UT officially gets screwed

[matadorph]

Oklahoma jumps Texas in the BCS, goes to Big 12 Championship Game with a chance to play for the national title.

What a fucking travesty.

[HudsonHawk]

Oklahoma jumps Texas in the BCS, goes to Big 12 Championship Game with a chance to play for the national title.

What a fucking travesty.

Man I'd love to see Missouri beat the ever-loving shit out of OU. 

[Col. Sphinx Drummond]

Oklahoma jumps Texas in the BCS, goes to Big 12 Championship Game with a chance to play for the national title.

What a fucking travesty.

This is a travesty. It's a travesty of a mockery of a sham. More than that -- it's a travesty of a mockery of a sham of a mockery of a travesty of two mockeries of a sham!

[Col. Sphinx Drummond]

Man I'd love to see Missouri beat the ever-loving shit out of OU. 

I'd like to see the real Scarlet Johansson in my bunk, that ain't gonna happen either.

[matadorph]

Man I'd love to see Missouri beat the ever-loving shit out of OU. 

Ain't gonna happen, so the next best (realistic) scenario has OU getting mudholed by Florida in the national championship game while UT beats Alabama handily in the Fiesta, thereby forcing the clowns who voted for OU in the human polls to acknowledge the obvious.

[HudsonHawk]

Ain't gonna happen, so the next best (realistic) scenario has OU getting mudholed by Florida in the national championship game while UT beats Alabama handily in the Fiesta, thereby forcing the clowns who voted for OU in the human polls to acknowledge the obvious.

1.  There is no national championship game.  There is only a BCS championship game.

2.  I'm not sure what that scenario will force, if your point is that UT is more deserving of the BCS championship than is OU. 

[matadorph]

1.  There is no national championship game.  There is only a BCS championship game.

Oops, my mistake. I forgot that Texas didn't actually win a major college football "national championship" in 2005 but really won the BCS championship game, the current accepted format for determining the best team in college football.

2.  I'm not sure what that scenario will force, if your point is that UT is more deserving of the BCS championship than is OU. 

It will force the obvious argument in favor of a playoff system. OU is undeserving of a spot in the Orange Bowl. 

[HudsonHawk]

Oops, my mistake. I forgot that Texas didn't actually win a major college football "national championship" in 2005 but really won the BCS championship game

Well, glad I could help you remember.

, the current accepted format for determining the best team in college football.

1.  It is not accepted by everyone.

2.  It does not determine the best team in college football, it determines the winner of a tournament of selected BCS-affiliated schools, hence it is the BCS championship.

It will force the obvious argument in favor of a playoff system. OU is undeserving of a spot in the Orange Bowl. 

I'm not sure how much more the argument can be made.  The ONLY argument to continue the current system is that you don't want a National Championship.

[JimR]

Well, glad I could help you remember.

1.  It is not accepted by everyone.

2.  It does not determine the best team in college football, it determines the winner of a tournament of selected BCS-affiliated schools, hence it is the BCS championship.

only until UH wins it, THEN it will be a National Championship!

[MusicMan]

You know what I want to see?

OU wins convincingly.  Florida squeaks by Alabama, thus putting them at a solid #2 in the polls.  UT gets a solid #3 in the polls and the computers (which clearly favor UT over Florida) create an OU-UT rematch and mass hysteria.

[HudsonHawk]

only until UH wins it, THEN it will be a National Championship!

If UH ever gets a shot at it, it will likely be because they've done away with the BCS.  So, yes, probably so.

[HudsonHawk]

You know what I want to see?

OU wins convincingly.  Florida squeaks by Alabama, thus putting them at a solid #2 in the polls.  UT gets a solid #3 in the polls and the computers (which clearly favor UT over Florida) create an OU-UT rematch and mass hysteria.

I don't see that happening.  I think the winner of Florida/Alabama clearly gets one of the top two BCS spots. 

[Bench]

only until UH wins it, THEN it will be a National Championship!

If UH ever gets a chance, then it will be.  And then maybe UT will "deign" to play at Robertson.

ETA:  What HH said.

[austro]

I don't see that happening.  I think the winner of Florida/Alabama clearly gets one of the top two BCS spots. 

Which is unlucky, because in my opinion Alabama is a pretender. They had to go to overtime to beat an LSU team that had to come from behind to beat a Troy team at home and then lost to Arkansas. The SEC is down this year, and if Alabama had had to face UT, OU, TT, and OSU, they would have lost at least two of those games. C'est la vie.

[Bench]

Which is unlucky, because in my opinion Alabama is a pretender. They had to go to overtime to beat an LSU team that had to come from behind to beat a Troy team at home and then lost to Arkansas. The SEC is down this year, and if Alabama had had to face UT, OU, TT, and OSU, they would have lost at least two of those games. C'est la vie.

The SEC is fantastically overrated, especially this year.  C'est la vie, forsooth.

[HudsonHawk]

The SEC is down this year, and if Alabama had had to face UT, OU, TT, and OSU, they would have lost at least two of those games. C'est la vie.

Well, the same argument could be made that if UT, OU or TT would have had to play Alabama, Florida, LSU, and Georgia, they would have lost at least two of those games.  Those argument will always be made until the day comes when it's actually decided on the field.

[HudsonHawk]

The SEC is fantastically overrated, especially this year.  C'est la vie, forsooth.

I don't agree with that.  I think top to bottom, the SEC is the toughest conference out there, tougher than the Big 12.

[austro]

Well, the same argument could be made that if UT, OU or TT would have had to play Alabama, Florida, LSU, and Georgia, they would have lost at least two of those games.  Those argument will always be made until the day comes when it's actually decided on the field.

The difference is that Florida and Georgia are in one division, and Alabama and LSU are in another, while UT, OU, TT, and OSU are all in the same division and obligated to play one another every year. But there have certainly been other years in which the SEC teams have been screwed by the depth of their conference while the Big 12 teams have had it relatively easy. But don't get me started about the Big 10 and the Pac-10.

[HudsonHawk]

The difference is that Florida and Georgia are in one division, and Alabama and LSU are in another, while UT, OU, TT, and OSU are all in the same division and obligated to play one another every year. But there have certainly been other years in which the SEC teams have been screwed by the depth of their conference while the Big 12 teams have had it relatively easy. But don't get me started about the Big 10 and the Pac-10.

I think we all agree that the Big 10 and Pac 10 are weak, and have been for a very long time. 

[Bench]

I don't agree with that.  I think top to bottom, the SEC is the toughest conference out there, tougher than the Big 12.

Maybe I hang out with too many SEC folks, but I get sick of hearing how their conference's "defensive speed" makes every other conference inferior.  There's plenty of good teams in the SEC year in and year out, but this year is weaker than recent years have been.

[MusicMan]

Well, the same argument could be made that if UT, OU or TT would have had to play Alabama, Florida, LSU, and Georgia, they would have lost at least two of those games.  Those argument will always be made until the day comes when it's actually decided on the field.

UT played a harder stretch than Bama-Fla-LSU-UGA and went 3-1.  A fact lost on the computers.

[BizidyDizidy]

UT played a harder stretch than Bama-Fla-LSU-UGA and went 3-1.  A fact lost on the computers.

Why do you think anything is lost on the computers? Oklahoma and UT have the top 2 computer rankings.

[HudsonHawk]

UT played a harder stretch than Bama-Fla-LSU-UGA and went 3-1.  A fact lost on the computers.

Who's to say it was harder?

[BizidyDizidy]

Also - the reason UT has a lower computer ranking than OU probably has something to do with the fact that their OOC schedule featured the 113th, 99th, 59th, and 75th best teams in the country* (a little bad luck in Arkansas having a bad year, but it is what it is).

Oklahoma played the 9th and 28th best schools OOC (TCU and Cincinnati).

* I used Sagarin's rankings for ease of comparison; it's at least directionally accurate.

[BizidyDizidy]

Who's to say it was harder?

The computers definitely think so; average computer ranking of Bama-Fla-LSU-UGA is ~16, TT, OU, Mizzou, OSU is ~10; that's a big gap.

[MusicMan]

Who's to say it was harder?

I know you're arguing the subjective nature of the sport, but let's get real, LSU was a joke this year.

[Ebby Calvin]

I'm pissed UT got "screwed" by the BCS standings/Big 12 rules/dumbass voters, but to lose out to a rival who we beat by two scores is just...well, it's just fucking wrong.  Here's hoping for a hailstorm in Kansas City Saturday night.

Barring that, my only consolation will be if Bradford leaves early and gets drafted first overall by the Lions.  Karma's a bitch.

Fuck OU.

And fuck the Cubs.

[Jacksonian]

I know you're arguing the subjective nature of the sport, but let's get real, LSU was a joke this year.

They're not a joke.  But playing your 3rd and 4th string quarterbacks for most of the year is going to put both your offense and defense in bad positions and isn't going to make for a good season.

[Arky Vaughan]

I wonder how likely the Big-12 is to adopt the SEC's BCS tiebreaker after this season, which ESPN reports as, "in the event of a three-way tie, the team that is rated the highest will be the division champion unless the second-highest team is within five places in the BCS standings. Then it reverts to head-to-head competition."

[HudsonHawk]

The computers definitely think so; average computer ranking of Bama-Fla-LSU-UGA is ~16, TT, OU, Mizzou, OSU is ~10; that's a big gap.

The computer ratings are based on the human polls which is 100% subjective.  You're trying to validate the human polls by using the computer ratings which are based on the human polls.  Circular logic at its finest.

[BizidyDizidy]

The computer ratings are based on the human polls which is 100% subjective.  You're trying to validate the human polls by using the computer ratings which are based on the human polls.  Circular logic at its finest.

The computer rankings are not based on the human polls whatsoever.

[HudsonHawk]

I know you're arguing the subjective nature of the sport, but let's get real, LSU was a joke this year.

I wouldn't say they were a joke.  They'd still win the Big 12 North, the PAC 10, the Big 10, the Big East, Conference USA, etc. 

[BizidyDizidy]

I wouldn't say they were a joke.  They'd still win the Big 12 North, the PAC 10, the Big 10, the Big East, Conference USA, etc. 

This is not even close to true - on a neutral field they would be (roughly) 12 point underdogs to Missouri, 24 point underdogs to USC, 7 point underdogs to Oregon, 19 point underdogs to Penn State, 6 point underdogs to BC.

[Rebel Jew]

This is not even close to true - on a neutral field they would be (roughly) 12 point underdogs to Missouri, 24 point underdogs to USC, 7 point underdogs to Oregon, 19 point underdogs to Penn State, 6 point underdogs to BC.

i'd make a killing betting lsu with those lines

[HudsonHawk]

The computer rankings are not based on the human polls whatsoever.

The "stength of schedule" piece certainly is.  That's how OU overtook UT this week, by playing a ranked team while UT played an unranked team. 

[HudsonHawk]

This is not even close to true - on a neutral field they would be (roughly) 12 point underdogs to Missouri, 24 point underdogs to USC, 7 point underdogs to Oregon, 19 point underdogs to Penn State, 6 point underdogs to BC.

1.  Favorites and underdogs are betting lines.  They have exactly zero to do with who is better or who the oddsmakers think is going to win the game.

2.  They are irrelevant.  The only thing that matters is what happens on the fies, and LSU would beat those teams.

[Andyzipp]

The "stength of schedule" piece certainly is.  That's how OU overtook UT this week, by playing a ranked team while UT played an unranked team. 

Strength of schedule is based on w/l of your opponents and their opponents.  It's not based on the perception of one team being "stronger" than another.

[BizidyDizidy]

i'd make a killing betting lsu with those lines

Those are guesses, but probably pretty close. Based on Jeff Sagarin's predictor rating, which is usually reasonably close to the lines (within a few points most of the time).

I don't know why you think you'd make a killing; they would've lost against the spread (derived the same way) vs. Mississippi and Arkansas.

[BizidyDizidy]

1.  Favorites and underdogs are betting lines.  They have exactly zero to do with who is better or who the oddsmakers think is going to win the game.

2.  They are irrelevant.  The only thing that matters is what happens on the fies, and LSU would beat those teams.

Despite what you think, the best publicly available predictor of game outcomes is betting lines; they are very accurate historically and the smart money sets the lines (not the fanbases). I will try and find the link to that info.

The lines I gave were based on one pretty accurate computer model; you seem not to know that, for example, LSU lost to Ole Miss and Arkansas this year.

[BizidyDizidy]

The "stength of schedule" piece certainly is.  That's how OU overtook UT this week, by playing a ranked team while UT played an unranked team. 

The computer models do not have any human input; they just look at relative wins and losses. The computers just could tell that OSU was a better team than A&M by who and how they had played.

The BCS standings are 2/3rds Human voters, 1/3rd computers (with no human input). If it was 100% computers the rankings would be Oklahoma, Texas, Alabama, Texas Tech, Utah.

[HudsonHawk]

Strength of schedule is based on w/l of your opponents and their opponents.  It's not based on the perception of one team being "stronger" than another.

The strength of schedule components of the various computer rankings are based on several things...among them are opponents record, opponents conference "rating", record against ranked teams, and the rankings of your opponent the week you played them.  There very much is a human subjective piece to it.

[HudsonHawk]

The computer models do not have any human input; they just look at relative wins and losses.

That is not true. It is more than just wins and losses of your opponents. 

[BizidyDizidy]

The strength of schedule components of the various computer rankings are based on several things...among them are opponents record, opponents conference "rating", record against ranked teams, and the rankings of your opponent the week you played them.  There very much is a human subjective piece to it.

I don't think thats true; by this point in the season the teams are well-connected and nothing subjective enters into the rankings (this is one of the reasons they do not release the BCS rankings until later in the season.

I know for a fact it isn't true for Sagarin (read at this link http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/fbt08.htm ). I will check a bit on the other ones.

[HudsonHawk]

I know for a fact it isn't true for Sagarin (read at this link http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/fbt08.htm ). I will check a bit on the other ones.

Why do you assume that non one else knows this information or where to find it?

[BizidyDizidy]

Why do you assume that non one else knows this information or where to find it?

Because you are saying entirely false information;  I just reviewed the methodology for each of the 6 computer models used; none has any human input whatsoever. Only one of the six uses any information besides wins, losses, and location for the current season, and that is the computer output from the last season.

[HudsonHawk]

Because you are saying entirely false information;  I just reviewed the methodology for each of the 6 computer models used; none has any human input whatsoever. Only one of the six uses any information besides wins, losses, and location for the current season, and that is the computer output from the last season.

That is false.

[BizidyDizidy]

1.  Favorites and underdogs are betting lines.  They have exactly zero to do with who is better or who the oddsmakers think is going to win the game.

2.  They are irrelevant.  The only thing that matters is what happens on the fies, and LSU would beat those teams.

Here's one published article on betting lines as the best predictor of game outcome:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V92-478HYCY-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=9e010c6ec89314e4cb8773a476c86236

[BizidyDizidy]

That is false.

Please tell me which model uses human input.

[HudsonHawk]

Please tell me which model uses human input.

They all use human imput, as they are developed by humans, and humans determine what information goes into their respective formulas and how much the indivicual data are weighted.  As for which models use some form of subjective rankings in their strength of schedule component, I believe the Massey and the Colley Matrix do. 

