How in the world does UT go to Rose Bowl?

[emmitt01]

Ok, I know this will stir the pot a little on this board but I just don't see how anyone in the world can justify Texas being in the national title game. Let's look at who they've played and will play compared to Alabama or Virginia Tech, along with each opponents BCS and national ranking.

Texas

ULL (unranked)

Ohio State (BCS #10, ranked #12)

Rice (unranked)

Missouri (unranked)

Oklahoma (BCS #25, ranked tied for #32)

Colorado (BCS #22, ranked #24)

Texas Tech (BCS #15, ranked #16)

Oklahoma State (unranked)

Baylor (unranked)

Kansas (unranked)

Texas A&M (unranked)

Probable Big XII title opponent: Colorado (BCS #22, ranked #24)

Average ranking of ranked opponents: BCS #18, ranked #21

Virginia Tech

NC State (unranked)

Duke (unranked)

Ohio (unranked)

Georgia Tech (unranked)

W Virginia (BCS #17, ranked #18)

Marshall (unranked)

Maryland (unranked)

Boston College (BCS #19, ranked #20)

Miami (BCS #6, ranked #5)

Virginia (unranked)

North Carolina (unranked)

Probable ACC title game opponent: Florida State (BCS #9, ranked #8)

Average ranking of ranked opponents: BCS #12.75, ranked #12.75

Alabama

MTSU (unranked)

So Miss (unranked)

South Carolina (unranked)

Arkansas (unranked)

Florida (BCS #16, ranked #15)

Ole Miss (unranked)

Tennessee (unranked)

Utah State (unranked)

Miss State (unranked)

LSU (BCS #8, ranked #7)

Auburn (BCS #20, ranked #17)

Probable SEC title game opponent: Georgia (BCS #11, ranked #11)

Average ranking of ranked opponents: BCS #13.75, ranked #12.5

So, that's four ranked teams played each when all is said and done with UT not playing near the schedule of the other two. So, again, how do you justify UT in the Rose Bowl?

[Eagle1855]

So, that's four ranked teams played each when all is said and done with UT not playing near the schedule of the other two.  So, again, how do you justify UT in the Rose Bowl?

I dont think there will be but 2 teams in the end that go all the way and it will work itself out but...

If Va Tech or Bama goes undefeated, it would be hard to formulate any argument keeping them out. Likewise for Texas or USC. Its not like Texas had anything to do with the big 12's mediocrity this year, and if Bama and VT win out they may jump Texas (or USC-- Texas was ranked #1 in all the computers this week, the human polls cause USC to jump back ahead). I think if you set your hatred for UT aside and looked at it objectively, you would see that all 4 of those teams are incredibly balanced, strong teams and that a case could be made for each of them.

Personally, I think if Bama and VT win out their respective conferences, they have a more legitimate argument than Texas OR USC...

Edited November 1, 2005 by Eagle1855

[emmitt01]

Just for the sake of argument here are the ranked teams on USC's schedule:

UCLA (BCS #5, ranked #7)

Oregon (BCS #13, ranked #15)

Notre Dame (BCS #14, ranked #8)

Cal (BCS #23, ranked #23)

Fresno State (BCS #24, ranked #21)

Average rank of opponents: BCS #15.8, ranked #14.8

So, in essence, Vince Young should only be taking snaps for the national title if/because TV producers think he'll bring in viewers or Mack Brown cries and begs for the media to "take control of college football" again.

[emmitt01]

I dont think there will be but 2 teams in the end that go all the way and it will work itself out but...

If Va Tech or Bama goes undefeated, it would be hard to formulate any argument keeping them out. Likewise for Texas or USC. Its not like Texas had anything to do with the big 12's mediocrity this year, and if Bama and VT win out they may jump Texas (or USC-- Texas was ranked #1 in all the computers this week, the human polls cause USC to jump back ahead). I think if you set your hatred for UT  aside and looked at it objectively, you would see that all 4 of those teams are incredibly balanced, strong teams and that a case could be made for each of them.

←

Hatred for UT has nothing to do with it. If you end up with four undefeateds then you should have to look at who had the toughest road to travel. It aint UT in any argument. And, yes, they should be blamed for the strength of the Big XII. If who you play doesn't make a difference then I don't want to see another knock on the Sun Belt when people whine about our record.

Edited November 1, 2005 by emmitt01

[Eagle1855]

Hatred for UT has nothing to do with it.  If you end up with four undefeateds then you should have to look at who had the toughest road to travel.  It aint UT in any argument.  And, yes, they should be blamed for the strength of the Big XII.  If who you play doesn't make a difference then  I don't want to see another knock on the Sun Belt when people whine about our record.

