the 1987 Fiesta Bowl: the game that changed college football forever

We all know what happenned.

Penn State and Miami met at Sun Devil Stadium in Arizona on January 2nd, 1987. Both teams had gone through the regular season undefeated and were the consensus #1 and 2 in every poll. Despite being largely unfavored, Penn State beat Miami 14-10, by forcing 7 turnovers, 5 of them Vinny Testaverde interceptions (including a timely goal line pick to seal the game).

How did this happen? Why did this happen? What was the result of this?

In the 1986 College Football season, there were 4 major bowl games -- The Rose Bowl, The Orange Bowl, The Sugar Bowl, and The Cotton Bowl. All 4 of these bowl games had conference tie-ins, and thus had to select the winner(s) of whatever conference(s) they were tied to. The Rose Bowl was tied to the Big Ten (which still had 10 members) and the Pac-10. The Orange Bowl was tied to the Big 8 Conference (now makes up 8 of the Big 12 teams). The Sugar Bowl was tied to the SEC. The Cotton Bowl was tied to the Southwest Conference (busted up in the early 90's, 4 teams went to complete the Big 12).

Penn State and Miami, the two teams who went through the regular season undefeated, were both independent at the time. The match-up would be split up if either of the schools decided to accept a berth to one of the four major bowls.

This left two bowls in a bidding war for the rights to play these two teams -- The Fiesta Bowl in Arizona, and the Citrus Bowl (now capitol one bowl) in Orlando. As the two bowls tried desperately to outbid one another for this game, the Fiesta Bowl came up with a plan that has since infiltrated its way into every other single bowl game. They accepted sponsorship, titular sponsorship at that, from Sunkist, in order to pay the sum to host the two teams.

I don't think there is a bowl game out there now that is not sponsored, not even the blandly titled "bcs championship game" goes without a sponsor (it's FedEx this time around).

This idea of pitting a #1 and #2 against each other every year became a popular idea, namely because college football had no playoff system then, and shows no signs of wanting one now. Co-National Champions after both the 1990 and 1991 seasons even further expressed this need to attempt to pit the two "best" teams against one another. The Bowl Coalition was formed for the 1992 season to try and remedy this situation.

The Bowl coalition consisted of six games with guaranteed representatives coming from six conferences -- the Southwest conference, the Big East, the Big 8, the SEC, the ACC, and Notre Dame (yeah, I went there). The Rose Bowl was not a part of this because it has tie-ins with two conferences, as opposed to the one tie-in most of the other bowls have. The Big East, having formed for the 1991 season, had no direct tie-in to any bowl game, but rather was selected much like an at-large team, a system that continues to this day.

Ironically, the Bowl coalition prevented Penn State from a shot at the 1994 season's National championship. Penn State, having recently joined the Big Ten, went directly to the Rose Bowl, leaving also undefeated Nebraska to play someone else. Both teams won their bowl games and finished the season undefeated.

The Penn State snub along with the guaranteed Notre Dame bid (they went 6-4-1 for the 1994 season, got crushed by Colorado in the 1995 Fiesta Bowl) gave the Bowl coalition a short life. It was supplanted by the Bowl Alliance, but that was basically the same thing (though the Southwest and Big 8 conferences were replaced for the 1996 season by the Big 12), the Rose Bowl was still not involved, which left the Big Ten and Pac-10 out of it. Starting with the 1998 season, they finally joined, creating the "bowl championship series" (I suppose the title does not lie, there is a series of bowls, and there must be champions of each bowl game).

Alas, as I began to ramble about the de-evolution/evolution of the division 1 football title, I forgot to mention an important point. As the title game started to become more directly tied to conferences/notre dame, it became important for the independent football teams to join conferences. The Big East added football (it had already existed, though its schools played football independently). Penn State joined the Big Ten. South Carolina joined the SEC. The only "important" independent to remain so was notre dame, who could do so because of special priveleges it had with the bowl system (after shunning it entirely for 50 years).

The 1987 Fiesta Bowl was the last matchup between an independent number 1 and independent number 2. The 1989 Fiesta Bowl also featured an all-independent matchup, though #1 Notre Dame was pitted against #3 West Virgina. Miami (also still independent) was #2, but several factors kept them from playing in this game -- namely Miami had already lost to Notre Dame that season, and Miami as a team tried to personally kill every member of Notre Dame's roster (something you'd think I'd support, but alas,I'd rather pros do it than thugs).

So yeah, Penn State won the 1987 Fiesta bowl, and with it the national title from the 1986 season, but they ended up taking part in an event which forever changed the sport they played.

