Post-season Play-offs

[Spence]

I believe maybe there's some merit in what you say with respect to scheduling. Who you play does matter, but TCU was a 'newbie' to MWC, and so I think you ought to consider that before making blanket statements, that probably don't really have any bearing on how good TCU was as a football program, last year.

It doesn't have any bearing on how good TCU was last year, It would have bearing on how they are perceived. You never know how good your schedule is until the games start, but you can do your best to schedule teams you think will be ranked. If you play a tough schedule and win you will get noticed know matter what conference you play in.

[colorado_loves_football]

It doesn't have any bearing on how good TCU was last year, It would have bearing on how they are perceived. You never know how good your schedule is until the games start, but you can do your best to schedule teams you think will be ranked. If you play a tough schedule and win you will get noticed know matter what conference you play in.

I believe TCU will be playing a competitive schedule this year, harder, in my opinion to what they had to do last year, although it's hard to top beating Oklahoma in Norman, Oklahoma!
That being said, I think TCU will be tested this year by several teams.
Texas Tech is a good team, competively speaking and beat TCU soundly last time, in Waco. It will be a rematch of two good teams, I think.
MWC conference games, against Brigham Young and Utah will be tough.
So will, in my opinion games against Colorado State, Wyoming, and New Mexico, and those will 'test' TCU from a competitive standpoint.
Obviously this isn't a Big Ten schedule, but I'm not sure it matters.
MWC football isn't anything to sneeze at. (ah-CHOO!) Gadzundheit.

[Spence]

What one person might view as a 'tough' schedule might not be seen in that context for another person.

That would be true except humans aren't responsible. Strength of schedule is based on you record and your opponents record against their opponents. It isn't subjective. Ohio State played the 5th best schedule this year. They could play the exact same schedule next year and it might be the 30th best schedule. That is why it changes as they play the games.

At the beginning of the year Notre Dame's schedule was the #1 preseason schedule. As the games were played and we foulnd out that Michigan State, Tennessee, Pitt, and Purdue were not very good, their SOS dropped.

Again when I speak of SOS, it isn't me looking at these teams and saying "I'm not impressed with this team or that team", It has to do with performance and that isn't subjective. That is why SOS is a good indicator of how good a team happens to be. That doesn't mean if you play a weak schedule and win you are bad, but you will probably suffer in the polls because of it.

[Jason G]

One of the biggest issues with scheduling is how far in advance it is frequently done. Teams that tried to bolster their non-league schedule a few years in advance could have ended up playing a school like Syracuse or Illinois last year and actually ended up hurting their SOS. Remember it was just a few tears ago both of those teams were in BCS games.
Of course this is a two way street. If you had Penn State, South Florida, or even someone like Kansas on your schedule you may have ended up playing a tougher team than you thought they would be when the contracts were drawn up.

[Spence]

That is true, that is why you try and get your whole conference to schedule tough games. that way there will be some ranked teams. Plus, they better the conference does as a whole the better your schedule is in conference. It isn't just a matter of winning.

[colorado_loves_football]

That would be true except humans aren't responsible. Strength of schedule is based on you record and your opponents record against their opponents. It isn't subjective. Ohio State played the 5th best schedule this year. They could play the exact same schedule next year and it might be the 30th best schedule. That is why it changes as they play the games.

At the beginning of the year Notre Dame's schedule was the #1 preseason schedule. As the games were played and we foulnd out that Michigan State, Tennessee, Pitt, and Purdue were not very good, their SOS dropped.

Again when I speak of SOS, it isn't me looking at these teams and saying "I'm not impressed with this team or that team", It has to do with performance and that isn't subjective. That is why SOS is a good indicator of how good a team happens to be. That doesn't mean if you play a weak schedule and win you are bad, but you will probably suffer in the polls because of it.

Honestly, Spence, SOS is a 'fair' way to measure a team's 'stength' but it's not the only way, as I've already indicated in several postings.
One reason TCU elected to join the Mountain West Conference, believe it or not, was to increase their 'status' with respect to the BCS. There's evidence for that, they were debating about the travel costs associated with playing in a geographically 'inappropriate' conferece vs. staying in one that was competitively 'weaker' than in previous years, and decided to make the move! So, your argument that they play a 'weak' schedule is largely unfounded. Now, whether or not it's a 'championship' schedule is another matter altogether. They likely won't make the BCS championship game playing the #58 schedule. But that shoudn't prevent them from being selected as an 'at large' team to the BCS.
Ranking is so subjective, but they were #14 in the BCS poll. Good enough to be selected next year, thanks to Florida State.
Thats' poetic justice, since the main debate centers on them not playing a team like Florida State. Well, they don't need to if Florida State isn't ranked higher, than #15, TCU is selected! At least this year.
So, I'm not convinced TCU isn't where they belong for now, anyway.
I believe they are geographically more 'appropriate' to the Big XII S. division, competitively-speaking. But unless that happens, they are wher they need to be, so let's drop this debate, about them being weak, they aren't.

