College Football 2008-09

[lockmat]

I'm just saying. Do you honestly believe that UT would beat any of these other 3 teams tomorrow in Miami? I don't.

Yes, why not? They already beat OU. I don't see why they couldn't beat the rest either. But it would be a toss up for any of those games.

[N Judah]

it will be extremely hard for any school but Stanford to ever win the Directors Cup because so much of the points are based on spare sports that most schools offer very few if any of and even if some school like UT wanted to offer all of those sports it would be very hard because of lack of location to play the sport and a lack of high school participation in those sports that will feed a university even if that university can pull in nation wide

Yes, it is definitely to UT's detriment that they do not even attempt to compete in sports they do not think they will be successful in. But how this translates into "the most successful college athletics program of all time" is mystifying to me, to say the least.

Funny thing is, there are hundreds of schools that offer "spare sports" (huh?) that aparently nobody competes in. The difference being, Stanford doesn't spend hundreds of millions of dollars on luxury suites for football or $900,000 for a defensive coordinator. Instead, they spend that money on offering student athletes multiple options at participation.

Ironically Stanford recently demolished their football stadium to make it about half of its former size.

The difference between Texas/Ohio State/Florida/USC/Alabama and Yale/DePauw/Vassar/Grinnell/Emory is that athletics in the first group is about maximizing profit potential and athletics in the second group is about offering students the opportunity to continue to pursue their interests.

Yes, according to the article it's all about revenue production. UCLA, to provide a counterexample, is a public school that consistently makes a strong showing in the Director's Cup.

Edited December 2, 2008 by N Judah

[KinkaidAlum]

The University of Texas has the SECOND LARGEST ENDOWMENT in the nation. It can afford whatever it wants to. To act as if the reason UT doesn't field men's soccer or women's gymnastics is because 1) they can't afford it or 2) there isn't interest in Texas in these sports is a blatant lie. To act as if public schools can't offer more sports is also a mistruth. Here are a few that offer more varsity level scholarship sports than UT;

UCLA, Cal, Washington, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, Virginia, Iowa, Michigan, Indiana, Ohio State, Penn State, Nebraska, Delaware, Vermont, Massachusetts, William and Mary, South Carolina, SUNY Binghamton, and Rutgers.

[N Judah]

Well all the BCS bowls pay out $17.5 million/team so I guess I don't see what the big deal is

Edited December 2, 2008 by N Judah

[ProHouston]

Yes, why not? They already beat OU. I don't see why they couldn't beat the rest either. But it would be a toss up for any of those games.

Because they beat OU 2 months ago and we all have seen what OU has been doing to opponents since then. OU is a much better team today and 2 months ago. Think of it this way, UT put up 49 on the Ags in Austin, not bad. But OU put up over 60, 4 times in a row, on highly ranked teams. and they did it against OSU on the road. UT can't do the same.

[swtsig]

THIS is what I wanted to see! UT fans crying that "it isn't fair". UT has gotten all the breaks historically, from bad calls mysteriously going in their direction, to their powerful AD making the rules, yet when they lose by the rules THEY created, they cry like infants. The best part is that probably none of the complainers even WENT to UT! One poster appears to have SWT in his name.

I agree that UT didn't add cheap style points at the end of their games. They were getting stomped by Texas Tech (remember them?) until Tech's premature celebration allowed UT back in the game. They needed luck to keep from losing to OSU at home. In fact, their attempt at "style points" against OSU got stuffed on a busted play, proving UT's inability to even score style points.

If you look at the voting in the human polls, the coaches and sportswriters even tried to give it to UT anyway. OU and Florida lost points in the latest poll, while UT gained points. Only the computers were not listening to Mack Brown's whining on national TV. That is where UT lost. And, why do you guys keep leaving Tech out of your discussion? Tech beat UT, remember? You keep calling it a head to head issue, but the Raiders made it a 3 way tie. As long as you keep ignoring the team that beat you, your arguments lack substance.

Keep whining, it is great entertainment!

UT is not even the best team in Texas. They have no clain to being in any championship when they are in 2nd place in their own state.

good thing you don't come off as incredibley bitter and jealous...

if you don't think Texas has a legitimate gripe, it's only because you're blinded by your own hatred... that much is clear.

