Bleacher Report - Articles by S. Mark Graham

'08 Surprise: TCU Positioned Itself With Strategic Losses

S. Mark Graham — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 22:22:23 -0400

In 2008, TCU was rightfully overshadowed by Utah, a team that went undefeated and finished ranked number two in the AP poll.

This was a major step that all non-BCS schools can be grateful for; it was another battering on the door of the rich house.

But TCU accomplished something that in some respects could be considered even more surprising and perhaps equally advantageous to the have-nots of college football. What was TCU’S groundbreaking accomplishment?

Despite starting the season unranked and suffering from two losses, TCU finished seventh in the final AP poll. No team—not even a squad in one of the big six conferences—has even come close to finishing so high with two losses.

TCU could not have accomplished this without victories over teams that were undefeated and ranked No. 9 at the time.

Those teams were Brigham Young and Boise State. TCU and all college fans owe Boise State and the WAC some gratitude for rearranging things to allow TCU and Boise State to meet in Southern California. Ball State, which turned down an invitation to meet an undefeated Boise State, should learn by Boise's example.

Before the bowls kicked off, most writers had the TCU-Boise State game as one of the top five interesting bowl match-ups

Incredibly, TCU’s two losses to Oklahoma and Utah did almost elevated the Horned Frogs' position just as much as their key victories. Many stars were aligned right for TCU to be able to achieve their high final ranking. There was good timing, luck, and good play of course, but there were also some important events that displayed a change in thinking in the way the voters voted.

In fact, if TCU’s progress was plotted on a chart and compared to similar teams, it would reveal some remarkable aberrations.

TCU was way off the radar when the season started. Four quick victories—including one over Stanford—saw Gary Patterson’s squad jump just inside the Top 25 going into their game against OU in Norman.

TCU got smacked early and a lopsided defeat got them knocked back down to No. 32.

A couple of victories later, they had clawed to No. 27. A big victory over number nine BYU propelled them all the way to No. 15. It was not only the victory over the Cougars that helped boost the Horned Frogs.

By this point, every time TCU was mentioned, the statement “and Oklahoma only scored 35 points against them,” was added. This was a bit generous because OU went on cruise control after their fifth touchdown, knowing full well that the TCU offense could never must a comeback.

In any event, the loss to OU turned into a badge of honor.

A couple of victories and TCU had scratched up to No. 11. There was something unique about this. Some power teams with two losses—such as Ohio State, Georgia, and LSU—could not maintain their position in front of the Horned Frogs. Usually, once mid-majors made it into the top 12, they hit a wall as others jumped over or stacked up in front.

Then came something even more surprising. TCU lost to Utah in the 11th week, but only fell four places. They stayed ranked ahead of some big name schools like Florida State and Michigan State, which also had two losses. This was truly unprecedented and showed a growing respect for both the Frogs and the Utes.

A win in the last game of the regular season bumped TCU right back up to where they were before the loss to Utah and, amazingly, they finished the regular season No. 11 in the BCS standings. If not for Utah and Boise State in front of them, this would have been enough to guarantee the purple a BCS bowl berth.

Finally, TCU’s win over Boise State in the Poinsettia Bowl raised the Frogs to the lofty position of No. 7 in the final AP standings.

Looking at the big picture, we see that TCU’s two losses cost them at most five positions in the final standings. Although TCU’s losses were disappointing to Frog fans, they did very little damage.

As things turned out, TCU may well have benefited from the loss to Utah. After all, there is no knowing if the Horned Frogs would have even played in a BCS bowl had they beaten Utah; much less knowing whether they would have played as well as the Utes. Without a doubt, the Utes finish at No. 2 was good for all non-BCS schools.

However, TCU managing to keep moving up during the season without getting knocked off the radar after a loss or two.

Recruiting in College Football's Middle Ranks

S. Mark Graham — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 02:09:49 -0500

There are 65 “big six” teams, plus Notre Dame, in major college football. This means that any mid-major which can finish in the top 66 can be considered to have had a good recruiting class. Conversely, any “big six” program that finishes anywhere below that figure could be said to have had a down year.

Looking at the rankings for the national recruiting classes (based on Rivals.com's rankings for the last five years), several things stand out.

It is difficult for any mid-major to consistently recruit in the top 66, and almost equally unlikely for teams from the major conferences to continuously have down years.

Here are the mid-majors that have finished on average in the top 66 for the past five years.

