TCU pretty good in 2010

Pretty good indeed....no one else can say that. And, they are preseason #1 in baseball this year too!

.

Wow...all of this success!

Do you suppose it has anything to do with their horns?



That's one tough hombre...to take on a bunch of Badgers. And win!



.

TCU dominated in the 1930s and 1950s, but experienced three long decades of football mediocrity: from 1960 to 1998, TCU appeared on the AP poll only six times-- four of these in 1984, the year I graduated from the school.

Needless to say, I am very proud of my Frogs, who have come a loooooooong way.

It's a Cinderella story for sure -- not only for the team, but also for yesterday's Rose Bowl Offensive and Defensive MVP's:

School
http://ncaafootball.fanhouse.c...oing-purple-for-tcu/

Offensive MVP
http://msn.foxsports.com/colle...owl-challenge-123110

Defensive MVP
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01...afootball/04tcu.html

I grew up in Fort Worth when TCU was considered a joke. It is terrific seeing them build programs in football and baseball to an amazing level - really amazing considering they have to compete with UT, A&M and OU for players. Great for my hometown, too. Rah rah TCU!

I live in Connecticut now, and look forward to seeing TCU play in person again.

What can you say about Andy Dalton. He's a 100% class act, genuine all the way. If you didn't catch his field interview after the game, here it is.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8Rs4lz5fvE

.

Refreshing!



.

TCU is having a great run. If coach Paterson could have come up with something other than " We won this for the little guys" in his post game interview. And said something like Yeah we sold out the little guys in the MWC to join the Big East so we could have the AQ with the BCS monopoly and not have to face Boise on an yearly basis, would have been novel

quote:

Originally posted by dswann:
TCU is having a great run. If coach Paterson could have come up with something other than " We won this for the little guys" in his post game interview. And said something like Yeah we sold out the little guys in the MWC to join the Big East so we could have the AQ with the BCS monopoly and not have to face Boise on an yearly basis, would have been novel

Novel but not true.

TCU is the little guy. Boise State has about 2.5 the enrollment of TCU. I would guess that TCU is the smallest school in BCS games and probably one of the smallest in all of the bowl games.

TCU understands the way CFB is setup with the BCS and has chosen to follow the path that will help them.

quote:

I would guess that TCU is the smallest school in BCS games and probably one of the smallest in all of the bowl games.

Not a bad guess, but not true. Stanford enrolled 6,940 undergrads in 2009-10, vs 7,600 at TCU.

But dswann is probably talking conferences here. TCU has dominated the MWC just as Boise St. has the WAC. IMHO they're not going to continue this mastery in the Big East. Don't get me wrong, TCU will remain strong-- it's just not likely that they can reload like the big schools do. The Frogs really had a lot of things fall into place for them this year, and Andy Dalton was a big part of that. That's the nature of small school football, you learn to to enjoy it while it lasts.

Congrats to TCU for a great season

.

I agree with spizzle.

.

Ditto. It will be a major challenge for TCU to replace a leader like Andy Dalton and continue to have the success they have had in the last 3 years.

I do have a hard time calling Stanford a small school with an endowment over $10B.

Stanford is not small, they are selective. GED10DaD

Gotta love the added touch to the helmet. The rose in the Horned Frogs mouth.

Wonder if the competition in baseball will be as good in the Big East as the MWC.

quote:

Originally posted by spizzlepop:
[QUOTE]
TCU has dominated the MWC just as Boise St. has the WAC.

Not quite accurate. TCU has 2 or possibly 3 championships in football in MWC. Boise has had about 8 or 9 in the last 10 years.

TCU has been dominant the last 2 years. Both Utah and BYU have done just as well in the conference in the football MWC history. Baseball is a different story.

quote:

Originally posted by trojan-skipper:
Football undefeated and baseball went to Omaha..
Pretty impressive

Pretty good in football, but TCU didn't have the challenges thrown at them week after week to get that undefeated mark, ie, their conference was far from loaded with top 10 teams. TCU being undefeated wouldn't have happened if their team was in the Big 12 or SEC. The grind would have worn them down. That said, I rooted for the Frogs on Sat & have always had a lot of respect for their baseball program!

