TomServo69
Moderator Emeritus
Gone but not Forgotten
Nothing ever changes........
Posts: 5,467
|
Post by TomServo69 on Dec 4, 2008 19:18:35 GMT -5
I read that Missouri has something like the #112 pass defense. That doesn't bode well for them. And, while I hate Texas, it is usually abbreviated as UT. I know that. But, being an Aggie fan as well as a Tide fan, I say TU. Know why? Cause it pisses TU fans off. The only way there won't be a controversy or a bitchfest about who wins the NC is if Bama just goes ahead and wins out and wins it. So, let's all just hope for that, k? ;D Roll Tide! Servo
|
|
|
Post by pups4ever on Dec 4, 2008 20:33:37 GMT -5
Hell no! I want Oklahoma to win it and I don't care if it's controversial. If Texas had beaten Tech, this simply would not be an issue.
I can see why you would want that, as an Alabama fan. 2000 avoided some controversy when OU won the Orange Bowl by beating FSU, and I certainly wanted that to happen.
|
|
|
Post by Mitchell on Dec 6, 2008 21:42:54 GMT -5
I know that. But, being an Aggie fan as well as a Tide fan, I say TU. Know why? Cause it pisses TU fans off. That's an Aggie myth. No one cares. EDIT: And a true Aggie doesn't capitalize "tu."
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Atari on Dec 7, 2008 2:56:12 GMT -5
So let's see...
Two teams from the same conference have identical one-loss records. When they played each other on a neutral field, there was a decisive winner. So, naturally, the loser gets to play in the big game.
Seriously, if Oklahoma got to play in the Big XII championship, shouldn't Alabama go to the BCS championship?
|
|
TomServo69
Moderator Emeritus
Gone but not Forgotten
Nothing ever changes........
Posts: 5,467
|
Post by TomServo69 on Dec 7, 2008 9:21:39 GMT -5
Blah, well, off to the Sugar Bowl for Bama it looks. Well, that's closer to home anyways and a trip to N'awlins never hurt anyone. I just really hope we play Texas or Ohio State and not Utah.
Roll Tide!!!!
Servo
|
|
|
Post by Mitchell on Dec 7, 2008 20:14:28 GMT -5
Ya got the Utes, sixty nine.
|
|
|
Post by quinnmartin on Dec 8, 2008 13:51:55 GMT -5
So let's see... Two teams from the same conference have identical one-loss records. When they played each other on a neutral field, there was a decisive winner. So, naturally, the loser gets to play in the big game. Seriously, if Oklahoma got to play in the Big XII championship, shouldn't Alabama go to the BCS championship? You can easily make the case that Bama deserves to be there more than Florida, due to who Florida lost to at home. Bama, UT, and OU lost to much higher ranked teams and did so on a neutral field or on the road. But Florida is still probably the best team in the country, and I would pick them to win it all if we had a playoff. And sure OU lost to UT, but I would argue they had the more impressive season overall. OU routed top 25 teams Cincy and TCU in non-conference play, while UT beat up on cupcakes. And OU absolutely destroyed a top 10 team that beat UT. I think UT should have gone too, but I don't have a problem with OU coming out the South division. UT deserves to take a hit for playing such a weak non-conference schedule, so if they did get jobbed out of the Big 12 title, it's probably only fair.
|
|
|
Post by Mitchell on Dec 8, 2008 17:07:24 GMT -5
I disagree with that. Non-con record, sure, but UT faced four top-ten teams in a row and lost to one by one point on the road. Overall schedule strength favors UT.
That being said, if Texas did take care of business at Texas Tech, there would be no argument. They didn't, so they had to resign themselves to the fickle finger of fate and it didn't work out this year. Like a bad call at the end of the game that causes you to lose, you can't whine about it--you have to play to win every minute so it's not up to luck or voters.
