How does TCU's schedule compare to UC's? Do they have the same amount of wins against ranked opponents?

9/12	@ Virginia	1-0 (0-0)	W 30-14
9/19	Texas State	2-0 (0-0)	W 56-21
9/26	@ Clemson	3-0 (0-0)	W 14-10
10/03	Southern Methodist	4-0 (0-0)	W 39-14
10/10	@ Air Force	5-0 (1-0)	W 20-17
10/17	Colorado State	6-0 (2-0)	W 44-6
10/24	@ No. 16 Brigham Young	7-0 (3-0)	W 38-7
10/31	UNLV	8-0 (4-0)	W 41-0
11/07	@ San Diego State	9-0 (5-0)	W 55-12
11/14	No. 16 Utah	10-0 (6-0)	W 55-28
11/21	@ Wyoming	11-0 (7-0)	W 45-10
11/28	New Mexico	12-0 (8-0)	W 51-10
1/04	vs. No. 6 Boise State	FOX	8:00 P

Sep 7	@Rutgers	Won 47-15
Sep 12	Southeast Missouri State	Won 70-3
Sep 19	@Oregon St.	Won 28-18
Sep 26	Fresno St.	Won 28-20
Oct 3	@Miami (Ohio)	Won 37-13
Oct 15	@South Florida	Won 34-17
Oct 24	Louisville	Won 41-10
Oct 31	@Syracuse	Won 28-7
Nov 7	Connecticut	Won 47-45
Nov 13	West Virginia	Won 24-21
Nov 27	Illinois	Won 49-36
Dec 5	@Pittsburgh	Won 45-4

How does TCU's schedule compare to UC's? Do they have the same amount of wins against ranked opponents?

 

at Virginia W, 30-14

Texas State W, 56-21

at Clemson W, 14-10

SMU W, 39-14

at Air Force W, 20-17

Colorado State W, 44-6

at BYU W, 38-7

UNLV W, 41-0

San Diego State W, 55-12

Utah W, 55-28

at Wyoming W, 45-10

New Mexico W, 51-10

Both teams have about the same resumes, and UC beating a ranked team to end their season, does give them a reason to be rewarded for it. You also act like that Pitt would have won the game if they didn't miss up that snap. Well Pitt still wouldn't have won because of that, it would have went to overtime. Which UC still very well could have won it. Pitt also had the opportunity to not allows UC to go down the field and get that touchdown but they did. Pitt also had the opportunity to not even allow UC to get back in the game after they were up 31 to 10 and yet they did. I mean obviously Pitt's defense then was just bad to, so I guess you can't say they deserved to win then either right? UC deserved to win that game.

 

I mean you seem to be an SEC fan, and we see low scores all the time in the SEC. So I guess should we say that the SEC team that wins that SEC game didn't deserve to win that game, because their offense was awful? Yeah that would be a pretty silly thing to say wouldn't it? Just like what you are saying is.

 

You're missing the point. UC was lucky to have a shot to get back in the game. Can you agree about that? Down 3 scores, you don't come back without some bounces going your way, I don't care who you are or how you try to rationalize it. UC did not look like the 3rd best team in the country yesterday. They struggled some on Offense, and the defense wasn't good, heck they gave up the go ahead TD with over a minute to go. But, yeah let's reward them. Let's let them pass a team (THE ONLY TEAM IN THE TOP 5) that is both top 10 in offense and defense. Makes sense.:ohbrother:

 

As for being an SEC fan, not really. I'm a UK guy, I like Saban and Kiffin, and hate everyone else just about (football wise obviously). I love defensive games, and what you said made no sense. How is having a bad offense the same as being down 21 points in the first half with a BCS berth on the line? Poor reasoning, and absolutely no connection.

 

UC got dominated for much of the game. They made a great comeback, but a team that is going to allow 21 first half points, let alone be down by that many except for the last few seconds of the half deserves to be moved up the rankins about as much as UF does because they played a tough opponent.

BCS Standings
RK	TEAM	RECORD
1	Alabama	13-0
2	Texas	13-0
3	Cincinnati	12-0
4	TCU	12-0
5	Florida	12-1
6	Boise State	13-0

Edited December 7, 200916 yr by Theoldguy

UC got dominated for much of the game. They made a great comeback, but a team that is going to allow 21 first half points, let alone be down by that many except for the last few seconds of the half deserves to be moved up the rankins about as much as UF does because they played a tough opponent.

 

You obviously only watched the last Pitt drive of the 2nd half. UC made phenominal half time adjustments and shut Pitt down for almost the entire 2nd half. The other TD was a direct result of a huge kickoff return that put Pitt deep in UC territory...

You obviously only watched the last Pitt drive of the 2nd half. UC made phenominal half time adjustments and shut Pitt down for almost the entire 2nd half. The other TD was a direct result of a huge kickoff return that put Pitt deep in UC territory...

 

Obviously I didn't? :lol: Where you in EKY with me watching the game? Sure UK-UNC was on in the background, but I watched nearly every second of this game. UC's defense was awful yesterday. I get it. You're a UC guy. Great for you. They were not impressive yesterday in my unbiased opinion, and I wanted UC to win the game because I like BK and Gilyard. Pitt is good, but they are probably not realistically one of the 15 best teams in the country.

Obviously I didn't? :lol: Where you in EKY with me watching the game? Sure UK-UNC was on in the background, but I watched nearly every second of this game. UC's defense was awful yesterday. I get it. You're a UC guy. Great for you. They were not impressive yesterday in my unbiased opinion, and I wanted UC to win the game because I like BK and Gilyard. Pitt is good, but they are probably not realistically one of the 15 best teams in the country.

