NCAA Football 2008 Discussion - It All Starts Here.

[JM1776]

Head-to-head has the biggest advantage because it is the only factor that eliminates virtually every other possible variable.

In a word ... ridiculous. It doesn't usually eliminate home-field advantage (even in the case of the Red River Shootout, UT has the edge because it's played in Dallas; it's neutral in name but only somewhat in fact); it doesn't eliminate injuries, confidence, the streaks, good or bad, either team is on; it doesn't eliminate off-the-field distractions. All that factored in makes head-to-head important, but by no means the only or even always the best criterion for a final decision—as it is not in this case.

And we're back to body of work over a season—in which Oklahoma wins again.

Head-to-head is "inordinate" to you because it defeats your position.

Head-to-head's already been exposed as overrated in determining which team is best over a season ... Hell, sometimes even in the game played. The fact that you're unable to accept that it's important, but not paramount, speaks to your inability to accept gettin' whupped in an argument.

Which is a good point and the best one you've made so far.

I'm so far ahead on points and punches that you're already in the locker room goin', "Is it over. Am I still champ?"

And whom did I pick? Pssst... Oklahoma. The difference is that I am allowing for it to be a much tougher decision than you have.

A clear decision is not necessarily an easy one. I've never said or implied Texas wasn't worthy. Oklahoma's simply proven more.

Think about it, Neroon. Until OU's win over Oklahoma State in Stillwater, I rated Texas over Oklahoma, based on the relative equality of their schedules and the fact that UT beat the Sooners. How freakin' convincing do you believe I think it? They passed UT based on an impressive win—which means Texas is, according to my own poll, within a one-impressive-win striking distance.

Again ... narrow, but clear. Accept it.

Perhaps you thought by "clear" I meant "so widespread it's laughable to discuss." I didn't, and don't believe I've implied that at any point during this discussion. You're certainly welcome to point it out if I have, and I'll apologize for hyperbole.

This is college football, though.

"Sorry, but ... I've seen nothing here to refute or even substantially shake that."

You're speaking more intelligently than you ever ha–

Oh, that's why. Quote me more. You'll seem even smarter.

Bottom line: who should be the Big-12 South rep is just not so clear-cut as you are making it out to be.

Beneath the bottom line: You've interpreted my statement that Oklahoma is a clear-cut choice as an indictment of Texas. It's nothing of the sort.

I originally wrote:

2 – Oklahoma (11-1)

I've stayed with the Longhorns based on head-to-head, but unfortunately that's no longer justified, in that OU has played a more impressive schedule than UT. Whuppin' Cincinnati and Texas Christian, coupled with their run through the Big 12, is enough to put them over the top. This final win over OSU gives the Sooners five quality wins, to only four for Texas. Sorry, Longhorns fans: Oklahoma is the better team, based on what we saw on the field. You've got to hope now that Missouri comes through for you, unlikely though that is.

3 – Texas (11-1)

"But we beat them" is a great argument. It's just not a convincing one, ultimately. It reminds me of the season Notre Dame bitched up a storm when they finished number two to an FSU team they'd edged earlier in the year. Problem was that the Irish had gone out the next week and lost to Boston College. The logic was unassailable: The Seminoles had lost to a great Notre Dame squad, while Holtz's boys had dropped one to a good Eagles crew. Based on the body of work, FSU was the better team. Same principle absolutely applies here.

Note I wrote "put them over the top," not "buries Texas in the Big 12 also-rans graveyard."

If I'm 6' 0" and you're 5' 11", from a distance we look to be the same height. But the closer one gets, the more obvious it is that I'm taller. Same principle between 5' 11" Texas and 6' 0" OU.

Texas deserved to be in the discussion. But this idea that Oklahoma edged them by the barest of margins is frankly laughable. OU's the better team—narrowly, but noticeably.

 

[JM1776]

It's halftime in Piscataway, with Rutgers leading Louisville 49-0.

That's right: 49-0 at intermission.

I think Schiano's recalling two games past: Last year in Kentucky, when the Knights led 21-3, 28-10 and 35-17 before losing 41-38 ... and, more importantly, three years ago, when his crew got stomped 56-5 at Papa John's.

Even my mom, who rarely if ever employs profanity, said, "Well, payback's a bitch."

 

[Commander Vaughn]

Yeah, I got home and flipped to ESPN to watch some football. Saw that score at the start of the third quarter and just turned off the TV. That game was over...

I still don't buy the "body of work" argument. If OU was truly the better team than Texas, OU would have beaten Texas. It's difficult to argue that you're the better team when you lose to the team you're supposed to be better than.

