Left Behind: A Quick Dose Of Post Big 12 Reality

[tonedeaf 56]

3 minutes ago, Okie State said:

The shanked FG against ISU cost us our chance and it was all the reason they needed to keep us out. When you're not a blue blood the margin of error is zero. It also cost Weeden the Heisman. The only way I cope with it is to convince myself we wouldn't have given OU the beat down we did had the NC game been on the line. Or something. That game killed college football for me and I haven't really given much of a shit since.
 

So.....one game?  As a Texas fan I don't know where to start.   

[Okie State 3,889]

So.....one game?  As a Texas fan I don't know where to start.   

Hahaha yeah one game. Tell me you don't know oSu football without telling me. But yeah, that was likely as close as we'll ever get. Texas has had and will have many more.

[Sandbagging Steve 982]

9 minutes ago, Paul Wesley said:

Great post.

1). Isn't it crazy how much offensive NFL talent Sleepy Mike Sherman was able to assemble for a bumbling and inept Aggie team around 2010-2012, while Texas - fresh off a string of MNC games and multiple top-5 finishes - had no viable quarterbacks, a bunch of skill-position JAGs, and one of the worst offensive lines in the league?

2). Totally agree on 2011 Oklahoma State.  They got screwed out of the championship game they deserved.  And the argument that was used to deny them their chance ("got to win your own league") was completely abandoned in order to hand Alabama a mulligan and a crystal ball a year or so later.  

 

I've cut back on sports. The media doesn't realize a short-term win can be a long-term loss. When you rig the system to get the results you want, people get turned off and don't watch as much moving forward. I don't want unethical politics in my sports viewing. It reminds me of the way we allow policymakers free rein. I hate that stuff. I've gone from the biggest college football fan on the planet for over 30 years to more of a casual fan. I still follow some of the behind-the-scenes stuff, especially UT, but I'm not there nearly as often on Saturdays.

The lack of rules doesn't help either. The greatest coaches in the history of college sports are typically nothing but unethical cheating frauds. This is a 100-year-old problem created by college presidents from coast to coast. A refusal to set and enforce a set of rules for the sport. It's not hard. But let's be real, it was all about not paying the laborers for their work while screaming at the rest of the world about ethical values. It's hypocrisy. 

College presidents across America should be forced to hire a sports GM. They should not be determining rules. They should not even be in charge of their own athletics programs. They're incompetent at the subject matter. 

I'm paying attention now because some of the current events have a chance to change athletics for the better. There's still a long way to go. I just want an even playing field so the best coaches with the best teams EARN their rewards on the field/court. It's what sports is supposed to be about... competition

 

 

 

[bullet 1,631]

6 hours ago, Mitch Cumsteen said:

I wouldn't necessarily say ESPN created the perception problem for the Big 12. Texas sucking created the perception problem. And I would say the same thing about USC and the Pac. The conferences are deemed weak when the big tickets are down. If Texas and USC were doing what they were supposed to be doing on the field, the ratings would have been better and the dollars would have been better. Not only that, if Texas had been winning, the A&M SEC move would have had a much smaller impact on recruiting so those pressures would have been lessened as well. 

ESPN did their part.  In 2011 they ignored Oklahoma St. and tried to argue that Alabama should get in ahead of 2 loss champ Stanford and 1 loss non-champ Oregon.

Same thing a few years later when Baylor was good, before they lost late in the season.  They were arguing that a 1 loss Ohio St. should move ahead of one of the top 4 and completely ignored unbeaten Baylor.

As for recruiting, it was about the CFP.  aggy was doing good, but what was hurting us was losing so many of the very top players to the regular CFP participants-Alabama, Georgia, Clemson and Ohio St.  The year we announced for the SEC and the CFP was going to be expanded, UT, A&M and OU dominated Texas recruiting in a way I don't ever remember seeing.

[bullet 1,631]

4 hours ago, Al_4_ISU said:

That’s completely fair, and I do wonder if the landscape of college sports looks completely different if Colt McCoy doesn’t go down on that fateful night in January of 2010.

But ESPN just shit on the Big 12 at every turn for the following decade, and as was often pointed out on this board/Shaggy, it was pretty inaccurate.

