You said you were concerned with what happened on the field. On the field, Tech performed equally as well as Texas and OU in conference games. And since this is a conference tiebreaker, there's absolutely no justification for arbitrarily excluding them to make it a two-team tie. You're picking and choosing the rules you want to make this work. On one hand, you say results on the field is all that should matter, but then are willing to look at arbitrary things like how a team looked to eliminate Tech. You're willing to refer to computers to justify that Texas had an equally tough schedule, but when those same computers spit out out that Texas was worse than OU, they suck. You choose BCS rankings as a valid way to eliminate a third team, but then not a valid way to pick the best team. Historically, and earlier-loss tends to be as important as anything when ranking teams with equal losses. That favors OU. Why isn't that valid now? Worst-loss is also used a lot. Why is TT considered an equal loss, but then simultaneously, TT is considered not on the same level at UT/OU? Why can't you eliminate a third team any other way? Why not eliminate OU first for having not had to play either of the other 2 on the road, and then make a two-way tiebreaker between TT and UT? What makes the BCS the right way to eliminate a third team? The proposed tiebreaker is just as ridiculous as the current one. BCS rankings shouldn't be used at all - the tie should be broken based on SOMETHING on the field involving conference games, whether its points differential or points allowed or whatever else. But if the BCS *is* used, there's no reason the current tiebreaker is fundamentally any worse than the proposed one. This is the same problem the BCS has had its whole existence: trying to change the rules to fix the previous year.
No, I'm not, and no, Tech did not. Margin of victory and strength of schedule have always been factors used in college football. Tech did not perform equally well in conference games. To my knowledge, UT and OU did not have last-minute wins at home against Baylor and Nebraska, for starters. You're completely ignoring context. When I said results on the field, I was saying in comparison with intended scheduling. How a team looks in games is part of results on the field. What a team meant to do years in advance when they scheduled a couple of OOC games is not. Computers in general are decent means for analysis, but they pale relative to head-to-head, actual matchups. Why do you think in such absolutes? I have no problems using computers to compare teams, and it's still fine to use them. I just think actual head-to-head matchups are slightly higher on the priority list. I'm not using BCS rankings. I'm using personal judgments on conference performance that would generally be agreed on by every fan on the planet, except maybe for a few diehards in Lubbock (and I doubt even that). Historically, head-to-head matchups have trumped all. In 2006, Michigan was denied a national title game shot because of this ridiculous line of "they already had their chance!" In 2001 and 2002, any mention of Texas as a darkhorse candidate to sneak into the title game was immediately followed by "they should've beaten OU" by every analyst on the planet. No one would've even dared breathe the idea of ranking Texas ahead of OU, had OU lost a game. If you think that historically, the earlier-loss tendency was equally or more powerful than head-to-head results between teams with the same records, I don't know what else to say other than I disagree vehemently. You want to use worst loss? That's cool, the worst loss by far is the team that lost by, oh, 40-something points. Bye Tech, again. Because OU was clearly in a different league for all of conference play than Texas Tech, going by any method you want to use other than simplistically looking at record and nothing else.
LOL, the tie aint gonna happen again. But trust me, the horns are ready to kill someone. Bradford vs McCoy Round 3!
And by the way, its not just the computers. It was either the harris or coaches poll that had OU ranked ahead of texas by a point. The Computer part of the BCS had OU 1 and UT 2, overall.. going into conference championship week.
Ya.... its just a really messed up system. To add a 3 way tie on top of the BCS is crazy enough. haha. 8 team tourney would be sick!!!! Are you a fan of a future tourney ?
Damn straight I think every week of the Coach's Poll should be made public. It brings integrity to the forefront and some coaches just don't have any. Go back a few years, remember when Cal had a make-up game against Southern Miss and won I believe by double digits (more than 10, but less than 20 I believe). Cal was ahead of horn in the BCS standings prior to that game. After the Cal/S.Miss game, the final week's poll was made public and it was discoverd that Mack and his brother (also a head coach, forgot which team) voted Cal in the teens. It was a very close race and those 2 votes (and a couple of others) were enough to move Cal out of the Rose Bowl slot and move horn in to play Michigan. Give Mack and his brother credit for being bold and BSing their votes because there was an obvious agenda at hand. If I were a coach who was on the brink of a BCS game and a Holiday Bowl bid, I probably would have done the same thing for my players and program. But like I said, integrity. If you are allowed to hid hide behind a curtain, it is inevitable that you will "misbehave".
If I recall correctly, the votes of the coaches that year were never revealed. As such, it would be impossible for someone to "discover" that Mack and his brother changed their votes that much. Do you have proof that they did?
This is one of those beyond silly aggy urban legends that is nowhere close to reality. First of all, no one knows what Mack or anyone voted back then, because even the final ballots were kept secret. But what we do know is that no one voted Cal in the teens -- the lowest were two coaches that voted them at 8. And Mack wasn't the coach that voted Texas at No. 2, either. http://www.signonsandiego.com/sports/sullivan/20041209-9999-1s9sullivan.html There is zero evidence that either Mack or Watson BSed their votes. In fact, all evidence points against it. Funny how you have not a single source or actual evidence, but basically an old "wives tale" that you remember hearing, but stunningly can't find anywhere (you know, for a story that big, it shouldn't be hard to find it. Google). Here's what actually happened: some crazy conspiracy-nut Aggie who hates UT with every bone in his body made up some random BS on TexAgs, and Aggies everyone wanted it to be true, so much so that they abandoned logic and critically examining the situation. What did Mack do? He did what I'd want every coach to do -- went to bat for his players and outlined reasons why his team was superior. Every coach in America should be doing the same thing. Texas played a far, far superior schedule (Texas' SOS was 3, Cal's was 56 -- http://www.collegefootballpoll.com/2004_archive_computer_rankings.html) and had the same record. He argued based on actual evidence, pollsters reevaluated the evidence, and coupled with the computers, his team moved on. End of story. The only "misbehaving" or lack of integrity is among the Aggies and jealous haters who pass around these wives tales that have no basis in reality and they have no evidence to support.
