Talk:2010 Fiesta Bowl

Something about a boycott
There's actually quite a lot of people I've heard from Boise State and TCU fanbases that are: 1) Not happy at all with the matchup 2) Calling for a boycott for this and other BCS bowls. Could this perhaps be noteworthy? -- MrBiggles42 06 December 2009. 02:03 (UTC)

The BCS is what it is
I have been frustrated with the way the BCS is setup for years. But I have finally come to the conclusion that it is what it is. Of course, it's all motivated by money, and that's why the preferred conferences are given automatic qualifiers. A suggest a modified bowl / tournament system where the top 8 teams on the BCS polls would play in a tournament. They could still call them bowl games, with the winning teams advancing to the next round with the top two teams playing for the national championship game. The games could still be bid on and I think would still draw a lot of money. What do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martyscherr (talk • contribs) 16:52, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Not quite accurate
"For the first time ever, two teams from the "non-BCS" or "non-AQ" (automatic qualifying) conferences earned BCS bowl berths in the same season."

TCU earned an AQ bid. BSU was at-large eligible and was selected.

From the article:

"up through 2010, non-AQ teams were 3–1 versus AQ teams in BCS bowls"

2005: Utah was AQ, Pittsburgh was AQ; Utah won 2007: Boise State was AQ, Oklahoma was AQ; BSU won 2008: Hawaii was AQ, Georgia was at-large; Georgia won 2009: Utah was AQ, Alabama was at-large; Utah won

So strictly speaking, non-AQ teams were 1-1 (Georgia won, Alabama lost)

Going beyond:

2010: TCU was AQ, Boise State was at-large; BSU won

Making non-AQ teams 2-1 when considering matchups amongst the so-called "non-BCS" teams.

References: http://www.bcsfootball.org/news/story?id=4819597 - Rule 3 of the "Automatic qualification" section http://www.bcsfootball.org/news/story?id=5528971

Reamon (talk) 18:26, 13 December 2010 (UTC)reamon

Im confused. Why do you not count Utah/Pitt And BSU/Okl. The record IS 3-1. Bcspro (talk) 16:57, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Because Utah and BSU were not non-AQ. They were in those bowls via AQ bids. The non-AQs were Georgia, Alabama and BSU (in 2010). Reamon (talk) 21:41, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The Non-AQ term refers to the conference, not whether the team qualified automatically or at-large. An AQ team comes from the following confernces: ACC, Big 12, Big East, Big Ten, Pac-10, SEC. Bcspro (talk) 19:16, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * There is no official definition of "non-AQ" so it stands to reason that there are differences of opinions as to what it means. From the "Automatic qualification" section of the BCS selection procedures, rule 3, it lists that "Conference USA, the Mid-American Conference, the Mountain West Conference, the Sun Belt Conference, or the Western Athletic Conference will earn an automatic berth in a BCS bowl game." They are thus, strictly and pedantically speaking, AQ conferences. It's just that they share access to one AQ bid and it has 2 req'ts--be champ and be ranked highly. Reamon (talk) 21:41, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry but that's how the term is widely used. The section is accurate. But, perhaps we need to change "AQ team" to "AQ conference." Bcspro (talk) 07:14, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

No need to be sorry. I understand that non-AQ and non-BCS are widely used as colloquialisms. But how can the section be accurate in calling a team "non-AQ" when it is in fact participating in a bowl because it earned an AQ bid? Utah, Hawaii, BSU and TCU were all AQ teams (except BSU in 2010). "AQ conference" is not accurate either. The BCS selection process points out how the 5 so-called "non-AQ" conferences have an AQ bid available to them. I understand that the media and fans often use "AQ conference" to refer to 6 particular conferences. I'm just noting that per the BCS definitions and selection process, the term is inaccurate. The article should be true to the BCS "official" definitions with perhaps footnotes about colloquial usage. From a colloquial viewpoint the section is accurate. From a BCS definitions viewpoint, it is not. Reamon (talk) 17:21, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * My points about "AQ conference" not being official seem to be invalid. I found a mention of "AQ conference" on the BCS web site. "The five non-AQ conferences are just as much BCS conferences as the six AQ conferences. Conferences earn AQ status by on-field competition." http://www.bcsfootball.org/news/story?id=4809755 The FAQ also mentions the term. http://www.bcsfootball.org/news/story?id=4809793 Alas, there is no explicit definition that I've found. It seems that rule 2 of the "Automatic qualification" section infers what is defined as an "AQ conference." If someone sees something else on the BCS web site that is more explicit please post it. Even so, the BCS site is still somewhat confusing--the other 5 conferences have access to an AQ bid so how can they be non-AQ? Oh well. Reamon (talk) 17:37, 15 December 2010 (UTC)