I'm working on a longer set of notes on this mess, but I want to lay out first--all on its own--why Tech-OU-Texas is not an equilateral triangle, so to speak.
Why head-to-head works for Texas, but not Tech. While Texas fans have very forcefully laid out the case for "Texas over OU"--appropriately premised on 45-35--both lesser (Stoops) and higher (Doc Saturday) minds alike have pointed out that "head-to-head" as an argument on its own won't suffice for the Longhorns, since a literal interpretation of the principle would disallow Texas jumping the Red Raiders.
That's a legitimate point which Longhorns fans must be prepared to answer in this debate. And which they can:
Question 1: Do the totality of the circumstances involving Texas versus Texas Tech justify ranking the Longhorns higher than the Red Raiders?
Answer 1: Yes. First and foremost, the Red Raiders won the game in Lubbock. Secondarily, the game as it set up (Texas facing its fourth straight Top 10 team) and as it actually unfolded was in many ways an absolute perfect Red Raider dust storm. (Though Tech deserves credit for the performance and deserved to win that game, those are relevant factors in this secondary inquiry.) With all that in mind, it's not an unfathomable leap to justify ranking Texas over the Red Raiders, in spite of the head-to-head Tech victory. Not only did the Longhorns lose on the road, at the back end of an obscene four-game stretch, in a contest in which everything went Tech's way, but they otherwise possess a very clearly superior resume.
Question 2: Do the totality of the circumstances involving Oklahoma versus Texas justify ranking the Sooners higher than the Longhorns?
Answer 2: No. This is the argument Longhorns fans have been making, but need to make in conjunction with all of these relevant points. It's not just that Texas beat Oklahoma head-to-head, it's that the circumstances of Texas-compared-to-OU are decisively different than Texas-compared-to-Tech. The Sooners lost to the Longhorns on a neutral field, which makes the burden the Sooners have to carry to overcome that loss higher than that which Texas has to carry to overcome the head-to-head loss to Texas Tech. Bottom line? It's one thing for Longhorns fans to make the case that Team A's crazy loss on the road to Team B can be overcome because of Team A's clearly superior resume. It's quite another to say that Team C's neutral field loss to Team A can be justified when the resume battle is as close as it is between Texas and OU.
Question 3: Do we all agree that Oklahoma (via resume and its head-to-head win) and Texas (via resume and the circumstances of its head-to-head loss) should be ranked above Texas Tech?
Answer 3: Yes.
Question 4: Given #3, is it fair to focus solely on whether Oklahoma has done enough outside its neutral field loss to Texas to justify jumping the Longhorns?
Answer 4: Yes. Texas Tech is in this conversation only because of the tiebreaker rules: When Bob Stoops argues that logic demands we treat these situations equally, he's only half right... We do have to clear the hurdle of Question 1, but once we do--in conjunction with the consensus answer to Question 3--there's nothing illegitimate about everything Texas fans have been saying about Texas-versus-OU.
0 recs | 40 comments
Good to have you back, PB
TheElusiveShadow - November 24, 2008
Quite a weekend to be away
I’m trying to read everything that’s been said already and am dizzy…
Thanks for carrying the torch at CCM
Peter Bean - November 24, 2008
God forbid PB gets us on the stand
I’ll cop to callin that code red in like 5 seconds.
ahaley - November 24, 2008
Oh, and great breakdown your honor!
ahaley - November 24, 2008
PB, if your cross examination skills in the courtroom
matches your written cogency and methodical persuasiveness, you have a fine future before you, sir. Or should I say, your honor.
UT92 - November 24, 2008
Stoops' big argument
is that they’re playing hot right now. They were playing hot when they came into Dallas as well and look what happened. If they go to the Big XII title game solely because they’re playing a couple ranked teams right now despite the fact that Texas has already run the gauntlet, won three straight including wins versus OU and Mizzou and lost in a fluke game versus Tech that will be the biggest crime of the year. We went into Kansas and beat them handily but since we don’t pile on points when the game has been wrapped up the voters see 35-7 and think it’s not that impressive.
What’s the point of having a resume and having the best record among ranked teams in terms of the strongest schedule if voters only vote for the teams that are hot right now? Ohio State is now blowing out teams so with Stoops logic they should be the Big 10 champs and be #1 or 2 for the MNC despite them losing to Penn State at home. I hope so badly that Kendall Hunter has one hell of a game on Saturday. I wouldn’t even care that Tech would go to the Big XII game I want to see SEC winner versus Texas. As far as I’m concerned we don’t need a Big XII title game because we’ve already beaten Missouri in a dominant win, Kansas on the road in a dominant defensive win, Colorado on the road and their media whore Darrell Scott, OU on neutral ground, Ok State and their wrecking ball Kendall Hunter and lost in the last second of the game on the road versus the team that had the #1 offense in all of college. We have nothing to prove. We’ve earned our right. Hook ’em.
seth78 - November 25, 2008
1 thing left to prove... Thursday, 7pm, DKR.
