Burnt Orange Nation: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:



Around SBN: Race to the BCS: rankings, in-game scores & blogs Bar-right-arrows



The Day That Common Sense Died

MGoBrian's got his draft ballot up and he decided on Oklahoma ahead of Texas, for the reasons we've discussed multiple times here already. Though he mistakenly replaces on Texas' schedule Kansas with Kansas State, I'm certain getting that right wouldn't make a lick of difference based on his ballot and published reasoning.

No, what makes Brian's ballot a frontrunner for the wack ballot watch this week is not OU at #1, but Texas at... #4?

You read that right. Brian offers the standard TCU-Cincinnati bit, decides to toss out head-to-heads and common opponents, and rolls with OU at #1. Fine. I dislike the analysis (and find it comically thin considering its publication immediately following a highly nuanced ND 2007 vs Michigan 2008 analysis), but have acknowledged repeatedly that the adopted line of argument clears the lowest bar: Not Irrational. Where Brian really falls off a cliff is in sandwiching Florida and Alabama between the Sooners and Longhorns. I think that's indefensible on any ballot for any stated reason, but it's outright preposterous when in the same draft ballot Brian writes:

"ALSO: obviously I have moved Oklahoma to #1, and Florida to #2. I am convinced by Dr. Saturday's arguments that Alabama's schedule is so far off the other two teams I've put above them that even with losses they've had better seasons."

The logic behind dropping Bama is sound (I did the same), but the notion that there exists a gap wide enough between Texas and Oklahoma to squeeze in the same poor-schedule Bama team is...

Whatever. I'm not out hunting heads and it obviously matters little to none, but that was the moment--today, reading Brian's post--when I quit trying to make any sense of this week's balloting--in polls that count or otherwise.

If Brian Cook, who is smart, informed, can process multiple concepts simultaneously, etc, tosses out OU #1, Bama #3, Texas #4... Lord knows what the Harris Poll voters (whoever they are) did. And don't get me started on the Cronies Coaches Poll.

I've been as quiet and dignified as I can possibly be. Today, I just threw up my hands. The only thing that helps is that I was prepared for bad news Sunday; the system is what it is, and we knew it was a mess ages before these latest standings were released.

0 recs | Comment 38 comments | Add comment

Read Related

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

It'll be alright, Peter (hand on shoulder)

I realized earlier today that I’ve been dwelling on the BCS pretty much non-stop since Thursday (Christ, even when I sleep, my nightmares are haunted by OU’s mindlessly repetitive, mindlessly repetitive fight song).

But I went for a long walk, and spoke for a while with an old friend who doesn’t follow football, and I’m slowly beginning to regain my senses, as well as my curiosity for on-goings in the world outside of Big XII football.

You just need to get away from it for a few hours.

by BrooklynHorn on Dec 1, 2008 7:31 PM CST reply reply   0 recs

Good share

You know what’s really killing me, though? I absolutely Zenned myself into the right frame of mind to handle any and everything on Sunday. I was skeptical about Texas’ chances once Missouri lost, and got my mental house in order. When the coaches poll came out, it was over. I reminded myself that it w as expected. Blah-blah-blah.

That worked for almost a full day, but by late afternoon today, there was no quiet peace with the results. So I’m doing all this in reverse order.

I need to find a way to get my mental house in order again.

--PB--

by PB @ BON on Dec 1, 2008 8:20 PM CST to parent up reply reply   0 recs

Problem

The problem with this whole mess is the fact that it’s Oklahoma with the opportunity to win everything. I could deal with this whole thing a lot better if it were any other school. Instead, I’ve just got that sick-to-my-stomach feeling that probably won’t go away until Oklahoma loses.

by Jason Mayer on Dec 1, 2008 10:14 PM CST to parent up reply reply   0 recs

Yep

I’ve said it before. All the talk about how an 11-1, Fiesta Bowl season is better than we expected would make perfect sense to me if we got screwed by Penn St. or Florida or Utah. I would get over in a few days, and look forward to Arizona in January.

But for a group of outsiders, who care little of this rivalry, to have thoughtlessly taken our bragging rights away and given them back to OU (who didn’t at all earn them) is too sickening.

It will be a while before I can jump on the “great season, boys” bandwagon.

