College Football Week 14 thread.

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

IMO, Texas beat OU on a neutral field, and barely lost to Texas Tech on the road.

OU lost to UT on a neutral field, and smoked Texas Tech at home.

And of the three teams who beat each other and ended up with 7-1 records, only ONE of them went on the road and beat a ranked opponent in their division.

[cartman]

And of the three teams, one has given up 14 points or fewer seven times this season, another three times, and the other twice. And of the three teams, one has given up more than 30 points three times, with the most given up 39, another has given up more than 30 four times, with two going over 40, and the third has given up over 30 three times, with the most being 61.

[sooner333]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

I don't have a horse in this one (FWIW).

IMO, Texas beat OU on a neutral field, and barely lost to Texas Tech on the road.

OU lost to UT on a neutral field, and smoked Texas Tech at home.

UT should be ahead of OU and in the Big 12 championship game.

And this comes from someone who normally despises Texas.

I understand this point of view and I also understand that seemingly more people agree with it than my side. It's obvious that if Texas Tech had lost to Baylor, Texas would have gone over Oklahoma because of head-to-head. If Oklahoma had lost at Oklahoma State, Texas Tech would have gone over Texas because of head to head. My view is a three-way tie needs something other than head-to-head to break it...the conference chose the BCS ratings based on this theory, which seemingly is the only way to do it (other than using SOS only, other polls, graduation rates, etc.). Keep in mind, even in Mack Brown's plan, the BCS is used to throw out the lowest team (he wants to use it when it helps, and then discard it when it hurts).

Texas Tech gets thrown out because they are presumably the weakest team. Why? Because Oklahoma beat them so bad. So, the Texas argument goes, because Oklahoma took the team that Texas lost to out of the mix, and Texas beat Oklahoma, then Texas should go. To me, this seems out of line.

Again, I understand the head-to-head argument. My argument is that throwing one team out of a three way tie when the only losses all season are to eachother seems unfair as well. The bottom line is that it truly is a tie that can't be broken by records or head-to-head alone. Someone gets screwed no matter what.

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by cartman

Between this, and Vegas Vic's multiple references to the Gatorade bath at the end of the A&M game, it just goes to show how much of a complex OU fans have with Texas.

I just found it odd that Mack Brown would get a gatorade bath after beating the worst team in the Big XII, a team that was demolished by Baylor.

Speaking of complexes, what is the obsession that the Texas fans have with OU by adding the words "OU sucks" into their fight song?

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

And of the three teams who beat each other and ended up with 7-1 records, only ONE of them went on the road and beat a ranked opponent in their division.

Lot of qualifications there, and on top of that, it counts on the legitimacy of rankings, which seems to run exactly against my point.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

I just found it odd that Mack Brown would get a gatorade bath after beating the worst team in the Big XII, a team that was demolished by Baylor.

Speaking of complexes, what is the obsession that the Texas fans have with OU by adding the words "OU sucks" into their fight song?

Well, maybe it was because it was his 200th career win? Nah, that couldn't possibly be a reason. Or maybe it was an 11 win season, when most picked Texas to not reach the 10 win plateau. No, absurd. Or maybe it was because they got the biggest margin of victory over their main in-state rival since 1898. Nah, none of those could conceivably be a cause.

"OU sucks" only gets ad-libbed in when playing the RRS. The rest of the time the lyrics usually get changed to "make them eat shit". OU's hand sign all the time is just the reverse of the Hook'em horns sign, no matter who you play.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by sooner333

I understand this point of view and I also understand that seemingly more people agree with it than my side. It's obvious that if Texas Tech had lost to Baylor, Texas would have gone over Oklahoma because of head-to-head. If Oklahoma had lost at Oklahoma State, Texas Tech would have gone over Texas because of head to head. My view is a three-way tie needs something other than head-to-head to break it...the conference chose the BCS ratings based on this theory, which seemingly is the only way to do it (other than using SOS only, other polls, graduation rates, etc.). Keep in mind, even in Mack Brown's plan, the BCS is used to throw out the lowest team (he wants to use it when it helps, and then discard it when it hurts).

Texas Tech gets thrown out because they are presumably the weakest team. Why? Because Oklahoma beat them so bad. So, the Texas argument goes, because Oklahoma took the team that Texas lost to out of the mix, and Texas beat Oklahoma, then Texas should go. To me, this seems out of line.

Again, I understand the head-to-head argument. My argument is that throwing one team out of a three way tie when the only losses all season are to eachother seems unfair as well. The bottom line is that it truly is a tie that can't be broken by records or head-to-head alone. Someone gets screwed no matter what.

