BCS Bowl Game Head-Scratchers: What Games Are Likely To Bore You The Most?

The first thing that might have struck many of you when the bowl selections were made on Sunday night is this: is Connecticut really getting a shot to play in the Fiesta Bowl?...Seriously?

While it's through no fault of their own, the Huskies have become the poster team for just another thing that's wrong with the BCS.

The Huskies, by default, are the Big East Champions. They beat West Virginia—a team that has a slightly more Fiesta-friendly record (9-3)—and won the tie-breaker. It happens and, as Randy Edsall (Connecticut's head coach) stated, "We played by the rules. Those are the rules, that the Big East champion gets an automatic bid to a BCS bowl game and we’re the conference champions and we’re going to accept that invitation".

He's absolutely right. The BCS made those rules, not him, and thanks to that his team will appear in the Fiesta Bowl to take on the Oklahoma Sooners.

While it's safe to assume the Huskies will be the underdogs in this contest, it is also safe to assume that the Sooners will surprise no one if they lose. After all, Bob Stoops has seen his team get beat on multiple occasions—in a BCS contest—during the last decade. So, as disinterested as many a football fan (outside of Stoors, CT) will be in seeing this game played, Sooner fans better hope that the Oklahoma of old doesn't put in an appearance this season.

But enough people are picking on the Huskies and, to be honest, there are quite a few uncompelling match-ups to be had. Below are the Top 5 candidates for the most boring bowl game the 2010 season will have to offer:

1. BYU vs. UTEP, New Mexico Bowl: December 18th at 2pm

BYU started the season losing 5 of 7, but closed out the year 4-1—including a near defeat of Utah—to become bowl eligible. That said, not many are likely to care about their match-up with the Miners. The former WAC foes don't have much to offer in name or excitement this season and the 2pm start (on a Friday no less) isn't likely to have many people rushing home.

2. Kansas St. vs. Syracuse, New Era Pinstripe Bowl: December 30th at 3:20pm

Perhaps the fact that this game will be in Yankee Stadium will give it some appeal—to Yankee and Syracuse fans—but to those of us who could give a flip about new Yankee Stadium, and are still wondering how on earth Syracuse got bowl eligible in the first place, there is little appeal.


3. Nevada vs. Boston College, Kraft Fight Hunger Bowl: January 9th at 9pm

By the time these two play, the Auburn/Oregon talk will be in full-swing and few people are likely to notice this final bowl game—played a mere 24 hours before the biggest game of the college football season. Oh, and the fact that Boston College, on offense, has been about as exciting as watching paint dry doesn't help much either.

Seriously, this is the best opponent they could find for the Wolfpack?

4. Notre Dame vs Miami, Hyundai Sun Bowl: December 31st at 2pm

Explain this: how do two teams from Indiana and Florida, respectively, end up playing in Texas...on CBS? Not only does the match-up not make any sense, the chances of anyone outside of Indiana or Florida stumbling across it on CBS (after the other 68 games have been played on ESPN or an ESPN affiliate) seems unlikely.

Even more, both Notre Dame and Miami were supposed to be great this year—both fell far short of expectations—this game seems more like consolation than reward.

5. Florida Interational vs. Toledo, Little Caesars Bowl: December 26th at 2:30pm

Many forget just how many teams the state of Florida fields...this one is no different. This game might  look good to some, but most will probably take a giant pass and return this college football gift to sender—just saying.

Related articles

• No. 9 Oklahoma To Face UConn In Fiesta Bowl (newyork.cbslocal.com)
• BCS breakdown: Looking at the biggest of bowl season (cbssports.com)

BCS Rankings: The Biggest Surprises and Mistakes of the Top 25

The BCS Poll is out and, as usual, there were some surprises—Oklahoma at No. 1...seriously? And some oversights—how on earth is Wisconsin ranked BELOW Ohio State?

In either case, the release of the poll has set into motion the conversation of what team is championship caliber. Who will rise above all and play for the coveted BCS Championship in January?

Plenty will be said about the latter between now and Christmas, but tonight we can marinate on some of the surprises and mistakes that the BCS made in choosing the 25 best teams in the nation.