Average ranking

1. Southern Miss: 56.6

2. Utah: 58

3. BYU: 63.8

4. Central Florida: 65.2

Noticeably absent from the above list is Boise State, which, despite having the highest winning percentage in Bowl Subdivision Football the past 10 years, has only managed to pull its average recruiting ranking up to 72.

TCU, with an average rank of 68, also just missed out. TCU is the ninth winningest Division I team of the past 10 seasons.

Surprisingly, Troy State Univ. just missed being put on the list. Its average ranking, for a team from a conference considered the weakest in the country and that has yet to put itself in the national spotlight, is a very respectable 68.8.

Tulsa also did not make the list but seems to be on an upward trend in recruiting

Overall, the teams making the list played well the past four years, with BYU and Utah having a combined winning percentage of about 73 percent. Southern Miss, with a winning percentage of 67 percent, is doing well also. However, UCF, with a winning percentage of only slightly over 50 percent, would seem to be underperforming.

Southern Miss and UCF, though, are in a much more competitive conference than the Mountain West couple. Their non-conference schedules are also extremely tough, so this may account partly for their relatively lower performances.

In general the mid-majors had a very good recruiting year in 2009, with the nine teams listed below all making it into the top 66.

UTAH

TCU

BYU

SOUTHERN MISSISSIPPI

TULSA

TROY

HOUSTON

UAB

UCF

Here are the big six teams that have averaged recruiting finishes lower than 66.

1. Cincinnati: 82.4

2. Indiana: 78

3. Vanderbilt: 76.4

4. Connecticut: 75

5. Wake Forest: 70.2

Looking at the above list, Wake Forest and Cincinnati appear to be huge overachievers. Wake has won almost 63 percent of its contests, while the Bearcats have won almost 65 percent. Both teams have undoubtedly benefited from playing in conferences that have been relatively weak the past four years.

It may be a bit of a surprise to not see perennial doormats Duke (59.2), Baylor (59.4), or Northwestern (63.4) on the list of poor recruiters. These three teams consistently recruit in the top 66 and rarely have terrible recruiting classes. The worst showing among them is an 81 ranking by Northwestern in 2006. Baylor has not fallen outside the first 66 at all in the past five years.

Still, these three teams have only won a combined 33 percent of their games over the last four seasons.

Not on the list but definitely on downward trends are Purdue, Louisville, and Syracuse.

South Florida continues on an upward trend, which for the most part began when they started playing Division I football in 2001.

There has been a lot of bleating about whether the Mountain West should get an automatic bid to the BCS and whether or not the automatic bid should be taken away from the Big East. Personally, I think the fewer automatic bids the better. However, if one is considering giving an automatic bid to another conference, then Conference USA would probably be a better choice than the Mountain West.

The Mountain West is top heavy with a large gap between the quality of the big three and the rest of the conference. Furthermore, it is unlikely that Wyoming or the Air Force Academy can ever be competitive against good Division I competition.

Conference USA is a competitive conference from top to bottom and put five teams in the top 66. That is the same number the Big East managed. Conference USA overall plays a very tough non-conference schedule with many games against the Southeastern Conference and the Big 12.

With one school in Florida, three in Texas, and the rest located mostly in the South, the conference has great potential. In addition, the conference has a championship game.

One recruiting year is not going to make or break a team or a conference, but it is clear that Conference USA is on an uptrend and the Big East is on a downtrend.

TCU: No Need To Soul Search; Just Reflect (Part II)

S. Mark Graham — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 21:20:46 -0500

There are several key points that stick out in my mind as to what facilitated TCU's loss to Utah.

First are penalties. This is something that has plagued TCU all year. They have had a lot of pass interference calls and personal fouls on defense.

TCU plays aggressively and since only a few of the personal fouls have been stupid or malicious, I am not really bothered by them very much.

What has been more annoying are the dozens of illegal procedure calls they have had this year, including five last Thursday night. Particularly damaging were two penalties called against TCU on their fourth possession of the game.

Up until that point, in their previous three possessions, TCU had easily driven the ball down the field and had already gained over 200 yards. Those two penalties caused the Frogs to go three-and-out for the first time, gave the Utah defense a breather and a chance to gather itself and get some confidence back.

TCU's offense did not return until the second half, and they never scored again. Those two penalties, more than anything else, changed the complexion of the game.

All these illegal procedures this year seem more like an unlucky anomaly than anything else. Virtually everyone on the line has been guilty including the center who has been called about three times for hesitating with snaps.