I argued this a few days ago, but imho the fairest way to break this tie is the Big 10 way, which is basically eliminating the teams that most recently have gone to the championship game. In this case that would allow Texas Tech to compete for their first ever Big 12 Championship, which I think is perfectly appropriate.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by sooner333

I understand this point of view and I also understand that seemingly more people agree with it than my side. It's obvious that if Texas Tech had lost to Baylor, Texas would have gone over Oklahoma because of head-to-head. If Oklahoma had lost at Oklahoma State, Texas Tech would have gone over Texas because of head to head. My view is a three-way tie needs something other than head-to-head to break it...the conference chose the BCS ratings based on this theory, which seemingly is the only way to do it (other than using SOS only, other polls, graduation rates, etc.). Keep in mind, even in Mack Brown's plan, the BCS is used to throw out the lowest team (he wants to use it when it helps, and then discard it when it hurts).

Texas Tech gets thrown out because they are presumably the weakest team. Why? Because Oklahoma beat them so bad. So, the Texas argument goes, because Oklahoma took the team that Texas lost to out of the mix, and Texas beat Oklahoma, then Texas should go. To me, this seems out of line.

Again, I understand the head-to-head argument. My argument is that throwing one team out of a three way tie when the only losses all season are to eachother seems unfair as well. The bottom line is that it truly is a tie that can't be broken by records or head-to-head alone. Someone gets screwed no matter what.

Yeah, I know, it's not perfect. I'm not saying OU doesn't deserve a shot. They're a damn good team. I just think Texas should be there instead of them, based on on field results.

IMO, it matters tons where a team wins and loses its games. Home field advantage is real in college football. And that, in my mind, breaks the three way tie. Texas faced the worst circumstances (neutral, road) of the three and came out best. Whose to say they don't beat Texas Tech even worse than OU did at home? And if UT beats OU on a neutral field, what do they do to them in Austin?

[Chief Rum]

Oh, and I am not supporting Mack Brown on this either. I know that guy is a biased tool, as much as anyone. I think it's silly, really, that the BCS rankings are being used by a conference to determine this. Rankings that aren't even in place for this, and they're being used here? Just silly.

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Home field advantage is real in college football.

It looks like it's worth about 50 points, based on your logic. Along those lines, how do you think Texas would have fared in Stillwater in a nationally televised game at night, considering they eked out a 28-24 win over OSU in Austin?

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

It looks like it's worth about 50 points, based on your logic. Along those lines, how do you think Texas would have fared in Stillwater in a nationally televised game at night, considering they eked out a 28-24 win over OSU in Austin?

Got it, arbitrarily pick a game to make your argument.

At least my example was based on direct head to head relevance.

[sooner333]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I argued this a few days ago, but imho the fairest way to break this tie is the Big 10 way, which is basically eliminating the teams that most recently have gone to the championship game. In this case that would allow Texas Tech to compete for their first ever Big 12 Championship, which I think is perfectly appropriate.

The Big Ten has an interesting rule, even before the last team to go to the Rose Bowl (or BCS Automatic selection), the team that plays the most games against FCS opponents is eliminated. Then, I guess they go to non-conference record because overall winning percentage is used next.

So, Texas Tech would be eliminated because they played the most FCS teams (two) and Texas would beat Oklahoma heads up.

If they all had not played any FCS teams, Oklahoma would be eliminated due to the conference champion rule (last year) and Texas Tech would have gone due to beating Texas heads up.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Got it, arbitrarily pick a game to make your argument.

At least my example was based on direct head to head relevance.

The "direct head to head relevance" is also "arbitrarily [picking] a game" too .

Whose to say that out of 10 games Texas would have won the majority? That's why you look at the entire season as a whole instead of one head to head game, IMO.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

The "direct head to head relevance" is also "arbitrarily [picking] a game" too .

Whose to say that out of 10 games Texas would have won the majority? That's why you look at the entire season as a whole instead of one head to head game, IMO.

Actually, no, it's picking a game, but not arbitrary. There is relevance to the fact it is head to head, a criteria considered highly in any judgment of quality (and rightfully so). Meanwhile, VV just looked at the schedule to find a game that best fit his argument.

You offer up a hypothetical, but I offer up a concrete. We don't know what happens in ten OU-UT matchups. That is as likely in UT's favor as in OU's (more likely actually, UT already has a win up). But we know what happens in one, in any case, and that means a lot.

[sterlingice]

I'm good with this playoff plan:

Wetzel's playoff plan: I'll drink to that - College Football - Rivals.com

12 or 16 teams would be best. This one is 16 and addresses quite a few of the major issues (but not all).

