Bevo's Daily Roundup - May 7, 2009
by dimecoverage on May 6, 2009 9:24 PM CDT
in News
44 comments
Priceless.
The UT athletic department will make about 1.2 million on the Fiesta Bowl.
The Raiders and Aggies just love each other.
What should the Aggies do about Mike Leach? Win.
A&M, which beat Tech from 1990-94, has allowed the Red Raiders to pass them, and the Aggies have to live with it until they can do something about it. That means listening to Leach.
"How can anyone not be shocked that they're offended by this?" Leach told the Avalanche-Journal. "How is that possible? I mean, they're the ones that keep issuing these official statements. I haven't issued any official statement. I just answer questions when somebody asks me one."
And until someone asks him how A&M was able to finally beat the Red Raiders in Lubbock, you can bet a few more barbs will be headed the Aggies' way.
Is there an option for none of the above? I Am The 12th Man is making predictions about the 2009 Aggie offensive production.
If that's true, then why does OU keep recruiting in Texas? NewsOK talks to the Director of Scouting for the Dallas Cowboys, Oklahoma native Tom Ciskowski.
I still stay in contact with him. Oklahoma plays just as good high school football as Texas. There’s just not as many (Division I players) because of numbers. But just look at who the state of Oklahoma has produced over the years, including Jason White and Sam Bradford recently.
The Big 12 coaches do not want to change the tiebreaker rule.
Meeting at a resort on Wednesday, they voted to keep the Bowl Championship Series standings as the method to break ties between more than two teams. Under that rule, the Sooners edged the Longhorns by 13 thousandths of a point in December.
Nebraska AD Tom Osbourne is cracking down down on those big donors. He wants a ban on alcohol in the skybox suites during games.
Nebraska lacks company among its conference siblings when it comes to its stance on banning alcohol in skybox suites during football games.
But this is one issue where being in the minority is of no worry to Husker athletic director Tom Osborne, who wants stricter enforcement of the alcohol ban after an alarming skybox incident last fall.
“I don’t try to make a decision based on what everyone else is doing,” Osborne said on Tuesday.
The Daily Show has a little fun with Rep. Barton and the BCS hearings.
Just what you have been waiting for. The NCAA has announced the 2009-2010 bowl schedule. (The January 7 date might be of interest to people on this site.)
0 recs |
44 comments
Email
Print
Comments
It’s been interesting to see the Longhorns play with a chip on their shoulder.
Now I can’t wait to see what happens when Mack & co. coach with a chip on their shoulder.
F*** the other B12 coaches. The only reason none of them voted to change the rule is because a) they’re all blowing Stoops in his hotel room later on and don’t want him to be rough with them and b) they realize how backwards it is for them to change a rule that will never come into effect for their teams (unless they’re Texas or OU).
What a joke.
by TXinDC on May 6, 2009 9:45 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
if the tables were turned, and we went ahead winning the tie breaker. we wouldn’t be clamoring over a broken system.
if they changed it, and this year we got fucked in the head to head but were winning the BCS rankings, we’d still bitch about that. “well OU got to do it last year”.
by Displaced Longhorn on May 7, 2009 12:28 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
But we didn't win the tie breaker
And that’s what makes this infuriating. Even if the tables were turned, the chances that this rule WOULD be changed are high, because as I alluded to, many of the B12 coaches are buddy-buddy with Stoops. Go back to the last ballot of the year where coaches’ votes are exposed, and you see how much Texas is looked down up by the other coaches.
Why would Mack have made a big deal about it if it wasn’t a big deal? This isn’t just one Longhorn fan on a message board complaining about being robbed. The current system doesn’t make any sense, given that a CONFERENCE championship is decided by the NATIONAL media/coaches/computers. It’s an imposition.
So yeah, of course you’re right that we wouldn’t give a flip about changing the system if the tables were turned, but that’s not the case, and this is a UT blog, and this is something we’ve all been curious to see get resolved. Take your holier-than-thou elsewhere.
by TXinDC on May 7, 2009 7:11 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
lol, holier than thou? i’m just playing devil’s advocate. you think us picking another method is going to “solve” last season. it’s not, we may very well get fucked if it’s changed. if it’s not, odds are, last season will not be happening again for a long long time. we got screwed because we had a weak OOC, and struggled against okie state and TT who got demolished by OU. we actually had enough of the human vote to win, it was the computers dragging us down.
before that voting weekend everyone was clamoring “look at the computers, they’ve got it right! why don’t the humans? humans are biased!” then the week after the computers dropped us and people raised us and now we’re still back to “people are biased, get them out of our conference voting!”
never once did anyone bat an eye until last year at this rule, but now that texas was “left out” people are hollering left and right to change a rule that doesn’t necessarily need to be changed.
holier than thou? get off your hypocrite bandwagon.
by Displaced Longhorn on May 7, 2009 9:15 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
If we had lost to OU last year but were given the Big 12 South title by the national media...
