Jump to content
  • entries
  • comments
  • views

A Victory For the Little Guys Everywhere

Goofy Goober



TCU 21, Wisconsin 19

So last night the little Texas Christian University beat the mighty Wisconsin Badgers. The TCU football team didnt just get a win for the TCU football team. It wasnt even a win just for the university.

TCU's win over the BCS Wisconsin team was a win for every non automatic qualifying team who each year gets screwed over.

Think back to last year. To avoid another colossal upset of an automatic qualifying team to a non BCS team, the asshats over in the BCS made undefeated Boise State play undefeated TCU.

This year, with only one non BCS team making a bowl, the people at the BCS had to put TCU against an AQ school. They picked the top one loss team in the country, Wisconsin.

I think TCU's win should cement the fact that the small universities can play and bet the big boys.

Now lets talk about Boise State.

Sure they lost to 19 Nevada. But let us remember this: Nevada is a one loss team that should have been a top ten team. Nevada only one because the Boise State kicker missed two easy field goals that each would have won the game.

Im not saying Boise State should have made one of the BCS bowls. But Im saying that they are still a damn good team and I would still pick them over Oregon and Auburn.

It seems like the people at the BCS agree with me that Boise State was still a threat, regardless of their one loss. So, to avoid further embaressment, the one loss Boise State team was forced to play Utah in a minor, early bowl game.




Recommended Comments

You'd pick Boise State over Oregon or Auburn?

Both Oregon and Auburn played every week against really solid competition. Playing in a conference like the Pac 10 or the SEC, every game its a team that has what it takes to pull off the upset. We're talking about teams like USC, Oregon State, South Carolina, Arkansas, Alabama, and so on.

In terms of ranked opponents, I look at this, ranked when they played them:

Auburn played South Carolina (12th), Arkansas (12th), LSU (6th), Alabama (11th), and South Carolina again (19th)

Oregon played Stanford (9th), USC (24th), Arizona (21st)

Boise State played Virginia Tech (10th), Oregon State (24th), Nevada (19th)

TCU played Oregon State (24th), Utah (5th)

Both TCU and Boise State had impressive seasons, but they all entered the season knowing how the BCS system worked. Obviously Boise State needed to win every game, and they didn't, and TCU was hampered by not playing top-notch competition every week. Its a system that is far from perfect, but I don't see how it is unfair to rank a team like Auburn/Oregon who went undefeated against power-conference competition over TCU who went undefeated against mid-major competition.

To be a non AQ conference school and expect to get an invitation to the national championship in a year where there are two undefeated AQ conference schools, the only way to make it possible is to build a non-conference schedule against nothing but absolute heavyweights. Boise State beating teams like Wyoming and Toledo by 40 points is impressive, but thats not whats going to get them into a championship game.

Link to comment

The Rose Bowl was a great game. Or, rather, the first half was a great game. It slowed down quite a bit in the second half.

I'm sure Wisconsin's kicker was up all night kicking himself for missing that 39-yard field goal.

Link to comment

This if the courts have a say won't matter at all. Publicly funded universities getting automatic bids over other publicly funded universities? It won't stand for long and it shouldn't. The argument over finals/classes is lame. Lower division football has a playoff. Basketball has the tournament. There will be change eventually. TCU moving conferences could get them an AQ bid next year if they have the same success. Auburn is a paper tiger. The same excuses used against other teams barely winning is used to show the "resilience" of Auburn. I hope Oregon demolishes Auburn. I don't like Cam Newton and he is sure to be another Jamarcus Russell that gets his guaranteed money and doesn't give a damn after. We already know he doesn't like to study. At Florida he tried to put his name on some other guy's test. Why? Because he knows his test would fail because he didn't study. He stole a laptop. Why? So he can study and write his term papers? Yeah right, he probably wanted to sell the laptop for money. Cam and his family are all about the money. Any NFL team that invests in him will only be ripped off and deservedly so because Cam Newton is a fraud. Natural talents only take you so far. An NFL QB has to study (Cam won't).

Link to comment

Well, once TCU moves to the Big East, in all likelihood, they will attain the auto-qualifying birth every season (similar to what UCONN attained this year). By no means, though, could TCU or BSU stand up to powerhouse teams like Alabama, LSU, Stanford, or the Sooners (OU) (granted they had a very sluggish season which saw its up and downs), let alone Auburn or Oregon State (and this has no SEC or PAC-10 bias; that's just how it is).

