<p>USC should jump Texas Tech, for sure. They both have 1 loss and tech's schedule is much weaker than USC's.</p>
<p>I thought it was embarrassing the way Oklahoma tried to run up the score there at the end. Given the way that people dumped on Pete Carroll for "running up the score" against wash & wash. state (even though most starters sat out the second half), there should be at least some criticism of Bob Stoops.</p>
<p>Let's go for hoping Oklahoma loses to Oklahoma St. :)</p>
<p>^ If you've watched the Big 12 for very long, you know that Stoops ALWAYS does that. Always. Especially when BCS "style points" count in a tiebreaker with Texas.</p>
<p>
[quote]
USC should jump Texas Tech, for sure. They both have 1 loss and tech's schedule is much weaker than USC's.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'm not doubting you, but really? What good teams did USC play? Tech has had to play UT, OU, and OSU (ranked 1, 5, 12 respectively), and lost to the #5 team. USC lost to some relatively terrible team and has been blowing out pretty bad teams since. I think USC is the better team, but I don't know how you could justify ranking them higher based on SOS. You could base an argument for margin of victory though I guess. </p>
<p>The way OU did run up the score was pretty merciless, I'll give you that. Hopefully, TTU drops another one, so UT can get back to the national championship!</p>
<p>You have to look at schedule strength top-to-bottom. People bust USC's chops for always "losing to the team they shouldn't", dropping games against middling unranked teams - but you can't lose those games if you don't schedule em!</p>
<p>Instead TX Tech schedules their games against FCS Eastern Washington, Nevada, SMU(1-10, with the lone win against FCS) and FCS UMass. Then even when you get to conference play, they only have 4 middling teams (KState, Nebraska, Texas A&M, Kansas) before their "tough schedule" begins.</p>
<p>In contrast you have USC, who plays all 9 other teams in the Pac-10, 7 of which are at least "middling" or better, plus a "middling" team in Virginia, plus one bowl-eligible suckfest in Notre Dame. </p>
<p>Yeah, Texas Tech's schedule weighs a bit at the top(two top-10 games vs. USC's one) but that doesn't make up for their 3 FCS-caliber teams.</p>
<p>Has Baylor played well against Tech in the past?</p>
<p>Who do y'all think has the edge so far, TX or OU?</p>
<p>I am rooting against oregon state so northwestern can go to a bowl game in florida. i don't want to go to the crappy san antonio!</p>
<p>Texas Tech is 6-0 in the past six against Baylor, usually blowouts (closest margin of victory, 42-17 in 2004)</p>
<p>If you're talking about which team is better, I'd take Oklahoma over Texas (despite the result of the head-to-head matchup) because their defense is better.</p>
<p>If you're talking about who'll probably get the nod, it would be Texas (because of the head to head matchup). Texas Tech was embarrassed so bad that no one will vote them on top of the 3-way tie, so it'll be de-facto between Texas and Oklahoma and Texas will break that tie-breaker. Plus, Texas is already ranked higher than Oklahoma and the inertia will carry them.</p>
<p>
[quote]
but you can't lose those games if you don't schedule em!
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Lost an in-conference game. You HAVE to schedule them!</p>
<p>
[quote]
I'm not doubting you, but really? What good teams did USC play? Tech has had to play UT, OU, and OSU (ranked 1, 5, 12 respectively), and lost to the #5 team. USC lost to some relatively terrible team and has been blowing out pretty bad teams since. I think USC is the better team, but I don't know how you could justify ranking them higher based on SOS. You could base an argument for margin of victory though I guess.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>USC beat the now #10 ranked team. USC lost on the road to the now #17 ranked team (whose losses include the numbers 6 and 7 teams). They aren't terrible. Florida lost at home to the now #25 team. I will agree, Texas is a very good team who has beaten another very good team in OK. However, they played Florida Atlantic, UTEP, Arkansas and Rice OOC. This is where conferences like the Pac-10 get screwed. Every Pac-10 school schedules aggressively OOC, and thus will lose some. By the time conference play rolls around, there are fewer ranked teams. Imagine if UW hadn't scheduled BYU, ND or Oklahoma, and instead teams like Montana State, South Dakota State and San Diego State. They would likely have won 3 games going into conference play and may have even been ranked. </p>
<p>Now, do I think USC is better than Texas, Florida, OK or Alabama? Frankly, I don't know. Do I think if they played any of those teams in the NCG they would win, probably. This is why a playoff is needed, because scheduling is not equal.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Lost an in-conference game. You HAVE to schedule them!
