silvanthalas
Well-Known Member
We need a playoff.
This bowl season exposes the BCS (again)
- Thread starter SDK46
- Start date
DwayneTwill
Well-Known Member
Don't need a playoff.
I would go for a playoff too if it is only a playoff of BCS conference teams. Going to a playoff does nothing to legitimize what TCU or Boise have done. They still play crap schedules and for them to take the place of a team from a BCS conference that finished say like 11-1 (MSU) wouldn't be even remotely fair to MSU who played a much tougher schedule.
Until those teams play better schedules they can stay where they are. They understand that too or they wouldn't be going to new conferences.
olivecourt
Well-Known Member
If TCU only played 2 good teams this year, how many did Iowa play? Three? All at home? Not exactly murderer's row. Don't compare Iowa and TCU. They were waaaay better than us this year, conference be damned. Recall that they traveled to Utah, rated #6 at the time, and won by 40. (Utah had an 18-game home winning streak at the time).
We didn't end up 7-5 because of the grind of quality opponents. We ended up 7-5 because we didn't execute consistently on offense or defense. Period. Do you really think road games against Michigan, Indiana, Northwestern, and Minnesota constitutes a tough schedule? We went 2-2 in those games because we weren't very good. The "grind" has nothing to do with it.
Regardless, we should really be comparing TCU's schedule to the PAC-10. Please explain to me how Oregon's season was more impressive than TCU's.
DwayneTwill
Well-Known Member
Utah. LOL.
Northwestern and Indiana are not good in the big ten but would be in the top 3-4 in the Mountain West. It has everything to do with the Grind. If we are talking about good teams Iowa played many Wisky, MSU, OSU, NU, Arizona, PSU that is six right there I would even throw in Michigan and ISU because both those team would have finished with 8-9 wins in the Mountain West. It has everything to do with the grind because even when you play a bad big ten team they are better than 80% of the teams TCU plays. And don't bring up Utah, they were rated at the time they played and are not now because they weren't that good.
You are blinded because you want your opinion to be right, like everyone else only my argument has more merit than yours.
Oregon beating OSU, Stanford, USC, Arizona, and ASU just those 5 games is more impressive than anything TCU did.
olivecourt
Well-Known Member
Um, what?
TCU also beat Oregon State (who ended up 5-7, by the way).
Yes, the Stanford win was impressive. Watching TCU beat Wisconsin makes me wonder how they would have fared against the Cardinal.
USC went 8-5 and lost to Notre Dame, Arizona went 7-6 (lost their last 5 in a row and got crushed in the Alamo Bowl), and Arizona State was 6-6. Let's face it: regardless of the PAC-10's status as a BCS conference, they basically had three good teams, one of which was hobbled by probation. Not exactly a meat-grinder of a schedule.
I'd say that wins over Utah (10-3), San Diego State (9-4, won the Poinsettia Bowl), Air Force (9-4, won the Independence Bowl), BYU (7-6, won the the New Mexico Bowl) and Baylor (7-6, lost the Texas Bowl) is pretty comparable to what Oregon did. TCU's win over Oregon State wasn't even one of their top-5 wins.
SDK46
Well-Known Member
^^this^^
It's impossible, really, to determine what-if and if-this-then-that based upon schedules several weeks after the fact.
So, does TCU deserve a shot or not? The mere fact there's a hung jury with arguments on both sides just made my case....decide it on the field.
All the more reason to have a playoff.
p.s. Iowa had a meat-grinder schedule, leading to our 7-5 demise...say what?! (I actually laughed at that statement). From the looks of the bowl games, we missed the only other league bowl winner (so far)(Illinois):
E. Illinois--no bowl
AZ--lost bowl
ISU--no bowl
BSU--no bowl
PSU--lost bowl to a poor FL team
scUM--got pounded
Wisconsin--lost
MSU--got pounded
Indiana--no bowl
NW--got pounded
OSU--TBD
Minney--no bowl
5/12 teams we played (41.6%) failed to make a bowl, which is remarkable considering there are 35 bowls which cover 58.3% of the teams in 1-A. Not ONE team we played won a bowl game. (so far)
We ended up 7-5 because we were predictable, didn't execute, had poor senior leadership and had p!ss-poor special teams play all year.
Last edited:
There are arguments for and against the playoff. I like it the way it is but it is not like I wouldn't mind seeing a playoff I just don't think it is needed.
