I know how to solve all the BCS mid-major inclusion problems

[mountainman]

Maybe, just maybe, at some point in the future, CLF is going to understand that a team's won/loss record is just a part of the equation when trying to earn an at large bid.

It was a regular season loss and an insufficent strength of schedule rating that kept them out of consideration for an at large bid.

[colorado_loves_football]

Maybe, just maybe, at some point in the future, CLF is going to understand that a team's won/loss record is just a part of the equation when trying to earn an at large bid.

It was a regular season loss and an insufficent strength of schedule rating that kept them out of consideration for an at large bid.

Now, you are presenting unfactual information (why should that surprise me?).
Certainly the SMU loss hurt TCU, but it wasn't a deal-breaker, if it had been, then Why wasn't W. Virginia 'eliminated'? Sure, the Big East representative is 'assured' a BCS bid, but if they had finished ranked lower than #12 overall, it would have been injurious to the Big East, long-term (#12 is considered to be the 'minimal' requirement, for ANY team, irrespective of where they play).
So, you are only partly correct, in your 'assessment'. TCU was #14 overall. They didn't meet the 'standard', but there's a provision for a 'non-BCS' team, provided an 'automatic' qualifier finishes #16 or lower.
FSU was #23 I believe. That put TCU in, had the five-bowl BCS been in place. You say 'TCU wasn't qualified'. You are correct, only because they had to wait a year to implement the 'revised' BCS.
TCU 'earned' BCS consideration, based on the revised rules, which are to be applied to this year's BCS. That being said, I'm well aware TCU didn't meet the 'standard' applied to last year's BCS. But, had Notre Dame not beaten Stanford, it would appear they likely would have been the most-qualified team, if the bowl results mean anything.

[ktffan]

Maybe, just maybe, at some point in the future, CLF is going to understand that a team's won/loss record is just a part of the equation when trying to earn an at large bid.

It was a regular season loss and an insufficent strength of schedule rating that kept them out of consideration for an at large bid.

Now, you are presenting unfactual information (why should that surprise me?).

It shouldn't. You view all factual information as unfactual if you don't like it.

[mountainman]

Well, golly gee, CLF, the Mountaineers played Notre Dame in the Fiesta Bowl for the national title in 1989 so does that mean that last season the Rose Bowl should have considered that and had the Mountaineers play the winner of this year's game between Texas and Southern Cal?

By the way, what happened to your position that a team's final ranking in the polls has little meaning?

P.S. Sometime, at your leisure, take a look at the narrative on the web sites of all the computer polls that make-up a portion of the BCS rankings. Pay particular attention to the parts where they say that the BCS required that STRENGTH OF SCHEDULE be a major component for consideration.

[mountainman]

That being said, I'm well aware TCU didn't meet the 'standard' applied to last year's BCS. But, had Notre Dame not beaten Stanford, it would appear they likely would have been the most-qualified team, if the bowl results mean anything.

Well, golly gee, CLF. Have you ever heard the expression about if a frog had wings?

Just a couple of points for you to consider about your statement. First, Notre Dame did beat Stanford.

Next, you must understand, contrary to your position that final season standings don't mean anything, that the University of Oregon, the University of Miami, Auburn University, Virginia Tech, and Louisiana State University did meet the standards for at large selection to a BCS Bowl last season.

Any appearance of TCU being 'most-qualified' based on bowl results meaning anything is an illusion. Even using your thoughts about appearances and bowl game results, one cannot discount that Virginia Tech, LSU and Alabama, who finished ranked 13th won their bowls games.

[colorado_loves_football]

Well, golly gee, CLF, the Mountaineers played Notre Dame in the Fiesta Bowl for the national title in 1989 so does that mean that last season the Rose Bowl should have considered that and had the Mountaineers play the winner of this year's game between Texas and Southern Cal?

By the way, what happened to your position that a team's final ranking in the polls has little meaning?

P.S. Sometime, at your leisure, take a look at the narrative on the web sites of all the computer polls that make-up a portion of the BCS rankings. Pay particular attention to the parts where they say that the BCS required that STRENGTH OF SCHEDULE be a major component for consideration.

