dday@gymble.UUCP (Dennis Doubleday) (02/03/86)
In article <8660@ucla-cs.ARPA> lor@ucla-cs.UUCP (Edward Lor) writes: > If I can vote in the poll, I would have voted >for Oklahoma also, because they got the best RECORD under >this system. >However, I always claim that this system is not the best way >to determine the best team in the nation. >We can't get the best team without a playoff system, >as in all other sports. >Too bad, maybe I am the only person who knows that! I'm in favor of a college football playoff because all of us fans would get to see some great games. However, I'm not naive enough to think that a playoff system will necessarily produce the best team. I KNOW it won't end the controversy. Suppose we have a playoff. In the finals, 12-0 Alabama has an off day and loses 24-23 to 9-3 USC. USC is then NCAA champion. But is anyone other than USC fans going to be convinced that the best team won?. Not likely. Alabama fans will go to their graves claiming they had the better team. Another scenario: in their traditional showdown, Michigan beats Ohio State in Columbus 30-12, leaving both teams with 10-1 records. But then 10-1 UCLA pounds Michigan 36-6 in the Rose Bowl. In the playoffs, UCLA stumbles when their quarterback goes down with an injury and Florida nips them 17-16. Meanwhile, Ohio State breezes through the other bracket, edges Florida in the finals and becomes NCAA champion. Are you, Edward Lor, (and remember, you're under oath) going to come on the network and say, "I admit it, Ohio State was the best team this year."?? Not Crimson Tide likely. So, let's by all means have a playoff, but let's not pretend that it will settle everything. Does anyone out there really believe that Villanova, a three-time loser to Georgetown, was really the best basketball team in the NCAA in 1985?? -- UUCP: seismo!umcp-cs!dday Dennis Doubleday CSNet: dday@umcp-cs University of Maryland ARPA: dday@gymble.umd.edu College Park, MD 20742 Fan of: Chicago Cubs, Chicago Bears, OU Sooners (301) 454-6154
lor@ucla-cs.UUCP (02/06/86)
In article <486@gymble.UUCP> dday@gymble.UUCP (Dennis Doubleday) writes: You raised some interesting points. Let me tell you what I think about a playoff system. At the end of each regular season, a few teams with the best records would claim themselves as the best team in the nation. Ideally, the playoff should simply be a mean for these teams to settle the issue. It should not be a national fanfare that gets every part of the country involved, as in a 64-team tournament. >So, let's by all means have a playoff, but let's not pretend that it will >settle everything. Does anyone out there really believe that Villanova, >a three-time loser to Georgetown, was really the best basketball team in >the NCAA in 1985?? Beano Cook also said before the 1985 football season: "A playoff system would not work. You can't convince me Villanova is the best team in the country." Let's face it. From 3/14/85 to 4/1/85, Villanova played the most inspiring basketball in the country. Demolishing powerhouses like Michigan, North Carolina, Memphis St., and Georgetown simply indicated their strength and character. A basic requirement for a champion is to win the games that count most. I never doubted their credentials as the best team in the playoffs. However, based on their performance from November, 1984 to early March 1985, Villanova should not have been playing basketball in the final weeks in March. A 19-10 (their record before the tournament) team certainly did not deserve a shot at the national title. A three-time loser to Georgetown just should not have had a fourth chance. A 64-team tournament is a joke! Had the title been won by Michigan, St. John, or Memphis St. (the other top seeds in the tournament,) instead of Georgetown, would you have doubted the playoff system? Let's go back to football. After the end of the 1985 regular season, several teams had legitimate claims as the best team in the country. If we have an eight-team playoff for non-probational teams, the entries would have been: Penn St, Miami, Iowa, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Michigan, and any two of UCLA, Alabama, Texas A&M and Nebraska. Well, maybe you'll say some of them still did not belong, let's trim the pool to Penn St., Miami, Iowa, and Oklahoma. Had any one of them won the tournament, you would not have resented the system, would you? Well, if we only have a two-team playoff, it would have been