Blog Poll Draft Ballot: Week 10
by Horn Brain on Nov 8, 2009 8:36 PM CST
in Football
100 comments
 |
||
| Rank | Team | Delta |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Florida | |
| 2 | Alabama |  1 |
| 3 | Texas |  1 |
| 4 | TCU | |
| 5 | Cincinnati | |
| 6 | Georgia Tech | 3 |
| 7 | Boise State | 1 |
| 8 | Pittsburgh | 4 |
| 9 | Iowa | 3 |
| 10 | Miami (Florida) | 4 |
| 11 | Oregon | 4 |
| 12 | Houston | 1 |
| 13 | LSU | 2 |
| 14 | Southern Cal | 1 |
| 15 | Ohio State | 2 |
| 16 | Oklahoma State | |
| 17 | Penn State | 7 |
| 18 | Arizona | |
| 19 | Utah | 2 |
| 20 | South Florida | 3 |
| 21 | Wisconsin | 3 |
| 22 | Virginia Tech | 3 |
| 23 | Brigham Young | |
| 24 | Oregon State | |
| 25 | Nebraska | |
| Last week's ballot | ||
Rationalizations of my anti-puppy-ism after the break.
Well, everyone send a thank you card to Stanford (or Oregon's defense, if you prefer) for removing from the discussion table that epic debate we had last week.
- Florida - Beat LSU more convincingly than Alabama, in my opinion.
- Alabama - If the SEC were another conference, maybe the LSU game doesn't turn out that way. Either way, it's enough for them to pass Texas, thanks to the disaster that is the Big 12 outside of Texas.
- Texas - Insignificant slot-swapping.
- TCU - Novel coaching strategy #37: Have your offense and defense play well at the same time.
- Cincinnati - Or just your offense.
- Georgia Tech - Yes, I know that they barely beat Wake Forest, but this more of a reconsideration of their position than anything.
- Boise State - Oh, mew mew mew, my schedule isn't my fault, give me a pity berth in the BCS, please!
- Pittsburgh - Wannstache's career trajectory curve would make a great roller coaster.
- Iowa -
- Miami - Another reconsideration jump. Miami has some big wins and has only lost in overtime and in Blacksburg.
- Oregon - Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play? "Well, we still have some quality wins, I suppose."
- Houston - Moving up because other folks lost. Period.
- LSU - The two best losses in the country, but zero quality wins.
- USC - May have better wins than LSU, but the losses are terrible in comparison.
- Ohio State - Finally gets a good win.
- Oklahoma State - CUPCAKES MAKE SOLOMON GUNDY STRONG FOR NEXT FIGHT!!! RRRR!!!
- Penn State - Lost to everyone who's any good.
- Arizona - YOU LIVE IN A DESERT!
- Utah - Growing strong on the tears of higher ranked losers.
- South Florida - Likewise.
- Wisconsin - I'll have to same as USF, with some cheese fries.
- Virginia Tech - I feel like they're benefiting from being #25 last week (I know they are, actually) Suggestions?
- Brigham Young - Won't lose enough games to just stay dead.
- Oregon State - Sometimes I go shopping through the "others receiving votes" lists and pick out a team that strikes me as not awful.
- Nebraska - Defense is dominating. Offense relies on being so inconsistent that they luck into a couple of big plays a game.
0 recs |
100 comments
| Add comment
Email
Print
Comments
Alabama didn't win
Yeah, yeah, I know, that’s not what the scoreboard says, but the fact is that Alabama didn’t win. And I’m not saying that because I’m a huge Texas fan. I said the same damn thing about when Oregon “beat” OU on that kickoff that was about as soundly officiated as the end of the ’72 Olympic basketball championship game.
by burntorangehorn on Nov 8, 2009 9:05 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Alabama was ahead when the INT did/didn't occur
Can’t give a piss-poor LSU offense the win based on what might have happened. OU pretty much did win that game against Oregon, since they should have recovered the onside kick, so you can rank accordingly that year. If Alabama had scored the go-ahead on that drive, I’d be much more lenient, but they were already ahead.
by Horn Brain on Nov 8, 2009 9:14 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
There were many, many bad calls, almost all against LSU, prior to that INT
They seemed to be pulling flags out of their arses every other play.
by burntorangehorn on Nov 8, 2009 9:24 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
You can't play God
You can’t just say “well, I think LSU should have won, so I’m going to vote like they did.” Like I said, if the call had directly led to them losing the game somehow, then you can argue that they deserve a pass. I thought I was the one who had no regard for the sanctity of head-to-head?
by Horn Brain on Nov 8, 2009 9:30 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
LSU was screwed head-to-head.