Good News Everyone: The bsc has made its selections!!!

Let me start this off by stating that I am not pissed that Penn State did not get selected for a bsc bowl. I am a little bit puzzled, but I am not pissed -- Iowa beat them in the head to head matchup, and thus they should go instead.

Now, for an idea of what I think of the bsc, replace "Limp Bizkit" in the following song whenever it comes up.



Now, onto the review of what the bsc has done this year.


-- First off, the Big 12 and SEC championship games became the de facto semi final for the "national championship" game, for some unknown reason besides the fact that Big 12 and SEC fans hype their conferences more than any of the others. I'm sorry there's stuff to do in the rest of the country, I really am, but that doesn't mean you have to take it out on the everyone else.

-- Who's piece of shit idea was it to put TCU up against Boise State in the Fiesta Bowl? The point of having non-bsc conference teams make it to bsc bowls is so they can beat those bsc conference teams. And yes, it can happen, yes, it has happenned. Utah and Boise State have both done it before. So yes, this is a matchup of unbeatens, but the fact that neither of these teams is playing Georgia Tech, Florida, or Iowa (putting them up against an unbeaten Cincy would also be pointless in my opinion) just means that the bsc has nothing but disdain for any and all schools outside of the "big 6" (and really, they hate the big east now too, so maybe the big 5 is better). The bsc's shitty ass futile attempt to de-legitamize any kind of chance that either of these teams has for a national title just further legitamizes the need for a playoff system. Frankly, I think Texas may not even be the best team in the state, I think TCU might be better, but they're not gonna have any chance of proving it. I'd like to say maybe they make this the semi, and they play the winner of the other game, but that would leave out a possibly undefeated cincy.

-- Did Florida really have to go to the Sugar Bowl? I realize the SEC has ties to the game, but the SEC's automatic qualifier is playing for the "national title". That should make Florida up for grabs by any other bowl. Truth be told, the matchup should be interesting against Cincy. Florida's dirty ass defense against Cincinatti's precision offense should be fun.

-- Why does Iowa go to the Orange bowl? This one is completely at-large and completely under control by the entire bowl committee. Ohio State is already going to the Rose Bowl, Iowa can go anywhere. So why not send Iowa to the Fiesta bowl against TCU? Put Boise State in the Orange bowl against Georgia Tech (automatic bid and conference tie in, not gonna make any complaints). It's not like Big Ten teams can't go to the Fiesta Bowl, in fact Penn State (passed over, but whatevs) has a rich and long history at the Fiesta Bowl, including the 1987(?) national championship against Miami.

-- Why is every commentator stating alternative championship scenarios as "if Texas didn't get selected for the national championship game, who should be?" Is it really that safe to assume Alabama is that far ahead of everybody else? If that is the case, just give them the title already and let everyone else play their bowls (it's happenned before, when Nixon screwed Penn State out of a title in '69 and declared Texas the champion after defeating Arkansas -- one of the few things I didn't like about his presidency). Yes, Texas almost lost their conference title game, but they won it, which is what they needed to do to win their conference. You know what, TCU, Boise State, and Cincinnatti also did what they needed to do to win their conferences, and they, along with Alabama, all remained undefeated in doing so.

-- Random thought, since when does winning the SEC put you in the national title game? Yeah, I know SEC teams beat Ohio State two years in a row to win the national title, but those weren't that good of Ohio State teams. They may have won the Big Ten those years, but the Big Ten wasn't very strong those years. Penn State was burdened by Anthony Morelli and Michigan began its tailslide into mediocrity. If Ohio State didn't win the conference those seasons, it would have been the ultimate excercise in futility considering their rosters. And you know what, those two SEC teams, they weren't just SEC teams, they were GOOD teams. It's a very fine distinction in some parts of this country, but it's a distinction that has to be made.

-- If there are 120 teams in "fbs", and it requires 12 teams for a conference to have a championship game, why not have 10 conferences -- 12 playoff spots (2 at-large bids) and make it work with bye weeks -- the NFL uses a 12 team playoff system, I have no idea what the RGFL uses, but that's another matter entirely.

So why does it have to be like this? At least with the old system, we all knew it was sloppy, and it was going to miss chances to name national champions (1994 Penn State Nittany Lions, ahem) but it never went out of its way to proclaim how right it is and how awesome and perfect it is that the games are like this.

Oh, and really don't ever listen to ESPN at all for anything regarding whether or not to have a BCS or any sort of bowl system -- Disney (owners of ESPN) has distribution rights to all but a few bowl games, and as such, stands to lose alot that time of year if anything were to change.

