|
Post by fatmenace on Dec 6, 2009 2:51:18 GMT -6
I'm down for the playoffs, but there's a bunch of whiny people in the sports world tonight. We don't know if TCU and BSU and Cincy could run undefeated through the Big 12, but we know Texas did.
Playoffs would be nice, but Texas deserves to be there.
|
|
|
Post by fatmenace on Dec 6, 2009 2:54:46 GMT -6
Tonight's win did confirm one thing though: Texas has the worst fans in the world. Hands down. Yes, Greg Davis sucks, but every single thread on the Horns boards are reacting as if Texas lost. Came close, but Texas won. Like Mack said: "Texas fans are the only ones who get suicidal after a win."
Although, Saban could do some dirty dirty things to us.
|
|
|
Post by fatmenace on Dec 6, 2009 3:06:29 GMT -6
And of course everyone will overlook the close games those three teams had. Because they don't count apparently.
|
|
|
Post by "Redneck" Johnson on Dec 6, 2009 13:08:32 GMT -6
Yep- I think we'll hear the Texas A&M and Nebraska games harped on for Texas, and there will be no mention of Bama-Tennessee or Bama- Florida.
I actually like it this way- Texas gets a month of being put down and disrespected nationally while Alabama is predicted to win by one and all. I tihnk Vegas opened the line at Bama -2.5.
|
|
|
Post by "Redneck" Johnson on Dec 6, 2009 13:29:17 GMT -6
By the way, I predict the BCS bowls as follows:
BCS National Championship: Alabama vs. Texas Rose: Oregon vs. Ohio State Sugar: Florida vs. Cincinnati Fiesta: Penn State vs. Virginia Tech Orange: Georgia Tech vs. TCU
There are a lot of people thinking TCU vs. Boise State in the Fiesta Bowl, this is why it won't happen.
1. Alabama and Texas are BCS #1 and #2 and go to the National title game. 2. The Rose Bowl is going to be PAC-10 Champ (Oregon) vs. Big Ten Champ (Ohio State) 3. The traditional Orange Bowl tie-in is the ACC Champ (Georgia Tech). 4. The Sugar Bowl normally gets SEC Champ, but because they lost BCS #1 Alabama to the title game they pick a replacement first. Florida is an SEC team and they'll travel so they'll be picked. 5. The Fiesta Bowl picks next (Big XII Champion Texas is BCS #2). Their at-large pick is next to last this year, so they'll want a big fan base that travels. I think Penn State is the best choice among the at-large teams remaining, though Iowa is a possibility. 6. The Orange Bowl then picks an at-large team. Cincinnati is an unattractive selection because of they went last year and the attendance was poor (56,000 in a 74,000 seat stadium). The only other at-large team available is Virginia Tech, but they've already played Georgia Tech. So I think this is going to be TCU. 7. Fiesta Bowl selects next. This is where Virginia Tech gets picked over BSU because of their larger fan base and bigger conference. 8. Cincinnati is the last remaining team for the Sugar Bowl's final selection.
I'm feeling fairly good about these selections, though the Orange Bowl may not mind inviting Cincinnati over TCU. In that case TCU faces Florida in the Sugar Bowl. The Fiesta Bowl may take pity on Boise State but I doubt it- the great game in 2006 had the third lowest TV ratings of a BCS bowl (the others being the 2005's Utah vs. Pittsburg and 2007's Louisville vs. Wake Forest).
|
|
|
Post by gk on Dec 6, 2009 16:32:28 GMT -6
The UT apologetics started about 5 seconds after that kick. No one is arguing that UT doesn't "deserve" to be in the championship game. Everyone is arguing that Boise/TCU/Cincy have just as much right as UT. But since UT is the bigger school in the bigger conference, they get precedent for some unknown reason. Would Boise St. have gone undefeated in the Big 12? What kind of question is that? The Big 12 was putrid. Would UT have gone undefeated against the Mountain West? Probably, but we don't know that either. You titled this post "13-0 is 13-0" but the conclusion of the post that "UT's 13-0 is 13-0 while other pathetic, smaller schools' 13-0 is really more like 10-3."
|
|
|
Post by fatmenace on Dec 6, 2009 16:52:12 GMT -6
No, I never downplayed the accomplishments of the other schools. But the whining is because Texas barely beat Nebraska they should have dropped below TCU or whomever. That's ridiculous. ALL OF THE SCHOOLS had close wins (or bad wins, as people are portraying Texas'). If one is to say Texas should drop (which is what Texas fans are responding to), that just shows a poor memory, since NONE of the teams won all their games in blowouts.
