OT: Would you put TCU in the Championship?

Submitted by HartAttack20 on

TCU won this weekend against a pretty highly ranked Utah team. It was a 55-28 thrashing by TCU. I now think that TCU is a great football team that proved themselves a few times and I would love to see them get a shot at the National Championship. I seriously doubt they will be given that chance, though. The BCS will once again prove itsself as a failure if TCU goes undefeated and Florida and Alabama both lose a game or two. This type of season is the exact situation that needs a playoff system. Cincinnatti is also an undefeated team with a shot at the NC. They probably won't make it either. If these two teams can't get there by going undefeated, then I don't know how this system can be fair. They have taken care of business, thus far, on the field and that still isn't enough. If they can't make it to the NC, then I would love to see them matched up in a BCS game. So, if you had the option at this point, what two teams would you place in the BCS national championship game? I would probably put TCU and Alabama in it, but Cincy is close.

Brodie

November 15th, 2009 at 3:00 PM ^

The odds of Texas and one of the SEC teams losing is slim, though if it happens then TCU should certainly be in. Cincy has an okay argument as well, and I think the human element might give them the edge.

joelrodz

November 15th, 2009 at 6:54 PM ^

will remain unbeaten, so either way it would likely be 2 undefeated teams (FLA or ALA against TEXAS) for the NC.

Still wish we had a playoff though. These "mid conference" teams have stood their ground when given the opportunity to play in a BCS bowl game. Utah trounced Alabama 31-17 last year and Boise State beat Oklahoma 43-42 in 2007.

jmblue

November 15th, 2009 at 9:48 PM ^

It's not yet a certainty that the SEC champ will be unbeaten. Florida still has to play FSU, and Alabama Auburn, before they meet.

(BTW, while your general point is taken, Hawaii didn't quite stand its ground against Georgia.)

Arizona Blue

November 15th, 2009 at 2:55 PM ^

If you want to see a TCU team get thrashed by Florida or Alabama in the National Championship be my guest. In my opinion, TCU is a good team but would lose to the likes of LSU, Oregon, and a few other teams in the top 15. They are solid but have not experienced a marquee win this season to prove they are anything but good. Their OOC schedule consists of Texas State, Clemson, and Virginia (Clemson is the only respectable opponent of the bunch) and their conference is a collection of cupcakes with a few solid but not great teams (BYU and Utah). I think its safe to say TCU is ranked where they are as a result of the lack of undefeated teams this year vs. their own track record.

MichiganExile

November 15th, 2009 at 3:16 PM ^

The same Alabama team that got embarrassed by Utah last year?

SOS of the top 4:
Florida-14
Texas-37
Alabama-20
TCU-25

TCU's schedule matches up favorably if not better than Texas's schedule.

Don't undersell TCU. If two of Alabama/Texas/Florida lose a game it is time to give a BCS buster the chance to actually bust the BCS. TCU might be the best team in the nation, but how are we ever gonna know if an archaic system keeps them out because they don't have brand name recognition.

DoubleB

November 15th, 2009 at 4:33 PM ^

Has anybody else noticed how craptacular the Big XII is this year? Quick, name the best out of conference win by a Big XII team this season? Oklahoma State's victory over 6-4 Georgia. A team that might not make the C-USA title game (Houston) arguably beat the 2nd and 3rd best teams in the Big XII. When all is said and done, Texas will probably have 1 victory over a team in the Top 25. They're getting a pass because of last year's oversight. An honest discussion would include Texas, TCU, and Cincinnati in the debate.

wolverine1987

November 15th, 2009 at 5:47 PM ^

It is a function of a subjective (which is all we have available to us without a playoff system) evaluation of talent and degree of difficulty for a non BCS conference vs. BCS conferences. There is a reason that non-BCs conferences have a difficult time getting in, and it has zero percent to do with brand names. It has to do with the fact that those conferences are less talented and play, in general, a lower level of football.

I want a playoff of some kind too, but we can only discuss the system we have. And the flawed system we have makes subjective evaluations of talent and therefore skews the system towards BCS conferences. But I hasten to add that this subjective opinion of talent is backed up by what degree of fact exist. Not conclusive fact, but the only fact we have. First, the fact that most--not all--but the vast majority, of the players at schools like TCU were not offered scholarships by BCS schools because they were felt to not be as good as others. Second, that based on players playing in the NFL, and players drafted by the NFL, these conferences have far fewer talented players than the BCS conferences. Lastly, the fact, which even pro Boise etc people will admit, that the conferences they play in don't compare overall to the BCS conferences. Does that mean that TCU isn't possibly one of the best two teams? No one can say for sure. But in general, those that say "no" have far more on their side IMO than those who say yes.

