Video-Texas Longhorns Prove They Were Never National Championship Worthy In 24-21 Fiesta Bowl Win Over Ohio State - YouTube | NCAAF | Mack Brown

3

kantwistaye wrote:

Because when you spend all year barely beating teams in a conference that got dominated by the MWC, people tend to (rightfully) question just how good you are.

Who are these teams that USC "barely beat"? Their closest win was 17-10 @Arizona. While Arizona DID lose at New Mexico (one of the aforementioned MWC teams), they also beat BYU, who were one of the best of the MWC.

As for the rest of USC's wins, they were all by at least 2 TD's.

Courtesy of ESPN:

Their average point differential over the entire season was 28.46 ... not too shabby.
Florida: 32.30
Oklahoma: 28.69

There's really not that much difference there. Also, the SEC wasn't as strong this year as it has been in the past. Quite a few of Florida's wins were against cupcakes as well. I'm just saying.

USC has a much more legit argument than Texas does. That's all I'm saying.

1/6/09

kantwistaye

0	Arizona, California, and Stanford were all down to the wire or considerably closer than their scores indicate. Also, the Pac 10 blows. And yes, Utah = National Champs, regardless of anything else that may happen this year.

1/6/09

jorgemsousa

2

Why is Utah not getting any love. They did finish the season undefeated after convincingly beating Alabama in the Sugar Bowl, a team that was a bona fide contender for the national championship game. Sure Utah's opponents in the regular season were not that impressive and I agree that finishing the season undefeated does not necessarily mean you're the best team in the nation but Texas barely got by OSU and they should end up no better than in sixth place in the rankings.

1/6/09

kantwistaye

2

jorgemsousa wrote:

Why is Utah not getting any love. They did finish the season undefeated after convincingly beating Alabama in the Sugar Bowl, a team that was a bona fide contender for the national championship game. Sure Utah's opponents in the regular season were not that impressive and I agree that finishing the season undefeated does not necessarily mean you're the best team in the nation but Texas barely got by OSU and they should end up no better than in sixth place in the rankings.

Well I can tell you that 100% and Pat both think Utah should be #1, and I agree with them. The mainstream media won't give them any love, but they are getting some from the blogs and what not.

1/6/09

elevenbravo138again

1	So now Texas plays USC and Utah plays the winner of OU, UF with the winner to... Oh what was that- No? So what you're telling me is we're screwed here? Just as well, I prefer not to see a satisfying end to anything.

1/6/09

shannonlrains

2

I hate comparison's, but by the way it looks the Big 12's performances in BCS bowl games thus far has been under par at best. It's depressing to see teams from your conference loose badly or win disgustingly. I was hoping, as an Oklahoma fan, to see some great performances from Big 12 teams this bowl season to validate OU's numbers which are impressing nonetheless. However, I guess if they happen to be THE ONLY Big 12 team left to outperform what their conference has done thus far they will exceed my expectations at this point. Sad sad sad. We need a playoff badly.

1/6/09

sportsgnork

2

Utah has the only true legitimate call for a piece of the National Title. No losses and the wins to back it up. Too many recent articles have quoted pollsters saying that they just didn't see the Utes play enough to give them any consideration.

We all know that there will be no satisfying end to another CFB season yet again. Too many teams crying for a piece of the title, another non-BCS team going undefeated and an undeserving BCS team losing.

1/6/09

djjfrench

0

Colin Cowherd put together the best argument I heard as to why Utah doesn't deserve to be national champs. He said that when Boise St. went undefeated they were crushing teams, they weren't having these last minute wins or barely scraping by. I give props to Utah for beating Bama I love the SEC I'm a huge gomer for the SEC but... Utah over Gators? Utah over Oklahoma? Utah over USC? I think Utah could maybe beat Texas. To which I say... Texas is overrated, Big 10 overrated, Big 12 overrated... I suggest if u can find Cowherd's take on the those division I really thought it was well done and thought out. For the record I don't think the Pac-10 is that great I'm in agreeance with what I heard... just cause they did well in the bowl games do we ignore the other 13 games???? NO. SEC all day. Btw big love to the MWAC and WAC for doing pretty good still with their smaller none BCS conferences.

