- Never, ever get relationship advice from Caitlin Ryan (Sending Emma to the internet stalker, the whole Craig, Ashley, and Manny thing, and then later the whole Craig, Ashley thing)
- Having a small penis (JT) can lead to many problems (unintended pregnancy w/ Liberty)
- If you are the "Queen Bee" of the school, you will get toppled (Ashley, Paige, Manny, Darcy, Holly J)
- Yuppie neighborhoods in Toronto have poor, middle class, and wealthy kids
- There is always money to be made at card games, at least initially
- Never, ever be near both Peter and a camera at the same time
- Meida Immersion is a real class in some places
- It's ok to hide who you are if you are Muslim, cos everyone will forget about it if they find out anyway.
- If you drink below the age of 18, you will get wasted, vomit, and probably black out. However, once you turn 18, nothing bad can happen.
- A high school is a suitable place to shoot a movie while school is in session only a few months after there was a school shooting
- Teenagers steal computers worth a few grand to buy car parts worth a few hundred
- You can be on both the wrestling and basketball teams at the same time in Canada
- If you hook up in the ravine, it will not end well for anyone
- Never disagree with Emma, but if you must, don't try to silence her, it will only make things much worse
- There are actually people who follow canadian football, and play it
- Whatever it takes, I know I can make it through, unless it's Paige trying to get through Banting.
12.29.2008
12.24.2008
12.22.2008
A rash reaction from the Knuttel
Ok, so there I am, just generally surfing the information superhighway on a laptop in front of the tv. I leave it on, mostly for white noise. Here, I know, I make a poor life decision and leave it on espn's nfl recap show. Yes, right there, two huge mistakes -- espn and nfl. Alas I digress.
Chris Berman is a man-child of an idiot. He mentions the Ed Hoculi call from week 2, which sent the Chargers on a downward spiral in need of direction, and says that now, after several weeks it has blown over. Now that the Chargers are facing a rematch to close the season, this time in Denver, with Denver at 8-7, and the Chargers at 7-8, it is a moot point.
Nevermind the fact that it should be (at least from values we actually can accurately deduce) the 8-7 Chargers looking to hold off the 7-8 Broncos in Denver to enter the playoffs.
It is not a moot point. The Chargers now have to win on the road in a very hard road stadium in order to win the division, as opposed to maintaining the division lead, they must leapfrog.
This does not even begin to quantify the psychological effect the jarring loss had on the Chargers. A defiant struggle to the finish was handed to the loser in week 2, and in addition to feeling exhausted, the Chargers felt defeated.
They have since gotten over that, but the point is they shouldn't have had to.
Chris Berman, please think before you speak, before you even open your mouth. I find it hard to believe you're thinking while uttering phrases such as "rumbling-bumbling-stumbling" and "woop". I realize it is just a re-cap show, and thus does not have any in depth journalism of any kind, but that is no excuse for idiocy and moronitude.
-- Knuttel
Chris Berman is a man-child of an idiot. He mentions the Ed Hoculi call from week 2, which sent the Chargers on a downward spiral in need of direction, and says that now, after several weeks it has blown over. Now that the Chargers are facing a rematch to close the season, this time in Denver, with Denver at 8-7, and the Chargers at 7-8, it is a moot point.
Nevermind the fact that it should be (at least from values we actually can accurately deduce) the 8-7 Chargers looking to hold off the 7-8 Broncos in Denver to enter the playoffs.
It is not a moot point. The Chargers now have to win on the road in a very hard road stadium in order to win the division, as opposed to maintaining the division lead, they must leapfrog.
This does not even begin to quantify the psychological effect the jarring loss had on the Chargers. A defiant struggle to the finish was handed to the loser in week 2, and in addition to feeling exhausted, the Chargers felt defeated.
They have since gotten over that, but the point is they shouldn't have had to.
Chris Berman, please think before you speak, before you even open your mouth. I find it hard to believe you're thinking while uttering phrases such as "rumbling-bumbling-stumbling" and "woop". I realize it is just a re-cap show, and thus does not have any in depth journalism of any kind, but that is no excuse for idiocy and moronitude.
