Connect with your Facebook Account

• Contact

Football Articles

49

The 2008 BCS and Texas

Posted by TaylorTRoom on December 14th, 2008 under Football

I’ve put a lot of thought (and even more teeth gnashing and head-beating) into this post.  I’ve tried to support it with data, but by necessity a lot of it is conjecture, although well founded in my opinion.  If anybody can hack the numbers better, I would like to hear them.

The November 30 BCS, which had OU 2nd and UT 3rd, drove a lot of the endgame of the 2008 season in college football.  It sent OU to the B12 title game, which swung a lot of Harris and USAToday voters to their side.  It also seemed to give Bradford the edge he needed to win the Heisman.

There has been a lot written about the Nov. 30 BCS, and why Texas fell short.  Some say that Texas blew it by losing to Tech.  Sure, if Texas beat Tech, everything would be settled.  Remember, however, that winning all of your games is a standard that no team in college football in a BCS conference has accomplished in three seasons (can anyone remember the last team to do so?).  Oklahoma and Florida both lost games and are still going to the BCS CG.

Some say that Texas brought this on by having a weak schedule.  The problem with that argument is that Texas did not have a weak schedule.  Rich Tellshow calculates UT as having the toughest schedule in D-1A. 

Others say that Texas lost by not scoring enough “style” points.  Texas certainly tapped on the brakes in the 2nd half of blowouts of Baylor, Kansas, and TAMU.  That may have made a difference with some voters.  I think the fact that OU is a scoring juggernaut of the kind not seen since the ‘83 Cornhuskers has more to do with their success in the human polls, which incorporate subjective judgement.

Why do I think Texas lost out?  I think Texas is out of the BCS because Nebraska kicked a 57 yard field goal to beat Colorado.  With less than 2 minutes to go, Nebraska had 4th down on CU’s 40 yard line while trailing 31 – 30.  They made the field goal, and CU then threw a pick 6 to finish out the game, losing 40 – 31.

Why is that significant?  It’s significant because OU played Nebraska, but not Colorado, while Texas played Colorado, and not Nebraska.  Of the six computer ratings used, three are algorithms that take into account the results of opponents’ games.  How can you measure the impact of one game?

The Colley Matrix is the one rating system that lets you remove or change games.  If you change the result of the NU/CU game, and remove the OU win over Missouri (we’re trying to create a 11-30-2008 “what if”), you get this result compared to the actual result:

What If Result:

Texas  .94480

Florida  .93466

OU  .91776

In the actual Colley rating that date, OU jumped to #2 from #5 the prior week (Texas stayed at #1).  Wow.  Change one game, and OU falls from #2 to a distant third.   In the Sagarin and Wolfe systems, OU also made a big jump that week (that was the week they had a quality win over OSU, while Texas beat the Ags).  In Sagarin, they jumped from #4 to #1, and in Wolfe they jumped from #4 to #1.  After dropping the highest and lowest ratings, OU scored a .98, and Texas scored a .94, giving the tie-breaker to OU.  Sagarin and Wolfe don’t have tools to “what if” it, but they do show Texas just a hair behind OU in their Nov. 30 ratings.  It’s not a stretch, considering their algorithms, to think that if the Husker had missed the field goal (he made it by a hair), Texas would have finished over OU in Sagarin and Wolfe. 

If Texas had stayed ahead in those ratings (in other words, if OU had leapt from #4 to #2, instead of #1 due to a proposed CU win over NU), Texas would have had a rating of .96, and OU would have had a rating of .95.  That would have allowed Texas to edge OU .9290 to .9252.

But he made the kick.  That game was settled on the field, and I’m certainly not going to quibble with that.  The BCS did what is is made to do- provide two teams, and only two teams.  Is there any point to this exercise?  I think so.  I think we can learn the following:

1. The idea that the system has proven OU to be the better team is a myth.  There is a razor thin hair between the teams, per the system. OU just edged Texas in the individual computer ratings, and not much needed to change in games not even involving the teams to give Texas the edge.

