College Football

Off Topic
562

[quote]GetSwole wrote:
Pac-10 IS garbage, sans USC most years. Money/bowl sponsorships IS the reason that college has no playoff system.

Utah plays second tier ball, I’m tired of hearing about them, BYU, and Ball State…give me a damn break.

I would support moving FSU to another conference. (SEC would be awesome.)

ACC IS weaker than usual…but the powers that be only really breathed life into by putting FSU there and our Miami rivalry helps raise the level of play a bit. Other than that…I gotta say I’m not a fan of us being there.[/quote]

I can’t believe an ACC fan has the audacity to criticize the Pac-10. AGAIN, THIS IS A DOWN YEAR FOR THE PAC-10. When has the ACC ever consistently fielded solid teams for any length of time? It’s like saying that Michigan should drop to D1-AA because it has sucked balls the last two years. But we all know that a school like Michigan is not going to stay in the crapper for very long and will be back. So it is with schools like Cal, UCLA, Oregon, etc. (I don’t see the Washington schools getting good anytime soon, though.)

563

[quote]eic wrote:
You guys are judging the Pac 10 by its (lack of) strength the past couple years and that is a mistake.

The fact is that the BCS conferences (save the Big East) represent major D1 universities that have the money, tradition, and commitment to winning. I’m sorry, but Utah, Colorado State, TCU, etc. will never be as high in the minds of young recruits as playing for a team like UCLA, Cal, USC, or Oregon.

If you look at the landscape of college football, there is a tendency for teams in southern parts of the United States to do well. I think there are two explanations for this:

  1. Save Ohio, the hotbeds of high school football tend to be in southern states: Texas, California, and Florida. Recruiting will always be easier for schools that are in or near those states/regions.

  2. When choosing a place to play, most 18-year-old guys want to go to a place where the chicks are not only hot, but not covered up by sweaters 9 months out of the year. So, again, there is an advantage to playing at major universities in California, Texas, and the South.

All I’m saying is that whether a conference should be a BCS conference or not should not be judged based on a few “down years,” it should be based on their history of excellence and overall potential to field solid teams.

A conference like the Mountain West never has been and probably never will field teams of the caliber that the Pac-10 has throughout history. That’s all I’m saying. [/quote]

Well they seem to be doing it. look at head to head records the last few years. Since you want to quote throughout history, what happened the last time TCU and USC met?

CSU has not been one of the flagship teams since TCU crushed them in the Liberty Bowl a few years back. TCU, Utah, BYU, and now AFA are the teams on the rise.

TCU has no shortage of good weather or hot babes. ON EDIT: based on the factors you listed San Diego State should dominate the MWC, they suck in football and seriously underachieve in baseball every year.

564

[quote]eic wrote:
You guys are judging the Pac 10 by its (lack of) strength the past couple years and that is a mistake.

The fact is that the BCS conferences (save the Big East) represent major D1 universities that have the money, tradition, and commitment to winning. I’m sorry, but Utah, Colorado State, TCU, etc. will never be as high in the minds of young recruits as playing for a team like UCLA, Cal, USC, or Oregon.

If you look at the landscape of college football, there is a tendency for teams in southern parts of the United States to do well. I think there are two explanations for this:

  1. Save Ohio, the hotbeds of high school football tend to be in southern states: Texas, California, and Florida. Recruiting will always be easier for schools that are in or near those states/regions.

  2. When choosing a place to play, most 18-year-old guys want to go to a place where the chicks are not only hot, but not covered up by sweaters 9 months out of the year. So, again, there is an advantage to playing at major universities in California, Texas, and the South.

All I’m saying is that whether a conference should be a BCS conference or not should not be judged based on a few “down years,” it should be based on their history of excellence and overall potential to field solid teams.

A conference like the Mountain West never has been and probably never will field teams of the caliber that the Pac-10 has throughout history. That’s all I’m saying. [/quote]

PAC-10 is always a weak conference. When was the last time they had more than one school in the top 15. I think it was the year Cal was supposed to be good, but got embarrassed by a mediocre Texas Tech team in a bowl game.

You usually have one good team from that conference, and that’s about it. Not just in the last couple of years, either. You have to go back 15-20 years to come up with a legitimate strong conference.