Perhaps it is sometimes crowd noise, perhaps stunting and lunging by the defense or maybe it is the pressure of difficult blocking assignments. I am not sure what if anything a coach can do except yell at his players to concentrate.

Field Goals:

Non-Attempts

TCU passed up two opportunities to kick field goals: a possible 53 yarder in the second quarter and a 52 yarder in the third. Ross Evans is 5-of-6 on field goals of 35 yards or longer and 3-of-3 on field goals of 40 yards or longer, including one of 50 yards which he made with room to spare.

One wonders why Gary Patterson passed up an opportunity, particularly in the second period when TCU was leading 10-0, to try a field goal in the high altitude. Patterson has openly stated that Evans has been kicking better from longer distances because he follows through more.

Attempt

In the fourth quarter with just under six minutes to play, TCU elected to try a field goal on fourth and two from the Utah 9-yard line when they had a four-point lead. At this point in the game I don't see the reasoning behind taking a field goal.

TCU had been moving the ball well all night and had only gone three-and-out once (due to penalties as mentioned above). Coach Whittingham could not have expected to have more than one possession from that point on, so it is very unlikely that he would have attempted any field goal even if down by only four.

Regardless of being down by four or seven, he would have had to forgo a field goal and try to score a TD. So what Gary Patterson was essentially trying to do when he elected to attempt a field goal was to ensure at least a tie.

With both teams having trouble punching the ball into the end zone, it is likely that any overtime would have come down to a kicking duel between super kicker Louis Sakoda at home and true freshman Ross Evans on the road.

When TCU decided to go for the field goal they needed only two yards to get a first down. Any failure would have simply turned the ball over at the Ute 9, so I was disappointed in this important tactical decision by Coach Patterson.

Irrespective of the hindsight of knowing that Evans missed the field goal, I don't believe it should have been kicked in the first place. TCU should have gone for the first down and tried to put the game away.

Rushing Attempts (or lack thereof)

Aaron Brown carried the ball 15 times for 106 yards. Andy Dalton carried it six times for 53 yards. Combined, this is more than 7.5 yards a carry and neither Dalton nor Brown ever lost yardage on a carry. ( I am not counting Dalton's four sacks or the one time he just got back to the line of scrimmage after dropping back to pass).

On a night when both were having great success running the ball, they were called on to do so only 21 times out of TCU's 76 plays from scrimmage. Conversely, the Frogs passed the ball 37 times.

This was far more than their average and their second most attempts after the Oklahoma game in which they were playing catchup for 58 minutes. Furthermore, neither Brown nor Dalton ran the ball in the "lost second quarter" during which the Horned Frogs gained only four yards.

This happens far too often in football. Teams have something that is working that they just do not use enough. Then after reviewing the losing game film all they can do is kick themselves in the tail and wonder "why didn't we use that more?"

TCU: No Need to Soul Search After Disappointing Loss, Part I

S. Mark Graham — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 22:44:53 -0500

The TCU Horned Frogs took their best team in the past 50 years into Salt Lake City last Thursday, but being the best just was not enough.

The Utah Utes have to be given credit for playing hard throughout and not giving up even though TCU mostly controlled the line of scrimmage from both sides. For the sake of the Mountain West, I will have to be cheering the Utes on, hoping they can win out, win their bowl game and finish in the top five of the BCS.

If BYU and TCU win their bowl games it should be possible for the Mountain West to finish with three teams in the top twenty-five.

There is good reason for TCU to be disappointed. It was their third time in 10 years to threaten the BCS. Of those three times it was definitely the closest they have come. They lost in their 8th game in '99 against San Jose State and were blown out early due to turnovers against Southern Mississippi in 2003.

This year they managed to hold on for 10 games and 59 minutes before the carriage turned back into a pumpkin.

Still, there is no reason for TCU to be pulling their hair out or wringing their hands in self-doubt. Still less is there reason to even ask how it could have happened.

Yes, TCU played well enough to win, but they also did not play too well to lose. More than TCU's weaknesses being exposed, the shortcomings the Frogs have had stubbornly lingered long enough to haunt TCU to defeat.

TCU's defense must once again be commended for an overall outstanding effort. If a unit can go into Rice-Eccles field and hold the Utes to 13 points that is about all one can ask for.

For sure, the defense allowed a winning 2-minute, eighty-yard drive. Once again though, we must give more credit to the Utes than blame to the Frog defense. The Utes simply kept their cool and played well in the final stretch.

At any other time in the game that drive would have ended with a field goal attempt at the TCU 26. The Utes converted a 4th down though and set themselves up for the winning TD.

