The Numbers Game: A BCS Status Update
If you missed last week's BCS Numbers Game, take a quick read here of the section "An Explanatory Prelude That Seems Simple But is Oh So Important." It will give you a background for the numbers we're looking at here. So let's step right up and take a look at the two human polls (note: some idiot didn't submit his ballot in the Harris Poll this week so the expected points this week are based on 113 voters instead of 114):
|
|
|
Analysis? You want analysis? Follow me after the jump.

Once again, all analysis relating to Texas getting to the Big 12 championship game assumes that Texas Tech loses to OU this weekend. Nothing against Texas Tech, but we need it to happen to get to Kansas City. To the facts!
Heartening Fact 1: Florida and Texas gained a lot of points in the Coaches' Poll while Oklahoma lost a few and USC lost a lot, and the same was true in the Harris Poll, except that USC stayed pretty constant there. There is a lot of good news here. Once again, rankings of each poll as a whole don't matter other than symbolically. The story from this weekend wasn't how Texas jumped OU in the coaches' poll, it was how many coaches (and Harris poll voters, for that matter) moved Texas up and/or OU down. And there were a LOT.
Opinion Bordering on Fact 2, but Closer to Fact than Last Week: Once again, USC is out the discussion barring chaos of 2007 proportions. They lost a ton of points this week, probably due to voters who had them too high to begin with and dropped them to where they should ahve been all along (around #6) after their first half dogfight with Stanford. The only way they can make it to Miami is if either the Big 12 or the SEC doesn't send a representative. That's going to take a lot of occurrences, the vast majority of which are of very low probability.
Totally Meta Fact 3: Last week's "Actual Fact 4 Followed by Reasoned Speculation" has occurred, just as I predicted. We shall see if the somewhat less likely "Actual Fact #5 Followed by Somewhat Specious Speculation" will follow. We don't have to worry too much anymore about voters who will keep OU ahead of Texas on their ballots if OU wins out (since most currently have Texas ahead of OU), but will Texas' head-to-head win over OU on a neutral field prevent those voters from moving OU ahead of Texas on their ballots even if OU wins out? I sure hope so.
In Which I Equivocate as to My Statement of Fact 4 but Eventually Confirm My Initial Belief: Florida is not a buffer between Texas and OU in the human polls. Yes, Florida is #4 in the BCS as a whole, in between #3 Texas and #5 OU. But it is not in between Texas and OU in any of the human polls and from the looks of the points, Florida appears to be consolidating its position as #3 in both polls, ahead of both UT and OU. However, there is some indication that Florida might be ranked in between Texas and OU on some potentially significant portion of the ballots, particularly in the Harris Poll. Florida is 67 points below what you would expect from a team that was voted #3 in every single poll. This means that there is a significant group of voters that ranked them below #3 with not that many who ranked them above #3. Texas is pretty well settled into the #4 spot as OU is in the #5 spot, while USC is far above its expected points for the #6 spot. This could mean that some small amount of voters have USC #3 and Florida #6 or that some voters have USC or Florida in between Texas and OU. But I think that's less likely than the possibility that most voters have Texas and OU right next to each other in that order, but some have both ahead of Florida and about the same amount have both behind USC. This could easily lead to the scores we see, and would mean that neither Florida nor USC is a buffer between Texas and OU in the human polls.
Fact 5 Controverts Your Expectations: OU being ranked highly (but not higher than Texas) on most voters' ballots going into this week is good for Texas. Given how many points each of Texas and OU have, the ideal way that they would have gotten there is that every voter had Texas exactly one spot higher than OU. That way, OU has to jump Texas on voters' ballots in order to gain any points in the human polls. As outlined earlier and last week, doing so may take some levels of cognitive dissonance that voters aren't willing to tolerate. The worst possible situation we could be in right now is that the numbers got this way by some voters putting OU ahead of Texas and some of them putting OU several spots lower than Texas. This means that if OU wins out, those voters with OU ahead will leave them this way while those with OU several spots behind can move them up several places without moving them ahead of Texas. This allows OU to gain more points. Neither human poll releases its component ballots prior to the last one (which is TERRIBLE--even if you don't attach a name to the ballot to preserve anonymity, at least let us know what the ballots say) so I have no idea which is the truth. But hope that it's Texas one spot above OU on every ballot.
To the Computers!
| A&H | Billingsley | Colley | Massey | Sagarin | Wolfe | Average | Diff. from Expected | Team |
| 24 | 24 | 23 | 25 | 25 | 25 | .980 | -.020 | Texas Tech |
| 25 | 25 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 24 | .960 | -- | Alabama |
| 23 | 23 | 25 | 24 | 23 | 23 | .930 | +.010 | Texas |
| 22 | 19 | 21 | 21 | 22 | 21 | .850 | -.030 | Utah |
| 21 | 21 | 24 | 20 | 21 | 20 | .830 | -.010 | Florida |
| 20 | 20 | 19 | 22 | 20 | 22 | .820 | +.020 | Oklahoma |
| 18 | 18 | 18 | 19 | 19 | 19 | .740 | -.020 | Georgia |
| 17 | 22 | 19 | 18 | 16 | 18 | .730 | +.010 | USC |
Encouraging Fact 6: Texas improved its computer poll numbers, going from .920 to .930 (moving up 1 spot on two ballots while staying the same on four ballots) while OU stayed the same at .820 (moving up 1 spot on three ballots, down 1 spot on two ballots, and staying the same on one ballot). Texas has an enormous lead on OU in the computers right now.
Sobering Fact 7: Texas' enormous lead means that there's plenty of room for OU to move up and virtually no room for Texas to move up. If OU wins out (as Texas needs them to do for the Horns to have a shot at the conference championship game), they will move up in the computers, but Texas will not move up in the computers unless someone ahead of them loses.
Fact 8 Encourages Some Uncomfortable Rooting Interests: Buffers in between Texas and OU are extremely important. If Texas Tech loses to OU, we want Tech to stay above OU in the computers, meaning that Texas will move up in some computer ballots while OU will not. Additionally, we need to root for the following teams: Florida (between UTand OU in 4 computers), Utah (between UT and OU in 3 computers), USC (between UT and OU in 2 computers), Alabama (between UT and OU in 2 computers).
Disheartening Discussion of Texas' BCS Chances if Texas Tech Beats OU: I want to win the conference championship. And if Texas wins the conference championship, they are Miami-bound, 100%. That said, I think we're all to a point where we're okay with the idea of Texas making the national championship game without winning its division considering the ridiculous tiebreakers involved and the murderer's row that no one but the Horns had to face this year. So here is a little bit of analysis on how that might happen.
Opinion Bordering on Fact 9: If Tech beats OU and Baylor but loses to Missouri, then Texas will go to the National Championship game. OU will be out of the picture so it will come down to USC, Texas, Texas Tech, and the loser of the SEC championship game. The loser of the SEC championship game will NOT face the team that just beat them in Miami. Back-to-back rematches aren't going to happen unless there's no other viable candidate. If they lost, Florida would have 2 losses and be out of the picture and Alabama's computer rankings (already tenuous as an undefeated team) will plummet if they lost. USC cannot gain enough ground in the computers to compete and at the absolute most will be ranked 1 spot above Texas in the human polls (though I doubt even that). Texas Tech is closer than those 2, but Texas' computer ranking will trump Tech's and Tech will at best be in a virtual tie with Texas in the human polls. Texas goes to Miami.
Pretty Much Fact 10: If Tech wins the Big 12 and Florida loses a regular season game and then wins the SEC championship, Texas will go to Miami to play Tech. OU will have 2 losses, as will Florida. USC can't pass Texas and Alabama also will not have the luxury of calling itself a conference champion. Rematch!
Opinion Presented As Fact 11 Even Though It's Much Less Certain Than I'm Making It Out to be: If Alabama loses in the regular season (say to Auburn) and then beats Florida in the SEC championship game, it will go to Miami over Texas. This means that if Tech wins the Big 12, it will be Tech-Alabama. Even though Texas' resume will CLEARLY be better than Alabama's, Bama will have (a) won its conference championship, (b) beaten Florida on a neutral field in the last game of the year, and (c) not already played (and lost to) Texas Tech. Even though the humans will move Bama below Texas after the loss, they will move them above Texas after the Florida win because of the previous 3 reasons. Computers will favor Texas, but not by enough, I don't think. It will be very close though. However, if Tech loses the Big 12 championship game (as outlined in Fact 9 above), Texas will go and will face Alabama.
There are other possibilities for Texas to potentially reach Miami, such as (i) OU beating Tech but losing to OSU, sending 1-loss Tech (potentially ranked below UT in the BCS) to Kansas City, or (ii) OU winning the BCS-ranking tiebreaker over UT and TTU and going to Kansas City and losing (or winning and chaos reigning in the SEC sending UT to face OU in Miami), but these are just ridiculous to even think about right now and are far less likely to send Texas to Miami than the scenarios outlined above.