Perhaps in a few months.

by BrooklynHorn on Dec 1, 2008 11:30 PM CST to parent up reply reply   0 recs

Never

There is no way I could ever give them praise after what went down this season. If only it had been any other team besides Tech we’d be in this. Maybe we beat OU in Dallas and then Mizzou catches us snoozing at home after an emotional win. Then we finish out the season with the tie-breaker win and go into KC with revenge on our minds.

Having to see Stoops with his stupid smug grin in every interview he does knowing that he’s only one game away from the BCS title because of a technicality. It makes me want to throw up but not as much as listening to my OU friends tell me “but we’re better now. OU 2.0!!!” It’s the same damn team they just put up more points. Their defense sucks more than it did before they played us.

by seth78 on Dec 2, 2008 2:43 AM CST to parent up reply reply   0 recs

Wait a second...

There’s a world outside of Big XII football? Hehe. You made me realize that I basically switched my passion of following election coverage over to happenings in college football. From stump speeches to BCS chaos and we still have another week to go before everything is settled. I actually had a dream a few nights ago as well. I can’t recall it entirely but I remember seeing our guys run out onto the field. Guess that’s what happens when you focus on something so much it slips into your subconscious. With that said time to focus on Mizzou humiliating OUverrated while the nation watches.

by seth78 on Dec 2, 2008 2:29 AM CST to parent up reply reply   0 recs

I just have to get this down on paper

for my own good.

Texas beat ou by 10 points on a neutral field. Game, set, match. End of story.

The only way the other side can attempt to win this argument is by complicating it beyond what was stated above. That is, bringing tech into the fold. So fine.

1. Every day in life people make choices. I am going to buy a new car and I have my eye on 3 different models. Every logical and reasonable human being will do what? Narrow their choice down by eliminating one. That same logical and reasonable human being can look at the polls, see that it is Texas and ou battling it out for #2 and see tech down from both by about 5 or 6 spots. Tech eliminated.

2. ou beat tech at home and tech beat texas at home. Texas did not get a home game against either, instead they lost on the last play of the game at tech and beat ou on a neutral field. Tech and ou eliminated.

Next, Bob Stoops would certainly not stand up at a press conference and say “Hey, it’s all about when you lose.” While we know that that is definitely part of the equation, it would make him look foolish and pathetic, further reinforcing what we already know. But lets at least get the other side to admit to this argument. So I ask ou fan if Florida beats Alabama this week, lets say by 10 points, who should play in the national title game? Florida will no doubt be the response and one that I agree with. But why? Both teams will have only one loss. Florida lost at home to Ole Miss and Alabama beat Ole Miss. But Florida just beat Alabama they will say. By 10 points. On a neutral field. Hmmm. Logical and reasonable, all at the same time.

The BCS is no stranger to controversy. Usually it is picking 2 out of 3 deserving teams to play for the national title. Because their is no head to head, we are forced to go to the “beauty contest,” that is who consistently put up 60 points, who looks better on tv, strenght of schedule, etc. If we only had a head to head they shout, all our problems would be solved. Here we have a head to head and what do we get…a beauty contest.

The day that head to head no longer matters is truly a sad, and more importantly, a scary day. The sky is indeed falling.

My gun is locked and loaded. I am just waiting for the Bradford wins the heisman announcement to officially pull the trigger.

by kellen on Dec 1, 2008 7:53 PM CST reply reply   1 recs

Texas Tech beat Texas by 6 points. Game, set, match. End of story.

If you’re going to make an argument for Texas (and I think it’s certainly possible to do so, in fact I lean very slightly toward Texas), it has to be more than just head-to-head. There are two very easy counterarguments to the “45-35” argument: “39-33” and “65-21”.

by SpartanDan on Dec 2, 2008 1:06 AM CST to parent up reply reply   0 recs

almost losing to Baylor at home > 39-33

They got Texas at home in the last of UT’s brutal four game gauntlet of ranked teams. I’d kill to see how Tech or OU would do in the same situation. Oh right Tech was demolished by OU. Playing two division II teams takes them out of the conversation and the fact that they had to rally from behind at home to beat Baylor. Let me say that again. Baylor. Only aTm and division II teams should have to do that. Tech is not worthy of being a heartbeat away from the national title when their big wins include a fluke last second win versus and beaten down Texas team and rallying from behind to beat Baylor.

