Running the table in the Big 12 trumps running it in the Big East,WAC and Mountain West. Sorry but Texas deserves the NC Game.
Get over it.

Agreed.

(I'm gonna go throw up now after agreeing with Skyhook)

No other NCAA or major professional sport uses computers to determine its champion.

Thats' the biggest gripe. That and the BCS conference bias that will never let a mid major challenge for a title under the current system.

^^^ And no other NCAA or major professional sport had it's national championships determined by pollsters! Split national titles? Didn't see that in the NFL or NCAA basketball.

Say what you want about the BCS, but it's still better than having split national champions.

chicago510 wrote: No other NCAA or major professional sport uses computers to determine its champion.

Thats' the biggest gripe. That and the BCS conference bias that will never let a mid major challenge for a title under the current system.

The bigger gripe is the pollsters. The computer doesn't vote with emotion. Coaches and whatever people the BCS use to cook the books with their Harris poll do.

lhslep134 wrote: ^^^ And no other NCAA or major professional sport had it's national championships determined by pollsters! Split national titles? Didn't see that in the NFL or NCAA basketball.

Say what you want about the BCS, but it's still better than having split national champions.

Nobody is saying revert back to the old system.

lhslep134 wrote: Say what you want about the BCS, but it's still better than having split national champions.

You mean like 2003?

lhslep134 wrote: Say what you want about the BCS, but it's still better than having split national champions.

uhhh....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_NCAA_Division_I-A_football_season

Sagarin has the Big East ahead of the Big 12 this year, and Cincinnati actually had a quality OOC win this year at Oregon State.

Let's be honest, Texas is in the championship because they are Texas, and because they were more highly ranked at the beginning of the season.

Jeez, I just look at the polls, Cincinnati beat 3 teams that were more highly ranked than the highest team Texas beat.

It doesn't mean Texas is "undeserving", but the system is crap.

It would be funny as hell if TCU would jump Texas to play Alabama.

Texas benefits by being ranked high in the preseason poll while the rest of the teams had to fight their way up the polls.

Manhattan Buckeye wrote: Jeez, I just look at the polls, Cincinnati beat 3 teams that were more highly ranked than the highest team Texas beat.

It doesn't mean Texas is "undeserving", but the system is crap.

Not true.

Texas beat #14 Okla St, #20 Oklahoma, and #22 Nebraska

Cincy beat #15 Pitt, #21 S.Fla and #25 West Virginia

You have to go by where they were ranked when they PLAYED not where they are now.

Skyhook79 wrote:

Manhattan Buckeye wrote: Jeez, I just look at the polls, Cincinnati beat 3 teams that were more highly ranked than the highest team Texas beat.

It doesn't mean Texas is "undeserving", but the system is crap.

Not true.

Texas beat #14 Okla St, #20 Oklahoma, and #22 Nebraska

Cincy beat #15 Pitt, #21 S.Fla and #25 West Virginia

You have to go by where they were ranked when they PLAYED not where they are now.

That's the dumbest idea I've ever heard.

trep14 wrote:

Skyhook79 wrote:

Manhattan Buckeye wrote: Jeez, I just look at the polls, Cincinnati beat 3 teams that were more highly ranked than the highest team Texas beat.

It doesn't mean Texas is "undeserving", but the system is crap.

Not true.

Texas beat #14 Okla St, #20 Oklahoma, and #22 Nebraska

Cincy beat #15 Pitt, #21 S.Fla and #25 West Virginia

You have to go by where they were ranked when they PLAYED not where they are now.

That's the dumbest idea I've ever heard.

Ditto on the dumbest idea thought.

trep14 wrote:

Skyhook79 wrote:

Manhattan Buckeye wrote: Jeez, I just look at the polls, Cincinnati beat 3 teams that were more highly ranked than the highest team Texas beat.

It doesn't mean Texas is "undeserving", but the system is crap.

Not true.

Texas beat #14 Okla St, #20 Oklahoma, and #22 Nebraska

Cincy beat #15 Pitt, #21 S.Fla and #25 West Virginia

You have to go by where they were ranked when they PLAYED not where they are now.

That's the dumbest idea I've ever heard.

Why don't you look at Cincy's and the Longhorns schedule and results and show me where I am wrong?????



http://espn.go.com/ncf/clubhouse?teamId=251

http://espn.go.com/ncf/clubhouse?teamId=2132

Skyhook79 wrote:

trep14 wrote:

Skyhook79 wrote:

Manhattan Buckeye wrote: Jeez, I just look at the polls, Cincinnati beat 3 teams that were more highly ranked than the highest team Texas beat.

It doesn't mean Texas is "undeserving", but the system is crap.

