TCU getting an ass beating! [Archive] - Front Office Football Central

Taur

11-20-2003, 08:23 PM

Originally posted by Ksyrup
Why does any team with any aspirations play on any day other than a Saturday?
Was this a scheduled thursday night game at the beginning of the year? I am just curious as to how flexible College schedules are?

At the beginning of the season who would of thought that TCU vs Southern Miss would of deserved a nationally televised game in primetime?

ice4277

11-20-2003, 08:25 PM

Originally posted by Taur
Was this a scheduled thursday night game at the beginning of the year? I am just curious as to how flexible College schedules are?

At the beginning of the season who would of thought that TCU vs Southern Miss would of deserved a nationally televised game in primetime?

Yes, they schedule these games at the beginning of the year. You can get some good matchups, but also some dogs, just like Monday Night Football. Last night's Marshall/UCF game was an example of one that sounded very intriguing at the beginning of the year, but, turned out to be a crap matchup. Works both ways.

Vegas Vic

11-20-2003, 08:53 PM

Originally posted by The Afoci
This was the number 9 team in the country and an underdog against an unranked opponent.

This happens more frequently than you would think, especially when the ranked team is playing on the road.

lynchjm24

11-20-2003, 09:07 PM

Originally posted by Vegas Vic
This happens more frequently than you would think, especially when the ranked team is playing on the road.

I think his point was they aren't the 9th best team in the country.

This was pretty clear to most fans, but it will be nice to shut some of the idiots whining about non-BCS conferences being shut out of the BCS games.

Pumpy Tudors

11-20-2003, 09:14 PM

So it's a bad thing to think that non-BCS teams should get a CHANCE at a BCS bowl? So TCU's had an undefeated run that's probably about to end, but this is supposed to prove that a Conference USA team or ANY other team from such a conference is undeserving? Thanks for the heads-up. So, one day, when a MAC or Mountain West team goes undefeated, keep quiet, everybody. Obviously, they shouldn't even be considered for championship consideration.

Whew, glad we got that little wrinkle out of the way.

TroyF

11-20-2003, 09:15 PM

Originally posted by lynchjm24
I think his point was they aren't the 9th best team in the country.

This was pretty clear to most fans, but it will be nice to shut some of the idiots whining about non-BCS conferences being shut out of the BCS games.

No, it won't shut any of us up.

That's what people keep failing to realize. Just because they happened to lose, doesn't mean the system if a fair one.

And before someone pops off "you guys just don't change your opinion" keep in mind two things:

1) Very few of us hoping TCU would get in thought TCU was a legitimate top 10 team. We knew they were a good, not great team. It isn't a shock to any of us that they did indeed lose.

2) You wouldn't have changed your mind had TCU destroyed Southern Miss.

TroyF

Easy Mac

11-20-2003, 09:21 PM

Obviously a BCS team has never lost late in the season to a lesser team and knocked themselves out of major bowl contention. Since the same is happening to TCU, it must mean that no non-BCS team should get in a BCS bowl. Therefore, it means no BCS team should be in a BCS bowl.

CamEdwards

11-20-2003, 09:44 PM

down by three with five to play... hardly an ass-whupping.

mauchow

11-20-2003, 09:47 PM

WAS an ass-whupping if you been watching any of it..

SMU is choking big time..

If TCU wins.. Talk about another stupid week of whining from TCU fans... But at the same time it shuts them up too.. Maybe they'll be happy being left out so they're not embarrassed?

mckerney

11-20-2003, 09:52 PM

6 points, 3:09, could get good.

Go Frogs.

mauchow

11-20-2003, 09:54 PM

TURNOVER.. That's game.. Damn

mauchow

11-20-2003, 09:55 PM

By the way, I don't know who's side I'm on.. last week I found myself cheering for them, but hey.. I'm weird like that. .back off! j/k

GO VIKINGS!!!

rjolley

11-20-2003, 09:55 PM

Someone explain the out of bounds rule. Wasn't that runner out of bounds?

Pumpy Tudors

11-20-2003, 09:56 PM

Originally posted by rjolley
Someone explain the out of bounds rule. Wasn't that runner out of bounds?

My guess is that they're saying that his forward progress was stopped while he was still in bounds.

sabotai

11-20-2003, 10:05 PM

I did not see the play, but going on what Pumpy said, if your forward progess is stopped before you go out of bounds, it is considered in bounds and the clock continues to run.

finkenst

11-20-2003, 10:10 PM

The rankings are a joke. This was the number 9 team in the country and an underdog against an unranked opponent.

