Major- You are one of my favorite posters on here. You and Smokey remain the 2 most level-headed UT posters here. You are not blinded by reality, like some people I won't name. THank you for your objectivity, it's a breath of fresh air. Now it's time for me to be objective (as a Pac-10 supporter). Oregon did get DOMINATED by USC a few weeks ago. The score was much closer than the game actually was. Nonetheless, Oregon is a top 15-20 team still. I don't like punishing teams because they lost to good to great teams, while rewarding teams for beating average to bad teams. Bottom line is that none of this would be a factor, if UT had beaten OU. For all we know UT could be #1 in the polls or the BCS, if they had taken care of OU. UT knew that the OU game was huge, and dropped the ball. Quit crying. No team deserves to gripe, if they have 1 or more losses. 1 loss teams should blame themselves for losing, before blaming the BCS or media bias, or whatever. The media bias did not play an effect on UT melting down to OU.
Oregon's defense has been dominated, I should say. The only reason we are ranked high to start is that those polls are based on talent. For example, when we were #2 and lost to OU, the best team in the country, we fell to 8. When OU was 2 and lost to an unranked team, they fell to 4 and 6. We would not be the top one loss team, had any other one loss team had preseason hype. WSU and Iowa's early season rankings made it virtually impossible for them to leapfrog Texas after a few good weeks. They just had too much ground to make up. However, as you saw, the first legitimate chance the writers had to put WSU ahead of UT they took advantage of. Unless the computers use some ****ing common sense and realize OU isn't the third best team in the nation, it looks like we'll need OU to lose the Big XII championship in addition to Miami or OSU losing.
And you figure this how? Right now, they need a loss from Miami or Ohio State, and probably a loss from OU in the Big XII championship or before. How is this any different than it was Friday?
When OU was 1 they dropped to 4. When OU was 2 they dropped to 6. Get it right. So a team that lost to them is better than them?
Umm, yes. Polls are supposed to be about how you're playing now, not how you played in early October. You all can cry head to head all you want, but I'll start believing that whenever Notre Dame gets their title from 1993.
Texas is screwed. There's still WAY too much football to be played to worry about the BCS right now. Two weeks ago, Texas was #8 or something like that and there were 8 undefeated teams. All it takes is one close game to drop a team two or three spots in a poll this close. WSU could go from 3 to 6 if they squeak by one of their remaining opponents. It may be moot if Miami/OSU don't lose anyway. Outside of that, no 1-loss team "deserves" a spot in the title game. The only ones that deserve that are the ones that win all their games. Outside of that, one 1-loss team may get lucky by getting an opportunity to be in that game, but without a playoff, it's impossible to pick the correct team just by polls and numbers, so the BCS does the best it can. What sucks for Iowa (and helps UT & Notre Dame) is the fact that the BCS eliminated Margin of Victory from the computers, which was one of the stupidest things they could have done.
I don't see Miami losing... Especially to VT. OSU is possible. But I don't see OU losing again. It would be best for UT to back their way into the Big 12 title game again, and this time beat CU or whoever, to erase any doubt. There will be controversy within the human polls, as to where UT should be ranked, without even finishing first in their HALF of the conference. If UT wins the Big 12, that goes a long way in convincing voters.
Yes. The Rams beat the Patriots in the regular season last year... that didn't quite happen in the postseason, did it? Teams progress and regress as the season goes, and the rankings should be based on how you're playing now.
Ok, then why didn't Miami drop further from the polls a few weeks ago? Clearly they weren't the #2 team in the nation at the time. Clearly, OSU isn't the 2nd best team in the nation right now. Nice try, but your logic doesn't make sense.
The only reason we are ranked high to start is that those polls are based on talent. For example, when we were #2 and lost to OU, the best team in the country, we fell to 8. When OU was 2 and lost to an unranked team, they fell to 4 and 6. Yeah, but that's because there were 8 undefeated teams at the time. When there are that many undefeateds, a 1-loss team has to drop below them all into the mix of 1-loss teams. Now, there are only 2 undefeateds, so dropping them into the mix of 1-loss teams put them in the 3-6 range. We would not be the top one loss team, had any other one loss team had preseason hype. WSU and Iowa's early season rankings made it virtually impossible for them to leapfrog Texas after a few good weeks. They just had too much ground to make up. That's my point. The hype was pro-UT which goes against the anti-UT media bias idea. If anything, it's Iowa and WSU that are getting screwed simply because they didn't have preseason hype. If the media had hyped them like they hyped UT, UT would have been stuck below them ever since losing to OU. The polls will shift in circles between these teams over the next 2 or 3 weeks - I don't think it's worth worrying about until the final poll.
Well, it is close and I know I'm overreacting. I think enough of the OU voters favored WSU over us to make a difference. It sucks, imo. I trust the coaches polls more simply because the coaches seem to recognize what victories mean. For example: we were ranked ahead of WSU. We both won games in the manner we should have. UT blew out Baylor as expected and WSU beat UO by 11, as expected. There is no reason for WSU to jump us. The coaches know this, why don't the writers? Both teams did exactly as they should have, but Texas gets jumped. It doesn't make sense, imo. Now, instead of just winning at Tech and beating ATM at home, UT will have to run up the score on both of our neighbors to the north.
We both won games in the manner we should have. UT blew out Baylor as expected and WSU beat UO by 11, as expected. There is no reason for WSU to jump us. But now OU isn't as good as they were. Before, we had only lost to the best team in the country; now, we lost to a team that lost to A&M. WSU has now lost to the #2 team in the country and is the only 1-loss team that can make an analytical claim that they've beaten every team they should have if they are truly the #3 team. OU, if they were really #3, should have beaten A&M. UT, if they were really #3, should have beaten OU (who would be below #3) Iowa, if they were really #3, should have beaten ISU. WSU, if they were really #3, should NOT have beaten OSU.
gr8-1 Again, the "coaches" poll is hardly a coaches poll. The media is more aware of what is going on with the top 25, than the coaches themselves. I would be surprised if more than 50% of the coaches actually put in the time to thoroughly fill out the ballot. They have enough worries of their own to take care of.
Because there are obviously tiers within the "how you're playing now" argument. No matter how poorly an undefeated team looks (OSU), if they are still undefeated and from a major conference they should be ahead of OU and UT, one-loss teams. Miami, imo, clearly was the second-best team within the undefeated teams at the time... there's no way you could say Ohio State looked better than them.
What Texas needs now is for KSU to win the B12. They need Nebraska & ISU to beat Colorado, and then KSU has to go stomp OU in the B12 title game and somehow get into the top 6 or 7 in the country. That gets OU out of the picture and gets us some bonus points to maybe give us breathing room from WSU.
Awesome point there Major. If WSU were in any other conference, we probably wouldn't be having this debate.
So you do think FSU should have gotten the nod over Miami in 2000, I suppose? If you say no, then you are a hypocrite.
Going by this logic, when/if KSU loses again, if Iwere a voter, I would drop Texas a couple of spots because KSU may not have been as good as I had thought. If I were a voter, and I'm not, if the team wins convincingly, I can't justify jumping them. I'm talking human polls, not bcs of course. How far does it go though? So, when/if OSU loses, I should drop WSU a couple of spots because OSU was not as good as I thought? BTW, OSU should be applauded for just winning. But, they've had trouble with Cincinnati, Purdue and Northwestern this year. It's not like Texas kept Baylor in the game and WSU dominated UO. Both teams did exactly what they had to do.
