tonym@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Tony Martinez) (11/29/84)
I give my number # 1 vote to BYU. Allow me to give my reasoning.
It is a given that Oklahoma has a better tradition and that it plays
a couple of good teams on national TV. Thus, if both OK and BYU were
to win all of their games I would concede the national championship to
the Sooners. But the question of who has the toughest schedule became
moot one Saturday afternoon in Kansas. OK lost to an unranked
team 28 - 11, (the fact that they had some injuries doesn't change
anything). When a team loses badly to an unranked team, it is no longer
in position to claim a national championship, but only to quietly hope
that any other teams in the race will lose.
BYU's # 1 ranking is not just the result of this years record, (They were
11 - 0 in 1979, and had beat a ranked team but were only ranked no. 11),
It is the result of a long series of winning seasons.
As to BYU's schedule, it isn't as bad as some think. They have won
23 straight games. Teams in that 23 game streak include:
UCLA (last years rose bowl winner)
Air Force twice (Winner of 3 straight over Notre Dame, and in their fourth
straight bowl this year)
Missouri (Who shut out Oklahoma last year when BYU played them)
Pitt (was #3 when BYU beat them)
Baylor (a common opponent: BYU 47 Baylor 13, OK 34 Baylor 15)
Tulsa (winner of 5 straight conference championships)
And some WAC (twice each) teams which are better than most people think:
Utah
Hawaii (Still might be in a bowl game this year)
San Diego State
etc.
Now, no one is trying to say that this is a tremendous schedule,
but it is a respectable one. What BYU has done, is avoid the crucial
loss to an underdog team, which the other top teams have not; i.e.
Nebraska - Syracuse
Oklahoma - Kansas
South Carolina - Navy
Texas - Houston
As to teams not playing, (or more importantly not beating),
top 20 teams, that is not unique to just BYU. Here is a list of other
top 20 teams which HAVE NOT beaten a current top 20 team:
Washington
Oklahoma State
Ohio State
SMU
Georgia
Now, Florida has played a tough schedule (Too bad they're on probation).
I think that Washington and Florida have a better argument for number #1
than Oklahoma since their losses came to ranked teams. Maybe BYU and
Oklahoma will face each other next year in the Kickoff Classic. As to
Number One this year, If BYU can beat Michigan, (which beat Miami and
Bernie Kosar back when they were # 1), I think they deserve the national
championship.
Tony Martinez Tonym@sdcrdcfwe3bst@ihu1e.UUCP (Robert S. Yen) (12/02/84)
< The Sooner D ain't afraid of no BYU... > Tony Martinez (sdcrdcf!tonym) sez: > I give my number # 1 vote to BYU. Allow me to give my reasoning. > ... > When a team loses badly to an unranked team, it is no longer in position > to claim a national championship, but only to quietly hope that any other > teams in the race will lose. That's funny, the week before the Sooners (OU) knocked off Nebraska, the people who vote in the AP poll decided to give Nebraska 37 first place votes (with a 9-1 record, the loss coming early against Syracuse) and Brigham Young only 11 votes (with a 10-0 record). Is there really any doubt as to who would have been the Nat'l. Champs. had Nebraska gone on to win the rest of their games??? And he goes on to say: > BYU's # 1 ranking is not just the result of this years record, (They were > 11 - 0 in 1979, and had beat a ranked team but were only ranked no. 11), > It is the result of a long series of winning seasons. Stop me if I'm wrong, but isn't the Nat'l. Championship supposed to go to the best team of THIS year??? If not, why don't we just take a look at the entire history of all the teams in the NCAA and come up with a new (maybe) champion each year based on the performances of the current year??? I think that OU and Nebraska would fare MUCH better than BYU in that (rather poor) method of evaluation. He then goes on to "compare" some common teams that OU and BYU have played. I think his method of "comparison" leaves something (non-bias) to be desired: > Missouri (Who shut out Oklahoma last year when BYU played them) Once again, what the H*LL does "last year" have to do with anything??? > Pitt (was #3 when BYU beat them) > Baylor (a common opponent: BYU 47 Baylor 13, OK 34 Baylor 15) Oh, I see. You post the score for the Baylor games, but leave them out for Pitt. That's certainly being objective... Let me state some additional facts: The BYU-Pitt game was BYU's second game and Pitt's first. The final score, I believe, was 20-14 and BYU won on a last-minute drive. Two weeks later (after Pitt had a week off to prepare for OU), the Sooners thrashed Pitt 42-10 at Pitt. Now, I'm just stating some more facts, I don't think you can really use EITHER of those sets of games as comparisons (least of all a 3-7-1 Pitt team). In fact, I think it rather funny that the one Top Twenty team that BYU can claim a victory over went on to have such a poor season... I'm not saying that I'm un-biased (I'm not, I'm a die-hard Sooner fan), but I don't think that a team deserves to be #1 by virtue of an undefeated season. In SOME cases, BYU WOULD get my vote (if Nebraska HAD gone on to win the rest of its games :-) ) No, seriously, if OU hadn't had such a convincing win against OSU, I'd be in doubt. Let's get REAL, BYU beat a "tough" 1-10 Utah St. 38-13 after leading by only 3 at the half! Let me ask the people who consider BYU #1 this question: Do you REALLY believe BYU would beat OU if they played this weekend? If your answer was "yes," I've got some nice land in Florida for sale..... --Robert S Yen AT&T Bell Labs Naperville, IL NOTE: Please send all replies to ...ihnp4!iwu1d!rsy, this is a group acc't. that I use for netnews access. Besides, I think my fellow workers who share this acc't. refuse to acknowledge that college football exists after the Fightin' Illini's poor performance in last year's Rose Bowl :-) Especially since they've already beaten OU twice in basketball this year.