Didn't the #3 team in the country lose to an unranked team 3 weeks in a row?

Buccaneer

11-20-2003, 10:15 PM

Obviously, they shouldn't even be considered for championship consideration.

You got that right.

Pumpy, Troy - you guys are beating a hollow drum. It may be unfair for a mid-major team not being able to schedule a decent set of games BUT you don't rank a team on what-ifs. With TCU's schedule and results, they should not have even been considered in the top 20. Beating (in same cases, barely beating) poor to mediocre teams does not mean a thing, regardless what the computers or polls say. It's pretty stupid to whine and cry that they would get shut out of the BCS bowls or that they should be a playoffs when your energies should have been directed towards creating more of a equitable system.

albionmoonlight

11-20-2003, 10:18 PM

People forget that a non-BCS team (Tulane) has had an undefeated season and did not even get to sniff a BCS bowl.

There are two distinct arguments, which I do not think are mutually exclusive.

Fans of the BCS conferences who want the fans of Cinderalla teams to shut up are saying that these teams (TCU this year) would probably lose to the top 15 or so teams in the country. And I think that they are right.

Fans of the Cinderalla teams simply want the chance to prove themselves one way or the other. And I think that they deserve that chance.

I don't like the BCS because it gives an air of legitimacy to what is a mythical national championship. Go back to the days of conference bowl tie-ins, media polls and endless bar-room debate (my choice)--or go to a playoff (good idea except that it kills the regular season.) Just stop with this system that is supposed to produce a "national champion," but is really just subjectivity and guesswork hidden behind a lot of formulas.

sabotai

11-20-2003, 10:21 PM

I love how some people act like others are "crying" and "whining" because they simply disagree with them.

fof playa

11-20-2003, 10:35 PM

Originally posted by albionmoonlight
People forget that a non-BCS team (Tulane) has had an undefeated season and did not even get to sniff a BCS bowl.

there was no BCS in 1998.

Buccaneer

11-20-2003, 10:41 PM

Originally posted by albionmoonlight
People forget that a non-BCS team (Tulane) has had an undefeated season and did not even get to sniff a BCS bowl.

There are two distinct arguments, which I do not think are mutually exclusive.

Fans of the BCS conferences who want the fans of Cinderalla teams to shut up are saying that these teams (TCU this year) would probably lose to the top 15 or so teams in the country. And I think that they are right.

Fans of the Cinderalla teams simply want the chance to prove themselves one way or the other. And I think that they deserve that chance.

I don't like the BCS because it gives an air of legitimacy to what is a mythical national championship. Go back to the days of conference bowl tie-ins, media polls and endless bar-room debate (my choice)--or go to a playoff (good idea except that it kills the regular season.) Just stop with this system that is supposed to produce a "national champion," but is really just subjectivity and guesswork hidden behind a lot of formulas.

I agree with this. Cinderalla teams need to have the chance to prove themselves. That was what my beef was with TCU and those holding that team up in challenging the BCS elites. They had not proven themselves at all. If they had played just one decent team (and won), then they would be more legitamite (sp?), imo. Until they do, however, then they can be ranked with those playing much better teams.

panerd

11-20-2003, 10:43 PM

Yeah you guys are right the pre-BCS days were so much more fair. Remember the year TCU was in the Rose Bowl and Tulane was battling in the Orange Bowl for the National Championship? :rolleyes:

At least now Tulane has some chance. So the Tulane arguement actually favors the BCS.

Pumpy Tudors

11-20-2003, 10:44 PM

Why does Texas get a higher BCS ranking than TCU? What great teams have they beaten? Kansas State? Nebraska? Are those teams really worth THAT much more than Louisville or Houston this year? What about Georgia? Who have they beaten except for Tennessee? Sure, they played LSU and Florida close, but close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades.

I'm not saying that TCU has the same talent level as Texas or Georgia. I'm saying that there's no reasonable rationale for this, except for the fact that Texas and Georgia are in more prestigious conferences. Smaller conferences are NOT getting a fair shot, and in the BCS system, they never will.

At first, I thought an important factor was the teams that the contenders lost to. Then I recall that Texas lost at HOME to Arkansas. That normally wouldn't help any top 10 team's cause. Hmm. Okay, well, maybe the important thing is the teams that the contenders beat. Well, Tennessee's big wins were against schools that were in tailspins at the time (Florida early, Miami late). The Vols were also lackluster in home games against South Carolina and DUKE, for crying out loud. So why were they ranked above TCU in the BCS? None of those wins were particularly impressive except maybe the Miami game. So if it's not really important who beats you, and it's not important who you beat, then what is it?