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Not my problem. Texas Tech has to play one less conference game per year than USC (aside the big-12 championship), and they chose to play an FCS school instead of a BCS school like USC had to play. That's fine, but then you're not going to win any arguments on head-to-head schedule strength.</p>
<p>As bad as Washington and Washington State are, USC playing them is not remotely like playing 2 FCS teams. FCS teams are by design handicapped. It's not even a fair game.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Not my problem. Texas Tech has to play one less conference game per year than USC (aside the big-12 championship), and they chose to play an FCS school instead of a BCS school like USC had to play. That's fine, but then you're not going to win any arguments on head-to-head schedule strength.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'm not arguing that Tech's OOC schedule was weak; it definitely was. But, USC has to schedule better teams OOC because they are forced to play cupcakes in conference. TTU has a much tougher conference schedule, so it gives them leeway OOC. The reason they fell so far was because OU raped them. If the score was 24-23, I highly doubt that USC would be #5 right now. It's all really moot anyways, since USC is playing Penn State in the Rose Bowl.</p>
<p>
[quote]
USC has to schedule better teams OOC because they are forced to play cupcakes in conference.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Like who? Who is a "better team"? USC plays roundtable, meaning they only get three OOC games a season. Notre Dame is a traditional rivalry, so that actually whittles it down to TWO open weeks a season. This year, those two spots were taken by Ohio State (currently #10, and a team that went to the NC Title game two years in a row) and Virginia (who last year was a bowl-eligible team). In the past years, USC has played (and beaten) SEC teams like Arkansas and Auburn (when these teams were considered quite good). At least these are all Division-1 schools.</p>
<p>So, what "better teams" should USC schedule? It goes both ways, you know. USC can't demand to play Oklahoma or Florida. After all, they're busy filling their schedules with playing the Citadel and UT Chattanooga. </p>
<p>There are faults with USC, but based on the past few years, one of them is NOT weak OOC scheduling.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It's all really moot anyways, since USC is playing Penn State in the Rose Bowl.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>They've been saying that the past month but Oregon State keeps winning. We'll see how it turns out, but there's a huge chance the Trojans play in another BCS bowl. There's even an outside chance that they can still play in the National Championship.</p>
<p>I'd say a WAAAAAAY outside chance that USC could play in the national championship. </p>
<p>All this discussion illustrates why there should be a playoff system. There's really no way to tell which team is better RIGHT NOW, at the end of the regular season, without a playoff. Poll positions are based on conjecture which is based on reputation and perceived strength of schedule. Who's really to say if USC's defense is that great RIGHT NOW after playing some pretty awful in conference games? Who's to say if Florida's speed and intensity will match up well to Oklahoma's? </p>
<p>But, if the chips fall where it looks like the will, it will be Oklahoma vrs. Florida in Miami, which stacks up to be an amazing game! (although I would have thought the Oklahoma TTU game would have been amazing as well - HOMEFIELD helps - OU 60-2 in Norman is a statistic that is pretty hard to refute)</p>
<p>
[quote]
Like who? Who is a "better team"?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think what they're trying to say is USC can't schedule Podunk University of Nobody like other conferences can because the Pac-10 has a couple of those teams already in the league that they HAVE to play.</p>
<p>
[quote]
You make a good point about the Big-10's record vs. the SEC not being so bad, but it's hard to argue with USC's record towards the Big-10, not with solid or even blowout wins against:</p>
<p>Iowa (38-17) in 2003
Michigan (28-14) in 2004