1/6/09

4

djjfrench wrote:

Colin Cowherd put together the best argument I heard as to why Utah doesn't deserve to be national champs. He said that when Boise St. went undefeated they were crushing teams, they weren't having these last minute wins or barely scraping by. I give props to Utah for beating Bama I love the SEC I'm a huge gomer for the SEC but... Utah over Gators? Utah over Oklahoma? Utah over USC? I think Utah could maybe beat Texas. To which I say... Texas is overrated, Big 10 overrated, Big 12 overrated... I suggest if u can find Cowherd's take on the those division I really thought it was well done and thought out. For the record I don't think the Pac-10 is that great I'm in agreeance with what I heard... just cause they did well in the bowl games do we ignore the other 13 games???? NO. SEC all day. Btw big love to the MWAC and WAC for doing pretty good still with their smaller none BCS conferences.

"Utah over Gators? Utah over Oklahoma? Utah over USC?"

And a week ago, everyone was saying...

Utah over Alabama?

1/6/09

huskerfan_ia

1

As a fan of B12 football, I was a little disappointed in Texas last night. As a sports fan living in B10 country, I saw Ohio State play out their ass, nice game OSU.

Texas needed to make a statement to back up all the smack since the final BCS rankings put OU in the B12 Championship game. And they failed...

As for USC, they had a whole season to redeem their loss, they never did. They played a great bowl game, but they could have and should have made their statements during the season by whooping opponents 56-14 consistently. Sorry USC, you just came a little short.

I'm not completely on the Utah bandwagon yet. I was never that impressed with Bama...

1/6/09

tjpwns

0

1/6/09

tjpwns

1

(Edited by tjpwns)

Plus Ohio State was playing some of there best football of the season. When you look at Ohio's stats then u realize that Ohio wasn't actually that horrible in defense. Ofc Texas could of easily done better, but they came out flat in the first and second quarter. With the best pass defense in the league allowing only 10 touchdowns by air out of 16 touchdowns allowed in the season, then Texas beat most of the opponents that Ohio State played. KNOW WHAT YOUR TALKING ABOUT IDIOT.

1/6/09

0

tjpwns wrote:

Plus Ohio State was playing some of there best football of the season. When you look at Ohio's stats then u realize that Ohio wasn't actually that horrible in defense. Ofc Texas could of easily done better, but they came out flat in the first and second quarter. With the best pass defense in the league allowing only 10 touchdowns by air out of 16 touchdowns allowed in the season, then Texas beat most of the opponents that Ohio State played. KNOW WHAT YOUR TALKING ABOUT IDIOT.

Read it again. The 21-3 halftime lead was in reference to the USC game.

As for Beanie Wells, I said basically the same thing you did. He only made a difference in the first half, but the Longhorns didn't exactly dominate the second half, when he was a non-factor.

There was no domination whatsoever on the part of the Longhorns. Until the last minute of the game, they were LOSING.

I watched the entire game, and was not impressed by Texas in any way, shape or form. They looked worse than I had seen from them in the past, and they barely beat an Ohio State team that several other teams would have crushed.

1/6/09

JacksColdSweat

1

PLEASE! They didn't play their best game because they didn't want to be in the fiesta bowl.

Book Texas during the regular season where every game matters and we'll see what Ohio State can put up against a hungry Texas team. Sometimes you just have to win ugly.

Over looking the fact that you only have to win by one point, lets say Texas wins by 24 points, instead of writing about how Texas didn't play a great game, you would write about how bad Ohio State is this year and that Texas is still #4 in your opinion. If you want to rank a team #4, then do it, don't give excuses. Ohio State had everything to prove in that game and Texas had just gotten screwed and didn't play even close to their best game.....and they still won.

1/6/09

fred77008

2

OSU had the game and blew it. They played with heart, but at times lost their heads.