-- Knuttel

post script

-- I was just thinking about how one of the most classic, memorable, enduring moments of college basketball was Villanova's defeat of Patrick Ewing's Georgetown town in the mid-80s, despite being vastly out seeded etc etc; and how a scenario like that could never ever happen in College Football with the system as it is now.

-- Maybe because the field is so evenly qualified this year they should just revert to the older system and have these 5 or so major bowls and just vote on whichever one plays the best. Frankly it makes about just as much sense, and while it doesn't pit 1 against 2, it allows for all the unbeatens to have a shot at the title. Might actually be less chaotic.

-- Side note of additional information -- Cincinnati actually edged out Texas in the computer polls. Thought I'd share that.

-- Joe Paterno was "asked to give up" his voting privelages in the Coaches poll after he split his number 1 vote 3 ways during the season of 3 unbeatens. This was after the "national championship" game "decided" the winner. The bsc will stop at nothing for false legitimacy.

BS "championship" preview before the preview

If anyone is wondering, that stands for "bowl subdivision championship". I think it works better with the letters rearranged like so.

Let's start this off by kicking charlie "Fatass" weiss out the door. His firing really made my extra-high levels of obnoxiousness during the nd/PSU game weekend 2007 really worth it. I recall screaming about weiss' protestant prostituting to some nd alumni who bought me beer the night before as well as many threats of rape, murder, and general mutilation to nd fans attending the game, as well as their extended family.

He was a fraud who could only win with Ty Willingham's players. The only kind of players he could recruit were offensive skill players, wanting to show off in a true pro system by a true pro style coach. A shame you kind of need offensive linemen and defensive players to really pull it off.

I shall also bid farewell to Mangino, the coach at Kansas who matched the schools previous total of bowl wins (3) and won their first orange bowl (they lost to Penn State in their first one, despite a strong effort from future Redskin John Riggins). Apparently he is really mean to his players, and that just doesn't fly once they stop winning for you.

So onto bowls and possible scenarios etc.

One bowl is already entirely figured out -- the rose bowl. Both the Pac-10 and the Big Ten have already declared their winners, neither of whom "have a shot" at the national championship and both shall receive an automatic berth for this game. The ohio state buckeyes won the Big Ten outright, going 7-1 (Iowa and Penn State are tied for second at 6-2), and went 3-1 in their non-conference schedule (a loss to a Pac-10 team). Oregon won the Pac-10 similarly, losing one in conference for an outright berth and losing one out of conference, to Boise State of the WAC. As this post shall not make any predictions, I shall leave this part as is, except one more mentioning of legarrete (sp?) blunt's awesome punching form. I also don't really know if I should pray ohio state doesn't embarass the Big Ten yet again in a bsc game or hope they win.

This leaves 3 proper BSC bowls and the "national championship" game left, 8 slots to fill. Automatic berths will also come from the ACC, Big East, SEC, and Big 12.

The Big East is being decided by a de facto championship game, between undefeated Cincinatti and 9-2 Pitt (one conference loss).

Cincinatti has the opportunity to be left out of the "national championship" game if they win. Pitt has the opportunity to spoil a possible national title for the conference if they win.

The ACC championship game will not send anyone to the "national championship" game, as both teams have at least two losses. The game itself should be good, as this is a rematch from an earlier game in the season -- Georgia Tech and Clemson. The scoring shall be fun to watch, as Georgia Tech is one of the few division 1 teams to run the under center triple option, a very explosive version that can score quickly, and Clemson's Spiller can hurt the opposing team in so many different facets of the game.

The Big 12 championship game features undefeated Texas against 9-3 Nebraska. Texas is being picked almost universally in a landslide, but Nebraska's defense may prove to be a possible spoiler (for both the conference and national title). It's easy to forget that the Big 12 south was weak this year (unfulfilled expecations from Oklahoma and Oklahoma state, struggles by Texas Tech and Texas A&M, and perennially weak Baylor).

The SEC championship game will likely send one team to the "national championship" game. I really don't understand how, but they probably will. Undefeated Florida from the SEC east and undefeated Alabama from the SEC west will face down eachother for this game. Both of these teams are being flat out inundated with praise about how awesome they are, how holy tim teblow is, etc. Let me get this straight. The SEC is not the strongest conference in college football. Having two undefeated teams does not make one the strongest conference. The SEC often plays weaker out of conference matchups than the Big Ten. The SEC east is one of the weakest divisions in college football. Let me ask this -- who in the east had a shot at knocking off florida for the east title? Georgia may be the closest, but making them the fifth strongest team in the whole SEC may be generous. Tennessee may be good in the future, but is a joke. Kentucky periodically rises to mediocrity, but otherwise is a joke. Vanderbilt. Enough said. South Carolina is also perennially mediocre. Even in the west, they're all just a little sub par. I'd like to see Auburn in a year or two though, I like their version of the downhill spread.