Take-Home Points from this Column: Texas did exactly what it needed to do this weekend: win a convincing game against Kansas while OU was on a bye and force human pollsters to move Texas ahead of OU on their ballots. In doing so, Texas has increased its BCS lead over OU from last week (UT's .8798 to OU's .8444 -- a difference of .0354) to this week (UT's .8911 to OU's .8388 -- a difference of .0523).
Now what needs to happen in the coming weeks is, after OU hopefully beats Tech by a small margin, Tech needs to stay between UT and OU in the computers, and human voters need to think long and hard about a certain October afternoon in Dallas before they move OU ahead of Texas on their ballots. The punditocracy is behind Texas for the time being and I truly think that all this talk about the travesty of OU ahead of Texas before they've played Tech or OSU has convinced voters to move Texas up. And so if Dallas can prevent a solid amount of voters from moving OU ahead of Texas, then Texas can maintain a lead in the human polls or essentially tie OU and hope the massive computer lead doesn't evaporate.
If Tech beats OU, well, root like hell for Mizzou against Tech and/or for Florida State against Florida and then Florida against Alabama. Those are the two best bets. See you here next week, I'm sure.
Comments
I guess I'll third it
(Don’t drop the ‘h’ when you say it.) Great stuff, made as comprehensible as possible given the subject material.
by edsp on
Nov 17, 2008 3:58 PM CST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Speechless
Awesome analysis. This is what I’ve wanted to put on paper but feared the time it would take would get me laid-off from my job.
by jtlonghorn on
Nov 17, 2008 4:27 PM CST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
fantastic. i'd gladly pay money to a site that featured regular posts of this quality. nt
bleeding orange up in nyc. get a rope.
by cwofford on
Nov 17, 2008 6:14 PM CST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Don't give the investors ideas
It’s a brave new world, and PB, BZ
proud to swim home
by learned hand on
Nov 17, 2008 6:22 PM CST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
that clause should end with
“and company deserve a lot of credit.”
I’m going to take my firefox out behind the digital woodshed now.
proud to swim home
by learned hand on
Nov 17, 2008 6:24 PM CST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I know it's off topic
Firefox has been a big ole bastard lately.
Perhaps the most recognizable mascot in sports, and certainly the toughest looking, Bevo is a fixture
by run Bevo run on
Nov 18, 2008 11:50 AM CST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
So root for Bama against Auburn?
If I’m reading this correctly, a Bama loss to Auburn, followed by a win over Florida, still gets Bama to Miami over us in a potential game against Tech (I tend to agree with this analysis: one-loss SEC champ trumps one-loss Big XII non-champ), while Bama beating Auburn keeps them in a situation where they could be a positive wedge between us and OU in the computers.
It seems counter-intuitive, but #3 should actually be rooting for #1 not to lose…
by kjm017 on
Nov 17, 2008 2:32 PM CST
reply
actions
0 recs
This is close.
If Alabama beats Auburn, it helps Texas in terms of the OU buffer, but that’s a relatively minor concern (and only matters if OU wins out). If Bama loses to Auburn, then two things can happen: (1) Florida can beat Bama and go to Miami or (2) Bama can beat Florida and be in a dogfight (potentially with Texas) for a spot in Miami.
If OU or Tech or Texas wins the Big 12, they are going to Miami and if that’s the case, my conclusion is that Bama as a 1-loss SEC champ will go too. So the only way option 2 matters for Texas is if (a) Tech wins the Big 12 or (b) Missouri beats OU or Tech. If option B happens, I think Texas goes to Miami to face Alabama. If option A happens, then Texas is in a dogfight with Alabama and both of us agree that Alabama will probably go over Texas in that situation.
Thus you’re faced with, on the one hand, rooting AGAINST Alabama versus Auburn on the hope that (x) Bama can beat Florida and (y) Bama won’t pass Texas in the BCS by doing so; or rooting FOR Alabama in the hope that OU wins out and that a buffer will be maintained between OU and Texas in the computers through the rest of the regular season.
I think the latter is a better bet than the former, so I’ll be rooting for Bama to win (or I’ll try to anyway, and will probably fail). But it’s a close call.
by billyzane on
Nov 17, 2008 3:00 PM CST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
In Your Quasi-Professional Opinion
If Alabama lost to Auburn in a close game, where would they drop in the polls/computers. Couldn’t we move up to #2 in the BCS and Alabama could create a further wedge between us and OU?
by Horn37 on
Nov 17, 2008 4:08 PM CST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I like where your head's at.
But I doubt it. Auburn is terrible and Bama hasn’t beaten anyone other than Georgia, which itself got a good game from Auburn this weekend. If Bama loses to Auburn, they drop below Texas and OU on most ballots. Our only hope in this situation would be that the “SEC is great!” notion helps us by voters not thinking the loss is as bad as it clearly would be and only moving Bama down a few spots in between Texas and OU. Then there would hopefully be some significant amount of ballots on which Bama would be in between Texas and OU, but my guess is that it wouldn’t be enough to really make a difference.
by billyzane on
Nov 17, 2008 4:15 PM CST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
What about the Computers?
I agree about the polls. I think people seriously doubt Alabama and are just waiting to drop them. Might the computers feel differently, though?
by Horn37 on
Nov 17, 2008 4:18 PM CST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
If it happened tomorrow, maybe.
But not after OU beats Tech and OSU (which is the only way that it matters). OU will be ahead of a Bama team that lost to Auburn.
by billyzane on
Nov 17, 2008 4:26 PM CST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Sobering fact #7
“but Texas will not move up in the computers unless someone ahead of them loses.” By definition, an OU win this weekend would cause someone ahead of them to lose.
by drew01 on
Nov 17, 2008 2:42 PM CST
reply
actions
0 recs
This is true.
But my point was that Texas isn’t going to move up on its own. A loss by Texas Tech to OU moves everyone up 1 automatically just by virtue of Tech no longer being there. It doesn’t improve Texas’ ranking relative to any other team that matters. I should have stated that more clearly.
by billyzane on
Nov 17, 2008 2:45 PM CST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Texas and OU moving up
It doesn’t improve Texas’ ranking relative to any other team that matters.
But it also may not hurt Texas ranking relative to OU, either. At least not as much as OU moving up and Texas staying the same as you said in the original post.
Thanks for the hard work, by the way.
by Horncasting on
Nov 17, 2008 3:09 PM CST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Right.
What I’m saying is that Texas moving up is irrelevant to its computer rankings relative to OU unless Tech or Alabama somehow lands in between the two of them after a loss. Thus OU actually has lots of room to improve its ranking relative to Texas but Texas has virtually no room to improve its ranking relative to OU.
by billyzane on
Nov 17, 2008 3:14 PM CST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Hindsight being 20/20....
I’ve thought a lot about all these possible scenarios and all one can do is watch and hope.
With that being said, if I knew ahead of time that the voters and computers would move Oklahoma ahead of Texas via a win over Tech & Okie State, I would rather let Tech play for the National Championship with an outright undefeated season.
I will hope for a small margin victory for OU- but my gut is telling me that the voters (as they have already hinted at) WANT to put Oklahoma ahead of Texas. I’m no guru with the numbers, but it seems as though late season wins over a #1 Tech and a ranked Okie State away game will be enough for them to pass Texas.
If you knew the future was to be this and only this? Would you cheer for OU?
"I asked Darrell Royal, the coach of the Texas Longhorns, why he didn’t recruit me and he said: "Well, Walt, we took a look at you and you weren’t any good.
- Walt Garrison
by 512 on
Nov 17, 2008 2:52 PM CST
reply
actions
0 recs
Only if I knew
that we would have a chance to beat them again in Miami.
by Wells on
Nov 17, 2008 3:39 PM CST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
That would be amazing
On 1000 different levels.
by DisplacedTexan on
Nov 17, 2008 3:41 PM CST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
It would probably feel like shagging a farm animal...
in order to get it to lay a golden egg. Then, only to discover the golden egg was nothing more than a shiny turd which you now must ingest because you are so embarrassed, you don’t want the other animals to laugh at you.
"I asked Darrell Royal, the coach of the Texas Longhorns, why he didn’t recruit me and he said: "Well, Walt, we took a look at you and you weren’t any good.
- Walt Garrison
by 512 on
Nov 17, 2008 3:47 PM CST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
that farm image just blew my mind. nt
bleeding orange up in nyc. get a rope.
by cwofford on
Nov 17, 2008 6:18 PM CST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Great review
Although I think you might be underestimating the fickle nature of the voters. Also their love for USC. If Tech wins out before falling in the CCG, I think USC (assuming OrSU loses another game) will get a very large boost in the human polls. Same goes for a situation where the SEC champ has two losses. I think there is a large resistance to a rematch, which we witnessed with Michigan in 2006.
I still think Texas’ only real hope is that OU wins in a close, ugly game. I’ve been way wrong about this stuff in the past but I think USC is being underestimated here.