Like I said, I know the scoreboard says Alabama won, but I’m surprised to see you move Alabama up to #2 when they so clearly had to have a lot of referree assistance to get the “win.” I’m not saying to vote them like they lost, so much as consider that this was a really, really crappy win.
by burntorangehorn on Nov 8, 2009 9:33 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
It's not the best win,
But it seems like it’s better than anything we’ve got right now.
by Horn Brain on Nov 8, 2009 9:54 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I looked at it like this: UT was ever-so-slightly ahead of ‘Bama heading into this week. Unless you revised past impressions of past opponents for each based on this week, your decision has to be based on comparing ’Bama and UT’s performances this week. So it’s your contention that Alabama’s assisted win was a better performance than UT’s domination over UCF?
by burntorangehorn on Nov 8, 2009 9:57 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I'd say those two are about equal
UCF is a pretty scrub team so it’s a bleah win, and an assisted win is a bleah win, so that just leaves about an equal balancing out. It’s not like it truly matters, bama or florida will have at least one guaranteed loss.
TEXAS FIGHT
by Darklust on Nov 9, 2009 1:00 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
C'mon man
When we roam into this was a “really, really crappy win” territory, we’re not talking meaningfully about things.
You ain't hurt.
by Peter Bean on Nov 8, 2009 9:56 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
An assisted win isn't a crappy win in your book?
I think it’s very meaningful to consider the circumstances. Alabama simply didn’t look like a very good team, with the exception of McClain and Cody. McElroy looked like he wouldn’t have a prayer of starting on most Sun Belt teams, for example.
by burntorangehorn on Nov 8, 2009 9:59 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Take your own advice
And if you want to “consider the circumstances,” don’t look at one play, which — even if called incorrectly — would not have guaranteed LSU a win. I watched the whole game and thought Alabama was slightly better than a very good LSU team.
If that’s not a good win, nothing is.
You ain't hurt.
by Peter Bean on Nov 8, 2009 10:01 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not considering just one play
The interception was one play, sure, but it was but one of many, many calls in what was ultimately a very lopsided officiating performance yesterday. Do you not agree with that?
by burntorangehorn on Nov 8, 2009 10:07 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
and I fully disagree that LSU is a very good team
The distance between LSU and the top 2-3 teams is a lot wider than one would normally see of a team ranked that highly.
by burntorangehorn on Nov 8, 2009 10:08 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Not the point I'm making
I’m chiming in because I vehemently disagree with attempting to discount a high quality win because of bad officiating. Taking that kind of argument to its logical conclusion is just pure silliness and misses the forest for the trees.
Sorry, but I disagree with your spin on the game completely. Alabama gets credit for beating LSU. A good bit of credit.
You ain't hurt.
by Peter Bean on Nov 8, 2009 10:11 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Spin?
So you disagree that LSU was hosed throughout the game?
LSU isn’t a very good team, especially with Jarrett Lee at QB, and a win over them is even less impressive when it’s heavily aided by referees.
So what is the logicial conclusion that you foresee for that kind of argument? And what would be seeing the forest?
Texas beat a team that isn’t nearly as good as LSU, but didn’t look like garbage doing so either. I’m not saying to completely discount Alabama’s win, but to consider that their performance in that game wasn’t nearly good enough to deserve jumping another victorious team based purely on relative strength of opponents.
by burntorangehorn on Nov 8, 2009 10:17 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
"Alabama looked like garbage."
Aaaaaand… we’re done.
Seriously, you and I are too far apart to have this discussion. Let’s agree to disagree.
You ain't hurt.
by Peter Bean on Nov 8, 2009 10:18 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
So you're ignoring every other part of the post?
If you address nothing else, I’d like you to address this statement from that post:
I’m not saying to completely discount Alabama’s win, but to consider that their performance in that game wasn’t nearly good enough to deserve jumping another victorious team based purely on relative strength of opponents.
No one seems willing to address that, and instead everyone wants to avoid it and address parts that are not central to my thesis.
by burntorangehorn on Nov 8, 2009 10:20 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
alabama's last drive
wouldnt even have continued if it hadnt been for a very weak roughing the punter penalty, and then a horrible call on the interception. The refs put the game away PB, im not saying lsu would have won, but you have to at least give them a chance to win, and the refs didnt do that.
In other words, i agree with burntorangehorn, Bama shouldnt move ahead of the horns, not with a ref assisted win. Again, im not saying lsu would have won, but they were robbed of the opportunity at the end of the game to try and win.
Texas Football 09
by Hook'em13 on Nov 8, 2009 10:24 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Not sure why I keep reading people saying this
The “roughing the kicker” penalty called against LSU was actually a “running into the kicker” penalty. CBS announcers said it correctly, but their screen graphic showed roughing instead. If you watched the live game and the replay, you can clearly see that the call was correct, that the LSU defender runs full speed into the punter’s extended leg. I do agree that the interception non-call was horrendous, but there’s no guarantee that Jarret Lee was going to march LSU down for a touchdown.
by HookedinOKC on Nov 9, 2009 1:03 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I'll gladly address it
For the past three years, we have written over and over (because no one seems to read it and keeps making arguments like you’re making) that we mostly vote on teams’ overall resumes.