DoubleB

November 15th, 2009 at 6:22 PM ^

First off, how do you know TCU players weren't offered scholarships by BCS schools? Maybe kids would rather win games at TCU than get their ass handed to them at Iowa State or Texas A&M.

Secondly, even if they weren't offered scholarships by BCS schools that doesn't take away from the quality of the player. Maybe TCU's coaches evaluate talent better. Maybe they do a much better job of developing talent.

The results on the field in 2009 are all that SHOULD matter. And with a schedule that is BETTER than Texas (at least according to Sagarin) they have won every game they've played. In a perfect world, there would be a legitimate discussion as to who would play the SEC champion--Texas, Cincinnati, or TCU. Unfortunately we live in a world where people assume TCU just isn't as good because they wear TCU on their jerseys and don't get to beat up on shitty Big XII teams every year.

wolverine1987

November 15th, 2009 at 6:58 PM ^

Because Rivals and others make subjective talent evaluations of prospects, which while flawed, have been proven multiple times on this blog and elsewhere to be predictive of football success (not championships, but success). So first, check Rivals and compare offers.

Second, "maybe TCU evaluates talent better." Really? You want to make that argument? How did they do last year, and years before? Come on. This is equivalent to the Pat Witte was a 2 star" argument disproved by fact multiple times. If they were not offered by BCS schools it DOES--in general, meaning the majority of times. take away from the quality of player.

Why are BCS team favored in general over MAC and other schools the majority of times they play? Because of the same subjective, yet generally accurate, evaluations of respective talent at those schools and in those conferences.

And again, it has NOTHING to do with the jersey. The playoff is the only way to prove quality objectively, on the field of play. Failing that, we rely in subjective evaluations--recruiting rankings, history, draft picks etc. EVERY ONE of those flawed, yet only measure we have, say that you are entirely wrong.

Don't argue playoffs vs, the current system. This system is the only one we have, even though I wish we had a playoff, to end the debate. But failing that, this system is subjective, and every subjective evaluation says I am right.

MichiganExile

November 15th, 2009 at 7:05 PM ^

It is a function of a subjective (which is all we have available to us without a playoff system) evaluation of talent and degree of difficulty for a non BCS conference vs. BCS conferences.

As has already been stated and shown Texas has had no greater difficulty getting where they are than TCU has. I submit for your perusal one of the most objective rankings.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/fbt09.htm

You can see that TCU has a slightly better SOS and one more win against the top 30. The Big 12 is so down this year that comparison of the two conferences is essentially splitting hairs. I would even argue the road to the BCS title game has been far easier for Texas seeing as they started out ranked so high. Texas started at #2 and TCU started at #17. Really the only way Texas was gonna move was to lose. That's a pretty cush spot to be sitting.

There is a reason that non-BCs conferences have a difficult time getting in, and it has zero percent to do with brand names.

The big reason non-BCS teams have trouble getting in is the requirements needed to actually make it to a BCS bowl. The Big 6 conferences have automatic bids so that the conference champions make a BCS bowl no matter how horrible they may be (ie. Pitt 04, FSU 05) Whereas the BCS conferences are guaranteed a spot, "lesser" conference teams have to outright take their's.

It has to do with the fact that those conferences are less talented and play, in general, a lower level of football.

We aren't talking about generalities. We are talking about two specific teams with two specific resumes. Over the course of time no one is going to argue that the Big 12 is a far better conference than the Mountain West conference. No one is going to argue that over time Texas is a far better program than TCU either. However, in the microcosm that is the 2009 season thus far, TCU and Texas are essentially equal.

First, the fact that most--not all--but the vast majority, of the players at schools like TCU were not offered scholarships by BCS schools because they were felt to not be as good as others.