by seth78 on Dec 2, 2008 2:59 AM CST to parent up reply reply   0 recs

Almost losing != losing

I’m with you on Hell Month being a very strong factor in Texas’s loss (the main reason I favor them, actually), but I don’t see why throwing out one team based on a particular criterion is any better than picking one based on that same criterion. (In fact, the only time it’s ever “throw just one team out” instead of “pick the highest, and start over if you throw out one team but the others are still tied” is in the last-resort tiebreakers in the SEC/ACC, where they take the top two and go to head-to-head if it’s still close, and the Pac-10/Big Ten, where the last-resort tiebreaker is “throw out the last team that got the auto-bid”.)

by SpartanDan on Dec 2, 2008 10:13 AM CST to parent up reply reply   0 recs

Why not margin of loss?

we get all this crap about OU scoring 60 points as justification of how good they are, so if you use the points margin, do so for losses also. Texas’s one loss 6 points, OU’s loss 10 points, Tech’s loss 44. Since losses are much more rare for OU Texas and Tech they should be more important than any one win. Plus the circumstances of the losses should be important Texas lost on the road at Tech, Tech lost on the road to OU and OU lost on a neutral site.
The Conclusion would be Texas lost as close a game as it gets and misses going undefeated by one play. OU gets beat by 2 scores pretty decisively and Tech gets stomped. to my mind this is much more decisive than looking at high scores against crappy non competitive teams.

by Xerxes on Dec 2, 2008 8:45 AM CST to parent up reply reply   0 recs

I think the most decisive factor would be graduation rates.

OU fans probably think margin of victory is the most decisive factor.

UT fans probably think margin of loss is the most decisive factor.

We can go around and around. I understand why it must be frustrating to go 11-1 and remain behind a team you beat in the polls. That is something I get. That doesn’t mean the team above you is there necessarily irrationally. A case, replete with “decisive factors” exists that says Texas should be ranked ahead of OU. There is an apparently marginally more compelling case that OU should be ranked ahead of Texas.

That’s not giving Harris voters or Coaches poll any credit, I happen to think a very compelling case can be made that OU has the better schedule. Head-to-head alone can’t be compelling in a three way tie, though absolutely fans should consider things like where the teams win/lose, by how much, margins of both victories and losses, etc. I think even factoring in all those things, one can look at the resume of all three teams and conclude, reasonably, to my dismay, OU > Texas > Texas Tech.

At least OU and Texas get to play in BCS games.

Go register. Or else.

by Skin Patrol on Dec 2, 2008 9:06 AM CST to parent up reply reply   0 recs

Then your argument becomes “OU beat them so badly that they shouldn’t even get credit for the win.” That’s silly, and it should be fairly obvious that it’s silly.

by SpartanDan on Dec 2, 2008 10:08 AM CST to parent up reply reply   0 recs

The problem with the "circular argument"

Is that it is not trying to decide between Texas, OU, and Tech. In no ones ranking is this the case.

Wether you are looking at who to rank #1 and #2, or who to rank #3 or #4, people are deciding between OU and Texas, straight up.

The circular argument only applies for the tie breaker, which is the exact reason that the tie breaker exists, so that we dont have to look at margin of victory, or who played who where. The tie breaker will decide.

The problem is, people are confusing rankings and the tie breaker to be one in the same, and while its true that the rankings affect the tie breaker, it is not true that the rank is the tie breaker. Rank is rank, then the tie breaker applies.

So the idea of throwing Tech out of the discussion is completely valid, unless you have OU, UT, and Tech ranked 3a, 3b, 3c, which is not the case for the majority of voters for a variety of reasons. Personally I don’t consider them in the mix due to 2 div2 schools and NU taking them to overtime, much less the performance against BU. I cant say why other people dont, but only that I can accept that its a valid conclusion.

Imagine for a second, that you had no idea what the tie breaker rules are for the Big 12. No clue whatsoever. Do you still think OU would be clamoring about Tech beating Texas saying that its a three dog race for rank in the polls? Or do you think their major point would be their SOS and recent offensive numbers? Personally I dont think OU would give a shit about trying to include Tech in the conversation, any more than if Tech had 2 losses.

