Jump to content

alphahydro

Full Members
  • Posts

    133
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by alphahydro

  1. I assume these are not adjusted numbers, but based on these numbers. Penix didn't get sacked much at all this year. They are 3rd in the country in preventing sacks. FWIW, all the Wash fans I saw on Reddit were saying their pass blocking was miles ahead of where it was last year when we faced them. They ran the ball 42% of the time (124th in the country). Our opponents ran the ball 42% of the time (3rd lowest % in the country). So, if you can bet on 42% run plays by Wash, that may be a good bet. Heads up (these are based on yards per play) Texas running the ball vs Wash D. Texas 25th / Wash 70th Texas passing vs Wash D Texas 18th/Wash 23rd Washington Running vs Texas D Wash 40th/Texas 5th Washington Passing vs Texas D Wash 9th/Texas 31 If you give Grades based on percentile yards per play: Texas passing is A vs A- (Texas pass offense vs Wash pass defense) Texas running is A- vs C Washington passing is A vs B Washington running is B vs A+ So based on those numbers, their passing attack is about as good as ours is. They are better at preventing sacks, but much worse at run stopping and run blocking. They are slightly better at stopping the pass. Someone can double check my work. I think what is more important is looking at comparable opponents, which i will do at some point if I get some time.
  2. This is how I see it. There's nothing to talk about if FSU loses. Assume FSU wins later today. Pretty sure Dinich said there is protocol that allows the committee to take into account whether a key player's absence from the team would make the team uncompetitive in the post-season. 1) If Georgia wins, that protocol is our only hope, imo. Will the committee invoke that protocol to put Texas in over undefeated FSU? Maybe. 2) If Alabama wins, we could get the fourth spot over bama based on head-to-head but we also have a second way in - The committee could invoke that protocol to kick out FSU and put in the SEC champ + the team that beat the SEC champ. As Texas fans, we might be comfortable with 1), but TBH 2) seems like an easier sell for the committee and more in line with the talk from all the talking heads. (it's like a 2-for-1 you get to put in the SEC champ plus a second team (UT) that is clearly better than FSU) Here's another way to look at it. Assuming FSU and GA both win, does 1a) make the committee uncomfortable enough to keep undefeated FSU out to go to 1b) to make a space for TX? 1a) MICH WASH FSU GA 1b) MICH WASH TEXAS GA OTOH, if Bama wins, they have three options 2a) MICH WASH FSU TEX 2b) MICH WASH FSU BAMA 2c) MICH WASH BAMA TEXAS Assuming FSU wins. If GA wins, what's the %age they go from 1a) to 1b)? I think it's slim. If BAMA wins, I think our odds of 2a) + 2c) are better than 1b).
  3. yeah. i could be wrong but i suspect it's just incompetence on the part of the guy at the big 12 who looked at the rules and told the reporters to hold their horses. hopefully it never becomes an issue. and frankly if the team thinks they need to win, it's prolly a good thing.
  4. I agree that it says this - "'once "one team gains an advantage and is seeded' then they go to the [remaining] teams." But there is no applicable rule that would "seed" OU without putting TX in the championship game. After the ISU tiebreaker, OU didn't get seeded. OU and TX are still tied after the ISU tiebreaker. So another way to put it is - after you apply the ISU tiebreaker, what tiebreaker do you apply next to TX and OU? coin toss? strength of schedule? Next highest rated common opponent? After the ISU tiebreaker, it looks like this: Section 1 (2 way tiebreaker rules) tiebreaker rule A tiebreaker rule B tiebreaker rule C Section 2 (3+ way tie tiebreaker rules) tiebreaker rule i (only applies if all tied teams played each other) tiebreaker rule ii **** ISU Tiebreaker/ YOU ARE HERE**** tiebreaker rule iii After YOU ARE HERE - what tie breaker do you apply next? do you go to Section 2 tiebreaker rule iii? Do you repeat tiebreaker rule ii with the next highest ranked common opp of TX/OU? Do you go to Section 3 tiebreaker rule i? Where do you go next? There are two parts of the rules. (1) A list of tiebreakers, and then (2) a set of rules about the order in which you apply the tiebreakers. The orange and green sentences tell us about the order in which we apply the tiebreaker rules. The rules clearly say if you have a three way tie you start in Section 2 at rule i but if at any point you get to two teams, then you go immediately to Section 1. "If at any point the multiple-team tie is reduced to two teams, the two-team tie-breaking procedure will be applied." In other words, if you start in Section 2 and at any point you get down to two teams, you immediately go to the top of Section 1. The very top of Section 1 says if you have two teams tied for first (as opposed to two teams tied for second), those two teams play in the championship. The sentence reads "If two teams are tied for first place both teams will participate in the championship game and the winner of the head-to-head will be the #1 seed." This language "After one team has an advantage and is “seeded”, all remaining teams in the multiple-team tiebreaker will repeat the multiple-team tie-breaking procedure" doesn't apply after the ISU tiebreaker, because no team got seeded. I think that's the mistake people are making. They think the green language means once you eliminate OSU (via the ISU tiebreaker) you start at the top again with OU/TX and look at their head-to-head tiebreaker. But that's just wrong. It's a misreading of the green language and ignores the orange language. It's a violation of the part of the rules that tells you which tiebreaker rule you apply in which circumstance. In fact, the green language serves a useful purpose, but it can only apply if you start with four+ teams tied for first and you run through section two and eliminate one team. For example, say there