(12-06-2015 12:47 PM)BamaScorpio69 Wrote:  

(12-06-2015 11:40 AM)B easy Wrote:  What's the real difference between UH & OU's resumes?

OU - Rankings of teams when they played them.
(23) Tennessee W 31 - 24
(23) West Virginia W 44 - 24
@ Texas L 17 - 24
(6) Baylor W 44 - 34
(18) TCU W 30 - 29
@ (11) Oklahoma St. W 58 - 23

UH - Rankings of teams when they played them.
@ Louisville W 34 - 31
Vanderbilt W 34 - 0
(21) Memphis W 35 - 34
@ Connecticut L 17 - 20[/b]
(15) Navy W 52 - 31
(22) Temple W 24 - 13


So OU beat five (5) ranked teams, UH beat three (3) ranked teams. And neither UConn or Texas is going to a bowl game. So the difference is beating five ranked teams to three ranked teams.

Using "ranked when they played them" is about as much of a junk metric as you can come up with, especially when its from rankings early in the season and they dont come close to matching the end of the season standings.

If a BigXII team shouldn't be in the playoffs for not playing a CCG, then why was it ever ok for a Big 10 or PAC10 school to play in the BCS championship when they didn't have a CCG?

Sagarin rankings are the most accurate impartial rankings out there and they have OU at #2... To say OU is not a top four team is just ridiculous, they would be favored against any team in the country accept Alabama who they would be a 1 point underdog to. Honestly, it should have gone:

1. Alabama
2. Oklahoma
3. Clemson
4. Michigan St.

(12-06-2015 05:30 PM)Hurricane Drummer Wrote:  If a BigXII team shouldn't be in the playoffs for not playing a CCG, then why was it ever ok for a Big 10 or PAC10 school to play in the BCS championship when they didn't have a CCG?

Different era and different criteria, the bcs was heavily flawed which is why we now have this system in place.