If, by some hypothetical calculus of justice, Oklahoma gets to have Bradford back for the Texas game because of Colt's injury four months later in the national championship game, according to bylaw 13.45, Texas also gets to have an absent injured starter for the Texas OU game. I therefore give them tight end Blaine Irby (tearing it up before career ending injury last year) or WR Brandon Collins (academically ineligible) - both of whom would have vastly improved the offense's efficiency when they played, worth a couple of TD's over stone hands Chiles et al.
Why we are discussing the Oklahoma game is unclear to me, but Colt was healthy for the Oklahoma game. If you open up the "missing starter in October" door, you must accept that both teams get to walk through it.
Nope. Colt vs. Bama for Bradford vs. Texas. Because if you're of the opinion that Texas' elite QB vs. Bama would mean they were national champs, then you must recognize the reality that OU's elite QB vs. Texas would mean they would not be. Fortune giveth, fortune taketh away.
Bradford wouldn't have been eligible this year for Alabama, NCAA rules dictate that he sit out a year after transferring. Rules are rules.
Obviously the OU game would have been different if Bradford played, but I just can't understand why people say it is equivalent to Texas losing Colt. Landry Jones had already started multiple games for them. He had meaningful practice time with the WRs, and the offensive coordinator had plenty of time to already have plays drawn up for Jones. Oklahoma had already seen Bradford go down once this season, and knew exactly what Jones could do if needed. Gilbert has probably spent most of the season throwing to the second team receivers (i.e. why Goodwin can catch him so well) instead of Shipley, Williams, and Kirkendoll. Greg Davis had just spent the last month preparing plays for Colt to run against the Alabama offense, and five plays into the game you take a dual-threat QB out for an 18-year-old pocket passer, who had only seen garbage minutes. (Quick sidenote: whoever thinks that Mack messed up by not playing Gilbert more throughout the year, please explain how 10 or so more passes against the likes of UTEP, UCF, and Kansas would have prepared him for the unprecedented events of Thursday. Also, those criticizing that decision would most definitely have criticized Texas passing in those blowout situations. Sound like people just want a reason to criticize Texas, but that isn't new). Obviously, Bradford is a better player than Landry. No one knows what would have happened in that game if Bradford stays in. But it is obvious that Oklahoma was much more equipped and prepared to lose Bradford in that situation than Texas was to lose McCoy against 'Bama.
Because if you think Colt is worth 16 points vs. Bama, then surely Bradford is worth 3 points vs. Texas. No one is saying it is an equivalent exchange/loss, what I'm saying is that if you think Texas "would have won" and therefor you think Texas should be national champs, then your logic trumps itself since without Bradford going out vs. Texas they never would have been in the title game to begin with. No Colt injury, no national title for Alabama. No Bradford injury, no national title game for UT. That is how they are equivalent. So don't say "we got jipped, we got robbed, Bama doesn't deserve it, etc"... not that you are, but some will and have.
I know the UT denizens on this board are arrogant and annoying, but it really angers you for Texas to even hypothetically win a title? Let it go.
I don't associate them as equal. I think they both would have given their teams a better chance to win, but not a guaranteed win in either case. All I was saying was that Oklahoma was much more prepared for a Bradford injury than Texas was. But don't get me wrong, 'Bama 100% deserves the win. They had more points win the game was over, and no one can ever deny that.
I don't think you can automatically say that Texas would have won with Colt.......I think Bama would have played differently too. But, I do think Texas with Colt would have been the better team..... Arguably he was the most important player to his team in the entire NCAA...without him Texas would struggle against a lot of good teams. He was the 1 guy they could not afford to lose.... And, I think Texas healthy vs Alabama healthy would have been more fun to watch. For the record, I do think if Colt played Texas would have won by more than 10....but we will never know. DD
Sorry kids. Maybe next year. Hook 'em! <object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/dVM06rZfZYM&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/dVM06rZfZYM&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>
I think Texas offense and defense got deflated after Colt went out. Ingram is a tough runner but the defense was arm tackling and diving past runners, then was on the field too long with the Gilbert 3 and outs. Its easy to see Texas had Bama on their heels at the start, then momentum swung and Bama had Texas on their heels. Alabama certainly would not run the same strategy the 2nd half no doubt about it. Texas also would not have run so many predictable vanilla plays when Gilbert came in. When Texas finally stopped dinking and dunking and abandoned the running game and let Gilbert throw past 10 yards it opened things up. Colt runs those same plays all game and is more mobile than Gilbert. I predict Texas would have won by 4. Equaling the margin Alabama was favored to win by.
No doubt. The Bradford comparison isn't even relevant. UT's defense and special teams were going to beat OU even if Bradford played the entire game.
