(02-12-2011 10:01 AM)CatsClaw Wrote:  Wisconsin never made an offer to TCU apparently. It was Wisconsin trying to save face after losing. They were trying to make it seem like the game was a fluke and that TCU was scared of them. Also TCU shouldn't take that one and done offer after having just played Wisconsin.

The offer was made by ESPN. To me, if TCU wanted a better chance to play for the national title this coming year, this game would have given them the opportunity to seriously boost their SOS, which last year was fatally weak.

The offer wasn't necessarily made by ESPN. TCU is beyond having to take one and sones. ANC if Wisconsin struggles next year what then? Good for TCU to stand their ground.

(02-12-2011 10:38 AM)CatsClaw Wrote:  The offer wasn't necessarily made by ESPN. TCU is beyond having to take one and sones. ANC if Wisconsin struggles next year what then? Good for TCU to stand their ground.

Guess we have to agree to disagree on this. I think they blew a real opportunity to make the national title game next year.

I disagree with you too, quo. TCU doesn't have a shot at a national championship next year. They lose some good players to graduation, and will have holes to fill, including QB Andy Dalton. I just don't see the Frogs having a strong enough team to have a chance in the upcoming season. Maybe the following season. But it's hard to break in a new QB and still have a chance to compete for the top...

TCU made a good decision not to take that offer, first of all because TCU already have a game at Baylor scheduled that weekend. TCU has played Baylor in football 100+ times, I would much rather play Baylor because it is a good regional rivalry then play a one and done in Madison. Baylor is one of the few BCS teams that has been willing to come to Fort Worth more than once since Patterson took over, and TCU should live up to their end of the deal and travel to Waco for the 2nd time.

Second, TCU really isn't a national title hunt type of team next year anyways. We will still be good, but not BCS bowl good IMO. I don't think we will win @Boise and the game @ San Diego State or @ Air Force could be really tough as well.

(02-12-2011 11:37 AM)tcufrog86 Wrote:  TCU made a good decision not to take that offer, first of all because TCU already have a game at Baylor scheduled that weekend. TCU has played Baylor in football 100+ times, I would much rather play Baylor because it is a good regional rivalry then play a one and done in Madison. Baylor is one of the few BCS teams that has been willing to come to Fort Worth more than once since Patterson took over, and TCU should live up to their end of the deal and travel to Waco for the 2nd time.

Second, TCU really isn't a national title hunt type of team next year anyways. We will still be good, but not BCS bowl good IMO. I don't think we will win @Boise and the game @ San Diego State or @ Air Force could be really tough as well.

I agree with you it was a good decision by TCU. I think TCU will take a step back next year recordwise and could go 8-4 or 9-3 but they will continue to be good.
The funny thing is that all the BE bashers and BE wannabees that where turn down will point at TCU's record and act like the Big East made a bad deision in adding them

Welcomr aboard, the Big East will be stronger with TCU in 2012 and many of our teams are in an upswing

I don't think TCU having a bad season will have much effect next season. I like WVU's chances, and a few other teams look to be much improved as well. The entire nation seems to forget that almost every BEast team was breaking in a new QB last year. This year is a different story...

(02-12-2011 11:37 AM)tcufrog86 Wrote:  TCU made a good decision not to take that offer, first of all because TCU already have a game at Baylor scheduled that weekend. TCU has played Baylor in football 100+ times, I would much rather play Baylor because it is a good regional rivalry then play a one and done in Madison.

I just don't see the logic in turning down what surely would be a high-profile opportunity for TCU. Nationally, no one cares about a game against Baylor, and it isn't like Baylor won't be around to play the next year.

I'd like USF to get more one-and-dones at places like Wisconsin, like we have this year with Notre Dame. You don't build up your rep by playing soft competition ...

(02-12-2011 12:47 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-12-2011 11:37 AM)tcufrog86 Wrote:  TCU made a good decision not to take that offer, first of all because TCU already have a game at Baylor scheduled that weekend. TCU has played Baylor in football 100+ times, I would much rather play Baylor because it is a good regional rivalry then play a one and done in Madison.

I just don't see the logic in turning down what surely would be a high-profile opportunity for TCU. Nationally, no one cares about a game against Baylor, and it isn't like Baylor won't be around to play the next year.

I'd like USF to get more one-and-dones at places like Wisconsin, like we have this year with Notre Dame. You don't build up your rep by playing soft competition ...

Since 2000 Wisconsin has played @ UNLV 3 times, @ Hawaii 3 times, and @ Fresno State. But they won't play TCU outside of Madison

TCU has 27 bowl appearances, 17 conference titles, 16 top 25 finishes, and appearances in the Cotton, Fiesta, Rose, and Sugar Bowls. We don't need to schedule one off road games with programs like Wisconsin.

Ohio State, Texas, USC, Alabama....those are a different story. I would have been against TCU turning down a 1 off opportunity with any of these teams.

Here's the Moutaineers OOC schedule for the future...

NEW CONFERENCE LINEUP (9 members, 8 conference games, 4 OOC games)

2012: Marshall, FSU, Maryland, TBA
2013: FSU, Maryland, ECU, William & Mary (FCS)
2014: Michigan State, ECU, Maryland, Towson State (FCS)
2015: Michigan State, ECU, Maryland, TBA
2016: BYU, ECU, Maryland, TBA

Now if the conference does decide to go to 10 members, and expand the round robin schedule to include 9 conference games, the Mountaineers schedule is setup pretty nicely for the near future...