SI

[Big Fo]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I'm good with this playoff plan:

Wetzel's playoff plan: I'll drink to that - College Football - Rivals.com

12 or 16 teams would be best. This one is 16 and addresses quite a few of the major issues (but not all).

SI

This would be great.

[cartman]

That's been my preferred playoff structure all along.

[Big Fo]

With Alabama being a ten point underdog to Florida, has there ever been another case where a #1 ranked, undefeated team was such an underdog late in the season? I mean I think Florida will win as well but it does look kind of strange.

[ISiddiqui]

I actually don't think one head to head game is all that relevant in deciding who had the better overall season.

[Poli]

If memory serves me right, I believe the Volunteers were 6 point underdogs to the Florida State Seminoles in the 98 championship game.

10 points, though? Mercy.

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by Poli

If memory serves me right, I believe the Volunteers were 6 point underdogs to the Florida State Seminoles in the 98 championship game.

That's right, and it really made no sense when you factor in that Florida State was forced to start their 3rd string QB, Marcus Outzen in that game, with Dan Kendra and Chris Weinke being out.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I'm good with this playoff plan:

Wetzel's playoff plan: I'll drink to that - College Football - Rivals.com

12 or 16 teams would be best. This one is 16 and addresses quite a few of the major issues (but not all).

SI

That's the plan I've favored for a while, but people have always ranted about an OMG Sun Belt team being there while some 10-2 BCS team got left out. It's simple: win your conference and you don't have to worry. Don't win your conference and cross your fingers that you're one of the 5 at large teams.

[sooner333]

Originally Posted by Big Fo

With Alabama being a ten point underdog to Florida, has there ever been another case where a #1 ranked, undefeated team was such an underdog late in the season? I mean I think Florida will win as well but it does look kind of strange.

Oklahoma was a 12 point underdog to Florida State in the 2001 Orange Bowl.

[Poli]

Tennessee would have probably have been an underdog to Kansas State or UCLA as well. They didn't exactly set the world on fire when they won relatively ugly over Mississippi State in the SEC Championship.

Despite starting Outzen, few outside of the Big Orange Nation felt that Tennessee had much of a chance against the Florida State defense, especially with brand new offensive coordinator Randy Sanders taking over. David Cutcliffe had recently been hired away by Ole Miss. Tennessee was also splitting carries between their 2nd and 3rd team runningbacks (Travis Henry and Stephens) with Jamal Lewis out with a knee injury. Stephens actually led the team in rushing during the championship game. I think it was just assumed that Warrick and company would find a way, Outzen or not, to put the points on the board. After all, they did against Florida.

Shoot, thinking back, even I was skeptical. I was really, really glad that Branndon Stewart (a former Vol himself) and Sirr Parker were able to keep Kansas State out of the championship. I really didn't want the Vols to play them. I was just happy to be in the championship and was overjoyed at the outcome.

[Poli]

Originally Posted by sooner333

Oklahoma was a 12 point underdog to Florida State in the 2001 Orange Bowl.

You know, I was thinking about that game. Was OU #1?

[sooner333]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I'm good with this playoff plan:

Wetzel's playoff plan: I'll drink to that - College Football - Rivals.com

12 or 16 teams would be best. This one is 16 and addresses quite a few of the major issues (but not all).

SI

I've been for something like this for awhile...I've always said 12 teams, but I think 16 teams could work too. Home sites is a must for at least the first two rounds.

[MJ4H]

Originally Posted by Poli

They didn't exactly set the world on fire when they won relatively ugly over Mississippi State in the SEC Championship.

OR AT VARIOUS OTHER TIMES DURING THE REGULAR SEASON

Spoiler

[sooner333]

Originally Posted by Poli

You know, I was thinking about that game. Was OU #1?

OU was #1 and undefeated, FSU was #2 in the BCS (#3 in the AP) and 11-1.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

That's the plan I've favored for a while, but people have always ranted about an OMG Sun Belt team being there while some 10-2 BCS team got left out. It's simple: win your conference and you don't have to worry. Don't win your conference and cross your fingers that you're one of the 5 at large teams.

To be fair, I've heard something really similar to this a while ago and thought it was the best plan as well. However, this put it in writing in an easy to digest format.

SI

[Poli]

Originally Posted by MJ4H

OR AT VARIOUS OTHER TIMES DURING THE REGULAR SEASON

Spoiler

[Cuckoo]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

I think it's silly, really, that the BCS rankings are being used by a conference to determine this. Rankings that aren't even in place for this, and they're being used here? Just silly.

This was my thinking for quite some time, even after OU "won" the 3-way tie (I think I've even said as much on this board). But the more I've gone over the other scenarios that ESPN keeps touting, the more I realize that there's not really a better way.