2. The idea that Texas screwed itself with a weak schedule is a myth.  The major part of the schedule that affected Texas- which Big 12 North teams were played- is out of the control of Texas and OU.  Also remember, when talking strength of schedule, that two computer ratings throw out games against D-1AA schools.  In Billinsley and Colley, if Chattanooga had beaten OU, there would have been no impact to OU’s rating.

3.  AP voters should vote their conscience.  They should not accept the BCS decision as authoritative, but instead trust their own eyes.  The BCS is a tool, and as a wise professor once told me, “You use tools, you don’t believe them.”

Article Tags:

, , ,

More from this Barker


Share This

  • StumbleUpon

49 Responses

  1. Blake Gideon said:

    December 14th, 2008 at 9:35 am

    So maybe Alex Henery will go down in history as the one who cost us the Big 12 and national titles and cost Colt the Heisman?

  2. Trips Right said:

    December 14th, 2008 at 9:38 am

    Good post. Add in the unlikely ingredients of the convoluted tie-breaking system coupled with having a conference championship game to begin with, and it took a perfect storm for ou to get in. Sorry, but if it takes a perfect storm of computers, fine print lawyering, running up the score and 57 yard field goals, then you don’t belong. Especially at the expense of a team that beat you head to head by double digits on a neutral field.

  3. scagnetti said:

    December 14th, 2008 at 10:04 am

    I’m sontited of all this burnt orange whining I could vomit.

    And I’m a homer, a true Orangeblood.
    And this bitching and moaning – even while supported by excellent data – is still cloying and sordid.

    I think it’s time BC and all it’s loyal readers and superlative contributors drop this marketing campaign right now. Makes us look sulkingly desperate, like Tripps at Judy Conrad’s clinic every summer…

    Listen up everyone… Mack is right. Sportsmanship is the way to go sure it got us nowhere in the season, but now no one gives a shit. Everyone on here is preaching to the choir, and it makes me really sad to be a Horns fan. We are better than this!

    It’s over. No one is listening anymore.

    So stop.

    Hook ‘Em!!!

  4. TaylorTRoom said:

    December 14th, 2008 at 10:17 am

    Well sir, I suggest you start your own blog, and not post on this topic.

  5. Horn in Tyler said:

    December 14th, 2008 at 10:19 am

    Taylor–have you run the Mizzou/KU game into the mix? Curious whether that made as much of a difference as NU/CU.

  6. TaylorTRoom said:

    December 14th, 2008 at 10:25 am

    I haven’t. Obviously a difference there (Mizzou had a late lead but gave up a bomb to KU) would make more of a difference, since OU had not played Missouri. I was trying to express how capricious the fates were, and it seemed to me that a 57 yard field goal was the best way to do so. I think any of us can picture how a 1 mm difference in striking the football would mean the difference in making it or missing.

    Once OU was designated the B12 south representative, everybody with a vested interest in the reputation of the BCS started shifting their votes to them. The AP poll, not part of the BCS, moved from Texas much less.

  7. Walter S said:

    December 14th, 2008 at 10:27 am

    Forget it scangetti, you’re out of your element. You’re entering a world of pain.
    The matchup with Oklahoma was a league game.

  8. Trips Right said:

    December 14th, 2008 at 10:29 am

    scagnetti, shouldn’t you be whacking somebody?

  9. himself off said:

    December 14th, 2008 at 10:33 am

    I agree with trips.

  10. RansomStoddard said:

    December 14th, 2008 at 10:35 am

    Who said it was marketing or campaigning? It’s an analysis of a screwed up pseudo-playoff. Don’t like it, don’t read it.

  11. Mister Mike said:

    December 14th, 2008 at 11:29 am

    Question:

    How were the Big XII tie-breaker rules decided on in the first place? It was my understanding (admittedly, I may be off on this) that UT had a fair share of say in how the rules were written in the first place.