This week, Alabama’s resume got a lot better than Texas’s did. It’s that simple. You are free to rank teams your own way, but your comments suggest (1) you’re just indignant because you love the ’Horns and (2) you think Texas is better.
As it happens: I also love the Horns, and I also think Texas is better. But there’s a reason we don’t just vote on who we “think is better.” It’s a philosophical choice, and we think it’s the more appropriate way to rank teams.
You ain't hurt.
by Peter Bean on Nov 8, 2009 10:30 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
So if I may repeat the beginning of this string:
UT was ever-so-slightly ahead of ‘Bama heading into this week. Unless you revised past impressions of past opponents for each based on this week, your decision has to be based on comparing ’Bama and UT’s performances this week. So it’s your contention that Alabama’s assisted win was a better performance than UT’s domination over UCF?
That’s the thing. To move Alabama ahead of UT, one either has to unequivocally say that Alabama’s performance vs. LSU was more impressive than UT’s performance vs. UCF, or one has to have decided that one’s previous assessment of both teams’ resumes heading into yesterday was incorrect, and needed to be revised. Or both.
So which is it, in your opinion? Alabama’s 11/7 win > Texas’ 11/7 win, or revising the past?
by burntorangehorn on Nov 8, 2009 10:36 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Again
Alabama gets more credit for beating LSU in a tight one than Texas does for beating UCF solidly.
They beat a quality opponent, we did not. With the resumes nearly identical heading into the week, there’s now has “Win over LSU” and ours has “Win over UCF.” That there’s was a narrow victory lessens how much credit they get, but not nearly enough such that it’s not a big win on their resume.
If you’re not on board with that, then we should just shake hands and agree to disagree.
You ain't hurt.
by Peter Bean on Nov 8, 2009 10:39 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
honestly just curious
you mentioned earlier the logical conclusion you could come to based on the officiating argument (or were you talking about a different argument?) but what is the conclusion? sorry if i’m just being thick here and I missed it in there somewhere. I am interested in hearing your thoughts
by drbadass on Nov 8, 2009 10:44 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
It's the "But for the officiating" thing
Burntorangehorn has since clarified what he’s getting at (which is not offensive, even though I disagree with him), but at first blush he appeared to be saying that “But for the officiating, Alabama would have lost. Ergo, no win.”
I think that kind of argument has no place in ranking.
You ain't hurt.
by Peter Bean on Nov 8, 2009 10:54 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
But this goes back to not looking at the game itself. Sure, the people who vote in the actual polls don’t do that, and neither do the computers. But watching the game, I definitely came away with the impression that Alabama did not play good football, and would not have won that game but for referee mistakes. That doesn’t mean that one should vote as though they had lost, but rather factor a much lower value of credit, which should not result in a jump in ranking without a loss by the more highly ranked team.
by burntorangehorn on Nov 8, 2009 10:44 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
And that's where we disagree
I think LSU is a better football team than you’re giving them credit for. I think Alabama’s defense “played good football.” And I thought Ingram looked superb.
That it was a tight, closely contested game does not mean Alabama “did not play good football.”
You may see it differently.
You ain't hurt.
by Peter Bean on Nov 8, 2009 10:52 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
So in short, Alabama looked better to you yesterday than Texas did, despite needing referee help to win?
by burntorangehorn on Nov 8, 2009 10:54 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
*
Don’t take this to mean that I think that LSU absolutely would have won if it hadn’t been for the non-INT or one other particular call, please.
by burntorangehorn on Nov 8, 2009 10:56 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
This is hopeless
Combine all the arguments together. My last attempt:
1. Texas looked pretty good beating a bad team.
2. Alabama looked pretty good beating a very good team.
3. Alabama’s resume gets a bump that Texas’ did not.
You ain't hurt.
by Peter Bean on Nov 8, 2009 10:56 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Also
Because this appears to be where the disconnect is:
I am not saying that I think Alabama’s performance made them look better to me than Texas. Heading into yesterday, I thought Texas was the better team. I still do. But we’re not talking about what I think. We’re talking about the teams’ resumes.
You ain't hurt.
by Peter Bean on Nov 8, 2009 10:58 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
That is indeed strange
Because I honestly didn’t think Alabama played very well yesterday. It looked like a down game for them, in fact.
by burntorangehorn on Nov 8, 2009 11:02 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
but what PB is saying
its not how good they look, its who they have beaten. I dont think LSU is particularly good, but they are better than UCF, which gives them the nod over Texas.
