I thought that if Texas lost that Cincy would jump TCU and be in the title game, but after Pitt's loss, that may no longer be the case.

Unless Texas loses, there's no way Cincy's jumping into the title game. Neither is TCU.

The BCS would much rather have a rematch of Bama/Florida than put one of those other teams in that game

red skin - How TCU's other conference members perform outside of the conference and especially against BCS conferences demonstrates the discrepancy in talent from top to bottom. If you take any extended timeframe, you'll see that even those Big XII bottom feeders like Baylor win the vast majority of their games against WAC/MWC type teams. A bottom barrel Big XII team would be in the upper half of the MWC every year and competing for championships, but they can't win three games against the Big XII. TCU IS that example. They went to three bowls in 36 years and had few more winning seasons, but now when they win 10 games they are suddenly a national player? Their win increase is a direct result of playing lesser competition.

You said, "...TCU has been consistently better than the bottom half of most major conferences." Exactly. But being better than the bottom half of a major conference doesn't get you into the national title game. Texas Tech has been better than the bottom half of the Big XII. Wisconsin has been better than the bottom half of the Big Ten. These aren't teams you are going to see in a national title game and who will rarely have a shot at a BCS bowl. Why? Because while they may beat a good team here and there, the grind of their schedule always catches up with them. They play too many good teams to beat them all. TCU doesn't. TCU played a couple decent teams and now people want to act like that is good enough. Back to your original statement - TCU could very well hold its own in a BCS conference this season, but there's a difference between *thinking* your good and playing the competition to prove it. They haven't and thus, they don't get the star treatment.

Your Illinois and Miss State examples are good. Again, the point in those cases is that they aren't being rewarded for scattered wins over a decade. They would be rewarded based on an entire season's worth of success against a level of competition that is obviously more difficult than what TCU has faced this season. To piggyback on your example - if Mississippi State dropped out of the SEC and joined the Sun Belt conference, then went undefeated, would you put them in the title game? Would not happen. That is all Boise and TCU have done. They've made themselves decidely better than the lower tier schools.

enigmaax wrote: red skin - How TCU's other conference members perform outside of the conference and especially against BCS conferences demonstrates the discrepancy in talent from top to bottom. If you take any extended timeframe, you'll see that even those Big XII bottom feeders like Baylor win the vast majority of their games against WAC/MWC type teams. A bottom barrel Big XII team would be in the upper half of the MWC every year and competing for championships, but they can't win three games against the Big XII. TCU IS that example. They went to three bowls in 36 years and had few more winning seasons, but now when they win 10 games they are suddenly a national player? Their win increase is a direct result of playing lesser competition.

You said, "...TCU has been consistently better than the bottom half of most major conferences." Exactly. But being better than the bottom half of a major conference doesn't get you into the national title game. Texas Tech has been better than the bottom half of the Big XII. Wisconsin has been better than the bottom half of the Big Ten. These aren't teams you are going to see in a national title game and who will rarely have a shot at a BCS bowl. Why? Because while they may beat a good team here and there, the grind of their schedule always catches up with them. They play too many good teams to beat them all. TCU doesn't. TCU played a couple decent teams and now people want to act like that is good enough. Back to your original statement - TCU could very well hold its own in a BCS conference this season, but there's a difference between *thinking* your good and playing the competition to prove it. They haven't and thus, they don't get the star treatment.

Your Illinois and Miss State examples are good. Again, the point in those cases is that they aren't being rewarded for scattered wins over a decade. They would be rewarded based on an entire season's worth of success against a level of competition that is obviously more difficult than what TCU has faced this season. To piggyback on your example - if Mississippi State dropped out of the SEC and joined the Sun Belt conference, then went undefeated, would you put them in the title game? Would not happen. That is all Boise and TCU have done. They've made themselves decidely better than the lower tier schools.

TCU has played a schedule extremely comparable to Texas's schedule.

Texas has went through no grind this year. The best team they played was Oklahoma St. I will go out on a limb and say TCU would demolish them. IMO TCU would run right through Texas's schedule.

