#1 Texas (0-0/0-0) at #3 Ohio State (0-0/0-0) Game thread

[847badgerfan]

He's no good but he's also hard to avoid down here if you pay attention to college football (everyone does).

[Cincydawg]

He's no good but he's also hard to avoid down here if you pay attention to college football (everyone does).

He's an entertainer, evidently a good one.  We get far far far better analysis around here, but most of us here are actual fans of the game.  We don't have patience for entertainers disguised as "pundits".  A lot of entertainers are popular of course that I don't like.

[FearlessF]

I kind of strayed from my question, but what would the ideal conference for Texas be? 

the Southwest conference

[Cincydawg]

I obviously liked it a lot more when there was a Big 8.  Or the SWC.  The Big 8 had some monster teams.  Probably not monster dollars though.

[utee94]

https://twitter.com/TheSG_Podcast/status/1957466678737948754?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1957466678737948754%7Ctwgr%5E50846d4aa1dbbbee6a1c8336f33537832b79f737%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.surlyhorns.com%2Fboard%2Findex.php%3Fapp%3Dcoremodule%3Dsystemcontroller%3Dembedurl%3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2FTheSG_Podcast%2Fstatus%2F1957466678737948754

[utee94]

And that my friends is why Texas and OU to the SEC was never a good idea.

I don't disagree with the basic idea, but it doesn't really matter whether it's a "good idea" or not.  In 2025 the idea of "conference fit" is archaic and anachronistic.

The fact is that the B12's TV contracts just weren't good enough anymore, to keep Texas and OU media money even roughly close to the teams in the B1G and SEC.  There were only two choices available to Texas, and the SEC was the more logical one because of simple geography.

And for the SEC, it was a no-brainer to add two more blue blood brands, especially given the consolidation moves expected from the B1G at the time.  Rutgers and Maryland and USC and UCLA and Washington and Oregon being in the B1G, make even less sense, but it's a new world order we're living with now in college football.

I kind of strayed from my question, but what would the ideal conference for Texas be? 

I agree with FF, the SWC was the ideal conference for Texas to be in.  Short of Supermanning the world backwards 40 years, that's not gonna happen, so the SEC is the logical choice based on regional proximity.

[utee94]

https://twitter.com/CFBONFOX/status/1951778801287057706?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1951778801287057706%7Ctwgr%5Ec815440bac72582fc1f04fcacb77faf3e0bba050%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.surlyhorns.com%2Fboard%2Findex.php%3Fapp%3Dcoremodule%3Dsystemcontroller%3Dembedurl%3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2FCFBONFOX%2Fstatus%2F1951778801287057706

[medinabuckeye1]

https://twitter.com/CFBONFOX/status/1951778801287057706?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1951778801287057706%7Ctwgr%5Ec815440bac72582fc1f04fcacb77faf3e0bba050%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.surlyhorns.com%2Fboard%2Findex.php%3Fapp%3Dcoremodule%3Dsystemcontroller%3Dembedurl%3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2FCFBONFOX%2Fstatus%2F1951778801287057706

It is a big game, but "biggest opener ever"?  I think not.  It just isn't possible for a game to be as big in the 12-team CFP era as some regular season games were back in the BCS and pre-BCS era.  

Look at 2005:
In the pre-bowl poll USC (12-0) was #1, Texas (12-0) was #2, Penn State (10-1) was #3, and Ohio State (9-2) was #4.  If you flip the result of the tOSU/TX game, the Longhorns probably don't go to the BCSNCG.  I don't know how the BCS would have sorted out that mess of TX, PSU, and tOSU all being 1-loss teams with PSU>tOSU>TX but PSU had a "bad" loss to #20 Michigan (7-4).  

In this day and age, the loser still controls their own destiny to the NC so it just isn't as big as it used to be.  

[medinabuckeye1]

As per the game, let's imagine OSU kicks a last second FG and wins 27-24.  What does it mean?  Basically, that the teams were evenly matched, unless the internal stats show one dominated but lost TOs.  So, logically, Texas might drop to #2, but we know they'd drop to 5 or 6, after going on the road and playing "#1" even. 

This has been a pet peeve of mine for years.  This is #1 at #3 so if tOSU wins on a late FG there is an argument that Texas should not only not drop to #5 or #6 but they shouldn't drop at all.  A late FG is within the usual allowance for HFA so you could argue that Texas should stay #1.  They won't and if Ohio State loses a close one at home they'll drop more than they probably should as well.  

[utee94]

It is a big game, but "biggest opener ever"?  I think not.  It just isn't possible for a game to be as big in the 12-team CFP era as some regular season games were back in the BCS and pre-BCS era. 

Look at 2005:
In the pre-bowl poll USC (12-0) was #1, Texas (12-0) was #2, Penn State (10-1) was #3, and Ohio State (9-2) was #4.  If you flip the result of the tOSU/TX game, the Longhorns probably don't go to the BCSNCG.  I don't know how the BCS would have sorted out that mess of TX, PSU, and tOSU all being 1-loss teams with PSU>tOSU>TX but PSU had a "bad" loss to #20 Michigan (7-4). 

In this day and age, the loser still controls their own destiny to the NC so it just isn't as big as it used to be. 

Hey it's not MY conference's network making this claim, it's YOURs.  Take it up with the B1G League Office.

I agree for the most part, but I will point out that it's not very common to see a #1/#2 or #1/#3 matchup in the season opener.  Game2, sure, but the opener is more often a bodybag game.

[Cincydawg]

Just sayin' .....

[medinabuckeye1]

Honest question:

If Ohio State and Texas end up meeting in the CFP, lets say in the CG, would you rather that your team won or lost the season opener?  

[utee94]

Honest question:

If Ohio State and Texas end up meeting in the CFP, lets say in the CG, would you rather that your team won or lost the season opener? 

Win.  Always win.  I don't put much stock in any sort of "revenge factor" motivation.

Plus, haven't you at one time before, posted up stats that show the rematch tends to favor the original winner anyway?  I vaguely recall that from some time in the past.

[Cincydawg]

Teams that play twice in a season more often end up 2-0 than 1-1.  It's science.  Or history.  Or somethin.

Just sayin' ////