SportsAndLady;680766 wrote:To me it's not a matter of can they play with those teams (because they most certainly can), it's a matter of can they play with those guys while playing a Big East, Big Ten, SEC, whatever big conference schedule to go along with those teams.

All anyone is asking is that they do this to be considered relevant, because they haven't. Period.

jordo212000;679857 wrote: Those four teams sucked. Then on top of the bad teams in the conference, Ohio State (or any other Big 10 "big boy") schedules 3 gimmies. So right off the bat, there are 7 games that Ohio State has no business losing. So let's stop pretending that Big 10 = GOAT

This is the part where your argument falls apart. Indiana won all of its games against MWC cellar dwellar types. There is still a big difference between playing major conference losers and lower tier losers. The worst Big Ten teams are still going to pummel the worst-to-mid-level MWC teams at about a 70-75% clip.

Then your three OOC gimmes are exactly the type of games that TCU plays....ten times a year.

Clemson is a big win for TCU. Oregon State is a big win for Boise State. You can't call those big wins and validation and then turn around and downplay the same types of games 8 times for a powerhouse school. Either you are top tier or you aren't. And then you either play a decent schedule or you don't. TCU doesn't.

^^^
Who is Indiana going to pummel and where is your evidence they will do it at a 70-75% clip? Last year IU beat a bad FCS school, struggled to beat one win Akron, beat a bad Arkansas State team by two at home, and struggled with Western Kentucky who only won two games last year and has only been out of the FCS for a couple years. Their other win came against Purdue who had their own issues difficulties with FCS and MAC opponents. If IU barely beat Arkansas State and Akron, how are they going to "pummel" the mid-level MWC teams? Do you think Western KY or Akron is better than San Diego State and BYU?

Whats this mean? It means the three teams at the bottom of the B10 suck balls just like the bottom of the MWC or many other of the lesser leagues out there. Just because they play in the B10 does not mean they are any better than other bottom feeders. As Jordo so aptly put it before, it is not 1997 anymore.

MWC
#2 TCU † 8 – 0 13 – 0
Utah 7 – 1 10 – 3
Air Force 5 – 3 9 – 4
San Diego State 5 – 3 9 – 4
BYU 5 – 3 7 – 6
Colorado State 2 – 6 3 – 9
UNLV 2 – 6 2 – 11
Wyoming 1 – 7 3 – 9
New Mexico 1 – 7 1 – 11

B10
Wisconsin 7-1 11-2
Ohio State 7-1 12-1
Michigan State 7-1 11-2
Iowa 4-4 8-5
Illinois 4-4 7-6
Penn State 4-4 7-6
Michigan 3-5 7-6
Northwestern 3-5 7-6
Purdue 2-6 4-8
Minnesota 2-6 3-9
Indiana 1-7 5-7

enigmaax;681497 wrote:This is the part where your argument falls apart. Indiana won all of its games against MWC cellar dwellar types. There is still a big difference between playing major conference losers and lower tier losers. The worst Big Ten teams are still going to pummel the worst-to-mid-level MWC teams at about a 70-75% clip.

Then your three OOC gimmes are exactly the type of games that TCU plays....ten times a year.

Clemson is a big win for TCU. Oregon State is a big win for Boise State. You can't call those big wins and validation and then turn around and downplay the same types of games 8 times for a powerhouse school. Either you are top tier or you aren't. And then you either play a decent schedule or you don't. TCU doesn't.

