#2 in the Polls, #1 in our hearts
Polls are out, Horns still #2. Somehow Oklahoma is not ranked despite only losing four games by a total of 12 points.
3 months ago
40AS
116 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
Aaaaand Tommie Harris throws a punch (Bears/Bengals game) and gets ejected
Stay classy Sooners
by 40AS on Nov 8, 2009 12:18 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
OHio State at number 8 is disgusting (especially ahead of USC and ahead of Iowa). TCU in front of Cincy is also quite disturbing
by MJY6087 on Nov 8, 2009 12:19 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
I would put TCU ahead of Cincy
How is that disturbing?
by Texas Wahoo on Nov 8, 2009 12:22 PM CST via mobile up reply actions 0 recs
Everyone is buying into TCU. Why? Because they beat BYU (who was overrated anyways) and they beat Clemson (a mediocre team). The other teams they beat are horrible to begin with.
by MJY6087 on Nov 8, 2009 12:28 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
everyone after the top 3
is pretty much any given saturday. Yeah, SC beat tOSU but right now the buckeyes are playing better, beating PSU at home. SC scraped by ASU. Ranking teams this year can be done with a dartboard.
by UT92 on Nov 8, 2009 12:44 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
alot of years it can be done in that fashion...
"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 8, 2009 6:09 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
It's not so much that people are buying into TCU as a real threat
Although I think that they are but after yesterday with TCU destroying San Diego State on the road and Cincy surviving at home against UConn I don’t see how any voter could vote Cincy ahead of TCU.
by seth78 on Nov 8, 2009 1:17 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
hey, let's settle it on the field...what a novel idea
"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 8, 2009 6:10 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think TCU is better than Texas, Florida, or Alabama
But why would I think Cincinnati is better? I think Clemson and BYU are better than Cincy’s best two wins.
by Texas Wahoo on Nov 8, 2009 1:58 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, BYU and Clemson are both good teams
They are better than anybody Cinci has beaten anyways. And TCU’s not only has wins over better opponents, but their wins have also looked a lot better. Cinci is an offensive machine, but they have had some close games that shouldn’t have been, and their defense is average. TCU is excelling almost every week offensively and defensively. If they played on a neutral field right now I would take TCU without thinking about it.
If you're so sure of what it ain't, how about telling us what it am!
by circa1015 on Nov 8, 2009 3:08 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Not even close
Oregon State, UConn, and USF are ALL better teams than BYU or Clemson.
by burntorangehorn on Nov 8, 2009 5:26 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think so
BYU and Clemson are easily better than UConn. USF would probably play them close, but I still would have to give the edge to BYU or Clemson. Oregon State would probably beat BYU, but against Clemson it would be a toss up.
If you're so sure of what it ain't, how about telling us what it am!
by circa1015 on Nov 8, 2009 5:36 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Clemson's riding high right now
But make no mistake, they’re not actually that good.
Oregon State would absolutely destroy BYU or Clemson. Pick your Rodgers.
by burntorangehorn on Nov 8, 2009 8:37 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
UConn???
Aren’t they 1-5 in the Big East or something like that?
by Texas Wahoo on Nov 8, 2009 6:49 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
UConn's best win is either Ohio or Baylor.
Depending on how you rank ‘em. I’d guess that the other 2 are pretty much even.
by ajax77777 on Nov 9, 2009 7:47 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Sagarin's SOS puts TCU way ahead of Cincy
That may change if Cincinnati beats Pitt, but the rest of their schedule is bad.
by ajax77777 on Nov 8, 2009 3:11 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't know...
I think Cinci might lose to WV and Pitt. wouldn’t suprise me one bit.
by jmptexas on Nov 8, 2009 3:23 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
It is a little odd
Texas fans are a lot more likely to give TCU more credit than Cincy, but most of the country doesn’t seem as likely to feel that way. TCU probably hopped them on the basis of the astounding, dramatic victory over powerhouse SDSU, whereas Cincy looked pedestrian against the pathetic UConn Huskies.
by burntorangehorn on Nov 8, 2009 5:25 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
USC over LSU?