There were SO many ifs.  What if MU beats OU in the ccg in 2007 instead of LSU getting a mulligan with 2 losses (or WVU beating Pitt)?  CCG is Missouri vs. Ohio St.  What if common sense applied and UT went to the ccg and title game instead of OU in 2008 and beat Florida?    What is Colt didn't get hit on the shoulder as a freshman vs. KSU in 2006?  The Bama player hit him on the same play in the same spot in 2009.  What if Bama's player doesn't get sloppy when running back a turnover, allowing the Auburn player to strip him just before the goal line in 2010?  That would have made the game 31-0 that Bama eventually lost 28-27.  So TCU would have played Oregon for the title.

What if common sense applied and Okie St. played LSU in 2011 instead of giving Bama a mulligan (or maybe that plane crash didn't happen the night before Okie St.'s lone loss vs. ISU)?  You could have had 5 straight Big 12 or future Big 12 champs instead of 5 straight SEC champs.

[Hank Chinaski 6,363]

57 minutes ago, Okie State said:

1 hour ago, tonedeaf said:

So.....one game?  As a Texas fan I don't know where to start.   

Hahaha yeah one game. Tell me you don't know oSu football without telling me. But yeah, that was likely as close as we'll ever get. Texas has had and will have many more.

Texas may have been 2 plays from winning 3 titles in a 5-year span (Gideon dropped INT and Colt injury). You’d have a hard time convincing me that Texas wasn’t the country’s best team in ‘08 and that the ‘09 team wouldn’t have beaten Bama with Colt (obviously we’ll never know). Testament to the role that luck and randomness often play in deciding these things.

[bullet 1,631]

4 hours ago, tonedeaf said:

I don't remember TCU being mentioned.  However,  fuck baylor.  Voted for ou in 2008 but wanted to ride our coattails.  Hypocritical little pussies.  

I don't understand why this board likes the Pirate so much when he screwed us in the polls in 2008 after giving up vs. OU, giving OU a rout.

1 hour ago, TKthunder2 said:

But Grizzly Adams did have a beard…I mean Oklahoma State did win the conference in 2011.

The argument they made was that Alabama was the best 1 loss team. Which while potentially true shouldn’t have mattered since they already lost to LSU.

The whole point of the BCS was to stage a championship game BETWEEN conferences to prove which was best at the end of the season. We knew LSU was the best but had a chance to see them take on a 1 loss Okie St or Stanford from another conference which should have been the matchup, but since Okie St/Stanford aren’t bluebloods ESPN knew it wouldnt draw as well as Bama. And while they were likely correct, TV ratings was not the point of the BCS NCG when it was originally created.

It was a shitty thing to do. Okie St deserved their shot but got fucked. Worse than Baylor/TCU in my opinion.

LSU got screwed as bad as Okie St.  They had to beat a good team they had already beaten on the road in the game of the year.

[FartingDreamer 138]

5 minutes ago, bullet said:

I don't understand why this board likes the Pirate so much when he screwed us in the polls in 2008 after giving up vs. OU, giving OU a rout.

LSU got screwed as bad as Okie St.  They had to beat a good team they had already beaten on the road in the game of the year century.

FIFY

[Deej 77,861]

How did Okie State vote in 2008?

[Satchel 6,983]

26 minutes ago, Hank Chinaski said:

Texas may have been 2 plays from winning 3 titles in a 5-year span (Gideon dropped INT and Colt injury). You’d have a hard time convincing me that Texas wasn’t the country’s best team in ‘08 and that the ‘09 team wouldn’t have beaten Bama with Colt (obviously we’ll never know). Testament to the role that luck and randomness often play in deciding these things.

Texas may have been the best among quite a few B12 teams in ‘08. Problem I’m my view was there were also quite a few Big12 teams who were married but looking.

[chase25 2,048]

I really don't get the outrage over 2011 when Alabama got a second chance. The only argument I've seen is people saying they should be punished for having already played LSU that year.

[Okie State 3,889]

I really don't get the outrage over 2011 when Alabama got a second chance. The only argument I've seen is people saying they should be punished for having already played LSU that year.

They didn't even win their division let alone their conference. It was horseshit they were given a free pass. Fuck them forever.

If you can't see how that season was everything that's wrong with college football I don't even know what to say to you.

[Paul Wesley 3,313]

4 hours ago, TKthunder2 said:

Oklahoma State did win the conference in 2011.

Doh!!  I misspoke.  