Its not about which of the three is better, its about ranking the teams, and if you think Texas and OU are close, why on earth would you personally involve the Big 12’s unique tie breaker rules in your ranking decision? Unless, again, you consider Tech to be right up there with them.

by BoddickerIsClutch on Dec 2, 2008 9:46 AM CST to parent up reply reply   0 recs

Fair enough

I can buy the argument that Texas should be ranked higher if you ignore the fact that it’s used as a tiebreaker. But there are legitimate reasons to give the tiebreaker to OU, and I think the voting may have been affected by that. (Which is why the idea of using the opinion of national sportswriters to decide a tie seems pretty stupid to me.)

by SpartanDan on Dec 2, 2008 10:18 AM CST to parent up reply reply   0 recs

I agree

In my opinion, in an ideal world what the ranking is being used for should have no effect on the ranking itself. That’s a tall order I know, and probably impossible for human voters with the media of today.

by BoddickerIsClutch on Dec 2, 2008 10:29 AM CST to parent up reply reply   0 recs

The Day That Common Sense Died

Wasn’t that a Don McLean song?!

by TexasGarcia36 on Dec 1, 2008 8:07 PM CST reply reply   0 recs

This might be off topic but...

This is one reason why Bloggers take a lot of crap.

I am not saying that bloggers need to walk in lock step with the MSM but this sort of reasoning minimizes all of Brian’s efforts in trying to legitimize the BlogPoll with his partnership with CBS.

His reasoning is so out of whack I don’t what to think…

The coaches are the ones who have made this mess and they should be taken out of it, I mean who voted TT #1? That’s just nuts.

Dodd wrote a great piece last week calling the coaches out.

Texas remained ahead of Oklahoma in the BCS standings released Sunday on the strength of having beaten the Sooners six weeks ago. That was despite the human polls which have it flipped — Oklahoma over Texas.

You can see how this might be a problem to some folks. Two rivals, chasing a Big 12 and national championship. One separated from the other by .0084 of a point in the BCS (Texas .9209-Oklahoma .9125). One having beaten the other but both involved in a three-way tie in the Big 12 South. It is becoming obvious that tie could be broken less by play on the field and more by whoever shouts the loudest. Or worse. It could be decided by petty jealousies or long-held grudges.

We don’t know for sure because the coaches poll is and has been largely a secret ballot. Maybe that’s why Bob Stoops gave up his vote last season. Maybe not. He’ll have to risk leaving the vote up to the six other Big 12 coaches in the coaches poll.

Leach risks incurring the wrath of every Longhorn with access to a keyboard or worse, the coach’s cell phone number. Believe me, it’s out there and someone industrious enough can get his number.

Leach truthfully answered the question that is going to rage at least until the end of this week. His colleagues won’t be as forthcoming. As we face perhaps another BCS meltdown, Saturday’s win by Oklahoma pointed up the biggest fallacy of the system.

The coaches should have nothing to do with the selection process. It stunk from the moment American Football Coaches executive director Grant Teaff unveiled the coaches’ involvement in the BCS in the summer of 1998 at a downtown Chicago hotel.

Anyway, just thought I would throw it out there because there is no logic in any of the results I have seen this past weekend

by Paragon SC on Dec 1, 2008 8:11 PM CST reply reply   0 recs

Doesn't make sense.

What I can’t understand is why many different people have implied that because of the three way tie, head to head can, or even should, be eliminated when determining the best team.

Say you have three strong-men, A, B, and C,and all have arm wrestled each other and ended up 1-1.

A and B are long-time arm wrestling powerhouses, and C has recently been a good-not-great arm-wrestler.

A and B face-off first in a highly anticipated meeting, and B wins in a classic match.

Next, after facing a grueling stretch of matches against some of the best arm-wrestlers around, B loses to C in C’s basement with all of C’s buddies around the table. Also, B has a back spasm at the very end, an opportunity C seized to pull the upset.

When A and C meet, it is in A’s basement with all of A’s buddies around, and A whoops C handily.

Based on the above scenario, who is the best arm-wrestler of the three?

I would say that the issue is clearly debatable.

Now, say C’s loss to A is so one-sided that it is clear C is not the best of the three. How do you determine if A is better or B is better?

How could you justify eliminating the match between A and B, instead using other victories the two have on their resume to determine which is best?

While there are probably ways one could justify saying A is the better of the two even with B’s head-to-head victory, discounting the head-to-head and then reaching that conclusion is a farce.

