SB Nation User Blog: TheElusiveShadow

Note to Ignorant "Fans" of CFB

TheElusiveShadow — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 16:05:08 -0000

I am sick and tired of hearing morons from either Oklahoma or other areas contend that Texas did not really win on a neutral field. "It's in Texas! It can't be neutral!" they cry. I've heard SO MANY PEOPLE say this, and it is absolutely astounding. Do these people know anything about football? In fact, do these people know basic geography.

One such fan posted this on CCmachine, and that is right here. I was not particularly nice in my post back to him, but I'm getting quite exasperated. The more knowledgeable OU fans that have actually, you know, gone to the game agreed with me. Seriously, if you call yourself a Texas or OU fan and you don't know the tradition of the neutral site in Dallas, then you're kidding yourself. You're not a true fan.

We can go back and forth about OU and Texas for hours. But one thing that should never, EVER, come up is the fact that Texas didn't win on a neutral field. We did, and anyone with a gram of college footballl knowledge knows that.

As I condescendingly illustrated there, the RRR meets the following requirements for a neutral field:

1. Roughly equal distance (Norman is actually closer to Dallas)
2. Resident fans on both sides
3. A 50/50 split stadium

Why is the game in Texas? Well, when I was in kindergarten or so, I looked at a map and saw a rather large state called Texas. To the north was a smaller state named Oklahoma. Naturally, if you find a halfway point between two cities in each state, the chances are that the point will fall in the state with a lot more area... the one called Texas. The only time that would not happen is if you find a halfway point from a city way up north, which is definitely not Austin.

Add in the tradition, the craziness of the night before downtown and the sea of red and orange walking around the State Fair, it is a neutral site that is arguably unparalelled anywhere in college football. There's a reason many were angry at the Cotton Bowl for being stubborn with the renovations.

If you thought that Texas didn't win on a neutral site because of the brute fact that "The game was in Texas," you suck at life. That's about as nice as I can be about it.

Did Mack's vote really matter?

TheElusiveShadow — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 21:44:04 -0000

I'm not an expert on how the numbers are calculated, so I'm going to ask the likes of billyzane and company: If Mack voted Texas #1 and left OU off, or if he put them #25, would it have changed anything? Can somebody figure this out?

Like I've said here before, I'm glad he DIDN'T do that. It would have been dishonest and be against everything he stands for. However, so many people are bringing this point up that I just want to know if it would have even mattered. If not, then we can put this matter to rest. If so, then OU fans can never say Mack Brown is classless.

Thanks, CCmachine

TheElusiveShadow — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 16:45:58 -0000

We've had our differences here, but I think you run a great site here, CCmachine. Like I said in my fanpost here, I thought it was utterly ridiculous that OU and Texas had to debate beauty and style for hundredths of a point to play the mighty Big 12 North champ. However, since that was the system, I thought I might as well have fun and enter the fray, and I thank you for the engaging discussions. There are no hard feelings; obviously, you guys will argue hard for your case, as Texas fans theirs. In the end, OU got the nod, and that's nobody's fault by the system's.

OU is a deserving team. Texas is a deserving team. Unfortunately, the BCS and the tiebreaker forced people to split hairs and choose one. It wouldn't have been fair for you if we won, and it's not fair for us that you guys won. That's the way life is sometimes.

Obviously, for selfish reasons, I will be cheering for Missouri as a Texas fan. However, as a general college football fan, I know OU has a great team and if they win the Big 12, at least a team that deserved to win won it instead of a team that won a flukey game from the Big 12 North.

Just try not to embarrass the Big 12 again in the BCS... I'm not saying this to rag on you. I'm honestly hoping you don't crap the bed again. It was admittedly amusing when Boise State beat y'all with a ridiculous array of trick plays, but then I got angry that it made the conference looked bad.

Texas and OU may be the two best teams in the country. Too bad the system will not allow us to face each other again. I'd pay big money to see that one, and I'm poor.