between Penn St. and Miami, or Iowa and Miami. Based on the regular season record, Oklahoma certainly did not belong because it lost to Miami at home (this is the so-called head-to-head tie-breaker for teams with equal records.) Oklahoma may have the best talents, but it's the score on the field that counts (look at the 1985 49ers). That is why I question the current bowl system, which just puts Oklahoma/Nebraska in the title game by default. Before the Orange Bowl, Switzer was asked whether Miami deserved to be national champ had it defeated Tennessee. He said: "We should be champions if we beat #1 Penn St." Looks like the Villanova scenario to me. Switzer just brought our attention to the end, but avoided answering whether his sooners should have been in a title game at the first place. >In the finals, 12-0 Alabama >has an off day and loses 24-23 to 9-3 USC. USC is then NCAA champion. But >is anyone other than USC fans going to be convinced that the best team won?. I don't think a 9-3 team deserves an opportunity to be the best team in the country. >Another scenario: in their traditional showdown, Michigan beats >Ohio State in Columbus 30-12, leaving both teams with 10-1 records. But then >10-1 UCLA pounds Michigan 36-6 in the Rose Bowl. In the playoffs, UCLA >stumbles when their quarterback goes down with an injury and Florida nips >them 17-16. Meanwhile, Ohio State breezes through the other bracket, edges >Florida in the finals and becomes NCAA champion. A 10-1 team certainly deserves a shot if it is a four/eight team playoff. There aren't many 10-1 teams in any given year. Don't forget, the teams in the other brackets are very legitimate contenders too. If Ohio State breezes through the tournament, wins the games which count most, would you question their merits? >Are you, Edward Lor, (and >remember, you're under oath) going to come on the network and say, "I admit >it, Ohio State was the best team this year."?? Not Crimson Tide likely. This is a perfect analogy. Oklahoma got embarrassed by Miami at Norman, got into the title game just because of this bowl system (they didn't even breeze through another bracket,) and won. Would you have (I presume you are under oath too) posted articles on the net saying Oklahoma was the best team and all others were sour grapes? -- Eddy Lor ...!(ihnp4,ucbvax)!ucla-cs!lor lor@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU Computer Science Department, UCLA
dday@gymble.UUCP (02/07/86)
In article <8747@ucla-cs.ARPA> lor@ucla-cs.UUCP (Edward Lor) writes: > You raised some interesting points. Let me tell you >what I think about a playoff system. > Beano Cook also said before the 1985 football season: "A playoff >system would not work. You can't convince me Villanova is the best >team in the country." > Let's face it. From 3/14/85 to 4/1/85, Villanova played >the most inspiring basketball in the country. Demolishing >powerhouses like Michigan, North Carolina, Memphis St., and >Georgetown simply indicated their strength and character. >A basic requirement for a champion is to win the games that count most. >I never doubted their credentials as the best team in the playoffs. > However, based on their performance from November, 1984 >to early March 1985, Villanova should not have been playing >basketball in the final weeks in March. A 19-10 (their >record before the tournament) team certainly did not >deserve a shot at the national title. A three-time loser >to Georgetown just should not have had a fourth chance. You seem to contradict yourself here. On the one hand you seem to say that Villanova deserved to be champions because they showed a lot of heart and won the games that mattered; on the other hand you say they shouldn't have been allowed on the tournament at all! Let me just remind other readers at this point that the argument centers around Mr. Lor's claim that a college football playoff would settle once and for all the annual argument about which team was the best of a given year. I admit that I would like to see a playoff simply because I would get to see some great games, but I certainly don't believe a playoff would settle the "Who's #1" issue. > Had the title been won by Michigan, St. John, or >Memphis St. (the other top seeds in the tournament,) instead >of Georgetown, would you have doubted the playoff system? This is a truly illogical question. You might as well ask, "If the playoffs always ended with the best team winning the