Coaches poll makes no sense. LSU has close losses at home to #1 and on the road to #3. USC has a close road loss to unranked and blowout road loss to #16
by 40AS on Nov 8, 2009 12:37 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
OU
still recieving votes is ludacris! Seems like the Stoops coaching tree is at it again. I don’t care if they lost thier games by a total of 4 pts or 40. Four losses with 3 games left and still looking to become bowl-eligible is deplorable. At least the writers got heads on thier shoulders.
by orangeblood1 on Nov 8, 2009 1:00 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah but...
LSU looked totally incompetent in their two losses; they had a zero-dimensional offense, and now they’re injured.
SC at least hung on for awhile in their losses, and put points on the board though Oregon ran away in the end.
In a hypothetical match-up right now, you gotta pick SC over LSU.
by tblog123 on Nov 8, 2009 1:30 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
No, I don't.
That’s one game LSU wouldn’t need a quarterback for.
proud to swim home
by learned hand on Nov 8, 2009 5:39 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
USC is extremely overrated
I would definitely pick LSU in that
by 7Swords of Salat on Nov 9, 2009 8:28 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't get USC over Oregon.
Wasn’t that last week?
by ajax77777 on Nov 8, 2009 3:12 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Wow! TCU at No. 3
after the SEC title game.
I hate to even think this, much less type it — but if ’Horns got ambushed in Big 12 title game (or before), would Frogs play Alabama-Florida winner in the MNC?
by edsp on Nov 8, 2009 1:31 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
TCU would get “leap frogged” by Cincy (as the above poster said)
by MJY6087 on Nov 8, 2009 1:40 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe not
If TCU beats the Utes, their SOS goes up.
Last week’s BCS computer standings had TCU and Cincy virtually tied. So, after the voters decide, I bet it goes to TCU.
by tblog123 on Nov 8, 2009 1:48 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
But . . .
. . . Cincy has a big season-ending game against Pitt left. I think that game would bump Cincy’s SOS high enough that they would get the nod over TCU. That being said, that’s a very dangerous game for Cincy, and TCU has a much better chance of finishing the regular season undefeated.
by Hopkins Horn on Nov 8, 2009 1:58 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Yup. Anything could still happen.
Pitt could theoretically lose before their Cincy matchup (though I can’t imagine who would pull that upset). Or the Big East “second tiers” could all dive, and ruin the conference’s SOS. Or Cincy could have more UConn-style close calls and lose confidence amoung voters.
Fun to speculate, though.
by tblog123 on Nov 8, 2009 2:06 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Well, how about Auburn over Alabama
and Bama over Florida. Then, Horns and Frogs (if they edge Cincinnati, or if Pitt KOs the Bearcats).
by edsp on Nov 8, 2009 2:28 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I am taking pitt right now...
"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 8, 2009 6:34 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Nope
Cincy is Big East. And despite how bad Big East is, They are still a BCS conference.
by Silentjay on Nov 8, 2009 3:01 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
THE worst part of the BCS...auto bid for garbage conferences
"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 8, 2009 6:15 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
yes mulliganville.. we know you hate the BCS
face it, we could be alot worse off, be grateful for what you have. At least now 1-2 get to play for the national title.
Texas Football 09
by Hook'em13 on Nov 8, 2009 6:23 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Did 1 and 2 play for the title last year?
"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 8, 2009 6:30 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
If it wasnt for the BCS
oklahoma would have won the national title last year.
Now do I think 1-2 played last year? no.
Would i rather have OU and Florida playing than a 2 or 3 loss team in a playoff system? yes.
I have read your arguments, “the chances of a 2-3 loss program playing for it all is slim.” Well guess what, the odds of what happened last year are slim too, that doesnt mean its not gonna happen, but it wont happen too often.
And quite frankly, i think the odds of a two loss team playing for it all are higher than you think.
Texas Football 09
by Hook'em13 on Nov 8, 2009 7:05 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
If that two loss team goest through...