I should have said that the same argument that kept *Texas* out of the championship game in 2008 ("should have won your own conference") was suddenly absent a few years later when conference champion Oklahoma State was screwed in favor of an Alabama team that lost a home game and didn't even win their own division.  

[chase25 2,048]

1 hour ago, Okie State said:

They didn't even win their division let alone their conference. It was horseshit they were given a free pass. Fuck them forever.

If you can't see how that season was everything that's wrong with college football I don't even know what to say to you.

What is your argument for getting in though? Both Stanford and Okie State were ahead of Alabama until they lost. Stanford lost by 23 (53-30) at home to Oregon. You all lost to Iowa State on the road, an Iowa State who finished 6-7. Alabama lost 9-6 to the #1 team at home, a game where they missed 4 FGs. The closest game Alabama played all year was a 16 point road win against Penn State.

Seems like the only argument (or at least the most used argument) for Ok State or Stanford is that they hadn't played LSU yet so they should get a shot. 

The goal posts have always moved and voters/CFP committee have always leaned on whatever data points fit their narrative for that season, I don't agree with it, but I don't think anybody would say Alabama wasn't the 2nd best team heading into the National Title game.

Saying you didn't win your division or conference doesn't really matter to me at least. Do you think 2006 Nebraska was better than Texas? Texas won in Lincoln, why wasn't Texas in the conference championship game? What about 2004 Colorado? The Big 12 in the first decade of the 2000s is a perfect example of how awful divisions can be. 

I hate divisions, I think a 2008 Big 12 championship game between Texas and OU would have been pretty cool, or a 2004 Big 12 Championship game between Texas and OU. Divisions for a long time have often kept the two best teams in a conference from playing in a conference championship game (which was just added for extra revenue in the first place)

[TKthunder2 5,060]

@chase25 the Bowl Coalition/Alliance/Championship was created to matchup of up the best of the conferences against each other to determine a national champion.

Historically due to bowl ties in (like the Rose Bowl) #1 from say the Big Ten did not always have the opportunity to play against #2 in day the SEC.

THE ENTIRE PURPOSE OF THE BCS was to remove the barriers and pair the best from the conferences (plural) against each other to see who was the overall best. It was not designed to put in the best made for TV matchup for ESPN, but that was a result of setting these matchups.

In this scenario they shunned the system on which the entire foundation of the BCS was laid in order to make a better TV product. They turned away from the goals stated during their origination and sold their sole for $ over integrity (as is common).

Since LSU won the SEC undefeated, they were already the undisputed champion of their league (by definition better than Bama) and Oklahoma State and Stanford were the undisputed champions of their league and they should have played. LSU/OK St and Stanford/Bama, but instead they gave Alabama a second chance at a title and deprived OSU/Stan of their first.

Before the BCS LSU would have played in a bowl NOT against Bama. Going into Bowl season LSU/Okie St/Stanford all would have had a chance to win a national title but Bama would not. Without the BCS we could have had 2 champions between these 3 school, but only with this fucked up system would a school that historically never would have been in the running get a chance to revenge their loss and claim a title.

That is why they went to the CFP. That is a substantive change to the original purpose of the old Bowl system. It truly was to pick the best teams to compete for a national title for TV, not for just removing bowl tie-ins to make sure the best teams from each conference COULD play.

[chase25 2,048]

28 minutes ago, TKthunder2 said:

@chase25 the Bowl Coalition/Alliance/Championship was created to matchup of up the best of the conferences against each other to determine a national champion.

Historically due to bowl ties in (like the Rose Bowl) #1 from say the Big Ten did not always have the opportunity to play against #2 in day the SEC.

THE ENTIRE PURPOSE OF THE BCS was to remove the barriers and pair the best from the conferences (plural) against each other to see who was the overall best. It was not designed to put in the best made for TV matchup for ESPN, but that was a result of setting these matchups.

In this scenario they shunned the system on which the entire foundation of the BCS was laid in order to make a better TV product. They turned away from the goals stated during their origination and sold their sole for $ over integrity (as is common).

Since LSU won the SEC undefeated, they were already the undisputed champion of their league (by definition better than Bama) and Oklahoma State and Stanford were the undisputed champions of their league and they should have played. LSU/OK St and Stanford/Bama, but instead they gave Alabama a second chance at a title and deprived OSU/Stan of their first.