Kevin @ Black Shoe Diaries
by Kevin HD on
Nov 17, 2008 3:51 PM CST
reply
actions
0 recs
If Tech loses the CCG
then there would be no rematch, it would be Texas vs SEC champion.
by Wells on
Nov 17, 2008 3:54 PM CST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Except for
Oklahoma spent most of the season at #1 and there was not another 1 loss team to put in its place. Other than that, exactly the same.
by Wells on
Nov 17, 2008 6:48 PM CST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
But there was?
Could’ve been one loss LSU vs. one loss USC, right? Voters had a choice between three one-loss teams and they picked Oklahoma.
Similarly, this year voters would have a choice between a number of one-loss teams under the above scenario (Texas, Texas Tech, Florida if it wins the SEC, USC, Penn State, etc.). I’m just suggesting that they could take Texas Tech. Why should an 11-1 Texas go in front of a 12-1 Texas Tech team that beat them?
by Skin Patrol on
Nov 17, 2008 6:57 PM CST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
not true.
Voters chose USC #11 in both polls, but the BCS system as it existed chose OU and LSU over USC.
by billyzane on
Nov 17, 2008 6:59 PM CST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
human polls had less weight
there were computers, but there were also weird additions and subtractions for strength of schedule and “quality wins.” they got rid of all that crap after that year.
by billyzane on
Nov 18, 2008 9:04 AM CST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Yea, I'm retarded
even check this site, but forgot USC.
Why? Because we travel better and would make for better TV ratings?
While I think a valid argument for why Tech should go instead of Texas can be made, I just don’t see it happening. Tech is the underdog in this one, and I think voters are waiting for a chance to say I told you so. Also, Tech SOS hurts them when compared to Texas.
by Wells on
Nov 17, 2008 7:06 PM CST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I am wading into territory I know little about.
My understanding was taht the TV Ratings and Travel Better thing came in to play when other BCS conferences or non BCS bowls were deciding who to select. My understanding was that, given the structure of the BCS, the #1 and #2 team in the country absolutely must play in the National Championship and that there isn’t any choice involved whatsoever. The National Champion Bowl game (Miami this year) doesn’t get to choose who it wants, rather it is compelled to select the #1 and #2 teams in the country.
I BELIEVE that to be the case, but am not certain. Presuming it is the case, though, surely neither the computers nor the Harris poll voters nor the USA Today Coaches poll voters would care about things like TV Ratings or how well a team travels? Should they?
I don’t think it would be absurd that Texas goes in front of Tech, I just don’t think it should be presumed to be the case either. Voters will have a direct A vs. B comparison between the schools thus putting Texas in a position of justifying the head-to-head loss, which is the second most important thing taken into consideration, generally speaking, behind record. Sometimes it is considered in front of overall record.
Just playing devil’s advocate, besides the fact that you guys played Missouri, the non-conferences aren’t dramatically different. We do have the two FCS teams, embarrassing I know, but when all is said and done Nevada could very well end up being the best OOC game on either of our schedules. We have common opponents that we played very well against in OSU and Kansas (although our common opponent Missouri loss would be a problem). Nebraska is probably a better football team than Colorado this year.
Again, it could go either way in my opinion and Texas wouldn’t be absurd, especially if you factor in that UT is the more recognizable program and institutional biases and all that. But I want to register my complaint with a system that automatically sends UT over Tech if both teams are one loss and equally unworthy of a Conference championship. Where records are identical and schedules are about as similar as two teams can be, the presumption should be that the team who wins head-to-head is favored.
by Skin Patrol on
Nov 17, 2008 7:29 PM CST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
No you are right
I was just joking about the TV ratings, traveling, etc.
While I would hope that it would be a though out comparison of the two teams, but I feel like Texas would just get the benefit of the doubt because of tradition, history, season narrative, timing of loss, blaa, blaa bla. Some voters think that teams have to move down any time they lose and then work your way back up. And SOS is semi-comparable, but the two FCS teams kill you in the computer rankings.
by Wells on
Nov 17, 2008 8:11 PM CST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
In a nutshell they shouldn't
. . and I’m not convinced they would. A 12-0 Tech would probably be perfect in the computers and might still have an edge over Texas even with a loss to Mizzou in the computers.
In 2004, Oklahoma got torched 35-7 by Kansas State and was still #1 in the BCS the next day. The voters didn’t drop them beyond 3 and they were still 1 in the computer aggregate. I think something similar could happen in this situation as well, particularly if Tech torches Oklahoma and loses a close one to Mizzou. I also think this situation may open the possibility of a split national title w/Texas and the BCS champion
by DoubleB on
Nov 17, 2008 8:31 PM CST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I really don't think so. Not this year.
Texas’ computer scores are too good and USC’s too bad. Plus I just don’t think there’s any way USC overtakes Texas assuming Texas beats A&M. The Pac 10 is widely regarded to be borderline terrible this year, and while the loss to Oregon State certainly doesn’t look as bad now as it did then, this is the same Oregon State team that lost by 457 points to Penn State—another team that would be in the running for a spot with USC (and one which shares USC’s only good win this year – Ohio State).
by billyzane on
Nov 17, 2008 4:10 PM CST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I just don't think you'll get a rematch.
I think the voters will break from their methods. If you remember, Michigan was ranked #2 after losing to OSU before being unexplainable jumped by Florida even though Michigan was idol.
Maybe you are right about the computers, of all the moving parts they are the hardest to predict. Sagarin has the ACC as the second toughest conference right now, so, yeah. UM and UF were tied in the computer in 2006, so this would be a different situation.
USC being ahead of PSU is another issue, one that, for my health, I have simply avoided. I obviously have an opinion, but I also know that USC being ranked higher than they should be is one of the laws on the universe…resistance in futile and all that.
Kevin @ Black Shoe Diaries
by Kevin HD on
Nov 17, 2008 4:17 PM CST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
A little different
The Big 10 was not good that year and if they were to have the rematch it would have been a repeat of the final regular season game. It was pretty much the the worst case scenario for a rematch.
by Wells on
Nov 17, 2008 4:58 PM CST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I may be venturing too far into enemy territory here
but I like this discussion. My response to that comment, though, is that it shouldn’t matter how bad the Big Ten was in 2006 or how good the Big XII is in 2008. What should matter is how good the two teams in question are. In 2006 Ohio State beat (then #2) Texas, at Texas, 24-7. Michigan beat (also at the time #2) ND, at ND, 47-21. They made a good case as to why they were ranked so high, of course those were based on information that wasn’t actually telling of the situation, but that’s kind of my point. How do we know, with enough certainty to exclude everyone else, that Tech and UT are the two best teams in the nation?
Kevin @ Black Shoe Diaries
by Kevin HD on
Nov 17, 2008 5:41 PM CST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I don't know if we can determine with certainty
But that is why judgment calls have to come into the system.
You have to admit though that because Michigan and Ohio State played each other in the last game of the season the situation is different. Voters felt that they had just seen that game and decided to change their vote.
by Wells on
Nov 17, 2008 7:12 PM CST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
There are differences, yes.
But there is something like a 50 day lag between the last Big Ten game and the MNC game, so if you want to look at it objectively: what’s 65 days compared to 50, really? In the minds’ of voters team don’t change unless they play games in-between, but in reality that’s not the case; teams change every day.
I just hate the thought of a rematch because if the original loser ends up winning the MNC game things get sticky for me. I’d almost want to see a third game.
Kevin @ Black Shoe Diaries
by Kevin HD on
Nov 18, 2008 8:12 AM CST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
What I’m saying is you may be right.
But I have another question: do you think that’s fair? I mean with so many different teams, is it really fair to even have a rematch? I mean has the B XII really proven that they deserve such a large benefit with their OOC wins? Because it’s a very large risk to take, not even giving the other six conference a shot.
I’m just asking. If the shoe was on the other foot I would probably think about things differently.
Kevin @ Black Shoe Diaries
by Kevin HD on
Nov 17, 2008 4:20 PM CST
reply
actions
0 recs
"Fair" is not exactly the right question
If things were fair, we wouldn’t be even having this conversation. There’d be a better way to determine a champion.
In the absence of that, you have to evaluate who are the best teams and who have the best resumes. If the two teams with the best resumes happen to be in the same conference and perhaps even played each other, then they should be in. If the voters only reason to prevent this is the simple fact they don’t want a rematch, it just goes to show how dumb their reasoning often is.
by TheElusiveShadow on
Nov 17, 2008 4:27 PM CST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Also, our game against Tech is widely considered the best game of the year. We lost on the last play of the game on their home field. I think there may be a lot of people who would like to see that matchup again on a neutral field and see who wins. But maybe not.
by Horn37 on
Nov 17, 2008 4:41 PM CST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Fair depends on what you want the national championship to be.
I’ve said a million time prior to this year that I think the national championship game should be a game between the two teams who have had the best seasons. I rank teams based on resumes and think that resumes are all that should go into determining rankings (and thus the championship game participants). There are fine reasons for wanting to see two teams not in the same conference play in the national championship game. But those only matter if you are willing to say, “Most everyone agrees that these two teams have had the best seasons, resume-wise, but I don’t care. I’m putting a different team in place of one of them for x, y, and z reasons.”
