The water cooler is my keg, the microwave is my grill and the...well, I wish there were coeds around.
So I'm sitting here at my desk, doing what I love to do rather than what I should be doing--thinking about college football.
And there is a lot to think about.
I'm going to get this out of the way right now, because it's been two days and I still feel like I was punched in the stomach: OU sucks.
There, I said it. And I mean it. I was angry that this tiebreaker ended up this way, and while I can see why OU has somewhat of a case, the bottom line is that when settling things in sports, the field is where it should happen. That happened. Texas won. That's all that people need to know. But I digress, at least this weekend's roller coaster has given me plenty of fodder to write about. Starting with the Red Raiders.
Texas Tech fans, please stop bringing up your 39-33 victory over Texas. It was a great game. You were destined to win--I knew that when Blake Gideon dropped that pick on the 2nd to last play. But let's be realistic--the three way tie in the Big XII South was only that on paper. You were riding on thin ice all season. Tech played Eastern Washington and UMass, two I-AA teams. And to top it all off, they got smoked by the Sooners. People were wary of the Red Raiders to begin with, so the last thing a team like that can do is lose by 40 in their second-to-last game of the season. After that, it didn't matter if you beat Baylor by 7 or 70, people were not considering TTU in the equation (you only beat Baylor by 7, by the way).
But that's not the real issue here. The real problem is the fact that there was a controversy over this tie at all. That is because for some inane, inexplicable reason, the Big XII brought the BCS into its tiebreaker policy. The BCS was not created to determine conference champions. The Big XII is the only conference in the FBS that even uses the BCS in any way to determine tiebreaks. What this poor decision by the conference did was create chaos, unintentionally allowing other teams from other conferences to have a say in the Big XII champion. By bringing in the BCS standings, you are forcing voters to consider OU, Tech and Texas amidst a field of other teams, and by doing this, you create politicking and pressure on the voters. This, in turn, screws other teams as well, because so many voters were focusing on Texas and OU this past weekend that they likely didn't put as much thought into their ballots beyond those two teams. The evidence for that is Texas' dramatic rise in the Harris poll, where they had a net gain of 27 points, even though both teams won convincingly. In the mean time, USC and Florida LOST votes.
While we are on the Harris Poll, can we all agree that it needs to go? It's about as useful as Brooks is after 3 beers, head in the toilet. Did you see this story in The Oklahoman today?
True story from the Boone Pickens Stadium pressbox Saturday night.
I asked Harris poll voter Pat Quinn, the former Oklahoma State University sports information director, how he would vote OU and Texas if the Sooners won Saturday night.
“Oh, I don’t know,” Quinn said. “Doesn’t really matter.”
Really?
“I think Alabama and Penn State will probably play for the national championship,” Quinn said.
You do?
“They’re the only undefeated teams, aren’t they,” Quinn said.
Uh, actually, Penn State has a loss.
“Oh well,” Quinn said, “those Big Ten teams have a lot of votes.”
What does this tell us? Well, for starters, it says that Harris poll voters have no idea what is going on. It's like Jim Th-th-th-thome in a McDonald's ad or Manny Ramirez, well, at all times.
So I'm sitting here at my desk, doing what I love to do rather than what I should be doing--thinking about college football.
And there is a lot to think about.
I'm going to get this out of the way right now, because it's been two days and I still feel like I was punched in the stomach: OU sucks.
There, I said it. And I mean it. I was angry that this tiebreaker ended up this way, and while I can see why OU has somewhat of a case, the bottom line is that when settling things in sports, the field is where it should happen. That happened. Texas won. That's all that people need to know. But I digress, at least this weekend's roller coaster has given me plenty of fodder to write about. Starting with the Red Raiders.
Texas Tech fans, please stop bringing up your 39-33 victory over Texas. It was a great game. You were destined to win--I knew that when Blake Gideon dropped that pick on the 2nd to last play. But let's be realistic--the three way tie in the Big XII South was only that on paper. You were riding on thin ice all season. Tech played Eastern Washington and UMass, two I-AA teams. And to top it all off, they got smoked by the Sooners. People were wary of the Red Raiders to begin with, so the last thing a team like that can do is lose by 40 in their second-to-last game of the season. After that, it didn't matter if you beat Baylor by 7 or 70, people were not considering TTU in the equation (you only beat Baylor by 7, by the way).
