Bradford was great. If OU had won everybody would have him as the frontrunner. We didn't lose because of Sam, we lost because our run defense decided to stay home.

hahahaha the entire point is you lost.IF Bradford wouldve been great OU wouldve won

Bradford > McCoy

It has to be McCoy.  Its his to lose right now and everyone else is playing for second.  He's completing almost 80% of his passes.  Thats ridiculous. 

More like if OU could have tackled on special teams, got the interception in the endzone, and Ryan Reynolds not got hurt, then OU would have won....I'm still not over it

Really it is a two man race between Bradford and McCoy. I am still holding out hope that both Texas and OU win out, and face each other in the title game. I am convince if OU and Texas played 100 times this year, it would be a 50/50 split.

It better be McCoy, because I know Bradford doesn't want the Heisman QB curse. And by Heisman QB curse I mean guaranteed to suck in the pros.

True.  Granted every recent QB to win the Heisman has clearly been a system QB (Tebow might be the exception), where I think both McCoy and Bradford would succeed anywhere they went. 

You don't think that Carson Palmer (pre-injury) was a bit more of an exception? I don't think I buy the claim that Tebow's not a system QB. In fact, I know I don't buy it.

You got me on Carson Palmer. 
I think Tebow would succeed most everywhere in college, but clearly he's best fit in a spread offense that has no correlation to the the NFL game.  I probably should've gone a lot more in depth with my comment.

there's no way texas & ou can meet in the title game coz their in the same division.

They could. They both win out and the rest of the teams drop like flies. It would be like how everyone was screaming for Michigan vs. Ohio St. from 2006 except OU lost in week 7 instead of the second to last weekend. Especially since OU didn't drop far in the polls at all.

And because this game wasn't as hyped up as OSU/Michigan it didn't disappoint in any way.  Public perception will be key if that rematch is going to happen.

Exactly. By the end of the year, if you have a 12-0 Texas and an 11-1 OU, you know the national talking heads will be wanting that matchup.

but you're already counting out the sec.bama's got ou's spot for your dream rematch

They also have a ridiculous schedule remaining. If Bama comes out undefeated, then they deserve it without a doubt. But their chances are minuscule.

For now. I know I am assuming a lot, but it is not far from the realm of possibility that OU and Texas could matchup in the Title game.

I'm more interested to see the explanation for the MRI rankings.  What a joke.

Tulsa #5?  Mizzu #6?  Oklahoma #11?  Alabama #9?  Georgia #19?  How did this not make CF's Picking on the Pollsters blog?

Seriously Ben.  I would like to see how you came up with that.  Everyone has their different perception on rankings and I would like to see how these came to be.  There really has to be a good system you use.

The ratings vary from the standard computer rankings that you will see in the BCS in two very important ways.

1. My ratings include a weighted margin of victory which none of the BCS ratings are allowed to have.  Therefore, when Alabama squeaks by or Oklahoma barely wins, it doesn't rate as highly as when Texas or Penn State blow teams out.  Look at Iowa's catapulting into the top 25 as proof of how that works.

2. The formula includes a great deal about performance during the game versus just who the team played and if they won or lost.  If you play like crap, and turn the ball over quite a bit, still win the game, you will not rate as highly as someone who clicks on all cylinders.  All performance measures are weighted against the entire league's performance.

That is why things are a little different than you might expect.  The rankings were 80 percent accurate in predicting the winners of games last week, even if they don't properly reflect the who beat who aspect that I know a lot of people like to see.

A lot of the outputs of my system are based on percentage chance of winning (determined by historical performance).  So while Tulsa, or TCU might be ahead of Oklahoma, after running through the formula to calculate percentage chance of winning, they might only have a 55% chance, or they might even be the underdog after calculating home field advantage.

I fully realize that Tulsa is way high, but at the same time, until they play worse, there is no reason to think that they can't be rated this highly and still be correct.  I ran into the same issues with people who said George Mason wasn't the 16th best team in the country in basketball, and then they made their huge run to the Final Four. 

No system is perfect, all have their flaws.  But this one works for me.

Not sure why Florida ahead of Alabama is a problem when the two haven't played each other...