I'm not gonna call you a stargazer here but you certainly sound like one, no offense. There are any number of reasons why players at smaller schools were not offered by BCS schools. I'm not here to argue that the overall talent at a program like Texas is not anywhere near comparable to that of TCU. But, why does it matter that Texas recruits greater talent? So does Notre Dame and I don't hear anyone saying they should be in over TCU. There are two undefeated teams with similar resumes vying for a spot in the title game. Where does it say that a team with higher recruiting rankings for the past 4 years must get the nod over the team with the lower rankings? Your point also disregards things like talent development and coaching once all these players reach campus.

Second, that based on players playing in the NFL, and players drafted by the NFL, these conferences have far fewer talented players than the BCS conferences.

This is the same thing you said in your first point with different words. Yes, Texas produces more talented players over time than TCU. Why does that matter?

Lastly, the fact, which even pro Boise etc people will admit, that the conferences they play in don't compare overall to the BCS conferences.

Blah blah blah. More of the same. Yes I get it. Over time the BCS conferences are better than non-BCS. There have been four BCS busting teams since the inception of the Bowl Championship Series: Utah 04, Boise State 06, Hawaii 07, and Utah 08. The record of BCS teams in those bowl 1-3. None of those BCS busting teams over the course of time is going to be confused with USC, Michigan, or Oklahoma. But in those seasons those teams were just as good and better than the BCS competition they faced.

Does that mean that TCU isn't possibly one of the best two teams? No one can say for sure. But in general, those that say "no" have far more on their side IMO than those who say yes.

I want to make it perfectly clear that I am not advocating TCU in the title game. If Texas goes undefeated they earned and deserve a spot in the BCS title game. If, however, two teams in front of TCU suffer a defeat by season's end (and one is going to regardless) then the lack of worthy substitutes for TCU in the title game demands that they be put in that game. They have earned the right to be there just as much as Texas. They have earned the right to at least show that a team from a non-BCS conference can play with and maybe even beat the big boys. This is the perfect season to do it, if the scenario I just laid out were to happen.

Your three points about recruiting of talent and NFL talent are exactly the reason that people think the BCS is a bunch of shit. It completely disregards results on the field in favor of "brand name recognition." Do you think for one minute if TCU had somehow outrecruited Texas over a four year span that people would put them in the title game because they "have more talent?" Clearly TCU has talent, but it is being completely ignored because they are TCU and they have no history of sustained success. It boils down to a choice between "what have you done for me lately," and "what have you done for me in the past?"

wolverine1987

November 15th, 2009 at 7:51 PM ^

I'll try to respond coherently given the 3 drinks I've had since my first post, but if not we'll have to take this up the next time this subject comes up (probably in a couple days). First, the entire college football system is predicated on subjective and talent evaluation. This is why we were horrified at the loss to App St. Subjectively, they play inferior football. Why we were aghast at losing to illinois. Why we believe we should beat every MAC team we play. Why we were high-fiving when Forcier committed. Why we loved the last recruiting class. Why any team is favored over any other team. It goes on and on. Subjective evaluation, in the lack of a playoff, is all we have. But is has been proven to be indicative of success. Mike Hart does not disprove the general accuracy of recruiting rankings any more than App. St. beating us disprove the fact that they play inferior football. Upsets happen often, but that doesn't mean Vegas doesn't always win-they win because in general these measures hold up.

Here's why Texas producing more talented players matter. Because in the absence of a playoff system, in comparing one team with a valid history of both success and highly talented players against another with neither of these, the odds favor the former. And the odds (not Vegas odds) are all we have. Everything we have available to us tells us that if we have to choose one or the other for a game--a choice that I wish we didn't have to make because I'd like a playoff-- the team with a better talent and better history of success wins.

One area of agreement: I think if Texas loses, that TCU has a valid argument to go the the title game, because I respect their non-conference schedule--in fact, I respect it far more than their conference schedule.

Lastly, again, I'm not agreeing with the BCS system--I don't like it. But I'm not going to argue with people whose arguments boil down to "we need a playoff, otherwise no one can say who's better." Without a playoff, our ONLY choice is to say who's better. So we use what indicators we have available. And I believe those favor Texas.

MichiganExile

November 15th, 2009 at 8:57 PM ^

That is fair. I understand what you are saying. The reasons you state for why Texas should be put in the title game are the reasons that, when it comes down to it, they will be put in the title game. That particular argument of past success predicting future results has been a staple of college football for a very long time. That is what I am saying should be tossed at the wayside. The reason I feel Texas should be in the title game, and the only reason, is that they started ranked higher than TCU and did not lose. Their resumes are similar and Texas started higher. I actually feel that sucks for TCU but I can't, myself, jump TCU over Texas because it penalizes Texas for absolutely no reason.

