Mid-Majors vs. Majors

[Eric]

Utah, Boise State, and Louisville of 2004 were mid-majors even though they played like they were from a major conference, especially Louisville. Boise had their run-ins with, say, less talented football teams. Utah looked like they could win the Big 12 that year, even though their defense had some holes in it.

Note that in 2004, Baylor, Washington, and Duke were classified as BCS conference schools. The 3 teams above would get clobbered by Utah, Boise, and U of L in 2004. Like Spence said, it's just referring to the conference played in.

[colorado_loves_football]

Exactly. Losing to SMU doesn't cut it for TCU, so I think that UCLA, Miami, and Auburn were more deserving for a BCS spot than TCU. Oh, and Oregon too.

If TCU even wanted a prayer for a BCS bid, they had to defeat everyone on the schedule convincingly. Although they did get some big wins against UNLV, Colorado State, Air Force, and New Mexico, they slipped by Oklahoma, Utah, and BYU and lost to SMU. I don't know if that's good enough for a BCS resume.

Like Spence, isn't enough to try to 'corral' now I have a "Spence Jr." running around, in fact, he writes a lot like Spence. Maybe you two are related?

I've already tackled the SMU game. TCU lost, so what? It was in Dallas, and it was a 'redemption' for a game played in Ft. Worth, the previous year. Maybe if TCU still played in C-USA, it should be a 'disqualifier' but since they don't, it's like losing to your brother, in an indian wrestling competition. It happens.

Now, as far as whether or not TCU's schedule was BCS 'caliber' I can't really say I know for sure. The MWC, in general likely wasn't as good as they were in past years, including 2004 (when Utah went). But, TCU dominated the MWC, and in a 'typical' year, that should be good enough for a BCS invitation. It wasn't, partly because next year's rules weren't in place. 10-1 maybe won't 'assure' a non-BCS team an invitation, but it should at least be sufficient for a 'major' bowl invitation, which, unfortunately it wasn't. We don't know, how good TCU was (or wasn't), compared to BCS teams, but that's because TCU never gets invited.

5/7 years (count them, if you don't believe me) 1999 TCU was 9-3, NOT invited. 2000 TCU was 10-2, NOT invited 2002 TCU was 10-2 NOT invited, 2003 TCU was 10-2 NOT invited 2005 TCU was 11-1 NOT invited.
They earned the right to be represented, but weren't selected, last year.

[Spence]

Like Spence, isn't enough to try to 'corral' now I have a "Spence Jr." running around, in fact, he writes a lot like Spence. Maybe you two are related?

Not related and I don't know him, but I knew their was something that I liked about him.

TCU would get invited when they play good enough competition. It really is that simple.

[Eric]

Sorry, I'm not reading the "Post-Season Playoff" post because it would occupy 13 hours of my day. I haven't been following it.

Regardless, it's a 5-6 SMU team. You can't really say the only reason why they lost was because it's a rivalry game. So? TCU lost a game. Plain and simple. And you'd have to be crazy to say they were ahead of Auburn, Miami, UCLA, and Oregon (and I know they all lost their bowl games besides UCLA, but it's based on what happened during the season) in the BCS pecking order. And Notre Dame and Ohio State.

The MWC was sub-par this year, even though they were only 2-2 in bowl season. CSU was beat up pretty badly by the time the game came and they had their run ins with a few other teams. I can't say that TCU is BCS worthy.

[Spence]

Regardless, it's a 5-6 SMU team. You can't really say the only reason why they lost was because it's a rivalry game. So? TCU lost a game. Plain and simple. And you'd have to be crazy to say they were ahead of Auburn, Miami, UCLA, and Oregon (and I know they all lost their bowl games besides UCLA, but it's based on what happened during the season) in the BCS pecking order. And Notre Dame and Ohio State.

Losing a rivary game has no meaning as far as the BCS is concerned. Check and see how many times Michigan or Ohio State got knocked out of a good bowl game over the years by each other. Rivalry games are good for the teams involved and sometimes the conference involves, but as far as the BCS is concerned it is a game like any other. Eric is exactly right. Saying "so what" isn't the best argument to defend the loss.