[cnote]

Because they beat OU 2 months ago and we all have seen what OU has been doing to opponents since then. OU is a much better team today and 2 months ago. Think of it this way, UT put up 49 on the Ags in Austin, not bad. But OU put up over 60, 4 times in a row, on highly ranked teams. and they did it against OSU on the road. UT can't do the same.

Nothing has changed for OU over the past two months...except that they lost their starting middle linbacker and his backup...

Big offensive numbers mean squat when you have a terrible defense. I love people who make arguments based on 1/3 phases of a football game...UT would beat OU again just like we did in October, and there is nothing you can say to change that.

[lockmat]

Because they beat OU 2 months ago and we all have seen what OU has been doing to opponents since then. OU is a much better team today and 2 months ago. Think of it this way, UT put up 49 on the Ags in Austin, not bad. But OU put up over 60, 4 times in a row, on highly ranked teams. and they did it against OSU on the road. UT can't do the same.

OU scored 50+ points three times and 49 points once before they played UT. Then they scored 35 points against Texas.

Plus, I'd like to see at what point in each game each team took their starters out. I'd be willing to bet that UT pulled their starters much sooner that OU on a regular basis. Texas could have easily scored 50 or 60+ had they done the same.

And don't forget. A couple of years ago USC was declared the "greatest team ever" before they lost. And remember the Patriots losing in the super bowl?

As the saying goes..."That's why they play the games."

[Deut28Thirteen]

It should be a Big 12 showdown for title game. The SEC was highly overated, the BCS computers know it, but human polls still dont. Florida has beat nobody except overated SEC teams that proved to be overated like LSU and more. The only team that is still in the top 25 they played was Georgia who has wins over no ranked teams as of now. And the Bulldogs just lost to an ACC team that wont be playing for the ACC title game! Florida is a very good team and is why I think they will beat Bama. But the title game is not for teams who lost early it is what they did all season long. I dont think Florida has the body of work Texas has, and have a much worse lost at home. The voters might put them in the tilte game but the computers might slide Texas up to that number two spot if Bama lose. If you want to look at Texas and Florida side by side how could you put them over Texas? They both will have wins over number one ranked teams but only Texas will have another win with a team still in the top ten of the BCS rankings, and more wins over all with teams in the top 25 still. Anyways who would not want to see to rivals go at it for the Title game? That would be fun to watch(only if UT wins though)!

[KinkaidAlum]

Bored at work so here are a few more public colleges that offer more athletics than UT;

SUNY Stony Brook, SUNY Brokcport, SUNY Oswego, SUNY Cortland, SUNY Oneonta, Cal Santa Barbara, Cal San Diego, Cal Davis, Cal Irvine, Arizona State, Oklahoma, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Purdue, Michigan State, Kentucky, Louisville, Auburn, NC State, Virginia Tech, and Appalachian State.

[cnote]

Bored at work so here are a few more public colleges that offer more athletics than UT;

SUNY Stony Brook, SUNY Brokcport, SUNY Oswego, SUNY Cortland, SUNY Oneonta, Cal Santa Barbara, Cal San Diego, Cal Davis, Cal Irvine, Arizona State, Oklahoma, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Purdue, Michigan State, Kentucky, Louisville, Auburn, NC State, Virginia Tech, and Appalachian State.

Is this a thread about college football??? I think UT would beat all these teams....

Who cares how many sports they offer, anyway? Shouldn't it be more about the quality of the programs they DO offer?

[KinkaidAlum]

It should be a Big 12 showdown for title game. The SEC was highly overated, the BCS computers know it, but human polls still dont. Florida has beat nobody except overated SEC teams that proved to be overated like LSU and more. The only team that is still in the top 25 they played was Georgia who has wins over no ranked teams as of now. And the Bulldogs just lost to an ACC team that wont be playing for the ACC title game! Florida is a very good team and is why I think they will beat Bama. But the title game is not for teams who lost early it is what they did all season long. I dont think Florida has the body of work Texas has, and have a much worse lost at home. The voters might put them in the tilte game but the computers might slide Texas up to that number two spot if Bama lose. If you want to look at Texas and Florida side by side how could you put them over Texas? They both will have wins over number one ranked teams but only Texas will have another win with a team still in the top ten of the BCS rankings, and more wins over all with teams in the top 25 still. Anyways who would not want to see to rivals go at it for the Title game? That would be fun to watch(only if UT wins though)!

