What years did the BCS get it wrong

[Wheat]

you only get the responses you deserve....think about it.

 

[sooner78wakeboard]

As much as I laugh at little brother...Okie State did get screwed in 11'. It should have been LSU and Oklahoma State.

 

[4down20]

As far as 2008 - the idea that it was the Big12 version of 2011 is straight BS. For starters, both those teams had 1 loss. In 2011 if LSU had lost at some point in the year as well, it wouldn't have been a rematch. The only way 2008 could have been like 2011 is if Texas had gone undefeated, won the conference championship and the score for OU had been closer. Which didn't happen.

And when it comes to the argument for OU vs Texas - that's a Big12 problem, not a BCS problem. OU was seen as conference champions, won the conference championship game and so on. If Texas had been considered the conference champion, they would have went instead.

 

[outofyourmind]

As far as 2008 - the idea that it was the Big12 version of 2011 is straight BS. For starters, both those teams had 1 loss. In 2011 if LSU had lost at some point in the year as well, it wouldn't have been a rematch. The only way 2008 could have been like 2011 is if Texas had gone undefeated, won the conference championship and the score for OU had been closer. Which didn't happen.

And when it comes to the argument for OU vs Texas - that's a Big12 problem, not a BCS problem. OU was seen as conference champions, won the conference championship game and so on. If Texas had been considered the conference champion, they would have went instead.

^^^this^^^

 

[Codaxx]

^^^this^^^

Its actually a circular argument. Big 12 decided on OU, because BCS standings were the tie breaker. Like I said earlier, this came down to who lost last.

 

[ericd7633]

As far as 2008 - the idea that it was the Big12 version of 2011 is straight BS. For starters, both those teams had 1 loss. In 2011 if LSU had lost at some point in the year as well, it wouldn't have been a rematch. The only way 2008 could have been like 2011 is if Texas had gone undefeated, won the conference championship and the score for OU had been closer. Which didn't happen.

And when it comes to the argument for OU vs Texas - that's a Big12 problem, not a BCS problem. OU was seen as conference champions, won the conference championship game and so on. If Texas had been considered the conference champion, they would have went instead.

Yes, the Big 12 in 2011 was better than it was in 2008. But in either instance both of those years in the Big 12 was better than the SEC top to bottom. What I'm trying to say is, Florida from 2008 is basically Oklahoma State of 2011, although Oklahoma State had a better SOS than Florida and had more quality wins than 2008 Florida did. And Texas 2008 is basically 2011 Alabama, although like Oklahoma State, Texas had a better SOS and more high quality wins.

IMO, Texas of 2008 had a better resume than Florida did, even though Florida won the SECCG. And Oklahoma State's resume in 2011, was much better than Alabama's was in 2011, especially in terms of SOS and quality wins.

 

[ericd7633]

I guess what I'm really trying to say is that, if you think 2011 Alabama playing in the title game in 2011 was warranted, it should have been Texas in 2008. And if you think 2008 Florida was warranted of being in the title game, than Oklahoma State should have been in the title game in 2011.


Can't have it both ways.

 

[4down20]

Yes, the Big 12 in 2011 was better than it was in 2008. But in either instance both of those years in the Big 12 was better than the SEC top to bottom. What I'm trying to say is, Florida from 2008 is basically Oklahoma State of 2011, although Oklahoma State had a better SOS than Florida and had more quality wins than 2008 Florida did. And Texas 2008 is basically 2011 Alabama, although like Oklahoma State, Texas had a better SOS and more high quality wins.

IMO, Texas of 2008 had a better resume than Florida did, even though Florida won the SECCG. And Oklahoma State's resume in 2011, was much better than Alabama's was in 2011, especially in terms of SOS and quality wins.

In 2008 I had Florida's SoS ranked #2 and Sagrin had them ranked #4 SoS.

Texas was ranked #14 by Sagrin and I had them #9.

 

[4down20]

I guess what I'm really trying to say is that, if you think 2011 Alabama playing in the title game in 2011 was warranted, it should have been Texas in 2008. And if you think 2008 Florida was warranted of being in the title game, than Oklahoma State should have been in the title game in 2011.


Can't have it both ways.

Texas and Oklahoma lost 1 game each. LSU didn't lose a game in 2011.

Florida had a tougher SoS.

And Oklahoma - the loser of the Texas vs Oklahoma game was the team that won the conference championship.

It's not the same at all.

