Morning Coffee Revient!
by Peter Bean on Jun 5, 2007 9:53 AM CDT
in Quick Hits
Email
Print
A hat tip to my brother for this prescient Daniel Gibson post prior to the Cavaliers Game 4 matchup with Detroit last week. Gibson has made a huge splash in the 2007 playoffs, highlighted by his 31 point outburst (with 19 in the fourth quarter) in the clinching Game 6, a performance which immediately recalled this game to my mind.
Because Gibson's sophomore season at Texas failed to be the step huge forward from his promising freshman campaign, many of us more or less forgot just how much talent and potential Gibson really has. It was a disappointment, though, in many regards, and one in particular: when Gibson signed with the Longhorns, he proudly boasted that he was going to do what TJ Ford had not done - hang a national title banner in the Erwin Center.
As it turned out, Ford wound up accomplishing more at Texas with significantly less talent around him. (Can you imagine TJ directing an offense that had Aldridge and Tucker as scoring options?) I think that's one of the reasons a lot of us sort of underappreciated Gibson's raw talent.
Clearly, though, he's got loads of it. Congratulations, young man. Make us proud in the Finals.
Did anyone else notice that Henry Melton was arrested just three days after I "featured" him on the countdown? Coincidence, no doubt, but if there's any humor in the matter, there it is. That, and the BON thread after the fact.
There's nothing funny about a DWI, really, but that it was Melton - a BON whipping boy - is at least a little bit comical. The question now turns to what happens with Melton from a disciplinary standpoint. Without knowing if he's had any other issues that displeased the coaching staff, it's impossible to say, but this does not bode well for his future with the Longhorns. Already facing a position switch due to incompetence, he's now in the discipline dog house. With Orakpo, Lewis, Houston and Jones all ahead of him on the depth chart, Melton has a tough row to hoe. I hope he turns things around, for his sake.
Y'all ready to do some arguing about Texas football scheduling? Hope so, 'cause we're going to get into it in great detail in the coming weeks.
Before we start the debate, though, let's frame the issue. There are only two things worth considering:
- How much does scheduling affect your chances of winning a national title, and in what ways?
- How does Texas measure up in those regards?
--PB--
19 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
2 things
- Gibson is a great role player, but needs a leader. Tucker played that roll during his time at UT, and now James is playing that roll.
- Can the athletic department start it's own sober ride program? It would really cut down on the problems.
a scheduling debate?
you know what that means...
by the other Andrew on Jun 5, 2007 10:25 AM CDT reply actions
uh oh
A scheduling debate? You're trying to get me and HornsChamps in an argument, aren't you? I'll try to be nice.
(1) Substantively, good scheduling depends on the school. Setting aside the feelings of fans who have to pay for tickets (which you did in the frame of the debate), then good scheduling depends on a few things. If you're Texas, you're competing for the national championship every year. That means you're ranked fairly high beginning every year. Further, the frequency that three legitimate contenders go undefeated in a single year these days is incredibly rare. We have 2004, which skews our vision about it. The last time it happened before that was 1993.
And any year that there are less than 3 major teams finishing undefeated, if Texas goes undefeated out of the Big XII, it will go to the BCS championship game. I don't care how bad the OOC scheduling is (assuming they're D-1 schools). A 1-loss team simply will not jump an undefeated Texas, especially considering that Texas will be ranked high to begin with almost every year.
Thus, while scheduling may affect the chances of a mid-level school or a school in a low-level BCS conference getting to the BCS championship game, it doesn't much matter for Texas. USC is a school that often schedules tough OOC opponents, but it doesn't have to. It's great for the game that they do it, but it hurts them a lot (or probably will, down the road) because the chances of losing once are so great. And losing once dramatically diminishes your chances of getting to the BCS championship game.
The only other issue is whether playing a very tough team early (and winning) would prepare us to WIN the national championship game. I'll buy that winning such a game helps (i.e. tOSU in 2005). But is it worth it? I say no because I'd rather be much more likely to MAKE the NC game and have a slightly lesser chance of winning it rather than not making the NC game at all (and thus having NO chance to win it). And besides, Texas is getting a pretty strong test in Big XII play with OU and to a certain extent Nebraska and a&m. Why add an extra very high hurdle to making the NC game?
(2) Texas is doing a pretty good job, most years. This year isn't great, but it's not terrible. TCU is better than half of the BCS conference teams out there. Playing them is better than playing Duke or Indiana, though some people (ahem) might tell you otherwise, simply because they are a BCS school.
