2006 Conference Schedule Breakdown

[Eric]

Okay, I have another question:

Why do you think the fact that SMU was "underrated (competitively speaking)" but my point of view that Oklahoma was an extremely young team getting their feet wet isn't? Am I wrong, or did Texas A&M beat SMU 66-8 or something in that neighborhood?

[Spence]

Bowl appointments were a complete different story in the 40s than they are today. The best teams did not go to bowls and they were considered exhibtion. Teams being in bowls did not mean they were the best available..

They were exhibition. They even used to decide the national champion before the bowls were played. The Big 10 only would let the champion even go to a bowl. That is why a lot of B-10 teams don't have big numbers in games played.

[ktffan]

Bowl appointments were a complete different story in the 40s than they are today. The best teams did not go to bowls and they were considered exhibtion. Teams being in bowls did not mean they were the best available..

They were exhibition. They even used to decide the national champion before the bowls were played. The Big 10 only would let the champion even go to a bowl. That is why a lot of B-10 teams don't have big numbers in games played.

The Big Ten wasn't even going to bowls in the early 40s. Another reason the Big Ten has fewer games played is that they had a shorter schedule from the 50s through the 60s.

[Spence]

While Michigan played Stanford in the first bowl game (Rose) at the end of the 1901 season, Ohio State(Rose 1920), and Michigan State (Orange1937) the B-10 didn't make regular bowl appearances until they made the deal with the Pac-10 to play in the Rose in 1946-47. It was Rose or bust until 1975 when Ohio State and Michigan both went to a bowl. Then it gradually grew from there to the host of games the B-10 plays today.

[colorado_loves_football]

Okay, I have another question:

Why do you think the fact that SMU was "underrated (competitively speaking)" but my point of view that Oklahoma was an extremely young team getting their feet wet isn't? Am I wrong, or did Texas A&M beat SMU 66-8 or something in that neighborhood?

Tha'ts a fair question, and unless I'm mistaken that game was played immediately following SMU's 'upset' win over TCU.
8 is what SMU had at halftime. In fact, but for a K.O. return, the halftime score would have been a respectable 17-8. As it was, Texas A&M went into the locker-room with a 24-8 advantage. SMU was playing Texas A&M 'tough' but unfortunately that '12th' man got involved. Sound like an excuse? Well, that's what I saw. Texas A&M is a very tough team to beat in College Station, generally-speaking. Ask Texas about that.
That game likely had ramifications for SMU, as they didn't regain their composure until late in the year, but when they did, they were a good team, relative to C-USA. Does'nt Texas A&M run up the score?
Ask Baylor about that sometime.

[Eric]

Yes, I suppose they were.

OOC games measure up how "competitive" you really are. If North Texas gets beat 52-4 by Tulsa, you're telling me that game is irrelevant? It doesn't mean anything at all?

My question was why is my opinion of Oklahoma getting their feet wet not valid but your opinion of SMU being underrated is? That's all.

[colorado_loves_football]

I'm not sure that's true, I think there are some people here who maybe respect my opinion,

Well, let them speak now.

I have no objection to anyone making commentary on my positions, such as they are, in fact I welcome that, it makes for more interesting discussion.

I am not an expert in any respect, I'm a novice

Even a novice should be capable of using logic.

My 'logic' is what I consider to be an opinion based upon the limited knowledge I have, I'm still learning about all the 'incidentals' and 'particulars' that accompany competitive intercollegiate football.

But, I think I'm more open-minded than you are, at least with respect to teams not traditionally part of the BCS.

You define "open minded" as believing things that obviously aren't so.

That would depend on what you mean by that. I have a right to believe what I want to believe, irrespective of how you feel.

BillyBob, posted a listing of teams ranked sequentially, that suggested that nearly every conference (Sun Belt the sole exception) has minimally, two teams of merit.

I see. If somebody put something on the internet, it automatically has "merit".

Not necessarily, but one difference I noticed between his position and yours he had the information, and he posted it for everyone to view.