  12. Mister Mike said:

    December 14th, 2008 at 11:29 am

    As a follow-up, not calling anybody a crybaby or any shit like that, just genuinely curious.

  13. TaylorTRoom said:

    December 14th, 2008 at 11:57 am

    I’m not sure what the rules have to do with this piece. All this piece is saying is that the BCS system settled absolutely nothing on the question of which team is better- OU or Texas?

  14. Black Scholes said:

    December 14th, 2008 at 12:02 pm

    No shortage of issues to focus on, but the B12 tiebreaker equation would be at the top of my list.

    And maybe it reflects my mindset right now, but I’m convinced if we change the tiebreakers it will somehow benefit OU in the future and penalize the good guys.

    F* OU.

  15. Bob in Houston said:

    December 14th, 2008 at 12:14 pm

    “How were the Big XII tie-breaker rules decided on in the first place?”

    Pretty sure it was to allow the team with the best chance of making the BCSCG to advance. Logical, if flawed in the execution, because it allowed people who weren’t dialed into the B12 to make the decision.

  16. Huckleberry said:

    December 14th, 2008 at 12:18 pm

    Bob is absolutely correct on both the initial reasoning as well as the huge flaw nobody considered.

    I will continue to believe that this year’s Big 12 South representative should have been decided by a random draw or coin flip.

  17. Texoz said:

    December 14th, 2008 at 12:50 pm

    Other fun facts.

    There’s no denying OUs offense is something special.

    However, in OU’s last 8 games, they gave up an average of 31.25 points per game. Not exactly stuff of champions.

  18. scagnetti said:

    December 14th, 2008 at 1:08 pm

    I genuinely enjoy all the bloggers and boarders on here, and have no animosity toward anyone or our fanbase… I just wonder what good it does to retread our logical just arguments. I only believe it to be uncouth of us as gentlemen and intelligent CFB fans. This site speaks for itself, but I feel it’s time to move on from our crying game…

    Please note that I include myself in the plural first person… as in WE need to move on…

    Hook ‘Em!

  19. Parlin Hall said:

    December 14th, 2008 at 1:09 pm

    It was a heck of a kick, though. For what is almost certain to be the one and only night of his life, Alex Henery was the most eligible bachelor in one of these united states.

    And, with respect, Hawkins didn’t throw a typical pick 6. Zach Potter batted it at the line; Suh, running it back 47 yards, paused only to flatten Hawkins with prejudice. CU was, after all, in that game only by accident: a return, and a stupid fake FG attempt that led to 6 the other way, put NU 14 in the hole.

    Like the dropped ball in Lubbock, a single play can’t stand as the whole story of any game.

  20. hopefulhorn said:

    December 14th, 2008 at 1:35 pm

    I think it is simpler than this. The BCS system was designed to discriminate between teams that haven’t played one another. You only have to resort to human polls and computer formulas when there is no head-to-head result with which to order teams.

    There should be a head-to-head exception when trying to determine when one team should be ranked higher than another.

  21. Bob in Houston said:

    December 14th, 2008 at 2:00 pm

    “There should be a head-to-head exception when trying to determine when one team should be ranked higher than another.”

    Don’t see how this helps unless you impose another exception to eliminate the bottom team in a three-way tie.

  22. Huckleberry said:

    December 14th, 2008 at 2:21 pm

    Don’t see how this helps unless you impose another exception to eliminate the bottom team in a three-way tie.

    Well, this would be reasonable if you’re going to use BCS standings. I personally feel that you shouldn’t use BCS standings and because of that this season would have eventually come down to the coin flip no matter what you do.

    Also, a side effect of eliminating the bottom team is that the team that wins their game among the three by the most could be harming themselves. Basically, with that rule it possibly would have been better for OU to beat Tech by 3 instead of 44. That’s why I stick with the random draw/coin flip. Anything else leads to ugliness be it running up the score or politicking, as I’ve said. It also leads to a neverending series of unintended consequences.