The trick, I think is playing one mediocre BCS conference school every year, like Arkansas or UCLA (both of whom are scheduled in the coming years). Neither is ever going to be dominant like tOSU, but won't be terrible either. That's what you need to look for in scheduling years in advance.
HornsChamps, I look forward to your posting of Mack's scheduling history at North Carolina.
Boise State 2 - Upset Boogaloo
I'm actually coming around on scheduling TCU as it's looking like it'll be a bigger game than I previously anticipated.
But I still can't help but view it as a no-win situation just like when OU played Boise State. Everyone short of UT fans will be hoping for the upset. I'm sure the week leading up to the game will be filled with all the hype, pomp, and circumstance normally reserved for big-time games. But if Texas wins, as I expect they will, it'll be forgotten and dismissed as just another average OOC game. Where as if TCU wins, it'll be viewed as a benchmarking game for the mid-majors. Reducing it to "TCU has everything to play for and UT has nothing" is wrong, but I can't help but feel like scheduling another BCS conference team (with a decent history and pedigree for winning) would have been the better way to go (even if that team wasn't better than TCU).
Plus, I've always been an advocate for sticking at least one big-time game on the schedule even if that means increasing your chances of not going undefeated. In my mind, if you're destined to win the MNC, it'll happen just as it did in 2005. If you're not a worthy candidate for the crown, you're destined to lose whether it's playing someone in your conference or out.
And for personal, selfish reasons, I also believe the UT Athletic department owes it to all the season ticker holders, who donate insane amounts of money to keep their season ticket options, to schedule at least one huge OOC match-up. Otherwise, what's the point of building a 100,000 seat stadium if you're simply going to play cream puffs in it most of the time. If we played OU in Austin, I might feel differently but as it is now, we're lucky if we get one truly blockbuster game at DKR every season. Nebraska comes in once every four years and even they aren't a sure-fire bet to bring the noise.
Without a sexy non-con match up, it's like hosting a beauty pageant at the school for the blind.
by 54b on Jun 5, 2007 1:29 PM CDT up reply actions
Don't know about that last comparison
wouldn't the judges have to do their jobs using their sense of touch? Sounds like a winner to me...
So you're saying you want to touch a Hornfrog?
I like your thought process, but I'm pretty sure Beauty Pageant Rule 39.6 and Texas law mandates the "contestant" be at least 3 feet away from the "judge" at all times. At least that's what it says on the bathroom wall at the Yellow Rose...what? Who said that?
But don't feel bad for the School for the Blind, I heard they're going to Umlauf Sculpture Garden on a field trip next week.
by 54b on Jun 5, 2007 2:26 PM CDT up reply actions
Good Point
Frankly, we re-up every year, pay the insane sums, etc. and pay no attention whatsoever to whom we play at home. It's a home game, a big deal around here, and we have basically the same great time regardless of whom we play, unless, God forbid, we suffer an Agro out-of-body like last year. But I agree with the point that if you're good enough to be a legitimate national championship contender, you're good enough to take on anyone at home.
all of this is true
If i were a season ticket holder, I would want my money to pay for something other than Texas vs. Arkie St. I didn't really address that except to say that it wasn't part of the debate that PB threw out there, which is true, but it's something that a lot of people feel strongly about. However, I would gladly accept a couple of OOC clunkers each year if it meant a national championship every 6-7 years, wouldn't you? Maybe not, maybe you care more about the entertainment value of being at a game than the glory of a national championship. That's fine. No value judgment here. But I put a premium on national championships.
The thing about this "team of destiny" stuff is, how often are there really teams of destiny? That 2005 team was just ridiculous. They could handle tOSU on the road in the second game of the year. But very few teams could have. Yeah, 2005 was more special because we beat tOSU on the way, but you just can't expect that every year. To say that a team truly worthy of a national championship will beat any and all comers, in or out of conference, is just wrong. Sometimes they do. But Florida sure didn't last year. Teams make their own destinies. And scheduling is part of that destiny.
I guess there's this idea that winning a national championship by going through all the best teams is "more pure" or something like that. But, given a choice, would you really choose to play a game early in the season that you have a 50% chance of winning AND, if you win, play in the NC game where you also have a 50% chance of winning over eliminating the risk of playing the early game and just playing in the NC game?
