cowtownmike
honorary peso (chingador*)
I done been thru the scruggles.
Posts: 12,467
|
Post by cowtownmike on Dec 1, 2009 15:50:51 GMT -5
to remain at TCU.
It is kind of refreshing to see a guy that likes his job and chooses to stay at it, instead of going somewhere he could actually win a national championship. If TCU can't win a national championship after the great success of this year, they never will win one. I guess it all comes down to what matters most: ultimate success or job security.
Congratulations to TCU and Coach Patterson.
|
|
|
|
Post by The River Assassin on Dec 1, 2009 17:01:33 GMT -5
Interesting
|
|
sully
honorary peso (chingador*)
Posts: 13,045
|
Post by sully on Dec 1, 2009 18:09:45 GMT -5
No shit. Didn't see that one coming.
Where is Stubbs?
|
|
fischer
honorary peso (chingador*)
Posts: 16,271
|
Post by fischer on Dec 1, 2009 19:00:28 GMT -5
Purple drunken stupor.
But...
I bet you this means that TCU is going to make a play to enter into a BCS conference. either that or they are privy to some insider info that the MWC might add a few teams (Boise, etc.) and become an automatic bid team.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ticket Mouse on Dec 1, 2009 19:12:41 GMT -5
I did. Did you really expect him to leave? It's amazing how little people actually know about TCU even though this is their 7th 10-win season since 2000 and will be the 3rd time in 4 years they finished ranked in the top 10. GP is king at TCU and TRULY believes he can win a MNC. If he didn't believe it he wouldn't be able to recruit the players he does and wouldn't be able to coach them up to the level they are. All it takes is a Texas loss and he's in the Game. Cincy won't go, if they win, because the coaches and Harris voters won't put them in front of TCU. They are already in front of TCU in the computers and the value difference between 2 and 3 is insurmoutable for Cincy unless they get to #1 in the computers...which aint gonna happen.
Last year would have been a possibility as well had the beaten OU and Utah. Now last year's team was nowhere near as good as this year's but had they won they would have had a chance to play for the MNC. As it is, they still finished 7th with two losses. It's definately a challenge but that's what GP lives for. It's not the end result that matters so much as the competition. When you live for competition and the opportunity to perform in the clutch against all odds, the end result will take care of itself. GP will forever be known as GPa around these parts. Once he writes his memiors at age 75 he'll call it Going Frogue.
|
|
cowtownmike
honorary peso (chingador*)
I done been thru the scruggles.
Posts: 12,467
|
Post by cowtownmike on Dec 1, 2009 19:18:32 GMT -5
I just don't see how adding Boise would make the MWC into a BCS conference. I mean, they have absolutely nothing but TCU, BYU and occasionally Utah in that conference. No MWC team other than those 3 have EVER been ranked in the top 25. The best way to strengthen the conference would be to cut ties with the bottom feeders.
|
|
cowtownmike
honorary peso (chingador*)
I done been thru the scruggles.
Posts: 12,467
|
Post by cowtownmike on Dec 1, 2009 19:24:12 GMT -5
1. Texas won't lose.
2. With a win against Pitt, Cincy vaults over TCU.
3. IF Texas loses, look for a rematch of Fla/Bama.
Like I said, nothing wrong with GP for wanting t0 stay with the safe and familiar. Some people would rather be the big fish in a small pond, and some want to win a national championship.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ticket Mouse on Dec 1, 2009 19:29:55 GMT -5
Purple drunken stupor. But... I bet you this means that TCU is going to make a play to enter into a BCS conference. either that or they are privy to some insider info that the MWC might add a few teams (Boise, etc.) and become an automatic bid team. That or he thinks they really can win at TCU. Miami did it as an indy and then as a member of the extremely weak Big East. Granted TCU will have more of an uphill battle but it's not impossible as Mike believes. They have a really good group returning and the redshirts this year makes Frog Nation's pants go crazy. He set a goal in 2001 and I don't think he has any intention of not fullfulling that promise. |
|
cowtownmike
honorary peso (chingador*)
I done been thru the scruggles.
Posts: 12,467
|
Post by cowtownmike on Dec 1, 2009 19:47:59 GMT -5
This season proves it is impossible. TCU has had it's dream season. They have done EVERYTHING they possibly could to put themselves in position but it just can't be done. TCU thinking of winning the NC is like the Frisco Roughriders thinking they could win the World Series.