It's all about prestige. A team in a BCS conference can honk against teams they should trash, but if a non-BCS team wins EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEIR GAMES, it's still not good enough.

I, like albionmoonlight, prefer the old bowl system over anything. I especially prefer it over the system that's in place now.

Buccaneer

11-20-2003, 10:44 PM

dola

I just saw on ESPN.com saying that TCU should "get some respect" now. Respect? Losing to a 7-3 team??? If they had beaten SMU, then I would give them some respect but they spent all season beating poor to mediocre teams and they could not beat the one good team they played. Where does respect come in?

panerd

11-20-2003, 10:45 PM

Originally posted by Pumpy Tudors
Why does Texas get a higher BCS ranking than TCU? What great teams have they beaten? Kansas State? Nebraska? Are those teams really worth THAT much more than Louisville or Houston this year?

Yes. Dumbest question I have read in a while.

Vinatieri for Prez

11-20-2003, 10:47 PM

It's actually quite easy for the non-BCS teams to get a shot at the National Championship -- Schedule tougher teams. Period. And there is no such argument that the better teams won't want to do it. They are always looking at beating the lesser teams to beef up schedule. TCU should have done what Southern Miss. did. Southern Miss. scheduled Nebraska, Alabama, and Cal.

Buccaneer

11-20-2003, 10:48 PM

It's all about prestige. A team in a BCS conference can honk against teams they should trash, but if a non-BCS team wins EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEIR GAMES, it's still not good enough.

As it should be, imo.

I, like albionmoonlight, prefer the old bowl system over anything. I especially prefer it over the system that's in place now.

In the old bowl system, TCU may have been invited to the Peach Bowl or Bluebonnett Bowl - regardless if they are 12-0 or 11-1.

Pumpy Tudors

11-20-2003, 10:52 PM

Originally posted by panerd
Yes. Dumbest question I have read in a while.

You fail to realize that I'm asking if two teams were worth THAT much more than two others. I'm not putting Louisville and Houston on the same level as Nebraska and Kansas State. I think many people (if I'm reading correctly, you included) are putting these Big 12 teams several notches above Conference USA teams, and I think they're at least a LITTLE closer than people think.

Of course, this simply demonstrates the lack of respect that Conference USA and other such conferences get. K-State is known for their cupcake schedules (see their games against Cal, Troy State, McNeese State, and UMass), and then they even lost against Marshall. Nebraska barely beats Penn State, loses to Missouri, and gets blown out by Texas and the aforementioned Wildcats.

This year, where have these two teams shown that they're MILES ahead of Louisville or Houston?

People who argue that TCU didn't deserve to be ranked in their spot are not even opening their minds to the mere NOTION that the gap between the "majors" and the "mid-majors" isn't all that big.

Pumpy Tudors

11-20-2003, 10:56 PM

Originally posted by Buccaneer
In the old bowl system, TCU may have been invited to the Peach Bowl or Bluebonnett Bowl - regardless if they are 12-0 or 11-1.

Very true. Of course, USC would go to the Rose Bowl, and Oklahoma would go to the Orange Bowl, I suppose, and then we'd have the old arguments of the past about who's the better team. I would really prefer that over this.

panerd

11-20-2003, 10:56 PM

Put Southern Miss or TCU up against Oklahoma, Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma State, Kansas State, Nebraska, Missouri, and maybe even Kansas and I will bet on a win 9 games out of 10. The Big 12, SEC, Big Ten, and Pac-10 are that superior to the smaller conferences. If the question is whether smaller conferences get screwed, then I agree with you wholeheartly. I think TCU and Northern Illinois were teams a lot of people wanted to cheer for. But based on ability to win football games the Conference USA vs. the Big 12 is like the Big 12 vs. the NFL. It isn't even the same game.

Pumpy Tudors

11-20-2003, 10:58 PM

Originally posted by Vinatieri for Prez
It's actually quite easy for the non-BCS teams to get a shot at the National Championship -- Schedule tougher teams. Period. And there is no such argument that the better teams won't want to do it. They are always looking at beating the lesser teams to beef up schedule. TCU should have done what Southern Miss. did. Southern Miss. scheduled Nebraska, Alabama, and Cal.

