1 play away from a perfect Season in 2008.

[Run Pincher]

I know there's no such thing as a transitive property in comparing sports teams, but I actually think the "system" got it right in 2008.

I'd love for head-to-head to be the determining factor, but in a case like this, I just don't think it can be.

OU had a tougher schedule than us outside of getting Tech at home. For nonconference, they beat Cincy (made a BCS game) and TCU (was ranked at the time) while we had far fewer viewers against Arkansas, Rice, FAU, and UTEP.

But the biggest factor to me is the OU/Tech game. Tech crushed OK State (who we needed timely, close play to beat) the week after us and was riding high, and OU just effing dismantled them. To the point where they struggled against Baylor and got their asses kicked in the bowl game. If you had to put the Texas/Tech, Texas/OU, and OU/Tech games on a spectrum of determining the importance of teams in the Big XII at the end of November, then OU/Tech would be so far ahead of both of our games against either team.

To put it another way, I just don't think our win over OU was as impressive as Tech's win over us or OU's win over Tech.

I'm about the least orange tinted glasses posting here, but that's just silly. Our win over blowu wasn't as impressive as techs win over us?? That's crazy. We dominated blowu at a neutral site and tech beat us at home in a bizarre ending. Not to mention we beat Okie lite and mizzou too. And cincy didn't deserve to be in any top notch bowl game. Like n64 posted, Texas wins 2/3 vs blowu. And one more thing, Texas got royally screwed by loser Briles, who eventually got what he deserved.

 

[Horns11]

I'm about the least orange tinted glasses posting here, but that's just silly. Our win over blowu wasn't as impressive as techs win over us?? That's crazy. We dominated blowu at a neutral site and tech beat us at home in a bizarre ending. Not to mention we beat Okie lite and mizzou too. And cincy didn't deserve to be in any top notch bowl game. Like n64 posted, Texas wins 2/3 vs blowu. And one more thing, Texas got royally screwed by loser Briles, who eventually got what he deserved.

I'd love to hear your definition of "dominated." OU had the same amount of yards as us and we relied on 2 turnovers, a KR for TD, multiple questionable personal foul calls near the sideline, and an injury to Ryan Reynolds to take away the momentum and lead for good.

Tech beat the crap out of us for most of the game in Lubbock. Injuries aside, we made some breaks to get back into it, but we were #1 and they weren't. We shouldn't have needed breaks. And we should have been able to stop them on the final drive.

OU beat OK State on the road worse than we did at home. Their CCG against Mizzou (basically a road game in KC) also shows that Mizzou was overrated and isn't the measuring stick we wished they were when we dominated them in Austin.

Cincy was in a BCS game... just like they would be the following year. Your belief that they didn't deserve to be in a BCS game doesn't mean they're not good.

The whole "2 out of 3" thing doesn't take the kinds of games into account. Just the W's. I stand by my statement that OU's win over Tech was by far the most impressive of the 3 matchups between the 3 teams.

Briles could have changed his vote to have us at #1 and we still would have been on the outside looking in.

 

[WorsterMan]

I know there's no such thing as a transitive property in comparing sports teams, but I actually think the "system" got it right in 2008.

I'd love for head-to-head to be the determining factor, but in a case like this, I just don't think it can be.

OU had a tougher schedule than us outside of getting Tech at home. For nonconference, they beat Cincy (made a BCS game) and TCU (was ranked at the time) while we had far fewer viewers against Arkansas, Rice, FAU, and UTEP.

But the biggest factor to me is the OU/Tech game. Tech crushed OK State (who we needed timely, close play to beat) the week after us and was riding high, and OU just effing dismantled them. To the point where they struggled against Baylor and got their asses kicked in the bowl game. If you had to put the Texas/Tech, Texas/OU, and OU/Tech games on a spectrum of determining the importance of teams in the Big XII at the end of November, then OU/Tech would be so far ahead of both of our games against either team.

To put it another way, I just don't think our win over OU was as impressive as Tech's win over us or OU's win over Tech.