You can not compare SDSU or BYU or Air Force as being great opponents because they made a bowl and won. Those teams won 7-9 games against crappy conference competition. You can not bash on ASU or Oregon State or Arizona because of their record because they played better competition. If any of those teams played in the Mountain West they too would have had 9 or 10 wins. Non AQ teams are that because they don't play the competition weekly, if they did they wouldn't be non AQ.
As long as those teams play in weak conferences there will never be an argument for any of those teams playing for the title that I will agree with.
If TCU goes undefeated next year in the Big East then I will be all for them playing in the title game IF there are not 2 teams from the other four BCS conferences that are undefeated. We all know that the Big East is only a slight step up than the Mountain West.
You can not compare SDSU or BYU or Air Force as being great opponents because they made a bowl and won. Those teams won 7-9 games against crappy conference competition. You can not bash on ASU or Oregon State or Arizona because of their record because they played better competition. If any of those teams played in the Mountain West they too would have had 9 or 10 wins. Non AQ teams are that because they don't play the competition weekly, if they did they wouldn't be non AQ.
As long as those teams play in weak conferences there will never be an argument for any of those teams playing for the title that I will agree with.
If TCU goes undefeated next year in the Big East then I will be all for them playing in the title game IF there are not 2 teams from the other four BCS conferences that are undefeated. We all know that the Big East is only a slight step up than the Mountain West.
hawkeyescott
Well-Known Member
So you think even with Iowa's schedule TCU would have still went 12-0?
TCU and Boise have proven that given a month to prepare their starting 22 can play with anyone else's 22 in the country. The difference is how much more physical the Big Ten, PAC 10, Big 12 and SEC is compared to the WAC and MWC and the injuries that will happen, sorry but TCU and Boise just don't have the depth to overcome any injuries like the top BCS schools, hell look at Iowa with the injuries to the LB's, does TCU and Boise have more depth then Iowa that they could have overcome that and kept winning every week?
TCU and Boise could both lose their top 2 or 3 LB's and still beat the likes of Wyoming, New Mexico, New Mexico St, Idaho, etc...... but couldn't beat Michigan St, Ohio St, Oklahoma St, USC, Alabama, Florida, etc...
Iowafarmgirl
Banned
Look, it is pointless to argue what TCU could or would do in a playoff system that doesn't exist. It is like arguing the ethical implications of eating the Loch Ness Monster.
Using what we have, I have no problem with TCU not being in the championship. Going undefeated in the SEC and PAC 10 is more impressive than going undefeated in the MWC. Just like I had no problem last year with an undefeated Cincinatti not playing for the title.
Using what we have, I have no problem with TCU not being in the championship. Going undefeated in the SEC and PAC 10 is more impressive than going undefeated in the MWC. Just like I had no problem last year with an undefeated Cincinatti not playing for the title.
DBAHawkFan
Well-Known Member
Using the argument that TCU and Boise had 22 days to prepare for their opponent doesn't hold a lot of weight. What was WI doing these past 22 days? Every year TCU and Boise have proven they can play with any school in the country. Other teams have just as much time to prepare, and by most people's standards are better schools, better players, and better coaches.
They should be able to exploit a non BCS school as well as they get exploited. I will give some credit to the belief that Boise/TCU and other schools may get more fired up to play these games, as they have everything to prove, and very little to lose. Its like the Iowa/ISU game. ISU loses, that's what is supposed to happen. They win and it's somehow a fluke.
I'm tired of the bowls. How many good games were there this year? Tenn/NCar, IA/MO, and WI/TCU are the only ones that seemed competitive.
And this daily grind of the conference play only works for the SEC. The Big10 and Pac10 both proved so far that their teams were very weak this year minus one or two teams. Oregon is a beast, and OSU is typically very consistent. And WI still has a good team, but i think the long layoff actually hurt them.
And we can all talk about how Iowa would have faired, but this years team just didn't have it. Stanzi shut down in the 2nd half which was the opposite of 2009. We lost all of our RB (but found one in Coker), and our veteran DL did nothing this year because offenses gameplaned around them. Quick passes killed us late in the year with the injuries to LB. Also, hate to say this but Clayborn laid an egg. I think early on in the year he was getting doubled teamed and chipped quite a bit. But we were all hoping for a carryover of leadership from him this year and we didn't get it, along with the drop in stats.
College Football should go to a playoff. But the bowl reps/ceo's make too much money for themselves to switch. There would be some fixes i think that would need to be made, as there are in this current BS system. In the end we all just debate if a TCU could hang with Auburn, or other schools, and while it leads to strong message board debates, it's really unsatisfying product.
