Maddening
Before I get into this, let me just say that this just happens to be another year where another team gets hosed in terms of deserving a chance to compete for the crown, but won't get to. Hell, we've heard endless debates and complaints about for years now - and many times we've taken part in them - so this is nothing new. BUT, before I get more into this below, here's what IS new: the black eye for the Big 12.
Big 12:
You know how I've felt about this for a week or so now - I wasn't too confident about Texas getting into the conference title game based mostly on OU's flavor of the week status coupled with Tx having lost more recently. But, the more I pondered this, the more I begin to realize how utterly crazy this is. We can (and we will) blame the BCS system for many, MANY flaws in their processes. BUT, one thing I will say about the BCS is this: they've never once claimed to be able to do anything more than give you the top 2 teams AT THE END OF THE YEAR. When people complain about where this team or that team is ranked when the first BCS rankings come out, what is always the reply - just wait, if this team or that team keeps winning the system will work itself out. In other words, it's not supposed to work until after a 12 game season (and conference championship games). So why in the world would the Big 12 use a system that's still one week away from being the closest to accurate as it will get as their tie breaker system?
The message that this sends is that common opponents is a more important factor in determining who's "better" than actual head-to-head competition. Hell, even talking heads out there (Desmond Howard, Lee Corso, Lou Holtz) are saying as much. If we're going to take that route than don't you have to dissect everything else?
- OU played better out-of-conference competition (getting very lucky with Cincy in a bad conference)
- OU also played Washington - the worst team in D1 college football.
- OU only beat Kansas by 14...at home.
- Texas held Kansas to a single touchdown and won 45-7 on the road in horrible conditions.
- Texas lost to Tech on the last play of the game with 2 of the best 5 offensive players in the game going against a largely inexperienced secondary - and that play was after a Texas safety dropped the easiest INT opportunity of the last 50 years.
- Texas lost on the road.
- Texas lost after playing (and beating) 3 consecutive top 12 teams in consecutive weeks (remember who that first one was against?)
- OU played Tech at home. After a bye week.
- Texas will finish the season having beat both teams competing for the conference title.
- And finally, Texas beat Oklahoma (with Reynolds for half the game and English for the full game) on a neutral field, by 10 points.
The crazy thing is, only one of those points should matter - the last one. I suspect you may see Mack and Dodds making some pretty strong statements to the Big 12 Commissioner in the near future about getting a rule change on the docket for debate. And I suspect that message will be received. There are lots of other examples of conferences out there who have more reasonable tie breakers. And yes, I know, this was the 5th tie breaker, but I don't care of it's the 10th - you can't use a system that doesn't even claim to be correct just yet. Very frustrating and even Stoops and company, deep down, have to know that they stole this one away from the Horns. We can blame the BCS for a lot, but 100% of the blame belongs at the feet of the Big 12 with this one.
Irony of the Decade: how many times in Mack's tenure has Texas finished with 10 or 11 wins, only to have the conference championship game (and BCS game) elude them simply because they lost to OU? Well, now they beat OU and looks what happens. Seriously, I bet Mack if f'ng furious.
Oklahoma:
Let me be clear - this is not meant to be one ounce of disrespect to OU. They are a VERY good football team and deserve a shot at the national title just as much as anyone else out there right now. But, you can't honestly tell me that OU's home win over Tech means more than their head-to-head loss to Texas. It doesn't. And I'll tell you this - if the roles were reversed and Texas was playing next week after having lost to OU, I swear to everything Holy I would be saying the exact same thing - it's just not right. Again, OU is a power house program and a very good football team, but they should be sitting at home next weekend and they know it.
PS - All of this being said, someone explain to me how a team like OU continues to get the benefit of the doubt, even while going 1-5 in their last 6 bowl games including losses to Boise State and West Virginia. If I'm Ohio State I'm asking the same thing...
BCS:
John Saunders, Tim Cowlishaw and the rest of you BCS proponents out there - please, defend your system now. 2 teams will be competing for the national title in just over a month and those two teams will certainly be deserving of it - I promise you that. But, as usual, you can't say that they are any more deserving than the two, three or four that won't get to. The BCS is really nothing more than a lottery - your record and strength of schedule is sort of like the number of tickets you buy. Then, when all is said and done and you've bought your tickets, a computer spits out some numbers and from that we'll have 2 lucky winners. This is not the first time where head-to-head competition was null and void - in 2000 Miami beat FSU head to head, but FSU went ahead of them to the national title game to play OU.