I personally don’t think that’s justified under any circumstances. If you do, let me then provide you with an x, y, or z reason why a rematch between UT and TTU or between UT and OU wouldn’t be the same as a Michigan/OSU rematch. Those two that you referenced earlier played in the last game of the season. I agree that back-to-back rematches are pretty annoying. But Texas played OU ages ago and the NC game will occur more than 2 months after Texas played Tech, and both were great, close games.
I hope it doesn’t matter. I hope Texas plays the winner of the SEC in Miami. But if it does, I don’t think the two teams with the two best resumes should play for the national championship. And even if you don’t necessarily, it’s not the same thing as OSU/Michigan.
by billyzane on
Nov 17, 2008 4:51 PM CST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Sorry BZ...
I’m just a little unclear as to what you’re saying here. Are you saying that Texas and Tech should rematch if you think that they have the two best resumes at the end of the year?
by Sweed4Heisman on
Nov 17, 2008 9:28 PM CST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Yeah, pretty much.
I personally think the two teams who had the best resumes over the course of a season should play each other in the national championship game. Some other people might not necessarily agree, so I provided a little more information for them as to why the specific rematch game of Texas vs. Tech wouldn’t be that bad.
by billyzane on
Nov 18, 2008 9:08 AM CST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Ok, but...
… reading your work in the past, I’ve gathered that you are a staunch believer in the sanctity and importance of the regular season. I generally agree that the participants in the title game should be the two teams who accomplished the most in the regular season, but wouldn’t a rematch render the November 1st game completely meaningless?
I know it would have been two months since the game, unlike the back-to-back OSU/Michigan situation that almost occurred, but doesn’t Tech’s win still have to mean something? Rematches are the main reason that I’m against a playoff, in that almost all playoff formats leave open the possibility of rematches. To me, a postseason rematch of a regular season game makes the first game. Why should the second meeting mean more than the first one?
by Sweed4Heisman on
Nov 18, 2008 11:07 AM CST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
My belief in the sanctity of the regular season is upheld by this belief.
I personally think voters should vote at the end of the season on the champion after the bowl game (the way the AP does) rather than just contractually award the championship to the winner of the NC game. That would mean that a rematch wouldn’t be a big deal because it wouldn’t negate the earlier game, as it would be take n under just as much advisement as the later game. But whatever.
My belief in the sanctity of the regular season would be diminished if I thought that we should ignore the team with the second best resume and take the team with the third for any reason whatsoever. Do I wish that we would never have a rematch in the NC game? Yes, I do. But do I think that we should refuse to let one of the top 2 teams in the country into the NC game simply because it would create a rematch? No I don’t. Because the regular season as a whole is what matters, not the outcome of 1 regular season game.
by billyzane on
Nov 18, 2008 11:59 AM CST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Ok that makes sense...
…I suppose it’s just a matter of preference. As long as I have really cared about college football (about 2001ish), the BCS has existed. With the BCS comes the National Championship Game, the game that crowns you the National Champion if you win it. I suppose that my relatively short experience with college football leads to my preference for the “Super Bowl” of college football.
However, I never really considered what it would be like if we voted after the bowls, “Poll and Bowl” style. If we did, then I would be much more receptive to a rematch. I still wouldn’t necessarily like it, but it would be the correct matchup if they have the two best resumes.
But since we do have one game which is elevated above all the rest, I don’t think it’s fair for Tech to have to play Texas again. Texas had their chance, and lost. With one, all-deciding game, I believe that the next best resume after Texas should get the spot.
by Sweed4Heisman on
Nov 18, 2008 2:21 PM CST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Odds as of right now?
Billyzane, as of right now, what’s your gut feeling as to the percentage chance do you think each team has to get to Miami?
My take is:
Texas: 40%
Texas Tech: 40%
OU: 30%
Yes, I know that adds up to 110%, but it reflects the slim chance that the championship game could feature an all-Big XII match-up. And I see no way a Big XII team doesn’t get to Miami.
I have OU’s chances the lowest because they have to thread the needle more than the other two teams. For OU to get to Miami, they have to (1) beat the #2 team in the country; (2) beat a top 10 team in a rivalry game on the road; (3) hope that achieving (1) and (2) will permit them to jump a team they lost to in the regular season; and (4) beat a top 10-12 Mizzou team in a quasi road game, possibly in adverse weather conditions.
OU can quite possibly do that, but there is no Plan B or any alternate route. That is the only way they get there, except for (1) winning out, (2) losing the tiebreaker to Texas, and (3) Texas loses to Mizzou.
Texas and Tech have multiple routes. For Texas, each scenario on its own might have pretty long odds, but cumulatively, the odds seem to be approaching 50/50. Plus, our only realistic chance at losing a game is against Mizzou.
Tech obviously controls its own destiny, plus, unlike OU, they aren’t eliminated by a close loss this week.
by kjm017 on
Nov 17, 2008 4:41 PM CST
reply
actions
0 recs
Tech is much higher than 40%
If I’m adding up to 100% (ignoring the possibility of 2 big 12 teams), I’d put Tech at 50, OU at 23 and Texas at 27%.
Tech basically has to get by OU. If they get by OU, they just have to not fall flat on their faces against Baylor and Missouri and they’re in Miami. OU is a tough game, but that’s the only reason their percentage isn’t even higher.
OU controls its own destiny more than Texas, but it’s a much harder destiny to control. They have to beat Tech and OSU and then hope for the BCS tiebreaker, then beat Missouri. Texas has to beat A&M, hope for the BCS tiebreaker and then beat Missouri. There’s virtually no chance of a loss for Texas, but there’s also a much greater possibility that OU jumps Texas in the BCS rankings if it wins out and then plays Missouri. But this is more or less the ONLY way OU can make the national championship game. OU might be able to do it if Texas wins the BCS tiebreaker and then loses to Missouri. But I still think Texas has a few more options because Texas can make the NC game regardless of whether Tech or OU wins next weekend. OU can only make the NC game if it wins.
So the conclusion is Tech pretty much just has to beat OU. That’s not easy, but I give them about a 60% chance to do that and then an 80-85 chance to beat Baylor and Missouri, which is approximately 50% overall. I don’t think there’s any way Tech makes the game without winning the Big 12 undefeated (MAYBE if OU beats Tech, then loses to OSU and Tech wins the Big 12, but I’m not sure). OU has a hard road, but if they beat Tech and OSU, I think they have over a 50% chance of winning the BCS tiebreaker with Texas and if they do that and beat Missouri (which I think they would do), they’d go. Texas just has a lot of options to get there based on virtually any scenario that the other teams don’t have. Independently, none is great, but their chances don’t depend on any 1 thing happening, which is why I put their chances a little above OU’s.
by billyzane on
Nov 17, 2008 5:09 PM CST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I dunno why we'd be...
a marginal NC candidate if we lose to OU, they lose to OSU, but then we beat Missouri in the Big 12 Championship.
by Skin Patrol on
Nov 17, 2008 6:44 PM CST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I think you're right...
…so long as the loss to OU is less than a TD. Tech would have a great argument — basically the same one we’d be employing against OU — that they should advance by virtue of the head-to-head win over Texas.
by kjm017 on
Nov 17, 2008 7:53 PM CST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
you're right.
Here was my thought process: if Tech loses to OU, they will drop below Texas in the BCS and will remain there after they beat Baylor. Then the question becomes whether Tech’s win over Missouri would leapfrog them over Texas in the BCS. My initial thought was no, but upon further consideration, beating Missouri would probably make the two teams close in the computers while humans would be hard pressed to rank Texas ahead of the big 12 champion that also beat Texas head-to-head. I think Texas would be definitively ahead of Tech before the Missouri game, but I think the voters’ pull combined with closer computer rankings would put Tech a little bit over the top.
by billyzane on
Nov 18, 2008 9:13 AM CST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
By your resume approach...
Not a question of what would happen but what should happen, if the main thing that distinguishes Texas’ resume from Tech’s resume is that you guys beat Missouri and we didn’t… shouldn’t Tech be ranked higher than Texas if we beat Missouri, too?
I believe, am not certain, that a 12-1 Texas Tech that is also a CC would go ahead of an 11-1 Texas and I furthermore believe there is nothing unjust or unusual in that result. If Tech would go ahead of Texas on the normal tie breakers of the Big-12, which emphasize record than head-to-head, what could happen after a Tech victory over Missouri that should have Texas leapfrog us for the NC game?
Not to be bullish on the point, but if Florida is forgiven for losing to Ole Miss and would go to a NC game ahead of an Alabama team they beat in the SEC conference, obviously premised on head-to-head rather than entire strength of resume (as Alabama’s resume would be better, given they lost to Florida at neutral territory and Florida lost to Ole Miss at home), why should Tech remain behind Texas even if we beat OU, lose to Baylor, but then win the Big-12 championship?
