Texas Tech will Likely *Not* Go to Fiesta Bowl
by NM99
on Dec 5, 2008 10:15 AM CST
For those who have been following this debate, I sent an email to the BCS this morning. Yes, I really did. You can, too. There is a link on the website. I posed the following question:
In regards to which teams from the Big XII conference that will go to a BCS bowl, could you please clarify the selection procedure for the following: Should Oklahoma win the Big XII championship and become an automatic qualifier as the champion, and presumably will play in the BCS championship game, will any other team from the Big XII automatically qualify for a BCS bowl game (also assuming no further changes in standings)?
Here is the response FROM THE BCS:
There is only one automatic qualifyer from the BCS conferences - the champion - but another team can go to a BCS bowl as an automatic, if they finish No. 3 in the final rankings and if no at-large team from that conference is No. 1 or 2, or as an at-large team. Texas would certainly fit into that category this year, probably as No. 3 but certainly as an at-large.
Best wishes,
BCS
emphasis mine
This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of Double-T Nation's writers or editors. It does reflect the views of this particular fan though, which is as important as the views of Double-T Nation's writers or editors.
4 recs |
21
comments
Email
PrintComments
Thanks for the verification.
Can’t wait to hear the argument on this.
by natkcole on Dec 5, 2008 10:29 AM CST 0 recs
I’ll probably be accused of lying. it confirms what almost everyone has been saying for a week.
by NM99 on
Dec 5, 2008 10:30 AM CST
up
0 recs
I thought the rules said any team in the Top 4 (that doesn't win a conference title) get in.
I wonder why they only said #3.
by the1austin on Dec 5, 2008 11:47 AM CST 0 recs
Probably because that is where they currently are ranked.
If they were number 4 (as opposed to 3) they would also qualify.
by jeffinhouston on
Dec 5, 2008 12:20 PM CST
up
0 recs
…it is what it is. We are just ranked too far below UT to be a player in the Fiesta sweepstakes. No use getting worked up over it. Had we been even slightly competitive at OU, the scenario could be different. But we weren’t. And we took a tumble that knocked our ranking (and appeal) too far down to make it up with only one game left at the time.
Cotton here we come…
by Tech92 on Dec 5, 2008 12:41 PM CST 0 recs
the computers love us. if only we could get around those fickle humans…
by jeraco on Dec 5, 2008 12:58 PM CST 0 recs
At least we are in a top tier bowl.
There are many out there who would trade with us in a NY second. be happy, guys and if you can, go in droves to Dallas for the Cotton Bowl. Good fortune for the Raiders whomever they play.
TTpilk
by TTpilk645 on Dec 5, 2008 1:07 PM CST 0 recs
So, “at large” in this situation means “not a conference champion”. Got it. So, Texas would be an automatic qualifier if they are #3 and not the conference champion.
by djollie111 on Dec 5, 2008 2:20 PM CST 0 recs
and since OU is the conference champion (not an at-large) then Texas is not excluded from the automatic qualification.
by djollie111 on
Dec 5, 2008 2:23 PM CST
up
0 recs
I have followed the debate...
…and what I have taken away from the exercise is this: As one well know writer from SI opined, the BCS is a FARSE, and to understand it, everyone must think of it as a FARSE. Like politics, when we have to begin to debate what terms like “at large” mean – then the purpose of the guidelines is to do whatever the BCS, and the Television folks WANT to do in order to bring in as much money as possible. The purpose of the BCS is NOT to crown the ‘real’ champion of a College Football Season! It is to generate as much fervor as possible among those who will spend money on particular combinations of games, between the “haves.”
I honestly believe that Tech could have played OU to within an inch of winning the game, and Texas Tech would STILL not be heading to a BCS Bowl game this year. It’s Texas and OU or its nothing. Missouri has a chance to screw it up by winning, and Tech had a chance to go BCS by winning, but if the “have nots” fall short in any way, the “haves” will certainly get the benefit of the doubt, and go to the money bowls.