Is it fair? Maybe not, but that is the way the system is setup. Gary Patterson is well aware of this and that is why he is staying. No real pressure and no real competition. Some people are not wired for the big time. GP is fortunate to have realized his level and not try to overreach his abilities.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ticket Mouse on Dec 1, 2009 20:09:16 GMT -5
I just don't see how adding Boise would make the MWC into a BCS conference. I mean, they have absolutely nothing but TCU, BYU and occasionally Utah in that conference. No MWC team other than those 3 have EVER been ranked in the top 25. The best way to strengthen the conference would be to cut ties with the bottom feeders. Well, there aren't going to be any changes until 2012 anyway but if they add DSU and two other teams to make it a 12 team conference then I'd say they have a very good chance of being included into the BCS. If they let the Big East in they have to let the MWC. I think Fresno State would be an obvious addition with the third team being either UTEP, Houston, or SMU. Occasionally Utah? You do realize they've won 4 conference championships in the league's 11 years, don't you? You do realize that they have more non-AQ BCS appearances than anyone else, right? They have twice as many BCS appearances than TCU and BYU combined. Also, AFA has been ranked on occasion and are headed to their 5th bowl in the last 10 years. They finished 9-4 in '07 and 8-5 in '08. Cincy will not jump TCU if they beat Pitt. They are already ahead in the computers and TCU still is in front of them in the BCS standings. There's no way the voters vault Cincy over TCU, especially after Illinois of all teams exposed their weak defense. They have a good offense but their defense is average at best. They've given up an average of 34 points their last 3 games...not exactly a good way to impress the voters at the end of the season. If Texas loses I don't think there will be a 'Bama/FU rematch. Who knows where the computers will go but the best the loser can do is 3rd in the computers. I think the voters are just as fed up with the system as anyone else and there are enough SEC haters to ensure there will not be a rematch. Even if there aren't enough haters I think enough voters will have the sense to not allow a team that didn't win it's conference to play in the championship game. If they do then Saturday's game is essentially meaningless. They didn't allow it a few years ago with Michigan and tOSU and I don't see them doing it now. The loser will drop to 4 or 5. |
|
|
|
Post by The River Assassin on Dec 2, 2009 0:15:13 GMT -5
If Bama were to beat UF in a very close game, it is possible for UF to only drop to 2 in the BCS with their SOS. Not saying it's going to happen, but it is possible.
My thoughts on a playoff, let me know if you agree or disagree.
I think that if there were a playoff, the non BCS teams would actually have a tougher time winning a MNC. Teams like BSU, Utah, TCU, etc. are really good at getting up for one game, but does anyone really think they could carry that over a three or four game playoff. Especially when you figure how shallow their depth chart is compared to BCS teams, one or two key injuries in their first round game would doom them in their next. I'm not saying I don't want a playoff, but I don't think all that much would change. The big conferences would continue to dominate with the small guys pulling an upset in the first round every few years just to get beat down when they have to do it two weeks in a row.
|
|
fischer
honorary peso (chingador*)
Posts: 16,271
|
Post by fischer on Dec 2, 2009 8:20:17 GMT -5
yeah, but the only difference would be that the little guys would quit all their whining.
Also, they would be able to use their ability to win a MNC (in theory it would be possible) to recruit on a level playing field with the big boys.
|
|
sully
honorary peso (chingador*)
Posts: 13,045
|
Post by sully on Dec 2, 2009 11:30:07 GMT -5
TCU will never win a national championship as long as they are in the MWC.
Mark it.
Also, GP could still be gone this year, next year, or any year following if the right offer came along. I like Mike's comments. Maybe he's not the type of risk taker it would take to make it in a big time program. He's comfortable, and afraid to leave the friendly confines of TCU, where he is KING. The Big 12 or SEC or Big 10 for that matter would expose GP for what he really is.
|
|
fischer
honorary peso (chingador*)
Posts: 16,271
|
Post by fischer on Dec 2, 2009 11:36:44 GMT -5
haha, I know what y'all are doing, and I applaud it. But usually you are much more covert.
|
|
cowtownmike
honorary peso (chingador*)
I done been thru the scruggles.
Posts: 12,467
|
Post by cowtownmike on Dec 2, 2009 12:33:16 GMT -5
I was shocked to read this morning of GP's position on a playoff system.
Patterson has said a playoff would be too hard on student-athletes trying to juggle final exams in December with three or four potential playoff games. Plus, Patterson has argued, the player’s bowl experience would be lost in a playoff with teams spending less time at a specific bowl destination.
To me, this lends credence to Finch's theory about mid majors and a playoff system. Much easier for a team to play cupcakes all year, fluke into a national championship game and pull a win out of their ass than to actually earn a championship by competing all years against a strong schedule. Patterson and TCU certainly appear to be favoring the easy way.
Good call, Mr. Finch.
|
|