I know I’m asking more questions than is fair, here. If it’s totally resume, head-to-head isn’t nearly as important and maybe we should consider Alabama over a Florida team that beats them. If head-to-head matters, matters so much that Florida jumps Alabama, then shouldn’t it matter just as much if Tech finishes 12-1, regardless of who that loss comes against, including Baylor or Missouri?
Before you respond, let me say I don’t think it would be UNUSUAL for UT to leapfrog Tech if we had just one loss to either a Baylor or a Missouri, but I likewise don’t think it would be UNUSUAL for Tech to remain ahead of Texas. I do think it would be UNUSUAL for Texas to leapfrog a 12-1 Tech team that lost only to Oklahoma. (UNUSUAL can here be read alternatively as “unfair” if that clears up matters.)
by Skin Patrol on
Nov 18, 2008 10:40 AM CST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Comes down to two things in my opinion.
1) (Humans) If Tech drops one, how badly do they lose? Texas’ one loss, as you well know, technically came in the last 6 seconds of the game. Does Tech’s loss have the same drama and coulda woulda shouldas?
2) (Computers) Strength of schedule. A one loss team playing a top 5 schedule is going to be more impressive than one with a top 40. Again the head to head is mitigated by the fact of where it was played, and how close the game was.
For UT to leapfrog a one loss Tech, it would have to be due to a solid win by OU this weekend imo. Then when people juggle the head to heads, they look at a 2 score victory by UT over OU on a neutral field, a last play 1-score victory by Tech over UT on a neutral field, and then whatever happens in Norman.
by BoddickerIsClutch on
Nov 18, 2008 11:11 AM CST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Re:
1) Sure, I agree that how badly Tech loses impacts human voters. I don’t know what will happen against Oklahoma.
2) We have a top 40 SOS and you have a top 5 SOS because we haven’t played OU or Missouri, two teams that, from the hypothetical above, we will have played.
If A) Tech is a 12-1 CC that lost only to OU or B) a 12-1 team that beat OU and Baylor bust lost to Missouri or is C) a 12-1 team that beat OU, lost to Baylor, but beats Missouri, I think under all those circumstances Tech will have a shot at being ranked higher than Texas.
A) Obviously the margin of victory with OU is important but the nuance of a 1-1-1 comparison won’t exist because this scenario contemplates OU losing to OSU. If it comes down to a comparison between, exclusively, a one loss Texas Tech vs. a one loss Texas, 12-1 Texas Tech will probably not have a SOS problem relative to Texas because we will have played the meat of your schedule (as we will have added a Mizzou in our CCG) and so voters will get to compare the two teams. When comparisons are 1:1 head-to-head plays a big role, yes? Why would people even care what happened in Norman when we’re talking about two one loss teams — one of them with more wins then the other — and the team with more wins happens to have won the regular season contest?
B) Perhaps less certain of a scenario but still, why should an 11-1 Texas team go in front of a 12-1 Tech team that has played the same schedule, beat the same brutal OSU and OU teams that Texas beat, under better circumstances since we pounded OSU and will have beaten OU on the road? It wouldn’t SURPRISE me if Texas went, but I wouldn’t guarantee that result, either. It could be a toss up, and a very reasonable argument could be made that Tech should go in front of Texas.
C) Least certain of all, but I call this the Florida defense. If Florida losing to Ole Miss at home isn’t enough to keep them out of a NC game in virtue of winning the SEC, why would a loss to Baylor be enough to keep Texas Tech out of the NC game in virtue of winning the Big-12? Our SOS certainly won’t be dramatically weaker. We’ll have a much worse loss than Texas, but so will Florida relative to Alabama.
Under B and C, and even A perhaps, I can SEE Texas going in front of Tech but I think it’s ludicrous to suggest that it is preordained one way or the other. There is a very sensible argument in Re: head-to-head record that dictates a one loss Tech goes in front of a one loss Texas under virtually any feasible Tech as 12-1 team scenario.
by Skin Patrol on
Nov 18, 2008 4:27 PM CST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I wasnt under the impression anyone was guaranteeing anything
If you got that from my post, I assure you it was not my intent. I’m hypothesizing the same as the next guy, and was merely elaborating on why I think its possible Texas would not get leaped by Tech, assuming the conditions I listed happen.
by BoddickerIsClutch on
Nov 18, 2008 5:06 PM CST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Right on.
I think you and I are in agreement. I agree that it is possible Texas would not get leaped by Tech.
My point is merely that I think it’s possible Tech is on top, which is totally consistent with what you’re saying, I believe.
Elsewhere, not you so much, people have suggested that Texas would leap Tech necessarily under the circumstances listed above.
by Skin Patrol on
Nov 18, 2008 6:02 PM CST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Fairness
So if Tech loses to OU and wins the Big 12, here are the resumes:
Both Tech and Texas: only loss on the road to a top 5 team.
Tech: Biggest win over undefeated #1 at home.
Texas: Biggest win over undefeated #1 on neutral field.
Tech: wins head-to-head.
Texas: has a stronger overall schedule (it’s true, even if you think they’re relatively equal, they’re not).
It’s relatively even, honestly. Slight edge to Tech for the head-to-head, which outweighs Texas’ stronger schedule. But this isn’t what matters. Texas won’t have to jump Tech in the polls if Tech loses to OU, Tech will have to jump Texas. That’s what you have to look at. I agree that if Tech wins the Big 12 with 1 loss, they will probably jump Texas. But you have to think about it in the reality of the situation, not in the theoretical.
by billyzane on
Nov 18, 2008 11:38 AM CST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Re:
Why would Texas have a better overall schedule? We’ll have played every single ranked team you played (Missouri, OU, OSU, Kansas). We will have played 9 conference opponents to your 8. Nebraska is probably better than Colorado. You’ve got us on our weak OOC because we played two FCS teams, but I doubt you’ll end the season with an OOC win convincingly better than our road victory over Nevada. We’ve got some favorable data points on common opponents in Kansas and OSU, but you’ll have one in Oklahoma.
The issue is, and you touched on it, are the two resumes disparate enough where head-to-head can be dismissed? I’m not even certain that Texas has the better resume… at all, let alone strong enough to overcome head-to-head.
The reality is who knows. But I do think voters will have plenty of reasons to push Tech over Texas if we win a Big-12 Championship and are 12-1. I’m not certain we jump you but I think it’s totally plausible that we do, and should.
by Skin Patrol on
Nov 18, 2008 4:37 PM CST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
In terms of strength of schedule, I was referring to the computers.
And in that regard, Texas will have a better rank than Tech because Texas’ non-conference opponents have better records and we didn’t play any D2 teams. To a human voter who doesn’t get into such inanities, you’re right that the resumes will be more or less the same, with Tech having the advantage due to the head-to-head. That’s pretty much what I said above, and that’s why I think voters will probably (though not definitely) jump Tech over Texas if Tech loses to OU but beats Missouri.
In terms of fairness, I think a Tech team that beat Texas, lost to OU, and then won the Big 12 deserves to go to the NC game more than Texas. And I think they probably will.
by billyzane on
Nov 18, 2008 5:26 PM CST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Re:
I don’t even know that it would be the case that the computers have you ahead. Obviously it depends in large part on what our opponents do, but consider that a 12-1 Tech team will have one more victory than an 11-1 Texas team, and that victory will have been against Nebraska (presuming that K. State and Colorado are more or less a wash, which Jeff Sagarin says to be the case (K. State is 74 or so on his computer right now, Colorado is 77). Nebraska isn’t that far from being a top 25 team.
We may have beaten crappy FCS U. Mass, but as of this moment Jeff Sagarin has them ranked higher than Florida Atlantic, something to consider. He likewise has Nevada in front of Rice. Since your highest OOC opponent is somewhere like 72nd, and ours is somewhere like 64th, that we have a couple real shit bombs (SMU, Eastern Washington) probably won’t hurt us all that much relative to you. That extra victory over Nebraska, though, would likely play a big role. Or at least I’d like to think it would.
Again, none of which is to say that Texas would NECESSARILY be below Tech in the computers, but I certainly think it’s possible.
I think we’re in agreement, then.
by Skin Patrol on
Nov 18, 2008 6:09 PM CST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Because it's a stupid, stupid system...
…perception trumps reality.
And despite the total number of teams we’ve each played, the perception (and, to be completely honest, very likely the reality) is that Texas had the tougher schedule, mainly because of the way it played out – that brutal 4 game stretch. Tech may have played the same teams, but they very definitely did not run the same gauntlet.
Whether that’s fair or not, I really think that will play into voters’ perceptions. And in that light, they’re going to look at our head-to-head as the last game of a stretch that nobody else can match. And they’re going to see the last game on an opposing field which was completely crazy (and btw – kudos on that – even on TV, that was truly an electric atmosphere!), and a gutty comeback after just plain getting punched in the mouth, only to lose on a great, last second play.