NEW CONFERENCE LINEUP (10 members)

2012: Marshall, FSU, Maryland
2013:* FSU, Maryland, ECU
2014:* Michigan State, ECU, Maryland
2015: Michigan State, ECU, Maryland
2016: BYU, ECU, Maryland
*NOTE: WVU would need to drop William & Mary (2013) and Towson State (2014) to accommodate a 9 game conference schedule

If WVU experiences the kind of success Oliver Luck envisioned when he hired Dana Holgorsen, the Mountaineers could become a weekly feature for a national audience...

Here is what TCU has lined up for future years right now.Ticket demand for 2012 is going to be insane with the BE lineup plus Oklahoma and UVA to open up our new stadium.

2012: vs. Oklahoma, vs. Virginia, @ SMU, TBA (possibly Lamar)
2013: vs. SE Louisiana, @ LSU, vs. SMU, TBA
2014: vs. LSU, @ SMU, TBA, TBA
2015: vs. SMU, @ Arkansas
2016: vs. Arkansas, @ SMU

Look at it this way, if The BEast decides to add another team to the conference for the 2012 season, you'll only have 3 games to fill - unless the 10th team is SMU. Then you're in deep doo doo, face first...

(02-12-2011 01:28 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  Look at it this way, if The BEast decides to add another team to the conference for the 2012 season, you'll only have 3 games to fill - unless the 10th team is SMU. Then you're in deep doo doo, face first...

If the BE went to 10 with 9 conference games (assuming SMU is not added) then TCU would effectively only need to find 2 OOC games each year as SMU is pretty much locked in.

I am all for 9 conference games, because we all know OOC scheduling is getting tougher and tougher. Not sure how Schiano would pick up enough wins though without 5 OOC games to schedule.

(02-12-2011 01:31 PM)tcufrog86 Wrote:  Not sure how Schiano would pick up enough wins though without 5 OOC games to schedule.

(02-12-2011 01:10 PM)tcufrog86 Wrote:  TCU has 27 bowl appearances, 17 conference titles, 16 top 25 finishes, and appearances in the Cotton, Fiesta, Rose, and Sugar Bowls. We don't need to schedule one off road games with programs like Wisconsin.

Ohio State, Texas, USC, Alabama....those are a different story. I would have been against TCU turning down a 1 off opportunity with any of these teams.

I'm well aware that TCU has a proud history, but unfortunately, the glory earned from the 1930s - 1950s is ancient history to most.

Like it or not, your program is viewed as a new, up-and-comer, like Boise State, and IMO it behooves you take take games against big powers, and Wisconsin, while not having the history of the true blue-chip elites you mention, is still in that big-power category.

(02-12-2011 02:14 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  I'm well aware that TCU has a proud history, but unfortunately, the glory earned from the 1930s - 1950s is ancient history to most.

Like it or not, your program is viewed as a new, up-and-comer, like Boise State, and IMO it behooves you take take games against big powers, and Wisconsin, while not having the history of the true blue-chip elites you mention, is still in that big-power category.

That's pretty high talk for a South Florida fan. What has your school ever done beside being located in Florida?

You have to remember, he's a young'un. My wife's uncle graduated from TCU in 1938, and he's still kickin'...

There are still a bunch of people who remember that history, and to us it wasn't all that long ago...

(02-12-2011 02:14 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-12-2011 01:10 PM)tcufrog86 Wrote:  TCU has 27 bowl appearances, 17 conference titles, 16 top 25 finishes, and appearances in the Cotton, Fiesta, Rose, and Sugar Bowls. We don't need to schedule one off road games with programs like Wisconsin.

Ohio State, Texas, USC, Alabama....those are a different story. I would have been against TCU turning down a 1 off opportunity with any of these teams.

I'm well aware that TCU has a proud history, but unfortunately, the glory earned from the 1930s - 1950s is ancient history to most.

Like it or not, your program is viewed as a new, up-and-comer, like Boise State, and IMO it behooves you take take games against big powers, and Wisconsin, while not having the history of the true blue-chip elites you mention, is still in that big-power category.

We just beat Wisconsin. How does it help our reputation to play them in our very next game. Wisconsin lost, eff em if they won't come to Fort Worth, it's not like they are Texas.

Sign me up for this game right after Auburn schedules a game in Eugene to open this season.

(02-12-2011 01:42 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(02-12-2011 01:31 PM)tcufrog86 Wrote:  Not sure how Schiano would pick up enough wins though without 5 OOC games to schedule.

I'm laughing even harder cuz its true.

(02-12-2011 06:00 PM)FrogsRKings Wrote:  

(02-12-2011 02:14 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  I'm well aware that TCU has a proud history, but unfortunately, the glory earned from the 1930s - 1950s is ancient history to most.

Like it or not, your program is viewed as a new, up-and-comer, like Boise State, and IMO it behooves you take take games against big powers, and Wisconsin, while not having the history of the true blue-chip elites you mention, is still in that big-power category.

That's pretty high talk for a South Florida fan. What has your school ever done beside being located in Florida?

That's pretty foolish talk coming from anyone, since i never compared USF to TCU, and USF is utterly irrelevant to the point being made.

If it makes you feel better, i'll stipulate that TCU is, with regard to football, in every way clearly superior to USF. But I could be a fan of a Division III school saying the same thing about national perceptions of TCU and the benefits of scheduling Wisconsin and it would be just as valid.