[BizidyDizidy]

They all use human imput, as they are developed by humans, and humans determine what information goes into their respective formulas and how much the indivicual data are weighted.  As for which models use some form of subjective rankings in their strength of schedule component, I believe the Massey and the Colley Matrix do. 

I am certain that neither of them do at this point in the year; you can easily verify this for yourself at the links below.

Colley
http://www.colleyrankings.com/matrate.pdf

Massey
http://www.masseyratings.com/theory/massey.htm#overview

[HudsonHawk]

I am certain that neither of them do at this point in the year; you can easily verify this for yourself at the links below.

Colley
http://www.colleyrankings.com/matrate.pdf

Massey
http://www.masseyratings.com/theory/massey.htm#overview

Gee thanks.  I had no idea of this thing called the internet or how to use it. 

[BizidyDizidy]

Gee thanks.  I had no idea of this thing called the internet or how to use it. 

It's hard to reconcile this attitude with your habit of making and standing behind easily disproved, factually incorrect statements.

[HudsonHawk]

It's hard to reconcile this attitude with your habit of making and standing behind easily disproved, factually incorrect statements.

The next time you disprove a statement of mine will be the first. 

[BizidyDizidy]

The next time you disprove a statement of mine will be the first. 

I guess it is factually true that you believed that the Massey and Colley methods incorporated a subjective element; however, it is also factually true that they do not.

[otterjb]

*fart noise*

[kevwun]

If you really want to laugh, do some reading on the Billingsley computer model.   It doesn't take in to account what opponents do after a team has played them.  For example, if your teams beats the preseason #1 team in week one, that victory is locked in as a win over #1 no matter if that teams goes on to lose it's next 11 games.  OU's game against atm did less damage to their Billingsley ranking because the aggies had fewer losses than they did when Texas played them on Turkey Day a few weeks later.  It's fucking mind boggling that shit like this helped keep Texas out of the Big 12 championship game.

[MusicMan]

Billingsley's model is intended to mirror the actions of human voters.

[BizidyDizidy]

Billingsley's model is intended to mirror the actions of human voters.

Exactly - which is fucking stupid to include in the BCS formula because it's already 2/3rds made up of human voters.

[utastro]

The "stength of schedule" piece certainly is.  That's how OU overtook UT this week, by playing a ranked team while UT played an unranked team. 

Missouri losing to Kansas and Colorado losing to Nebraska had a big impact on BlowU overtaking Texas.  I read somewhere that you can play with the bcs computer rankings by changing the outcome of games to determine what might have been.  But I can't find it.  I'm curious just how much those 2 losses affected the computer rankings.

[BizidyDizidy]

Missouri losing to Kansas and Colorado losing to Nebraska had a big impact on BlowU overtaking Texas.  I read somewhere that you can play with the bcs computer rankings by changing the outcome of games to determine what might have been.  But I can't find it.  I'm curious just how much those 2 losses affected the computer rankings.

You can do it on the colley matrix site, but he already has Texas as number one.

[Arky Vaughan]

They all use human imput, as they are developed by humans, and humans determine what information goes into their respective formulas and how much the indivicual data are weighted.  As for which models use some form of subjective rankings in their strength of schedule component, I believe the Massey and the Colley Matrix do.

By this logic, wins and losses are human inputs, since humans design the rules, set the schedules and perform the actions that determine who wins and who loses.

[BizidyDizidy]

By this logic, wins and losses are human inputs, since humans design the rules, set the schedules and perform the actions that determine who wins and who loses.

He's miles down the crawfish trail right now.

[tophfar]

Oklahoma jumps Texas in the BCS, goes to Big 12 Championship Game with a chance to play for the national title.

What a fucking travesty.

Travesty of what?  I hate this 45-35 stupid shit.  It completely ignores the fact that if Texas has the "right" to go to the Big -12 Championship based on head to head, then Tech does too since they beat UT and also have just one loss.

Just because they lost last doesnt make their loss count any more or less than UT's.  But you dont see any stupid dipshit 39-33 signs and websites.

Apparently Longhorns need a lesson in how three way ties work, since head to head at that point doesn't fucking matter.

[MRaup]

Travesty of what?  I hate this 45-35 stupid shit.  It completely ignores the fact that if Texas has the "right" to go to the Big -12 Championship based on head to head, then Tech does too since they beat UT and also have just one loss.

Just because they lost last doesnt make their loss count any more or less than UT's.  But you dont see any stupid dipshit 39-33 signs and websites.

Apparently Longhorns need a lesson in how three way ties work, since head to head at that point doesn't fucking matter.

Other than the fact that Tech got splattered by OU then just barely scraped by against BAYLOR.

Tech is completely eliminated from the picture. They got exposed by OU then tripped all over their own dicks against Baylor.

So, UT vs. OU.

UT beat OU already. On a neutral field. Beat them convincingly. In un-Stoopsian fashion, letting the clock run out instead of trying to score another touchdown. Why is that so hard to see?

[tophfar]

Other than the fact that Tech got splattered by OU then just barely scraped by against BAYLOR.

With no crabtree and harell with nine breaks in his hand. 

Tech is completely eliminated from the picture. They got exposed by OU then tripped all over their own dicks against Baylor.

And yet that team still beat you, 39-33 remember?  Apparently UT losses no longer actually count.

So, UT vs. OU.

Really?

Oklahoma   7-1   
Texas   7-1   
Texas Tech   7-1   

How many losses per team?  To whom did each team lose?  If you can answer these questions correctly, you might be on the road to understanding three way ties.

UT beat OU already. On a neutral field. Beat them convincingly. In un-Stoopsian fashion, letting the clock run out instead of trying to score another touchdown. Why is that so hard to see?

Who then lost to the team that OU completely Obliterated, so therefore obviously OU is better than UT.

[phil]

Okay, somebody 'splain me why they don't just use point differential in this situation.

[drew corleone]

I don't think the BCS should play any role in determining a conference champion, just like I don't think a conference championship should play any role in determining who should play for the BCS championship.

Texas had the best non-common opponent conference win of the three teams, a win over North division champion Missouri. That's a tiebreaker in at least two of the conferences that also use a CCG, and IMO a better step than any of the tiebreakers involving BCS ratings.

But it doesn't matter anymore. Barring a strange turn of events this weekend, OU is likely going to play Florida/Alabama in the BCS title game. I suppose I'm at peace with it, though I would have much rather faced USC or Ohio State than Utah.

[drew corleone]

Okay, somebody 'splain me why they don't just use point differential in this situation.

Why give a guy like Bob Stoops extra incentive to run up the score?

[MusicMan]

Okay, somebody 'splain me why they don't just use point differential in this situation.

Because Stoops doesn't need another excuse to run up the score.

[phil]

He's going to anyway in order to attempt to impress the voters, is he not?

[MusicMan]

He's going to anyway in order to attempt to impress the voters, is he not?

Didn't work for him this week.

[Trey]

I don't think the BCS should play any role in determining a conference champion, just like I don't think a conference championship should play any role in determining who should play for the BCS championship.

Texas had the best non-common opponent conference win of the three teams, a win over North division champion Missouri. That's a tiebreaker in at least two of the conferences that also use a CCG, and IMO a better step than any of the tiebreakers involving BCS ratings.

But it doesn't matter anymore. Barring a strange turn of events this weekend, OU is likely going to play Florida/Alabama in the BCS title game. I suppose I'm at peace with it, though I would have much rather faced USC or Ohio State than Utah.

Most all of the projection I have seen have Utah playing in the Sugar against the SEC loser, and TX playing either OSU or USC.

[Bench]

Other than the fact that Tech got splattered by OU then just barely scraped by against BAYLOR.

Tech is completely eliminated from the picture. They got exposed by OU then tripped all over their own dicks against Baylor.

So, UT vs. OU.

UT beat OU already. On a neutral field. Beat them convincingly. In un-Stoopsian fashion, letting the clock run out instead of trying to score another touchdown. Why is that so hard to see?

I get it.  Losses only count for non-UT teams.

And it's not like UT actually lost that game against Tech.  UT decided not to run out the clock and #21 decided not to intercept the pass that him in the chest, because they are so gentlemanly.  Tech's advantage in the final "score" doesn't count.  Besides, it was only one second.

[phil]

Besides which, if he can run up the score against a legitimate contender, then they perhaps aren't all that legitimate.

So, eliminate the team in the three-way tie with the worst point differential, then go to the head-to-head winner of the two remaining teams.  

[matadorph]

My uberhott avatar notwithstanding, I am not a UT football homer. I'm basically a neutral observer who believes that any rational person must admit that OU has no business being in the Big 12 championship game over UT. They lost on the field. They got beat, and that's the only comparative fact that matters between two virtually even teams.

 

[matadorph]

Travesty of what?  I hate this 45-35 stupid shit.  It completely ignores the fact that if Texas has the "right" to go to the Big -12 Championship based on head to head, then Tech does too since they beat UT and also have just one loss.[/url]

Yes, they do indeed. Unfortunately, they're effectively disqualified from the discussion because the destruction they suffered in Norman and their difficulties against Baylor left them seventh in the BCS standings.

[tophfar]

They lost on the field. They got beat.

So did UT.

[sporadic]

My uberhott avatar notwithstanding

 

WTF?  That avatar is about the strongest argument for Texas I have seen in this whole thread.

[sporadic]

How the fuck did that smiley appear when I did not click on one?

[Andyzipp]

All 12 teams agreed to the tie breakers when they were ratified by the Big 12.   Did the Big 12 pick a crappy tie breaker?  Probably?  And all the teams knew it going into the season.  No one inherently got screwed.

Oddly enough, if OU loses Saturday, Texas would still advance to the BCS championship game.  So unlike last weekend, when you needed OU to win, now you can go back to your true nature and root for Big Game Bob to fuck up.

[matadorph]

So did UT.

Yes. Problem is, OU's obliteration of Tech combined with Tech's pathetic ooc schedule makes Tech irrelevant in the discussion for the BCS championship.

[Bench]

Oddly enough, if OU loses Saturday, Texas would still advance to the BCS championship game.  So unlike last weekend, when you needed OU to win, now you can go back to your true nature and root for Big Game Bob to fuck up.

Just tell him it's a BCS game that he needs to prepare for.

[Jacksonian]

All 12 teams agreed to the tie breakers when they were ratified by the Big 12.   Did the Big 12 pick a crappy tie breaker?  Probably?  And all the teams knew it going into the season.  No one inherently got screwed.

Oddly enough, if OU loses Saturday, Texas would still advance to the BCS championship game.  So unlike last weekend, when you needed OU to win, now you can go back to your true nature and root for Big Game Bob to fuck up.

Not necessarily.  IIRC, the voters were not going to send Georgia to the title game last year if LSU lost despite Georgia being above the Tigers in the BCS before the SEC title game.  There was strong sentiment to not allow a conference non-winner into the title game, esp after the 2003 LSU/USC/OU mess.  An OU loss would likely vault USC, the PAC-10 winner, into the title game.

[sporadic]

Tech's pathetic ooc schedule for the BCS championship.

Would that not fuck Texas as well?  Not that I hold that against Texas or Tech...why beat yourself up in OOC when you have to play in the Big XXII South?

[sporadic]

An OU loss would likely vault USC, the PAC-10 winner, into the title game.

I do not get too worked up over all of this, being I did not attend any of the schools with a complaint, but that would drive me completely fucking crazy.

[tophfar]

Yes. Problem is, OU's obliteration of Tech combined with Tech's pathetic ooc schedule makes Tech irrelevant in the discussion for the BCS championship.

And yet UT still lost to that team, that then got obliterated.  That fact still has not changed.

Florida-Atlantic, UTEP and Rice?  Really?

[BizidyDizidy]

And yet UT still lost to that team, that then got obliterated.  That fact still has not changed.

Florida-Atlantic, UTEP and Rice?  Really?

Don't forget Arkansas.

[drew corleone]

Not necessarily.  IIRC, the voters were not going to send Georgia to the title game last year if LSU lost despite Georgia being above the Tigers in the BCS before the SEC title game.  There was strong sentiment to not allow a conference non-winner into the title game, esp after the 2003 LSU/USC/OU mess.  An OU loss would likely vault USC, the PAC-10 winner, into the title game.

Different year, different situation. Georgia was a two-loss team that lost a head-to-head tiebreaker with Tennessee.

USC would have to make up a lot of ground. And I don't think the voters are necessarily going to be quick to reward a team from such a weak conference.

[matadorph]

And yet UT still lost to that team, that then got obliterated.  That fact still has not changed.

Florida-Atlantic, UTEP and Rice?  Really?

If circumstantial evidence such as margin of victory matters, (OU scored sixty points in four straight games OMG!!) then it should likewise matter how UT lost that one game--on the last play of the game, following an easy INT that was dropped, on the road in the biggest game in Texas Tech history. UT was one play from a perfect season. Was Tech? Was OU? Nope.

Granted, Texas's out-of-conference opponents weren't strong, but they were still better than Tech's, which makes it a UT-OU discussion.

UT won, OU lost, with neither team enjoying a home-field advantage.

[MusicMan]

Florida-Atlantic, UTEP and Rice?  Really?

Chattanooga and 0-12 Washington?  Really?

 

[matadorph]

Don't forget Arkansas.

At least they're all Division I-A schools....

[Bench]

Slightly changing the subject, and assuming as all the world appears to that Oklahoma, Florida and USC will win their respective conferences (why do they bother actually playing the games in college football?), who are the BCS bowl teams? 

Isn't there a rule that if a non-BCS conference team finishes in the top 12 of the BCS they get it automatically, or is that just Notre Dame? If the former, there would be only one at-large bid, right?

[BizidyDizidy]

Chattanooga and 0-12 Washington?  Really?

 

Both TCU and Cincinatti are MUCH, MUCH better than anyone Texas played out of conference. They all play a murderous in-conference schedule though.

[BizidyDizidy]

Slightly changing the subject, and assuming as all the world appears to that Oklahoma, Florida and USC will win their respective conferences (why do they bother actually playing the games in college football?), who are the BCS bowl teams? 

Isn't there a rule that if a non-BCS conference team finishes in the top 12 of the BCS they get it automatically, or is that just Notre Dame? If the former, there would be only one at-large bid, right?

Utah is probably the only one. TCU, Ball State, and Boise State get the shaft.

[matadorph]

Both TCU and Cincinatti are MUCH, MUCH better than anyone Texas played out of conference. They all play a murderous in-conference schedule though.

That's true, but guess what?

Texas beat OU at the Cotton Bowl. Strength of schedule is irrelevant since we have direct evidence that Texas is a better team than OU.

[Bench]

Utah is probably the only one. TCU, Ball State, and Boise State get the shaft.

Looks like you're right, via NYT:

"For a team from a non-B.C.S. conference to be an automatic qualifier, it must be ranked in the top 12 of the final standings or in the top 16 if its ranking is higher than a B.C.S. conference champion.

No more than one non-B.C.S. conference team can earn an automatic bid in a year. If two or more teams meet the criteria, the highest-ranked team earns the spot. The remaining team or teams would be part of a pool for at-large bids."

And yes, I do realize I could have looked this up and never posted anything.  Sorry.

[BizidyDizidy]

Looks like you're right, via NYT:

"For a team from a non-B.C.S. conference to be an automatic qualifier, it must be ranked in the top 12 of the final standings or in the top 16 if its ranking is higher than a B.C.S. conference champion.

