In reply to the Wimple's analysis of attendance among the BCS's top 25, re-ranked by percentage of enrollment, come two counterarguments. The first: hypocrisy. If TCU wants to be treated like a Big Boy in college football, it had better fill its stadium like... like the Big Boys do.
Rebuttal: Hypocrisy? What is hypocritical about TCU saying, (loudly, one wishes), 'We out-draw Boise, Cincy, and in relation to the size of our school, every other successful program in the BCS except Notre Lame. We're not just doing the best we can, we're at the top of the heap!' Rather than hypocrisy, that would pour truth into the debate, which (as lamented regularly) would be novel indeed.
The second counterargument: if TCU wants to compare favorable with big programs, it can't rely on its small size as an excuse for low attendance.
Rebuttal: TCU isn't (or shouldn't be) arguing that it carries the same media sway, TV ratings, or fanbase as the big programs. What TCU is arguing is that the debate ought to be about the quality of the product on the field. TCU presents the best case argument that college football ought to be about... (hold on to your hats!) college football, not about TV ad revenue, rich contributors, and big fan bases bringing loads of money to a bowl city for a weekend.
But, alas; we all know that the actual games are just a footnote in the maelstrom that is college football in its macroeconomic fullness. So while ESPN lusts after Ohio State, no matter how dismal the Buckeyes actually play, fans of the game-- of the blocking and tackling happening between the whistles-- will continue to scour channel lineups for Versus, or the radio dial for KTCU. The Rose Bowl ain't letting in a genuinely good-- but small-- school this year.
C'est la vie. How's that #1 defense, Frogs? What? It's your fourth in the last decade? Who knew?