You can argue that none of that matters, since you’ll have played and beaten pretty much the same teams, but truthfully, if we can play a first half like that and respond the way we did after the previous month of games, I can also argue that if we’d had a bye week prior, we might very well have pulled it off. We came pretty darn close without the use of our best cornerback, our only effective tight end, and half the game without our best defensive lineman (won’t comment on the WWE-style takedown which made him miss that half…).
At the end of the day, with our poll-based system, everybody comes up with a narrative which drives his own perceptions. Yours and mine, let’s admit, are completely biased. Which, though, will resonate more with voters? Truly, truly, truly wish it didn’t matter…. but that’s a whole different argument we have all had elsewhere…
by Pflash on
Nov 18, 2008 11:24 PM CST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Re:
You’re entitled to your opinion. As I said before, I don’t think it would be remarkable if Texas was pushed ahead of Tech, but I have a hard time believing that it will be because voters do soul searching in Re: your “gauntlet” or your last second win against us or some such. That’s the kind of nuance that probably matters more to UT fans than it does to your average CFB coach, who cares more about Ws and Ls. They probably aren’t going to think Yea, Texas lost, “but truthfully, if [they] can play a first half like that and respond the way [they] did after the previous month of games” then they should be in. Why would anyone outside of Texas be thinking about their gauntlet as it related to one half of a football game they lost?
More likely I think Texas would get pushed for the less complicated reason that voters will read “Texas” and “Texas Tech”, identify the two are comparable, and then push Texas ahead on tradition or custom or subconcious bias in favor of the big name school that’s won a NC. I think that sucks, but it seems far more likely to me than someone evaluating your schedule through the favorable subjective eyes of a UT fan, taking into consideration gauntlets and gutty losses and first halfs vs. second halfs in a four week context.
The issue isn’t our respective biases, as no one should be surprised that I think Tech should and could go to the NC at 12-1 and you think Texas should and could go to a NC at 11-1 against us in that situation. What matters are the biases of the voters. My only point is that one can evaluate the resumes of those two teams and conclude, reasonably, that Tech is better. I also don’t think we can predict with any certainty what the computers or voters will do in virtue of that.
by Skin Patrol on
Nov 19, 2008 7:43 AM CST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Why I came up with 40% for Tech
I’m viewing this week’s game more as a 50-50 game than the 60-40 Tech game you see.
I’m also guessing that whoever wins the South has about a 75-80% chance of beating Mizzou.
That gets me to about 38% for Tech. Factor in a couple of points for the oddball scenario of Tech losing to OU, OU losing to OSU, Tech beating Mizzou and advancing over Texas, and there’s your 40%.
by kjm017 on
Nov 17, 2008 7:51 PM CST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Assuming Texas beats A&M and Tech beats Baylor...
…is there any scenario, no matter how wacky, other than irrational voters elevating USC higher than they would be otherwise to avoid having a non-conference champ in Miami, by which there is not at least one Big XII team in Miami?
I can’t think of one.
(1) If we’re 11-1 and don’t go to KC, we would almost certainly rise to #2 if Tech or OU loses to Mizzou.
(2) The only way we’d be going to KC would be OU winning out and Texas getting the tie-break. If we lost to Mizzou, then an 11-1 OU would be a lock for Miami.
by kjm017 on
Nov 17, 2008 7:59 PM CST
reply
actions
0 recs
Overestimating Texas chances
I just want to mainly echo Kevin HD’s general sentiments. I think Texas chances are less than 10% and will require some unique circumstances (certainly possible). Last year, LSU was 7th in the BCS standings going into their game against a mediocre Tennessee team. They won by a TD and jumped ahead of Virginia Tech (despite their victory in the ACC title game), an idle 1-loss Kansas team, and an idle Georgia. I liken Texas to that Georgia team (yes, I understand Georgia had 2 losses). Not playing that 9th conference game is an enormous problem. If the winner of that game (or even loser if it’s a 12-1 Tech) has only 1 loss I think they’ll be ahead of Texas (whether it be Tech or Oklahoma). I also think the same is true of the SEC champion.
I just don’t think voters want to put a team that didn’t play that 13th game in over a team that did in the same conference and particularly the same division. I understand that they did it once with Nebraska in 2001, but they nearly moved a 2-loss Colorado team ahead of them. Similar to 2006, they’ll find a way to prevent it from happening
Finally, while the Pac-10 is definitely down, I do believe an 11-1 USC with 9 conference games (the most underrated aspect of USC’s usual computer strength) would be the next logical team should 4 of the 5 SEC/Big XII teams suffer two losses
by DoubleB on
Nov 17, 2008 8:23 PM CST
reply
actions
0 recs
Not at all overestimating
After doing my off the cuff guestimating earlier, a lack of being able to get to sleep got me up to try and quantify what everyone’s odds are of getting to Miami. And, even with very conservative assumptions (from a Texas perspective), our odds of getting to Miami are better than 10%. Waaaay better.
I created a tree with all the possible outcomes, using the following assumptions for my tree:
(1) Odds that OU beats Tech: 50% (I cannot see that game as anything other than a pick ’em)
(2) Odds that OU would then win at OSU: 75%
(3) Odds that OU would then win the three-way tiebreaker: 75. Odds that Texas would win: 25. Odds that Tech would win: 0%. (I personally think we’d have a 50-50 shot, but being conservative here)
(4) Odds that the Big XII champ beats Mizzou: 75% (I know many think the odds would be greater, but I see this as being a tougher game than we would have thought a month ago)
(5) Odds, in the (a) OU beats Tech, (b) OSU beats OU, and © Tech beats Mizzou scenario, Tech would wind up ranked higher than Texas: 50% (I think our chances are better than that, but again, being conservative)
(6) Odds that the SEC implodes in such a way that there is an all Big XII championship, if a second Big XII team were available to fill the void: 5%
(7) Odds that Texas beats A&M and Tech beats Baylor: 100. I know these odds should be closer to 95, but the decision tree would just get too complicated. As a result, OU’s final Miami odds should be negligibly higher, and Texas and Tech’s negligibly lower, than what I have below.
(8) Odds that USC would pass an 11-1 non-division-winning Texas or OU in the final rankings, leaving no Big XII team in Miami: 0%.
Once I drew the decision tree, I came up with:
Tech: 42.2% chance to get to Miami
Texas: 37.5% chance to get to Miami
OU: 23.9% chance to get to Miami
That adds up to 103.6, reflecting the slight chance of a SEC implosion getting Texas (3.2) or OU (0.4%) to Miami as the Big XII’s second team.
A couple of observations:
(1) Even if OU wins this week, their chances of getting to Miami are still slightly less than 50%. That makes me feel much more comfortable rooting for them against Tech.
(2) Texas only has a 7.1% chance of winning the Big XII. However, there are six different scenarios by which Texas gets to Miami, and the cumulative odds of all the random scenarios accounts for our fairly decent odds.
(3) That’s basically a 3-in-8 chance for Texas with very conservative assumptions. Increase the odds of OU winning at home this week, or of Texas winning the three-way tiebreaker, and we’re looking at close to a 50-50 chance of getting to Miami.
by kjm017 on
Nov 17, 2008 11:36 PM CST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Disagree w/assumptions
I disagree completely with your odds of 3 and 5: I think UT’s chances in a 3-way tiebreak are less than 10% and I think a 12-1 Tech will be ranked higher than an 11-1 Texas.
I think you vastly underestimate the support there will be in the human polls for the 12-1 team that wins the Big XII over an 11-1 Texas. You yourself state that there’s less than a 10% chance of Texas winning the Big XII. To me, that’s still the (best) ticket to getting to Miami.
by DoubleB on
Nov 18, 2008 9:59 AM CST
reply
actions
0 recs
Even with your assessments, it doesn't change much
(1) With the odds I have above, we’re more than twice as likely to go to Miami via a Mizzou defeat of Tech (two different scenarios for a combined 15.5% chance) than winning the Big XII (7.1% chance).
(2) The problem with giving odds on scenario #5 (OU beats Tech, OSU beats OU, Tech beats Mizzou) is that it is the only scenario with an outcome that depends on the margins of victory, not just who wins and loses. It’s easy to say, for example, that if Tech beats OU and Mizzou beats Tech, Texas goes to Miami, period.
Can you really say that Tech would be ranked ahead of us if, for example, OU whipped them 59-7, Tech backdoors into KC and beats Mizzou by 1? Conversely, Tech is probably ahead of us if they lose to OU in an instant classic sort of game and then whip Mizzou by 40.
Since this scenario depends on style points, I keep it at 50-50. However, even if you want to increase Tech’s odds of prevailing in that scenario to 75, it doesn’t do too much to the overall percentages, since the odds of the KC game including a Tech team that lost to OU are small (12.5). All this would do would be to boost Tech to about 44% and kick us down to about 36%. Again, not a big shift.
(3) I reran the numbers with your assumption that OU would have a 90% chance of winning the tiebreak. Again, there’s not a huge move. With all other odds being the same, OU’s chances of getting to Miami increase slightly to 26.0, and we slip to 34.8.