No more than one non-B.C.S. conference team can earn an automatic bid in a year. If two or more teams meet the criteria, the highest-ranked team earns the spot. The remaining team or teams would be part of a pool for at-large bids."

And yes, I do realize I could have looked this up and never posted anything.  Sorry.

This was a concession a few years back to avoid an anti-trust suit. I still think Utah should get a shot at the whole thing, but what do I know.

[matadorph]

I'm too busy to go look it up myself, so I'll just ask: anyone know what the Big 12 teams were against the other BCS conferences this year? I know the SEC was 6-9 combined, with most of the damage done by ACC teams. I'm curious how the Big 12 compares.

[tophfar]

That's true, but guess what?

Texas beat OU at the Cotton Bowl. Strength of schedule is irrelevant since we have direct evidence that Texas is a better team than OU.

How does 39 - 33 keep disappearing?

[tophfar]

Granted, Texas's out-of-conference opponents weren't strong, but they were still better than Tech's, which makes it a UT-OU discussion.

Only to tsips.

Myopia, look it up.

[matadorph]

How does 39 - 33 keep disappearing?

Because the discussion is not about the Big 12 championship, it's about how the teams are ranked overall in the BCS standings. Oklahoma is not better than Texas. Indisputable. Tech is not a part of the discussion because of their current placement in the standings.

[BizidyDizidy]

I'm too busy to go look it up myself, so I'll just ask: anyone know what the Big 12 teams were against the other BCS conferences this year? I know the SEC was 6-9 combined, with most of the damage done by ACC teams. I'm curious how the Big 12 compares.

Here's a link through Nov. 5

http://community.foxsports.com/blogs/GOBLUE92/2008/11/05/Conference_Strength_among_BCS_conferences_Week

Big XII was 7-8, including 0-4 against the ACC (which is probably the top to bottom strongest conference).

[BizidyDizidy]

Because the discussion is not about the Big 12 championship, it's about how the teams are ranked overall in the BCS standings. Oklahoma is not better than Texas. Indisputable. Tech is not a part of the discussion because of their current placement in the standings.

So tell me, in your world, how the 3 should be ranked in the BCS standings.

[Bench]

Because the discussion is not about the Big 12 championship, it's about how the teams are ranked overall in the BCS standings. Oklahoma is not better than Texas. Indisputable. Tech is not a part of the discussion because of their current placement in the standings.

I'd say that's obviously pretty fucking disputable.

[matadorph]

Only to tsips.

Myopia, look it up.

I am a UT grad, but I'm not a UT homer. I am a homer for the Astros, Texans, and Rockets. For me this is about logic and fairness, not "tsip myopia."

[matadorph]

I'd say that's obviously pretty fucking disputable.

Really? Wasn't there a game played between the two teams?

[matadorph]

So tell me, in your world, how the 3 should be ranked in the BCS standings.

1. Texas
2. Oklahoma
3. Alabama
4. Florida
5. Texas Tech

[BizidyDizidy]

1. Texas
2. Oklahoma
3. Alabama
4. Florida
5. Texas Tech

But isn't Tech undeniably better than Texas?

[Bench]

Really? Wasn't there a game played between the two teams?

So it is "indisputable" that Tech is better than Texas, but Tech is "not part of the discussion?"

If it were actually indisputable, this dispute would not be taking place.

[JackAstro]

How does 39 - 33 keep disappearing?

It's probably some sort of spam filter, try checking your preferences. I'm curious - do you feel that the Big XII's current BCS tiebreaker is more fair than other conferences, who use head-to-head of the two highest ranked teams in the tie?

[matadorph]

Because Tech beat Texas at home, on the last play of the game after a dropped interception, in the biggest game in school history, one week after Texas went through a ridiculously difficult stretch of games. Texas beat Oklahoma on a neutral field, and did it convincingly.

No, Tech is not part of the discussion.

[tophfar]

Really? Wasn't there a game played between the two teams?

Yes, there was and the score ended 39 - 33 I believe.

It is a fucking travesty that Tech is ranked lower in the BCS standings when it has clearly been decided on the field of play that UT is the weaker team and is undeserving of a spot in the Big 12 championship and a chance at the National(BCS) Championship.

[tophfar]

But isn't Tech undeniably better than Texas?

Apparently UT losses are irrelevant to the discussion.  But it's not Myopia.  At all.  Just Not Fair.

[tophfar]

It's probably some sort of spam filter, try checking your preferences. I'm curious - do you feel that the Big XII's current BCS tiebreaker is more fair than other conferences, who use head-to-head of the two highest ranked teams in the tie?

It doesn't matter what I think is fair or not fair, all that matters is that the system has been in lace, agreed upon by all schools in the conference, since the inception of the Big 12.

[hostros7]

Apparently UT losses are irrelevant to the discussion.  But it's not Myopia.  At all.  Just Not Fair.

They have to be for one to place them ahead of Alabama in their personal BCS rankings.

[matadorph]

Alabama and Florida (especially Florida) are overrated. Who has Alabama beaten?

[JackAstro]

It doesn't matter what I think is fair or not fair, all that matters is that the system has been in lace, agreed upon by all schools in the conference, since the inception of the Big 12.

Well, I'm not really asking any of them. Since you seem fairly fired up about this, I was kinda curious what you think.

[Bench]

Alabama and Florida (especially Florida) are overrated. Who has Alabama beaten?

And who has Flordia beaten?  They creamed Georgia, but Geogia turned out to be not so hot anyway. 

[Col. Sphinx Drummond]

Tech was better than Texas from the time they defeated Texas up to the moment they lost to OU, who had already lost to Texas.

[matadorph]

They have to be for one to place them ahead of Alabama in their personal BCS rankings.

Likewise, my Oklahoma myopia forced me to put OU ahead of Alabama in my personal rankings.

[tophfar]

Well, I'm not really asking any of them. Since you seem fairly fired up about this, I was kinda curious what you think.

I'm not particularly fired up about anything other than am tired of hearing tsips whine about how the Univers Hates Them.

[Bench]

Tech was better than Texas from the time they defeated Texas up to the moment they lost to OU, who had already lost to Texas.

And thus Texas was better than OU from the time they defeated OU up to the moment they lost to Tech, who later got beat by OU?

[tophfar]

Likewise, my Oklahoma myopia forced me to put OU ahead of Alabama in my personal rankings.

Well the only teams that matter are the teams on UT's schedule.  We understand.  All other teams are overrated or play much weaker teams than anyone UT has ever played.  In History.

[Col. Sphinx Drummond]

And thus Texas was better than OU from the time they defeated OU up to the moment they lost to Tech, who later got beat by OU?

No Texas was better than OU from the moment they beat OU up to the moment that OU beat Tech. It's real easy to follow, like a Möbius strip.

[tophfar]

No Texas was better than OU from the moment they beat OU up to the moment that OU beat Tech. It's real easy to follow, like a Möbius strip.

Mobius obviously didnt go to Texas.

[Bench]

No Texas was better than OU from the moment they beat OU up to the moment that OU beat Tech. It's real easy to follow, like a Möbius strip.

Sounds about right to me.

[hostros7]

Likewise, my Oklahoma myopia forced me to put OU ahead of Alabama in my personal rankings.

I wasn't the one who claimed you had myopia.  I'm jus sayin' if you think an undefeated SEC team won't be ranked ahead of 1 loss Big XXII teams, ju cracy.  Personally, I think Texas has the best chance of beating Alabama or Florida of anyone in the country.  But, at this point, they shouldn't be ranked ahead of Alabama, our opinions be damned.

[matadorph]

I wasn't the one who claimed you had myopia.  I'm jus sayin' if you think an undefeated SEC team won't be ranked ahead of 1 loss Big XXII teams, ju cracy.  Personally, I think Texas has the best chance of beating Alabama or Florida of anyone in the country.  But, at this point, they shouldn't be ranked ahead of Alabama, our opinions be damned.

I wasn't asked what I thought the rankings will be, I was asked what I think they should be. Personally, I think Texas and Oklahoma should both be ranked ahead of Alabama.

[Rebel Jew]

Here's a link through Nov. 5

http://community.foxsports.com/blogs/GOBLUE92/2008/11/05/Conference_Strength_among_BCS_conferences_Week

Big XII was 7-8, including 0-4 against the ACC (which is probably the top to bottom strongest conference).

i gotta say bizididy, you're really reminding me of a BP writer today with your bcs arguments.

[Mr. Happy]

1. Texas
2. Oklahoma
3. Alabama
4. Florida
5. Texas Tech

Any poll that has Florida at anywhere but no. 1 is fooling themselves. However, I agree that Texas and Oklahoma should be better than Alabama, but the Nick Saban factor keeps creeping in.

[Noe]

I know absolutely nothing, nada, zip, zero about the BCS and all the hula-buloo going on right now.  That said... here is my opinion!

What the hell is wrong with all of you!  Rankings, that's what.  In a major sport (yes, college football is a business and a major sport), rarely do you have decisions about who is the better team or a "champion" being decided by a ranking system.  I bristle when I read actual sports sites try to bring in rankings for the MLB to create these sort of heating and passionate discussions.  They carry no weight in baseball because you win and lose on the field and then you go to the playoffs and prove you're the better team, even if you're the better "playing" team at the moment, they can't take that away from you... ever!  Were the 1998 San Diego Padres *better* than the 1998 Houston Astros?  Yes, because they beat them on the field and not some damn ranking system that would evaluate strengths and weaknesses, et. al.

Damn college football and all it's connections to bowl money... this false method to crown a mythical champion (only in division 1-A, all other divisions have playoffs).  If the money weren't so good for all involved in terms of bowls, no one would object to a playoff system.  I don't care what argument anyone puts forth about school and how these are student athletes (*yeah, right*!), the fact of the matter is that you have to use these bullshit methods of rankings to maintain the money flow and satisfy the fans that one team can indeed claim to be the best college football team in the land.

Thank goodness college basketball has a great tournament to show just how it can be easily done to crown an actual champion.

[Trey]

Alabama and Florida (especially Florida) are overrated. Who has Alabama beaten?

Alabama has beaten everyone that they played.  No other BCS-conference school can say that.

But Bama and UF really aren't germaine to this.  They're playing each other, and one will go to the BCS championship game.

[TheWizard]

I know absolutely nothing, nada, zip, zero about the BCS and all the hula-buloo going on right now.  That said... here is my opinion!

And the "beauty" of the subjective polls and rankings of college football means that any casual fan's opinion of which team deserves to go to a championship game is as legit as a sports columnist or pollster or what have you.  Reason being that its just an opinion.  The whole think is absurd for such a major sport.  That's my .02.

[Noe]

And the "beauty" of the subjective polls and rankings of college football means that any casual fan's opinion of which team deserves to go to a championship game is as legit as a sports columnist or pollster or what have you.  Reason being that its just an opinion.  The whole think is absurd for such a major sport.  That's my .02.

They may as well make it a Miss America pageant instead of a sport. 

[JackAstro]

They may as well make it a Miss America pageant instead of a sport. 

I love T&A as much as the next guy, but I think the evening gowns would be a real distraction from the football.

[tophfar]

What's sad is that a bunch of tortilla throwing, goal post in the stand shoving, cow town rednecks in lubbock get it better than the supposedly more cosmopolitan Austinites.

"It was all on us," running back Baron Batch said. "All we had to do was go and beat Oklahoma.

"I can’t say, 'Poor us,’ and, 'We’re getting messed over.’ All we had to do was go out and [beat OU]."

"We got a great season out of 11-1 and want to go to the best bowl and want to go to the best game and want the best to turn out," Harrell said. "We would liked to have won [at OU] and gone undefeated, but we didn’t."

and most importantly, the writer gets the most important part of the rankings.

In retrospect, Tech may have been a victim of bad timing. Voters seem to overlook losses early in the season because teams still have time to recover and make an impression.

http://www.star-telegram.com/288/story/1068270.html

[Deja Vu]

is there any evidence UT tried to change the 3-way tiebreaker formula before this season? or is this just mack brown's ultimate hypocrisy, a guy who has always played the politics of the polls to his advantage and then suddenly realized it would hurt him this year?

[JimR]

is there any evidence UT tried to change the 3-way tiebreaker formula before this season? or is this just mack brown's ultimate hypocrisy, a guy who has always played the politics of the polls to his advantage and then suddenly realized it would hurt him this year?

you keep this up, mofo, and i'll try to make your life miserable again.

[MusicMan]

In what prior situation - other than 2004, when his pleas for votes actually backfired - has Mack Brown "played the politics of the polls to his advantage"?

[JimR]

In what prior situation - other than 2004, when his pleas for votes actually backfired - has Mack Brown "played the politics of the polls to his advantage"?

and the line to bitch about the BCS goes out the door and around the corner.

[Rebel Jew]

What's sad is that a bunch of tortilla throwing, goal post in the stand shoving, cow town rednecks in lubbock get it better than the supposedly more cosmopolitan Austinites.

and most importantly, the writer gets the most important part of the rankings.

http://www.star-telegram.com/288/story/1068270.html

you're being extremely stubborn on your point here.  it wasn't "bad timing" that messed things up for tech, it was giving up 65 in a thorough ass-beating on prime time tv.  if tech plays ou down to the wire and loses a hard-fought road game by less than a touchdown because ou had the ball last (like they beat texas), then tech would still very much be in this discussion.

[Andyzipp]

So if Florida beats Alabama like most people think and OU wins, there will be 7 one loss teams, and 3 undefeated teams.

Texas isn't the only team getting fucked over.  And none of them have anyone to blame other than the Presidents who keep agreeing to the BCS.

[JimR]

I'm not particularly fired up about anything other than am tired of hearing tsips whine about how the Univers Hates Them.

ah, the poor downtrodden Aggies show up. does saying "tsips" make you feel great?

[MusicMan]

Texas is just the most prominent.

Although Utah has a heck of an argument this year, given the Mountain West's relative strength.

[S.P. Rodriguez]

ah, the poor downtrodden Aggies show up. does saying "tsips" make you feel great?

I'd describe the sensation from calling someone a "tsip" as a glowing euphoria.  But that's just me...

[JimR]

So if Florida beats Alabama like most people think and OU wins, there will be 7 one loss teams, and 3 undefeated teams.

Texas isn't the only team getting fucked over.  And none of them have anyone to blame other than the Presidents who keep agreeing to the BCS.

and Texas is just the latest. there is one every year.

i'm not into the wailing and gnashing of teeth about this, though. if we do not drop the long TD pass or the interception, properly double cover their receiver on TT's last chance or manage the clock intelligently, the BCS stupidity is irrelevant.

we had a great season and came up just short in a game we had to win and could have won. it happens.

[Andyzipp]

ah, the poor downtrodden Aggies show up. does saying "tsips" make you feel great?

I'm neither poor nor downtrodden.  I also don't base the worth of my degree on the success of the football team.

My degree was devalued a long time before A&M got bad again.

[JackAstro]

So if Florida beats Alabama like most people think and OU wins, there will be 7 one loss teams, and 3 undefeated teams.

Texas isn't the only team getting fucked over.  And none of them have anyone to blame other than the Presidents who keep agreeing to the BCS.

Point of order - the alleged fucking over in question is with regards to the conference tiebreaker system, not the BCS. The BCS hasn't fucked anyone over yet this year. Give it a week, we'll get there.