The Big-12 and SEC usually have several teams in the top 15 year in and year out.

565

[quote]rainjack wrote:

PAC-10 is always a weak conference. When was the last time they had more than one school in the top 15. I think it was the year Cal was supposed to be good, but got embarrassed by a mediocre Texas Tech team in a bowl game.

You usually have one good team from that conference, and that’s about it. Not just in the last couple of years, either. You have to go back 15-20 years to come up with a legitimate strong conference.

The Big-12 and SEC usually have several teams in the top 15 year in and year out.

[/quote]

Actually it was last year when Cal, USC, and Oregon were all ranked pretty high. I believe ASU was in the mix too.

In fact, but for Dixon’s spindly legs getting snapped against Arizona, Oregon would have almost certainly been in the NC game, with USC in the top three or four at season’s end.

This year is unusually strong for the Big 12 (in the recent past it has been all about Texas and Oklahoma at the top, with Tech or OSU a distant third and no one in the North even worth discussing) and unusually weak for the Pac-10. But who knows, in a couple years, the Big 12 could be down and the Pac-10 could be on fire again.

566

[quote]Spike9726 wrote:

Well they seem to be doing it. look at head to head records the last few years. Since you want to quote throughout history, what happened the last time TCU and USC met?

CSU has not been one of the flagship teams since TCU crushed them in the Liberty Bowl a few years back. TCU, Utah, BYU, and now AFA are the teams on the rise.

TCU has no shortage of good weather or hot babes. ON EDIT: based on the factors you listed San Diego State should dominate the MWC, they suck in football and seriously underachieve in baseball every year. [/quote]

Dude, you still don’t get it. Schools generally do well when they are (1) major universities, (2) are in the southern United States, AND (3) have a tradition of excellence. Using these criteria, the Pac-10 is vastly superior to the MWC and Conference USA.

The Pac-10 will always feature better athletes than schools in either of those conferences because kids would rather go to USC, UCLA, Oregon, Cal, or Stanford than TCU, Utah, San Diego State, etc. (BYU is an exception because of the Mormon angle.)

The fact that you can point to one or two games where MWC or Conference USA beat teams from BCS schools over the last decade just proves my point: Those games stand out because they are exceptions to the general rule. But I am not talking about a game here or there. I am talking about trends in football for the last 25 years. How many National Championships has the MWC and Conference USA won combined? The list of major athletes that has gone on to the NFL from the Pac-10 absolutely dwarfs that of athletes from the MWC or Conference USA. And that’s my point.

567

[quote]eic wrote:
rainjack wrote:

PAC-10 is always a weak conference. When was the last time they had more than one school in the top 15. I think it was the year Cal was supposed to be good, but got embarrassed by a mediocre Texas Tech team in a bowl game.

You usually have one good team from that conference, and that’s about it. Not just in the last couple of years, either. You have to go back 15-20 years to come up with a legitimate strong conference.

The Big-12 and SEC usually have several teams in the top 15 year in and year out.

Actually it was last year when Cal, USC, and Oregon were all ranked pretty high. I believe ASU was in the mix too.

In fact, but for Dixon’s spindly legs getting snapped against Arizona, Oregon would have almost certainly been in the NC game, with USC in the top three or four at season’s end.

This year is unusually strong for the Big 12 (in the recent past it has been all about Texas and Oklahoma at the top, with Tech or OSU a distant third and no one in the North even worth discussing) and unusually weak for the Pac-10. But who knows, in a couple years, the Big 12 could be down and the Pac-10 could be on fire again. [/quote]

Texas and OU are perennial powers, but I think you are leaving a few teams out.

KSU has been strong for several years prior to the last two seasons. The Jayhawks have put on a good run last year and this year. Mizzou is right up there as well. And Colorado has had several good years over the last 10 seasons.

So, counting the 4 teams you mentioned, and the 4 I have mentioned - that’s 8 teams out of 12 that are no strangers to being in the top 15 or 20. And that’s leaving out A&M, and your Cornhuskers.

I don’t think that even the SEC can match that, and forget about the Pac-10. They have a lot more Baylors than the Big-12 does.