I wouldn’t say the team shouldn’t play in the game or take the bid for the MNC, but I would have agreed that head-to-head should be the most important factor. I would say to OU supporters, ’That’s the rules’, but I would follow and say we should definitely change it to the SEC model because I don’t want to win the Big 12 South on a tie breaker to a team that beat my team just because of votes by the media and a subset of the college coaches.
by Rickyspub on May 7, 2009 10:15 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
And deciding it by throwing out one team based on those same national rankings (the SEC way) rather than selecting one is any better? One could make the argument that it’s much worse, actually – OU putting such a severe beating on Tech was the biggest reason everyone wanted to drop Tech from the argument, but if you follow that line of argument to its logical end it means that OU would have lost the tiebreaker because they won by too much. Under that system, OU’s only chance would be to win a nailbiter that leaves Tech ahead of Texas in the BCS standings.
There should be a way to decide it using on-field results without having to resort to the BCS. Conference strength of schedule would be a good choice (that is, whoever played the toughest teams from the other division – although that ended up tied too), as would overall SOS (although that’s much harder to measure in that a team would get as much credit for beating a 7-5 Sun Belt team as a 7-5 SEC team). Worst case, I can even see using best scoring margin in games among the tied teams.
by SpartanDan on May 7, 2009 10:31 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Here's why I hate the Big 12,
From Tim Griffin:
I’ve got to think the fact that Texas was complaining the most about this particular rule didn’t help the chances of change.
Why’s that, Tim?
Stoops controls a rather sizable bloc of coaching votes who he has either worked under him or worked with. The Oklahoma coach was employed by Kansas State’s Bill Snyder earlier in his career. Kansas coach Mark Mangino, Texas Tech coach Mike Leach and Nebraska coach Bo Pelini all worked on Stoops’ staff. And Baylor coach Art Briles worked under Leach at Tech, making him a second-generation protege of Stoops.
That’s half the damn conference with close ties to Stoops. The only thing Texas could push for that the other coaches would agree to is revenue sharing. F the Big 12. 2009 – Leave No Doubt.
by ctex80 on May 7, 2009 7:11 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
just because you “have ties” with a man, doesn’t mean you vote in his favor by default.
The biggest reason, however, was because coaches believe the current system better provides a better chance for a national championship. The argument goes that there might be a chance that a fifth-ranked or sixth-ranked team might earn a championship game appearance over a team that’s ranked first or second — costing the conference a shot at a potential national championship.
you missed this in your eagerness to point out a stoops minded conspiracy.
by Displaced Longhorn on May 7, 2009 9:21 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
This just CYA BS from the coaches who voted to keep the current plan...
The SEC model deals with this perfectly. The team to be dropped first is determined by the BCS and then the top two teams are determined by head-to-head. The fact of the matter is that if getting into the BCS championship game was so important we would drop the divisions and the Big 12 championship game. An upset there is much more likely than a three way divisional tie especially when it comes to the BCS championship since a three-way divisional tie would automatically mean those three teams all had at least one loss.
by Rickyspub on May 7, 2009 10:23 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ok, DL,
just because you "have ties" with a man, doesn’t mean you vote in his favor by default.
Look at the Coaches Final Ballot from last year and tell me that “having ties” doesn’t matter. And nowhere did I say that it necessitated a vote in Stoops’ favor. It does, however, predispose those coaches to agree with Stoops, just like they supported him in the final coaches poll last year. Just like Gene Chizik and Todd Dodge voted us #1 in that same poll.
I also understand the argument against the SEC tiebreaker that Griffin cites as “the biggest reason”. I don’t know why you are being a dick about it, and trying to paint me and others here who disagree with the current tiebreaker as conspiracy theorists, but that’s a whole separate post.
The counter argument to the one posited by the coaches is that THE BIG 12 tiebreaker should be about THE BIG 12. It’s not about a shot at a MNC, it’s about determining the best team in the conference, or at least in half of the conference.
by ctex80 on May 7, 2009 10:31 AM CDT up reply actions 2 recs
I'm not too upset about this
If you look at possible nightmare scenarios this year, think about what happens if we beat OU, OU beats OSU, and OSU beats us. Assuming OU drops an OOC game (at Miami?) we could have 3 1-loss teams again. There’s a good chance we’d be higher in the BCS than OSU. Under last year’s rules, we go. If the rules were changed, OSU would go.