Not only does he not have proof that they did, but there's documented proof that they did not. (See above post)
Here is the link of how the coaches voted. Now remember this poll is after conference championship week. So OU already beat mizzou, and Florida already beat Alabama. They most interesting poll is the poll at the end of the regular season. I will try and find it. Stoops does not vote in the coaches poll b/c some people still ranked Missouri over Oklahoma, after Oklahoma beat missouri twice in 2007. Bobby Bowden was still butt hurt.
oh sorry the link http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/football/2008-12-08-final-coaches-ballots_N.htm
oh my bad. Still check it out tho.. its pretty cool to see who voted for who. Stoops has been with a lot of coaches. They seem to have his back. Leach voted texas 5th.... HAHAHAHA
I hate the UT Football. But I'm very happy they got the at large bid over Cal. California sucks in general..... Kobe lives there...
Yeah, it's really amazing to look back at 2004 if you look at the actual evidence, because it wasn't close. Like many years of late, the Pac 10 (outside of USC) pretty much sucked. Cal's OOC schedule was weak. Texas had an identical record with a much tougher schedule, but until Cal was given a beatdown by Tech (and some still persisted afterward) the public opinion was that Cal was shafted. The reasons why are fascinating, of course excluding the standard A&M envy: 1) "But, Cal was ranked ahead until the final week! Coaches changed their votes late because they were intimidated by that mean man Mack Brown! Funny how these same people had very few problems with Oklahoma jumping Texas in the final week last year, even when there was head-to-head evidence against it! Moreover, if you're stupid one week, you shouldn't be contractually obligated to be stupid for the rest of your life. Re-examining the totality of the evidence isn't a flaw; it's to be commended. The evidence showed that Texas had the same record as Cal in the face of a much tougher schedule. Mack Brown made that case clearer, and as the face of his program, that's his job. Whether Cal or Texas was ahead in the previous week is irrelevant to the point. The point is which team is more deserving and had the better season. Argument should have been exclusively along those lines. 2) But Cal hasn't been to the Rose Bowl in 60 years, and they had it taken from them! So? Sports aren't about feelings. They're about rewarding the better team. Some people act like Mack Brown held a gun to coaches' heads. He didn't. He made his case, and coaches didn't have to agree with him. They agreed with him because they found the evidence to be compelling. It sucks for Cal, but it's not a charity. Don't go into competitive sports if you want your feelings considered. 3) But it's tradition for the Pac 10 to go! No, it's a tradition for the Pac 10 champion to go. The champion of the Pac 10 that year was USC, which went to the national title game. At that point, the Pac 10 had no historical/standard representative, and the process went wide open. Cal had no more of a "traditional" claim than Texas. 4) But Texas got shutout by Oklahoma! Mack can't win a big game! They don't deserve to be rewarded! Don't laugh -- I remember this well, and it's what made 2008 so frustrating. Back in the early part of this decade, anytime Texas wanted anything on a national scale, the response from analysts was overwhelming: You should've beaten Oklahoma, even when the topic (like a comparison with Cal) had no correlation to OU. And, for that matter, Cal didn't beat its big rival, USC, either. Yes, they came a bit closer -- 23-17 loss instead of 12-0, but then again, Texas was closer in its 2008 loss than OU was, and that didn't matter, so no complaining there, Cal fans. Back on topic, the OU loss was held over Mack Brown's head in everything he did, which is exactly why Texas fans still b**** so much about last year. Complete double-standard from earlier in the decade -- OU isn't penalized along the same lines. I could go on forever, but the bottom line: Texas was a far superior team to Cal that year, and their bowl performances further confirmed that. To act as if what happened that year was unfair or an injustice to Cal is just delusional, hate-filled thinking that ignores objectivity.
Back to 2008 Texas vs. OU... I really hate the "It's a three-team race so Tech has just as much an argument" debate. Yes, it was a three-way tie, and this is why the BCS ranking tiebreaker was used. Yes, before this tiebreaker is used, Tech has as much argument as anyone to be in the Big XII Championship. Here is where that argument falls flat. Once this aspect of using the BCS formula to determine the representative is thrown out there, Tech is eliminated. The link JLEW1818 posted shows that. (The only person in the entire country who thought Tech should be in the Championship game was their own coach. And people accuse Mack of being slimy...) The way Tech played against Baylor, Nebraska, and Oklahoma shows that. Their weak strength of schedule shows that. This is why Longhorn fans keep bringing up 45-35. Everyone on the planet knew the winner of Florida-Alabama was going to play the Big XII winner (as long as it was Texas/OU/Tech) in the Championship Game. Essentially, every voter knew whoever they voted higher between the three would be in the Championship. Every voter (maybe except for Leach ) had Texas and OU right by each other (in some order) and Tech lower at that point. The huge 45-35 campaign was just to get voters to think about the order they wrote Texas and OU on their ballots, with the logic being: when there are two teams so close in resumes, you should use the team that beat the other. So, yes, Tech beating Texas made the three equal. Because of this equality, however, we were forced to use the BCS formula. This poll clearly shows that everyone thought Texas and OU were on a different level than Tech, and this is where the UT/OU head-to-head argument comes from.
Okay so what if Oklahoma would have lost to Oklahoma State??? Texas Tech would have won the south and beat Missouri. So would texas still deserve going to the national championship without even winning the south? In 2003-04 Oklahoma lost in the big 12 championship game and still went to the National title game. But they did with the South.
