Oklahoma looked impressive

[DallasCowpoke111]

Texas was losing to Texas AM at the half by a touchdown.

After a 7:00, 80+ yard drive, that ended in a striped ball, returned for a 99 yard TD on a dumb play by Young. Up to that point, A&M had done basically nothing.

After the 1/2, on A&M's first series, they went 3-n-out, then gave up a blocked punt UT recoverd for a TD, then proceded to amass a WHOPPING 46 yards of offense until they FINALLY got a +20 drive, midway into the 4th qtr.

Texas beat 5-6 Arkansas by 2 points in which they were losing to Arkansas until 8 minutes into the 3rd quarter.

You keep hanging your hat on this argument post after post, yet you fail to mention that was the 2nd game of the season w/ Ark coming off a 63-13 drubbing of N.Mex St.

And it would have been a 7 point win if Missouri didn't miss the extra point.

LOL, and this to you is a GOOD point!!??

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I have to disagree and I'm not saying this because I'm an OU fan. Texas did backdoor their way into the BCS because Call was unimpressive in their win over Southern Mississippi. Do you honestly think Texas would have gotten a BCS bid had Cal dominated Southern Miss? I think that's what Dallas meant when he said Texas backdoored their way in. They needed an unimpressive showing by Cal to get in otherwise, they had no chance.

I guess I don't understand how this has anything to do with the fact that they deserve a BCS bid. Again, how is it the fault of Texas that there strength of schedule was better then Cal's? I do believe that the Texas win against A&M was more impressive then Cal's win against SMiss. A couple of things are very interesting to me about this game. One is that Cal was originally scheduled to play SMiss back in Sept. but it didn't happen. Had they played then, it's likely that Cal would never have been in front of Texas at this point in the season because of how that game would have effected strength of schedule. The other is that Aaron Rodgers was only 15/28 for 223 yards. 2 TDs and 1 Int. His season average was 67.5% completion rating but he was only at 53.6 against SMiss. 1 Int for every 3 TDs but against SMiss he was only 2 for 1. Arrington ran for 261 yards on 31 carries. As a team, they rushed for 323 yards on 44 carries averaging 7.3 per carry. Cal ran the ball fine and they ran it all game long. Rodgers did not have a very good game. This against SMiss, a team that placed 5th in there conference.

You look at Cal's schedule and this is what you see.

They beat ** 56-14
They Beat NMSU 41-14
They Beat Oregon St. 49-7
Lost to USC 23-17
Beat UCLA 45-28
Beat Az 38-0
Beat ASU 27-0
Beat Oregon 28-27
Beat UW 42-12
Beat Stanford 41-6
and finally
beat SMiss 26-16.

Two things, there strength of schedule is pretty low and they ran up the score on 8 of there 11 games. The only one's you can say they didn't were the loss to SC, the close win over Oregon 28-27 and the SMiss game. James, I have known you for some time and I very much respect your opinions, even when I don't agree with them but you tell me. Does it make sense that Cal would run up the score in almost every game it played but when it came down to the last game of the season, with a BCS in the balance, they would step back and be nice guys about this?

In my eyes, the more likely reason is that they had a tough time with SMiss and did not play as well as they needed to.

Strength of schedule and the more impressive win was Texas over A&M.

To say Texas back doored anybody is not a fair assesment.

 

[joseephuss]

Both Cal and Texas had their chances to beat USC and OU respectively and they didn't. You could argue either way on which of those teams deserve a BCS bid. They are both playing second fiddle to their conference leaders and have been for a few years.

I would love for them to face off in a BCS bowl rather than see Pittsburgh or even Michigan play in a BCS game. The Big East is a near defunct conference and to me the Big Ten is weaker this season than the Pac 10, Big 12 and the SEC. Michigan lost to an average or less Notre Dame and Ohio State which is going through a re-loading year. They also struggled against a below average Michigan St. and San Diego State.

Even better, I would rather see all those teams in a playoff system.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Both Cal and Texas had their chances to beat USC and OU respectively and they didn't. You could argue either way on which of those teams deserve a BCS bid. They are both playing second fiddle to their conference leaders and have been for a few years.

I would love for them to face off in a BCS bowl rather than see Pittsburgh or even Michigan play in a BCS game. The Big East is a near defunct conference and to me the Big Ten is weaker this season than the Pac 10, Big 12 and the SEC. Michigan lost to an average or less Notre Dame and Ohio State which is going through a re-loading year. They also struggled against a below average Michigan St. and San Diego State.

