NCAA College Football 2010

[Bahku]

Exciting game ... congrats to Auburn. (I'll leave it at that, so as not to get into trouble ).

[Rondo2287]

All the good that came from Stanford's success and running a clean program was washed away with Auburn and Ohio State winning their games.

[Cman]

Exciting game ... congrats to Auburn. (I'll leave it at that, so as not to get into trouble ).

Yeah, I think I'll just ditto that as well.
Well, I have to add a little more.
I'm an Oregon fan (and a Pac-10 fan), and I guess this game was a metaphor of where the two conferences stand.  SEC is a bit better than the Pac-10.  But the difference is much less than many believe...

[Eja117]

Congrats to Auburn for coming in 4th behind TCU, Nevada, and Boise St! Yay!  Sorry. You can't win a ring by just beating the little sisters of the poor.

[KCattheStripe]

No real college football gets played north of the Carolinas.

[Mike-Dub]

Great game... Would have liked to see a different outcome.  College football really needs to clean itself up.

[Eja117]

No real college football gets played north of the Carolinas.

Except at the highest level, where we look down on the rest of the nation from Boston.  Canton Ohio? Puhlease.  If you want to be around the best players that ever played you just gotta organize a Patriots ring cleaning party.

[Roy H.]

So much for the mantra that Mid-Majors will play "anybody, anywhere".  TCU, at the very least, is ducking Wisconsin:

Is a Rose Bowl rematch brewing between Wisconsin and TCU for the 2011 season opener?

It's not going to happen, but both schools were contacted about the idea.

Wisconsin coach Bret Bielema said on a Madison, Wis., sports radio station Wednesday that he was approached about playing host to TCU on Sept. 3.

"I was contacted probably a week, maybe a week and a half after the bowl game about the opportunity to play TCU in our opener," Bielema said on the show. "It was something that was going to be broadcast and made a big deal. It took me all of about point-five seconds to say, 'Yes.' " . . .

"I would definitely love the challenge to play them again," Bielema said on the show. "And really, I thought it would be a great sell with our folks. Unfortunately, TCU wasn't as excited about the matchup."

. . . However, he said his lack of interest in the game had little to do with a lack of excitement at the prospect of playing the Badgers again, but rather that the one-time meeting would not produce a return game in Fort Worth.

"We already have Baylor for our opening game," Del Conte said. "A team supposedly Wisconsin played last year doesn't want to go back there. A third party was shopping the game around to other teams. I have no interest in playing a one-[time] game."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-ntFroiHOA

[ChampKind]

So much for the mantra that Mid-Majors will play "anybody, anywhere".  TCU, at the very least, is ducking Wisconsin:

Is a Rose Bowl rematch brewing between Wisconsin and TCU for the 2011 season opener?

It's not going to happen, but both schools were contacted about the idea.

Wisconsin coach Bret Bielema said on a Madison, Wis., sports radio station Wednesday that he was approached about playing host to TCU on Sept. 3.

"I was contacted probably a week, maybe a week and a half after the bowl game about the opportunity to play TCU in our opener," Bielema said on the show. "It was something that was going to be broadcast and made a big deal. It took me all of about point-five seconds to say, 'Yes.' " . . .

"I would definitely love the challenge to play them again," Bielema said on the show. "And really, I thought it would be a great sell with our folks. Unfortunately, TCU wasn't as excited about the matchup."

. . . However, he said his lack of interest in the game had little to do with a lack of excitement at the prospect of playing the Badgers again, but rather that the one-time meeting would not produce a return game in Fort Worth.

"We already have Baylor for our opening game," Del Conte said. "A team supposedly Wisconsin played last year doesn't want to go back there. A third party was shopping the game around to other teams. I have no interest in playing a one-[time] game."

Eh, I understand it. Although it would have been awesome to see with my season tickets at Camp Randall, a rebuilding TCU doesn't need this game, especially if they don't get the financial benefit of Wisconsin coming back to Fort Worth (in their newly renovated stadium, no less). TCU already accomplished their primary goal by earning their way into a BCS Conference, and next year will just be building towards that. Taking on Wisconsin next year, with no appreciable future benefit, would be like a young team bringing in Allen Iverson at the tail end of his career. It would be a short term boost with more risks than rewards.

Besides, they've already got enough schedule problems with the Mtn West trying to rip their home game with Boise State away.

[Donoghus]

Eh...I think "ducking" is a bit of a strong term here.

I totally understand the hesistency of a school to get involved in something that isn't a home & home.  It sounds to me just from this excerpt, that if Wisconsin would be willing to travel to Fort Worth the year after Madison, then they could have themselves a game here.

Home & homes are pretty common place with non-conference matchups in college football unless some doormat is willing to go to a Top 25 opponent just for the payday.  TCU doesn't seem to fall in that department.

[Fafnir]

Eh...I think "ducking" is a bit of a strong term here.

I totally understand the hesistency of a school to get involved in something that isn't a home & home.  It sounds to me just from this excerpt, that if Wisconsin would be willing to travel to Fort Worth the year after Madison, then they could have themselves a game here.

Home & homes are pretty common place with non-conference matchups in college football unless some doormat is willing to go to a Top 25 opponent just for the payday.  TCU doesn't seem to fall in that department.

Its ducking considering the rheatoric that TCU boosters have been putting out there the past few years. I don't think TCU itself ever put it out there. I understand their reasoning, but this just highlights than Boise/TCU could get tougher games but choose not to play in them because they want "better terms" for themselves.

[Donoghus]

Eh...I think "ducking" is a bit of a strong term here.

I totally understand the hesistency of a school to get involved in something that isn't a home & home.  It sounds to me just from this excerpt, that if Wisconsin would be willing to travel to Fort Worth the year after Madison, then they could have themselves a game here.