They beat one BCS ranked team one. Is there that much difference between # 56 and # 75? A 62 and a 81? Who says that is even accurate?

The BCS is the worst possible system put in place to make a champion. With the travesty last year the old system was better.

bcsbunk - You say extremely comparable, but it is still worse. Texas has beaten more winning teams and a schedule with an overall winning record (TCU's opponents are below .500 overall). TCU had two close calls (Clemson and Air Force), Texas had one (Oklahoma). We can guess that TCU would beat Texas' schedule, but is there any doubt Texas could also demolish TCU's?

The very fact that you look at TCU's schedule and say, "Wow, they beat Clemson" tells you the difference. It is like no big deal that Texas went undefeated because you expected them to win every game, but TCU should be rewarded equally because they surprised you?

Also, how was the old system better? What was the travesty last year? Under the old system, Utah would've played in something like the Holiday bowl for 500K instead of beating Alabama in the Sugar Bowl for $17 mil and helping the little guys stake a claim of equality. Oklahoma, Florida, and Texas would've all played different and likely lesser opponents (Oklahoma may have gotten Alabama and with a win, been national champs while Florida may have beaten up on Ohio State) and there'd still have been a lot of room for debate. Boise and TCU wouldn't have played meaning Boise would've played a sixth place big conference school and still been undefeated and crying.

enigmaax wrote: bcsbunk - You say extremely comparable, but it is still worse. Texas has beaten more winning teams and a schedule with an overall winning record (TCU's opponents are below .500 overall). TCU had two close calls (Clemson and Air Force), Texas had one (Oklahoma). We can guess that TCU would beat Texas' schedule, but is there any doubt Texas could also demolish TCU's?

The very fact that you look at TCU's schedule and say, "Wow, they beat Clemson" tells you the difference. It is like no big deal that Texas went undefeated because you expected them to win every game, but TCU should be rewarded equally because they surprised you?

Also, how was the old system better? What was the travesty last year? Under the old system, Utah would've played in something like the Holiday bowl for 500K instead of beating Alabama in the Sugar Bowl for $17 mil and helping the little guys stake a claim of equality. Oklahoma, Florida, and Texas would've all played different and likely lesser opponents (Oklahoma may have gotten Alabama and with a win, been national champs while Florida may have beaten up on Ohio State) and there'd still have been a lot of room for debate. Boise and TCU wouldn't have played meaning Boise would've played a sixth place big conference school and still been undefeated and crying.

I have my doubts that Texas would run TCU's schedule. They are comparable and TCU's is slightly better with actually having a few challenges on their schedule unlike Texas's schedule.

BYU would give Texas a run for their money and I am not sold Texas would beat them. Same with Utah and Clemson on a good day.

I am not surprised by TCU at all. I did not say WOW they beat Clemson. More like WOW Texas has really beaten no one this year how are they ranked so high?

TCU has beaten more ranked teams than Texas and have had more challenges on their schedule.

Not much difference between 3-9 Colorado St and 3-9 Colorado, oh except Colorado St beat Colorado.

Not much difference between 1-11 New Mexico St and 4-8 Baylor Neither team poses a threat to TCU or Texas so they are a wash.

It comes down to true quality ranked teams which Texas is in short supply of playing this season.

On last year. Remember 1984 BYU? That was Utah last season.

They may have went to a lesser bowl, but I am talking with the same bowl results but a voting system. Florida was not clearly the best team last year.

More like WOW Texas has really beaten no one this year how are they ranked so high?

Pre-season rankings (poll) is just one part of the BCS that is problematic. Where was TCU ranked? There's your answer.

ytownfootball wrote:

More like WOW Texas has really beaten no one this year how are they ranked so high?

Pre-season rankings (poll) is just one part of the BCS that is problematic. Where was TCU ranked? There's your answer.

Yes I agree it is problematic. I understand the why it was in answer to Enigaxx question though.

