Southern Miss taking on 7 bowl teams in 2006

[colorado_loves_football]

Recruiting is the difference. No mid-major champion to date has ever been good enough to beat a top ten team in a best of three series. If there is no chance that the could win a best of 3 series they have no business in the BCS.

First of all, Spence, the BCS isn't a 'best of 3' proposition. It's a winner take all proposition, or at least it should be. So that's not a relevant point. I'm guessing you are making an argument against George Mason winning a national championship, in a round-about way.
Actually it doesn't hold up. The team 'losing' the first game, in any series is at a 'huge' disadvantage, generally. Connecticut knew what was at stake,and they lost, twice, to George Mason (in regulation and in OT). Interesting to me, they had an opportunity to win it, but didn't. I don't necessarily give GM 'credit' for winning as I do UConn for 'losing'. Missing key free throws isn't the mark of a 'championship' team, so you maybe are correct in that regard. But it remains to be seen how well the Patriots will do against the Gators. Maybe George Mason has been lucky.
If they have, that will show up when they play Florida. UConn struggled against Albany, so that should say something about their 'talent-level'.
And as much as the Big East was 'hyped-up' nobody from that confernece really 'stepped-up' although I thought Pittsburgh was pretty good.

Now as far as a 'non-BCS' team not being competitive-enough again I have to refer to Texas Christian. I think in general they are very competitive. They maybe don't have the credentials as a team from a 'major' conference does, but in general they are competitive, year-after-year, and I think their record reflects that. They elected to 'swap' conferences, last year, probably to give them a better shot at making the BCS. I doubt it was a coincidence they elected to join the MWC, one year after Utah was represented in the BCS. It was a strategic move.

How would TCU do in a BCS arrangement? Well, that remains to be seen.
They've been sufficiently 'qualifed' 4 times if I'm not mistaken. 1999, 2000, 2003, 2005. In 2002, they were Liberty Bowl Champions. That's 5/7 years, they were pretty good. And zero invitations.

[Spence]

Now as far as a 'non-BCS' team not being competitive-enough again I have to refer to Texas Christian. I think in general they are very competitive. They maybe don't have the credentials as a team from a 'major' conference does, but in general they are competitive, year-after-year, and I think their record reflects that. They elected to 'swap' conferences, last year, probably to give them a better shot at making the BCS. I doubt it was a coincidence they elected to join the MWC, one year after Utah was represented in the BCS. It was a strategic move.

When they prove it, I'll be a believer.

[colorado_loves_football]

When they prove it, I'll be a believer.

I think they 'proved' it by beating every team in the MWC, to earn a confernece championship (their first since being in the SWC).

They don't have to 'prove' anything other than the fact they can play, competitive football, and that's already been shown, so the only thing left to 'prove' is that they can play in the BCS.

[Spence]

When they prove it, I'll be a believer.

I think they 'proved' it by beating every team in the MWC, to earn a confernece championship (their first since being in the SWC).

They don't have to 'prove' anything other than the fact they can play, competitive football, and that's already been shown, so the only thing left to 'prove' is that they can play in the BCS.

Well then, their is no problem. TCU won their conference so put them in the national championship. Let see how they do.

[colorado_loves_football]

Well then, their is no problem. TCU won their conference so put them in the national championship. Let see how they do.

Actually I never said I thought TCU belonged in the national championshiop game, and probably never would make that claim unless I believed they did. I will, however, defend them on their own merit, which I think is 'fair'.

And, I don't necessarily believe beating Iowa St, 'proves' they were a BCS team, but it did, at least give a 'fair' assessment of their talent-level.
Competitively speaking, they are likely a N. Division champion, meaning they likely play, and lose to, Texas, in the Big XII championship, in 2005.

So, if you follow my argument through, you will maybe see that I'm not necessarily saying they 'earned' the right to be represented in last year's BCS. But, I do believe they would have been a 'deserving' representative to next year's BCS arrangement, as they should be.

It's not about how good, the MWC was. TCU 'earned' the right to show they could play competitive football against a comparable team, or in this case, Oregon. That they weren't is disappointing, but that's life, I guess.

Still, I believe a competitive BCS would solve many of the problems plaguing it, one reason I have mentioned that over-and-over again.

