- December 6th, 2009, 6:51 pm
#290282
I understand what you are saying -- but lets assume TCU & Boise where #1 & #2 in the preseason poll rather than, what 14/17 I think in the preseason AP? Play the season out exactly the same way -- there is no way you can make the argument that Alabama and Texas would be ranked 3rd/4th, or anywhere below TCU/Boise. And they shouldn't be. I get the argument "decide on the field" -- and maybe a playoff is the 'fairest' system -- but the best chance for a team like TCU/Boise is the current system and to hope that (like almost happened last night) a Nebraska pulls an upset.
You are correct there is no way to know if I am right...And we likely won't know. This is not the best way to win an argument -- but I would suggest that there is no way the argument can be made that those teams *could* compete for 3-4 weeks in a playoff type system. Perfect example in Ohio (where i'm from) Cincy is ranked above Ohio State. Many people say Ohio State isn't even the best team in the state this year and its not fair to cincy. Having seen the teams in person physically those teams aren't even close -- Ohio State is bigger faster stronger at every position. Now would cincy win if they played? Possibly, but my argument would be if you matched them up 3-4 weeks in a row there is no way Cincy could ever compete. And if you told cincy they had to beat Ohio State, then Alabama, then Texas for a national championship I just don't think they could physically do it. I know these schools are getting better recruits and some of their starting players could play at bigger schools... But there is no way they can match the depth and overall talent over an extended period of time. And I think Patterson was admitting that.
Is he panning for a BCS spot? Possibly...but he doesn't seem like the type of guy that would do that. I don't know...certainly an interesting discussion though. I DO think a plus one system might give smaller schools a better chance than a full 8 or 16 team playoff...and i think that is much more likely to be seen in my lifetime, i think
but who knows.
LUconn wrote:uncafan wrote:The problem is you say this but because it doesn't exist, we can't know if you're right. I don't really want TCU to win the championship necessarily, I would just like to not be left wondering if they could have if it weren't for a preseason poll (you know, the poll before any team has played anybody) determining how things ended.LUconn wrote:I'm crossing my fingers for TCU to leap them. If the voters were smart, it would happen.
oh come on... no way... seriously? I mean absolutely respect the undefeated record... And really respect Patterson... http://sports.espn.go.com/dallas/ncf/ne ... id=4706555 he proved how smart he is with these comments, because, lets face it...The BCS really is the best chance for a team like TCU to win a national championship... NO chance a TCU/Boise St. could run through 3-4 rounds of, say USC/oregon/Ohio State/Alabama/UF for a national championship. Not just because of the physicality -- but just take a look at SEC teams records this year after playing UF/Bama...Even after close games teams got destroyed the next week because those type of games take so much out of you.
A win is a win but TCU has some very unimpressive wins vs. Clemson & Virginia... You think Texas would have had that close of a game with either of those teams? Or UF? Bama? But really Boise St. has a better argument considering the Oregon win... As good as Boise has been....they return an awful lot next year, might be the year that a non-bcs conference team gets it shot in the National Championship.
I understand what you are saying -- but lets assume TCU & Boise where #1 & #2 in the preseason poll rather than, what 14/17 I think in the preseason AP? Play the season out exactly the same way -- there is no way you can make the argument that Alabama and Texas would be ranked 3rd/4th, or anywhere below TCU/Boise. And they shouldn't be. I get the argument "decide on the field" -- and maybe a playoff is the 'fairest' system -- but the best chance for a team like TCU/Boise is the current system and to hope that (like almost happened last night) a Nebraska pulls an upset.
You are correct there is no way to know if I am right...And we likely won't know. This is not the best way to win an argument -- but I would suggest that there is no way the argument can be made that those teams *could* compete for 3-4 weeks in a playoff type system. Perfect example in Ohio (where i'm from) Cincy is ranked above Ohio State. Many people say Ohio State isn't even the best team in the state this year and its not fair to cincy. Having seen the teams in person physically those teams aren't even close -- Ohio State is bigger faster stronger at every position. Now would cincy win if they played? Possibly, but my argument would be if you matched them up 3-4 weeks in a row there is no way Cincy could ever compete. And if you told cincy they had to beat Ohio State, then Alabama, then Texas for a national championship I just don't think they could physically do it. I know these schools are getting better recruits and some of their starting players could play at bigger schools... But there is no way they can match the depth and overall talent over an extended period of time. And I think Patterson was admitting that.
Is he panning for a BCS spot? Possibly...but he doesn't seem like the type of guy that would do that. I don't know...certainly an interesting discussion though. I DO think a plus one system might give smaller schools a better chance than a full 8 or 16 team playoff...and i think that is much more likely to be seen in my lifetime, i think
but who knows.
- By LUGrad2000
- By ballah09