←

Perhaps we are declaring 'fault' to mean 2 different things...my point was, UT didnt recruit for OU or A&M or Nebraska, nor did they coach their players or call their plays. Its hard for me to understand how one can say that it is USC, or UT's (or whoevers else is in a historically strong conference that is having a down year) fault for having a weaker conference schedule one year. UT scheduled Ohio State, went in to one of the toughest places to play football and won. Ballsy move when the big 12 usually has more than a couple top 25 teams and a couple top 10 teams.

But I'll stop here before I get branded with a scarlet "A" for being a big 12 "apologist".

Let the games play out before you light your torch in town square and set out on a hunt for Mack Brown and company... it may not even be a factor.

Bama and USC have looked shaky in some games, VT has a big test coming up this week.

Edited November 1, 2005 by Eagle1855

[Coffee and TV]

This arguement is pointless as UT and UCLA will be the only undefeated teams left at the end of the year.

[UNTFan23]

This arguement is pointless as UT and UCLA will be the only undefeated teams left at the end of the year.

←

UCLA better stop the cardiac specials if they're going to remain undefeated. They've been lucky to come back from behind against each of the four teams they faced this October. It was rather surprising that Stanford almost made a run on them (UCLA won in double OT?).

Edited November 1, 2005 by UNTFan23

[emmitt01]

Perhaps we are declaring 'fault' to mean 2 different things...my point was, UT didnt recruit for OU or A&M or Nebraska, nor did they coach their players or call their plays. Its hard for me to understand how one can say that it is USC, or UT's (or whoevers else is in a historically strong conference that is having a down year) fault for having a weaker conference schedule one year. UT scheduled Ohio State, went in to one of the toughest places to play football and won. Ballsy move when the big 12 usually has more than a couple top 25 teams and a couple top 10 teams.

But I'll stop here before I get branded with a scarlet "A" for being a big 12 "apologist".

Let the games play out before you light your torch in town square and set out on a hunt for Mack Brown and company... it may not even be a factor.

Bama and USC have looked shaky in some games, VT has a big test coming up this week.

←

I think our ideas of fault do differ. All I'm saying is this. UT fans and "apologists" (I'm kidding) declare that this is the year that UT 'deserves' to go to the national title game. I think, if faced with several undefeated teams, you have to ask the question "who did you play?" You'll recall they used this exact logic to keep Utah out of the national title game last year. The reasoning behind Utah not playing for all of the marbles was that they didn't play the teams that SC, Auburn, or Oklahoma did. You can't decide who should play in the Rose Bowl based on talent because looking at the possible undefeateds there is talent galore on all of the rosters. Somebody, unfortunately, has to be left out in the cold in a scenario like this (Remember Auburn last year?) Other than going by the strength of who they played you are just allowing the writers to vote their opinions...and isn't that what everyone was trying to avoid when they came up with this BCS nonsense in the first place?

[GoMeanGreen1999]

Only way UCLA goes is to beat USC, and there is not going to be anyone that beats them this year. I agree in that I don't know how UT goes instead of Va Tech, but I would rather have UT in the Rose bowl and lose to USC, then them get left out and win their bowl game, and then have to hear all of the UT fans for a year talk about how they would have beat USC.

Also, Va Tech used to be as bad as we were, so every time they play, I just have to think, what if....

[LongJim]

Ok, I know this will stir the pot a little on this board but I just don't see how anyone in the world can justify Texas being in the national title game. 

No way am I getting suckered into this thread...

[NM Green]

The stars are aligned, that is how. In our run for New Orleans we have had a few stars aligned ourselves. However, it would be poetic justice to see Mack get squeaked out by a strong Va Tech finish. It would be poetic justice for the way he whined about Cal last year.

Running through a weak big 12 (sounds so weird) is not as impressive as what Bama and Va Tech will accomplish IF they are able to complete the run.

As A&M and Baylor continue to tank I think Texas' wins are going to look extremely weak in the closing weeks. I do think Va Tech can pass them. Just my .02.

Eventually this cartel is going to get tired of this BS, right? Bring on a real playoff.

GMG

[Eagle1855]

I think, if faced with several undefeated teams, you have to ask the question "who did you play?"  You'll recall they used this exact logic to keep Utah out of the national title game last year.  The reasoning behind Utah not playing for all of the marbles was that they didn't play the teams that SC, Auburn, or Oklahoma did.  You can't decide who should play in the Rose Bowl based on talent because looking at the possible undefeateds there is talent galore on all of the rosters.  Somebody, unfortunately, has to be left out in the cold in a scenario like this (Remember Auburn last year?)  Other than going by the strength of who they played you are just allowing the writers to vote their opinions...and isn't that what everyone was trying to avoid when they came up with this BCS nonsense in the first place?