  23. hopefulhorn said:

    December 14th, 2008 at 2:21 pm

    Bob,

    The SEC tie-breaker does exactly that by eliminating the lowest ranked of the three in the BCS. In this case, that makes sense as Tech is ranked lower in the polls (8th) than Texas or OU (2nd and 3rd).

    Not sure you could find a serious observer of college football who would put Tech in the same class as OU and Texas. Had Tech not gotten embarassed at Norman, they might have a better case.

  24. Huckleberry said:

    December 14th, 2008 at 2:23 pm

    Also, TTR, the new computer ratings I developed are the only ones where that 57-yard kick and Kansas/Missouri games didn’t affect the relative standing of Texas, OU, and Texas Tech. And that’s another benefit of a system where results involving teams that the computer has no reason to believe should beat a team don’t affect that higher-rated team.

  25. UTtuck said:

    December 14th, 2008 at 2:34 pm

    Mister Mike, the AD’s voted on the rules so that the team with the best shot to get to the BCS championship game would get the go ahead. I don’t know who voted how, but that was what the commish of the Big XII said. Those guys hold the power, and those are the rules that they said.

    We’ll see if there are any changes next year.

    hook’em

  26. ponderos said:

    December 14th, 2008 at 2:43 pm

    I will continue to believe that this year’s Big 12 South representative should have been decided by a random draw or coin flip.

    That’s actually in there, two more scenarios down.

  27. Vasherized said:

    December 14th, 2008 at 6:05 pm

    And two more down from that is dental integrity. Would have won in a land rush,er land slide.

    This system is nothing other than silliness.

  28. Huckleberry said:

    December 14th, 2008 at 6:49 pm

    That’s actually in there, two more scenarios down.

    Yes, I know, I’m saying it should be moved up. After tiebreaker #4, #5 should be going in order of the North division’s standings to see if there’s a common opponent that can differentiate at least one of the 3 teams. If not, then coin flip/random draw. BCS standings and point differentials only cause problems, IMO.

  29. Church said:

    December 14th, 2008 at 9:23 pm

    “There should be a head-to-head exception when trying to determine when one team should be ranked higher than another.”

    A few iterations ago there was bonus or extra points awarded for beating a member of the BCS standings. That was eliminated from the formula at some point don’t remember after which brouhaha. It certainly would have been the difference this year b/n ou going to the B12CG and Texas. And yes sadly more than likely Texas in Miami and Colt going to NYC and picking up the hardware.

  30. zizzyballooba said:

    December 14th, 2008 at 10:34 pm

    Hopeful, you are on to something. It doesn’t matter what the heck the strength of schedule of two teams is. If end of year records are the same, and one team beats the other on a neutral field or as a visitor, then there dang sure ought to be a provision in the BCS for that team to be higher-ranked.

    I don’t care if Team A has the lowest possible SOS and Team B has the highest possible SOS. If Team A beats Team B, then Team A should be higher ranked in the BCS if their records are identical otherwise.

    In the case of the Big 12 this year where 3 teams had the same record and each lost to the other, wins should be stratified so that a home win is less than a neutral field win is less than an away win. If that doesn’t break the tie, the lowest-ranked BCS team should be eliminated and the head-to-head of the remaining teams should prevail for selecting who should go to the league championship game.

    Then, if the representative of the South wins the Big 12 championship game they move on. If the North rep wins and does not have the BCS goods to move on, the analysis reverts back to the two teams left in the South and the one that won head-to-head has the higher ranking. I know that would have meant that TT would have a mandatory higher BCS rating if OU had lost to Missouri, but that would have been appropriate if, after the Big 12 championship, the records had been OU 11-2, TT 11-1, UT 11-1.

    Ultimately, this madness still does not answer the question of which two teams deserve to play for the National Championship. You could argue that TT only beat UT because they played in Lubbock at the end of a brutal 4-game UT series. Alas, there is only one real way to determine a champion.

    PLAYOFF!