Before the BCS LSU would have played in a bowl NOT against Bama. Going into Bowl season LSU/Okie St/Stanford all would have had a chance to win a national title but Bama would not. Without the BCS we could have had 2 champions between these 3 school, but only with this fucked up system would a school that historically never would have been in the running get a chance to revenge their loss and claim a title.

That is why they went to the CFP. That is a substantive change to the original purpose of the old Bowl system. It truly was to pick the best teams to compete for a national title for TV, not for just removing bowl tie-ins to make sure the best teams from each conference COULD play.

All things evolve over time, just like the bowl system pre-BCS evolved over time. You can agree or disagree with what it became, but personally I don't see anything wrong with that outcome. Just like you could say Alabama should have just beaten LSU if they wanted to win a National Title. I could easily say the same for Stanford and Iowa State. 

Pitting teams against each other in the best interest of the bottom line wasn't new to the BCS, it just happened to be the first time it resulted in two teams from the same conference playing against each other, and the further out rage was because they had already played. I don't think it was fair that 31 coaches voted Oklahoma the #1 team in the country to only 4 for Texas in 2008 but such is life.

I just think the argument for Oklahoma State/Stanford is weak. Mostly because it is strictly based on what ifs that can only be countered by what ifs.

ETA: I have always been a fan of underdogs getting their chance which is why I am excited for the 12 team playoff. In this case though I just think the argument for Oklahoma State and Stanford is weak.

Edited July 31, 2023 by chase25

[Had Enough 2,125]

On the OSU game in 2011 versus Iowa State, there several points of note. It was a Friday night game at Ames. It was coming off the plane crash impacting their athletic department and 10 years after the previous plane crash. Then the late missed OSU FG. In watching the replay, you can’t tell jack about whether it was missed. At least not the replay I see. You’d think in certain conferences for certain teams that’s good given the importance.

The Big 12 really has been one to shoot themselves in the foot.

[statsman 5,698]

2011 OSU did win the B12. They were kept out due to having one loss, in a road game at ISU where a FG call by the refs (my memory is that the ball was so close over the goalpost that whichever way it was called on the field, it would have been upheld) put the game in OT, where they lost. B12 refs have called games before to help a team in playoff contention; I don’t know why they didn’t here. 

[TKthunder2 5,060]

6 hours ago, chase25 said:

All things evolve over time, just like the bowl system pre-BCS evolved over time. You can agree or disagree with what it became, but personally I don't see anything wrong with that outcome. Just like you could say Alabama should have just beaten LSU if they wanted to win a National Title. I could easily say the same for Stanford and Iowa State. 

Pitting teams against each other in the best interest of the bottom line wasn't new to the BCS, it just happened to be the first time it resulted in two teams from the same conference playing against each other, and the further out rage was because they had already played. I don't think it was fair that 31 coaches voted Oklahoma the #1 team in the country to only 4 for Texas in 2008 but such is life.

I just think the argument for Oklahoma State/Stanford is weak. Mostly because it is strictly based on what ifs that can only be countered by what ifs.

ETA: I have always been a fan of underdogs getting their chance which is why I am excited for the 12 team playoff. In this case though I just think the argument for Oklahoma State and Stanford is weak.

Texas getting screwed was due to conference rules and shady voting in 2008. It wasn’t a problem with the BCS system directly and to top it off Oklahoma had legitimate argument (they still fucking suck, but in preBCS they still could have been voted #1).

Your best argument would be 2007 LSU getting in with 2 losses or 2003 when Auburn got left out, but each of those selections still feel within the original intent of why the BCS was formed.

['stache 22,146]

Alabama's SEC schedule in 2011 was weak af and they lost the division to LSU. The Big XII was really good and really deep. OSU had a much stronger SOS and much better wins. It's the first time a college football vote turned on "quality of loss" which was just an excuse for "blueblood is better." Simply infuriating.

Edited July 31, 2023 by 'stache

[bullet 1,631]

14 hours ago, FartingDreamer said:

FIFY

I didn't watch the rematch.  The first game was boring as hell and I didn't like Okie St. and LSU getting screwed.

The Big shootout was the game of a century.  NU-OU 71 was a game of the century.  Vince & Co. vs. ESPN and Hollywood in the Rose was a game of the century.  LSU-Bama was pretty lame.

