Yes they should schedule tougher opponents,but people have to realize alot of these schools will not play fair with these mid majors. They will say we will only play you if you come here and play us in our stadium. OR, they will want to schedule you in a 2 or 3 here and 1 at your place. I can see this applying to some of the schools with really small stadiums but a school like TCU has a 44,000 seat stadium and no school should say that is to small a stadium to play in. Every conference has a small stadium in it, they can't refuse to play them at their stadium or tell them for every 2 games they play at our stadium we will play only 1 at yours. With some of the restrictions these schools want to put on you scheduling them it is really not worth the hassle.

In order to schedule a quality BCS opponent, they have to want to schedule you. Which is most often not the case.

Can I assume from your list that by quality opponents you mean teams that can be counted on to win 7 or more games in a given year? There are probably 25-30 of those (I'm not counting the up-and-down teams like Iowa State, Colorado, Wake Forest, etc). Take a look at their OOC schedules. On average, one quality OOC opponent -- usually another BCS school -- and two or three patsies from the MAC or Sun Belt. Throw in a rivalry game and that's about it. Who's going to schedule a TCU? You aren't the guaranteed win that a ULM or New Mexico St represents, and you don't draw crowds like USC or Arkansas would. There's little incentive for most of the BCS teams to schedule you.

TCU is making an effort -- they have Oklahoma, Texas Tech and Arkansas in future schedules. It just so happened that this year their OOC schedule was weak.

And Gatorguy, whether they deserve it or not, FSU is going to a BCS bowl, and Washington State is in the running for the Rose Bowl if Michigan beats OSU and USC wins out.

arpmany, sbro, you both raise good points. It is very difficult to schedule the top teams fro a mid-major. I was probably setting my standards too high. A game against the "up and down" teams would go a long ways towards helping your OOC schedule. The teams you listed are good examples. Just don't go and schedule Arizona, Baylor, Indiana, Vanderbilt, Duke, or Rutgers and claim you have a BCS schedule.

I know you are all probably tired of hearing of Fresno State, but they do seem to be able to make thier schedule work (sort of). They can help make both our points. In 2004 they will face Washington on the road and Colorado State at home. That leaves them with an open date (Sept. 18) they are looking to fill. There is one other West Coast team still looking to fill a Sept. 18 spot. Pat Hill has contacted them repeatedly to set something up to no avail. That team...USC! >:(

Gumby, didn't Arizona come very close to winning the Pac-Ten several years ago. I think that that really isn't the main point against TCU. If TCU had beaten all those easy teams on their schedule by 2+ touchdowns, I would actually think they deserve a BCS bid. Most (if not all) top 20 teams would beat Arizona by at least 20 points, and beat Louisville at home without needing any last-second luck. Even Ohio St.

I don't know who SC is trying to schedule for next year. They have BYU and Notre Dame already, and will have a very strong team, despite the fact that they tend to start slow. SC's OOC schedule is typically pretty tough -- #1 in the nation last year, and nobody could have foreseen Auburn or Notre Dame being as average as they've turned out to be. So if SC doesn't want to play the Bulldogs, they must have someone else in mind and are trying to work out the logistics.

Gator, You are right Arizona did actually tie for the conf. championship (w/ USC/UCLA) in 1993, and have finished as high as 2nd in 1998. I guess they haven't been all that bad, I just keep thinking of them as "the basketball school' I agree, margin of victory needs to be at least considered, but NOT at the expense of having to drive up the score... but all this may be for naught, as I'm writing this TCU is getting beat soundly by USM 24-6.

It's all academic now. So I guess the question is, which mid-major team(s) will tease us next year?

Hah, well, yeah...

I must be the master of the jinx post.

Humph.

Why don't they just do this to alleviate all the BCS "who can get in and who can't" garbage: Take the top 6 ranked conference champions (counting all "independents" as one conference) instead of 6 specific champions, and then the two highest at-large teams? Wouldn't that take care of problems like this year almost was (had TCU won out, but we can thank the Golden Eagles for making this point moot this year)?

More importantly (and to keep this topic relevant on the realignment board), what impact would this change have on conference realignments for football reasons? Any at all? Would it calm down or pick up?

I'm no fan of the playoff system, but. . .

take the champs of the top 7 conferences and have one at large (so Notre Dame can go when they are 6-5) and let those guys play off during the bowl season.

Oh yeah, my prediction was correct, but points weren't. Take away two major special teams errors and it wasn't even close.

Oh well, TCU is young. Maybe they'll tease us next year.

One more question, how does this affect the TCU / MWC talk?

A team that can't win at So. Miss does not deserve a BCS bowl. If TCU had come back and one, should they have gotten a BCS bowl (I don't think they should of.)



There will be four major teams that may tease us next year- Fresno St., Utah, Miami (Ohio), and Southern Miss. Other good mid-major teams will be Bowling Green, UNLV, Hawaii, Louisville, TCU, and Northern Illinois.

Utah could definitely go undefeated. Urban Meyer is a bona fide coach. They have an OOC schedule with three non-bowl BCS teams (N Carolina; Arizona; Texas A&M; and Utah State) and nearly went undefeated in the MWC this year. As for BCS contention, obviously they have to go undefeated, and even then they would have to start the season ranked. It's too difficult to work your way up through the polls when you start on the outside -- look at Boise State and Miami (OH). Took them about 9-10 weeks to even crack the top 25.

But Utah is a strong team this year and if they can beat Southern Miss, maybe they start out ranked in the #20 range. Then it's doable -- BUT they will still get no love from the computers and SOS.

Miami (OH) will depend on Rothliesberger. He is eligible for the draft and if he decides to go would be the #1 or #2 rated quarterback. That's hard to pass up. However, if he decides to stay, Miami (OH) is certainly ranked coming into the season. Here's the thing: they would have to beat Michigan in the Big House. Of course, if they do, they're a BCS contender right away. The rest of the schedule is Cincinnati, the MAC, and an opponent TBD. With a MAC championship game, a win over Michigan and a 13-0 record, they would have to be considered.

Fresno State will have to figure out how to beat Boise State before they can tease anyone. Decent (but not impressive) OOC schedule with Washington and Colorado State, plus one TBD.

Southern Miss is at Nebraska and at Alabama. No one has any idea how good those two will be, but it is likely neither will be ranked at the time USM plays them. Could be trouble.

The best part about this is that it will likely be some team no one has mentioned...