[Eric]

When the BCS committee looks at SMU beating TCU, it's a loss to the Mustangs, not the RIVAL Mustangs. Thanks for clearing that up, Spence, that was the point I was trying to make.

[ktffan]

Mid-majors play a considerably weaker schedule then BCS schools. As a result, not only should the be expected to be undefeated to make a BCS game, they need to have schedule 2-3 BCS schools and beaten them, plus they better not even have had close games with weaker teams.

[Eric]

Precisely.

[Jason G]

In general non-BCS schools play schedules that are PERCEIVED as being weaker than the ones played by most BCS schools.

Schools only control the non-conference part of their schedule. This is why I think it is more important to talk about out of conference strength of schedule as opposed to overall schedule strength. In my opinion it is unfair to critisize a team based on the league they play in.

Two points to be considered when talking about schools' non-conference schedules:

1. Schedules are made so many years in advance that it is impossible to know how good or bad the teams may be by the time the game is played.

2. BCS schools regularly turn down requests from non-BCS schools to be added to their schedules especially when it would involve the non-BCS school playing at home. Should the non-BCS schools trying to get these games scheduled be the ones paying the price?

[Spence]

Two points to be considered when talking about schools' non-conference schedules:

1. Schedules are made so many years in advance that it is impossible to know how good or bad the teams may be by the time the game is played.

2. BCS schools regularly turn down requests from non-BCS schools to be added to their schedules especially when it would involve the non-BCS school playing at home. Should the non-BCS schools trying to get these games scheduled be the ones paying the price?

You pretty much have to judge teams based on who they play. There is no other way. Sometimes it isn't fair.

Schedules are made years in advance at this point, but if conferences would schedule more like the MAC they could hedge their bets on how good the teams will be when they play. The MAC as a group generally schedules good teams. not just a few of them. That raises the over all strength of the conference, if they win. They may have taken this step as a result of Marshall a few years ago. In any case that whole conference schedules good teams. If they start winning some of the games that they are playing close, they will get national respect. The MAC isn't as far off as some think. They are scheduling the right way, they just need to get someone to make a run.

As far as getting the majors to play away from home. That isn't going to happen unless they go to a system with systematic scheduling and they are forced to do it. It is a money thing more then any thing else. Ohio State can sell 100,000 tickets @ $58.00 a piece. Not very many mid majors could make it worth playing away from home. That isn't fair either, but it is a reality.

[mountainman]

Hey Jason G., you know you have to ask the questions both ways.

Your point #2 asks about who should pay the price. Do you believe the BCS schools should be the ones to pay the price? Surely, you wouldn't ask that another team give up millions (that's right, millions) in revenues in order for someone else to reap the rewards at their expense.

Would you expect a mid-major Division 1 program to do the same by having a home and home series with a NAIA, Division III, or Division II program playing in a 5000-20,000 or so seat stadium?

[colorado_loves_football]

Hey Jason G., you know you have to ask the questions both ways.

Your point #2 asks about who should pay the price. Do you believe the BCS schools should be the ones to pay the price? Surely, you wouldn't ask that another team give up millions (that's right, millions) in revenues in order for someone else to reap the rewards at their expense.

Would you expect a mid-major Division 1 program to do the same by having a home and home series with a NAIA, Division III, or Division II program playing in a 5000-20,000 or so seat stadium?

Mountainman, who should pay the price? I guess the answer is that we all should if we really want to see a 'concensus' national champion.

The argument about having an NAIA team play actually has basis in fact, I live in Alamosa, Colorado where the teams regularly play in a 5000 seat stadium. And Adams State does make deals with I-AA football programs, but they are all away games, but that's partly because those teams dont' want to travel here. Doesn't mean Adams State can't play competitive football. They were tied, 7-7, against U. N. Arizona before losing big, in 2003. Adams State's enrollment is somewhere in the 2500 range. Those decisions are financial.

[Spence]

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.

[colorado_loves_football]

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.

[Spence]

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.

That pretty much answers the BCS question. The BCS is a pairing of those considered to be the best teams NATIONALLY. Not the best from this conference or that conference. That effectively ends the argument.