[bullet 1,631]

9 hours ago, TKthunder2 said:

@chase25 the Bowl Coalition/Alliance/Championship was created to matchup of up the best of the conferences against each other to determine a national champion.

Historically due to bowl ties in (like the Rose Bowl) #1 from say the Big Ten did not always have the opportunity to play against #2 in day the SEC.

THE ENTIRE PURPOSE OF THE BCS was to remove the barriers and pair the best from the conferences (plural) against each other to see who was the overall best. It was not designed to put in the best made for TV matchup for ESPN, but that was a result of setting these matchups.

In this scenario they shunned the system on which the entire foundation of the BCS was laid in order to make a better TV product. They turned away from the goals stated during their origination and sold their sole for $ over integrity (as is common).

Since LSU won the SEC undefeated, they were already the undisputed champion of their league (by definition better than Bama) and Oklahoma State and Stanford were the undisputed champions of their league and they should have played. LSU/OK St and Stanford/Bama, but instead they gave Alabama a second chance at a title and deprived OSU/Stan of their first.

Before the BCS LSU would have played in a bowl NOT against Bama. Going into Bowl season LSU/Okie St/Stanford all would have had a chance to win a national title but Bama would not. Without the BCS we could have had 2 champions between these 3 school, but only with this fucked up system would a school that historically never would have been in the running get a chance to revenge their loss and claim a title.

That is why they went to the CFP. That is a substantive change to the original purpose of the old Bowl system. It truly was to pick the best teams to compete for a national title for TV, not for just removing bowl tie-ins to make sure the best teams from each conference COULD play.

And deservedly so, the made for TV product had one of the worst BCS title game viewerships ever.

[BurntOrange&White 42,002]

I recall during the 2008 season pundits and etc were saying you can't have a rematch blah blah blah only for 3 years later to be calling for a rematch. It was pretty stupid.

[bullet 1,631]

Just now, BurntOrange&White said:

I recall during the 2008 season pundits and etc were saying you can't have a rematch blah blah blah only for 3 years later to be calling for a rematch. It was pretty stupid.

Same thing in 2006 when the Big 10 was arguing for an Ohio St.-Michigan rematch.

[Paul Wesley 3,313]

28 minutes ago, 'stache said:

Alabama's SEC schedule in 2011 was weak af and they lost the division to LSU. The Big XII was really good and really deep. OSU had a much stronger SOS and much better wins. It's the first time a college football vote turned on "quality of loss" which was just an excuse for "blueblood is better." Simply infuriating.

Pretty much all you can say, right?

Texas fans like to do charts like this for 2008 for Texas vs OU vs Tech.  Or 2008 Texas vs Florida.  We pretty clearly had a better resume than either OU or Florida, but there was a shit ton of clowning in the coaches' poll (like guys in the Stoops coaching tree voting OU #1 and Texas #5), and that was the year Tebow made his "no one's gonna work harder than me" speech - which the media fucking LOVED (and ignored that it came after Florida lost a home game to a .500 Ole Miss team).

[LTtxfan 50,035]

12 minutes ago, bullet said:

The Big shootout was the game of a century.  NU-OU 71 was a game of the century.  Vince & Co. vs. ESPN and Hollywood in the Rose was a game of the century.  LSU-Bama was pretty lame.

 

 

https://theathletic.com/1437164/2019/12/06/50th-anniversary-texas-arkansas-1969-game-of-century/

[closetojumping 65,528]

16 hours ago, Okie State said:

The shanked FG against ISU cost us our chance and it was all the reason they needed to keep us out. When you're not a blue blood the margin of error is zero. It also cost Weeden the Heisman. The only way I cope with it is to convince myself we wouldn't have given OU the beat down we did had the NC game been on the line. Or something. That game killed college football for me and I haven't really given much of a shit since.
 

The expansion of the CFP has increased the margin of error for a non-blue blood from zero, substantially. TCU this past year is a good example. Alabama was pimping hard for that 4th slot after a TCU loss and TCU still got in. I think the expansion next season makes it even a bigger opportunity for non-blue bloods. You're right about the past though.

14 hours ago, Hank Chinaski said:

Texas may have been 2 plays from winning 3 titles in a 5-year span (Gideon dropped INT and Colt injury). You’d have a hard time convincing me that Texas wasn’t the country’s best team in ‘08 and that the ‘09 team wouldn’t have beaten Bama with Colt (obviously we’ll never know). Testament to the role that luck and randomness often play in deciding these things.