Once again for the Frogs, the problems that prevented them from securing victory lay at the feet of the offense. The myriad annoyances, large and small, that have been pestering TCU both in the past two years as well as Gary Patterson's tenure manifestd themsleves in spades and eventually pulled the carpet out from under TCU.

Earlier in my 1st-quarter-of-the-season report, I winged about the TCU offense. However, I have been forced to bite my tongue since as TCU had simply been winning by too large a margin and simply scoring too many points. In fact TCU is on track to score their most points ever.

So who can argue with success?

Gary Patterson is a great coach and he's in line to become the winningest coach in TCU history next year if he stays in Ft. Worth. But there is no mercy for a college football coach.

Coaches that are horrible and have atrocious winning percentages have so many problems with their programs that you can look at them from any angle and see glaring weaknesses. Patterson is a victim of his own success.

For Coach Gary Patterson, the focus has narrowed to the point that the only thing left is intense scrutiny in several areas, mostly regarding offense.

Certainly, as soon as we enter bowl season and heads start to roll among the teams who are not bowling, then Gary Patterson will end up on the short list (probably the bottom of it) of 5 or 6 schools around the country. They will be scrutinizing Gary Patterson's program, his schemes and strategies to try to determine if he can take them up to the next level.

In part two of this report I will focus on Gary Patterson and take a look at the strengths and weakness his prospective employers may see.

Utah-TCU Preview: Turnovers, Special Teams Key to Monumental MWC Matchup

S. Mark Graham — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 15:37:03 -0500

When TCU and Utah square off in Salt Lake City, it will perhaps be the biggest game in Mountain West Conference history. Never before have two teams from the conference met each other so late in the year with both having a legitimate shot at the BCS—Utah for its second time and TCU trying to make its first trip to the big party.

Regardless of the outcome, it would be a win-win situation for either team if the winning opponent could make it to a BCS game. It would bring more prestige and more money to the conference, and it would get the human voters even more used to the idea of non-BCS teams being good enough to make it to a BCS bowl.

Most intriguing—unless you are a Ute fan—would be TCU going to a BCS bowl with one loss. This would actually benefit every non-BCS team and make it that much easier for a one-loss team to make it next time.

It is the camel’s nose under the tent. The flap has to be raised a little at a time so that eventually non-BCS power teams, such as Boise State or BYU, can eventually play in a national championship.

Whatever the outcome, the game should be close and fun to watch. On paper the teams are pretty evenly matched up. Their offenses both have balanced attacks and move the ball about the same number of yards per game, just over 405, while both defenses have been stubborn in giving up yards.

The Horned Frogs, however, have had much more success in preventing opponents from scoring, allowing just over 10 points per game, whereas the Utes are giving up a little over 17 per contest. Meanwhile, each offensive unit is scoring over 36 points per game.

Perhaps because TCU’s defense is so highly regarded and has the stats to merit it, the purple and white are slight favorites according to the oddsmakers. Utah, though ahead of TCU all season in the polls and more recently in the BCS standings, will be a two- to four-point underdog on its own field.

However, with two such evenly matched teams, you have to look to two components to determine the winner: turnovers and special teams. TCU has the edge on turnovers, being plus-15 on the season, while Utah is only plus-one.

Turnovers, however, can be streaky, and even a team with a great plus margin can go into a game and suddenly have all its luck run out. Still, we have to consider that with Andy Dalton playing carefully, TCU should do OK.

Regarding the special teams, we have to give a big nod to Utah. Louie Sakoda is definitely one of the best all-around kickers in the country, if not the best. He has also proven that he performs very well under pressure.

Sakoda should be able to keep the ball out of Aaron Brown’s hands on kickoffs, and since opponents are averaging only 2.5 yards per return on punts, the Horned Frogs cannot expect much there.

In fact, if Jeremy Kerley is not in the game, which seems likely, punt returns could be a big problem for TCU. Last week, with Kerley not making the trip to Las Vegas, TCU fumbled three punts.

They certainly could not have had much time to work on this in the short week, so with Sakoda kicking, about the best strategy for the Frogs would simply be to plan on fair-catching everything.

Kerley’s absence could also present two other problems for the Frogs. He is the holder on field goals and extra points, and he also is the primary element in the direct-snap “Wild Frog” formation. Since they started using the direct snap, TCU’s offense has come alive—it has been the spark to ignite them.

However, if TCU wants to use the direct snap against the Utes, they could have to rely on true freshman Antoine Hicks, who has only touched the ball 17 times in his career. In a tight game on the road, using him could invite a fumble.

