Not directly, no. But I really think the Florida/Michigan situation from two years ago is a good parallel. Both big name, media darlings in (at the time) perceived power conferences. The initial perceived momentum was with Michigan. But the head-to-head logic (granted, applied in a different direction) proved to be persuasive (incredibly so, given the anger in many of the columns). I just think you're expecting too much from voters. The top priority is brand name -- it's the same reason USC has continually gotten the benefit of the doubt over the past two years from voters, even though they haven't looked at all elite for a majority of the time. Yes, they try and be logical -- to a point. That point is perceived power teams. If you're not among them (Tech), you're out. If you are, they try and do a reasonably objective job of analysis. If you're not, they get hyperventilated. I don't think it's far-fetched at all for them to switch back and forth in their logic -- I see them do it on live TV every weekend. But time will tell -- at least we're only 2.5 weeks away.
That situation isn't comparable though Cat because the other team in the title game was Ohio State. Michigan had already played Ohio State and lost, so the voters didn't want the NC game to be a rematch of the two teams. The situations aren't similar at all. The situation you are discussing would be comparable to Texas being the number 1 team int he BCS rankings and the debate being between Oklahoma and Alabama.
This situation had nothing to do with ranking one team above another due to head-to-head issues. They picked Florida because Ohio State had already beaten Michigan (just a week ago), so it would provide for a repetitive national title game. That had nothing at all do with elevating Florida because they beat Michigan. You also had the issue that Michigan didn't win their conference while Florida did - that tends to be much more important to voters after the OU and Nebraska debacles, as we saw with the LSU/Georgia swap last year. The Washington example is far more relevant here - while one wasn't a name team, it had the direct correlation of voters not considering head-to-head in their evaluations and instead using other factors, such as name and who looked more dominant recently. At this point, there's no evidence that voters have factored in head-to-head heavily in making those decisions. There's at least a little evidence that it was ignored in one big situation.
I think there is a BIG difference between the WAC and the MWC. Do the Utes deserve consideration for the NC game? Nah. But don't put them in the same category as Hawaii.
I don't know what I can do at this point except agree to disagree. imo, it had everything to do with head-to-head. I heard the argument, hundreds of times ad nauseam, about how Michigan "already had its chance." I understand it's not a direct correlation to what's going to happen this year, but it's the same larger principle. If two teams play a "big game" during the season, the result of said game, if the two teams end up with comparable records, ends up defining said losing team's season in the eyes of voters. I don't know what you and justtxyank are getting at, honestly. It's not about a direct comparison. It's about the overall, guiding theme. For most voters, you can sum up their polls with two simple rules, in this order: 1.) Brand name hype 2.) Direct comparison (head-to-head, if applicable) Priority #1 will eliminate Tech. If 1 can't choose between two teams, they'll go to #2. By the way, here's one of college football's biggest news outlets who predicts that OU will win out... and UT will end up in the Big 12 title game and play for the national championship. NBC has already done the same. http://collegefootball.rivals.com/content.asp?SID=1144&CID=875653
I saw that. Also saw that Phil Steele has UT v. Florida in his national title game as well. I don't always agree with his picks and ideas, but the dude certainly does his homework and has an opinion that deserves respect. www.philsteele.com
Just a sidenote... As of this week, Texas and Notre Dame are now tied for 2nd most wins all time (829). Also, a win would give Texas their 8th consecutive 10 win season.
Also a sidenote... UT losing at Kansas OR Tech beating OU could possibly make this the best thread ever.
A few people are putting UT on upset alert this weekend. Saw both Mel Kiper and Todd McShay talk about it on ESPN. They cited the crappy weather in Lawrence, the early kickoff time and Kansas ability to put up points via the air. Plus Texas lost starting Center Chris Hall to a knee injury and his back-up Buck Burnette got kicked off the team this week. True Freshman David Snow will be taking the snaps at center. As far as Tech going into Norman and beating OU - I could see it happening. Going to be a high scoring affair. Both teams have an extra week to gameplan. UT/OU was a great game and Tech/UT was even better - I expect Tech/OU to set the bar even higher.
UT needed a dominant win to boost them in the polls even more tomorrow, and they got it. KU played OU very competitively in Norman less than a month ago.
Extremely impressed with the D today. If nothing else, Texas proved that they can play some D. Good win on the road while being banged up and playing in less than ideal conditions. Great game by the D, sacking up on several 4th down plays and that final goal line stand. All in all, a satisfying win. Now, let's hope Blake Gideon is okay, and that Orakpo and Chykie Brown can get completely healthy. Chris Hall, too.
