Week Whatever Blogpoll Ballot

by BSD on Dec 1, 2008 8:00 AM EST in Blogpoll Comment 41 comments

Here is my ballot for this week.

Rank	Team	Delta

1	Alabama	--
2	Oklahoma	1
3	Texas	1
4	Florida	--
5	Penn State	--
6	Southern Cal	1
7	Texas Tech	1
8	Utah	--
9	Boise State	--
10	Ohio State	1
11	Ball State	4
12	TCU	4
13	Cincinnati	4
14	Michigan State	4
15	Oregon	5
16	Boston College	5
17	Georgia Tech	5
18	Oklahoma State	8
19	Pittsburgh	4
20	Brigham Young	1
21	Georgia	8
22	Oregon State	8
23	Northwestern	1
24	Missouri	12
25	Iowa	1

Dropped Out: Florida State (#25).

Ok, so Brian asked us to pay close attention to the Texas/Oklahoma controversy this week and describe our reasoning. So I gave it a lot of thought and I'll try to explain my reasoning for flip-flopping the two teams this week. I put together a list of pros and cons for each team. This is what I came up with.

Texas
Pros	Cons
Won the head-to-head with Oklahoma	Had advantage of playing Oklahoma on a neutral field
Nice win over Missouri	Missouri isn't as great as originially thought
	Lost to Texas Tech
	Beat OSU by 4 at home
	Weak out of conference schedule

Oklahoma
Pros	Cons
Beat Texas Tech soundly	Lost head-to-head with Texas
Beat OSU by 20 on the road
Beat Big East Champ Cincinnati by 26 points
Beat TCU by 25 points

As you can see, the pros pretty heavily outweigh the cons for Oklahoma in my book. I know Texas won the head to head matchup, but I watched quite a bit of that game and I can hardly say Texas established themselves as the better team. Both teams were trading scores and the lead all day long. It's a classic example of where the last team to hold the ball wins. If they had added an extra five minutes to the clock, Oklahoma probably would have scored and won.

So based on the overall resume, I have to go with Oklahoma here. They beat all the teams Texas beat more convincingly than the Longhorns did. They beat Texas Tech, who beat Texas, and they have the Cincinnati and TCU scalps on their belt.

0 recs | Comment 41 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Just out of curiosity

Why is playing Oklahoma at a neutral field a con? I understand how it is easier than say playing them in Norman, but it is also harder than playing them in Austin. By definition, a neutral field is “neutral” and so shouldn’t really be a con.

Also lol at “beating Big East champion” ever being a pro (though I suppose it is better than losing to them :-p )

I do also agree that Oklahoma is the better team. If it wasn’t a 3-way tie for first in the Big 12 South, then I think I’d have to put Texas ahead, because of the head-to-head, but due to the circle of death, it allows a bit more leeway, with the whole rock-paper-scissors aspect.

Also, I love how Texas Tech, a team many were voting #1 just a couple weeks ago, and who has the same record as Texas and Oklahoma, and beat Texas, isn’t even in the debate anymore for who the best Big 12 South team is. Late season losses for the win!!!

by The JuggerNitt on Dec 1, 2008 8:20 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

I also disagree...

with the “con” of the neutral field victory…just doesn’t make any sense to me. I can agree with most of the other reasoning for sure though. Any victory over a BCS league champ is solid in the non-conference schedule, major points for that one even though Cincinnati seems to be pretty weak compared to any other conference champ. The win over TCU held up rather well too.

As for Texas Tech not even being in the discussion, I agree completely for a few reasons. First of all, they gave up 65 points to Oklahoma!!! Unreal stuff there. They also played 2 FCS schools in the non-con, a major no-no if you want to win any tiebreaker, in my opinion. They had only two tough road games this year, at Kansas (blowout win) and at Oklahoma (blowout loss), and last week they beat Baylor by 7 at home….A great season for sure, but not National Title consideration stuff.

by jimbo2psu on Dec 1, 2008 9:09 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

hehe

I agree with Cincinnati being a quality win, I just like ragging on the Big East, and it amused me to see “pro” listed next to that.