Michigan (32-18) in 2007
Illinois (49-17) in 2008
Ohio State (35-3) in 2008
[/quote]
</p>
<p>True, but in a no. of those years, USC (the no.1 Pac10) school has played the no.2 B10 school (plus, the Rose Bowl is a home game for USC; even ND nearly beat USC a few years ago when USC had to travel East).</p>
<p>But nonetheless, USC's bowl record has been impressive (notwithstanding all the 5* recruits) - and aside from the loss to VYoung's Texas squad, USC has had their way w/ the Big12, SEC, etc. as well.</p>
<p>TT is overrated - very good O, mediocre D which equals not an elite team (same as Mizzou last season).</p>
<p>
[quote]
PSU should have beaten Iowa, and on any other Saturday the outcome would probably be such.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Unfortunately for PSU, they played their worst game at Kinnick.</p>
<p>But then again, Iowa was always a dangerous team - very good O and D lines and a great RB.</p>
<p>Once Iowa settled their QB position (the weakness of Iowa was their passing game), Iowa became a significantly better team (all of their losses could have easily been wins).</p>
<p>Iowa is going to be tough to beat in their bowl game. MSU, otoh, is going to get beaten by about 2 TDs (right now, Iowa would beat MSU 7 out of 10 times).</p>
<p>This is a pointless discussion. It'll be Alabama vs. Texas unless something really screwy happens this week.</p>
<p>
[quote]
True, but in a no. of those years, USC (the no.1 Pac10) school has played the no.2 B10 school (plus, the Rose Bowl is a home game for USC; even ND nearly beat USC a few years ago when USC had to travel East).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, if we're going to nitpick, USC would probably not have struggled so much if ND had not played that game dirty.</p>
<p>Plus, even if you only look at the years USC played the "true" big-10 champ (Michigan) or on a true neutral field (Iowa), it's not like it looks any better for the big 10.</p>
<p>
[quote]
TT is overrated - very good O, mediocre D which equals not an elite team (same as Mizzou last season).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Actually, one thing I got out of the TT-Oklahoma game was that Texas Tech's gimmicky offense peaked and isn't really as good as people thought - they just look good because they beat up on the BCS's worse pass defenses (much like most of the big 12)</p>
<p>In fact, looking back at Texas-Texas Tech, it just shows how horrible Texas's pass defense is. The <em>major</em> reason Texas beat Oklahoma is their run defense held DeMarco Murray in check.</p>
<p>
[quote]
This is a pointless discussion. It'll be Alabama vs. Texas unless something really screwy happens this week.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Actually, if would be the opposite if nothing screwy happens. Texas and Oklahoma are a hair apart in the BCS, but Oklahoma leads both human polls. Oklahoma gets to take on a top-15 team and Texas gets a 4-7 team; if both win as favored, Oklahoma will move up in the computer polls, and not fall in the human polls</p>
<p>I think Texas has a pretty low chance of making it to the championship game.
That's just because of the crappy system in place. 2/3rds of the poll is biased.</p>
<p>Oklahoma goes even if we beat them. Yet if OSU beats Oklahoma, Texas Tech goes, because they beat us head-to-head.
Why can't we go if we beat Oklahoma head-to-head(on a 'neutral' field!)?</p>
<p>PS. Who wouldn't want to see an OU vs. USC game? We already had Texas play USC in 2006.</p>
<p>@ austin, well, as of now, you're completely wrong. Texas is currently ranked #2 in the BCS polls, ahead of OU. Now, they are all the way down to #4 in the Coaches' and AP polls, but that doesn't matter when averaged out with Texas' overwhelming lead over OU in the computer rankings. So, unless Texas loses to A&M, they'll stay at #2, go to the Big 12 championship game, beat Missouri, and play Alabama or Florida for the title :)</p>
<p>
[quote]
PS. Who wouldn't want to see an OU vs. USC game? We already had Texas play USC in 2006.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'd really like to see OU vs. USC, or Texas vs. USC. Yes, Texas played USC in 2006 - but Oklahoma also played USC in 2005.</p>
<p>Plus, Texas doesn't have Vince Young this time around :)</p>