Well, this is it

TheElusiveShadow — Sat, 29 Nov 2008 17:25:55 -0000

Saturday hath come. After today, we will know if all of the debating the past week was all for naught or if the debate will increase dramatically before the BCS standings are released tomorrow evening, maybe leading to more posts like this from me and others. I am still awaiting PB's MS Paint answer to mine.

We will cheer like mad for Baylor to pull one of the biggest upsets in their school's history. I would actually feel a lot better about that game if it was in Waco, since Tech is often rattled easily away from Lubbock, but since it is in Lubbock, I'm not holding my breath. However, LET'S GO ROBERT GRIFFIN. Let the spirit of Vince Young descend upon you.

That, of course, will make things a whole lot easier as we can just sit back and relax while watching the OU/OSU game. If not, then I don't know. Do you cheer for Oklahoma to preserve the three-way tie and hope that the voters rethink their choices? Do you cheer for Oklahoma State to send Tech to the Big 12 title game, the team that the Tigers have the best chance of knocking off? Most lean towards cheering against the Sooners, but it would still rub me the wrong way sending Tech as our South division champion, clearly the third best team in our conference.

In any case, in whatever scenario, I will be darn proud of this team. This is a team most pundits were writing off, and I was thinking a 2-loss season would be an enormous success this year. Most thought this was the year the 10-win streak would end. Instead, this team defied all odds and came within a dropped interception from sealing an undefeated season. If they had done that, what they would have done might have been more impressive than our 2005 team. Our 2005 team was undoubtedly better, but because they were so good, they were expected to go undefeated (and summarily pulverized most of the teams they played). This team came out and surprised even the most supportive fans and gave us one heck of a ride. For that, I will remember this season and I thank our players.

Last year, that might have been Mack Brown's worst coaching job. This year may have been his best. PB's analysis back then of the change in Brown from right after the Holiday Bowl was spot on: Mack is a tough guy who responded to the disappointment of losing to A&M again. Most of the credit of the attitude change should not go to Muschamp: It should go to Mack, who was bold enough to steal Will away in the first place.

If we are screwed by the BCS, we will not be the first team, nor the last. That's the way this messed up system is. But it can't take away our accomplishments nor our pride in this team. It makes me angry that because of the BCS, this Texas' team's accomplishments may be forgotten by CFB history, but I know full well that the fans will always remember. This team has left its mark in Texas football history already. I just hope we get a chance to finish the job.

Before the season, I wrote here about "football insanity," and I briefly wondered why I subject myself to the high-low madness that college football brings, especially with a relatively bleaker projection of our 2008 season. Well, it was crazy, but it was all worth it. I still remember the feeling after the Cotton Bowl: "Wait a second... did we just beat a #1 Oklahoma team coached by Bob Stoops that scores 999 points a game? YES WE DID!" And boy, we did it with a supreme toughness that swelled me with pride, fighting from two scores down on more than one occasion and enduring the Sooner blitz. Oklahoma's team this year is "shock and awe;" they pounce on teams early and psychologically knock them out. We are the ONLY team that did not get intimidated and forced them to fight for four, grueling quarters. Subsequently, we are the only team that has beaten them thus far. So voters, if you want to screw us, then do it. There will still be a sea of burnt orange behind our beloved team.

Hook'em. And, uh, go Baylor.

How Not to Deal with Arguments - By OU Fans

TheElusiveShadow — Thu, 27 Nov 2008 17:02:06 -0000

Here's the relevant link.

I'm getting a bit tired of the repeated "arguments" OU fans are spouting, which are more so accusations of Horns fans for being "self-serving," "irrational," and "arbitrary" when we are merely arguing the current status of the BCS.

I think CCmachine does a good job with this site, but his arguments were getting a bit irritating. Pay attention to our exchange; he not only fails to address my argument, he gets angry when I point that out and exits the discussion altogether. Nice.

So for OU fans, allow me to clarify a few things:

1. Horns fans are not "punishing" Tech for losing by a ton and/or OU for winning by a ton.

I'm getting increasingly amused (and annoyed) at how many OU fans are accusing us of using self-serving arguments and for "punishing" other teams like OU, as if we're the ones who control the BCS. The fact is, Tech is out of any scenario of a three way tie break, even if OU and Texas win by 1 point each in overtime and Tech wins by 200 points. We're just making a conclusion based on the BCS standings right now.