Neither luck nor randomness played a role in deciding the 2008 outcome. Texas was left out of that game due to a whole lot of coaches liking Stoops and also enjoying sticking it to Mack Brown. Fuck them forever, especially Art Briles.

13 hours ago, chase25 said:

I really don't get the outrage over 2011 when Alabama got a second chance. The only argument I've seen is people saying they should be punished for having already played LSU that year.

It's the only national title game in my adulthood that I haven't watched. It was rigged from the jump. For reasons already well stated, Okie State had a better resume and should have gotten in to face another conference champion. The tv ratings sucked for a reason. That Bama title is as tainted as the LSU joke of a title in 2007 and the CU 5th down title in 1990. Your argument smells like poo in this thread.

[Sandman 3,435]

16 hours ago, Okie State said:

The shanked FG against ISU cost us our chance and it was all the reason they needed to keep us out. When you're not a blue blood the margin of error is zero. It also cost Weeden the Heisman. The only way I cope with it is to convince myself we wouldn't have given OU the beat down we did had the NC game been on the line. Or something. That game killed college football for me and I haven't really given much of a shit since.
 

That wasn't a shank. That fucker was good. You'll never convince me otherwise. 

[Okie State 3,889]

That wasn't a shank. That fucker was good. You'll never convince me otherwise. 

Fair enough.

[Hank Chinaski 6,363]

4 minutes ago, closetojumping said:

Neither luck nor randomness played a role in deciding the 2008 outcome. Texas was left out of that game due to a whole lot of coaches liking Stoops and also enjoying sticking it to Mack Brown. Fuck them forever, especially Art Briles.

Yeah, the “luck” part was the failure to secure the interception that would have ended the game. 100% agree that Texas was fucked by other coaches intentionally.

[Frank Drebin 5,840]

Just now, Hank Chinaski said:

Yeah, the “luck” part was the failure to secure the interception that would have ended the game. 100% agree that Texas was fucked by other coaches intentionally.

Terrible clock management also killed us.  Why we were snapping the ball with 15 seconds on play clock on the go ahead drive was inexcusable.  I was screaming at the tv while it was happening.

[Al_4_ISU 12,660]

As I was going to jump over the wall onto the Jack Trice field that night, I paused in front of an ESPN camera and did the Marshawn Lynch “Hold ma diiiick” before going over. It still bums me out that never ended up being aired.

[FartingDreamer 138]

1 hour ago, bullet said:

I didn't watch the rematch.  The first game was boring as hell and I didn't like Okie St. and LSU getting screwed.

The Big shootout was the game of a century.  NU-OU 71 was a game of the century.  Vince & Co. vs. ESPN and Hollywood in the Rose was a game of the century.  LSU-Bama was pretty lame.

I recall many on The Shag mentioning how boring the game was, yet to me it was the most entertaining low-scoring defensive battles I had ever witnessed.  

[oSuJeff97 3,439]

19 hours ago, Paul Wesley said:

Great post.

2). Totally agree on 2011 Oklahoma State.  They got screwed out of the championship game they deserved.  And the argument that was used to deny them their chance ("got to win your own league") was completely abandoned in order to hand Alabama a mulligan and a crystal ball a year or so later.  

We did win the Big 12 that year.  That's what was so goddamn infuriating about putting Bama in the title game. They didn't even win their goddamn *division* and we won the Big 12 with our last game being a 44-10 beatdown of #10 Oklahoma.

The argument that was used against us was "you had a worse loss" than Bama (double OT loss at Iowa State vs. loss to #1 LSU) even though we had like 5 better *wins* than they had. Of course that argument went away like the next year for Ohio State or Bama or some other blue blood that I can't remember.

All of a sudden it was about "more/better wins" instead of a "worse loss."

That was likely OSU's best chance to actually win a college football title in my lifetime and so of course we get fucked over.

[BurntOrange&White 42,002]

1 hour ago, FartingDreamer said:

I recall many on The Shag mentioning how boring the game was, yet to me it was the most entertaining low-scoring defensive battles I had ever witnessed.  

If I'm not mistaken the 2011 LSU/Alabama rematch was the lowest rated title game in the BCS/CFB Playoff era until this years blowout game of Georgia and TCU. 