Also, since the (very remote) possibility exists that Florida could beat Alabama and still not pass Texas in the BCS standings, it's at least conceivable that Texas could be the beneficiary of a fucking over, rather than the recipient.

[JimR]

I'm neither poor nor downtrodden.  I also don't base the worth of my degree on the success of the football team.

My degree was devalued a long time before A&M got bad again.

agreed. you are a sensible Aggie. i like you despite your choice of schools.

the "teasips" and "tu" are amusing.

[kevwun]

Texas ended up going to a BCS bowl in 2004, so I'm confused as to how Mack's campaigning hurt Texas that year.  The bowl game results backed him up as Texas won the Rose Bowl while Cal got fuckstomped by an average Tech team in the Holiday Bowl.

[tophfar]

ah, the poor downtrodden Aggies show up. does saying "tsips" make you feel great?

Nope but apparently whining about pollsters and pretending losses don't exist helps tsips sleep better at night.

[tophfar]

you're being extremely stubborn on your point here.  it wasn't "bad timing" that messed things up for tech, it was giving up 65 in a thorough ass-beating on prime time tv.  if tech plays ou down to the wire and loses a hard-fought road game by less than a touchdown because ou had the ball last (like they beat texas), then tech would still very much be in this discussion.

It's not just this year that it happens.  Losses early in the year historically do not hurt a team in the long run than losses later in the year.

[JimR]

Nope but apparently whining about pollsters and pretending losses don't exist helps tsips sleep better at night.

go fuck yourself.

[Duke]

So we (UT) go to the Tostitos Bowl, crush Ohio State and maybe end up AP champs like USC in '03.  If Colt does what he says he will and comes back, what a year we could have.

[tophfar]

go fuck yourself.

Its not my fault that your fanbase is turning into Yankee South.  

[JimR]

Its not my fault that your fanbase is turning into Yankee South.  

better than leaving the stadium in the 3rd quarter like your "fanbase" does.

now, go fuck yourself.

[kevwun]

So we (UT) go to the Tostitos Bowl, crush Ohio State and maybe end up AP champs like USC in '03.  If Colt does what he says he will and comes back, what a year we could have.

I'm ok with beating the tar out of Ohio State in the Fiesta Bowl and starting next year as #1.  I think it's probably what's going to happen.  This team played so far above expectations this season and the future looks so good, I'm having a hard time getting really worked up about this.  Plus there's always Bob Stoops getting depantsed in another BCS game to look forward to.  That happens and there's a new Mr. February in town.

[JackAstro]

Its not my fault that your fanbase is turning into Yankee South.  

And it's not our fault that you're turning into an ankle-biting prick. Everyone loses.

[MusicMan]

Texas ended up going to a BCS bowl in 2004, so I'm confused as to how Mack's campaigning hurt Texas that year.  The bowl game results backed him up as Texas won the Rose Bowl while Cal got fuckstomped by an average Tech team in the Holiday Bowl.

Because Texas actually lost votes in both polls after his "campaign".  The situation was very analagous to OU this year - they lost points in the polls, but the computers were more than enough to make up for it.

If every single voter - except one - had put Cal 4, Texas 5 in 2004, Texas would have been 4th in the BCS as a result of the computers.  )(A unanimous Cal 4, UT 5 would have resulted in a tie for 4th.)  But every writer that brings up how Mack campaigned his way into the Rose Bowl can't be bothered to do simple math.

[tophfar]

And it's not our fault that you're turning into an ankle-biting prick. Everyone loses.

Apparently not Texas.  Or if they do, it doesn't really count anyway.

[MusicMan]

Point of order - the alleged fucking over in question is with regards to the conference tiebreaker system, not the BCS. The BCS hasn't fucked anyone over yet this year. Give it a week, we'll get there.

This is spot on.

Also, since the (very remote) possibility exists that Florida could beat Alabama and still not pass Texas in the BCS standings, it's at least conceivable that Texas could be the beneficiary of a fucking over, rather than the recipient.

I brought this up previously, and ironically, the more it is discsussed, the less likely it is, as voters will manipulate their ballots to prevent it.

But with ESPN jumping into bed with both the BCS and SEC, it would be a hilarious result.

[MusicMan]

Apparently not Texas.  Or if they do, it doesn't really count anyway.

It counted.  OU's did not.  Nor did Florida's, apparently.

[otterjb]

and Texas is just the latest. there is one every year.

i'm not into the wailing and gnashing of teeth about this, though. if we do not drop the long TD pass or the interception, properly double cover their receiver on TT's last chance or manage the clock intelligently, the BCS stupidity is irrelevant.

we had a great season and came up just short in a game we had to win and could have won. it happens.

Yep. Texas football is having a phenomenal season and there wouldn't be any BCS BS discussion if Texas had just won that game in Lubbock like they so easily could have. Regardless of the ending to that game, and the result of the BCS, it's still a phenomenal season, with a big one still to come.

[Trey]

But with ESPN jumping into bed with both the BCS and SEC, it would be a hilarious result.

Sorry, I probably missed something, but how is ESPN linked to the SEC?

[tophfar]

It counted.  OU's did not.  Nor did Florida's, apparently.

No, they all counted the same, hence the three way tie break.  OU's just happened first.  It's shitty, and it shouldnt be that way.  

But in the event of a three way tie, no matter the tie breaker chosen, there will always be arguments for all three teams over the other two.  Two teams will always get fucked in a three way tie break.

The real answer is the one that will never ever happen.  Go to a playoffs and none of this makes one shit bit of difference.

[JimR]

Apparently not Texas.  Or if they do, it doesn't really count anyway.

fucking idiot. i imagine you even embarrass other Aggies.

[kevwun]

Sorry, I probably missed something, but how is ESPN linked to the SEC?

They have a contract now to broadcast some SEC games, though I think CBS still has first choice.

[otterjb]

I'm ok with beating the tar out of Ohio State in the Fiesta Bowl and starting next year as #1.  I think it's probably what's going to happen.  This team played so far above expectations this season and the future looks so good, I'm having a hard time getting really worked up about this.  Plus there's always Bob Stoops getting depantsed in another BCS game to look forward to.  That happens and there's a new Mr. February in town.

I would be happy as hell if UT gets Ohio State in the Fiesta, that would be a nice silver lining.

Next year could be a special season.

[MusicMan]

This year already was.  11-1 was beyond my wildest dreams for this season.  I honestly expected 8-4.

[tophfar]

fucking idiot. i imagine you even embarrass other Aggies.

Learn you some literacy, and figure out how 45-35 pretends that 39-33 never happened.

[MusicMan]

Learn you some literacy, and figure out how 45-35 pretends that 39-33 never happened.

Because any logic professor would tell you that the first step in breaking a three-way deadlock is to eliminate one of the parties.

[tophfar]

Because any logic professor would tell you that the first step in breaking a three-way deadlock is to eliminate one of the parties.

By what "fair" criteria do you eliminate this other third team?  The one that lost last?  That's some good thinking.

What's hilarious to me is that the same poll that determines Tech is just "out of it", the BCS poll, is the same poll that is bullshit in deciding that OU should be ahead of Texas. 

Cake, can't have, eating it too.


There are plenty of other ways to do it.  One way we do it is point differential in only the games the three teams were involved in. 

But then that would induce crying about running up the score, and more whining about getting screwed.

[otterjb]

This year already was.  11-1 was beyond my wildest dreams for this season.  I honestly expected 8-4.

I was hoping for 9-3.

[MusicMan]

By what "fair" criteria do you eliminate this other third team?  The one that lost last?  That's some good thinking.

How about eliminating wins over D1-AA schools?
Or comparing records of non-common conference opponents?
Or the largest losing margin in the round-robin?

There are any number of "fair" methods, including the SEC/ACC method of knocking out the lowest in the standings.  As JackAstro said, this is a Big XII failure.

[kevwun]

One of the 3 teams got a severe, prime time beatdown by another member of the 3.  What's so crazy about eliminating that team from consideration?

[Trey]

They have a contract now to broadcast some SEC games, though I think CBS still has first choice.

Who do they NOT have a contract with?

[tophfar]

There are any number of "fair" methods, including the SEC/ACC method of knocking out the lowest in the standings. 

Can you explain the fairness of letting the voters decide who is eliminated as opposed to letting the voters decide who moves on?

It's the same fucking thing, and the only reason its being thrown about now is because Texas would move on with that system.

Pure sour grapes.

[MusicMan]

Because it leads back to on-field results for the final decision.

[tophfar]

One of the 3 teams got a severe, prime time beatdown by another member of the 3.  What's so crazy about eliminating that team from consideration?

Because you still lost to that team.  that loss does not magically go away.  Head to head cannot count here.  There are ways of determining a winner without "eliminating" one team first.  Point idfferential in the all games that the three are involved in, is one of those ways.

[kevwun]

Yep, it is sour grapes saying that Texas would have advanced to the championship game under the SEC and ACC's tiebreaker system.  It's also the fucking truth.

[tophfar]

Because it leads back to on-field results for the final decision.

And yet is still wholly subjective in who is picked for this on field final decision.  

[tophfar]

Yep, it is sour grapes saying that Texas would have advanced to the championship game under the SEC and ACC's tiebreaker system.  It's also the fucking truth.

Then move to the SEC.  This is the Big 12 and SEC rules really dont make a fucking difference here do they?

Texas could be winning according to fucking soccer rules from Zimbabwe for all the difference the SEC rules fucking make.

Sour Fucking Grapes.

[JimR]

When a team that is up by 13 with 30 seconds to go still has its first team in and is still running its offense, runnin up the score is a fact, not crying. The Ags have been on the receiving end of that from Stoops. That is just the way he coaches, and it works with the computers.

[JackAstro]

Can you explain the fairness of letting the voters decide who is eliminated as opposed to letting the voters decide who moves on?

It's the same fucking thing, and the only reason its being thrown about now is because Texas would move on with that system.

Pure sour grapes.

Again - and if you're going to persist with the argument, then don't try the "it doesn't matter what I think" bit - do you feel that the Big XII's current BCS tiebreaker is more fair than other conferences, who use head-to-head of the two highest ranked teams in the tie?

[kevwun]

If you're going to make this argument, at least find a conference tiebreaker system in which Tech doesn't end up 3rd.  I don't know of any.

[tophfar]

Again - and if you're going to persist with the argument, then don't try the "it doesn't matter what I think" bit - do you feel that the Big XII's current BCS tiebreaker is more fair than other conferences, who use head-to-head of the two highest ranked teams in the tie?

Reading Comprehension is apparently not part of the Texas curriculum.

No, they all counted the same, hence the three way tie break.  OU's just happened first.  It's shitty, and it shouldnt be that way. 

But in the event of a three way tie, no matter the tie breaker chosen, there will always be arguments for all three teams over the other two.  Two teams will always get fucked in a three way tie break.

The real answer is the one that will never ever happen.  Go to a playoffs and none of this makes one shit bit of difference.

as well as

Can you explain the fairness of letting the voters decide who is eliminated as opposed to letting the voters decide who moves on?

It's the same fucking thing, and the only reason its being thrown about now is because Texas would move on with that system.

Both systems in which a poll determines who either is eliminated, or who advances, is retarded.

[tophfar]

If you're going to make this argument, at least find a conference tiebreaker system in which Tech doesn't end up 3rd.  I don't know of any.

It doesn't matter where Tech ends up, the only reason those ideas are being thrown around is because of where it puts Texas.  If Texas were the one being eliminated by the Polls (which is what is happening now), it would be decried as bullshit just the same.

(as in third in the BCS poll, and allowing OU/Tech head to head)

[kevwun]

If OU or Tech had beaten Texas by 44, no rational Texas fan would make the argument you're making right now.

[tophfar]

If OU or Tech had beaten Texas by 44, no rational Texas fan would make the argument you're making right now.

none of the arguments now have been rational, so i'm not sure how that would make a difference.

[kevwun]

I don't think you know what rational means.  Your argument for Tech is so weak that you can't even come up with a system in which Tech would have won the 3 way tie.

[matadorph]

It doesn't matter where Tech ends up, the only reason those ideas are being thrown around is because of where it puts Texas.  If Texas were the one being eliminated by the Polls (which is what is happening now), it would be decried as bullshit just the same.

Speaking for myself only, you're fucking wrong. If Texas had lost to Oklahoma by ten points on a neutral field and been awarded a spot in the Big XII Championship Game with a chance to play for the BCS title, I'd make the same argument in Oklahoma's defense.

Answer this for me....how would the three respective teams be reasonably ranked in the final BCS standings if each team got the opportunity to play Missouri and each one whipped Mizzou's ass? How would you rank them?

In the absence of a playoff, wouldn't a reasonable person then consider the circumstances of each team's respective loss in order to determine who deserves the opportunity to play for the BCS title?

Texas has the best loss by far. If Tech had kept the game close in Norman as Texas did in Lubbock, Tech would have a good argument for advancement, but the drubbing effectively eliminates them from the discussion.

[tophfar]

I don't think you know what rational means.

What is rational about crying about a poll determining a three way tie break to move to a completely different system...

of a poll determining a three way tie break?

And then calling it completely different?  And Better?

For Serious?

[matadorph]

I don't think you know what rational means.

what he said.

[JackAstro]

Reading Comprehension is apparently not part of the Texas curriculum.

I'm okay with reading comprehension - probably middle of the pack or so. That's why, after the first time I asked and you told me that it didn't matter what you thought, I comprehended that you hadn't answered my question. If you think that I should be reading your responses to other people sentence-by-sentence, trying to glean something that vaguely kind of sort of passes for an answer to a previous question that you insisted on not answering, then you're giving us both too much credit.

Anyway, I get it. You're a cocksucker, and you can't help it. I can sympathize. You want to make a point, but you're not sure what it is. You try to articulate it, but you just wind up spinning around and around, and dammit if you don't just keep vomiting out the same illogical mess over and over again.

Listen, I'm very much a dumbass, too - it's OK to acknowledge it sometimes. Embrace it, and people can still find you pleasant in spite of it. Or you can manufacture outrage and attack everything for no particular reason. But if you really think that the majority of Texas fans would be pissed off if they were a distant third in a tiebreaker after recently having their asses absolutely handed to them, you're delusional.

[tophfar]

In the absence of a playoff, wouldn't a reasonable person consider then circumstances of each team's respective loss in order to determine who deserves the opportunity to play for the BCS title?

In the absence of a playoff, as I've repeatedly said, two teams get fucked, in the event of a three way tie.

[tophfar]

I'm okay with reading comprehension - probably middle of the pack or so. That's why, after the first time I asked and you told me that it didn't matter what you thought, I comprehended that you hadn't answered my question. If you think that I should be reading your responses to other people sentence-by-sentence, trying to glean something that vaguely kind of sort of passes for an answer to a previous question that you insisted on not answering, then you're giving us both too much credit.

Anyway, I get it. You're a cocksucker, and you can't help it. I can sympathize. You want to make a point, but you're not sure what it is. You try to articulate it, but you just wind up spinning around and around, and dammit if you don't just keep vomiting out the same illogical mess over and over again.

Listen, I'm very much a dumbass, too - it's OK to acknowledge it sometimes. Embrace it, and people can still find you pleasant in spite of it. Or you can manufacture outrage and attack everything for no particular reason. But if you really think that the majority of Texas fans would be pissed off if they were a distant third in a tiebreaker after recently having their asses absolutely handed to them, you're delusional.