As for Texas Tech, I agree with where they are ranked and discussed, I just also find it amusing that after one loss (granted, a major blowout) to the new #2 team they all of a sudden are completely out of consideration (and they beat the team that Oklahoma lost too…yeah yeah, I know, rock paper scissors and all). Also, their performance against Baylor was less than championship caliber.

by The JuggerNitt on Dec 1, 2008 11:31 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Neutral field

I guess I consider it a con no matter who won the game. I’m sure Texas Tech is wondering why they didn’t get to play Oklahoma on a neutral field.

And beating the Big East champion is better than any out of conference win Texas has.

Mike
Black Shoe Diaries

by BSD on Dec 1, 2008 10:13 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Last year...

Oklahoma lost to the Big East champion in the Fiesta Bowl, so it’s progress on their part.

by drothgery on Dec 1, 2008 10:38 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

For what its worth

The Texas OU game was more than a one possession game half way through the third. OU would have had to created a stop in order to win. They didn’t. This could be partially because they lost their starting MLB right around the half. His replacement was a big part of the eventual loss.

by formerlyanonymous on Dec 1, 2008 8:47 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

The "Texas beat OU" thing kills me

and shouldn’t even be mentioned in this debate unless you are giving TT consideration. If it was as simple as deciding between two teams then this wouldn’t even be a story, the problem is it’s between three teams and, besides looking better against shared opponents, OU played an OOC schedule about ten times better looking that UT and TT combined.

To let you judge for yourself: FAU, UTEP, Rice, Ark (tied for worst record in the SEC), Eastern Washington, Nevada, Southern Meth, UMass.

Kevin @ Black Shoe Diaries

by Kevin HD on Dec 1, 2008 9:08 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Very disappointing

All those citations trumping head to head….wow, I’m really kinda bummed, I’ma sign off now before I too-eloquently convey my disappointment.

pax et amor

by jtothep on Dec 1, 2008 9:28 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Head to head (except for Texas Tech)

Oklahoma beat Texas Tech. Texas Tech beat Texas. Texas beat Oklahoma.
Saying “All those citations trumping head to head” means that one has to ignore Texas Tech beating Texas. Is it because Oklahoma destroyed Texas Tech that Texas becomes the superior team?
(That logic makes even less sense than it sounded in my head.)

A good argument for Texas would be using the Big Ten tiebreaker of number of FCS (I-AA) teams played: Texas played zero, Oklahoma played 1 (Chattanooga), and Texas Tech played 2 (Eastern Washington and UMass).

by Aaron PSU on Dec 1, 2008 11:51 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I really feel at this point that PSU is number 2.

That is all…

by psu1313 on Dec 1, 2008 10:28 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Florida...

I would put the Gators at number 2, because their lone loss to Ole Miss was a lot more fluky, as they lost 31-30.

by etifupleez on Dec 1, 2008 11:36 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

are you saying you'd put Florida at # 2 over the Sooners because they lost to Ole Miss at home by 1 point and that is "fluky"?

By that reasoning, then Penn State should be #2 over Florida, since we lost AWAY on a last second FG by 1 point.

And by what criteria do you consider it “fluky”? That they lost to an inferior team? They lost, didn’t they? Perhaps they weren’t really that inferior. You could say that Texas’ loss to Texas Tech was “fluky” also, so then they should be #2. So now you have Alabama, Texas, Penn State, Florida, Oklahoma, but then Oklahoma has had much more impressive wins than Texas, us, and Florida, so perhaps their loss was fluky, and they should be #2.

by The JuggerNitt on Dec 1, 2008 11:43 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

This is crazy

I think Mike makes about the most compelling case one can make for Oklahoma, but it’s still not very compelling.

Texas beat both Missouri and Oklahoma, and has the same number—or more—wins as either team—but they don’t get to play in the Big 12 championship game. How is that fair?

Again, I think Mike’s case is compelling—if you agree with the assumption that head-to-head matchups shouldn’t determine a tie. But they should determine a tie—every time. The fact that Texas doesn’t get to play in the Big 12 championship game is just as illogical and nonsensical as the entire BCS system.

