Posted by Dr Fro 8:45 PM
Seven reasons that I am not upset right now.


1) If we lose our bowl game, then all the worry will be for naught.

2) If we win our bowl game, then the worst case scenario is a 12-1 season, a BCS win (to go 3-0 in the BCS) and a top-3 finish. That isn't a bad worst case scenario.

3) If OU loses to Missou, we should play in the NC game.

4) Even if OU wins, there is a possible (albeit highly improbably chance) that we pass them in the BCS and go to the NC game. It would only take about 9 voters.

5) There is also an improbable but possible scenario of Florida beating Alabama but failing to leapfrog Texas, putting Texas against OU in the NC game.

6) Even if OU wins the BCS championship, we would likely still win the AP championship (ala 2003 USC) since we lead them in the AP right now. That would be fun.

7) Maybe this whole situation makes people sympathetic to Colt for the Heisman.

I really don't care. If we want to place blame, look no further than failing to beat Tech a few weeks ago. That is the beauty of college football: losses haunt you.

A quick tangent...some people are looking at OU going to the Big XII championship game as proof of the flaw of the BCS. Wrong. The BCS puts #1 and #2 together in the championship game. It hasn't done that yet. That is in a week. The *flaw* is that the Big XII has a stupid tiebreaker. The fifth tiebreaker uses the BCS formula. Conferences should be decided based on conference play, but the BCS, obviously, considers non-conference play. Let's pretend that Oregon State beat Oregon. That would give us the right example. OSU would absolutely deserve to win the conference based on conference play, but USC would absolutely deserve to play in the NC game (if given the chance) over OSU based on non-conference play. Conference championships should not consider non-conference play. So the Big XII should change its rule. Prospectively...... The rules were the rules at the start of the season, so it is silly to complain about them now. It is like the guy who bitches about blind structure in a tournament after it is clear that it doesn't suit him. Funny, he could have complained when the tournament started. Or, he could have played faster at the beginning of the tourney to adjust for the structure. Of all the things he should have done, complain is not one of them.

JG and CKA were right that OU won the tiebreaker. However, I don't think that they thought it would be that close. I also doubt they knew that the NU-CU and KU-Missou games may well have been the difference. What I didn't know (and am still shocked by) is that OU would beat Tech by a million points. That one I did not factor in when I thought UT would win the tiebreaker - I was going under an assumption that the game would be as tight as the UT-Tech and TX-OU games.

If OU beats Missou, I wish them the best of luck against the SEC champ.

6 Comment(s):

Posted by  Dr Fro, at 9:29 PM, November 30, 2008  

Forgot to mention something..

OU got two first place votes in the Coaches' poll

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/rankingsindex

Mack, Leeach and Mike Stoops all have a vote (Bob Stoops does not).

Obviously, Mack did not vote for UT, as we have zero first place votes.

I'll give 10 bucks to the guy who can correctly identify who voted for OU.

But here is the kicker...it is anonymous until next week. So, if Mike and Mike (do I get the $10)switch their vote, then we will never know.

It is a conflict of interest of the worst kind.

Again, I am not complaining that we got "screwed" as we should have beaten Tech, but I am very interested in the final poll next week and who voted for whom that week.

Out

__________________________________________________

Posted by  Anonymous, at 12:19 PM, December 01, 2008  

I agree 99% with your original post... But I do have to say I am impressed at your analysis and level-headedness hours after the announcement...


1) agreed

2) agreed - but the fact UT might have to play Utah (instead of USC or FLA/Bama) is frustrating/disappointing.

3) agreed - unless USC wins by 150 vs. UCLA

4) agree that there is a chance... disagree with # of voters. It will be interesting to see how Computers shake out after Bama/Florida game. I imagine OU will pass UT in the two computers that they are trailing them in.

5) agree

6) too early to call... let's see what the AP looks like after this weekend. However, it wouldn't surprise me - the press love a controversy, it sells papers...

7) agree - I also think his "might go to the NFL" announcement was done for that reason...

COMPLETELY AGREE - BCS was not created to decide conference champions...however (as you pointed out), those are/were the flawed rules put in place by the B12. I know Mack was wanting to point to the ACC, SEC, etc. rules - but those still hinge on BCS voting... I heard some saying it should be margin of victory vs. common opponents, but that only encourages running up the score... What do you think about 5th tie-breaker = vote among the 12-teams in conference? I know that is still subjective, but at least it is "kept in the family"...

You are right - I was not expecting it to be that close... In fact when the Harris Poll came out (+6 for UT) I thought that sealed it for Texas... I was expecting computers to be a toss-up... While I am obviously pleased at the results, I am disappointed that UT did make up so much ground. It shows that the "campaigning" had an impact, and I would hate to see that tradition started in college football. The two games this week should not have caused that many pollsters to flip-flop...