TCU doesn't....but Oregon does? Let's run down this real quick:

vs. New Mexico granted, a MWC bottom feeder, 1-11 overall
@ Tennessee 6-7 overall, 3-5 in the weak ass SEC East...6 wins against teams with combined records of 23-49
vs. Portland State 1-AA opponent that went 2-9 overall
@ Arizona State 6-6 overall....6 wins vs. teams a combined 28-44
vs. Stanford great win, obviously
@ Washington State 2-10 with one win being a 1 point win over 1-AA Montana St.
vs. UCLA 4-8 overall....best win @5-7 Texas
@ USC 8-5, Oregon's 2nd best win....how good is USC though? best wins @Arizona or @Hawaii?
vs. Washington 7-6, t-3rd in PAC-10, lost BYU who was t-3rd in MWC
@ Cal 5-7....5 wins vs. teams a combined 23-36
vs. Arizona 7-6 overall, Oregon beat them late in their freefall
@ Oregon State 5-7 overall, struggled heavily after losing WR James Rodgers

So Oregon beat a very good Stanford team and an average USC team. Other than that, they beat a bunch of Pac-10 teams that were .500 teams who only got to .500 by beating some 1-AA schools and the Pac-10 bottom feeders. But of course, since this is the mighty, established "automatic-qualifying" Pac-10 conference, Oregon was elevated above TCU and in to the title game. Who is really to say if Oregon was better? They might have been...but we don't know. Unfortunately, the old guard looks past the fact that Oregon really didn't play anyone outside of 2 games, but criticizes TCU's schedule. Was TCU's schedule amazing? Nobody would argue it was great, but neither was Oregon's.

Some posters in this thread might say "well the Pac-10 had a down year", they've been an established power conference for years. Except for the fact that the conferences were about 50/50 in head to head matchups over the past 3 years. Just comparing the 3rd place teams in the conferences this year, BYU beat Washington head to head.

The overall point here is that there is much more parity in college football these days. Whether the BCS conference supporters want to admit it or not, the gap has closed significantly. People may want to look for every little excuse anymore to try and discredit teams like TCU or Boise, but that's ignoring the facts. TCU doesn't owe Wisconsin a hypothetical one game trip to Madison. They shouldn't be jumping at that offer. Boise and TCU have built their programs to the point where they deserve a return game just like Wisconsin or OSU would give to even a middle or lower tier BCS conference team. If that's not universally recognized at this point, I'm not sure what it will take. I'm from Ohio, I love Ohio State, I'd cheer for them in a game against Boise or TCU, but I'm above looking down my nose at those teams just because they haven't had a 60 year history of success. They've been great teams over the past decade and are among the nation's elite programs and still rising. Get over yourselves and acknowledge their rightful spots among the "established" programs.

jordo212000;680706 wrote:Define "backseat", they have been in the BCS two years in a row and are moving to an AQ conference.

Backseat is that they still are getting very little love and respect from the fans of college football. While some seemingly, such as yourself, think they are now a "bigboy", others are still skeptical because although they have done it for 2 years in a row, we need consistency. 2 years is not consistency. I like the move to the Big East, but not accepting even 1 game against Wisky is kind of cowardly to me; especially after the "anytime, anywhere" talk. Let's see how TCU does in one of the most hostile places to play.

jordo212000;680708 wrote:I am guessing he brought up Ohio State because we all know for a fact that not one of you guys would be railing against their schedule if they went undefeated. Obviously you'd feel that if they are undefeated, they would be deserving of a National Championship. The point he is trying to make, is that TCU's SOS was only slightly worse than Ohio State's. Yet we are killing them for playing a weak schedule.

That's because it's all about consistency. True, OSU's schecule was weaker this year, but it is consistently stronger than TCU's......by a lot. TCU has had 2 successful seasons, I don't think that means much until the prove it year in and out. Hell Illinois and Purdue have played in BCS bowls, does that make them powerhouses becuase they had 1 or 2 sporadic successful seasons? Let's wait and if TCU can continue the success, I'll give them more respect. But they refused an offer to play at Wisky, one of the most hostile places in college football. Winning there could really silence some doubters, instead they chickened out IMO.