Your information, although likely 'factual' didn't have any URL associated with it, we have to take you at your word, that it's all valid, and presented in a 'fair' way. I don't necessarily 'distrust' you, but I think you could maybe stand to be a little more 'open' with your information (where and how you obtained it). That being said, I compliment you for listing pertinent, and comprehensive data that has helped us all learn more about how teams compare, competitively, against each other.

Your argument applied to 1945,

Dead wrong again, my argument was about 1944. More proof you aren't paying any attention.

We were discussing the Cotton Bowl, played in 1945 between TCU and Oklahoma St. You were maybe 'inferring' the 1944 season, I wasn't.
Oklahoma St, beat the tar out of TCU in the 1945 Cotton Bowl.

Well, according to your own argument, TCU probably shouldn't have lost to Oklahoma St. But they did, by a sizable margin, too.

Even more proof you are paying no attention. Where did I say majors win every game? Obviously I didn't.

I only gave one example thus far of a team (TCU) beating another (USC).
I don't make that my position, so it's not really something I focus on.

I suppose you can chalk it up as being a 'wartime' situation, but I think it's just a matter of a team in the Missouri Valley Conference being a 'top-notch' team, relative to the SWC.

Since you admit to being a novice, or more like ignorant, let me clue you in. Bowl appointments were a complete different story in the 40s than they are today. The best teams did not go to bowls and they were considered exhibtion. Teams being in bowls did not mean they were the best available. 2-3-3 South Carolina made the Gator bowl in the 45 for instance, not because there weren't better teams, but as a matter of convienence. LSU made the Orange Bowl at 5-3 and it wasn't because they were great.

I'm sure there are likely examples of games that didn't necessarily pair two 'representative' teams together. But I have some news for you, the bowl still are exhibitions, in at least some respect. It wasn't until recently, for example that the statistics were even compiled and applied to each team's schedule. That's because the bowls are a separate 'entity'. But there is obviously a lot more 'push' for them being included as a 'continuation' of each teams schedule, than in past years, with the onset of the BCS.

Nevertheless, bowls by-and-large are exhibition games. I don't entirely understand your argument about non-competitive games in 1944. What does that have to do with the Cotton Bowl? It wasn't like that, TCU was the SWC champion, as traditionally the Cotton bowl 'showcased'. The other team, Oklahoma St, was a very competitive football team, and that showed in how they played against TCU. I don't think your argument applies to that bowl, although I will admit, TCU likely wasn't as good as they might have been, another year.

The bowls are 'free' (at least in principle) to select whichever two teams suit them best. Again, the BCS has made such an impact on the bowls, themselves, that they are forced to make 'agreement's between conferences to assure themselves of a 'competitive' arrangement. The BCS has superceded all previous arrangements. We refer to the BCS as a 4 (or 5) bowl arrangement. That's actually not true. The BCS pretty-much selects nearly every bowls pairing, that's how influential they've become. It works out, generally, but as in the case of TCU, sometimes a team gets overlooked. It all came out in the wash.

[ktffan]

The Cotton Bowl was played in 1945, that's what we were discussing, I thought. They didn't play the Cotton Bowl in 1944. (not the one between TCU & Oklahoma St, anyway!)

Nice try at making the argument fuzzy again. You know full we were discussing the teams that played in the 1945 Cotton Bowl, which were the 1944 teams of each school.

They were used to select a national champion,

They were not.

[colorado_loves_football]

Yes, I suppose they were.

OOC games measure up how "competitive" you really are. If North Texas gets beat 52-4 by Tulsa, you're telling me that game is irrelevant? It doesn't mean anything at all?

My question was why is my opinion of Oklahoma getting their feet wet not valid but your opinion of SMU being underrated is? That's all.

I guess I need to understand why you are including Tulsa and N. Texas in this argument. Is it because Tulsa was a representative to the Liberty Bowl? I'm asking because I would like to know what your basis for applying their 'drubbing' of N. Texas has in this argument. I think Tulsa was a very competitive team, in general, but they didn't show it until relatively late in their season. N. Texas in general was disappointing.
I don't necessarily believe a 'drubbing' of them, by anyone 'proves' anything, last year, anyway. But, I do believe Tulsa was a very competitive football team, 2005, loss to Minnesota notwithstanding.

