2006 Conference Schedule Breakdown

[Eric]

Don't we think it is about time to drop this argument? CLF has been pushing this TCU point since November. I think we'll agree to disagree on this subject, because nothing has happened to change our point of view.

[ktffan]

Don't we think it is about time to drop this argument? CLF has been pushing this TCU point since November. I think we'll agree to disagree on this subject, because nothing has happened to change our point of view.

I have nothing against TCU. My opinion are reality based. TCU used to be a major program, but have fallen by the wayside as a mid-major. This has ended up to being their benefit, as they were not as good a Southwest team as Baylor and when Baylor went into the Big 12, their tougher schedule caused their program to go in the opposite direction of where TCU did. Now TCU is with an up and coming conference and have a strong program.

Of course, saying TCU deserved a BCS bid is just silly and no sane person would agree to that.

[colorado_loves_football]

This why your assumptions end up being so offbase, because you fail to take facts into account. Oklahoma State got in the Cotton Bowl because during the war years, local teams were look for, not the best ones. Oklahoma State built up a good record against a poor schedule and they got the invite. Nobody, but nobody (except pure idiots) thought Missouri Valley teams were major.

Again, I must warn you, the people who moderate this site don't take kindly to insults, I"m simply trying to be a 'friend' to you (not exactly sure why, though).
I know it was during the war, barely. I think that's a pretty weak argument in your defense, however. Did you review Oklahoma St.'s record? They played and beat 'major' teams to get there. Sure, those schools likely weren't as good as they might have been, had a war not been going on. Small potatoes, in my book. TCU wasn't that outstanding, but managed to win the SWC, anyway. Oklahoma St, probably had a pretty good football team, that year.

'Flaming homer'? I can read between the lines, here, and there has already been one person 'banned' for that kind of innuendo. Forewarned is forearmed (I'm just trying to help you out, here).

Wow. I wouldn't be able to live if I got banned from this thriving forum for calling a spade a spade. Your arguements are obviously dreamed up out of your homerism, that's why some fact mean everything to you and others mean nothing.

That won't earn you 'brownie' points either, like I said an individual has made similar comments (derogatory) and was banned for life! But if you don't care about the repercussions, go right ahead. I won't miss you that much.

Here you are saying USC wasn't a very good team and yet you called them a major even though said it doesn't matter to you where a team plays to be considered a major. So you call USC a "major" when it fits your arguement, but you use contradictory logic to justify calling an obvious non-major a "major", simply because if fits your argument better. That's hypocrisy on parade.

No, I don't make distinctions between 'major' and 'mid-major'. That's your own prejudice coming through. Yes I thought USC wasn't a very good team.
TCU beat them, I wasnt' that impressed, myself. Were you? The Sun Bowl has probably been around forever, my question was is it now?

[Eric]

That'd be a good recap to most of our arguments. I agree with that 100%.

[colorado_loves_football]

I have nothing against TCU. My opinion are reality based. TCU used to be a major program, but have fallen by the wayside as a mid-major. This has ended up to being their benefit, as they were not as good a Southwest team as Baylor and when Baylor went into the Big 12, their tougher schedule caused their program to go in the opposite direction of where TCU did. Now TCU is with an up and coming conference and have a strong program.

Of course, saying TCU deserved a BCS bid is just silly and no sane person would agree to that.

It's your argument that is wrong.
Baylor wasn't a bad football program, and they still aren't. They are going through a transition. I think putting them into this debate is wrong on principle. TCU and Baylor haven't played since they were in the SWC. But, they will be playing this year, so if nothing else it will 'test' your hypothesis.
TCU's W/L record against Baylor isn't very good, so you are maybe 'ahead' of me in this particular area. Nevertheless, TCU is now a MWC member. Those games are a LOT more important than games played against former SWC rivals. The Oklahoma game is an 'exception'. They were never in a conference with Oklahoma.
That being said, I will maybe agree that if TCU can't beat Baylor, they dont' deserve a BCS invititation. Doen't mean Baylor 'sucks'.
Baylor was a competitive football team, in the Big XII, last year.
I think they beat Iowa St.

[Eric]

We posted that at the same time. I meant to say I agree 100% with ktffan.

[Eric]

Why is a loss to SMU less relevant than a loss to Baylor?

[colorado_loves_football]

Why is a loss to SMU less relevant than a loss to Baylor?

I don't think I ever implied it wasn't. Neither are that relevant to TCU's overall success, as a football team. If TCU played in the SWC they would be 'critical' games, they don't, and so therefore aren't that important, in the overall shape of things.
I don't know that I care which side you're on, Eric. You can have whatever opinion you want. But be careful, I suspect he's getting himself in hot water, I dont' think you want to be 'guilty by association'.

[Eric]

That being said, I will maybe agree that if TCU can't beat Baylor, they dont' deserve a BCS invititation.

Right there.

[ktffan]

No, I don't make distinctions between 'major' and 'mid-major'. That's your own prejudice coming through. Yes I thought USC wasn't a very good team.
TCU beat them, I wasnt' that impressed, myself. Were you? The Sun Bowl has probably been around forever, my question was is it now?

And yet you called USC a "major". Hypocrisy on parade.

[colorado_loves_football]

And yet you called USC a "major". Hypocrisy on parade.