What a joke. I hope Texas fans riot or do something crazy that brings this issue to the fore.

I wouldn't trust old rooster me neither.

by spakajewia on Dec 1, 2008 11:52 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

head-to-head matchups should determine a tie—every time

Except Texas Tech

by Aaron PSU on Dec 1, 2008 11:58 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I agree

If this were a two way tie between Texas and Oklahoma, I would agree with you. Head to head should win every time two teams share the same record. But this is a three-way tie situation with Texas Tech. That muddies things up. I failed in my analysis to include a list of pros and cons for Texas Tech, but they are just as legit in this discussion.

FWIW, I rank TT last of the three due to their poor out of conference schedule and the fact Oklahoma destroyed them. But we cannot discount them from the discussion.

Mike
Black Shoe Diaries

by BSD on Dec 1, 2008 12:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I did fail to consider the case of texas tech...

but we’re essentially throwing them out of the discussion, right? For one reason or another, we’ve said of Texas Tech—just like we (and others) have of other one-loss teams (PSU) and no-loss (Utah, Ball State)—that they’re not worthy of competing for the BCS championship.

So, the discussion is meant to compare Oklahoma and Texas. They have the same record, and Texas won the head-to-head matchup. Texas should win the Big 12 championship, just like Penn State should be the sole Big 10 champ—because they beat the team they tied with in a head-to-head matchup. End of story.

I wouldn't trust old rooster me neither.

by spakajewia on Dec 1, 2008 12:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

you include TT and then dismiss them immediately

Texas should be sole Big 12 south champs because they beat OU in head-to-head
OU should be sole Big 12 south champs because they beat TT in head-to-head
TT should be sole Big 12 south champs because they beat Texas in head-to-head

In cases of a 3-way tie you can’t use head to head. I suppose if your criteria included progressively eliminating a team, and then resorting to head-to-head when you are down to just 2 teams, that’d be ok, but that’s unfortunately not what the Big 12 does (and may not be the best way to do it, anyway)

by The JuggerNitt on Dec 1, 2008 12:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Let me rephrase

Ok, so both Texas and Oklahoma are 11-1. Texas won the head to head. They should be ranked ahead of Oklahoma.

But, Texas Tech is 11-1 too. And they beat Texas. So they should be ranked ahead.

But Oklahoma beat TT. So they should be ranked ahead.

You can’t escape the three way tie. If Texas Tech were an 8-4 team we wouldn’t be having this discussion just like nobody is disputing the tie between PSU and Ohio State. A three way tie changes everything. You can’t just take two of the teams and completely discount the third and claim to be fair.

Mike
Black Shoe Diaries

by BSD on Dec 1, 2008 12:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

In this case I think you can, only because

Tech got annihilated. They didn’t lose by a TD with less than 30 seconds to go, they got thumped. By 44. And the game probably wasn’t even that close. Factor in they played two I-AA schools lessens their value, IMO. Had they played a BCS school that sucked (like we did with Syracuse) at least the attempt was there to not pad their wins. So, while I think most of your analyses are accurate on a wide range of topics Mike, I do disagree with you on this one.

And as I’ve said before, I hate both Texas and Oklahoma, which allows me to look at this objectively, and the team that won the head to head being left out is a disgrace.

by Ab4PSU on Dec 1, 2008 12:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

again, how do you dismiss TT for getting annihilated

but not credit Oklahoma for doing the annihilating?

by The JuggerNitt on Dec 1, 2008 12:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Here again

Tech beat Texas. They have equal records. How can you possibly rank them lower? Head to head rules, right?

And again, Texas had the advantage of playing Oklahoma on a neutral field, but still in Texas. Tech had to go into Norman. Big difference. What if Tech would have been allowed to play OU on a neutral field?

Mike
Black Shoe Diaries

by BSD on Dec 1, 2008 12:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I look at the neutral field thing the other way...