If a traditional power like Notre Dame had 2 successful years in a row, I'd still be skeptical of them because they haven't been consistent in well over a decade. Show me you can do it 5-6-7 years in a row (with maybe one hiccup season) then we'll talk.

jordo212000;680757 wrote:How many times have you yelled at kids to get off of your lawn? I always say this to you. It is no longer 1997. The landscape of college football has completely changed. If you think that they couldn't play with the Va Techs, North Carolinas, and Purdues of the world, you have another thing coming. It's becoming more clear to me that you watch the games featured on WSYX 6 and that's it. If you looked around and educated yourself you would have seen a TCU team that was obviously a top 3 team in the country (who played a SOS comparable to many other "big boys").

Scholarship restrictions have leveled the playing field, the dearth of talent in Texas is crazy, and Patterson is a great head coach. The program looks like it is here to stay. But yeah, keep acting like it is 1997

Yes, the landscape has changed and once it changes again, will TCU be able to keep up. There are certain teams that have been able to adapt through all of the different changes in landscape of college football, TCU has yet to prove if they can do that. And yes, TCU and Boise can play with the Va Techs, UNC's and Clemson's of the world, but can they do it consistently instead of just once or twice a season?

Play 4 Purdue/Clemson/Michigan/ MSU type teams, one Va Tech and then maybe one Ohio State/Wisconsin/LSU type team all in one season and let's see how they do.

Little Danny;681526 wrote:^^^
Who is Indiana going to pummel and where is your evidence they will do it at a 70-75% clip? Last year IU beat a bad FCS school, struggled to beat one win Akron, beat a bad Arkansas State team by two at home, and struggled with Western Kentucky who only won two games last year and has only been out of the FCS for a couple years. Their other win came against Purdue who had their own issues difficulties with FCS and MAC opponents. If IU barely beat Arkansas State and Akron, how are they going to "pummel" the mid-level MWC teams? Do you think Western KY or Akron is better than San Diego State and BYU?

Whats this mean? It means the three teams at the bottom of the B10 suck balls just like the bottom of the MWC or many other of the lesser leagues out there. Just because they play in the B10 does not mean they are any better than other bottom feeders. As Jordo so aptly put it before, it is not 1997 anymore.

Yes, "pummel" is too strong a word to describe Indiana's wins, but they were wins nonetheless. Real quick, Indiana is 15-3 against non-BCS competition in the last five years. Thats 83%. Not only does a team like New Mexico lose virtually every game to BCS teams, they win very few against their own level.

Look at TCU, BYU, and Utah over the last decade or so. They are a little above .500 against BCS schools. Then look at the rest of their conference. It's going to be somewhere around .200-.250 against BCS schools.

Do the same for the top teams in just about any major conference. They are going to have very few defeats against non-BCS schools and the bottom teams are going to be .700-.750 against non-BCS schools. There's a huge disparity in the results and everyone knows where the line is drawn.

I'll ask the same type of questions I always ask and see if I get any answers this time. If Vanderbilt joined the Sun Belt this season, happened to beat Kentucky and South Carolina as non-conference games and went undefeated, would you be saying they deserve to be in the title game? What if Baylor joined the WAC and went undefeated? Hell, how pissed would you be if (insert SEC team), Ohio State, or USC suddenly jumped to one of those lower tier conferences and went undefeated? Would you be complaining about how they dumbed down the schedule and its unfair or about how they have proven themselves over however many years so they don't need to beat anyone significant anymore to earn their spot?

DTM04 - Fair points about Oregon. Their schedule was nothing spectacular. But you are only giving one side of your story. Compare the schedules top-to-bottom.

I'm interested in your answers to my questions above. Especially because you mention this 60 years of history. The argument for TCU and Boise always starts with the sporadic wins over the last five seasons or whatever. The argument points to how those schools have won 10 or 12 games every year for so long. So on.

So, if it is history you want to use, you cannot ignore the fact that TCU had a handful of winning seasons in the 35-40 years prior to reducing its level of competition. They have not built themselves to the same level as the Ohio States, Southern Cals, Texas, etc. because they went away from playing those schools and similar schools (the middle pack of the major conferences) on a week-in and week-out basis.

So do you want to count history or not?

