Texas has beef with the Big XII tie breaker rules. They should have lobbied to have them changed at the annual meeting BEFORE THE SEASON BEGAN.
I think comparing losses is very relevant. The entire season has to be taken into account, not just 1 game. Anything can happen in 1 game.
If Florida beats OU I think it will show that the Big 12 South was very overrated. TT and OSU both lost, Texas nearly lost to the power house known as the Ohio State and if OU loses to Florida that would be 1-3 for great Big Twelve South, the most prolific conference in modern times. I think the two teams that have a legitimate gripe are Utah and yes USC. I now USC does not play the kind of schedule we do, but I guarantee you they have just as much talent if not more that any team in the country.
If you play the entire season one game at a time then what? There really isn't ever a season. :hihi: Head to Head trumps all imo. You have a bad game, too bad for you.
My vote for National Champion goes to the winner of the Florida vs. Oklahoma game. #2-#5 can go to the loser, Utah, Texas, USC, or whoever. All I know is until that game has concluded, the National Champions are still the... LSU TIGERS!!! :helmet:
So what do you do with that loss to Texas Tech? There are far too many factors to place teams based on 1 regular season game. The overall performance must be considered... At the end of the regular season I believe OU was 2, UT was 3, and TTU was 7. All within 5 rankings of each other. If you look at the actual ratings, though, OU and UT were within 0.013 of each other and TTU was .142 back from UT, so I think a good argument can be made for UT's inclusion in the conference championship game rather than OU's, like you have all been making. Like has been stated before, however, UT went into this season agreeing with the rules the Big12 had in place. You'd think someone at these whining schools would be pushing harder for better guidelines regarding postseason regulations. For that reason I don't feel as bad for UT this year or Auburn in 2004. Though I still believe in the necessity of a playoff and do feel like Utah this year and Auburn in 2004 (yes, even USC in 2003) have strong cases for disputing the annointed NC. UT's problem lies more with the Big12 than the BCS, IMO, and I feel like conferences have to handle how they crown a champion in their own way. So given things as they stand now, UT would not be in consideration for the NC. Blame the Big12.
Texas barely beats OSU -- a team already beaten by USC and Penn State -- and wants to be considered for the MNC??? Typical Mack Brown induced delusional whining. Why would anyone think that Texas could beat USC? I admit I missed the comeback but the first 75% of the Fiesta Bowl was boring, mediocre football. Neither team should be even mentioned in a MNC discussion.
I don't believe he actually thinks he'll win votes or that his team is REALLY worthy of it. IMO, he made those comments as a shout-out and a vote of confidence to his players...and all it cost him was a little message board chatter. I understand his thinking.
I don't doubt for one second that USC has as much, if not more, talent than anyone in the country, but why does that mean they should be awarded their second AP trophy this decade, after being left out of the BCSNCG? With the way the media slobbers all over USC, don't you think they'd be in the game if they really deserved it? They've been twice this decade. On the other hand, I'm not sure there is a more undeserving participant in the BCSNCG than OU. They may prove me wrong tomorrow night, but they have not represented well in the BCS for a very long time.
