Mid-Majors vs. Majors

[Eric]

Umm....The BCS is a competitive arrangement. TCU has somewhat of a case, but Tulsa is not even in the picture. Are you thinking that the Golden Hurricane are that good? Because they won what wasn't a fantastic C-USA, and they got ran over by Minnesota at home, then they come the next week and almost knock off Oklahoma (OU scoring late in the game to put them away). This is crazy.

Your football-everybody-is-equal-in-the-BCS theme is so radical. Let me just tell you that. The BCS is reserved for the 8 of the best teams in the nation. Not for the champion of the Sun Belt playing the champion of the MAC (unless they are in the top 8 ).

[ktffan]

Your football-everybody-is-equal-in-the-BCS theme is so radical.

Radical is not the word I'd use.

[colorado_loves_football]

Umm....The BCS is a competitive arrangement. TCU has somewhat of a case, but Tulsa is not even in the picture. Are you thinking that the Golden Hurricane are that good? Because they won what wasn't a fantastic C-USA, and they got ran over by Minnesota at home, then they come the next week and almost knock off Oklahoma (OU scoring late in the game to put them away). This is crazy.

Your football-everybody-is-equal-in-the-BCS theme is so radical. Let me just tell you that. The BCS is reserved for the 8 of the best teams in the nation. Not for the champion of the Sun Belt playing the champion of the MAC (unless they are in the top 8 ).

The BCS is 'semi-competitive'. I think allowing for 'fairness' in representation would be good for the BCS. You don't know that Tulsa might not have been competitive enough, end-of-year to qualify itself for the BCS, had that been allowed. So, I don't agree with you at all that my idea is 'radical'.
It would have sent one team, Tulsa or TCU to the BCS. Both teams were sufficiently qualified, after the bowls were over, in my opinion.

As far as the MAC is concerned, I woudln't deny them a spot either, if they were sufficiently qualified, but I woudl apply a similar 'standard' whereby they either 'earn' the right to be represented, or not.
There have been years where a MAC team might have been 'equal' to the task, 2003 comes to mind. A WAC vs. MAC pairing would have sent one team, Boise St. or Miami (OH), to the BCS. As it was, neither team was selected, and both finished the year strong, Boise St beat TCU, and Miami (OH) beat Louisville. A simple pairing of those teams, in a 'preliminary' BCS game, would have allowed one team to continue.

Now, as far as last year is concerned, neither Akron or Boise St were 'victorious' that would suggest neither likely deserved BCS consideration. Even so, I think a pairing of those teams might have been a 'fair' way to select a 'candidate' for the BCS. Maybe the BCS could adopt an alternate way to select teams, than what they are presently using.

I'm not necessarily saying the Liberty Bowl champion always deservess to go. But, I will say that in general they are likely more qualified than some, that have gone, in previous years.

[Eric]

.............Huh?

[Derek]

Umm....The BCS is a competitive arrangement. TCU has somewhat of a case, but Tulsa is not even in the picture. Are you thinking that the Golden Hurricane are that good? Because they won what wasn't a fantastic C-USA, and they got ran over by Minnesota at home, then they come the next week and almost knock off Oklahoma (OU scoring late in the game to put them away). This is crazy.

Your football-everybody-is-equal-in-the-BCS theme is so radical. Let me just tell you that. The BCS is reserved for the 8 of the best teams in the nation. Not for the champion of the Sun Belt playing the champion of the MAC (unless they are in the top 8 ).

The BCS is 'semi-competitive'. I think allowing for 'fairness' in representation would be good for the BCS. You don't know that Tulsa might not have been competitive enough, end-of-year to qualify itself for the BCS, had that been allowed. So, I don't agree with you at all that my idea is 'radical'.
It would have sent one team, Tulsa or TCU to the BCS. Both teams were sufficiently qualified, after the bowls were over, in my opinion.

As far as the MAC is concerned, I woudln't deny them a spot either, if they were sufficiently qualified, but I woudl apply a similar 'standard' whereby they either 'earn' the right to be represented, or not.
There have been years where a MAC team might have been 'equal' to the task, 2003 comes to mind. A WAC vs. MAC pairing would have sent one team, Boise St. or Miami (OH), to the BCS. As it was, neither team was selected, and both finished the year strong, Boise St beat TCU, and Miami (OH) beat Louisville. A simple pairing of those teams, in a 'preliminary' BCS game, would have allowed one team to continue.