 

[HuskerCradle2Grave]

2001. I was embarrassed that my Huskers went after the beat down in Boulder. An aside, I have a 2001 Nebraska National Champion hat squirreled away in my basement somewhere. Snagged one before they were shipped to Uganda.

 

[ericd7633]

In 2008 I had Florida's SoS ranked #2 and Sagrin had them ranked #4 SoS.

Texas was ranked #14 by Sagrin and I had them #9.

Colley had UT at 4 and UF at 13. And Texas was also #2 in the computers in the FINAL BCS Standings. And Sagarin had UT at #2 in his computer poll too. Only one computer had UF as the better team.

 

[Wheat]

I think Texas needs to put another * on the wall.....

 

[4down20]

Colley had UT at 4 and UF at 13. And Texas was also #2 in the computers in the FINAL BCS Standings. And Sagarin had UT at #2 in his computer poll too. Only one computer had UF as the better team.

what do Final BCS standings have to do with it?

 

[ericd7633]

Again, it's fine if you think Florida should have been in the title game in 2008, but if you think that way, and don't think Oklahoma State deserved it 2011, that's being hypocritical IMO.

 

[ericd7633]

what do Final BCS standings have to do with it?

Maybe the fact that Texas had a tougher SoS by virtue of them being ranked better in all the computers except 1?

 

[4down20]

Again, it's fine if you think Florida should have been in the title game in 2008, but if you think that way, and don't think Oklahoma State deserved it 2011, that's being hypocritical IMO.

For like the 5th fucking time.

In 2011 LSU was undefeated and won the conference championship.

In 2008, Oklahoma lost to Texas, but Oklahoma still won the conference championship because Texas lost to Texas Tech.

And you think this is the same thing?

IMO you are fucking retarded.

 

[4down20]

Maybe the fact that Texas had a tougher SoS by virtue of them being ranked better in all the computers except 1?

The reason Oklahoma went to the conference championship over Texas to start with was because Oklahoma was ranked higher in the BCS at that time.

 

[ericd7633]

For like the 5th fucking time.

In 2011 LSU was undefeated and won the conference championship.

In 2008, both Oklahoma lost to Texas, but Oklahoma still won the conference championship because Texas lost to Texas Tech.

And you think this is the same thing?

IMO you are fucking retarded.

LSU in 2011 has nothing to do with the conversation. Neither does OU for 2008. It has to do with the second team selected. And again, Florida's resume in 2008 is like Oklahoma State's resume in 2011. Both conference champions, both one questionable loss, similar SOS's(Oklahoma State's slightly better), the voters picked Florida in 2008.

Comparing Texas 2008 with Bama 2011. Neither won their conference, neither played in their conference championship game, both had a loss to a top 4 computer team when all was said and done, obviously, Bama's was a little better with it being #1. The voters picked Bama in 2011.

Do you see what I'm trying to do here? The voters were presented with basically the same situation and BOTH times went with the SEC to represent who should play LSU of 2011 and OU of 2008. And in both instances the Big 12 team passed over was better in the computers, signifying they played the better SOS than the SEC counterpart picked instead of them.

 

[4down20]

LSU in 2011 has nothing to do with the conversation. Neither does OU for 2008. It has to do with the second team selected. And again, Florida's resume in 2008 is like Oklahoma State's resume in 2011. Both conference champions, both one questionable loss, similar SOS's(Oklahoma State's slightly better), the voters picked Florida in 2008.

Comparing Texas 2008 with Bama 2011. Neither won their conference, neither played in their conference championship game, both had a loss to a top 4 computer team when all was said and done, obviously, Bama's was a little better with it being #1. The voters picked Bama in 2011.

Do you see what I'm trying to do here? The voters were presented with basically the same situation and BOTH times went with the SEC to represent who should play LSU of 2011 and OU of 2008. And in both instances the Big 12 team passed over was better in the computers, signifying they played the better SOS than the SEC counterpart picked instead of them.

Texas lost to Texas Tech, NOT OKLAHOMA. Texas beat Oklahoma in the regular season. Oklahoma lost to Texas, and that was their only loss. Texas lost to Texas Tech, and that was their only loss.

It's not even close to being the same.

 

[ericd7633]

Texas lost to Texas Tech, NOT OKLAHOMA. Texas beat Oklahoma in the regular season. Oklahoma lost to Texas, and that was their only loss. Texas lost to Texas Tech, and that was their only loss.

It's not even close to being the same.

Yes, I know that. All the more reason Texas should have played them again, no? But you're completely missing my point anyway.