Texas Football 09
by Hook'em13 on Nov 8, 2009 11:08 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
That's the thing
There should be a sliding scale between quality of opponent and margin (not just score, but level of domination) of victory. Obviously a very dominant game against a superior opponent is worth more than a squeaker against FBS Tech, but in this case we’re talking about an assisted nail-biter against an above-average team vs. a blowout against a below-average team. Which is more impressive? If we’re taking out the actual quality of the gameplay and margin of victory, sure, beating LSU is worth more. But the vast difference in margin would seem to put things pretty firmly in UT’s favor.
by burntorangehorn on Nov 8, 2009 11:14 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree with boh...
Of course this is just a blog poll, but I agree that ’Bama’s win wasn’t that impressive even if there is a disagreement about the quality of LSU. ’Bama was given sizable breaks by the officials. They still might have won the game, but the bad calls did seem to turn the game at bad points for LSU. (How about that phantom false start call on the long pass play by LSU in, I think, the 3rd quarter? Horrible call that killed a drive that was at least in FG range.)
Bama got the win and there is nothing to change that, but why put them ahead of Texas? Bama shouldn’t be punished as a loser, which would mean dropping them several slots, but why reward them by pushing them ahead of Texas when their victory is admittedly tainted to some degree?
We all seem to agree the officiating was one-sided and suspect. Did it guarantee a Bama win, that’s debatable. Should it affect how we perceive their victory? I think so.
Its obvious that at least the poll voters as a group saw it similarly and we didn’t lose ground in the polls.
by Rickyspub on Nov 9, 2009 9:06 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
For sanity's sake
Please make the next reply to this thread at the bottom of the post as a reply to my overflow comment. This is getting tiny.
by Horn Brain on Nov 9, 2009 9:20 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
No.
I want to see how tiny this can get.
by ajax77777 on Nov 9, 2009 10:34 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I've never felt so alive
Living on the edge is the only way to die.
by burntorangehorn on Nov 9, 2009 3:19 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Let see how small a really long title becomes...I just need 75 words to make it a Fanpost!
Crap…this looks like its as small as it gets…I had hoped it would get so small you could literally argue your way into oblivion.
by Rickyspub on Nov 10, 2009 8:48 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
another reason for the 8 teamer...
This happens in all games, but to different levels with different implications on the line. Let’s face it, the SEC is having a very rough officiating 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 11:19 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Everyone sees something different
I thought they were evenly matched, but I still don’t think LSU is particularly good. I have no idea how they ruled that interception out of bounds.
by Texas Wahoo on Nov 8, 2009 10:14 PM CST via mobile up reply actions 0 recs
I said something to this effect in the game thread
I think the replay official blew the interception call, but if an Alabama fan wanted to minimize that, he could just say, “Jarrett Lee sucks anyway.” And I would be inclined to agree.
by TheElusiveShadow on Nov 9, 2009 12:44 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Also
What’s with the BSU shafting…again?
by burntorangehorn on Nov 8, 2009 9:06 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Go look at Barking Carnival's Blog Poll
I’m being nice.
by Horn Brain on Nov 8, 2009 9:10 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Scipio is unrivaled when writing the Clipper chronicles
But the poll…well, I wish he’d write more Clipper instead of bothering with that mess!
by burntorangehorn on Nov 8, 2009 9:24 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
They should drop even further after barely beating La Tech...
It was pitiful how BSU looked in the second half. If they had played Stanford, the Cardinal would have put up 50 pts in the 2nd half alone. They are lucky that they get to face teams like La Tech rather than Baylor or Vandy. Those teams would have had enough talent to win that game, a completely outmanned La Tech could only get close.
by Rickyspub on Nov 9, 2009 9:09 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
That is hard to surmise...
and that is the problem with college football. We do not know what Boise would have done against Stanford…many teams have days when they play to the level of their opponents. I am not defending Boise one bit…I believe Stanford would win that hypothetical match-up…I just do not know by how much.
"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 9, 2009 9:30 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Which is why we agree so vehemently that we need a playoff!
I say let the non-BCS conferences have a shot at a playoff spot. If they manage to win consistently their place will be set at the table. If they end up consistently losing then hopefully the system will let a more deserving team that plays legitimate competition most weeks (but may not be ‘perfect’) have a shot.
by Rickyspub on Nov 9, 2009 12:07 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I like the rise of TCU
I still think they would be our toughest opponent in a national championship game. Probably won’t happen though. Looking forward to Texas beating Florida in California.
by Ohio Horn on Nov 8, 2009 9:48 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
I think Alabama's DL
Would detonate our line. Did you see Chris Hall get driven five yards back into the EZ by a tackle from UCF? Can you imagine how much of our lunch Mt. Cody would have already eaten by the time CoJo bumped into Chris Hall’s back? Epic fail of toughness by our OL.
by Horn Brain on Nov 8, 2009 9:54 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
DL
Is Bama’s DL really any better than OU’s?
