OT: Would you put TCU in the Championship?
November 15th, 2009 at 2:46 PM ^
November 15th, 2009 at 5:32 PM ^
November 15th, 2009 at 2:47 PM ^
November 15th, 2009 at 2:48 PM ^
November 15th, 2009 at 2:50 PM ^
November 15th, 2009 at 3:00 PM ^
November 15th, 2009 at 4:47 PM ^
November 15th, 2009 at 6:54 PM ^
November 15th, 2009 at 9:48 PM ^
November 15th, 2009 at 2:52 PM ^
November 15th, 2009 at 2:55 PM ^
November 15th, 2009 at 3:16 PM ^
November 15th, 2009 at 4:33 PM ^
November 15th, 2009 at 5:47 PM ^
November 15th, 2009 at 6:22 PM ^
November 15th, 2009 at 6:58 PM ^
November 15th, 2009 at 7:05 PM ^
It is a function of a subjective (which is all we have available to us without a playoff system) evaluation of talent and degree of difficulty for a non BCS conference vs. BCS conferences.As has already been stated and shown Texas has had no greater difficulty getting where they are than TCU has. I submit for your perusal one of the most objective rankings. http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/fbt09.htm You can see that TCU has a slightly better SOS and one more win against the top 30. The Big 12 is so down this year that comparison of the two conferences is essentially splitting hairs. I would even argue the road to the BCS title game has been far easier for Texas seeing as they started out ranked so high. Texas started at #2 and TCU started at #17. Really the only way Texas was gonna move was to lose. That's a pretty cush spot to be sitting.
There is a reason that non-BCs conferences have a difficult time getting in, and it has zero percent to do with brand names.The big reason non-BCS teams have trouble getting in is the requirements needed to actually make it to a BCS bowl. The Big 6 conferences have automatic bids so that the conference champions make a BCS bowl no matter how horrible they may be (ie. Pitt 04, FSU 05) Whereas the BCS conferences are guaranteed a spot, "lesser" conference teams have to outright take their's.
It has to do with the fact that those conferences are less talented and play, in general, a lower level of football.We aren't talking about generalities. We are talking about two specific teams with two specific resumes. Over the course of time no one is going to argue that the Big 12 is a far better conference than the Mountain West conference. No one is going to argue that over time Texas is a far better program than TCU either. However, in the microcosm that is the 2009 season thus far, TCU and Texas are essentially equal.
First, the fact that most--not all--but the vast majority, of the players at schools like TCU were not offered scholarships by BCS schools because they were felt to not be as good as others.I'm not gonna call you a stargazer here but you certainly sound like one, no offense. There are any number of reasons why players at smaller schools were not offered by BCS schools. I'm not here to argue that the overall talent at a program like Texas is not anywhere near comparable to that of TCU. But, why does it matter that Texas recruits greater talent? So does Notre Dame and I don't hear anyone saying they should be in over TCU. There are two undefeated teams with similar resumes vying for a spot in the title game. Where does it say that a team with higher recruiting rankings for the past 4 years must get the nod over the team with the lower rankings? Your point also disregards things like talent development and coaching once all these players reach campus.
Second, that based on players playing in the NFL, and players drafted by the NFL, these conferences have far fewer talented players than the BCS conferences.This is the same thing you said in your first point with different words. Yes, Texas produces more talented players over time than TCU. Why does that matter?
Lastly, the fact, which even pro Boise etc people will admit, that the conferences they play in don't compare overall to the BCS conferences.Blah blah blah. More of the same. Yes I get it. Over time the BCS conferences are better than non-BCS. There have been four BCS busting teams since the inception of the Bowl Championship Series: Utah 04, Boise State 06, Hawaii 07, and Utah 08. The record of BCS teams in those bowl 1-3. None of those BCS busting teams over the course of time is going to be confused with USC, Michigan, or Oklahoma. But in those seasons those teams were just as good and better than the BCS competition they faced.
Does that mean that TCU isn't possibly one of the best two teams? No one can say for sure. But in general, those that say "no" have far more on their side IMO than those who say yes.I want to make it perfectly clear that I am not advocating TCU in the title game. If Texas goes undefeated they earned and deserve a spot in the BCS title game. If, however, two teams in front of TCU suffer a defeat by season's end (and one is going to regardless) then the lack of worthy substitutes for TCU in the title game demands that they be put in that game. They have earned the right to be there just as much as Texas. They have earned the right to at least show that a team from a non-BCS conference can play with and maybe even beat the big boys. This is the perfect season to do it, if the scenario I just laid out were to happen. Your three points about recruiting of talent and NFL talent are exactly the reason that people think the BCS is a bunch of shit. It completely disregards results on the field in favor of "brand name recognition." Do you think for one minute if TCU had somehow outrecruited Texas over a four year span that people would put them in the title game because they "have more talent?" Clearly TCU has talent, but it is being completely ignored because they are TCU and they have no history of sustained success. It boils down to a choice between "what have you done for me lately," and "what have you done for me in the past?"
November 15th, 2009 at 7:51 PM ^
November 15th, 2009 at 8:57 PM ^
November 15th, 2009 at 7:52 PM ^
November 16th, 2009 at 11:25 AM ^
November 15th, 2009 at 3:05 PM ^
November 15th, 2009 at 5:57 PM ^
November 15th, 2009 at 3:05 PM ^
November 15th, 2009 at 3:07 PM ^
November 15th, 2009 at 3:10 PM ^
November 15th, 2009 at 3:14 PM ^
November 15th, 2009 at 3:38 PM ^
November 15th, 2009 at 3:50 PM ^
November 15th, 2009 at 4:40 PM ^
November 15th, 2009 at 4:50 PM ^
November 15th, 2009 at 6:02 PM ^
November 15th, 2009 at 3:21 PM ^
November 15th, 2009 at 3:27 PM ^
November 15th, 2009 at 3:31 PM ^
November 15th, 2009 at 3:34 PM ^
November 15th, 2009 at 3:08 PM ^
November 15th, 2009 at 3:12 PM ^
November 15th, 2009 at 3:30 PM ^
November 15th, 2009 at 4:42 PM ^
November 15th, 2009 at 3:10 PM ^
November 15th, 2009 at 3:15 PM ^
November 15th, 2009 at 3:21 PM ^
November 15th, 2009 at 3:40 PM ^
November 15th, 2009 at 3:28 PM ^
November 15th, 2009 at 3:56 PM ^
November 15th, 2009 at 3:36 PM ^
November 15th, 2009 at 3:51 PM ^
November 15th, 2009 at 4:09 PM ^