Listen douchebag, the point that is repeatedly made is that Head to Head doesnt matter in the event of a three way tie.

So therefore, this idea that since ya'll beat OU that's all that should matter right now.  It fucking doesn't.

The round and round is the retards that can't quite comprehend three way ties.  And the crying about polls.  If you want to make 45 - 35 matter, don't let 39 - 33 happen.

Tech got it.  Texas apparently did not.

[tophfar]

what he said.

What is rational about crying about a poll determining a three way tie break to move to a completely different system...

of a poll determining a three way tie break?

And then calling it completely different?  And Better?

For Serious?

[tophfar]

I'm okay with reading comprehension - probably middle of the pack or so. That's why, after the first time I asked and you told me that it didn't matter what you thought, I comprehended that you hadn't answered my question. If you think that I should be reading your responses to other people sentence-by-sentence, trying to glean something that vaguely kind of sort of passes for an answer to a previous question that you insisted on not answering, then you're giving us both too much credit.

Anyway, I get it. You're a cocksucker, and you can't help it. I can sympathize. You want to make a point, but you're not sure what it is. You try to articulate it, but you just wind up spinning around and around, and dammit if you don't just keep vomiting out the same illogical mess over and over again.

Listen, I'm very much a dumbass, too - it's OK to acknowledge it sometimes. Embrace it, and people can still find you pleasant in spite of it. Or you can manufacture outrage and attack everything for no particular reason. But if you really think that the majority of Texas fans would be pissed off if they were a distant third in a tiebreaker after recently having their asses absolutely handed to them, you're delusional.

What is rational about crying about a poll determining a three way tie break to move to a completely different system...

of a poll determining a three way tie break?

And then calling it completely different?  And Better?

For Serious?

[matadorph]

In the absence of a playoff, as I've repeatedly said, two teams get fucked, in the event of a three way tie.

I think we established that already. Now, why don't you tell us who you'd fuck and why?

[tophfar]

I think we established that already. Now, why don't you tell us who you'd fuck and why?

because it doesnt matter?  my opinion has nothing to do with anything that is actually happening, nor does it affect any of the arguments presented.

it doesn't change the fact that the Big 12 rules have existed for a decade now and have been agreed upon by every scholl that particiupates in the Big 12.

Just because the established system did not work in your favor does not mean you got fucked, or screwed.  Get the fuck over it.

[JackAstro]

Listen douchebag, the point that is repeatedly made is that Head to Head doesnt matter in the event of a three way tie.

So therefore, this idea that since ya'll beat OU that's all that should matter right now.  It fucking doesn't.

The round and round is the retards that can't quite comprehend three way ties.  And the crying about polls.  If you want to make 45 - 35 matter, don't let 39 - 33 happen.

Tech got it.  Texas apparently did not.

And here we are again. Obviously, the answer for any of the three teams is to not lose. I'm sure I could google up some relevant quotes from players on and of the teams. Everyone can shrug and say "we should've played better against...", but ultimately, someone has to go to the title game.

I'm not outraged by any of this. I think the tiebreaker should be changed, but with the implicit understanding that there is no perfectly fair way to break a 3-way tie. As (I believe) MM said, you have to eliminate one team, and pick between the remaining two. I believe that ranking those teams is the best way to narrow it to two, and head-to-head is the only rational way to handle it from there.

If Texas and Tech were ranked #2 and #3 right now, I would absolutely say that it's more fair for Tech to go. It sucks as a fan, sure, but Tech went out and earned it against Texas. This is not some radical idea. You're so blinded by your disgust with Texas, you're predisposed to think that we all believe something more convenient for your argument, but it's just not the case. Sorry.

[matadorph]

because it doesnt matter?  my opinion has nothing to do with anything that is actually happening, nor does it affect any of the arguments presented.

Look, I agree with the argument that Tech has an equal claim to a shot at the Big 12 title by virtue of its record, but we all know that Tech is not in the discussion for the BCS title. The reason you won't answer my question (or Jack Astro's) is because you know it will expose your hypocrisy. Tech is not a BCS title contender. Texas and OU are.

[tophfar]

I'm not outraged by any of this. I think the tiebreaker should be changed, but with the implicit understanding that there is no perfectly fair way to break a 3-way tie. As (I believe) MM said, you have to eliminate one team, and pick between the remaining two.

False assumption, there are ways to do this without that occurring.

Comparative results between all three teams in games that involve the tied teams.  

It limits tie breaks to solely on field endeavors (and isnt that what everyone wants), and doenst resort to "eliminating" one team.

The only reason that keeps getting thrown around is because it effectively allows you to not talk about 39 - 33.

[tophfar]

Look, I agree with the argument that Tech has an equal claim to a shot at the Big 12 title by virtue of its record, but we all know that Tech is not in the discussion for the BCS title. The reason you won't answer my question (or Jack Astro's) is because you know it will expose your hypocrisy. Tech is not a BCS title contender. Texas and OU are.

No, that is false.  They have just as much claim as the other two, or else there wouldnt BE a three way tie break.

You're subjective opinion on who YOU think deserves or does not deserve it doesn't lessen their record or their claim.

[kevwun]

False assumption, there are ways to do this without that occurring.

Comparative results between all three teams in games that involve the tied teams.  

It limits tie breaks to solely on field endeavors (and isnt that what everyone wants), and doenst resort to "eliminating" one team.

The only reason that keeps getting thrown around is because it effectively allows you to not talk about 39 - 33.

You realize that Tech would still come in 3rd in this scenario, don't you?  You keep saying that there was no good reason for Tech to be the first team that was eliminated, but you can't come up with anything that backs up that claim.

[otterjb]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwTZ2xpQwpA

[otterjb]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMNry4PE93Y

[JimR]

Tech got it? Who voted Tech #1 in the nation?

Rthe BCS sytem made 39-33 irrelevant by dropping Tech out of it. We certainly recognize 39-33. Otherwise we'd be undisputed #1.

Wanna talk Aggie football, cocksucker?

[matadorph]

No, that is false.  They have just as much claim as the other two, or else there wouldnt BE a three way tie break.

You're subjective opinion on who YOU think deserves or does not deserve it doesn't lessen their record or their claim.

You really think Tech has a legitimate argument for a spot in the BCS title game?

[JackAstro]

False assumption, there are ways to do this without that occurring.

Comparative results between all three teams in games that involve the tied teams.  

It limits tie breaks to solely on field endeavors (and isnt that what everyone wants), and doenst resort to "eliminating" one team.

The only reason that keeps getting thrown around is because it effectively allows you to not talk about 39 - 33.

Oh, Jesus... finally we're actually talking about differing opinions on the same topic, instead of calling each other retards. Took you long enough.

If there were some well-designed system of comparison to narrow it down to two, then go head-to-head, I could get behind that. I think ranking is still probably better, since it allows human observation along with mathematical comparison, but I could be convinced otherwise.

At the end of the day, though, I feel head-to-head between two teams has to be the ultimate determining factor, because that's what the games are for. Settle it on the field and all that. Even if those two teams are Tech and OU. Believe me, if Texas had absorbed Tech's loss, I would have no problem with them being on the outside of the discussion looking in.

I am perfectly well aware of the fact that Texas lost in Lubbock. I'm not sure why you feel that anyone is trying to sweep that loss under the rug, because I don't see it. If Tech wants to remind the world that they beat Texas 39-33, more power to them. I'm certainly not going to show up on the internet to call them fucking idiots for doing it.

[MRaup]

All you have to do is realize you're arguing with an Aggie. Once slapnuts outed himself, it became perfectly clear this was just turning in to typical Aggie is out of it so lets so irked he can make Texas fans.

[JackAstro]

All you have to do is realize you're arguing with an Aggie. Once slapnuts outed himself, it became perfectly clear this was just turning in to typical Aggie is out of it so lets so irked he can make Texas fans.

Dammit man, just let me enjoy myself. Hey, did you read the word "fuckstomped" in this thread? That was great. Some good has come of all this.

[Duke]

I was hoping for 9-3.

We beat OU.  We beat A&M.  You throw Ohios State on top of that and my ass is smilin'.

[otterjb]

The A&M football program is awfully abysmal. The health of that program is in a deeply pathetic state. It's sad. Also, fuckstomp is a good word.

[otterjb]

Playing and then beating Ohio State would be niiiiiiiice.

[Duke]

Playing and then beating Ohio State would be niiiiiiiice.

It would be niiiiice to fuckstomp Ohio State.

[Ty in Tampa]

Fuckstomp and chocolate rain. The only 2 things I got out of this thread.

[HudsonHawk]

He's miles down the crawfish trail right now.

Fuck you, you wormy little snot.

[JackAstro]

Fuck you, you wormy little snot.

It's the delay that makes it funny... impeccable comedic timing.

[matadorph]

Look, I agree with the argument that Tech has an equal claim to a shot at the Big 12 title by virtue of its record, but we all know that Tech is not in the discussion for the BCS title. The reason you won't answer my question (or Jack Astro's) is because you know it will expose your hypocrisy. Tech is not a BCS title contender. Texas and OU are.

No, that is false.  They have just as much claim as the other two, or else there wouldnt BE a three way tie break.

Apparently Reading Comprehension isn't part of the Aggie curriculum.

[HudsonHawk]

By this logic, wins and losses are human inputs, since humans design the rules, set the schedules and perform the actions that determine who wins and who loses.

Yes.  On several levels.  What's your point?

[HudsonHawk]

It's the delay that makes it funny... impeccable comedic timing.

I would have said it yesterday, but I was busy until now.  Busy partying my ass off at Monday Night Football!!!

[JackAstro]

I would have said it yesterday, but I was busy until now.  Busy partying my ass off at Monday Night Football!!!

Honestly, it worked better this way. I had totally forgotten where this thread had been and then BAM.

Also, Monday Night Football WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

[HudsonHawk]

Honestly, it worked better this way. I had totally forgotten where this thread had been and then BAM.

Also, Monday Night Football WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

It's a shame MNF is no longer the marquee game.  It was still a blast.  It was real football weather, and the Texans did not step all over their collective dick, despite the best efforts of their idiot head coach.

[BudGirl]

You really don't like Kubiak.

[HudsonHawk]

You really don't like Kubiak.

To be brief...no.  I think he's a fucking moron.  I used to not think that.  I used to think he'd seen a football game before.  But this season has completely changed my mind about him. 

[tophfar]

You realize that Tech would still come in 3rd in this scenario, don't you?  You keep saying that there was no good reason for Tech to be the first team that was eliminated, but you can't come up with anything that backs up that claim.

I'm not trying to prove that Tech should be the one moving on.  

I'm showing that Texas is not getting "officially" screwed.  And that the assumption of subjectivity of the BCS is bad, to move to a system of subjectivity that would be "good", is rather illogical.

There are systems that are non subjective and it doesn't matter who lands where in regards to the rest of the argument.

[tophfar]

Tech got it? Who voted Tech #1 in the nation?

no tech got it in that their chance was to prove it on the field, and they didnt do that.  Everything else is just sour grapes.

Texas had their chance on the field too, they didnt do that.  Crying about the BCS polls, and what the SEC does afterwards is just sour grapes.

[tophfar]

Oh, Jesus... finally we're actually talking about differing opinions on the same topic, instead of calling each other retards. Took you long enough.

No I've been talking about it the entire time.  Crying about being screwed and claiming the SEC way is better because it would benefit Texas is just asinine.

[JackAstro]

No I've been talking about it the entire time.  Crying about being screwed and claiming the SEC way is better because it would benefit Texas is just asinine.

OK, fair enough. Mark's right. Go fuck yourself.

[tophfar]

Tech is not a BCS title contender. Texas and OU are.

So the same poll that is Bullshit in regards to OU/UT rankings is legit when it comes to Tech Rankings?

[tophfar]

At the end of the day, though, I feel head-to-head between two teams has to be the ultimate determining factor, because that's what the games are for.

Only because Texas beat OU. 

Comparative criteria between the three teams in the games played allows for results on the field to determine the winner without this false assumption that some team needs to be eliminated first.

[tophfar]

so lets so irked he can make Texas fans.

That's some good texas schooling linguistication there.

[JackAstro]

Texas beat OU. results on the field determine the winner

Selective quoting is fun!

[tophfar]

OK, fair enough. Mark's right. Go fuck yourself.

As far as unanswered questions, you have yet to answer how subjectivity in one case is bad, and subjectivity in the second is better.

Other than the obvious answer of course.

[JackAstro]

That's some good texas schooling linguistication there.

lol Mark types too fast sometimes rofl

[tophfar]

Selective quoting is fun!

...typical Aggie is out of it so lets so irked he can make Texas fans

is still not english.

[MRaup]

That's some good texas schooling linguistication there.

Wow, you got me good.

Seriously. I understand A&M's penis envy toward all things UT. I can't blame you. Milkmen for cheerleaders, horrible football teams, losing to Baylor, enormous women eating waiting lists for tickets. But seriously, you don't even have a dog in the hunt in this conversation. You're just being a troll, and not a very good one at that. Go crawl back under your Old Army rock until the Aggies can hire another head coach that's willing to cheat his ass off in recruiting to make A&M relevant again for a few years.


ETA: I hope this is coherent enough for you to understand. If not, here's the short version: GO FUCK YOURSELF, YOU AGGIE TROLL.

[tophfar]

Wow, you got me good.

Seriously. I understand A&M's penis envy toward all things UT. I can't blame you. Milkmen for cheerleaders, horrible football teams, losing to Baylor, enormous women eating waiting lists for tickets. But seriously, you don't even have a dog in the hunt in this conversation. You're just being a troll, and not a very good one at that. Go crawl back under your Old Army rock until the Aggies can hire another head coach that's willing to cheat his ass off in recruiting to make A&M relevant again for a few years.

And none of that changes the fact that Texas still hasn't gotten screwed.

[JackAstro]

As far as unanswered questions, you have yet to answer how subjectivity in one case is bad, and subjectivity in the second is better.

Other than the obvious answer of course.

Not sure if you ever asked me that, but I'm pretty sure I explained why I believe that some way should be provided to narrow it to two teams, and go by head to head, because that is the crux of ordering teams in competitive athletics. I believe I also said that your proposed method may have some merit in that regard. I also said that I would feel this way regardless of the teams involved, or what outcome it provides for Texas.

But that's inconvenient to your incessant bitching, so I suppose it's better to snip it out of your quotes and pretend it never happened. I suppose you don't have much else to do this bowl season. I'd suggest getting a firehose to wash some of the sand out of your vagina, but you don't seem to like any of my suggestions. I'll just stick out my lower lip and go stamp my feet for a while.

[JackAstro]

is still not english.

Moron. I was talking about you quoting me. Mark can handle himself.

[HudsonHawk]

Milkmen for cheerleaders

Milkmen?  Damn.  No wonder they looked at me funny when I wanted to buy and ice cream sandwich from them.

[MRaup]

Moron. I was talking about you quoting me. Mark can handle himself.

Oh JackAstro... You're my hero! >bats eyelashes<

[Ebby Calvin]

To be brief...no.  I think he's a fucking moron.

More Aggie bashing.  I like it.