Brian’s ballot (and explanation) is a sub-par rationalization for voting one team ahead of another. If you want to say that Oklahoma is a better team than Texas, that’s OK and I won’t scream at you telling you that you’re an idiot (though you may well be). But don’t disregard the head-to-head all together. It’s nonsensical.

by hornalum08 on Dec 1, 2008 8:13 PM CST reply reply   0 recs

Here’s the problem with your argument: if OU beats TTU 35-21 instead of 65-21, you’re pretty much stuck with the round-robin results and have to go to some other factor. So the argument that TTU is clearly the worst because they got blown out so badly, and therefore should be ignored for the tiebreaker, essentially boils down to “OU smacked them around so badly that they shouldn’t even get credit for the win”. Once given any critical examination, the argument that you can ignore TTU because they had the worst loss is self-evidently silly, because in a round-robin situation that means the team with the biggest win loses the tiebreaker!

There are reasonable arguments for Texas, as there are for OU (the main arguments for Texas being the difficulty of having all their tough conference games in consecutive weeks, and the argument that conference tiebreakers should not concern themselves with non-conference results unless there’s absolutely no other way to decide). Head-to-head alone is not one of them, because the only reason people are throwing out Tech is because … OU beat the hell out of them.

by SpartanDan on Dec 2, 2008 1:21 AM CST to parent up reply reply   0 recs

You are completely disregarding the different factors surrounding each game.

The Tech-Texas game came at the tail end of Texas’s brutal four game stretch. It was on the road. It was a night game. Texas had the lead with 5 seconds left and dropped a gimme INT that would have made this entire argument moot.

The OU-Tech game was in Norman after Tech had just played two top ten opponents. OU completely dominated Tech.

The OU-Texas game happened with OU ranked #1, in Dallas. Neutral field. Texas won by 10.

OU’s best win: at home vs. Tech
Tech’s best win: at home vs. Texas
Texas’s best win: at a neutral site vs. OU

If you look at the quality of each win based on location and margin, combined with quality of each loss based on location and margin, you have to conclude that Texas has the best resume of the three teams in a tie-breaking scenario even including Tech in the discussion.

Just because Tech has not been a part of a discussion with regard to the tiebreaker (since they have not been near UT and OU in the BCS rankings) doesn’t mean they are being unfairly disregarded in a head-to-head analysis.

by hornalum08 on Dec 2, 2008 2:31 PM CST to parent up reply reply   0 recs

If you’d read the whole post, you’d notice that I did point out the four-week gauntlet as a significant argument in Texas’s favor. (As for “having the lead with 5 seconds left and dropping a gimme INT”, well, if my aunt had balls she’d be my uncle. Games are 60 minutes, not 59:55, and if you can’t hang onto a game-saving INT that’s your own damn fault.)

I don’t care what the team was ranked at the time. Should Alabama get credit for beating two top-ten teams in Clemson and Georgia, just because pollsters didn’t know any better yet? (Less of a problem here, seeing as OU is still ranked very near the top. But “#1 at the time” is not a compelling, or even a useful, argument.)

If you look at the quality of each win based on location and margin, combined with quality of each loss based on location and margin, you have to conclude that Texas has the best resume of the three teams in a tie-breaking scenario even including Tech in the discussion.

Really? Home-field advantage for one of the two games is enough to make up the difference between a +4 scoring margin (close loss, semi-close win) and a +34 scoring margin (semi-close loss, epic blowout win)? I’ll grant that home field is often a key factor in close matchups, but a 30-point factor? I don’t think so. If anything, looking at the three-way head-to-head screams OU, not Texas.

by SpartanDan on Dec 3, 2008 2:06 AM CST to parent up reply reply   0 recs

There is no logic...

Pray only for chaos…I know I will. Here’s to the infamously-porous OU secondary getting shelled by Mizzou :) While I hate that back-into-the-MNCG s***, it is for obvious reasons (OU 2003, NU 2001). This is not exactly backing into it now, is it?

But, and I mean this in all sincerity, Texas, with a middling defense beat the Dirt Burglars: The winner of the SEC, assuming OU wins, will absolutely punish those cripples: UF, 7th total d (4th scoring); UA, 3rd total D (3rd scoring), UT, 50th total D (21 scoring).

by Stuck in the Plains on Dec 1, 2008 8:41 PM CST reply reply   0 recs

fight song

I know their fight song REALLY got on my nerves

AUSTIN

by aos on Dec 1, 2008 9:10 PM CST reply reply   0 recs

While we all like to make fun of Aggy

at least they are smart enough to learn more than 2 words for a fight song.

by Longhorn in Canada on Dec 1, 2008 9:15 PM CST to parent up reply reply   0 recs

The fact that he moved Florida to #2 as well

makes me a little less angry. This guy is clearly not thinking rationally when he fills his ballot out.

