Kansas? No. Sorry buddy. Not gonna get me with Kansas. Some people like to slurp them. Not me. Not this year.
If Florida and Alabama played next week on a neutral field, Florida would be favored. So why not put Florida ahead of Alabama?
Good points. I hate the system more and more every Sunday. Ive mentioned this before. Ill say it again, to show how horrible the system really is. TAMU played Texas a few years back. Had TAMU beated Texas they would have gotten a crappy bowl by sending UT to the Cotton Bowl. By losing Texas got to go to the Rose Bowl and TAMU was rewarded with the Cotton Bowl. Any system that encourages a loss like that is ridiculous.
I agree, I know a lot of people feel that Florida will easily beat Alabama on a neutral field. I guess a lot of voters have a problem putting a 1 loss team ahead of an undefeated team in the same conference.
That's exactly what it is, and it's painfully obvious. The BCS etiquette currently states that you put the undefeated teams from the BCS conferences at the top. Then you start using whatever logic and arguments you want to slate teams with an equal number of losses behind them.
THat is the most ridiculously subjective criteria I have ever heard. Pollsters don't and cant be expected to watch every game with a top 25 team. Tell me how to quantify and weigh the talent level of Texas vs. Oklohoma vs. Florida.
So as a UT fan, what should I be hoping for in the OU/Tech game? On one hand, Tech winning means they go to the Big 12 title game, BUT I seriously think they could lose to Mizzou since the game is in Arrowhead, and Mizzou pounced them last year. Tech losing the title game would launch Texas into the BCS championship game. On the other hand, if OU wins, then it's all up to the rankings. I suppose OU blowing them out would shrink the points deficit between OU and UT in the rankings. I think the best option for me is for OU to win, but not by much.
You root for Oklahoma next week. You hope that it's a hight scoring close game where each team scores more than what they scored against Texas. Then you take a shower similar to the one they give people exposed to radiation. Finally, on Sunday morning you pray to your god that Baylor beats Tech.
Duh, because Alabama is undefeated last time I checked. Having Florida as the highest ranked one-loss team is not a "joke" at all.
BCS standings up. http://msn.foxsports.com/cfb/poll?poll=BCS 1 Alabama .979 2 Texas Tech .970 3 Texas .891 4 Florida .876 5 Oklahoma .839 6 USC .787 7 Utah .764 8 Penn State .696 9 Boise State .656 10 Ohio State .615 What really boggles my mind is that UT is number 3 with 2 weeks in the regular season to go. Both teams ahead of us could lose, and there is potential for us to NOT more up a single spot. Insane.
The computers love us! Texas Avg Comprank 3 Oklahoma Avg Comp Rank 6 Texas Comp % 930 Oklahoma Comp % 820 Full BCS Standings
So it's OK to use overall resume when comparing Florida and Alabama, but not when comparing Florida and Texas? Yes, it is a joke. Losses Texas: on the road, last play of the game, at No. 2 Tech Florida: at home to Ole Miss Wins vs. Top 15 opponents: Texas: 3 (Oklahoma, Missouri, Oklahoma State) Florida: 1 (Georgia) It is an absolute joke to say Florida has a better resume than Texas, at this point. This should be every bit as much of a "duh." Now, am I saying Florida couldn't beat Texas? No, I'm not. Am I saying Florida couldn't have won those games, had they had Texas' schedule? No, I'm not. What I am saying is that if you're going to use that kind of logic ahead of comparing the team's resumes and actual results, it makes zero sense to turn around and rank Alabama ahead of Florida, assuming you believe Florida is the better team. Give me the case, based on the season results we have, for Florida to have had a better season thus far than Texas. I'd absolutely love to hear it. But don't argue what could happen, or how they might hypothetically match up, or any other factor like that. Because if you're going to take that into consideration and not resume, then there's no reason to have Alabama No. 1.
Except the problem here is that the point of having polls in the mix is specifically to introduce subjectivity. If they wanted a purely "resume" evaluation of the teams, you could just use computer rankings - then you'd have a mathematical determination of who was best based on schedule strength, etc. But the reason the polls are there - and the reason they've been given more weight recently - is to allow the decision to be based in large part on the eyeball test as opposed to statistics or resumes. Voters will vote based on a variety of subjectivities, and one of those is how good the team looks. Florida looks really, really scary good. That's the justification for putting them above Texas, fair or not.
It's imaterial where florida is ranked. Don't dwell on them. It's all about Oklahoma. ...provided they beat Tech.
Major, I totally get that. As I said, I would respect that kind of voting if it were applied consistently. But I haven't seen a single analyst on the planet say they think Alabama will beat Florida head-to-head, yet Florida isn't ahead of Alabama. If you're going to use the eyeball test, that's great, but use it everywhere -- not just when it's convenient. No, they don't have to do that, and it doesn't matter what I think, but I'm definitely going to b**** about it when they're inconsistent.
The reality is that the voters aren't consistent, though - they've never bene that. But you could make the argument that the general method use (as a mass of individual people) for the top tier of teams is to first break down BCS teams by # of losses (taking out the crap conferences), and then in each subset, rank the team based on their subjective eyeball test as well as by brand name and previous rank. Not saying it's the right method, but it seems to fit what you end up seeing on a regular basis in the polls.
Completely agreed that that's how it works in reality -- I'm just venting because it doesn't make a lot of logical sense. With that said, this is actually the very reason I've been so adamant about UT remaining ahead of OU. You brought up a point about why would voters use two different sets of logic -- one to eliminate Tech, and then to break the UT-OU tie by head-to-head -- well, here's a classic example of how voters flip back between various logic. I don't agree with it, but like you said, it is what it is -- and ultimately, I think it'll be to Texas' benefit if they're competing with OU. We'll see in a week.
It's a shame that OU could jump Texas just because of the timing of their next two games. Texas played the same two teams when both were undefeated. Does that count for anything? If Tech loses to OU, they are done in a possible three way tie because their non-conference schedule was all cupcakes, which would leave Texas vs OU. Well, Texas beat OU. So I guess that means Texas will win a three way tie.
