File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
So I was flipping back and forth between the prestigious NFL Network and ESPN last night. My rooting interest in the Eagles Cardinals game subsided as the Cardinals got their ass handed to them (I'm a Cowboys fan). So I started watching more and more of the Texas Texas A&M game. This is when I saw these signs being held up (pic related). At first I was somewhat clueless to what it was upon seeing it, but then it registered. This was the score to the OU Texas game. So apparently the fans have felt that they need to campaign for their team to the voters because Texas' play doesn't do that?

Look, I am a die hard Sooners fan. I am not going to sit here and pretend that Texas didn't beat us. You guys did. But you also lost to Texas Tech, and we embarrassed Texas Tech. Plus you almost lost to Oklahoma State at home, and your out of conference play was straight from the Easy Bake Oven. So really, it is pretty pathetic that you have to make these signs to try to get more voters to vote for you. You should of won against Tech, and then won more convincingly in your games to avoid this. But you didn't, and now your hope for the Big 12 Championship and National Championship lie in small little signs that you made.

Too bad we're going to mop the floor with Oklahoma State to shoot past that .0084 margin of difference you guys had. Had I known the season was going to turn out like this, I think I would of pushed for Oklahoma to lose against Texas. Because the awesomeness that will ensue when we move past you after you beat us in the annual rivalry game will be even sweeter than winning that game. I'll take my Big 12 Championship and National Championship over that silly Shootout any day.

What say you though /sp/? Oklahoma better than Texas? Texas better than Oklahoma? Big 12 better than SEC?
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
I'm starting to think differently about something...
>> Anonymous
it's would have. "would of" is is improper.

but I agree with the sentiment. I also loved how the Texas twat shut up when Fowler (or was it James?) brought up 39-33. They desperately want to pretend that never happened.
>> Anonymous
this sounds like to me as an argument for a college football playoffs. where they can settle it in the post season.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Look I don't care who I'm playing in the NC, I'm gonna make you eat my shit regardless, but can you please quit your whining?
>> Anonymous
Texas is better than Oklahoma because Texas beat Oklahoma. You can't say, in this case, "but OU clobbered Tech", because Tech beat UT, who beat OU, who beat Tech, who beat UT...

It literally is a fucking paradox. That said, I still support the BCS, because it makes the regular season exciting. If it wasn't for BCS, football would be basketball-the regular season wouldn't mean SHIT, and it would be very boring. I'd rather have a bunch of thrilling regular season games than a long, boring, playoff.

Furthermore, if a Texas or an Oklahoma got upset in the first round of a playoff, you'd still get the "the REAL champion won't win" bit from observers. Nothing would change.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>494214

Your argument is invalid.
>> Anonymous
>>494209
That's going to be hard to do when Terrence Cody breaks your legs next week.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
>>494067
You think we learn proper grammar here?

Anyways, another Soonerfag. Saw the same thing you did, and I was pretty unimpressed. A&M had beaten them 2 years in a row, and the Texas fans are more concerned with FORTY-FIVE THIRTY-FIVE than facing their arch-rival? Fuck, OU gives Okie State more respect than that. We let our play speak for us, not some silly banners. We suck - we lose. We do okay - we usually win.

That said, yes Texas, you did beat us and it will be bullshit if OU beats Okie State tomorrow and Tech beats Baylor. By the way, you guys still have a non-bullshit shot if Baylor pulls the upset. Better start cheering for the Bears.
>> Lambchop's Death Legion !d7bMXbKy6Q
>>494214

If this is the case, then why shouldn't Texas Tech go to the championship?
>> Anonymous
I would say that OU is clearly the better team. Fuck all that heads up bullshit; even watching the ou-ut game is was obvious that ou was better and everyone with an ounce of football sense was left scratching their head wondering how UT managed to pull out the win. UT had a lot of lucky breaks and some special teams plays kept them in a game that OU came within a score of turning into a rout several times.
>> Anonymous
>>494620
Shipley's kickoff return and Ryan Reynolds getting taken out.

And a lack of focused play from the Sooners. On that day, the Longhorns were the better team.
>> Anonymous
>>494615
that's a good question. Why shouldn't they?

and that is where the conundrum lies.

X beats Y
Y beats Z
Z beats X

How can one possibly use a head-to-head to determine which team is best? Saying Z deserves to be higher than X implies that Y should be ahead of Z and X should be ahead of Y.

so...

X deserves to be ahead of Y
Y deserves to be ahead of Z
Z deserves to be ahead of X

This is, of course, impossible, which is why head-to-head has to be dismissed so long as there is a three way tie. Each team has reasonable arguments for why they deserve to be ahead, but there can be only one, which the biased voters and unbiased computer formulas will decide if necessary.