Bad snap and a missed FG and blow 2-pt conversions due to penalty and then a drop, personal foul by Gibson on McCoy in the UT endzone to push them out to the 30 yard line. 3 dropped INT's by the Buckeye D-fense. Really poor passing by Pryor. We're talking three or four blown screens or passes in the flat. How many 4th downs did UT convert?

Running, Defense, and Discipline wins Championships. OSU ran the ball well and held UT to half their average points per game. It was the small mistakes, the mental errors that cost them. Discipline and execution.

The Buckeyes have no one to blame but themselves. A great game, but every play counts.

UT, on the other hand, sneaked out with a win, but not their AP title hopes. Regardless of how Mack Brown votes.

1/6/09

Steelersfan1972

7	(Edited by Pat)

1/6/09

0

Pat wrote:

Read it again. The 21-3 halftime lead was in reference to the USC game.

As for Beanie Wells, I said basically the same thing you did. He only made a difference in the first half, but the Longhorns didn't exactly dominate the second half, when he was a non-factor.

There was no domination whatsoever on the part of the Longhorns. Until the last minute of the game, they were LOSING.

I watched the entire game, and was not impressed by Texas in any way, shape or form. They looked worse than I had seen from them in the past, and they barely beat an Ohio State team that several other teams would have crushed.

You didn't watch the game apparently. Texas was up 17-6 at one point. How can you say that "until the last minute of the game they were losing"?

Also, although I generally agree that Texas underachieved in this game and should have had a much better showing to make their case, this part of your article is really the most idiotic statement that I have ever read:

"While they might be able to make a case that they had a better year than Florida, there's really no reasonable argument that can put them ahead of Oklahoma (one game is not a reasonable argument), nor is there any way we could assume that they're better than USC, with the way they played Ohio State.

Texas beat OU 45-35 on a neutral field, head to head - no need for stats comparisons, common opponent analysis or computer models. They simply dominated them in the 4th quarter of that game. I can't believe that you have the audacity to say "there is no reasonable argument" That is the ONLY absolutely dispositive proof that Texas was better than OU this year. Texas beat OU on the football field. Go watch that game if you aren't impressed with Texas

1/6/09

2

phillippeterson2002 wrote:

You didn't watch the game apparently. Texas was up 17-6 at one point. How can you say that "until the last minute of the game they were losing"?

Also, although I generally agree that Texas underachieved in this game and should have had a much better showing to make their case, this part of your article is really the most idiotic statement that I have ever read:

"While they might be able to make a case that they had a better year than Florida, there's really no reasonable argument that can put them ahead of Oklahoma (one game is not a reasonable argument), nor is there any way we could assume that they're better than USC, with the way they played Ohio State.

Texas beat OU 45-35 on a neutral field, head to head - no need for stats comparisons, common opponent analysis or computer models. They simply dominated them in the 4th quarter of that game. I can't believe that you have the audacity to say "there is no reasonable argument" That is the ONLY absolutely dispositive proof that Texas was better than OU this year. Texas beat OU on the football field. Go watch that game if you aren't impressed with Texas

Once again... I said "One game is NOT a reasonable argument".

Look at the entire body of work.
1) Oklahoma lost to a better team than the one Texas lost to.
2) Oklahoma had much better margins of victory against similar opponents.
3) Oklahoma's strength of schedule was much better, with wins over Cincinnati, TCU, Nebraska. Texas' toughest non-common opponent was who? Colorado? Arkansas? What a joke.

For starters, when the University of Oklahoma and the University of Texas play a game in the state of Texas, that is NOT a "neutral" field.
Second, I've already seen the game. It was closer than the score indicated, and OU's best linebacker also got hurt in that game. If they played again today, after the Sooners have had a chance to adjust to his loss, it would be a far different situation.

I know you would love to say that there's "no need for stats comparisons, common opponent analysis or computer models". Because all of those things point to Oklahoma being the better team, and that's the last thing that you want to hear. But using YOUR argument, Texas Tech was a better team than Texas this year. It's funny how Texas fans conveniently disregard that fact, when trying to prove their point.