When Mike Leach proposed having a Big 12 tie-breaker that involved looking at graduation rates, he was on to something! IF the Big 12 (and BCS for that matter) are really all about promoting the high ideals of the student athlete – then using the graduation rates as a tie-breaker totally make sense. Of course, the Big 12 and the BCS DO NOT care about high ideals.
There must be a growing contingent of fans from schools like Texas Tech (i.e. KSU, Boise State) that have basically given up on the BCS EVER being even close to fair – regardless of WHO YOU ARE! Is there anything we could do to join together and try to change things?
I really want to find some way to demonstrate my opposition to the blatant unfairness that is NCAA Division I College Football. Anyone have any ideas?
by natsnagrom on Dec 5, 2008 3:19 PM CST 0 recs
Exactly. Tech will continue to be considered less than the “big name” elite schools. If a smaller school wins ALL their games, they are in to the mighty bcs. But how often does that happen. Especially a smaller name from the bcs conferences with top competition, not the smaller conferences like MWC and WAC. If there is any doubt, the bigger name school will always get the nod.
The pardox of the situation is that the higher expectation schools actually suffer less from a loss than a smaller name school. When smaller names do lose, they were expected to, so it’s easier for pollsters to drop them further.
Just to prove the bias/opinion:
When Tech was undefeated, the pollsters basically had no choice but to rank them second. There were only 2 undefeated bcs schools at the time, Tech and Alabama. Pollsters could have placed them first, using a precedent set earlier in the season (remember #5 ut beating #1 ou and jumping to #1?), but pollsters were more comfortable placing a team that has been there before at #1. The next week, Tech beat #8 osu. Meanwhile, Alabama’s quality wins were lessening as Georgia and LSu dropped in the polls and clemson already proven a joke. But Tech still stayed at #2. Finally Tech lost, and the pollsters breathed a sigh of relief. So this is how one of the current human polls look:
1. Alabama (62) 12-0 1,620
2. Florida (3) 11-1 1,516
3. Texas 11-1 1,488
4. Oklahoma 11-1 1,480
5. USC 10-1 1,355
6. Penn State 11-1 1,257
7. Utah 12-0 1,216
8. Texas Tech 11-1 1,197
9. Boise State 12-0 1,103
10. Ohio State 10-2 1,069
If you look closely, you can see a very fine “line of eliteness” that the pollsters have created. This is the point where the elite teams will separate themselves from the non-elite teams, even if there is evidence otherwise. That line is right after #6. This is where they feel that an undefeated non-elite school can start to show themself. #7 is undefeated Utah and then there is good ol’ not-elite Tech (sandwiched between another “non-elite” undefeated Boise St.)
But then you compare team’s resumes and figure out how correct they were.
First, undefeaed #7 Utah has quality wins over #11 TCU, #18 Byu, and #25 Oregon St.). Pretty comparable (if not better than) two teams ahead of them #5 USC (wins over #10 Ohio St and #16 oregon, with loss to the same #25 oregon st.) and #6 Penn St. (wins over #10 ohio st. and #21 Michigan St and same #25 oregon st.). Then look at the “next best” team #8 Tech with wins over #3 UT and #14 OkSt. with only loss to #2/4 Ou. Hmm. Best win by far of the 4 teams mentioned and only loss to a top ranked team. PSU lost to unranked team and USC lost to a team only ranked by virtue of their win over them.
I could probably also work Florida into this argument, but I’m tired of typing and I think I have already made my point.
Long live Tech! Hopefully one day we will get that elusive respect and bigger name status.
by pcrawttu on
Dec 5, 2008 5:02 PM CST
up
0 recs
Farse
They should have just flipped a coin to decide the Big 12 Champion. No politicking, no banners and no complaints about the outcome.
by natkcole on
Dec 5, 2008 6:03 PM CST
up
0 recs
any method that showed 'no prejudice'...
would have served the purpose of fairness. As I recall, the old Southwest Conference had a tie-breaker somewhere in the progression that awarded the championship (and the prize back then, the Cotton Bowl) to the team who had NOT been most recently. WOW, what a concept! Rewarding a bunch of Student Athletes on a team that, perhaps, surprised a bunch of folks, including the “favorites” and ended up in a tie for first. The good ’ol boys of the SWC seemed to think that the “have nots” deserved to go in front of the “haves” at least once in a while!