Still, it remains something of a ? how good TCU was, in 2005. Hopefully that will change, in 2006. They will play a competitive schedule, and will be fortunate to have the same kind of success, as they did, in 2005. But, that doesn't change that they were a good football team, in 2005. BCS good, in my opinion, but we obviously have a difference of opinioin.

[Spence]

Still, it remains something of a ? how good TCU was, in 2005. Hopefully that will change, in 2006. They will play a competitive schedule, and will be fortunate to have the same kind of success, as they did, in 2005. But, that doesn't change that they were a good football team, in 2005. BCS good, in my opinion, but we obviously have a difference of opinioin.

There is no question TCU was good last year. BCS good? They weren't as competitive nationally as the teams that made the BCS. Who should have been dropped out to make room for TCU?

[colorado_loves_football]

There is no question TCU was good last year. BCS good? They weren't as competitive nationally as the teams that made the BCS. Who should have been dropped out to make room for TCU?

I disagree that simply because they play in the Mountain West Conference that equates to their 'not being competitive'. I've already stated my opinions in that regard.
Now, whether or not they would necessarily 'win' a BCS pairing, that remains to be seen, since they haven't been selected for a BCS pairing, yet. My argument all along has been that as far as the BCS is concerned, they have ignored TCU, even in years TCU was 'deserving'.
I am referring to last year, obviously but also 2003, prior to their losing C-USA to S. Mississippi TCU was a 'front-runner' for a BCS bid. They might have gotten one, but for the fact K-State beat Oklahoma. Since 'champioships' take precedence, TCU likely isn't reprsented, but they lost the C-USA championship, so it's a wash.
My point, is that TCU was likely the best 'non-BCS' team and without some kind of a 'playoff' it's impossible to know.
But, pairing the two best 'non-BCS' teams together in the Liberty Bowl, would be one way to select a representative to the BCS. That would, in my opinion honor tradition while selecting one team to the BCS.
Nobody 'loses' in this kind of arrangment. Who isn't selected? Oregon.

[Spence]

My point, is that TCU was likely the best 'non-BCS' team and without some kind of a 'playoff' it's impossible to know.

So what? The BCS is looking for the best teams, especially with the at large berths. TCU has never been over looked, they just haven't quite made it there yet.

[colorado_loves_football]

So what? The BCS is looking for the best teams, especially with the at large berths. TCU has never been over looked, they just haven't quite made it there yet.

They've been overlooked, sorry. 10-1 and not going is being overlooked, when two 9-2 teams are 'in'. I already said, they maybe ought to have been paired against Oregon, but nobody did that. As it was, TCU was fortunate to play a competitive team in Iowa St.
I'm not necessarily faulting the BCS, I'm just saying it's far from an ideal arrangement.
I'm not faulting the Big Ten, either, but they likely are being over-represented, anyway. So, for that matter, is the Big East.
Consider the following: Notre Dame (a Big East team in principle) gets selected. So does Penn St. (basically an independent posing as a Big Ten team). Now, a pairing between Wisconsin and Ohio St would select one representative to the BCS. A pairing between W. Virginia and ND selects one team. That leaves one spot 'open'. Most likely a Fiesta Bowl bid, available. I believe competitive play would select a deserving 'non-BCS' team. That could be TCU but wouldn't have to be.
TCU and Oregon could have played in the 'fifth' bowl, so a spot would still be 'open' even in that arrangment. That's why I propose the Liberty Bowl champion also be represented.

[Spence]

They've been overlooked, sorry. 10-1 and not going is being overlooked, when two 9-2 teams are 'in'. I already said, they maybe ought to have been paired against Oregon, but nobody did that.

You keep saying TCU is "as good" as any of the selected teams to the BCS. They aren't. It is that simple. You have used Ohio State as an example of a team TCU should have went ahead of in the BCS. A true measure of who the most talented teams in CFB are would be how many players does this team or that team have in the NFL. Ohio State's number is currently 58 (not sure that is accurate, but it is very close). I don't know TCU's number, but I would be willing to bet that it isn't close to 58.