The problem is, ESPN talking heads are trying desperately to remind voters about 45-35, but have been almost completely silent about 39-33. Why would they pimp Texas and ignore Tech?
>> Anonymous
>>494637
The obvious answer is that Texas is a bigger name, but look at another way. Lots of people complain that "the team who loses earliest" gets picked to go to the title game, but it makes economic sense to try to have the most competitive matchup. If 65-21 wasn't just a fluke, but a sign that Tech really is falling apart, they really don't deserve to get picked.

We'll see what happens with Baylor, I guess.
>> Anonymous
Also, UT's loss to Tech was a last-second touchdown pass. It's not like they were dominated the whole game.
>> Anonymous
>>494639
>>494214
it's not a paradox you fucking idiots. HOME FIELD ADVANTAGE MOTHERFUCKER DO YOU SPEAK IT?

texas beat OU convincingly on NEUTRAL GROUND
texas tech beat texas because of ONE PLAY at LUBBOCK TEXAS ON TURF
texas tech lost to OU in NORMAN, OKLAHOMA

tech only beat us because blake gideon, a true freshman that went to leander, dropped the easiest pick of the season. not to bawww, but OU didn't beat tech on tech's turf. and that's a BIG FUCKING DIFFERENCE.
>> Anonymous
>>494652
And a missed INT.

I know it was in Lubbock and the 4th game of that hellacious stretch, but Texas DID go down 19-0 to start that game. I know they came back to lead late in the 4th, but I'm just pointing it out.
>> Anonymous
>>494601
as a texasfag i have to agree, seeing all the 45-35 made me feel like all we were doing was crying over about the bcs than focusing on beating our main rival. You guys will pass us up in the polls, just for the love god don't lose your bowl game AGAIN, because we sure as hell havn't lost any of ours in last few years.
>> Anonymous
>>494706
ITT a faketexasfag
>> Anonymous
>>494703
BAWWWWWWW
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>494706
I have many anti-Oklahoma Advice Dogs. Does that make me a bad fan?

Stoops DID finally beat a Top 10 team for the first time in a millennia, but I wouldn't be betting large amounts of money on anything...
>> Anonymous
>>494711
not fake, we shouldn't have lost in lubbock, we had the game won. How the fuck do we even allow tech to drive 80 yards with a 1:30 left in the game. How the fuck does an all star player drop a sure interception, one that I could have made with my eyes closed, and how the fuck did we miss that tackle on the last pass. Complete bullshit. we should quit pretending that game never happened. You do know we would still be ranked one and not be in this mess if we hadn't lost right? Just because I'm being critical of my team doesn't make me fake.
>> Anonymous
>>494713
what makes you a bad fan is how bad that pic is. the meme is NOUN VERB, NOUN VERB. how fucking hard is that to understand? it's not even that funny anyway and then you had to go and make it even shittier by slapping the "HOW DOES I..." meme onto it. i bet you felt really good about yourself when you made that in mspaint. i bet you thought everyone was going to think it was funny. but reality returns, and you're still the college kid in his room on friday nights trying to figure out how he's going to lose his virginity when nobody likes him.
>> Anonymous
>>494719
nope, you're definitely a faketexasfag. a true texasfag knows that blake gideon is a true freshman, not an "all-star".
>> Anonymous
>>494723
the mere fact he is on the team makes him an all star, after all we are one of the top football programs in the country. everyone on our team should play to perfection every night, freshmen or not.
>> Anonymous
>>494652

Obvious troll is obvious

>>494705

Obvious idiot is obvious

>Tech had the lead for 58:30 of that game.
>> Anonymous
a true texasfag can't accept facts. that's how it works.
>> Anonymous
>>494719

You not only SHOULD have lost it shouldn't have even been close. So much bullshit went into that being a game at all yet all the Texasfags want to spin it as a "last minute comeback" ignoring the fact that Tech led the entire game.
>> Anonymous
>>494730
we both know he shouldn't have dropped that. but the fact that you keep overlooking home-field advantage astounds me. texas tech would NOT have kept up with us on neutral ground. we would have blown them out like OU did. tech's turf is perfect for the passing offense.

so:
texas beats OU on neutral ground
texas tech barely beats texas on tech's home turf

does that mean ANYTHING to you?
>> Anonymous
>>494738
so if gaining the lead with 1:30 left in the game isn't a comeback then what is?