I can't count how many times I've been accused for arbitrarily tossing Tech to the wayside, punishing Oklahoma for winning by 50, etc. I promise you, if I had the power to "punish" teams and affect the BCS standings, I'd blow up the whole system and institute a playoff. Unfortunately, I, nor any other Texas fan, do not have that power, so we're making arguments as the BCS standings are shown to us. Does that mean we always agree with them? Of course not; I think it's ridiculous that Alabama does not have every #1 vote right now, for starters. However, fair or not, Tech got dropped heavily by the pollsters and didn't have an overly strong computer ranking to begin with, and thus, they cannot win a three way tiebreak against OU and Texas.

"We" are not punishing anyone. The BCS is. Go get mad at them.

2. If you want to pull Tech into the equation as a legit contender in a three-way tie, argue a case for them in the case of a three way tie.

I posed this challenge and ccmachine proceeded to "answer" it by posing the scenario of OU losing and Tech winning. Uh... that's not a three way tie. OF COURSE Tech requires OU to lose. That's exactly our argument; Tech can't win the South unless OU loses and they win, which is obviously not a three way tie any longer. The challenge is to argue that Tech has a chance if all three teams win to preserve the tie because that's when the BCS standings become relevant to the tiebreak. I'm starting to get incredibly exasperated how many OU fans are not understanding this very simple concept. Obviously, if the three-way is broken, the BCS standings no longer matter in the tiebreak and we will not be talking about this any longer.

I feel like I'm repeating my self way too much in the above paragraph, but it's apparently difficult for people to grasp the idea.

3. If Oklahoma fans cannot construct a realistic case for Tech to win a three way tie (again, let me emphasize the "three way tie" part for all OU fans), then it is not Texas fans who are being self-serving. OU fans are being the self-serving ones for bringing in a team that they know does not have a chance because they desperately need that team to bolster their case.

To illustrate, the race for a higher BCS ranking looks like this rather than an equal, three way tie:

OU fans want to make it like this:

As you can see, it is not Texas fans who are trying to be "self-serving." Oklahoma fans have no interest in making this an equal three-way discussion. They merely want to drag Tech in on their side for the sole purpose of bolstering their case against Texas. Subsequently, I've heard no case whatsoever from OU fans that Tech has a good argument in a three-way tie. To the contrary, OU simply wants Tech to piggyback on them until after the potential BCS tiebreak, in which they can toss Tech to the wayside and forget about the Red Raiders.

If you have a case for Tech in a three-way tie, we're all ears. If that is so, then we'll be happy to deal with additional arguments regarding Tech's overall resume. Otherwise, stop the accusations that Horns fans are arbitrarily excluding Tech in a three-way tie; Tech is excluded by the BCS, not us.

(You may notice I've said "three way tie" or something similar about a billion times, since people seem to conveniently ignore that important part.)

At any rate, this is one reason (not the only) why Texas fans think we have the better resume. We have a head-to-head argument. Oklahoma has to bring in a third party to try to counter, a third party they know is not an equal opponent in this fight. Thus, as a previous poster here pointed out, the curious logic for OU is similar to this:

Rock > Scissors > Paper, therefore Rock > Paper

And they want to reject this:

Paper > Rock

Make sense? You tell me.

edit: As you can see, I wish to challenge PB as the resident master at Microsoft Paint.

Discussion at CC machine

TheElusiveShadow — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 01:52:04 -0000

http://www.crimsonandcreammachine.com/2008/11/24/669448/big-12-south-is-still-a-th?login=1227566730

I think ccmachine runs the site well, and I can obviously understand that Sooner fans will try to argue their case. Fair enough. However, let me summarize the points I've been making there.

