No, I don't think losing to SMU was necessarily a 'fluke' and I don't recall having to justify it. SMU was the better team that day.Eric wrote:Dude, get real. Oklahoma in 2005 was inexperienced. Any reason that is made for a loss is looked upon you as an excuse. You're right, a win is a win, but I don't exactly see you as treating the loss to SMU as a loss for TCU. I believe I recall it was a "fluke".
As far as I know they played on a level playing field, but yes, the ball bounced SMU's way, but that sometimes happens in football games, does that mean it was a 'fluke'? Only if (as you claim) TCU's win over Oklahoma, was a 'fluke'. And yes, it ruined whatever chances TCU might have had on making the BCS, so it matters. Neither team was 'lucky'.
Only because they beat the Ducks. Again, I disagree with your analysis, but appreciate your insight, nevertheless. Unless the officials had a hand in it, (which they almost did) no game is a 'fluke'.Eric wrote:Oklahoma is better in 2006, they closed out the season much better than they started it. Oklahoma could very well be the best team in the nation this year. And just because TCU beat them last year, doesn't mean they are better this year, or even better last year, for that matter.
Oklahoma was a better team than Oregon. That's why they won, it wasn't because Oklahoma was 'better', end-of-season. UCLA was a better team than Oklahoma, that's why they won.
Flukey?Eric wrote: And what is so flukey about Texas Tech? They were looked upon as a fluke last year because they "didn't play any defense," which is a load of mularkey. They have a solid defense, one that might be better this year. The defense will be enough this year to hold TCU at bay.
I said 'over-rated'. I think they are pretenders to the throne, yes they were lucky to beat Oklahoma, and yes I think the officials had a hand in the outcome of that game. TCU will win, mark my words.