No, that doesn't do it, because the conference bias will always be there. The non-BCS team would not get the luxury of blowing a game like USC did against California. They'd have to beat every single one of the BCS teams on their schedule in order to even get remote consideration.

Vinatieri for Prez

11-20-2003, 11:00 PM

Well you're not quite right on the comparisons. The better(1-3) teams in the BCS conferences (FSUs, Miamis, Oklahoma's) are miles ahead of the leaders of the mid-majors. And unless you schedule and beat a team like that, you don't deserve a shot at the BCS/national champinship.

Pumpy Tudors

11-20-2003, 11:03 PM

Originally posted by panerd
Put Southern Miss or TCU up against Oklahoma, Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma State, Kansas State, Nebraska, Missouri, and maybe even Kansas and I will bet on a win 9 games out of 10. The Big 12, SEC, Big Ten, and Pac-10 are that superior to the smaller conferences. If the question is whether smaller conferences get screwed, then I agree with you wholeheartly. I think TCU and Northern Illinois were teams a lot of people wanted to cheer for. But based on ability to win football games the Conference USA vs. the Big 12 is like the Big 12 vs. the NFL. It isn't even the same game.

You know, I was kinda following you until you threw Kansas (even though you said "maybe") in there. That shows me that the reputation of a team's conference DOES influence the way people view a team. Many people see "Big 12" or "Pac-10" and instantly think that the team is worth something, even if they have 3 losses. However, "MAC" or "Conference USA" means that the team is trash unless they've beaten top teams in other leagues.

So we agree that the smaller conferences get screwed, but I'm taking it a step further. I'm trying to figure out a logical reason that they're getting screwed.

panerd

11-20-2003, 11:03 PM

Originally posted by Pumpy Tudors
No, that doesn't do it, because the conference bias will always be there. The non-BCS team would not get the luxury of blowing a game like USC did against California. They'd have to beat every single one of the BCS teams on their schedule in order to even get remote consideration.

Let me get this conference bias straight...

USC: Lost to Cal. Beat top 10 Auburn and Washington State. Plus beat UCLA, Notre Dame, Arizona, BYU, Arizona State among others.

Ohio State: Lost at Wisconsin. Beat Washington, Iowa, Purdue, Michigan State, and NC State among others.

TCU: Lost to Southern Miss. Beat nobody.

Conference bias putting USC and OSU ahead of TCU?

Vinatieri for Prez

11-20-2003, 11:05 PM

panerd

11-20-2003, 11:06 PM

Originally posted by Pumpy Tudors
You know, I was kinda following you until you threw Kansas (even though you said "maybe") in there. That shows me that the reputation of a team's conference DOES influence the way people view a team. Many people see "Big 12" or "Pac-10" and instantly think that the team is worth something, even if they have 3 losses.

Be careful there. Take a team like Kansas. Where are their losses? Against Big 12 and Big 10 teams. They blow out the mid majors. Throw TCU in the Big 12 and let's see if they finish above Baylor and Iowa State.

Pumpy Tudors

11-20-2003, 11:08 PM

Originally posted by Vinatieri for Prez
Well you're not quite right on the comparisons. The better(1-3) teams in the BCS conferences (FSUs, Miamis, Oklahoma's) are miles ahead of the leaders of the mid-majors. And unless you schedule and beat a team like that, you don't deserve a shot at the BCS/national champinship.

What about the teams in the BCS conferences, though? Some of them play teams like FSU or Miami and lose, but they still get consideration, simply because of the conference that they play in.

The whole argument is speculation on my side, and I submit that a great deal of speculation takes place on the other side, too. Given that, I'll now say what may be the craziest thing of all (again, this is speculation):

If a Big 12 team and a Conference USA team both beat FSU, Miami, and Florida in the same season, the Big 12 team would get a ton more respect, all other things being equal.

The BCS is all about the conferences. I don't think it has nearly as much to do with the TEAMS as people think.

Pumpy Tudors

11-20-2003, 11:13 PM

Originally posted by panerd
Let me get this conference bias straight...

USC: Lost to Cal. Beat top 10 Auburn and Washington State. Plus beat UCLA, Notre Dame, Arizona, BYU, Arizona State among others.

Ohio State: Lost at Wisconsin. Beat Washington, Iowa, Purdue, Michigan State, and NC State among others.

TCU: Lost to Southern Miss. Beat nobody.

Conference bias putting USC and OSU ahead of TCU?