butch@drutx.UUCP (FreemanS) (12/03/84)
This past saturday an announcer on NBC college football said that out of 98 division I teams that BYU had the 97th easiest schedule. If BYU wants to make a claim for the number 1 spot I think that they will have to get a tougher schedule.
bruhgraw@uok.UUCP (12/04/84)
>> ....the question of who has the toughest schedule became >> moot one Saturday afternoon in Kansas. OK lost to an unranked >> team 28 - 11, (the fact that they had some injuries doesn't change >> anything).... They had some injuries doesn't change anything?? Hey, apparently you forget that it was their quarterback, the heart of their offense, who was out. The replacement was *not* a wishbone quarterback, and in the passing dept., he had only 3 receptions, 2 to the other team. I would say that the injury to Danny Bradley changed the ENTIRE outcome of the game. Look at what he did to Missouri the next week, when he did play. OU 49, Missouri 7. If Bradley would not have been hurt in Kansas, OU would've walked all over them. Wait 'til you see what he does to Washington. Maybe then you'll believe OU deserves to be #1. !ctvax!uokvax!uok!bruhgraw
dwhitney@uok.UUCP (12/06/84)
I'm frankly amazed at the people who sincerely believe BYU has any
business #1, and justify their claim merely by saying "BYU is
unbeaten!! Whoopee!"
Under this premise, I will propose that we eliminate all conferences,
polls, bowl games, TV appearances, Heisman awards, Lombardi awards,
etc.
The new system would be comprised entirely of teams in division one
trying to find the weakest possible combination of 11 teams for a
season's schedule. The best team won't be determined by record only,
it will be based on the weakness of schedule. If you play anyone
above .500, you are automatically penalized 20 points for each of
your next 3 games. I submit that, in this format, BYU has a lock
on #1.
One doesn't need to look far back for a precedent for non-unbeaten
teams winning #1 over unbeaten teams. May I remind those of weak
memory..1975? #1 OU (11-1, ironically, losers to Kansas that year)
#2 Arizona State (12-0, beat Nebraska in the Fiesta Bowl)
The point of all this is that you just don't give a team #1 because
it plays a collection of pitiful, embarrassingly poor teams and beats
them week after week. The sportswriters saw this in 1975. (Beyond that
Arizona State was a member of the WAC then. They saw the light and got
out.) Before BYU can challenge for #1 in my book, let them line up
against Texas, or Nebraska.
Its not just the opinion of a few Sooner partisans (myself included)
that BYU has no business #1, its the opinion of the 191,000+ that
called into ABC's poll last week. (25,000+ more than called in
for BYU). To be #1, you must play a #1-caliber schedule. When you
do that, you can be forgiven if massive injuries cause you to stub
your toe. When you defeat Texas (we all know that story and I don't
intend to rehash it here) defeat Nebraska, defeat OKlahoma State,
and then if you presumably defeat Washington, thats two #1 teams,
one once-#1 team, and one previously-#2 team. And Texas, OSU and
Neb. all lost their rankings by virtue of playing OU!!!
If beating yet another top five team does not give OU the national
championship, and BYU is given it in their "bowl" (6-5 Michigan,
what a joke..) I would be ashamed to be a BYU faithful trying to
legitimately claim my team as #1. It just isn't so.
But then again, this all raises the debate over a playoff. WHEN WILL
THE NEANDERTHALS LET COLLEGE FOOTBALL ENTER THE 20TH CENTURY??
Thats another debate.