I'm a neutral (Boston College) fan, who is fed up with all of the whining that I've heard... from EVERYONE. Not just Texas, but also Penn State, USC, etc. The bottom line? If you had taken care of business, and Blake Gideon hadn't dropped an easy interception, Texas could be undefeated and playing for a championship. Unfortunately, they didn't take care of business, so they deserve whatever they get. Which is, quite simply, NOT a National Championship.

1/6/09

SoCalSmokinOkie

1	whiners, all of them

1/6/09

SoCalSmokinOkie

2

JacksColdSweat wrote:

PLEASE! They didn't play their best game because they didn't want to be in the fiesta bowl.

Book Texas during the regular season where every game matters and we'll see what Ohio State can put up against a hungry Texas team. Sometimes you just have to win ugly.

Over looking the fact that you only have to win by one point, lets say Texas wins by 24 points, instead of writing about how Texas didn't play a great game, you would write about how bad Ohio State is this year and that Texas is still #4 in your opinion. If you want to rank a team #4, then do it, don't give excuses. Ohio State had everything to prove in that game and Texas had just gotten screwed and didn't play even close to their best game.....and they still won.

You would think they would want to prove they belonged in Miami, but apparently they didn't really think so after all.

1/6/09

1

Pat wrote:

Once again... I said "One game is NOT a reasonable argument".

Look at the entire body of work.
1) Oklahoma lost to a better team than the one Texas lost to.
2) Oklahoma had much better margins of victory against similar opponents.
3) Oklahoma's strength of schedule was much better, with wins over Cincinnati, TCU, Nebraska. Texas' toughest non-common opponent was who? Colorado? Arkansas? What a joke.

For starters, when the University of Oklahoma and the University of Texas play a game in the state of Texas, that is NOT a "neutral" field.
Second, I've already seen the game. It was closer than the score indicated, and OU's best linebacker also got hurt in that game. If they played again today, after the Sooners have had a chance to adjust to his loss, it would be a far different situation.

I know you would love to say that there's "no need for stats comparisons, common opponent analysis or computer models". Because all of those things point to Oklahoma being the better team, and that's the last thing that you want to hear. But using YOUR argument, Texas Tech was a better team than Texas this year. It's funny how Texas fans conveniently disregard that fact, when trying to prove their point.

I'm a neutral (Boston College) fan, who is fed up with all of the whining that I've heard... from EVERYONE. Not just Texas, but also Penn State, USC, etc. The bottom line? If you had taken care of business, and Blake Gideon hadn't dropped an easy interception, Texas could be undefeated and playing for a championship. Unfortunately, they didn't take care of business, so they deserve whatever they get. Which is, quite simply, NOT a National Championship.

You said, "there's really no reasonable argument that can put them ahead of Oklahoma"...

Again, idiotic...

You look at the body of work. Look at the common opponents and you will see that Texas held Kansas, Texas A&M, Baylor, etc... to much lower points than OU did even though OU scored more points because Texas has a better defense than OU and Stoops was forced to run up the score on teams he was beating to compensate for his inferior defense. The actual point differentials are actually very similar (with many favoring Texas):

Texas over Texas A&M, 49-9 (40 pts) vs. OU over Texas A&M 66-28 (38pts)

Texas over Kansas 35-7 (28pts) vs. OU over Kansas 45-31 (14pts)

Texas over Baylor 45-21 (24pts) vs. OU over Baylor 49-17 (32pts)

You are making it sound like it was some aberration that Texas beat OU. Look at the body of work of Texas and OU and they are almost identical, EXCEPT Texas beat OU 45-35 on a neutral field.

You have never gone to a Texas/OU game if you think it is somehow an advantage to UT that the game is played in Dallas. Half of the stadium is crimson and half is burnt orange. And take it from someone who lives in Dallas - 99% of all OU alums move to Dallas to work - it is by no stretch a Texas friendly environment. If you can make it to your seats without getting mauled, it is a good day.

1/6/09

taylordanley

1

phillippeterson2002 wrote:

You said, "there's really no reasonable argument that can put them ahead of Oklahoma"...

Again, idiotic...