←

Agree... and Auburn getting left out of the mix was pretty absurd. Imagine an SEC team going through that schedule then missing the big dance... kinda rough. Truly, its stupid if ANY team gets left out from a BCS conference in this age of parity.

I almost hope all 4 of these teams are undefeated so that it makes a big mess of everything and they are forced to reevaluate the way a champion is crowned. Can you imagine the stink that would be raised if TEXAS got left out? A playoff system is the only hope for the mid major programs to EVER have a shot at a NC. And for that reason, unrealisitic as it may be, I hope the whole system falls apart!

[NTEagle08]

Alot of it also has to do with starting poll position, if say you start #2 in the human polls(Harris or Coaches) then you will probably stay there or go higher as long as you don't lose, unless you squeak one by and the opponent behind you stomps a highly ranked team.

[NT80]

Who cares? Without a playoff you really don't know who the true champ is. Kill the BC$.

[bigrobdsp]

if you are going to make this argument, it has to be made about USC not Texas. the pac-10 is about 1/2 notch above the sunbelt and without USC it would loose that 1/2. Texas is the number 1 or 2 team in the country. an argument any other way puts VT and Bama in the title game as USC dosent even play 3 good teams like Texas.

[Zeke]

.......the pac-10 is about 1/2 notch above the sunbelt .........loose that 1/2.

←

I am going to assume you are just kidding here. If not, you have loost your marbles.

[Coffee and TV]

if you are going to make this argument, it has to be made about USC not Texas. the pac-10 is about 1/2 notch above the sunbelt and without USC it would loose that 1/2. Texas is the number 1 or 2 team in the country. an argument any other way puts VT and Bama in the title game as USC dosent even play 3 good teams like Texas.

←

Yeah UCLA, Cal, Zona State, Oregon, all a bunch of pushovers....

[UNTFan23]

if you are going to make this argument, it has to be made about USC not Texas. the pac-10 is about 1/2 notch above the sunbelt and without USC it would loose that 1/2. Texas is the number 1 or 2 team in the country. an argument any other way puts VT and Bama in the title game as USC dosent even play 3 good teams like Texas.

←

[Baby Arm!]

Ok, I know this will stir the pot a little on this board but I just don't see how anyone in the world can justify Texas being in the national title game.  Let's look at who they've played and will play compared to Alabama or Virginia Tech, along with each opponents BCS and national ranking.

Texas

ULL (unranked)

Ohio State (BCS #10, ranked #12)

Rice (unranked)

Missouri (unranked)

Oklahoma (BCS #25, ranked tied for #32)

Colorado (BCS #22, ranked #24)

Texas Tech (BCS #15, ranked #16)

Oklahoma State (unranked)

Baylor (unranked)

Kansas (unranked)

Texas A&M (unranked)

Probable Big XII title opponent: Colorado (BCS #22, ranked #24)

Average ranking of ranked opponents: BCS #18, ranked #21

Virginia Tech

NC State (unranked)

Duke (unranked)

Ohio (unranked)

Georgia Tech (unranked)

W Virginia (BCS #17, ranked #18)

Marshall (unranked)

Maryland (unranked)

Boston College (BCS #19, ranked #20)

Miami (BCS #6, ranked #5)

Virginia (unranked)

North Carolina (unranked)

Probable ACC title game opponent: Florida State (BCS #9, ranked #8)

Average ranking of ranked opponents: BCS #12.75, ranked #12.75

Alabama

MTSU (unranked)

So Miss (unranked)

South Carolina (unranked)

Arkansas (unranked)

Florida (BCS #16, ranked #15)

Ole Miss (unranked)

Tennessee (unranked)

Utah State (unranked)

Miss State (unranked)

LSU (BCS #8, ranked #7)

Auburn (BCS #20, ranked #17)

Probable SEC title game opponent: Georgia (BCS #11, ranked #11)

Average ranking of ranked opponents: BCS #13.75, ranked #12.5

So, that's four ranked teams played each when all is said and done with UT not playing near the schedule of the other two.  So, again, how do you justify UT in the Rose Bowl?

←

By my count I see Texas playing more ranked teams in the than either Va Tech or Alabama. Texas plays 5 games against ranked team. Va Tech and Alabama each play 4 respectively.

There is a problem with you logic on this formula Emmit. You are using today's rankings. You have to consider the rankings of the teams at the time they were played. At the time Texas played them Ohio State was a top 5 team. Texas Tech was #7 in the BCS, Oklahoma and Colorado were top 20 teams. Of course using today's ranking is going to skew the average ranking lower because each of these teams now have a loss to Texas which contribute to a their lower ranking.