OOOOOOO
O O
O U O U # 1, NO MATTER WHAT THE POLLS SAY!!!
OOOOOOO U
U U
UUUUUUU
David Whitney
ctvax!uokvax!uok!dwhitneycdelliot@uokvax.UUCP (12/06/84)
> BYU's # 1 ranking is not just the result of this years record, (They were > 11 - 0 in 1979, and had beat a ranked team but were only ranked no. 11), > It is the result of a long series of winning seasons. (With apologies to Jimmy Conners) Last year ain't this year! !ctvax!uokvax!cdelliot
mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (SIMON) (12/07/84)
> >> ....the question of who has the toughest schedule became > >> moot one Saturday afternoon in Kansas. OK lost to an unranked > >> team 28 - 11, (the fact that they had some injuries doesn't change > >> anything).... > > They had some injuries doesn't change anything?? <... deleted rest, > in the interest of brevity> Does that mean that the New York Jets, who for a while lost their whole defensive backfield, should be at the top of the AFC East?? Marcel Simon allegra!mhuxr!mfs
wetcw@pyuxa.UUCP (T C Wheeler) (12/07/84)
Just to throw my two cents in, I side with Beano Cook who said any team that can go unbeaten deserves #1. Several top ranked coaches said the same thing last weekend. I feel the whole brouhaha was cooked up by the media just to hype the programming stats. Look at last weekends call in and vote nonsense on one of the major networks. Besides, it has been quite awhile since anyone has beaten BYU, going back through last year. Switzer is just envious because his boys didn't do as good. T. C. Wheeler
bruhgraw@uok.UUCP (12/10/84)
> Does that mean that the New York Jets, who for a while lost their > whole defensive backfield, should be at the top of the AFC East?? If the NFL were like the CFA, who knows what they might be ranked? Fortunately (or unfortunately, depending on your point of view), the NFL doesn't have a Top 20 poll.
lor@ucla-cs.UUCP (12/13/84)
It's really amazing to see the diehard Sooners campaigning that much for their team without solid bases. Would they look at some more facts? > > When you defeat OKlahoma State, ...... and one previously-#2 team. > Hey, who is Oklahoma State? The collective record of the teams they beat is 38-57-5 (.405). How they got #2 is as nonsense as how BYU got #1. OSU is a solid team, but beating OSU is no big deal. > > The best team won't be determined by record only, > it will be based on the weakness of schedule. ...... > To be #1, you must play a #1-caliber schedule. > Of all the teams Oklahoma beat, only Nebraska and Oklahoma St. have winning records. Here are the teams they played: Stanford (5-6) Pitt (3-7-1) Baylor (5-6) Kansas St (3-7-1) Texas (7-3-1) Iowa St. (2-7-2) Kansas (5-6) Missouri (3-7-1) Colorado (1-10) Nebraska (9-2) Oklahoma St. (9-2) ----- (52-63-6) .455 If this is considered a #1-caliber schedule and BYU's is mickey mouse, you are just telling me Colorado, Missouri, Iowa St, and Kansas St. are much more formidable opponents than Colorado St., New Mexico, Texas-El Paso, and Utah St; Pitt and Baylor (common opponents of OU and BYU) are also better than Pitt and Baylor. Then what caliber schedule did Florida, Miami and Notre Dame play? These three teams played 22 bowl-bound teams out of a possible 34. > > And Texas, OSU and Neb. all lost their rankings by virtue of playing OU!!! > Big deal! Syracuse beat Nebraska more convincingly, while Houston, Baylor, and Texas A&M trounced Texas. Beating or tying a #1 team MAY raise you to the #1 spot, but this is not a must. Michigan defeat then #1 Miami and USC beat then #1 Washington, but neither of them got the #1 spot. > > One doesn't need to look far back for a precedent for non-unbeaten > teams winning #1 over unbeaten teams. May I remind those of weak > memory..1975? #1 OU (11-1, ironically, losers to Kansas that year) > #2 Arizona State (12-0, beat Nebraska in the Fiesta Bowl) > We don't even have to look back to 1975 to see a once-beaten team edging out an unbeaten team for the national championship. As I pointed out in a previous article, Penn St (11-1) edged SMU (11-0-1) for the national title in 1982. But look at the teams Penn St beat: Maryland, West Virginia, Nebraska, Boston College, Pittsburgh, and Georgia, six bowl teams, plus 6-4-1 Notre Dame. How many winning teams did OU beat this year? > When you defeat Texas (we all know that story and I don't > intend to rehash it here) defeat Nebraska, .... > thats two #1 teams, ...... > It's a shame to say OU beat Texas. It's more appropriate to say Texas and Nebraska gave the games to OU. They were beating themselves. Oklahoma tied Texas and beat Nebraska by the virtue of two goal line stands. But aren't they lucky because of the stupid decisions by Fred Akers and Tom Osborne? If both of them opted for the field goals (18 yards field goal), I don't know what would happen. I am sure the diehard sooners would have said they would win anyway. -- I also recalled a Sooner fan saying BYU don't stand a chance -- if they play Oklahoma in a bowl this year. This guy obviously doesn't know football. Hey, none of OU's opponents has a decent passing offense. Have OU played teams like Miami, BYU or Boston College? Their passing defense was never under serious aerial attack. Washington, with their always struggling offense, are not in a position to test them neither. I agree, the Sooners have a great rushing defense, particularly their goal-line stands. But think about this, if Robbie Boscoe, Doug Flutie or Bernie Kosar gets a first-down on the 1-yard line, you really think any of