Spence wrote: Virginia Tech, was respectable. But they still lost two games they needed to win. And probably should have lost to Louisville, but didn't. I wasn't that impressed, myself.
In one breath you say it should matter that TCU lost to SAM and in the other you say Va Tech lost two games they should have won. You can't have it both ways.
As for the new member, I don't know him and I can do pretty well speaking for myself. I also have always used my correct name to post. I don't play games.
George Mason is a community college so their overall enrollment is very high, but the number who actually live on campus is small. That is why they are termed a mid major.
The term mid major might offend you, but it isn't a derogatory term. It is a common term for smaller D-1 universities. It isn't even a term that came from sports.
First of all, I'm not sure where George Mason has anything at all to do with my argument, that teams outside the BCS are competitive, unless you view George Mason as a school 'outside' the BCS (they aren't). The NCAA isn't like the BCS, teams are either selected or they aren't, and the rest comes out in the wash. I enjoyed watching them play, but I didn't really care if George Mason won a national championship. But it was entertaining, nevertheless.
Now, as far as what's important in my mind, yes I think the BCS should consider being more inclusive, that's been my point all along. And I think that if they were to include TCU that would be an important first step. As far as how that applies to last year, I simply believe TCU was a 'deserving' BCS candidate, that wasn't selected, as was Oregon. A 'fair' alternative would have been pairing them together in some bowl, but that didn't happen, obviously, so it's a moot point.
As far as competitive scheduling is concerned, I'm not sure it's that critical toward a team's success (or lack thereof). Consider, Tulsa, for example (a team that plays in C-USA). They weren't competitive outside C-USA, and that's why I think that competitive scheduling isn't that important. It helps, as far as 'sizing' a team up, but the important games, are confernece games. THAT'S why the SMU game isn't important. And applied to Virgnia Tech, that's why W. Virgnia losing to them wasn't important, either. And it wasn't important to Virginia Tech, either, unless they were in the Big East, but they aren't.
AND, lest you think I'm being discriminatory, Tulsa losing to Minnesota and to Oklahoma wasn't important, either. But had they lost to SMU, that would have been important. Winning your confernece is what's important. Everything else is secondary to that. Virginia Tech beating W. Virginia and Louisville looked good on paper didn't do too much for them in the BCS, and I for one think that's the way it should be. They lost confernece games that were a lot more important. So did Miami, FL.
So did LSU, so did Auburn. So did Alabama. You get the idea.
A competitive BCS would allow a team like TCU an opportunity to showcase their talent against a team of comparable skill and ability. They showed they were a competitive football team through head-to-head pairings in their confernece, as well as competitive pairings outside their confernece. They lost ONE game to a team they've played competitively for nearly 100 years. Should that necessarily exclude them from the BCS? I dont think so, myself, especially when that team was competitive against other teams besides TCU. Yes, SMU was 5-6.
They were also 4-4 in C-USA. Tulsa, struggled to beat SMU. SMU beat Houston. Houston beat Tulsa. Houston also was 4-4 C-USA.
Anyway, my point is that there are teams, outside the BCS that are competitive, already. TCU is one of those teams. So, for that matter is Tulsa. Both likely were BCS 'worthy' but weren't selected. A simple pariing of those teams in the Fiesta Bowl might have been a 'fair' solution, but it wasn't done, unfortunately. A 'fifth' bowl will likely address some, but not all of the problems, and there's no assurance TCU will be selected, with a similar record. That's the problem I'm having.