Hey CLF...

[openSkies]

www.CoachPatterson.com

Brand new, just unveiled.

Or so the Sports Information Department at TCU says.

[Spence]

TCU to face LSU in home-and home series

This is how TCU goes about getting into BCS games. This is exactly what I am talking about. LSU is rarely down two years in a row, it will be a good test. Patterson is going about this in the right way.

[Jason G]

I agree. That is the way schools like TCU can go about making a statement and getting into a BCS game.

Sadly, though, most non-BCS schools are never given the opportunity to play teams that occupy the upper half of the BCS conference standings in home-and-home series. The BCS schools refuse to do it citing the fact that they need to play tougher schedules. This is why I have a slight problem with the argument that the non-BCS schools need to play tougher schedules. Strength of schedule is the main reason that non-BCS schools try to schedule the "big boys" but this is the same reason the BCS schools give for NOT scheduling schools from leagues like C-USA, the Sun Belt, and the MAC.

It is a vicious cycle that, while not necessarily done intentionally, gives the less traditional schools a disadvantage when it comes to SOS and BCS rankings.
That is why, even though it may be kind of a radical idea, I would be in favor of the NCAA reforming the way non-conference games are scheduled (especially now that they have added the 12th game to schedules).

[Spence]

See the post season playoff thread. I have an idea that would fix that problem. Let me know what you think.

[colorado_loves_football]

Thanks, Matt for giving me the 'heads up' on this website.
I looked into the scheduling, and their 'home & away' series doesn't happen until 2013 & 2014, so I guess we'll all be holding our collective breath's until that time (wish me luck!)
But this does tie into what Spence was saying with respect to scheduling.
Playing a traditionally strong football program in the LSU Tigers should help TCU with recruiting, next season, and will likely spur interest in the program from the media, and from the general public.
Another item of interest, unless I"m mistaken, Gary Patterson turned down the K-State job, to remain as TCU's coach.
Maybe that doesn't say much to you, but to me, it says he's committed to keeping the Frogs #1, unlike Dan Hawkins, at Boise St.
That's the difference, I think between those two programs. One, (Boise St) will likely suffer in recruiting, in fact they already have, losing Cody Hawkins to Colorado.
The other, TCU will likely benefit from the stability offered through Coach Patterson, but should TCU somehow 'repeat' their remarkable record, this season, it might be hard to retain him. But he's there for now, and hopefully they will continue to draw 'record' crowds, as it appears they will this season.
Not knowing what's in store for the Frogs, I think this will be a 'banner' year for them, in terms of fan support and in terms of attendance.
But, as we already know, anything's possible in the MWC, nobody thought they would be the 'concensus' champions, but they were.
I hope they will continue to draw people to their support, as long as they win, against the likes of Texas Tech (I'm counting on that one, already).
Thanks again, Matt, I appreciate the 411.

[Eric]

It's a good pickup for TCU.

CLF, I can't possibly see TCU beating Texas Tech in Lubbock. They will be even more potent of an offense this year without Cody Hodges, and Garham Harrell is going to be one of the most prolific passers in TTU history. I'm giving the Horned Frogs a slight chance in that game. TTU can very easily go to the BCS this year.

[colorado_loves_football]

It's a good pickup for TCU.

CLF, I can't possibly see TCU beating Texas Tech in Lubbock. They will be even more potent of an offense this year without Cody Hodges, and Garham Harrell is going to be one of the most prolific passers in TTU history. I'm giving the Horned Frogs a slight chance in that game. TTU can very easily go to the BCS this year.

Eric, here's TCU's schedule, according to the Gary Patterson, football website:

Date Opponent
Sat, Sep 02 Baylor at Waco
Sat, Sep 16 Texas Tech Fort Worth
Thu, Sep 28 BYU Fort Worth
Thu, Oct 05 Utah at Salt Lake City
Sat, Oct 21 Army at West Point
Sat, Oct 28 Wyoming Fort Worth
Sat, Nov 04 UNLV at Las Vegas
Sat, Nov 11 New Mexico at Albuquerque
Sat, Nov 18 San Diego State Fort Worth
Sat, Nov 25 Colorado State at Fort Collins
Sat, Dec 02 Air Force Fort Worth

As you can probably see, they won't be playing Texas Tech in Lubbock, TX, this time around, so it might actually favor TCU in terms of home-field advantage, but you are correct it might be the 'deal-breaker' for the BCS, for one team, that's why I"m penciling it in as a 'W' for the Frogs.

[colorado_loves_football]

Got to give TCU a thumbs up for taking on LSU only draw back is the series is 7 years down the road, but better then than never. The fact that its an alternate site series in back to back seasons shows LSU's respect for TCU's return to prominence in college football. Hopefully these games will have a huge bearing on the NC when they do roll around. I'm definitely looking forward to TCU's stock improving and LSU maintaining their stature on the national level.