568

[quote]eic wrote:
Dude, you still don’t get it. Schools generally do well when they are (1) major universities, (2) are in the southern United States, AND (3) have a tradition of excellence. Using these criteria, the Pac-10 is vastly superior to the MWC and Conference USA.

The Pac-10 will always feature better athletes than schools in either of those conferences because kids would rather go to USC, UCLA, Oregon, Cal, or Stanford than TCU, Utah, San Diego State, etc. (BYU is an exception because of the Mormon angle.)

The fact that you can point to one or two games where MWC or Conference USA beat teams from BCS schools over the last decade just proves my point: Those games stand out because they are exceptions to the general rule. But I am not talking about a game here or there. I am talking about trends in football for the last 25 years. How many National Championships has the MWC and Conference USA won combined? The list of major athletes that has gone on to the NFL from the Pac-10 absolutely dwarfs that of athletes from the MWC or Conference USA. And that’s my point. [/quote]

Dude,
What is it I don’t get?

  1. What is your definition of a major University? TCU has been an accredited school for a long time, they have a number of graduate and post graduate programs. They definitely charge major tuition.

  2. I’m reasonably certain that Ft Worth is in the Southern part of the United States

  3. Tradition of excellence? How far back do you want to go? TCU has been to 9 bowls in the last 10 years. There was a time when every year the National Champ was either a service academy or an Ivy League school. TCU won 2 National Championships in the '30s. 4 conference titles in the '50s. The advent of 2 platoon football, the GI bill, and some other factors made it harder for smaller, private schools to compete.

I have more to say but I got interupted and I’m tired. All I want is to see it settled on the field.

Have a nice evening,
Spike

569

[quote]eic wrote:
GetSwole wrote:
Pac-10 IS garbage, sans USC most years. Money/bowl sponsorships IS the reason that college has no playoff system.

Utah plays second tier ball, I’m tired of hearing about them, BYU, and Ball State…give me a damn break.

I would support moving FSU to another conference. (SEC would be awesome.)

ACC IS weaker than usual…but the powers that be only really breathed life into by putting FSU there and our Miami rivalry helps raise the level of play a bit. Other than that…I gotta say I’m not a fan of us being there.

I can’t believe an ACC fan has the audacity to criticize the Pac-10. AGAIN, THIS IS A DOWN YEAR FOR THE PAC-10. When has the ACC ever consistently fielded solid teams for any length of time? It’s like saying that Michigan should drop to D1-AA because it has sucked balls the last two years. But we all know that a school like Michigan is not going to stay in the crapper for very long and will be back. So it is with schools like Cal, UCLA, Oregon, etc. (I don’t see the Washington schools getting good anytime soon, though.) [/quote]

I can’t believe a jackass has the audacity to skim a post then post a hateful response, making himself look like an ass by failing to realize that I said I was NOT an ACC fan nor was I defending the conference. I believe you should re-read and realize I’m an FSU you fan and dislike that we are in the ACC and would support a move.

And the Pac-10 is definitely not better football than the ACC. Perfect example is 2 years ago in an aweful 6-6 year for the 'Noles and we mopped UCLA in the emerald nuts bowl. USC is the PAC-10’s only mentionable team. And occasionally Cal and Oregon.

570

And once again, I’m a fan only of the 'Noles and dislike the rest of the ACC. And I think our consistency is fine with 21 bowl wins in the last 31 seasons, 2 national titles, multiple bcs bowl wins, and 15 consecutive top 5 finishes.

Like RJ said, ACC just HAPPENS to be lucky enough to have FSU in it.

However, PAC-10 has a legendary team in USC and teams who come and go-oregon, cal, etc.

The ACC has Miami and FSU-both legendary, of which at least FSU is on the come back.

And then teams that also come and go as well- VaTech, Clemson, Boston College.

To claim pac-10 is top to bottom better than the ACC is silly. They are equal at very worst.

571

[quote]rainjack wrote:

Texas and OU are perennial powers, but I think you are leaving a few teams out.

KSU has been strong for several years prior to the last two seasons. The Jayhawks have put on a good run last year and this year. Mizzou is right up there as well. And Colorado has had several good years over the last 10 seasons.

