First, I have to blow my own horn here and note that I correctly predicted that USC would cover the 32-point spread and win the game 38-3. Second, rumors are starting to swirl that Weis is going to commit seppeku by resigning and Cincinnatti head coach Brian Kelly will replace Weis under the Golden Dome. If so this will be the first smart move the Irish AD has made since hiring Lou Holtz.
OK, now once more into the breach dear friends...
...first, Mack Brown is a delusional hypocrite. He's trying to claim that despite losing to Texas Tech that the only head-to-head that matters was a win over Oklahoma back in August. The fact that Texas only beat OSU by 4 at home in October while OU just hung 61 on the 'Pokes in Stillwater means nothing.
So we all know that the tie-breaker process in the BigXII is kind of ridiculous, especially in the event of a 3-way tie. Because Texas beat OU, Tech beat Texas, and OU beat Tech you simply can't reasonably use head-to-head because those games cancel each other out. You have look at who is playing the best right now and who has the best overall resume. To me this breaks down to two primary things, non-conference schedule (and by extension, overall strength of schedule) and who's playing the best right now.
So let's examine these things now:
1)Non-conference/Strength of schedule:
- OU played patsies UT-Chattanooga and Washington. The scores in those games were 57-2 and 55-14 respectively, so the Sooners did what they were supposed to do and get no help. However, the Sooners also beat Big East champ (and BCS game bound) Cincinnatti 52-26 and hung 35-10 loss on 10-2 TCU.
- Texas played Florida Atlantic, UTEP, Rice, and their one "quality" opponent was a 5-7 Arkansas team. Also, Mack Brown is trying to point to their win over Mizzou as being worth something despite the fact that Mizzou went 1-2 vs. the South with their 1 win being by 3 over Baylor.
- Tech played Eastern Washington, Nevada, SMU, and UMass. Despite what Tech has accomplished this year they effectively played the Sisters of the Poor in non-conference this year.
2) Who's playing the best right now:
- Most recently Texas lost to Tech and played 3 unranked teams and won each game
- Oklahoma beat #2 Tech in Norman by 44 and went on the road to beat #12 OSU by 20. OU's performance vs. 2 ranked teams is about what Texas did vs. unranked teams. Also, Oklahoma has not scored less than 35 points in a game this entire season.
- Texas Tech beat #1 Texas, a top-10 OSU, and then got shellacked by OU. Tech also just barely pulled out a win vs. Baylor at home. Call it a hangover from their loss to OU.
So I think it's abundantly clear that OU is playing better than anybody else in the BigXII-South, maybe the country (unless you're Florida), and deserves to be the team in the BigXII title game. I also think that Tech needs to be able to go to a BCS game but much like Mack Brown did in 2004 when he politicked for Texas to go to a BCS game over Cal and they ended up in the Rose Bowl beating Michigan the BCS is salivating over a possible USC-Texas game in the Fiesta Bowl.
Bottom line, OU has the most compelling case for being in the BigXII title game and I expect to see an OU-Florida BCS Championship game.
3 comments:
Props on the ND-SC projection. I honestly don't think Swarbrick can wait until next Monday to make this move. The media/fan base/Board of Trustees won't let him wait that long.
As for the Big XII South, there's no good way to determine who deserves be ranked higher. Texas Tech is easily eliminated.
It comes down to Texas and Oklahoma. Both teams are playing well right now. You can't punish Texas for the tough part of its schedule being in October while Oklahoma got the harder opponents in November. The schools don't schedule those games.
Oklahoma does have the more impressive non-conference schedule.
But the thing that keeps jumping out at me is the head-to-head win. I remember in 1993 how Notre Dame got screwed out of the national title. Granted, ND lost to Boston College, but they defeated the number one team in the country.
Essentially, that win meant nothing, and I think that's terrible. If Texas Tech had lost another game, there's no argument. Texas wins the tiebreaker.
Therefore, I'm going to vote Texas higher in my poll.
College football fans/critics can argue this until you're blue in the face. There's no clear-cut way to determine who should go. That's the system we have.
That's the thing though, you've got to throw out the head-to-head figures because they get you nowhere. If you're going to punish OU for losing to Texas then you've got to punish Texas for losing to Tech and Tech for losing to OU. It's a neverending circle and all you can do is look at the scores from those games and the rest of the schedule.
Based on that OU is clearly the better team and more deserving of the higher ranking.
I'm with Blozar, I can't throw out the head to head, otherwise it's nothing more than a "what have you done for me lately" concept going on as the talking heads keep mentioning. I think instead of the BCS being the tiebreaker that the Big XII is using to pick the top team (I realize that they have a number of other tie breakers but none of those worked here outside of doing a draw), that they should use the BCS to eliminate the bottom team and then look head to head.
Oklahoma has definitely benefited from having the meat of their schedule at the end of the season (the Big XII ranked opponents). I've heard the argument that the current BCS system is like a playoff that goes for the entire season. That almost works other than the fact that it's so much more beneficial if you're going to lose to lose early. Look at Ohio State and the way that they keep creeping up the rankings at the end of the year the past couple years because they lose early and then most of the other good teams have two games left while they sit idle.
Point is to me, Oklahoma is nasty, but I would give the nod to Texas. Then again, college football being college football - OU loses to Mizzou and Texas plays Florida/Alabama.
Post a Comment