were four teams tied for first at 11-1, and one of those four teams beat the other three head-to-head. At that point, that team is seeded. Then you have three teams left, and without the green language, it's not clear which tiebreaker you apply next, so you need a rule saying what you do with the remaining three teams. The green sentence says after you seed the one team, those remaining three teams start over in the Section 2 rules. That's how the green statement works. And it makes sense that the Green language sends you back to the top of Section 2 when you have 3+ teams remaining and to Section 1 when you have two remaining. We can think of it as green is the general rule and orange is the exception when you get down to two teams. There's no other way to read the rules. There's no ambiguity. Someone at the Big XII just read it too quickly (imo). There is no legitimate way to read the rules to say after **YOU ARE HERE** you apply head to head TX/OU, seed OU, then start again with TX/OSU. There's nothing ambiguous about it. The big xii just messed up. First, because that reading ignores the orange language. Second because there is nothing in the rules that would tell you to apply the head-to-head tiebreaker to resolve TX/OU (as opposed to next highest ranked opp or coin toss or whatever). You are correct that, even if the rules did say to seed OU and compare TX/OSU, there is a weird issue with the word next that makes it unclear which opp you would look at if you were comparing TX and OSU. anyway, fuck tech.
  5. btw, i agree it would suck to lose to tech, etc. my point is - reading what other people have said, it sounded like there was a problem with the rules or the rules were super ambiguous. then i went and looked at the rules and i think they are clear enough. i think the problem is the big xii is just pulling something out of their ass that is totally unsupported by the language of the rules. unless i am missing something or there is a chain of results next weekend we haven't considered.
  6. this is how i read it, assuming the only scenario at issue is TX, OU, and OSU being tied for first, with ISU being highest ranked common opp for all 3. here are the actual rules There are two sections to the rules - Section 1 addresses a two way tie (could be a tie for first (two teams at 11-0; issue is seeding) or a tie for second (one team at 11-0; two teams at 10-1; issue is which of the two 10-1 teams get in). Section 2 addresses a 3+ team tie (three+ teams at 10-1; issue is which two teams get in) With 3+ teams (TX, OU, & OSU) tied for first, we start in Section 2. When you run through the Section 2 tiebreaker rules, the first tiebreaking rule doesn't apply because TX, OU, and OSU didn't all play each other. The second tiebreaking rule is record vs next highest common opponent (ISU). Against ISU, Texas and OU are 1-0; OSU is 0-1. Section 2 says After one team has an advantage and is “seeded”, all remaining teams in the multiple-team tiebreaker will repeat the multiple-team tie-breaking procedure. If at any point the multiple-team tie is reduced to two teams, the two-team tie-breaking procedure will be applied. What Alex Loeb seems to be arguing is that after applying the ISU tiebreaker, you then apply the ORANGE SENTENCE to resolve the remaining two-team tie between TX and OU (per Alex - OU wins that one on head to head) - then you go back and re-run tiebreaking rules between OSU and TX, because all that happened in round 1 of tiebreaking was that OU was seeded #1. He's wrong. In the Big XII tiebreaking scheme, the only way to apply the TX vs OU head-to-head tiebreaking rule at this point would be to apply the ORANGE SENTENCE and go to Section 1 tiebreaking rules to resolve TX vs OU. But if you go to to Section 1, it says "if two teams are tied for first place both teams will participate in the championship game and the winner of the head-to-head will be the #1 seed." Boom. Done. End of story. You just can't go that route. Under these particular rules, you can't get from (a) using the ISU tiebreaker in part 2 of Section 2 to eliminate OSU, to (b) applying a head-to-head tiebreaker to resolve TX vs OU without (c) putting TX and OU in the championship game. (He might also be thinking that once you get rid of OSU through the ISU tiebreaker, you go back to part 1 of Section 2 to resolve TX/OU, but there is nothing in the rules that supports this reading.) At best, Loeb could argue that the ORANGE SENTENCE does not apply after the ISU tiebreaker, because even though OSU lost the Section 2 step 2/ISU tiebreaker, the three-way tie hasn't been reduced to two teams for some reason. (This is a terrible misreading based on the phrase IF AT ANY POINT). I can't imagine what the words IF AT ANY POINT could mean here if they wouldn't apply after the ISU tiebreaker. I think the problem is someone at the Big XII read the rules too quickly and didn't "run water through the pipes" (or maybe I am an idiot). They are reading the rules to say, after a tiebreaking rule eliminates one team, you start from the top with the remaining two teams to find the first place team, then start from the top again with the remaining teams. But the words don't say that at all. What they say is: If you start with four+ teams and get to a tiebreaking rule in section 2 where Team A wins over all the others, you re-run the section 2 rules with the remaining 3+. (makes sense - you can't use section 1 rules as they make no sense with 3+ teams) If you start with three teams and get to a tiebreaking rule in section 2 where Team A wins over all the others, you run the section 1 rules with the remaining 2. (makes sense - down to two teams, you can just run the Section 1 rules) Our case is a little bit different, it is: If you start with three teams and get to a tiebreaking rule in section 2 where one team gets eliminated, you run the section 1 rules with the remaining 2. but I still think it makes sense the way the rule is written, given the phrase if at any point.
×
×
  • Create New...