I normally can't stand this guy, but Cowlishaw makes an interesting point in relation to the SEC's tiebreaker in a situation like this:

I am sure this debate in the Big 12 will continue through the bowls and into next year. But there are a couple of things that should be cleared up.

One is that there is no good solution to three-way ties. None. Some might like the ACC or SEC's attempt to "settle it on the field'' but that solution, possibly preferable to the Big 12 leaving it up to the BCS rankings, has huge problems too.

As a reader pointed out, consider the following:

It's Nov. 22 and Oklahoma is getting ready to play undefeated Texas Tech. The Sooners have to win just to get into the three-way tie. But they also know a crushing defeat of the Red Raiders will drop them to third in the eyes of voters and computers.

And in the SEC formula, the BCS ranks are used to eliminate the lowest team, then the result of the head-to-head matchup between the two higher ranked teams can be considered.

So the Sooners would have had to try to beat Tech but not by much. If they got up by 14 points, they would have to back up. They couldn't afford a blowout of the Red Raiders.

Just a little flaw in that system worth thinking about.

Here's my other problem with the arguments being made by the Longhorns. They believe the bottom line is their 45-35 victory over Oklahoma in the Cotton Bowl. End of story as far as they are concerned.

But to arrive at that conclusion, one has to assume that Tech is the weakest of the three and should be eliminated from any discussion of head-to-head matchups.

How does one arrive at that conclusion?: Was it after the Texas-Tech game?

Uh, no. Although Tech had to rally,the Red Raiders were the dominant team and led for all but about two minutes.

So was it a week later after Tech played Oklahoma State?

Uh, no. A team that the Longhorns beat by a mere four points in Austin got crushed in Lubbock.

So the perception that Tech doesn't belong in the discussion is a product of one thing. It's a product of the Oklahoma Sooners blowing out Tech by 44 points in Norman.

I just wish I could hear one Longhorn fan admit that.

EDIT: Guess it takes me back to what I've said a couple of times. There's just no right answer for this, and anyone acting like they have it (I'm talking to the ESPN talking heads here) isn't being logical.

[MizzouRah]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

Bradford will be wearing a soft cast on his left hand, and he is expected to be able to take direct snaps without fumbling (like he did twice against Oklahoma State).

The bigger problem for OU is the situation at middle linebacker, where they are now down to a third string player, Mike Balogun, after Austin Box sprained his knee on a cheap shot by OSU's Damian Davis. Actually, if you consider that Curtis Lofton left early to go to the Atlanta Falcons, OU is now down to their fourth option at middle linebacker. I expect Balogun to get torched by Missouri's tight end, Chase Coffman, and if he goes down then the only other player that's available is Brandon Crow, who got horribly exposed in the RRR when Ryan Reynolds went out in the 2nd half.

Also, I wouldn't be surprised to see Jeremy Maclin run back one or two kickoffs for touchdowns against OU's 108th ranked kick return defense.

In the end, I don't think Missouri's defense can get enough stops to win this game, but stranger things have happened in previous Big XII championships.

A close game would make me happy.

[Big Fo]

Originally Posted by Poli

If memory serves me right, I believe the Volunteers were 6 point underdogs to the Florida State Seminoles in the 98 championship game.

Originally Posted by sooner333

Oklahoma was a 12 point underdog to Florida State in the 2001 Orange Bowl.

Thanks guys, I see it is more common than I had assumed.

[Cuckoo]

Originally Posted by MizzouRah

A close game would make me happy.

One of the local radio dudes here was pointing out some (frightening for OU fans) parallels between this year and 2003.

High-flying, hot OU offense (Heisman candidate QB with a hand injury) goes into the game on top of the world, playing at cold Arrowhead Stadium against a "home" team of sorts that hasn't played to expectations. That game... Kansas State 35, Oklahoma 7.

Please no...

[sooner333]

Originally Posted by Cuckoo

One of the local radio dudes here was pointing out some (frightening for OU fans) parallels between this year and 2003.

High-flying, hot OU offense (Heisman candidate QB with a hand injury) goes into the game on top of the world, playing at cold Arrowhead Stadium against a "home" team of sorts that hasn't played to expectations. That game... Kansas State 35, Oklahoma 7.

Please no...

At least nobody has called us the best team of all-time this year. That team was dominant, but I don't think they had the mindset of this team. Nor were they quite as good at offense. White was the Heisman winner that season, but Murray and Brown are light years ahead of Kejuan Jones and Renaldo Works. Granted, the '03 defense was better, but I think the offense knows they can't rely on the defense geting it done this time around.