You look at the body of work. Look at the common opponents and you will see that Texas held Kansas, Texas A&M, Baylor, etc... to much lower points than OU did even though OU scored more points because Texas has a better defense than OU and Stoops was forced to run up the score on teams he was beating to compensate for his inferior defense. The actual point differentials are actually very similar (with many favoring Texas):

Texas over Texas A&M, 49-9 (40 pts) vs. OU over Texas A&M 66-28 (38pts)

Texas over Kansas 35-7 (28pts) vs. OU over Kansas 45-31 (14pts)

Texas over Baylor 45-21 (24pts) vs. OU over Baylor 49-17 (32pts)

You are making it sound like it was some aberration that Texas beat OU. Look at the body of work of Texas and OU and they are almost identical, EXCEPT Texas beat OU 45-35 on a neutral field.

You have never gone to a Texas/OU game if you think it is somehow an advantage to UT that the game is played in Dallas. Half of the stadium is crimson and half is burnt orange. And take it from someone who lives in Dallas - 99% of all OU alums move to Dallas to work - it is by no stretch a Texas friendly environment. If you can make it to your seats without getting mauled, it is a good day.

Also, about 75% of OU recruits come from Texas high schools. They wouldn't even have the talent provided for them if Texas didn't grow some of the best athletes in America :D

1/6/09

0

(Edited by Pat)
phillippeterson2002 wrote:

You said, "there's really no reasonable argument that can put them ahead of Oklahoma"...

Again, idiotic...

You look at the body of work. Look at the common opponents and you will see that Texas held Kansas, Texas A&M, Baylor, etc... to much lower points than OU did even though OU scored more points because Texas has a better defense than OU and Stoops was forced to run up the score on teams he was beating to compensate for his inferior defense. The actual point differentials are actually very similar (with many favoring Texas):

Texas over Texas A&M, 49-9 (40 pts) vs. OU over Texas A&M 66-28 (38pts)

Texas over Kansas 35-7 (28pts) vs. OU over Kansas 45-31 (14pts)

Texas over Baylor 45-21 (24pts) vs. OU over Baylor 49-17 (32pts)

You are making it sound like it was some aberration that Texas beat OU. Look at the body of work of Texas and OU and they are almost identical, EXCEPT Texas beat OU 45-35 on a neutral field.

You have never gone to a Texas/OU game if you think it is somehow an advantage to UT that the game is played in Dallas. Half of the stadium is crimson and half is burnt orange. And take it from someone who lives in Dallas - 99% of all OU alums move to Dallas to work - it is by no stretch a Texas friendly environment. If you can make it to your seats without getting mauled, it is a good day.

I noticed that you conveniently left off three VERY notable common opponents for Texas and Oklahoma.

OU over Texas Tech 65-21 (44 pts) vs Texas Tech over Texas 39-33 (-6 pts)
OU over Ok State 61-41 (20 pts) vs Texas over Ok State 28-24 (4 pts)
OU over Mizzou 62-21 (41 pts) vs Texas over MIzzou 56-31 (25 pts)

Considering those are the three BEST common opponents, I'd say they matter the most, wouldn't you? Any reason you chose to look at A&M, Baylor and Kansas, instead?

Never mind... I already know why... it didn't fit what you're trying to prove.

In 2 of those games, Oklahoma held the opposing team to LESS than what Texas held them to, and ALSO scored more than Texas did.

Also, there's no way in hell that you can claim that the schedules are identical. Let's look at them:

Both teams played:
Baylor
Kansas
Texas Tech
Texas A&M
Missouri
Oklahoma State

OU played:
Cincinnati
Washington
TCU
Nebraska
Chattanooga
Kansas State

Texas played:
Florida Atlantic
UTEP
Rice
Colorado
Arkansas

And of course, they played each other, and now Texas played Ohio State, and Oklahoma will play Florida.

So when you take away the shared games and the bowl games, which is the harder schedule?

Cincinnati, TCU, Nebraska, Kansas State, Washington, Chattanooga?
OR
Arkansas, Colorado, Florida Atlantic, UTEP, Rice?

It's not even close. OU has the MUCH harder non-con schedule. To try to even pretend that it's equal (or even similar) is asinine.