-- Knuttel
12.21.2008
holdover?
Dunno exactly why, but haven't put anything up for a while on this. So here are some holiday themed links for your amusement/pleasure
http://vaderloveschristmas.ytmnd.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKhJ9IQdWQ8
http://www.weebls-stuff.com/wab/Christmas+6/
http://www.weebls-stuff.com/wab/Christmas+7/
http://www.weebls-stuff.com/toons/the+christmassy/
http://cretaceouschristmas.ytmnd.com/
For the record, I'd like to point out it isn't the holiday I look forward to, but rather the ham.
-- Knuttel
And what's the deal with the heat and snow misers? I don't recall learning anything about them in Catholic School. The snow miser looks kinda like John Kerry, which leads me to believe he's a pushover, and his wussing out is responsible for global warming.
http://vaderloveschristmas.ytmnd.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKhJ9IQdWQ8
http://www.weebls-stuff.com/wab/Christmas+6/
http://www.weebls-stuff.com/wab/Christmas+7/
http://www.weebls-stuff.com/toons/the+christmassy/
http://cretaceouschristmas.ytmnd.com/
For the record, I'd like to point out it isn't the holiday I look forward to, but rather the ham.
-- Knuttel
And what's the deal with the heat and snow misers? I don't recall learning anything about them in Catholic School. The snow miser looks kinda like John Kerry, which leads me to believe he's a pushover, and his wussing out is responsible for global warming.
12.08.2008
Bull-Conference-Shit
Why, BCS, Why?
Pretty much, unless Missouri decided to win the Big 12 somehow, everyone knew the title game was going to be Oklahoma-SEC. So why the hell is every sporting related talking head patting the bcs's back? Meh, that's another issue.
The real issue is -- how can one decide who actually gets to play for the title when there are 9 teams with one loss or less, two of which are undefeated (albeit in "non-bcs" conferences).
An even bigger issue -- two of these teams aren't even playing in a BCS bowl game. Texas Tech gets excluded because of the two-per conference rule, so being the lowest ranked team of those three, no dice. Fair enough, I mean, one wouldn't want a particular conference dominating the top tier bowls, unless its the SEC, cos we all know how awesome the SEC is, case in point two weekends ago when the entire SEC got beaten up by the ACC in rivalry games, with the exception of Florida(the ACC rep for the BCS has 4 losses, think about that for a little bit). The other team left out was Boise State. Apparently winning all your games doesn't guarantee you anything (even including a win against #17 Oregon, and 7 win Hawaii, Fresno State, and Nevada).
Here's something I bet you didn't know. Heading into the SEC championship game, undefeated Alabama had an easier schedule than both Utah and Boise State. Now, after the SEC championship game, this would probably have changed, but the bulk of the season has been played, so not by much. What does this mean -- playing in tougher conferences does not guarantee a tougher schedule. The argument BCS conference teams play tougher teams week in and week out does not carry nearly as much weight as it once had.
The thing that really baffles me is how Ohio State got a BCS bid. Now granted, I am not looking at this from a business perspective, as this is AMATEUR SPORTS (yeah, none of these players gets paid a dime from the Universities or NCAA). But they were actually ranked lower than Boise State, and have two losses. Their only actual impressive win was over #20 Michigan State. Their only hard non-conference game was against USC (where they were not only beaten, but humiliated) -- the other three games were against Ohio, Youngstown State, and Troy -- of which only did Youngstown State get beaten as they should have.
And this is just this week in the BCS. Last week, it cost Texas a shot to play for the title. Now, because they hadn't won their conference, they shouldn't be able to play for a title (even though they were robbed of the opportunity). But it still stands that there were 6 teams that won their conference with one loss or less -- including the two undefeated non-bcs teams. Assuming a non-bcs team can never play for a title, how do we still pick amongst the four others? Was Penn State's loss to Iowa really any different than Florida's loss to Ole Miss (at home), or USC's loss to Oregon State, or even Oklahoma's loss at Texas? Were Florida and Oklahoma picked because they like to run of the score and posses gaudy offensive numbers? Penn State and USC had gaudy defensive numbers. They also knew when to put the second string in and call off the dogs. Was the SEC really that much stronger than the Big Ten or Pac-10?
