Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Lastly, TCU plays their first game of the season against Virginia. TCU is suppose to have a monster team this year so I'm interested to see if all the hype is warranted.

I'm in grad school at TCU right now, and I'll tell you the Froggies are pumped up about this season. I'm not a fan (though I do root for them to do well) but I don't think it's going to be much of a matchup against UVA. Any team that loses to a I-AA school is in deep trouble, so I think the only way we find anything out about TCU this week is if they struggle to beat a terrible team with a lame duck coach.

I actually think Ok St. vs. Houston could be a really good matchup. Kevin Sumlin is a great offensive mind down at UH, so they should be able to put up some points on a mediocre (at best) oSu defense. Could be more interesting than people think.
 
If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, does it make a sound?

P-Worm

The scientific answer, perhaps originally intended, is that no, the tree does not make a "sound". It makes sound waves, that without an instrument such as an ear, do not convert to actual sound. The common sense answer, as the question has mostly come to rely on, is that yes, it obviously makes a sound since we know that a tree falling makes noise regardless of whether anyone is around or not. The metaphysical, and perhaps first roughly proposed, answer is that no, the tree does not make a sound if no one is there to witness it falling. And indeed the act of making a sound isn't even a quandary, all that matters is that the tree in fact ceases to exist if no one is there to witness it.

The production of sound requires 3 things: A source, a medium, and a receiver. The source, through vibrations called "compression" and "rarefraction", creates a series of pressure waves that vary in frequency and amplitude. These pressure waves propagate through various mediums including water, air and solids. The receiver collects and converts these pressure waves into electrical impulses. If you remove any of the 3 requirements for sound, there is no sound.

In the vacuum of outer space there is no means of propagation, therefore, no sound. In the absence of a receiver in the woods, the falling tree only produces a series of pressure waves.

If a tree fell in the forest, it would disturb the surrounding air, creating vibrations that the auditory senses are capable of sensing. For the absence of these sound waves, there would have to be an absence of air, in which case the tree would not exist in the first place. It is not the absence of sound that should be considered, but rather the absence of awareness of the sound.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_a_tree_falls_in_a_forest

:D
 
I just realized something funny. The top 3 MWC teams have games against BCS conference opponents left on their schedules, yet the only ranked teams left to play are each other. How's that for ironic.

The University of Utah plays against Oregon from the Pac 10 and Louisville from the Big East, but they aren't ranked.

BYU plays against FSU, but they aren't ranked anymore.

TCU plays against Virginia and Clemson, but neither of them are ranked.

I think that's hilarious.
 
The Big East isn't a real BCS conference, anyway, and the ACC isn't looking to sharp this year, either.

Neither of those conferences have looked very good in quite a while, but none the less they both have automatic BCS bids for their conference champions so you'd expect them to be turning out at least a team or two that can dominate. I don't even think the Big East has a ranked team right now.

SLC
 
Neither of those conferences have looked very good in quite a while, but none the less they both have automatic BCS bids for their conference champions so you'd expect them to be turning out at least a team or two that can dominate. I don't even think the Big East has a ranked team right now.

SLC

Cincy jumped in at #23 in this week's poll after being unranked in the preseason. The ACC had two teams lose to I-AA schools. Terrible.

I think the MWC, WAC and other "small" conferences should get together and have a "bracket buster"-type game. At the end of the year, while the other conferences are having their title games (generally the first Saturday in December), the top two non-BCS teams should play each other. Just think, if last year's #6 Utah team had beaten #9 Boise in December, they would have had an even better argument for being the national champion. That little bump in their BCS number might have even be enough to goose them into the #1 or #2 spot in some years.
 
I think the MWC, WAC and other "small" conferences should get together and have a "bracket buster"-type game. At the end of the year, while the other conferences are having their title games (generally the first Saturday in December), the top two non-BCS teams should play each other. Just think, if last year's #6 Utah team had beaten #9 Boise in December, they would have had an even better argument for being the national champion. That little bump in their BCS number might have even be enough to goose them into the #1 or #2 spot in some years.

That's a very interesting idea, and it's pretty much what the BCS conferences and bowls have done with their arrangement. The "mid-major" conferences could set up some sort of game like that, the only real obstacle is that the NCAA only allows a "playoff" if a conference has 12 or more teams. But there's nothing saying it couldn't happen in the form of a bowl game.
 
Neither of those conferences have looked very good in quite a while, but none the less they both have automatic BCS bids for their conference champions so you'd expect them to be turning out at least a team or two that can dominate. I don't even think the Big East has a ranked team right now.

SLC

I've actually been pondering on this for a while. I'm not sure what is worse: A conference where one team is really good and dominates (see WAC, Boise State), or a conference with parity, like the Big East and ACC. Boise State has won the WAC how many years in a row? I think it's one reason people tend to look down on the conference. They look at the conference and think "yeah, they have one good team, but what about the rest? They stink". The ACC had this problem before Va. Tech, Miami, and BC joined. Florida State won the conference 9 or 10 years in a row, which made everyone have less respect for the rest of the conference. The MWC has fared a little better in this department, with 2-3 teams usually doing well. (Utah and TCU have put together good seasons. BYU has been streaky the past few years).