Home & homes are pretty common place with non-conference matchups in college football unless some doormat is willing to go to a Top 25 opponent just for the payday.  TCU doesn't seem to fall in that department.

Its ducking considering the rheatoric that TCU boosters have been putting out there the past few years. I don't think TCU itself ever put it out there. I understand their reasoning, but this just highlights than Boise/TCU could get tougher games but choose not to play in them because they want "better terms" for themselves.

True about the booster item

From the school's standpoint, its clearly in their best interests to arrange a home & home with an opponent rather than a one time away game when the program is already Top 25 contending.  Schools that tend to do the one-time road game do it as a money grab for their athletic programs.  Usually these are the smaller programs out there, the D1-AA schools where the money really means something. 

If you're trying to maintain a program or build it exposure, home & home is the way you want to go.  Drawing a team like Wisconsion to Fort Worth would be a coup so I understand the school's relucantance here.

However, on the surface, I can totally understand why people would jump to the idea that schools like Boise & TCU would be ducking bigtime programs.

[Fafnir]

Eh...I think "ducking" is a bit of a strong term here.

I totally understand the hesistency of a school to get involved in something that isn't a home & home.  It sounds to me just from this excerpt, that if Wisconsin would be willing to travel to Fort Worth the year after Madison, then they could have themselves a game here.

Home & homes are pretty common place with non-conference matchups in college football unless some doormat is willing to go to a Top 25 opponent just for the payday.  TCU doesn't seem to fall in that department.

Its ducking considering the rheatoric that TCU boosters have been putting out there the past few years. I don't think TCU itself ever put it out there. I understand their reasoning, but this just highlights than Boise/TCU could get tougher games but choose not to play in them because they want "better terms" for themselves.

True about the booster item

From the school's standpoint, its clearly in their best interests to arrange a home & home with an opponent rather than a one time away game when the program is already Top 25 contending.  Schools that tend to do the one-time road game do it as a money grab for their athletic programs.  Usually these are the smaller programs out there, the D1-AA schools where the money really means something. 

If you're trying to maintain a program or build it exposure, home & home is the way you want to go.  Drawing a team like Wisconsion to Fort Worth would be a coup so I understand the school's relucantance here.

However, on the surface, I can totally understand why people would jump to the idea that schools like Boise & TCU would be ducking bigtime programs.

But is it really just holding the line for home and homes or is that the stance they take to avoid having more than one big non-conference foe?

I'll also add that TCU/Boise do still demand some serious money to play teams, the don't have nearly the booster support that their on field success would lead you to believe.

[Donoghus]

Eh...I think "ducking" is a bit of a strong term here.

I totally understand the hesistency of a school to get involved in something that isn't a home & home.  It sounds to me just from this excerpt, that if Wisconsin would be willing to travel to Fort Worth the year after Madison, then they could have themselves a game here.

Home & homes are pretty common place with non-conference matchups in college football unless some doormat is willing to go to a Top 25 opponent just for the payday.  TCU doesn't seem to fall in that department.

Its ducking considering the rheatoric that TCU boosters have been putting out there the past few years. I don't think TCU itself ever put it out there. I understand their reasoning, but this just highlights than Boise/TCU could get tougher games but choose not to play in them because they want "better terms" for themselves.

True about the booster item

From the school's standpoint, its clearly in their best interests to arrange a home & home with an opponent rather than a one time away game when the program is already Top 25 contending.  Schools that tend to do the one-time road game do it as a money grab for their athletic programs.  Usually these are the smaller programs out there, the D1-AA schools where the money really means something. 

If you're trying to maintain a program or build it exposure, home & home is the way you want to go.  Drawing a team like Wisconsion to Fort Worth would be a coup so I understand the school's relucantance here.

However, on the surface, I can totally understand why people would jump to the idea that schools like Boise & TCU would be ducking bigtime programs.

But is it really just holding the line for home and homes or is that the stance they take to avoid having more than one big non-conference foe?

I'll also add that TCU/Boise do still demand some serious money to play teams, the don't have nearly the booster support that their on field success would lead you to believe.

I have no idea.  Couldn't tell you.  Just going off the quote posted.  That could be the stance.  Its certainly not uncommon in college football to go that route. 

Their programs are big & established to be able to pick & choose to an extent.  They're not Louisiana Tech taking $600,000 to get smoked in Gainesville by 60.  Louisiana Tech and their ilk aren't exactly carrying a lot of leverage while Boise/TCU can.

[Roy H.]

Eh...I think "ducking" is a bit of a strong term here.

I totally understand the hesistency of a school to get involved in something that isn't a home & home.  It sounds to me just from this excerpt, that if Wisconsin would be willing to travel to Fort Worth the year after Madison, then they could have themselves a game here.

Home & homes are pretty common place with non-conference matchups in college football unless some doormat is willing to go to a Top 25 opponent just for the payday.  TCU doesn't seem to fall in that department.

Its ducking considering the rheatoric that TCU boosters have been putting out there the past few years. I don't think TCU itself ever put it out there. I understand their reasoning, but this just highlights than Boise/TCU could get tougher games but choose not to play in them because they want "better terms" for themselves.

Exactly.  That's what I was getting at.  The mantra has been "We play the best schedule that we can, but the big conference teams don't want to play us".  This story shows that the "anyone, anywhere, home or away" rhetoric is just that:  empty rhetoric.

As Champ said, TCU accomplished what it wanted:  to join the big boys.  There's no real incentive for them to go to Wisconsin at this point; all it does is jeopardize their shot at another undefeated season and an automatic high ranking.  However, it does make them look a bit hypocritical, and no different than big conference teams that do stuff like this regularly.