BCS Proponent Point #1 - The regular season is like one big playoff:
Really. How so? Very seldom do any of the teams in the top 8 or 10 play each other. USC has played only one that team that had an inflated ranking. Florida has played 2 teams currently ranked in the top 25 (17 and 22) and they went 1-1 against them. Alabama has played and beaten one team in the top 25 (17). Only Texas and Oklahoma can claim to have played and beaten teams within the top 12. So how is this a regular-season playoff? Furthermore, you've got a situation this year where 2 of the top 4 teams actually did play against each other on a neutral field - and the team that won is below the team it beat. The other 2 teams will face off this weekend and the winner will end up ahead of the loser. Please explain to me a playoff that works like that. The college football regular season is nothing like a playoff.
BCS Proponent Point #2 - A playoff would diminish the regular season:
Chattanooga, UTEP, The Citadel, Western Kentucky, Arkansas State - these are just a few of the teams that the make up the non-conference records of the top 4 teams. And this is happens to be a particularly good year with non-conference scheduling. Why, you ask, do teams always schedule patsies in pre-conference games? Because the system is set up to where you almost have to go undefeated. Just think if, rather than having to try and get into the top 2, you could get into the top 4, 6 or 8 and still have a chance to compete for the big crown. Don't you think the first thing teams would do is bolster their strength of schedule? They'd have to in order to compete with the mid majors that go undefeated every single year. Wouldn't you love to see OU not only play Texas and Texas Tech every year, but to mix in a USC, Ohio State, LSU, or Virginia Tech every year as well? If you take the pressure of perfection off of the coaches and teams, then you'll see them want to go out and be more aggressive in proving that they are the best team. And as such, this will expand the opportunity for more teams to move into the picture (Utah, Boise State, TCU, etc.). How can you tell Utah, who went undefeated, that they can't even try and compete with the big boys for a title?
The BCS will likely never go away because at the end of the day, this whole thing is controlled by the bowls and by the TV executives and because they are greedy and too lazy (have we not learned that there are a growing number of execs turning out to be greedy and lazy?) to find a system that respects the game and the essence of competition while still lining their pockets.
This is why the NFL is, always has been and always will be superior in every way to college football. Guess what, they have a playoff and the regular season is still pretty damn exciting because TEAMS WANT TO MAKE THE PLAYOFFS!!!
Memo To All College Football Coaches:
I heard Tony Kornheiser say this last week and thought it was a great point. All you coaches out there who piss and moan about the BCS system ONLY when it hurts their chances need to sack up, grow a pair and bitch about the system as a unified whole. Stoops, Mack, Carroll, Paterno, etc. Last week I mentioned the easiest way to ensure the greedy bastards at the top scap this system is to stop watching the games, stop blogging (oh yea, that means me), stop going to games, etc. Another way for movement to begin would be for the coaches (under some sort of leadership person/group) to collectively petition the ADs and express their complete disgust with the system. Hell, even threaten further action - they'll listen to you. The more movement you can get with the ADs/School Presidents, the more of a reality this becomes. Until then, Mack, Stoops, Pete, etc. will be nothing more than a bunch of pansies to me. Do they have a valid beef? You bet. But to address only the symptom when it affects you is chicken sh*t.
Other CFB Notes:
I don't want to get too much into this because I'm tired of writing - but if I had to guess right now I would put the Giants and Steelers into the super bowl. Giants aside for a second - does Pittsburgh not look like the toughest, most methodical team out there right now? They just win and they do it by playing harder, hitting harder and making just a few more plays than their opponents. If Steelers and Titans meet in playoffs I would go with Pittsburgh - no matter where the game was played.
That's what I got - I may try and get a post up before the weekend's final match ups. First I have to go and learn the Mizzou fight song...
Big 12:
You know how I've felt about this for a week or so now - I wasn't too confident about Texas getting into the conference title game based mostly on OU's flavor of the week status coupled with Tx having lost more recently. But, the more I pondered this, the more I begin to realize how utterly crazy this is. We can (and we will) blame the BCS system for many, MANY flaws in their processes. BUT, one thing I will say about the BCS is this: they've never once claimed to be able to do anything more than give you the top 2 teams AT THE END OF THE YEAR. When people complain about where this team or that team is ranked when the first BCS rankings come out, what is always the reply - just wait, if this team or that team keeps winning the system will work itself out. In other words, it's not supposed to work until after a 12 game season (and conference championship games). So why in the world would the Big 12 use a system that's still one week away from being the closest to accurate as it will get as their tie breaker system?
The message that this sends is that common opponents is a more important factor in determining who's "better" than actual head-to-head competition. Hell, even talking heads out there (Desmond Howard, Lee Corso, Lou Holtz) are saying as much. If we're going to take that route than don't you have to dissect everything else?
- OU played better out-of-conference competition (getting very lucky with Cincy in a bad conference)
- OU also played Washington - the worst team in D1 college football.
- OU only beat Kansas by 14...at home.