Opinion. Bottom line I believe UT win over ou in 2008 WAS more "impressive" than the other 2 games you identified. My opinion....

 

[Phil Elliott]

OU's win over Tech was at home. Tech's win over us was at home. Our win over OU was at the most neutral site of all neutral sites since the tickets are divided 50/50. Texas should have gone to the CCG IMO.

 

[Sangre Naranjada]

I just don't think our win over OU was as impressive as Tech's win over us or OU's win over Tech.

I'm just going to disagree with this and leave it alone.

 

[Horns11]

I'm just going to disagree with this and leave it alone.

OK.

Texas Tech at Oklahoma Box Score, November 22, 2008 | College Football at Sports-Reference.com

People are severely overestimating the whole "home vs. neutral" dynamic at play here. OU didn't "need" home field to go up 52-7 on the 2nd series of the 3rd quarter against a team that beat #1 Texas and #8 OK State the prior 2 weeks. That might have played a small factor, but OU curbstomped Tech.

Tech was also #2 in the country at that point, and got so out-of-their-element from that moment on, that they barely held on to beat Baylor and then lost their bowl. The team we lost to shouldn't have crumbled that badly. But they did.

I think a comparable situation in the Cotton Bowl to "keep" us ahead of OU in the three-team debate would have been a 3+ TD win.

 

[n64ra]

OK.

Texas Tech at Oklahoma Box Score, November 22, 2008 | College Football at Sports-Reference.com

People are severely overestimating the whole "home vs. neutral" dynamic at play here. OU didn't "need" home field to go up 52-7 on the 2nd series of the 3rd quarter against a team that beat #1 Texas and #8 OK State the prior 2 weeks. That might have played a small factor, but OU curbstomped Tech.

Tech was also #2 in the country at that point, and got so out-of-their-element from that moment on, that they barely held on to beat Baylor and then lost their bowl. The team we lost to shouldn't have crumbled that badly. But they did.

I think a comparable situation in the Cotton Bowl to "keep" us ahead of OU in the three-team debate would have been a 3+ TD win.

I'll give you that OU had two good out of conference opponents, but at least we had one that was Power 5 who could win football games in 2008. Oh, and a hated rival! OU's lone P5 opponent in 2008 was Washington who went 0-12 that season.

However, I won't give you that the margin of victory of OU over TTU was that impressive. Tech gave up so OU was able to run up the score. Why else is OU passing when it's 52-14 with roughly 17 minutes left in the game? Oh yes, so we can have a 66 yard TD pass. OU gets the point for best victory.

 

[Horns11]

I'll give you that OU had two good out of conference opponents, but at least we had one that was Power 5 who could win football games in 2008. Oh, and a hated rival! OU's lone P5 opponent in 2008 was Washington who went 0-12 that season.

However, I won't give you that the margin of victory of OU over TTU was that impressive. Tech gave up so OU was able to run up the score. Why else is OU passing when it's 52-14 with roughly 17 minutes left in the game? Oh yes, so we can have a 66 yard TD pass. OU gets the point for best victory.

Rice was actually our best nonconference opponent. Piggie was bad that year. FAU actually went to a bowl game too. Cincy and TCU would have beat every nonconference team we played. TCU finished Top-10 with their bowl win over also-Top-10 Boise.

I can't believe anyone would type that their margin over Tech was unimpressive. It was so impressive that it put them in the national championship game. They were up 28-0 when it wasn't even halfway through the 2nd quarter, and 42-7 at the half. You say Tech gave up? Then we shouldn't have lost to the team with the most give-up. By giving them the point for "best victory," that's literally proving that OU should be the best among the three-team logjam.

 

[ProdigalHorn]

I just remember that team going through as tough a five-game stretch as any I’ve ever seen. You could see that they wore down, and it seemed like the Tech game was the result. They came out in the first half completely flat and lifeless. It’s to their credit that they came out blazing and had a shot to win the game at all.