And I found it incredibly hilarious at the womping of the Big-10 yesterday. 0-5 this bowl season... youch.

Link to comment

Boise and TCU need to stop whining. Join a real conference and go undefeated and then you can enter into the conversation. Those teams can hang with anyone, imo, however, they only play 1-2 good teams all year while the other competition plays 5-7.

We (Auburn) had the 4th toughest strength of schedule in the nation. TCU had the 70th.

Link to comment

We (Auburn) had the 4th toughest strength of schedule in the nation. TCU had the 70th.

What was Wisconsin? Now look at the result. Exactly, results are determined on the field and shouldn't be determined by some rigged up software the BCS uses to elevate its choice conferences and teams.

Link to comment

Both TCU and Boise State had impressive seasons, but they all entered the season knowing how the BCS system worked. Obviously Boise State needed to win every game, and they didn't, and TCU was hampered by not playing top-notch competition every week. Its a system that is far from perfect, but I don't see how it is unfair to rank a team like Auburn/Oregon who went undefeated against power-conference competition over TCU who went undefeated against mid-major competition.

Not there choice. They get turned down by top schools because they are too good. Believe it or not that is the truth. Big schools won't sign to play a home and home series against the likes of TCU or B-State. TCU now has the chance to prove themselves. B-State will have to get lucky and be unbeaten and hope others have a loss or two. Bowl games are stupid. A playoff would make regular season games more relevant and prove who the best team is. 8 team playoff I say.

Link to comment


I didnt think Boise State or TCU deserved to be in the national championship game. I think alot would have to go right for TCU to go undefeated playing Auburn or Oregon's schedule, just as alot had to go right for both teams to finish their schedules undefeated.

With Boise State in monster games, all the stats can be thrown away. They have shown time and time again in the one game situation, they can beat any team.

This is not the NBA Playoffs. If Auburn and Boise State played in a 7 Game Series I would pick Auburn to win four of the games.

But, I would pick Boise to beat Oregon and Auburn because they come up big on big stages. Boise has shown they can beat teams better than them because it is football so therefore they are only playing once. Im not saying Boise State is better than either team or deserves to be in the BCS national title game, but they would beat them in one game.


Boise State would accept an invite to the any of the AQ conferences in a second. Not to mention no one will play Boise State on the blue turf.

Link to comment

They come up big on big stages, except against the only other team in their conference apparently. :v

No seriously, did you watch that game? The Boise defense looked absolutely gassed towards the end of it, they'd probably played 4 quarters of football once or twice before that all season. The simple fact is that these teams don't play anyone, which hurts them not only in that we have no idea how good they really are, and thus they don't get the benefit of the doubt in bowl selection, it hurts them on the field as well because they simply don't get challenged enough.

Of course, some of the AQ conferences are jokes as well, the Big East in particular and to a lesser extent the Big 10. I'd probably let Boise into a BCS game sooner than I would a UCONN or Pitt.

Link to comment

Yeah Adrian I watched the game. It just reiterated what I said. Boise State may not be as good as Auburn, but on the biggest stage, they win. The Nevada game was not a big stage. Boise looked like it underestimated Nevada, and they got burned for it.

But no one can hate on Boise State for not playing anyone. No one will agree to play them because they know they will be embaressed.

Then after the season is over we dont get to see how good they are because the BCS always puts them against another non AQ if at all possible.

Ever since Boise State embaressed Oklahoma they havent played a bowl game against an AQ school.

Link to comment

Ever since Boise State embaressed Oklahoma they havent played a bowl game against an AQ school.

The notion that you are implying that Oklahoma was actually a "major power player" at the time of that game is rather ludicrous. Boise State would embarrass any team it played? Uh-huh, sure. Let's break down BSU's season to shed some light on this:

First game off the block, BSU gets paired up with VT, an absolutely thrilling game that anyone who knew anything would agree, college football needs more of these. Alas, I digress. VT, ranked 10 at the time, held out after an absolutely terrible first quarter defensively and almost pulled off the win in the fourth quarter with a 34 yard FG. In the last minute, BSU mustered up its last hurrah and Moore threw it in for 6 to bring the Broncos a 33-30 victory over the Hokies. Now, historically, Virginia Tech has done absolutely awful against AP top 5 teams (0-22 including the loss in away games, 1-26 overall). At that point, Boise State was 4-1 (since 2000) against AP top 10 teams. A better record than some schools can say, but compare it to SEC and PAC-10 teams, it's largely laughable. This is also the same VT team that would then go into next week and lose to JMU 21-16 (who, by the way, is in the FCS). The Hokies had a terrible start and couldn't pull their !@#$ together at all. Take it or leave it, the victory for BSU is wishy washy on its merits of defeating a prime team like VT (VT, from there on out, finally decided to play football and won the rest of their season and are now playing Stanford in the Orange Bowl).