Why is this still be argued? I remember a couple of years ago with the debate about Boise State. Their win against Oregon State was a good or big win. USC beat the same Oregon State team and it wasn't considered when talking about meaniful wins. That's the current difference between Boise / TCU and major BCS players. The Big East will go a long way to TCU and their program if it is valid in the long haul or not. Time will tell.

The Big East will go a long way to TCU and their program if it is valid in the long haul or not. Time will tell.

Maybe perception wise, but the Big East is very comparable to the Mtn West. In fact I think the Mtn West was probably better last season. The only advantage is AQ status and people's perceptions that the Big East = big boy

jordo212000;682143 wrote:Maybe perception wise, but the Big East is very comparable to the Mtn West. In fact I think the Mtn West was probably better last season. The only advantage is AQ status and people's perceptions that the Big East = big boy

Yeah. The difference for TCU will be that they won't have to run the table to get a BCS bid. They win the league and they're in. I do think overall the Big East is slightly better because those bottom four teams in the MWC in any given year are absolutely horrible. But the Big East is just mediocre from top-to-bottom, which stands to reason since it is made up of a few decent (not great or maybe even "good") historical programs (West Virginia, Pitt, Syracuse), one formerly rising mid-major (Louisville), two shithole historical programs (Cincy, Rutgers), and two infant FCS programs (South Fla, Connecticut). That is good for the competitiveness of the league - against each other - but isn't really a formula for "big boy" status. And that is why the part that will not change for an undefeated TCU in the Big East is that they'll still take a back seat to undefeated teams from virtually any other AQ conference when it comes to the title game.

I'm not a fan of AQ status for any conference, but I understand why it actually does benefit more schools than most consider. Without leaving some room for schools in the Big East, or without mandating some type of qualifications, bowls would be even more about "the money". You would have the same teams - Texas, Notre Dame, USC, etc. - filling what we know as BCS slots every year regardless of record because a 5-7 Texas team is still going to bring more money than 8-4 Connecticut (or even 12-0 Cincinnati).

As for validation of TCU as a program and the comment you quoted, a lot of people are betting that TCU isn't going to achieve the same lofty standards that they've attained being in the MWC. That is where one side or the other will be able to say, "told you so".

enigmaax;681679 wrote:DTM04 - Fair points about Oregon. Their schedule was nothing spectacular. But you are only giving one side of your story. Compare the schedules top-to-bottom.

I'm interested in your answers to my questions above. Especially because you mention this 60 years of history. The argument for TCU and Boise always starts with the sporadic wins over the last five seasons or whatever. The argument points to how those schools have won 10 or 12 games every year for so long. So on.

So, if it is history you want to use, you cannot ignore the fact that TCU had a handful of winning seasons in the 35-40 years prior to reducing its level of competition. They have not built themselves to the same level as the Ohio States, Southern Cals, Texas, etc. because they went away from playing those schools and similar schools (the middle pack of the major conferences) on a week-in and week-out basis.

So do you want to count history or not?

I absolutely do not want to count history. The BCS (as stupid as it is) only looks at the current year. The traditionalists will say "well do it over multiple years, then we'll talk", but when Boise was #3 this year with wins over Virginia Tech, Oregon State (at the time was a good win, turned out not to be after James Rodgers got hurt), a BCS win against TCU, and a convincing win over Oregon in the 2009 opener as part of a lengthy winning streak, the traditionalists say "well last year doesn't matter". You can only have it one way. Next year Texas will probably start 4-0 over a 1-AA school, two Sun Belt teams, and a WAC school and all of the sudden the elitists want to justify them jumping Boise or TCU just because they're Texas and "Texas is back!".

