PDA

View Full Version : Did TCU really win one for the little guy?



jojo
01-01-2011, 08:55 PM
First what an awesome game. If the Badgers had a decent QB we might have been treated to one of the greatest Rose bowl finishes in history.

Anyway with a minute left, TCU with the ball and four downs and the Badgers out of time outs Mussberger and company broke out the canned narrative that TCU was about to win one for the little guy. Really? TCU spent about 10 billion dollars on their football program this year, just gave a big middle finger to their little guy brethren by signing an agreement to join the big east to become the only good team in a marriage that makes absolutely zero geographical sense and they entered the rose bowl as the higher seed.

Did TCU really win one for "the little guy"? Does Miami University feel like TCU has shown them the way?

KronoRed
01-01-2011, 09:12 PM
No, they are not the little guy.

Slyder
01-01-2011, 09:24 PM
It makes for good TV just like WVU beating Oklahoma in the Fiesta, Utah beating Pitt, and Boise beating Oklahoma. Just because of perceptions of it is what will stick.

When does UConn get a chance to save some credibility for the Big East?

Mutaman
01-01-2011, 10:10 PM
If the Badgers had a decent QB we might have been treated to one of the greatest Rose bowl finishes in history.



Tolzien was 2nd team all Big Ten and team MVP. He is more than decent. He just didn't execute the big play and TCU did.

Sea Ray
01-01-2011, 10:11 PM
I don't think they won one for the little guy but it did shut up the folks who said they didn't deserve a BCS bid and it strengthens the argument that we need a playoff. TCU deserves a crack at the NC

MWM
01-01-2011, 11:30 PM
Maybe had we not already had plenty of other examples already. The idea of winning one for the little guy has lost its novelty. It happens enough these days that they really can't be called the little guy any more.

*BaseClogger*
01-01-2011, 11:55 PM
If the Badgers had a decent QB

http://static.rateyourmusic.com/lk/f/u/977abdd9a8cd983ec621a9f2f8054a4e/734323.jpg

LoganBuck
01-02-2011, 07:36 AM
To defend Jojo a little, Wisconsin got away from what made them a good team. Run first, pass second. Especially with John Clay. They fell in love with the three running back rotation and the passing game. I listened to the game on the radio, and the ESPN radio guys kept ripping Wisconsin's play calling. They didn't dedicate themselves to the power running game until the final drive. I don't think the better team won.

MWM
01-02-2011, 10:37 AM
To defend Jojo a little, Wisconsin got away from what made them a good team. Run first, pass second. Especially with John Clay. They fell in love with the three running back rotation and the passing game. I listened to the game on the radio, and the ESPN radio guys kept ripping Wisconsin's play calling. They didn't dedicate themselves to the power running game until the final drive. I don't think the better team won.

I agree about Wisconsin's offense. For most of the first two quarters they were running it straight up the middle and TCU had no answer. Then TCU stacked the line a few plays and stopped the run, so Wisconsin decided to abandoned what they were doing until that final drive when they were running it down their throat again.

However, TCU moved the ball on Wisconsin fairly well against Wisconsin too.

Sea Ray
01-02-2011, 10:49 AM
To defend Jojo a little, Wisconsin got away from what made them a good team. Run first, pass second. Especially with John Clay. They fell in love with the three running back rotation and the passing game. I listened to the game on the radio, and the ESPN radio guys kept ripping Wisconsin's play calling. They didn't dedicate themselves to the power running game until the final drive. I don't think the better team won.

I agree. After John Clay ripped 'em for two huge runs late in the game, I look up and see him comfortably watching from the sideline. The small TCU defenders wanted no part of tackling him with a head of steam. Then Wisc goes to running wide and TCU tackles the guy behind the line

jojo
01-02-2011, 10:57 AM
To defend Jojo a little, Wisconsin got away from what made them a good team. Run first, pass second. Especially with John Clay. They fell in love with the three running back rotation and the passing game. I listened to the game on the radio, and the ESPN radio guys kept ripping Wisconsin's play calling. They didn't dedicate themselves to the power running game until the final drive. I don't think the better team won.

To be fair it was liberal hyperbole on my part but the play call on the two point conversion was a surprise to me and certainly the execution wasnt the best. That was a throw that a quality QB should be expected to complete. But ya, why not plow in for two?

GAC
01-02-2011, 10:58 AM
To defend Jojo a little, Wisconsin got away from what made them a good team. Run first, pass second. Especially with John Clay. They fell in love with the three running back rotation and the passing game. I listened to the game on the radio, and the ESPN radio guys kept ripping Wisconsin's play calling. They didn't dedicate themselves to the power running game until the final drive. I don't think the better team won.