This comes from a Husker, TCU would have been undefeated in the Big 12 this year.

Exactly which conference is loaded with top 10 teams? The Big 10 has 3 in the current BCS ratings and the 2 that have played already lost their bowl games...one to TCU and the other was blown out. Pac 10 has 2, SEC has 2. The Big 12 has the same number as TCU's conference.

2008=11-2, 2009=12-1, 2010=13-0. In those three years they have wins over Virginia, Clemson, Boise State, Stanford, Oregon State, Baylor and Wisconsin. Since 2005 they are 12-2 against BCS AQ schools.

They have nothing to prove...they have proven it.

Thats comical. None of the power teams in the Big 12 would have taken the the Frogs as a patsy. Other than Baylor, Kansas, & this years Texas, the Frogs would have had their hands full last if they'd been in the Big 12.

quote:

Thats comical.

DITTO

Here is the difference in playing in conf like the SEC vs a conf like TCU plays in. Every single week your playing a team that is good enough to beat you if you dont show up with your A game. Ask Alabama who just beat MSU an 11-1 team 49-7. You have no off weeks. You can not take a week off. And your players do not get a week off. One bad game, one game of not showing up with your best effort and you CAN lose. And then take into account the attrition that the season takes on you. Pounding it out week in and week out. Look at the games Auburn could have lost. How many wars did they have? Almost every week in the SEC it was a war. How many wars did TCU have to fight this year? How many games did they have where less than their A game was still enough to get a win?

TCU is a heck of a team. But if they played in the SEC would they be capable of sustaining the effort week in and week out that it took for them to beat Wisconsin? Would they be able to do that week in and week out without slipping up once or twice along the way? Injuries if they had to play four qtr wars? Dinged up players?

Its not a question of wether or not a team like TCU can beat anyone on any given day? Of course they can. The question is could they go through and entire season of playing multiple games where they will have to bring it every single week to survive and then still beat the caliber of opponent they beat in a bowl game at the end of the year?

Could TCU play USC then Stanford then OSU and then go on the road and beat Arizona? Really? Four weeks in a row playing teams that they would have to bring their A game in order to survive? What we are talking about here is not a fair comparison. Play Ga, LSU, Florida and then go on the road and play Miss State. Contrast that to what Boise and TCU have to do week end and week out. Again I think both of these programs are awesome and I love TCU's program. But its not the same.

One game? No doubt they can play with anyone anyday anytime. For an entire season? No way. Attrition and lack of top tier depth would beat them down.

I can see the argument about level of competition going both ways. You can also argue that playing a lesser schedule makes it harder to win against a really good team, because you are not battle hardened.

I've seen good baseball teams play worse after playing weak competition. Maybe the same isn't true for football because of the physicality of it.

I don't really have an opinion on this one, just putting out a point for someone's target practice.

That's a fair point, Coach May..and I agree. But I don't accept it coming from the monopolistic conferences that say the outsiders, who they won't let in, are not entitled to the results their schedule rewards them with....especially when they won't expand their conference or support a playoff system so those "outsiders" can prove it on the field "week in week out".

Ultimately, this BCS thing is going to get broken up because of the monopoly angle...wait and see.

quote:

Originally posted by Tx-Husker:
That's a fair point, Coach May..and I agree. But I don't accept it coming from the monopolistic conferences that say the outsiders, who they won't let in, are not entitled to the results their schedule rewards them with....especially when they won't expand their conference or support a playoff system so those "outsiders" can prove it on the field "week in week out".

Ultimately, this BCS thing is going to get broken up because of the monopoly angle...wait and see.

EXACTLY. Moreover the big boys will not even schedule a game with the TCU's and Boise's. Look for Mark Cuban to break up the BC$ cartel.

Oh I agree completely. First of all these schools dont want to play a Boise or a TCU non conference because they have nothing to gain from it. They are playing LSU AUBURN GA FLA BAMA MISS ST etc etc they need those cup cake games. But then they say "They don't play anyone." I bet you that TCU and Boise would love to get a couple of those guys to play year in and year out but its not going to happen.

