QUOTE(Scarface @ Jun 2 2010, 09:14 PM) [snapback]567464[/snapback]
I can see I'm outnumbered. Some of you guys take TCU's academic reputation very lightly.
TCU's academic reputation is not at issue. I don't see UT's academic rep being besmirched by playing Tech. Or Stanford's with Washington State, etc. Somebody has to be best, and somebody has to be worst. We're not competing with them in College Bowl, nor are we working with them. If the MWC had an academic group like the Big 10 does, the argument would have some validity. But they don't so it doesn't. This is about athletics, and more specifically football. Period.
QUOTE(Scarface @ Jun 2 2010, 09:14 PM) [snapback]567464[/snapback]
Its not like another conference is going to take Boise before the MWC makes a move. If we had a firm criteria from the BCS to auto qualify when we add BSU it would make more sense.
I've seen the criteria, and so has everybody else. So I don't see what the problem is here. Boise gets us a lot closer, plus we have another year of them racking up another potential Top 10 ranking in '10 to help us further.
QUOTE(Scarface @ Jun 2 2010, 09:14 PM) [snapback]567464[/snapback]
I can't believe that the conference would not insist on Boise changing the blue carpet. What about an entrance fee? TCU had to pay one. You guys act like Boise is somebody special.
That the turf is an issue is ridiculous, because its not an issue. Get over it. And how do you know there's no entrance fee? Nobody's mentioned it yet, because there's BEEN NO OFFER YET.
And they've won 2 BCS games, which is 2 more than we have. That qualifies as fairly special.
QUOTE(Scarface @ Jun 2 2010, 09:14 PM) [snapback]567464[/snapback]
Taking Houston in the SWC made more sense and look what happened when that program cycled downward. At least Houston was a ninth member that helped the conference scheduling.
Wha...?