This is a TERRIBLE idea. How do we know how good the Big 12 is? The collective out of conference schedule for Big 12 teams was pitiful. Very few road games were played and the majority of those ended up in losses for the Big 12 schools. Very few games were played against ranked teams and the majority of those ended up in losses for the Big 12 schools.

The Big 12 was a terrible 2-7 against other BCS members in out of conference games who are bowl eligible. Of those 9 games, only 3 were true road games.

In fact, that means the Big 12 ties with the Big 10 for the worst winning % in such games. Here's how the 6 BCS conferences rank in those games;

11-8 ACC

5-6 Big East

4-7 SEC

3-7 Pac Ten

2-7 Big Ten and Big 12

[cnote]

This is a TERRIBLE idea. How do we know how good the Big 12 is? The collective out of conference schedule for Big 12 teams was pitiful. Very few road games were played and the majority of those ended up in losses for the Big 12 schools. Very few games were played against ranked teams and the majority of those ended up in losses for the Big 12 schools.

The Big 12 was a terrible 2-7 against other BCS members in out of conference games who are bowl eligible. Of those 9 games, only 3 were true road games.

In fact, that means the Big 12 ties with the Big 10 for the worst winning % in such games. Here's how the 6 BCS conferences rank in those games;

11-8 ACC

5-6 Big East

4-7 SEC

3-7 Pac Ten

2-7 Big Ten and Big 12

Awesome analysis!!! Lets have BC play Cincy for all the marbles in Miami!!!!!

You fail to account for the fact that most schools like to schedule easy non-conference opponents. Also, Bowl eligibility is not the marker of a quality team exactly because of the differences in quality of the conferences. 6-6 in the Big East is not the same as that mark in the Big 12 or SEC.

The Big 12 powers played few OOC games against other BCS schools who turned out to be bowl eligible...but that is not a marker of the quality of their teams.

[TexasVines]

The University of Texas has the SECOND LARGEST ENDOWMENT in the nation. It can afford whatever it wants to. To act as if the reason UT doesn't field men's soccer or women's gymnastics is because 1) they can't afford it or 2) there isn't interest in Texas in these sports is a blatant lie. To act as if public schools can't offer more sports is also a mistruth. Here are a few that offer more varsity level scholarship sports than UT;

UCLA, Cal, Washington, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, Virginia, Iowa, Michigan, Indiana, Ohio State, Penn State, Nebraska, Delaware, Vermont, Massachusetts, William and Mary, South Carolina, SUNY Binghamton, and Rutgers.

first a large majority of that endowment is still STATE money that is wisely locked away from the hands of state legislators so they can't pick at it and cut funding further

second on a per student basis Texas and TAMU (the two "tier one" schools in Texas) are still funded well below other peer schools in the USA....even public ones so it is not like that endowment means Texas has endless money to spend on anything

third Texas has a much lower tuition than other state peer schools in the USA and is still under the gun for raising tuition as much as it has so again it is not like they can just add on an athletics charge and start funding up every sport out there

fourth Texas has shown well in the directors cup almost every year and it is only because Texas limits the total number of sports that Texas can't get to number 1 (along with just about every other school).....if there was a weighted average for revenue sports or sports that the majority of schools participate in then Texas would have won the directors cup many times

of the list you showed Neb offers wrestling, bowling, and rifle that UT does not.....I think UT can live without those