I'm not sure what 1989 has to do with this debate, is it because it was a championship pairing of teams? Do you really want me to rehash how I would organize the BCS? I'm not sure what you are asking me.
Yes, Stanford lost to Notre Dame, I'm fully aware of that fact. Doesn't change the fact Notre Dame was pretty lucky to win, given how poorly they played, 2nd half. And, I am aware that Notre Dame qualified based on their own 'merit', irrespectively.
I did suggest the Fiesta Bowl pair those teams together. I don't think that's such an unusual 'pairing', in fact, it might have happened, but for the fact the Sugar Bowl elected to take W. Virginia, over Ohio St. I seriously doubt the Fiesta Bowl necessarily 'wanted' an Ohio St. vs. Notre Dame 'pairing'. They rolled the dice, and lost. I had heard they wanted a Penn St vs. Notre Dame 'pairing' of teams. But, I think they would have been very 'happy' had W. Virginia been available. It's not speculation, the Fiesta Bowl and the Big East Confernece are pretty tight.
It's one reason why Pittsburgh was taken, 2005. I'm pretty sure they would have been 'happy' to take W. Virginia, had they qualified.
I have to address your other post here, as well.
Did those teams really meet BCS standards? I'm not convinced of that, myself. I've already read the bylaws of the BCS, you aren't telling me anything I haven't already learned (at least not this time).
In a five-bowl BCS, TCU is selected, irrespective of where those other teams stand, assuming the BCS follows their own bylaws. So, you might be correct, that anohter team is selected, over TCU, but that's only if they ignore their own rules. FSU winning the ACC, is what gets TCU in. If Virginia Tech wins that game, then your argument stands.

[billybud]

I still think that a 2 loss VT last year (playing five end ranked AP teams)was more worthy of playing in a BCS bowl than a 1 loss TCU who really only played Oklahoma.

[colorado_loves_football]

I still think that a 2 loss VT last year (playing five end ranked AP teams)was more worthy of playing in a BCS bowl than a 1 loss TCU who really only played Oklahoma.

We've been around this argument before. Does Virginia Tech, simply being in the ACC, give sufficient reason for being ranked higher than TCU?
Because TCU lost to SMU? And even if you are correct, that Virginia Tech was 'better' (something I'm not convinced of), why do they necessarily 'deserve' preferential treatment?
You should be aware by now the circumstances surrounding them, in their attempt to gain a BCS 'bid' through competitive play. They had two chances, and lost both. For that matter, Miami & Boston College are equally at fault for the same reason. None of those teams deserved a BCS bid. If you think Virginia Tech did, simply because they beat W. Virginia, then I still have to disagree with you.
I'ts possible, even likely I suppose Virginia Tech wins the Big East. But, they made the conscious decision to join the ACC, as did Boston College, and Miami.
Ironic, given how it's two years, now, that those teams (BC & Miami) might have 'enjoyed' a BCS bid, but for the fact they didn't deserve one.
I'm not necessarily taking W. Virginia's side. They probably don't 'earn' one but for the fact they beat Louisville. But as everyone knows, that's how it's set-up. The best team isn't always represented. I think it adds an element of 'intrigue' to the proceedings, personally.
Now try to tell me LSU 'earned' a bid. Or Alabama, Auburn, Florida, BC.
NONE did. They played in games that were commesurate with their talent-level.
TCU wasn't selected, and maybe weren't sufficiently qualified, but only in an 8-team BCS. Ten teams, they go, and they should.
Even if you don't view their win over Oklahoma as sufficient, that's still 'sufficient' evidence they were likely as good (or better) than Oregon.
Another way to look at it is as follows:
If TCU and W. Virginia were in the same conference which team would win? I can't really answer that question, fairly. But, I think they maybe beat them, as evidenced in part by the data assembled by Kttfan.

[billybud]

We've been around this argument before. Does Virginia Tech, simply being in the ACC, give sufficient reason for being ranked higher than TCU?

No...Not just for being in the ACC. I wouldn't want Wake ranked over TCU, for example....but VT played a much tougher schedule and beat much tougher teams than TCU did....TCU was the Michelle Wie doing well against the girls...VT was playing in the Masters against the guys....

What you want is football socialism...norming...like when you take an employment test...you may not be aware, but in most testing, groups are scored only against their own racial grouping...in other words, black or hispanic test takers may have a score of 100 but that score is based on their group's curve...a white test taker may score the same 100 but, in actuality have a much higher test score. The scores have been "normed", or scored so that hispanics only compete with hispanics, etc. You want me to believe that TCU winning 10 is the same as VT winning 10...even if VT played a bunch of teams who ended up end ranked in the AP...VT beat the #5 AP team....TCU played a watered down schedule and would not have won close to ten games with VT's schedule.

Look...it doesn't matter how rationally we discuss this...you aren't rational. You are a homer fan whose thought is anchored in what is fair for TCU..not whether TCU is actually one of football's elite teams.

[Eric]

The problem here is the fact that he doesn't get it that in order to be included in the BCS, it is likey you are one of the best 8 teams in the country. That would put TCU over other teams like UCLA, Oregon, LSU, Miami, Virginia Tech, and Auburn who were extremely good teams. Tell me where TCU fits into that? Probably not above these teams.

Like David said earlier, TCU is a shade slower, a shade smaller, and fairly overmatched against a top-notch school. Drop it, TCU is not one of the best 8 teams in college football.