On the year, Wisconsin averaged 44 rush attempts for 247 yds per game behind Clay, White, and Ball. Yesterday, they had 46 rush attempts for 226 yds vs 21 pass attempts for 259 yds. TCU had 49 plays total. Wisconsin dominated time of possession, and that was due to their running game.

Ball and Clay both had a solid game yesterday rushing. Ball exceeded his average, while Clay was slightly under. What hurt them was White. But I give credit to TCU's defense. They were facing a team that was an offensive juggernaut (450 total yards and 43 pts per game) behind one huge offensive line, that as far as size goes, TCU's was much smaller. I thought the Badgers would man handle and wear TCU down, and it just didn't happen.

The Badgers also had phenomenal offensive efficiency when in the red zone this year. Yesterday, 3 times, when they were either in or very near the red zone, TCU stopped them and Wisconsin had to settle for FG attempts (and missed one). And then there was the blocked pass on the 2 pt conversion. Should they have ran the ball there? I was surprised they didn't, but it appears they weren't going to do what TCU expected, and tried to catch them off guard. And Pedersen was wide open in the end zone too. Just simply a great defensive play.

A fantastic game, and the best team won out, and nothing can be said to take away from that IMO.

Caveat Emperor
01-02-2011, 11:06 AM
No, they are not the little guy.

A private school with an enrollment of roughly 8,500 beat a land-grant institution from one of ESPN's favorite conferences (B11, SEC, B12) with 5 times the number of students.

College football is funny business -- you almost have to use a Potter Stewart "I know it when I see it" test to separate the chosen from the outsiders. Wisconsin definitely falls into the former of those two classifications.

jojo
01-02-2011, 11:24 AM
A private school with an enrollment of roughly 8,500 beat a land-grant institution from one of ESPN's favorite conferences (B11, SEC, B12) with 5 times the number of students.

College football is funny business -- you almost have to use a Potter Stewart "I know it when I see it" test to separate the chosen from the outsiders. Wisconsin definitely falls into the former of those two classifications.

But TCU didn't get to this point by behaving like a little guy...... Student enrollment may not be in the class of land grant univeristies but most land grant universities would love to have TCU's market...

Here's a blurb from TCU's website:


TCU is the largest of 17 colleges and universities associated with the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), a denomination committed to demonstrating true community, deep Christian spirituality and a passion for justice. With the full support of the Disciples, TCU is committed to the highest standards of scholarship, affording students the rigorous challenges that make higher education worthwhile. Reflection on questions of meaning and value is crucial to genuine learning. TCU’s covenant with the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) supports this kind of education.

How does spending 18 double gazillion dollars on their football program support that kind of education?

This isn't meant to slam TCU because they make college football more interesting and I don't think they are doing anything wrong. But they aren't anymore the little guy than Wisconsin considering how they are going about their business IMHO.

Caveat Emperor
01-02-2011, 11:47 AM
. But they aren't anymore the little guy than Wisconsin considering how they are going about their business IMHO.

You're missing the point entirely. "Little Guy" / "Big Guy" in college football has absolutely nothing to do with size, budget, rankings, etc. It's a strange combination of perception, success, conference affiliation, media coverage and history/tradition.

TCU may spend like a "Big Guy," but they clearly aren't a "Big Guy" in the college football world. There's no clear cut definition to any of this, though.

will5979
01-02-2011, 11:49 AM
TCU is going to own the Big East, unless Holgerson is the next Rich Rod.

jojo
01-02-2011, 11:56 AM
You're missing the point entirely. "Little Guy" / "Big Guy" in college football has absolutely nothing to do with size, budget, rankings, etc. It's a strange combination of perception, success, conference affiliation, media coverage and history/tradition.

TCU may spend like a "Big Guy," but they clearly aren't a "Big Guy" in the college football world. There's no clear cut definition to any of this, though.

To me when I think of little guy, I think underdog. TCU really didn't fit that bill IMHO.

paintmered
01-02-2011, 02:24 PM
TCU is going to own the Big East, unless Holgerson is the next Rich Rod.

They didn't own C-USA when they were in there with Louisville, Cincy and South Florida.

They do give credibility to the Big East, but I'm not ready to hand them the first five championship trophies.

traderumor
01-02-2011, 02:32 PM
But TCU didn't get to this point by behaving like a little guy...... Student enrollment may not be in the class of land grant univeristies but most land grant universities would love to have TCU's market...

Here's a blurb from TCU's website:



How does spending 18 double gazillion dollars on their football program support that kind of education?

This isn't meant to slam TCU because they make college football more interesting and I don't think they are doing anything wrong. But they aren't anymore the little guy than Wisconsin considering how they are going about their business IMHO.I agree, those are just words when the reality is "we worship and feed at the trough of big time college football."