The entire BCS is problematic and lacks any logical consistency in trying to select the best two teams for a championship. It is a total and utter disaster, IMO.

There IS a voting system. That's the majority of how they determine who plays for the title. Voters could have voted Utah #1 in the AP outside of that system - they didn't.

So TCU beat Utah and BYU, who are both ranked because they play the same schedule as TCU.
Doesn't really prove much. And you are going to hang your hat on BYU, who was completely destroyed by Florida State? See, we can both pick one game out and make an argument.

Clemson was a challenge because they played TCU close? Air Force was a challenge because they played TCU close? The odds are greater that TCU would lose one game with Texas' schedule before Texas would lose one against TCU's schedule.

As for 1984 BYU, great for them with their marquee wins over 3-7-1 Pitt, 5-6 Baylor, and 6-6 Michigan. They stole one, so good for them. Not sure how that makes Utah look any better?

sorry, I love your logic BCSbunk, but there's no way BYU hangs with Texas, not after they got blasted by 6-6 Florida State by 30 at home

^I don't think it's an utter disaster. It has gotten it right sometimes, especially the first few years after its inception. But it is an outdated system for the college football landscape of 2009 and the previous 3 or so years. As enigmaxx stated, in some way or another, TCU and Boise have separated themselves this year from "lower tier" teams (Utah last year, Hawaii in '07, Boise again in '06). Teams like this have become a fixture the last several years, and the BCS was not set up do deal with situations like this. There is the Non-automatic qualifier at large bid, which is what TCU is looking at this year, but you can't bank on that every year, because if all the AQ schools have really good record, an independent like Notre Dame ever makes at least 9 wins and gets a bid, and there are only a couple of at-large bids left to go around, they won't go to non-BCS schools. I could easily see if ND was good this year (like a 10 win team), TCU and Boise being left out, because they have to take ND, and with one less bid left, it wouldn't shock me at all to see all the mid-majors being left out of the BCS in favor of the undefeated teams, the SEC #2, The Big10 #2, and I think Boise WILL get left out this year if Pitt beats Cincy, because they're going to take both of those teams. Cincy won't drop that far with 1 loss, and Pitt will move back up if they beat the #5 team in country. Also, if Nebraska would pull it out against Texas, Boise is 2x's screwed. If those two situations played out, it would look like:

Florida/Bama
Ohio State
Oregon/Oregon State
Nebraska
Clemson/Georgia Tech
Pitt

Texas would get an at large at 12-1, SEC #2 gets an at-large at 12-1, and Cincy (BE #2) would get an at-large at 11-1. So then you have TCU as the Non AQ bid. That's 10 spots. There's only 2 spots open, and I would think they would take Iowa/Penn State from the Big10 and possibly Oregon (if they lose to Or. State) from the PAC-10, or Virginia Tech from the ACC. All those teams would mee the BCS requirements needed to get an invite over Boise. Boise State's best chance is if Oregon wins and Texas wins. If those two don't they're in a world of trouble.

Now imagine if ND had won 9-10 games this year and were sitting at about 10th in nation right now. There would be only 1 at large open for Boise, trying to get in over Penn State/Iowa, possibly Texas or Oregon, or Virginia Tech. That's why the system needs changed somehow, in order to deal with these "extra teams" that are coming out of the regular season undefeated, that were NOT doing so with any kind of consistency when the system was introduced.

^^^

Great explanation.

No more tinkering.

Go straight to a playoff. Decide who is best ON THE FIELD

enigmaax wrote: There IS a voting system. That's the majority of how they determine who plays for the title. Voters could have voted Utah #1 in the AP outside of that system - they didn't.

So TCU beat Utah and BYU, who are both ranked because they play the same schedule as TCU.
Doesn't really prove much. And you are going to hang your hat on BYU, who was completely destroyed by Florida State? See, we can both pick one game out and make an argument.

Clemson was a challenge because they played TCU close? Air Force was a challenge because they played TCU close? The odds are greater that TCU would lose one game with Texas' schedule before Texas would lose one against TCU's schedule.