Upon seeing Tulsa's game-winning FG on my BlackBerry while at the Rice-UH game, it did cross my mind that a Cougar comeback might be good for the Sooners... but I couldn't bring myself to believe it or cheer for it...

And as to your comment on first place votes...

- First, fact correction: neither Stoops brother has a vote in this year's USA Today. And neither do Mangino or Sumlin (other "descendants")... (Note: list of coaches can be found here: http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/football/usatpoll.htm)

- Second, Pelini and Leach do have a vote. I would not be surprised (nor could I argue) with Leach voting OU#1, Tech#2, and UT#3... In fact, his ballot should have them in that order. Pelini voting OU#1 wouldn't surprise me either, and I believe he could justify that - clearly the best team he saw (on the field) all year.

- Third, 3 out of 6 computers have OU in first place... does that imply that the unemotional, objective voter should? Is it surprising that OU only received 2 out of the 61?

- Fourth, I can guarantee you that the first place votes did not come from: Mack Brown, Gene Chizik, Urban Meyer, Les Miles, Bobby Bowden, Tommy Bowden, Mike Bellotti, or Howard Schnellenberger...

__________________________________________________

Posted by  Anonymous, at 1:25 PM, December 01, 2008  

I Forgot to mention something as well...

Regarding your assumption that OU-Tech game would have been close... in retrospect, would that have been more or less beneficial to the 'horns argument?

I could argue that a close game wouldn't have made it so easy to dismiss Tech from the discussion and allow UT to point to the head-to-head argument. What would have been the Texas argument if OU would have won something like 42-35 vs. Tech?

I still believe OU wins out based on strength of schedule and timing of wins/losses...

__________________________________________________

Posted by  Dr Fro, at 3:25 PM, December 01, 2008  

Yeah, I came up with the 9 voters in my head trying to run the math. I just did the actual math, and it would require 29.38 voters (we'll call it 30 since I have never seen 38/100 of a voter) to flip flop OU and TX.

Point differential would definitely lead to running up the score. That could lead to injuries to starters. Not good. Champions League uses a modified version of point differential, but "running up the score" isn't much of an issue in soccer. I can think of lots of options - none perfect but none worse than the current fifth tiebreaker. One is to have a SOS formula for conference play. Also the SEC/ACC model isn't half-bad because although BCS is AN input into the process, it does not, by itself, determine who plays in the CCG. This would be an improvement.

It hurts my head to think through what a close game between OU and Tech would have done. However, since Tech looked less than stellar (euphamism alert!) against Baylor and Nebraska, they would probably be out of the mix even if they lost by 1 point to OU.

I thought I had read that Mike Stoops voted. On a side note, I thought Barry Switzer's comment was strange (that Bob Stoops was classy by not voting while Mack was not classy by voting). Huh? The Board of Coaches is decided before the season. He made it sound like Stoops was a Supreme Court Justice who recused himself from a case where he had a conflict of interest.

Todd Dodge (UNT) has a bone to pick with UT, too.

I will be interested to see the public votes, but if Bama loses, we'll probably never know who voted for OU and Fla. What I fully expect is that there will be some obvious buddy-voting going on (for all teams, but more so for UT/OU because of the impact on the CCG).

__________________________________________________

Posted by  Anonymous, at 4:54 PM, December 01, 2008  

SOS for conference play is interesting - I had not thought of that, but it takes everything out of the teams control. Teams get to pick who they schedule non-conference, but your non-division conference Schedule is determined on a rotational deal by the B12...

And regarding the ACC/SEC model... Hypothetically (had there not been a blowout), OU, TX, and Tech could have easily ended the year ranked #2,#3, and #4 all within hundredths of a point... the ACC/SEC model simply throws out the 3rd team and looks head-to-head on the top two... basically saying, "The BCS ranking is not sufficient to determine the best team among the three tied teams, but it can indisputably determine the worst". That isn't much better than what we have. In that world, we would still be arguing over the BCS... Yes, it is hypothetical - but it is not too far off from the real-world problem facing the conference today...

I believe BCS should be taken out of it completely... and if you do that, and remove margin of victory, and strength of schedule you are running out of objective measures...

I think your only real options are a vote among conference coaches, a coin toss, or maybe Leach was on to something with Graduation rates....

__________________________________________________

Posted by  Anonymous, at 5:17 PM, December 01, 2008  

nevermind - I don't like the vote among conference coaches. In this instance it would put Missouri in a conflicting position - vote for the "deserving" team or the team we are most likely to beat...

and restricting it to just division members (i.e. aTm, Baylor, and Okie State deciding) restricts your sample size too much...

That leave coin-toss, graduation rates, or status quo...

__________________________________________________

Post a Comment