Morning Coffee

by PB @ BON on Nov 1, 2006 8:34 AM CST in Quick Hits

Remember yesterday, when I directed you toward Kyle's tongue in cheek statement of disinterest in the Texas-Oklahoma State game? Well, I'm glad I did, as a pouty Cowboy fan saw the post and started a "discussion" thread on an OSU message board. I encourage you to read the entire strand of comments. They range from the infrequent note of sanity and intelligence to the much, much more frequent note of raging defensiveness. "What does Georgia have on Oklahoma State anyway?!" Other than a better school, located in a better city, with superior athletics and hotter girls? Nothing. Nothing at all.

I thought I'd covered it all in yesterday's Morning Coffee, but alas, no. Colt McCoy was also awarded a Game Ball by the Masters Coaches Survey. Meanwhile, Suzanne Haliburton takes her cue from this blog to ask whether McCoy should be all conference.

I love Wells to death, but he's flat wrong that Texas doesn't have a scheduling problem. And it's not just me that wonders whether the patsy schedule's going to hurt the Horns. Bruce Feldman writes in his blog (In$ider subscsription required) about his indecision over whether an undefeated Big East team would deserve a spot in the title game over other one-loss teams. Sadly, he adds this about Texas:

One thing that did dawn on me is in regards to Texas. I'm not sure the Longhorns would have a stronger case than an unbeaten Big East champ, even if it were Rutgers. My reasoning: UT would've lost handily at home to the only top-10 team it played (Ohio State). After that, the Horns best win will be over Oklahoma or Texas A&M and the Big 12 title game will have them beating a team that might not even be in the top 25. The Big East champ would have had to beat two top-15 teams.

Two big points, of course. One, for this season, we're getting killed by a weak Big 12 and by our decision to play North Texas, Rice, and Sam Houston State. Second, note that there's no consensus that an undefeated Big East champ deserves a spot over one-loss teams with real schedules. Texas might find itself on the wrong end of that discussion in coming years if the scheduling of cupcakes continues.

If you missed it below, AW's got your scrimmage notes from last night's game. Just a few thoughts of my own on what I saw: Kevin Durant is even more impressive physically than I thought. He's unbelievably long and can get his shot whenever he wants it. You could definitely tell that he's used to dominating on his talent alone, and he's got work to do in becoming a more fundamentally sound ballplayer, but there's no question he's going to have some "on" nights and drop 30 points with ease. There will also likely be other nights where he struggles. For the others, Damion James is much, much better than I realized. He's a tremendous athlete, very physical, and more polished as a basketball player than any freshman small forward I've seen in some time. Tremendous player. Lastly, AJ Abrams is terrific. AW nailed it when he said that the kid can hit threes from anywhere with that quick release. He's also just a heady, sound player. It's going to be a really, really fun season for the Horns.

--PB--

0 recs | Comment 15 comments

Story-email Email | Print |

Comments

Wells' comment

Was most likely tongue in cheek. We've got "a damned if you do, damned if you don't" crowd and I'm pretty sure that's what Wells was pointing out.

Would we have a "scheduling problem" if our one loss had been to OU or Neb but beaten Ohio State? Probably not.

(Next year, on the other hand...)

by the other Andrew on Nov 1, 2006 9:00 AM CST 0 recs

I was only partly jokeing

I really think that if your only goal is to have the best chance at the BCS title game, scheduling OSU was a huge mistake. With out them we would be undefeated and the computers would not matter because we would be #1 or #2 in the human polls. I have said before that the best scheduling is the bottom of the BCS conferences, but I think they are a bit of a hot commodity right now as everyone seems to think this. UT with it neutral site game is at a disadvantage because we have 1/2 less home game a year and therefore are willing to schedule less home and home games. I think this year's 1aa game is an aberration and if it happens again I will be wailing as loud as PB about it. But otherwise I think going undefeated and coming out of the big 12 (even in our off years better than the big east, at least in Human poll eyes) makes for better odds of getting to the Championship game than scheduling tough non-conference.

by Wells on Nov 1, 2006 3:47 PM CST up 0 recs

Ranking

If we had not played Ohio State and instead beat a team like Northwestern or Vanderbilt or NC State, we would not be ranked #1 or #2 in the polls.

In this hypothetical, at this point in the year, Ohio State would definitely be ahead of us as would Michigan. The Louisville/West Virigina winner would also be ahead of us even though they play in the Big East they would have a real quality win.

We would be #4 at best, which is exactly where we will be as long as we win this weekend. There would also be some ranking us behind one loss teams like Florida, Auburn, and USC (given the strength of their schedules).

I agree that we don't have to schedule the #1 team in the country each year. But we simply cannot schedule three patsies and expect to be respected nationally and in the polls. North Texas, Rice, and Sam Houston State are total jokes.

--AW--

by awiggo on Nov 1, 2006 4:02 PM CST up 0 recs

Disagree

We would be 3rd at worst. Considering that we were ranked 2nd or 3rd depending on the polls, and that #2 was Notre Dame, we would be #2 in both human polls. Their would be no reason to drop us. The computer hit would not be that drastic. The single quality win the big east Louisville/WVA winner would have, assuming they both win out, would still not be greater than us playing in the Big 12, with a 3-4 top 25 wins, even if there are no top 10 wins.

by Wells on Nov 1, 2006 4:29 PM CST up 0 recs

Everyone loves Wells

But, I have to disagree with his scheduling views.

First, I would like us to earn our way into the MNC game, not back into it on the basis of weak scheduling, the historic reputation of the program, and inertia from last year.

Second, without tOSU, we would be even more worthy of contempt than WVa and L, given the winner of that game will have defeated a (inappropriately ranked) Top Ten team -- something we have not done.