Maybe you wouldn't. But if the goal of a football program is to win as many national championships as possible, then the correct move is NOT scheduling that marquee early game. It may not be the most "pure" way of going about it, but it's the way more likely to lead to success.
Define Marquee Game
I think you're confusing my desire to schedule a single big OOC game every year with scheduling Top 5 Match-Ups (we're always going to have at least two or three OOC clunkers no matter what and that's okay). The fact that tOSU and UT were so highly ranked the last couple of years was a fluke. If either team had played the other even 3 years ago or more to the point, when Mackovic ordered up the home and home, it wouldn't have been a Top 5 match-up.
And destiny or not, the only team I can think of who has won the MNC, since the BCS got started, that didn't play at least one decent OOC was OU in 2000 (UTEP, Rice, and Tulsa). And they benefited greatly from Nebraska, K-State and Texas being in the Top 10 that year. Maybe if we could count on at least 3 other teams from the Big XII being that highly ranked year in and year out, I'd be more apt to go with the weak OOC scheduling. And it ought to tell you somthing that OU has scheduled at least one really tough OOC opponent every year sinse the year they won it all. If you're theory on OOC scheduling were true, wouldn't you think OU would be try to get more OOC schedules like the one in 2000?
I'd also argue that Florida got to the title game last year because of their schedule, not in spite of it.
But then again, Miss Oklahoma won the Miss America pageant while dieting heavily upon Happy Pies, Emu sausage, and paint chips. So what do I know?
by 54b on Jun 5, 2007 4:37 PM CDT up reply actions
well
First, if all you're talking about is one game a year against a mid-level BCS conference school, I'm with you on that and said so somewhere in those long posts of mine. The thing about scheduling tOSU 10 years in advance is that it's very likely that they're going to be elite whenever you get around to playing them. Maybe they'll be in a downturn, but even then they're at worst a upper-mid-level BCS school. At best, they're a top-5 team. That's not the case with a UCLA or a Boston College or whatever. They're sometimes pretty good, sometimes not that good, never great, never horrible. Those are the types of teams we should be scheduling, not tOSU, no matter bad they are at the time they're scheduled.
And destiny or not, the only team I can think of who has won the MNC, since the BCS got started, that didn't play at least one decent OOC was OU in 2000 (UTEP, Rice, and Tulsa).
LSU in 2003 played La-Monroe (1-11), Western Illinois (9-4 in 1AA), and Arizona (2-10). Florida last year played Southern Miss, UCF, and Florida St (7-6, and beat Troy and Western Michigan by a combined 15 points). Tennessee's best OOC opponent in 1998 was 8-4 Syracuse.
Anyway, I'm not sure how OU "greatly benefited" from playing Nebraska, K-State, and Texas in 2000. They were the only undefeated team at the end of the season. They were going to the national championship game no matter what. And that's my point. 9 out of 10 years, there are not more than two undefeated major-conference teams at the end of the year. Schedule strength only matters if you lose once. If Texas, Nebraska, and K-State had all been 6-5 that year, OU still would have gone to the national championship game. Thus, to imply that a strong conference slate will make up for a weak OOC slate is true, but disingenuous. It only makes up for something that needs making up for. If you don't lose, who cares?
And it ought to tell you somthing that OU has scheduled at least one really tough OOC opponent every year sinse the year they won it all. If you're theory on OOC scheduling were true, wouldn't you think OU would be try to get more OOC schedules like the one in 2000?
My theory on OOC scheduling isn't that schools actually do this; it's that if all that mattered to them was giving themselves the best chance to win a national championship year-in and year-out, they should do this. Obviously, OU doesn't do this. That's fine. They have other considerations, like keeping the alumni happy and what not. But it only helps them get to the national championship game if they win. And you know what would help them do that just as much as a win against Miami? A win against Miami of Ohio.
Not so fast on OU
You got to rember that OU before 2000 was not the perennial contender they have been since then. They had just come off a decade of futility and actually started the 2000 season ranked #25. Texas, even after losing to Stanford was still a favorite over OU in the 63-14 trouncing. If K-State (#2 when they played OU), Nebraska (#1 when they played OU), and Texas (#11 when they played OU) had all been 6-5, I doubt OU would have vaulted up the rankings far enough and fast enough to take over the top spot by seasons end. And we probably would have had a Florida State/Miami rematch or maybe a Florida/Washington match-up. Can't prove that obviously, but those wins over highly ranked Big XII opponents gave them a legitimate claim to the title game.