Not true.

Texas beat #14 Okla St, #20 Oklahoma, and #22 Nebraska

Cincy beat #15 Pitt, #21 S.Fla and #25 West Virginia

You have to go by where they were ranked when they PLAYED not where they are now.

That's the dumbest idea I've ever heard.

Why don't you look at Cincy's and the Longhorns schedule and results and show me where I am wrong?????



http://espn.go.com/ncf/clubhouse?teamId=251

http://espn.go.com/ncf/clubhouse?teamId=2132

Who cares where Oklahoma was ranked at the time they played? Its pretty clear now that at no point in the season should Oklahoma have ever been in the top 20. Much of college football rankings are based on preseason polls and it usually takes halfway through the season for the rankings to even start remotely accurately reflecting where teams should be ranked. Oklahoma should have been out of the top 25 the very moment Sam Bradford went down with a shoulder injury in the first half against BYU. Preseason polls are notorious for drastically overrating teams at the beginning of the year. Kind of like Appalachian State beating a "top 5" Michigan team a couple of years ago, when it became pretty clear later on in the season that Michigan had no business sniffing the top 25.

"That's the dumbest idea I've ever heard."

Not when polls in the first part of the season are meaningless.

Oklahoma was a freaking stiff this year, they were another team ranked only because of their name.

And it was Oregon State that was the third team, not South Florida genius. Is anyone dumb enough to suggest beating South Florida was more impressive than winning at Corvallis? Who gives a shit if it was early in the year when pollsters didn't respect O-St. enough, they damn near won the Pac-10.

But I'm glad I was able to provide you with the dumbest thing you've ever read...nice..

Manhattan Buckeye wrote: "That's the dumbest idea I've ever heard."

Not when polls in the first part of the season are meaningless.

Oklahoma was a freaking stiff this year, they were another team ranked only because of their name.

And it was Oregon State that was the third team, not South Florida genius. Is anyone dumb enough to suggest beating South Florida was more impressive than winning at Corvallis? Who gives a shit if it was early in the year when pollsters didn't respect O-St. enough, they damn near won the Pac-10.

But I'm glad I was able to provide you with the dumbest thing you've ever read...nice..

Ummm...I was talking to the bozo who said that it matters where teams are ranked when you play them, not where they are ranked in the final polls.

Sorry, miss-did my quote, happens on my laptop, I am in full agreement with you.

No one cares about where they were ranked at the time they played. It's not about where you start, it's about where you finish. When comparing quality wins, look at the final records and final rankings to get a fair representation of how good that team is. When comparing teams' opponents, the most fair way is to look at the opponents' winning percentage. Texas' opponents had a 0.525 win percentage while TCU and Cincy had opponent win percentages around 0.480. With those numbers in mind, Texas played a schedule where opponents had more wins. They are deserving of the NC!

Skyhook79 wrote:

Manhattan Buckeye wrote: Jeez, I just look at the polls, Cincinnati beat 3 teams that were more highly ranked than the highest team Texas beat.

It doesn't mean Texas is "undeserving", but the system is crap.

Not true.

Texas beat #14 Okla St, #20 Oklahoma, and #22 Nebraska

Cincy beat #15 Pitt, #21 S.Fla and #25 West Virginia

You have to go by where they were ranked when they PLAYED not where they are now.

Why is that? Isn't the post season polls the most accurate...encompassing the whole season results?

Skyhook79 wrote:

Manhattan Buckeye wrote: Jeez, I just look at the polls, Cincinnati beat 3 teams that were more highly ranked than the highest team Texas beat.

It doesn't mean Texas is "undeserving", but the system is crap.

Not true.

Texas beat #14 Okla St, #20 Oklahoma, and #22 Nebraska

Cincy beat #15 Pitt, #21 S.Fla and #25 West Virginia

You have to go by where they were ranked when they PLAYED not where they are now.

In 2005 Notre Dame beat #4 Michigan at the time. Looks like Weis DID have a signature win! Nevermind Michigan ended that year ranked lower than Toledo in the "others recieving votes category"...

Skyhook79 wrote:You have to go by where they were ranked when they PLAYED not where they are now.

lol, is that what we HAVE to do? And why is that? Because it fits your argument better?

"And it was Oregon State that was the third team, not South Florida genius. Is anyone dumb enough to suggest beating South Florida was more impressive than winning at Corvallis? Who gives a shit if it was early in the year when pollsters didn't respect O-St. enough, they damn near won the Pac-10."


Then how come Cincy's schedule doesn't say they beat 20th ranked Oregon St. and Boise St schedule doesn't say they beat 7th ranked Oregon????????????????