Well, let's forget that wins over UCLA, Notre Dame, and Arizona (!) aren't all that impressive this year...

I know I mentioned USC's loss to Cal earlier, but I wasn't really trying to compare TCU to either USC or Ohio State. TCU's undefeated season was not close to "major" schools with only one loss. Though it may not seem so, I do recognize the differences between an undefeated CUSA team and a once-beaten Big Ten team, for instance. Now, when it comes down to an undefeated CUSA team and a TWICE-beaten team, it gets a little muddy for me.

mckerney

11-20-2003, 11:18 PM

Originally posted by Vinatieri for Prez
Well you're not quite right on the comparisons. The better(1-3) teams in the BCS conferences (FSUs, Miamis, Oklahoma's) are miles ahead of the leaders of the mid-majors. And unless you schedule and beat a team like that, you don't deserve a shot at the BCS/national champinship.

Well, it's not quite that easy to just schedule a team like FSU or Miami if you're a top team in the mid-major conferences. Some have non-conference rivalries that take most non-conference games, and those teams often don't want to play the better mid major teams because they know they can be a threat and don't want to risk being knocked off by one of them.

EDIT: So basically what you're saying is tough luck. You're not part of the good ol' boys club so you don't get a chance.

Vinatieri for Prez

11-20-2003, 11:59 PM

You are correct for the most part, but as we're seeing with the BCS that strength of schedule is important even for the BCS teams (See LSU getting the short stick on this). So they are motivated to play non-cupcakes. Now it may be difficult to line up Miami, FSU, Oklahoma, but you should be able to line up at least one or two Syracuse, Nebraska, Georgia, Auburn, Arkansas, etc. Just like I said, Southern Miss. did manage to schedule Nebraska and Alabama.

Is it perfect - no. But without a playoff (which I support) it is the best there is.

Balldog

11-21-2003, 05:33 AM

Originally posted by CamEdwards
down by three with five to play... hardly an ass-whupping.

I'm pretty sure it was 31-6 going into the 4th quarter.

lynchjm24

11-21-2003, 06:22 AM

lynchjm24

11-21-2003, 06:28 AM

Originally posted by Pumpy Tudors
However, "MAC" or "Conference USA" means that the team is trash unless they've beaten top teams in other leagues.

So we agree that the smaller conferences get screwed, but I'm taking it a step further. I'm trying to figure out a logical reason that they're getting screwed.

Not so much the MAC. Conference USA... yes. Let's see..
Southern Methodist, Army, East Carolina... feel free to stop me at any point. Those teams wouldn't be contenders in I-AA.

Conference USA is a I-A conference in name only.

Chief Rum

11-21-2003, 06:38 AM

Originally posted by Pumpy Tudors
Well, let's forget that wins over UCLA, Notre Dame, and Arizona (!) aren't all that impressive this year...

A little UCLA homerism. :)

No, UCLA isn't a great team this year. In fact, the past couple weeks they appear to be ready to fall apart, for reasons I won't get into here. Nonetheless, it is not for lack of talent.

UCLA is 6-6 and just a couple weeks removed from being in first place in the Pac-10. They can still finish third (maybe even second), in one of the best conferences out there. And the only non-BCS team they played was San Diego State (yes, they beat them).

Second point, USC has NOT beaten UCLA! :) It's rivalry week, folks, even out here in sunny SoCal, and I got a bone to pick with anyone who assumes a USC victory two days before the game is played. :)

No matter what the rankings of the respective teams, everyone in California knows there is no such thing in USC-UCLA games. The underdog upsets the "top Team" so often in this series, it's ridiculous.

Now, in two days, when and if USC pastes UCLA all over the Coliseum grounds, then you may feel free and cast your stones. ;)

CR

P.S. As good as TCU has been this year, I would bet UCLA would give them quite a run for their money.

Gambit

11-21-2003, 06:43 AM

"The BCS has one letter too many". Been hearing that for a while now. The system always seems do this near the end of the season. So instead of talking about USC v Oklahoma, we're talking about how the BCS is flawed.

ice4277

11-21-2003, 06:47 AM

Originally posted by lynchjm24
Sorry, I wasn't clear.

The system isn't fair. My point wasn't non-BCS teams don't deserve access. TCU didn't deserve access.