It’s been a while, let’s not forget to enjoy this one if it goes the way it should.
crackaTX - November 25, 2008
It can't get here soon enough
My only concern is that our defense will want to make so much of a statement that it may cost us some very stupid penalties. With the intensity that they will have been fueled by Mack and especially Muschamp I don’t think any college team could beat us on Thanksgiving.
seth78 - November 25, 2008
If OU is so hot, why is their margin of victory decreasing?
Seems counter intuitive in light of the Tech game, doesn’t it, but this is true:
From a post yesterday on UTDOMINATES fanpost. Stats don’t include the Texas game, which would make the differential even less.
Stoops can argue this, but he is only leveraging the Tech game. That is all he has.
whills - November 25, 2008
Tech
PB/BON board,
I am sure people on the board already pointed out what I will say below but I will say it anyway just in case:
For Tech to be involved in the Texas v OU debate, there needs to be a scenario where Tech would have a % chance to be ranked the highest in a tie-breaker involving Texas, OU and Tech where each team wins next week and all 3 teams end up with 1 loss
Forget for now the national title game, or if OSU beats OU (then Tech goes if they beat Baylor), and other scenarios.
Lets focus on the scenario if the 3 teams win next week and Texas, OU and Tech all finish 11-1 (7-1); This is the scenario we care about, b/c this is where the tie-breaker rules with the highest ranking apply; Tech is currently at #7 in the BCS, I think everyone will agree that Tech has 0% chance to jump Texas and OU to get the highest ranking in the BCS next week to win the tie-breaker and move on to the Title Game.
So, shouldn’t Tech have a % chance to win the tie-breaker to be involved in the tie-breaker scenario? So, why should a team that has no chance to win the tie-breaker scenario be included in determining the tie-breaker scenario?
I also posted this below on the Sooner board to see what they would say:
"Ok, I have a simple question for you guys>>
Does Tech have any chance to win a 3 way tie-breaker over Texas and OU if they all finish with 1 loss?
- Based on the current BCS rankings, I would say Tech has 0% of being ranked above Texas and OU in the BCS. Please let me know if you think otherwise
For there to be a 3 team discussion, all 3 teams should have some chance to win the tie-breaker scenario.. Tech has absolutely no chance to win the tie-breaker unless OSU beats OU:
So, why should a team that has no chance to win the tie-breaker scenario be included in determining the tie-breaker scenario?"
memphizbell - November 25, 2008
Yup
It’s not necessarily “fair” to Tech, insofar as I think part of the reason they’re “out” of this conversation is historical bias, but (1) they ARE out, and (2) even outside the biases, their schedule is such that they needed to win out to stay in the conversation.
Texas had the much-tougher Big 12 slate, the road game in Lubbock, and the neutral field win vs OU, while the Sooners have the head-to-head win and better non-con schedule.
All told, I agree: Tech’s out. Which means Texas-vs-OU can focus more on “Can the Sooners overcome this head-to-head problem?” than they might otherwise if Texas had issues overcoming its head-to-head issue with Tech.
Peter Bean - November 25, 2008
Faulty logic
Theres always a team that is going to have zero percent chance to win a tie break, that’s why they are tie breakers. Theres always a team that wont win head to head, but no one complains about that.
The problem is with the wording of the rules, or moreover, the methodology that it entails. Your argument, and what I agree with, is that the rules should seek to eliminate a team, not elect one of three.
Imagine if instead the rule said that the lowest ranked in the BCS was dropped from contention. This has the same spirit of the current rule, but would instead eliminate one team, such that the remaining two could be decided by the more accepted and agreed upon methods of tie break.
I may be skewed in my view seeing how if it were done that way, Texas would obviously win holding the head to head with OU, but I think all of our arguments about Tech and the three way tie break down to that contention. That the rules should drop a team, not elevate one. This is what makes sense to us, and therefore is the basis of our argument.
BoddickerIsClutch - November 25, 2008
Why the Sooners will be ahead of Texas in a three way tie
Texas fans, you are probably screwed over, but it is time to get over it! It comes down to this – Nothing else matters but the game last Saturday. That game between OU and TT affected the tie and standings and nothing else matters. UT needed for OU to win, but not impressively enough. OU simply won the game and won it too well for Texas.