So, as mentioned above, although TCU has a large turnover advantage, the absence of Kerley invites turnovers and miscues in three areas: punt returns, field goals/extra points, and the direct snap.

The Frogs do have an excellent punter in Anson Kelton and an equally good field goal kicker in Ross Evans. However, these freshmen are untested and unproven since TCU has yet to really play a tight game against a big opponent. In particular, if it comes down to a game of field goals, I would certainly not bet on TCU’s freshman over Louie Sakoda.

An interesting note in regard to field goals is that there has only been one field goal kicked against TCU all year, and that was in the first game. TCU has gone nine games without having a successful field goal kicked against them.

Finally, there is the weather. If the temperature stays above 35 degrees, I don’t see it being a problem for TCU. However, if the wind is blowing and the chill factor is low, then the boys from Cowtown could have trouble, especially passing the ball. If Mother Nature decides to turn things for the worse, I give the nod to Utah.

Overall, this game is too close to call.

BYU and TCU: Sharing the Same Goals

S. Mark Graham — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 22:58:45 -0400

So far this season just about everything has gone the way the Mountain West needed it. To have three teams in the top 25 at this stage of the campaign is almost more than could be hoped for by the conference.

The only real disappointments are perhaps the poor overall performances of teams such as Washington, UCLA and Michigan. Before the season, these looked like good opponents to have on the schedule but unfortunately, victories over them have not helped BYU or Utah much in poll perception or BCS strength of schedule.

Still, both schools need to keep scheduling opponents such as these—the luck will change.

Before the season began, I thought BYU would lose tonight’s game at TCU in Ft. Worth. However, TCU’s offense has not shown enough spunk and the large BYU following expected at Amon G. Carter Stadium should help propel the Cougars to victory.

Will a victory over TCU and Utah be enough to propel the blue and white into the national championship game? I also wrote before the season in these pages that I thought an undefeated BYU had a decent chance of playing in the title game.

However, with the implosion of UCLA and Washington, any chance they did have has probably been dashed.

Odd things do happen though. In fact, if you look carefully you may see that BYU and TCU are actually fighting for the same two goals tonight—a Mountain West Conference Championship and a spot in a BCS game.

Either BYU or Utah would be virtually guaranteed a spot in a BCS bowl by winning out either of their seasons. Either team would finish no lower than number twelve and that would be enough to ensure an invitation to the big time.

But whoa! What about TCU? What happens if TCU manages to win out its season? Victories over two undefeated teams on national TV would certainly impress the voters. With five games to go, TCU could conceivably jump inside the top 16 in the polls.

From there, the Horned Frog’s strength of schedule would enable it to pretty much hold its position in the BCS rankings.

Now look at the ACC and the Big East. Both of these conferences would need to have at least one team in the top sixteen in order to squeeze TCU out. Certainly if any of the teams in these two conferences with only one loss manages to win the remainder of its games, then it will finish in the top sixteen.

But with two conferences and no dominant team in either, it actually looks like there is a good chance that one conference will fail to meet the requirement. In particular, the ACC might play itself out of the BCS if its top ranked team gets beaten in its conference championship game. Then, Voila! TCU would sneak in the back door when nobody is looking.

If ifs and buts were cherries and nuts we’d all have a Merry Christmas.

Notes

TCU’s special teams have been a big part of their success so far.

True freshman kicker Ross Evans is 35 out of 38 on field goals and extra points with one of the misses being blocked.

250 pound punter Anson Kelton has averaged 42.1 yards on 32 punts with an incredible 19 being downed inside the 20. He has had one blocked and returned for a touchdown.

Aaron Brown has performed well as a kick-off return man with a 29 yard average including a 79 yard return against Oklahoma. Prior to Brown’s return the Sooners had already had one kickoff returned for a touchdown. (Bob Stoops is certainly ruing the fact that he did not see these returns as siren signals for a weakness in his kick-off team. After being scorched by Texas for a TD on a return last Saturday he has finally decided to change personnel on his coverage team.)

On punt returns, Sophomore Jeremy Kerley has made good decisions and returned the ball fairly well for a first-year punt returner. Most importantly, he has not muffed or fumbled any balls and seems quite relaxed at the duty.

Coach Gary Patterson looks quite favorably on walk-ons. Deep kicker Drew Coombs and deep snapper Clint Gresham are both walk-ons who have earned scholarships. In addition there are another four walk-ons on the two-deep roster, three of whom get serious playing time. The most notable are tailbacks Ryan Christian and wide-out Bart Johnson.