When it comes right down to it, to claim "body of work" means you ignore the outcome of one of the games in that "body of work". So it's no longer looking at the season as a whole, and it becomes looking at the season as a whole minus that glaring loss to Texas.

 

[DaleC76]

Got this in an email:

BCS DECLARES GERMANY WINNER OF WORLD WAR II
US Ranked 4th

After determining the Big-12 championship game participants the BCS computers were put to work on other major contests and today the BCS declared Germany to be the winner of World War II.

"Germany put together an incredible number of victories beginning with the annexation of Austria and the Sudetenland and continuing on into conference play with defeats of Poland, France, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Belgium and the Netherlands. Their only losses came against the US and Russia; however considering their entire body of work--including an incredibly tough Strength of Schedule--our computers deemed them worthy of the #1 ranking."

Questioned about the #4 ranking of the United States the BCS commissioner stated "The US only had two major victories--Japan and Germany. The computer models, unlike humans, aren't influenced by head-to-head contests--they consider each contest to be only a single, equally-weighted event."

German Chancellor Adolph Hiter said "Yes, we lost to the US; but we defeated #2 ranked France in only 6 weeks." Herr Hitler has been criticized for seeking dramatic victories to earn 'style points' to enhance Germany's rankings. Hitler protested "Our contest with Poland was in doubt until the final day and the conditions in Norway were incredibly challenging and demanded the application of additional forces."

The French ranking has also come under scrutiny. The BCS commented " France had a single loss against Germany and following a preseason #1 ranking they only fell to #2."

Japan was ranked #3 with victories including Manchuria, Borneo and the Philippines."

 

[1001001]

As much as it pains me to say it (twice in one year??) I agree with JM. Body of work trumps head-to-head.

Does anyone really think Iowa is a better team than Penn State? Is Oregon State really a better team than USC?

Anything can happen on a given night. Home field advantage, for example. Play over a 12 game season is more indicative of strength than a one game performance.

Head to head is obviously an important measurement, but it's better for college football to look at the Big Picture. I don't really have an opinion on Oklahoma vs. Texas (I don't have a horse in that race), but I think it's fair to say that when all is said and done, the principle of "Body of Work" is the more valid measurement.

JMHO

 

[Commander Vaughn]

As much as it pains me to say it (twice in one year??) I agree with JM. Body of work trumps head-to-head.

Does anyone really think Iowa is a better team than Penn State? Is Oregon State really a better team than USC?

Anything can happen on a given night. Home field advantage, for example. Play over a 12 game season is more indicative of strength than a one game performance.

Head to head is obviously an important measurement, but it's better for college football to look at the Big Picture. I don't really have an opinion on Oklahoma vs. Texas (I don't have a horse in that race), but I think it's fair to say that when all is said and done, the principle of "Body of Work" is the more valid measurement.

JMHO

In all of your examples though, the two teams did not have identical records. USC has one loss, Oregon State two. Iowa is barely bowl eligible, Penn State lost once. In those situations, yes you have to look at the big picture.

But when you put two 11-1 teams next to each other, and one beat the other, I fail to see how you can say that the team that lost is better than the team that beat them. Especially since these teams play in the same division, against the same foes.

 

[JM1776]

I still don't buy the "body of work" argument. If OU was truly the better team than Texas, OU would have beaten Texas. It's difficult to argue that you're the better team when you lose to the team you're supposed to be better than.

Not if you understand and can accept that one night does not a season make.

When it comes right down to it, to claim "body of work" means you ignore the outcome of one of the games in that "body of work". So it's no longer looking at the season as a whole, and it becomes looking at the season as a whole minus that glaring loss to Texas.

Actually, what it means is that you've put that win or loss into perspective as part of a whole.

But when you put two 11-1 teams next to each other, and one beat the other, I fail to see how you can say that the team that lost is better than the team that beat them. Especially since these teams play in the same division, against the same foes.

You're conveniently failling to factor in Oklahoma's wins over Cincinnati and Texas Christian, which tip the scale in the Sooners' favor, as Texas has zero quality victories out of conference.

Texas is better than Oklahoma ... which is better than Texas Tech ... which is better than Texas ... and so forth and so on ad infinitum ad tedium ad nauseaum. They couldn't settle it amongst themselves; thus other criteria come strongly into play.

We're not going to settle this, obviously. Neroon is right about that ... and only that.

