The most prevalent argument in college football the past several years has been that a playoff is needed to determine a champion. While a four-team playoff would be ideal for me, many people don’t even realize that the BCS brought us an Oregon-Auburn title game we previously would not have been privileged to see (Oregon would have been stuck in the Rose Bowl). The game was close, and we were watching the two most deserving teams play for the championship. Unless you ask TCU fans.
When I saw the final polls released Tuesday, I thought it was a joke. TCU was second in both the AP and USA Today poll — ahead of Oregon — and they even earned a few first place votes. I ask how can that be. Do people really think TCU accomplished more than either Auburn or Oregon this season? TCU barely beat Wisconsin in the Rose Bowl — their most notable win — and it was by a close margin, barely different from Oregon’s loss to Auburn.
Oregon ran through everyone in the Pac-10, with their best win coming against a highly-impressive Stanford team. Their body of work was much more impressive than TCU’s, and I would definitely pick Oregon to win in a game between the two. While people cry about the lack of a playoff and how TCU was left out, I ask you a serious question: do you really think the Horned Frogs could have gone undefeated in the Pac-10 or SEC? And even though they beat Wisconsin in the Rose Bowl, do you really think things would have been as easy in the Big Ten? Stick TCU in any of those conferences and they would have lost at least one game. That would have taken them out of the national championship talk and had them grouped with all the other very good teams.
Was TCU a great team that got denied a chance of winning it all, or were they a really good team that took advantage of a favorable schedule? It was definitely the latter, and I can’t understand an argument to the contrary.
