How The Coaches Voted
by 40AS on Dec 7, 2008 5:25 PM CST
in Football
176 comments
Check it out here. Some interesting votes were:
Art Briles -- OU 1, Texas 5
Gene Chizik -- Texas 1, OU 2
Mack Brown -- Florida 1, Texas 2, OU 3
Mark Dantonio -- OU 1, Texas 5
Mike Leach -- OU 1, Texas 5
Howard Schnellenberger -- OU 2, Texas 4
Urban Meyer -- Texas 4, Florida 1
Also interesting were Rick Neuheisel and Mike Price (along with Todd Dodge and Gene Chizik) were the only coaches to put Texas #1, and the fact that Tommy Bowden still has a vote in the Coaches Poll despite no longer being a coach.
[UPDATE by 40AS]: Looking in some mini-BZ detail, 13 coaches in the top 25 had votes in the poll. Of those 13, 2 put their team exactly where the poll had them (Mike Bellotti and Mark Dantonio). 1 had his team below the poll spot (Frank Beamer, 5 spots lower). 5 had their teams 1 spot above their ranking (Mack, Urban Meyer, Gary Patterson, Mark Richt and Mike Reily). 3 were within 2 spots of their ranking (Jim Tressel, Kyle Whittingham and Chris Peterson). Mike Leach had Tech an astounding 6 spots above his final ranking and Gary Pinkel had Missouri a less shocking 5. For what it's worth, 6 of the 13 coaches with the most to gain/lose had OU 2 or more spots ahead of Texas.
0 recs |
176 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
dammit, Mack!
has he learned nothing watching his nemesis pander lately? Glad he put the sooners behind us (as any sane person should) but moving Florida upfront? Guess Citadel was a sexier game than I thought…
"When you get to the end zone, act like you've been there before."
by txex92 on Dec 7, 2008 5:30 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Best shot at an assistant job next year?
So far, that gets my vote for the most outrageous vote.
by Hopkins Horn on Dec 7, 2008 6:02 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Oklahoma State 17th... Missouri 11th?
Texas behind USC? Ohio State he has low… and still has us behind them?
They should really be transparent every week.
I have no idea why this list constitutes 33% of the national champion on any given year. If it works at all it does so by accident.
by Skin Patrol on Dec 7, 2008 6:06 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Schiano also was interesting...
OU 2 and Texas 5, with USC at 3 and PSU 4.
by BigTexBD on Dec 7, 2008 5:31 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
oscar meyer=POS
“It’s all business”. Peter will have a say about that at the main gate.
by TXStampede on Dec 7, 2008 5:31 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Keep in mind
that his team just played an epic game against a truly evenly-matched opponent in Alabama. Urban thinking Bama is 3 ahead of Texas isn’t egregious enough to start the “bullshit” chants. It’s not like he had Texas Tech 2 and Texas.. what ,like 8th? Jesus Mike Leach.
by Gator Cub on Dec 7, 2008 9:40 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
And to be more precise, Leach has OU #1, TT #2
by Hopkins Horn on Dec 7, 2008 5:33 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
and I love that Leach put Tech at #2
"When you get to the end zone, act like you've been there before."
by txex92 on Dec 7, 2008 5:33 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
This all goes back to the post about class.
Screw all of um and let’s be glad we have Mack. But this really get’s the panties in a bunch. Good grief.
by UT2001 on Dec 7, 2008 5:33 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
I don’t see how Dantonio’s final top 5 is even remotely defensible – Alabama over Texas is totally absurd based on … well, pretty much anything you can come up with. Strange that he has PSU and OSU so close together (6th and 8th). But at least his isn’t absurdly homerish – he has MSU #18, right where the overall poll does.
by SpartanDan on Dec 7, 2008 5:34 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Hal Mumme has TT over us.
"Football's so important in Texas. On the West Coast, it's a social. On the East Coast, it's a culture. Here, it's a religion."
-- Major Applewhite
by Sunkist on Dec 7, 2008 5:36 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
All this says
is Politics rule. How can so many FBC division coaches see it differently at the top?
