Total composite Top 25

[smilesid]

We slammed you because you believed those schools with their current make up and depth could compete with anyone in the country for conference titles. It took both program several years to recruit the depth they needed to compete. Patterson and Whittingham are both excellent coaches. Nobody believed otherwise. Given equal resources and equal talent they are both doing quite well as expected.

How interesting, someone thinks that the notion that teams should prove their worth, or lack thereof, is "bullshit." Oh, an SEC type, who no doubt believes EVERYONE to be inferior. OK, fair enough.

I disagree with my friend here, but will grant that all of the extra money and resources make it easier to attract talent. The money also allows to pay the coaches more, cutting down the chances of them moving. And yes, one could argue as you did, Hookem. The trouble is that this is an assumption, one popularly perceived, but not proven on the field of play.

My point is now and was then, that the exact same rules apply to all FBS programs. No one, least of all me is suggesting that all FBS teams are equal in talent, but my point stands, the top teams in those "non power" conferences could compete with anyone, then AND now.

Don't believe me? Utah, Boise, and TCU won those big games when they got a chance, they are undefeated as "mid majors" in BCS bowls (well, TCU lost to Boise in 2010, in the snub-them Fiesta Bowl) All three schools earned it on the field, but never could quite convince the know it alls that they could, well, until they did.

I know, the perception is that those teams are inferior, but on the field those non power schools have excellent records when they play an equally good major in a BCS bowl.

 

[4down20]

I disagree, but will grant that all of the extra money and resources make it easier to attract talent. The money also allows to pay the coaches more, cutting down the chances of them moving. And yes, one could argue as you did, Hookem. The trouble is that this is an assumption, one popularly perceived, but not proven on the field of play.

My point is now and was then, that the exact same rules apply to all FBS programs. No one, least of all me is suggesting that all FBS teams are equal in talent, but my point stands, the top teams in those "non power" conferences could compete with anyone, then AND now.

Don't believe me? Utah, Boise, and TCU won those big games when they got a chance, they are undefeated as "mid majors" in BCS bowls (well, TCU lost to Boise in 2010, in the snub-them Fiesta Bowl) All three schools earned it on the field, but never could quite convince the know it alls that they could, well, until they did.

I know, the perception is that those teams are inferior, but on the field those non power schools have excellent records when they play an equally good major in a BCS bowl.

They haven't won shit yet. They are up because the Pac12 is shit right now and so is the Big12.

 

[smilesid]

They haven't won shit yet. They are up because the Pac12 is shit right now and so is the Big12.

I will give you this, 4down, when it comes to shit, you are an expert. You just haven't figured out how bad your own smells.

 

[occupant]

TCU is the best team in the country. I don't know why y'all are surprised

...because Texas.

 

[4down20]

I will give you this, 4down, when it comes to shit, you are an expert. You just haven't figured out how bad your own smells.

TCU lost to Baylor last year and would have lost to WVU if they hadn't put a helmet to helmet on the WVU QB and concussed him.

So far this year they have hardly played anyone of consequence and they are still struggling to put the teams away. Texas Tech they barely beat, KSU they barely beat last week. Minnesota they barely beat, and even SMU was a somewhat close score.

These aren't even top25 teams or in some cases close to it.

FPI rankings of their opponents:

Minn: 62
FCS: N/A
SMU: 107
Texas Tech: 28
Texas: 51
K-State: 31

The majority of their tough schedule is still ahead of them: Baylor, WVU, Oklahoma, Ok St all have top25 FPI ratings right now.

 

[smilesid]

Football is about match ups, 4down. We'll see how Utah & TCU do as the season goes on. I'm no fan of either of these schools, but I'll say this, Big 12 teams can sure put points on the board. How well they'd do in other conferences, we really can't know, since we get so few good inter-conference games in the reg. season, everyone prefers padding records with 2 or 3 cup cake games instead of risking a bad loss that would knock them out of the ratings.