Also tech didn't do shit for most of the second half except let us catch up to them.
>> Anonymous
>>494744
Keyword there is most. You still lost.
>> Anonymous
>>494744
exactly. so if a person wants to make the argument that "OU beat texas tech more recently than UT beat OU", they could also make the argument that although texas tech beat texas in the first half 22-6, but more recently lost to texas in the second half 27-17.
>> Anonymous
>>494741
it does, but face it, theres nothing thats going to sway the voters into voting for us this sunday. And no those silly 45-35 signs are not helping. All I'm saying is if we had won (like we were going into until the defense decided to quit playing on that last drive) we wouldn't be in this god damn mess.

The only thing we can hope for is the that the bears pull off the upset.
>> Anonymous
>>494744

What would have been a last minute comeback?


If UT had won the game.
>> Anonymous
OU > Texas
Big 12 > SEC

/thread
>> Anonymous
>>494749
i care less about baylor beating tech (which isn't going to happen) and more about the OU-OSU game

also, op says OU shows OSU more respect than Texas shoes Texas A&M. here's a news flash. OSU is ranked #12, and A&M is just straight up garbage. which is worthy of respect?
>> Anonymous
>>494749

Yes, i suppose if baylor pulls off the upset the big 12 title will be nice consolation while you watch OU play in the BCS championship.
>> Anonymous
>>494759
we would play an extra, championship game, against a decent Missouri team, we would pass up OU who wouldn't play anymore games at all. So if you think for a second OU is going to title game without playing in the big 12 championship I hate to be the bearer of bad news.
>> Anonymous
>>494757
The fact A&M beat you out of 2 previous Big 12 South championships?

Oklahoma HANDED you it last year when they went down to Tech. And you did nothing with it. You would have beaten Missouri and then won your BCS game.
>> Anonymous
>>494773
forgot your slowpoke.jpg, offtopic, reported
>> Anonymous
>>494765
ironically it looks like if OU loses this weekend tech goes to the big 12 championship and we go straight to the title game. Won't work the other way around since we would be right behind you in the polls.
>> Anonymous
>>494765

The best you could hope for in that situation is for Florida to beat Bama and for a UT OU rematch in the title game. If OU jumps you this week no matter what you do against missouri you won't re-jump OU.
>> Anonymous
>>494773
I agree, we had the south won and A&M fucked us over every time. This year it looks like it's gonna be tech.
>> Anonymous
>>494781
>UT OU rematch in the title game

facepalm.jpg
>> Anonymous
>>494777
Wow, are you fucking serious? How was that off topic? A&M up until last night had won 2 of the last 3 meetings and made McCoy look like shit. Texas finally put together a good game against them last night.
>> Anonymous
>>494741
so, are you saying OSU would have beaten Texas on a neutral field? Texas only beat OSU by 4 at DKR.

Texasfags want to only talk about location of the three games, and ignore margin of victory and secondary factors EXCEPT for the fact that they believe the Tech win was a "last second fluke win", despite the fact they lost and lead for only 1:30 of 60:00.
>> Anonymous
>>494781
are you kidding me? Winning arguably best conference in college football while OU sits idly twiddling their thumbs hoping we lose the conference title doesn't make us jump you, then BCS is biggest load of shit ever. The computers will eat up that shit up for sure, the pollsters need to stop bandwagoning.
>> Anonymous
>>494792
ITT: this year
not ITT: last year and the year before
>> Anonymous
>>494791
I facepalmed hard as well, if florida beats bama they won't be ranked lower than 2.
>> Anonymous
>>494798
if OU beats the shit out of OSU, then i will concede OU is better than texas. and nobody has ever fucking said texas tech barely had a come from behind victory. all i think about is what a comeback texas had in the second half. stop making shit up.
>> Anonymous
>>494808
>>494791

SO we're all in agreance that no matter what UT does, short of OU losing to OSU, they won't be in the title game?

Good.
>> Anonymous
>>494809

ITT: Texasfag not reading the rest of the posts ITT.
>> Anonymous
>>494809
naw man don't concede, we did beat them after all. This whole situation is utter bullcrap, just wait for them to get stomped in their bowl game, AGAIN.
>> Anonymous
>>494813
I agree, i don't see why everyone is saying we need OU to beat OSU, it's the other way around. OSU beats OU, we go to the title game while tech gets a consolatory big 12 championship.
>> Anonymous
>>494825

Someone doesn't know how the BCS works lol.
>> Anonymous
>>494061
ITT: butthurt soonerfags try to justify jumping a team that beat them
>> Anonymous
shit already started bad for Texas today

UTEP (Texas non-conf opp) lost to ECU
Arkansas (same) did beat LSU, which was a plus
Nebraska (played OU but not Texas) beat Colorado (played Texas but not OU)

