FBC Week 11 thread: Jack Mildren didn't need no stinkin' spread offense

No, people have seen Boise and TCU several times and judge, differently from you, apparently, rationally see them as having legitimate "BCS-level" talent. What's not rational is assuming a blowout in an 85-scholarship world in which Virginia Tech can lose to James Madison.

 

Yeah, AQB. Think in terms of Hitler and the Lodz ghetto.

 

AQB, you're out of control. The word "ghetto" was used in its traditional sense of enforced housing segregation of a disliked minority group. It's not ignorant to use words correctly. It's kind of what people in this business are supposed to do.
Your responses to my posts contain more and more invective-type words by the post. That is not usually the mark of a debater winning an argument.

 

This is how it happened last year. Please, somebody with a semi-open mind tell me how the "BCS powers" seriously did anything wrong:

1. Sugar Bowl picks UF to replace its champion (Alabama).
Pretty much automatic choice.

2. Fiesta Bowl picks TCU to replace its champion (Texas)
Right off the bat, TCU is getting enough respect to earn the SECOND PICK. Anything wrong with that?

3. Orange Bowl picks Georgia Tech
[/i]An automatic choice, since Tech was ACC champ.[/i]

4. Sugar Bowl picks Cincinnati.
Bearcats were also undefeated (or has everyone forgotten that?) , exciting and could be expected to bring a ton of people to the game (certainly more than a school 2,500 miles away).

5. Orange Bowl picked Iowa.
Sure, they could have gone with Boise, a team 3,000 miles away instead of a team much closer that would travel like crazy. Seriously, was Georgia Tech-Boise really anything people were dying to see?

6. Fiesta Bowl, with the last choice, had no choice but to pick Boise State.

So who committed what egregious sin here? And please do better than, "But I wanted to see Florida-Boise State!!!!"

 

That's why you have a playoff, to get rid of the perniciousness of "but oooo, that team doesn't 'travel' well." That's when got Missouri stuck in the Texas Bowl last year.

 

I mean, the Boise-Cincinnati choice wasn't exactly a slam-dunk for Cincinnati, was it? Why not take Boise? Their fans travel, right? Or am I wrong about that? I honestly have no idea.

 

Not a slam dunk, but one of those situations where there was NOTHING Boise could offer as an opponent that was superior to Cincinnati.

Cincinnati was undefeated and had the highest BCS ranking (3), behind only Alabama and Texas. And Cincinnati offered a team whose fans would not be asked to travel 2,500 miles.

The ONLY thing Boise could offer was a certain curiosity factor ("I wanted to see Boise face Florida") among its supporters. And frankly, that's not enough.

 

How can anyone make an argument that Boise would not travel to the Sugar Bowl when a nice chunk of them traveled to DC for a meaningless game in September?

 

Right, but 1) I bet Boise's fans would have traveled enough to make it worth it and 2) Why discount the curiosity factor? I didn't watch Florida-Cincy. I would have watched Florida-Boise. That'd be enough for me.

 

Boise travels extremely well and, much like Butler, the curiosity factor would have brought TV viewers.

So the Sugar is where the Broncos should have played last season.

 

So the Sugar is supposed to pass on an unbeaten team ranked No. 3 in the BCS 1,000 miles away . . . .

. . . for an unbeaten team ranked No. 6 in the BCS 2,500 miles away? Ohhhhhhkayyyy.


I can see how some could be disappointed in the choice.

But to say it was wrong or imply sinister conspiracy theories . . . I ain't buying it, and I think I've explained why well enough.

The only bowl someone should have an issue with is the Orange.

But let's face it, "Boise-Georgia Tech" doesn't make anyone's toes tingle, so that bowl gets a pass on here for passing on Boise.

 

I was being sarcastic. I don't like blue font.