If Nebraska beats Texas.

They've basically not had a close game all year, except a close game @ Clemson and @ Air Force (their worst game of the year).

They have good wins @ Virginia (blowout), @ Clemson, @ BYU (blowout), and at home against Utah (blowout). So of their 4 tough games this year, 3 of them they blew the team out.

Get Cincy out of there..are you fuckin serious, they're defense is so bad they'll give up 50+ in a BCS bowl game.

Boise would be okay also..but ehhh I wanna see TCU.

I might disagree with "good wins" list

ytownfootball wrote: I might disagree with "good wins" list

about on par with texas' good wins

ytownfootball wrote: I might disagree with "good wins" list

Better than Texas good wins. I think TCU should go even if Texas wins against Nebraska.

Texas has no good wins at all. They are going to get dismantled in the title game (if you want to call that a title game)

@ Virginia is not a good win as far as who they played. But it's a nice win for going half way across the country. So I guess I'll count it. I would love to see a team like Boise or TCU in the NC game.

I have this feeling though, that IF Texas loses, we might see a rematch of Bama/UF. Which might finally give a playoff more credit to some people out there.

Agreed TCU should be the team if Texas slips up. It points to much greater problem though. It sucks having to sort between 3 teams in deciding who makes the championship game

No argument here. No way you can say they don't deserve to be there.....and that is why the BCS is garbage.

wildcats20 wrote:I have this feeling though, that IF Texas loses, we might see a rematch of Bama/UF. Which might finally give a playoff more credit to some people out there.

Absolutely not (see 2006 Ohio State and Michigan). One of the three undefeated teams ranked 4-6 would get in the title game depending on what changes in the polls.

i think it would be hilarious if TCU were to go to a BCS title game, Boise St has been doing the same for about 5 years and cant sniff the title game.

tcarrier32 wrote: i think it would be hilarious if TCU were to go to a BCS title game, Boise St has been doing the same for about 5 years and cant sniff the title game.

TCU plays in a tougher and more reputable conference than Boise State. In the last 5 years, TCU has a combined record of 53-10.

In that time, they have won the following games:

at Oklahoma
vs Iowa State
at Baylor
vs Texas Tech
vs Baylor
at Stanford
vs Stanford
vs Boise State
at Virginia
at Clemson

Their only OOC losses to BCS opponents in this time frame have come at Texas and at Oklahoma.

I'd say they have more than proven themselves worthy of playing for a national title and that they would have been possibly in contention for a BCS birth in pretty much any conference. It's just a shame that they are stuck in a year where 3 other BCS schools are going to go unbeaten and the other non-BCS darling is also in the discussion. In another year, where nobody is unbeaten, this TCU team would be playing for a title.

I think TCU has proved themselves worthy; I'd love to see them play a Cincy or Boise for the National Title, but we all know it won't happen.

Auburn screwed up by shitting the bed yesterday the last 8 minutes against Bama. If they could have won, and then Bama beat Florida and Nebraska beat Texas, we could see TCU being in the game. Florida is running ramrod over FSU right now and I don't think Nebraska has the offense to stay in the game with Texas, so I'm thinking we'll see a Texas/Florida matchup for the title.

Azubuike24 wrote:
TCU plays in a tougher and more reputable conference than Boise State. In the last 5 years, TCU has a combined record of 53-10.

In that time, they have won the following games:

at Oklahoma
vs Iowa State
at Baylor
vs Texas Tech
vs Baylor
at Stanford
vs Stanford
vs Boise State
at Virginia
at Clemson

Their only OOC losses to BCS opponents in this time frame have come at Texas and at Oklahoma.

I'd say they have more than proven themselves worthy of playing for a national title and that they would have been possibly in contention for a BCS birth in pretty much any conference. It's just a shame that they are stuck in a year where 3 other BCS schools are going to go unbeaten and the other non-BCS darling is also in the discussion. In another year, where nobody is unbeaten, this TCU team would be playing for a title.

How does that make them worthy of playing for a national title? You listed ten wins in five years, a few of which are good wins. Baylor is/was a Big XII bottom dweller, Iowa State had a decent season here and there, Stanford has been to how many bowls recently, and Virginia lost to an FCS school this year. There are plenty of schools who go 10-2 in a given season and beat as good of a schedule as those wins you listed in that single season. Aside from that, they've also lost to schools like Wyoming and Air Force in that timeframe.

How does it make them worthy? Because they've won all their games this year.

Yes

So have Texas, Florida, and Alabama. They aren't worthy but TCU is?

I never said they aren't worthy; just saying they did the same thing that the other 3 have done, and throw Boise in there with them and Cincy with 1 more to go.

You cant tell me a system where you could have 6 undefeateds but only 2 of them are worthy enough to play for the title is not fucked up

enigmaax wrote:

Azubuike24 wrote:
TCU plays in a tougher and more reputable conference than Boise State. In the last 5 years, TCU has a combined record of 53-10.

In that time, they have won the following games:

at Oklahoma
vs Iowa State
at Baylor
vs Texas Tech
vs Baylor
at Stanford
vs Stanford
vs Boise State
at Virginia
at Clemson

Their only OOC losses to BCS opponents in this time frame have come at Texas and at Oklahoma.