I suspect if we had played Tech when we played A&M we would have won by two scores and maybe punted twice.

 

[Horns11]

I just remember that team going through as tough a five-game stretch as any I’ve ever seen. You could see that they wore down, and it seemed like the Tech game was the result. They came out in the first half completely flat and lifeless. It’s to their credit that they came out blazing and had a shot to win the game at all.

I suspect if we had played Tech when we played A&M we would have won by two scores and maybe punted twice.

I'll agree to all of this. Throw CU or KU in the middle of that stretch and we might have a different November. Greg Davis and McWhorter got exposed against Tech, and we were unfortunate to end the regular season against 2 of the worst Big XII teams. Ohio State also performed very well against us despite their overachieving season with Pryor.

The 2008 team might have been the greatest team of all time if Jamaal and Jermichael had stuck around. C'est la vie.

 

[n64ra]

Rice was actually our best nonconference opponent. Piggie was bad that year. FAU actually went to a bowl game too. Cincy and TCU would have beat every nonconference team we played. TCU finished Top-10 with their bowl win over also-Top-10 Boise.

I can't believe anyone would type that their margin over Tech was unimpressive. It was so impressive that it put them in the national championship game. They were up 28-0 when it wasn't even halfway through the 2nd quarter, and 42-7 at the half. You say Tech gave up? Then we shouldn't have lost to the team with the most give-up. By giving them the point for "best victory," that's literally proving that OU should be the best among the three-team logjam.

On the previous page, I already gave OU the point for best victory. Best victory is not equivalent to head to head and therefore, other factors must be applied. In that same post, I provided two other metrics - least worse loss and toughest schedule among the three tied teams. Texas wins those categories. You added in non-conference. Fine I gave OU that. So it's now 2-2 on the metrics. But why only compare six games of the schedule? Texas had the harder overall conference schedule with North teams #1 Mizzou, #3 Kansas, and #4 Colorado. OU and Tech had #2 Nebraska, #3 Kansas, and #5 Kansas State. Texas wins that metric.

 

[Horns11]

On the previous page, I already gave OU the point for best victory. Best victory is not equivalent to head to head and therefore, other factors must be applied. In that same post, I provided two other metrics - least worse loss and toughest schedule among the three tied teams. Texas wins those categories. You added in non-conference. Fine I gave OU that. So it's now 2-2 on the metrics. But why only compare six games of the schedule? Texas had the harder overall conference schedule with North teams #1 Mizzou, #3 Kansas, and #4 Colorado. OU and Tech had #2 Nebraska, #3 Kansas, and #5 Kansas State. Texas wins that metric.

I'll avoid the idea that adding together an aggregate of other division's teams only counts as one in the "score" between the teams, but what about how well they did against them? The only common opponent that we arguably performed "better" against was KU.

But my point was that it was a three-horse race. And because OU had the most impressive win between those 3, they earned it. If we could go back to Dallas in October and beat them by as much as they beat Tech, and still lose narrowly to Tech, then we would be in the national championship game.

 

[zuckercanyon]

OU with DeMarco Murray beats Florida

 

[Statalyzer]

The real kicker was that we had already played Missouri. There's no great way to break a 3-way tie, but if possible, it's pretty reasonable to avoid a situation that the Big 12 ended up with. Team A beat both B and C in conference. Team A has an equal to or better record than both B and C. Yet B plays C in the conference title game.

They should have renamed it the "We Lost to Texas" Bowl.

OU had the same amount of yards as us and we relied on 2 turnovers, a KR for TD, multiple questionable personal foul calls near the sideline, and an injury to Ryan Reynolds to take away the momentum and lead for good.

One of those turnovers was a hail mary pass on the final play of the game when OU was down 10 anyway, so I'm not sure how that's supposed to devalue our win. And I've already mentioned how silly it is that they got more sympathy for losing Reynolds than we got for losing Orakpo and Cosby.