[closetojumping 65,528]

2 hours ago, FartingDreamer said:

I recall many on The Shag mentioning how boring the game was, yet to me it was the most entertaining low-scoring defensive battles I had ever witnessed.  

I haven't watched, like I said, but how in the ever living fuck is a 21-0 game even in the same galaxy as the word "entertaining"? You are the first person I've ever read or heard that viewed that game as entertaining, and I have good friends that were on the Alabama sidelines for that game and are involved deeply in that program to this day.

[Mitch Cumsteen 18,985]

For sure OSU got hosed and should have played LSU, but if we're being honest Bama probably would have been a 7-10 point favorite against OSU on a neutral field. 

Also, the chart below is misleading. The second row of "wins over bowl bound teams with winning records" is sketchy because Bama beat three 6-6 teams (Florida, Miss State and Vandy) that went bowling, and the OSU column includes wins against Tulsa and ULALA. You want to tell me that at Tulsa and home vs Louisiana are better wins than road wins against Florida and MSU? Bama also won at Penn State and at Auburn. OSU's best road wins were against Texas (in full Mack Brown killing himself in Florida mode) and Mizzou. Everything else was at home.

Again, I think OSU should have played LSU but primarily because Alabama already had their shot against them and lost. This other handwringing about the schedule and resume is mostly bullshit. 

3 hours ago, 'stache said:

Alabama's SEC schedule in 2011 was weak af and they lost the division to LSU. The Big XII was really good and really deep. OSU had a much stronger SOS and much better wins. It's the first time a college football vote turned on "quality of loss" which was just an excuse for "blueblood is better." Simply infuriating.

 

[tonedeaf 56]

20 hours ago, bullet said:

I don't understand why this board likes the Pirate so much when he screwed us in the polls in 2008 after giving up vs. OU, giving OU a rout.

 

We liked the pirate mainly because of his aggy comments.  The point is,  baylor didn't beat any of the teams. Voted for ou out of spite all while trying to chummy up to us in case any more realignment came around.  The wanted to be  our tag along.   Fuck them.  I hope we never schedule them again.  

[LTtxfan 50,035]

Cross-posting since Buffs headed to B12

 

[Go Pokes 979]

1 hour ago, Mitch Cumsteen said:

For sure OSU got hosed and should have played LSU, but if we're being honest Bama probably would have been a 7-10 point favorite against OSU on a neutral field. 

Also, the chart below is misleading. The second row of "wins over bowl bound teams with winning records" is sketchy because Bama beat three 6-6 teams (Florida, Miss State and Vandy) that went bowling, and the OSU column includes wins against Tulsa and ULALA. You want to tell me that at Tulsa and home vs Louisiana are better wins than road wins against Florida and MSU? Bama also won at Penn State and at Auburn. OSU's best road wins were against Texas (in full Mack Brown killing himself in Florida mode) and Mizzou. Everything else was at home.

Again, I think OSU should have played LSU but primarily because Alabama already had their shot against them and lost. This other handwringing about the schedule and resume is mostly bullshit. 

 

I think what pissed off OSU fans the most were the moving goalposts.  Everything you said is correct and there's a good chance Bama was the best team in the country that year.  "Stache has some excellent points as well, but it's also irrelevant because that wasn't the system we were playing under back then.  Now they trot out the "who are the 4 best teams" line.  That isn't what they did back then.  It was find the two most deserving teams.  Bama losing to LSU should have eliminated them from the discussion.  It essentially eliminated Michigan a few seasons prior and would have eliminated Bama had the other team been OU and not OSU.  I don't think that's even debatable.  They changed the system midstream to make sure they got the matchup ESPN wanted.  The ironic thing is, after the bowl games were played it was pretty obvious the two best teams in the country were Bama and OSU, and that was the one game we had zero chance of actually getting.  

[FartingDreamer 138]

2 hours ago, closetojumping said:

I haven't watched, like I said, but how in the ever living fuck is a 21-0 game even in the same galaxy as the word "entertaining"? You are the first person I've ever read or heard that viewed that game as entertaining, and I have good friends that were on the Alabama sidelines for that game and are involved deeply in that program to this day.

I was referring to the regular season game that LSU won 9-6.