1/6/09

1

Yes, those Chattanooga and Washington games were real contests for OU. Are you serious? Washington finished 0-12.

Arkansas actually beat LSU. Rice won their bowl game. I would say Texas had better non-conference opponents and beat every team in the Big 12 except a hungry Tech team that played out of their minds for 60 minutes and had the good fortune to have a true freshman Texas safety flub an easy pick.

Did you watch the Texas Missouri game? Texas was up 35 to 7 at HALFTIME. The other points came in garbage time. I'll concede that Texas played flat against OK State and obviously against Texas Tech. It is hard to beat Texas Tech in Lubbock at night. OU lost there last year in 2007 (34-27). Last year, Texas beat Texas Tech in Austin (59-43). However, in 2007 OU beat Texas in the Cotton Bowl and was arguably the better team.

If memory serves Texas only scored 6 points in the first half of this year's Texas Tech game, and then finally started to wake up (Let's not forget that Orakpo and Cosby were both hurt in that game). And yes, if only Gideon had brought that ball down, we would all be talking about the upcoming Texas vs. Florida NCG.

What is "asinine" are the contortions and mental gymnastics that you are going through in a pathetic attempt to argue that a team that was beaten 45-35 is actually much better than the team that beat it 45-35. The reason everyone is clamoring for a playoff system is so that the teams can actually play one another and we don't have to resort to human polls and computer rankings. Well, here you have it!!! Texas and OU actually played each other!!! Hallejulah!!! And Texas won by two scores.

1/6/09

0

I love how you brought up Washington, but failed to acknowledge the fact that Cincy, TCU and Nebraska were ALL better than any of the teams that Texas played.

LSU? A win over LSU makes Arkansas legit? Did you even watch football this year?

"What is "asinine" are the contortions and mental gymnastics that you are going through in a pathetic attempt to argue that a team that was beaten 45-35 is actually much better than the team that beat it 45-35."

You know what else is asinine? The fact that the SAME Texas fans who use this argument will give excuses until they're blue in the face about why they're better than Texas Tech. By YOUR OWN LOGIC, Texas Tech was the better team this year, prior to the bowl games. Since you and I both know that's not true, then obviously your logic is flawed.

1/6/09

tvjunkie1172

2	Man I thought for a second Ohio State was going win that game but thankfully Quan Cosby pulled through for us. Texas Fight!

1/6/09

JacksColdSweat

0

Pat wrote:

I noticed that you conveniently left off three VERY notable common opponents for Texas and Oklahoma.

OU over Texas Tech 65-21 (44 pts) vs Texas Tech over Texas 39-33 (-6 pts)
OU over Ok State 61-41 (20 pts) vs Texas over Ok State 28-24 (4 pts)
OU over Mizzou 62-21 (41 pts) vs Texas over MIzzou 56-31 (25 pts)

Considering those are the three BEST common opponents, I'd say they matter the most, wouldn't you? Any reason you chose to look at A&M, Baylor and Kansas, instead?

Never mind... I already know why... it didn't fit what you're trying to prove.

In 2 of those games, Oklahoma held the opposing team to LESS than what Texas held them to, and ALSO scored more than Texas did.

Also, there's no way in hell that you can claim that the schedules are identical. Let's look at them:

Both teams played:
Baylor
Kansas
Texas Tech
Texas A&M
Missouri
Oklahoma State

OU played:
Cincinnati
Washington
TCU
Nebraska
Chattanooga
Kansas State

Texas played:
Florida Atlantic
UTEP
Rice
Colorado
Arkansas

And of course, they played each other, and now Texas played Ohio State, and Oklahoma will play Florida.

So when you take away the shared games and the bowl games, which is the harder schedule?

Cincinnati, TCU, Nebraska, Kansas State, Washington, Chattanooga?
OR
Arkansas, Colorado, Florida Atlantic, UTEP, Rice?

It's not even close. OU has the MUCH harder non-con schedule. To try to even pretend that it's equal (or even similar) is asinine.

You don't think Texas could beat all those teams? Remember, OU only played Missouri after Texas got screwed in the tie breaker.