My complaint about you, good buddy, is the same as it always is. I prefer results on the field to SOS, FPI, Poll rankings and most other stats.

My personal opinion, is that when those disrespected teams actually get a chance, more often than not, we get a really good game, I wish we could see more of them. This year, 5 non power five teams are undefeated. Many of them won't have a chance to play top group of 5 schools. We can argue forever whose fault that is, but my point stands, if teams don't play each other, no one knows what the results would be. Here is to more good games.

 

[4down20]

Football is about match ups, 4down. We'll see how Utah & TCU do as the season goes on. I'm no fan of either of these schools, but I'll say this, Big 12 teams can sure put points on the board. How well they'd do in other conferences, we really can't know, since we get so few good inter-conference games in the reg. season, everyone prefers padding records with 2 or 3 cup cake games instead of risking a bad loss that would knock them out of the ratings.

My complaint about you, good buddy, is the same as it always is. I prefer results on the field to SOS, FPI, Poll rankings and most other stats.

My personal opinion, is that when those disrespected teams actually get a chance, more often than not, we get a really good game, I wish we could see more of them. This year, 5 non power five teams are undefeated. Many of them won't have a chance to play top group of 5 schools. We can argue forever whose fault that is, but my point stands, if teams don't play each other, no one knows what the results would be. Here is to more good games.

All you have to do is look at Ole Miss last year to see why playing better teams every week matters. If Ole Miss didn't have to play anyone else after the Alabama game, they could have gone on to win the national championship. Instead, they started losing key players to injuries because they had to play big games, more downs, etc.

That's the difference - depth. It is about matchups but when you don't have the depth to keep matching up over the year - your team is going to fall off.

Boise St and these other teams back then did not have results on the field because they didn't play anyone on the field.

 

[rmilia1]

TCU lost to Baylor last year and would have lost to WVU if they hadn't put a helmet to helmet on the WVU QB and concussed him.

So far this year they have hardly played anyone of consequence and they are still struggling to put the teams away. Texas Tech they barely beat, KSU they barely beat last week. Minnesota they barely beat, and even SMU was a somewhat close score.

These aren't even top25 teams or in some cases close to it.

FPI rankings of their opponents:

Minn: 62
FCS: N/A
SMU: 107
Texas Tech: 28
Texas: 51
K-State: 31

The majority of their tough schedule is still ahead of them: Baylor, WVU, Oklahoma, Ok St all have top25 FPI ratings right now.

While I agree to an extent I hate the constant FPI use. It's one of the biggest if not the biggest outlier of all the computerized rankings. It stinks so to speak. That said tcu shouldn't be first

 

[4down20]

While I agree to an extent I hate the constant FPI use. It's one of the biggest if not the biggest outlier of all the computerized rankings. It stinks so to speak. That said tcu shouldn't be first

FPI is actually kind to Baylor and TCU in this case as they have them #1 and #2 in the FPI. It's flaw is that it has human influence.

FEI I like, but the website isn't as nice/data isn't available as easily.

FOOTBALL OUTSIDERS: Innovative Statistics, Intelligent Analysis | FEI COLLEGE FOOTBALL RATINGS 2015

Team: FPI -> FEI

Minn: 62 -> 63
FCS: N/A
SMU: 107 -> 110
Texas Tech: 28 -> 46
Texas: 51 -> 73
K-State: 31 -> 21

Aside from K-State, the teams all dropped even lower.

 

[smilesid]

Boise St and these other teams back then did not have results on the field because they didn't play anyone on the field.

Your argument is specious (that's a really polite way of saying full of shit) for one main reason, you can't play people that aren't willing to play you, especially as equals. As I said, OOC games are about money, extra home games, and not taking on "trap" matches. Boise went undefeated 4 times, but couldn't hardly get anyone to come to Boise. That is slowly changing, Boise has a number of home and homes scheduled, finally. So far, Boise is doing as well as it's always done, they win a heck of a lot more games than they lose.

And spin it all you want, those non AQ teams won their BCS games a hell of a lot more than they lost them, especially Boise and Utah.

