Of course we should be concerned about hypotheticals. Ignoring them because it works out most years is exactly the wrong type of thinking. Who knows if someone will get screwed this year. Most probably Boise and Utah will win all their games, including some quality opponents, and not be in the NC picture. If Texas, OU and UF all end up with 1 loss you basically flip out of the hat--one will be screwed equal with pretty much equal resumes. The system sucks, you can tell by the hypotheticals. SCF and Jay are wrong to say we should not discuss them because it might work out.
I think it is a forgone conclusion if Texas remains winning they will be the top 1 loss squad in the BCS computers (which cannot consider margin of victory). They played the toughest conference schedule among 1 loss teams (OU and Tech got rotated into easier conference schedules) and had averagish D1 opponents filling out the non-conference schedule. Between OU and UF is harder to determine--it may depend on how their opponents do. But as the Computers like Tech better than Bama (despite Techs atrocious nonconference schedule and getting a an easy rotation for the Big 12), I have a hunch OU in most computers would be ahead of Florida assuming they all win out. The question would be if OU and Florida (assuming they win out) have strong enough rankings ahead of Texas in the human polls to make up the difference. It would have to be a very strong case (not many dissenters putting UT in the 1 or 2 spot over UF or OU) because I think Texas will nearly sweep the computers over either. If these 3 are all tied it is going to be really sticky.
Give me a break. I didn't say no one should talk. There has been plenty of logical, hypothetical talk here, and I have no problem w/ it. A lot of it is deserving considering the present situation. Then there has been whining and b****ing starting weeks ago about how 'everyone is underestimating my team and we get no respect' when said team hasn't proven anything and then proceeds to fail after all. It's obvious who's talking reasonable football and who's talking 'fan boy w/ blinders on'. Evidently people can b**** and moan (are you telling me no one here has done that?) but I can't complain about that. The irony. My mistake. I'll stop now.
I'm not sure if you're talking about me or jason or whoever, but what does the fact that the team proceeds to "fail after all" have to do with anything? When people make arguments about the BCS, they're doing it based on logic and the facts they perceive at the time. For example, all the arguing I've done of late is based on my belief that Texas would be ahead of OU in the BCS, in the event of a three-way tie. If Tech beats OU, it doesn't make all of it wrong -- it just makes a hypothetical not come to fruition. Like I said, I'm not sure if you're directing it at me, but I was definitely one of the people to complain about voters when I felt Missouri took a somewhat steep drop for their loss to Oklahoma State. Then, of course, we got hammered by Texas. That doesn't change my opinion one iota on the drop Missouri took in the October 12 poll. I thought and still think it was excessive. The fact that Missouri eventually lost to Texas, or when any team "fails after all," is irrelevant when discussing prior poll rankings where said game couldn't be taken into account. You can complain all you want, and that's fine. But don't get on your high horse with regards to BCS complaints by suggesting that people had to "eat their words" when they were either discussing a hypothetical or discussing a situation in which future games are of no relevance.
