1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderHow about OU last season against Texas??
You're a nasty little piece of work, aren't you?
EDIT: Oddly and unfairly enough, the same thing happened in 2000 when FSU went to the national championship game even though it had lost to Miami and Miami only had one loss.
Originally posted by quackquackBut how can you say the team with the "so called" softer schedule beats the team with the "so called" stronger schedule, convincingly, on a neutral site, no less? Sorry that dog won't hunt.
I think last year was the same as 1993. The team that won head to head had a softer schedule and the team with same record but a harder schedule was rewarded.
The problem is the "what have you done lately" mentality utilized by the voters in the media. It is ludicrous that you can lose game 1 and then reel off 10 straight wins and be in the NCS mix, but if you reel off 10 straight wins and lose the last one, you are out of the picture.
Originally posted by shortcircuitI understand that, especially young teams, often get better over the course of the season and that a lot of teams "now" are better than they were "at the beginning of the season" but I agree that two much is made over when wins and losses occur. It should be based on who you play for the entire season and not just the one head to head game and ignore your other loss.
But how can you say the team with the "so called" softer schedule beats the team with the "so called" stronger schedule, convincingly, on a neutral site, no less? Sorry that dog won't hunt.
The problem is the "what have you done lately" mentality utilized by the voters in the media. It is ludicrous that you can lose game 1 and then reel off 10 straig ...[text shortened]... , but if you reel off 10 straight wins and lose the last one, you are out of the picture.
Lat year Texas played a weaker schedule than Oklahoma and their "neutral" site game is in Texas. I'd like for my Michigan Wolverenes to play their next bowl game (if they ever get to another one) in a neutral site like Detroit. Oh, silly me, I forgot only southern teams get neutral site games in their home state but even that does not stop their fans from complaining.
Originally posted by quackquackLet me clue you in on the neutral site in Texas. They sell EXACTLY 50% of the tickets to OU and 50% of the tickets to UT. None get returned...ever. You will see the stadium is divided evenly with Orange and Red. The travel distance is similar. So, unless you have some meteorlogical difference that you care to share...it is a neutral site. It is also NOT a bowl game, it usually just determines who will go to one of the big ones.
I understand that, especially young teams, often get better over the course of the season and that a lot of teams "now" are better than they were "at the beginning of the season" but I agree that two much is made over when wins and losses occur. It should be based on who you play for the entire season and not just the one head to head game and ignore you ...[text shortened]... l site games in their home state but even that does not stop their fans from complaining.
The game is still in Texas. Like for every event there are scalped tickets and I am sure more of those tickets go to Texas fans. Nevertheless, if the argument is Texas got cheated. They did not. Oklahoma has the same record and a tougher schedule they should be ranked ahead of Texas.
Originally posted by quackquackYour failure to grasp the obvious is amazing.
The game is still in Texas. Like for every event there are scalped tickets and I am sure more of those tickets go to Texas fans. Nevertheless, if the argument is Texas got cheated. They did not. Oklahoma has the same record and a tougher schedule they should be ranked ahead of Texas.
It was a heads up game between both teams, at full strength on a neutral field where Texas beat OU by 10 points. Texas played more ranked teams during the season than OU did because of how many teams in conference were ranked and the fact that they don't play all teams withing the conference in a given season.
The dog won't hunt. PERIOD!!!! Maybe they should play the game in Detroit from now on. That way at least you would see ONE quality football game there each year.
Originally posted by quackquackOh, so let me understand your logic then.
Oklahoma had a tougher schedule. The voters got it right. There is absolutely nothing to discuss.
The better team got beaten on a neutral site by a team not as good. Mind you I am not talking about a Cinderella upset for the ages, but OU was favored by a touchdown and got beaten by 10 points. Seems pretty convincing.
The fact is, the voters gave it to OU because Texas' loss came later in the season. Geez, wake up and smell the coffee instead of the crap you are spewing!!
