Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

2008 wasn't bad luck for Texas

Texas got screwed

2008 wasn't bad luck for Texas

Texas got screwed

By their own conference's tiebreakers, as I remember it. Wasn't the final tiebreaker BCS standings, and Texas was behind Oklahoma?

Disagree. The 2008 season, Texas didn't get the opportunity to represent their division in the CCG due to tiebreakers defined by your own conference. Are you saying Texas at 11-1 should have been selected over 12-1 Oklahoma, that despite losing H2H to Texas won the conference? Maybe you can argue that your division tiebreakers were bad, and that Texas should have had the opportunity to play in the CCG, but it was dumb luck that they didn't. And I don't think you can easily argue that 11-1 Texas that didn't win their conference should have been selected over 12-1 Florida who won the SEC, right?

Then in 2004, again your own conference mate was 12-0 and beat you. USC was 12-0. It wasn't a matter of a mulligan. It was a matter of there being two undefeated teams ahead of you.

In my 8-team system, it's likely that both of those Texas teams would get an opportunity as at-large. But in neither of those seasons did Texas have a very strong argument for inclusion despite that they'd potentially be deserving with that resume in other seasons.

Well, yes.  I'm comparing Texas teams that were left out by their current system at the time, to tOSU and Alabama teams that get mulligans based on more recent systems.  It's not going to be apples/apples.

So no, I disagree with you, and I'll keep to my lane.  Feel free to swim in yours.

The worst part is the dumbasses that said, "well, you should have just won all your games."  Well, Oklahoma didn't win all of its games.  Florida didn't win all of its games.  So that's just a completely stupid thing to say, stated by very stupid people.

Exactly. In 2004, that might be a valid complaint. In 2004, Oklahoma won all their games, as did USC, and those two played for the national championship.

Auburn is the one who got screwed that year. (Along with Utah and Boise State, but nobody cared.)

By their own conference's tiebreakers, as I remember it. Wasn't the final tiebreaker BCS standings, and Texas was behind Oklahoma?

Just because it's a conference rule doesn't mean it's not a bad luck, especially if it's stupid and completely correctable rule.

The absolute tiebreaker was BCS ranking, yes.  But at the time, the SEC and ACC both used a rule where BCS ranking was used to eliminate the bottom team of a 3-way tie, and after that it reverted to head-to-head.  

The weird thing was, Texas was the only team of the three tied teams, that hadn't played either opponent as a home game.  Texas beat OU by 2 scores on a neutral field and lost an away game to Tech by one score, and OU lost to Texas on the neutral site by 2 scores but blew out Tech at home, and Tech of course beat Texas at home by one score but lost by numerous scores to OU in Norman.  So Texas had no home games, and both Tech and OU had one home game.  

The voters and BCS ranking had Tech well below Texas and OU, so if you eliminated them, and reverted to head-to-head, then Texas' 2-score win over OU would have carried the day.  Alas, the B12 had stupid rules.  

That was a deserving Texas team that got bad-lucked out of a shot, which was my point, and in light of the half-dozen mulligans Alabama has gotten in the past decade, I'm gonna go ahead and continue thinking it's a hard luck deal.

That was a deserving Texas team that got bad-lucked out of a shot, which was my point, and in light of the half-dozen mulligans Alabama has gotten in the past decade, I'm gonna go ahead and continue thinking it's a hard luck deal.

But the point is that Texas' problem was due to your own conference. The BCS didn't demand how each individual conference determined its CCG participants. The B12 decided that. They just decided it badly.

So your ire isn't based on your team having a mulligan or not. It's not based on the BCS system at all. It's based on your own conference's tiebreaker rules.

Maybe those rules were good, maybe they were bad. But they weren't BCS rules.

I'm not talking about the BCS--specifically-- at all.  I'm talking about circumstances.

You're not following me, that's fine.  Doesn't change what happened or my feelings about it.

Feel free to continue kicking the shit out of this horse carcass though!

Well... It could be worse...

You could be consigned to the 7th circle of hell... I.e. being a Purdue fan.