TX, FL, OU, and USC in any given year…title well earned. I want objective closure…if the regular season meant so much, 45-35 would have prevailed as TT was reduced to dust after giving up 60+ to the Sooners and rightfully so. The regular season only matters late in the season. Sad but true.
For the record: top 8 BCS rankings over the last 8 years:
2008: 1 undefeated 7 one loss 0 two loss
2007: 0 undefeated 2 one loss 6 two loss
2006: 2 undefeated 4 one loss 2 two loss
2005: 2 undefeated 2 one loss 4 two loss
2004: 4 undefeated 2 one loss 2 two loss
2003: 0 undefeated 3 one loss 5 two loss
2002: 2 undefeated 2 one loss 4 two loss
2001: 1 undefeated 3 one loss 4 two loss
No three loss teams would be in an 8 Teamer any of the past 8 seasons.
I would be happy with a flex system of a 4 team tournament if 4 teams or have one loss or fewer.
"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 8, 2009 7:32 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Flex won't work
While a great idea, you simply can’t play a season not knowing from day one how many games you have to play to win a title. A plus one works well enough IMO, it doesn’t solve all the problems, but it would come close to ensuring that even in a situation like 2004 an undefeated team would not be left out.
by 40AS on Nov 8, 2009 7:36 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I disagree...
They will know one month in advance what they will need to do. Just one extra week for 8 to 1 vs. 4 to 1.
"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 8, 2009 7:38 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
What are you talking about?!?
you simply can’t play a season not knowing from day one how many games you have to play to win a title.
You sure can. In fact, that’s exactly what happens in every sport with a playoff system. Why would CFB be any different than the NFL or any other college sport?
by tblog123 on Nov 8, 2009 7:46 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Not the individual teams
But the system itself. NFL teams know there are four playoff rounds. People can keep wishing for a system whose very premise essentially eliminates it from being instituted by the powers that be but it seems pretty pointless to me. A plus one is an addition IMO that keeps the powers that be happy but enables college football to have some sort of postseason playoff.
by 40AS on Nov 8, 2009 8:05 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm a tremendous fan of the Flex in theory
But in practicality, corporate sponsorship would turn it into a plus one (or maybe more) without hesitation or dissent on the part of the NCAA for revenue reasons alone.
I find myself perplexed about the incessant mewling against the BCS/Bowl system. The bowl system isn’t about crowning “the” champion; it’s about making money. Crowning “a” champion satisfies that goal.
proud to swim home
by learned hand on Nov 8, 2009 8:18 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
The public does not like subjectivity or arbitrary selection...
when it comes to their passions. How sad is it that every year we hear “it was just our year to get screwed.”
"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 8, 2009 8:23 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
The public doesn't like a lot of things,
but that doesn’t mean the world changes to sate their dissatisfaction. You’re approaching this from a purely emotional viewpoint, whether you care to acknowledge it or not. You want satisfaction, and believe a playoff could deliver it. That is possible; it is your own satisfaction after all.
Unfortunately for advocates of change, the parties with the power in this equation are multibillion dollar communications companies, disorganized universities and their conferences, and seemingly innumerable advertising sponsors. None of these entities are in the game to measure something as trivial as “more likely than not best team in college football in 2008”. These interests care about viewership, donations, market share and most importantly, quantifiable dollars and cents.
Playoff talk won’t go anywhere, unless and until someone can successfully make the argument to all (or at least a comfortable majority) of these key players that their financial interest will be enhanced or at the very least, unharmed. And that’s ignoring the various university/academic issues with such a system.
Declaring that college football fans needs an eight team playoff to satisfy their passion is not wholly unlike me declaring the University of Texas needs a national championship to brighten my new year. Sure, it would make me feel good, but why should Disney/News Corp/The Big East Conference etc. care?
After all, I’m a college football fan, they know I’ll watch the game no matter who plays. I might “enjoy” watching a playoff more, but there’s no actuarial value on my enhanced enjoyment in any of these ledgers.
proud to swim home
by learned hand on Nov 8, 2009 8:58 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Those same companies and conferences...
seem to be OK with a legitimate national champion being honored and crowned in every other sport and every other level of play in the NCAA. Most people, corporate, public, and the like seem to admit that March Madness is the very best sporting spectacle annually. I can promise you what it is not: the Orange Bowl when 9-3 Cincy plays 8-4 Clemson in a mandatory $12 mill per conf. payday. Y-A-W-N. Why not use this BCS game for Bama vs. USC in a smoking first round match up?