[tophfar]

Not sure if you ever asked me that

http://www.spikesnstars.com/forums/index.php?topic=107262.msg241722#msg241722

because this

and go by head to head, because that is the crux of ordering teams in competitive athletics.

is contadictory to this

that some way should be provided to narrow it to two teams

I believe I also said that your proposed method may have some merit in that regard. I also said that I would feel this way regardless of the teams involved, or what outcome it provides for Texas.

Well that's nice, because I think its pretty fair to allow the results on the field to make the difference.

But that's inconvenient to your incessant bitching, so I suppose it's better to snip it out of your quotes and pretend it never happened.

just as you keep pretending 39 - 33 never happened, and that 45 - 35 is all that matters.  So it just kinda fits previously established behavior patterns.

[HudsonHawk]

More Aggie bashing.  I like it.

I couldn't care less if he was an Aggie, a Tsip (which btw I did not know until today was a derogatory term), a Sooner, a Buckeye or a Florida State Semenhole.  I want a coach who doesn't have his head up his ass all the time. 

[tophfar]

Moron. I was talking about you quoting me. Mark can handle himself.

Well then you should be more careful.

Head to head between two teams doesnt matter when they play 11 teams a year.  Eliminating other games/teams because they are inconvenient to you is retarded.

[JimR]

And none of that changes the fact that Texas still hasn't gotten screwed.

let's talk Aggie football. screw Texas--the whiny little bitches, going 11-1 and beating BOTH teams in the Big 12 game.

how did y'all do this year? did you stomp Baylor as usual?

[JimR]

Well then you should be more careful.

Head to head between two teams doesnt matter when they play 11 teams a year.  Eliminating other games/teams because they are inconvenient to you is retarded.

head to head matters in every other conference but the Big 12 if there is a three way tie AND two of the teams are within X number of points in the BCS. you knew that, of course.

[tophfar]

let's talk Aggie football. screw Texas--the whiny little bitches, going 11-1 and beating BOTH teams in the Big 12 game.

how did y'all do this year? did you stomp Baylor as usual?

When the thread is titled Aggies get screwed that will be relevant.

The attempt to turn this into who or what I am, and what team I prefer simply reinforces the idea that the arguments about how wrong the idea is that Texas is getting the shaft.

[tophfar]

head to head matters in every other conference but the Big 12 if there is a three way tie AND two of the teams are within X number of points in the BCS. you knew that, of course.

Boy that sucks in the fact that Texas is not part of one of those other conferences?  how they chose their rules doesn't make one bit of difference in how the Big 12 operates, and especially since Texas agreed to the rules.

So try again.

[Ebby Calvin]

I couldn't care less if he was an Aggie....

I honestly couldn't either.  It just makes me smile that, in this context, someone inadvertently called an Aggie a moron.

[Andyzipp]

Wow, you got me good.

Seriously. I understand A&M's penis envy toward all things UT. I can't blame you. Milkmen for cheerleaders, horrible football teams, losing to Baylor, enormous women eating waiting lists for tickets. But seriously, you don't even have a dog in the hunt in this conversation. You're just being a troll, and not a very good one at that. Go crawl back under your Old Army rock until the Aggies can hire another head coach that's willing to cheat his ass off in recruiting to make A&M relevant again for a few years.


ETA: I hope this is coherent enough for you to understand. If not, here's the short version: GO FUCK YOURSELF, YOU AGGIE TROLL.

I feel warm and welcome here.

[JackAstro]

http://www.spikesnstars.com/forums/index.php?topic=107262.msg241722#msg241722

because this
is contadictory to this

Well that's nice, because I think its pretty fair to allow the results on the field to make the difference.

just as you keep pretending 39 - 33 never happened, and that 45 - 35 is all that matters.  So it just kinda fits previously established behavior patterns.

You can't respond to the same post twice, and expect me to go back and read the second one. Go read what I wrote, because I answered all of it already. You may be thinking of someone else's argument. I'm the one who doesn't much care that OU is going to the title game, thinks the tiebreaker should change simply because there are better ways to handle it, fully acknowledges both the loss to Tech and the right of Tech fans to cry head-to-head with Texas, and holds firm the belief that you're an ankle-biter who manufactures arguments. Seriously, check. It's all there.

[JackAstro]

I feel warm and welcome here.

You're OK, 'cause you're a tsip, too.

[tophfar]

You can't respond to the same post twice, and expect me to go back and read the second one. Go read what I wrote, because I answered all of it already. You may be thinking of someone else's argument. I'm the one who doesn't much care that OU is going to the title game, thinks the tiebreaker should change simply because there are better ways to handle it, fully acknowledges both the loss to Tech and the right of Tech fans to cry head-to-head with Texas, and holds firm the belief that you're an ankle-biter who manufactures arguments. Seriously, check. It's all there.

Sweet, so we agree.  Awesome.

[JackAstro]

Sweet, so we agree.  Awesome.

I want your acknowledgment of ankle-biting on the permanent record...

[JimR]

Boy that sucks in the fact that Texas is not part of one of those other conferences?  how they chose their rules doesn't make one bit of difference in how the Big 12 operates, and especially since Texas agreed to the rules.

this is what you said, prick: "Head to head between two teams doesnt matter when they play 11 teams a year."

yes, it does everywhere but the Big 12. it will next year in the Big 12 as well.

ankle-biter is too good a term for you. Andy is a rare Aggie, in my experience. the ones at my office are just like you. their team cannot beat off, much less beat a good team, so they try to tear down everyone else. penis envy. now they are jealous of UT, OU, Tech AND Baylor.

btw, i said long ago that the main reason we are not playing is 39-33. to argue, however, that Tech has as strong a claim to playing as Texas is way beyond stupidity. if Tech had beat Texas 65-33, you would not be hearing a peep out of Longhorns, and UT would have dropped out of the BCS race. when you lose is important, and how you lose is too.

[tophfar]

this is what you said, prick: "Head to head between two teams doesnt matter when they play 11 teams a year."

You're right, in regards to a three way tie, it doesn't matter.  You don't have to eliminate anyone for on field results to determine a winner.  Methods for this have existed and are in use in many other places.

yes, it does everywhere but the Big 12. it will next year in the Big 12 as well.

So it only matters except, where, by definition, it in fact does not.  Thanks for that.

ankle-biter is too good a term for you. Andy is a rare Aggie, in my experience. the ones at my office are just like you. their team cannot beat off, much less beat a good team, so they try to tear down everyone else. penis envy. now they are jealous of UT, OU, Tech AND Baylor.

btw, i said long ago that the main reason we are not playing is 39-33.

that's fine, I wasn't arguing with you.  You're the one who stuck their own ass back in here.

to argue, however, that Tech has as strong a claim to playing as Texas is way beyond stupidity. if Tech had beat Texas 65-33

I'm all for letting on field results between the three teams be the deciding factor.

when you lose is important, and how you lose is too.

Only to pollsters.  Which isnt the point of "getting screwed, that it shouldnt be left up to the polls?

you would not be hearing a peep out of Longhorns, and UT would have dropped out of the BCS race.

Except for the fact that they are still crying even after having their chance to win it on the field.  So i'll have to disagree with that assumption.

[JimR]

go fuck yourself, tophfar.

[tophfar]

go fuck yourself, tophfar.

love you too.

[otterjb]

A&M's milkmen:

http://www.40acressports.com/images/aggies-squeeze.jpg

[Ty in Tampa]

(http://24.73.108.106/rtn/poops.jpg)

[JackAstro]

Yes sir, coach.

[JimR]

Yes sir, coach.

Bob is sayng "snap the fucking ball. we have time for one more score."
 ETA: he has never said "enough already."

[Rebel Jew]

Bob is sayng "snap the fucking ball. we have time for one more score."
 ETA: he has never said "enough already."

i went to a UH game against, I think, SW Louisiana back in the Jenkins era.  UH was up something like 700000 to 21 with 10 seconds left in the game and the ball at their own 20.  UH faked a run-out-the-clock handoff, then Klingler's younger brother threw an 80 yard bomb to Ron Peters.  After the game, Jenkins was bitching because the refs wouldn't let UH kick the extra point.

[Jacksonian]

Bob is sayng "snap the fucking ball. we have time for one more score."
 ETA: he has never said "enough already."

Yes he did.  After Texas' last score in the Cotton Bowl.

[chandler44]

Crying about being screwed and claiming the SEC way is better because it would benefit Texas is just asinine.

And spending two days crying about UT fans crying about being screwed is somehow *less* asinine?

[MusicMan]

their team cannot beat off, much less beat a good team,

This is correct, I believe.  Their particular beating off player is no longer on the team.

[MusicMan]

Except for the fact that they are still crying even after having their chance to win it on the field.  So i'll have to disagree with that assumption.

You're right, we've made many arguments that UT should be advancing to the Big XII Championship over other teams in the conference.

So let's consider some other conference tiebreakers:

Big 10:

If there is a tie for the championship, the winner of the game between these two teams shall represent the conference.
If there is still a tie for the championship, or if the tied teams did not play each other, the team that played more games against Football Championship Subdivision (FCS) teams shall be eliminated.

Winner: Texas

Pac 10:

(1) When three or more teams are tied in Conference play, if one has defeated all others, it shall be the Rose Bowl representative. If that is not the case, a comparison of the tied teams' records against the other tied teams shall be made and the team having the best record against the other tied teams shall be the Rose Bowl representative. If two or more teams are still tied after this comparison, the appropriate two-team or multiple-team tie-breaking procedures shall be repeated among those teams still under consideration.

(2) If more than two teams are still tied after the process above is completed, each remaining tied team's record against the team occupying the highest position in the final regular season standings shall be compared, with the procedure continuing down through the standings until one team gains an advantage.

When arriving at another group of tied teams while comparing records, each team's collective record against the tied teams as a group shall be used.

If at any point in the process the multiple-team tie is reduced to two teams, the two-team tie-breaking procedure shall be applied.

Winner: Texas, by virtue of their win over Mizzou.

Big East:

THREE-WAY TIE
A “MINI-CONFERENCE” IS CREATED AMONGST THE THREE TIED
TEAMS
Scenario I:
All three teams have either a 6-1 or 5-2 record and have each won one and
lost one against the other tied teams in the mini-conference. In this case, the
highest ranked team amongst the three earns the bid. If two of the three
teams are tied for the highest ranking, the bid is earned by the team winning
the head-to-head match up.
Scenario II:
All three teams have 5-2 records, and within the mini-conference, Team A is
2-0, Team B is 1-1, and Team C is 0-2. Team A earns bid regardless of
ranking.

Winner: Texas

ACC and SEC have already been discussed.

Shoot, let's keep going:
Conference USA

Two-team or multiple team tie for divisional champion
1. Highest regular season winning percentage based on overall Conference USA play.
2. If tied, head to head between tied teams.
3. If still tied, highest winning percentage within division.
4. If still tied, compare records against divisional opponents in descending order of finish.
5. If still tied, compare records with common cross-divisional opponents.
6. If still tied, compare records against cross-divisional opponents in descending order of
finish.

Winner: Texas, by virture of their win over Mizzou.

Let's try the MAC:

1. Head-to-head competition

a. In the event of a multiple-team (two or more teams) tie, the team with the best head-to-head record amongst the tied teams wins the tie-breaker;
b. In a two-team tie, head-to-head competition will be the first criteria;
c. If two teams did not play, the second criteria is used to break the tie;
            2. Record of tied teams within the division [versus rank order, highest to lowest, of division teams]
                        a. The above tie-breaker procedure is used to determine rank order in the division;
b. Team(s) eliminated in the second tie-breaker criterion are not included in further consideration in the tie- breaking formula;
c. Head-to-head competition is again used to break the tie between the remaining tied  teams.
            3. Comparison of conference winning percentage of cross-over opponents of tied teams;
a. Tie-breaker is awarded to the team whose cross-division opponents had the best cumulative conference winning percentage;
                        b. Head-to-head competition is used to break the tie between the two tied teams.
            4. If multiple teams remain tied, the final tie-breaker is as follows:
                        a. Record of tied teams versus cross-division opponents in rank order;

Winner: Texas

Are you getting it yet?  Every conference has found a way to settle this.  Most of them by on-field results, not BCS rankings.


 

[tophfar]

You're right, we've made many arguments that UT should be advancing to the Big XII Championship over other teams in the conference.

So let's consider some other conference tiebreakers:

Which are entirely irrelevant since TEXAS DOES NOT PLAY IN THOSE CONFERENCES.

Might as well use Afghani goat roping tie breaking rules.

And even then....

Big East:

In this case, the highest ranked team amongst the three earns the bid.

Winner: Texas

Wait a minute, is that exactly what is happening now?  Oh I get it, it's not that they are USING a poll, you just don't like WHICH poll they are using?

If you are going to be that hypocritical you should just say so in the beginning.

ACC and SEC have already been discussed.

Yes they have, and apparently it's not that they are using a poll, you just don't like what the poll says. 

Are you getting it yet?  Every conference has found a way to settle this.  Most of them by on-field results, not BCS rankings.

Except where it uses rankings, but the ones that would favor Texas.  Yeah, I got that part a long time ago.

[HudsonHawk]

i went to a UH game against, I think, SW Louisiana back in the Jenkins era.  UH was up something like 700000 to 21 with 10 seconds left in the game and the ball at their own 20.  UH faked a run-out-the-clock handoff, then Klingler's younger brother threw an 80 yard bomb to Ron Peters.  After the game, Jenkins was bitching because the refs wouldn't let UH kick the extra point.

I was at that game and don't remember anything close to what you describe.  The Cougars won the game 63-7, but the starters were out of the game by the 3rd quarter.  And while Jenkins had a reputation of running up the score, there is little, if any evidence of him actually going out of his way to do so.  They beat some really weak teams badly, and I suppose he could have had his QB take a knee in starting in the 2nd quarter, but I'm not sure the opponents would have found that much more sportsmanlike.  In fact, Jenkins' teams were the victims of as many 30+ point beatdowns as they put on opponents.

[MusicMan]

Which are entirely irrelevant since TEXAS DOES NOT PLAY IN THOSE CONFERENCES.

Might as well use Afghani goat roping tie breaking rules.

Not a soul has argued that the Big XII tiebreaker was misapplied.  The argument is that their tiebreaker is hopelessly screwed up.

And even then....

Big East:
Winner: Texas

Wait a minute, is that exactly what is happening now?  Oh I get it, it's not that they are USING a poll, you just don't like WHICH poll they are using?

You're right, I saw the top two head-to-head and missed that it was only in the event of a tie.

If you are going to be that hypocritical you should just say so in the beginning.

You could have said that a long time ago and spared us all your shit.

Yes they have, and apparently it's not that they are using a poll, you just don't like what the poll says.

You're being either a complete liar or completely obtuse.  The rankings are only ONE PART OF THEIR TIEBREAKER, used to get to a HEAD TO HEAD RESULT.  IT is not a good system, but it is better than the Big XII's system.

I'm begging you ... just spare us any further poor attempts at "logical" argument, and admit that you just think that "tsips" are a bunch of whiners, because of course there wouldn't be a peep about the BOMC if the Horns won a 3-way tiebreaker with TAMU and Tech if TAMU had beaten UT.

[tophfar]

Not a soul has argued that the Big XII tiebreaker was misapplied.  The argument is that their tiebreaker is hopelessly screwed up.

So quit using other conferences rules to show how UT is getting screwed, since you have admitted that they are not.