them would give the ball to the running back four consecutive times? I am not a BYU fan. I agree they played a mickey mouse schedule. You may also recall my article condemning Washington several weeks ago. At that time they had been stealing the #1 spot for more than a month by playing another joking schedule (Why didn't the OU fans say anything at that time?) However, BYU at least beat the no-names by blowing them out, while Washington only won by special teams and defense. Their offense struggled in every game. The sooners are in no position to condemn BYU for playing a weak schedule, because theirs aren't much better. If you want to see a real tough schedule, look at Florida's: Miami, LSU, Tennessee, Auburn, Georgia, Kentucky, and Florida St, all bowl-bound teams. They even blew out Auburn, Georgia and Florida St. And they have the same record as Oklahoma (9-1-1). True, they will be on probation, but they are still eligible for #1 in the AP poll. They had recruiting violations is another matter. If you Sooners want justice, why don't you campaign for Florida? It is easy to make a claim without any real justifications, without really looking into the facts. That's what the OU fans did in this BYU-OU controversy. In that sense, I can easily say UCLA is the #1 team in the country. No particular reason, WE JUST DESERVE IT. Go Bruins! We are #1! -- Eddy Lor ...!ucbvax!ucla-cs!lor lor@ucla-locus.arpa
mike@uokvax.UUCP (12/21/84)
>> When you defeat OKlahoma State, ...... and one previously-#2 team. >> >Hey, who is Oklahoma State? Well, it's this university that's located in Stillwater, Oklahoma, that has about 25,000 students. Last I heard they had the 6th best defense in the country with at least one All-American that I can think of. Of course they've already left to play South Carolina (I'll tell you who they are later) in the Gator Bowl. They also happen to be on USENET, and I hope they fill your mailbox. > ...but beating OSU is no big deal. I can think of 9 teams who think it is. They only lost to OU and Nebraska. > If this is considered a #1-caliber schedule ... Beleive it or not, OU puts effort into playing tougher schedules. About 8 years or so ago, there was a big stink about always playing Podunk U. or Utah St. in our four non-conference games (one of which is always TexAss). Since then, we have been scheduling tougher teams (Ohio St. and USC, etc.) I believe the schedules are made out at least 5 years in advance, and 5 years ago, Stanford, Pitt, and Baylor were fairly good teams. Also, this year happened to be a down year for the Big Eight (only three major bowl teams), nothing like a few years ago when we had five bowl teams. > (52-63-6) .455 subtract OU's record from this and you get (51-54-5) .486 that's not tooooo bad. What was Florida's? (I honestly don't know, but would venture to guess that it wasn't much above .600) > Then what caliber schedule did Florida, Miami and Notre Dame play? > These three teams played 22 bowl-bound teams out of a possible 34. That's nice. >Michigan defeat then #1 Miami and USC beat then #1 Washington, >but neither of them got the #1 spot. I believe a prerequesite is that you be ranked high enough before you beat them. Jumping up 10 spots is not real common (down is another story). >Oklahoma tied Texas and beat Nebraska by the virtue of two goal >line stands. But aren't they lucky because of the stupid decisions >by Fred Akers and Tom Osborne? If both of them opted for the field goals >(18 yards field goal), I don't know what would happen. I am sure the >diehard sooners would have said they would win anyway. Wasn't boiling a game down to one or two plays discussed in the "interception that wasn't" discussion? Say all you want about Akers, but Osbourne is a damn good coach, I think he's a little more qualified to call plays than you. After all, he is second in winning percentage of active coaches. (Number one is left as an exercise to the reader.) >Hey, none of OU's >opponents has a decent passing offense. Have OU played >teams like Miami, BYU or Boston College? I didn't know that these were the only teams that had a "passing offense", Stanford has always been known for the rushing offense (who is John Elway?). >But think about this, if Robbie Boscoe, >Doug Flutie or Bernie Kosar gets a first-down >on the 1-yard line, you really think any of them would give the ball to >the running back four consecutive times? I doubt anybody would try it again this year. >BYU at least beat the no-names >by blowing them out, It's a good thing that Army and Pitt aren't no-names. >while Washington only won by special >teams and defense. Their offense struggled in every game. I see... If you don't have a good offense, you don't have a good team. To tell you the truth, I kinda like 3 yards and a cloud of dust. >...They had recruiting violations is another matter. did any of these players have an effect on the outcome of their games? (I seriously don't know). I don't hate Florida, their coach (Galen Hall) was our offensive coordinator for 10 years (until last year), but if any of their violations concerned players who contibuted significantly, then they deserved to not be considered. OK, we've heard why OU shouldn't be no. 1, but I can do the same thing with Brigham Young (I just don't have their scores in front of me). I've always felt that it would be difficult to pick a number one team that didn't play on New Year's Day. The fact that Brigham Young is not playing in a major bowl is the only thing I'm complaining about.