Randyy - November 25, 2008
Nice job dealing with the relevant arguments
Oh wait, you didn’t.
TheElusiveShadow - November 25, 2008
The argument.
Whenever the argument is “nothing else matters” I generally take this as an indication the proponent is trying to emphisize the ONLY argumrnt they can win. In other words, “nothing else matters” is code for “everything else matters, but I won’t win that argument”.
billb - November 25, 2008
Actually . .
the argument seems to be that Tech, either because it lost and its resume doesn’t stack up (above argument) OR that it got blown out by Oklahoma, is just out period and therefore we can go to the head-to-head argument.
The former does everything it can to minimize the Tech victory over Texas (after 4 game stretch, on the road, “a perfect Red Raider dust storm??”). The latter actually punishes Oklahoma for beating Tech so bad.
Also, I’m curious if everyone on these boards is going to support Tech IF they go 12-1 with the conference title and a win over an 11-1 Texas (obviously requires an OSU win over OU)?
PB—I appreciate the fact you understand that it isn’t “fair” to Tech, but I’m not sure that’s a legitimate basis from which to start the argument. They are still 10-1 with a major conference schedule and I personally think Nevada beats anyone on UT’s non-conference schedule.
DoubleB - November 25, 2008
Definitely, if Tech wins the Big 12 and goes to the Fiesta I will absolutely cheer for Tech
I generally cheer for all the Big 12 teams in their bowl games, especially when a Big 12 team can make a statement victory. Tech against USC/Ohio State in the Fiesta would be a great game.
the1austin - November 25, 2008
Heck, I'll cheer for them if they make it to the MNC game
Even if they end the regular season with the same record at Texas.
I’ll continue to campaign for Texas (and against Tech) and I’ll root for Missou to beat them, but if they make it I’ll be going for them. Just like I have all of their bowl games.
Horncasting - November 25, 2008
Nevada
They don’t have a shot at winning their conference but Rice does. If we’re going by non-con opponents then Texas wins that argument since we didn’t even play any division II teams and Tech played two of them. That should really be the tie-breaker. You take out victories versus the sub divisions and if it still comes out as being tied in wins then you go by BCS ranking.
seth78 - November 25, 2008
You're confusing objective observation from opinion
“The former does everything it can to minimize the Tech victory over Texas (after 4 game stretch, on the road, "a perfect Red Raider dust storm??"). The latter actually punishes Oklahoma for beating Tech so bad.”
The arguments stem from observation of how the BCS standings are: Tech is out, and it is disingenuous to pretend Tech is alive in the case of a tiebreak. In the case of a three way tie, Tech is out. In the national title picture, Tech is out. That’s not because the Horns just wish it to be so; that’s just the way the standings are right now.
TheElusiveShadow - November 25, 2008
Why the sooners will be ahead IF they beat OSU - part 2
Ok, certainly all of the arguments matter, but NOT to the BCS! I was giving a logical simplification. We all have good arguments, and it is fun to argue why our team or teams might be better, and Texas might be better. But unfortunately for Texas supporters their best arguments will not matter as far as the BCS standings go. Yes strength of scheadule does matter, and UT has had the toughest, however aggie math will change all of that this upcoming week (both A&M aggies as well as OSU aggies) to the favor of OU (dont believe me – then look at the BCS next Sunday). Timing, and home field advantage – well yes that matters but aggie timing again rewards OU (they are winning the big games later in the season and must play in stillwater this Saturday). Yes it matters that Texas beat OU, and it matters that TT beat UT, but it simply matters more that OU STOMPED TT. If all three teams win out, then we ALL ALREADY KNEW who will represent the big 12 South at the 42-7 halftime score last Saturday night. Is it fair? Absolutely not! However it would be more unfair if OU didnt get the nod though. We need playoffs! And the argument can be boiled down to this – as happy as Texas was that OU beat TT last Saturday, they knew it didnt have the fine tuning they needed to represent the big 12 south.
Randyy - November 25, 2008
Why
Based on what exactly?
billb - November 25, 2008
Ironic allies
Texas fans have some good arguments as to why Texas should be considered champs of the big 12. Ironicly these arguments were given to them by an Oklahoma victory last Saturday (too bad for them it was a stomping).
More ironicaly is that Texas is still dependant upon OU winning its game this week (as is OU dependant still on TT to win this week).