I think Florida will win because Oklahoma's defense is the definition of suck. OU could rack up 60 points and still lose by 11. I just hope it's a close game because if OU pulls its usual Choke The Bowl Game routine, it'll be embarassing for the Big XII.
|
|
|
Post by quinnmartin on Dec 8, 2008 17:25:57 GMT -5
I disagree with that. Non-con record, sure, but UT faced four top-ten teams in a row and lost to one by one point on the road. Overall schedule strength favors UT. Yeah, that was a brutal stretch, but OU played those same 4 teams and lost only once as well. Texas lost to Tech on the road, OU beat them by 44 at home. Texas beat Oklahoma St. by 4 at home, OU beat them by 20 on the road. Texas beat Missouri by 25 at home, OU beat them by 41 on a neutral field. Sure UT beat them head to head, but that's one game. Over the course of the season, OU put up more quality wins, dominated common ranked opponents more than UT did, and their loss was to a higher ranked team. I think UT deserved to be in the Big 12 title game because of the head-to-head result, but I'd still rank OU ahead of them based on their entire season. As a UT fan, it's just too bad that they don't get to prove the Tech game was a fluke on the field. I don't think they're quite as good as Florida or OU or USC, but with McCoy healthy they could beat any of them. And don't forget that OU played Tech, Missouri, and Oklahoma St. in 3 consecutive weeks just like UT did, and they were more impressive in each game than UT was.
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Atari on Dec 9, 2008 17:08:43 GMT -5
I have no rooting interests in college football. I couldn't care less which Big XII team goes where or if the SEC is a better conference based on strength of schedule, blah blah blah. But I enjoy the games; and I have to say as a serious football fan and a casual NCAA observer that the BCS system is the most illogical and unfair process of any major sport ever in the history of anything. Any excuse not to have a playoff is completely hypocritical on the part of the universities, the bowl committees, and the networks.
Of course, smarter people than I have argued this ad nauseum elsewhere. But can someone please tell me why the following match-ups wouldn't be infinitely better than the BCS bowl line-up?
#1 Oklahoma #8 Penn State
#4 Alabama #5 USC
#3 Texas #6 Utah
#2 Florida #7 Texas Tech
|
|
|
Post by quinnmartin on Dec 9, 2008 17:46:59 GMT -5
There's no reason why those wouldn't be far superior to the current BSC bowl lineup.
Can you imagine the TV ratings and hype that Alabama vs. USC first round matchup or a probable Florida vs. Texas semi-final would generate?
And you could structure the playoffs to make the regular season still very meaningful, unlike men's basketball. Make the first round home games for the top 4 teams and you'd still have every game being huge. Even one loss potentially would force you to go on the road in the playoffs, which is a large advantage in college football.
It would still be the most meaningful regular season in sports and still generate lots of discussion/contraversy about where teams were ranked and who got in and who didn't.
And you could use the current BSC bowls for the semi finals and the title game - making them all meaningful every year, vs. now where none of them are at all meaningful. And all of the rest of the bowls could still be played even with a playoff.
Though, with the setup you listed, I think you'd get some really lopsided games in the first round, and you'd probably end up with the same title game as the BCS gave us. Just for fun, here's how I think that playoff setup would turn out...