Even better, I would rather see all those teams in a playoff system.

Sounds so simple when you look at it, don't it?

 

[mr.jameswoods]

You keep hanging your hat on this argument post after post, yet you fail to mention that was the 2nd game of the season w/ Ark coming off a 63-13 drubbing of N.Mex St.

Since when have we ever forgiven losses because they occurred early in the season and against teams who had come off a big win the week prior?

And your other points are weak. All of the criticisms you layed upon OU can be defended in a similar manner. You are in no position to criticize OU for beating OSU and Texas AM by minimal points when Texas has done the same against teams like Kansas, Missouri and Arkansas.

 

[mr.jameswoods]

Both Cal and Texas had their chances to beat USC and OU respectively and they didn't. You could argue either way on which of those teams deserve a BCS bid. They are both playing second fiddle to their conference leaders and have been for a few years.

I would love for them to face off in a BCS bowl rather than see Pittsburgh or even Michigan play in a BCS game. The Big East is a near defunct conference and to me the Big Ten is weaker this season than the Pac 10, Big 12 and the SEC. Michigan lost to an average or less Notre Dame and Ohio State which is going through a re-loading year. They also struggled against a below average Michigan St. and San Diego State.

Even better, I would rather see all those teams in a playoff system.

Very nice post and I agree that Texas and Cal should face each other at the very least.

 

[mr.jameswoods]

I guess I don't understand how this has anything to do with the fact that they deserve a BCS bid. Again, how is it the fault of Texas that there strength of schedule was better then Cal's? I do believe that the Texas win against A&M was more impressive then Cal's win against SMiss. A couple of things are very interesting to me about this game. One is that Cal was originally scheduled to play SMiss back in Sept. but it didn't happen. Had they played then, it's likely that Cal would never have been in front of Texas at this point in the season because of how that game would have effected strength of schedule. The other is that Aaron Rodgers was only 15/28 for 223 yards. 2 TDs and 1 Int. His season average was 67.5% completion rating but he was only at 53.6 against SMiss. 1 Int for every 3 TDs but against SMiss he was only 2 for 1. Arrington ran for 261 yards on 31 carries. As a team, they rushed for 323 yards on 44 carries averaging 7.3 per carry. Cal ran the ball fine and they ran it all game long. Rodgers did not have a very good game. This against SMiss, a team that placed 5th in there conference.

You look at Cal's schedule and this is what you see.

They beat ** 56-14
They Beat NMSU 41-14
They Beat Oregon St. 49-7
Lost to USC 23-17
Beat UCLA 45-28
Beat Az 38-0
Beat ASU 27-0
Beat Oregon 28-27
Beat UW 42-12
Beat Stanford 41-6
and finally
beat SMiss 26-16.

Two things, there strength of schedule is pretty low and they ran up the score on 8 of there 11 games. The only one's you can say they didn't were the loss to SC, the close win over Oregon 28-27 and the SMiss game. James, I have known you for some time and I very much respect your opinions, even when I don't agree with them but you tell me. Does it make sense that Cal would run up the score in almost every game it played but when it came down to the last game of the season, with a BCS in the balance, they would step back and be nice guys about this?

In my eyes, the more likely reason is that they had a tough time with SMiss and did not play as well as they needed to.

Strength of schedule and the more impressive win was Texas over A&M.

To say Texas back doored anybody is not a fair assesment.

You made a great case and I would almost agree with you. I didn't think Texas' win over Texas AM was that impressive. They were down at the half for one thing and they played that game at home. Cal flew accross the country to play in Hattiesberg, Miss. Does it make sense that Texas can blow out OSU and Texas Tech but couldn't do so against significantly weaker teams like Kansas, Missouri, and Arkansas? Texas had every opportunity to blow out these weaker opponents and take care of business so you can't fault Cal for blowing out weak opponents when Texas failed to do that against their weak opponents.

You have to admit the game between Cal and USC was a lot closer than the game between Texas and OU. OU shut out Texas while Cal was 20 yards away from the game winning TD in the final seconds of the 4th quarter.

And realistically, how much tougher was Texas' schedule versus Cal's? Aside from Oklahoma, Oklahoma St., Texas Tech and Texas AM, who did they really play? Cal played USC, Arizona St., and Southern Mississippi so you can argue Texas played one more competitive team than Cal. The rest of their opponents like Rice, North Texas, Kansas, Arkansas, Missouri,and Colorado were not that impressive.

