Damned if you do; Damned if you don't!
by Robertpz on Nov 15, 2009 8:00 PM CST
Email
PrintLast year it was Texas against the world and this year is no different. This same schedule in 2009 Texas also played in 2008 where the Longhorns played 4 Top 15 opponents in a row going 3-1 then went on to beat a ranked Kansas team a few weeks later before wrapping up the season against another ranked opponent in OSU at in the Fiesta Bowl. When the dust settled, Texas finished the season 4-1 against top 20 talent. With a few weeks left in the regular season, it now appears that everyone thinks Texas is trying to beat the system by playing bad teams to go undefeated? First of all, Arkansas backed out of their commitment for this season so they could beat up on the Aggies for the next 10 years in Jerry's World, which meant Wyoming stepped in. Next, as far as the Big 12 is concerned, Mizzou, Tech, OU, & Kansas all are down with only Oklahoma State hanging in there. Yet, it's all Texas's fault that BSU, TCU, or Cincy might miss out on a BCS Title game? Really?
Rest assured over the next five years, Texas plays UCLA, Ole Miss, Minnesota, & Cal plus the normally daunting Big 12 Schedule when Texas usually faces at least 3 ranked teams from within their own conference. That is unless one of those teams decides not to play us at the last minute (in college scheduling terms that is). Geez…everyone else in the Big 12 has a crappy year AND Texas is the one to blame? Riiiiggghhhttt! I look forward to an undefeated Texas team facing an unbeaten SEC team to decide the 2009 BCS Champion in what should be the most highly anticipated bowl game since Texas played USC, which coincidentally was the last time two undefeated teams played for the title. But of course that is the Longhorns' fault as well!
Hook ‘em!
All comments, FanPosts, and FanShots are the views of the reader-authors who create them.
32 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
You said it
almost exactly how i explained it to my wife today (not that she wanted to listen to another rant about the bcs, especially after last year). but man, we had four-five top 20 teams on our schedule preseason this year, plus the possible game with Arkansas (and i think we tried to get utah?) it sucks that we got shafted last year playing a brutal schedule, then get harped on this year for playing the same teams. you are right, man, damned either way.
As far as I can tell
No one thinks it is Texas’ “Fault”. It is the situation we are in. We could go undefeated and not have a SOS as strong as TCU. That is pretty crazy. But it is reality. But I don’t see anyone “Blaming” Texas.
We had Arkansas, and UCF is no cream puff UL Monroe or something. They played us to within 3 a couple of years ago and just beat UH. With them and Arkansas, that OOC schedule would have been fine by anyone considering how strong the Big 12 was a year ago.
Just a weird year in the Big 12. The South especially. But it will correct. Check the recruiting class rankings. 5 of the 6 Big 12 South teams ranked top 20-25. Sick.
"A lot of people look for the easy way to do anything, in swimming there is no easy way." - Eddie Reese
TCU SOS is about to take a dive with the computers...
I don’t think even after Utah they are ranked above us in all the various SOS schemes. Playing Kansas and A&M will give us more SOS mojo than playing Wyoming and New Mexico. This was the week to worry about them gaining an edge in the computers but they dropped behind us, so they will only fall further behind us the rest of the way.
I see a lot of people saying TCU > Texas, or that Texas should be #5 or #6
It’s just setting up for a very nice January is all.
by burntorangehorn on Nov 16, 2009 7:16 AM CST reply actions
I agree. My only regret is that Iowas lost. I’d love to have 2 BCS undefeated teams (Cincy) claiming they should have played in the MNC game.
I mean if we are going to defend ourselves by saying it is not our fault that: 1) Arkansas dropped us and 2) the Big 12 is down this year, then I think Cincy can say the same thing. It’s not their fault their division isn’t that great this year, and they will actually end up with more BCS opponents than us (played Oregon St and will pla Illinois).
I do think we are better, but most people blow off Cincy and say not getting a chance is their fault for not playing tougher non con opponents (I’ve heard Longhorns say this too).
I'm developing a man-crush on Brian Kelly
If it weren’t for Muschamp, I’d be generating a Kelly resume and distributing it to UT’s top football boosters for post-Mack consideration.
by burntorangehorn on Nov 16, 2009 9:03 AM CST up reply actions
Brian Kelly
I would not be surprised to see Kelly end up at Colorado – assuming CU can figure out how to shuffle some money around to afford Hawkins buyout and then lure Kelly away.
I have to think CU is going to dump Hawkins and it would be in their best interest to figure it out in a hurry……..get Kelly or whomever before the coaching carousel begins. I can’t think of any coaches on the hot seat right now other than Weis.
Erickson at Arizona St. might be on the hot seat at this point
He’s only in his second season there, I think, but there hasn’t been much progress. I think he gets more time.
by burntorangehorn on Nov 16, 2009 10:05 AM CST up reply actions
Why would Kelly leave Cincy for CU? I don’t think it is much of an upgrade, and the competition is much better. I’d rather stay at Cincy and have a good shot at going to a BCS game every year, rather than go to CU and have to fight through a rebuilding NU to make it to the Big 12 to get donkey punched by UT.