Eric_the_Red
01-02-2011, 02:43 PM
If TCU wasn't a "little guy", wouldn't they be playing for the National Championship?

traderumor
01-02-2011, 02:47 PM
I would call them the odd man out in a year with three undefeated teams and they clearly have a weaker schedule than the two UNDEFEATED teams playing for the NC. Under the current system, I don't think it has anything to do with them being the "little guy."

Sea Ray
01-02-2011, 02:52 PM
I would call them the odd man out in a year with three undefeated teams and they clearly have a weaker schedule than the two UNDEFEATED teams playing for the NC. Under the current system, I don't think it has anything to do with them being the "little guy."

Exactly which is why they're the little guy. It's awfully hard to get to where they are now playing in a non BCS conference

Eric_the_Red
01-02-2011, 03:02 PM
Exactly which is why they're the little guy. It's awfully hard to get to where they are now playing in a non BCS conference

Right. Teams like TCU and Boise St have a hard time getting big time schools to come play them. In the current system, they are the little guy.

KronoRed
01-02-2011, 05:16 PM
If TCU wasn't a "little guy", wouldn't they be playing for the National Championship?

No, Auburn got left out in 2004 and they certainly aren't a little guy.

TCU is the Texas version of Miami, small school with money in a big city, TCU does have actual fans in the stands though :D

traderumor
01-02-2011, 06:01 PM
Exactly which is why they're the little guy. It's awfully hard to get to where they are now playing in a non BCS conferenceI would submit its easier under the current system. They play the cushy schedule, play a tough game or two a season, get blue fields or purple uniforms, blow everyone else out, turn into Schleprocks and make every one feel sorry for them. They and Boise St. are playing the BCS game perfectly, and raking in the dough for their programs while doing it.

RBA
01-02-2011, 06:42 PM
Oregon>TCU>Auburn

Boston Red
01-02-2011, 06:55 PM
If TCU wasn't a "little guy", wouldn't they be playing for the National Championship?

No, the problem for them was that their schedule was filled with a bunch of "little guys". Same with Boise (had they taken care of business in Reno).

paintmered
01-02-2011, 09:06 PM
The BCS strives to match up the two most deserving teams, not necessarily the two "best" teams. Given the three undefeated teams, the BCS got it right in leaving TCU out.

Caveat Emperor
01-02-2011, 09:14 PM
No, the problem for them was that their schedule was filled with a bunch of "little guys". Same with Boise (had they taken care of business in Reno).

We go through this every year -- unless the "power" conferences want to offer open-enrollment and allow everyone into their elite little clubs, claiming that "they don't play anyone" really rings hollow.

They play the guys on their schedule. They'd probably play better teams if the opportunity was there, but they (quite literally) have no control over who they play.

It's a crap industry that continues to punish teams for not being "forward thinking" 50-60 years ago in their conference alignments.

Boston Red
01-02-2011, 09:51 PM
We go through this every year -- unless the "power" conferences want to offer open-enrollment and allow everyone into their elite little clubs, claiming that "they don't play anyone" really rings hollow.

They play the guys on their schedule. They'd probably play better teams if the opportunity was there, but they (quite literally) have no control over who they play.

You're preaching to the choir with me. But that IS why TCU wasn't playing for the national championship. Nothing to do with whether TCU is a big boy or not.

*BaseClogger*
01-03-2011, 01:38 AM
Oregon>TCU>Auburn

That looks like geographic bias to me... ;)

GAC
01-03-2011, 05:34 AM
I would call them the odd man out in a year with three undefeated teams and they clearly have a weaker schedule than the two UNDEFEATED teams playing for the NC. Under the current system, I don't think it has anything to do with them being the "little guy."

BINGO!

The two opponents in the NC game deserve to be there. They got it right. To anyone who may think that TCU belongs in the NC game - based on what argument over either Oregon or Auburn? Is TCU's 13-0 regular season record as strong as that of Oregon's or Auburn's? No way IMO.

If a MAC or Sun Belt team goes undefeated, should they be given NC game consideration?

Now I'm not the biggest fan of the current structure of the BCS system, and you won't get much argument from me on what some (including various members of Congress) say is an unfair distribution of BCS revenue. And that's because it is harder for a non-BCS school to get into those premier games with the big pay outs, and the bottom line is simply because of the conferences they play in and their SoS.

But last year non-BCS conferences got a record 24M from BCS Bowl games. The blunt of it going to TCU and Boise State. So I think these two teams, even looking at the conferences they play in, are getting plenty of exposure and recognition. Now TCU, and Utah, obviously understand their "situation", being in a non-BCS conference (MWC) and the "lack" in their SoS, because they've both bolted to the Pac-10 and Big East. And more power to them too. Let's see how they do.

But IMO, TCU made a statement this year in the Rose Bowl, just like Boise did a few years back vs Oklahoma.

Institute a play-off system. :p:

dougdirt
01-03-2011, 05:36 AM
BINGO!