More irony is it is about as big of a game and challenge (rankings and national implications) as Texas had going to TT. OU (#3) goes into Stillwater (OSU # 11). Texas failed its test, OU must pass for Texas to have hopes of being champs.
Randyy - November 25, 2008
Its about the stomping OU put on TT
This system is unfair! I am not defending the BCS, I am trying to oversimplify it. If OU does not get the nod then it is more unfair. My argument for this is as simple as the feelings that TT coach had after he lost the game Saturday night.
Facts and standings:
Yes there are good arguments that take away from these simple and obvious facts. But there are not good enough arguments to throw these simple facts out. Unfortunately stompings do matter in the BCS rankings! The stomping that OU put on TT was felt by Texas fans – why? because they knew what it meant. Yes this is an oversimplification of the BCS! Most of us would prefer playoffs, but the system in place now utalizes stompings!
Randyy - November 25, 2008
You're joking, right?
So… why can’t we “oversimplify” it like this:
1. OU and Texas are the top two teams vying for the tiebreak and subsequent national title spot. Tech is out of a 3-way tiebreak and can only win the Big 12 via a win over Baylor and an OU loss.
2. OU lost to Texas at a neutral field.
The “system,” which I assume you mean voters, also take into account, and should, basic wins and losses as well as venues of play. Why simply take margin of victory?
Nobody is saying we “throw” the facts out. We’re saying that the case for Texas AS A WHOLE more than outweighs such arguments and others for Oklahoma.
TheElusiveShadow - November 25, 2008
My question to you:
Supposing OU loses and Texas Tech wins out. This three-way-tie nonsense is out the door. Do you think Texas should go anywhere in front of a 12-1 Big-12 Champion Texas Tech?
Skin Patrol - November 25, 2008
I do not
Happy?
I’m glad one Tech fan finally seems to agree with the logic I’ve presented.
Tech is still not going to the national title game in that scenario, but I don’t think Texas should or would go either. I think the voters would vault somebody like Penn State over everyone.
TheElusiveShadow - November 26, 2008
one more example
It is all about the stompings! If Texas had stomped OU by 44 (or 25) would they not, in a three way tie, win the Big 12 south? Texas fans would be all over the “stomping” argument. If stompings didnt matter then TT would be emotionally tied with UT and OU, but it is not! Is it? TT would be argueing for itself if they had lost to OU by only 4 points. Stompings matter! We dont like it, but we all secretely know that we live by the stompings and we die by the stompings this year.
Randyy - November 25, 2008
You leave out home field advantage.
Tech and OU had home field advantage, Texas did not. In my mind that trumps stomping. Maybe all things being equal margin of victory would be important, but since the circumstances regarding each victory vary, margin of victory can be discounted as a relible determination of superiority. If Texas had played OU at night in Austin, how do you know Texas would not have won by 45? You don’t.
billb - November 25, 2008
Bob Stoops is 2-3 as OU head coach in Lubbock....
..and he hasn’t won there since 2003. In addition to the points made in answer 2, this should really be a bigger talking point. Texas played in Lubbock after a brutal 3 game stretch and lost on a last second play. OU got to play TT at home. Its a big difference.
TommyGunn - November 25, 2008
Man
this year has been fun!! Even with all the BCS garbage and the myriad of mystic scenarios. Good luck against aTm and make it even more interesting!!
Tech92 - November 25, 2008
Sending PB's argument to sportswriters...
I’m sure the half-witted ones won’t understand, but the big ones (Stewart Mandel) should at least read it.
OilmanHorn - November 25, 2008
I will trade you 10 points for home field advantage
Home field advantage is a legitimate argument for Texas fans. The problem with the argument are as follows: First, everyone has to live with the scheadules – there are no astricks on national trophies based upon who their home opponents were. Second, neither Texas or OU has home field, or loses home field advantage at the annual red river game – it will not be what costs Texas a national championship this year. Third, for Oklahoma to win a national championship they will have to win 4 very difficult games in a row and only the first one was at home (Tech, OSU, Mizzu, BCS bowl game). Both OU and Texas have lost away games- therefore neither have bragging rights. Your argument really fails apart when you suggest that home field is worth 45 points! 65-21 is a pretty big score – Texas has not scored 60 points all season, they have scored in the 50’s 4 times, but those 50’s were not as high as OU’s 4 50 point games and oh BTW in the last three games OU has scored 62, 66, 65. And the only reason that OU didnt score higer this past Saturday was because it felt pressure to score style points, and it could have kicked an extra point field goal in the last two minutes. And if you are still serious about thinking Texas would have beat OU by 45 points in Austin – well history cant be repeated, but I would have taken OU and 45 points this year over Texas, and anyone on this site would do the same.