If he’s going to leave Cincy, he needs to hold out for something much better.
The fact remains...
Texas is not more deserving than Cincy or TCU. Neutral site, I think Texas would be a 6 point favorite against TCU and probably 8.5 against Cincy. These kids deserve better than greedy, fat conference presidents looking out for themselves and themselves only. Since the polls are 2/3, we are the beneficiaries of a high pre-season ranking actually, nothing more. Our resume, THIS SEASON, is not impressive. It is where teams finish that make all the difference in the world. As it stands today, the Horns own one victory over a top 25 opponent. And if Okie St. loses to OUsux as many believe they will, they will drop to the 17-20 range. That may change if we face Nebraska in the greedy conference title game with the expectation that the Huskers continue winning until that meeting. But, if KSU gets them, neither may be in the top 25 at the time of the greedy conference title game.
What I do not get is how West Virginia fell out of the top 25 after losing by only 3 to a top 5 team? Seems a bit harsh. Cincy would then own victories over WV and presumably Pitt with Rutgers knocking on the door to get in the top 25.
TCU can claim victories over Clemson, BYU, and Utah. Not bad. They will run the table and stare at the glass ceiling that is the Longhorns rear end. Again, that is everything that is wrong with college football. This year, TCU can play with anybody…like Utah last year…they are just that good. Like the Horns last year, they deserve better. And better is a chance to play for it all.
I sincerely hope we have 5 unbeaten teams at the end of this season. Let the justification of the BCS continue in futility.
"Stats are for losers. I like winning games." - Will Muschamp
"Somebody will always break your records. It is how you live that counts." - Earl Campbell
I knew you'd work some anti-BCS material into it somehow
I wasn’t disappointed!
by burntorangehorn on Nov 16, 2009 10:07 AM CST up reply actions
Sorry BOH...
"Stats are for losers. I like winning games." - Will Muschamp
"Somebody will always break your records. It is how you live that counts." - Earl Campbell
by Mulliganville on Nov 16, 2009 8:20 PM CST up reply actions
No apology necessary
I know it’s a big issue for you, so I get why you post about it. I just disagree on the severity and remedy to some extent.
by burntorangehorn on Nov 16, 2009 8:57 PM CST up reply actions
You know, the more I consider it, I would be happy with a flex play what is necessary...
I just know that will never happen. And 4 seems like too few…I would probably even go 6 with two byes for reward for being in the top 2. But 8, obviously, easily incorporates the big bowls.
"Stats are for losers. I like winning games." - Will Muschamp
"Somebody will always break your records. It is how you live that counts." - Earl Campbell
by Mulliganville on Nov 16, 2009 9:01 PM CST up reply actions
I’m sure everyone saw that Moron talking about how he’d like to go back to just playing our regular bowl games and letting the voters decide who is the NC.
He realizes USC would have been crowned that year, right? Until we beat them, everyone was talking about how they were the best football team EVER.
Moron??? Are you serious?
If that was directed at me, grow the hell up. Use your noggin…Texas was fortunate that the BCS worked out in conclusiveness with Penn State taking a loss…otherwise, who knows what would have happened. There may have been some northeast bias for supporting them at #2. And, what if the Ags had tripped us up that year? Back to USC and a gathering of one lossers. For the record, I do not support returning to the old bowl system…are we not allowed to vent some frustrations and in the heat of the moment (this is not a column for a national paper…therefore, cut some slack for the posters) have the opinion that if they are not going to truly correct the problem of a broken system, just scrap it and return to the old system. If I am the first to do that here…then forgive me.
"Stats are for losers. I like winning games." - Will Muschamp
"Somebody will always break your records. It is how you live that counts." - Earl Campbell
by Mulliganville on Nov 16, 2009 8:14 PM CST up reply actions
The Moron was the big 12 commissioner, Dan Beebe
He was talking about going back to the old system during the Baylor game on TV.
OK...I just read it as directed at me as I mentioned that once...thanks for the clarification.
"Stats are for losers. I like winning games." - Will Muschamp
"Somebody will always break your records. It is how you live that counts." - Earl Campbell
by Mulliganville on Nov 16, 2009 9:02 PM CST up reply actions
LOL. I am on YOUR side. I want play offs. I thought you would have realized that from responses I’ve made to some of your posts.
Did you happen to here Beebe’s talking? See if you can find it. It will make your blood boil. He wants to go back to playing the at large bid in the Fiesta and letting voters decide the champ. If he used 2 brain cells to think that one through he’d realize the Big 12 would lose a NC because USC would have gotten all the votes.
Truly sorry...but a comical moment. I think the reply under my post may have confused me...