- Texas held Kansas to a single touchdown and won 45-7 on the road in horrible conditions.
- Texas lost to Tech on the last play of the game with 2 of the best 5 offensive players in the game going against a largely inexperienced secondary - and that play was after a Texas safety dropped the easiest INT opportunity of the last 50 years.
- Texas lost on the road.
- Texas lost after playing (and beating) 3 consecutive top 12 teams in consecutive weeks (remember who that first one was against?)
- OU played Tech at home. After a bye week.
- Texas will finish the season having beat both teams competing for the conference title.
- And finally, Texas beat Oklahoma (with Reynolds for half the game and English for the full game) on a neutral field, by 10 points.
The crazy thing is, only one of those points should matter - the last one. I suspect you may see Mack and Dodds making some pretty strong statements to the Big 12 Commissioner in the near future about getting a rule change on the docket for debate. And I suspect that message will be received. There are lots of other examples of conferences out there who have more reasonable tie breakers. And yes, I know, this was the 5th tie breaker, but I don't care of it's the 10th - you can't use a system that doesn't even claim to be correct just yet. Very frustrating and even Stoops and company, deep down, have to know that they stole this one away from the Horns. We can blame the BCS for a lot, but 100% of the blame belongs at the feet of the Big 12 with this one.
Irony of the Decade: how many times in Mack's tenure has Texas finished with 10 or 11 wins, only to have the conference championship game (and BCS game) elude them simply because they lost to OU? Well, now they beat OU and looks what happens. Seriously, I bet Mack if f'ng furious.
Oklahoma:
Let me be clear - this is not meant to be one ounce of disrespect to OU. They are a VERY good football team and deserve a shot at the national title just as much as anyone else out there right now. But, you can't honestly tell me that OU's home win over Tech means more than their head-to-head loss to Texas. It doesn't. And I'll tell you this - if the roles were reversed and Texas was playing next week after having lost to OU, I swear to everything Holy I would be saying the exact same thing - it's just not right. Again, OU is a power house program and a very good football team, but they should be sitting at home next weekend and they know it.
PS - All of this being said, someone explain to me how a team like OU continues to get the benefit of the doubt, even while going 1-5 in their last 6 bowl games including losses to Boise State and West Virginia. If I'm Ohio State I'm asking the same thing...
BCS:
John Saunders, Tim Cowlishaw and the rest of you BCS proponents out there - please, defend your system now. 2 teams will be competing for the national title in just over a month and those two teams will certainly be deserving of it - I promise you that. But, as usual, you can't say that they are any more deserving than the two, three or four that won't get to. The BCS is really nothing more than a lottery - your record and strength of schedule is sort of like the number of tickets you buy. Then, when all is said and done and you've bought your tickets, a computer spits out some numbers and from that we'll have 2 lucky winners. This is not the first time where head-to-head competition was null and void - in 2000 Miami beat FSU head to head, but FSU went ahead of them to the national title game to play OU.
BCS Proponent Point #1 - The regular season is like one big playoff:
Really. How so? Very seldom do any of the teams in the top 8 or 10 play each other. USC has played only one that team that had an inflated ranking. Florida has played 2 teams currently ranked in the top 25 (17 and 22) and they went 1-1 against them. Alabama has played and beaten one team in the top 25 (17). Only Texas and Oklahoma can claim to have played and beaten teams within the top 12. So how is this a regular-season playoff? Furthermore, you've got a situation this year where 2 of the top 4 teams actually did play against each other on a neutral field - and the team that won is below the team it beat. The other 2 teams will face off this weekend and the winner will end up ahead of the loser. Please explain to me a playoff that works like that. The college football regular season is nothing like a playoff.
BCS Proponent Point #2 - A playoff would diminish the regular season:
Chattanooga, UTEP, The Citadel, Western Kentucky, Arkansas State - these are just a few of the teams that the make up the non-conference records of the top 4 teams. And this is happens to be a particularly good year with non-conference scheduling. Why, you ask, do teams always schedule patsies in pre-conference games? Because the system is set up to where you almost have to go undefeated. Just think if, rather than having to try and get into the top 2, you could get into the top 4, 6 or 8 and still have a chance to compete for the big crown. Don't you think the first thing teams would do is bolster their strength of schedule? They'd have to in order to compete with the mid majors that go undefeated every single year. Wouldn't you love to see OU not only play Texas and Texas Tech every year, but to mix in a USC, Ohio State, LSU, or Virginia Tech every year as well? If you take the pressure of perfection off of the coaches and teams, then you'll see them want to go out and be more aggressive in proving that they are the best team. And as such, this will expand the opportunity for more teams to move into the picture (Utah, Boise State, TCU, etc.). How can you tell Utah, who went undefeated, that they can't even try and compete with the big boys for a title?