[Crim]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

That's right, and it really made no sense when you factor in that Florida State was forced to start their 3rd string QB, Marcus Outzen in that game, with Dan Kendra and Chris Weinke being out.

Kinda funny-ish story. Buddy I work with went to a game in Tallahassee a few weeks back... Wake Forest, maybe? Idunno.

Anyhoo after the game he's in a bar and in walks Outzen. They didn't know each other well, but they did go to school at the same time. My friend shakes his hand, and they're talking about whatever.

On the television the troubles at Tennessee and Fulmer being on the hotseat are being discussed. Outzen goes, "Yeah, see what happens to a program after I get ahold of 'em? Tennessee ain't never gonna be the same thanks to me." Apparently this was delivered dead-pan style, but I can only imagine he was cracking a joke.

[molson]

The BCS tiebraker makes perfect sense unless the teams are seperated by percentage points.

They want the team in the championship game that has the best chance of getting to the national championship game. That's why BCS ratings are relevant. You could have two teams with identical conference records, and one's a national championship contender, where there other one isn't (maybe because the lost a handful of out-of-conference games). The Big 12 wants the national championship contender in the game.

[molson]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

It's simple: win your conference and you don't have to worry.

I never understood this logic. Every team's trying to win their conference, that's not the point. Why do we even need a playoff under that logic? Just "schedule bcs schools out of conference, go undefeated, and you don't have to worry". We could get rid of playoffs in all other sports by that logic too. One could say the NFL OT works well because, "If you lose the coin toss, just stop them on D, and get the ball back". It's not like they're not trying to stop on D, but you still want a fair, entertaining system.

The first playoff college football has will not include the Sun Belt champion. That would give that conference a ridiculous amount of relative power and representation compared to their talent level. The BCS schools would never agree to that. And I'd campaign for Syracuse to become a football-member only of the sun belt.

I think more realistic would be the 4 BCS Bowls on New Year's Day, with the winners going to a "college football final four" the next two weeks at a rotating BCS Bowl site. 6 BCS Conference Champions, 2 at larges. 1 spot reserved for the best non-BCS conference champion/Notre Dame if they finish in the top 8 or 10. You could even keep the traditional bowl alignments and those games would still be a huge deal. This year that would look something like:

Rose: USC v. Penn State
Orange: Boston College v. Texas
Sugar: Florida v. Utah
Fiesta: Oklahoma v. Cincinnati

Then you have a final four.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by molson

The first playoff college football has will not include the Sun Belt champion. That would give that conference a ridiculous amount of relative power and representation compared to their talent level. The BCS schools would never agree to that. And I'd campaign for Syracuse to become a football-member only of the sun belt.

Then kick the Sun Belt out of Div. 1A/FBS. They are in the same grouping as the big boys, so they should have a shot as well. Troy has given several BCS teams more than they could handle, and the conference champion should have a crack at a playoffs.

I firmly believe that the talent level of the Sun Belt/WAC/MAC teams would rise if there were a playoff, as the top teams would be able to use a playoff appearance as a pretty stout recruiting tool.

[MJ4H]

No doubt. People keep saying there are just too many teams to fairly decide a champion. Fine, kick enough out so that there aren't too many. Dammit, this should not be hard. There is already a clear division with BCS conferences and non-BCS conferences.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by cartman

Then kick the Sun Belt out of Div. 1A/FBS.

Be careful what you wish for (on behalf of those schools).

You'll see that happen before you see an auto bid for a Sun Belt/MAC/WAC champion in anything less than a 32 team tournament. And you'll likely see hell freeze over before you see a 32 team tournament in our lifetime.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Be careful what you wish for (on behalf of those schools).

You'll see that happen before you see an auto bid for a Sun Belt/MAC/WAC champion in anything less than a 32 team tournament. And you'll likely see hell freeze over before you see a 32 team tournament in our lifetime.

True....unless. I can see auto-bids, and even a playoff system happen by one motivation: Court ordered. I doubt congress would ever touch this football (pun intended) because it would in the end be too politically hot (and many of the big wigs that line their pockets with the bowls are also big political contributors). But let a safely appointed judge get the right argument, and I can see a lot of things changing.

[sooner333]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

True....unless. I can see auto-bids, and even a playoff system happen by one motivation: Court ordered. I doubt congress would ever touch this football (pun intended) because it would in the end be too politically hot (and many of the big wigs that line their pockets with the bowls are also big political contributors). But let a safely appointed judge get the right argument, and I can see a lot of things changing.

Yep, you probably know as a Georgia fan, but that's how the NCAA TV monopoly got broken up. And in a way, that's how we got to where we are today.