This is what a lot of people on the other side of the argument don't seem to be understanding. I don't think there are many people arguing that non-BCS teams should be totally exempt from the BCS, but in this case, the team hardly seemed worthy. C-USA was down this year, and TCU didn't play anybody. They played a squeaker against Houston, a team that Michigan, ranked below TCU in the BCS prior to this week, dismantled by about 45. I would venture to guess that any one of Bowling Green, Northern Illinois, Miami (OH) and even Toledo could beat TCU if they played. And as for them not being able to schedule anybody, well, look at who some of the MAC teams have played: Marshall beat K-State at Manhattan, Toledo hosted (and beat) Pittsburgh, Bowling Green went to the wire against Ohio State and also beat Purdue in Purdue, Northern Illinois took out Maryland the opening week then won on the road in SEC country against Alabama. So don't say it can't be done.

Samdari

11-21-2003, 07:19 AM

Originally posted by TroyF
No, it won't shut any of us up.

That's what people keep failing to realize. Just because they happened to lose, doesn't mean the system if a fair one.

And before someone pops off "you guys just don't change your opinion" keep in mind two things:

1) Very few of us hoping TCU would get in thought TCU was a legitimate top 10 team. We knew they were a good, not great team. It isn't a shock to any of us that they did indeed lose.

2) You wouldn't have changed your mind had TCU destroyed Southern Miss.

TroyF

You know, I agree with you in principle about non-BCS conferences getting access. Its just easier to get behind a more apparently deserving team.

Anyway, sorry Ty, the undefeated season would have been nice, regardless of the BCS or lack thereof.

sterlingice

11-21-2003, 07:22 AM

Originally posted by panerd
Be careful there. Take a team like Kansas. Where are their losses? Against Big 12 and Big 10 teams. They blow out the mid majors. Throw TCU in the Big 12 and let's see if they finish above Baylor and Iowa State.

*waives a little Jayhawk flag because our program actually got mentioned in a football thread*

We would've beaten Northwestern, too, if not for the torrential downpour. :) Hard to deal with that when you're a pass happy team.

SI

HornedFrog Purple

11-21-2003, 07:57 AM

I would venture to guess that any one of Bowling Green, Northern Illinois, Miami (OH) and even Toledo could beat TCU if they played.

You might get your wish. TCU vs Miami of Ohio in the Mobile Bowl is a real possibility. Of course if TCU won, everyone would cry fluke.

Here is a look at an actual schedule. See how many years things are planned in advance? You want to tell me right now who is going to be a top-5 team in 2008?

*2003

Sept. 6 Navy

Sept. 20 Vanderbilt**

Sept. 27 at Arizona

Nov. 28/29 at SMU

2004

Sept. 4 Northwestern

Sept. 11 SMU

Sept. 18 at Texas Tech

2005

Sept. 3 at Oklahoma

Sept. 10 at SMU

Oct. 15 Navy

2006

Sept. 2 at Baylor

Sept. 9 at Navy

Sept. 16 Texas Tech

2007

Sept. 1 Baylor

Sept. 8 Stanford

Sept. 22 SMU

*2008

Sept. 13 at Stanford

Sept. 20 at SMU

Sept. 27 Arkansas

2009

Sept. 12 at Arkansas

Sept. 26 SMU

2010

Sept. 4 Baylor

Sept. 11 at SMU

2011

Sept. 3 at Baylor

* 12th game allowed

** replaced Nebraska

Now you may ask, why did Vanderbilt replace Nebraska? Well Nebraska did not want to honor a home-and-home with TCU. TCU played Nebraska and lost 21-7 in Lincoln in the Pigskin Classic a couple of years ago. Remember that team? They went to the national championship game. But instead of following through, they got out of the game and paid TCU $25000.

Not so much the MAC. Conference USA... yes. Let's see..
Southern Methodist, Army, East Carolina... feel free to stop me at any point. Those teams wouldn't be contenders in I-AA.

Conference USA is a I-A conference in name only.

I sure hope you don't consider the new Big East one then either. The lame Frogs beat every single one of those teams they are getting. Louisville beat Syracuse on the field, Cincinnati beat West Virginia on the field. The three teams that carried that conference are leaving. So add the Big East to the list of conferences that are 1-A in name only.

HornedFrog Purple

11-21-2003, 08:12 AM

dola

Cinderalla teams need to have the chance to prove themselves. That was what my beef was with TCU and those holding that team up in challenging the BCS elites. They had not proven themselves at all.

Do you understand the circular logic in that statement?