To all of the coaching clowns – payback is a mofo. Your time cometh (read Leach).
by TXStampede on Dec 7, 2008 5:38 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
This is the problem with the whole system
You have people who are very obviously directly affected by the results eligible to vote. Mack’s vote is defensible. Leach’s is not. Urban … well, it’s barely defensible, but it’s the most homerific defensible ballot possible.
by SpartanDan on Dec 7, 2008 5:38 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
the idea is that it all evens out
by CrackerAssCracker on Dec 7, 2008 5:39 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Sounds great in theory
Except that some coaches have integrity and some don’t – which means that nice guys finish last.
by SpartanDan on Dec 7, 2008 5:43 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Leach and Briles are pricks
Seriously? #5? GFYS douches.
Perhaps the most recognizable mascot in sports, and certainly the toughest looking, Bevo is a fixture
by run Bevo run on Dec 7, 2008 5:39 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
What is going to be interesting is to see if Mack
could have voted us into the title game had he been an asshole like Meyer or Leach.
by ctex80 on Dec 7, 2008 5:46 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
what's really going to be interesting...
is whether Mack pulls Colt early in 4th next year against Baylor.
by Pflash on Dec 7, 2008 5:49 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I hope not.
We can’t be too sure what Briles would consider an impressive-enough win. Same with a Harrell-less Leach.
by Hopkins Horn on Dec 7, 2008 5:55 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Mack's classy
But still, why wouldn’t you atleast put a Big 12 team 1, why give UF credit
by CrackerAssCracker on Dec 7, 2008 5:49 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Because Mack did it legit.
He’s got to stand by ranking us ahead of OU. And he’s not going to go the homer route and rank us number one.
by ctex80 on Dec 7, 2008 6:13 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
This is actually very interesting
I wish we could see this every week. Pinkel hates mid-majors. You can see conference loyalty all over the board. Transparency helps the system, I don’t know why these guys get to hide behind a wall of anonymity until the last vote.
If you're so sure of what it ain't, how about telling us what it am!
by circa1015 on Dec 7, 2008 5:52 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
conference loyalty
except in the Big XII, thanks Leach and Briles.
Perhaps the most recognizable mascot in sports, and certainly the toughest looking, Bevo is a fixture
by run Bevo run on Dec 7, 2008 5:54 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
We lost 18 points
due to coaches who put us 4th or 5th. That translates to 33.6 votes in the Harris poll. Should that be the difference, fuck sportsmanship.
by ctex80 on Dec 7, 2008 6:01 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
But, in fairness...
We had an alum and a former coordinator vote us #1.
by Hopkins Horn on Dec 7, 2008 6:03 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, but Florida wasn't lower than 3 on any ballot.
Texas at 1 is defensible. Florida at 3 is defensible. Texas at 4 or 5 is not.
by ctex80 on Dec 7, 2008 6:08 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
UT is NOT #5
Screw job deluxe
I can see Leach’s reasoning for him to put Tech over UT, but not to put UT at #5, or anyone else for that matter……. I don’t know how anyone could have had them ANY less then 4th, at worst………
by TexasSooner on Dec 7, 2008 6:06 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
That's certainly not how I would rank Texas.
But if he’s off by one ranking in virtue of having beaten Texas but not Florida or Alabama, that’s hardly outrageous or “screw job deluxe.”
by Skin Patrol on Dec 7, 2008 6:08 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I'd love to see a breakdown of the variation
between a coach’s ranking of his team, and the average of everyone else’s ranking. My bet is, Leach would have the highest variation.
by ctex80 on Dec 7, 2008 6:11 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I think that's probably true.
Texas Tech generated a lot of disagreement from the coaches from the looks of it and Leach certainly ranked his team higher than anyone else.
I have no problem with it, obviously.
by Skin Patrol on Dec 7, 2008 6:15 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Alot of disagreement?
All but 3 coaches had them 6-9. Wasn’t expecting you to have a problem with it, you’re a Tech homer. Would love to hear Leach’s justification though.
by ctex80 on Dec 7, 2008 6:20 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Re:
For a top 10 team that’s a lot of disagreement. Look at Ohio State, Penn State, USC, Utah… all have one or two outlier but pretty clustered.
I think Leach’s explanation would be: He’s below a team he lost to, he’s above a team he beat, and he put Texas below Florida and Alabama because he didn’t beat either of those teams but he did beat Texas.