Want to talk more about scheduling? How about OU gets to play in the championship game simply because they took their one loss earlier. If they had loss to Texas at the end of the season this whole "who has the better non conf. schedule" would be asinine.

Your defense point is voided also since no one scored more then 40 points on Texas all season, they are the ONLY Big 12 team to do that. Thye held their opponents to an average of 18.6 points or so. OU's avg = 24.5.

"WHAT!!!??? THAT'S CRAZY!!!"

1/6/09

0

Pat wrote:

I love how you brought up Washington, but failed to acknowledge the fact that Cincy, TCU and Nebraska were ALL better than any of the teams that Texas played.

LSU? A win over LSU makes Arkansas legit? Did you even watch football this year?

"What is "asinine" are the contortions and mental gymnastics that you are going through in a pathetic attempt to argue that a team that was beaten 45-35 is actually much better than the team that beat it 45-35."

You know what else is asinine? The fact that the SAME Texas fans who use this argument will give excuses until they're blue in the face about why they're better than Texas Tech. By YOUR OWN LOGIC, Texas Tech was the better team this year, prior to the bowl games. Since you and I both know that's not true, then obviously your logic is flawed.

Pat,

I wrote a long response to this post, but it didn't get posted so I'll simply make a few points:

Texas played four straight Top 10 teams. OU did not, so forget your strength of schedule argument.

I watched more CFB than you did this year and Arkansas was a better team than 0-12 Washington to be sure.

Texas lost to TT on a last second hail mary TD pass. OU lost to Texas by two scores in front of 50,000 of their fans.

When OU throttled TT, TT was out of the discussion, and it came down to Texas and OU which both had almost identical bodies of work, except OU lost to Texas.

Which Big 12 South team is better? Texas or OU? That is the only question. It boggles my mind that anyone with an IQ in the triple digits can argue that you shouldn't consider a head to head game when evaluating two teams. Unbelievable!!!

By the way, under SEC and ACC three way tie breaker rules, Texas would have gone to the Big 12 Championship game and had the opportunity to beat Missouri AGAIN, because only the Big 12 doesn't consider head to head outcomes...

OU doesn't have the defense to contain Florida, so Texas will likely be the only Big 12 team with a solid bowl win and the OU BCS bowl fiasco will continue...

1/6/09

0

"I watched more CFB than you did this year and Arkansas was a better team than 0-12 Washington to be sure."

Why are you comparing Texas' BEST non-con opponent to Oklahoma's WORST?

And I'm not saying that you should consider the head to head game. I'm just saying that you can't consider ONLY the head to head game... which is essentially what Texas fans are trying to do.

"By the way, under SEC and ACC three way tie breaker rules, Texas would have gone to the Big 12 Championship game"

False. Under the SEC and ACC rules, they would go to the SEC or ACC Championship games. You can't go to the Big 12 Championship based on SEC or ACC rules. Everyone knew the rules before the season.

"OU doesn't have the defense to contain Florida, so Texas will likely be the only Big 12 team with a solid bowl win"

A solid bowl win over a team that had no business being there. That game was a disgrace. You and I both know that if Texas was half the team you're claiming they are, that game would have been a blowout.

Like I've said over and over again... let's look at the overall body of work.

Based on the Sagarin Pre-Bowl ELO_CHESS Ratings...
Oklahoma beat: #3, 9, 11, 14, 21, 26, 32, 77, 79, 90, 150 and 208
Oklahoma lost to: #2

Texas beat: #1, 11, 21, 32, 56, 58, 69, 77, 90, 100, 104
Texas lost to: #3

Although the bottom of Oklahoma's schedule is considerably weaker, the bottom really doesn't matter. Texas and Oklahoma should both be able to beat up on ANYONE under 50, easily. The TOP of the schedule is what matters. And that's where Oklahoma has a distinct advantage, with 7 games against the top 30, vs only 4 for Texas.

Continue to deny the facts all you want, but if you look at it objectively, Oklahoma simply has the better resume. Period.