[Spence]

So, I'm proud of what TCU accomplished, myself.

You should be proud of what TCU accomplished this year. Winning 10 games in division 1 isn't easy. I never said that TCU didn't have a good year. They had a very good year. This thing all started when you said that they deserved to go to the BCS and I told you why they didn't. To get into the BCS as an at-large you must beat ranked teams and you opponents must beat ranked teams.

If TCU had a team similar to the team they had this year, every year, they would be competitive with any conference. That is obvious. To get into the BCS, though, requires more then that. You must prove how good you are by beating a few ranked teams. You must also prove you can travel well enough to make the bowl want you. The second part isn't fair at all, but the money generated from these bowls fuel the athletic programs for all of these schools so it is a reality.

[colorado_loves_football]

You should be proud of what TCU accomplished this year. Winning 10 games in division 1 isn't easy. I never said that TCU didn't have a good year. They had a very good year. This thing all started when you said that they deserved to go to the BCS and I told you why they didn't. To get into the BCS as an at-large you must beat ranked teams and you opponents must beat ranked teams.

I maintain the position that TCU was competitive this year, and not solely because of their schedule. As I recall they played (and beat) 5 bowl 'eligible' teams. I can list them if you want, Oklahoma, Brigham Young, Utah, Colorado State, and New Mexico. New Mexico was supposed to go to the Ft. Worth Bowl, but Kansas was selected in their place, through competitive play, and dominated Houston.
But even that gives valid evidence as to why TCU was a deserving representative to the BCS, had they been selected.
Iowa State was their opponent, and TCU beat them, in the Houston Bowl.
So, that's 6 teams in total that were bowl-eligible.

[Spence]

Ohio State was bad in 2004. They played better toward the end of the year, but they weren't very good. That is why they ended up in the Alamo Bowl.

[colorado_loves_football]

Ohio State was bad in 2004. They played better toward the end of the year, but they weren't very good. That is why they ended up in the Alamo Bowl.

8-4 isn't a bad year, by anyone's standards, so that sounds like an excuse to me.
That being said, I don't know that Northwestern is necessarily the best way to compare two teams that dont' ever play each other. So, as much as I respect the fact that the Big Ten is competitive, the evidence is insufficient to support your view that TCU is somehow 'inferior'.
They aren't. Not simply because of Northwestern, either, although I find it ironic how they beat them, fairly regularly.
For a fair basis in comparison several factors need to be included.
Among these are SOS, but that's certainly not the only one.
Common opponents are one way, and give probably the best insight into how well a team 'pairs' against another one.
Outside of San Diego State, there really wasnt' a common opponent, but Iowa State does provide some basis in comparison.
Ohio State didn't play Iowa State, but they did play Iowa and won, in Columbus. Iowa State played Iowa in Ames, and beat them, convincingly. This isn't a direct comparison between Iowa State and Ohio State, but there is some agreement, competitively.
Iowa State lost to Nebraska, in OT. Nebraska won the Alamo Bowl.
Nebraska beat Colorado, Iowa State beat Colorado.
Nebraska and Iowa State were comparable in talent & ability and both were 4-4 Big XII. Nebraska's win over Michigan would suggest Iowa State is comparable to Michigan, competitively.
Since TCU beat Iowa St, and Ohio St beat Michigan, that would suggest TCU and Ohio St. are comparable, as well, but barring a pairing, how comparable is as of yet, undetermined.
Suffice to say, that TCU's win over Iowa St. earns them the right to be compared against Big Ten confernece runner-up Michigan as 'superior', based on Iowa St's OT loss to Nebraska.

[Spence]

8-4 is bad by Ohio State standards. In John Coopers last 8 years at Ohio State he went 76-22 with seasons of; 10-1, 9-4, 11-2, 11-1, 10-3, 11-1, 6-6, and 8-4. That got him fired because he lost too many bowl games and too many times to Michigan. Ohio State expects to field top 10 teams almost every year and more importantly they expect to win their bowl games. 8-4 years with a bowl loss doesn't cut it.