I would’ve put UT in front of Alabama, though.
by Skin Patrol on Dec 7, 2008 6:28 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Given what's happened ALL YEAR LONG
Alabama should be below UT
You lose, especially late, you drop.
Alabama should even be below USC.
by TexasSooner on Dec 7, 2008 6:33 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Surely you recognize the difference between 6-9 and
ranking your own team 2nd. Leach and Meyer have the two biggest homer ballots on there.
by ctex80 on Dec 7, 2008 6:35 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not going to defend either of their ballots......
No way…
Although, I’m actually surprised Meyer didn’t vote Alabama #2…….. Given the SEC love affair with each other…..
by TexasSooner on Dec 7, 2008 6:39 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, I recognize the difference between 6-9 and ranking your team 2nd. This is why I said:
I think that’s probably true.
In reference to your statement:
My bet is, Leach would have the highest variation.
I think that’s probably true even if by “variation” you mean “biggest homer ballot” in terms of difference between average rank and his own team’s rank. Tech finished 8th, he ranked us 2nd. The next highest I see, is Gary Pinkel ranking Missouri 4 spots higher than teh poll at large. This is why I said:
Leach certainly ranked his team higher than anyone else.
I disagree that Urban Meyer’s ballot is a homer ballot. He ranked them 1st, as did nearly half the other voters. That’s one point above 2nd.
by Skin Patrol on Dec 7, 2008 7:36 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I didn't agree with Leach....
I just was saying I could understand why HE would put Tech above UT, and I doubt anyone else did (I haven’t looked at the breakdown). And even though he did that, for ANY coach or voter to put UT at #5 is ludicrous.
by TexasSooner on Dec 7, 2008 6:13 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Well I wouldn’t put UT at #5, either. I can understand 4 (behind Florida) but not 5 behind Alabama.
by Skin Patrol on Dec 7, 2008 6:15 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Texas 5th?
The coaches poll no longer deserves to be apart of the BCS formula
by Ryan2907 on Dec 7, 2008 6:19 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
To be fair
It never did. Coaches don’t watch film of anyone but their next opponent, so how can they put together a ballot?
Reading all the blogpoll summaries from various voters over the past couple years demonstrates just how tough it is for people who watch lots of games and have time to study teams other than their own. There’s no way that coaches spend that much time looking at other teams to put together their rankings.
by Year2 on Dec 7, 2008 6:31 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Excellent point
Other than some occasional weekday games or MAYBE Saturday night games, they just aren’t watching games of teams they don’t play. They don’t have the time and they don’t care. I’d bet that up until late in the year when it starts to matter a GA or someone low on the totem poll is actually putting the teams in there.
This doesn’t even include the natural biases involved.
by DoubleB on Dec 7, 2008 6:42 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Harris poll
What’s the deal with the Harris poll today?
by OU Always Sucks on Dec 7, 2008 6:27 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Drama
Waiting, to create drama for the BCS, I guess…….
by TexasSooner on Dec 7, 2008 6:34 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Who cares
But I found this article interesting, don’t really know if it was mentioned anywhere here, but then again, I’ve been hiding under a rock for the past week, so…
He’re the link anyway.
by orangeblood1 on Dec 7, 2008 6:54 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
That is it
. . and it is over. And it’s not even close. Harris clearly went for Florida #1, OU #2, and Texas #3.
by DoubleB on Dec 7, 2008 6:42 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
More importantly, which coaches acknowledge a head to head win
and vote Texas ahead of ou.
Beamer, Belotti, Brown, Chizik, Cristobal, Dodge, Edsol, Gill, Lynch, Martin, Neuheisel, Price, Toledo, Tomey.
by kellen on Dec 7, 2008 6:46 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
can't even face the announcement...
comin’ from switzer…yuck.
"When you get to the end zone, act like you've been there before."
by txex92 on Dec 7, 2008 6:49 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Can we still do a 4 team playoff? nt
Excitedly nervous in 08.
by Ultra Horn on Dec 7, 2008 6:49 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Look at the votes from the coaches.......
That played both teams….
Baylor- OU #1, UT #5
Missouri- OU #1, UT #2
Texas Tech – OU #1, UT #5
OU #1 across the board. I’ll grant you that UT #5 is questionable, but a consensus #1 from all 3.