I agree that TCU likely will benefit from the LSU series even if it's seven years down the road. All things in due time, I guess. Both teams will likely benefit from the game,competitively speaking.
I still think that teams ought to make their own schedules, whenever possible, outside their conference. That way, both sides are 'happy' with the result. Had TCU and say Miami,FL been paired together, this year, that might not be a 'fair' arrangement for either team. I'm still a traditionalist at heart, so I would much rather see traditional pairings as opposed to 'high-profile' games that might not really matter much, if at all to the fan, and they are more likely suited to the networks, at any rate.
I think making the BCS a competitive arrangement, would be the solution to not having competitive games, OOC. There's sufficient 'room' in the BCS for additional conference members. There's also sufficient basis for allowing every conference a representative, in years they are qualified. So, I'm sticking to my proposal, rather than making the regular season harder, I would prefer the post-season be where teams are tested. But that's just my opinion.

[colorado_loves_football]

In the case of LSU/TCU it could be the best of both. The traditional matchup is there. I think Rice was the only old SWC school that played against LSU more than TCU in the 70's. I don't remember if they played home/away series or not, but back then TCU was definitely a doormat. I'm looking forward to a traditional and high profile series between these schools.

I somewhat agree with you that TCU struggled in the '70s but I did an analysis of it, and they were also playing some of the strongest teams of anyone, during that time. Look at 1975 for evidence of that. It was roughly the equivalent of playing a viable #1 every other week. But you are correct, TCU wasn't very competitive, but most teams go through those kinds of cycles. Colorado, an excellent program througout most of its history, went through a 'down' phase late-70s to mid '80s. Even after they hired Bill McCartney, they had probably the worst season in their history, losing badly to K-State, I think the score was 39-7, in the last game of the year, 1984. Basically, there wasn't much evidence, if any that Colorado was 'on the rise'.
Then, he switched to the wishbone, got some pretty good athletetes, and won 7 games the next year, and from that point on Colorado was a force to be reckoned with.
TCU likely went through a similar phase in the SWC. If you don't win, you don't expect to win, and that's likely why they were'nt very competitive, in general, throughout the 1970s' and into the 1980's.
No excuses, they lost more than they won, and their overall record reflects that. But, interestingly enough, based on criteria that includes such things as scheduling as well as overall W/L, TCU actually stacks up pretty well. Some say wins are all that mattter, and in that category, TCU comes up lacking. But in terms of quality of play, they actually do pretty well, overall, so it's all relative. Rice wasn't too bad when Ken Hatfield was their coach, I think they even won a SWC title or two, in the '90s. TCU tied for one, 1994.
I miss the old SWC myself, but maybe they can do a 'partial' reconstruction of it in the Big XII conference. I want TCU and Arkansas to be 'reunited' with Texas Tech, Texas A&M, Texas, & Baylor. Those would appear to be the 'best' of the lot, competitively-speaking. And the winner of the Big XII S. typically has the 'edge' in the Cotton Bowl, assuming they dont' win the Big XII outright, so it would honor tradtion.

[colorado_loves_football]

Rice got a piece of that 1994 SWC title also, along with Texas, Texas Tech and Baylor. A five way tie for the title, unbelievable . The tie breaker probably took half of the conference's math professors to sort it out.

I seem to recall the events surrounding that event, which I believe happened about one year prior to the SWC disbanding. That it would happen that close to the 'end' of their history maybe says something about how good it was as a conference, top-to-bottom.
If I'm not mistaken, that's also approximately when C-USA came into existence. They were likely a 'substitute' for not having a conference to call 'home' for the various members, TCU, SMU, Houston, Rice and the remainder of the teams selected.
That C-USA 'finally' elected to adopt the confernece 'championship' format is ironic, because they likely could have done it from the beginning. They lacked sufficient membership, obviously, but were only a team or two away from having a sufficient 'supply'. And it would appear that the conference championship arrangement has benefitted them as much, if not more, than the other conferneces.
SWC might have considered one, also, had they not disbanded, they were two shy of the necessary 'tally' which likely would have selected a 'representative' to the Cotton Bowl, every year, since that was the arrangement they were under.
So, I'm still a conference championship proponent. There are drawbacks to any arrangement, but I think the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.

[Eric]

I think Texas Tech is one of the most underrated football teams in the country. I think people will find out in 06.

[colorado_loves_football]

Texas Tech wasn't too bad last year, all things considered. They did beat Oklahoma, but that was by a razor-thin margin, and some might argue they were 'lucky' but give them credit for doing what was necessary to win the game. But for that, Oklahoma goes to the Cotton Bowl, and that could signify that Texas Tech has 'arrived' competitively-speaking.
But I still think TCU will beat them, since it will likely be retribution for a game played in Lubbock two seasons ago, Texas Tech dominating that game, winning 70-35. And I think TCU wants to show people that they were the 'better' of the two teams this year, when they didn't play.
I looked up the results of the Soutwest Conference.
In 1994, Texas A&M somehow forfeited their title, which is why there was a five-way tie. But for that, A&M were the runaway champions, and interestingly enough two other SWC champions also forfeited, in previous years, so A&M wasn't the only team to ever do that.
Colorado I believe forfeited all their games, back in 1997. That year many predicted they would likely win their conference, but they weren't nearly as good as their press clippings. Forfeiting, in some ways saved them some pride, in a year they were supposed to be good, and weren't.