I'll say it again, I want top teams to play top teams in their optional games. Or at least if they want to load up on FBS matches, at least have the courage to travel every so often. But we learned something again this year, when you go and play those good FBS teams in their house, they sometimes win! Imagine that.

 

[4down20]

Your argument is specious (that's a really polite way of saying full of shit) for one main reason, you can't play people that aren't willing to play you, especially as equals. As I said, OOC games are about money, extra home games, and not taking on "trap" matches. Boise went undefeated 4 times, but couldn't hardly get anyone to come to Boise. That is slowly changing, Boise has a number of home and homes scheduled, finally. So far, Boise is doing as well as it's always done, they win a heck of a lot more games than they lose.

And spin it all you want, those non AQ teams won their BCS games a hell of a lot more than they lost them, especially Boise and Utah.

I'll say it again, I want top teams to play top teams in their optional games. Or at least if they want to load up on FBS matches, at least have the courage to travel every so often. But we learned something again this year, when you go and play those good FBS teams in their house, they sometimes win! Imagine that.

You haven't even managed to go undefeated since switching to the Mountain WAC.

 

[4down20]

What are these programmers feeding their computers to get TCU #1?

Some computers aren't very good. They use very limited data and apply terrible philosophy. They do very little or nothing towards schedule strength and don't really get close to being accurate until the end of the year.

For all the shit people want to give me about "projecting" and such - this is what happens when you don't.

 

[smilesid]

You haven't even managed to go undefeated since switching to the Mountain WAC.

Neither has Alabama. Both teams have similar records since the last time either went undefeated, the same year, by the way, 2009 with identical records.

So your argument is, since Boise and Alabama have performed about the same on the field (admittedly Boise had a couple of bad years) we should level criticism at both for not going undefeated?

 

[smilesid]

Some computers aren't very good. They use very limited data and apply terrible philosophy.

I think that he is saying that any computer program that doesn't agree with his notions is bogus.

 

[4down20]

Neither has Alabama. Both teams have similar records since the last time either went undefeated, the same year, by the way, 2009 with identical records.

So your argument is, since Boise and Alabama have performed about the same on the field (admittedly Boise had a couple of bad years) we should level criticism at both for not going undefeated?

@ thinking Alabama and Boise St have performed about the same on the field.

This is why people make fun of Boise St fans.

 

[4down20]

I think that he is saying that any computer program that doesn't agree with his notions is bogus.

Weird, because it seems like I'm saying limited data and limited math makes for bad results.

 

[7Samurai13]

TCU is the best team in the country. I don't know why y'all are surprised

 

[Codaxx]

How interesting, someone thinks that the notion that teams should prove their worth, or lack thereof, is "bullshit." Oh, an SEC type, who no doubt believes EVERYONE to be inferior. OK, fair enough.

I disagree with my friend here, but will grant that all of the extra money and resources make it easier to attract talent. The money also allows to pay the coaches more, cutting down the chances of them moving. And yes, one could argue as you did, Hookem. The trouble is that this is an assumption, one popularly perceived, but not proven on the field of play.

My point is now and was then, that the exact same rules apply to all FBS programs. No one, least of all me is suggesting that all FBS teams are equal in talent, but my point stands, the top teams in those "non power" conferences could compete with anyone, then AND now.

Don't believe me? Utah, Boise, and TCU won those big games when they got a chance, they are undefeated as "mid majors" in BCS bowls (well, TCU lost to Boise in 2010, in the snub-them Fiesta Bowl) All three schools earned it on the field, but never could quite convince the know it alls that they could, well, until they did.

I know, the perception is that those teams are inferior, but on the field those non power schools have excellent records when they play an equally good major in a BCS bowl.

Counterpoint:
2 years prior to Big 12: 24-2
1st 2 years in Big 12: 11-14

2 years prior to Pac: 20-6
1st 2 years: 13-12

seems there was an adjustment period for both.