And yes, we're agreed that we should be scheduling at least one mid-level BCS Conference team in our OOC. But to that point, I think SOS matters more than you give it credit. Maybe OU still goes to the title in 2000 with an undefeated record against marginal teams, but let's not forget what happened to Auburn a few years ago. And what killed them the most was an OOC game against The Citidel. Last year, if we'd gone 11-1, we would have had a chance at the title in spite of playing Sam Houston State because we had Ohio State on our schedule. So the OOC mattered.
Obviously, it varies from year to year depending on the overall strength of your conference, but I'd rather control my own destiny and to do that, I think you have to keep at least one BCS conference foe on your OOC in such case that your conference tanks like the Big XII did last year.
And if that OOC BCS conference oppoenent just happens to be ranked in the Top 5 the year you play them, so be it. You mentioned not wanting to schedule tOSU ever again because their chances of being great were greater than other teams, but you also mentioned Arkansas and UCLA. Arkansas was the SEC runner-up last year. Would they have been anymore to your liking? And UCLA beat USC, talk about 50-50 shot at losing an OOC game. You jsut never know and you can't wait until the season before to schedule those kind s of match-ups.
Ugly Betty may be Miss USA in disguise, but she's still going to have shed the fat suit and the glasses if she expects to contend for the title.
by 54b on Jun 5, 2007 6:53 PM CDT up reply actions
shorter response. promise.
We're basically just repeating ourselves at this point, so I'll attempt to make this quick.
Obviously, in a year in which 3 teams go undefeated from BCS conferences (like 2004), SOS matters. Not as much as pre-season ranking, but it does matter (Auburn's real problem wasn't that they played The Citadel, but rather that they started the year ranked in the teens while USC and OU started the year 1-2 and didn't lose). My point was only that 9 out of 10 years, this doesn't happen. And then this:
Last year, if we'd gone 11-1, we would have had a chance at the title in spite of playing Sam Houston State because we had Ohio State on our schedule. So the OOC mattered.
You're making my point for me here, 54b. What you're saying is true, but if we had played UH instead of tOSU, we wouldn't have needed the SOS-strength of tOSU at all! Because we would have been undefeated! SOS is only important to a school like Texas (ranked high in the preseason) if it loses once or in the 1 year out of 10 that there are more than 2 undefeated BCS teams. Going undefeated is a much better bet to get into the national championship game than is losing once with a good SOS.
But it's not a good bet
If you yourself said you'd like to have a legit shot at a national title once every six or seven years and Texas has only gone undefeated three times I think (1963, 1969, and 2005) in their 106 year existence, wouldn't the numbers tell you that the better odds to accomplish your original objective would be to do it the way Florida did last year? Schedule a decent OOC, hope to go undefeated, but if you don't, 1 loss still might get you to the title game in the end. Statistically speaking you have a better chance of that happening than you do going undefeated.
And again, I go back to the control issue. I'd rather have a decent team in our non-con to make sure our SOS is where it needs to be at the end of the season in case it comes down to us and other one loss teams. In theory, playing an easy OOC and running the table seems like the logical thing to wish for, but the numbers don't play out as going undefeated just isn't likely no matter how easy your schedule plays out (ask TCU, they beat OU and then lost SMU in a two weak period.)
I concede that going undefeated in the Big XII even with a cream puff OOC should be enough to get us to the title game 95 out of 100 times, but it's just not realistic in my mind. Plus, how would you like to go undefeated and be left out because of a weak OOC? That to me would be a worse fate than going 11-1 five years in row and being left out.
Miss Auburn says "you can hope the judges don't take points off for smallish tits or you can invest in duct tape." I'd go with the duct tape.
by 54b on Jun 6, 2007 3:50 PM CDT up reply actions
not quite
Texas went undefeated a bunch of times in the 1920's and earlier, but those don't really count. the 1983 team went undefeated the entire regular season (and effectively played for the national championship against georgia, which counts for what i'm saying -- going undefeated gets you into the national championship game). The 1977 and 1970 teams did the same thing, losing only their bowl games. The 1962 team was 9-0-1 before the bowl game, which sort of counts (if there had been overtime then, who knows). I'm just saying that going undefeated in the regular season gives you a chance that you rarely get if you don't go undefeated in the regular season.