Ohio State isn't the only school whose standards are high. A look at the top 10 or 15 programs all time will show you those schools don't tolerate losing either. Not at all. Coaches are only as good as their last game.

[colorado_loves_football]

8-4 is bad by Ohio State standards. In John Coopers last 8 years at Ohio State he went 76-22 with seasons of; 10-1, 9-4, 11-2, 11-1, 10-3, 11-1, 6-6, and 8-4. That got him fired because he lost too many bowl games and too many times to Michigan. Ohio State expects to field top 10 teams almost every year and more importantly they expect to win their bowl games. 8-4 years with a bowl loss doesn't cut it.

Ohio State isn't the only school whose standards are high. A look at the top 10 or 15 programs all time will show you those schools don't tolerate losing either. Not at all. Coaches are only as good as their last game.

I guess it's all relative, what's good for one team, maybe isn't for another, but by most people's opinion, an 8-4 record is good, at least where I live it is. I wasn't aware of John Cooper's record at OSU. It's a lot better than I had expected really, that's a pretty high standard to try to uphold, but if you can do it, more power to you.
I'm not sure what Sonny Lubick's record is at CSU but I'm guessing it's somewhere around 65% wins, give or take. I haven't done an analyis of it, so I don't know for sure but that would be my first guess, and it's probably low. I disagree that a coach is only as good as their last win.
Most coaches are viewed on how they do as a % of their games.
A team is only as good as their last win, however. But a coach I think has a little more leverage than that.

[Spence]

Not if you want to remain at the top. Ohio has very good highschool football and Ohio State recruits nationally as well. Ohio State's athletic program is one of 5 in the natioan that runs in the black and their facilities are second to none. Ohio State gives it's coaches every thing they need to be successful and if they aren't they are gone. Not even the great Woody Hayes was immune from being fired.

[Guest]

8-4 is bad by Ohio State standards. In John Coopers last 8 years at Ohio State he went 76-22 with seasons of; 10-1, 9-4, 11-2, 11-1, 10-3, 11-1, 6-6, and 8-4. That got him fired because he lost too many bowl games and too many times to Michigan. Ohio State expects to field top 10 teams almost every year and more importantly they expect to win their bowl games. 8-4 years with a bowl loss doesn't cut it.

Ohio State isn't the only school whose standards are high. A look at the top 10 or 15 programs all time will show you those schools don't tolerate losing either. Not at all. Coaches are only as good as their last game.

I agree with you on the basis that if a coach can't win consistently they are gone. It's weird, really if you look at TCU's W/L record through the years. Some coaches struggled to win, some won regularly, but on balance, I think TCU was competitive, irrespectively, although I'm sure you'll disagree with that statement.
The years they did the worst, in the '70s coincided with their toughest schedules, as tough as Notre Dame's, competitively-speaking. That being said, they probably weren't up 'to the challenge' of it, which might explain why they play a less-competitive schedule now.
CSU has had a pretty good coach, in Sonny Lubick. CFDW lists him at 101-57 which is somewhere near 65% give or take a percentage point.
That's about where I thought he'd be, so I'm either really smart, or really lucky! So, if they are doing better than that at OSU, that says something about their program in general.

[Spence]

Tressel has won 78% of his games at Ohio State, but his record is only 40-11. He spent most of his head coaching career at 1-AA. I don't know what his W/L percentage was in 1-AA, but has won 5 D-1AA national championships and 1 D-1 national championship.

Ohio State has a .711 winning percentage all time, but they are a lot better since 1942. They really stunk it up early on.

Ohio state was over-rated most years in the 90's under Cooper because they loaded up on cupcakes early and the B-10 as a whole wasn't that good. The B-10 didn't have the speed to compete with the other top conferences. That is why Cooper had such a good record, but always got beat by Michigan and in the bowl games. Coopers teams weren't very well prepared either. Cooper was a world class recruiter though.

65% is a good winning percentage for a coach, but TCU shouldn't let him get comfortable with that, they should put heat on him to do better. Coaches who get to comfortable in their positions tend to coast a little bit.

The key to remaining in the spotlight is keeping the heat on the coach. Look at Fullmer in Tennessee. He has a very good record, but he is feeling the heat for last season. One more year even close to that and he will be looking for a job.

Larry Coker from Miami has so much heat on him he probably climbs in a hot tub to cool off.

Nebraska has been patient for a couple years while Bill Callahan got his players in place, I suspect that they expect the future to be this year. Even the great Joe Paterno was feeling the heat the last couple years at Penn St.

They aren't paying these guys for 8-4 years. They are paying them to win championships.