So, counting the 4 teams you mentioned, and the 4 I have mentioned - that’s 8 teams out of 12 that are no strangers to being in the top 15 or 20. And that’s leaving out A&M, and your Cornhuskers.

I don’t think that even the SEC can match that, and forget about the Pac-10. They have a lot more Baylors than the Big-12 does. [/quote]

Laughable. KU had one good year last year, with a schedule so easy it makes me want to puke. Florida Int’l? Louisiana Tech? Sam Houston State? This year they play a tough schedule and . . . 5-3. Wah, wah . . . .

Mizzou is good this year and last, but as soon as Daniel is gone, its back in the gutter. Colorado has been shit for quite awhile. They were laughable with Gary Burrnett and have been “rebuilding” ever since.

Nebraska has been shit for the last five years thanks to Callahan. How many coaches has A&M gone through in the last few years? Kansas St. has a few huge upsets here and there (OU in, I think, 2004, and Texas two years ago), but otherwise has not done much. My statement stands:

In the last 5 years, the only consistently notable teams from the Big 12 have been Texas and OU, with Tech/OSU a distant third. The last two years have been special, but I doubt it will last.

My point is that it’s not fair to compare an exceptional couple of years for the Big 12 to a couple of bad years for the Pac-10 and conclude that the latter is not fit to be a BCS conference.

Whether a conference deserves to be a BCS conference should be judged on a longer timeline; that’s all I’m saying. If nothing changes for the Pac-10 in the next 5-10 years, then we’ll talk.

572

[quote]Spike9726 wrote:
eic wrote:
Dude, you still don’t get it. Schools generally do well when they are (1) major universities, (2) are in the southern United States, AND (3) have a tradition of excellence. Using these criteria, the Pac-10 is vastly superior to the MWC and Conference USA.

The Pac-10 will always feature better athletes than schools in either of those conferences because kids would rather go to USC, UCLA, Oregon, Cal, or Stanford than TCU, Utah, San Diego State, etc. (BYU is an exception because of the Mormon angle.)

The fact that you can point to one or two games where MWC or Conference USA beat teams from BCS schools over the last decade just proves my point: Those games stand out because they are exceptions to the general rule. But I am not talking about a game here or there. I am talking about trends in football for the last 25 years. How many National Championships has the MWC and Conference USA won combined? The list of major athletes that has gone on to the NFL from the Pac-10 absolutely dwarfs that of athletes from the MWC or Conference USA. And that’s my point.

Dude,
What is it I don’t get?

  1. What is your definition of a major University? TCU has been an accredited school for a long time, they have a number of graduate and post graduate programs. They definitely charge major tuition.

  2. I’m reasonably certain that Ft Worth is in the Southern part of the United States

  3. Tradition of excellence? How far back do you want to go? TCU has been to 9 bowls in the last 10 years. There was a time when every year the National Champ was either a service academy or an Ivy League school. TCU won 2 National Championships in the '30s. 4 conference titles in the '50s. The advent of 2 platoon football, the GI bill, and some other factors made it harder for smaller, private schools to compete.

I have more to say but I got interupted and I’m tired. All I want is to see it settled on the field.

Have a nice evening,
Spike[/quote]

I’m sure TCU is a fine institution, but it is not what college football fans would consider a major program. I’m talking Michigan, Ohio St., Penn St., Notre Dame, Texas, Oklahoma, etc. TCU? Not so much.

Dude, going to the Meineke Car Care Bowl does not a tradition of excellence make. And let me get this straight: TCU hasn’t won (or probably even played for) a national championship in 70 years and you are going to compare that school to the traditions of schools like UCLA, USC, or Cal? Gimme a break, dude. I think you know what I’m getting at and are just trying to be difficult.

573

[quote]eic wrote:
rainjack wrote:

Texas and OU are perennial powers, but I think you are leaving a few teams out.

KSU has been strong for several years prior to the last two seasons. The Jayhawks have put on a good run last year and this year. Mizzou is right up there as well. And Colorado has had several good years over the last 10 seasons.