I simply applied the same terminology you use, for simplicity sake. I don't make distinction, generally between teams, in the NCAA, but if necessarily I will apply a 'BCS' or 'non-BCS' label, for convenience.

As far as Baylor is concerned, I think they will be a very competitive team, in 2005. There's sufficient evidence in that regard, from how they played, in 2004. They scheduled many of the same teams TCU did, and had similar results (common opponents). In fact, Baylor beat SMU, but lost to Oklahoma (in OT). They also beat Iowa St, in Ames, by a sizable margin!

So, it will be something of a 'test' for TCU with respect to how they 'fare' in their game against Baylor. Baylor (a BCS team) will be a difficult team to beat, in their own stadium. I never addressed how Baylor and SMU compare. SMU plays in C-USA a competitively 'weaker' conference than Baylor. It will likely be a much more difficult game for TCU to win, but as far as how important the game is, I think it's a 'wash'. Baylor is likely a better team than SMU, in any respect.

[Eric]

I'm perplexed. I don't comprehend what you're trying to say. You say that Baylor would be better than SMU, but a loss to Baylor would convince you that TCU wouldn't belong in the BCS.

[Spence]

[ktffan]

And yet you called USC a "major". Hypocrisy on parade.

I simply applied the same terminology you use, for simplicity sake.

Look, can the bull. You are contradicting yourself on every post in an apparent effort to cover earlier mistakes. Earlier you gave this response to my comment that Oklahoma State was not a major in 1944:

ACcording to who? Oklahoma St, obviously was a pretty good team, regardless. I find it ironic you have to 'justify' your numbers even when it's obvious you are wrong.

Now, you're telling me that you were actually using MY standard? You obviously weren't because you were questioning my standard. You haven't the slightest idea of what my standard is. I use a historical standard, where teams that actually would be considered major, I consider major. You QUITE obviously were not using that standard I was. You were using the "if they are major now, they must have been major then" standard. That would be like considering UConn a "major" for all-time because they are a major now, or Cincinnatti. It doesn't work that way. Neither were you using the standard you earlier claimed to use, the "if they were good, they must have been a major". I simply told you they would not be considered a major and you felt you needed to take a shot at me, now you keep changing your story.

[colorado_loves_football]

Look, can the bull. You are contradicting yourself on every post in an apparent effort to cover earlier mistakes. Earlier you gave this response to my comment that Oklahoma State was not a major in 1944:

Quote:
ACcording to who? Oklahoma St, obviously was a pretty good team, regardless. I find it ironic you have to 'justify' your numbers even when it's obvious you are wrong.


Now, you're telling me that you were actually using MY standard? You obviously weren't because you were questioning my standard. You haven't the slightest idea of what my standard is. I use a historical standard, where teams that actually would be considered major, I consider major. You QUITE obviously were not using that standard I was. You were using the "if they are major now, they must have been major then" standard. That would be like considering UConn a "major" for all-time because they are a major now, or Cincinnatti. It doesn't work that way. Neither were you using the standard you earlier claimed to use, the "if they were good, they must have been a major". I simply told you they would not be considered a major and you felt you needed to take a shot at me, now you keep changing your story.

I am not sure exactly what you are referring to, but if it's with respect to Oklahoma St, then yes you are correct, I do consider them to be a 'major' program. I wasn't around in 1945, it's hard for me to assess them, then. But beating the SWC champion 34-0 is pretty conclusive evidence in my view, they were a competitive football team.

I don't use the 'major' label very often, because it's a divider. I think most I-A programs are 'major' programs. I haven't changed my story, to suit you, trust me. I wouldn't want to do that, first of all, so you are maybe giving yourself too much credit.

What I have done, however, is draw a line between what I consider to be a 'major' pairing of teams, competitively, and I think that's my right. Especially when it is warranted.

Maybe I shouldn't make 'distinctions' but you did, so I simply made my own distintions, that werent' necessarily the same as yours. So what?

Don't make any distinctions TCU is 8-13-1. Doesn't really bother me.
But you were the one who had to make 'distinction' between 'major' vs. 'non-major' and I for one think that was an 'unfair' analysis, that favored your side, over mine.

How do you know that in 1945 Oklahoma St. wasn't a competitive football team? I don't think you do, you just have to 'jump' on that game, like it somehow 'proves' TCU was a terrible program. Do a side-by-side analysis of both those teams, that year, you might draw a different conclusion, one that maybe reflects the result of the game, itself.

So, you can write that TCU is 4-9 or whatever, in 'major' bowls. I think that's a slanted analysis, and I think I gave sufficient evidence in my defense. But, you can take whatever 'side' you want. TCU in many people's minds, is a very competitive football team. I don't necessarily have to qualify that statement, it stands on its own.

They are one of the more competitive football teams in the 2000s. No, they don't play in a BCS confernece, but that's nothing new. The MWC in my opinion is a competitive football conference. TCU being the champion, 2005 should be viewed in it's proper framework, or in other words, a validation of how competitive they are.

Maybe the approach you should take, if you are looking to 'prove' TCU isn't a competitive team, is to dissect the MWC. I wouldn't necessarily object to that, altogether. Has to rely on information, however that gives sufficient reason to question their being a competitive conference, with resepct to the rest of the NCAA. If you can do that, maybe I'll listen.
Outside of that I'd rather not talk about bowls played in 1945.