Tech has beaten OU in Lubbock, and no excues will change that fact. Still I think Tech’s chances would have improved greately in Norman if Bradford had been hurt on the first play of the game again! That didnt happen, and with his health I think we can assume that OU will beat Tech not one of three times, but 9 out of 10.
Still with all of that said, isnt it great that we have the three best teams in the big 12? Are there ANY other teams in the nation that could have gone through the big 12 south with only one loss? I doubt it! The three greatest are right here and it is exceeding unfair that they all cant at least compete for a spot in the national championship game.
Randyy - November 25, 2008
You did not really answer my question.
Any argument you do have goes out the window with this asinine statement.
Since you’ve split the last four I think we can agree you would not win 9 out of 10. It seems like based on the four year trend, home team wins?
Finally, I did not say Texas would beat OU by 45 points in Austin, but I asked how you knew they wouldn’t , and I did not say home field was worth 45 points, obviously if Texas already beat OU on a nuetral field by 10 points, it would only need to be worth 35 points (try to mix in some basic addition and subtraction every now and again, or do they teach that in OK schools?).
My argument remains valid, margin of victory is an inaccuarate at best and ignorant at worst method of determining a better team when the circumstance surrounding each victory/loss are noit at least somewhat equitable. In this case they are not. Turn the argument around, can you say OU would not have lost to Tech with one second left in the game if they had played in Lubbock? Can you say Tech would not have lost to Texas by 45 if they had played in Austin at night? No you can’t, this is the reason home filed is important.
billb - November 26, 2008
9 out of 10 at home
Or at a neutral field. But OU hasn’t had the best success in Lubbock either.
TheElusiveShadow - November 26, 2008
OU win in Norman: Not the same as Texas win in Dallas. It was the most recent and it was a stomping.
Lets face it, the only reason Texas can have fun with PB’s argument is because Texas owes its playoff life to the great University of Oklahoma football program! If Tech had beat OU then Tech would still be in the drivers seat. If OU loses to OSU (and that is the most reasonable upset this weekend) then Tech still wins the big 12 south! The reason why Tech is ranked lower than Texas is because Tech lost recently and suffered a stomping. If dates and scores were changed, and Tech beat Texas by a stomping last Saturday – then Tech would be ranked higher than Tx. OU has won 5 straight, Texas not so much, Tech even less!
Randyy - November 25, 2008
thanks?..nt whills
vy til i die - November 25, 2008
Indeed
When you compare two teams, you should compare their games against a common opponent (in different venues) rather than, oh, a game in which they played each other on a neutral field.
Riiiiight…
TheElusiveShadow - November 26, 2008
Congratulations .. did you hear that Texas beat OU on a neutral field
But come on, what have you done lately.
Randyy - November 26, 2008
What? Texas beat OU on a neutral field?
All this talk of Texas beating Oklahoma on a neutral field is bogus! How can you call playing the University of Texas at the Texas State Fair a neutral field? Texas has home field advantage when OU ALWAYS PLAYS TEXAS IN TEXAS, DURING THE TEXAS STATE FAIR. Hardly a neutral location. Who do you think fills those Cotton Bowl stands, overwhelmingly Texas fans, that’s who, and that is indisputable! So Texas comes to Northern Texas for the game, it’s still to play in front of a stadium full of their fans. Texas NEVER has to come to Norman to play Oklahoma. If Texas had played at OU, they would have found the environment must less favorable than the Texas State Fair, ask Texas Tech.
And Oklahoma’s loss to Texas was due to momentum changing calls at crucial moments in the game. Having an interception wrongly taken away and 2 bogus 15 yd penalties that gave Texas the automatic first down when they would have been 3 and out are the calls I am referring too. Even the game commentators all agreed that these were highly questionable calls at best. And Texas only won by 10, despite help from the officiating and the loss of Oklahoma’s star defensive player due to injury early in the game, yet another momentum changer.
Texas Tech then stuns Texas and then Oklahoma routs Tech. Any honest evaluation by those who saw all these games knows that if they were to play today on a field in neither Oklahoma or Texas, then Oklahoma would take Texas, and anyone else right now.
I am for play-offs in a tie situation in the Big 12 and for play-offs in the BCS and I am for never having a team play for the National Championship game in their own state. I would prefer to see true neutrality of location.
Dan in Oklahoma - November 28, 2008
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Burnt Orange Nation to post a comment.