First Round - #1 Oklahoma - 51 #8 Penn State - 27
#4 Alabama - 14 #5 USC - 17
#3 Texas - 45 #6 Utah - 13
#2 Florida - 48 #7 Texas Tech - 17
Second Round: #1 Oklahoma - 30 #5 USC - 24
#3 Texas - 30 #2 Florida - 38
Title Game: #1 Oklahoma - 41 #2 Florida - 45
|
|
|
Post by pups4ever on Dec 11, 2008 13:54:45 GMT -5
I disagree with that. Non-con record, sure, but UT faced four top-ten teams in a row and lost to one by one point on the road. Overall schedule strength favors UT. Yeah, that was a brutal stretch, but OU played those same 4 teams and lost only once as well. Texas lost to Tech on the road, OU beat them by 44 at home. Texas beat Oklahoma St. by 4 at home, OU beat them by 20 on the road. Texas beat Missouri by 25 at home, OU beat them by 41 on a neutral field. Sure UT beat them head to head, but that's one game. Over the course of the season, OU put up more quality wins, dominated common ranked opponents more than UT did, and their loss was to a higher ranked team. I think UT deserved to be in the Big 12 title game because of the head-to-head result, but I'd still rank OU ahead of them based on their entire season. As a UT fan, it's just too bad that they don't get to prove the Tech game was a fluke on the field. I don't think they're quite as good as Florida or OU or USC, but with McCoy healthy they could beat any of them. And don't forget that OU played Tech, Missouri, and Oklahoma St. in 3 consecutive weeks just like UT did, and they were more impressive in each game than UT was. Thank you Quinn! Someone who gets it! If the tiebreaker had favored Texas, then I couldn't have complained as an OU fan. It was a 3-way tie. Everyone keeps pretending like Texas didn't lose to a team that OU beat by 44. Why should Oklahoma be punished for playing well against Texas Tech? Because it was at home? I don't feel that Texas should get a mulligan just because they lost in Lubbock. Compared to other venues in College Football (L.A. Colleseum, The Horseshoe) and even comparatively within the Big XII, Texas Tech isn't exactly a loud cathedrial for football. The fact of the matter is, you have to win your games, even on the road. When you don't, you resign your fate to other factors. Again, if this happened to OU, I couldn't complain. It's just the way the cookie crumbles. Using the logic of favoring the team who won head-to-head when the teams have identical records, you can't place Texas Tech below Texas. It was Oklahoma's dominating win over then-#2 Texas Tech that made them irrelvant. The LARGE margin of victory should not hinder Oklahoma simply because it was in Norman, nor should it be punished.
|
|
|
Post by Mitchell on Dec 12, 2008 1:30:57 GMT -5
You're missing the point. I don't think anyone is dismissing Oklahoma's legitimacy. It's just a hard sell to have a conference championship played between two teams that both convincingly lost to another. No-one is saying Texas should get a mulligan. They lost to Tech, and if they hadn't it would have been a different story. They did and can't complain, period. Similarly to how Texas shouldn't whine about the placement, Oklahoma shouldn't grandstand about it either. It's also a mistake for an Oklahoma supporter to dismiss as "irrelevant" a team that beat the Sooners by double digits.
Oklahoma better show up to the championship game, because if they choke as much as they've in the past, it'll be a black eye for the entire conference.
|
|
|
Post by pups4ever on Dec 12, 2008 1:37:57 GMT -5
You're missing the point. I don't think anyone is dismissing Oklahoma's legitimacy. It's just a hard sell to have a conference championship played between two teams that both convincingly lost to another. No-one is saying Texas should get a mulligan. They lost to Tech, and if they hadn't it would have been a different story. They did and can't complain, period. Similarly to how Texas shouldn't whine about the placement, Oklahoma shouldn't grandstand about it either. It's also a mistake for an Oklahoma supporter to dismiss as "irrelevant" a team that beat the Sooners by double digits. Oklahoma better show up to the championship game, because if they choke as much as they've in the past, it'll be a black eye for the entire conference. The Texas/OU game was a 3-point game until a 68-yard run by Texas late in the 4th quarter. I know it's double-digits, but the score doesn't reflect how close the game was. OU lost a defensive leader in that game towards the end of the first half and the defense took a little while to adjust. It could very well have gone the other way. OU lost, plain and simple. I think if they played now, OU would win. I don't think that Oklahoma is grandstanding at all. Everyone knows the tiebreaker could have easily favored Texas (or even Texas Tech). I never said that Texas was irrelevant. I said that people are basically saying that Texas Tech is irrelevant because of their massive loss to Oklahoma. Still, all 3 teams are the Big XII South Champions. Only one got to play in the title game and it was OU this time.
|
|
|
Post by Mitchell on Dec 12, 2008 1:40:32 GMT -5
I need to get my eyes checked then. . .I completely misread your post
|
|