Leach’s request that the Big 12 consider academic achievement (graduation rates) as a tie-breaker is pure Genius. It is a field-leveler. It is honest. It rewards those who give more than lip service to something the NCAA claims to be true: The student is more important than the athlete.
by natsnagrom on
Dec 5, 2008 10:19 PM CST
up
0 recs
In a perfect world
I agree that would be a great idea. It would be something to see the big boys trying to win without all the big dumb guys who got out of high school through social promotions and grade changing. But don’t throw out the sign boards and airplane banners just yet. I can already hear Whining Mack claiming his COS (course of study) was harder than the guy ahead of him. In a head to head competition at a neutral site, UT’s woven baskets were rated better..
iirc, the ’haven’t been there for the longest time’ rule was how Baylor got into the Cotton Bowl in ‘74. After what Jo Pa’s boys did to them, I think they would have preferred another bowl. But they did beat the Horns that year. Of course, that was in Waco so it doesn’t count.
by TT_ on
Dec 6, 2008 1:15 AM CST
up
0 recs
Texas Tech
is not a “State Supported” school. If you look at all the “Name” teams, they are “State Supported” schools, except maybe Notre Dame, who will get in for less any time the pollsters have the chance to do so hust because of the “Name”. Because Texas Tech is not one those “State/Name” schools, they must greatly overachieve in order to be recognized as a contender for the national title, whether in football, basketball or any other sport where polls are used (all sports??).
True, Tech blew their chances big time by being creamed by OU. The thing is, that kind of game, if it had happened to UT instead, or Penn State, or any othe “Name” team, the consequences would not have been so severe, as such a “Name” team would still be considered for a BCS bid, at the least. No matter how good Tech, Bayler, KSU, Okla. St., Or. St., or any other “No Name” team is any given year, they will NEVER gain the respect of the pollsters, whomever they are or represent. These people have their favorites and will not budge, with great favor being given to any and all teams that reside East of the Mississippi River. In order for “Us” to enter into “Their” territory, “We” must win ALL of “Our” games. One loss and any “We” team will plummet way down the list (re: then #2 Tech loss to then #5 OU), while a loss for a “They” team will nudge it down slightly a spot or three (re: then #1 Texas after loss to then #7 Tech). Also if there is another “They” team even close to “Our” calibre, “We” will not overtake “Them”.
Texas Tech is, without a doubt, one of the top 4 or 5 teams in the country. It is unfortunate that we rely on the polls, otherwise it would be easily recognizable. Had Tech beat OU, they would still be ranked below Alabama, because “They” are who “They” are. But, at least “We” would have that opportunity, if “We” won “Our” conference championship. At one time, the Cotton Bowl was listed as one of “The” top bowls. However, its status has been lowered to only a second tier bowl game. Should Tech go to and win the Cotton, the best possible ranking will probably be no higher than #5. Right about now, that will be nice. In the future, however, should Tech continue to play at this level, top 4 finishes should be a regular occurance, even if Tech is not a “They” team.
There is so much more to be said, but I must end this rempling. Bottom line, all Tech fans must stay behind our team and help to will them on to the highest of goals. That goal, not just a championship, but RESPECT and ADMIRATION by the football pollsters and fans across the country. GO TECH! WRECH ’EM!
TTpilk
by TTpilk645 on Dec 6, 2008 9:57 AM CST 0 recs
Good comments..
I agree with your assessment. However, UT and OU both have vested interests in keeping TTU down. They don’t want to lose 4/5 star recruits to Tech. I have a diehard OU friend from work who said at the beggining of the year “OU and Texas fans can tolerate losing to one another. That has been happening for years now. However, losing to Tech is not acceptable. Tech is the step child in the conference.” This might explain UT fans getting so bent out of shaoe and OU fans likewise last year.
by JH9821 on
Dec 6, 2008 10:40 AM CST
up
0 recs
New FanPost