[Nivek 17,424]

For sure OSU got hosed and should have played LSU, but if we're being honest Bama probably would have been a 7-10 point favorite against OSU on a neutral field. 
Also, the chart below is misleading. The second row of "wins over bowl bound teams with winning records" is sketchy because Bama beat three 6-6 teams (Florida, Miss State and Vandy) that went bowling, and the OSU column includes wins against Tulsa and ULALA. You want to tell me that at Tulsa and home vs Louisiana are better wins than road wins against Florida and MSU? Bama also won at Penn State and at Auburn. OSU's best road wins were against Texas (in full Mack Brown killing himself in Florida mode) and Mizzou. Everything else was at home.
Again, I think OSU should have played LSU but primarily because Alabama already had their shot against them and lost. This other handwringing about the schedule and resume is mostly bullshit. 
 

Georgia could come out flat and still beat Texas by 3 TD’s. Who did Texas beat? Georgia almost beat Alabama and deserves to be in the playoffs. They are going to take it out on Texas.

No one comes into the shoe at night and wins.

“But this is USC!”

Pete Carroll with a month to prepare a defense? 2 Heisman winners!

Just spy VY and make him beat you with his arm.

Need I continue?

[Nivek 17,424]

I was referring to the regular season game that LSU won 9-6.

Mike Leached joked about that game. If someone stole LSU’s playbook and someone else stole Alabama’s playbook and the thieves sent the playbooks to the opposite coaches, the outcome would still have been the same.

[Nivek 17,424]

On 7/28/2023 at 9:13 PM, Okie State said:

On 7/28/2023 at 7:41 PM, Deej said:

Do they like rape?

Do any of us? We didn't do a damn thing to punish Baylor. Those fucks should have been relegated to oblivion, but they weren't.

Penn State was made out to be a victim of the persecution by several cfb media outlets.   The NCAA doesn't have any teeth or integrity, and they are afraid of lawsuits mostly because they would rather just keep reaping the low-effort cash flow they have going on as opposed to limiting some of that cash with fighting lawsuits.     

They took forever and dicked around with Aaron Ross' eligibility yet were right there immediately reviewing the Matt Leinart eligibility case on the eve of the title game.  They are corrupt.  It should have gone into a pile and they should have ruled him ineligible until they cleared every other fucking case that came before his.  They punish the weaker schools that cannot fight back.  They punish a program for a coach lending a shitty car to see his sick family member but turn a blind eye to the explicit obvious rampant cheating that was going on at Miami, Ole Miss, aggy, OUsux, and so on.  

 

 

[Al_4_ISU 12,660]

Kinda shifting gears here, but I really think the Big 12 should look hard at doing conference games on Week 0 in the future.  For as much as Yormark is looking for creative ways to create exposure, I think opening the season in Week 0 with a pile of conference games is a brilliant move.  You have the whole thing as a show case for the Big 12, and it allows you to add extra byes throughout the conference season, which reduces the load on the various TV windows and creates more opportunity for lesser match ups to get a linear window throughout the regular season.

I think it would be similar to playing Friday games, but on steroids.

And selfishly it would let me make a conference game every year.  Yeah, I realize it's fucking hot throughout the league in late August, but it's not like a week later results in a big change in weather.

[BurntOrange&White 42,002]

4 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

Kinda shifting gears here, but I really think the Big 12 should look hard at doing conference games on Week 0 in the future.  For as much as Yormark is looking for creative ways to create exposure, I think opening the season in Week 0 with a pile of conference games is a brilliant move.  You have the whole thing as a show case for the Big 12, and it allows you to add extra byes throughout the conference season, which reduces the load on the various TV windows and creates more opportunity for lesser match ups to get a linear window throughout the regular season.

I think it would be similar to playing Friday games, but on steroids.

And selfishly it would let me make a conference game every year.  Yeah, I realize it's fucking hot throughout the league in late August, but it's not like a week later results in a big change in weather.

Like a kick off classic for the conference?

[Upgrayedd 5,915]

Hi!

['stache 22,146]

7 minutes ago, Upgrayedd said:

Hi!

[Al_4_ISU 12,660]

Like a kick off classic for the conference?

Yup. The Big 10 has been playing a game or two in that spot. The Big 12 should play a whole slate

[Deej 77,861]

The remaining Big 12 teams, in general, are averse to scheduling decent OOC games. I doubt very many of them want to start their season 0-1 by starting conference play in the first week. 

Edited August 3, 2023 by Deej