The 8 to 4 weekend would draw massive ratings…fear of change and fear of the unknown and simple greed (the same greed which brought you the housing debacle, credit crunch, and current recession) is what stands in the way of a true champion.
It is not as emotional for me as you proclaim. I was emotional last December. I have laid out very methodical, practical arguments as to why the BCS is more damaging to college football than a playoff would be. Last season just happened to be the icing on the cake for me personally. I was outraged in 2003, 2004, 2007 and finally 2008.
The entire purpose of the BCS was to pit #1 vs #2. When you cannot determine who those teams are on a regular basis without major controversy, you have a failed system. That, unfortunately, is what we have today.
"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 8, 2009 9:35 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Again
You’re using “legitimate” in a very conclusory fashion. A playoff isn’t often any more legitimate than what exists in CFB.
by burntorangehorn on Nov 8, 2009 10:12 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
This could not be done last season without major controversy...once is too much.
The entire purpose of the BCS was to pit #1 vs #2. When you cannot determine who those teams are on a regular basis without major controversy, you have a failed system. That, unfortunately, is what we have today.
"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 8, 2009 10:20 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
When have you ever seen a playoff pit #1 vs. #2?
by burntorangehorn on Nov 8, 2009 10:21 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
It happens at times...
but what does not happen is elimination via subjectivity as we hand pick teams A and B to face off for the championship. But, I think you had it this year in the World Series.
"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 8, 2009 10:23 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
hand-pick?
It’s a lot more complex than that, as I’m sure you actually know.
by burntorangehorn on Nov 8, 2009 10:25 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
not last year...
sure, hand picked is an analogy…but last season, there were 7 teams that had legitimate gripes.
"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 8, 2009 10:26 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Moreover, these are their rules...
the BCC was designed to have #1 play #2. If a playoff worked out that way…what a bonus that would be. What I am trying to understand is why many are so enamored by having to crown a perfect team in an imperfect system. They just do not go together.
"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 8, 2009 10:26 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Because then the regular season ceases to be an eliminator.
The BCS could be improved. I don’t think anyone, even BCS officials, has ever denied that. But junking it for a playoff…well, that’d kill a lot of the appeal of college football, at least for me. I like every single game to matter for a team with championship aspirations. That simply isn’t the case for top teams heading into playoff time.
by burntorangehorn on Nov 8, 2009 10:31 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I do understand this argument...
and would love for a utopian solution to be realized. Can you provide me with a valid reason why USC or Texas should not have played for the title last season?
"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 8, 2009 10:33 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
USC and Florida should've both been out of it
By nature of their embarrassing losses to cut-rate programs.
But seriously, I think this comes back to the whole reason why Texas did not play in the championship: an ill-conceived tie-breaking procedure. That, not the BCS, is responsible for last year’s travesty.
by burntorangehorn on Nov 8, 2009 10:41 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
This is not about Texas' snub by Big 12 rules...
The BCS is the issue here. The body of work last season was fairly comparable across the board for about a half dozen programs. Texas was in this mix. While the Big 12 tiebreaker sucked, it is still in place today, along with the BCS attempt to pit #1 vs. #2. Having to decipher this loss vs. that loss vs. who those teams played vs. the programs merit, etc. is unfair on so many levels it should be criminal.
"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 8, 2009 10:48 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
How is it more fair to have, say, a four seed win the NCAA basketball tournament? Such a team shouldn’t even be involved. Trading in for a tourney would result in as many new flaws as it fixed.
by burntorangehorn on Nov 8, 2009 10:53 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
That is apples and oranges...
and here is why: One man can carry a basketball team…that is the reason you have so many lower seeds advancing. In football, the cream rises to the top. Very rarely is there an OOC shocker. But, every year you get a NW over Iowa type defeat due to teams understanding tendencies of the conference opponents. Mathematically, your 4 seed is comparable to the #2 seed winning this 8 teamer.