1/6/09

0	Togher schedule. Lol the experts think texas has the second worst schedule

1/6/09

0	Also, you can make the argument for OU but what about for USC?

1/6/09

0	Oh, and Im not talking about Pat

1/6/09

0

McCoy, named the game's MVP, finished 41-of-58 for 414 yards through the air, while Cosby had a spectacular performance in his last collegiate game, making 14 catches for 171 yards and a pair of scores for the Longhorns (12-1). Texas' only blemish on the season was a last-second 39-33 loss at Texas Tech on November 1.

Daniel Herron ran 15 yards for the go-ahead score with 2:05 remaining for the Buckeyes (10-3), until McCoy's heroics turned the game around

1/6/09

0	aos035 wrote: Also, you can make the argument for OU but what about for USC? They won their conference, only had one loss (to a pretty good team in Oregon State), and completely obliterated the BCS Bowl-caliber teams that they played.

1/7/09

1

BCS DECLARES GERMANY WINNER OF WORLD WAR II
US Ranked 4th

After determining the Big-12 championship game participants, the BCS computers were put to work on other major contests and today the BCS declared Germany to be the winner of World War II.

"Germany put together an incredible number of victories beginning with the annexation of Austria and the Sudetenland and continuing on into conference play with defeats of Poland, France, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Belgium and the Netherlands. Their only losses came against the US and Russia; however considering their entire body of work--including an incredibly tough Strength of Schedule--our computers deemed them worthy of the #1 ranking."

Questioned about the #4 ranking of the United States the BCS commissioner stated "The US only had two major victories-- Japan and Germany . The computer models, unlike humans, aren't influenced by head-to-head contests--they consider each contest to be only a single, equally-weighted event."

German Chancellor Adolph Hitler said "Yes, we lost to the US; but we defeated #2 ranked France in only 6 weeks." Herr Hitler has been criticized for seeking dramatic victories to earn 'style points' to enhance Germany 's rankings. Hitler protested "Our contest with Poland was in doubt until the final day and the conditions in Norway were incredibly challenging and demanded the application of additional forces."

The French ranking has also come under scrutiny. The BCS commented "France had a single loss against Germany and following a preseason #1 ranking they only fell to #2."

Japan was ranked #3 with victories including Manchuria, Borneo and the Philippines .

1/8/09

r8r4life

0	I'm a Texas fan, and I gotta admit I was disappointed with UT's performance against Ohio State. Before that game I honestly thought they were the best team in the country, now I don't. I couldn't believe what I was watching when they went into halftime without scoring one touchdown on a team that they should of easily destroyed.

1/9/09

coot66

0	People always complain when they lose or do poorly. Eh... I don't care as long as the right team wins... YAY GATORS!

1/11/09

1	Its solved OU has lost 2. There. They are not the champians.

1/23/09

jtwarick

0

1/23/09

jtwarick

1

(Edited by jtwarick)

Everyone that says Texas played poorly in this game is naive and ignorant. Obviously no one watched the previous Texas games. The coaching was totally different in this game and they were running plays that weren't working just to get the seniors the stats. Very clearly they weren't worried about passing to shipley or trying another running back other than ogbonnaya(sp?). I didn't even see McGee or Chiles run one play lol. I'm sure the coaching would be very different if they were in the title game. Also OU played Texas Tech after a bye week and Texas played them after lets see, colorado, arkansas, OU, Missouri, and Ok State. Texas had a much tougher schedule and didn't get any easy teams inbetween. They also had a much more solid defense than OU did all year but the BCS computers don't compute defense only offense. Did anyone see the bad play calling by the officiating crew as well and I didn't see the leading rusher run very much in the game either. All the Texas haters need to get a life, can't wait til next season though.

6/6/09

0	And, the Pac 10 is better then the big 12{sarcasim implied}. Whining about how many points we win by is a poor attempt to put the best team down. And also, tell me, when two teams are tied at the end of the season, what do they use to determine seeds? If you didn't come up with the answer head-to-head, you must be a sooner.

6/6/09

soonergirl4ever

0	I HATE the longhorns!!!!!!

6/6/09