Boise vs. TCU? The BCS Is Coward!

Brian NelsonCorrespondent IDecember 7, 2009

Is the BCS really this pathetic?

Are they so afraid of what the elite non-BCS teams have become that they would rather run and take cover than face a fight?

All year we've heard from the BCS how the MWC was inferior, how Utah was "lucky," both times. Faced with the opportunity to back up their superiority smack against an undefeated TCU, the BCS chickened out and ran for cover.

The BCS system faced an unprecedented and legitimate threat that could expose the whole system for the fraud that it is.

What would happen if TCU beat a BCS conference champion like Cincinnati or Georgia Tech to finish the season undefeated with a wicked resume?

How could ACC commissioner and BCS coordinator John Swofford continue to scoff at the MWC when TCU goes 3-0 against the ACC with wins over both division champions?

How would he respond if the MWC climbed to 3-0 in BCS bowls while the ACC sat at 2-10?

How bad would the fallout be if Boise State were to dismantle an Iowa or a Georgia Tech, bringing the non-BCS to 2-0 in BCS Bowls for the season and 5-1 historically?

Video Play Button
Videos you might like

What would the implications be?

Careful evaluation showed the BCS had nothing to gain by having two non-BCS teams at their exclusive club. To deny the Broncos entrance again would be too obvious.To pit TCU against fellow undefeated Cincinnati would create a mountain of fodder for Orrin Hatch and the anti-trust throng.

Especially because Cincinnati would last about as long as the last Big East champion who faced a MWC team in a BCS bowl: Utah made Pitt look 1-AA.

In fact, matching Boise State or TCU against any of this year's BCS qualifiers would expose a damning reality: these two teams are better. They are more balanced, better coached, and hungrier than any other team outside of Tuscaloosa.

The irony is that in years past the argument used to be that the non-BCS didn't belong on the field, despite direct on-the-field evidence to the contrary. Now these non-BCS teams are too strong, and too advanced.

No one wants to play them because no one can play with them. Even Alabama lucked out when Texas barely beat an offense-less Nebraska in the last half-second of the Big 12 Title Game. The Tide exhaled a breath of relief.

Trust me, they wanted no part of TCU.

Remember the last time Alabama faced a hungry MWC team? That lasted like what, two minutes of play?

The only choice the BCS had this weekend was to tuck its tail between its legs and save face by pairing Boise State against TCU in the Fiesta Bowl.

Threat dismissed.


But at the end of the day, it's a win-win for the BCS.

If TCU beats Boise State, no harm no foul. The BCS can argue that the Frogs never took down a legitimate powerhouse team. If Boise State were to beat TCU, the Broncos collective resume wouldn't be strong enough to merit debate.

This is what the mighty BCS has become. They hide from reality to protect their stranglehold on the college football season.

I guess it really shouldn't be surprising. Since its inception the mission of the BCS was clear. It was about greed, power, control, and elitism.

The BCS would stop at nothing to protect its own interest and to keep the lucre close to their own treasure chests.

While those on the outside shouted for justice and equality, the BCS justified its monopoly by claiming superiority on the field.

"The smaller schools lack the resource, money, tradition and most of all, the raw talent to compete with the big boys."

In theory it held true.

But football is a dynamic game, often won in the general's tent, not on the battlefield. In a game as complex and execution-oriented as football, a talented, well-coached, and united team can beat any other team on any given day.

As much as the BCS tried to run and hide from this reality, it kept creeping in on them, creating legal fodder for the non-BCS alliance to fight for a chance.

It culminated in 2008 when the BCS felt so confident that Alabama would roll Utah like Georgia over Hawaii.

That didn't happen the way it was supposed. Utah took Alabama to the woodshed. The first and only dramatic defeat in the Nick Saban era.

Pundits, SEC fans, and even the BCS came running to the Tide's defense. Alabama didn't want to be there. They had no motivation. No Andre Smith.

Even Harvey Perlman, Chairman of the BCS Presidential Oversight Committee called Utah and Boise State's BCS victories a fluke .

Nice try.

Do you really think the Alabama players weren't pumped to play in their first Sugar Bowl since the Clinton administration? A bowl these players have been dreaming about since Pop Warner? Are you telling me seniors wanted to make their last impression to the NFL and end their collegiate careers like that?

Yes, there was no Andre Smith, but hasn't the BCS' superior depth been one of the key talking points against the non-BCS teams? Didn't Utah have underclassmen headed to the NFL? How come they showed up?

Last year, both Texas and USC were disappointed in their allotment, but like Georgia in 2007, they took care of business. Just look at what that has done for Texas!

The reality is Alabama bought into the outdated hype that these teams were markedly inferior. They game-planned and prepared as they would for a team like Vanderbilt, when in reality they were squaring off with one of the best, most well-rounded teams in the country.

The BCS will stop at nothing to prevent that fact from being revealed. Hence Boise State-TCU in the Fiesta.

The matchup is a nightmare for the Frogs, a no-win situation for the Broncos, and a boring rerun for the fans.

Consumers shouldn't buy it.

And the irony is, they probably won't. That rationale is exactly why this matchup doesn't pass the "smell test;" why it screams of corruption and tampering.

If the BCS is all about ticket sales and TV ratings, and trust me they are, what the hell is TCU doing playing Boise State in a BCS bowl?

Ticket sales will be atrocious.

Boise State may travel well but its fanbase is too small and too new to fill seats in Arizona. TCU is a small private school that can't even sell out its own home games. Expect plenty of open seats and deep discounts on the ones that get sold.

Ratings will be a disaster. 

Last year, TCU met Boise State in the Poinsettia Bowl in San Diego. Two top-11 teams, the nation's top defense against one of the most prolific offenses. It was a matchup that promised the most compelling non-BCS bowl and was more exciting than some of the BCS bowls.

Despite all the intrigue and excitement the Poinsettia Bowl was the 15th highest rated postseason bowl. That means 14 other bowls, nine non-BCS, finished with higher television viewerships.

This will be the lowest rated BCS bowl game in history. Bar none, guaranteed.

A nightmare for the Fiesta Bowl. Just compare the fanbases and revenue sources for this game to last year when Texas battled Ohio State. So why would the Fiesta Bowl put themselves at such risk in the heat of a recession?

It's a complete setup by the BCS. 

I wonder what concessions the BCS offered to John Junker and the Fiesta Bowl to keep them happy after taking one for the team? Nothing would surprise me.

The BCS will stop at nothing to preserve its own interests.


The latest in the sports world, emailed daily.