That immediately brings up the problem with preseason rankings and how they are utter BS. I've always felt rankings shouldn't even come out until October when there is a full month of evidence to help pollsters fill out their ballots.

IdealistWolverine

November 15th, 2009 at 3:05 PM ^

They played another top 25 team instead of Texas State in that second game of the season I would say that they should be a legit Title contender...

But lets look at the numbers...

They beat #16 (at the time) BYU 38-7 (btw BYU did beat Oklahoma)

Just killed #16 Utah 55-28....

Also beat a should be heisman candidate in CJ Spiller and Clemson and also beat down a horrible Virginia team...

Texas on the other hand...

Their only two ranked wins this year came against #20 (at the time) Oklahoma 16-13 and #14 (at the time) Oklahoma State 41-14...

Looking at the resumes Texas hasn't had that much harder of a schedule than TCU... and I'm confidant in saying that if TCU was in the Big 12 this year... they would have run the table and would win the Big 12 too.

Topher

November 15th, 2009 at 3:05 PM ^

I personally rank the following:

1. Whoever wins the SEC
2. Cincinnati
(tie) 3. Unbeaten Texas
(tie) 3. TCU

I just don't think Texas has been impressive. They have ridden their ranking the whole year and not made any poll-hopping statements. Their schedule is very weak (the Big XII really blows) and Oklahoma had their best players out for most of the game and aren't that good without them, and UT beat them by 3 points.

I am betting they are a typical Mack Brown team - well-recruited and riding on the skill of a few very talented players, but fundamentally soft and mentally fragile. I am hoping for a Texas loss, which is very possible, to put TCU or Cincy up top.

The BCS thinks otherwise, but I don't work for them.

Topher

November 15th, 2009 at 3:10 PM ^

"Florida, Alabama or Texas' schedule they wouldn't be unbeaten."

Either Florida or Alabama is sure to not be unbeaten three Sundays from now.

Texas's schedule stinks. Their best win is Okie State, the team that lost to Houston. They beat a lame OU team by 3. Wyoming? Give me a break.

Topher

November 15th, 2009 at 3:38 PM ^

I saw Texas screw around for more than a half of football and then bang-bang rush of points to take over the momentum.

I'm not out to offend anybody, but a 5-5 Wyoming team that beat Weber State by seven points and beat FAU and UNLV, two losing teams, by a combined five points is not my idea of a quality out-of-conference victory.

No one is arguing that Texas isn't "very good." But Texas doesn't have a strong record of performance against top teams on their schedule and we've seen "very good" Big XII teams absolutely flop in the BCS recently, so I am not inclined to give Texas the benefit of the doubt over Cincy, who has done a lot of heavy lifting, or TCU, who has done the same. My point about Texas is that we JUST DON'T KNOW - we can only estimate, and estimating in the Big XII has led to some major bowl embarrassments, including last year when Texas got hosed in favor of OU, OU flopped against Florida and Texas needed every moment to beat an inferior Ohio State team.

david from wyoming

November 15th, 2009 at 3:50 PM ^

I'm sorry, maybe I missed something...but who has TCU or Cincinnati beaten this year? TCU has played Virginia, Clemson and the MWC. Cincinnati has played Oregon State, the Big East and a future game with Illinois. I have no idea what you mean by 'doing heavy lifting' but none of the schedules are filled with good games. I would personally give the edge to Texas's schedule (including their soft non-conference games) since I think the Big12 is better then the MWC or Big East.

DoubleB

November 15th, 2009 at 4:40 PM ^

"I would personally give the edge to Texas's schedule (including their soft non-conference games) since I think the Big12 is better then the MWC or Big East."

Last year, no question. Historically, no question. This season, 2009, BIG question. There's just nothing in the out of conference schedule to speak of.

I actually think Texas is the best team in the country, but they haven't beaten anybody good and their schedule isn't any better than TCU's or Cincinnati's.

GustaveFerbert

November 15th, 2009 at 4:50 PM ^

When Bama and Florida can play sisters of the poor and no gives a peep. Yes, the SEC is supposedly tough, but outside of Florida and Bama, who are the world beaters. And Bama, did they not get whipped by Utah last year?

