Posts
So was the Big 12 really that good this season?
I mean if you are going to argue that the Big 10 was worse than originally thought because they haven't won their bowl games than you have to hold the Big 12 to the same standards.
I have said a similar thing before on this site.
Now let's look at the conference and examine their results.
Missouri....They won which is good but shouldn't they have destroyed a supposedly "bad" Big 10 team? I mean Northwestern wasn't that good this season. They only got to the bowl game based on beating lesser teams (much like Missouri) and then they took the mighty Tigers to overtime.
Oklahoma State....They played a much better team than Missouri and lost by 11 in what was a very good game. BUT if the Big 12 was AS GOOD as everyone says they are shouldn't they have won this game. Here was a team that allowed only 123 yards per game on the ground and they gave up over 300 to Oregon.
Kansas....They were the worst Big 12 team in a bowl and they did what they were supposed to by defeating a lowly Big 10 team relatively easily. This is the one game that really throws my argument although really....Minnesota....not too impressive.
Nebraska....Let's not get carried away and say Nebraska was very good but they were in the Big 12 and played very good offense but they needed all 4 quarters to finally put away the mighty Clemson Tigers. But Nebraska, like Kansas, wasn't really in the discussion as a really good team.
Texas Tech....This is where it gets ugly for the Big 12. Here is a team that beat Texas and only lost to Oklahoma and they are playing Ole Miss who was 8-4 in the less than standard SEC this season. And it really wasn't close. Tech couldn't move the ball on the Rebels defense and they ended up losing by almost 2 touchdowns...OUCH.
Texas....They won and that is important but they played Ohio State. If you remember Ohio State was beaten badly by USC. Then they were beaten at home by Penn State. And then Penn State got throttled by USC. So what does that tell you about Texas....they would get throttled by USC. In order for Texas to impress and change my opinion of the Big 12 this season they would have had to beat OSU convincingly.
Obviously Oklahoma is still to play and could really help their conference by beating Florida. But if Florida comes out and wins relatively easily the Big 12 is going to fall in many books.
Oh and don't make the argument that these schools didn't want to be there. That is bullshit. If that's the case then they didn't deserve to be in the discussion for anything. You play who is in front of you no matter where the game is.
And if you are going to make that argument anyways than you have to use if for Penn State. I mean they had just as many losses as Oklahoma, Florida, Texas, USC, and Texas Tech. And theirs came by 1 point on the road. Unlike Texas (by 6), Oklahoma (by 10 on a neutral field), Tech (by 44), and USC (by 6). So really wouldn't Penn State have had the biggest complaint out of any of those teams to NOT WANT TO BE WHERE THEY WERE???
Just face it....the Big 12 was over rated ALL SEASON because their offenses were good and they all beat up on lower teams.
5 comments:
Transitional theory doesnt work in sports, period. You cant say x beat y, but because y beat w that means x>w. Thats total horsesht. Sporting events are played on the field, and anyone who's ever played sports knows that given the right factors, the outcome can be totally unpredictable. These are HIGHLY trained athletes with skill far above what most of us will ever achieve, and the differences between top 10 teams and top 30 teams is not as substantial as the media would have us believe. The differences between a 1-2 team and 11-12 team is even smaller. Players playing high with emotion, coaches on their A game, and the right mix of attitude and talent will always create "upsets". Your argument is even weaker considering that you arent crediting teams for winning because they didnt "win big". Wtf?
Whats sad, is that this same logic is being used all over the country by media types as if it is gospel. The real stories behind these games (besides the game itself) are why do we give teams half a season off before the biggest game of the season (Can you say "rust"), and why do we have preseason rankings that totally skew the voters perception of quality football programs before theyve proven it on the field?
Playoff, its the only solution.
I agree with Joel G in that the transitive property doesn't work in sports. I'd also add that break between the end of the regular season and the bowl games allows not only for the buildup of rust, but also for players to heal, new plays to be drawn up and a number of other things. That's why I don't think using bowl records is a very accurate judge of whether or not a conference is good or not.
That said, I do agree the Big 12 was a little overrated because of the offensive numbers. But I don't think the Pac 10 is better just because they have a better bowl record, including the Oregon win over Oklahoma State.
I made ONE reference to the transitional theory and it was meant as a show of how you feel about it. I don't think you can compare what one team does one week can be compared to what another team against the same team another week. (example I don't think Utah is better than USC because they beat Oregon State).
I only said that to show that Texas isn't as good as everyone thinks they are.
And I didn't mean that the Texas victory over OSU wasn't good because it was. All I am saying is that Texas and the rest of the Big 12 were thought to be unbeatable by most of the country for most of the season.
I could care less about margin of victory because different things cause larger or smaller margins like starters coming out early and injuries during the games.
I think you missed the point of the post...
The Big 12 was considered to be the best ALL SEASON because they beat up on each other and no one else. All I wanted to get across is that everyone's favorite conference this season isn't all it was cracked up to be.
Fair enough. I think the lack of a playoff just has us all borderline insane.
Thats what gets me about all of our discussion around this, we spent countless hours debaating the resumes of teams and their merit rather than letting the best 8-16 go at it like caged lions. I think the easiest way to prove that the resume approach is flawed is to look back at any of the major sports with playoffs and the results after the playoffs. Did the team with the best resume always win it all? The Patriots? The Tarheels? Celts? Er, nm.
Absolutely. I proposed a plan on here a few weeks ago about a 12 team playoff that really sets up beautifully. That is the only way there won't be debate about the champion. There would be debate about which teams get in but not about the champion.
Post a Comment