Aaron Brown Returns to TCU Horned Frogs

S. Mark Graham — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 19:48:46 -0400

Last week against SMU, the TCU Horned Frogs quietly received a much-needed offensive boost when running back Aaron Brown returned to the field.

Brown had missed the first three games due to violation of university policy. The duration of the disciplinary period had been strangely unclear. Nevertheless, Brown returned to action last Saturday and gained 51 yards on 11 carries with four receptions.

Brown is far and away the most potent offense weapon for TCU, so his absence was sorely felt. In particular, he is TCU's biggest threat for catching balls out of the backfield, an aptitude he has shown since the earliest stages of his career.

Also, after serious knee surgery last year, Joseph Turner, who is TCU's second-best back, carried the ball against SMU 19 times for 67 yards against the Mustangs. TCU has been bringing Turner back slowly. Out of precaution, he had carried only one time the previous week against Stanford because he felt a tweak in his knee during the play.

With Brown and Turner in the backfield, TCU is a much more dangerous team offensively. There is a huge talent gap between these two ball-carriers and their respective replacements, Ryan Christian and Justin Watts.

So now, with either quarterback Andy Dalton or Marcus Jackson at the helm, TCU is truly a running force.

TCU First Quarter Prognosis: Defense Steady, Offense Uninspired

S. Mark Graham — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 22:12:27 -0400

After three games, TCU is performing pretty much like they did last year—lots of great defense, but an offense that is still looking to bust out of the wet paper bag. The Frogs supposedly installed a new style of the spread, but so far it looks only like a more couth version of last year’s sputter.

Mind you, the Frogs are doing great as far as ball control, holding onto the pigskin for more than 36 minutes per game. They have only one turnover while forcing opponents to cough it up 11 times.

But some other numbers speak for themselves. Their longest run from scrimmage is 22 yards, while the longest pass is just 31 yards. Starting quarterback Andy Dalton has not thrown for any TDs. This despite the fact that they have played two teams, Stephen F. Austin and Stanford, who have subpar defenses.

TCU will probably be able to overpower all but three teams left on their schedule: OU, BYU, and Utah.

The TCU defense should keep the OU game close for nearly 45 minutes but will eventually tucker out when the offense is unable to give them any respite or put some wind into their sails. Look for the Sooners to pull away from a fairly close game in the last 20 minutes and win, 31-14.

If TCU’s offense is suffocated against OU, it may convince the TCU staff that they will have to open things up a bit to beat top teams.

TCU’s best performance of the season is likely to come against an undefeated BYU team on Thursday, Oct. 16 in Ft. Worth. The Cougars have beaten the Frogs twice in a row, so expect TCU to be pumped and ready and for the purple and white to realize a mild upset in Ft. Worth.

After that, the Frogs must go to Utah for the second-to-last game of the season. The Utes will be at home and fighting for the conference championship. Both teams will make some big mistakes, but I see Utah pulling it out in front of a boisterous home crowd.

The other most dangerous teams in the Mountain West, Wyoming and Air Force, are teams that TCU should have beaten on the road last year but did not. Texas Christian should be ready to get revenge and be able to dispatch them mercifully early at home in cowtown.

The only other question on the TCU schedule is a rejuvenated UNLV that TCU must face in Las Vegas. TCU has had little trouble with the Rebels in the past, but UNLV could give a complacent TCU team a scare or even upset the Frogs at home in Vegas.

TCU Football: Wide Receiver's College Career Comes to an End

S. Mark Graham — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 17:55:09 -0400

The Ft. Worth Star-Telegram reported on June 19 that TCU's leading returning wide receiver, Donald Massey, has been ruled academically ineligible for this year. Massey, who caught 29 passes for 365 yards in the 2007 campaign, would have been a fifth-year senior in 2008.

It would appear that coach Gary Patterson may have expected this to happen, as he recruited two wideout three-star junior college transfers for the 2008 season, including one recent signee in the last three weeks. Coach Patterson rarely goes the JUCO route for offensive players.

Massey, who was considered one of the fastest—if not the fastest—players on the team, also missed last year's Texas Bowl victory and spring workouts in 2008 due to poor grades.

Although speedy, Massey had a problem with dropped passes and fumbles on kick returns, but seemed to have made progress in the second half of his junior year.

Massey may well be missed most on the punt and kickoff coverage teams, where he was aggressive and fast.