I think the scarier scenario is OU losing 2 conference games and us having to go head-to-head with OSU. Lose that game and we’re probably out.
Unless parity reigns this year, odds are we have to win out to get to the MNC.
by jtlonghorn on May 7, 2009 8:28 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
False argument,
If OU dropped an OOC game, it would not get to the 5th tie-breaker. It would not be a true 3-way tie, and OSU would deserve to go.
by ctex80 on May 7, 2009 8:54 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
replace “dropped an ooc game” with "are not ranked as high as texas and osu in the bcs.
it still applies, texas could still get fucked. there is no solution that would satisfy texas fans other than “if texas is involved in a 3-way tie to win the big12 south… texas by default wins and goes to the big12 CG”
by Displaced Longhorn on May 7, 2009 9:17 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Bottom line
is that if we get screwed, we won’t like whatever the tiebreaker is. It’s easy to bitch about last year but I doubt anyone will be crying if we benefit from it this year.
Tiebreakers after head-to-head are rarely fair. Win all your games. Let other people bitch.
Unless you’re Auburn.
by jtlonghorn on May 7, 2009 9:36 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's bullshit, DL.
If Texas loses to OSU, and OSU is ranked higher in the BCS, who here would complain if OSU went to the CCG instead of us? I certainly wouldn’t. And that certainly wouldn’t qualify as “Texas getting fucked”.
The choice that the coaches have made is this: We would rather have a team get screwed out of a conference title than have our conference get screwed out of a shot at a MNC.
That’s certainly one way to look at it. And that case can certainly be made. But to try to make it by saying
there is no solution that would satisfy texas fans other than "if texas is involved in a 3-way tie to win the big12 south… texas by default wins and goes to the big12 CG"is just childish, particularly from a Texas fan.
by ctex80 on May 7, 2009 10:40 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
and what happens if texas loses to OSU, but is ranked higher? OSU struggles through the rest of their games, looking pathetic but clinging to relevancy by narrow victories, texas dominates offensively and defensively shutting their opponents out. should OSU still go to the CG? despite texas looking like the much stronger and competent team to represent the big12 south and NC game?
there’s no easy solution, both systems have a small chance of failing to put the “rightful” team on the field in the CG.
texas fans have an extreme propensity to bitch when they feel slighted.
by Displaced Longhorn on May 7, 2009 11:10 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Then OSU should go to the CCG
Because they won the head to head.
I think this rule comes down to a question of how important you want the RRS to be. If there is a tie for a division, it is likely to be between UT/OU/someone else (Tech last year, OSU this year). The BCS will almost inevitably have UT and OU ranked ahead of the other team, barring some amazing nonconference run/heisman run by that other team. (while it’s not fair to the other team, they are screwed using any system that includes the BCS)
Thus, with the SEC system, the team that won the RRS will almost always go to the CCG, whereas with the current system, the BCS factors in everying (your nonconference opponents winning percentage, their opponents winning percentage, how many games you’ve scored 60 points in, how famous your best player is, how good you’ve been in the past, etc.).
Personally, I’d prefer the RRS to decide it, but that’s likely not going to happen.
by Texas Wahoo on May 7, 2009 11:21 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Then OSU deserves to go,
If they are still within 5 of Texas in the BCS standings. I don’t think any system is perfect, but the SEC tie-breaker is the best of the options on the table. The “within 5” clause is your safeguard in case of a fluke outcome. It’s not perfect, but it’s better than what we have now.
Any other issues with Texas fans you’d like to share?
by ctex80 on May 7, 2009 11:36 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
lol, and then you throw in the “within 5” clause.
the big 12 coaches voted on what they wanted and what they’d live with. the big12 south had 2 acceptable teams that could go to the CG, we lost out. get over it. if we beat tech like we should have, we wouldn’t be in this mess. no one would be aware of “such a broken tiebreaker” in place, and we’d all be happily moving along with our lives, instead of living in the past bitching about how we got dicked over because of a rule we agreed to have in place.
by Displaced Longhorn on May 7, 2009 12:14 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
re: ....particularly from a Texas fan.
What, other than his nom de plume, leads you to believe that Displaced is a Texas fan?