I wold love to hear what he had to say…
"Stats are for losers. I like winning games." - Will Muschamp
"Somebody will always break your records. It is how you live that counts." - Earl Campbell
by Mulliganville on Nov 16, 2009 11:11 PM CST up reply actions
The title games may be a money move, but I think they are a good one. I wish every conference had one. They are the closest we have to a play off. If we just did a round robin like the Big 10, how do we know if NU or UT is better if they both go 12-0 because they aren’t playing each other that year?
The solution would be for every conference to reduce to 10 teams and play everyone in the conference. I wouldn’t be opposed to that. At least you end up with more BCS vs BCS games.
Hmm
I hadn’t considered conference contraction. That might be doable. Contract the conferences, have nine conference games like the Pac 10 does. Heck, that could even lead to a further playoff, not that I’m one of those pining for one. Twelve games, nine in-conference, and then the twelve conference champions go into a four-week playoff going from mid-December through early January. Take the current BCS bowl games, add two more (Capital One, Cotton, Holiday, Chik-Fil-A, and Outback would be prime candidates), and have those rotate through being the quarterfinals and semifinals (basically, two years as quarters, one year as semis, then back to quarters). Have all previous rounds just work as home games for the higher-seeded teams, and leave all other bowls for non-playoff teams.
by burntorangehorn on Nov 16, 2009 1:17 PM CST up reply actions
I would contract the number of teams...
120 teams are too many. I would try to get it down to 80 teams in 8 conferences. It would be great if there could also be a revolving schedule for the OOC games where possibly you end up playing all 70 non-conference teams over time (at the very least they should ban games outside of the division). Or schedule based on the previous year’s record, though that might be too short a time frame for some administrations to handle.
You could then have a robust 16-team playoff by taking the top 2 from each conference. First round games could at the home of each conference winner pitting them against a #2 team from another conference. Then the final 8 play neutral sites using the BCS bowl sites. You could also take the non-playoff teams and either play bowl games for teams with winning records or have an NIT-style tourney taking the next 16 best teams.
Contracting to 80 teams
Might make it easier to mitigate the differences in strength between the conferences. I doubt that happens, but if it were to happen, you might have to actually see the conferences dissolved entirely to accommodate the realignment. I REALLY doubt that happens, so the easiest thing would be to have the top subdivision of football operate within entities that are distinct from the conferences of the other sports. For example, instead of there being a Big 12, there would be the ________ Association, which would be Texas, Texas A&M, LSU, Arkansas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Nebraska, Kansas, and Missouri. Another association could have Florida, Florida State, Miami, Georgia, Georgia Tech, South Carolina, Alabama, Auburn, Tennessee, and Mississippi.
by burntorangehorn on Nov 16, 2009 2:30 PM CST up reply actions
Agreed...
This won’t ever happen in large part because it would require a complete realignment. But I do think it would make for a better product.
I ultimately think the top division will probably shrink at some point, but I imagine it will be with the conferences getting bigger rather than smaller. We might end up with a couple of 16-team ‘super’ conferences while conferences like the SEC and Big 10+1+1 might end up sticking with 12. The non-BCS conferences that get raided of their best markets might not survive especially if the super conferences add more conference games leaving less opportunities for the non-BCS schools to get games.
I agree...
I think after last year we have a tendency to overstate our case and launch preemptive attacks on perceived enemies even before they manifest themselves. I think if anything the College football watching nation feels empathy with our struggle. One could argue that all the USC love going around( at least immediately following the incident) has to do with the fact that they got screwed out of the title game themselves ( so much so that there was a split championship).
All that being said… If we win out and TCU does too.. well it sucks to be them because were going and they aren’t. Its not because we deserve it more or because we have a better argument. As outrageous as last year was, ultimately we will go for the same reason OU (sucks) went last year… because of some coach’s vote or an impersonal computer formula relying on who knows what kind of algorithm that states emphatically that Texas is .(insert insignificant number here) percent better than TCU. There it is. The sport that we love so much is reduced to nothing better than figure skating. And I guess that’s enough BCS ranting for one day.
OU SUCKS!!!!!!
You guys think it's about the conference presidents, however,
the TV networks are just as much at play behind the BCS as well. Are you telling me that TCU vs. anybody for the BCS Title gets nearly the same ratings as Texas vs. Florida/Alabama? I mean my heart twangs a little for the DFW-area team that might be shut out of the title game, but give me a break. ESPN, FOX, and ABC would love nothing more than to keep the small conferences out of the biggest college football game even more than the Big 12 or SEC conference presidents. Commerical pay-rates would plummet with Cincy or TCU in the title game. Where’s Olive Stone when you need someone to uncover the hidden agenda?
Oh…and if Texas gave less than double-digit points to either Cincy or TCU, I would take that in a heart-beat. Nobody is close to our defensive unit in ability. It would be a close first-half with either team, then Will redraws the defensive scheme at the half & the slobbering-knocking would begin.
Hook ’em!
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