So are your ratings based on how good a team is each week, or is that how the system has them ranked overall for the season?   A team like Tulsa has been blowing teams out, but they haven't really had any competition (which was a point you made in #2).  Oklahoma has blown out everyone they have played, with the exception of Texas of course, with a much more difficult schedule.  And apparently you stand firm by your system, so let me ask,  do you really think Tulsa would beat Oklahoma, Alabama, Georgia, or Texas Tech if they played right now?  Just curious.

And I have to admit, that was a much better explanation than I expected.  I can't really argue with it until the season is over and these teams have the necessary games under their belts to constitute a good debate.  Until then, I will just look forward to our disagreements.

The rankings are based on the total data to date.

The margin of victory is weighted based on the strength of the opponent you beat.  So Oklahoma doesn't lose too many points for its loss to Texas, and Oklahoma gains more points for its wins over tougher competition, but the tougher part is tricky.  It isn't only the record of the team you beat, but factors in who that team beat (or lost to) to get that record.

So where is Tulsa pulling ahead?

1.  They haven't lost, so they gain full points in the record column for being undefeated.  (a difference of 3 and change from what Oklahoma earns)

2.  The blowout wins actually work in Tulsa's favor despite coming against teams which look worse going by pure record.
 
That is the tricky strength of opponent rating:

Tulsa's biggest point gain come from their wins over New Mexico, Rice and UTEP.  All of the teams are at or around .500. The reason that the wins rate so highly though is because according to the SOS formula, the teams have played the #25, #10 and #6 rated schedules in the country (which is a factor in the weighted margin of victory).

Part of the reason: The teams haven't played 1-AA teams, which in my system kills your SOS.  It is better to play a team from the Sun Belt than one from the Colonial league in 1-AA.  Fair?  No, but it rewards playing competition that competes on the same overall level versus dropping down to play Central Arkansas.

New Mexico, Rice and UTEP, to the computer, look as if they are doing pretty well against tough competition and therefore provide tough competition.  In addition, Tulsa maxed out their MoV component against all 3 (capped at 35) which means they got huge boosts.

This is compared with Oklahoma whose best three MoV games came against TCU, Cincy and Baylor.  The SOS of those three teams are #71, #110 and #69, which means that although their records might look nicer, they actually did it against worse competition. 

So Oklahoma actually earns less points for beating them.

Plus they didn't max out the MoV against any of the three.  The only games Oklahoma maxed out were against a 1-AA opponents for which they earn minimal points, and against Washington whose 0 wins means zero points. (Tulsa also has a 1-AA minimal win and a 0-point win over North Texas).

It isn't intuitive right off the bat, but it should (as the season goes on) even itself out.  Tulsa will never get great credit for beating SMU, but if New Mexico shows itself to be an 8-4 team against tough competition in the Mountain West, then Tulsa gets all the credit in the world.

More likely is that the teams that Tulsa beat will end up fairing worse as the season goes on, lowering the quality of those wins, and lowering the credit that Tulsa receives, even at the max level.

You should expect to see Tulsa drop in the ratings over time, as the amount they have earned actually degrades, and pulls them down.  You might be seeing Tulsa in the ratings after last week at the peak that they could possibly earn for the season.

As for what I think about Tulsa's chances against Oklahoma, Alabama, etc., I don't think cognitively that they would win.  However, I do give them a chance to win based on the numbers.  That chance would vary based on who is home and what the difference between the teams in the MRI is at the time when they play.

So, if Tulsa played at Oklahoma, I would look for Tulsa to be slightly favored in that game, maybe with a 55% chance of winning mathematically.  Does that mean I think they will win? No, but they have a chance and might be a smart underdog pick with the points. (I assist one of my friends with his... uh... slightly legal pool... by pointing out teams which are underdogs with a good chance of winning the game.  It helps narrow the selections quickly)

Things in the MRI have a way of changing quickly especially as the season moves on.  Look at the way that Ohio State shot into the top 10 from #27 this week.

A Tulsa loss to Arkansas could go a long way to changing the way these things look.

I hope that cleared things rather than making them more muddled.  Again, the MRI is just a mathematical tool, not the way I really see the game.  There is a big difference between what Tulsa has done this season and what Utah did a few years ago, or what Miami (Ohio) did when Big Ben was at the helm, and that should play out in the numbers as the season completes.