Revolution - 2011 TCU Football

In a lot of ways, the 2011 Rose Bowl was the end of an era in TCU Football. And I don't just mean that because Andy Dalton is gone. The 21-19 win over Wisconsin was the exclamation point on a statement that Gary Patterson and the Horned Frogs had been making for years. All the wins led to a final proclamation that was made on a national stage against a huge opponent from a super-conference. TCU isn't a fluke. They aren't an outlier. They belong. Period.

And the future also looks bright. In 2012, TCU enters the Big East Conference. It is, probably, the weakest of the BCS conferences. But it still has an automatic bid to a BCS Bowl game, something the Frogs have craved since the system was established. It has a television contract with ESPN, and the bias that comes with being on the East Coast.

But one fact remains - we still have to play the 2011 season. In the Mountain West. Without Andy Dalton.

And it's easy to look back on the Rose Bowl or ahead to the Big East. And when you look at the status of the 2011 season, it's easy to overlook it.

The conference is weaker. Utah and BYU are gone. Boise is in, but the conference moved a game that should've been in Fort Worth to the Smurf Turf. And the home games for the Frogs aren't exactly inspiring - Louisiana Monroe, Portland State, SMU, New Mexico, Colorado State, and UNLV.

We have a new quarterback. Casey Pachall was highly recruited, but he doesn't have the experience (and, from what I've read, the work ethic) of Andy Dalton. It will take time to adjust.

We have a lot of new players all over the place. Four of the five starting offensive linemen will be new. And even though Rose Bowl hero Tank Carder is back, the defense is also initiating new members. For the first time in a while, TCU fans will have to simply "Trust in Gary" that the defense will be good again.

And then there's the first two games of the season. The Frogs start out in Waco against Baylor. TCU has owned the Bears in recent years, but this one feels different. This time Baylor has the hyped QB in Robert Griffin III, who seemed really insulted by TCU in our game last season. It's the first game of his last season, and I'm sure he'll be looking to make a statement. Then we go to Air Force, a place where we've struggled in bad and good years.

There's a good chance that TCU comes home for it's first home game since the Rose Bowl 0-2. Which could set a horrible tone for the whole season.

I'm not really sure what to expect. I could see TCU running the table again. Beat Baylor and Air Force, and the rest of the schedule sets up well. You don't play BYU until late October, and you get Boise in November. If Pachall gets wins in his first two games, he could start building confidence to win the big ones down the stretch.

But I could also see losing four games this season and ending up in some random bowl game. I don't think the team will miss out on a bowl like they did in 2004, but I suppose it's possible.

So it's easy to get hungover from 2010 or look forward to 2012. But the below video helps keep me focused on the task at hand. There are great players on this team, great coaches on the sidelines, and a bright future on the horizon. The schedule isn't crazy, and we have the Rose Bowl trophy in our case. Go out there and keep it up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DfUXt3Mq_Aj8&sa=U&ei=pWVWTsHPDtTF0AGditDLDA&ved=0CBUQtwIwAQ&usg=AFQjCNFUOQtxCt03flys7DuchBYmjVrrMw

Changing the System

I don't usually write about serious issues on here because I don't really consider myself to be an overly serious person. The world is serious enough, and I don't see the need to add to it.

But I work in the financial sector, and it was obviously rocked when the US government decided to fight about the debt ceiling. The country was on the verge of defaulting on its loans, and the government decided to make it (and I'm about to use a really bad word here) political.

America's elected officials weren't working on behalf of the American people. Or even their own constituents. Or the US Constitution. Or even their own morals/ethics/ideas/conscience.

They were working on behalf of their party. And their employment.

And that makes me mad. That politicians don't care about what's good for the country - they care what's good for themselves and their party. They want to keep their job, and they know that they can only keep their job if their party supports them. And to get scratched, they have to do some scratching themselves.

I hate that many politicians get elected and, almost immediately, have to campaign again. It isn't as much about doing something in office as "staying" in office.

And that's where the problem lies, in my opinion. Because I don't think politicians are born evil or corrupt or weak-minded or bullied. I believe the system makes them that way. I believe that if you asked a young man or woman, about to enter politics, whether they would rather have:

a) a short career where they get a lot of positive things done

b) a long career where they get nothing done

that the majority would pick A. I honestly believe that people that want to serve the people come into it wanting to do good. And that, when they get there, they're quickly squashed, crushed, or changed.

So I suggest this: take re-elections away. Completely.

The US president currently gets a four-year term with one chance at re-election. So, basically, the president can either get four years or eight years. I say split the difference and give the office one six-year term. There is no chance of re-election for the president or vice president. He or she gets six years and then is done.

In Congress, I want to implement a similar plan. I don't know if the term length would need to be amended (up or down), but it would be the same principle. One term. No chance at re-election.

Basically, the system would encourage turnover...encourage new ideas...and discourage stagnation. No one could get comfortable, and no one would have to worry about running (or even participating in) a re-election campaign. A politician and his staff would have a definite amount of time to get things done, and there would be very little to distract them.

I'm not entirely certain what the consequences would be, but I can guess:

1. I think more honest people would show up in Washington, and I think more honest people would stay there. As I said, I believe most politicians come into the game wanting to do good. This would, in theory, allow them to do this without a lot of the extra worries.

2. It wounds the political parties. It won't kill them because they're immortal, but it takes away that voice in the politician's ear. Congressman vote on issues because the party tells them to. If the Congressman doesn't listen to the party, he is taken off the next ballot. So, to keep his job, the Congressman has to listen. If there's no chance of being on the next ballot, the Congressman should be, in theory, able to vote whichever way he thinks does the most good.

3. It keeps ideas fresh. You're probably going to have a group of young and idealistic people running the country. No more 80-year-old Senators who have been doing the job for a half a century and don't care anymore. And every election will be someone new with fresh ideas running against someone similar. Are there enough people in the country that want to be politicians to support a system with so much turnover? I believe there are.

4. Why do I believe that? Because I think my system would help heal the American perspective on the word "politics." Ashley and I had a long discussion about this, and we disagree on the severity of any potential change that this could bring. But we agree that a lot of intelligent people have given up on politics. And that, if you fix the system, those people could come back. Intelligent discussion outside of Washington could begin.

I have at least two friends who would be great politicians, and they could both do phenomenal work to save this country. But neither of them have any interest in running for office. Change the system, and maybe they would.

I know this. Partisan politics made the US government look ridiculous. People voting on party lines instead of their own judgment allowed the US to lose its coveted AAA credit rating for the first time ever. And it isn't just the politicians. People are just as bad - blaming the other side blindly.

The system is broken. Or, at the very least, very damaged. And it's going to take a lot of work to fix it. And, yes, fix it completely. Repairs aren't enough.

My system isn't perfect, but I believe it would get the job done. And if it can't, someone smarter than me needs to be working on a system that would work.

Because our nation is better than this. It's smarter than this. It's stronger than this. We just need to remember that.