If we did end up playing Bama, I wonder if the hurry up would gas Cody and negate the advantage he gives them.
by Horncasting on Nov 8, 2009 10:02 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I dont think so...
Texas is notorious for playing to the level of the competition. Furthermore, I like Mack and Co. having a month to prepare for Bama or Florida. Only FL matches our speed in my opinion…and I happen to believe, after watching multiple games of each this season, that UT’s D is a bit better.
"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 10:12 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
It wouldn't gas Cody
Because we wouldn’t be able to stay on the field. That “Jet” tempo running play is garbage against a defense that has time to set up before we run it. Our offense can only thrive if Colt can consistently convert 3rd and 6+. at least one first down per series is followed by this:
1st and 10: Dropped pass/WR screen that gets sniffed out/1 yard run
2nd and about 9 or so: One of the other things from the 1st down possible results
3rd and about 8: Colt to Shipley for 10 yards/Colt sacked by three rushers/checkdown to covered RB in flat.
Not exactly the blueprint for beating ’Bama-like defenses.
by Horn Brain on Nov 8, 2009 10:12 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Should we give them the trophy then???
Are you saying that if we lined up against Bama today you like Bama in a bit of a rout?
"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 10:15 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
No
I said nothing about getting destroyed. I just think they would be the toughest matchup for us in the title game. TCU would be the best for us, because we would eat their offense alive and our offense would eventually wear their D down. Alabama could beat us if they ran the ball well and their QB doesn’t do anything stupid. I think we would have the most difficult day on offense against ’Bama for sure.
by Horn Brain on Nov 8, 2009 10:24 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree
I dont think our D stacks up well against the power run.
Texas Football 09
by Hook'em13 on Nov 8, 2009 10:26 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
it's possible
But Chris Brown, who is more powerful than Ingram IMO, didn’t accomplish that much. I guess the ’Bama offensive line would make a pretty big difference, though.
by burntorangehorn on Nov 8, 2009 10:27 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I'd have to agree
Even though Alabama has struggled to pull out a few games the defense hasn’t allowed many points in any of their games. We’d have to win it like the RRS.
by aaronlybrand on Nov 9, 2009 12:59 AM CST via mobile up reply actions 0 recs
My hopes to that end
1. Nebraska plays in the CCG,
2. Suh proceeds to do what he does to the offensive line yet we still win, and
3. the staff has a month to figure out how to run the ball against a quality D-Line or figure out a way for Colt to throw 50 times in the MNC game and survive.
Aside from Mt. Cody, my other concern is Saban’s penchant for coaching his defensive unit to thwart tendencies. That would be a very difficult game to win primarily using the ol’ reliable short passing game.
proud to swim home
by learned hand on Nov 8, 2009 10:38 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
would have to go vertical to beat bama...
"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 11:13 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Shipley vs. Arenas
Sounds like a recipe for Malcolm.
by burntorangehorn on Nov 8, 2009 11:14 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
The thing is...
I do believe our D would be able to contain Ingram…they are lightening fast and just have a nose for the ball carrier. It may come down to the 4th quarter and who is tired and who is not. But if Bama had to throw, our secondary would feast a bit.
"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 11:23 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
McElroy is a mediocre QB
So I imagine you’re right
by burntorangehorn on Nov 8, 2009 11:47 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
A simple, non-playing field reason I don't want Nebraska in the CCG
They’re the only team from the North this season which would bring more than 75 fans, give or take a few cheerleaders and band members, to Cowboys Stadium. For everyone who can’t make it to Pasadena, getting in to Cowboys Stadium more cheaply is a nice consolation prize.
by Hopkins Horn on Nov 8, 2009 11:31 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Did you see the hit Shephard took?
Colt throwing 50 times against Bama would result in Colt’s cremation.
by aaronlybrand on Nov 9, 2009 1:03 AM CST via mobile up reply actions 0 recs
Cody would eat up our OL. He can probably take 3 OL with him at one time, so the other front 2 can penetrate without any problem. If T Cody were to sit on Colt McCoy, he wouldn’t get a stinger, he would die.
But other than that I’d like our chances against Bama. Heres the thing, why would you want to beat bama when you could beat Florida? In terms of being evenly matched, i cant think of another team that would make the NCG a close one.
You heard it hear first. UF vs Texas in the NCG (lol)
by MJY6087 on Nov 8, 2009 11:54 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Who wants a close one?
Winning is the key, and the best way to accomplish it is to take the path of least resistance, whether that’s at the tactical level (going to the hole instead of running into a linebacker) or facing the easiest possible national title opponent. It’s not as though UT can control what team they face in the title game, but if hoping for a particular opponent would help, I’d hope for the easiest possible matchup.
by burntorangehorn on Nov 9, 2009 7:47 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
The way to beat Bama
Is with up tempo and WR Screens to set up the deep ball.