Cal is sports that have little history in Texas....and I imagine it is the same with all the others.....offering sports that lose money and cost a great deal to fund because you need to travle a long ways to find competition is not in the best interest of UT or UT students or the State of Texas.....rowing, lacrosse, wrestling, field hockey, rugby, ice hockey, mens volleyball, water ballet, water polo, syncronized swimming, and on and on have very little if any high school interest or participation in Texas.....and Texas as a university and a state does not need these sports at UT to draw in more students (most of which will be out of state) or to sell the school around the USA

while I have no issue with Stanford and am happy for their athletics offerings, giving them a big national award every year when they surely lose money on athletics, don't compete well in most of the popular sports that generate revenue and or come close to breaking even, and they offer a ton of sports that could not be offered in many areas like sailing and rowing (and even if they were offered the teams would not do well because of lack of interest in local high schools) hardly makes me look at them as a model for what UT or any public school should do or any school in an area and a conference like UT is in...and it hardly makes me think they are the "best run or the best athletic program" out there

[20thStDad]

This is a TERRIBLE idea. How do we know how good the Big 12 is? The collective out of conference schedule for Big 12 teams was pitiful. Very few road games were played and the majority of those ended up in losses for the Big 12 schools. Very few games were played against ranked teams and the majority of those ended up in losses for the Big 12 schools.

The Big 12 was a terrible 2-7 against other BCS members in out of conference games who are bowl eligible. Of those 9 games, only 3 were true road games.

In fact, that means the Big 12 ties with the Big 10 for the worst winning % in such games. Here's how the 6 BCS conferences rank in those games;

11-8 ACC

5-6 Big East

4-7 SEC

3-7 Pac Ten

2-7 Big Ten and Big 12

This is a point you should all pay attention to. Although I do think the Big 12 is slightly better than other conferences this year, it has made itself look that good by playing....the other big 12 teams. And very few quality out-of-conference BCS opponents. So you really don't know one way or the other.

The SEC all beat each other, that's what brought their records down and let there end up with few ranked teams, but it's not what makes them mediocre this year. It's losing to PAC 10 and ACC teams in their rivalry games that makes them a mediocre conference this year. Inbreeding never gets you the best outcome, you have to branch out for real comparisons.

Florida vs OU!!!!!!!

[lockmat]

From si.com's power rankings:

I've got nothing left to add about the Texas-Oklahoma fiasco. ... OK, one more thing. We all know "defense wins championships." Texas currently ranks 21st in scoring defense, Oklahoma ... 60th. Just thought you should know.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writ...ngs1/index.html

[RedScare]

good thing you don't come off as incredibley bitter and jealous...

if you don't think Texas has a legitimate gripe, it's only because you're blinded by your own hatred... that much is clear.

Oh, yes, I am so bitter and jealous, because my life revolves around college football. Who is the t-shirt fan here?

The only college games I have attended in the last 15 years were actually Rice and UH games. Trust me, I rag Aggies as well.

I do think Texas has a legitimate gripe. The problem arises when I point out that OU and Tech ALSO have legitimate gripes. A 8 or 16 team playoff is needed to settle this stuff fair and square. But, until the big money schools allow it, we're stuck with this crap.

FWIW, I went to a high school in North Carolina that was in UT's shoes...we were nicknamed 'Society Hill' for our perceived aloofness and getting all the breaks. My last year there, we ended in a 3 way tie in district. Because we knew we would get ganged upon by the "lesser" schools if we had a district vote for the 2 playoff spots, we pushed for a coin flip. Guess what. We lost the flip and stayed home anyway. Back then, we took our medicine without complaint. The "It isn't fair" phenomenon is a fairly recent development in America, and I call it when I see it. Frankly, UT was one of the prime movers of this system, being one of the most powerful programs, and should be the last to complain. But, here you are complaining anyway. I say, tell it to Deloss Dodds. He can get it changed.

[RedScare]

This is a TERRIBLE idea. How do we know how good the Big 12 is? The collective out of conference schedule for Big 12 teams was pitiful. Very few road games were played and the majority of those ended up in losses for the Big 12 schools. Very few games were played against ranked teams and the majority of those ended up in losses for the Big 12 schools.

The Big 12 was a terrible 2-7 against other BCS members in out of conference games who are bowl eligible. Of those 9 games, only 3 were true road games.

In fact, that means the Big 12 ties with the Big 10 for the worst winning % in such games. Here's how the 6 BCS conferences rank in those games;

11-8 ACC

5-6 Big East

4-7 SEC

3-7 Pac Ten

2-7 Big Ten and Big 12

Here's one way we know.