  31. drunk italian guy said:

    December 14th, 2008 at 11:31 pm

    you cunt fuck

  32. utx said:

    December 15th, 2008 at 12:52 am

    Another nicely thought out what if.

    My what if: If Texas wins one more game than any other D1 school in 2009, we play for the national championship. And that is the only way it is going to happen regardless of the many compelling scenarios to the contrary that never come true but are certainly entertaining.

  33. BoomerFreakinSooner said:

    December 15th, 2008 at 6:51 am

    Longhorns don’t like the BCS standings to determine the big 12 rep for the championship game, yet hopefulhorn likes the idea of the BCS ELIMINATING the 3rd team in a three way tie, which by Longhorn fan logic would have eliminated TTech, ostensitously leaving Texas and OU, and Texas won head-to-head, yada, yada, yada. Then there is the one where Longhorn fan would prefer a lucky draw out of a hat or a roll of dice to determine Texas’ fate. I think the SOS that elevated OU over UT was the Cincinnatti and TCU games. Obviously, nobody knew the ‘Natti was going to have the season they did, and the Horny Toads turned out to be a top 15 team. UT had nobody of those teams caliber on the non-conference schedule.

  34. TaylorTRoom said:

    December 15th, 2008 at 7:21 am

    Actually, BoomerfreakingSooner, you have failed to understand what you have read. Every SOS rating I can find has Texas’ SOS as good or better than OU’s (for Sagarin’s SOS, you have to look at it the week before the B12 CG).

    OU had one big schedule advantage wrt UT. Two of the computer polls (Billinsley and Colley) don’t know what to do with D-1AA teams, so they ignore them. While UT was getting dinged for its weakest opponent (FAU or UTEP), OU was getting a pass in two ratings for its weakest opponent.

    Son, try to use a little critical reasoning next time.

  35. Huckleberry said:

    December 15th, 2008 at 7:31 am

    What in the blue hell does “ostensitously” mean?

    That whole comment was full of stupid.

  36. Trips Right said:

    December 15th, 2008 at 7:32 am

    A couple of the computers give more creedence to winning late, as well. So the month in which we beat ou matters as well. If we beat them in November instead of October we go. Terrific system.

  37. Trips Right said:

    December 15th, 2008 at 7:33 am

    I think his word of the day toilet paper was smudged.

  38. Huckleberry said:

    December 15th, 2008 at 7:38 am

    Trips -

    Very true. The four-game gauntlet screwed us twice. First because it existed so the Tech game was even tougher and then again because it was in October (through November 1) instead of November.

  39. BoomerFreakinSooner said:

    December 15th, 2008 at 7:49 am

    The best thing is, the Sooners now realize they don’t need to win the RRS anymore to play for the Big12 Championship or the national championship.

  40. Camels said:

    December 15th, 2008 at 8:01 am

    I would TCU do int he big 12 South? Think Baylor.

    Losses – OU UT OSU Tech, at least one of the Big 12 North teams

    How are they a top 15 team?

    Cincinatti –

    Losses OU, UT, Tech, OSU and at least 1 Big 12 North team?

    How are they a top 15 team?

  41. Art Vandelay said:

    December 15th, 2008 at 8:47 am

    TTR,

    Great post. There will be funnier posts, and others with more emotion, but you did a very succinct job of pointing out another example of the current ludicrous system. The list of these examples are endless. These discussions always end up at the same point for me: the obvious need for a playoff system.

    There is no perfect system, and that includes a playoff system. You could argue that the only perfect system is if every team in Division 1 plays every other team in Division 1. Even in that implausible scenario you still might not determine the “best team”. One team might have their star QB hurt for half the season, and then when he comes back they beat every team by 100 points. They might be the best team, but maybe not the team with the best record.

    Competition is about winning and losing. It’s about keeping score. When we were all kids and played endless games of football in the front yard did we ask the 70 year old neighbor to vote who was the best??? We played a game and there was a winner and loser. Sometimes the “better team” lost. Maybe it was because Lorenzo Charles caught my pass that hit the Pecan tree, and he snagged it for the winning TD.