So don't even say the BCS got it right (which an ESPN poll showed 52% of voters agreed with). Don't worry, they're not too bright. The same poll said 60% thought Texas was most ripped off by the BCS -- when the crime against Texas happenned two weeks ago, and was a result of something like the fifth tie-breaker to see who plays in the Big 12 "conference" title game -- not a BCS game. ESPN's bias towards a bowl system is already becoming apparent, though I don't think the coverage deal even covers this year.
You know how this could be fixed. A playoff. Oh, and it would work so well this year.
Florida - SEC
Oklahoma - Big 12
Penn State - Big 10
USC - Pac 10
Cincinatti - Big East
Va Tech - ACC
Utah/Boise State/Alabama/Texas/Texas Tech/Ohio State - at large, depending on how many.
But oh well, this is merely a pipe dream. I think the winner of the Rose Bowl should be given a partial share of the national title anyway, just for good measure.
-- Knuttel
Pretty much, unless Missouri decided to win the Big 12 somehow, everyone knew the title game was going to be Oklahoma-SEC. So why the hell is every sporting related talking head patting the bcs's back? Meh, that's another issue.
The real issue is -- how can one decide who actually gets to play for the title when there are 9 teams with one loss or less, two of which are undefeated (albeit in "non-bcs" conferences).
An even bigger issue -- two of these teams aren't even playing in a BCS bowl game. Texas Tech gets excluded because of the two-per conference rule, so being the lowest ranked team of those three, no dice. Fair enough, I mean, one wouldn't want a particular conference dominating the top tier bowls, unless its the SEC, cos we all know how awesome the SEC is, case in point two weekends ago when the entire SEC got beaten up by the ACC in rivalry games, with the exception of Florida(the ACC rep for the BCS has 4 losses, think about that for a little bit). The other team left out was Boise State. Apparently winning all your games doesn't guarantee you anything (even including a win against #17 Oregon, and 7 win Hawaii, Fresno State, and Nevada).
Here's something I bet you didn't know. Heading into the SEC championship game, undefeated Alabama had an easier schedule than both Utah and Boise State. Now, after the SEC championship game, this would probably have changed, but the bulk of the season has been played, so not by much. What does this mean -- playing in tougher conferences does not guarantee a tougher schedule. The argument BCS conference teams play tougher teams week in and week out does not carry nearly as much weight as it once had.
The thing that really baffles me is how Ohio State got a BCS bid. Now granted, I am not looking at this from a business perspective, as this is AMATEUR SPORTS (yeah, none of these players gets paid a dime from the Universities or NCAA). But they were actually ranked lower than Boise State, and have two losses. Their only actual impressive win was over #20 Michigan State. Their only hard non-conference game was against USC (where they were not only beaten, but humiliated) -- the other three games were against Ohio, Youngstown State, and Troy -- of which only did Youngstown State get beaten as they should have.
And this is just this week in the BCS. Last week, it cost Texas a shot to play for the title. Now, because they hadn't won their conference, they shouldn't be able to play for a title (even though they were robbed of the opportunity). But it still stands that there were 6 teams that won their conference with one loss or less -- including the two undefeated non-bcs teams. Assuming a non-bcs team can never play for a title, how do we still pick amongst the four others? Was Penn State's loss to Iowa really any different than Florida's loss to Ole Miss (at home), or USC's loss to Oregon State, or even Oklahoma's loss at Texas? Were Florida and Oklahoma picked because they like to run of the score and posses gaudy offensive numbers? Penn State and USC had gaudy defensive numbers. They also knew when to put the second string in and call off the dogs. Was the SEC really that much stronger than the Big Ten or Pac-10?