1. Texas fans ARE NOT pretending Tech doesn't exist. We know we laid the largest egg imaginable in Lubbock and lost. OU fans are accusing Texas fans of trying to forget about it so we can disingenously make this a two-horse race. However, I'd argue that OU is in fact disingenously bringing Tech into the conversation as a third wheel, because they know, as we do, that Tech has NO chance at the national title any longer (barring an epic catastrophe in college football). They also know that in the case of a three way tie, Tech once again has NO chance. Tech has one way, and one way only, to get to the Big 12 title game, and that is to beat Baylor and hope OU loses to OSU. If all three teams win, they're the third team. If all three teams lose (which is very unlikely), they're still the third team. Furthermore, even if they make it to KC and win the Big 12 title game, a team like Penn State will remain ahead of them and move on to Miami.

This is why the SEC uses the tiebreak that they do. In case of a three way tie, it is less likely that you get three teams that are as close together as OU and Texas is. You normally have two and then an "outlier" team, which in this case would be Texas Tech (although admittedly, #7 isn't a very large outlier). In this case, you eliminate the team that doesn't have a chance in the tie anyway, as far as rankings are concerned, and then look head to head.

I'm not saying the SEC's way is the right way; I'm merely pointing out the logic of that system, which can be argued to be good logic. Texas is not pretending that Tech doesn't exist; in fact, OU fans are the ones pretending the Tech has a legitimate shot at winning a three-way tie and/or going to the national title game. Everyone knows that national title implications as well as the BCS tiebreaker for the Big 12 South affect two teams alone: Texas and OU. Tech is out of both and can only hope for an Oklahoma loss.

2. Establishing that Texas Tech is overrated doesn't make Texas overrated. Many OU fans are trying to say that Horns fans are shooting themselves in the foot for calling Tech overrated, because we lost to them. I don't think so; that's like saying Oklahoma was bad in 2007 because they lost to a bad team on the road (Colorado). Or that USC was a fraud last year for flubbing against Stanford AT THE COLISEUM. Teams can pull off upsets; that doesn't automatically elevate them to elite status, such that defeating them later makes your team super-elite. I'd agree that using the head-to-head matchup exclusively is a mistake, but that also makes using our singular games against Tech exclusively a mistake as well. Texas, when you take our overall resume to account (which does indeed include that morning in Dallas), has the superior case.

3. If Missouri can be dismissed because the North champ is like saying they're the "tallest midget," then that totally blows up the arguments for TCU and Cincy. The Big East is garbage this year, and TCU does not even play in a BCS conference. Mizzou's only two losses are to OSU and Texas. Talk about being the "tallest midget." OU fans try to dismiss their other two INCREDIBLY weak OOC opponents, Chatanooga and Washington, by pointing to TCU and Cincy as balance, but that argument backfires because neither team matches Missouri. Even if we accept that Texas' OOC schedule was overly weak (I think it was stronger than people think), why can't we point to Missouri as the great equalizer? Why is that unfair for us to do?

That's enough for now. Isn't this so much fun?

Madness

TheElusiveShadow — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 03:31:37 -0000

Well, no sooner had the fireworks died down from the thumping OU put on Texas Tech in Norman did the heated debates start. Texas and OU are bitter rivals and it's just going to get worse from here.

I'm not going to discuss it in this post; I'm just going to take a step back and simply be amused by how ridiculous all this is.

I love college football. I love the talking and the debates. I think the BCS is a major upgrade than what we had in the past. However, this goes to show once again that we need to fix things. It is the height of absurdity that we're even having these discussions in the first place.

Don't get me wrong; it can be great fun. But it is nonetheless absurd. I remember both OU and Texas fans, after the Cotton Bowl, were congratulating each other for a great game (well, the smart classy ones were), and many shared the thought that we witnessed a great battle between the true #1 and #2 teams in the country that morning in Dallas. There are probably still many OU and Texas fans who think the Sooners and Horns are the best two teams in the country (though I do think Florida is very, very good). Yet for now, we are trying to talk each other down so we can get that extra hundredths of a point in the BCS to leapfrog the other to play... the Big 12 North champ. I think I speak for everyone when I say: WTF?!

Maybe we need a playoff. Maybe we need the "flex" system. Something needs to be done so this isn't so irrational.