Now, as far as last year is concerned, neither Akron or Boise St were 'victorious' that would suggest neither likely deserved BCS consideration. Even so, I think a pairing of those teams might have been a 'fair' way to select a 'candidate' for the BCS. Maybe the BCS could adopt an alternate way to select teams, than what they are presently using.

I'm not necessarily saying the Liberty Bowl champion always deservess to go. But, I will say that in general they are likely more qualified than some, that have gone, in previous years.

Are you ever gonna give this up???

You dont care about "equal" representation, or at least the schools in those conferences. They only care about a share of the money.

I REALLY wish you would just drop this.

[Eric]

I agree, Derek! That's exactly what I'm going to do. I said before I would forget about it and then I got pulled back into the argument, but no more!

Congrats, CLF, you win! You've managed to keep it up longer than anybody else would take it.

[ktffan]

I agree, Derek! That's exactly what I'm going to do. I said before I would forget about it and then I got pulled back into the argument, but no more!

Congrats, CLF, you win! You've managed to keep it up longer than anybody else would take it.

He says a lot of people here respect his opinion. Obviously you do enough to not respond.

[colorado_loves_football]

If you don't want take my advice on your health its time for an intervention. I would like for you to, defend and explain with specific examples (not a round-a-bout rampage that you are used to spewing out at us) the last paragraph in the above quote. Believe me this the first step to your recovery. If it is not, you've still got to fall further and some may find it amusing, I feel its pathetic.

First of all I'm not going to 'retract' anything, I will stand by my position as long as I believe it's justified, which I do. Secondly, I will provide you with some reasons for my opinion, and let you draw your own conclusions, which I'm sure you will, as well.
I mentioned the Liberty Bowl's history, which is available for you to review. I believe it's fair to say the Liberty Bowl has done a pretty good job, in general attracting quality teams to its venue, as it has done traditionally.
Last year the Liberty Bowl featured a 'competitive' pairing between Fresno St, and Tulsa. Those were two relatively 'equal' teams, from a competitive standpoint and I think it showed in how the game played itself out. It was like the showdown at the OK corral, both teams fought to the death, (well maybe not quite), but it was entertaining,and fun to watch. The winner was almost literally the last team to have the ball.
So, if you want to argue about how 'good' Tulsa likely was, I need only to refer you to the outcome of that game, a game they weren't supposed to be in, but qualified based on competitive play, within C-USA.
Now, if you want to argue about which team necessarily 'earned' the right to play in the BCS, I guess that's a different matter altogether.
I simply wanted to 'simplify' the process by pairing TCU and Tulsa together in a competitive arrangment, thereby giving one team the 'nod'.
And I think it woudl be a 'fair' way to decide the matter.
We keep going back to how TCU lost to SMU. SMU is a C-USA team.
Wouldn't it make sense for TCU to 'redeem' itself by playing against the C-USA champion? Wouldn't that rememdy the situation somewhat?
I"m counting my chickens, obviously before they hatch. It's very possible Tulsa wins that game. But, that would also be a way to 'secure' the BCS of a worthy representative, either way.
If you are going to argue that by losing to Minnesota that necessarily 'disqualifies' Tulsa, I have to argue differently. It's a similar, although not entirely identical scenario to what happened to OU.
Tulsa likely wasn't sufficiently prepared for the Gophers. But I'm not going to make excuses for them, they lost, and lost convincingly.
And Minnesota was a pretty respectable team, up until they lost to Wisconsin, a game they had in tow, but let slip through their fingers.
Minnesota really never recovered. And I think they likely were a competitive team, in the Big Ten.
They lost to Virginia to end the year. Virginia was one team considered for a Liberty Bowl invitation. The reality is Tulsa likely was a better team, end of year, than Minnesota was, evidenced in part by that game.
Someone suggested Oklahoma was likely a better team than TCU, end-of-year. I'm willing to consider that, also.
But you don't take the win away. Same argument applies for Minnesota.
Nevertheless I would put more down on TCU than I would for the Golden Gophers. Another interesting sidelight, Fresno St. beat Virginia in the MPC Computers Bowl, the previous year. Tulsa beating Fresno St in the LIberty Bowl, should be given it's fair 'due' as far as history goes.