Do I think Florida is better than Alabama? Yes.

Do I think Florida will win? Yes.

Do I have ANY JUSTIFICATION based on that simple belief to put them ahead of an undefeated in their own conference? Hell no.

by MeanMr.Mustard on Dec 1, 2008 9:17 PM CST reply reply   0 recs

Strength of schedule (Alabama’s to this point is one spot below Utah), and the sheer dominance by Florida in most games compared to Bama squeakers against mediocre teams (LSU, Kentucky, etc.) make a reasonable, though not necessarily compelling, argument. Not really important now, though, since that will be settled on the field.

by SpartanDan on Dec 2, 2008 1:25 AM CST to parent up reply reply   0 recs

I can understand that argument...

I still think it’s difficult to punish a team with one loss, but I can see the reasoning. It’s all irrelevant anyway, I suppose.

by MeanMr.Mustard on Dec 2, 2008 12:04 PM CST to parent up reply reply   0 recs

I've voted in some of these

polls in the past; nothing official. Here was my methodology:

1. Rank the teams by what they accomplished.
2. Double-check to be sure something isn’t out of whack.
3. Then, be sure that if two teams are ranked in close proximity (adjacent to one another, perhaps two spots apart), that the team that WON is in front of the one THAT LOST.

This ain’t rocket science. You don’t rank Missouri 11 and Oklahoma State 12 when the Cowboys win in Columbia. You don’t rank No. 21 behind No. 20 in your poll if No. 21 beat No. 20. Three, six spots apart, fine; rank the head-to-head loser above the winner if they’re that far apart. But not if they’re right together, as Texas and Oklahoma are.

by edsp on Dec 1, 2008 11:18 PM CST reply reply   0 recs

Harris Voters

The blogs commonly have been harsh on the coaches and their votes, from conflict of interest to lack of time to really watch any other games.

Well, the knowledge and expertise in the ranks of the Harris voters may not be much better. One anecdote broadcast on The Zone this afternoon told of a Harris voter in the press box at a recent game talking about his votes and mentioning that he would vote Alabama and Penn State #1 and #2 since they’re both undefeated. This voter hadn’t bothered to keep up with the games to even know that Penn State had last several weeks ago. When someone corrected him he spouts some excuse about Big 10 voters and there being enough of them to control the vote.

by drycreek on Dec 1, 2008 11:30 PM CST reply reply   0 recs

Ignorance is common

Drycreek,

As upsetting as it is that a Harris poll voter could be so ignorant, consider that we have millions who know nothing about civics, history, or economics voting every 4 years in a much more important decision.

"Only angry people win football games." --DKR

by OBdoc on Dec 2, 2008 7:46 AM CST reply reply   0 recs

Harris Voters are Selected for their Knowledge

I agree with your point, but the Harris voters are selected for their supposed knowledge, interest, and expertise in the matter. At that point it is scary to hear these stories.

I would suggest that a poll of the active bloggers such as Pete and company here, would be a much more knowledgeable and useful poll. Ask the people that care now, not that cared 20 years ago.

by drycreek on Dec 2, 2008 12:20 PM CST to parent up reply reply   0 recs

Harris Poll Voters...

Were selected by Vince Dooley and Chuck Neinas for their ties to the College Football Association movement. Nearly 80% of the voting members have direct ties to the CFA, which was orchestrated by the SEC, Big-12 and ACC schools, which was further pushed and controlled by the Corporatocracy.

BCSBusters - A Regular Season Bracketed Playoff Truly Making Everygame a Playoff In College Football.

by bcsbusters on Dec 3, 2008 5:13 PM CST to parent up reply reply   0 recs

Brian is stiil shell-shocked from UM's season

I know, because I am too…..

However, his Draft ballots lately have been very suspect regarding Texas…..

by Texas2008 on Dec 2, 2008 8:44 AM CST reply reply   0 recs

As I stated last year...

After five years of researching this issue, I am convinced this is part of the United Nations, Council on Foreign Relations, Rothschild agenda of weakening a society based on a divide and conquer / constructive confusion strategy.