    A playoff system is the obvious answer. It won’t assure fairness, but nobody said life was fair.

  42. Mister Mike said:

    December 15th, 2008 at 8:56 am

    “A playoff system is the obvious answer. It won’t assure fairness, but nobody said life was fair.”

    Truer words were never spoken. I still say the OLD bowl/polls system prior to the abortion that is the BCS would perform just as good, if not better than the BCS. Until we get a playoff (if ever) just give it back to the human pollsters. Yeah, there’s going to be bias, but hell…we got that now anyway.

  43. caradoc said:

    December 15th, 2008 at 9:48 am

    “I’m sontited of all this burnt orange whining I could vomit.

    Could someone tell me what ’sontited’ means?

  44. Huckleberry said:

    December 15th, 2008 at 9:54 am

    Don’t be so ostensitous.

  45. 8straight said:

    December 15th, 2008 at 12:06 pm

    “could someone tell me what ’sontited means?”

    It is what ever father hopes his male offsprings lack.

  46. zizzyballooba said:

    December 15th, 2008 at 8:29 pm

    Mr. Mike, you are dead on. At least prior to the BCS when the smoke settled, the pollsters were free to vote whom they chose for the National Championship. If there were multiple teams deserving of consideration, they were in the mix until the last down of the last bowl. In this way we were closer to a playoff system than we are today.

  47. soonerfan1 said:

    December 16th, 2008 at 4:09 pm

    It seems to me, that Texas has a better argument against Florida jumping them than OU. Why is it that that topic has not been raised here?

  48. Huckleberry said:

    December 16th, 2008 at 5:14 pm

    Seriously? We have a better argument against a team we haven’t played jumping us than against a team we beat jumping us?

    Wow.

    This has nothing to do with whether or not Florida is more deserving than we are. That was simply an asinine comment.

  49. Mr. February said:

    December 22nd, 2008 at 10:52 am

    Well, there’s always LOI day.

Leave a Reply

Follow Us

Related Articles

Hot Forum Topics

Activity

  • J Rog wrote a new blog post: Reggie Miller is a Bad Man   18 minutes ago

     

    If you haven’t yet, I highly recommend watching ESPN’s latest 30 for 30: Winning Time about the Indiana Pacer’sReggie Miller’s rivalry with the New York Knicks in the early 90’s.  Anyone that can make Spike Lee look stupid is a friend of mine.

    The things that Reggie did to John Starks in those playoff series are

    SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: ””, url: ”” });

  • Nordberg commented on the blog post Texas finishes sweep of Iowa   36 minutes ago

    Green and then Workman I’d imagine.

  • J Rog wrote a new blog post: Bienvenidos a Miami: Heat Preview   43 minutes ago

    If we can score, we have a chance.  The Heat are a poor team in a mediocre conference this year and don’t come with a lot of fire power.  The one thing they can do is play defense, holding teams to 95.2 points per game, 5th best in the NBA.  Dorrell Wright returns from a

    SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: ””, url: ”” });

  • Nate Heupel commented on the blog post Things To Do While Not Watching OU in the NCAA Tourney   51 minutes ago

    coloradoag:

    First of all, I’ve very seriously thought your proposal #9 over. See: Calipari, John. People don’t seem to care if you buy basketball players. Only if you do it blatantly (USC) or you call/text them too much.

    Oklahoma (outside of Oklahoma City and Tulsa metropolitan areas) is a lot of fun if you’re

    SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: ””, url: ”” });

  • Sailor Ripley commented on the blog post Bracket Analysis: The South is a Bear of a Bracket   52 minutes ago

    Ha ha ha ha! It’s Joel Osteen’s world. You just live in it.

    SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: ””, url: ”” });

  • admin commented on the blog post Bracket Analysis: The South is a Bear of a Bracket   52 minutes ago

    Ha ha ha ha! It’s Joel Osteen’s world. You just livesin in it.

    SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: ””, url: ”” });

  • admin commented on the blog post Bracket Analysis: The South is a Bear of a Bracket   52 minutes ago

    Ha ha ha ha! It’s Joel Osteen’s world. You just live sin in it.

    SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: ””, url: ”” });

  • ghostofagroundgame commented on the blog post Beat the Barkers NCAA Tourney Bracket   59 minutes ago

    I will own that tote bag. And it will hold my porn.

  • James commented on the blog post Bracket Analysis: The South is a Bear of a Bracket   1 hour, 15 minutes ago

    Baylor has the horses to make it to Indy, but Scott Drew is the Mike Gundy of college hoops. He’ll find a way to blow it.

    SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: ””, url: ”” });

  • HenryJames commented on the blog post Robinson can, no?   1 hour, 49 minutes ago

    Yes, it sounds like he is planning on hitting Texeira third.

    SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: ””, url: ”” });

  • Kevin Berger commented on the blog post Bracket Analysis: The South is a Bear of a Bracket   2 hours, 1 minute ago

    “And I can understand the Longhorn fan thinking mighty Baylor goes all the way. After they bitch slapped the Horns three times this year, they are the basketball equivilent of the three foot long rat my wife saw in the garage.”

    I actually like Baylor based on how they played Kansas and to an extent KSU.

    SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: ””, url: ”” });

  • Ag_in_TX commented on the blog post Bracket Analysis: The South is a Bear of a Bracket   2 hours, 8 minutes ago

    Of course not.

    Here is another bold claim – all 7 Big XII teams bolt out the gate and win their first round games.

    SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: ””, url: ”” });

  • Kevin Berger commented on the blog post Bracket Analysis: The Wild West Regional   2 hours, 15 minutes ago

    Work, I love Xavier. Really athletic team that feeds off of mismatches that superstar guard Jordan Crawford creates. Hell, he’s good enough to carry X past Minnesota and even Pitt if he’s hot.

    The problem for XU is that they don’t defend as well as they have in the past. They’ll have

    SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: ””, url: ”” });

  • Kevin Berger commented on the blog post Bracket Analysis: The South is a Bear of a Bracket   2 hours, 28 minutes ago

    Ag, cool, I agree with pretty much everything you say except your claim that you dictated tempo to UNM. But no biggie.

    The reason I like Siena is that it’s basically the same team that beat Ohio State in the tourney last year and then played a 1 seeded Louisville team down to the wire.

    SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: ””, url: ”” });

  • Mister Mike wrote a new blog post: State of the Union – NU Basketball, Part 1 (or Why We Are Where We Are)   2 hours, 29 minutes ago

    NU’s Ugly Duckling Program

    Read that and you’ll say to yourself “State of the Union of…what??”

    I know that’s what most of you will say. It’s not really shock or surprise that NU has a basketball program, though. It’s that sense of shock and surprise to anyone (especially our Barking Brethren over at OBK) that

    SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: ””, url: ”” });

  • Hiphopopotamus commented on the blog post We talkin’ ’bout brackets   2 hours, 40 minutes ago

    I’ll say the same thing I did at March to March…

    I love this Baylor team. They’ve got all the pieces for a run and they’re in a ridiculously underwhlemingly regional, BUT…

    It’s Baylor. They haven’t won a tournament GAME since I think 1950…now we’re expecting them to go out and win 4 in a row?

    Certainly those

    SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: ””, url: ”” });

  • Hiphopopotamus commented on the blog post We talkin’ ’bout brackets   2 hours, 40 minutes ago

    I’ll say the same thing I did at March to March…

    I love this Baylor team. They’ve got all the pieces for a run and they’re in a ridiculously underwhlemingly regional, BUT…

    It’s Baylor. They haven’t won a tournament GAME since I think 1950…now we’re expecting them to go out and win 4 in a row?

    Certainly those

    SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: ””, url: ”” });

  • Kevin Berger commented on the blog post March Madness Brackets Rackets: Can Las Vegas Pick The Champion?   2 hours, 47 minutes ago

    Triston, wow, that’s a great number. Nice work.

    SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: ””, url: ”” });

  • Kevin Berger commented on the blog post Bracket Analysis: The South is a Bear of a Bracket   2 hours, 54 minutes ago

    Speaking of history, when was the last time Duke got out of the round of 16?

    Villanova has something going on underneath the surface. They look beatable.

    Baylor’s playing really good ball with really good players. I guess that’s why I picked them, but I’m probably overthinking things and should have written Duke in.

    SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: ””, url: ”” });

  • Kevin Berger commented on the blog post Bracket Analysis: The South is a Bear of a Bracket   2 hours, 58 minutes ago

    Ag in TX, have you watched them play?

    SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: ””, url: ”” });

  • Sailor Ripley commented on the blog post Bracket Analysis: The South is a Bear of a Bracket   2 hours, 58 minutes ago

    Exactly, HipHop. It’s a brand recognition issue.

    That’s a truckload of pressure. Maybe they have it. Maybe Scott Drew is the man. I just wouldn’t bet my house on it. But I’d love to see it.

    SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: ””, url: ”” });

  • texasengr commented on the blog post All Signs Point to March Madness Expanding to 96 Teams   3 hours, 30 minutes ago

    I started watching the NCAA tournament in 1997 or 1998 and in 1998, Valpo’s incredible run to the sweet 16 hooked me for life. Since then, I’ve completely ruined a spring break cruise because, let’s face it, the NCAA tournament is way better than sitting by a pool. Now I fully intend to crush my

  • Kevin Berger commented on the blog post Bracket Analysis: The South is a Bear of a Bracket   3 hours, 30 minutes ago

    Why? Three seeds make it all the time? Put them in a bracket with the weakest 1 seed and one of the weaker 2 seeds and they have a great shot. Especially with two games in Houston.

    SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: ””, url: ”” });

  • dutchhorn commented on the blog post All Signs Point to March Madness Expanding to 96 Teams   3 hours, 37 minutes ago

    nordberg said:
    March 16th, 2010 at 8:32 am
    “Sometimes, I watch the 4th quarter of the title game.”

    The best is when it’s tied at the end of regulation, and they have a shoot-out. And if they’re still tied at the end of that, they play an extra 18 holes the next day. “Extra innings” is what they

  • Sailor Ripley commented on the blog post All Signs Point to March Madness Expanding to 96 Teams   3 hours, 38 minutes ago

    Fire Bob Wetlick!

  • BrickHorn commented on the blog post All Signs Point to March Madness Expanding to 96 Teams   3 hours, 39 minutes ago

    From the perspective of designing a tournament that will efficiently crown the best team as “champion,” expansion is ludicrous. Over the 25-year history of the 64-team field, the statistics clearly show that the tournament is already bloated beyond need. For instance:

    Only 6.5% of teams participating in the Elite Eight round are seeded lower

  • admin commented on the blog post All Signs Point to March Madness Expanding to 96 Teams   3 hours, 41 minutes ago

    Fire Bob Wetlick!

  • Sailor Ripley commented on the blog post Bracket Analysis: The South is a Bear of a Bracket   3 hours, 42 minutes ago

    Dude, Baylor to the Final Four? I just don’t see it.

    SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: ””, url: ”” });

  • Magnus Bleuveigner commented on the blog post NFL Draft: A Mockery   3 hours, 44 minutes ago

    Bradford has plenty of arm strength. He’s not Stafford in that department, but he throws darts, or bb’s, or whatever small object one uses to describe zip.

    Of all the attributes you look for in a QB, intelligence has to be the most important. Not the Wonderlic type, the improvisational type. He’s got that. If he

  • Texoz commented on the blog post Texas finishes sweep of Iowa   4 hours, 7 minutes ago

    theoretically, what’s the rotation for the next 4 games?
    Tonight – Dicharry
    Friday – Jungmann
    Sat – ??
    Sun – ??