The two opponents in the NC game deserve to be there. They got it right. To anyone who may think that TCU belongs in the NC game - based on what argument over either Oregon or Auburn? Is TCU's 13-0 regular season record as strong as that of Oregon's or Auburn's? No way IMO.


I would say that the argument that could be made is that they are better than one of those teams. I am not saying they are, but they could be. I don't care about their schedule being as tough, I care about the team being better.

BRM
02-10-2011, 12:38 PM
TCU has apparently turned down a rematch with Wisconsin in 2011 because it was a one-time arrangement with no return game in Fort Worth.

http://sports.espn.go.com/dallas/ncf/news/story?id=6106632

BuckeyeRed27
02-10-2011, 01:29 PM
TCU has apparently turned down a rematch with Wisconsin in 2011 because it was a one-time arrangement with no return game in Fort Worth.

http://sports.espn.go.com/dallas/ncf/news/story?id=6106632

I'm sure that game with Baylor will help them get to the NCG next year.

Orenda
02-10-2011, 05:31 PM
TCU has apparently turned down a rematch with Wisconsin in 2011 because it was a one-time arrangement with no return game in Fort Worth.

http://sports.espn.go.com/dallas/ncf/news/story?id=6106632

Seems like a lose-lose for TCU, good for their AD.
First off, they WON against Wisconsin so if Wisconsin wants to prove that it was a fluke so bad they should be the ones who should be willing to make sacrifices. When was the last time a boxing champion catered to the demands of the guy they just beat?

Second, with TCU moving to the Big East they don't need to load up their non-conference schedule as much as before.

Third, it is not irrational to make Wisconsin agree to a game in Fort Worth, it seems UW just expects TCU to self-sacrifice for the good of UW.

Lastly, I would think it would be in UW's interest to play a game in one of the richest football talent states in the country. With TCU's move to the Big East combined with all the local talent they have to recruit, there is a very good chance they will become a perennial football power.

And in regards to playing Baylor, I think they are a step up from Youngstown State.

BuckeyeRed27
02-10-2011, 05:57 PM
Seems like a lose-lose for TCU, good for their AD.
First off, they WON against Wisconsin so if Wisconsin wants to prove that it was a fluke so bad they should be the ones who should be willing to make sacrifices. When was the last time a boxing champion catered to the demands of the guy they just beat?

Second, with TCU moving to the Big East they don't need to load up their non-conference schedule as much as before.

Third, it is not irrational to make Wisconsin agree to a game in Fort Worth, it seems UW just expects TCU to self-sacrifice for the good of UW.

Lastly, I would think it would be in UW's interest to play a game in one of the richest football talent states in the country. With TCU's move to the Big East combined with all the local talent they have to recruit, there is a very good chance they will become a perennial football power.

And in regards to playing Baylor, I think they are a step up from Youngstown State.

This wasn't a situation where the Wisco AD went to TCU. This was set up by a third party (probably ESPN) to try and get a early season marquee game set up. So it wasn't a negoiation between the schools it was a one time lets see if this will work type of thing given the momentum of the Rose Bowl and here is the deal.

TCU is moving to the Big East, but not this season and they still need to play much better nonconference teams. The terms should be very secondary. They already lost Texas Tech from their schedule, but the fact is playing Wisconsin in Lambeau Field in December is better than playing Baylor or Texas Tech at all. This is short sighted by their AD and I don't want to hear them crying next December when they aren't playing for the NCG despite going undefeated again.

I'm sure TCU was challenged mightly by Tennesee Tech last year...that is a huge step above Youngstown State. Maybe they will duck OSU again when given the chance to play them.

Orenda
02-10-2011, 06:59 PM
This wasn't a situation where the Wisco AD went to TCU. This was set up by a third party (probably ESPN) to try and get a early season marquee game set up. So it wasn't a negoiation between the schools it was a one time lets see if this will work type of thing given the momentum of the Rose Bowl and here is the deal.

TCU is moving to the Big East, but not this season and they still need to play much better nonconference teams. The terms should be very secondary. They already lost Texas Tech from their schedule, but the fact is playing Wisconsin in Lambeau Field in December is better than playing Baylor or Texas Tech at all. This is short sighted by their AD and I don't want to hear them crying next December when they aren't playing for the NCG despite going undefeated again.

I'm sure TCU was challenged mightly by Tennesee Tech last year...that is a huge step above Youngstown State. Maybe they will duck OSU again when given the chance to play them.

I don't know if I would call it short-sighted, winning games helps recruiting, which in TCU's case could hurt almost every major program in the country that goes into Texas to pick off a recruit, namely the Big 12 schools like OU and OSU.

