Boise State Should Be Furious

Something I don't get is why Boise fans aren't burning down the countryside over Connecticut getting to the Fiesta Bowl over them (even with one loss).  By my reading of the BCS rules, they should qualify over Connecticut:

Connecticut BCS rank: Not Ranked

BSU BCS rank: 10!

Connecticut Record: 8-4, Big East Champs

Boise State Record: 11-1, WAC Shared Champs

BCS Rules:  

3. The champion (BSU=Check) of Conference USA, the Mid-American Conference, the Mountain West Conference, the Sun Belt Conference, or the WesternAthletic Conference will earn an automatic berth in a BCS bowl game if either:

• A. Such team is ranked in the top 12 of the final BCS Standings

BSU=Check

• B. Such team is ranked in the top 16 of the final BCS Standings and its ranking in the final BCS Standings is higher than that of a champion of a conference that has an annual automatic berth in one of the BCS bowls.

BSU=Check

No more than one such team from Conference USA, the Mid-American Conference, the Mountain West Conference, the Sun Belt Conference, and the Western Athletic Conference shall earn an automatic berth in any year. (Note: a second team may be eligible for at-large eligibility as noted below.) If two or more teams from those conferences satisfy the provisions for an automatic berth, then the team with the highest finish in the final BCS Standings will receive the automatic berth, and the remaining team or teams will be considered for at-large selection if it meets the criteria.
So the Big Bad BCS forces the Fiesta Bowl to, in my opinion, violate their own rules by taking a lower ranked champion of an AQC in Connecticut.  You can't tell me that the Fiesta Bowl Committee would say "Oh, yeah, let's choose another pathetic Big East team for our at large slot instead of Boise State who will bring the whole state of Idaho down here to Arizona for a weekend."  You know the BCS henchmen made them do it.  I guess in the future we know who we'll be seeing playing for the Big East year after year. (TCU)

Boise State should start a national protest/boycott and tell people not to watch that game.  Ratings will talk.

Tijs Limburg

Why Should The Pac-10 Rush To Add Utah When The Big-Tex (12-2) Is Still Unstable (Not Likely Viable)?

The above sbnation post presents some interesting arguments.  However, I think it, along with many of the comments on the article, fail to see one key factor in the realignment developments. 

First, Colorado is going to need, and probably would request, a 'travel partner' in the league.  Otherwise, they'd be left out by a large distance from any of their colleagues in the PAC while waiting for more teams to be invited in the future.  Utah would be a good fit for a regional rival for CU. 

But even more importantly, the PAC cannot let Utah get away, and here's why.  The PAC invited 5 schools other than CU to come from the Big 12: Texas, Texas Tech, Texas A&M, Oklahoma and Oklahoma St.  However, it seems that A&M was not really keen on moving to the PAC even if the other 4 teams did.  So, I think the PAC would have had to revise their offer even if the 4 teams would have decided to leave the Big 12.  Which means the PAC would have likely added Utah anyway as a replacement for A&M going to the SEC.

Now with the possibility of the Big 12 remaining for at least a while (although the whole thing seems like smoke and mirrors), the PAC should just get Utah while they can so that as they wait for the inevitable demise of the Big "Texas" 12, CU will at least have a close rival, and, they will already have the teams they need to have when the 4 Big 12 teams become available again and A&M makes their eventual move to the SEC.

I suspect this is the thinking behind Larry Scott kicking around the idea of an invite to Utah.