5th BCS bowl

[colorado_loves_football]

It will remain Nameless until further notice.
Actually I think the official name is Bowl Championship Series title game.
In effect it's the national championship game, that's what they are calling the Rose Bowl this year.
What they did, in effect is remove the 'championship' game from the four BCS games, but still keeping it there (yes, it's confusing).
What they had done until this year was have it in either the Rose, Fiesta, Sugar, and Orange Bowls (four year rotation).
Had they simply added another bowl, say the Cotton Bowl, that would have done at least two things the other four bowls didn't like.
First of all, it would have diluted, somewhat the level of competition available to the other four bowls. Secondly, it's likely whatever bowl they added would have wanted to host the national championship, so to get around that, they simply made the 'fifth' bowl basically a 'double' dip to the four BCS bowls already in place.
They can do this, because it's possible logistically. There are already bowls (Holiday Bowl, Poinsettia Bowl) that utilize the same location, but are held a week apart. Another example of this is the Insight-Fiesta Bowl, althught they don't use the same facility, they operate from the same central location, basically 'under the same roof'
It's possible that's the reason why they went to that format, it has already been in place in Arizona, in the Fiesta Bowl.
Now, the third part is whether or not this is a fair compromise.
The entire reason behind the fifth bowl was to make the selection process fairer, or at least easier for a team presently outside the BCS to participate.
I contend that at present it's still hard for a team outside the BCS to be included, and I already have sufficient evidence for that, TCU's not being invited, which woudlnt have happened next year, either, had either Miami, or Virginia Tech won the ACC. Since FSU won, by a provison that gives a team access provided they are ranked #15 or higher (TCU's 14), they get in under next year's rules, which is cool, but didn't do much to help them this year.
So, it's too bad that next year's rules didn't apply this year.
Why?
Well, the teams would have been as follows:
USC, Texas, Penn State, Ohio State, Notre Dame, Georgia, West Virginia, Oregon, Florida State, and TCU.
The national championship would have paired Texas and USC together just like they did this year.
Assuming the other bowls had taken the same 'path' (a fair possiblity) that would have allowed TCU and Oregon to have met in a BCS bowl.
At worst, TCU would have played FSU, by all admission an interesting pairing of teams, and one that would have favored FSU.
So, I personally would have preferred a Fiesta Bowl pairing of TCU and Oregon, and it was disappointing it didn't happen in say, the HOliday Bowl.
That's what's wrong with the BCS. In some resects it works. Nobody will probably complain now about how it turned out, most games were close, including TCU's game against Iowa State, so they really can't complain about not having a good (or equal) team to play.
And give credit to Iowa State for being competitive, they basically played them on a level playing field, after I accused them of being terrible.
But I dont' think that necessarily means that the BCS was fair to TCU.
In fairness, I think both Brigam Young (with Cal), and Utah (Georgia Tech) faced stiffer competition. And Iowa State nearly beat TCU probably woudl have but for a late TD by TCU.
Even so, no the BCS isn't fair, but you can't really argue it didn't work this year, can you?
S.Florida played well I thought against NC, Ididn't appreciate the comment that they weren't competitie, but tehy lost 14-0.
Similarly, Lousiville lost, but for a late int, might have beaten Va. Tech.
Anyway, I guess it's all about W's and L's. TCU won good for them, but I hope they do better next year or they don't belong in the BCS, even on a technicality.
So, give BCS credit for what they did, whether or nto it was fair.

[Derek]

I see... good explanation..Thanks!!!