Remaining games of importance

Oklahoma vs OSU (obviously)
Tech vs Baylor (an upset would put Texas in the CCG)
Rice (Texas non-conf opponent) vs. Houston
Washington (OU non-conf opponent) vs. Cal
FAU (Texas non-conf opponent) vs. FIU
Cincinnati (OU non-conf opponent and Big East champs) vs. Syracuse

If OU beats OSU and Tech beats Baylor, Texas is going to need at least three of the last four games I listed to go their way and for several voters to change their mind for them to have a chance. OU will overtake Texas in the computers, and I have a hard time believing voters would drop OU after a win over a top 15 team on the road.
>> Anonymous
>>494831
>he participants are the two highest rated teams in the BCS Standings at the end of the regular college football season

if OU loses we shoot up to number 2, whose gonna pass us up? Florida, they have to play bama, someone is gonna lose that game. USC? LOL
>> Anonymous
>>494834
itt: Texasfags don't realize the same logic applies to them in relation to Tech
>> Anonymous
>>494849
ITT: BCS has always worked before, but this year its going to cause a shitstorm because all three teams have valid points... except for tech, they got their shit packed in
>> Anonymous
>>494849

Yah but if Tech had had to play UT at home they would....

OH WAIT, thats right DKR is like fucking playing in a library. UT has no home field advantage because their fans entitled smugness causes them to not cheer loudly.
>> Anonymous
You want to know why the BCS fucking sucks?

This week is proof. Instead of talking about GAMES, we're talking about this bullshit. Seriously, this is fucking retarded, but we aren't any closer to a playoff because the university presidents are stubborn pricks.
>> Anonymous
>>494853
there was some minor controversy last year, and dont forget 2004 or was it 2003 with the 3 undefeated teams? I can't remember. The only time I in recent years when the bcs really worked was when when texas beat usc. both teams were the only undefeated teams that year. I'm sure the are other examples I can't think of at the moment.
>> Anonymous
>>494859
you're not going to get people in here to hate the BCS because in /sp/ it's hip to think the BCS is ok.
>> Anonymous
>>494855
I've been to our games and yeah, it's not that loud. We really need to stop setting aside so many seats for the old dieing alumni who dont cheer for shit and open up more student seats. But the money alumni produce won't allow them to do that.
>> Anonymous
>>494855
texasfag here, what do you expect, austin is full of hippie faggots
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
OP here, first time posting in the thread.

I have to say I am pretty scared that our fate for the Big 12 championship and National Championship lies in our hands. I'll be the first to admit that we are Chokelahoma. But if we can manage to pull this off against OSU tomorrow, win the Big 12 Championship, and then the National Championship. It would be so sweet. So sweet that we lost to Texas, yet still went on to win the Big 12 South, Big 12, and NC. Like I said, I would take that over the Red River Shootout win any day.

Enjoy your signs Texas fans. I'll be enjoying my National Championship.
>> Anonymous
>>494872
if history is anything to go by your not going to be winning shit.
>> Anonymous
>>494872
hey, we won't choke in the Big 12 CCG.

The NCG maybe, but we rarely choke outside of the bowls.
>> Anonymous
>>494886
We have 7 poll-era national championships.

I think that history bodes pretty well for us.
>> Anonymous
>>494872
Name our last BCS win.

I'll do it for you. 2002 against a highly over-rated Washington State team in the Rose Bowl.

Don't fucking jinx it man. It's looking good for once.
>> Anonymous
>>494889
you have one bcs win and 2 losses, we are talking bcs here.
>> Anonymous
>>494887
You know, the national championship game is no longer called a "bowl"

I'm suddenly liking our chances.
>> Anonymous
>>494896
2003* My bad. Had the right season, Hybyl was a fucking joke.
>> Anonymous
>>494917
Fucking Hybl. Jason White's knees may have cost OU a shot at a threepeat.
>> Anonymous
White had an arm, but that was it.

Bradford is the best QB to come since Heupel.
>> Anonymous
White had an arm and not much else his last couple of years, but before his knees gave out on him he was a good scrambler. He wasn't as mobile as, say, Paul Thompson, who was quick enough to be converted to WR before Rhett fucking Bomar got the boot, but when he was at Tuttle and in those few games he started in 2001 he could move around.
>> Anonymous
>>494998
I don't know much about Tuttle outside their wrestling program. But I'll take your word for it.
>> Anonymous
>>494998
White could have been a WR in college before his injuries, like a Kerry Meier type. Thompson had good straight line speed, but he didn't show much aptitude for moving in the pocket like White did in the few OU games which he had two good knees.
>> Anonymous
>>495014
That was the thing with Thompson. He was VERY mobile and did a good job in 2006 (and when you consider that his being moved back to QB was more of a stopgap, it was a borderline great job), but his pocket presence was average at best.