"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 8, 2009 11:02 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Seeding is a 'new' flaw
The seed system us where the playoff argument breaks down for me. And it’s wholly BCS in nature, where pollsters and I assume computers rank teams to determine seed. One only has to look at the polls this year to see that past 1, 2 and 3, there is hardly any agreement about the order to fill out the top ten. Who gets left out at nine? I’d hate to be a top seed and have to play USC while a lower top seed gets cincy! How is this not controversial? And don’t give me te line that the NFL does it as a reason to accept the policy. Were the Giants really better than the Pats as a wild card, 10-6 team? No. They were the hot team an form carried them through. There are two seasons in the League. I like that CFB is not like this. Finally, the only true model of an actual league champ can be seen in euro soccer. Each team plays the league twice, home and away. Most points at the end of the season wins. Simple.
by DaGoose on Nov 9, 2009 11:20 AM CST via mobile up reply actions 0 recs
How 'bout:
A playoff of champions. Cut down to eight sanctioned conferences, and have each conference champion go for a playoff. Then teams absolutely have to win the conference championship to have a shot at the playoffs, so every conference game is probably going to be critical. Have this tournament of champions seeded, making the OOC schedule critical as well.
by burntorangehorn on Nov 9, 2009 2:11 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
How were Texas, USC, and Utah eliminated last season?
"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 8, 2009 10:35 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
The reason I repeat this is...
it emphatically supports the failures of the BCS. This is the source of the disease.
"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 8, 2009 10:22 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
mulliganville
the bottom line is this, Texas in 05, wouldnt have won a national title without the BCS. Am i personally in favor of a plus one? yes i am. But, im not going to sit here and whine about the BCS when it is such a step forward from the old system.
Texas Football 09
by Hook'em13 on Nov 8, 2009 7:38 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Then perhaps I am too fair...
Because I can go down the list of BCS years where the system did not work without major subjective interpretation.
"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 8, 2009 7:40 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe you need to learn
to live with what you have. The BCS isnt going anywhere, no matter how much you complain. The only thing your complaining does is make me bleed from the eyes, and not because you dont have valid points, but you arnt grateful for what you have. I will be the first one to say “we need a better system than the BCS” but i will also say it is a huge step up from what we had.
And dont worry, you’ll get your plus one, and once you have your plus one, you will want a 8 team, and it will go on and on.
Texas Football 09
by Hook'em13 on Nov 8, 2009 7:45 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe you cannot be condescending in your tone? Uncalled for...
I am grateful for the system we have in place when it works properly. I do not want a plus one…I want an 8 Teamer so as to reward very good regular season performances while crowning a legitimate national champion. Perhaps I could say to you do not be so content with a sub standard system that screwed USC in 2003, Auburn in 2004, and countless teams in 2007 and 2008. Things that only work about 50% of the time get returned for refunds in the commercial world…and when it is a person, they are fired…or perhaps we should be grateful for the 50% of the time the person or thing ACTUALLY does what it is supposed to do.
"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 8, 2009 7:51 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
so please explain to me
what would be wrong with a plus one? In that scenario, Texas gets to compete for a national title.
I have also failed to mention what i love about the bcs and college football, perfection. This is why College is better than the nfl, it takes a perfect season to be number one. You cant win them all, dont bitch. Auburn is the only team that has a legitimate complaint with the bcs, and thats why a plus one would be acceptable. Once you install the 8 team playoff, the need for perfection, goes out the window. (and as for the boise’s of the world going undefeated, get in a real conference)
Texas Football 09
by Hook'em13 on Nov 8, 2009 7:57 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
So you think the ~100 teams that aren't in BCS conferences should just "get in a real conference"?
If you're so sure of what it ain't, how about telling us what it am!
by circa1015 on Nov 8, 2009 8:01 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
119 D-1 teams
And 6 BCS conferences, ~100 might be a slight exaggeration
by 40AS on Nov 8, 2009 8:07 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
You're right, my bad
There are still like 55 teams that aren’t in automatic qualifying conferences, that, when push comes to shove, are competing for the exact same thing that we are, but are systematically eliminated because of the system that is in place.