...wouldn't the numbers tell you that the better odds to accomplish your original objective would be to do it the way Florida did last year? Schedule a decent OOC, hope to go undefeated, but if you don't, 1 loss still might get you to the title game in the end. Statistically speaking you have a better chance of that happening than you do going undefeated.
Since the BCS came into existence in 1998, 6 one-loss teams have made the BCS championship game. 26 one-loss teams from BCS conferences have not made the national championship game. The odds aren't good for getting in as a 1-loss team. (As a side note, Florida did not schedule a decent OOC. They had FSU, which maybe they thought would be good, but they absolutely weren't. Thus, out-of-conference SOS didn't get them in. The strength of the SEC got them in.)
In theory, playing an easy OOC and running the table seems like the logical thing to wish for, but the numbers don't play out as going undefeated just isn't likely no matter how easy your schedule plays out (ask TCU, they beat OU and then lost SMU in a two weak period.)
This is also my point. Going undefeated in your own conference is really hard. If you happen to do it one year, then also going undefeated in your OOC schedule gives you a 92.3% guarantee of going to the national championship game (12 of 13 since the BCS started). Losing once in your OOC schedule gives you an 18.75% chance of going to the NC game, according to the stats since the BCS (6 out of 32 1-loss teams made NC game). That number undoubtedly rises if the team you lost to is very good, but it doesn't approach 92%.
And yeah, it's a lot easier to finish the season with 1-loss than with none. It's also easier to finish with 2 losses than 1-loss. And if, as you're saying, it's really hard to get through the conference slate without a loss, then why complicate it with the possibility of a second loss? An OOC win against a good team would be somewhat helpful to the cause, but a loss would be fatal.
Put the calculator down and back away slowly
When is the last time you saw sun light? Never mind...can't argue with most of your numbers, but I do take issue with one...
You said "6 one-loss teams have made the BCS championship game since 1998 and 26 have not. So the odds aren't good for getting in as a one loss team"
But it should be pointed out that in five out of those nine years, at least one 1-loss team made it to the title game. So even though 26 1-loss teams have been excluded, what's important isn't the overall number, it's why they were excluded. And I'd assume they didn't make it because their SOS was inferior to the 1-loss team who did make it.
And to your sidenote, Florida scheduled a decent OOC, Florida State just didn't live up their end of the bargain. If I was Florida or Florida State, I'd never schedule any other decent OOC games knowing more often than not each team will be competitive. Fortunately for Florida this year, the SEC was perceived as the best conference in voters opinions.
I'm going to leave it as this because my head is about to explode. But I see your point in giving yourself the best possible chance to go undefeated as that seems to be the only sure fire way of getting to the title 99% of the time. But I really believe going undefeated is more of a fluke than a realistic possiblity (especially with the growing parity in the college game) and therefor would opt for the 1-loss SOS approach.
When asked what her lifetime goal was, Miss Oklahoma said, "to count to infiniti." I wish her luck.
by 54b on Jun 6, 2007 5:51 PM CDT up reply actions
fair enough
but come on....a nerd/calculator joke? don't pretend that you didn't just geek out for this entire conversation too..... you're just the type of nerd who played college football. i'm the type of nerd that played law school intramural flag football (league champions!).
it's a sliding scale...
Um
I think my comment was less about calling out your nerdesto prowess and more about my head exploding from the influx of numbers.
I have no problem with math, but I'm no stats guy. I think numbers of often times misleading and hate how our society automatically thinks if a numeric fact is applied to an argument, than it's automatic valid. Case and point, the NBA combine and Durrant's inability to bench 185. Does a basketball weigh 185 pounds? Then what's the problem.
I don't discount stats, I just don't think they should be the determining factor in a debate.
By the way, I'm happy to report that Miss Oklahoma accomplished her lifetime goal of counting to infiniti. Apparently in Norman, infiniti comes right after the number seven.
by 54b on Jun 7, 2007 8:56 AM CDT up reply actions
Agree with BZ
SOS only metters if you lose, or in the off chance that there is more than 2 undefeated teams at the end of the year. The second case is rare, and therefore IMO not worth really worrying about.
As a fan, I would love to see us play a couple of good Non-conference opponenets, but if I were making the schedule, it would be a no-brainer. Go undefeated in the big 12, and take care of the wimpy non-con pansies that I scheduled.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Burnt Orange Nation
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