Football RPI

Here's a conference version...

Conference RPI

Not the end of the debate, but it is more involved than your attempt.

[ProHouston]

Nothing has changed for OU over the past two months...

Really...? Texas lost a game in that time and OU has gone on to whoop up on all of its opponents.

Big offensive numbers mean squat when you have a terrible defense. I love people who make arguments based on 1/3 phases of a football game...UT would beat OU again just like we did in October, and there is nothing you can say to change that.

There's "nothing" I can say to change your opinion? You're right, but keep in mind that your opinion isn't fact regardless of how much you believe it. You're not an objective party here. "My" opinion is still that Texas is #4, at best. Therefore they didn't deserve to be in the Big 12 Championship nor the National Championship. No, I can't prove who is better today any better than you can, only a playoff would do that. However, all the Big 12 schools agreed to follow the Big 12 tie breaking rules. That means mack too.

[TJones]

You talk about a deflator. The whole town up here has a black cloud over it. I could care less, although I like UT. The point spread though, shows that if just one guy, ONE coach had pushed a different button, UT would be in. Guess Mack should have kept his mouth instead of trying to plead his case about the BCS and agreeing with Obama about a playoff system. I blame Obama mostly for this (sniff) tragedy (sniffle).

Edited December 2, 2008 by TJones

[N Judah]

hardly makes me look at them as a model for what UT or any public school should do or any school in an area and a conference like UT is in...and it hardly makes me think they are the "best run or the best athletic program" out there

I don't think you understand...the quibble was with Texas Monthly's declaration of UT as "the most successful college athletics program of all time" when it is not even the best at the one sport it does happen to pour money into. (Although it is still possible that they play in the championship game, so who knows.)

And anyway, sports should be "revenue producing" the same way academics should be "revenue producing" -- which is to say: not at all.

Edited December 3, 2008 by N Judah

[sifuwong]

I just wanna see an SEC vs Big 12 for all the marbles! It would be funny if USC somehow got to play for the national title and wins.

[KinkaidAlum]

Here's one way we know.

Football RPI

Here's a conference version...

Conference RPI

Not the end of the debate, but it is more involved than your attempt.

That link doesn't erase my doubts or invalidate my question about the Big 12. In fact, it kind of proves my point. What do we really know about the top 3 teams in the Big 12 South other than they each went 1-1 versus each other?

The ONLY team that was tested in out of conference games out of the three was Oklahoma. They hosted #12 TCU and #14 Cincinnati. They deserve credit for playing those two but both games were in Norman and neither TCU nor Cincy will ever be confused for a traditional football power.

Do we really know anything about Tech? Did their wins over Eastern Washington and UMass prove anything? Their best win was against a very mediocre team from the WAC, Nevada. Their 4th OOC win was against SMU, a team that couldn't win a game in the C-USA!

And then there's Texas. They hosted Florida Atlantic, Rice, and Arkansas and traveled to UTEP. The average RPI of those teams according to your first link is #69.

Going further, only OU proved it could win on the road (true road game) versus a team that is currently ranked. Texas failed in its lone attempt (at Tech) and we all know that Tech got creamed by OU in its one attempt.

Heck, even lowly Boise State managed to notch an impressive road win (beating #14 Oregon at Autzen). Why aren't we talking about Boise getting potentially screwed? They have ZERO losses. They have a top 15 road win. They won SIX road games. They won in their last BCS test (versus OU).

[ProHouston]

Heck, even lowly Boise State managed to notch an impressive road win (beating #14 Oregon at Autzen). Why aren't we talking about Boise getting potentially screwed? They have ZERO losses. They have a top 15 road win. They won SIX road games. They won in their last BCS test (versus OU).

Because they don't have the whining down yet. They can only hope to one day be as entitled as UT.

[cnote]

Really...? Texas lost a game in that time and OU has gone on to whoop up on all of its opponents.

There's "nothing" I can say to change your opinion? You're right, but keep in mind that your opinion isn't fact regardless of how much you believe it. You're not an objective party here. "My" opinion is still that Texas is #4, at best. Therefore they didn't deserve to be in the Big 12 Championship nor the National Championship. No, I can't prove who is better today any better than you can, only a playoff would do that. However, all the Big 12 schools agreed to follow the Big 12 tie breaking rules. That means mack too.