They don’t have the team speed to keep up and I think Cody could be gassed by the 2nd quarter. The biggest key though is McCoy running vs. the “Jet” tempo running plays. Get Colt oustide the pocket, triple option Saban back to Miami.
I would love to see our D shut these guys down.
by orangetower on Nov 9, 2009 11:48 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Texas is ranked 7th in the Sagarin computer ranking...
behind a two-loss LSU team. That’s ridiculous.
by 3hacks on Nov 9, 2009 7:02 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
We're 2nd in the predictor.
But MOV doesn’t count for the ELO CHESS and we haven’t played any really good teams.
by ajax77777 on Nov 9, 2009 10:40 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I guess we can take solice in the fact the Coaches and Harris voters still have us at #2 this week.
Albeit by a very thin margin.
It appears most of the voters sided with burntorangehorn this week.
"We don't freestyle Texas Fight, big boy." - Coach Brown
by TXStampede on Nov 9, 2009 8:50 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
I figured Bama would jump in the computers and the polls...
I was surprised that we actually gained ground in the polls (we lost a tiny bit in the Harris, but gained a greater percentage in the Coaches), but was surprised the Bama jumped as much as they did in the computers. They were greatly aided by Iowa’s loss.
by Rickyspub on Nov 9, 2009 12:10 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
OU's loss
Our resume keeps sinking with each new OU loss. We’ve got one quality win at this point — Okie State — and if they stumble a time or two down the stretch, we’re basically going to the title game on the strength of human votes alone. It’ll be a bit too close for comfort if Okie State stumbles, TCU loses, and Cincinnati is suddenly the #3 team in the human polls. Because they’d be well ahead in the computers.
You ain't hurt.
by Peter Bean on Nov 9, 2009 12:13 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
But if TCU loses we would almost certainly pass them in the computers
The question then would be whether a one-loss SEC team would stay ahead of us but fall behind an undefeated Cincy. It was noted earlier that if we are the consensus #2 we would overcome being a whole spot below another team in the computers. I think if we win out, we will likely be even better than a consensus #2 since we likely continue to gain 1st place votes. But would that be enough for us to overcome 2 computer places should we end up at #4 and Cincy ends at #2? I am sure someone could do the math to figure it out.
Come to think of it we might actually be in worse shape if TCU and Cincy remain undefeated. That could leave us at #5 in the computers (if a one-loss SEC championship loser stays ahead of us) and if Cincy or TCU moves to #2 would that be enough to overcome us even as a better-than-consensus #2? It would probably require either Cincy or TCU to become a strong #3 in the polls which might not be possible if they both remain unbeaten.
I wasn’t worrying about it earlier, but as we get closer, I am starting to wonder. I hope I don’t have to start worrying…
by Rickyspub on Nov 9, 2009 1:19 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
To answer my own question...
Brad Edwards, ESPN’s resident BCS guru says:
“In order for an undefeated Texas team to be vulnerable, the SEC champ would need to be getting all of the first-place votes, leaving Texas as a distant second in the polls. Then, the team that was third in the polls would need to be a very solid No. 3 and also rank at least two spots higher than Texas in every computer. The only team I can imagine being that strong in the computers would be Cincinnati, but I can’t imagine the Bearcats climbing over TCU on enough ballots to be a solid No. 3 in the polls. I think Texas is safe.”
by Rickyspub on Nov 9, 2009 3:56 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
So does it matter who wins Bedlam?
It seems to me like the computers like big victories more than beating a bunch of bowl eligible teams.
Also although Cincinnati will get a boost in the computers from beating Pitt (assuming they do) they’ll likely be hurt by the dropping of USF and Oregon State who have games to Miami and Oregon left. USF losing to a non Big East foe hurts Cincy and any Oregon State loss hurts them.
by ajax77777 on Nov 9, 2009 3:27 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Overflow
For pointless discussion of whether Alabama deserves to be punished for beating LSU.
by Horn Brain on Nov 9, 2009 9:20 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Really appreciate your weekly BCS standings statistical analysis and blog poll draft review
but I’m not seeing where anyone actually answered your question regarding the hallowed law you stomped on this week. My answer is “tie goes to the complete team”.
With all due respect, IMO those who offered their comments of the Alabama #2 slot were not about a pointless reward or punishment, but rather an attempted discussion regarding your ranking this week. Isn’t that what you ask us to do?
And to that point, I am not in favor of the #2/#3 flip. While true Alabama’s offense finally woke up in the 2nd half, at home, against a rival, the Horns victory over OSU was on the road, in a trap game. Plus, Alabama was coming off a bye week. We can debate the significance of the OSU loss to Houston, but NO other team is playing as complete as the Horns week-to-week. I recognize it doesn’t really matter if we are #2 or #3 as it pertains to the bigger goals, but the stats speak for themselves.