This first weekend in December, unlike the first week in blogtober (tongue in cheek intended), is full of constant chaos and incestuous whining every year. Every year we toss the blame around at the feet of the coaches, computers, Harris Poll members, media speculators or the bowl empire monopolists. Rarely is it tossed at the feet of the actual culprits who created the concept of the BCS in the first place.

If you have bothered to research the current bailout predicament within the economy, you would astutely and quickly realize that JP Morgan, the Rockefeller dynasty and the Warberg clan (with infamous ties to Kuhn & Loeb) were behind the creation of the Federal Reserve Bank in 1913. This same interlocking group of families is grossly profiting from the constant bailouts from our federal government, because they are the controlling monopolists who have created and controlled the American economy since its inception.

By 1917, this heavy weight conglomerate of Eastern Establishment families as well as additional middle weight Eastern Establishment families (Russells, Perkins, Herrimans, Bush’s, Ford’s, Carnegie’s and others of similar ilk), financed the Bolshevick Revolution, the precursor to what is now commonly known as Russian Communism.

The Communist regime is built upon the concept of Monarchy, Oligarchy and Monopoly. It is centered around a mass of slave or common labor, which is controlled by wealthy elites who aim to create a monopolistic economy rather than a free market economy. Unions are despised because Russian Communism has no concern for the welfare (financial, social, spiritual or health) of the common worker. They would just as easily profit from prison slave labor as common sweatshop conditions that are notorious in third world countries.

By 1925, these same interlocking group of heavy weight and middle weight families were busy financing Adolf Hitler and national socialism. According to Jim Marrs, national socialism is the concept of corporate rule, where the Corporations control the state via lobbying agents who bribe congress to enact laws that will benefit the corporatocracy, (as John Perkins calls it “Confessions of an Economic Hitman or The Secret History of the American Empire”). JP Morgan, Citibank, GE, Ford, General Motors, Brown-Brothers Herriman and many other corporate entities profited immensely from the Rise of the Third Reich.

Although the mainstream historical media pointed the blame at the feet of Adolf Hitler for national socialism, or corporate rule if you will, the multinational conglomerates listed above were truly responsible for the rise and fall of Hitler. We defeated Hitler in WWII, but national socialism, and Russian Communism are the favored economic structure of the wealthy elites who control this country, and they survived the war quite nicely since Hitler took the wrath of blame.

IG Farben and Fritz Thysen’s steel empire split into over 600 multinational corporations around the globe before the close of the war, and were aided and abetted by our national security organizations who shrouded this in secrecy. IG Farben, responsible for Zyclon B (gassing in the Holocaust) and Napalm is one of the most evil empires in the world. At the conclusion of WWII, the US government and the UN split this organization into four separate entities…Bayer, Monsanto, and BASF.

The same wealthy elites who control all arms of the media, the university educational system, the bowl empire and anything else where the economic paradigm is measured in the billions is the same wealthy elites who financed National Socialism and Russian Communism.

The group of interconnected multinational corporations, with major origins and ties to the Eastern Establishment families essentially runs the BCS and the bowl empire and they control public thought and opinion due to the fact that Americans are addicted to the Tube. Whatever we hear on the HDTV, is the word of law…it must be true we heard it on TV.

College football is simply a vehicle for these multinational Eastern Establishment families to carry on and execute their goal of a one world government. That is their aim, this is their mission. The BCS controversy is nothing but a mind control operation designed to weaken America, specifically the middle class, and they use the same strategy that the Rothschild empire has always used. Funding two sides of an opposing issue, while sitting back and watching the two entities destroy each other.

Here comes Obama and the government (controlled by the same shadow government I just desribed) with the regulations to fix the BCS. This was the same strategy that gave us the central banking mechanism known as the Federal Reserve and the IRS. This is very much by design. They create a problem by financing both sides of an issue, watch the two sides destroy each other and then rush to the rescue with government regulations, of which they profit immensely. This is essentially how the military industrial complex came into being. This strategy is as old as time itself.

College football mimics the British system of Monarchy, Oligarchy and Monopoly. The elite teams in college football (TOSU, USC, OU, Texas, Florida, Florida State, Tennessee, Michigan, Nebraska, Alabama, Georgia and LSU) act as the central banks, and these elite schools are controlled by University Presidents who are linked with the CIA, Council on Foreign Relations, Big Oil and Multinational “NAZI” corporations. They are either directly linked with the organizations themselves or controlled by Board of Regent members who are on the boards of these entities. See Jim Marrs “Rise of the 4th Reich.”