As for 1984 BYU, great for them with their marquee wins over 3-7-1 Pitt, 5-6 Baylor, and 6-6 Michigan. They stole one, so good for them. Not sure how that makes Utah look any better?

They are challenges because they are ranked in the top 25 in the BCS unlike Texas's schedule.

I guess as Mark Twains rephrasing from Disraeli's qoute " There are lies, damn lie and statistics."

We both can pull statistics and make reasonable arguments. For me that shows the BCS's weakness. I still think TCU is better than Texas and has a better resume than them.

Why is TCU more deserving than UC?

TCU looks very good on both sides of the ball. If I was a big power team (Flrida, Alabama, Texas, etc.) this is the team that I would not want to play. The argument about their weak schedule is legit and without major upsets they have no chance to play in the title game. But by the eye test, they may be a top 2 or 3 team.

Unless there is a change in the sytem there will never be a "Miracle on Ice" or a team like Virginia Commonwealth pulling upsets over bigger teams making a run in the Final 4 in college football. The crazy thing is everyone eats that stuff up in those sports, but when it comes to their football, they fear the UC's and Boise's of the world getting that shot in the title game against the elite programs. College football is only the sport in America where the public does not want or get a Cinderella.

UC is in a BCS conference. How is it they don't have a legit shot? Your argumement may hold merit for Boise, but not UC.

The problem with UC and other Big East reps is a testament to their poor sos, or at least perceived. UC needs to do something to change that if they're going to escape that "perception".

BCSbunk wrote: We both can pull statistics and make reasonable arguments. For me that shows the BCS's weakness. I still think TCU is better than Texas and has a better resume than them.

I actually do think that TCU could beat any of the top three on a given day. The difference is that I'm not ready to rely on *looks* because it is all too easy to get caught up in that underdog syndrome, which I think plays a large role in this fight for Boise and TCU. "It would make a great story if they won, so they should get the shot." Not a good enough reason for me.

We obviously disagree on the merits of each team's schedule. I think in your argument you look at Texas' "challenges" differently because you expect them to be that much better than everyone they play. TCU's perceived stature makes a game like Clemson or Virginia look like a big deal, but if Texas played and beat them, they'd get lumped into that ho-hum category just like you did with 9-win Oklahoma State.

Just curious, did you think Hawaii deserved a title shot a couple years ago?

Also, what would your reaction be if Texas announced today that it was dropping out of the Big XII and joining the Mountain West? Would you feel the same about them if they went undefeated next year? What about if Florida joined the Sun Belt and went undefeated? For that matter, what if Kentucky did something like that? I'm inclined to think the reaction would be overwhelmingly negative toward those schools because they'd be taking a huge step down, dodging real competition, etc. TCU basically did the same thing (not entirely their choice) but it has taken them 15 years to get to this point so people forget about it.

ytownfootball wrote: UC is in a BCS conference. How is it they don't have a legit shot? Your argumement may hold merit for Boise, but not UC.

The problem with UC and other Big East reps is a testament to their poor sos, or at least perceived. UC needs to do something to change that if they're going to escape that "perception".

Prior to the start of the seasonr, UC's OOC shaped up to be decent this year. Unfortunately for UC, Illinois turned out to be a dud (many projected them to finish in the top 1/4 of the B10 this season). Next season UC plays Oklahoma, NC State and Fresno along with Miami U.. Unfortunately, we will not be getting out of the Miami U. series due to to a lengthy contract and history. UC's OOC was actually better than Texas, Penn State and many other "elite schools".

All I know is- if Texas loses, get ready for a firestorm of controversy. Either TCU or Cincy makes it (thus less "big-name" draw for a NC game or less $$$$$ for sponsors, etc.) or the voters or BCS computers take a one-loss Texas or Bama/Florida.

jhay78 wrote: All I know is- if Texas loses, get ready for a firestorm of controversy. Either TCU or Cincy makes it (thus less "big-name" draw for a NC game or less $$$$$ for sponsors, etc.) or the voters or BCS computers take a one-loss Texas or Bama/Florida.