 

[Neroon]

Again, I'm not saying that it has to be one or the other, only that you cannot dismiss head-to-head so easily. Each one keeps the other from having too much influence, so both NEED to be considered and considered carefully. Iowa beats Penn St but nobody says the Hawkeyes really are better. Why? Because Iowa has lost a few more games and generally looked MUCH less impressive. Now, Texas and Oklahoma have created comparatively equal bodies of work. The sooners moreso on offense, the Longhorns moreso on defense, and so forth. It's extremely difficult to separate the two, because offensive performances are "sexier" than defensive. So what's left? How the two fare when on the same field. Texas wins a hardfought game against Oklahoma on a neutral site. Ergo, small wonder why there is so much discussion on who deserves to be going.

 

[JM1776]

Now, Texas and Oklahoma have created comparatively equal bodies of work.

Nope. The Sooners' out-of-conference schedule is unquestionably more difficult, and that definitively if not overwhelmingly wins them the argument.

As I've shown ... close, but clear.

 

[DanCPA]

Got this in an email:

BCS DECLARES GERMANY WINNER OF WORLD WAR II
US Ranked 4th

This wouldn't be true
BCS has shown that they give more weight to late wins

Gee, would Texas Tech be allowed to watch? Would they get in if the coin landed on its edge?

That's the thing
If you start talking head to head record, why is Tech dismissed
They beat Texas and have the same record

 

[Neroon]

Now, Texas and Oklahoma have created comparatively equal bodies of work.

Nope. The Sooners' out-of-conference schedule is unquestionably more difficult, and that definitively if not overwhelmingly wins them the argument.

As I've shown ... close, but clear.

We're not going to settle this, obviously. Neroon is right about that ... and only that.

Uh huh ... appears as if you're not right about the quality wins for Texas.

Look here: Link. One point separates Oklahoma from Texas in schedule strength. It's close alright and surely doesn't appear very clear. Add in that head-to-head, and .... well you might want to look into that corrective vision thing.

 

[Commander Vaughn]

Now, Texas and Oklahoma have created comparatively equal bodies of work.

Nope. The Sooners' out-of-conference schedule is unquestionably more difficult, and that definitively if not overwhelmingly wins them the argument.

As I've shown ... close, but clear.

We're not going to settle this, obviously. Neroon is right about that ... and only that.

Uh huh ... appears as if you're not right about the quality wins for Texas.

Look here: Link. One point separates Oklahoma from Texas in schedule strength. It's close alright and surely doens't appear very clear. Might want to look into that corrective vision thing.

An excellent point. This is exactly why head-to-head should be the deciding factor.

And as for Texas Tech, it seems awfully convenient that they are excluded from discussion about being the South champion except for when we're discussing the merits of Texas...

 

[DanCPA]

by checking out that link, you can see that OU is 5-1 against top 25 teams
UT is only 3-1 against top 25 teams.

While they both have 1 loss, you can see that UT had 2 more cakewalks!

 

[JM1776]

Which effectively slam dunks that "lies, damned lies and statistics" attempt you made, Neroon.

Nice try, though.

Oh, and if you check out CBS Sportsline, Oklahoma has the most difficult schedule in the country; Texas ranks #4. No doubt others consider the disparity greater. Honestly, though, one simply has to look without a Texas bias to see that Oklahoma's schedule is tougher.

Edit: I checked out another site, and it had Texas' SOS at like 8 and Oklahoma's 23. This is where someone with half a brain checks out the respective schedules and reports back. I shall do so.

 

[Commander Vaughn]

Which effectively slam dunks that "lies, damned lies and statistics" attempt you made, Neroon.

Nice try, though.

Oh, and if you check out CBS Sportsline, Oklahoma has the most difficult schedule in the country; Texas ranks #4. No doubt others consider the disparity greater. One simply has to look without wishing for Texas to see that Oklahoma's schedule is tougher, though.

You're right. Let's just not play any more games this season. We'll just look at schedules and decide champions that way.

Who needs a Big 12 title game? Or even a National Title game? We'll just look at bodies of work and pick a champion that way.

 

[JM1776]

Texas' quality wins:

• Oklahoma @ Dallas
• Oklahoma State
• Missouri
• @ Kansas (we have to call this one a quality win now, because Kansas upset Mizzou; 'til then, I'd not have done so)
• Rice (if we're really, really stretching things ... but since Rice beat no one this year, they really don't count)

Texas' quality losses:

• @ Texas Tech

Oklahoma's quality wins:

• Cincinnati
• Texas Christian
• Kansas (see above comment)
• Nebraska (they make the list via a better record than and victory over Kansas)
• Texas Tech
• @ Oklahoma State

Oklahoma's quality losses:

• Texas @ Dallas

Facts gleaned from the above:

• Texas hasn't a single elite-quality win on the road, while Oklahoma has one in Stillwater.
• Oklahoma's lone loss is to the Longhorns in Dallas, which when last I checked is still in the State of Texas
• Texas has three elite wins (against top 25 opponents); Oklahoma has four
• Texas has five quality wins (four if we don't count Rice, and we really shouldn't); Oklahoma has six

The verdict is in: On body of work, Oklahoma trumps Texas. No way head-to-head overcomes the above.