Since we are only talking about last year, we can wait until draft day and compare this years Buckeye class to TCU's. Again I would wager to say that Ohio State will send more players to the NFL. If you would like to track all the players on TCU's team compared to Ohio State's over the next four years, we could do that also, but again I would bet Ohio State will win the battle. Why, because they have a better team. More talented players over all.

I know your response will be that "I don't care about the NFL" but it is relevent if you want to compare talent. TCU wasn't good enough to be in the BCS last year, under last years rules. Period. You can cry foul all you want, but the BCS took the right teams last year.

[colorado_loves_football]

You keep saying TCU is "as good" as any of the selected teams to the BCS. They aren't. It is that simple. You have used Ohio State as an example of a team TCU should have went ahead of in the BCS. A true measure of who the most talented teams in CFB are would be how many players does this team or that team have in the NFL. Ohio State's number is currently 58 (not sure that is accurate, but it is very close). I don't know TCU's number, but I would be willing to bet that it isn't close to 58.

Since we are only talking about last year, we can wait until draft day and compare this years Buckeye class to TCU's. Again I would wager to say that Ohio State will send more players to the NFL. If you would like to track all the players on TCU's team compared to Ohio State's over the next four years, we could do that also, but again I would bet Ohio State will win the battle. Why, because they have a better team. More talented players over all.

I know your response will be that "I don't care about the NFL" but it is relevent if you want to compare talent. TCU wasn't good enough to be in the BCS last year, under last years rules. Period. You can cry foul all you want, but the BCS took the right teams last year.

My opinion is and still is that TCU is a competitive football team. I think that's been validated, through all the comparisons we've done, including the ones you've done on your own. We obviously have a difference of opinion as to how good they are, but I think it's fair to say they are a competitive football team, by most anyone's standard, maybe not yours?
I have tried to be fair in my analysis of them. I'm not from a football background, really. I played in high school, one year, I'm far from being an expert on the sport. But I have an interest in it, probably from the time I was a baby. I even wanted to play football in college but wasn't good enough, so I have to rely on my 'instinct', rather than natural ablity, that's just how it is.
I didn't mean to imply TCU was a 'better' football team than OSU. I did make statements to that effect, mostly out of frustration, than sincerity.
TCU likely would finish somewhere at or near the middle of the Big Ten in a 'typical' year. But that doesn't mean I don't think TCU might not challenge occasionally, similar to how Northwestern has. I even told you to apply Northwestern as the 'standard' when you rate TCU.
Now, as to how TCU would do in the BCS, that's still something of a question, in my mind. I believe, generally, the CFP has done a pretty good job, in general, ranking teams. That means TCU likely would be a 'deserving' representative, probably once every 5 years or so.
We've debated whether or not they 'earned' the right to be included, that's still a matter of opinion. But, they've also shown, they can play at a level that is comparable to many of the teams that are represented.
Oregon was viewed as the 'most deserving' team not represented in the BCS. A simple pairing of them and TCU would likely have shown which team was 'qualified', had a fifth BCS bowl been in place, but it wasn't.
Next year, that won't happen, but if you remember, TCU wasn't an 'automatic' invitee, they got in on a techicality.
I would simply prefer there be an allowance for a 'non-BCS' team every year. TCU would therefore need to 'earn' a spot, similarly to how a team from a 'major' confernece does. I outlined one way that might happen. Confernece championship assure the BCS of a deserving representative. I propose those be applied throughout the NCAA.
That would require the Big Ten 'modify' itself to allow for a conference championship, but it would also give them one 'concensus' champion.
I don't blame the Big Ten for these problems.
But, I think not addressing them isn't good for anyone. So, having confernece championships, and having preliminary 'pairings' of BCS-eligible teams, would honor tradition, and would still give the BCS a competitive arrangement of teams. Add two semi-finals, and viola!
National championship.

[Jason G]

I know this is off the topic of the argument at hand, but in response to Spence's comment that the BCS took the right teams last year I'd like to say that going into the bowl season last year I thought Oregon was more deserving of a BCS bid than Notre Dame was. No offense to ND but the Ducks had a better record and Notre Dame had the worst loss when comparing the teams.

OK, now back to you guys' entertaining argument.....