finals, would you admit that the best team always wins?" Well, yes. But the point is, THE BEST TEAM DOESN'T ALWAYS WIN. Villanova is proof of that. > Let's go back to football. After the end of the >1985 regular season, several teams had legitimate claims >as the best team in the country. >If we have an eight-team playoff for non-probational teams, the entries >would have been: Penn St, Miami, Iowa, Oklahoma, Tennessee, >Michigan, and any two of UCLA, Alabama, Texas A&M and Nebraska. >Well, maybe you'll say some of them still did not belong, >let's trim the pool to Penn St., Miami, Iowa, and Oklahoma. >Had any one of them won the tournament, you would not have resented >the system, would you? I certainly wouldn't have. But it's not hard to imagine any number of scenarios where many would an injustice had been done. An eight-team playoff is probably too large, requiring 3 extra games. Your proposed eight team field contains three teams with 9-2-1 records, and yet you say that a 9-3 team shouldn't be allowed a chance at the national title. Just where do you draw the line? Suppose then that we have a four team playoff. The four you choose seem reasonable. But aren't the fans of 10-1-1 Michigan going to say "We belong there. We were only four points away from an undefeated season. Let us play Iowa on a neutral field." Many neutral observers thought Michigan was the best team in football this season. And the fans of 11-1 Air Force will say they belong. U. of Florida supporters will say it's all meaningless because the best team wasn't allowed to play. So it's really not that much different than the present situation. >Well, if we only have a two-team playoff, it would have been >between Penn St. and Miami, or Iowa and Miami. This is the worst possible possibility. It would settle nothing. Iowa and Miami both got blasted in bowl games, but in your second choice of teams one of them would have won the title. Anyway, Penn State at 12-0 would have to be one of the two teams. The point is that it's hard to say anything definitive about a single game between two fairly evenly-matched teams. If, as in baseball, you could have a best-of-seven series, you could be more certain the best team had won. But you can't do that in football. >That is why I question the current bowl system, which >just puts Oklahoma/Nebraska in the title game by default. That's completely absurd. In the first place, it was Penn State who had the power this year to determine who would be in the title game. The title game would be wherever they went. Fortunately for Oklahoma, they chose the Orange Bowl. In the second place, your statement makes your usual biased assumption that Oklahoma plays no other opponents of any difficulty, which is provably false. >>In the finals, 12-0 Alabama >>has an off day and loses 24-23 to 9-3 USC. USC is then NCAA champion. But >>is anyone other than USC fans going to be convinced that the best team won?. > > I don't think a 9-3 team deserves an opportunity to be >the best team in the country. > >>Another scenario: in their traditional showdown, Michigan beats >>Ohio State in Columbus 30-12, leaving both teams with 10-1 records. But then >>10-1 UCLA pounds Michigan 36-6 in the Rose Bowl. In the playoffs, UCLA >>stumbles when their quarterback goes down with an injury and Florida nips >>them 17-16. Meanwhile, Ohio State breezes through the other bracket, edges >>Florida in the finals and becomes NCAA champion. >>Are you, Edward Lor, (and >>remember, you're under oath) going to come on the network and say, "I admit >>it, Ohio State was the best team this year."?? Not Crimson Tide likely. > > This is a perfect analogy. Oklahoma got embarrassed by Miami >at Norman, got into the title game just because of this bowl system >(they didn't even breeze through another bracket,) and won. >Would you have (I presume you are under oath too) posted articles >on the net saying Oklahoma was the best team and all >others were sour grapes? It's not analagous at all. My team won. It's perfectly reasonable for me to claim they are the best. You completely dodged my question to you. Under those circumstances I outlined, there is no way that you or any other UCLA fan is going to feel Ohio State was the best. But such a scenario could easily occur. And so the controversy goes on, just as it always has. -- UUCP: seismo!umcp-cs!dday Dennis Doubleday CSNet: dday@umcp-cs University of Maryland ARPA: dday@gymble.umd.edu College Park, MD 20742 Fan of: Chicago Cubs, Chicago Bears, OU Sooners (301) 454-6154