So don't even say the BCS got it right (which an ESPN poll showed 52% of voters agreed with). Don't worry, they're not too bright. The same poll said 60% thought Texas was most ripped off by the BCS -- when the crime against Texas happenned two weeks ago, and was a result of something like the fifth tie-breaker to see who plays in the Big 12 "conference" title game -- not a BCS game. ESPN's bias towards a bowl system is already becoming apparent, though I don't think the coverage deal even covers this year.
You know how this could be fixed. A playoff. Oh, and it would work so well this year.
Florida - SEC
Oklahoma - Big 12
Penn State - Big 10
USC - Pac 10
Cincinatti - Big East
Va Tech - ACC
Utah/Boise State/Alabama/Texas/Texas Tech/Ohio State - at large, depending on how many.
But oh well, this is merely a pipe dream. I think the winner of the Rose Bowl should be given a partial share of the national title anyway, just for good measure.
-- Knuttel
12.05.2008
What of the Automobile Industry?
As some of you may or may not know, the leaders from the Big 3 American Automakers (dubbed "Detroit 3" by southern senators, but more on that later) and the UAW met in Washington to discuss the possibility of an Automotive industry bailout.
The first meeting did not go so well, as the leaders were chided for their symbolic gesture of flying in on their private jets. For this, the second meeting, they all drove in, again a symbolic gesture, from what I hear in Hybrid and Electric cars -- the latter part seems just a little unnecessary, as in a hybrid vehicle, the electric part of the motor is not engaged at all, or perhaps maybe only slightly, in the course of highway driving. I would imagine most of the journey from Detroit to Washington to be made of highway driving.
But nonetheless, the Senate Banking committee was noticeably more impressed and willing to bail out the automotive industry than previous. All groups made larger concessions, though really they should've been made before the first meeting.
What does this all mean though, how likely is it they are going to get bailed out, should they get bailed out?
The likelihood this is going to pass is still pretty thin. Oddly enough, the issue isn't really broken up by party lines, as it is broken up by geographic ones (though MSNBC would like you to believe they are the same). Northern manufacturing states are very much for the bailout -- Michigan obviously leading the charge, likely followed by Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota, and Pennsylvania's Bob Casey, who made a comment to the effect of trying not to have another major industry collapse within the country (talking about the old steel industry, based out of western PA). The opposition to this bill is in the south. The reason for this is southern states, such as Tennessee, Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi all have thriving auto-manufacturing plants -- owned by foreign companies such as Toyota and Nissan.
So, in other words, the South doesn't want to bail out the American auto industry, because they are getting supported by foreign ones. A side note, this technically destroys the whole "buy American" movement for cars, because it was started more so for the labor, not the corporations. Anyways, not only would it be against their interests to vote in favor of bailing these companies out (at least presently) but these Senators and Congressmen are in the pockets of these companies (private interests eventually even out though, don't hate the player, hate the game). This is why they have dubbed the "Big 3" the "Detroit 3". They feel this problem is isolated to Michigan, and should thusly be dealt with locally. Not to mention the Senator from Tenessee was giving them shit about Federal subsidies to deal with developing new technologies and improving existing ones, such as hybrids. Fuggin Assclown. The Foreign companies that are manufacturing here are getting the same subsidies from their respective nations.
What's going to get this either passed or sunk is whether it can get support from the other regions of the country -- remember the Senate is evenly distributed amongst states. If it gets to the House of Representatives, it will have an easier chance of passing, as the house is represented by population, and the regions directly affected are more densely populated.
But should they get Federal support?
On the one hand, they represent a huge chunk of the remaining manufacturing and heavy industries. If these 3 companies go down, they could take an entire region of the nation, and put it in a depression that could last longer locally than whatever impending (or present) national disaster there is.
On the other hand, they have a flawed business model, which got them in this mess in the first place. In addition, the foreign companies are already manufacturing the cars to be sold in America, in America.