So, counting the 4 teams you mentioned, and the 4 I have mentioned - that’s 8 teams out of 12 that are no strangers to being in the top 15 or 20. And that’s leaving out A&M, and your Cornhuskers.

I don’t think that even the SEC can match that, and forget about the Pac-10. They have a lot more Baylors than the Big-12 does.

Laughable. KU had one good year last year, with a schedule so easy it makes me want to puke. Florida Int’l? Louisiana Tech? Sam Houston State? This year they play a tough schedule and . . . 5-3. Wah, wah . . . .

Mizzou is good this year and last, but as soon as Daniel is gone, its back in the gutter. Colorado has been shit for quite awhile. They were laughable with Gary Burrnett and have been “rebuilding” ever since.

Nebraska has been shit for the last five years thanks to Callahan. How many coaches has A&M gone through in the last few years? Kansas St. has a few huge upsets here and there (OU in, I think, 2004, and Texas two years ago), but otherwise has not done much.

My statement stands: In the last 5 years, the only consistently notable teams from the Big 12 have been Texas and OU, with Tech/OSU a distant third. The last two years have been special, but I doubt it will last.

My point is that it’s not fair to compare an exceptional couple of years for the Big 12 to a couple of bad years for the Pac-10 and conclude that the latter is not fit to be a BCS conference.

Whether a conference deserves to be a BCS conference should be judged on a longer timeline; that’s all I’m saying. If nothing changes for the Pac-10 in the next 5-10 years, then we’ll talk. [/quote]

If you take USC out of the PAC-10 - there is not a single team in the entire pathetic conference that has won anything in the last 10 years.

None of the Oregon schools are any good, and they are spotty at best.

Washington? Not for the last 10

UCLA? Maybe back in the 80’s they were worth a shit.

You get on me for naming inconsistent from the Big 12, but the only consistency form the west coast is constant suck. At least the Big 12 will have a top ten team year in and year out. You can’t say that about the the Pac-10.

I don’t know what world you are living in to think the Pac-10 is a strong conference, but you need to come back to reality just a tad. The PAC-10 has been a suck conference for at least a decade.

574

[quote]GetSwole wrote:
I can’t believe a jackass has the audacity to skim a post then post a hateful response, making himself look like an ass by failing to realize that I said I was NOT an ACC fan nor was I defending the conference. I believe you should re-read and realize I’m an FSU you fan and dislike that we are in the ACC and would support a move.

And the Pac-10 is definitely not better football than the ACC. Perfect example is 2 years ago in an aweful 6-6 year for the 'Noles and we mopped UCLA in the emerald nuts bowl. USC is the PAC-10’s only mentionable team. And occasionally Cal and Oregon.[/quote]

What a dick. First you criticize me for claiming that you’re a fan of the ACC, then proceed to explain why you think the ACC is better than the Pac-10. You’re such an asshole.

I should have said, “Fan of A TEAM IN the ACC.” Are you happy now? And to prove that the ACC is playing better ball than the Pac-10, you trot out one example from 2 years ago. There are more significant programs in the Pac-10 than the ACC.

I never said that the ACC was inferior to the Pac-10. Frankly, I would say that they are probably on the same level. All I’m defending against is the claim that the Pac-10 should not be a BCS conference, a claim which appears to be based solely on the fact that the Pac-10 has lagged as a conference the past couple years.

575

[quote]rainjack wrote:

If you take USC out of the PAC-10 - there is not a single team in the entire pathetic conference that has won anything in the last 10 years.

None of the Oregon schools are any good, and they are spotty at best.

Washington? Not for the last 10

UCLA? Maybe back in the 80’s they were worth a shit.

You get on me for naming inconsistent from the Big 12, but the only consistency form the west coast is constant suck. At least the Big 12 will have a top ten team year in and year out. You can’t say that about the the Pac-10.

I don’t know what world you are living in to think the Pac-10 is a strong conference, but you need to come back to reality just a tad. The PAC-10 has been a suxk conference for at least a decade.
[/quote]

If that’s your standard, then Tech is arguably the worst team in the country. When was the last time they won a single thing? Uh oh spaghetti-ohs, RJ!