Finally, here is a look at the other 3 meaningless "close" BCS games last year that meant absolutely nothing but a paycheck:

Rose Bowl
Wed., Jan. 1 5 pm/ABC Oklahoma 34, Washington State 14 Pasadena, Calif.

Sugar Bowl
Wed., Jan. 1 8:30 pm/ABC Georgia 26, Florida State 13 New Orleans

Orange Bowl
Thur., Jan. 2 8 pm/ABC USC 38, Iowa 17

So I guess any mid-major that gets blown out or beaten would just be doing the status-quo.

IMetTrentGreen

11-21-2003, 08:28 AM

the hornfrauds have ben overrated all season. i'm all for non-bcs schools getting a shot, just not tcu

Buccaneer

11-21-2003, 08:35 AM

Originally posted by Pumpy Tudors
Very true. Of course, USC would go to the Rose Bowl, and Oklahoma would go to the Orange Bowl, I suppose, and then we'd have the old arguments of the past about who's the better team. I would really prefer that over this.

You and I agree on this, which I have brought up before as well. Assuming OU and USC are #1/#2, I have no problems whatsoever with USC going to Rose and OU going to Orange, and then have the polls determine the mythical championship. Seems like some fans and NCAA muckymucks are so insecure that they must have a definitive champion, whether through a playoff system (which won't answer anything), or through a BCS (which does the best job in pairing the top 1-4 teams most of the time but too much controversry) or trying to having one super voting poll. Let's keep the bowl games as a reward for a job well done, have fun in a sunny clime and let the chips fall where they may, if it's important to you.

Huckleberry

11-21-2003, 08:42 AM

Purple -

Would you really bet your money on a straight up TCU win over Miami (OH)?

I'm a little disappointed in TCU's loss, just because now one side of the argument has more ammo than the other side and arguments are always fun.

JonInMiddleGA

11-21-2003, 08:45 AM

I just love the inevitable BCS/midmajors/et al arguments every year.

But I never understand why the butts in seats factor isn't mentioned more often.

Consider these 2002 figures (first ones I could find on a busier-than-usual day)

SEC - 73,315 per game
Big 10 - 69, 937
Big 12 - 55,175
ACC - 50, 993
Pac 10 - 49, 998
Big East - 43,691
------
Mtn West - 34,886
Div I-A Indys - 32,683
CUSA - 26, 674
WAC - 25,059
MAC - 17, 537
There are reasons that majors are majors and mid-majors are mid-majors. These numbers are high on the list of reasons, IMO.

Like most stuff, college football is a business first & foremost. We here at FOFC, posters at ESPN bb's, etc. are NOT the only people watching games, buying tickets, patronizing sponsors. Bowl games, ticket sales & TV ratings, have to be able to reach out to a broader audience than hardcore college football fans.

Major conference teams, in general, can do that far more consistently & effectively than mid-majors.

Bottom line -- there simply aren't enough people who are interested in the smaller schools/programs to generate a good reason to include them in the most important events of the year.

Although this analogy is probably disturbing to many, it's really not much different than pro wrestling. I can name 100 guys you've never heard of who can work circles around The Rock, Goldberg, HHH. But they can't put butts in seats the way those guys do.

And that's why they're on TV three nights a week and the athletically/physically superior guys aren't.

JonInMiddleGA

11-21-2003, 08:50 AM

Dola -- that little mini-rant above is why I've advocated huge changes in the structure of college football for the past several years.

What I'd like to see is some reality inserted in the structure, starting with a split of the current Division I.

Create a Division I that contains the football factories of the world. Nebraska, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Georgia, Florida, Miami, FSU, USC, et al. They get to keep the BCS and pared down bowl system, because that's where the money is right now.

Create a Division I-A that contains universities that happen to play football -- Vanderbilt, Duke, Ga Tech, UNC, Baylor, etc. Shift some of the top I-AA teams in here as well. Set 'em up with a playoff system.

scooper

11-21-2003, 09:05 AM

Originally posted by Huckleberry
Purple -

Would you really bet your money on a straight up TCU win over Miami (OH)?

I'd take Miami in that one.

HornedFrog Purple

11-21-2003, 09:13 AM

Well Jon on average, what you are suggesting is private/state school separation. Just look at the ratio of private to state schools in the top-25 in any given week.

Since on average you will generate much more money from a state school than a private school just based on numbers alone that is really the crux of the difference.

Huck, yes I would. I would assume that TCU would not self-destruct for three quarters.

sterlingice

11-21-2003, 10:01 AM

Originally posted by JonInMiddleGA
Dola -- that little mini-rant above is why I've advocated huge changes in the structure of college football for the past several years.