If you're so sure of what it ain't, how about telling us what it am!
by circa1015 on Nov 8, 2009 8:10 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
We agree on Boise...
But a plus one would not have worked last season. One time is too many. There was no way to justify who got to play for it all last season. Nobody has been able to fully explain how FL and OU deserved to play for it all last season while UT, USC, and Utah did not. And the season’s are not perfect as a perfect season in the Big East is not the same as the Big XII or the SEC or the Pac 10. It is simply too subjective. Then you get into the who played who and who the hell did they play and jack was hurt, but bill was not, etc.
6 BCS conferences, 6 berths…
2 at large selections…no rules other than they must be in the top 8 of the BCS…so one conference could have 3 if it is warranted. Then play this bad boy out on the field. Not in the computer room.
"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 8, 2009 8:04 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not grateful
A good, nay, adequate system would have allowed us to at least compete for a National Championship last year, when we clearly had just as good of a resume as anybody when the regular season concluded.
If you're so sure of what it ain't, how about telling us what it am!
by circa1015 on Nov 8, 2009 7:52 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
+1 (shocking I know)
"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 8, 2009 7:56 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I am sick of people like you
who get so personal and angry. Mulliganville was not being a dick to you, but you are being a complete asshole in your demeanor. regardless of what you think of his arguments, get control.
by Orangetower87 on Nov 8, 2009 8:09 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
on a different note
you are correct, i lost my temper in a disagreement, and it was uncalled for. I apologize Mulliganville, i am not a troll, and do not wish to be thought of as one, so i apologize to all it may have offended.
Texas Football 09
by Hook'em13 on Nov 8, 2009 8:25 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
it's cool...
the thing is, we are going to have this debate until it is corrected.
"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 8, 2009 8:27 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
take your own advice
Texas Football 09
by Hook'em13 on Nov 8, 2009 8:17 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
you don't see the difference
between you being a jerk and me pointing out that you are being a jerk. no surprise.
by Orangetower87 on Nov 8, 2009 8:25 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Ok, ok
Same team gang…let’s all remember the important things, Texas is 9-0, my Saints are 8-0 :-)
by 40AS on Nov 8, 2009 8:26 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I know...we all want a horns championship...
their inability to play for one last season powers my vitriol for the BCS.
"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 8, 2009 8:28 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Moreover, it is not the BCS that I hate...
it is the fact they fail to address and admit the obvious shortcomings…like your kid telling you that he tried on the test that he got a 58% on…TRY HARDER.
"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 8, 2009 6:31 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Ha ha. The auto-bid is garbage...
And the editor is GARBAGE.
by tblog123 on Nov 8, 2009 6:25 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
TCU
needs to worry about beating Utah first. Utah has beaten them 3 straight times.
by goingforthecorner on Nov 8, 2009 4:23 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Coaches Poll out
somehow we gained 5 points over Bama
http://espn.go.com/college-football/rankings/_/poll/2/week/11
by goingforthecorner on Nov 8, 2009 2:12 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
OU only losing by 12 points?
does anyone remember miami taking a knee in the red zone so as not to rub OU’s face in it. it could easily have lost by more but a loss is a loss.
by Ohio Horn on Nov 8, 2009 3:06 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
I don't think it was altruistic, but rather risk averse.
by ajax77777 on Nov 8, 2009 3:14 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
But what would Bob Do?