576

[quote]rainjack wrote:

You get on me for naming inconsistent from the Big 12, but the only consistency form the west coast is constant suck. At least the Big 12 will have a top ten team year in and year out. You can’t say that about the the Pac-10. [/quote]

Actually, you’re wrong. I looked at the numbers for the final AP/Harris polls since 2002 (can’t find records for earlier than that) and here’s what I found looking at teams in the top 10 for the Pac-10 and Big 12:

2002: Pac-10 = 2, Big 12 = 2
2003: Pac-10 = 2, Big 12 = 1
2004: Pac-10 = 2, Big 12 = 2
2005: Pac-10 = 1, Big 12 = 1
2006: Pac-10 = 1, Big 12 = 0*
2007: Pac-10 = 1, Big 12 = 4

This tells us several things. First, it tells us that the Big 12 does NOT, in fact, consistently have a team in the top 10 as you claimed RJ, since it failed to have a team in the top 10 in 2006 (Oklahoma was 11th).

It also tells us that until last season (i.e., between 2002-2006), the Pac-10 actually had MORE teams in the top 10 than the Big 12 (8 to 6). The numbers jump up for the Big 12 last season and obviously the Big 12 is very hot this season. Once again, the Big 12 is unusually strong the past two seasons and the past two seasons have been unusually bad for the Pac-10. But this does not mean that the Pac-10 is not worthy of being a BCS conference.

You can check the numbers yourself here: 2023 College Football Rankings - ESPN

Please show me were I described the Pac-10 as a “strong” conference. My only claim is that the Pac-10 is worthy of being considered a BCS conference, unlike the Mountain West, WAC, or Conference USA. I admit that, as a general matter, the Pac-10 is not as strong from top to bottom as the SEC or Big 12. But I think it is still a better conference over the years than the WAC, Mountain West, or Conference USA.

577

[quote]eic wrote:

I should have said, “Fan of A TEAM IN the ACC.” Are you happy now? And to prove that the ACC is playing better ball than the Pac-10, you trot out one example from 2 years ago. There are more significant programs in the Pac-10 than the ACC.

[/quote]

Yes you should, and now I am.

Explain the more significant programs in the Pac-10 for me?

The ones more significant than FSU, UM, VaTech, and BC for example.

578

[quote]eic wrote:
rainjack wrote:

If you take USC out of the PAC-10 - there is not a single team in the entire pathetic conference that has won anything in the last 10 years.

None of the Oregon schools are any good, and they are spotty at best.

Washington? Not for the last 10

UCLA? Maybe back in the 80’s they were worth a shit.

You get on me for naming inconsistent from the Big 12, but the only consistency form the west coast is constant suck. At least the Big 12 will have a top ten team year in and year out. You can’t say that about the the Pac-10.

I don’t know what world you are living in to think the Pac-10 is a strong conference, but you need to come back to reality just a tad. The PAC-10 has been a suxk conference for at least a decade.

If that’s your standard, then Tech is arguably the worst team in the country. When was the last time they won a single thing? Uh oh spaghetti-ohs, RJ![/quote]

I’m not talking about a team. I am talking about a conference, or the strength of said conference.

I’ll be the first to admit this is the first time since 1976 that Tech is really, really good. But they do have the 5th longest winning season streak in the nation. They have been to a bowl game every single season that the Big-12 has been in existence (the ONLY team in the conference to accomplish that).

But my love of the Red Raiders aside, they are in a traditionally much stronger conference than the Pac-10.

You can’t get on my ass about Colorado if you are going to bring up the fucking Cal’s and the pathetic Huskies.

Tech beat the shit out of Cal in the What-Ever-The-Fuck Bowl.

The sooner you bow down to the glory that is the Big-12, the sooner your delusions will go away.

579

[quote]GetSwole wrote:
eic wrote:

I should have said, “Fan of A TEAM IN the ACC.” Are you happy now? And to prove that the ACC is playing better ball than the Pac-10, you trot out one example from 2 years ago. There are more significant programs in the Pac-10 than the ACC.

Yes you should, and now I am.

Explain the more significant programs in the Pac-10 for me?

The ones more significant than FSU, UM, VaTech, and BC for example.[/quote]

Historically USC, Cal, UCLA, are pretty significant, Oregon had a really good shot at winning the NC last year barring Dixon’s knee getting destroyed, which makes them about as relevant as BC.