But that's not the real issue here. The real problem is the fact that there was a controversy over this tie at all. That is because for some inane, inexplicable reason, the Big XII brought the BCS into its tiebreaker policy. The BCS was not created to determine conference champions. The Big XII is the only conference in the FBS that even uses the BCS in any way to determine tiebreaks. What this poor decision by the conference did was create chaos, unintentionally allowing other teams from other conferences to have a say in the Big XII champion. By bringing in the BCS standings, you are forcing voters to consider OU, Tech and Texas amidst a field of other teams, and by doing this, you create politicking and pressure on the voters. This, in turn, screws other teams as well, because so many voters were focusing on Texas and OU this past weekend that they likely didn't put as much thought into their ballots beyond those two teams. The evidence for that is Texas' dramatic rise in the Harris poll, where they had a net gain of 27 points, even though both teams won convincingly. In the mean time, USC and Florida LOST votes.
While we are on the Harris Poll, can we all agree that it needs to go? It's about as useful as Brooks is after 3 beers, head in the toilet. Did you see this story in The Oklahoman today?
True story from the Boone Pickens Stadium pressbox Saturday night.
I asked Harris poll voter Pat Quinn, the former Oklahoma State University sports information director, how he would vote OU and Texas if the Sooners won Saturday night.
“Oh, I don’t know,” Quinn said. “Doesn’t really matter.”
Really?
“I think Alabama and Penn State will probably play for the national championship,” Quinn said.
You do?
“They’re the only undefeated teams, aren’t they,” Quinn said.
Uh, actually, Penn State has a loss.
“Oh well,” Quinn said, “those Big Ten teams have a lot of votes.”
What does this tell us? Well, for starters, it says that Harris poll voters have no idea what is going on. It's like Jim Th-th-th-thome in a McDonald's ad or Manny Ramirez, well, at all times.
At all. It's almost as bad as the coaches poll. Do you think Mike Gundy went home and watched highlights of all of the other potential top 25 teams after his team lost? No. He needed to get some sleep--he's 41. But at least the coaches are entrenched in the game. The Harris voters, made up of former players, coaches and a few members of the media, might not even watch ANY games. Of course I'm sure they do, but what if the former Longhorn player who is voting decides to help his team out by not even putting OU in the top 25? That's not fair, is it? In the end, because there is no accountability, there is no way to make the Harris Poll fair. At least make the votes public. That way you can have the press and the fans ridicule people for egregious voting. I don't really need to harp on much more about this, because that story above really says it all.There are two more points I'd like to make. One about conference championships and one about the BCS in general. Let's start small.
Why do we even have conference championships again? I mean, occasionally it makes sense (see Florida v. Alabama this year). That is a meaningful game. It is truly going to decide the best team in the SEC, once and for all. But now let's look at the other end of the spectrum--OU v. Missouri. It doesn't really matter if its OU or Texas playing because we already know Missouri isn't the second best team in the conference. They aren't even the 4th best team in the conference! As it stands, it's simply a meaningless game next week. Even if Missouri wins, all that does is screw a great team in Oklahoma (I just threw up a little bit in my mouth) out of a BCS game. I guess the question beyond my initial point is why don't we get rid of division winners and just have the top 2 teams in the conference win. I'm sure there is a reason, but I can't think of a logical one, other than money. But wouldn't the Big XII be better off airing Texas v. OU part 2? I think some people might tune in for that. I suppose an argument against that is that it would be Texas-OU nearly every year for awhile, and it would mean less exposure for other teams, but everything is cyclical. Don't think Nebraska won't be back in business before too long. They will. The point is that if the two best teams in each conference play each other, that is step one towards a (I'm gonna say it!) playoff without actually changing much. It's very doable. Maybe I am way off.
The final point I want to make is directed at the BCS. They love their system. Why? Because they think it "make the regular season more exciting." "We have the best regular season in sports," they say. I agree. "Every game matters," they say. Really? It does?
Isn't there an old Orwellian phrase that reads "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others"?
I think what the BCS really means is that "Every game matters, but some games, specifically ones that are later in the season, matter more than others." There's the rub.
If it's supposed to be about a body of work, then head-to-head match ups have to be taken into account regardless of when the game is played. It's funny how Oklahoma players and fans claim that they are a different team since that game in October, but frankly, I don't care. I know that a lot of the media are with me on this. A win is a win. Texas won so Texas should be ahead of them. Remember, in my mind (and most people's) TTU does not factor in. So you cannot say that because OU is playing better down the stretch (are they REALLY???) that they deserve the nod. They don't. Plain and simple. For some reason, people are very quick to remember USC's loss to the Beavers and Mississippi beating the Gators, and the voting shows that. But then for some strange reason they also seem to forget that the only thing that matters in the Texas-OU debate is Texas won. As I said before: It was settled on the field already.
But what's done is done. I can't argue this point anymore. All I can hope is that Chins Daniel pulls a miracle out of the sky and the Sooners get their comeuppance.
Remember this, if anything:
No comments:
Post a Comment