So let's assume all goes as planned, I know I said no predictions, but these aren't really mine, just what are pretty universal assumptions.

Florida wins the SEC and goes to the "national title" game
Texas wins the Big 12 and goes to the "national title" game
Georgia Tech wins the ACC and goes to the Sugar Bowl
Cincinatti wins the Big East and goes to the Sugar Bowl ... undefeated
Ohio State won the Big Ten and is going to the Rose Bowl
Oregon won the Pac-10 and is going to the Rose Bowl

This leaves 4 at large bids (which really may split up the Sugar bowl matchup).
The likely candidates will be among the following
Texas Christian University -- 12-0, undefeated, non-bcs
Boise State -- 12-0, undefeated, non-bcs
Iowa -- 10-2, Big Ten
Penn State -- 10-2, Big Ten
Alabama/Florida -- 12-1, SEC

If Georgia Tech loses their championship game, they will be 10-3 and likely up for an at-large bid.
If Cincinatti loses their championship game, they will be 11-1 and will likely be up for an at-large bid.
If Texas loses their championship game, they will be 12-1 and will likely be up for an at-large bid.
Virgina Tech, Nebraska, Oklahoma State, Pitt, and LSU will all have 9 wins and be on the periphery of the bsc picture if it goes as above.

Notre Dame is not in the top 50 this year, and thus will not get into a bsc game.

One non-bsc team may have an automatic berth if they ...... jibbrish really. Both TCU and Boise State qualify for one of the automatic berths is what that means.
Only two teams from any single conference can receive bsc berths. This means the loser of the SEC game will likely get a berth, and either Iowa or Penn State will be left out of the bsc picture.

It is VERY possible for either TCU or Boise State to get left out of a bsc bowl game entirely, despite going undefeated with strong schedules.

It is possible, this year, for there to be 4 undefeated teams at the end of the season, breaking the record of 3 a few years back (Auburn and Utah were left out, I believe, and USC won the "national title", against 1 loss, hadn't actually won their conference Oklahoma; I could be wrong).

So how do we fix this?

Well first of all every team needs to be in a conference. THIS INCLUDES NOTRE DAME. The service academies I wouldn't mind giving an exemption to, but they could just as easily join a lighter conference or drop to 1-fCs (the c stands for championship, they're legit there). Army, not too long ago, had a stint in Conference-USA, if anyone cares to remember.

Secondly all "major" conferences need to be expanded to 12 teams and feature conference championship games. In face, all conferences should just be expanded to a size large enough to have a championship game and then have a winner decided that way. I'm really fucking pissed that Penn State's last two conference championships were "shared" with ohio state, even though Penn State won the match-up both of those seasons. Penn State got the automatic berth, but those really shouldn't count for conference titles for Tressel.

The Big Ten, for example, could easily go to 12 teams by adding, oh, I dunno, Notre Dame. Half of their "rivals" are in the Big Ten anyway. Schedule one out of conference each year with USC and have Stanford, Navy, and BC on some sort of shuffled schedule. Wow, did I just fix that? In fact, the Big East could absorb both Army and Navy, now that I think about it. Maybe Penn State could re-align (does that mean Penn State gets to play traditional rivals like Pitt and West Virgina?) (I dunno, an Iowa State realign from the big 12 to even that, and a TCU realign to even that) to bring it to 11. Maybe re-add Temple to get a solid 12?

Thirdly, there needs to be a playoff system. I dunno how many conferences are going to exist, but maybe JUST ONE BERTH from each conference? Maybe have an at-large or two to even it out if it needs to be done.

If the major conferences are that much superior to the others then it really shouldnt be that big a deal for Texas to face the MAC winner, and Florida to face the Conference-USA winner, should it?

If the season's too long, then shorten it. 10-11 games was all most teams needed for the longest time. Now 12's become the standard within the past decade, and schools are complaining they'll play too many games. Frankly I think that was some sort of idea planted by the bsc, to ward off any playoff talk.

Re-alignment shouldn't be that much of an issue anyway, as most of the non-major conferences don't last too long. The Big 12 is an invention of the past 20 years, as is the current form of the SEC. The current ACC is even newer, going from 9-12 teams in one year.

I've probably gotten too long winded and possibly angry sounding by this point, so I shall leave you with that thought.

-- Knuttel

oh, and some Danzig