(4) If you throw both of your assumptions in (in other words, make the assumptions as anti-Texas as possible) and keep all the other odds the same, the odds of getting to Miami are:
Tech: 44.0%
Texas: 33.0%
OU: 26.0%
by kjm017 on
Nov 18, 2008 10:35 AM CST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Re:
It’s easy to say, for example, that if Tech beats OU and Mizzou beats Tech, Texas goes to Miami, period.
It is easy to say but I don’t think it is necessarily the case that Texas jumps a 12-1 Tech team that loses only to Missouri.
by Skin Patrol on
Nov 18, 2008 10:47 AM CST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Unless Mizzou wins via a fifth down...
…or something of that sort, I just don’t see it happening. You can call that unusual or unfair or whatever, but I think Tech would fall to #3.
Remember that win OU still went to the championship game in 2003 after losing to K-State:
(1) OU was voted down to #3 by the humans, but the computers saved them. I don’t think the computers would similarly save Tech given Texas’ better SOS. Maybe Tech’s extra win helps with the computers (12-1 trumps 11-1) but I still don’t think Tech could overcome the SOS issue.
(2) The Big XII in 2003 was nothing like it was this year. The second-best team that year was a Texas team that had lost twice, including by 52 to OU. There wasn’t another highly-regarded team in the conference ready to take their spot if they faltered.
by kjm017 on
Nov 18, 2008 11:02 AM CST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Re:
1) I thought Texas’ big SOS deal was that they played Missouri? Our SOS increases dramatically if we beat OU. Our non-conference is only slightly weaker, but Nevada may remain the best OOC game on either team’s schedule. Nebraska > Colorado, right? Head-to-head must play some role in the computers, I’d think?
2) But there was a one-loss USC team ready to take their spot, but didn’t.
I don’t think it would be UNUSUAL for Texas to jump Tech under that scenario, but I also don’t think it’s a given.
by Skin Patrol on
Nov 18, 2008 11:09 AM CST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
As it stands now
If you include all the FBS teams played, and remaining on the schedule, Texas opponents have a 61.1% winning percentage while Tech’s have a 54.3%
If you take out common opponents, Texas’s remaining opponents have a winning percentage of 56.5, while Techs have 41.9
That is why we have a higher strength of schedule. If you add in Missouri to Techs schedule, the overall winning percentage of Techs opponents still only goes to 56.7, and Texas’ non-common opponents winning percentage drops to 51, which is still well above Techs.
by BoddickerIsClutch on
Nov 18, 2008 11:29 AM CST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Just for funzies
Using the same methodology, USC’s opponents have a combined winning percentage of 49.2% overall.
by BoddickerIsClutch on
Nov 18, 2008 11:35 AM CST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
That makes sense
if you think beating Arkansas is dramatically more impressive than beating SMU (because SMU DRAMATICALLY effects the win/loss % of our opponents). And that’s a reasonable thing to believe. Many would argue, I would at least, that you beating the snot out of Arkansas was NOT sufficiently more impressive than us beating the snot out of SMU so as to catapult Texas’ SOS far over Tech’s. Our road victory over Nevada is comparable to any OOC game Texas won. If we have Missouri on our SOS, we’d also have one more Big-12 game than you. Since K. State and Colorado are effectively a wash, you’d be adding our victory over a pretty good Nebraska team to the comparison.
% of wins of non-common opponents aside, I think if you compared a 12-1 Tech team’s resume to an 11-1 Texas’ team resume, the two are very, very close. Win % is important, should not be discounted, but beating Tulsa is not the same as beating OSU or, to use a relevant comparison, beating Rice (7-3) probably isn’t more compelling than beating Nebraska (7-4) or Nevada (6-4). We don’t win any brownie points for beating SMU or FCS teams, but I doubt voters are going to put anyone in the NC game for beating Arkansas.
by Skin Patrol on
Nov 18, 2008 4:51 PM CST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
How many teams do you strike from your schedule as irrelevent?
Arkansas and Rice may not be world beaters, nor are UTEP or Florida Atlantic. But none of them can be as easily tossed aside as two FCS teams and a 1-11 SMU.
Considering the season as a whole, Texas’ was much harder and will be much harder even if you all get through Missouri in KC. No single opponent of ours is as bad as the 3 throw aways you had in 2 FCS teams and SMU. I’m not here to complain, it worked out, you are healthy and firing on all cylinders, but the gamble with a schedule like that is that it will bite you in the ass if you lose a game, and it doesn’t matter to who.
The good part is, you still get to control your destiny while we are stuck here whining about scenarios.
by BoddickerIsClutch on
Nov 18, 2008 5:14 PM CST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Actually...
Jeff Sagarin’s computer thinks U. Mass is better than Florida Atlantic. His computer thinks Nevada is better than Rice. His computer thinks Kansas State is better than Colorado. His computer thinks Nebraska is currently 26th.
I disagree with the contention that Texas’ OOC schedule was “much harder” than Tech’s. I don’t think beating UTEP is dramatically more difficult than beating SMU, not-withstanding how horrible the latter is, but I do think beating Nevada on the road could end up being a quality victory unmatched by your home victories over Rice or Arkansas, which currently rate as the most impressive on your OOC schedule.
I only say all this to suggest that our crappy OOC schedule isn’t dramatically worse than your crappy OOC schedule. And if the above hypotheticals play out, Tech will have a BETTER overall record than Texas because we’ll be 12-1, 9-1 against the Big-12 and Texas will be 11-1, 8-1 against Big-12. I think the addition of that extra conference victory will matter more than will the subtle distinctions between, say, Florida Atlantic and U. Mass (which, surprisingly, may actually play out in our favor).
by Skin Patrol on
Nov 18, 2008 6:14 PM CST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
SOS is based on who you’ve played as of today. Both Oklahoma’s and Tech’s are going to look a lot better in a week and OU’s in particular is going to be very near Texas in two weeks. Again, I think the model is lot like the SEC last year. They’ll take the conference champion if they can with the same amount of losses. Just as Georgia (also thought to be the hottest team in the land and playing “the best” football) got bypassed by LSU, I think Texas would be as well. I think the Horns need to get to Kansas City to have a real shot and to do that would require either Tech losing out or winning the tiebreak (which I think we’ll require a horseshit game between the two teams w/OU winning by a few).
I also think they will take a 12-1 Tech who loses in KC over an 11-1 Texas who didn’t even get there and lost to Tech. The model is 2003. A 12-0 Tech with wins over Texas and Oklahoma is going to be 1st in every computer (and I think by a large margin). Winning in Norman is going to be huge with the computers and humans (and trumps UT’s best win). I’m not convinced a loss to a good, 2-loss Mizzou team is going to hurt them a whole lot in the computers and they’ll have played 9 conference games and beaten Texas which will help with the voters. This is a situation where we just disagree on what the outcome’s going to be.
by DoubleB on
Nov 18, 2008 11:34 AM CST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
It's not a given, but it's pretty close.
I think the computers will favor Texas and I honestly think the voters will too. There’s something to be said for, you know, not losing the last game of the season.
You guys keep pointing to 2003 as evidence of an undefeated team losing the conference championship game and still making the national championship game, but what you fail to mention is that both human polls actually put OU #3. The only reason OU made the national championship game is the weird way the BCS formula worked back then. OU killed in the computers (which Tech will not be doing with a loss to Missouri—they’re ALREADY currently behind Texas in the Colley Matrix), then got big help from strength of schedule and “quality wins” (neither of which is a component in the BCS system anymore). After this mess, the BCS changed the formula to weigh the human polls more and eliminate all the extraneous nonsense (they also foolishly forbade the computers from using margin of victory in their formulas).
So here’s the history: only undefeated team in the country loses conference championship game to good but not great opponent, drops below all other 1-loss teams in the human polls, but somehow manages to make up that difference through dominating computer rankings and extraneous stats that are no longer components of the BCS. Tech will almost certainly have worse computer rankings than Texas if they lose to Mizzou (even after beating OU), or at best even, while Texas will almost certainly be ranked ahead of Tech in the human polls because voters don’t like putting teams in the national championship game that just lost their last game. I do not understand how Tech will then lead Texas in the BCS.
by billyzane on
Nov 18, 2008 11:53 AM CST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
SOS question
I can’t remember if this has been explained elsewhere:
Will OU and Tech be penalized by the computers for their non-conference 1-AA games in terms of SOS, or is it as if those games were never played (thereby not hurting thir SOS but depriving them of wins in the eyes of the computers)?
by kjm017 on
Nov 18, 2008 12:15 PM CST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I have real doubts
that the computers will favor Texas if Tech goes 12-1. We would have an additional conference victory than Texas and will have played every ranked team Texas will have played. I don’t know where Nevada ends up this season, but both they and Nebraska have a much better chance finishing the season ranked than the people Texas beat (ie: Rice).
You guys keep pointing to 2003 as evidence of an undefeated team losing the conference championship game and still making the national championship game, but what you fail to mention is that both human polls actually put OU #3.