Oklahoma had a much harder schedule: five other teams were ranked when Oklahoma played them (TCU, Kansas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma State and Missouri).
Texas played three other ranked teams Oklahoma State and Misoouri and lost to Texas Tech.
So Oklahoma had the tougher out of conference schedule, the tougher overall schedule, won the conference championship game, beat Texas Tech when Texas did not and you think one game out weighs everything it did not with the voters and it should not.
Originally posted by quackquackGo check your scheduler. Texas played Kansas and beat them as well. If you credit OU with Kansas, then credit Texas as well. If you are claiming that TCU was the only team that made OU's schedule edecidedly tougher, then you are out of your mind.
Oklahoma had a much harder schedule: five other teams were ranked when Oklahoma played them (TCU, Kansas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma State and Missouri).
Texas played three other ranked teams Oklahoma State and Misoouri and lost to Texas Tech.
So Oklahoma had the tougher out of conference schedule, the tougher overall schedule, won the conference champions ...[text shortened]... d not and you think one game out weighs everything it did not with the voters and it should not.
I looked at who was ranked when they played them. Even without that (1) there is an extra out of conference game against a ranked team, (2) then an extra game in the championship,
(3) then there is the fact that texas lost to Texas St. but Oklahoma did not
(4) then there is the fact that the Big 12 had its own tie breaker and Oklahoma won it.
It is not just when they lost even though to a lot of people (not necessarily me) that is important.
Originally posted by quackquackGive me a break!! The game they lost was to a nationally ranked team, it was lost on the last play of the game to boot!!
I looked at who was ranked when they played them. Even without that (1) there is an extra out of conference game against a ranked team, (2) then an extra game in the championship,
(3) then there is the fact that texas lost to Texas St. but Oklahoma did not
(4) then there is the fact that the Big 12 had its own tie breaker and Oklahoma won it.
It is not just when they lost even though to a lot of people (not necessarily me) that is important.
They got the extra game because of the three way tie break, and no other reason. Had Texas been tied with only OU, Texas would have advanced. Period.
Texas got screwed, but was clearly the better team. Which of those teams won their bowl games?
Paint it any way you like, you are never going to be able to justify it.
Originally posted by shortcircuitThe actually have a procedure to decide who is the better team and I am sorry to inform you that it was not Texas.
Give me a break!! The game they lost was to a nationally ranked team, it was lost on the last play of the game to boot!!
They got the extra game because of the three way tie break, and no other reason. Had Texas been tied with only OU, Texas would have advanced. Period.
Texas got screwed, but was clearly the better team. Which of those teams won their bowl games?
Paint it any way you like, you are never going to be able to justify it.
The Big 12 (agrees with me) that head to head should not be the tie breaker and after the reviewed the system and decided to keep it. It simply does not decide three team races. Afterall, Oklahoma beat Texas Tech, Texas Tech beat Texas and using your logic you could rank the Big 12 Oklahoma, Texas Tech, Texas.
Oklahoma lost its bowl game because it played a much tougher team. But they were still the most deserving Big 12 team. Oklahoma had a tougher schedule and was more impressive in their games.
Originally posted by quackquackWrong!! Head to head is the first tie breaker in the Big 12.
The actually have a procedure to decide who is the better team and I am sorry to inform you that it was not Texas.
The Big 12 (agrees with me) that head to head should not be the tie breaker and after the reviewed the system and decided to keep it. It simply does not decide three team races. Afterall, Oklahoma beat Texas Tech, Texas Tech beat Texas an ...[text shortened]... deserving Big 12 team. Oklahoma had a tougher schedule and was more impressive in their games.
When there is a three way tie, they look at record between the common oppoents. They were all 1-1. Texas beat OU and lost to Tech.
Tech beat Texas and lost to OU. OU beat Tech and lost to Texas.
Texas lost it on the third tie breaker of point differential because OU blew out Tech, worse than Texas beat OU.