Of the 2 most difficult games each of the 3 teams have had:

Texas: won at neutral field (OU), lost on the road (TT)
Texas Tech: won at home (UT), lost on the road (OU)
Oklahoma: won at home (TT), lost at neutral field (UT)

Looking at it this way, Texas appears to have the toughest schedule amongst the 3 top teams. They didn’t have the advantage of playing a true home game against either of the other two. I guess that’s what surprised me the most about listing the neutral field win over Oklahoma a con for Texas.

by jimbo2psu on Dec 1, 2008 1:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Stubborn

And Tech had the advantage of playing Texas at home. OU and Tech all had the ADVANTAGE of playing at home in this round robin, while Texas got no home game.

In a tie, you peel off teams one by one until you determine a winner. First team out seems to be Tech. That is the consensus, since no poll has them in the top 5 at all. Even BSD has dismissed them from the conversation…since the only teams he compares are OU and Tex.

So what we have left is Tex and OU. Gee,, what could possibly serve as a tie breaker?

Hypothetically, if we could dismiss OU and just look at Tech and Texas, I would say that the head to head maks Tech the winner.

why is this so difficult to understand?

by DogTown on Dec 2, 2008 11:35 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

just can't do it.

Texas beat OU by 10 on a neutral field.

The idea of a playoff is to have the teams settle it on the field, well Texas-OU did that and Texas won.

"For every moment of triumph, for every instance of beauty, many souls must be trampled"- Hunter S. Thompson

by phishead_psu on Dec 1, 2008 12:01 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

again, as has been stated a few times in this thread

there are technically 3 teams in this discussion, even though everyone is just dismissing TT because they got destroyed by OU. But if you are going to dismiss TT because they got destroyed by OU, then you would have to similarly compensate OU for destroying TT.

by The JuggerNitt on Dec 1, 2008 12:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

This is all absurd, obscene, and a collosal joke.

How a team can advance ahead of somebody that beat them head to head just shows how ridiculous this has all become. And all because of $$$. They should be rioting in Texas. Texas Tech can be left out of the argument for losing by 44 and playing two 1-AA schools. This just goes back to 1993 and 1994 when the superior teams didn’t win championships, but they were given to two popular coaches who had never won a championship, even though that year their teams were second best. The NCAA is really going to get a black eye over this. Good. How you can call somebody a champion without deciding it on the field just reeks of corruption, cronysim, and perhaps even game fixing.

And another thing: The JuggerNitt is right. We have as good as argument as anybody about being #2 at this point.

by Ab4PSU on Dec 1, 2008 12:23 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

+1 for saying I'm right

but I’m going to disagree with a few things you’ve said.

First off, in a 3-way tie, how would you place teh teams ahead of each other?
Texas>OU>TT>Texas
Therefore Texas is better than Texas…how does that work out?
Also, OU>TT>Texas>OU
and, TT>Texas>OU>TT

It is impossible to _NOT_place a team behind another team that they beat.

Perhaps one way you could do it would be to look at average margin of victory against each other, in which case:
OU:17
Texas:2
TT:-19

And if you are going to use the # of 1-AA schools to disqualify, then yes, I could agree with Texas being ahead of OU.

As far as who I would put where, I probably would put OU > UT > TT, but I could also see UT > OU > TT

by The JuggerNitt on Dec 1, 2008 12:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Question for everyone here who thinks Texas should be ahead of Oklahoma

just assume for a second that Oklahoma State beat Oklahoma this weekend. Who would you put #2, Texas or Texas Tech? They both would still be 11-1, and would both be tied for the Big 12 south, but Texas Tech would have the head-to head.

by The JuggerNitt on Dec 1, 2008 12:45 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

tech

head to head.. but i think they would lose to missouri

Ben and Alex... first commits for 2024

by 3Yardout on Dec 1, 2008 12:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

while I agree that Tech should go to the Big 12 Championship game

where would you rank them in the top 25, considering right now they’re ~6 depending on where you look

by The JuggerNitt on Dec 1, 2008 12:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I'd put tech

because they won the head-to-head. Simple as that.

