Mack's Story Changed a Bit Since '06?
by WoodrowWilson
on Dec 3, 2008 9:43 AM CST
15 comments
A nice piece of info for anyone dealing with horns whining that head to head should be the determining factor in voting
2006 texas 9-3
2006 texas a&m 9-3
A&M beat texas on the road
Mack voted texas 15, A&M 22
Mack voted texas 15, A&M 22
Mack voted texas 15, A&M 22
Mack voted texas 15, A&M 22
Mack voted texas 15, A&M 22
Mack voted texas 15, A&M 22
Mack voted texas 15, A&M 22
0 recs |
15 comments
Email
Print
Comments
texas would still say the OU-texas head-to-head matchup in 2006 is what mattered
good point on the rankings, though.
by Beergut on
Dec 3, 2008 1:39 PM CST
reply
actions
0 recs
Sorry about posting that one line 7 times
Had to make my word limt…
The Ralphie Report - University of Colorado Athletics
by WoodrowWilson on
Dec 3, 2008 2:40 PM CST
reply
actions
0 recs
Interesting
but didn’t the Aggies finish out of the top 25 that year? It would appear Mack wasn’t alone in not ranking the Aggies higher. Just pointing out that fact…
by Tech92 on
Dec 3, 2008 4:23 PM CST
reply
actions
0 recs
Yep…but the week they played Cal, they were ranked only #21. Mack wasn’t that far off. Not trying to defend the guy, but the original post is misleading.
by Tech92 on
Dec 3, 2008 4:49 PM CST
reply
actions
0 recs
How is it misleading?
The whole point is to contradict Mack’s utter conviction (this year) that head to head, if all else is equal, is all that matters. If that were true, he would have had us above UT that year. That’s the point of this post, that’s what it leads to. If Mack didn’t think we should have been ranked above #22, he should have voted his own team #23.
by FuturePants on
Dec 4, 2008 9:35 AM CST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Instead of posting the same line 7 times
I wish you instead would have included some small bit of analysis to try and make a case why this was wrong.
The data can be found here: http://www.usatoday.com/sports/graphics/coaches_fb_poll_2006/flash.htm
It looks like Mack’s voting is right in line with the rest of the coaches, who on the average voted Texas #16, A&M #21 that week.
by jimjar on
Dec 3, 2008 4:59 PM CST
reply
actions
0 recs
I have no problem with him repeating himself to make his point
by Beergut on
Dec 4, 2008 12:08 AM CST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
My problem is that he doesn't make a point....
All he does is repeat Mack Brown’s vote from 2006, without any discussion of why he thinks Mack should have voted differently.
If I try and guess what he is trying to say – which should be the posters job, not mine – then I can guess that maybe he is trying to say that he thinks teams that have a tied total record should always be ranked in order or head to head results. Or maybe not, he doesn’t say.
If that does happen to be his point, then I think he doesn’t really understand football rankings….as you know, there is a lot more that goes into them than just the won loss records. I don’t recall there being much controversy about the A&M ranking at the end of the 2006 season.
Or else I might ague that he doesn’t seem to get last week’s Texas argument, which really isn’t about rankings at all, but (in brief) is that if you need to decide a tie in a conference to determine the winner then head-to-head game results should carry the most weight.
Breaking a tie obviously wasn’t the issue in 2006 – but again, it’s hard to tell if this is the point of WoodrowWilson’s post, because he didn’t say
by jimjar on
Dec 4, 2008 8:38 AM CST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
x
I can guess that maybe he is trying to say he thinks teams that have a tied total record should always be ranked in order or head to head results.
The point of this post is to say that in 2008, when Mack Brown used all of our time to whine about the Big XII and politick for his team, he pounded the head-to-head against OU. He ignored Tech, he ignored everything else. He was saying that if all else is equal, the head to head should be the deciding factor.
In 2006, A&M and UT had identical conference records and identical overall records. If Mack Brown actually believed what he has been saying this year, it follows logically that he would have necessarily had to have voted his UT team below A&M. If he thought A&M is #22, he has to vote UT #23. I say “has to” because otherwise he is directly contradicting his own argument this year only two years ago.
The self-contradicting is the point of this post. That Mack Brown is full of it, one way or another.
by FuturePants on
Dec 4, 2008 9:39 AM CST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
so you don't think head-to-head is a valid consideration when trying to break a conference tie ?
by jimjar on
Dec 4, 2008 12:41 PM CST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
It doesn't matter what I think.
The whole point is this:
2006 Mack Brown: head to head doesn’t matter for ranking in a tie.
2008 Mack Brown: head to head is all that matters for ranking in a tie.
by FuturePants on
Dec 4, 2008 12:49 PM CST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
i don't think you have a very good argument for these reasons:
Let me explain:
1) I have never read a Mack Brown quote where he claims that all rankings should be absolutely dependent on head to results. I think you can easily come up with examples where this isn’t even possible. If you have a link to Mack saying this I would be happy to reconsider. Otherwise I think that you are just making this up.
2) I think the 2006 Texas and Aggie rankings voted on by Mack Brown are very difficult to dispute, based on the records of both teams at that time. I’d like to know if you feel differently, although it is a little late now for that discussion. In any case their later bowl performances made them somewhat moot.
3) Mack did clearly say that head to head results should be the largest determining factor to break a tie. I think there is a good case for this. There is a strong possibility that after the season the Big12 will change its tiebreaking rules to be more like other conferences where the head to head gets more influence. I would support this…except it seems like you disagree. If you have a better suggestion I would be interested in hearing it.
4) (maybe obvious) Nobody considered the rankings of Texas and A&M at the end of the season to be a tie that needed to be broken, so no tiebreakers should have been necessary.
by jimjar on
Dec 4, 2008 1:36 PM CST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
i think this is a solid argument
the way brown voted does make one question the validity of his argument now.(the heads up winner ) the only thing i can say in defense is this voting had no bearing on who was conference champ. when a conference title is at stake, i think heads up should matter. then again i’m a ut fan so of course i would say that
by wishiwasalonghorn on
Dec 4, 2008 12:36 AM CST
reply
actions
0 recs
New FanPost
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