Now, as far as SMU is concerned, I was disappointed, personally in how they played against Texas A&M. It's still questionable how good A&M was. Someone (might have been Baylor) beat them in College Station.
That says something, either about how 'good' Baylor was, or how 'bad' Texas A&M was. But, Texas A&M has been 'competitive' more frequently, than either Baylor or SMU. So, I would maybe have to agree, that SMU losing 66-8 doesn't bode well for TCU, neither for that matter does A&M losing to Baylor. Do I think SMU was 'soft'. Not necessarily. I can't explain everything that happens.

Anyway, as applied to TCU, I can only say they played their 'best' football at the end of the year, and that's what I think gives them the 'edge' over those other teams (including Oklahoma). Their beating of Iowa State is relevant also.

[Eric]

I'm talking about returning players and lack of game experience. TCU had more players coming back than OU. I'm just saying that TCU was a veteran football team playing a better but experience lacking Oklahoma team.

The thing with Tulsa and Minnesota was that Tulsa couldn't stop Laurence Maroney. That game was also played in Tulsa.

Now, another question arises. You seem to care about what the scoreboard says, but then you come in and say:

Again I think you need to consider the relative strength of each team before you make a 'conclusion', about either team.
I'm personally not aware of the circumstances surrounding that game.

[colorado_loves_football]

I'm talking about returning players and lack of game experience. TCU had more players coming back than OU. I'm just saying that TCU was a veteran football team playing a better but experience lacking Oklahoma team.

The thing with Tulsa and Minnesota was that Tulsa couldn't stop Laurence Maroney. That game was also played in Tulsa.

Now, another question arises. You seem to care about what the scoreboard says, but then you come in and say:

Again I think you need to consider the relative strength of each team before you make a 'conclusion', about either team.
I'm personally not aware of the circumstances surrounding that game.

My point is that TCU was competitive against the teams they played, and that's really all you can ask from anyone, whoever they are.

You focus on ONE game. A game that was played early in the year. Now you bring the Oklahoma game into the debate. Why should TCU 'justify' their win? A Win is a Win. A loss is a loss. I don't try to 'justify' TCU losing to SMU, they lost. SMU was likely a better team when they played.
TCU likely didn't make excuses, either. That's not how they approach the game.

Now, that being said, you have some validity to your argument as applied to Baylor (and Tulsa for that matter). Both teams were very competitive, in my opinion, in their respective conferences. That's the 'key' to my argument. How you compare against your conference members is the most important thing, for any team.

Oklahoma was mostly very competitive in their confernece. Baylor, played competitive football, never quite got 'over the hump', in their own conference. Tulsa, managed to win their conference, outright. SMU, only managed to 'break even'. That's the 'relative' strength component I am referring to. Relative to each other, it's difficult to ascertain who's the best. But a competitive pairing of Tulsa and TCU would have selected one 'outstanding' representative to the BCS, my argument still applies. Oklahoma, nearly qualified for the Cotton Bowl, even after losing to TCU, UCLA. And beating Oregon likely proved they were a 'good' football team, even when TCU played them.

TCU never played Baylor. Baylor and TCU size up well, competitively.
It will be interesting to see how they play, in a head-to-head arrangement. That was missing from TCU"s schedule last year. This year, it's included. It will likely have BCS ramifications. I hope TCU wins, but its' possible they lose to Baylor, they have struggled against them in their modern history. If TCU wins, they are one step ahead of hte 'pack' in the BCS.

[Eric]

That's fair, I guess.

I think SMU was a mediocre C-USA team last year. I do think that this year they'll compete with Houston and Tulsa for the C-USA West title. But, being a mediocre C-USA team, that is relatively weak competition. Remember, circumstances! That was Baylor's first game, and I am under the impression that Baylor is fairly better than SMU was. If you're telling me that SMU's record of Big 12 play would be comparable to Baylor's this year, I'd disagree, as I think SMU would probably get one upset and maybe beat Oklahoma State.

But that's all up for speculation.