 

[Commander Vaughn]

^Looking at the number of "if's" in that post, I'd hardly call it an irrefutable argument.

 

[mimic]

Dallas is 194 miles from Austin and 189 from Norman. The stadium was split pretty evenly into orange and red. The 'neutral site technically, but really a home game for UT' claim is tosh.

To revise your points:

• Texas has a quality win away from home, as does Oklahoma
• Both Texas and Oklahoma losses came away from home
• Texas has three elite wins (against top 25 opponents); Oklahoma has four
• Texas has five quality wins (four if we don't count Rice, and we really shouldn't); Oklahoma has six (five if we don't count Cincinnati, which was early in the season and they weren't firing on all cylinders yet)

The verdict: hung jury

 

[Cyrus]

One thing that I like about selection of Oklahoma over Texas is that I like to see schools that intentionally fill their non-conference schedule with patsies to get punished. Usually they get away with it as the voters just look at the overall record and not do any kind of analysis, but in this case Texas got spanked for it (hopefully they won't back into the NC game with an Oklahoma loss).

Texas' non-conference schedule hasn't been very good recently. Mack Brown admitting he wasn't happy about Ohio State being on their schedule a few year ago wasn't a good sign. And looking at their future schedules it seem to be more of the same with only UCLA being a semi-decent program on it. Oklahoma on the other hand has done better (the inexcusable scheduling of Chattanooga notwithstanding), even Washington which was pretty bad this year has been a very good program historically (and these schedules are made well in advance). And on Oklahoma's future schedules I see big time programs like Miami, Florida State, Notre Dame, Tennessee and Ohio State.

As for the playoffs, I am against it. The last thing I want to see is for my favorite sport to become more like other less interesting sports (e.g. NCAA basketball, wake me up when the regular season is over). The only thing they should possibly consider is the "unseeded plus one" as that has the advantage of restoring the major Bowls to the relevance they had before the BCS came along. Also the voters need to punish schools that intentionally schedule cream-puff opponents. We need less of Oklahoma-Chattanooga, Texas-Louisiana Monroe & Alabama-Western Kentucky, and more of Texas-Ohio State & USC-Auburn games.

 

[JM1776]

An insightful and cogent post, Cyrus. You see things as they are, rather than how you'd wish them to be.

Dallas is 194 miles from Austin and 189 from Norman. The stadium was split pretty evenly into orange and red. The 'neutral site technically, but really a home game for UT' claim is tosh.

To revise your points:

• Texas has a quality win away from home, as does Oklahoma
• Both Texas and Oklahoma losses came away from home
• Texas has three elite wins (against top 25 opponents); Oklahoma has four
• Texas has five quality wins (four if we don't count Rice, and we really shouldn't); Oklahoma has six (five if we don't count Cincinnati, which was early in the season and they weren't firing on all cylinders yet)

The verdict: hung jury

[Chuckles.]

Not bad. At least it was entertaining.

To clarify and repair your 'revisions':

• Texas' 'away-from-home' win was also (as you conveniently avoided mentioning) an away-from-home loss for OU ... and UT does have an advantage at Dallas, even if it's slender and psychological: Texas is playing in their home state (during the Texas State Fair, no less); Oklahoma is in a hostile environment until entering the stadium. I did not say or imply it's a de facto road game for OU/home game for Texas ... but it is at best a neutral site win for UT, and more accurately a win at a locale that gives them a slight boost year in and year out. To reiterate: UT does not have a true quality road win.
• The idea that we should dismiss Cincinnati is laughable; they're a top 15 team (as is Texas Christian). I discussed discounting Rice because the Owls haven't a single quality win on their slate, whereas the Bearcats and Horned Frogs have won some wars. The Bearcats "weren't firing on all cylinders" in large measure because OU wouldn't allow it. [The same thing happened to TCU.] Note also that with five minutes left in the third quarter, it was OU 28, UC 20, which means the Bearcats competed quite nicely before the Sooners finished them off. Frankly, UC's QB situation was better when they faced Oklahoma than it is now. Thus, Texas has three quality wins and none on the road, whereas Oklahoma has five and one of those in Stillwater.

It's just, in that Texas pays the price they should for their absolutely pussified OOC schedule.

The smartest verdict and the decisive advantage: Oklahoma.

[Frankly, I like Texas a lot better than I do OU, so ... I'm not just pushing my team, here.]