BCS Standings, Week 14: Longhorn fans, time to riot

J-Mezzy · Post #21 » by **J-Mezzy** » Mon Dec 1, 2008 8:27 pm

Agee with Turco. The only team with rights to complain is Texas. They got screwed. If Fl was to beat Bama and didn't make it to the NC, I wouldn't complain. But if we beat Bama and they made it ahead of us, then I'd be pissed.

Texas is the only one who got screwed

LAKESHOW · Post #22 » by **LAKESHOW** » Mon Dec 1, 2008 9:41 pm

utah and penn state? hey, they are having a good season this year, but guarantee this, you wont hear from them again for the next 6 years after this one, utah nor penn state will win their conference again next year. while USC is a perennial power house, and has been at or near the top every year this decade.

if you agree that the system is broke, then your arguments about weak pac-10 this, or strong sec that, or awesome big12 arguments dont work! if you agree that the system is broke, then a team that loss to 'ole miss at home is as worse as a loss on the road to oregon state and in no way should get an opportunity to be in the title game.

if you agree that the system is broke, then you will see, there is clearly a LOCK on the door for only a big12 vs. sec matchup. but you guys seem to say its broke, and accept all of the cards dealt. and even like it if you have a dog in the fight and going in your favor.

J-Mezzy · Post #23 » by **J-Mezzy** » Mon Dec 1, 2008 9:52 pm

Lake, the system is broken in the fact that it should be a playoffs. Now, the SEC and the BIG 12 are clearly better than the Pac 10 whether you like it or not.

LAKESHOW · Post #24 » by **LAKESHOW** » Tue Dec 2, 2008 12:02 am

by what standard are you using? because the best team resides in the pac-10 conference.

now heres another scenario, oklahoma loses to missouri. TEXAS goes to the championship game vs. fl/al. now if you cant see the fix in that one, folks must be blind. a team that DID NOT WIN ITS CONFERENCE CHAMPIONSHIP, would in essence go to the title game!

the fix is in, and they dont want USC to come close.

J-Mezzy · Post #25 » by **J-Mezzy** » Tue Dec 2, 2008 12:07 am

SEC and Big 12 are better. There are 3 teams in the Big 12 that have only 1 loss, 1 that has 2 losses, and 1 with 3 losses. Fl and Alabama have 1 loss combined.

USC is a great team and is the class of the Pac 10, but drop off is significant after that. The second best team got blown out by Oregon and Penn State,

Come on Lake, I will never argue with you that USC is not an elite team and POSSIBLY the best, but the Pac 10 is not good and you know it.

J-Mezzy · Post #26 » by **J-Mezzy** » Tue Dec 2, 2008 12:10 am

By the way, if Okla loses to Missouri, USC will more than likely go to the NC game. Not Texas. I am 100% sure of this.

If I was you, I'd stop whining about getting screwed and focus on humiliating UCLA and praying for an Oklahoma loss.

LAKESHOW · Post #27 » by **LAKESHOW** » Tue Dec 2, 2008 1:07 am

unfortunately, the BCS professionals, guys who wow, get paid for watching this stuff. all forecast texas into the title game. wont happen, oklahoma defeats missouri in a blowout. but still, you and i would be in the minority in regards to sending USC over texas.

J-Mezzy · Post #28 » by **J-Mezzy** » Tue Dec 2, 2008 1:11 am

the same experts who said Alabama, Texas Tech, and Penn State would go undefeated.

hermes · Post #29 » by **hermes** » Tue Dec 2, 2008 7:36 am

LAKESHOW wrote:by what standard are you using? because the best team resides in the pac-10 conference.

one team doesn't determine how good an entire conference is

LAKESHOW · Post #30 » by **LAKESHOW** » Tue Dec 2, 2008 5:49 pm

wow, have you been following the conversation, much less the arguments? there is a lock on the top 4 seeds based on their conference. big12 strong, big10 weak, pac-10 not good, sec powerful. therefore, in no way should any of those teams drop because of their outstanding conferences.

okay, if we buy into that, then how does one explain TEXAS DEFEATING OKLAHOMA. that means conference play doesnt mean squat. conference wins or losses dont count. its all about how a voter feels from week to week. and voters do not want USC back into the title game. you can defeat a team on the field of play, and you still wont get ahead of the next team ahead of you. how so? TEXAS DEFEATED OKLAHOMA. if its based on the so called "hottest" team who is on a "hotstreak", out of the top 5 teams, besides alabama, who has the longest winning streak? USC! but the trojans have been dropping, dropping and cannot bust through the ceiling since the 3rd week of the season. THE 3RD WEEK!

we played a heated battle against ohio state, turn around and travel to oregon state, AND POW, ITS BEEN NO HOPE SINCE THEN! why? because as most folks have been saying, the pac-10 is weak. but again, its not about the conference and conference play (SEE TEXAS DEFEATING OKLAHOMA), its about an individual team with individual talent.

and on the field of play, USC has the #1 defense in the country, ON THE FIELD OF PLAY.

hermes · Post #31 » by **hermes** » Tue Dec 2, 2008 9:55 pm

lake would you consider Florida as one of the hottest teams? they've been dropping people left and right

LAKESHOW · Post #32 » by **LAKESHOW** » Tue Dec 2, 2008 10:09 pm

no way, nothing against florida. an awesome team. but theyve risen from the ashes. #11 to the top. while a 3rd week of the season loss for USC, and all hope is gone. cmon man, NO HOPE AFTER THE 3RD WEEK! it took us a while to crack, drop, then crack again the top 5.

so in no way is there anything against those top 4 teams, but if youve been followin the SHOWs argument, weve been dead a week after the ohio state game. and the SHOW knows for a fact, put us in the mix with those top 4 teams and we will handle our own. but the way its playin out, we aint even in the discussion.

again, give the team some LOVE and opportunity.