I do think that Baylor and TCU will be a good game next year. I don't know if TCU will be as good as they were last year as I don't even think they'll win the Mountain West (I'm going with Utah). Another thing, I don't have anything against TCU; they're ok. They haven't done anything to make me dislike them, and even if I did, I'd look at it from an unbiased point of view.

[colorado_loves_football]

That's fair, I guess.

I think SMU was a mediocre C-USA team last year. I do think that this year they'll compete with Houston and Tulsa for the C-USA West title. But, being a mediocre C-USA team, that is relatively weak competition. Remember, circumstances! That was Baylor's first game, and I am under the impression that Baylor is fairly better than SMU was. If you're telling me that SMU's record of Big 12 play would be comparable to Baylor's this year, I'd disagree, as I think SMU would probably get one upset and maybe beat Oklahoma State.

But that's all up for speculation.

I do think that Baylor and TCU will be a good game next year. I don't know if TCU will be as good as they were last year as I don't even think they'll win the Mountain West (I'm going with Utah). Another thing, I don't have anything against TCU; they're ok. They haven't done anything to make me dislike them, and even if I did, I'd look at it from an unbiased point of view.

I can't speculate about how well SMU would do in the Big XII. But, I think maybe it's 'fair' to apply TCU, at least with respect to how Baylor did, competitively.
Remember, TCU and Baylor played similar opponents, OOC. There was also some 'cross-over' with the Big XII. TCU beat Oklahoma and Iowa St.
Baylor beat Iowa St, (in Iowa) lost to Oklahoma (in Oklahoma). Nobody can say 'exactly' where TCU would have been, but it's fair to put them at Baylor's 'level' from a competitive standpoint.
I don't know how TCU might do in a 'hypothetical' BCS arrangement.
Nobody does, until they are represented, in some fashion. I believe TCU 'earned' the right to play a team of the 'caliber' of Oregon, simply because both teams were 10-1 and not represented in the BCS.
I'll admit there are some problems with TCU's SOS. They only played one ranked team, Oklahoma. They did, however 'run the table' in their conference. There is maybe some question about how good the MWC was. I dont' believe they were as good as in previous years, but I still thought, in general, they played competitive football.
Next year's schedule, will likely 'test' TCU much more than last year's did.
For one thing, they play two 'BCS' teams to open the season. Baylor, maybe isn't like playing Oklahoma, but they are likely 'tougher' than SMU.
Similarly, Texas Tech, will come prepared to play. TCU will be lucky to win both of those games, and might have to 'split'. I don't know that losing to Baylor will 'ruin' their year, but it's important for any team to start the year, on a 'winning' note. I think having Texas Tech at home, will help TCU. If they can win those two games, out of the gate, they will be 'pumped' for a MWC title run. Lose them both, I think effectively 'ruins' any hope for a BCS bid. They don't have to worry about SMU, but they do play Army, away. Army was a lot better, than in 2004.
Their 'key' MWC games are mostly away, one exception, BYU. Colorado State, Utah, are road games. I think they can beat Utah, but it won't be easy.

[Eric]

You seriously think that TCU will be able to hang with Graham Harrell and the might Texas Tech offense? I don't think so. Harrell was a 5 start QB, one of the best ever in Texas highschool history leading Tech's offense with a slew of great wide recievers? I think you may be underestimating Tech, as they might have enough in the tank to have a go at the BCS. Probably not, but they might............

[colorado_loves_football]

You seriously think that TCU will be able to hang with Graham Harrell and the might Texas Tech offense? I don't think so. Harrell was a 5 start QB, one of the best ever in Texas highschool history leading Tech's offense with a slew of great wide recievers? I think you may be underestimating Tech, as they might have enough in the tank to have a go at the BCS. Probably not, but they might............

I think it will be a good game to guage how well TCU can do against a pass-oriented offense.
I wasn't overly impressed, myself with how Texas Tech played 2005.
I was impressed, however with how they played in 2004. They were a competitive football team, but they didn't seem to be quite as competitive.
Nevertheless, I agree, TCU will likely need to play their best game to win.
But I think they will.