If OU, Texas and Tech are all tied Tech will lose out because of their substantially weaker schedule, not because of brand name. Tech has a lot of votes for #1 after all. I am pretty sure Texas will be a near unanimous top 1 loss team in the computers--about as strong conference schedule as possible and 500 record of nonconference D1 opponents. Maybe if Cincy and TCU win out and a Mizzou losses to Kansas some computers might have OU ahead, but those nonconference foes of UW & Chat hurt them. I think things could get real interesting if Texas, OU and Florida all end with 1 loss. Again I am pretty sure Texas will sweep the computer polls. But Texas would probably be #3 in the human polls--but who knows about Florida and OU's rankings, I'd expect them close. I think OU will edge Florida in most computers. Overall it is not crazy at all that the Big 12 gets both finalists (Tech/OU winner & Texas). There is an outside chance of it happening even if Florida runs the table--because they could still be #3 in the computers because of how strong the Big 12 has played out. Florida will be behind Texas in all computers, that is a LOT of ground to make up in voters. Of course if Bama loses to Auburn, or UF to FSU, taking further luster off the SEC championship, this tremendously increases the possibility. Overall I don't think voter manipulation will swing it. Michigan nearly got in the game 2 years ago--if Florida hadn't come on really strong as a 1 loss squad they would have. Nebraska got in despite losing their last game. In the end if Tech loses to OU and UF wins out, I think it is be splitting hairs in the formula among OU, UT and UF, with calculations the average poll voter will not know enough to manipulate. Yes there would be an outcry if Tech or OU plays Texas for the NT--but it would be after the fact. I'll add one more weird scenario. By chance Tech loses to OU and OU to OSU, guess what, Tech goes to the Big 12 championship game, but regardless of that outcome they won't catch Texas IMO, even if they edged them in Harris/Coaches poll by beating Mizzou the comp poll gap would be bigger in Texas favor. In sum, Texas is going to be a hard one loss team to beat out from one of the top 2 BCS spots because they should be great in the computers. The voters would have to be overwhelmingly more impressed by OU and UF (possible if those teams smoke all remaining opponents) to knock Texas out.
My favorite thing about the BCS? All the b****ing and moaning a month left in the regular season. People unnecessarily whine about their team getting potentially screwed over when there are still tons of things left to be played out.
Texas opponents record this week 5-1 FAU won UTEP won Rice bye Arkansas bye Colorado lost ou bye Missouri won OSU won BU won OU opponent record this week 3-5 Chattanooga lost Cincinatti won Washington lost TCU bye Baylor won Kansas lost Kansas State lost Nebraska won aggy lost Computers will love us this week.
Abso-freakin-lutely. The complaining actually started a few weeks ago. Some have had to eat their words already. Some still don't get it. The bottom line is people will always complain about favoritism/conspiracy if their team doesn't make it no matter how undeserving.
I'm curious how anyone would have to "eat their words" complaining over a hypothetical. The message board mentality some people have of "don't look ahead" has always fascinated me. Sure, if your team looks ahead, that's a problem. But we're fans -- it doesn't matter what the hell our focus is on. All of the BCS discussions, in this thread and others, on the hypothetical assumption that team X wins out. I don't have much of a bias here. My team is Missouri. But if UT, OU, Tech or whoever's fans want to debate what could or should happen in a given scenario, what's the problem? Maybe you don't like spending time discussing something that's not a given, and that's fine. That's your right. But lots of other people, including me, enjoy the discussion. And besides that, as I said, I'm extremely curious as to how anyone would be wrong, much less have to "eat their words," when the entire discussion is around a hypothetical! No one, to my knowledge, is guaranteeing that OU will beat Tech, or that OU will beat OSU, or hell, even that UT will beat A&M. It's a simple discussion of what should/will happen if result X and result Y happen in a given scenario. How would anyone have to "eat their words" over that?
Cry me a river. There was plenty of talk about hypothetically getting screwed by bias before anyone was even close to being in that position. I'm not surprised you responded to my post though.
Um, what's wrong with that? We're fans, dude, and this is a sports message board. Speculation is part of it. Also, how can you have to "eat your words" when you admit the argument was made hypothetically? I didn't see anyone claiming their team was close to being in that position.