On the other hand, if you look at the ACC last year, they had a lot of teams all hovering around the 8-4 mark. There were several teams in contention for the Atlantic division all the way to the end of the season. Va. Tech got the first BCS bowl win in years for the ACC. So, there were a lot of decent-good teams, but no great teams to pull ahead of the rest.

I dunno which is worse, but it is something to think about. For me, at least. :)
 
Yes, I know that....I wasn't being technical but general in the sense that the Big East is no more of a conference to warrant an Automatic bid than several others.

It's a holdover from when VA Tech, Miami, and BC were still in the conference. I don't know why they didn't lose it after they all left. Maybe the Orange Bowl kept them in? If this were a newly formed conference, there is no way they would get a BCS berth.

Edit: Hmm, it looks like they aren't tied to the Orange Bowl anymore. (Yes, I know it's from Wikipedia, so take it for what it's worth) Scroll down to the Bowl Affiliations section.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_East_Conference
 
Yes, I know that....I wasn't being technical but general in the sense that the Big East is no more of a conference to warrant an Automatic bid than several others.

My point is that the BCS wasn't put in place because those were the "good" conferences; it was that those four bowls, and the conferences tied into them, put the consortium together. If the Sun Belt had the tie-in to the Orange Bowl, then the Sun Belt would have been a BCS conference.
 
My point is that the BCS wasn't put in place because those were the "good" conferences; it was that those four bowls, and the conferences tied into them, put the consortium together. If the Sun Belt had the tie-in to the Orange Bowl, then the Sun Belt would have been a BCS conference.

As I pointed out in the link above, though, they are no longer tied to the Orange Bowl. With that restriction gone, I really don't see why they keep their BCS slot.

From the article: "The Big East's BCS representative is not tied directly to a specific BCS Bowl. It is selected to a bowl in the same manner as an at-large team. The BCS may choose select a second team to play in another BCS bowl game."

Edit: Another link. Check out the selection on Selection of Teams. It looks like the ACC is locked into the Orange Bowl. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowl_Championship_Series

Also of note: Check out the records of teams in BCS games. USC is 6-1. Oklahoma is 2-5. Wow.
 
Anyone watching this Clemson Georgia Tech game? Clemson is really kicking it into high gear right now. They just scored a monster 53 yard field goal to take the lead.

P-Worm
 
My point is that the BCS wasn't put in place because those were the "good" conferences; it was that those four bowls, and the conferences tied into them, put the consortium together. If the Sun Belt had the tie-in to the Orange Bowl, then the Sun Belt would have been a BCS conference.

No, it was not put in place because of previous tie in's as the Big East had zero affiliation with the Orange Bowl before the BCS system came into existence. The Big East got invited to the BCS party when this system started and signed onto a deal that allowed the Orange Bowl in non-title years to take the ACC/BigEast champs. Thus, they were in fact put into the system because they were looked upon as one of the best conferences in the land....though as someone else said....at this time, Miami/VT were in the discussion with them.

The Sun Belt nor any conference of that nature would ever have gotten a BCS bid no matter who it was tied to.
 
As I pointed out in the link above, though, they are no longer tied to the Orange Bowl. With that restriction gone, I really don't see why they keep their BCS slot.

At the time they were affiliated. See below.

Also of note: Check out the records of teams in BCS games. USC is 6-1. Oklahoma is 2-5. Wow.

Go head, rub it in. :p

No, it was not put in place because of previous tie in's as the Big East had zero affiliation with the Orange Bowl before the BCS system came into existence. The Big East got invited to the BCS party when this system started and signed onto a deal that allowed the Orange Bowl in non-title years to take the ACC/BigEast champs.

Sounds a bit like you're contradicting yourself. Okay, so maybe the agreement came in at the same time as the BCS - but my point still stands.
 
What was the contradiction....and what was your point?

the Big East had zero affiliation with the Orange Bowl before the BCS system came into existence.

The Big East got invited to the BCS party when this system started and signed onto a deal that allowed the Orange Bowl in non-title years to take the ACC/BigEast champs.

It seems that when they got invited to the BCS party, their affiliation was with the Orange bowl.

My point is that without that affiliation, they wouldn't have been a BCS conference.
 
Go head, rub it in. :p

I dunno, it's kind of like the Buffalo Bills of the 90s. Going to those BCS games means Oklahoma has won their conference that many times. (I don't know how many at large bids they have gotten, but I believe most are due to winning the Big 12.) Just getting there is quite an accomplishment. I wish my Bulldogs (NOT Georgia) could get to one. Or, given most of this decade, ANY bowl game. *sigh*

But, hey, at least you're not Notre Dame. They are o'fer(0-3). It makes my heart feel warm. :)
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.