They should be able to exploit a non BCS school as well as they get exploited. I will give some credit to the belief that Boise/TCU and other schools may get more fired up to play these games, as they have everything to prove, and very little to lose. Its like the Iowa/ISU game. ISU loses, that's what is supposed to happen. They win and it's somehow a fluke.
I'm tired of the bowls. How many good games were there this year? Tenn/NCar, IA/MO, and WI/TCU are the only ones that seemed competitive.
And this daily grind of the conference play only works for the SEC. The Big10 and Pac10 both proved so far that their teams were very weak this year minus one or two teams. Oregon is a beast, and OSU is typically very consistent. And WI still has a good team, but i think the long layoff actually hurt them.
And we can all talk about how Iowa would have faired, but this years team just didn't have it. Stanzi shut down in the 2nd half which was the opposite of 2009. We lost all of our RB (but found one in Coker), and our veteran DL did nothing this year because offenses gameplaned around them. Quick passes killed us late in the year with the injuries to LB. Also, hate to say this but Clayborn laid an egg. I think early on in the year he was getting doubled teamed and chipped quite a bit. But we were all hoping for a carryover of leadership from him this year and we didn't get it, along with the drop in stats.
College Football should go to a playoff. But the bowl reps/ceo's make too much money for themselves to switch. There would be some fixes i think that would need to be made, as there are in this current BS system. In the end we all just debate if a TCU could hang with Auburn, or other schools, and while it leads to strong message board debates, it's really unsatisfying product.
The daily grind is all that matters, otherwise TCU would have been in the title game but their BCS standing was third because of their weak schedule. Indiana and Purdue could have challenged for the MWC title.
hawkeyescott
Well-Known Member
I said that TCU and Boise can both compete 1 through 22 with any team in the country, the difference is when you have to start playing players 23 through 44 or 45 through 66 (2nd and 3rd teamers) that you will see a difference. TCU and Boise are both good enough to get through the MWC and WAC with their 2nd and 3rd teamers but no way they would go through the Big Ten, SEC, or Big 12 undefeated with injuries at key positions and as we have seen all BCS teams have to deal with this because of how physical the games are.
DwayneTwill
Well-Known Member
This. Even one loss in a better conference is better than going undefeated in a shoddy one.
olivecourt
Well-Known Member
You can say this over and over and over again, but it doesn't make it true.
Including the bowls, the PAC-10 has notable nonconference wins against Notre Dame, Iowa, Nebraska and a 5-7 Texas team. That's it. Maybe they'll add Virginia Tech and Auburn to that list. We'll see.
Including the bowls, the Mountain West has notable nonconference wins against Wisconsin, Pittsburgh, Georgia Tech, and Washington.
Head to head, BYU beat Washington, TCU beat Oregon State, and Oregon beat New Mexico, so the Mountain West holds a 2-1 edge.
Depending on how the Orange Bowl and NCG play out, I think you can make a convincing argument that the PAC-10 was still better. But it has to be an argument, and even then you're only going to convince of a slight edge. Just listing the names of teams that used to be good and saying "major conference grind, week-in, week-out, depth, blah blah blah" doesn't cut it. It might have been true ten years ago but it isn't now.
silvanthalas
Well-Known Member
Fixed that for you.
The thing about a playoff? Sure, throw Boise St and TCU. And guess what? They won't have three weeks to prepare, then we'll really see how they stack up against teams that play far superior competition nearly week in, week out.
DwayneTwill
Well-Known Member
I agree with this. People think a playoff would lead to one of these minor-league teams winning the championship, but I think it will only make it more likely that one of the same top teams that always win it will win it. Winning two or three in a row in a playoff system would be tough. Little-league teams like Boise would have a better chance with the BCS or old voter system.
SDK46
Well-Known Member
As an ardent BCS-basher, I personally have never claimed this.
However, give them the chance to prove it on the field!
DwayneTwill
Well-Known Member
I probably should have said:
People think a playoff would give these minor-league teams a better shot at winning the championship, but I think it will only make it more likely that one of the same top teams that always win it will win it. Winning two or three in a row in a playoff system would be tough. Little-league teams like Boise would have a better chance with the BCS or old voter system.
People think a playoff would give these minor-league teams a better shot at winning the championship, but I think it will only make it more likely that one of the same top teams that always win it will win it. Winning two or three in a row in a playoff system would be tough. Little-league teams like Boise would have a better chance with the BCS or old voter system.