When people begin to recognize this and stop supporting a system that is grossly un-American (if you haven’t figured it out, the university foundations have been busy since the turn of the 20th century trying to think-tank their way through getting the American public to mesh with national socialism and Russian communism), but then again, we really haven’t been a republic bound by the constitution since Abraham Lincoln was assassinated, so the BCS is largely the American concept of today…National Socialism and Russian Communism meshed together.

I know much of this is above the realm of rational critical thinking by most of you, because you simply will not look outside the box enough to draw your own conclusion that the similarity between the business model of the BCS is directly parallel to the concept of the Rothschild & Rhodes Empire dedicated to bringing British Imperialism back in control of the world.

I just thought you should know what the BCS is really about.

If you question this, research the ties that the university presidents (and more importantly the Board of Regent members) from all of the schools who have won BCS championships have with the CIA, Council on Foreign Relations, Big Oil and Multinational NAZI Corporations. The list is long and distinguished, with literally centuries of connections.

Either stop whining about this system, because it is purposefully designed to be unfair and to the benefit of the universities who support the evil agents listed above, or stop supporting this system and demand change.

Demand change by not going to the events, stop watching the games on TV, or refrain from reading the propaganda press that emphasizes nothing but the SEC and the Big-12, home to the Big Oil, Multinational Nazi Corporation, CIA and Military Industrial Complex, which has even further connections to the Rothschild, Rockefeller, Morgan and Rhodes Imperialism Complex.

Lets look at the four universities who have benefited the most and been involved in the majority of the BCS controversies.

TOSU: Home state of Morgan and Rockefeller, home state of the central banking complex, home state of fraudulent voting scams dating centuries back in time and home state to the University that is designed to be the leading research institution in America. The most politicized and corruptly controlled state in America. Period, hands down, not even a close second to any other state.

OU: David Boren, President, former Director of the CIA with major connections to the Oklahoma bombing, 911 controversy and the BCS / Harris Poll conglomerate. Did I mention Big Oil and the CIA go hand in hand around the globe, impoverishing other nations loans that can’t be repaid, and inslaving populations to work in sweatshop conditions so we can wear $200 Nikes, $150 sunglasses, $120 blue jeans and $100 Polo shirts?

Texas: UTIMCO, Deep connections to the Bush/Cheney CIA and Military Industrial Complex. Did I mention ENRON and World Com conspiracies, or the first University Inc. conglomerate in America?

LSU: Deep connections to the Rothschild (SHELL OIL) and Rockefeller Standard Oil. Deep connections to NASA and other multinational NAZI corporations (BASF, Monsanto & Bayer).

The OU-Texas pick by the BCS is completely logical. The CIA is the henchmen who perform the dirty work that these multinational corporations need to continue their profit over people scams around the world. Without the CIA the one world conspiracy wouldn’t have found its wings. Big Oil (Texas) needs the CIA (Oklahoma) to churn their profits. CIA comes first in the BCS university setting.

BCSBusters - A Regular Season Bracketed Playoff Truly Making Everygame a Playoff In College Football.

by bcsbusters on Dec 3, 2008 5:11 PM CST reply reply   0 recs


User Tools

Welcome to Burnt Orange Nation, a blog dedicated to University of Texas athletics.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Vy_rosebowl2006_small
My Dream for 2009
Joose2_small
Best Christmas Present. Ever.

Recent FanPosts

Hookem_small
Reilly's article.....quite compelling.
Small
ESPN classic
Clonechronicles_small
The Iowa State Primer
Blanco__tx_002_small
Southwest Conference much better than Big 12
Small
Bradford going pro?
Small
Longhorn fan in Spain
Small
4th and 3
Robfiesta_small
We do not need any cheese...
Small
Kennard not ready to commit
Vy_rosebowl2006_small
End of the Year Thank Yous

Post_icon New FanPost All FanPosts Carrot-mini


Site Editors

Pb6_small PB @ BON

Dark_pumpkin_small awiggo

Contributing Authors

Jersey_front_small 54b

Zombie_profilepic_small Horn Brain

Gse_multipart20834_small 40AS

Pigeons_small billyzane