I overlooked that they weren't moving into the Big East into the 2012 season, but they can still use that as a selling point to incoming recruits. They have to replace a lot of the players from last years team so I doubt they go undefeated, but if they do, I'll they have to do is point to their win against UW that they can compete with big teams. Also the MWC has more than held their own in big games (slap of reality).

The Big 10 has been living off it's reputation for about a decade now, really it's OSU and some programs that have up and down years.

I got in essentially this same argument against a friend of mine (a Big 10 alum) who complained that TCU doesn't play anybody or if they do they don't go through the grinder week in and week out like big 10 teams. But to me, the BIG 10 is way over-rated, and that the strength of the BIG 10 was actually more comparable to the MWC than it was to the SEC. They have been living off reputation for a few years, my opinion is that the style of play is inferior i.e. tough and slow. Although some teams have shifted a little offensively because they were out-schemed for years and finally figured it out. And for the record the MWC's record in BCS games is 3-1 and their one loss was to Boise State.

"Since the league's inception in 1999, the Mountain West Conference has earned 46 bowl bids and holds a 29-17 all-time record in those games, including an 11-3 mark against BCS automatic-qualifying conferences since 2004. The MWC holds an overall record of 13-7 against opponents from BCS AQ leagues in bowl games, including wins over the Pac-10 (six), SEC (two), ACC (two), Big Ten (one), Big 12 (one) and Big East (one).

Over the past seven seasons (including 2010), the MWC owns the best win percentage in bowl games among the 11 conferences with a 22-9 mark (.710). The SEC is second with a 36-19 (.655) record, followed by the Big East at 21-14 (.600) and the Pac-10 at 20-15 (.571). "

http://www.themwc.com/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/010711aad.html

BuckeyeRed27
02-10-2011, 07:15 PM
I don't know if I would call it short-sighted, winning games helps recruiting, which in TCU's case could hurt almost every major program in the country that goes into Texas to pick off a recruit, namely the Big 12 schools like OU and OSU.

I overlooked that they weren't moving into the Big East into the 2012 season, but they can still use that as a selling point to incoming recruits. They have to replace a lot of the players from last years team so I doubt they go undefeated, but if they do, I'll they have to do is point to their win against UW that they can compete with big teams. Also the MWC has more than held their own in big games (slap of reality).

The Big 10 has been living off it's reputation for about a decade now, really it's OSU and some programs that have up and down years.

I got in essentially this same argument against a friend of mine (a Big 10 alum) who complained that TCU doesn't play anybody or if they do they don't go through the grinder week in and week out like big 10 teams. But to me, the BIG 10 is way over-rated, and that the strength of the BIG 10 was actually more comparable to the MWC than it was to the SEC. They have been living off reputation for a few years, my opinion is that the style of play is inferior i.e. tough and slow. Although some teams have shifted a little offensively because they were out-schemed for years and finally figured it out. And for the record the MWC's record in BCS games is 3-1 and their one loss was to Boise State.

"Since the league's inception in 1999, the Mountain West Conference has earned 46 bowl bids and holds a 29-17 all-time record in those games, including an 11-3 mark against BCS automatic-qualifying conferences since 2004. The MWC holds an overall record of 13-7 against opponents from BCS AQ leagues in bowl games, including wins over the Pac-10 (six), SEC (two), ACC (two), Big Ten (one), Big 12 (one) and Big East (one).

Over the past seven seasons (including 2010), the MWC owns the best win percentage in bowl games among the 11 conferences with a 22-9 mark (.710). The SEC is second with a 36-19 (.655) record, followed by the Big East at 21-14 (.600) and the Pac-10 at 20-15 (.571). "

http://www.themwc.com/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/010711aad.html


Yeah the MWC is just as good as the Big 10. That's why it's three best programs are leaving it.

Bowl game winning percentages are a very poor way to look at conference strength. I'm not taking away from the accomplishments of the MWC, but individual match ups have a lot more to do with Bowl records than the overall strength of the conference.

You don't like the Big 10 and that's fine, but the conference really isn't slipping depsite what Mark May says. The style of play has more to do with the fact that they play cold weather games in November and need to be able to win games that way. The top end teams have the talent to compete with the top end teams in any conference.

The bottom line here is that TCU is always going to face an uphill battle if they are playing in the MWC of the Big East of getting into the NCG. In either conference you need to win every game, do it convincingly and have played a solid non conference schedule. TCU needs to play teams like Wisconsin and they aren't in a position to be dictating the terms of that game. And if they don't want to play those games that's fine. I just don't want to hear them crying when they aren't playing in the NCG.

Orenda
02-10-2011, 08:26 PM
Yeah the MWC is just as good as the Big 10. That's why it's three best programs are leaving it.

Bowl game winning percentages are a very poor way to look at conference strength. I'm not taking away from the accomplishments of the MWC, but individual match ups have a lot more to do with Bowl records than the overall strength of the conference.