 

[Rolltide94]

How interesting, someone thinks that the notion that teams should prove their worth, or lack thereof, is "bullshit." Oh, an SEC type, who no doubt believes EVERYONE to be inferior. OK, fair enough.

I disagree with my friend here, but will grant that all of the extra money and resources make it easier to attract talent. The money also allows to pay the coaches more, cutting down the chances of them moving. And yes, one could argue as you did, Hookem. The trouble is that this is an assumption, one popularly perceived, but not proven on the field of play.

My point is now and was then, that the exact same rules apply to all FBS programs. No one, least of all me is suggesting that all FBS teams are equal in talent, but my point stands, the top teams in those "non power" conferences could compete with anyone, then AND now.

Don't believe me? Utah, Boise, and TCU won those big games when they got a chance, they are undefeated as "mid majors" in BCS bowls (well, TCU lost to Boise in 2010, in the snub-them Fiesta Bowl) All three schools earned it on the field, but never could quite convince the know it alls that they could, well, until they did.

I know, the perception is that those teams are inferior, but on the field those non power schools have excellent records when they play an equally good major in a BCS bowl.

Boise is 2-4 in the last decade against ranked opponents. That is not an assumption, it is a fact. So, nice cherry picking for your narrative. You do realize that every P5 conference has 4-6 ranked opponents every season right? So, it seems that you are the one making assumptions, the facts would seem to bear out that, at best, Boise would be a middling team in any P5 conference....which, of course, would make them 'competitive' but probably not in the way you meant it. I don't think anyone on here believes that Boise would be the bottom team in any P5 conference they join, so spare us that argument, but please don't tell me you believe that Boise would be in the hunt for the conference title in any conference they joined, they don't have the depth and would be exposed over the course of a season...much like many P5 teams are now when hit with the injury bug.

I've beaten Boise like a dead horse, but let's look at your other examples.

TCU
2006 - played 1 ranked opponent #24 Texas Tech won 12-3, also beat 4-8 Baylor, lost to Utah & BYU
2007 - played 1 ranked opponent #7 Texas lost 34-13, also beat 3-9 Baylor, lost to 4 mid majors
2008 - played 4 ranked opponents went 2-2, lost 35-10 to Oklahoma, beat 5-7 Stanford in P5 play
2009 - played 3 ranked opponents all from mid-majors went 2-1, won both P5 games Clemson & Virginia
2010 - played 2 ranked opponents Utah and # Wisconsin and won both. Also beat Oregon St and Baylor
2011 - played 1 ranked opponent(Boise) and lost, also lost to unranked Baylor and SMU
2012 - first year in Big 12 play, went 4-5 in conference

I've not even going to bother with Utah, because their record is worse than TCU.

The fact remains that all 3 programs have 1 signature win as mid-major, where they defeated a P5 contender. But the reality is that none of those 3 teams were undefeated. TCU beat Wisconsin, but they had already lost to Michigan St...the same Michigan St that Alabama clubbed like a baby seal in the Citrus Bowl and we were a 3-loss team. Yes, Boise beat Oklahoma, but so did a 3-loss Texas team and 7-6 Oregon.

So, yes, all three programs in their best season, assuming they could avoid injuries, may have contended for a conference title, but the facts are that outside of those 3 season, nothing they accomplished would indicated that they could compete for a conference title, in fact it would indicate otherwise. Shit, even ACC teams wish they could play a dozen ranked opponents in 6 years...or 6 in a decade in Boise's case...LOL

 

[dp_broncos]

Boise is 2-4 in the last decade against ranked opponents. That is not an assumption, it is a fact.

Care to post where you got those "facts"? I can list 5-10 top 25 opponents BSU has beaten in the past decade off the top of my head (3 of them alone in the Fiesta Bowls).

Dumbass

(I looked it up to check my memory. BSU is 9-10 vs top 25 opponents since 2005). Beating:

Oklahoma
Oregon x2
TCU
Virginia tech
Oregon State
Utah
Georgia
Arizona