Who said nothing changed for Texas? OU is still the same team, great offense, crappy defense...How many championships have been won by teams with that formula? What is this "playoff" you speak of? Would you have the two teams compete on some neutral field to see who is really better head to head? Oh wait....that already happened, Texas 45, BlowU 35...the same number of points OU has put up on the two quality defenses they have faced this year.

[cnote]

That link doesn't erase my doubts or invalidate my question about the Big 12. In fact, it kind of proves my point. What do we really know about the top 3 teams in the Big 12 South other than they each went 1-1 versus each other?

The ONLY team that was tested in out of conference games out of the three was Oklahoma. They hosted #12 TCU and #14 Cincinnati. They deserve credit for playing those two but both games were in Norman and neither TCU nor Cincy will ever be confused for a traditional football power.

Do we really know anything about Tech? Did their wins over Eastern Washington and UMass prove anything? Their best win was against a very mediocre team from the WAC, Nevada. Their 4th OOC win was against SMU, a team that couldn't win a game in the C-USA!

And then there's Texas. They hosted Florida Atlantic, Rice, and Arkansas and traveled to UTEP. The average RPI of those teams according to your first link is #69.

Going further, only OU proved it could win on the road (true road game) versus a team that is currently ranked. Texas failed in its lone attempt (at Tech) and we all know that Tech got creamed by OU in its one attempt.

Heck, even lowly Boise State managed to notch an impressive road win (beating #14 Oregon at Autzen). Why aren't we talking about Boise getting potentially screwed? They have ZERO losses. They have a top 15 road win. They won SIX road games. They won in their last BCS test (versus OU).

Boise State may have a legitimate beef with the BCS, but there is a reason they aren't ranked higher...they play a few games against BCS schools and then play a bunch of conference games against sad opponents...many of the teams ranked ahead of them played BCS schools week in and week out (many of whom were bowl eligible)...there is something to be said for that. And Boise would probably be in if not for Utah, who few could argue has a more impressive resume...

[ProHouston]

OU is still the same team, great offense, crappy defense...

Hmm, against the same opponent OU only gave up 21 to Tech whereas the horns gave up 39, hence the rankings. Texas couldn't beat an overrated Tech team that barely beat Baylor in Lubbock.

Edited December 3, 2008 by ProHouston

[cnote]

Hmm, against the same opponent OU only gave up 21 to Tech whereas the horns gave up 39, hence the rankings. Texas couldn't beat an overrated Tech team that barely beat Baylor in Lubbock.

Why only use Tech? Lets talk about the Texas defense against Kansas, Oklahoma St., and aTm.....how did the OU defense do against those teams?

I ask in jest though, as I know you used Tech because it was the only game you played where your defense was worth a damn, although they did look impressive against Chattanooga....

[ProHouston]

Why only use Tech? Lets talk about the Texas defense against Kansas, Oklahoma St., and aTm.....how did the OU defense do against those teams?

I ask in jest though, as I know you used Tech because it was the only game you played where your defense was worth a damn, although they did look impressive against Chattanooga....

First of all, I'm not a Sooner, only a casual fan, hence my objectivity. Something you aren't. It is kinda fun though reading all your angles that "prove" why UT deserves an invite to a game that they already missed out on. The reason you're not getting the sympathy you desire is because most college football fans are tired of mack and the horns complaints, whines, and excuses when they don't end up #1 in the nation every year. Which has only happened once in recent memory, btw.

[cnote]

First of all, I'm not a Sooner, only a casual fan, hence my objectivity. Something you aren't. It is kinda fun though reading all your angles that "prove" why UT deserves an invite to a game that they already missed out on. The reason you're not getting the sympathy you desire is because most college football fans are tired of mack and the horns complaints, whines, and excuses when they don't end up #1 in the nation every year. Which has only happened once in recent memory, btw.

I may not be objective...but we can find many who are that agree with me...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/01/AR2008120103179.html?hpid=news-col-blog

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/columns/sto...mp;lid=tab1pos1and here