You don't like the Big 10 and that's fine, but the conference really isn't slipping depsite what Mark May says.


Why wouldn't a non-AQ jump at the chance to move to an automatic BCS conference? The current system is a flat out a joke in regards to competitive spirit. What it does is sets up a system that rewards tradition and history while overlooking the creative destruction of competition.

Under the current system, non-AQ schools are relegated to second class citizens however there have been these pesky teams who nag at you because they threaten your sweet heart deal. Boise State, TCU, BYU, Utah you don't like them because they have the nerve to try to knock tradition off it's pedestal. And they have been successful at it. (since were putting words into each others mouths)

BuckeyeRed27
02-10-2011, 10:37 PM
Why wouldn't a non-AQ jump at the chance to move to an automatic BCS conference? The current system is a flat out a joke in regards to competitive spirit. What it does is sets up a system that rewards tradition and history while overlooking the creative destruction of competition.

Under the current system, non-AQ schools are relegated to second class citizens however there have been these pesky teams who nag at you because they threaten your sweet heart deal. Boise State, TCU, BYU, Utah you don't like them because they have the nerve to try to knock tradition off it's pedestal. And they have been successful at it. (since were putting words into each others mouths)

I'm not blaming those schools for leaving, but the fact is if the conference was stronger from top to bottom they wouldn't be a non AQ. But it's not so if those schools want to play in the big game they need to play the big schools. If you're TCU and you get a chance to play Wisconsin you take it no questions asked.

I have no problems with any of those programs in fact I lived in Utah for several years and follow Utah and BYU pretty closely. I don't mind if they want to "knock tradition off it's pedestal", but they have to earn it like the programs that built that tradition did. Not playing games like this isn't the way to do it.

Boston Red
02-10-2011, 11:04 PM
No way TCU should have agreed to this game without a return trip. Would make absolutely no sense for them.

As for strength of schedule, Sagarin says TCU's was #76 last year. Ohio State's schedule was rated #70. Obviously a huge difference.

BuckeyeRed27
02-11-2011, 12:31 AM
No way TCU should have agreed to this game without a return trip. Would make absolutely no sense for them.

As for strength of schedule, Sagarin says TCU's was #76 last year. Ohio State's schedule was rated #70. Obviously a huge difference.

Yet had OSU beat Wisconsin they would have played for the National Championship and TCU didn't. Look I'm not arguing fairness here because we won't get anywhere. The fact is TCU can't turn down these games under any condition if the NCG is their goal.

kaldaniels
02-11-2011, 01:08 AM
The football fan in me is upset that TCU turned the game down. This would be along the lines of the Boise-VaTech game this past year, no?

But yeah, but a business/program standpoint, I can't blame TCU for turning it down. But they are not going to sniff the national title game with this schedule.

http://www.mwcconnection.com/2011/1/27/1960768/speculating-on-tcus-final-2011-football-schedule

And I don't care what the computers say, that schedule pales in comparison to what any of the BCS conferences deal with week and and week out.

Caveat Emperor
02-11-2011, 02:31 AM
And I don't care what the computers say, that schedule pales in comparison to what any of the BCS conferences deal with week and and week out.

...which is precisely why we have computers to do rankings instead of just people.

LoganBuck
02-11-2011, 07:24 AM
Any time, Any where

Just not there

Kind of rings hollow.

bucksfan2
02-11-2011, 08:28 AM
Yet had OSU beat Wisconsin they would have played for the National Championship and TCU didn't. Look I'm not arguing fairness here because we won't get anywhere. The fact is TCU can't turn down these games under any condition if the NCG is their goal.

Can't agree more.

RedsBaron
02-11-2011, 09:57 AM
No way TCU should have agreed to this game without a return trip. Would make absolutely no sense for them.

I agree.

kaldaniels
02-11-2011, 10:02 AM
...which is precisely why we have computers to do rankings instead of just people.

There is not enough data from intra-conference games to truly show strength of schedule. We've seen it before, when the results of one obscure game (say Illinois-Fresno) in late December is enough to possibly sway the BCS. If the results are that sensitive that a meaningless game is enough to tilt one team over the other, I (just my opinion) can't trust it. There has to be some human element.

Caveat Emperor
02-11-2011, 12:36 PM
There is not enough data from intra-conference games to truly show strength of schedule. We've seen it before, when the results of one obscure game (say Illinois-Fresno) in late December is enough to possibly sway the BCS. If the results are that sensitive that a meaningless game is enough to tilt one team over the other, I (just my opinion) can't trust it. There has to be some human element.

