It is now safe to say that non aq teams should be respected more

In basketball maybe.

there's a good chance they can probably make it through a Big Ten schedule and do it successfully.

These recurring flukes are becoming annoying.

I agree that winning a BCS bowl game doesn't mean that a team can go undefeated in an AQ conference (except maybe the big east, which is kinda sad that's where TCU will be). Certainly TCU is a good team, but could they pull off multiple wins like this during a regular season to be undefeated and deserve a shot at the MNC?
<br>
<br>To me, winning by 2 only indicates that maybe 60-70% of the time TCU wins this game. Since I believe that, I'm lead to believe TCU is a one loss team if they play in the B1G, PAC-10, sec, or big 12.

"The question was not wheather Non AQs could beat teams in 1 game scenerios. The question was wheather or not they could handle a weekly grind of a major conference. That is still TBD."

Yes, but that question is unanswerable...there is no time machine to transport BCS busters to the beginning of the season in a major conference and check the results. So we can either categorically dismiss them on the basis of untestable counterfactuals, or we can come up with some kind of metric that tells us when the system "should" take them seriously. For the most part, the standards in place now are fair - you have to be a really really good non-AQ team to get into the BCS. That keeps the level of play high and keeps lame midmajor teams from getting hammered in big bowl games.

I'm not that concerned about the question, though - if Auburn had lost to Alabama or South Carolina, TCU would have played for the national championship. Ditto Texas last year. The opportunity is there, the non-AQs are "option 1b" in the event two BCS-conference teams don't make it unbeaten.

TCU and Boise State's high rankings were the result not just of their play this season, but how they've stacked up against their competition and BCS-conference opponents over the past decade. That's the way polls work, your ranking is a function of expectations and past performance.

Of course you are right that a few examples of non-AQ teams winning (and winning in exciting fashion) does not necessarily prove the idea that these conferences should be part of the BCS process.

But there have been enough recent examples that the old general belief that these schools could not be competitive week to week may be slowly dying. Once upon a time, any school which wasn't in one of the BCS conference (with the notable historical exception of the military academies and ND, principally from 1940-1970, with spots thereafter) meant that any game with a "big time" school would literally have been a game against (to paraphrase Gordon Gee) "the little sisters of the poor." They would be thoroughly thrashed. Check out the historical records of the Yost era when solid big time opponents were few. Some of the games were hopeless beatdowns with 60+ to zero. The annual ritual of having little fish come into the big stadiums for a big paycheck to act as warm up acts for the conference schedule has fooled many into thinking that this sort of situation still exists. Our own experience with the Horror and Toledo should make all UM fans realize that yes, these other conferences may not be great but the era when these non-AQ schools could be automatically dismissed is long over. It isn't just there are good non-AQ teams but the AQ teams are NOT as powerful as they once were back in the 1950-1980s.

There are millions more kids playing high school ball than in the past. There are more schools intent on buidling powerful FB programs. Most of all there are scholarship limits. How many kids do you think the old powers back in the 1960-70's would dress on game day? Some teams dressed over 100 kids. Not only were their starters great, but their second and sometimes their third tier players were really good, especially at positions like RB. Twenty four hour sports media and the internet further contribute by allowing kids to be followed by their families despite going far away - now it is commonplace for FL, TX, and CA kids to be recruited by schools in Idaho, Washington, Michigan, New Jersey, etc.

So, yes, one or two games don't prove the non-AQ conferences are equal to the AQ conferences, but good teams are good teams - of course, we'll never know until we have a true playoff. Tangentially, in basketball nearly every year we have a suprise in the Final Four. How often have the top 2 teams in March Madness actually make the final? Isn't it pretty rare that the FInal Four have all four top seeds? So there is little credibility that the final two in the BCS are really the "best". Look how infrequently the top two ranked teams meet in the Div 1aa, 2, and 3 tourneys and the whole notion that a ranking system produces the two best teams will be dispelled.

Not to mention Sammy Baugh and Ladanian Tomlinson. TCU has had some great players.

Doak Walker went to SMU.

3-5.  We lost 5 games today.

The Big Ten lost all 5 (FIVE!) they had today (UM, MSU, PSU, NW, UW) so I think 3-5 is the best.

This man would have Bielma's liver with a nice Chianti any day of the week.

ew.

Nope.  The B1G is a solid 0-5 on the day.

Of course BSU did beat a very good TCU team when they played last year.

OUTBURRRRRRRST.

Speed kills.  You and I know it, the Pac-10 has known it for years.  But getting there is pretty tough in a conference as tradition-laden as the B1G (just ask RR).  After this season half of ytOSU's starters are graduating, so they'll be down-ish for awhile, most of Wisconsin is graduating, and ytMSU is still a fraud.  So we can reasonably expect more of the same next bowl season.

TCU proved that if you can convince Brett Bielema not to run the ball when his running backs are averaging 6.9 and 6.0 YPC (as Clay and Ball were), you can win. Bielema is also susceptible to ruses involving magic beans.