The Surprises

1. If Oklahoma is the No. 1 team in the nation, then someone is drinking.

The Sooners struggled against Utah State and Air Force this season, and looked only mildly impressive against a youthful Texas Longhorn team two weeks ago. No way they should be ranked anywhere near the top spot.

2. Boise State can't get no satisfaction from the pollsters.

No doubt some figured the tumble of both Nebraska and Ohio State would grant the Broncos a shot at No. 1, but no dice. The Broncos fall to third—behind Oregon.

3. Why on earth is Wisconsin ranked behind Ohio State?

Talk about swigging some sizzurp. This is the reward the Badgers get for beating "THE" Ohio State University. Tim Brewster must know some people.

4. Virginia Tech...for real?

Adding truth to the adage: better to lose early than late, the Hokies slotted in at No. 25 in the BCS Poll.

How on earth they were more deserving of this honor than, say, Georgia Tech or Nevada is a touch perplexing. The obvious reason would have to be strength of schedule, but, if that were the case, there would no Boise in the top 5 so...again...what makes the Hokies so worthy?

5. Mississippi State—good for them.

After beating Florida—in Gainesville—there seems to be little doubt that Dan Mullen's team will go bowling this season. The Bulldogs have certainly been impressive this year.

The Mistakes

1. Ohio State should not be in the top 10.

Sure, playing cupcakes is easy but, in their first true road test of the year, they folded like  cheap suit. Ohio State is a paper champion, Pryor is not Heisman worthy, and people are still giving too much respect to the Buckeyes based on absolutely nothing.

They are not a top 10 team...don't believe the hype.

2. Iowa is too low.

They lost a close game to Arizona early on, but have played well since that time—including a 38-28 win in Ann Arbor.

The Hawkeyes deserve better than 15.

3. West Virginia at 20?

The Mountaineers might be 5-1, but, they are a "we haven't played and won against anybody" 5-1. Their one chance to prove their legitimacy—versus LSU—ended in a loss. Not sure if they are any better than the 6-1 Nevada Wolfpack team that didn't even find it's way into the poll.

What say you? Did the polls disappoint, shock, or leave your mind boggled?

Will The Oklahoma Sooners Be Better Than The Texas Longhorns in 2010?

Don't look now, but the Boomer Sooner Bandwagon has reemerged!


Last season, the Sooner train took a long pit stop in the land of "what the heck just happened?!"  They not only lost their starting quarterback, Sam Bradford, to injury but they also lost their playmaking tight end as well—Jermaine Gresham.


2009 was looking like a bonafide disaster but, when you consider how bad it could have been, the Sooners actually did pretty well for themselves—considering. They ended the season 8-5 and gave Sooner fans hope that 2010 could be a whole lot better.

2010 is looking bright for Bob Stoops so far and at least one national expert feels they are already the No. 1 team in the nation—Phil Steele. Now, that may seem a lofty leap to make for a team that still has some holes to fill, but I am sure the Sooner fans will be happy just to see them back near the top of the heap in the country.


For a more in-depth preview, see the video below:




...Well, at least the locals have some perspective, right?

However, you can't blame Steele for thinking the way he does as the Sooners do have plenty of talent returning in a conference that is more than winnable for them this year.  The only teams that can feasibly challenge them for the Big 12 this season are Texas and Nebraska. Texas has question marks after the departure of both Jordan Shipley and Colt McCoy and Nebraska won't play Oklahoma this year.


The folks at ESPN seem to think Gilbert will be good for Texas but give the slight edge to Oklahoma in the QB department because of their receiving personnel and the experience Landry Jones acquired last season as the full-time starter:




One thing is for certain, the "Red River Rivalry", scheduled for October 2nd, should be a lot more interesting this season and, for the first time in a long while, I can't say for sure that the Longhorns are going to come out on top. 

Dennis Dodd Says Georgia Bulldogs Aren't Even Third Best Team in Weak SEC

Here we go again. For those of you who detest articles written with a tinge of homerism—this one may not be for you.

However, in the interest of being fair, I would like to see some comments below if you find my analysis to be off the mark or leaning too heavily towards blind loyalty.

That said, I felt compelled to write this article after reading a piece featured on College Football News (CFN) titled "State of the Game".

It's focus was on this question: Will you be okay if the SEC Champ isn't in the BCS Championship—assuming said winner has only one loss—even if either the Big Ten or the Big XII each bring an unbeaten team to the table.