1. The rules have been in place since the beginning of the Big 12.

2. All schools agreed to said rules.

3. Texas is part of the Big 12.

4. Texas agreed to the rules.

5. Texas has played every season knowing these rules.

6. The rule kicked in when the appropriate situation occurred.

7. Texas lost to a rule it knowingly agreed to and had played with for a decade.

8. Correct application of a rule, is not getting "screwed".  It is just..you know...the rules.

9. Texas did not get screwed, they just lost.

Any claims to the contradictory is just whining petulance.  No matter how you feel about the rule.

If you wish to attempt to show how this is poor logic please show where any part of steps 1 - 8 are demonstrably wrong.

It hasn't been done yet.

The rankings are only ONE PART OF THEIR TIEBREAKER, used to get to a HEAD TO HEAD RESULT.  IT is not a good system, but it is better than the Big XII's system.

1. The point that has been repeatedly made is that BCS rankings, or rankings at all should not determine who advances.

2. Using those ranking to determine who is ELIMINATED is subject to the same subjectivity.

3. Therefore it's not the subjectivity that's the problem.  Its the result, in this particular instance of that subjectivity.
3a. In the big 12, that subjectivity lead to Texas being out.
3b. In the SEC that subjectivity leads to Texas being in.

4. Claims that it is better is not because of the system, but because your school would benefit.

[Arky Vaughan]

Learn you some literacy, and figure out how 45-35 pretends that 39-33 never happened.

I don't care about college football very much, but you keep raising this, and I think it's logically refutable.

Each of Texas, Oklahoma and Texas Tech lost one game.

Texas lost its one game by six points, 39-33, on the road.

Oklahoma lost its one game by 10 points, 45-35, on a neutral field.

Texas Tech lost its one game by 44 points, 65-21, on the road.

I recognize that this is not the only and not necessarily even the best way to distinguish among the three teams, but I think it's worth noting that looking at the "quality" of their losses, Texas and Oklahoma are fairly close, although Texas has an edge both on points and on venue, while Texas Tech isn't anywhere near the other two. Had Texas or Oklahoma been blown out in its one loss the way Texas Tech was, I seriously doubt either of them would be ranked in the top four in the human polls or the computer rankings. Had Texas Tech lost by six or even 10 points on the road, rather than by 44 points, then they might be ranked more closely with Texas and Oklahoma.

By the way, I think the word you're looking for in this case is numeracy, not literacy.

[Noe]

Why do I get a vision of Tim Daggett explaining how judges award points for style and technical difficulty?  All I need now is Bela Karoly screaming in the background "Guns Up! Guns Up!" to make this whole very silly scenario complete.  The NCAA Division 1A football office deserves all the disdain this sort of thing brings about... but you know what, as long as fans fixate on driving each other nuts about their respective team's right to be considered "the best", and also Head Coaches and media folks... then why should the NCAA Division 1A football offices really care?

All this animosity amongst the Universities, the fans, the media, et. al. is really, seriously misplaced.

[tophfar]

I don't care about college football very much, but you keep raising this, and I think it's logically refutable.

By the way, I think the word you're looking for in this case is numeracy, not literacy.

There was this pointed out, by Stoops go figure, but I think it has merit in this argument.

His claim is that if the OU/TT result is enough to knock TT out of the running (and he didn't think that was a fair claim), then Texas should not benefit from an OU accomplishment since Texas was incapable of beating TT themselves.

And I meant literacy, since I was implying that Jim was not reading the all the posts when he made his statement.

[kevwun]

OU shouldn't benefit from Tech beating Texas.  Afterall, OU couldn't do it themselves.  See, that argument doesn't hold up so great.

[JimR]

OU shouldn't benefit from Tech beating Texas.  Afterall, OU couldn't do it themselves.  See, that argument doesn't hold up so great.

he is an aggie. that is the best he can do. poor aggies.

[Rebel Jew]

I was at that game and don't remember anything close to what you describe.  The Cougars won the game 63-7, but the starters were out of the game by the 3rd quarter.  And while Jenkins had a reputation of running up the score, there is little, if any evidence of him actually going out of his way to do so.  They beat some really weak teams badly, and I suppose he could have had his QB take a knee in starting in the 2nd quarter, but I'm not sure the opponents would have found that much more sportsmanlike.  In fact, Jenkins' teams were the victims of as many 30+ point beatdowns as they put on opponents.

i'm sure i'm completely wrong on most of the details, such as who the opponent was, but i very much remember that play where they threw the surprise 80 yard bomb on the last play of the game up by a bunch of points, and i remember jenkins postgame comment bitching that the refs wouldn't let them back on the field to kick the extra point.

[tophfar]

OU shouldn't benefit from Tech beating Texas.  Afterall, OU couldn't do it themselves.  See, that argument doesn't hold up so great.

Yet the argument of Head to Head makes perfect sense even though Texas doesn't have it against an opponent with an equal record.

That argument has fallen flat every single time as well, yet keeps on getting thrown out there.

Odd how once again 39 -33 gets lost in the mix.

[Ebby Calvin]

'Round and 'round we go.

[MusicMan]

So quit using other conferences rules to show how UT is getting screwed, since you have admitted that they are not.

I'm using other conferences rules as a comparison to show that better systems exist.  A fact completely lost on you, which makes your mocking other people's "literacy" comical at best, and fucking insulting at its most realistic.

9. Texas did not get screwed, they just lost.

Any claims to the contradictory is just whining petulance.  No matter how you feel about the rule.

OK, so you're hung up on the original headline.  Can you clear out now so that the grown ups can discuss?  Because you've wasted an awful lot of people's time to pick a nit about a headline.

1. The point that has been repeatedly made is that BCS rankings, or rankings at all should not determine who advances.

2. Using those ranking to determine who is ELIMINATED is subject to the same subjectivity.

STOP.  Right there.  Can we agree that separating two teams by a handful of votes for spots 2-3 is vastly different than separating two teams by a large percentage of votes for spots 2-7?  And that this system of narrowing down to two teams, while subjective, is still a far sight better than just using the subjective system alone?

3. Therefore it's not the subjectivity that's the problem.  Its the result, in this particular instance of that subjectivity.
3a. In the big 12, that subjectivity lead to Texas being out.
3b. In the SEC that subjectivity leads to Texas being in.

4. Claims that it is better is not because of the system, but because your school would benefit.

This is bullshit, and only a person who is devoid of any intellectual honesty would keep harping on it.

[MusicMan]

Yet the argument of Head to Head makes perfect sense even though Texas doesn't have it against an opponent with an equal record.

That argument has fallen flat every single time as well, yet keeps on getting thrown out there.

Odd how once again 39 -33 gets lost in the mix.

Also odd how 56-35 gets lost in the mix.  You know, against the team playing for the conference championship that neither of the other tied teams had to play.

Objective.  On the field.  Relevant.

[tophfar]

I'm using other conferences rules as a comparison to show that better systems exist.  A fact completely lost on you, which makes your mocking other people's "literacy" comical at best, and fucking insulting at its most realistic.

OK, so you're hung up on the original headline.  Can you clear out now so that the grown ups can discuss?  Because you've wasted an awful lot of people's time to pick a nit about a headline.

Crying about other systems is fucking stupid since Texas doesn't play under those rules and is highly irrelevant.  It implies that there was some sort unfair activity that denied Texas it's rightful place.  A clear implication that Texas is getting "screwed" since other systems are "Better" and this one is "bad".  It is bad because of a result you don't like.  

It's a red fucking herring since Texas is playing by, and lost by, rules that they agreed to.  So quit trying to point out what other people do, it doesn't fucking matter.

But even then, I've pointed out a better system that doesn't use polls at all, doesn't need third party teams who may not be a common opponent for all the tied teams.  It's a good system and I personally think it should be implemented.

This is bullshit, and only a person who is devoid of any intellectual honesty would keep harping on it.

Really, so show me in any of the steps I detailed out where I was wrong.  DO IT.

You did not, because you cannot.

Other than "...bullshit....you're just wrong because...."

Demonstrate the fundamental difference in allowing subjective polls to eliminate a team (which, be default CHOOSES what team goes on, by eliminating a three way tie) rather than allowing subjective polls to advance a team.

If using a poll to choose a team is wrong due to its subjective nature, then using a poll to eliminate one is also wrong due to it's subject nature.

You cannot get around that.

Claims that it is better is truly what is intellectually dishonest because it obviously is not the nature of the subjectivity that is the problem, but the result of that subjectivity in this particular case.

[tophfar]

Also odd how 56-35 gets lost in the mix.  You know, against the team playing for the conference championship that neither of the other tied teams had to play.

Objective.  On the field.  Relevant.

Exactly, neither of the other teams had to play.  What comparison is that?  None.

How about TCU?  What was OU's score against TCU?  What was Texas's?

Is it relevant or not?

[MusicMan]

But even then, I've pointed out a better system that doesn't use polls at all, doesn't need third party teams who may not be a common opponent for all the tied teams.  It's a good system and I personally think it should be implemented.

So quit trying to point out what other people do, it doesn't fucking matter.

This.

[MusicMan]

Exactly, neither of the other teams had to play.  What comparison is that?  None.

Yes, it is.  It is the difficulty of the conference schedule each team had to play.

How about TCU?  What was OU's score against TCU?  What was Texas's?

Is it relevant or not?

Not relevant.  Last I checked, TCU is not in the Big XII, although they would be a massive upgrade over your Aggies.

[Andyzipp]

Yes, it is.  It is the difficulty of the conference schedule each team had to play.

Not relevant.  Last I checked, TCU is not in the Big XII, although they would be a massive upgrade over your Aggies.

In football, perhaps.  As far as the Big XII, A&M won 15 conference championships in the 07-08 school year.  Byrne has every program that hasn't hired Dennis Franchione operating at a pretty good clip right now.

On the other hand, TCU wouldn't be 10-2 if they played a Big 12 South schedule.

[MusicMan]

In football, perhaps.  As far as the Big XII, A&M won 15 conference championships in the 07-08 school year.  Byrne has every program that hasn't hired Dennis Franchione operating at a pretty good clip right now.

On the other hand, TCU wouldn't be 10-2 if they played a Big 12 South schedule.

All of this is true.  Of course, TCU wouldn't be 4-8 either.

[tophfar]

Yes, it is.  It is the difficulty of the conference schedule each team had to play.

Not relevant.  Last I checked, TCU is not in the Big XII, although they would be a massive upgrade over your Aggies.

So conveniently Non conference schedules don't count, which was one of the main arguments against Tech, and one of your vaunted Tie-Breakers in your other system.

But an equal margin of victory against a team that has been Top Ten most of the year and is currently ranked over Mizzou is not relevant.

Yeah, I got most of your arguments along time ago.

[tophfar]

All of this is true.  Of course, TCU wouldn't be 4-8 either.

Once again, devolving to bringing up the A&M record just highlights the weakness of your arguments.

[MusicMan]

So conveniently Non conference schedules don't count, which was one of the main arguments against Tech, and one of your vaunted Tie-Breakers in your other system.

But an equal margin of victory against a team that has been Top Ten most of the year and is currently ranked over Mizzou is not relevant.

Is it relevant to national rankings?  Absolutely.  Should it be relevant to a conference tiebreaker?  Not ideally.  And this was in response to your point about using a system of opponents within the conference.

Yeah, I got most of your arguments along time ago.

Still waiting your clarification as to how you are the only person allowed to raise alternative tiebreaker systems.

[MusicMan]

Once again, devolving to bringing up the A&M record just highlights the weakness of your arguments.

Not related to my arguments at all.  It just highlights the weakness of your football team.

[tophfar]

Is it relevant to national rankings?  Absolutely.  Should it be relevant to a conference tiebreaker?  Not ideally.  And this was in response to your point about using a system of opponents within the conference.

Still waiting your clarification as to how you are the only person allowed to raise alternative tiebreaker systems.

I'm not, but I'm not raising alternative methods predicated on the result that Texas advances as the sole criteria of being "better".

[tophfar]

Not related to my arguments at all.  It just highlights the weakness of your football team.

Perzactly.

[MusicMan]

I'm not, but I'm not raising alternative methods predicated on the result that Texas advances as the sole criteria of being "better".

Not predicated.  At all.  But I've yet to find another tiebreaker in use - other than the Big East, which as we've discussed, is the same as the Big XII system - that would produce a result other than Texas winning.

If you want to say that MOV in the head-to-head meetings is the criteria, I will say that's better than the current system, but still not especially great, not only for reasons of sportsmanship, but for the fact that there is no differentiation between a neutral site game and a home game.

[BUWebguy]

FYI, the league is the "Big 12", not the "Big XII". The XII is just part of the logo.

Sorry -- that's just one of my bigger pet peeves, and it's all over this thread. Carry on.

[Arky Vaughan]

His claim is that if the OU/TT result is enough to knock TT out of the running (and he didn't think that was a fair claim), then Texas should not benefit from an OU accomplishment since Texas was incapable of beating TT themselves.

But this reasoning cannot stand in a situation where A > B, B > C and C > A, since you then arrive at a circular argument. I'm not going to get into a drawn-out debate with you about this, but the premises you're relying on, at least in this particular instance, don't hold up to logical scrutiny.

[Ty in Tampa]

But this reasoning cannot stand in a situation where A > B, B > C and C > A, since you then arrive at a circular argument. I'm not going to get into a drawn-out debate with you about this, but the premises you're relying on, at least in this particular instance, don't hold up to logical scrutiny.

tophfar > everyone else > tophfar

[JackAstro]

tophfar > everyone else > tophfar

You just blew my fucking mind.

[Mr. Happy]

You just blew my fucking mind.

Mine blew up pages ago in this thread. College football's system is imperfect. Let's just leave it at that.

[drew corleone]

Mine blew up pages ago in this thread. College football's system is imperfect. Let's just leave it at that.

Agreed. And as long as we're stating facts, I'd like to add: OU Sucks.

[Deja Vu]

But this reasoning cannot stand in a situation where A > B, B > C and C > A, since you then arrive at a circular argument. I'm not going to get into a drawn-out debate with you about this, but the premises you're relying on, at least in this particular instance, don't hold up to logical scrutiny.

it's always the case "head-to-head" and "highest quality loss" are diametrically opposed notions for tiebreaking. i'm amazed how many people will flail away mindlessly without instead noting this up-front.

[utastro]

How about we change the title of this thread to UT officially gets screwed by the Aggies.  If fucking Aggie was a better team this year, then OU would not have slipped by UT on the last weekend of the regular season prior to the championship game. Thats what pisses everyone off.  Texas is ahead of OU, goes out and "fuckstomps" Aggie, and then gets passed by BlowU right before the championship game.  I say that is getting screwed.

[phil]

I'm witcha, UTAstro.  It's entirely too bad that the Aggies weren't as good a team as last year.

[BizidyDizidy]

How about we change the title of this thread to UT officially gets screwed by the Aggies.  If fucking Aggie was a better team this year, then OU would not have slipped by UT on the last weekend of the regular season prior to the championship game. Thats what pisses everyone off.  Texas is ahead of OU, goes out and "fuckstomps" Aggie, and then gets passed by BlowU right before the championship game.  I say that is getting screwed.

That's the wrong way to think about it; OU already had taken the hit for playing the Aggies; it just evened out.

[JimR]

I'm witcha, UTAstro.  It's entirely too bad that the Aggies weren't as good a team as last year.

they were not good last year either, which made losing to them so intolerable.