[Eric]

Guys, I think this is one argument neither side will win. It's relentless, ever since December! I don't think either side will persuade one another.

I understand that CLF says that TCU could be competitive with a team like Ohio State, and on a given Saturday, they could beat Ohio State, say, I'll give them 3 of 10 times. So they can be competitive with a bigger school. Were they deserving of a BCS bid? No. There were too many holes in the resume. Besides, Ohio State and Notre Dame had to go under the rules; they weren't selected. TCU would be about #15 in my book, pretty good for a Mountain West conference team.

[colorado_loves_football]

Guys, I think this is one argument neither side will win. It's relentless, ever since December! I don't think either side will persuade one another.

I understand that CLF says that TCU could be competitive with a team like Ohio State, and on a given Saturday, they could beat Ohio State, say, I'll give them 3 of 10 times. So they can be competitive with a bigger school. Were they deserving of a BCS bid? No. There were too many holes in the resume. Besides, Ohio State and Notre Dame had to go under the rules; they weren't selected. TCU would be about #15 in my book, pretty good for a Mountain West conference team.

I'm not necessarily trying to 'win' anything, I just wish the BCS was more 'representative' as far as teams are concerned. That's something I have no control over, however, but I can at least 'dream' about a 'better world, can't I?

I'm not sure I ever said TCU was 'better' than OSU/ND. I simply implied that their record was, which it was! So, there probably should have been some kind of way to address that particular matter, in the BCS. I understand that a 5th bowl will address that in the future, but that didn't do much for TCU, last year. I don't know that I necessarily would have paired TCU and Oregon together, anyway, after Oregon lost to Oklahoma. I think that's sufficient evidence for TCU being better than Oregon. I might have paired TCU and Alabama together, in the Cotton Bowl. I think TCU 'earned' it as much, if not more, than TT did. But give TT credit, for getting there, regardless.

Nevertheless, the argument I am making isn't so much about not having TCU represented in the BCS, that's a part of my argument, only. TCU has been consistently good, since 1997. Maybe not BCS good, but good.
So, when they finish 11-1, that's probably a pretty good argument in their defense for being a BCS 'eligible' team. You can maybe nitpick on how they got there, and make a case for their not being 'good' since they lost to a 5-6 team, but the bottom line is they won 10/11 games.

Not every team they played was good. I already understand that. But, Oklahoma is a pretty good team, in general. Ranked #7 at the time, they played. TCU likely 'ruined' their BCS chances when they lost to SMU, but SMU was a lot better than many expected. I never said they were 'good' but competitive and they were. They were even competitive with Tulsa, but lost. It's possible TCU doesn't win the C-USA for that reason, but I would have 'settled' for a competitive pairing of them, and Tulsa, in the Liberty Bowl, but that didn't happen, either.

As it was, TCU played Iowa St, a team that might have won the N. Division, but for two close OT losses. Regardless, the N. Division was competitive, in general, as evidenced by how well, generally they fared in bowl pairings. Even Colorado proved they were likely a competitive team, in their bowl pairing, against Clemson. So, TCU did, in fact show they were a pretty good team, in their bowl pairing against Iowa St.
They were ranked #9 I believe it was in one poll, #11 in another, averaged, is #10. My argument is that the best ten teams occupy a place in the BCS. Under those standards TCU was BCS 'deserving'.
They can't be faulted for things that they aren't in control of, which include how the BCS decides to rank teams.

[Eric]

1. I don't think that TCU should've been in the BCS. They did go undefeated in the Mountain West, but that conference was sub-par this season and not as deep or as powerful at the top as the Big East.

2. I think 5-6 is competitive. Good? No, but they could compete at times during this season.

3. The BCS is looking for those top 10 teams next year, so you're in luck.

4. I think the BCS should be made of the champions of the strongest conferences in America, and that was the way it was while adding Ohio State and Notre Dame. I just think that the group of teams were just flat out better than TCU. Not that TCU could be competitive or even beat any of the teams in the BCS, they just didn't belong this year. I'd stick them at #15 in my book.

5. Spence, I don't understand what you mean with the "3 game series" thing. I'm sure Utah, Louisville, or Boise State of 2004 could do such a thing.