So, in THEIR minds, OU was the better team.
by TexasSooner on Dec 7, 2008 6:53 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
That's fine
and had we not played ou, I could live with that. But we played ou. 10 points, neutral, win, october, yada yada yada…ou sucks. You guys continue to ignore the elephant in the room and focus on everything else.
by kellen on Dec 7, 2008 6:56 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
you mean like you ignore Tech; same record, head-to-head win
by DoubleB on Dec 7, 2008 6:57 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't ignore Tech at all.....
In fact, aren’t they 2nd in the conference?? They beat UT head to head, 33-39, so shouldn’t they be going to the Fiesta???
by TexasSooner on Dec 7, 2008 6:58 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
is there anybody anywhere
other than lubbock that thinks tech should have played for the big 12 title? No. Eliminated.
by kellen on Dec 7, 2008 6:58 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
again ignoring the elephant in the room 39-33
by DoubleB on Dec 7, 2008 7:00 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
On the last play from scrimmage, on their field, on the best play in their program's history.
As opposed to a neutral field, by 10, dominated in the 4th.
This is getting really tired.
The system is fucked, and Texas AND Tech got screwed, while OU benefitted in every way possible.
by crackaTX on Dec 7, 2008 7:02 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree, it is tired
and it’s still excuses for losing 39-33.
Yes, Texas AND Texas Tech both got screwed and yes Oklahoma got the benefit of the doubt.
by DoubleB on Dec 7, 2008 7:03 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Tech didn't need the TD
They were in FG range, the TD was just gravy.
Actually, a FG from their walkon would have made an even better story….
by TexasSooner on Dec 7, 2008 7:04 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
DoubleB
do you acknowledge that you have to eliminate one team in a 3 way tie in order to make a decision?
by kellen on Dec 7, 2008 7:03 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Not at all
That’s why you give it to the coaches to vote, highest vote total wins………
by TexasSooner on Dec 7, 2008 7:05 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
No,
You can evaluate and choose one of the three.
But if I have to eliminate one (according to your system), can’t I eliminate Oklahoma (poor defense, poor special teams, never seemed to put some teams away (Kansas, OSU))?
by DoubleB on Dec 7, 2008 7:07 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
No I am going to look
at the 3 games played, excuse a 10 point loss, excuse a 6 point loss and throw out the team with the 40 point loss
by kellen on Dec 7, 2008 7:10 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
so we're just looking at the 3 games played between the teams?
by DoubleB on Dec 7, 2008 7:11 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
OK
Oklahoma’s net margin of victory was 34, Texas was was 4, and Tech’s was -38. Clearly OU is better right?
by DoubleB on Dec 7, 2008 7:12 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
The point I'm trying to make
is that in this system we have, 2 of the 3 teams were going to get screwed. It royally sucks that Tech and Texas were two of them and that Oklahoma (for what seems like the 28th time) was the beneficiary.
All 3 teams have good arguments and, in my opinion, Texas is the best team. But the circular logic that has been used for the last month could go on forever and neither team nor fanbase has the higher ground.
by DoubleB on Dec 7, 2008 7:17 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
The point I made above amout eliminating one team
is the same system use by every major conference but the big 12. Why does that not make sense to you?
by kellen on Dec 7, 2008 7:22 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
and why does
one have to eliminate one team in order to find the “champion” or “best team” in a 3-way tie?
Is it a way to settle a 3-way tie, yes. It’s not the only way.
by DoubleB on Dec 7, 2008 7:26 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Then do this...
Make the case for Tech to play for a national title. Have fun!
by ctex80 on Dec 7, 2008 7:30 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I can certainly make the Fiesta Bowl case.
Oklahoma broke the 3-way tie by beating Missouri, now we aren’t comparing 3 teams with identical records, so you go back to head-to-head. 12-1 is not 11-1. So you have Texas vs. Texas Tech and the latter beat the former. So…?
But who cares what I think, the decision was made. Congrats to both Oklahoma and Texas on their well earned and deserved BCS bids, and we’ll just try and enjoy ourselves in the Cotton Bowl. Someone had to get fucked (which is to say: Someone had to have something unpleasant happen to them, not necessarily WRONGED) and it was us. We could’ve solved that by beating OU and we didn’t. That’s why you guys get to go to the Fiesta.
by Skin Patrol on Dec 7, 2008 7:42 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
jeez. Are you serious?