There is a large human element, but there needs to be an impartial element as well to counter the natural bias that we attribute to "power" conference programs. A marginal SEC/Big 10 team isn't magically better than everyone else just because the badge on the shoulder pad says so.

paintmered
02-11-2011, 04:30 PM
I agree.

x3. For Wisconsin and Big Ten fans, this seems to be a football issue. TCU needs this game for strength of schedule and to "validate" their BCS game against Wisconsin. From the perspective of a UC fan, it's a money issue. Why should TCU play the game when it benefits another school so much more for them financially? TCU can make more money by converting this to a home game.

Do you think UC still would have signed up to play Oklahoma if it wasn't a home-and-home. Of course not. TCU isn't a Sun Belt team. Why should they be expected to behave like one?

bucksfan2
02-11-2011, 04:35 PM
x3. For Wisconsin and Big Ten fans, this seems to be a football issue. From where I stand, it's a money issue. Why should TCU play the game when it benefits another school so much more for them financially? TCU can make more money by converting this to a home game.

Do you think UC still would have signed up to play Oklahoma if it wasn't a home-and-home. Of course not. TCU isn't a Sun Belt team, why should they be expected to behave like one?

I don't believe the financials were ever really discussed so you can't make a valid argument that TCU would lose money on this one. If it was an ESPN/ABC set up game I think TCU would get a large chunk of the pie.

As for UC they sold their home games away for OSU and VT and also agree to play UT once in Knoxville with no return date.

If TCU runs the table again (which I seriously doubt) and gets skipped over by two BCS schools because of strength of schedule and conference they have only themselves to blame.

Boston Red
02-11-2011, 10:52 PM
Yet had OSU beat Wisconsin they would have played for the National Championship

Maybe, but OSU wouldn't have belonged there under the (idiotic) system currently in place. Auburn and Oregon played much tougher schedules than OSU. The only thing OSU would have had on either one is preseason ranking. That makes plenty of sense.

Really, this is also a reason playing a one for none at Wisky doesn't make any sense. Do you think it would really matter if TCU won at Wisky and there were unbeaten teams from the SEC and Big Ten as well? TCU still wouldn't play for the title. No need to take a one-sided deal that gets you very little even if you win.

BuckeyeRed27
02-11-2011, 11:16 PM
Maybe, but OSU wouldn't have belonged there under the (idiotic) system currently in place. Auburn and Oregon played much tougher schedules than OSU. The only thing OSU would have had on either one is preseason ranking. That makes plenty of sense.

Really, this is also a reason playing a one for none at Wisky doesn't make any sense. Do you think it would really matter if TCU won at Wisky and there were unbeaten teams from the SEC and Big Ten as well? TCU still wouldn't play for the title. No need to take a one-sided deal that gets you very little even if you win.

Yes they would have. Oregon played an awful schedule that the computers like because they play nine conference games.

No TCU will not make it over other unbeaten teams but had one of the top teams had lost they still would have been jumped by Stanford or Wisconsin. They need to give themselves the best chance if the opportunity presents itself.

Boston Red
02-11-2011, 11:22 PM
Oregon played an awful schedule

Surprised someone with Buckeye in their name would go there.

And TCU would have played for the title had Auburn or Oregon lost. They were next in line (though it's possible Auburn would not have fallen behind TCU with a loss).

Boston Red
02-11-2011, 11:38 PM
And I don't really want to get into an argument about whether Oregon or Ohio State had the better (least bad) schedule. The point is that deciding which of those two schedules was worse would have been a terrible way to decide a national title opponent for Auburn.

And no matter what TCU did, they weren't going to be in the discussion against undefeated BCS teams even if they had played a one-timer at VaTech in the non-conference. And their schedule was good enough that they almost certainly would have played for the title if Oregon had lost somewhere along the line. So there's basically no upside in going on the road for a one shot deal with no return.

BuckeyeRed27
02-12-2011, 06:49 PM
And I don't really want to get into an argument about whether Oregon or Ohio State had the better (least bad) schedule. The point is that deciding which of those two schedules was worse would have been a terrible way to decide a national title opponent for Auburn.

And no matter what TCU did, they weren't going to be in the discussion against undefeated BCS teams even if they had played a one-timer at VaTech in the non-conference. And their schedule was good enough that they almost certainly would have played for the title if Oregon had lost somewhere along the line. So there's basically no upside in going on the road for a one shot deal with no return.

I disagree. Had Oregon lost the polls would have stepped in and moved Stanford or Wisconsin ahead of them. But believe what you want. TCU can just keep ducking big time programs because they think they deserve better and hope it works out for them.

Boston Red
02-12-2011, 08:45 PM
In the final BCS rankings, TCU was closer to Oregon than Stanford was to TCU. And it wasn't close in either case.

BuckeyeRed27
02-12-2011, 10:26 PM
In the final BCS rankings, TCU was closer to Oregon than Stanford was to TCU. And it wasn't close in either case.

Thank you I know. Had oregon or auburn lost that would not have been the case.