The one bad personal foul call that hurt them came after we had already attained a 1st down. The one bad personal foul call that hurt us came after we had stopped them and they were punting on 4th down. And then let's not forget their first TD came when we knocked the ball out of their receiver's hand and it ricocheted right to the only other Sooner in the area.

Tech was also #2 in the country at that point, and got so out-of-their-element from that moment on, that they barely held on to beat Baylor and then lost their bowl.

Crabtree being hobbled is a much more likely cause of their performances against Baylor and Ole Miss.

 

[zuckercanyon]

The loss to Tech made it a vote/beauty contest which we lost. Win all your games (2009) and you’re in…

 

[Horns11]

The real kicker was that we had already played Missouri. There's no great way to break a 3-way tie, but if possible, it's pretty reasonable to avoid a situation that the Big 12 ended up with. Team A beat both B and C in conference. Team A has an equal to or better record than both B and C. Yet B plays C in the conference title game.

They should have renamed it the "We Lost to Texas" Bowl.



One of those turnovers was a hail mary pass on the final play of the game when OU was down 10 anyway, so I'm not sure how that's supposed to devalue our win. And I've already mentioned how silly it is that they got more sympathy for losing Reynolds than we got for losing Orakpo and Cosby.

The one bad personal foul call that hurt them came after we had already attained a 1st down. The one bad personal foul call that hurt us came after we had stopped them and they were punting on 4th down. And then let's not forget their first TD came when we knocked the ball out of their receiver's hand and it ricocheted right to the only other Sooner in the area.



Crabtree being hobbled is a much more likely cause of their performances against Baylor and Ole Miss.

The whole "Team A - Team B - Team C" thing only works if we didn't have divisions. I blame the dudes who came up with the tiebreaker formula for choosing the division champ, but even with that, I still think OU>>>>>>Tech still far outweighs Texas>>OU. Especially because Tech>Texas as well.

I guess we could try to weigh "losses of particular players and luck of particular plays" too, but I don't think we have to, because OU settled all that by the middle of their game with Tech.

 

[wadster]

I'll avoid the idea that adding together an aggregate of other division's teams only counts as one in the "score" between the teams, but what about how well they did against them? The only common opponent that we arguably performed "better" against was KU.

But my point was that it was a three-horse race. And because OU had the most impressive win between those 3, they earned it. If we could go back to Dallas in October and beat them by as much as they beat Tech, and still lose narrowly to Tech, then we would be in the national championship game.

Except you are still only looking at best win, and no other factor. Best loss is also important. Tech playing at home is night and day different than on the road. Everyone that knows anything about the Big12 knows that. Not like Tech didn't beat OU other years in Lubbock when OU had the much better team. In your world if you had the most impressive win but lost 62-0 against Rice, you'd just call it a mulligan.

 

[Horns11]

Except you are still only looking at best win, and no other factor. Best loss is also important. Tech playing at home is night and day different than on the road. Everyone that knows anything about the Big12 knows that. Not like Tech didn't beat OU other years in Lubbock when OU had the much better team. In your world if you had the most impressive win but lost 62-0 against Rice, you'd just call it a mulligan.

If you've read all of my posts on this thread, you know I'm weighing more than just those games.

If best loss is important, then so is worst loss. Call those a wash if you want, but we lost to the team that had the worst. By a country mile.

I think the bottom line is that everyone is so in love with 45-35 that we can't objectively see the trajectory of the Big XII and we ignore things like Oklahoma State, who was one of the best teams in the country and we needed a tough defensive stand to beat at home while OU and Tech rolled them. And saying the "best win" only counts for one factor when it was multiples of factors better than anyone else's "best win."

 

[Duck Dodgers]

It was simply a matter of who lost last, between Texas and OU, no fancy common opponent discussion needed.

The polls punish a team when it loses, and Texas lost last. If the Tech game had been before OU, and with the same final scores for all the games, Texas would have been ranked higher that OU.

And didn’t everyone’s favorite non-Texas coach, Mike Leech, rank Texas ridiculously low as well?