Actually, I’m being serious here. It’s not that we disagree, it’s that I’ve seen him on numerous threads and every single one he “plays” devil’s advocate. At some point you come to the conclusion that you are what you sound like… And there’s nothing wrong with someone here not being a Texas fan, it’s just that you can’t take what he says as anything but the astroturfing it is…
by Pflash on May 7, 2009 6:35 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m wearing a Texas longhorns shirt at this very moment, I am a lifelong Texas fan. I simply don’t have that lemming mentality that so many football fans have. I was just as as sad, dissapointed, and depressed as you were when the final regular season BCS rankings came out. however, I don’t think that automatically adopting a tiebreaker rule that would have sent Texas to the Big12CG is the right measure, nor should we bitch about how it would have been fair if we were in the SEC.
OU and Texas were both extremely strong and talented teams, there wasn’t a wrong choice.
by Displaced Longhorn on May 7, 2009 11:33 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
agreed.
there is no solution that would satisfy texas fans other than "if texas is involved in a 3-way tie to win the big12 south… texas by default wins and goes to the big12 CG"
by Beergut on May 7, 2009 5:30 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
lol..
..see Displaced? This is what happens when being objective crosses the line and “logic” becomes so screwed up, that only an aggie agrees
by vy til i die on May 8, 2009 10:42 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Bullshit
Its a bad rule, for every reason it was a bad rule last season. It doesn’t matter if Texas got the short end of it, or Tech, or OU. A duck, as TO would say, is a freaking duck.
Theres no way for anyone to be upset about the BCS as a system and not be equally upset about this rule. Its the same damn thing, money influencing championships over play on the field.
Lets be absolutely clear here, by keeping the rule in place, you are letting your conference champion be decided by two things:
1) An incomplete algorithm designed to produce numbers 1 and 2 in order, not anything else.
2) A CLOSED coaches poll.
It doesn’t matter who gets left out, that is a terribly shitty system, and if the football people (coaches) cant see that, theres little hope the ADs will. I guess we are just left to pray that the conference doesn’t find itself in the same situation again for a long time.
by BoddickerIsClutch on May 7, 2009 8:45 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Just fix it
The problem here is that the Big 12 is letting others decide its champion, rather than settling it by conference record. The fix is easy. Just drop the BCS tie breaker and use more tie breakers using on field results. The NFL seems to be able to settle its conference championships (and wild cards) without having to look at some opinion polls. Why can’t the Big 12?
Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. If they get mad, you're a mile away AND you have their shoes.
by Caradoc on May 7, 2009 9:26 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
NFL Rules
Two Clubs
1. Head-to-head (best won-lost-tied percentage in games between the clubs).
2. Best won-lost-tied percentage in games played within the division.
3. Best won-lost-tied percentage in common games.
4. Best won-lost-tied percentage in games played within the conference.
5. Strength of victory.
6. Strength of schedule.
7. Best combined ranking among conference teams in points scored and points allowed.
8. Best combined ranking among all teams in points scored and points allowed.
9. Best net points in common games.
10. Best net points in all games.
11. Best net touchdowns in all games.
12. Coin toss
Three or More Clubs
(Note: If two clubs remain tied after third or other clubs are eliminated during any step, tie breaker reverts to step 1 of the two-club format).
1. Head-to-head (best won-lost-tied percentage in games among the clubs).
2. Best won-lost-tied percentage in games played within the division.
3. Best won-lost-tied percentage in common games.
4. Best won-lost-tied percentage in games played within the conference.
5. Strength of victory.
6. Strength of schedule.
7. Best combined ranking among conference teams in points scored and points allowed.
8. Best combined ranking among all teams in points scored and points allowed.
9. Best net points in common games.
10. Best net points in all games.
11. Best net touchdowns in all games.
12. Coin toss
Here is the definitation of strength of victory: A part of the NFL’s tie breaking procedure, strength of victory is figured by calculating the combined winning percentage of the opponents a team has beaten.
I don’t have time to do tech, but we would have had the edge on OU, .56 to .52 in strength of victory.
by Wells on May 7, 2009 11:44 AM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
I would also be game for some sort of strength of schedule/victory decider
Or like I said, strike Div2 opponents and check winning percentages.
by BoddickerIsClutch on May 7, 2009 12:03 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Lets rehash what other conferences do for examples.
The Big 10 I would fine with as well:
2. If the remaining teams are still tied, then each tied team’s record shall be compared to the team occupying the highest position in the final regular-season standings, continuing down through the standings until one team gains an advantage.
A. When arriving at another pair of tied teams while comparing records, use each team’s record against the collective tied teams as a group (prior to their own tie-breaking procedures), rather than the performance against the individual tied teams.
B. When comparing records against a single team or a group of teams, the higher winning percentage shall prevail, even if the number of games played against the team or group are unequal (i.e., 2-0 is better than 3-1); in the case of tied percentages vs. the team or group of 1.000 or .000 the following shall apply: 2-0 is better than 1-0; 0-1 is better than 0-2.