lor@ucla-cs.UUCP (02/10/86)
> >You seem to contradict yourself here. On the one hand you seem to say that >Villanova deserved to be champions because they showed a lot of heart and >won the games that mattered; on the other hand you say they shouldn't have >been allowed on the tournament at all! > I hope you can rebute the two individual premises of my arguments: i) Villanova did not deserve a shot based on their regular season record. ii) Villanova, with a shot (deserved or not), proved they were the best among the field of 64 during the playoffs. I absolutely agree, these two premises, when put together, causes a contradiction. That is exactly the controversy generated by a 64-team tournament! I am not contradicting myself. >I admit that I would like to see a playoff simply because I would >get to see some great games, but I certainly don't believe a playoff would >settle the "Who's #1" issue. I hope you can distinguish a playoff of a selected field, and a playoff of almost everybody. The former can be represented by the Superbowl tournament, the latter by the NCAA basketball tournament. Since the AFL-NFL merger (1970), I have never heard of anybody saying: "The Superbowl champ is not the best team in the League." (Geez, I hope you can say that about your Bears!) When we talk about college football playoffs, I hope you realize that I am a fan of a playoff among the few elites, but NOT a 64-team field! >Well, yes. But the point is, THE BEST TEAM DOESN'T >ALWAYS WIN. Villanova is proof of that. You didn't even define what "THE BEST TEAM" is, best on paper? best record during the regular season? best talents? best execution during the playoffs? Anyway, I sort of agree with you about Villanova, a 64-team tournament can always provide such a proof. >>let's trim the pool to Penn St., Miami, Iowa, and Oklahoma. >>Had any one of them won the tournament, you would not have resented >>the system, would you? > >I certainly wouldn't have. But it's not hard to imagine any number of >scenarios where many would an injustice had been done. Like what? They only scenarios I can see are: Penn St. won the tournament, Miami won the tournament, Iowa won the tournament, or Oklahoma won the tournament. They were the best four teams, according to what they did ON THE FIELD. > An eight-team >playoff is probably too large, requiring 3 extra games. Your proposed >eight team field contains three teams with 9-2-1 records, and yet you say >that a 9-3 team shouldn't be allowed a chance at the national title. Just >where do you draw the line? Fine, let's draw the line between 9-2-1 and 9-3. Oops, should be 8-2-1 and 8-3, considering the bowl games do not exist. >Suppose then that we have a four team playoff. >The four you choose seem reasonable. But aren't the fans of 10-1-1 Michigan >going to say "We belong there. We were only four points away from an >undefeated season. Let us play Iowa on a neutral field." Many neutral >observers thought Michigan was the best team in football this season. And the >fans of 11-1 Air Force will say they belong. U. of Florida supporters will >say it's all meaningless because the best team wasn't allowed to play. So >it's really not that much different than the present situation. So let Michigan and Air Force fans protest. Michigan's REGULAR-SEASON record and Air Force's REGULAR-SEASON schedule proved that they did not belong in the top four. It's the record on the field (plus the quality of opponents) that counts! Also Florida finished with only 9-1-1. >>Well, if we only have a two-team playoff, it would have been >>between Penn St. and Miami, or Iowa and Miami. > >This is the worst possible possibility. It would settle nothing. Iowa and >Miami both got blasted in bowl games, but in your second choice of teams >one of them would have won the title. Had there been a playoff, the bowl games would not have existed. I am arguing the merits of playoff berths based on the REGULAR SEASON only. Please don't put the bowls into account. As I said, under the bowl system, I would not doubt Oklahoma's position as #1. Why do we bother to exchange had this bowl system been convincing? >Anyway, Penn State at 12-0 would have to be one of the two teams. I absolutely agree! >The point is that it's hard to say anything >definitive about a single game between two fairly evenly-matched teams. You said it! In all sports, results on the