Not to mention they tried (pretty successfully) to ruin Johnny Cougar
Most of the cars (not trucks or SUVs) break down at 70,000 miles, forget about the fact that Toyota and Honda make more hybrids, their cars last to 150,000+, oftentimes quite a bit more.
The problem with the last argument is you can't tell if they changed that bit until at least a few years after the models roll out.
Do the companies need to be bailed out?
yes.
Why?
If the Big 3 fail, there will be no American company to take its place. Not to mention it would take too much time and capital to develop a car company to take its place, even to have an impact at a niche level. What does this mean -- America will eventually have to laxen its tariff requirements. This would lead to a very possibly vacation of the auto-manufacturing industry from the south also. Southern labor may be cheaper than Detroit labor, but foreign labor is even cheaper. In addition, all the supplying industries that still exist will all face a major restructuring that they themselves may not survive.
Simply put, the Big 3 are too big to let them fall. Their fall will destroy much in its wake. But they need oversight. This is, after all, a federal investment with taxpayer money. It's not the corporations that deserve this bailout, but rather the nation and its workers. So their bosses are idiots, why should they get fired, and more importantly why should that hurt the rest of the American economy?
The first meeting did not go so well, as the leaders were chided for their symbolic gesture of flying in on their private jets. For this, the second meeting, they all drove in, again a symbolic gesture, from what I hear in Hybrid and Electric cars -- the latter part seems just a little unnecessary, as in a hybrid vehicle, the electric part of the motor is not engaged at all, or perhaps maybe only slightly, in the course of highway driving. I would imagine most of the journey from Detroit to Washington to be made of highway driving.
But nonetheless, the Senate Banking committee was noticeably more impressed and willing to bail out the automotive industry than previous. All groups made larger concessions, though really they should've been made before the first meeting.
What does this all mean though, how likely is it they are going to get bailed out, should they get bailed out?
The likelihood this is going to pass is still pretty thin. Oddly enough, the issue isn't really broken up by party lines, as it is broken up by geographic ones (though MSNBC would like you to believe they are the same). Northern manufacturing states are very much for the bailout -- Michigan obviously leading the charge, likely followed by Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota, and Pennsylvania's Bob Casey, who made a comment to the effect of trying not to have another major industry collapse within the country (talking about the old steel industry, based out of western PA). The opposition to this bill is in the south. The reason for this is southern states, such as Tennessee, Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi all have thriving auto-manufacturing plants -- owned by foreign companies such as Toyota and Nissan.
So, in other words, the South doesn't want to bail out the American auto industry, because they are getting supported by foreign ones. A side note, this technically destroys the whole "buy American" movement for cars, because it was started more so for the labor, not the corporations. Anyways, not only would it be against their interests to vote in favor of bailing these companies out (at least presently) but these Senators and Congressmen are in the pockets of these companies (private interests eventually even out though, don't hate the player, hate the game). This is why they have dubbed the "Big 3" the "Detroit 3". They feel this problem is isolated to Michigan, and should thusly be dealt with locally. Not to mention the Senator from Tenessee was giving them shit about Federal subsidies to deal with developing new technologies and improving existing ones, such as hybrids. Fuggin Assclown. The Foreign companies that are manufacturing here are getting the same subsidies from their respective nations.
What's going to get this either passed or sunk is whether it can get support from the other regions of the country -- remember the Senate is evenly distributed amongst states. If it gets to the House of Representatives, it will have an easier chance of passing, as the house is represented by population, and the regions directly affected are more densely populated.
But should they get Federal support?
On the one hand, they represent a huge chunk of the remaining manufacturing and heavy industries. If these 3 companies go down, they could take an entire region of the nation, and put it in a depression that could last longer locally than whatever impending (or present) national disaster there is.
On the other hand, they have a flawed business model, which got them in this mess in the first place. In addition, the foreign companies are already manufacturing the cars to be sold in America, in America.
Not to mention they tried (pretty successfully) to ruin Johnny Cougar
Most of the cars (not trucks or SUVs) break down at 70,000 miles, forget about the fact that Toyota and Honda make more hybrids, their cars last to 150,000+, oftentimes quite a bit more.