Besides, we have Colt. Last I checked, he is on his way to becoming the all time winningest CFB QB. That certainly should be a consideration for the Blog Poll tie-breaker. Honestly, isn’t Tebow why the Gators are getting the love each week? That same logic should also apply to the Horns.
The AP, Coaches, and Harris polls are in agreement this week regarding 1-2-3. Heck, even the BCS Guru has had us at #1 each of the last 2 weeks. I think most here also feel the same way and would prefer the BON Blog Poll be submitted this week as such.
"We don't freestyle Texas Fight, big boy." - Coach Brown
by TXStampede on Nov 9, 2009 10:03 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Ok
So here’s my viewpoint: I look at straight resume, unless the result from that analysis doesn’t mesh with my gut feeling. When that happens, I go back and examine how the teams played and come up with a rationale for an adjustment. Right now, regarding Texas v. Alabama, I just think Alabama has a more complete resume. They’ve beaten a good (not great, mind you, but good) VT team, a quite good LSU team (may not have any big wins, but their only losses were competitive efforts against #1 and #2 on my ballot), and an ok Ole Miss team. Texas has beaten Okie State, Oklahoma, and no one else with any business in this discussion. You could even argue that a four loss Oklahoma doesn’t belong in the “quality wins” category – just because they may have played us well doesn’t mean we get a ton of credit when they play like crap the rest of the year.
You can argue with throwing Texas a bone for beating Tech, but that game was way too competitive for a team that got throttle by A&M at home. And! Tech got throttled by A&M at home. Plus, adding one barely quality win isn’t going to help Texas fight off Alabama’s win over LSU. It isn’t Texas’ fault, but our schedule has gone down the toilet due to the Big 12’s inconsistency among teams with a shot to be good. We can only hope that OSU wins out to give us a win over a possible BCS-selected team. Alabama just flat deserves the #2 spot right now based on quality of opponents. If Alabama goes back to out-field-goaling teams that they should run over, then we can go to the gut-reassessment phase of my ranking process.
I’m sorry for calling the discussion pointless, but I meant that the direction it had taken had become pointless. I don’t feel unjustified in my opinion, and you don’t feel unjustified in yours. Let’s leave it as “agree to disagree”. If you still have a problem with the fact that my ballot somehow “represents” you, take solice in the fact that we in no way will determine the national championship with this thing.
by Horn Brain on Nov 9, 2009 10:29 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Agree to disagree...
and thank god our Blog Poll entry this week will not determine the national championship pairing because we would be left out.
"We don't freestyle Texas Fight, big boy." - Coach Brown
by TXStampede on Nov 9, 2009 11:51 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Goes both ways
First, you can’t abandon sound principles when it doesn’t serve your interest. Well, you can, but you can’t also complain when others screw you by ranking unsoundly. We’ve been on the short end recently, and weren’t happy about it.
Second, the season ain’t over, which makes it sort of pointless to argue that Horn Brain would be shafting us if the season were, in fact, over.
You ain't hurt.
by Peter Bean on Nov 9, 2009 12:07 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
c'mon...my little tongue in cheek comment was to add some light humor.
I qualified my statement as “this week”. Heck, I know the Blog Poll is not a determinant in who plays for it all. I’m just fighting for homerism this week as I think we are at a minimum on par, or, the best team in the nation.
"We don't freestyle Texas Fight, big boy." - Coach Brown
by TXStampede on Nov 9, 2009 12:38 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Sorry
My light-hearted meter is not functioning properly.
Over-serious reply retracted!
You ain't hurt.
by Peter Bean on Nov 9, 2009 12:42 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
You need to get out more. Chillax or something.
Law school is beating you down, bro’.
"We don't freestyle Texas Fight, big boy." - Coach Brown
by TXStampede on Nov 9, 2009 12:48 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm actually leaving law school after the semester
Good that one of us can carry on.
by burntorangehorn on Nov 9, 2009 1:04 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
But then why wasn't Iowa #3 last week?
If resume is all that matters then Iowa had the best resume probably even better than Florida or Bama. I thought resume ranking wasn’t done ‘BCS computer’-style where you are forced by rule to ignore MOV, but was a rationale look at the quality of teams played and the quality of play against those teams.
Bama may have more quality opponents, but their quality of play has been mediocre in their most recent games. While they aren’t quite the new Iowa, they aren’t winning impressively. I personally think Texas has provided the most consistent balance of quality opponents and quality wins, especially over the more recently played games. I would assume that any rationale resume ranker would also look at trends rather than each game in a vacuum (which is part of what you said you did when ranking Oregon over BSU).
by Rickyspub on Nov 9, 2009 12:18 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Don't think that's what he's doing
He looks at quality of play/MOV/etc. The big disagreement here seems to be the split between those who think Alabama’s playing like shit, and those who don’t.