I wouldn't trust old rooster me neither.

by spakajewia on Dec 1, 2008 12:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

so what would your top 10 look like?

would you drop Texas that much?
would you move Tech up that much?
meet in the middle? (but then where do you place PSU/USC/Florida?

by The JuggerNitt on Dec 1, 2008 1:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Easy

2-way tiebreaker, go with the head-to-head. Don’t worry about the confusing stuff until you get a 3-team wheel of death.

by jimbo2psu on Dec 1, 2008 1:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

just to clarify

I know the discussion has been about which team to send to the Big 12 championship, which goes by the 3-way BCS tiebreaker. That, then, relies on the poll ranking, which is where the confusion comes in on where to place teams.

For this specific exercise I’m not asking which team to send to the Big 12, but which team you would rank higher in say an AP/Harris/Coaches/Blog poll.

The point I’m trying to make is that you can’t necessarily always use head to head to determine which team should be ranked higher, and thus Oklahoma over Texas isn’t that ridiculous. (I’m of course going under the assumption that few people here would place Texas Tech over Texas in their rankings, but yes, I do agree that if it was just a 2-way tie, then head-to-head should and would be the tiebreaker)

by The JuggerNitt on Dec 1, 2008 1:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I think this is GREAT!!!! I say we call all 3 Co-BIG12 Camps...

throw out all Conference Championships and move this thing directly into a playoff!!!!

Seriously, I know this BIG12 mess doesn’t really have anything to do with the BCS (although the BCS made the final decision) but it is still chaos and where there is chaos there is criticism and where there’s criticism there will hopefully come a new resolution…

I know that Penn State will not be considered so all I can hope for is pandemonium!!!!

How about this fact…. If Oklahoma wins the BIG12 and Florida beats Alabama… the BCS Championship game could be Oklahoma vs. Texas…

by WETSU on Dec 1, 2008 12:54 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I think I'd be ok with that one.

But if Oklahoma won 45-35 over Texas in the BCS Title game, the universe could explode.

by jimbo2psu on Dec 1, 2008 1:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Ow...my head...

Can we start talking about USC or something?

John Madden told me 90% of the game was half-mental...

by TheK-GunNeedsReloaded on Dec 1, 2008 1:52 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Upper St. Clair?

What’s the current status of USC High School alumni Sean Lee? Is his rehab on track?

by Aaron PSU on Dec 1, 2008 2:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Well played, sir.

John Madden told me 90% of the game was half-mental...

by TheK-GunNeedsReloaded on Dec 1, 2008 3:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

What's the Real Question on the Table?

Is the question for whom to vote as Big 12 South Champion? If so, considering the three-way tie and including discussion of Tech makes sense. But the challenge put to Mike in making his blog poll is not this question.

Is the question for whom to vote in Blog Poll Rank #2 Spot? If so, is Tech being considered for this spot? It doesn’t look like it, when they’ve presumably been considered (and dismissed) for spots 3, 4, 5 & 6 and sit resolved at Spot 7. How many teams are realistically being considered for Spot 2? The notes indicate only two: ‘brian asked us to pay close attention to the Texas/Oklahoma controversy this week and describe our reasoning.’ We’re not discussing whom to choose in a three way tie; we’re discussing which of two teams belongs in Spot 2.

Mike is being crystal clear. He’s dismissing the Head to Head Victory (‘I can hardly say Texas established themselves as the better team’) in favor of Other Considerations. There is no mud in this choosing.

The choice on the other hand: very, very dirty.

pax et amor

by jtothep on Dec 1, 2008 2:51 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I dismiss Texas Tech

for losing by 44 points and their performance against Baylor. Texas Tech in my mind is no different than Iowa or Ol’ Miss.

Given, that, when the clock showed 0:00, Texas beat Oklahoma 45-35 and you can’t ignore that, if you do that’s saying that games in October don’t matter. And my instinct is that Texas would play a much better game against the SEC champ than OU, given the Sooners recent bowl performances.

by Joe 96alum on Dec 2, 2008 12:34 PM EST reply actions 0 recs