TCU getting an ass beating!

[ice4277]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[Buccaneer]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[Samdari]

Originally posted by sterlingice
if their balance sheets look anything like KU's (we make roughly $15M on basketball versus $3M on football).

Uhh, isn't their share of the Big 12 bowl money more than $3M?

[sterlingice]

Originally posted by Samdari
Uhh, isn't their share of the Big 12 bowl money more than $3M?

Actually, those numbers were for a paper I wrote about 5 years ago which would be pre-BCS money so, yeah, that's probably doubled. Still doesn't mean the hoops program doesn't bring in a lot more.

SI