The BCS will likely never go away because at the end of the day, this whole thing is controlled by the bowls and by the TV executives and because they are greedy and too lazy (have we not learned that there are a growing number of execs turning out to be greedy and lazy?) to find a system that respects the game and the essence of competition while still lining their pockets.
This is why the NFL is, always has been and always will be superior in every way to college football. Guess what, they have a playoff and the regular season is still pretty damn exciting because TEAMS WANT TO MAKE THE PLAYOFFS!!!
Memo To All College Football Coaches:
I heard Tony Kornheiser say this last week and thought it was a great point. All you coaches out there who piss and moan about the BCS system ONLY when it hurts their chances need to sack up, grow a pair and bitch about the system as a unified whole. Stoops, Mack, Carroll, Paterno, etc. Last week I mentioned the easiest way to ensure the greedy bastards at the top scap this system is to stop watching the games, stop blogging (oh yea, that means me), stop going to games, etc. Another way for movement to begin would be for the coaches (under some sort of leadership person/group) to collectively petition the ADs and express their complete disgust with the system. Hell, even threaten further action - they'll listen to you. The more movement you can get with the ADs/School Presidents, the more of a reality this becomes. Until then, Mack, Stoops, Pete, etc. will be nothing more than a bunch of pansies to me. Do they have a valid beef? You bet. But to address only the symptom when it affects you is chicken sh*t.
Other CFB Notes:
- I don't think any of us were surprised by Lane Kiffin being on the short list at Tennessee, but this dude was an assistant for 2 years before going to the NFL and I think we know how that ended. I'm surprised they went with Kiffin here - and I'm curious to know if he was their first choice. I've got a bad feeling about it.
- All you conference debaters (especially the SEC homers) - go and look at the standings of SEC teams. I'll give you Bama, Florida, Georgia and even Ole Miss - after that it's crap. SEC is not a stacked conference and certainly not the deepest conference this year. It's been said a thousand times by a thousand people: conference strength is cyclical.
- Don't buy it SEC guy? There were four games this weekend between ACC and SEC teams - ACC went 3-1, including Georgia Tech embarrassing your precious Bulldogs.
- Speaking of the ACC - go look at the conference records and overall records of this entire conference. That's the definition of a whole sh*t load of decent teams with only a couple of really bad ones and not a single very good team. Don't see that too often.
- One more thing on the whole Big 12 debate: I don't want to diss Tech here too much because after all they also finished 11-1. But, I think we would all agree, you can't lose by 45 points and be a part of the discussion - and then go and barely beat Baylor at home. Tech had a great year and I'm guessing they'll get Ole Miss in the Cotton or Oregon State in the Holiday which are good opponents. They were much improved this year and certainly deserve respect for that. Had they not lost by such a large margin, this whole thing turns out much differently.
- Chizik fired his offensive and defensive coordinators this weekend - that means he's got one more year to show progress before he's back in the SEC as a D-coordinator (perhaps back at Auburn?).
- Another point on the many issues of CFB system - BCS rules say no more than 2 teams from any one conference can go to a BCS bowl. What if 3 of the top 5 teams are from one conference?
- Great year for Bo Pellini and Nebraska - great turnaround. And probably one of the quietest.
- I can't fathom a scenario where Weiss keeps his job - not after the reasons Notre Dame gave for firing Willingham. They didn't get a first down until the last 3 minutes of the third quarter. I know UCS (allegedly) has a great defense, but that's miserable. Even Washington managed to do better than that.
- Assuming OU beats Mizzou and moves into the title game, Texas will likely get Ohio State in the Fiesta. Texas, you HAVE to win that game - I mean you absolutely have to win that game.
I don't want to get too much into this because I'm tired of writing - but if I had to guess right now I would put the Giants and Steelers into the super bowl. Giants aside for a second - does Pittsburgh not look like the toughest, most methodical team out there right now? They just win and they do it by playing harder, hitting harder and making just a few more plays than their opponents. If Steelers and Titans meet in playoffs I would go with Pittsburgh - no matter where the game was played.
That's what I got - I may try and get a post up before the weekend's final match ups. First I have to go and learn the Mizzou fight song...
posted by The Bearden Wonder at 10:55 AM
2 Comments:
have been sick since sunday afternoon. it all boils down to we beat both teams playing for the big 12 title!! what a kick in the nuts to have barry switzer give us the results. Was Satan busy?
Great post. The Horns are definitely getting screwed here, and there's no one in the country who would dare say any different.
Do we really need to keep ripping on Washington though? Those are my boys, and we're only 17 years removed from our last National Championship. We're just rebuilding. A lot. Go Dawgs!
Post a Comment
<< Home