Third, call me silly, but isn't a purpose of college athletics entertainment? If so, shouldn't we schedule quality teams because those match-ups are more entertaining than crushing pansies? In my view, that is reason enough to prefer tOSU to Sam Houston.

by Allaha on Nov 1, 2006 10:23 PM CST up 0 recs

Now you get into the crux of my argument

I am all for a tougher schedule. I don't like the fact that we play three games a year that the only interesting thing is if we will beat the 40 point spread and hoping that no one gets hurt.

I just think that Peter has a flawed argument.

We need to schedule better for the fans. Look at the Ohio St series. The atmosphere at both stadiums was incredible and two of the best football games I have attended.

We need to schedule better for player development. I think the early tough games, although may make it a bit tougher to make it into the NC game, allow your players to develop early and be ready for the tough games you are going to have in the big 12. I think losing to OSU this year help forge our team. We have made fewer mistakes since then and Colt has realized that he needs to be a team leader.

We need to schedule better for the money. Big games in Austin not only help the University by allowing us to pull more money out of the donors, but also are a huge economic boom to the city it self.

We just don't need to schedule better to make the NC game. For every time there is a undefeated team left out of the NC game from a BCS conference, their are for or five on loss teams that are probably better sitting on the outside looking in as well. This is why we need a playoff system, allowing the advantages of big early games with out the spector of the one loss costing a shot at the national championship.

by Wells on Nov 2, 2006 9:12 AM CST up 0 recs

You nailed it...

Wells, you got it absolutely right. The fundamental problem is that the BCS system creates an incentive to schedule crap games. Let's face it, if we were undefeated, even counting the Rice, NT, and SHSU trifecta, we'd still be #2 and control our own destinies.

Everybody loves to bring up "Undefeated Auburn", but frankly, that was a complete anomaly. Most years you're just not going to see more than two undefeated BCS-Conference schools. So the scheduling strategy the system incentivizes is, like Wells said earlier, bottom-tier BCS schools.

The primary reason I strongly desire a playoff is the incentives it creates to schedule better games. One loss won't kill your chances, and might, in fact, enhance them in the long run, by making you stronger and more accustomed to big-game pressures. It's also why a four-team playoff would be possibly even worse than this BCS crap. Then you wouldn't even care about SOS, just schedule absolute crap teams, beat them soundly, and hope there aren't more than 4 other teams that did the same thing.

I loved the Ohio State series, and anything that would make that happen more is good for me...

by agent orange on Nov 2, 2006 4:42 PM CST up 0 recs

Persuasive

I agree completely with all of the points made prior to the last paragraph.

Regarding the last paragraph, I am unsure that the best strategy, under the current BCS scheme, for reaching the MNC is playing terrible teams (and I have my doubts that we would be 2 had we not played tOSU this year). However, I agree completely that we need a playoff system (preferably one with four teams, but any reasonable playoff design is fine by me).

by Allaha on Nov 2, 2006 7:41 PM CST up 0 recs

OSU

It must suck to have that "little school" mentality (see A&M) where you are unable to have even the slightest sense of humor.

by Jason Mayer on Nov 1, 2006 9:18 AM CST 0 recs

the Cowboy discussion thread

was amazing. I can't believe they would take that seriously after he said that we could win 200 to 150 or whatever. What does it take to make something obviously a joke?

by hornbone on Nov 1, 2006 10:01 AM CST 0 recs

If you thought Ok. St. fans can't take a joke...

take a gander at the comments garnered by BearMeat's hilarious comparison of aTm and the DPRK. I am convinced that the Aggies are so incensed because the whole piece was comletely over their heads.

by Kahuna on Nov 1, 2006 10:32 AM CST up 0 recs

Big East

I'm sure none of the three teams could hang with anyone else in the Top 10. If WVU or UL plays Ohio State then I'll be pissed, but I will enjoy the bloodbath that ensues on Jan. 8th. I'll leave the scheduling debate for another time.

by AMB on Nov 1, 2006 10:15 AM CST 0 recs

I'm actually to blame

for this as I emailed the link (which I got from here) to a buddy that's coming into town from Tulsa for the Widespread Panic shows this weekend. We're going to be seeing each other at the shows, at had tossed around the idea of going to the game Saturday. I thought he (rootdown) would get a laugh out of that, and he in turn posted it over there and apparently opened the floodgates. Glad I could be of service. JP

JP in San An Tone

by thejahpaul on Nov 1, 2006 11:44 AM CST 0 recs

Stats from Halliburton Column

Can someone please educate me on how "Passing Efficiency" is calculated? Her column states that Reid leads the Big 12 in passing efficiency. Here's the chart:

Player, school Comp.-Att.-Int. Pct. Yds. TDs

Bobby Reid, Okla. St. 94-157-7 59.9 1,616 19
Colt McCoy, Texas 147-217-4 67.7 1,705 24
Zac Taylor, Nebraska 143-231-3 61.9 2,065 18
Graham Harrell, Texas Tech 287-418-8 68.7 3,024 28
Stephen McGee, Texas A&M 144-225-1 64.0 1,753 11
Paul Thompson, Oklahoma 120-197-5 60.9 1,566 13
Chase Daniel,Missouri 196-303-8 64.7 2,287 19
Shawn Bell, Baylor 241-383-10 62.9 2,582 19
Bret Meyer, Iowa St. 163-288-10 56.6 2,023 10
Dylan Meier, Kansas State 69-137-4 50.4 765 3

McCoy has more touchdowns than Reid (24-19); fewer interceptions (4-7); a better completion percentage (67.7 to 59.8); and more yardage (1,705 to 1,616). How is it possible that he's not the more efficient QB??