All that being said, it ain't changing, so... I guess we might as well have fun with it. I'll be joining everyone in the coming weeks fighting and scraping and yelling for those fractions of a point. Bring it on.

Same Ol' Tech

TheElusiveShadow — Sun, 23 Nov 2008 03:49:47 -0000

As I sit here continuing to watch this terrible display of football put on by Tech, I sit here both smugly satisfied for telling all my friends that while Tech had a chance to win, it was a very small one, and very frustrated because I know we are better than Tech and we're just as good or better than Oklahoma.

I was actually very surprised some people predicted a Tech blowout. I knew there were four possibilities, and four only, of the outcome of this game: A close Tech win (if OU came out flat), a close Oklahoma win (again if OU came out flat), a comfortable Oklahoma win (if OU came out steady), or an Oklahoma blowout (if OU came out on fire or if Tech came out flat, or both). Tech had zero chance for a blowout. None. Here's why I knew.

Look, before Tech fans get on me for being classless, I know Tech has a good team. They do. Arguably the best they've ever had under Leach. But this is how I knew they weren't that good and not in the class of the elite teams: They didn't blow us out. We played by far our worst game of the season, coming out absolutely brain-dead and utterly flat. We were at the end of a brutal streak, playing our fourth straight game against a top 11 opponent and our 8th straight overall, and we didn't have Chykie Brown, Cosby got injured and was out the whole game, and Orakpo was for the second half. Yet we got down "only" 19-0 and we crawled back into the game. Tech showed their weaknesses on defense in that second half and the Horns came back and nearly won the game but dropped an easy interception. I believe I either stated here or elsewhere that if we played like THAT against an elite team like Florida or Oklahoma, we would have been obliterated with no chance for a comeback. That's what great teams do at home; they punish teams that come out flat in their place, even if their opponent is a quality team. We did that against Missouri. Florida did that to LSU. And now Oklahoma is doing that to Tech.

Tech is once again showing their true, Mike Leach colors. Look, I like the guy. He's done a very respectable job with Tech. However, the fact is that he still has yet to prove that he can win do-or-die games on the road and have a consistent defense that can carry him through when his offense sputters. I said to my Texas friends that the #1 reason I was afraid of the Tech game was because it was in Lubbock, and I deathly afraid that we'd come out flat and dig ourselves in a hole. We did exactly what I feared. If it was in Austin or on a neutral field, I would have been very confident we'd win. In fact, at a neutral site, if we played ten times, we'd probably split Oklahoma 5-5 but we'd beat Tech 9 times. No doubt.

Here's a rested Oklahoma team now, and Tech is playing on the road. OU did the smart thing, which was to run at Tech. Murray humiliated this "improved" Tech defense in the first half, the same Demarco Murray the Horns completely shut down. I'm not surprised by this game at all. I knew Tech could not stop OU. The question was if OU could stop Tech, and they have.

This is the same ol' Tech. Atrocious defense with poor tackling. Average athletes on defense. A choke job on the road. An inability to find other ways to win games when your passing game isn't clicking, which it will not always.

I hate Oklahoma. But I respect them as equals, and thus, I would be more okay with them in the MNC because I know they are one of the elite teams in the country. I don't hate Tech as much but I don't respect them as much. I did not want them to make it the national title game. I suspected they had little chance to win in Norman. I didn't expect such a ridiculous score, but my suspicions were nonetheless correct.

I know this will sound insulting to Tech fans, but it will always be like this with Leach. Leach will field competitive teams. Leach will win big games, especially at home. It is very, very doubtful he will ever take Tech passed the big boys to the top. Leach has never beaten OU and Texas in the same season, a very telling stat.

Congrats to OU. They are indeed one of the best teams in the country, and I would love to meet them again in the national title game if possible. I still don't think they should leap us in the polls if people take every team's entire resume into account, but I expect it now. It sucks that we lost such a golden opportunity to control our own destiny, but that's the way things go.

Texas Tech, you had a great run. I'm not trying to just rain down on your party. But I had to shake my head at the delusions of grandeur many Tech fans were having. Even if Tech pulled this one out (which I knew was unlikely), won the Big 12 over Mizzou, and went to the MNC, I'd put big money on the SEC champ they were going to face.