Second game, Wyoming. Cupcake.

Third game, Oregon State. First half was a little sketchy until Moore put it into high gear and pulled away from the Beavers. Oregon State would eventually lead into a 5-7 season with notable losses at Washington, UCLA, Washington State, and nearly to Arizona State (they would win this by a narrow margin of 3 points). How BSU's "surging offense" couldn't effectively wreck a wanting defense like Oregon State is beyond me, but one game in a single season isn't indicative of a team's strength (see: Oregon vs. Cal; 15-13 narrow victory). Nonetheless a 13 point victory suffices quite well and secures a solid lead.

Fourth game, New Mexico State. Cupcake.

Fifth game, Toledo State. Cupcake.

San Jose State. Cupcake. Louisiana Tech. Cupcake. Hawaii. Cupcake (their #1 passing offense was largely thanks to a rather weak schedule and weak WAC conference, save for BSU). Idaho. Cupcake. Fresno State. Cupcake.

And then comes Nevada, which should of, by all means, been a blow out game. Hawaii beat them 27-21, a team that BSU absolutely blew out of the water. Historically (since 2007), BSU has always struggled with Nevada State so there is a bit of history here, but nonetheless it doesn't excuse them from a poorly played game (both teams just let some things fly that shouldn't fly at a higher caliber). A game that should have helped BSU secure a BCS bid was dropped. If you can't win in games like this then no, you can't keep up with teams like Auburn or Oregon who in similar situations managed to get their act in gear and pull away for the win. Good teams play until the end. Great teams play until the end and do whatever it takes to get the victory.

And the rest of the season was, once more, a cupcake for BSU.

Historically BSU is 7-12 against BCS teams (since 1998) (7-4 in bowl games, so keep that in mind). Take it or leave it, they are, admittedly, doing better in the last few years. Likewise, they are also moving from WAC to the MWC, which will give them a little more credit for all of their hard work as the MWC is, by far, stronger than the WAC in many regards.

But these "woulda, coulda, shoulda" is just that: pure speculation. Could BSU have a shot at contending for a SEC or PAC-10 title? Sure, but how can we possibly speculate that when their stats are overly bloated from "filler" and the sorts? We are asking what if, when we should be asking what is, and after this season, BSU didn't deserve a shot at the big national game. Oregon State and Auburn persevered through their rather hardy and hefty schedules (something Alabama surprisingly managed to fail to do, same with Florida State, LSU, and OU). BSU not only had a weaker schedule, they suffered a loss to a weaker opponent, which further emphasizes why, this season, they didn't deserve a shot (not saying they were weak this year, but when you lose to a weaker opponent, sorry, you are going to lose credit). You can't look at it game by game; when it's all said and done, the end result is the season and the season at that. Every team, Auburn and Oregon included, can nitpick each and everyone one of their games and see major flaws (i.e., Auburn's general lack of comprehensive defense being sacrificed for Cam Newton's amazing quaterback abilities).

Further to boot, now what about the "oh boo hoo, the SEC won't schedule with us because they be afraid, boo hoo." You mean like the UGA kick-off game next year to start off the 2011 season, of which the last time these two met Georgia won by a 48-13 margin (2005). Granted BSU is a totally different team (I personally believe BSU didn't show up to play football until around 2007), but the game is there. BSU better show up to play. Now how about scheduling? It seems that many people have no clue about how college football scheduling works. I give you this: http://www.msstate.edu/web/media/detail.php?id=3194

The fact is that these series are planned for well in advance and are quite costly. For instance, BSU were slated to play Mississippi next year (they later switched to Georgia), of which Miss. has to dish out $900,000.00 to BSU just to play the series. Games are all decided about projected revenue and viewership. As for the SEC, it's not that they are "too afraid to play". They have always, by tradition, played eight game conference series (of which are 5 intra-division games), one permanent inter-division game, and the remaining two in the opposite division rotate on and off the schedule. The permanent inter-division opponents are:

Alabama: Tennessee

Arkansas: South Carolina

Auburn: Georgia

Florida: LSU

Kentucky: Miss. State

Ole Miss: Vanderbilt

And some of these game series have been played as far back as 1892. Why keep the tradition? Well, first and foremost, it's a bloody tradition. Second, it generates a crap top of revenue and is largely the reason why the SEC is such a powerhouse of a conference as a whole; teams within the conference are required to play powerhouses like Alabama, LSU, Florida, Ole Miss, South Carolina, and Auburn. Unfortunately this leaves inter-conference play limited for the SEC as they pretty much just stick to their own sandbox; this season they played (I believe) only a handful (two I think) of non-conference games that really mattered (Tennessee played against Oregon and the result wasn't very pretty, 48-13).

As I said before, it's not that they are "too scared", it's because of the revenues the games generate. I quote from http://bleacherreport.com/articles/455195-boise-states-weak-schedule-how-the-bcs-conferences-exclude-the-little-guy (which says it best:

The Cause

What is the answer to the disparity? To find an answer you must first understand the cause of the problem. Money doesn’t grow on trees, it is produced in packed BCS conference football stadiums nearly every Saturday. BCS teams fill their stadium each week even if the opposing team is an FCS or weak FBS caliber team. The home games generate millions of dollars each week for the BCS team. Alabama paid San Jose State $1 million to come play, and even with that price tag still made millions more on the game. Ohio State is paying BCS team Colorado (though Colorado has played worse than many non-BCS teams over the last few years) $1.4 million to come play at the Horseshoe without a return game in Boulder. The bottom line is most of the BCS schools can’t afford to play more than one OOC game away from home each year unless someone like ESPN steps in and pays for a marquee matchup.

Next season, BSU's schedule is definitely infinitely better than this year's schedule.

Opener with Georgia (in Georgia). You got Tulsa who pulled some moved that I didn't expect against Hawaii and if they keep it up, Tulsa should have a pretty good season next year. There will be the rematch with Nevada State. There is the Fresno State game, though I may a little over-optimistic as, historically, Fresno State has a tendency to not show up at all. The best game, of the season though, will definitely be vs. TCU (TCU is slated to be home). Just looking at the 2011 schedule, BSU has a lot of ground it can gain if it holds itself together and has a dominating season.

It all comes down to the money and revenue, however. At least for the SEC, their schedule is arduous as it is, so why schedule another difficult game to run your team down more? It's a hit or miss, a damned if you do damned if you don't scenario. After the Big 10s 0-5 run this year in the bowl season, though, I'd be interested to see if BSU (within the next few years) gets an offer to move to either the Big 10 or even the Big 12 (because we all know both could use a bit of sprucing up of a real team). Granted the Big 12 and the PAC-10 are likely out of the question period because let's face it, BSU only has football, but that still leaves the Big 10.

The bottom line is that it isn't a fear factor, but rather a "why bother" factor. Why lose the chance at making massive revenue by scheduling such a game? All of the hypothetical Team A could definitely beat Team B is just silly and rather stupid though. But, in this season and looking at the results, Oregon and Auburn and TCU are better than BSU because at the end of the day, those three teams have gone undefeated (obviously Oregon or Auburn will take the loss in their national championship), and the record is all that really matters.

Link to comment
TCU is a great team that can play with anyone, however, they just don't have the credentials. You need to be in a tough conference or atleast play more than 2 top 25 teams.

TCU's joining the Big East.

Link to comment


Boise State would accept an invite to the any of the AQ conferences in a second. Not to mention no one will play Boise State on the blue turf.

Actually, Boise State is moving to the Mountain West Conference for the next season, and 3 other of WAC's best football programs over the past few years (Fresno, Nevada, Hawaii) are also moving to the MWC, and the MWC is keeping their fingers crossed that they might somehow get an AQ bid.

I'm not sure if its going to be enough, but we will see, obviously TCU leaving the MWC does not help out on that front. I think realistically that the MWC is going to need a team or two from one of the existing power conference.

Last summer that looked like a possibility while the Big XII was crumbling, but they look to have stablized.

Link to comment

I'm not sure if its going to be enough, but we will see, obviously TCU leaving the MWC does not help out on that front. I think realistically that the MWC is going to need a team or two from one of the existing power conference.

True, but BSU will have a shot at TCU (again) next season in conference play, which should make things interesting.

Link to comment
Add a comment...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Create New...