Stoops would have scored and then tried an onside kick. Maybe risk averse but taking a knee in my mind takes out the “only by one point” argument.
by Ohio Horn on Nov 8, 2009 9:50 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Unofficially, It looks like were #2 in Harris, also
24 points over Bama this week.
by tblog123 on Nov 8, 2009 3:09 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
dropped a BCS Spot
to #3, alabama #2 no doubt because of computers/playing LSU. no matter tho
by drbadass on Nov 8, 2009 4:01 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
The only bad thing about OU getting smacked
is that hit to strength of schedule.
by tblog123 on Nov 8, 2009 4:09 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Won't matter if we play Nebraska in the Big XII CG
If you're so sure of what it ain't, how about telling us what it am!
by circa1015 on Nov 8, 2009 4:59 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Jeff Sagarin really loves strength of scheduling
because he has 2-loss LSU ranked ahead of us.
http://espn.go.com/college-football/bcs
Surprised they are already out. Thought FOX had exclusive rights to release them first.
by goingforthecorner on Nov 8, 2009 4:09 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
LSU with the loss
somehow gained a rank actually. They went from #9 to #8 in the polls.
by goingforthecorner on Nov 8, 2009 4:10 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
That's perhaps the silliest thing in this week's edition of the rankings
LSU loses. Sure, they were shafted by the refs and should have had the win, but it’s not like anyone’s ever factored that into the rankings in the past.
by burntorangehorn on Nov 8, 2009 5:30 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I think it just came from LSU holding serve because of their SOS
And Iowa taking a tumble with their loss to…these guys
proud to swim home
by learned hand on Nov 8, 2009 5:45 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Kind of like when they jumped to #2 in 2007...more BCS yawn cake please
"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 8, 2009 6:17 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
That's pathetic
Computer polls are such a disaster sometimes.
by tblog123 on Nov 8, 2009 4:10 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
FOX does have the rights
The results are announced early afternoon when FOX only has the right to air one Sunday game (Like today). The results are announced late afternoon/early evening when FOX has the right to air a doubleheader (almost every other weekend, alternating with CBS’ rightto do so).
by Lincoln on Nov 8, 2009 4:15 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Strength of conference
Notice that the Big 10 has more teams in the top 25 than Big 12?
by Ohio Horn on Nov 8, 2009 6:10 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
It's definitely a weird year
OU and the Big XII North just fell off a cliff.
Plus, TTU couldn’t get the 2nd cinderalla season.
by tblog123 on Nov 8, 2009 6:23 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I was noticing that as well
The round-robin in the North is killing any chance of a ranked team in that division. Going by ability, KU should probably have no more than one loss right now, but instead they’re staring at the ass-end of a possible shutout from the bowls.
by burntorangehorn on Nov 8, 2009 8:40 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
What bowl do you think the Sooners will make this year Alamo or is that to good for them?
by kcmorse on Nov 8, 2009 6:13 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Hah! They still have to earn the Alamo bowl. Texas Bowl?
by Ohio Horn on Nov 8, 2009 6:26 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Tim Griffin has them going to the Sun Bowl
which, if it happened, would make me almost as happy as winning a national championship
If you're so sure of what it ain't, how about telling us what it am!
by circa1015 on Nov 8, 2009 7:46 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Right now they're cruising for a pretty low-tier bowl
Assuming UT goes to the national title game, and that the Fiesta doesn’t pick up Okie State as an at-large (if they’re even top-14 by that point), then that means Okie State probably plays in the Cotton. I think the Holiday would take the North champion fresh off the loss. I think OU, if they lose to Okie State but beat Tech and Aggie, ends up in the Alamo, unless the Gator still has an option for one last year. I’d hate to see them make either the Alamo or the Gator, though.
Of course it’d be golden to see OU have to suit up to play in the Insight, Indie, or Texas Bowl. Even better would be to see them swept these last three games against Aggie, Tech, and Okie State, which would leave them bowl-ineligible entirely. Wow.
by burntorangehorn on Nov 8, 2009 8:55 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
To bad they cant revamp our league and get rid of a few scrub schools like Baylor, Iowa State and Colorado and throw in Arkansas LSU and TCU nobody could bitch then and say the Big XII is weak we would almost mirror the SEC
by kcmorse on Nov 8, 2009 6:30 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
To be fair, Baylor would probaby win the North
by bamfor on Nov 8, 2009 7:29 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think the North is that weak
I think they’re weaker than the south, but I think it’s just another case of so much parity that no one team is going to look even halfway dominant.
by burntorangehorn on Nov 8, 2009 8:43 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Burnt Orange Nation
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 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.