TCU is a much better team than pretty much any team in the Big 10, and I would kill for UM being that good.

wolverine1987

November 15th, 2009 at 6:02 PM ^

He said if they TCU played Florida or Alabama's schedule they wouldn't be undefeated. Saying that they won't be undefeated does not challenge his point. If anyone believes that the talent level in the SEC is comparable--in any way, any way at all--they simply are either alums and fans of MWC schools or don't really know how to watch and evaluate football. Sorry, it is that simple. the SEC is WAY better than the MWC and it is not even debatable. That supports his point with a giant sharpie underline.

Topher

November 15th, 2009 at 3:08 PM ^

The BCS could stave off some serious playoff arguments by putting TCU in the Big One. If TCU wins, party on with an awesome Cinderella story like Boise State-OU was. If they get beat, the title is legit and if they get blown out they go home with a pat on their head.

If they hose TCU and Texas gets blown apart by Florida, the playoff calls will be unstoppable.

If I were the TCU AD I'd be on the phone nonstop to lobby voters and writers. You know Mack Brown is going to be lobbying!

IdealistWolverine

November 15th, 2009 at 3:10 PM ^

Cincinatti and TCU have played against the same number of ranked opponents too (until Cinci plays Pitt in two weeks) and Cinci's opponents were ranked 21st and 25th...

Just saying with quality wins... TCU has put a whoopin on the best teams they've played against while Cinci has put a whoopin on all the unranked teams they've played against.

IdealistWolverine

November 15th, 2009 at 3:15 PM ^

Is way tougher than TCU's...

but Florida, for this year only, hasn't played as tough of a schedule as people think...

Tennessee, Arkansas, and LSU are the only above average teams they've played so far, and only LSU was/is ranked.

Alabama is gonna roll over Florida in a few weeks... as much as it pains me to watch Nick Saban win, they have the best team in America. Hands down in my opinion.

The King of Belch

November 15th, 2009 at 3:36 PM ^

Is complete bullshit, and even more stupid when fans use it to argue strength of schedule and other things. Come on, the bCS is nothing more than an exculsive monopolistic circle jerk created to keep Big Money with the so called Big Conferences and lock others out.

It's a fuck job to the WACS and other guys because the Biggies not only don't have to share money, but they can kind of "keep a brutha down" by using the BCS as a recruiting and marketing tool.

Nothing more than a bullshit ruse, and I, like those in the media who give it lip service, WANT to see this thing blown up by having a one or even two-loss SEC or Big 12 team in there while an undefeated team like (UTAH!) or now TCU, Boinke State, or Cincinnati all go undefeated.

And I support those schools suing the fuck out of this BCS thing. So much of our fan base rails against all the media love for the SEC--now let's see our fan base not put their panties on and go with the "BCS Conference" company line--if the SEC and Big 12 are so over rated, as many Michigan and Big Ten fans claim, then these "lil" guys deserve to get in there and mix it up with everyone.

MaizeyBlue

November 15th, 2009 at 3:51 PM ^

What makes the most sense is to seed the conference champions and have a playoff. Just like they used to do in college basketball. You win your conference and you make the dance. So just based on what we have currently we'd have
Florida, GT, Texas, TCU, ohio, CMU, Boise st, Cincy, Oregon, SMU, and Troy. I have a basic idea all planned out and maybe i'll post it one of these days. But basically independents are forced to join a conference. ND to the big East, army and navy to C-USA (thats appropriate, right?) Work out the 14 team league later. So that would give us 11 teams to play with. Run it just like the Big Ten tourney or any 11 team tourney, but with re-seeding.
#1 Florida
#2 Texas
#3 TCU
#4 Cincinnati vs. #5 Boise State
#6 GT vs. #11 SMU
#7 ohio vs. #10 Troy
#8 Oregon vs. #9 CMU

Do the math and check out the AMAZING quarterfinal matchups.

Sorry, if people think that Alabama is better than Troy (they are, and I'm not saying bama won't win the SEC) but if you can't win your conference you don't make the playoffs. Or else there is no point for the Sun Belt/MAC/C-USA/Mtn West/WAC to even play D-1 football. Of course Alabama is better than Troy, but every team should be given a chance. If we had a 4 team playoff, Boise State probably gets left out, and we are in the same situation we are right now. Just my take. Everyone deserves a chance.