ABQ, you can make a case for Texas as you can make a case for Cal. I'm not saying Cal should have been a clear favorite. But they backdoored their way in because they needed an unimpressive victory by Cal to get in. We both know if Cal would have scored another TD, Texas may not have gotten a BCS based on what they did in the season. They needed Cal to screw up a little for them to have a chance. I know you will still disagree so you can have the last word on this. I'm afraid we will have to agree to disagree on this issue but like I said, have the last response and so you can say your peace.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

You made a great case and I would almost agree with you. I didn't think Texas' win over Texas AM was that impressive. They were down at the half for one thing and they played that game at home. Cal flew accross the country to play in Hattiesberg, Miss. Does it make sense that Texas can blow out OSU and Texas Tech but couldn't do so against significantly weaker teams like Kansas, Missouri, and Arkansas? Texas had every opportunity to blow out these weaker opponents and take care of business so you can't fault Cal for blowing out weak opponents when Texas failed to do that against their weak opponents.

You have to admit the game between Cal and USC was a lot closer than the game between Texas and OU. OU shut out Texas while Cal was 20 yards away from the game winning TD in the final seconds of the 4th quarter.

And realistically, how much tougher was Texas' schedule versus Cal's? Aside from Oklahoma, Oklahoma St., Texas Tech and Texas AM, who did they really play? Cal played USC, Arizona St., and Southern Mississippi so you can argue Texas played one more competitive team than Cal. The rest of their opponents like Rice, North Texas, Kansas, Arkansas, Missouri,and Colorado were not that impressive.

ABQ, you can make a case for Texas as you can make a case for Cal. I'm not saying Cal should have been a clear favorite. But they backdoored their way in because they needed an unimpressive victory by Cal to get in. We both know if Cal would have scored another TD, Texas may not have gotten a BCS based on what they did in the season. They needed Cal to screw up a little for them to have a chance. I know you will still disagree so you can have the last word on this. I'm afraid we will have to agree to disagree on this issue but like I said, have the last response and so you can say your peace.

The problem here is that I believe you may think I don't feel Cal deserves to be there. If that is the case, then that is an incorrect assumption. I believe Cal should have gotten there. I absolutly agree Cal should have beaten USC. I also don't fault Cal for running up the score. I don't like it but everybody does it. My point is that the did it all year but not in the final game. That, to me, suggests that they were incapable of doing it. I agree that Texas should have won bigger against some of there opponents but again, the strength of schedule for Texas was better then the strength of schedule for Cal. This is not my personal belief but the numbers that the BCS has provided. It is not a point of contention but a fact according to the BCS. Consider, they picked up votes in both polls and points in the BCS because of the strength of schedule. That would suggest that it was unanimous in all three evaluations that Texas had performed better. If Cal had beaten SMiss, a bad team, by 30 points then maybe your correct. They didn't. Not because they wouldn't. Cal certainly has proven that they would run up the score. The problem is they didn't. How is that the fault of Texas?

BTW,

Thank you for the consideration on the last word.

 

[Natedawg44]

All of the criticisms you layed upon OU can be defended in a similar manner. You are in no position to criticize OU for beating OSU and Texas AM by minimal points when Texas has done the same against teams like Kansas, Missouri and Arkansas

Agreed since when does any fan of the University of Texas have a position to criticize OU about anything. Beat Sooners then you can talk. Cal as well. BCS bowl this. We got robbed this. Cal has no excuse win all your games if you want to go to a BCS bowl. Oh you didn't win all your games then shut your hole and have fun in the holiday bowl. Utah, Boise State, and Auburn are the only teams that have a legitimate gripe. Bottom Line. Last year USC had no one to blame but themselves for not being in the championship game. Don't lose to Cal and you are in. Anyway does it even really matter unless it's the National Championship. Nope it really doesn't there is only one owner of the ACFA trophy and 116 runner ups.

 

[royhitshard]

Agreed since when does any fan of the University of Texas have a position to criticize OU about anything. Beat Sooners then you can talk. Cal as well. BCS bowl this. We got robbed this. Cal has no excuse win all your games if you want to go to a BCS bowl. Oh you didn't win all your games then shut your hole and have fun in the holiday bowl. Utah, Boise State, and Auburn are the only teams that have a legitimate gripe. Bottom Line. Last year USC had no one to blame but themselves for not being in the championship game. Don't lose to Cal and you are in. Anyway does it even really matter unless it's the National Championship. Nope it really doesn't there is only one owner of the ACFA trophy and 116 runner ups.

Exactly what he said!