You ain't hurt.
by Peter Bean on Nov 9, 2009 12:28 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I wonder
What the crossover is of those who think Alabama is “playing like shit” and those who thought we’d beat tOSU by 30 last year? One year soon Alabama is going to “play like shit” all the way to an MNC victory.
proud to swim home
by learned hand on Nov 9, 2009 12:47 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I thought he was waffling quite a bit above...
Its not the best win, but it seems like it’s better than anything we’ve got right now.
This strikes me as BCS-computer, W/L-only resume ranking to me. I think our destruction of OSU on the road is more impressive than Bama’s close home win over LSU. OSU might not be as good as LSU (a debatable point and I would like OSU’s chances if the game isn’t played in Baton Rouge), but we played at a much higher standard in blowing OSU out than Bama did in eeking out a victory vs. LSU (even if you take out the referees’ assistance). I know this is also an objective statement, but I don’t have to defend my blog poll either and HB’s admission quoted above seems to suggest it was the names on the scoreboard and not the play on the field that determined his vote.
by Rickyspub on Nov 9, 2009 1:32 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
SEC
I’m not sure what to think of the SEC. Do they have 3 legitimate top ten teams, or are they a house of cards. UF and ’bama are propped up by beating an LSU team that has struggled on offense most of the year. The Va Tech win in Atlanta is not bad, but Va Tech is one of about 20 teams that I think are indistinguishible (a list that includes Nebraska, OU, Tech, etc.)
by Texas Wahoo on Nov 9, 2009 10:42 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
The SEC is overrated.
(I know that’s a newsflash to all of you.) The SEC has 10 teams with winning records. (“Awesome!” CBS said. “The best conference in the country!”) The SEC has 70 cumulative wins among its 12 members.
The Big XII has…10 teams with winning records. (“Total crap,” said CBS. "There are two entire teams with losing records. How can they even call themselves a ‘conference?’) The Big XII has 67 cumulative wins among its 12 members.
So…the SEC is a whopping 3 wins better than the Big XII so far this year. While I do think that UF and ‘Bama are top-ten teams, I whole-heartedly disagree with the idea that LSU is a top-ten team; they’re simply benefiting from their high pre-season rank, which itself was a “gift” based on last year’s results. Anybody here think Texas doesn’t beat LSU by three touchdowns on a neutral field? I didn’t think so.
Really? Does my signature suck?
by adt2 on Nov 9, 2009 11:04 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
I haven’t actually verified your numbers yet, but if true, that sort of supports my hypothesis that the North isn’t as horrible as people are saying.
I think the more important comparison is total number of non-conference wins, as conference wins are a normalizer. Conference games are a net zero for the conference as a whole.
by burntorangehorn on Nov 9, 2009 1:06 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
But then you'll have to adjust for SOS...
We will probably be down to arguing that the SEC is better because Kansas State lost to Louisiana-Lafayette.
One thing I found interesting in looking at the standings was just how weak the SEC East is compared to the Big 12 South. Florida had an even easier go of it then most people imagined at the beginning of the season. Georgia is the only team that is at .500 (they are 3-3) or above besides Florida! In fact, only Florida, Bama, and LSU are above .500 in conference play. The Big 12 South alone has 4 teams with above .500 records in conference to go along with KSU and NU in the North. These might be skewed a bit because all the SEC teams have played at least 6 conference games, while many Big 12 teams have only played 5.
Vanderbilt is also winless in conference play while every Big 12 team has managed at least one win.
by Rickyspub on Nov 9, 2009 1:41 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
*sigh*
Unfortunately, the SEC will always be overrated and the Big XII will continue to get crapped on as “weak” by comparison because Bob “I like to lose big games” Stoops coaches for the most loved nationally Big XII team. For some reason, last year when all that mess went down and it was us vs. OU, the voters picked OU knowing damn well that it would screw the team that beat them head to head because they LOVE OU/knew OU would definitely lose to Tebow and his apostles vs. Texas possibly winning/at least putting up a fight. And it’s in no small way the fault of the Big XII. Last year, there was a co-Big 12 COY that left out Mack, which is mind-boggling, and many many many Texas players were hosed when it came to end of season recognition in the conference. So, national voters screwed us and Big 12 voters screwed us, which brings me back to my point that commentators love the SEC no matter what (kind of like how they were getting on their knees for Leinart, Bush & Co back in ‘04-’05…and talked to THEM after WE won instead of us) and their favorite Big 12 team is the one guaranteed to lose to the SEC. Plus, the pervasive hate for Texas means that if screwing the Big 12 as a conference is what it takes to screw Texas, then by all means, screw away!
by Katie McBeast on Nov 10, 2009 12:24 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
P.S.
I love that we sort of unabashedly hate on CBS/SEC-net, but are somehow a CBS Sports partner?!? Check out the logo in the bottom right…wtf?
by Katie McBeast on Nov 10, 2009 12:25 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Join the community and dive in!
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.
