ktffan wrote:Spence wrote:You assumed correctly..
Only goes to prove that Purdue should have made a BCS bowl.
I'm assuming you are talking 'in jest'. (not 'gest' since I can't use that word, anymore).
If I may I'd like to comment on something, which people here may (or may not) agree with.
First of all, I appreciate that we all have a 'unique' perspective on the sport. That's apparent in many respects, as we have some (Spence) who have actually played intercollegiately. I have zero experience, at any level, unless you count grade school (I don't). I guess that puts me at a disadvantage.
Anyway, I guess my point is that I base my views on 'evidence' that may be viewed as inconsequential by some. I don't necessarily mind that there are those who don't like my opinion, and maybe they're justified.
Nevertheless, I'm not trying to present a 'controversial' position here, just a 'different' one than maybe you're accustomed to.
For example, I made the 'argument' that TCU likely was 'better' than Purdue, mostly in 'jest' because I think there was circumstantial evidence that supported it. Rice scheduling (and losing) to Purdue, maybe 'defeated' it, but given the circumstances, I think it was still a 'valid' if not altogether 'foolproof' analysis, partly because it included Notre Dame.
Anyway, I guess all I'm getting at is that I dont' necessarily expect anyone to accept my positions at face-value. Neither do I necessarily want you to adopt my philosophy. I just like the idea that we can debate things, and maybe arrive to some kind of 'concensus', somewhere amidst the banter.
For example. We have argued, inside-and-out the politics, as well as the actual procedures whereby the BCS either 'accepts' or 'rejects' a team.
Some believe they are 'fair' in that they rely on their own standards, and thereby it's a 'fair' arrangment. I would argue they have implemented next-to-impossible procedures which necessarily 'exclude' most of the 'non-BCS' schools. My hope is that we can come to some kind of 'agreement' about what might work, in the interest of the entire NCAA.
That being said, I don't necessarily believe the BCS is 'fair'. Nor do I believe it necessarily is a true 'reflection' of which teams necessarily 'earn' it, through direct representation (which it could). I'm not opening up another line of debate, I simply am stating my position.
Do I like how it pairs the #1 and #2 team together? Sure. Who doesn't?
But it doesn't do it in a way that allows any team 'fair' opportunity, regardless of where they play. Lest you think I'm arguing solely on behalf of TCU, I believe there has been, minimally, one team EVERY year that has been 'rejected' by the BCS. 2000, 2005 TCU was the 'scapegoat. 1998, Tulane. 1999, Marshall. 2001 Brigham Young (even if they beat Hawaii they aren't selected). Louisville at 10-1 was a deserving candidate. 2002, was maybe an exception, but TCU at 10-2 still was pretty good. 2003, I think Miami, OH deserved an opportunity.
2004, Utah made it, but Louisville and Boise St were denied. Add them up, that's 8 team altogether, in eight years. Or, one a year.
Now, did TCU necessarily meet BCS qualifying standards, 2005? No.
That really never was my point. My point was that there was a team, sufficiently 'qualified' had a 5 bowl BCS been in place. Since it wasn't we'll never know for sure whether (or not) TCU 'earned' a spot, based on their overall W/L record. But, Oklahoma beating Oregon in the Holiday Bowl, if nothing else, suggests they likely were. End of argument.