It will be interesting to see what TCU's non conf schedule looks like once they are in a BCS conf. Even though they joined one of if not the weakest BCS conferences there is. But Pitt, WVA, UConn etc should offer them some pretty stiff competition. The true test wont be the first tough conf game they play. It will be the when they have to go on the road after playing a couple in a row previously.

I was pulling for TCU bigtime. They played a great game and have a great team.

quote:

Originally posted by Coach_May:
Oh I agree completely. First of all these schools dont want to play a Boise or a TCU non conference because they have nothing to gain from it. They are playing LSU AUBURN GA FLA BAMA MISS ST etc etc they need those cup cake games. But then they say "They don't play anyone." I bet you that TCU and Boise would love to get a couple of those guys to play year in and year out but its not going to happen.

It will be interesting to see what TCU's non conf schedule looks like once they are in a BCS conf. Even though they joined one of if not the weakest BCS conferences there is. But Pitt, WVA, UConn etc should offer them some pretty stiff competition. The true test wont be the first tough conf game they play. It will be the when they have to go on the road after playing a couple in a row previously.

Your right about the ACC & SEC strenght of schedule. Frankly. I'm surprised the NCAA and the BC$ cartel have not mandated a National Championship deciding game between the ACC & SEC conference champions. And if TCU can get through the ELON's, Weber State and Prysbyterians in non-conference like their fellow BCS bretheran from the ACC they just might do alright.

ACC? Really? Surely you're talking basketball.

Why not just make the SEC championship game also the National Champion in football and the ACC championship game the NC in basketball? Forget everyone else.

ACC? Good conference! However, in football I doubt any conference is at the level of the SEC. ACC would not even be considered #2 by very many.

In fact, I still think the Big 10 is arguably the second best conference in football and if so it's become clear that they are a very distant #2.

I think its clear the SEC is in a league of their own. And I dont think you would find anyone that would say the ACC is even close to being #2. But I do think the league is on the way up.

No mention of the Pac 10(12)? Stanford absolutely dominated VA Tech in the second half tonight...and what if Oregon takes care of Auburn next Monday Night in the National Championship? Just saying....

I thought all year long the PAC 10 was the second best conference this year. With the power teams this year in Oregon and Stanford and the second tier being so strong as well. I just can't put them ahead of the SEC this year. Va Tech won a conference championship in much the same way UConn did. They played in a conference which is simply down right now. FSU is on the rise big time but not back yet. Miami is a shell of who they once were. UNC lost so many players to NCAA violiations and academic fraud its amazing they were as good as they were. Who else in the Big East really was a top tier program this year? No one. So even though Va Tech had a great season and was on a nice run they were the #13 team playing the #4 team in the nation. I would have much rather seen Stanford playing Alabama. Now that would be a game.

Right now I think the PAC 10 is clearly the 2nd best conf in the nation. And if Oregon wins it would def have a case to argue. Now the team with all the pressure on it is Ohio State vs Arkansas imo. They better show up in that one. If not the Big 10 can come sit down with the ACC and the Big East imo.

I'm not trying to put the PAC 10 above the SEC Coach, no doubt SEC is the premier conference in football and baseball right now...I just figured they deserved to be in the conversation. I was a little disappointed tonight prior to the game, as every single ESPN commentator predicted a VA Tech victory...lack of respect for the PAC 10 without USC in the picture.

Personally I was shocked when they all kept picking Tech to win that game.

Coach May I think you hit the nail on the head several times with what you put about college football. I'm a Big East fan and everyone is saying TCU coming in will give the conference more credibility but I'm not buying it. Yes they will help the conference but like you said - let's see how they handle playing better teams.

The talking heads on TV have to know what they say (picking VT over Stanford) has to create controversy trying to create more interest which contributes to more people watching - that's the only thing I can come up with for why they make picks like this.......well another reason is they're incompetent.

This year I would have to say the SEC is the best with the PAC 10 behind them at 2nd but the bottom three conferences are the ACC, Big 10 and Big East. The Big 12 is stuck in the middle.