And I could fly to Phoenix or I can walk.
by kellen on Dec 7, 2008 7:32 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
That's your response?
You have no substantive answer, so ridicule the response. Impressive
by DoubleB on Dec 7, 2008 7:35 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I wasn't trying to ridicule you
I respect you. I was building on your argument that their are multiple ways to do things. Mine being that some are much more productive and logical than others.
by kellen on Dec 7, 2008 7:45 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I simply think
that eliminating one based on a large loss to get down to the final two was both logical and productive. Much more then combining point totals of games held on different days and different weeks, in different weather, in different cities and with different circumstances.
by kellen on Dec 7, 2008 7:48 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
and that's more logical because
. . it helps Texas?
by DoubleB on Dec 7, 2008 7:49 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Now you are
just trying to have fun with me
by kellen on Dec 7, 2008 7:50 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
What tiebreaker
do you see as the most logical and productive?
by kellen on Dec 7, 2008 7:52 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Because graduation rates
have so much to do with which team is best. That’s pirate logic.
by ctex80 on Dec 7, 2008 8:09 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
So why not just make the tie breaker: “Which of these three teams is best?”
Oh, that’s what they do.
by Skin Patrol on Dec 7, 2008 8:12 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
You avoided my question.
Make the case that Tech is the best team in the country.
by ctex80 on Dec 7, 2008 7:45 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
We aren't the best team in the country.
We’re the 3rd best team in a three way tie. Oklahoma is the best team (per others) and UT is the 2nd best team. You seem to think admitting that Tech is the 3rd best team in a 3-way tie necessarily means Texas is the best, lot of people (including the conference your team plays in) don’t see it that way.
by Skin Patrol on Dec 7, 2008 7:47 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
What I'm saying
Is that if you can’t make a case for Tech as the best team, then they are eliminated right there. Which makes it a two team race. And what is the best way to decided between two teams? Head to head, on a neutral field sounds good.
by ctex80 on Dec 7, 2008 7:49 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Well I think
you should decide 3-way ties by graduation rates. I say:
1. Head to Head
…
5. Graduation Rates
Eliminate the worst graduating school, then go back to 1.
I think we all want a system that eliminates the team that beat us first. You guys are trying to say, essentially, that you’re the best team in the country because we got so absolutely smoked by Oklahoma. As SpartanDan has pointed out, if you’re right it would be the case that OU would’ve been better off beating us by 1 point on a fluke field goal, since that would keep Tech in the discussion at least.
How can it be the case that Texas Tech is eliminated from the discussion because Oklahoma beat us by so many points, therefore Oklahoma is not as good as Texas?
by Skin Patrol on Dec 7, 2008 7:56 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Because Tech played themselves out
of the conversation. Tech does not belong in that conversation, and you know it. How much ire have you seen that Tech isn’t in the title game? NONE.
by ctex80 on Dec 7, 2008 8:01 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
So...
Now the standard is:
Whichever team presents the least “ire” should be eliminated and then move to head-to-head.
Whatever you want to argue about who to eliminate first, your position is that OU would be better off if they beat Tech by 1 point than if they smoked us by 100. That would speak, if anything, towards the strength of the current Big XII system over that of other conferences. I’m not married to our system, but at least it tries to measure a champion utilizing a bevy of factors that actually relate to the strength of the three teams measured against one another, rather than using extrinsic factors that turn out to be totally illogical (like that OU is better off only winning by a point) to eliminate what is probably the team with a better resume.
by Skin Patrol on Dec 7, 2008 8:05 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
utilizing a bevy of factors that actually relate to the strength of the three teams measured against one another
Of course this all assumes rational voting by coaches, harris, and computers, which I won’t.
by Skin Patrol on Dec 7, 2008 8:06 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I have to make the case they should play
in the national title game (or go to the Big XII conference title game).
11-1, 7-1 in conference. Gave Kansas their worst loss among the tied teams (on the road), Gave OSU their worst loss among the tied teams. The other two only have one each. Played a better non-conference schedule than Texas (you’ll dispute that, but I think Nevada is better than any team on UT’s schedule).