Conversely, Alabama and Va Tech have yet to play two of their highest ranked opponents. Take Miami and Florida St. for example. Both of these teams would not have as high a ranking as they do today if they had a loss to Va Tech on their records. If you took an average of the rankings after a loss, I think you would see both Va Tech and Alabama "average" dropping.

Right now, Texas has already played its ranked opponents. YTD Texas has had a tougher schedule than Alabama or Va Tech. Texas has already played and beaten 4 ranked opponents. Va Tech has only played 2, Alabama 1.

Let's wait till the end of the season before we start bemoaning the unfairness of the BCS. Va Tech and Bama still have their toughest games of the season to play.

Edited November 1, 2005 by Baby Arm!

[emmitt01]

By my count I see Texas playing more ranked teams in the than either Va Tech or Alabama.  Texas plays 5 games against ranked team.  Va Tech and Alabama each play 4 respectively.

There is a problem with you logic on this formula Emmit.  You are using today's rankings.  You have to consider the rankings of the teams at the time they were played.  At the time Texas played them Ohio State was a top 5 team.  Texas Tech was #7 in the BCS,  Oklahoma and Colorado were top 20 teams.  Of course using today's ranking is going to skew the average ranking lower because each of these teams now have a loss to Texas which contribute to a their lower ranking. 

Conversely,  Alabama and Va Tech have yet to play two of their highest ranked opponents.  Take Miami and Florida St. for example.  Both of these teams would not have as high a ranking as they do today if they had a loss to Va Tech on their records.  If you took an average of the rankings after a loss, I think you would see both Va Tech and Alabama "average" dropping.

Right now,  Texas has already played its ranked opponents.  YTD Texas has had a tougher schedule than Alabama or Va Tech.  Texas has already played and beaten 4 ranked opponents.  Va Tech has only played 2,  Alabama 1. 

Let's wait till the end of the season before we start bemoaning the unfairness of the BCS.  Va Tech and Bama still have their toughest games of the season to play.

←

Nope, no problem with my logic here. At the time Texas played them Ohio State was a top 5 team...and at the beginning of the season Oklahoma was in the top 5 as well, so we can throw preseason polls out the window. And it wasn't just UT that drug down OU's ranking, TCU did this as well as did UCLA. And you say Ohio State's loss to Texas brings them down as if this in any way is relevent. Don't you think FSU's loss brings them down a bit? Or how about Georgia's loss to Florida? By your reasoning a team could maintain the #1 spot in the country by playing the preseason top 4 as their non-conference schedule...regardless of whether those teams are exposed as being overrated as the season progresses. The only way to truly gauge a team's strength of schedule is where the teams they play end up when all is said and done. This takes into account not only their losses to higher ranked teams in their conference but also losses to the rest of their schedule.

And no, Texas doesn't play more ranked teams. They play Colorado, Oklahoma, Texas Tech and Ohio State. They play Colorado twice. That's 4. Va Tech plays FSU, Miami, Boston College, and West Virginia. That's 4. Alabama plays four as well. Because there are conference title games in each of these conferences the team they play for the conference title has to be taken into the equation.

Justifying UT in the national title game IF all four of these teams stay undefeated is just an exercise in spin doctoring.

[emmitt01]

if you are going to make this argument, it has to be made about USC not Texas. the pac-10 is about 1/2 notch above the sunbelt and without USC it would loose that 1/2. Texas is the number 1 or 2 team in the country. an argument any other way puts VT and Bama in the title game as USC dosent even play 3 good teams like Texas.

←

Did you not read the rankings for the teams USC plays or is this just another example of the "southern football bias?" Let's remember that the champion of that conference that is "about 1/2 notch above the sunbelt" drilled the champion of the mighty Big XII last season...as they would do the longhorns this year if they were to play.

[Green92]

I find it funny that some people spend so much time and effort hating some other school. Sounds like a bunch of aggies with an inferiority complex.

Carry on....

Edited November 1, 2005 by Green92

[UNTLifer]

You all should learn not to disagree with emmitt. It saves much time and frustration.

[eeally]

The way I see it. If VA Tech was ranked below USC and TExas at the beginning of the season then if they are both 10-0 then VA Tech should be third. It does not matter what the real deal is. People want to see UT and USC in the Rose Bowl. Do you people not get it.

Everyone in college football want to see Texas and Calif go at it. They do not want Va Tech.

[gamebreaker]

I think everyone that is hating on UT is just jealous that UNT will never be any where close to them. its impossible to have this conversation about whos better...just let things play out for themselves. VT and USC still have some very tough games ahead that could really affect things.

Horns'...national champs...mark my words.