3. Won-loss percentage of all Division I opponents.
The SEC – If top two BCS teams are within 5 spots, it goes to head to head. This still uses the BCS which is ridiculous, however it at least aims to eliminate the bottom team, instead of elevating one from three, which I like better.
The tied team with the highest ranking in the Bowl Championship Series Standings following the last weekend of regular-season games shall be the divisional representative in the SEC Championship Game, unless the second of the tied teams is ranked within five-or-fewer places of the highest ranked tied team. In this case, the head-to-head results of the top two ranked tied teams shall determine the representative in the SEC Championship Game.
.
ACC is basically the same as the SEC:
7. The tied team with the highest ranking in the Bowl Championship Series Standings following the conclusion of regular season games shall be the divisional representative in the ACC Championship Game, unless the second of the tied teams is ranked within five-or-fewer places of the highest ranked tied team. In this case, the head-to-head results of the top two ranked tied teams shall determine the representative in the ACC Championship Game.
The Big East is just as bad as the big 12, and the Pac10 is even worse, but any of the other three conferences have a better system. Or I dunno, come up with something better, theres no way that leaving it entirely in 2/3s of the hands of a poll that was never designed to rank teams prior to all games being played is a good idea.
by BoddickerIsClutch on May 7, 2009 9:32 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The problem is
that the SEC option still uses the BCS poll in deciding who to send, which is your major issue with the current system. While the SEC system seems slightly more equitable to me, I can see why the Big 12 would want the best shot at a national championship.
Hypothetical: Next year Tech beats Texas, but loses horribly to OSU, and Texas beats OSU (no other losses, OSU and Tech look like shit bit squeak out wins through out the year). The BCS rankings heading into the Big 12 championship game are Texas #3, Tech #12 and OSU #15. Under the more equitable system Tech should represent, but that could cost Texas a shot at the national championship. Would you still be supportive of the SEC tiebreaker?
In the case of the Big 10, I think we would have got to rule e, which would have knocked OU out because they went to the fiesta last year. That does not seem more equitable to me.
by Wells on May 7, 2009 11:29 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wells,
Why is it that Tech should be the rep? The SEC tiebreaker would still send Texas. Not sure what the argument is here.
by ctex80 on May 7, 2009 11:40 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
That is what happens when you don't read enough
my bad, lets move Tech to #8, now Tech goes right?
by Wells on May 7, 2009 11:47 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Its hard to argue that a team that beat you shouldnt go for your sake, when you have the same records.
Thats an easier situation to swallow that what happened this year.
by BoddickerIsClutch on May 7, 2009 12:05 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Whoops
I was looking at the Baseketball Rules for the Big 10. The football ones are similar to the Pac-10 (Rose Bowl Influence there?) in which case I agree, they are worse than ours.
I dont like the SEC option as a best fix either, but its better than what we have. Id prefer the Big 10 Basketball rules be placed in there above any BCS business, an have win percentage against Division 1 opponents in place.
I dont see how in your scenario Texas wouldnt go. Thats a three way in conference Tie with the top team being more than 5 spots ahead of the second team, right?
I understand the reason behind them wanting to keep it as it is, my beef is, thats still just saying we want the money, not we want the best team.
by BoddickerIsClutch on May 7, 2009 11:43 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Real Rule
We’re all pissed because in our minds the rule is:
If you win the Red River Shootout, you win the Big 12 South.
by Longhorn@Berkeley on May 7, 2009 11:39 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Wait, is Displaced Longhorn showing us where he's been replaced to? Berkeley?
Read the freaking thread. This has little to do with the RRR, except that that game happened to put the whole conference in this mess to begin with. You’re an idiot.
by TXinDC on May 7, 2009 12:11 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
replaced and displaced do not mean the same thing.
i’m sorry i don’t want the national perception to be changed to a bunch of cry baby bitches who put “Big XII Champions 2008*” in the club house… sadly, that’s exactly whats happening.
by Displaced Longhorn on May 7, 2009 12:18 PM CDT up reply actions 2 recs
Beergut is Displaced Longhorn. Displaced Longhorn is Beergut.
Don’t you see?
by ctex80 on May 7, 2009 8:31 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm just tired of this
It’s a dumb rule, but hopefully, it’s a dumb rule we won’t see again for a long, long time.
Three way ties will always be messy. I would have been in favor of all three teams playing each other on a neutral field to settle the tie, but that’s just me, and I know that’s just impractical.
Let’s just beat everyone next season and not worry about this.
by TheElusiveShadow on May 8, 2009 2:27 PM CDT reply actions 1 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