I really would love for that to happen. I don't think it would cause the mass chaos that leads to a playoff as some believe, but I'd be interested to see how those polls turn out. I've thought for a long time that Cincy would eventually jump TCU but now I'm not so sure. It doesn't really matter between those two if it isn't for the title game, so I'd be interested to see if anything changes when the voters are put on the spot.

The choices would be to undermine their own "big six" by leaving Cincy out or undermine their entire year of voting by bumping TCU.

enigmaax wrote:
Just curious, did you think Hawaii deserved a title shot a couple years ago?

True... but what about Utah last year? Or Boise State the year they won their game against Oklahoma?

Little Danny wrote:

ytownfootball wrote: UC is in a BCS conference. How is it they don't have a legit shot? Your argumement may hold merit for Boise, but not UC.

The problem with UC and other Big East reps is a testament to their poor sos, or at least perceived. UC needs to do something to change that if they're going to escape that "perception".

Prior to the start of the seasonr, UC's OOC shaped up to be decent this year. Unfortunately for UC, Illinois turned out to be a dud (many projected them to finish in the top 1/4 of the B10 this season). Next season UC plays Oklahoma, NC State and Fresno along with Miami U.. Unfortunately, we will not be getting out of the Miami U. series due to to a lengthy contract and history. UC's OOC was actually better than Texas, Penn State and many other "elite schools".

Scheduling big OOC games is UC's only hope, well, that and a favorable pre-season ranking, (which is bullshit but is what it is), because the Big East just won't garner the the respect, whether justified or not.

jordo212000 wrote:

enigmaax wrote:
Just curious, did you think Hawaii deserved a title shot a couple years ago?

True... but what about Utah last year? Or Boise State the year they won their game against Oklahoma?

I'll maintain the "winning one big game doesn't mean anything" line. I understand that Utah and Boise State and maybe TCU this year can and will beat the big boys from time to time. The problem still comes back to the fact that they don't have to do it on a weekly basis.

Nobody thought Hawaii should be playing for the title over a 2-loss team even before they got smoked. Is that because their "name" wasn't Boise State? Same conference, but it was looked at differently because they didn't have the history of success and thus, hadn't "proven" themselves. So either the conferences are equal and undefeated champions should be treated as such or they aren't.

It is all about the lovable underdog. The Mountain West is the conference who has had a couple nice wins (nobody talks about the losses) so TCU gets to ride Utah's success. Boise has won a couple games, so all of a sudden they are legit. Did people feel the same way about Ball State before they lost last year, despite the fact that the MAC won four or five games against the Big Ten? Nope, because there was no other history there.

The argument is against the "name" schools, yet that same argument is only applied for those "little name" schools.

enigmaax wrote:
I'll maintain the "winning one big game doesn't mean anything" line. I understand that Utah and Boise State and maybe TCU this year can and will beat the big boys from time to time. The problem still comes back to the fact that they don't have to do it on a weekly basis.

Nobody thought Hawaii should be playing for the title over a 2-loss team even before they got smoked. Is that because their "name" wasn't Boise State? Same conference, but it was looked at differently because they didn't have the history of success and thus, hadn't "proven" themselves. So either the conferences are equal and undefeated champions should be treated as such or they aren't.

It is all about the lovable underdog. The Mountain West is the conference who has had a couple nice wins (nobody talks about the losses) so TCU gets to ride Utah's success. Boise has won a couple games, so all of a sudden they are legit. Did people feel the same way about Ball State before they lost last year, despite the fact that the MAC won four or five games against the Big Ten? Nope, because there was no other history there.

The argument is against the "name" schools, yet that same argument is only applied for those "little name" schools.

At the end of the day I think it comes down to the fact that everything needs to be decided on the field. We can both go back and forth all day about who we think is deserving and who played a tougher schedule, but the best solution is for a playoff of some kind.