The problem with the last argument is you can't tell if they changed that bit until at least a few years after the models roll out.
Do the companies need to be bailed out?
yes.
Why?
If the Big 3 fail, there will be no American company to take its place. Not to mention it would take too much time and capital to develop a car company to take its place, even to have an impact at a niche level. What does this mean -- America will eventually have to laxen its tariff requirements. This would lead to a very possibly vacation of the auto-manufacturing industry from the south also. Southern labor may be cheaper than Detroit labor, but foreign labor is even cheaper. In addition, all the supplying industries that still exist will all face a major restructuring that they themselves may not survive.
Simply put, the Big 3 are too big to let them fall. Their fall will destroy much in its wake. But they need oversight. This is, after all, a federal investment with taxpayer money. It's not the corporations that deserve this bailout, but rather the nation and its workers. So their bosses are idiots, why should they get fired, and more importantly why should that hurt the rest of the American economy?
12.04.2008
The case for Oklahoma
True, the BCS is in turmoil -- a threat of 7 one loss teams and two undefeated non-bcs teams looms; but the issue of the day, or week, or whatever, would also affect any possible playoff brackets, if in fact the NCAA used a logical plan to decide its 1-A football champion. The issue is who gets to play for the Big 12 Championship. By rule, it is supposed to be one team from the Big 12 North against one team from the Big 12 South. This year had a mediocre showing amongst those in the north, and a bumper crop of good teams in the south.
Three teams in the south have one loss, and they have all beaten eachother, which would eliminate a head to head disqualifier. I think they actually went through about 20 tiebreakers before they had to use the BCS, which declared Oklahoma is going to the game.
Texas Tech was pretty much eliminated from being one of the teams going to the game after getting routed by Oklahoma. More importantly perhaps, they lost last.
But this left the basic argument between everyone on ESPN at whether it should be Oklahoma or Texas that goes. And because everyone at ESPN thinks alike, they all decided that Texas should go, because back in the beginning of October, the two teams played at a neutral site (in the state of Texas) and Texas won.
The problem is it is a simplistic argument, that addresses not at all any of the complex issues of college football. It is a strict head to head matchup argument, automatically disqualifying the team with the least history.
1. Oklahoma didn't only beat Texas Tech, they crushed them. This was the only blowout of all the head to head matchups. And this team that Oklahoma crushed, they beat Texas. Not to mention both of these games came much later than the Oklahoma-Texas matchup, and because teams become closer to their true selves the more the season goes on, that makes those two games possibly more indicitative of the quality of the teams than the Cotton Bowl matchup in October.
2. Oklahoma had a much tougher out of conference schedule, and they both had about equally tough in conference schedules. Both teams played every other team in the Big 12 South, and then three from the North. Oklahoma drew Kansas, Kansas State, and Nebraska. Texas drew Kansas, Colorado, and Missouri. Thats pretty much a push. However, out of conference, Oklahoma beat a then #24 TCU and eventual Big East Champ Cincinatti. Texas had a few teams that are competitive within their weak conferences -- Rice, UTEP, Florida Atlantic; and had one of the awfully weak teams of the SEC in Arkansas. Out of conference schedules do not compare at all, and gives Oklahoma more meaningful wins.
3. The last issue is the issue of Oklahoma State. Oklahoma State is also in the Big 12 South, and so all three of these teams played, and beat them. Additionally, these are the only three teams to beat Oklahoma State all year. Texas barely squeaked by Oklahoma State, 28-24. Texas Tech re-enters the conversation here, as they routed them 56-20. Most importantly, however, Oklahoma also crushed them, 61-41. The Oklahoma/Oklahoma State matchup is also more important than Texas/Ok St and TT/Ok St because Oklahoma/Oklahoma State is a longstanding rivalry, which means potentially the weaker team can win on emotion, especially when said weaker team has a bad streak going against them. Oklahoma State had already been eliminated from contention for winning the conference, so all they had to play for was their pride against a rival school, something oddly stronger.