So now answer my question: if Tech lost to OU by 10 or 14 points, would they be in the picture? I’m genuinely curious.
by DoubleB on Dec 7, 2008 7:56 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Tech only played two division 1 teams non-conference!
by ctex80 on Dec 7, 2008 7:59 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
And yes,
I think if Tech had been competitive with OU, then they would be in the conversation.
by ctex80 on Dec 7, 2008 8:00 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
So...
OU would be eliminated if they’d just beaten Texas Tech by a little less. Is that what you’re saying?
by Skin Patrol on Dec 7, 2008 8:01 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
No,
I’m saying it would actually be a 3 way tie if Tech had stayed competitive.
by ctex80 on Dec 7, 2008 8:02 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
OU just showed what Baylor and Nebraska
almost did. Tech got up for one big game. That is the entirety of their case.
by ctex80 on Dec 7, 2008 8:08 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
True. We fucked up.
We needed to make a play and we didn’t. So what happened in Norman?
by ctex80 on Dec 7, 2008 8:14 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I do not know what your problem is.
I will happily discuss with you the various merits of the Big XII tie breaker, or not. I’ll talk about how Tech ranks against an 11-1 and 11-1 OU (which is to say, below them both). We can discuss the shortcomings of the BCS system. We can discuss all sorts of things. But if rather than discuss with you “what happened in Norma” here’s the fucking box score. The score was 65-21. Texas Tech lost. You know that, you’re asking it flippantly to get a rise out of me. I’ve now provided you with the score and the ESPN recap, so you really don’t need to ask me about it. I won’t ask you (and I haven’t?) about what happened in Lubbock.
If you want to talk about tie breakers we can do that. If you want to find out the final score of games played this season, go to ESPN.
by Skin Patrol on Dec 7, 2008 8:19 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I asked the question flippantly
to illustrate that our loss is defensible, and Tech’s is not. Therefore, it is my opinion that Tech should be eliminated from the Big 12 South discussion.
I’m not sure why you’re getting all testy and defensive, though. You’re on a Texas board, as a Tech fan, at one of the toughest times ever to be a Texas fan, stating reasons why you think OU deserves to be ahead of us. Do you think we shoud thank you for that?
by ctex80 on Dec 7, 2008 8:27 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Re:
1. Who is defending Tech’s loss here? We’re going to the Cotton Bowl. I’ve already said both Texas and Oklahoma deserve to go to BCS games in front of us.
2. We disagree about tie breaking procedures. I’m trying to illustrate that your position in Re: Oklahoma, though perfectly understandable, is illogical. It just cannot be the case that OU would be better off beating Tech by 1 than by 44. If that is the case, something is broken.
3. I am not testy and defensive. I am not surprised that you and others feel Texas should be ahead of OU. I don’t really care whether OU is in front of Texas. I am not asking you or anyone else to love me. I’m just stating: If you want to know the score of games Tech played this year, go to ESPN. Don’t ask me about it if you’re doing so to get a rise out of me. Should I thank you for that?
by Skin Patrol on Dec 7, 2008 8:32 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
By the way… This has already gone on long enough, maybe I am getting snippy, we both are. Let’s agree to disagree and be done with it, we’re not going to convince each other of anything, I withdraw everything, etc.
by Skin Patrol on Dec 7, 2008 8:33 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed.
Just a frustrating day. My apologies. Good luck in the Cotton, you guys deserve better. Can’t wait to play y’all in Austin!
by ctex80 on Dec 7, 2008 8:36 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I hope you smoke Ohio State.
I wish they had not gotten to a BCS game in front of us. I want UT to make that case as well, with an exclamation point.
by Skin Patrol on Dec 7, 2008 8:46 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Skin Patrol's
- point is what I’m trying to make, but he said it more eloquently. I have no issue with UT fans believing they have the best team. I’ve stated before that I think Texas is better as well (emphasis on the "think"). But the logic being used is incredibly flawed.
by DoubleB on Dec 7, 2008 8:36 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Please just let it lie.
I disagree with you. You disagree with me. Best of luck to you and your team.
by ctex80 on Dec 7, 2008 8:45 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Just so we're clear
you are punishing Oklahoma for beating Texas Tech so badly?