It's not over for Tech. They can still win the Big 12 if Oklahoma falters in Stillwater, which is possible. However, it is now almost impossible they'll make the national title game. USC or Penn State is going ahead of them.

I was waiting for the bubble to burst. I did not think it'd be so cruelly violent, but Stoops is clearly sending a message. Unfortunately, the Horns may not be allowed to answer the challenge.

Dominating win

TheElusiveShadow — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 21:01:03 -0000

I'm a bit exasperated that our offense wasn't as sharp as I would have liked, because we definitely should have posted at least forty points on this Kansas team. Some dropped balls and that numskull botched snap killed some drives. However, I was happy with the game overall and the defense was awesome. If not for an incredible catch by Briscoe, this is a shutout.

The only thing I worry about are the style points. Stupid voters will look at the score and think, "Well, they only won by 28 and Tech won by 42," or something like that. A shutout against a good Kansas offense at their place would have been sweet, but you have to give props to Briscoe on that play. That was just sick.

We didn't score at all in the fourth quarter as we clearly put on the breaks. We just have to live with that. We all like Mack for being classy, so we have to accept it when he decides not to humiliate the other team.

I hope the voters actually, you know, watched the game. Our offense could have been crisper at times, but our defense came out and hit hard and made Reesing very uncomfortable all day. Kind of a slow game, honestly... within the first few minutes, it was clear we were going to win. It became a matter of how we were going to win. All things considered, it was a very impressive performance, especially with the injuries we're dealing with. I hope Gideon is okay.

This team is good enough to win a national championship. Unfortunate we may not get that chance.

Just to refocus a bit...

TheElusiveShadow — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 22:18:28 -0000

Amid all this speculation on how we can get to the BCS title, one thing remains constant:

We have to win out.

While our schedule has only unranked teams, one of them happens to be Kansas who, if not for playing in the Big 12 and losing a nailbiter to South Florida, would definitely be ranked. We're not playing a pansy team, and we have to go to their place. They'll be desperate for a big win to define their season and many will remember the famous 4th and 19 that Vince Young converted with his legs in 2004 and the subsequent whining by Fatso. Not to mention the 52-0 whipping we put on them in the FIRST HALF in 2005 en route to an embarrassing 66-14 score.

In other words: Let's try to focus on things we can control.

To help, here are some offensive stats:

	CMP	ATT	YDS	CMP%	YDS/A	TD	INT	RAT
Todd Reesing	240	359	2942	66.9	8.20	23	10	151.3

He may have flopped against Tech, but even so... that ain't bad. We know he can throw.

Top two runners:

NAME	CAR	YDS	YPC	LONG	TD
Jake Sharp	144	737	5.1	47 (TD)	10
Angus Quigley	54	281	5.2	20	3

And then top receivers:

NAME	REC	YDS	YPR	LONG	TD
Dezmon Briscoe	60	976	16.3	69 (TD)	11
Kerry Meier	69	794	11.5	68 (TD)	5
Johnathan Wilson	30	443	14.8	56	2
Jake Sharp	20	251	12.6	67 (TD)	1

As you can see, they are quite capable of big plays.

Kansas is not as good as OU, OSU, or Tech, but if we go in there focused on something else, they are good enough to pounce on us. If this day and age of college football has taught us anything, if you aren't consistent, then you can lose to anyone on any night. Even to teams you would beat 99 times out of 100.

They don't have a very good defense, currently ranked 93rd in total defense, but if our offense comes out with another brain-dead first half, we can be staring at a deficit that we have to crawl out of before we snap out of it.

On paper, we're comfortably better than KU. Then again, on paper, we're better than Tech, but at their place, we came out flat and got into a hole that we very nearly but didn't get out of. So paper isn't worth much.

Let's go out and blast Kansas to pieces like we're capable of, and then we can take a break and watch OU play Tech the week after. This is what we can control, and I hope Mack imparts this on his players. There should be no reason why we don't post something like 45 points on Kansas and pressure Reesing, so I want to see it.