field are used to determine whether a team should advance to the next round. You lost to Miami, you lost the tie-breaker. Again, the sooners may have a better team on paper, but they should not have played in a championship game, if we have to choose one among Oklahoma, Miami, and Iowa. Should we start arguing the rationale of using head-to-head result as tie-breaker? >That's completely absurd. In the first place, it was Penn State who had the >power this year to determine who would be in the title game. The title game >would be wherever they went. Fortunately for Oklahoma, they chose the >Orange Bowl. That's the problem. had there been a two team playoff censored by the NCAA, should Penn St. be allowed to choose the opponents? You got it right. Oklahoma was FORTUNATE to get the chance to play Penn St, and in other words, the title game. Should we say Oklahoma sneak into a national championship game at the expense of Miami? >In the second place, your statement makes your usual biased >assumption that Oklahoma plays no other opponents of any difficulty, which >is provably false. This is more or less true, but I am not using that to back up my points in this article. >You completely dodged my question to you. >Under those circumstances I outlined, there is no way that you or any other >UCLA fan is going to feel Ohio State was the best. But such a scenario >could easily occur. And so the controversy goes on, just as it always has. I don't have to dodge the question. A 10-1 team (not a 19-10 Villanova) which breezes through the playoffs (among very legitimate contenders, no Villanovas) definitely is the best team in the country. I am sorry if you missed my indirect answer in the previous article, but please don't conjecture my feeling to strengthen your argument. >It's not analagous at all. Maybe you didn't see the similarities between Oklahoma and Ohio St. in your example but I sure did. Well, why bother? >My team won. It's perfectly reasonable for me >to claim they are the best. I hope you know what you are talking about: a playoff among the few legitimate contenders cannot produce the best team, while the winner between #1 Penn St and non-#2 Oklahoma (don't forget, they lost the tie-breaker to Miami) is the best team. I just don't follow. -- Eddy Lor ...!(ihnp4,ucbvax)!ucla-cs!lor lor@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU Computer Science Department, UCLA
dday@gymble.UUCP (Dennis Doubleday) (02/12/86)
In article <8852@ucla-cs.ARPA> lor@ucla-cs.UUCP (Edward Lor) writes: > I hope you know what you are talking about: >a playoff among the few legitimate contenders cannot produce the best team, >while the winner between #1 Penn St and non-#2 Oklahoma (don't >forget, they lost the tie-breaker to Miami) is the best team. >I just don't follow. You're hopeless, Eddy! I never said that a playoff CAN'T produce the best team, I simply said it won't settle the controversy. Teams left out of a playoff will always complain. You say that Air Force wouldn't have deserved being in a playoff based on regular season records. But their 10-1 record was the same as Oklahoma's, Miami's, and Iowa's. How do you figure? If you're going to bring strength of schedule into the argument, then you can't just pick the four teams with the best records. Under that criterion, 11-0 Penn State didn't belong, 9-1-1 Michigan did. And rating schedule difficulty for the purpose of selecting four playoff teams is a highly subjective exercise. CONTROVERSY WILL ENSUE. And that is my final word on this matter. Fire away. -- UUCP: seismo!umcp-cs!dday Dennis Doubleday CSNet: dday@umcp-cs University of Maryland ARPA: dday@gymble.umd.edu College Park, MD 20742 Fan of: Chicago Cubs, Chicago Bears, OU Sooners (301) 454-6154
mike@uokvax.UUCP (02/13/86)
>A basic requirement for a champion is to win the games that count most. That's why my vote went to Miami, Fla (choke choke). This statement seems to suggest what the playoff system provides. Does this mean that regular season records are no longer important, but wait, that can't be right because you said that a 9-3 record wasn't good enough to make the playoffs. The key to this statement is which games count the most. Which games do count the most? Is it better to lose to a good team or a bad one? This is a tough question. Losing to a good team suggests that maybe you're not that good, or that you choke when the heat is on. Losing to a bad team suggests that you are inconsistent. Of