Most automatic qualifying conference schools go up and down over the years. Only a rare select few schools can even say they've been fairly consistently good year in and year out. But I guarantee you that if Missouri hypothetically ran the table in the past few years with wins over 4 weak non-conference opponents, the Big XII North (Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Nebraska, and Colorado) and the two bottom feeders in the Big XII South (most years Baylor and whoever), all of the traditionalists would be rushing to say that Missouri is clearly better than a 12-0 TCU or Boise without even considering how weak the Big XII North has been until Nebraska's revival in the past year and half. Missouri has had a few good years here and there, but they're hardly an established power. But the traditionalists would jump right on board because they always have to support the automatic qualifying schools over a non-AQ. Even if it went against their whole "do it year after year" ideal.

My problem is that the traditionalists will bend their criteria to discredit TCU/Boise/Utah as long as it benefits their views. The traditionalists will make up some absurd expectations for the non-AQs to accomplish before they'd even consider giving them some of the credit they deserve. New non-established automatic qualifying schools pop up with a good season and they're not held to some historical ideal. Who was Miami until their run in the early 80s? They didn't run some amazing gauntlet of teams the year they won their first title. Florida State was nothing until Bobby Bowden got there. History is great, but it's not everything. TCU and Boise are programs on the rise, just like FSU and Miami in the 80s. They've made their programs attractive to better athletes that wouldn't have considered them in the past. If the traditionalists can't realize that these teams were just as good as any other program in the country in 2010 and give them the respect they deserve, then there's probably just no hope. History is great, but that's all it is...history.

Funny how you compare Boise and TCU to FSU and Miami of the 80's. They built their programs by playing arguably the toughest schedule year in and year out, taking their lumps in the process. They sold their program to recruits as playing on a large stage against the best competition available. Miami was a unique situation, granted if you know the story there, but the two (4) programs rise to prominence could not be more diametrically opposed.

ytownfootball;682592 wrote:Funny how you compare Boise and TCU to FSU and Miami of the 80's. They built their programs by playing arguably the toughest schedule year in and year out, taking their lumps in the process. They sold their program to recruits as playing on a large stage against the best competition available. Miami was a unique situation, granted if you know the story there, but the two (4) programs rise to prominence could not be more diametrically opposed.

Exactly. Compare the schedules of those FSU and Miami teams to that of TCU and Boise. Again, TCU and Boise were good this year, but let's seem them play better schedules and do it consistently. I am glad TCU is joining the Big East. Although the BE is often viewed as a weaker BCS conference, it will give TCU the opportunity to be an AQ and also maybe they can get better OOC games scheduled as well, if they choose to accept the offers.

I agree the BE is weaker (currently). There are still some good football programs in the BE that yearly will give TCU some competition, more so than their current conference. Plus as some mentioned, the bottom feeders of the BE are slightly better and probably have a better chance of having selective years of being decent teams.

Some people say they want to see TCU compete in the SEC or the Big 10, but they are being competitive in a weaker league than the SEC and B10 with a much smaller recruiting budget, and lesser players. Under your scenario of wanting to see them in the those two conferences, would they be at or equal or slightly less with the budget and players? Or would they just be overmatched because the majority of their players are not Big 10 or SEC level players?

SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC!

sportswizuhrd;683576 wrote:Or would they just be overmatched because the majority of their players are not Big 10 or SEC level players?

Um...isn't that the point. They aren't on that level, so why should they be rewarded as though they are?

ytownfootball;682592 wrote:Funny how you compare Boise and TCU to FSU and Miami of the 80's. They built their programs by playing arguably the toughest schedule year in and year out, taking their lumps in the process. They sold their program to recruits as playing on a large stage against the best competition available. Miami was a unique situation, granted if you know the story there, but the two (4) programs rise to prominence could not be more diametrically opposed.

Oh really? Take a look at the 1983 Miami football schedule. The "toughest schedule" in the country. Miami went 10-1 to get an Orange Bowl bid, where they beat Nebraska to win the national title.