As for the Big12 vs Pac10, it depends on time frames. A&M may not be anything now, or even in the remotely recent past, but it used to be one of the true powerhouse schools. OU/Texas/Nebraska are some of the most historical schools in football history. USC can contend with the history of all of them as an equal, but Cal/UCLA, while solid programs, just don’t measure up. With that said the Pac-10 is definitely worthy of being a BCS conference.

As for the “also-ran” conferences, keep playing in these BCS games and picking up some wins against well known teams, and that will be your argument. Trying to contend history that just isn’t in your favor is not the best way to go about it. What you want is games against overrated #2 conference teams that missed the National Title game, so you can actually win, not more games against actual contending caliber teams that will smoke your shit like UGA did to Hawaii last year.

580

[quote]red04 wrote:

Historically USC, Cal, UCLA, are pretty significant, Oregon had a really good shot at winning the NC last year barring Dixon’s knee getting destroyed, which makes them about as relevant as BC.

[/quote]

So, like I said, they are at least equal.

581

[quote]eic wrote:
I’m sure TCU is a fine institution, but it is not what college football fans would consider a major program. I’m talking Michigan, Ohio St., Penn St., Notre Dame, Texas, Oklahoma, etc. TCU? Not so much.

Dude, going to the Meineke Car Care Bowl does not a tradition of excellence make. And let me get this straight: TCU hasn’t won (or probably even played for) a national championship in 70 years and you are going to compare that school to the traditions of schools like UCLA, USC, or Cal? Gimme a break, dude. I think you know what I’m getting at and are just trying to be difficult. [/quote]

Not trying to be difficult, well ok maybe a little, but it’s all in fun. If you’re ever this way, beer’s on me.

Are we talking about media perception, or on the field ability?

On the field, which is my main point of contention, TCU beats atleast half of the teams you listed. USC is very good these days, and has been good most of the years I’ve followed football. TCU did however beat them on the field, pretty convincingly, in the 1998 Sun Bowl.

Cal has had some great teams lately, but I hardly consider them a traditional football power. Since you mention the broken leg excuse for Oregon, if not for the AFA QB breaking his leg, they probably beat Cal in last years Ft Worth bowl.

UCLA has lot to several MWC teams in the Las Vegas bowl recently. While they have a great tradition, they haven’t been good in forever. This year: BYU 59 UCLA 0, TCU 32 BYU 7, you do the math.

My devoutly Catholic grandmother would not appreciate my views on Notre Dame. They are the epitome of everything that is wrong w/ college ball and the exclusionary BCS. In every game I remember them going to a decent bowl they get slaughtered, but they still get the big payday.

We’ve split 2 meetings w/ OU this decade. Both in Norman.

TCU has never played in the Meineke Car Bowl but I get your point. It’s hardly a fair point of contention. Between the exclusionary BCS system, and the contractual tie ins to all of the bowls, TCU is locked out of a number of good bowl games. Frankly this has me more upset than the fact that the BCS locks them out of the National Championship. 2 years ago they finished 10-2 with a win over Tech yet get banished to the other San Diego Bowl, in mid December. Not many fans got to make the trip. They did however get to face the nations leading rusher, Garret Wolf, and held him to 28 yards on 20 carries (don’t ask me how I remember random stuff like that, I forget my name half of the time). Wolf had a much better day against “the” Ohio State University. It makes me mad that we were locked out of bowls in Dallas, Shreveport, San Antonio, and Houston (some years we back door our way in to that one). In addition, we are usually forced to play other non BCS teams, so we get very little credit. We got more love from the local media for beating Baylor.

You mention National Championships, the BCS was created before the MWC was ever formed, so noone from that conference has won a NC, because they were not allowed too. Who knows how well Utah might have done a few years ago, had they been granted the opportunity to play someone better than Pitt. BYU did win a national title in 1984. In baseball, which does not have the BCS scheme, Rice and Fresno State have won the CWS in this decade. Let’s settle it on the field, not based on an exclusionary revenue sharing scheme or public perception based on something that happened 10 years ago or more.