If Oklahoma HAD ALLOWED Tech to stay in the game and only won by 10 or so, then the entire head-to-head argument would be moot?
by DoubleB on Dec 7, 2008 8:02 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
In that scenario,
I would have no clue as to how to break the 3-way tie. I really wouldn’t.
by ctex80 on Dec 7, 2008 8:03 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
they may not
realize it Skin Patrol, but we’ve made our point.
by DoubleB on Dec 7, 2008 8:03 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
You smug little man.
You haven’t made any valid points, and your argument for Tech to play for a title is laughable. Tech’s schedule was a joke, every good team at home, except the team that beat them by 40.
At any rate, the least y’all could do is beat Ole Miss in the Cotton. Try not to embarrass the Big 12 like OU will.
by ctex80 on Dec 7, 2008 8:06 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
nothing like name calling
to make a compelling argument. Good work.
by DoubleB on Dec 7, 2008 8:11 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
How's this...
You haven’t made any valid points, and your argument for Tech to play for a title is laughable. Tech’s schedule was a joke, every good team at home, except the team that beat them by 40.
At any rate, the least y’all could do is beat Ole Miss in the Cotton. Try not to embarrass the Big 12 like OU will.
by ctex80 on Dec 7, 2008 8:15 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Look, we're obviously not going to agree.
We think we’re the best, and Tech fans think OU is. Good luck in the bowl game, Tech. Go to hell, OU.
by ctex80 on Dec 7, 2008 8:18 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Some people argue
just for the sake of arguing. DrubbleB and Skin Patrol are two of those people.
by kellen on Dec 7, 2008 8:20 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
This is epic
I haven’t seen a reply chain divert this far to the right of my screen. Turns out there’s a limit!
by goingforthecorner on Dec 7, 2008 9:36 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Then your argument becomes “OU beat Tech so badly that they shouldn’t even get credit for it.” I shouldn’t have to explain why that’s silly.
by SpartanDan on Dec 8, 2008 4:12 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Nope. The NFL doesn’t do it that way, nor does any conference except the SEC or ACC. (Big East goes straight to the top BCS rating after head-to-head, the Pac-10 and Big Ten have a clause giving it to a team that finishes in the top 2 regardless of any other factors – including head-to-head! – but otherwise ignores the rankings entirely.)
Come to think of it, even those conferences don’t do it that way until you get to the BCS tiebreaker. If there were a three-way tie at 5-3, head-to-head split, and the division records were 4-1, 3-2, and 2-3, the 4-1 gets it right away, regardless of which team they lost to in the head-to-head. You don’t eliminate the 2-3 team and then go back to head-to-head.
by SpartanDan on Dec 8, 2008 4:10 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Note that I’m not arguing that OU is clearly the “correct” choice. There isn’t one. But throwing out Tech purely on the basis that OU left a smoking crater on their sideline is just plain stupid. Would anyone be making that argument if OU won 35-21 instead of 65-21? Then why punish OU for winning huge instead of winning a relatively close game? (And yes, that’s what happens if you throw out the biggest loser – the team that handed them that huge loss gets punished for it.)
by SpartanDan on Dec 8, 2008 4:16 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Making a statement that......
A vote by the coaches of the teams played would be a more valid tie breaker
by TexasSooner on Dec 7, 2008 6:57 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
So you think that votes by former Stoops assistants are impartial and valid?
by ctex80 on Dec 7, 2008 7:00 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
A real tie breaker
Would be between the teams all 3 played, which would be OSU, Baylor, and A&M…. I don’t think all 3 played a common north team, but if they did, throw them in as well…
3,2,1 points…
No Stoops assistants there.
If ALL conference coaches were used, well there’s a UT assistant in ISU, why is that any worse or better????
by TexasSooner on Dec 7, 2008 7:03 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
TexasSooner, tell the truth...
Do you even watch football?
by ctex80 on Dec 7, 2008 7:09 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm pretty certain
You didn’t read my post…..
I said their were no Stoops’ assistants among the South teams that the 3 tied teams played. OSU, Baylor, A&M, there are no former OU coaches on there….
by TexasSooner on Dec 7, 2008 7:11 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
You also said throw in common north team.
by ctex80 on Dec 7, 2008 7:13 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, I did
I did not at the time remember if THIS year there was a common north opponent.