Boston Red
02-13-2011, 07:56 AM
Thank you I know. Had oregon or auburn lost that would not have been the case.

Yeah, pretty sure it would have been mathematically impossible for Stanford to catch TCU.

Todd Gack
02-16-2011, 08:21 AM
LOL at everyone saying TCU isn't a 'little guy' anymore and then coming back here and bashing them because they turned down a 1 and done trip to Madison or someone other big time school. TCU would be nuts to accept that phony offer.

Roy Tucker
02-16-2011, 08:34 AM
What's interesting is at the end of the article, the TCU AD alluded that if it would have been OSU that was asking, it might have been a different story.

Roy Tucker
02-16-2011, 08:42 AM
And to be fair to Wisconsin, it wasn't the Wisconsin AD talking to the TCU AD.

UNLV is trying to get out of the 2011 opener at Madison and a 3rd party was shopping the game around. It was a quick "no way" from TCU and that was that. Never did the ADs talk nor was there any contact between the schools about a home-and-home. So Wisconsin wasn't trying to screw TCU or anything.

I also agree that TCU shouldn't agree to a one-and-done thing. They merit a home-and-home series. Judging from the aerial photo taken of this year's Rose Bowl in SI, TCU travels well.

Todd Gack
02-16-2011, 08:51 AM
What's interesting is at the end of the article, the TCU AD alluded that if it would have been OSU that was asking, it might have been a different story.

I thought there was a story that TCU already turned down an offer to play a 1-and-done in Columbus?

Roy Tucker
02-16-2011, 09:52 AM
I thought there was a story that TCU already turned down an offer to play a 1-and-done in Columbus?

I was referring to this:

http://sports.espn.go.com/dallas/ncf/news/story?id=6106632



Now, had Ohio State -- whose president, E. Gordon Gee, famously had chided non-BCS conference teams such as TCU for playing schedules littered with the "Little Sisters of the Poor" -- been the Big Ten team seeking a late schedule change, Del Conte said he would have been all ears.

"Oh yeah," he said, "of course."


Del Conte is the TCU AD.

Boston Red
02-16-2011, 11:25 PM
What's interesting is at the end of the article, the TCU AD alluded that if it would have been OSU that was asking, it might have been a different story.

Just a reference to Gee's comments I'm guessing.

Gunner44
02-17-2011, 07:08 PM
TCU already backed out of a game 2 years ago at Ohio State that everyone seems to forget all of a sudden. So TCU's "anytime anywhere" talk holds no water in my opinion. Yes I think Gee's comments were stupid, but very much true. I Don't think he's in a place to be making those comments at all though. But to the point of TCU pounding there chest and saying they'd glady take on OSU, they had there chance. Then backed out late. Pretty easy for them to be making these comments now that scheduals are in place for a few years to come at this point, knowing that OSU would have to remove teams and do a lot of work get TCU on the schedual. Seems to me they had there chance and got scared and didnt follow through. So now they'll say bring on OSU, knowing its highly unlikely they would actually have to take Ohio State on.

Todd Gack
02-18-2011, 12:12 AM
TCU already backed out of a game 2 years ago at Ohio State that everyone seems to forget all of a sudden. So TCU's "anytime anywhere" talk holds no water in my opinion. Yes I think Gee's comments were stupid, but very much true. I Don't think he's in a place to be making those comments at all though. But to the point of TCU pounding there chest and saying they'd glady take on OSU, they had there chance. Then backed out late. Pretty easy for them to be making these comments now that scheduals are in place for a few years to come at this point, knowing that OSU would have to remove teams and do a lot of work get TCU on the schedual. Seems to me they had there chance and got scared and didnt follow through. So now they'll say bring on OSU, knowing its highly unlikely they would actually have to take Ohio State on.

I'm sure OSU would be thrilled to do a 1 and done in Ft. Worth any day now.

BuckeyeRed27
02-18-2011, 11:21 AM
I'm sure OSU would be thrilled to do a 1 and done in Ft. Worth any day now.

I wouldn't mind it in if it was in Cowboy Stadium. TCU's stadium isn't big enough for a one and done though.

Gunner44
02-18-2011, 04:24 PM
I'm sure OSU would be thrilled to do a 1 and done in Ft. Worth any day now

Like Buckeyered said, not near enough money for Ohio State to go there for a one and done. TCU would make more coming to OSU than hosting the game themselves.

The point still stands about them saying "anytime anywhere". They had their chance and backed out. So they need to stop with all this tough talk when clearly they were to scared at one point to play with the big boys like Ohio State. Like going to the big east is going to prove anything either. Thats a joke of a football conference.

Boston Red
02-18-2011, 11:50 PM
Thats a joke of a football conference.

That's been rated higher than the Big Ten most years since Miami, BC and VaTech left.