I'd say they have more than proven themselves worthy of playing for a national title and that they would have been possibly in contention for a BCS birth in pretty much any conference. It's just a shame that they are stuck in a year where 3 other BCS schools are going to go unbeaten and the other non-BCS darling is also in the discussion. In another year, where nobody is unbeaten, this TCU team would be playing for a title.

How does that make them worthy of playing for a national title? You listed ten wins in five years, a few of which are good wins. Baylor is/was a Big XII bottom dweller, Iowa State had a decent season here and there, Stanford has been to how many bowls recently, and Virginia lost to an FCS school this year. There are plenty of schools who go 10-2 in a given season and beat as good of a schedule as those wins you listed in that single season. Aside from that, they've also lost to schools like Wyoming and Air Force in that timeframe.

Again, this is the double-standard of college football. TCU only gets respect if they beat all the teams listed above, but if they lose one game (in or out of conference) people say "see, they aren't that good". So you have to be perfect. Whereas an SEC team can go out and schedule all 1-AA and Sunbelt/CUSA schools OOC, and still lose a game or two (ala LSU in 07) in conference and STILL get in over a TCU or Boise State. You can't say 'one team has to be perfect to even have a CHANCE, while another team can lose 1-2 games and still get into the NC game' without being completely biased. If you agree that the way the system is set up is to clearly favor BCS teams over non-BCS teams, then you are admitting the system is subjective and not objective and thus it is flawed. If you don't agree, I present you with the year of college football 2009 and ask you to explain it all away.

^^^^

This.

BCSbunk wrote:

Better than Texas good wins. I think TCU should go even if Texas wins against Nebraska.

Texas has no good wins at all. They are going to get dismantled in the title game (if you want to call that a title game)

Assuming Texas beats Nebraska, they'll have beaten six teams with a winning record (nine that are at least .500). TCU has beaten four (six that are at least .500). One of Texas' was close, two of TCU's were close.

What is so much better about who TCU has beaten?

Under the system in place you just can't put them in there. While I love the fact that there are so many no loss teams monkey wrenching up "the system", it's not going to happen.

There's a reason Boise State and TCU's conference aren't automatic bids (at least at its inception) and I didn't disagree with it then. Anything to change the system is fine with me, if that means Boise and TCU have to cry their asses off so be it.

Red_Skin_Pride wrote:

enigmaax wrote:

Azubuike24 wrote:
TCU plays in a tougher and more reputable conference than Boise State. In the last 5 years, TCU has a combined record of 53-10.

In that time, they have won the following games:

at Oklahoma
vs Iowa State
at Baylor
vs Texas Tech
vs Baylor
at Stanford
vs Stanford
vs Boise State
at Virginia
at Clemson

Their only OOC losses to BCS opponents in this time frame have come at Texas and at Oklahoma.

I'd say they have more than proven themselves worthy of playing for a national title and that they would have been possibly in contention for a BCS birth in pretty much any conference. It's just a shame that they are stuck in a year where 3 other BCS schools are going to go unbeaten and the other non-BCS darling is also in the discussion. In another year, where nobody is unbeaten, this TCU team would be playing for a title.

How does that make them worthy of playing for a national title? You listed ten wins in five years, a few of which are good wins. Baylor is/was a Big XII bottom dweller, Iowa State had a decent season here and there, Stanford has been to how many bowls recently, and Virginia lost to an FCS school this year. There are plenty of schools who go 10-2 in a given season and beat as good of a schedule as those wins you listed in that single season. Aside from that, they've also lost to schools like Wyoming and Air Force in that timeframe.

Again, this is the double-standard of college football. TCU only gets respect if they beat all the teams listed above, but if they lose one game (in or out of conference) people say "see, they aren't that good". So you have to be perfect. Whereas an SEC team can go out and schedule all 1-AA and Sunbelt/CUSA schools OOC, and still lose a game or two (ala LSU in 07) in conference and STILL get in over a TCU or Boise State. You can't say 'one team has to be perfect to even have a CHANCE, while another team can lose 1-2 games and still get into the NC game' without being completely biased. If you agree that the way the system is set up is to clearly favor BCS teams over non-BCS teams, then you are admitting the system is subjective and not objective and thus it is flawed. If you don't agree, I present you with the year of college football 2009 and ask you to explain it all away.

It IS completely biased, in favor of schools who play the highest level of competition. Playing three games against lower tier competition and losing against one opponent in the upper tier (out of nine or ten) is more impressive than playing eleven games against lower tier competition and winning one against the upper tier. It isn't a double standard, it is simply a recognized division of labor.

TCU, I'm all for it..

Boise St? Not really... I'm just not sold on them.

They need a playoff.

Agreed^

^The BCS was designed well over a decade ago, and implimented in '98. Times have changed quite a bit in college football. At that time, Florida State was running roughshod over almost everybody, USC was in a slump, and nobody outside of youngstown knew who the hell Jim Tressel was. Boise State had only been playing D-I football for 2 years, Marshall wasn't even there yet, and the Mt. West wasn't formed yet. The format is not the same as it was at the inception, but they're still using the same system. Try that in anything else, like a government, and see how that works out lol.