I got a question though - one of the arguments against a playoff is that the players would miss too much class time. First the majority of the playoff would be over Christmas break when they are already out of class and how many bowl games this year are after the spring semester has started? How many of these players are attending class or sequestered away somewhere preparing for the game?

I wish they would drop the garbage excuses and just say "we don't want to do a playoff because we don't think it will generate as much money as the bowls. It's not about anything except money and we want as much money as we can get because we've created a monster where if we don't get huge payouts then the whole athletic department will be in trouble." I think they're crazy that a playoff won't generate as much money but at least don't blow smoke in my ear.

The issue I don't think is any single game, it's the whole season. Take the SEC for example, or any big conference in general, if you are not two to three deep at the skill positions as well as the linemen, you'll be done after a couple of games. The constant week after week beatings make it tough. The smaller schools may have 1 or 2 decent teams, but on the whole, the rest of the year is much easier.

I agree with some here, why would a school that has nothing to gain, under the current system, play any tougher non-conference schedule than necessary? The current system rewards wins not tough schedules. I can think of some 4 or 5 loss teams that are really top 15 teams, but will never be ranked that way. Theoretically, a team could go 0 -12 and be the 13th best team in the country.

To relate it to baseball; a big school may have 3 good starters, a small school only 1.

quote:

The talking heads on TV have to know what they say (picking VT over Stanford) has to create controversy trying to create more interest which contributes to more people watching - that's the only thing I can come up with for why they make picks like this.......well another reason is they're incompetent.

In this case (and I'm a fan of both teams), I will say they are incompetent.

What an embarrassment (for the ESPN crew).

Lots of interesting perspectives here.

We can argue till doomsday whether or not TCU would have been able to weather an SEC shedule etc etc but for 2010 we will never know. Obviously the college teams change from year to year so even after joining the Big East it will not answer the questions of 2010. However overall I disagree that TCU will be playing tougher teams when they join the Big East. Most of the current Big East teams are former non AQ's that were added to keep the conference together. West Virginia historically is the dominant and most consistant team. Other than them who year in year out is a tougher win than BYU, Utah and Air Force? For football it looks for the most part like a lateral move to me except for the auto BCS bid attached.

On the other hand I agree the MWC schedule was easier this year than the SEC, Pac10, and Big 12. Who knows about the Big 10 because out of conference I cannot remember what anyone would call a big win. Their bowl performance so far has not shown them to be overwhelmingly strong. They beat up each other but this year how good were they really?

Concerning the "anyone can win one game" perspective, that is true. However it is interesting how high the winning percentage is in favor of TCU and Utah in those situations. I think a "big" conference school is just as capable of winning that "one game". Most of these contests happen before conference play so the "big" teams haven't been beat up by the gauntlet yet, or they happen in bowl games when both teams usually have equal time to prepare for the game.

Be that as it may, that is my perspective.

quote:

Most of these contests happen before conference play so the "big" teams haven't been beat up by the gauntlet yet, or they happen in bowl games when both teams usually have equal time to prepare for the game.

Agreed, but motivation plays a huge role in bowl games and sometimes the long layoff hurt too. I've seen many bowl games where the better overall team doesn't win. Some teams are there for the fun and money. As for the early season games, we all know teams will be working on players and performance, that's why they schedule cup cakes early.

TCU,Utah,Boise,Nevada,SDSU,YBU. Would have been, IMO a very good conference. Not the caliber of SEC but certainly equal to the Big 10, Big East and ACC. All who are AQ's. Which translates to bigger T.V $$$, bigger venues, larger recruiting budgets, deeper rosters, etc...

TCU defects for the money, Utah defects for the money, YBU defects for the money. Which essentially kills any conference BCS hopes. That would allow a smaller program like the MWC even the slimmest of chances to become players in the BCS scheme errr system.

Really don't blame the programs for defecting. Good business. But c-mon, Uconn in the Fiesta Bowl stealing a share of 17m. Thats just a sin. Of course the bigger conferences do not want a playoff system in place. For the same reason they will not play the power non AQ schools in non-conference. Nothing to win and everthing to lose.

.

Yul Brenner Unuversity?




.

No. Just a HATER!