@ Florida - Florida beat Miami 28-3 and finished the season 9-2-1
@ Houston - finished 4-7
vs. Purdue - finished 3-7-1
vs. Notre Dame - finished 7-5
@ Duke - finished 3-8
vs. Louisville - finished 3-8
@ Mississippi State - finished 3-8
@ Cincinnati - finished 4-6-1
vs. West Virginia - finished 9-3
vs. East Carolina - finished 8-3
@ Florida State - finished 7-5

Talk about running the gauntlet. Miami beat two teams that finished with 3 losses or less, one of which was East Carolina. Don't act like they beat a bunch of established, "traditional" power programs. Point out an Ohio State, Alabama, Auburn, Michigan, USC, Oklahoma, Nebraska on that schedule to me. However, the only way you'd give TCU any credit is if they beat OSU, Alabama, Auburn, and Oklahoma on the road in 4 straight weeks, which is pretty much impossible for any team to do. After all, TCU has no right to be turning down road trips offered without a return game against a team they just beat at a neutral site.

Lol...this post is not going to assist you in your argument.

DTM04;684338 wrote:Oh really? Take a look at the 1983 Miami football schedule. The "toughest schedule" in the country. Miami went 10-1 to get an Orange Bowl bid, where they beat Nebraska to win the national title.

@ Florida - Florida beat Miami 28-3 and finished the season 9-2-1
@ Houston - finished 4-7
vs. Purdue - finished 3-7-1
vs. Notre Dame - finished 7-5
@ Duke - finished 3-8
vs. Louisville - finished 3-8
@ Mississippi State - finished 3-8
@ Cincinnati - finished 4-6-1
vs. West Virginia - finished 9-3
vs. East Carolina - finished 8-3
@ Florida State - finished 7-5

Talk about running the gauntlet. Miami beat two teams that finished with 3 losses or less, one of which was East Carolina. Don't act like they beat a bunch of established, "traditional" power programs. Point out an Ohio State, Alabama, Auburn, Michigan, USC, Oklahoma, Nebraska on that schedule to me. However, the only way you'd give TCU any credit is if they beat OSU, Alabama, Auburn, and Oklahoma on the road in 4 straight weeks, which is pretty much impossible for any team to do. After all, TCU has no right to be turning down road trips offered without a return game against a team they just beat at a neutral site.

Agreed. Auburn, who beat five straight ranked teams (four top ten) to end the season, was completely robbed that season. They were #3 going into the bowls and were leaped by Miami after Miami beat the #1 Cornhuskers in the Orange Bowl. Of course, they had lost to #2 Texas, who then lost to Georgia (who had lost to Auburn and also had a tie) in the Cotton Bowl, so who knows.

I'm not sure why you used this example. Since the voters got it wrong 27 years ago, they should continue to get it wrong today? Fortunately, we now have the BCS which matches the #1 and #2 teams in the country and the title is then won on the field.

enigmaax;684378 wrote:Agreed. Auburn, who beat five straight ranked teams (four top ten) to end the season, was completely robbed that season. They were #3 going into the bowls and were leaped by Miami after Miami beat the #1 Cornhuskers in the Orange Bowl. Of course, they had lost to #2 Texas, who then lost to Georgia (who had lost to Auburn and also had a tie) in the Cotton Bowl, so who knows.

I'm not sure why you used this example. Since the voters got it wrong 27 years ago, they should continue to get it wrong today? Fortunately, we now have the BCS which matches the #1 and #2 teams in the country and the title is then won on the field.

I only used this example since ytown faslely claimed that Miami won their title because they scheduled anyone, anywhere. That's his same reason for why he discredits TCU as they're not willing to play anyone, anywhere due to turning down Wisconsin. I'm not suggesting the voters should get it wrong today. I 100% agree that Auburn should've been in the title game this season. Oregon though, I'm not sold on, as I outlined with their schedule earlier. Do I think TCU should have clearly been ranked above Oregon? No, I wouldn't say it was a glaring mistake to leave them out. It could have gone either way. I do think that they would've been very competitive on the field and would have had a chance to win the game.

I just hate the fact that certain people refuse to give them the credit they deserve for building a great program that can compete with anyone in the nation.

I didn't claim how they won their title? I was referring to how they built their program and earned their respect.