Several members of the local and national media chimed in with their response, including CBSSports.com senior writer, Dennis Dodd.
In his response, Dodd had this to say:

Weeeell, that's a bit superficial don't you think? Start with the fact that beyond Ala and Fla, the SEC isn't particularly strong this year. What is the third-best team -- Arkansas?, LSU?, South Carolina? (Please don't give me Georgia). In your scenario, then, (a loss to Florida), the only team you're talking about is Alabama. If the strength of schedules are relatively even, then, yes I'm OK with the SEC champion not playing in the BCS title game. You're talking about an undefeated Ohio State, Iowa, Oklahoma, Texas. I have no problem with that 1) because the SEC is down; 2) the Big Ten is making a comeback; 3) Texas and Oklahoma are loaded in a tough conference and 4) don't forget Boise in that mix. It's going to start in the top five. Voters will by hypocritical if they drop the Broncos after winning all their games.

Now, while I understand and appreciate that Mr. Dodd is entitled to his opinion, I have a bone to pick with just about everything he has to say in his response—obviously.

"...Start with the fact that beyond Ala and Fla, the SEC isn't particularly strong this year. What is the third-best team -- Arkansas?, LSU?, South Carolina? (Please don't give me Georgia)."

First of all, the SEC isn't so much weak this year as it appears to have more parity. It's probably the first time in more than a few seasons that you couldn't clearly state who the champion of the east and west divisions would be.
 
The departure of Tim Tebow has left Florida looking a lot more vulnerable than in season's past and the questions about the Alabama defense, coupled with close losses to both Tennessee and Auburn last season, make the Tide look ripe for an upset on their drive back to Atlanta this year.

Parity is a good thing, Dennis.

Secondly, what's with the "Please don't give me Georgia" comment? Mark Richt might be the owner of a program that finished 8-5 in 2009, but he is certainly not an SEC afterthought. He's posted a winning record against every team in the conference since his arrival, save Florida (2-7) and LSU (3-3) and that means he's worthy of a lot more respect than he's gotten from guys like you over the last eight months.

"...If the strength of schedules are relatively even, then, yes I'm OK with the SEC champion not playing in the BCS title game."

I admit I'm an SEC loyalist, but there is little doubt that the SEC is the toughest conference in the nation. There is no such thing, at least not at present, of a "relatively even" strength of schedule when compared to the SEC's.

Get real, Dennis.

"...You're talking about an undefeated Ohio State, Iowa, Oklahoma, Texas. I have no problem with that 1) because the SEC is down; 2) the Big Ten is making a comeback; 3) Texas and Oklahoma are loaded in a tough conference..."

While I have no problem seeing Iowa or Ohio State make a BCS appearance—despite the fact that Ohio State has had their backsides handed to them twice by an SEC team, it's idiotic to say that Texas and Oklahoma are playing in a tough conference. Aside from said teams, who on earth offers them any legit competition in the Big XII? Baylor? Kansas? Kansas State?...Oklahoma State (minus Robinson, Bryant, and Cox)?, Colorado?...You're joking right?

I guess Dennis has to say the Big XII is tough (after all, he is a Mizzou alum), but everyone else knows that after Oklahoma and Texas, there is only Nebraska—and once they leave...well, you fill in the blanks.

"...and 4) don't forget Boise in that mix. It's going to start in the top five. Voters will by hypocritical if they drop the Broncos after winning all their games."

LOL...wait, let me get this straight: Boise plays in the WAC...THE WAC. There is literally no excuse for them not to run all over and through their conference with ease. The WAC is not a competitive place for the Broncos to play—everyone knows that.

Additionally, Boise's OOC schedule tends to be equally as laughable and, aside from their early season match-up with Virginia Tech in September, it offers nothing in the way of competition this year either. That said, people should take them seriously if they go undefeated in 2010, why?

I know they can only play the games they are scheduled to play but, the fact remains, they have the easiest road to the BCS Title Game—hands down. So, if they finish undefeated while a Big Ten or SEC team suffers one loss, I'm giving the edge to the SEC or Big Ten team and so would most every other voter.  

If Boise wants legitimacy, a win over Virginia Tech will be necessary. If they lose, they SHOULD go to the back of the line—period.

The whole CFN article can be found here, if you're interested.