Sorry, I said I was done on this subject; I'm keeping my mouth shut now.

[colorado_loves_football]

The problem here is the fact that he doesn't get it that in order to be included in the BCS, it is likey you are one of the best 8 teams in the country. That would put TCU over other teams like UCLA, Oregon, LSU, Miami, Virginia Tech, and Auburn who were extremely good teams. Tell me where TCU fits into that? Probably not above these teams.

Like David said earlier, TCU is a shade slower, a shade smaller, and fairly overmatched against a top-notch school. Drop it, TCU is not one of the best 8 teams in college football.

Sorry, I said I was done on this subject; I'm keeping my mouth shut now.

No, it's ok, I appreciate hearing your point of view, most of the time, anyway.
I don't recall ever saying TCU was necessarily one of the 'best' programs in the country, that's you putting words in my mouth. However, I have said, consistently, that TCU likely has been 'overlooked' by the BCS committee when selection time rolls around.
Take, for example, 2003. That's the year David is referring to, so why not run with it?
He says, in one breath how exciting that game was, and how 'lucky' he was to witness it, in person, then in the same breath says how 'uncomparable' TCU was to S. Mississippi (or something to that effect). Anyway, I don't buy his logic at all.
Being down,by a sizable margin, late in the game, and coming back, repeatedly, isnt' an indication of a 'non-competitive' team, no matter how you look at it.
I remember that year. I don't necessarily consider it to be one of TCU's best years, from a competitive standpoint. But they won, nearly every game, and probably should have been in the BCS, but for that loss, that also ended whatever hope they might have had for the Liberty Bowl.
People forget, TCU wasn't the only team to be 'upset' in a championship pairing. Oklahoma faced a similar, if not identical dilemma.
You tell me which team played with more heart, late in the game, when all the chips were on the table, TCU or Oklahoma? And be honest, with your response. Oklahoma played 'dead', in fact K-State easily could have had 42. Now, I will grant you the circumstances were different.
S. Mississippi had a Liberty Bowl invitation riding on that game, not a BCS invitation, like K-State did.
And TCU, really wasn't assured a BCS spot, even with a win, and I'm not convinced myself they would have gone, either way.
But, I take what David says with a grain of salt. It was the 'most exciting' football game he's ever witnessed, he'll never forget it ,and he's still talking about it now. But TCU was clearly outclassed, by a 'superior' opponent. I"m sure that's why S. Mississippi won.

[Eric]

Look, I give teams credit for wins and I discredit a team for a loss. There aren't really excuses why teams lose, but there are reasons. There is a difference. Oklahoma is probably better than TCU (most of the public would agree with that). BUT, I give TCU all of the credit in the world for defeating OU. There are circumstances surrounding that game, that's why OU probably didn't win. On that day, TCU played better. That's all that really matters.

Same goes for SMU. And to say that the win over OU is relevant but the loss to SMU isn't is what I hope you're not saying because that's hypocrisy.

I didn't say that you said that TCU was elite. That's just when you say they deserved a shot in the BCS, you're telling me that they're one of the best 8 teams in the country. That is what it means to be in the BCS. I read between the lines.

[Jason G]

I agree that TCU is likely a shade slower, smaller, and less talented than the teams that have been selected for the BCS ahead of them.

There is no reason, however, that someday in the future a non-BCS school couldn't have one or the top two, three, or four teams in the country. My fear, though, is in that scenario either the school won't get the chance to prove how good they are due to an unwillingness of teams to schedule them or that they will get overlooked because of the popular perception that only BCS conference schools could possibly be good enough to be considered as the best.

[Jason G]

By the way, my impression of the BCS in the past is not that they try to get the best 8 teams in the country. Rather, they try to get the best two teams, the other BCS conference champions, and then the two BCS eligible teams that will bring in the most money.

[Spence]

I agree that TCU is likely a shade slower, smaller, and less talented than the teams that have been selected for the BCS ahead of them.

There is no reason, however, that someday in the future a non-BCS school couldn't have one or the top two, three, or four teams in the country. My fear, though, is in that scenario either the school won't get the chance to prove how good they are due to an unwillingness of teams to schedule them or that they will get overlooked because of the popular perception that only BCS conference schools could possibly be good enough to be considered as the best.

I believe that if those teams, from those conferences, are consistantly good, that they will get their shot. If they are a one hit wonder, they likely wouldn't get noticed unless their schedule provides for them to be noticed.

That doesn't just apply to non BCS conferences, that applies to major conference schools also. Iowa 2002 and 2003 are examples of just that, so it isn't just mid majors that get over looked in these situations. Iowa lost 1 game in 2002 and started 44th(or something like that) in the 2003 preseason poll. No one, except maybe Notre Dame, could come from that far out in the polls.