CJ_18 · Post #33 » by **CJ_18** » Tue Dec 2, 2008 10:09 pm

Ok a couple questions:

1. Basically, whoever wins the Bama@Fla game is garunteed in the NC, right?

2. Is there ANY chance that if Oklahoma beats Mizzou VERY ugly, (say 10-3) that Texas leapfrogs Oklahoma and plays either Bama or Fla in the NC?

3. Wheres the NC being played this year?

J-Mezzy · Post #34 » by **J-Mezzy** » Tue Dec 2, 2008 10:28 pm

CJ_18 wrote:Ok a couple questions:

1. Basically, whoever wins the Bama@Fla game is garunteed in the NC, right? Yeah pretty much

2. Is there ANY chance that if Oklahoma beats Mizzou VERY ugly, (say 10-3) that Texas leapfrogs Oklahoma and plays either Bama or Fla in the NC? No, no way.

3. Wheres the NC being played this year?

Miami

LAKESHOW · Post #35 » by **LAKESHOW** » Wed Dec 3, 2008 12:39 am

listen mclovin, read the previous posts and threads and figure it out.

shaolin34 · Post #36 » by **shaolin34** » Wed Dec 3, 2008 9:46 pm

i'm sorry, but people who are arguing that texas got screwed cannot use the argument that they won the head-to-head matchup so they should be in. to use that argument is to completely ignore texas tech, and what they accomplished this season, which the national media already seemed to have done. i completely agree that if there is a 2-team tie with identicle records, then head-to-head should be used to determine the winner. but this is a 3-way tie, and people are either ignoring it or don't group tech in with texas because they're not a contendor year after year and therefore discard them.

let's say texas got into the big 12 title game instead of oklahoma, then tech would have every right to make the same arguments that texas is making now. it's unfortunate that there is a 3-way tie and we have to rely on the bcs to make another decision, but when team 1 beats team 2 who beats team 3 who beats team 1, head-to-head becomes irrelevant!!

if you try using the argument "texas lost to tech by only a 6 points while oklahoma lost to texas by 10 points" then you're saying that margin of victory matters, or that substance/style matters, or that anything besides wins and losses matter. now you're putting the power back into the hands of the voters, and that's what we're all bitching about in the first place.

J-Mezzy · Post #37 » by **J-Mezzy** » Thu Dec 4, 2008 4:24 am

You know this system is a joke when the #1 team is a double digit underdog on a neutral field to a team that could be missing one of their best players.

It just proves that the system is based on criteria and politics. In the NFL, the Pats were u8ndefeated and the #1 team and they certainly were not an underdog to anyone.

Vegas has the best experts period. If you want to know who the better teams are, just follow the lines. It is not easy to beat Vegas while it has become easy as hell to beat the media experts. But going back to my previous point, it just proves that the #1 team is not the best on people's perception.

SportsWorld · Post #38 » by **SportsWorld** » Thu Dec 4, 2008 5:51 am

A.J. wrote:Oklahoma is much deserving. I cant wait for the SEC vs Big 12 matchup. Easily the 2 best conferences this year going against each other.

The SEC is awful this year outside of Florida and Alabama.

El Turco · Post #39 » by **El Turco** » Thu Dec 4, 2008 6:32 am

shaolin34 wrote:i'm sorry, but people who are arguing that texas got screwed cannot use the argument that they won the head-to-head matchup so they should be in. to use that argument is to completely ignore texas tech, and what they accomplished this season, which the national media already seemed to have done. i completely agree that if there is a 2-team tie with identicle records, then head-to-head should be used to determine the winner. but this is a 3-way tie, and people are either ignoring it or don't group tech in with texas because they're not a contendor year after year and therefore discard them.

let's say texas got into the big 12 title game instead of oklahoma, then tech would have every right to make the same arguments that texas is making now. it's unfortunate that there is a 3-way tie and we have to rely on the bcs to make another decision, but when team 1 beats team 2 who beats team 3 who beats team 1, head-to-head becomes irrelevant!!

if you try using the argument "texas lost to tech by only a 6 points while oklahoma lost to texas by 10 points" then you're saying that margin of victory matters, or that substance/style matters, or that anything besides wins and losses matter. now you're putting the power back into the hands of the voters, and that's what we're all bitching about in the first place.

umm, head to head match up would ve been relevant if Big12 had a credible tiebreaker. just about every other conference other than big 12 drops the LOWEST ranked team from discussion and compares the remaining best two teams head to head to break 3 way tie. which is the correct way considering Texas Tech is the apparent weakest link and head to head is the best method to solve the confusion between Texas and Oklahoma.

Post #40 » by **GSWbandwagon** » Thu Dec 4, 2008 7:35 am

i looked up the tiebreakers for the pac10 and big10. the last tiebreaker for the pac10 in a 3 way tie is that the team with the highest bcs ranking earns the berth. the last tiebreaker for the big10 is that the team with the most recent automatic bcs berth is eliminated (the pac10 used to have this iirc).

texas has little to complain about imo. they had two ways of winning this, one being not losing to tt and the other being not scheduling an sec-tastic ooc slate. oklahoma destroyed a tough ooc schedule, including #11 tcu and big east champion cinci. they also played at uw, who was atrocious but that's not oklahoma's fault (who would've expected uw to be this bad when the series was scheduled?). they had one cupcake to open the season (uw was also a cupcake, but an unexpected one; tcu was probably tougher than expected when they were scheduled). texas scheduled one bcs conference school, a bad arkansas team. it featured no ranked teams and only one opponent, aforementioned arkansas at home, who texas could've possibly expected to pose any kind of a challenge.