The question needs answering is would the HUMAN voters have put OU 3rd if LSU or USC’s one loss came against OU? I tend to think that would influence voters.
There is not a single counting computer that has Texas above Texas Tech. I doubt that, with a win over OU, there would be a single computer that has Texas ranked higher than Texas Tech. I am not CERTAIN that a loss to Mizzou would necessarily put Tech behind Texas.
As stated above, this is not an apples to apples comparison with OU in 2003, as the circumstances are different. For the reasons you stated, OU had things going for it in 2003 that Tech would not. For other reasons, head-to-head record for instance, Tech will have things going for it that OU did not in 2003. What i dispute is:
Tech will almost certainly have worse computer rankings than Texas if they lose to Mizzou (even after beating OU), or at best even, while Texas will almost certainly be ranked ahead of Tech in the human polls because voters don’t like putting teams in the national championship game that just lost their last game.
I do not think Texas will CERTAINLY be ranked ahead of Tech in virtue of a Missouri loss. I also do not think Texas will CERTAINLY be ranked ahead of Tech by the human voters.
by Skin Patrol on
Nov 18, 2008 4:58 PM CST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
A much better
. . . articulated argument than I could have come up with and it covers my sentiments almost exactly.
Fans have been arguing on this site (correctly, I think) why Texas fell behind Oklahoma in the polls after the loss to Tech. Doesn’t that argument follow should Tech only lose to Missouri, particularly with the extra conference game? A 12-1 Tech can, an in my opinion should, be ranked ahead of an 11-1 Texas.
by DoubleB on
Nov 18, 2008 5:10 PM CST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
“Tech will almost certainly have worse computer rankings than Texas if they lose to Mizzou (even after beating OU)”
What is that statement based on? I think you vastly underestimate what a win (any win) at Norman will do for their computer rankings. They are first in 3 of the computers right now with home wins over Texas and OSU and not much else. They will expand that lead dramatically with a win Saturday. It will buy them a lot of ground where a loss to Mizzou doesn’t necessarily destroy them.
I also think a 12-1 Tech is going to get some love over an 11-1 Texas that lost to Tech. I believe voters will, for lack of a better word, “arrange” a matchup, like last year’s LSU leap or Florida’s jump over Michigan in 2006.
I’m not saying it’s a lock, but a Tech that beat both Texas and Oklahoma isn’t automatically out with a loss in the Big XII title game.
by DoubleB on
Nov 18, 2008 12:11 PM CST
reply
actions
0 recs
If you want to play BCS numbers, fine, I'll play. I'm pretty good at them.
I just crunched the 2003 BCS numbers and found that if the 2003 BCS system worked then how it did now, USC would have played LSU in the Sugar Bowl and OU would have been left out in the cold. OU was a distant 3rd in the human votes behind every other major conference 1-loss team (because despite being called earlier in the season the greatest team of all time and destroying everyone in their path by wide margins, they then lost to Kansas State—the 2003 equivalent of 2008 Missouri, they were ranked #10—in shocker Kansas City!). They were still #1 in the computers but remember that back then, margin of victory was taken into account in the computers whereas this is no longer the case (and OU ran up the score on everyone in 2003). And even with the #1 computer ranking, if the BCS worked then as it does now, they wouldn’t have even come CLOSE to the top 2. Here’s what the BCS rankings would have looked like at season’s end:
USC: .9692
LSU: .9539
OU: .9385
Kindly please stop using OU 2003 as an argument in favor of this point. It is mathematically incorrect. Thanks so much. -BZ
[N.B. for those trying to recreate my numbers, I removed the NYT Computer poll from consideration because it’s no longer used in the BCS formula, whereas the other 6 still are, and then I threw out the best and worst rankings of the remaining 6, just as the BCS does now]
by billyzane on
Nov 18, 2008 12:23 PM CST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
“Kindly please stop using OU 2003 as an argument in favor of this point. It is mathematically incorrect. Thanks so much. -BZ”
Nowhere is my most recent post did I use OU in 2003 as an argument. Why are you getting so defensive over this? Is nobody allowed to come on this site and offer a different opinion of what they believe might happen. It’s all conjecture anyway.
by DoubleB on
Nov 18, 2008 12:34 PM CST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
From a previous post.
I also think they will take a 12-1 Tech who loses in KC over an 11-1 Texas who didn’t even get there and lost to Tech. The model is 2003.
Link here. Skin Patrol also did it a couple times in this thread.
Apologies for the flippant tone.
by billyzane on
Nov 18, 2008 12:40 PM CST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I will continue using it.
See above. It demonstrates what CAN happen.
I think 12-1 Texas Tech has a good shot passing 11-1 UT anyways. The only reason I present OU is only to say that there is precedent for putting a team in the NC game even though they lost late in the season. You explain why OU was different, I accept that, but my argument isn’t mean to show much besides what is possible. For reasons stated above — OU hadn’t beaten LSU or USC head-to-head that season, for instance — the comparison only goes so far. You take it for granted that voters will lower Tech below Texas in the final poll because they don’t usually put teams that lose at the end of the season in the top 2. Maybe that’s the case, maybe it isn’t. I think Tech’s head-to-head record over UT will present voters with a unique scenario where they very well could move us in front of Texas.
You disagree. We understand each other.
by Skin Patrol on
Nov 18, 2008 5:02 PM CST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I actually do NOT understand how you can say that 2003 OU provides any sort of precedent for 2008 Tech.
That’s like saying that If Tech loses the Orange Bowl they might still be crowned national champions because in 1970 UPI awarded Texas the national championship before the bowl games were played (and before Texas lost to Notre Dame). That is, you’re saying: “under a system of determining the national champion that we no longer use and haven’t used in years, 2003 OU happened. Therefore, in a completely different system for determining the national champion—one in which 2003 OU would NOT have happened had it been in place then—Tech 2008 could happen.”
That makes exactly zero logical sense. All 2003 OU demonstrates is that under a system that is no longer in place, a team losing its conference championship game can make the national championship game, just as 1970 Texas demonstrates that under a system that no longer exists, a team that loses its bowl game can still win the national championship. Neither one demonstrates that Tech 2008 can happen under the system we currently have in place because neither one would have occurred under the system we have in place.
There are plenty of arguments for why Tech 2008 might happen and you’ve been making them quite well. But OU’s situation in 2003 has absolutely nothing to do with Tech’s in 2008 and provides no precedent whatsoever.
by billyzane on
Nov 18, 2008 5:40 PM CST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Re:
I could say that since the HUMAN voters only dropped OU two spots after a late season loss and a failure to win their conference championship game they could likewise only drop Tech ONE spot given the toughest contender below us is a team we beat with a worse record. If you’re troubled by my use of 2003 OU, which I do not really depend on, I’ll make it narrower; it simply stands for the proposition that teams can lose late in the season in a conference championship game without dropping dramatically in the human polls.
But, as you said, who needs 2003 OU? It’s been mentioned but has hardly been pounded out as the REASON Tech will finish ahead of Texas. I know we’ve got 15 different argument threads going on and this whole mess gets confusing, but in this particular line of comments there really isn’t any dependency on OU. I don’t think any of my arguments depend on it.
by Skin Patrol on
Nov 18, 2008 6:23 PM CST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
And for the record...
OU got dropped below every single other BCS conference 1-loss team. That year there only happened to be 2 others (USC and LSU). Perhaps OU 2003 stands for the notion that such a team would only get dropped 2 spots and perhaps it stands for the notion that such a team would get dropped below every other BCS conference 1-loss team. Who knows.
by billyzane on
Nov 19, 2008 9:16 AM CST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
You’re right about the math, but I think Skin Patrol and l are simply pointing out that it can happen and has happened. A team has lost its last game and still played for the BCS title.
A team has lost its last game and still not dropped from #1 in the computers (Oklahoma 2003).
A team has lost its last game and not been dropped in the polls (AP—Michigan 2006 after losing to Ohio State).
by DoubleB on
Nov 18, 2008 5:17 PM CST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
interesting arguments...
and in the end, we’ll all just have to wait and see what actually happens on the field(s).
but……. although I’m not really a gambling man, I’d be willing to bet a substantial amount that “IF” Tech loses ANY of their remaining games they’d be behind Texas in the human polls…
Not saying it’s fair, not saying it CAN’T happen, not saying it even makes logical sense… but with this insane system we have – no objective criteria at all, some basing decision on resume, some on tradition, some on the eyeball test, some on barely-disguised plain old rooting interest – there’s just no way Tech would stay ahead of Texas. Just like Suzy Noname is not going to win an Olympic gold in ice skating over Natasha Weallknowher, no matter how much better she might skate. It’s just not going to happen. You give voters/judges the freedom to make up their own criteria, and they’re going to vote based on their own preconceptions.
If it makes you feel any better, UT would probably be in the same boat if it came down to us and USC.
by Pflash on
Nov 19, 2008 12:03 AM CST
reply
actions
0 recs
















