examining. What is against us (and BSU for that matter) is the exact language for a non-AQ qualifier. What is in our favor is the non-exact Rose Bowl language. Either way, it may cause the BCS to review and replace the language as it currently reads.

Now, what if Stanford loses their next two? There's no way they'd still be in the top 14. The SEC and Big 10 would already have their two. The Big East and ACC only have one worthy team. The Big XII would probably have two teams go. There's two spots left. TCU/BSU gets one. The only other team left is the 2nd highest non-AQ team.


EDIT: I can't do math. The Big XII would need to beat the hell out of each other and have only one rep for this to happen.

I think this happens. Okie lite and OU still play. Nebraska goes to A&M. Plus the Big12 Champtionship game.
The second place team in the big12 could easily have 3 losses and not be in the top 14.

 

[ShreveFrog]

No one cared when 12-0 Boise State was left out in 2008. No one will care in 2010 if 12-0 TCU is left out.

Disagree. We've been in the nc discussion for a couple of weeks now. To then go undefeated, finish #3 or 4, and be left out of the BCS bowls? There would be howls from fans and media coast to coast. And hopefully some folks in the Texas Congressional delegation putting BCS honchos in the hotseat.

 

[dweller]

Those 2 "at-large" teams are from the Big 10 and the SEC. It's an unwritten rule that the Big 10 and SEC get two teams in BCS bowls every year. Take a look.

Big 10:
2006- Ohio State, Michigan
2007- Ohio State, Illinois
2008- Ohio State, Penn State
2009- Ohio State, Iowa

SEC:
2006- Florida, LSU
2007- LSU, Georgia
2008- Florida, Alabama
2009- Florida, Alabama

Even last year when we had two Non-AQ teams in BCS bowls, we still had two SEC teams and two Big 10 teams.

And no injunction or anything is going to be filed. No one cared when 12-0 Boise State was left out in 2008. No one will care in 2010 if 12-0 TCU is left out.

There is one big diffference between 2008 and 2010. In 08 Boise was ranked 9th, this year TCU will be no worse than number 4 may be number 3. Politicaly and PR wise it would be disasterous for the BCS cartel to take a team ranked much lower and exclude the number 3 or 4 team. There would be no way they could spin it.

 

[Frog Attack II]

Also, if it came down to it, should the Sugar bowl need to be reminded how Texas treated LA / New Orleans during Katrina?

Here's the deal: These are huge $'s we're talking about. Where do these $'s go? To students in TX, to facilities that will be built in TX, to jobs in TX - coaches, professors, janitors, contractors, you name it. There is a huge by-product to the city of Ft Worth if we go to a BCS bowl as well. If you are a Texas politician, this system could screw you out of $'s for your constituents. You might want to start putting out the feelers now.

 

[macaroni]

There is one big diffference between 2008 and 2010. In 08 Boise was ranked 9th, this year TCU will be no worse than number 4 may be number 3. Politicaly and PR wise it would be disasterous for the BCS cartel to take a team ranked much lower and exclude the number 3 or 4 team. There would be no way they could spin it.

If Boise is playing for the NC, no one will howl that a different nonAQ was left out. They will point to the title game barrier being broken as evidence of egalitarian access. At large pool is just that, people. We will have to be the most desirable option available to the bowls selecting, and they consider lots of factors besides W-L records.