course injuries play key roles in both situations. >Based on the regular season record, Oklahoma certainly did >not belong because it lost to Miami at home (this is the >so-called head-to-head tie-breaker for teams with equal records.) This is assuming a two-team playoff which is totally absurd. >That is why I question the current bowl system, which >just puts Oklahoma/Nebraska in the title game by default. Yeah, Oklahoma played such panzies as Minnesota, Texas, Miami, Colorado, Nebraska, Oklahoma State, and SMU. How they actually allowed themselves to LOSE one of those games, I'll never know. And how all but one of those teams made it to bowl games (SMU was on probation) is a mystery to me. The fact that three of those teams played on New Years Day must mean that is was a bad year for College football. By the way, the weenie lineup next year includes UCLA, Minnesota, Texas, and Miami, Fla. :-) > Before the Orange Bowl, Switzer was asked whether >Miami deserved to be national champ had it defeated Tennessee. >He said: "We should be champions if we beat #1 Penn St." Please do not put quotes around your interpretation of what Barry Switzer said. His exact words were closer to: If we beat Penn State, then I feel we're the best team in the country. I for one feel that there is a HUGE difference between these two statements. Mike Heath Univ. of Oklahoma, Engineering Computer Network {ctvax,ea,okstate}!uokvax!mike
lor@ucla-cs.UUCP (02/15/86)
In article <495@gymble.UUCP> dday@gymble.UUCP (Dennis Doubleday) writes: >You're hopeless, Eddy! Am I? Let me remind you what you said: In your article dated 2/7/86: > >But the point is, THE BEST TEAM DOESN'T ALWAYS WIN (the playoffs). >Villanova is a proof of that. > .... > but I certainly don't believe a playoff would settle the "Who's #1" issue. In your latest article, dated 2/12/86: > >I never said that a playoff CAN'T produce the best team, >I simply said it won't settle the controversy. Anyway, congradualations! You are finally convinced that a playoff among the few best teams CAN indeed produce the best in the country. Now you want to divert my attention to another controversy: the selection process. Well, there are always teams left out in the playoffs, even in a 64-team tournament, remember the outcrying from 20+ wins coaches every year? >Teams left out of a playoff will always complain. You say that >Air Force wouldn't have >deserved being in a playoff based on regular season records. But their >10-1 record was the same as Oklahoma's, Miami's, and Iowa's. If we have to choose 3 out of Oklahoma, Miami, Iowa and Air Force (all of them lost only 1 game, no tie), who should we drop? Remember, Air Force did not DEFEAT any top teams in its regular season schedule. >If you're going to bring strength of schedule into the argument, >then you can't just pick the four teams with the best records. Under that >criterion, 11-0 Penn State didn't belong, 9-1-1 Michigan did. I am talking about using strength of schedule to determine teams with more or less, the SAME record, otherwise Oklahoma did not belong neither! Michigan was one and a half games behind Penn State! Also, Notre Dame played a tougher schedule than Michigan. Should we consider Notre Dame? >CONTROVERSY WILL ENSUE. Of course, any comments discrediting Oklahoma's championship are considered controversial by the sooners. Let me tell you, had the Redskins (with Schroeder, not Theismann) been in the playoffs, the Bears would not have had a chance. Well, in my opinion, the NFL playoff tie-breaking rules are controversial too! Should I say Chicago is a controversial Super bowl winner? >And that is my final word on this matter. Fire away. I hope so. I wish I don't have to dig out the contradictions from your old articles again. -- Eddy Lor ...!(ihnp4,ucbvax)!ucla-cs!lor lor@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU Computer Science Department, UCLA
lor@ucla-cs.UUCP (02/24/86)