What I’m talking about is not just this year, I’m talking about a more fair SYSTEM of breaking a tie-breaker in the unrealistic possibility that such a situation ever happens again….
by TexasSooner on Dec 7, 2008 7:15 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
To reiterate.....
The point is to use ALL the coaches from the teams that all the tied teams played. Obviously there would be all the remaining division teams, and then you would include any common teams from the other division. This applies for either side….
OR
Use ALL of the remaining conference coaches.
I think the other way is more fair, because this uses the teams that actually played all 3….
by TexasSooner on Dec 7, 2008 7:17 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
we all played kansas
and texas held them to one score at their place.
by hayzer13 on Dec 7, 2008 7:08 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Tech?
Tech played Kansas?? I didn’t remember that… Then they should be thrown into the mix of who votes….
by TexasSooner on Dec 7, 2008 7:09 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
And Mangino was a Sooner assistant. Tech beat Kansas 63-21.
by ctex80 on Dec 7, 2008 7:11 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Right..........
So, in the revised list of 4 teams, yeah, Mangino should be on the list…
OMG, what if it HAPPENED to be ISU???? A UT assistant!! Could be fair?!??
The point is, they have the most direct ability to compare teams to break a tie…..
by TexasSooner on Dec 7, 2008 7:13 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I still hope
UT somehow goes to the Sugar, and not Fiesta………
by TexasSooner on Dec 7, 2008 6:59 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
I still hope you slip and fall into puddle of ebola...
"There are three kinds of people in this world: those who are good at math, and those who aren't..."
--GA Horn--
by GAHorn on Dec 7, 2008 7:01 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
ha!
funniest line i heard all day.
by iamjackburton on Dec 7, 2008 7:09 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Cincy's strength
Is their run defense….
That ought to be a decent game…..
by TexasSooner on Dec 7, 2008 7:07 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
for better or worst, it should always be the computers
take all the emotion and politicking out of it and let the computers have total say. i’m not one of these people afraid of “them ’puters”. even if ou were to come out ahead of us, i still say give it all to the machines. also, the harris poll is ridiculous. as soon as i read what the harris poll actually was, it astounded me they still rely on it. ridiculous. give it to the computer, allow it to include strength of schedule (if it isn’t), and take it from there.
by iamjackburton on Dec 7, 2008 7:07 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Better that than a vote. I’d prefer that the computers were allowed to consider all the data (including scores), but at least the computers can be trusted to be objective (unless you intentionally bias them with starting rankings *coughBillingsley*).
by SpartanDan on Dec 8, 2008 4:19 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
It's official
Utah is in the Sugar, OSU is in the Fiesta with Texas.
by Year2 on Dec 7, 2008 7:14 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
My ex-brother-in-law........
Is the biggest Buckeye fan that I know…….
And while I like him, I LOATHE the Buckeyes…. As well as the Big 11
Go UT, whip the shit out of the Big 11…..
by TexasSooner on Dec 7, 2008 7:19 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Only 10 points down in the AP poll
Give Ohio State a royal beatdown and UT at least has a shot.
by DoubleB on Dec 7, 2008 7:19 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Merry Christmas UT
Good luck in your bowl, beat the Buckeyes.
I’m off to spread Christmas cheer
Boomer Sooner
by TexasSooner on Dec 7, 2008 7:25 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
You are a tool
and you have a small penis.
by kellen on Dec 7, 2008 7:33 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Hope that douche Leach
has fun in the Cotton Bowl while 30 year old assistant coaches get better job offers than him. He can suck it.
by adamluo on Dec 7, 2008 7:26 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Hey TexasSooner how does it feel to be going to the beatbytexas.com bowl
by JBHOOKEM22 on Dec 7, 2008 8:21 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Leave Texas Sooner alone
he is ashamed because he has a small penis.
by kellen on Dec 7, 2008 8:22 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
You can take humility too far, Mack
Humility can reach a point that it is no longer a virtue. What was that character in the Charles Dickens novel, “humble” Uriah Heep, or something? It would be unethical for Brown to rank OU around #15, but he can and should have had us #1 the last 2 weeks. If he is uncomfortable ranking his team as high as it deserves, then he should give up his vote. What message does this send to the team? I’m sure Obama didn’t vote for McCane.
"Only angry people win football games." --DKR
by OBdoc on Dec 8, 2008 8:02 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