And yes, I feel the Big 12 is better than any of the other conferences TCU and Cincy and BSU came from.
I am also pro playoffs and feel all of the undefeated teams deserve a shot at the MNC. But there isn't one this year. One may think the Big 12 is poor, but no one can make a case MWC or Big East or whatever were better.
No, undefeated is undefeated. Just pointing out that the Big 12 isn't quite as bad as everyone makes it out to be (at least the South). I'm responding mostly to the ridiculous emotional arguments that came up immediately after the game that Texas' win was a poor one. Insane.
|
|
|
Post by fatmenace on Dec 6, 2009 16:54:18 GMT -6
A playoff would answer that, but I don't think BSU or Cincy would go undefeated in the Big 12. TCU had a shot.
|
|
|
Post by "Redneck" Johnson on Dec 6, 2009 16:56:37 GMT -6
Well, the real solution is to get some form of playoff in place. But it isn't going to ever really come together- there is way too much money in the current system and no one (least of all the traditional college football powers) want to change it. I like to think it has improved- TCU would never have gotten this amount of publicity 10 years ago and wouldn't be #3 everywhere. It's really cool that Cincinnati could build up a program and win the Big East. But with the system in place it is a beauty contest and unfortunately traditional draw (i.e. television) makes Texas a much more lucrative choice.
I'm overjoyed Texas is going but I understand where you're coming from Geoff. The system isn't fair- I can see the TCU, Cincy and Boise State all went undefeated and have a legitimate beef. It wasn't that long ago that we were in a mix of 1-loss teams that all thought we deserved a place too and were left out. We had a better opportunity than a lot of these schools (especially moreso that 2088's undefeated Utah) but it doesn't make it hurt any less when you're left out. And I'm not sure it can ever really be fixed because of the number of people (including ESPN and the sports media who are criticizing it) have their hands in the till and make too much money from the current system.
|
|
|
Post by "Redneck" Johnson on Dec 6, 2009 16:58:14 GMT -6
And I concur with Chad regarding conferences and undefeated- I think TCU may have gone undefeated in the Big XII but do not think Boise State or Cincinnati would. I also think the Big XII is better than the Big East (I've been in favor of removing the Big East automatic bid for many years now).
|
|
|
Post by gk on Dec 6, 2009 23:53:51 GMT -6
Not sure how you can claim that the Big 12 is better than the Big East this year.
West Virginia, Pittsburgh, and Cincinnati are probably all better than Nebraska. Would UT have beaten all three?
I'd take BYU, Utah, and TCU over the top 3 Big 12 teams as well. Would UT have run the table?
Honestly, I don't watch much college football. Like, any. But it certainly seems like schools like UT (and USC) get bonus votes for, what? Being a big school? Having a great "legacy?"
But then, that's basically why I don't watch much college football in a nutshell.
|
|
|
Post by fatmenace on Dec 7, 2009 0:04:58 GMT -6
Well, debating which conference is better will be a waste, so I won't get into that. But to your point about getting legacy votes, I don't think it's that. I think it's because they have preseason polls and start ranking teams from week one. If BOTH the AP and Coaches waited til week six, you would see a much better ranking I believe. Teams that start with a high ranking and keep winning will NEVER be replaced by teams who start unranked but beat more impressive teams week by week. Take 2003 Auburn as an example.
I think if we're not going to have a playoff then the second best thing is simply to not rank teams until week 6 or so. You'll see much more accurate rankings that way, IMHO.
|
|
|
Post by fatmenace on Dec 7, 2009 2:45:05 GMT -6
I couldn't agree with Grant more about the Big East. You want to talk about legacy votes? That would be including them in the BCS.
|
|
|
Post by gk on Dec 7, 2009 10:40:54 GMT -6
Well I'm on record as saying if this kind of BS bothers you then college football probably isn't your sport.
Hence, college football, not my sport.
|
|
|
Post by fatmenace on Dec 7, 2009 10:50:12 GMT -6
Yes, but there shouldn't be this BS. That's what is so perplexing to us.
|
|