Willie Martinez Is Gone But Georgia Is Still On His Mind

In a recent interview with the Chattanooga-Times Free Press writer, David Paschall, former Georgia Bulldogs' defensive coordinator, Willie Martinez, talks a little bit about his time at Georgia. Martinez is now the defensive backs coach at Oklahoma but still has two daughters attending the University of Georgia and plans to make trips to Athens to visit them when he can—maybe.

Here are just a few highlights from the article which can be read in full here.


On his dismissal:

"I really don't want to get too much into that, but we've talked. Obviously he felt like he had to do something, but I don't really want to revisit that. We've talked. I'm at Oklahoma, and I'm excited to be here and am ready to move on from that chapter of my life."

On his feelings about Athens and UGA now:

"That was the longest place I had ever been," Martinez said last week. "My son is 14, so he's lived a majority of his life there. There are some great memories that we will have forever and some great friends that we will have forever...both of our girls are still at Georgia, so we'll obviously be visiting them and their friends quite often, I guess."

On the 45-42 loss to Georgia Tech in 2008:

"...losing to Georgia Tech was the worst," Martinez said. "The way we played in the first half, which was solid, and then to come out in the second half -- that's our No. 1 rival at Georgia, and we had won every year. We wanted to keep it going, and I'm glad we were able to get them back last year."

Was Texas Playing 'Chicken' With Dan Beebe All Along?

It was announced this morning that the Texas Longhorns, along with the coat tail riding contingent of Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State, have decided to accept the Big 12's proposal and stay in the Big 12.

Well, Yippee.

Here's the thing, who doesn't believe that the Longhorns were simply angling for more money and a better shot at getting their own network all along?

Think about it, not only did the money pot get bigger with the exodus of both Colorado and Nebraska, who will be forced to pay $17 million each for their transgressions, but the introduction of the league's intent to allow institutions to pursue their own separate television deal had to be the cherry on top for the Longhorns.

It's no secret that the Longhorns wanted to pursue their own network—a la the YES Network of the New York Yankees—but the Big 12 didn't seem open to that possibility. Dan Beebe skirted the issue time and again while, all the time, Texas was fuming and trying to figure out how to make it happen.

Enter the rumors of a Big Ten or Pac-10 raid of the Big 12 and VOILA!,  there's enough leverage to make the Big 12 and Dan Beebe rethink their stance on how revenue is distributed and how much liberality they will give each team in pursuing their own method of making money.

As an added bonus, both Nebraska and Colorado got scared silly enough to leave altogether. By doing so, the Big 12 North just got a lot less competitive and the money to be gained from any deals struck hence forward just got sweeter.

All of this led me to wonder, if Texas wasn’t just playing a very deceptive game of poker with Dan Beebe from the start?

In truth, most of what any of us heard about the expansion deals came from one of a few random sources, none of whom were in a position to make a decision on the fate of Texas or the Big 12.

Orangebloods.com set off this firestorm early on and by last Friday it was at a full blaze as the sports world essentially jumped on the story and ran.

Seriously, think long and hard about it, what did any of us read about Texas, the Big 12, or the Pac-10's invitation to the Longhorns that did not originate from Orangeblood's, Chip Brown? He was the primary source in just about every breaking news story regarding this situation and he is, of course, the source of the most recent news that Texas will stay in the Big 12 today.

Despite a conflicting report offered by ESPN's Joe Schad, that Texas will bolt for the Pac-10 for the academic prestige over the money, it makes sense that the Big 12 stay configured as a ten team league than go to a 16 team Pac-10 where their financial options would be somewhat restrained.

The Pac-10 is looking to expand their market share in hopes of securing more revenue from television. However, there is no deal in place yet, and any team joining the Pac-10 is doing so on good faith—nothing more.

Further, the Pac-10 is not going to allow Texas to pursue a Longhorn Network if they come over which—in my opinion—is what they truly want to do.

So, why join and split the money 16 ways, deny your program the option of netting an additional$3-5 million in television revenue through developing your own network, and risk disrupting your fanbase, just to join with the Pac-10 for academic reasons?

It just doesn’t make sense.

Now, I admit, all of this conjecture could be proved wrong a day or so from now, but for the moment, it makes more sense for the Big 12 to stay together than break apart.