lor@ucla-cs.UUCP (01/10/85)
This discussion may be a little out of dated, but I can't stop answering the Sooner comments. >> ...but beating OSU is no big deal. >I can think of 9 teams who think it is. They only lost to OU and Nebraska. For schools like Iowa State, Colorado, etc., beating OSU is of course a big deal. Well, they don't even have a winning season. But we are talking about Oklahoma, a team which claimed itself as world-beaters. > >Oklahoma tied Texas and beat Nebraska by the virtue of two goal > >line stands. But aren't they lucky because of the stupid decisions > >by Fred Akers and Tom Osborne? If both of them opted for the field goals > >(18 yards field goal), I don't know what would happen. I am sure the > >diehard sooners would have said they would win anyway. > Wasn't boiling a game down to one or two plays discussed in the > "interception that wasn't" discussion? Say all you want about Akers, but > Osbourne is a damn good coach, I think he's a little more qualified to > call plays than you. After all, he is second in winning percentage of > active coaches. (Number one is left as an exercise to the reader.) I agree. That's why Nebraska lost the national title last year, and the Big-8 title this year. If a tie would give me the conference or national title, I would definitely go for it. A championship is always more important than a win. By the way, since Osborne is second in winning percentage, why hasn't he won any national championship? > >Hey, none of OU's > >opponents has a decent passing offense. Have OU played > >teams like Miami, BYU or Boston College? > I didn't know that these were the only teams that had a "passing offense", > Stanford has always been known for the rushing offense (who is John Elway?). > Who is John Elway? Is he Stanford's third-string quarterback in 1984? I think Stanford's quarterback in the Stanford-OU game was John Paye. Stanford didn't have a spectacular passing offense in 1984. Maybe a passing game quarterbacked by John Paye is considered decent by OU's standard. > >while Washington only won by special > >teams and defense. Their offense struggled in every game. > I see... If you don't have a good offense, you don't have a good team. > To tell you the truth, I kinda like 3 yards and a cloud of dust. Ask the Broncos, the Bears, or the 1984 Raiders. If you don't have a good offense, you may still have a good team, but you are not championship material. Period. > >...They had recruiting violations is another matter. > did any of these players have an effect on the outcome of their games? > (I seriously don't know). I don't hate Florida, their coach (Galen Hall) > was our offensive coordinator for 10 years (until last year), but if any > of their violations concerned players who contibuted significantly, then > they deserved to not be considered. I am still amazed by this Florida controversy in the polls. If everybody agreed that they had violations and should not be considered, why leave them in the polls. If they were ranked, why weren't they given full considerations? How can a team that cheat be considered lower than two schools (BYU and OU at the end of regular season) but higher than all other schools in the nation. Well, justice is finally done. Oklahoma didn't win the national title. I am upset that Oklahoma almost won it all just by the outcrying of Barry Switzer, NBC, Bryan Gumbel and all the Sooner followers. I don't recall anybody from Washington or Florida, which were more deserving than Oklahoma, did the same thing before New Year's Day to draw the attention of the media (Don James said a lot of things, but that was AFTER the Orange Bowl victory.) How can a team which played a schedule with eight losing teams, lost to Kansas and tied Texas, deserved the #1 spot just because they defeat Nebraska? Did our national championship boil down to just an Oklahoma-Nebraksa matchup? Remember, even if we don't have a playoff system, the national championship is still decided on the field (bowl games), not on NBC, CBS, or usenet. -- Eddy Lor ...!ucbvax!ucla-cs!lor lor@ucla-locus.arpa