What I'd like to see is some reality inserted in the structure, starting with a split of the current Division I.

Create a Division I that contains the football factories of the world. Nebraska, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Georgia, Florida, Miami, FSU, USC, et al. They get to keep the BCS and pared down bowl system, because that's where the money is right now.

Create a Division I-A that contains universities that happen to play football -- Vanderbilt, Duke, Ga Tech, UNC, Baylor, etc. Shift some of the top I-AA teams in here as well. Set 'em up with a playoff system.

Unfortunately, there are some problems with this as it would be constantly re-aligning. Kansas State was possibly the worst Div I team in the country in the 80s and now are a national power. How about SMU? The death penalty turned them into nothing overnight. Arizona was good in the early 90s while Va-Tech wasn't. This would constantly be in flux so you would need a plan to kick teams in to and out of their current divisions (i.e. Washington would be relegated this year while Washington State moves up). And, while you're at it, come up with a schedule for such a system.

SI

JonInMiddleGA

11-21-2003, 10:05 AM

Unfortunately, there are some problems with this as it would be constantly re-aligning. Kansas State was possibly the worst Div I team in the country in the 80s and now are a national power. How about SMU? The death penalty turned them into nothing overnight. Arizona was good in the early 90s while Va-Tech wasn't. This would constantly be in flux so you would need a plan to kick teams in to and out of their current divisions (i.e. Washington would be relegated this year while Washington State moves up). And, while you're at it, come up with a schedule for such a system.

Actually, that doesn't sound unmanageable.

Certainly, professional soccer leagues around the world have managed to come up with promotion/relegation systems that are pretty clear cut.

Re-alignments are something that high schools in Georgia handle every two years, as do other states. I'd like to think that the NCAA et al could handle re-alignment at least as well as high schools.

Ditto scheduling agreements. 2-5 years for re-alignment pretty much dictates the parameters of scheduling contracts.

Ulitimately though, I'm not real optimistic about seeing anything like this ever happen. But it's sure what I'd like to see.

Samdari

11-21-2003, 10:07 AM

Originally posted by JonInMiddleGA
Dola -- that little mini-rant above is why I've advocated huge changes in the structure of college football for the past several years.

What I'd like to see is some reality inserted in the structure, starting with a split of the current Division I.

Create a Division I that contains the football factories of the world. Nebraska, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Georgia, Florida, Miami, FSU, USC, et al. They get to keep the BCS and pared down bowl system, because that's where the money is right now.

Create a Division I-A that contains universities that happen to play football -- Vanderbilt, Duke, Ga Tech, UNC, Baylor, etc. Shift some of the top I-AA teams in here as well. Set 'em up with a playoff system.

I have been saying for years that such a split will happen. There is one problem with your scenario though. ALL of the teams from the BCS conferences will go with the football factories, including the ones you list as universities that happen to play football above. Simply put, the people at those schools who make budgets would be hard pressed to replace the money made by football. In fact, it would be impossible. Note that Ga Tech was one of the drivers in the recent ACC expansion, coming out looking like football crazed, money grubbing whores like the rest of them (I leave Duke and UNC, who resisted expansion as long as possible, out of that category). They may be a great university that happens to play football, but they have very recently abandoned all principles in pursuit of the mightly football dollar.

Chuck

11-21-2003, 11:08 AM

Originally posted by lynchjm24
Not so much the MAC. Conference USA... yes. Let's see..
Southern Methodist, Army, East Carolina... feel free to stop me at any point. Those teams wouldn't be contenders in I-AA.

Conference USA is a I-A conference in name only.

CUSA
vs Pac 10 (1-1)
vs Big East (4-4)
vs ACC (0-2)
vs Big 12 (2-2)
vs Pac 10 (0-1)
vs SEC (4-4)
vs BCS (11-14)

Maybe teams like Duke, Vanderbilt, Temple, and Indiana deserve to be in the BCS more than TCU. CUSA may not be a powerhouse, but they are by no means I-AA, much less "contenders".

sterlingice

11-21-2003, 11:25 AM

Originally posted by Samdari
(I leave Duke and UNC, who resisted expansion as long as possible, out of that category)

I'm pretty sure this has nothing to do with the fact that their hoops programs make BCS football bucks and without the football strings attacked. That is, if their balance sheets look anything like KU's (we make roughly $15M on basketball versus $3M on football).

SI