Besides, I'd take Oklahoma over Texas anyway. Mack Brown's an asshole, and it appears Stoops has done at least a decent job of excorcising the demons of Barry Switzer. Besides, who can't help but remember the year their team had to be liked, the year Mike Leach (now head coach of Texas Tech) was the offensive coordinator, and Josh Heupel simply willed his team to win. He may not have had all the skills -- his arm was weak and his speed was servicable -- but he did what he could. Besides, they beat Florida State in that game, in the state of Florida no less. How could one not applaud the efforts to stymie the inflated record of Bobby Bowden?
Besides, maybe this makes up for all those times Texas campaigned and appealed for votes to get into certain bowls in years past. ... naaaaah
--Knuttel
Three teams in the south have one loss, and they have all beaten eachother, which would eliminate a head to head disqualifier. I think they actually went through about 20 tiebreakers before they had to use the BCS, which declared Oklahoma is going to the game.
Texas Tech was pretty much eliminated from being one of the teams going to the game after getting routed by Oklahoma. More importantly perhaps, they lost last.
But this left the basic argument between everyone on ESPN at whether it should be Oklahoma or Texas that goes. And because everyone at ESPN thinks alike, they all decided that Texas should go, because back in the beginning of October, the two teams played at a neutral site (in the state of Texas) and Texas won.
The problem is it is a simplistic argument, that addresses not at all any of the complex issues of college football. It is a strict head to head matchup argument, automatically disqualifying the team with the least history.
1. Oklahoma didn't only beat Texas Tech, they crushed them. This was the only blowout of all the head to head matchups. And this team that Oklahoma crushed, they beat Texas. Not to mention both of these games came much later than the Oklahoma-Texas matchup, and because teams become closer to their true selves the more the season goes on, that makes those two games possibly more indicitative of the quality of the teams than the Cotton Bowl matchup in October.
2. Oklahoma had a much tougher out of conference schedule, and they both had about equally tough in conference schedules. Both teams played every other team in the Big 12 South, and then three from the North. Oklahoma drew Kansas, Kansas State, and Nebraska. Texas drew Kansas, Colorado, and Missouri. Thats pretty much a push. However, out of conference, Oklahoma beat a then #24 TCU and eventual Big East Champ Cincinatti. Texas had a few teams that are competitive within their weak conferences -- Rice, UTEP, Florida Atlantic; and had one of the awfully weak teams of the SEC in Arkansas. Out of conference schedules do not compare at all, and gives Oklahoma more meaningful wins.
3. The last issue is the issue of Oklahoma State. Oklahoma State is also in the Big 12 South, and so all three of these teams played, and beat them. Additionally, these are the only three teams to beat Oklahoma State all year. Texas barely squeaked by Oklahoma State, 28-24. Texas Tech re-enters the conversation here, as they routed them 56-20. Most importantly, however, Oklahoma also crushed them, 61-41. The Oklahoma/Oklahoma State matchup is also more important than Texas/Ok St and TT/Ok St because Oklahoma/Oklahoma State is a longstanding rivalry, which means potentially the weaker team can win on emotion, especially when said weaker team has a bad streak going against them. Oklahoma State had already been eliminated from contention for winning the conference, so all they had to play for was their pride against a rival school, something oddly stronger.
Besides, I'd take Oklahoma over Texas anyway. Mack Brown's an asshole, and it appears Stoops has done at least a decent job of excorcising the demons of Barry Switzer. Besides, who can't help but remember the year their team had to be liked, the year Mike Leach (now head coach of Texas Tech) was the offensive coordinator, and Josh Heupel simply willed his team to win. He may not have had all the skills -- his arm was weak and his speed was servicable -- but he did what he could. Besides, they beat Florida State in that game, in the state of Florida no less. How could one not applaud the efforts to stymie the inflated record of Bobby Bowden?
Besides, maybe this makes up for all those times Texas campaigned and appealed for votes to get into certain bowls in years past. ... naaaaah
--Knuttel
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)