 

I was on the field, and I watched very closely in the 2nd half as UC made adjustments and shut down what Pitt was having success with in the 1st half and got enough stops to allow the offense to catch up. Before the last drive I believe Pitt had right around 90 yards offense in the 2nd half. Pretty awful huh???

I was on the field, and I watched very closely in the 2nd half as UC made adjustments and shut down what Pitt was having success with in the 1st half and got enough stops to allow the offense to catch up. Before the last drive I believe Pitt had right around 90 yards offense in the 2nd half. Pretty awful huh???

 

What's the excuse for the last drive? A team that wants to play for a championship had better be able to keep a team like Pitt from scoring the go ahead TD with less than 2 minutes left.

 

BK is a good defensive guy IMO, but this defense is probably about average at best. TCU's is not, Bama's is not.

What's the excuse for the last drive? A team that wants to play for a championship had better be able to keep a team like Pitt from scoring the go ahead TD with less than 2 minutes left.

 

BK is a good defensive guy IMO, but this defense is probably about average at best. TCU's is not, Bama's is not.

Baldwin made some huge down and distance catches to keep the ball moving, and in case you didn't notice a 6'5" guy with his size and speed can be pretty tough to defend for anyone. One drive is all you have to fall back on in calling the UC D awful in the last 30 minutes. Was Pitt not playing for a BCS game too???

Baldwin made some huge down and distance catches to keep the ball moving, and in case you didn't notice a 6'5" guy with his size and speed can be pretty tough to defend for anyone. One drive is all you have to fall back on in calling the UC D awful in the last 30 minutes. Was Pitt not playing for a BCS game too???

 

:ohbrother: What I'm saying is that:

-UC's defense was terrible in the 1st half. NO WAY AROUND THAT.

-UC made great half time adjustments, which show great coaching.

-But, when the game was on the line, UC's defense could not get it done.

 

So for one half and the last and most important possession of the game, UC's defense was pretty bad, no matter how you decide to slice it. Was BK giving high-fives at half-time? Was he jumping for joy when Pitt scored that TD? Ask him, I guarantee as a coach he doesn't feel that it was a great defensive effort. They made a great run, but a quality defensive team does not have a first half like that, no matter how bad you want to forget about it.

 

Like I said, I see where you're coming from. But, to act like the defense yesterday was anything short of average is a stretch IMO. I'm not hatin' on UC, I'm just calling it like I saw it. But, truth be told, I'm a defensive guy at heart and giving up 44 points is never going to fly in my book, no matter who is playing....yes, even the U.

You're missing the point. UC was lucky to have a shot to get back in the game. Can you agree about that? Down 3 scores, you don't come back without some bounces going your way, I don't care who you are or how you try to rationalize it. UC did not look like the 3rd best team in the country yesterday. They struggled some on Offense, and the defense wasn't good, heck they gave up the go ahead TD with over a minute to go. But, yeah let's reward them. Let's let them pass a team (THE ONLY TEAM IN THE TOP 5) that is both top 10 in offense and defense. Makes sense.:ohbrother:

 

As for being an SEC fan, not really. I'm a UK guy, I like Saban and Kiffin, and hate everyone else just about (football wise obviously). I love defensive games, and what you said made no sense. How is having a bad offense the same as being down 21 points in the first half with a BCS berth on the line? Poor reasoning, and absolutely no connection.

 

UC got dominated for much of the game. They made a great comeback, but a team that is going to allow 21 first half points, let alone be down by that many except for the last few seconds of the half deserves to be moved up the rankins about as much as UF does because they played a tough opponent.

 

Well lets see having a bad offense like Texas did, made them have to make a last second field goal to win it. If they had a good offense, then they are up at least 21 and not even in that position. Or I guess just any game that is barely won in a low scoring game, the winning team shouldn't be rewarded for having a bad offense. If your going to say something about bad defense, the same can be said with someone with bad offense. Yes bad defense let UC get down in the game, but with the offense they have it allowed them to have a chance to come back. Bad offense is what let Nebraska stay in the game, instead of basically putting Nebraska away. You can say the same thing about either one. Bad offense allows the other team to stay in the game, and could allow a lesser team a chance to win. Just like bad defense could allow a team not as good as you a chance to win. So yeah the connection I brought up was right on.

 

By the way didn't TCU jump UC in the standings during UC's bye week? So going by what you are saying, then everything worked out like it should have. Since TCU probably shouldn't have jumped UC during their bye week then.

By the way Cats, you talk about how its not right to reward teams when other is not even playing. Well what is right about rewarding teams like Texas, Bama, etc. the top spots in the polls while no one has played a game? I mean Texas was no better than any team in the country before the season started, because no game has been played. So why was they rewarded the two spot? Thats not fair for teams like UC, TCU, etc. I mean say UC was rewarded the two spot before the season started, they would be the ones going to the Title game right now. The main reason why Texas is going to the title game, is because they were rewarded a higher ranking before the season than UC without even have to play a game. Now if you want to talk about not fair, that is not fair at all.

^^I disagree here. You don't have to have a great offense to be great as past champions have proved. '02 OSU, both LSU title teams, '06 UF. All great teams have great defense. Texas Tech was an elite offense last season, and it came back to hurt them against an underrated OU defense and SEC Ole Miss. I don't know that there have been many MNC's that do not have an extremely good to great defense. It's cliche' but IMO it has to be the thruth. Offense is not always guaranteed. Could Texas win a game in a shoot-out? Yes, they have. Could Cincy win a game that was a defensive struggle? I think that is yet to be seen.