iirc TCU lost their great RB and another solid player or 2 in the previous game. That one was over before kickoff.
Watching Aggyfan do the "horns down" on 5+ separate in-game crowd shots while their team scores 3 points at home is just so, so good.
there really needs to be an initiative by the school to stop doing ‘horns down’ when UT isn’t directly involved in the competition. It’s the most insecure, petty, and embarrassing gesture to witness
I was at first round game of #2 Arkansas / #15 TSU in Austin in 1995. Of course lots of longhorn folks there rooting for TSU. Arkansas (who went on to lose the final game vs UCLA that tourney) damn near loses…win in OT…Nolan Richardson walks off the court with Horns Down on both hands held high. Texas was playing a game somewhere in the Pacific Northwest later that night. Just seemed so stupid to me, especially after escaping with a first round OT win.
Poor Aggies LOL, what a faceplant to end the season. I'm all for a Cinderella team...but we don't need 2 of them getting pasted. I'm sure the power conferences will tie up the rules to make sure this doesn't happen again.
Now I'm in the wayback machine: '88/89: 99-92 @ UT, 105-92 @ Arky, 100-76 (SWC Tourney Final) '89/90: 109-100, 103-96 @ UT (OT), 88-85 (Midwest Regional Final) '90-91: 101-89, 86-99 @ UT (we finally won one!!!), 120-89 (SWC Tourney Final) [then Arky left for the SEC and wouldn't play us anymore]
ACC needs to be not-awful to avoid the JMU situation. As far as Cinderellas getting pasted, lots of P4 teams get pasted regularly in the playoffs too. I'd rather see them get a chance than the 4th best B10 team or the 6th best SEC team.
Mike Elko should sent part of his paycheck to Jamie Morrison on Monday (took a little heat off of him)
The problem this year was the ACC tiebreaking rules. The game should’ve been Virginia versus Miami, but they ****ed everything up so the only way to get the ACC in the playoffs was one of the at large bids. The extra conference game next season should help the AC but not all the teams are playing a nine game conference schedule
Any tiebreaker rules are going to be problematic when teams play wildly different schedules. The problem is the size of the conferences and that half the teams never play each other. I'm sure they'll fix the tiebreaker rule to solve this year's problem and it will just create a new problem in future years.
Maybe if their weren't schedule changes coming but I don't think it's a coincidence the two conferences with 8 team schedules (SEC, ACC) had large tie breakers while the 9 team schedules (B10, B12) did not. The move to 9 games will likely help a lot and probably more so because there are 5ish teams still playing an 8 game schedule. The big question there is who finishes higher, the team with more conference wins or the team with a higher percentage? Either way, you're going to have fewer ties. So maybe there was no way around this debacle but at least it'll be mitigated going forward. Ultimately, I think you just axe the conference championships and expand the playoffs to 20 or 24.
I tend to think it's more fluky than that. In the B10, if Michigan beats OSU, Oregon beats Indiana, and USC beats Oregon (all not unrealistic in theory), you'd have had 5 teams at 8-1. I think it's more a factor of the differing schedules. If everyone played each other, these top teams would have to lose more games. But since they don't, you can have a whole bunch of teams losing 1 or 2 games. I do think they might get rid of conference championship games, which I think will be one more nail in the coffin for college football tradition. Only 1 team can win a national championship, and going into the season, only a handful have a realistic chance. But lots and lots of teams could vie for their individual conference titles, and that gives everyone something to play for and fanbases things to be excited about. Instead, you'll have 20 team conferences where 5 or 6 of them finish 7-2. It will be like that 1994 SWC season where 5 of the 8 teams claimed the conference championship.