[kevwun]

That's the wrong way to think about it; OU already had taken the hit for playing the Aggies; it just evened out.

Actually, that's not entirely true.  The Billingsley computer model punished Texas more than OU for playing the aggies because atm had more losses when they played Texas.  The model doesn't adjust based on what happens after two teams play.  Tech still gets credit for beating #1 Texas, even though UT is no longer #1.

[tophfar]

But this reasoning cannot stand in a situation where A > B, B > C and C > A

This is exactly the point that I've been trying to make.  Head to head, A > B, doesnt matter because of B > C and C > A.

[BizidyDizidy]

Actually, that's not entirely true.  The Billingsley computer model punished Texas more than OU for playing the aggies because atm had more losses when they played Texas.  The model doesn't adjust based on what happens after two teams play.  Tech still gets credit for beating #1 Texas, even though UT is no longer #1.

You're right, as previously established Billingsley is a fuckwit.

[homer]

Really, tophfar, you've gone too far...

http://www.keyetv.com/content/news/topnews/story/Plane-with-banner-telling-Mack-Brown-to-quit/_UrCeJeDCkuQ4LvjTcBSjQ.cspx

[Señor Stan]

Amusing email

BCS DECLARES GERMANY WINNER OF WORLD WAR II
US Ranked 4th

After determining the Big-12 championship game participants the BCS computers were put to work on other major contests and today the BCS declared Germany to be the winner of World War II.

"Germany put together an incredible number of victories beginning with the annexation of Austria and the Sudetenland and continuing on into conference play with defeats of Poland, France, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Belgium and the Netherlands. Their only losses came against the US and Russia; however considering their entire body of work--including an incredibly tough Strength of Schedule--our computers deemed them worthy of the #1 ranking."

Questioned about the #4 ranking of the United States the BCS commissioner stated "The US only had two major victories--Japan and Germany. The computer models, unlike humans, aren't influenced by head-to-head contests--they consider each contest to be only a single, equally-weighted event."

German Chancellor Adolph Hitler said "Yes, we lost to the US; but we defeated #2 ranked France in only 6 weeks." Herr Hitler has been criticized for seeking dramatic victories to earn 'style points' to enhance Germany's rankings. Hitler protested "Our contest with Poland was in doubt until the final day and the conditions in Norway were incredibly challenging and demanded the application of additional forces."

The French ranking has also come under scrutiny. The BCS commented " France had a single loss against Germany and following a preseason #1 ranking they only fell to #2."

Japan was ranked #3 with victories including Manchuria, Borneo and the Philippines.

[Ty in Tampa]

It's been Godwin'd. Time to kill it.

[JimR]

Amusing email

no, that does not work at all. Germany's losses were at the end of the season.

[MusicMan]

no, that does not work at all. Germany's losses were at the end of the season.

Germany=OU.  All offense, no D.

[Andyzipp]

This is why your head coach shouldn't also be your athletic director.  If Hitler was just concentrating on coaching the Germans, he would have never scheduled that home and home with Russia.

[MusicMan]

what a fraud Mizzou turned out to be.

[Col. Sphinx Drummond]

what a fraud Mizzou turned out to be.

And yet, they're having the best run since the 60's. OU is really fucking good too.

[MRaup]

And yet, they're having the best run since the 60's. OU is really fucking good too.

Man I hope the BCS title game has refs that are actually willing to call holding. OU is liable to end up with more penalty yards than total offense.

Believe it or not, in REAL football when you get beat to the outside, hooking the guy around the neck and dragging him down from behind is not a legal play.

[Col. Sphinx Drummond]

I totally agree. They never get called for holding or illegal use of hands. If the refs do their job, OU probably only scores 40 to 45 points.  Which would be great 'cause I really hate that stupid toy wagon and those pygmy ponies. 

[JimR]

it appears to me that the Big 12 has decided that holding should not be called. there have been several recent games between spread teams in the conference in which there were NO holding penalties. last night may have been one of them. no holding calls for passing teams is impossible, and that is true for every team, not just OU.

[Ron Brand]

I think what we've seen is the marquee 'super crew' that officiates the big games, and they have clearly decided to not call holding as we know it.  OU may get a rude surprise in their bowl game when they don't get the benefit of these non-calls.

[JimR]

I think what we've seen is the marquee 'super crew' that officiates the big games, and they have clearly decided to not call holding as we know it.  OU may get a rude surprise in their bowl game when they don't get the benefit of these non-calls.

not so. it was Randy Cristal's crew last night. i think it is a conference decision.

[HudsonHawk]

not so. it was Randy Cristal's crew last night. i think it is a conference decision.

Just an anecdote...but my brother-in-law is a football official.  He's only doing HS games now, but has designs on the Big 12 someday.  He's said he's been told the best way to advance is to not call penalties.

[MusicMan]

I believe it, HH.  Unfortunately, Mack hasn't caught on to this trend.

[HudsonHawk]

I believe it, HH.  Unfortunately, Mack hasn't caught on to this trend.

The reason is, coaches hate penalties.  They want the game decided by players, not officials.

[Ron Brand]

not so. it was Randy Cristal's crew last night. i think it is a conference decision.

Damn.  That does mean it has become institutional.  That sucks.

[ybbodeus]

what a fraud Mizzou the Big 12 North turned out to be.

FWIW

[roadrunner]

OU vs Florida.

UT beat OU by 10 and UT's backup QB beat Florida in Gainsville.  Lame

[kevwun]

I'm glad Orakpo won the Nagurski Award.  It's hard to get as many sacks as he did while a tackle is riding piggyback.

[hostros7]

OU vs Florida.

UT beat OU by 10 and UT's backup QB beat Florida in Gainsville.  Lame

UT vs. OSU? Bama vs. Utah? Lame.  UT vs. Alabama would have been a nice consolation prize.

[Bench]

UT vs. OSU? Bama vs. Utah? Lame.  UT vs. Alabama would have been a nice consolation prize.

It certainly would have been a more interesting matchup.  Frankly, I think Boise State should be rewarded for their undefeated season rather than another dull Ohio State appearance.

[HudsonHawk]

UT vs. OSU? Bama vs. Utah? Lame.  UT vs. Alabama would have been a nice consolation prize.

If I'm the Sugar Bowl, I'm absolutely pissed about having to take Utah, after having Hawai'i forced down my throat last year. 

[Trey]

If I'm the Sugar Bowl, I'm absolutely pissed about having to take Utah, after having Hawai'i forced down my throat last year. 

While I basically agree, I think Bama fans are going to turn out in DROVES for that game.  They should easily make their money, and if it does end up like last year (which I really doubt it will), everyone goes home happy.

[HudsonHawk]

While I basically agree, I think Bama fans are going to turn out in DROVES for that game.  They should easily make their money, and if it does end up like last year (which I really doubt it will), everyone goes home happy.

Except if it's a blowout, then people turn the station and your sponsors get pissed.  Taking Alabama is fine.  But let's face it, Utah is not the draw that Ohio State or Texas would be.  The Sugar got stuck with the small-draw non-BCS school last year.  They shouldn't have to again.

[hostros7]

While I basically agree, I think Bama fans are going to turn out in DROVES for that game.  They should easily make their money, and if it does end up like last year (which I really doubt it will), everyone goes home happy.

This is what pisses me off about the current system.  Texas fans will show.  Bama fans will show.  Two games with a lot of fan attendance vs. one great game (Tx/Bama) and one mediocre (utah vs. osu) means more $$ for sponsors and that's all that matters to them.  They are almost disincentivized to have the best games because of the way the BCS is structured.  They want more big names in more games, rather than what the fans want which is more big names in fewer games, ie. the best teams all playing each other. 

[MusicMan]

They want more big names in more games, rather than what the fans want which is more big names in fewer games, ie. the best teams all playing each other. 

If that's what the fans really wanted, yhen they would vote with their pocketbooks.

Until the fans stop watching these piece of shit bowls altogether... until they stop buying tickets... nothing will change.

[Rebel Jew]

If I'm the Sugar Bowl, I'm absolutely pissed about having to take Utah, after having Hawai'i forced down my throat last year. 

if i'm fox, i'm pissed that i have to put virginia tech-cincinnatti on primetime.  that matchup should be in the motor city bowl or whatever.

[juliogotay]

if i'm fox, i'm pissed that i have to put virginia tech-cincinnatti on primetime.  that matchup should be in the motor city bowl or whatever.

So winning the ACC or Big East should get you nothing better than a secondary bowl?

[Rebel Jew]

So winning the ACC or Big East should get you nothing better than a secondary bowl?

if your team sucks, then yes.

[MusicMan]

So winning the ACC or Big East should get you nothing better than a secondary bowl?

The Mountain West is a more legitimate football conference than the Big East.

[HudsonHawk]

The Mountain West is a more legitimate football conference than the Big East.

No shit.  How are they a BCS conference?

[MusicMan]

No shit.  How are they a BCS conference?

Carryover from when Miami, VTech, and BC were still members.

[BizidyDizidy]

The problem with the ACC and Big East is that they don't have any premier school. Top to bottom statistically they both rate out higher than the Pac-10, Big 10 and Mountain West (with the ACC as the top conference top to bottom with Duke bringing up the rear at about number 50 in the nation; in perspective, there are about 4-5 teams in the Big 12 that would be the worst team in the ACC). This is based on the computer models, but it's at least directionally correct.

[HudsonHawk]

Carryover from when Miami, VTech, and BC were still members.

You're right, but they need to get relegated (as Limey would say).

[HudsonHawk]

The problem with the ACC and Big East is that they don't have any premier school. Top to bottom statistically they both rate out higher than the Pac-10, Big 10 and Mountain West (with the ACC as the top conference top to bottom with Duke bringing up the rear at about number 50 in the nation; in perspective, there are about 4-5 teams in the Big 12 that would be the worst team in the ACC). This is based on the computer models, but it's at least directionally correct.

I would argue that Miami, Florida State, and Boston College are premier football schools, or have been over the long haul.

[BizidyDizidy]

I would argue that Miami, Florida State, and Boston College are premier football schools, or have been over the long haul.

I meant this year (for the ACC in particular; Big East is weaker in that regard).

[MusicMan]

You're right, but they need to get relegated (as Limey would say).

The BCS theoretically allows for this, but West Virginia has single-handedly kept the Big East afloat in the process.

[HudsonHawk]

I meant this year (for the ACC in particular; Big East is weaker in that regard).

Yes, this year no one school has been a BCS contender, though several have been solid.

[MusicMan]

Yes, this year no one school has been a BCS contender, though several have been solid.

I can't wait to see what Georgia Tech does to LSU.

[JackAstro]

(with the ACC as the top conference top to bottom with Duke bringing up the rear at about number 50 in the nation; in perspective, there are about 4-5 teams in the Big 12 that would be the worst team in the ACC).

Which 4-5 Big 12 teams do you think are worse than Duke? I'll spot you Iowa State...

[MusicMan]

Which 4-5 Big 12 teams do you think are worse than Duke? I'll spot you Iowa State...

A&M, K-State, Colorado.  Baylor would probably beat Duke.

[BizidyDizidy]

Which 4-5 Big 12 teams do you think are worse than Duke? I'll spot you Iowa State...

I just took it off one of the computer models (I hate Duke and don't have any strong opinion as to how good or bad they are at football).

Sagarin says Baylor, Colorado, K-State, A&M, and Iowa State are worse (Baylor is the iffiest one - his more accurate non-BCS model says they are better). He would have Duke as at least a touchdown favorite against any of the others on a neutral field.

[JackAstro]

A&M, K-State, Colorado.  Baylor would probably beat Duke.

I actually think Colorado beats them and K-State is on about equal footing. We need an alternate bowl system in which the hapless and downtrodden face off to settle these important questions for us.

[MusicMan]

I actually think Colorado beats them and K-State is on about equal footing. We need an alternate bowl system in which the hapless and downtrodden face off to settle these important questions for us.

Alternative, my ass.  That's what about 25 of the current bowls accomplish.

[BizidyDizidy]

I actually think Colorado beats them and K-State is on about equal footing. We need an alternate bowl system in which the hapless and downtrodden face off to settle these important questions for us.

Duke beat Vandy, who went 4-4 in the SEC including beating Ole Miss, South Carolina, and Auburn.

[HudsonHawk]

I actually think Colorado beats them and K-State is on about equal footing. We need an alternate bowl system in which the hapless and downtrodden face off to settle these important questions for us.

The "Toilet Bowl", the "Turd in the Punch Bowl" and the "Hey, I Heard You Just Got Back From Pasadena...Whaddya Bowl?"

[BizidyDizidy]

Duke beat Vandy, who went 4-4 in the SEC including beating Ole Miss, South Carolina, and Auburn.

Incidentally, the best part of this whole conversation was that upon going to Duke's ESPN.com page I learned that their last national award winner was Mike McGee, who took home the Outland in 1959.

[JackAstro]

Alternative, my ass.  That's what about 25 of the current bowls accomplish.

No, I mean seriously downtrodden. 6 wins automatically disqualifies you from the conversation. This year's Apple Cup is a pronounced example of what I'm looking for, and was probably the de facto National Championship of Suck for 2008. No matter how shitty your team was this year, you can safely say that it wouldn't be the worst team in the Pac-10.

[BizidyDizidy]

No, I mean seriously downtrodden. 6 wins automatically disqualifies you from the conversation. This year's Apple Cup is a pronounced example of what I'm looking for, and was probably the de facto National Championship of Suck for 2008. No matter how shitty your team was this year, you can safely say that it wouldn't be the worst team in the Pac-10.

Couldn't have happened to a nicer guy either.

[MusicMan]

Oh good grief... bitter over Ty leaving freaking Stanford for Notre Dame?

Anyone who wouldn't have made that decision could never have gotten into Stanford.

[BizidyDizidy]

Oh good grief... bitter over Ty leaving freaking Stanford for Notre Dame?

Anyone who wouldn't have made that decision could never have gotten into Stanford.

More about running up the score the next two years against his own recruits (57-7 in 03, including a fake punt once the game was already well in hand).

[Jacksonian]

I can't wait to see what Georgia Tech does to LSU.

LSU has to figure out how to stop the run again.  On the bright side they should finally have their #'s 2, 3, and 4 quarterbacks healthy.  They might need them all.

[subnuclear]

Incidentally, the best part of this whole conversation was that upon going to Duke's ESPN.com page I learned that their last national award winner was Mike McGee, who took home the Outland in 1959.

If you go to the Duke football stadium, on the front part of the stands they list all their bowl games and championships which ends about 1953.   After that they start listing the number of years they had the "highest graduation rate."  On the upside, Duke football games are free.

[Mr. Happy]

I can't wait to see what Georgia Tech does to LSU.

We'll have to see about that.

[TheWizard]

I would argue that Miami, Florida State, and Boston College are premier football schools, or have been over the long haul.

Miami and FSU continue to recruit good athletes.  They've had a rough stretch, no doubt about it.. and I don't know if they'll ever be "back", but I wouldn't rule it out.  The Florida athlete pool is just too outstanding.

[Jose Cruz III]

When a team that is up by 13 with 30 seconds to go still has its first team in and is still running its offense, runnin up the score is a fact, not crying. The Ags have been on the receiving end of that from Stoops. That is just the way he coaches, and it works with the computers.

And has ended careers of promising players. Style points are crap.