In article <42400016@uokvax.UUCP> mike@uokvax.UUCP writes: >>A basic requirement for a champion is to win the games that count most. > >That's why my vote went to Miami, Fla (choke choke). This statement seems >to suggest what the playoff system provides. Does this mean that regular >season records are no longer important, but wait, that can't be right >because you said that a 9-3 record wasn't good enough to make the playoffs. >The key to this statement is which games count the most. Which games do count >the most? Wait, when did I say the regular season was not important? The regular season is a mean to sort out the few big men from the men and the boys. A playoff should be a mean to find out the biggest man from the few big men. If we don't have the regular season, how do we find out the best candidates? I am a fan of a playoff among the few elites. This is the only mean to find out the most consistent AND the best money team. I think you've read my exchanges with Dennis Doubleday. >Is it better to lose to a good team or a bad one? This is a tough >question. Losing to a good team suggests that maybe you're not that good, or >that you choke when the heat is on. Losing to a bad team suggests that you >are inconsistent. Oklahoma lost to Miami; Miami lost to Florida. If your theory holds, either: i) Oklahoma is not that good, AND Miami is not that good, or ii) Oklahoma choked when the heat was on, AND Miami choked when the heat is on. But since Oklahoma lost to Miami, who is more "not that good", or who is a bigger "choker" when the heat is on? >>Based on the regular season record, Oklahoma certainly did >>not belong because it lost to Miami at home (this is the >>so-called head-to-head tie-breaker for teams with equal records.) > >This is assuming a two-team playoff which is totally absurd. I absolutely agree. But then why was the game between the #1 Penn St. and non-#2 Oklahoma considered the national championship game? I don't agree on a two-team playoff. But if we are going to choose two teams to decide the national title on the field, one must be Penn St., why did the other slot go to the LOSER of the Miami(10-1)/ Oklahoma(10-1) game? Do you think the bowl system, with so many restrictions, is a fair mean to determine the national title? >Yeah, Oklahoma played such panzies as Minnesota, Texas, Miami, Colorado, >Nebraska, Oklahoma State, and SMU. How they actually allowed themselves to >LOSE one of those games, I'll never know. And how all but one of those teams >made it to bowl games (SMU was on probation) is a mystery to me. Maybe it is. Obviously you have not followed college football that much. More than 1/3 of the Division I-A teams got into bowls last season. That's why 7-4 Colorado, 6-5 Minnesota, and 7-4 Oklahoma State got into bowls. SMU was only a 6-5 team, but had they not been on probation, they might also be able to get into a bowl to boost OU's schedule. >The fact that >three of those teams played on New Years Day must mean that is was a bad year >for College football. Sorry, but I couldn't count three of Minnesota, Texas, Miami, Colorado, Nebraska, Oklahoma St. and SMU playing on January 1. What number system do you use? Anyway, since you bring that up, let's see how those teams which played on New Year's Day (the ten supposedly best teams in the country) fared against each other in the regular season: winning % Miami 1-0 100 Iowa 1-0 100 Tennessee 1-0-1 75 Oklahoma 1-1 50 UCLA 0-0-1 50 Auburn 0-1 0 Michigan 0-1 0 Nebraska 0-1 0 Penn St. 0-0 - Texas A&M 0-0 - Oklahoma played two home games but weren't exactly world-beaters among these ten teams. Don't forget, there was a team which didn't play on Jan. 1 but went 3-0 against these teams (Tennessee, at Miami, and at Auburn). >By the way, the weenie lineup next year includes >UCLA, Minnesota, Texas, and Miami, Fla. :-) Why don't we wait until the fall? Bringing up the 1986 schedule doesn't boost the Sooners' schedule of 1985 (one of our key arguments). >> Before the Orange Bowl, Switzer was asked whether >>Miami deserved to be national champ had it defeated Tennessee. >>He said: "We should be champions if we beat #1 Penn St." >Please do not put quotes around your interpretation of what Barry Switzer >said. His exact words were closer to: >If we beat Penn State, then I feel we're the best team in the country. >I for one feel that there is a HUGE difference between these two statements. The antecedents of these two statements are identical; the conclusions are "We should be champions" and "I feel we're the best team in the country." I don't exactly know what you mean by HUGH difference. Do you try to say that the champion (Oklahoma) is not neccessarily the best team in the country, or vice versa? All along, I have been asking: "Why should the loser of Oklahoma/Miami get the chance to beat Penn State?" -- Eddy Lor ...!(ihnp4,ucbvax)!ucla-cs!lor lor@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU Computer Science Department, UCLA