Why the Texas Longhorns Have No Claim to the National Championship
As the time for casting postseason BlogPoll ballots is fast approaching, the Dawg Sports community has been considering the case for Utah to be No. 1. While I hope that conversation will continue, now is the time to ask whether, as my good friend and colleague Peter Bean claims, Texas has "as plausible a claim to #1 as any of the other one-loss teams." With all due respect to Peter, I do not believe that this is the case.
For purposes of this discussion, I will leave aside the Utes’ undefeated season and look only at the other once-beaten squads to whom Peter compares the Longhorns. I would have a hard time building a case for Texas over Southern California because the Trojans won their conference championship and throttled the Ohio State team the ‘Horns barely beat. However, I will concede for the sake of argument that a case might be mounted for U.T. over U.S.C. in light of the former’s strength of schedule and the relative quality of their respective losses.
Where Mack Brown’s crew runs into trouble is with respect to the contestants in the B.C.S. title tilt. Florida, which captured its conference championship, would match the Longhorns’ best win (over Oklahoma) with a victory on Thursday night, and U.F.’s lone loss (to Ole Miss) would mitigate strongly in the Gators’ favor, in light of the Rebels’ Cotton Bowl victory over the team that beat U.T. (Texas Tech).
That just leaves the real fly in the ointment . . . an O.U. victory in Miami. Burnt Orange partisans would shout "45-35" to the highest heavens, citing the head-to-head tiebreaker. The only problem is that the two teams are not tied: Texas is 12-1 and Oklahoma would finish 13-1.
The Sooners would have one more win, they would be the Big 12 champions, and they would (perhaps ironically) have suffered their only setback to a better team, the one-loss ‘Horns, than the one that beat Texas, the twice-beaten Red Raiders.
The Longhorns had a legitimate argument for getting into the Big 12 title game, but the primary thrust of that argument was their head-to-head win over O.U. That point, though, was rendered moot by the Longhorns’, Red Raiders’, and Sooners’ 1-1 records against one another. The league reasonably elected to use the B.C.S. standings to break the tie, in exactly the same manner that the S.E.C. chose to do when deciding the Eastern Division representative in the Georgia Dome in 2003. Fairly or unfairly, that ship has sailed.
Oklahoma and Texas were two of the three teams that shared the Big 12 South title. The Sooners, however, have the conference championship all to themselves. With that laurel goes all legitimate claim to a piece of the national crown.
The most controversial and indefensible moments in the history of the B.C.S. have come when teams that did not win their league crowns were allowed to play for the final No. 1 ranking. Nebraska in 2001 and Oklahoma in 2003 simply received berths that ought to have gone to Oregon and Southern California, respectively. The arguments for a Michigan rematch with Ohio State in 2006, and, yes, for Georgia to have gotten in ahead of either the Big 12 or the S.E.C. champion last year, likewise were weaker than the opposing position.
The bottom line is that a team cannot plausibly argue that it is the national champion without first being a conference champion. In an era in which all of the major independents have acquired league affiliations---no offense, Notre Dame, but, when beating Hawaii in a bowl game represents a breakthrough win for your program, you’re strictly small potatoes, no matter how big a deal you were in the ‘40s---it is a non sequitur to suggest that a team can be the best in the country if it is not first the best in its conference. Such a claim is as absurd as arguing that a fellow can be the tallest person in his neighborhood without being the tallest person in his household. It’s just plain cognitive dissonance.
Texas boasts an elite program, both currently and historically. Unlike some teams I could name, the Longhorns have had a fine year and they deserve a top five ranking. In the national championship sweepstakes, however, they simply are not entered. I can make a case with a straight face that Texas is No. 3, but they have no credible argument---none---for No. 1.
Go ‘Dawgs!
Comments
That's one view
But (in my opinion) you make the point too forcibly by saying the Longhorns don’t have ANY argument. Your argument is coherent and I’m fine with it. But to leave no possibility for an alternative view is to throw out the baby with the bathwater.
The only reason Texas lost the three-way tiebreaker is because the Big 12 had one arbitrary tiebreak rule that broke OU’s way instead of another arbitrary rule (like the SEC’s or ACC’s) that would have broken the Longhorns’ way. Your argument essentially says that because the Big 12 had Arbitrary Three-Way Tiebreak Rule A instead of Rule B, the Longhorns have NO reasonable argument. To the extent you’re married to the idea a #1 team must be a conference champ team, so be it.
But as almost everyone conceded after the final week of the regular season, there was no meaningful difference between Texas and OU’s resume. “Sound” arguments could be made for both teams.
I’m absolutely fine with the fact that Texas isn’t going to get any slice of national title pie – the system didn’t break our way this year – but their accomplishments are of the caliber that they should indeed be in the discussion. And, I think, that plausible, sound, compelling arguments can be made for them on the number one line.
I think you go too far in the way you present your alternative (also plausible, sound, and compelling) view.
--PB--
by PB @ BON on
Jan 7, 2009 3:43 PM EST
reply
actions
0 recs
Please oh please let this end in another 5,000-word apology post from Kyle.
________________________________
I will give my shirt for Tennessee today.
by Holly on
Jan 7, 2009 7:11 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Dang, Holly . . .
. . . you know how to kick a dude when he’s down, don’t you? Ouch!
That was because I took issue with Dr. Saturday, wasn’t it? :)
Go 'Dawgs!
by T Kyle King on
Jan 7, 2009 9:35 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
It's hard to kick anyone from the bottom of this well, frankly.
(govawls!!)
________________________________
I will give my shirt for Tennessee today.
by Holly on
Jan 7, 2009 11:21 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
The only thing I have to say
is that in this situation the system decided the system. The big 12 south champion was crowned via opinion poll. Granted “these were the rules” as OU loves to point out. But OU cannot be given credit for winning their conference division outright, when they in fact didnt. It was a tie between UT, TTU, and OU. OU got the slight edge and because of that got the extra game/exposure. Its not as if they earned it all by themself. They got the breaks they needed and were fortunate. To say 13-1 beats 12-1 is flawed because Texas never even got a shot at the 14th game. So in a sense the BCS poll itself decided where the teams would be ranked in the BCS poll.
But that’s how it goes. And I am a firm supporter of consensus champions. I roll my eyes at the “we deserve this, we could beat anyone” blather after a bowl game (USC, Utah, Texas). Bowl games are just too volatile to put much stock in with the unequal matchups, motivation, coaching changes and other issues.
I am a UT student and fan. Frankly 2008 featured a great Longhorn team, one of the best. I give Texas a decent chance at beating any team in the nation, but would they win for sure? I can’t say that with any certainty. We’re a scrappy team with a lot of heart and few superstars.
We are in the picture somewhere. There’s enough reasonable doubt.
by owenh on
Jan 7, 2009 4:19 PM EST
reply
actions
0 recs
As stated in the Utah discussion (I've got 'em 5th, okay 4th).....
Texas just did not do enough to push the argument for #1! After the world saw Utah man-handle ‘Bama in the Sugar Bowl the ’Horns needed a very decisive victory to secure their argument and that just didn’t happen….You must ask yourself-did Ohio State play their finest game of the season and The ‘Horns had to rally to defeat a very good team. Or, playing the devil’s advocate here, did they merely beat a Buckeye team that played as the Ohio St team has played all year and just survive? You see where I’m going with this… Texas knew before the Fiesta that they needed to destroy the Buckeyes to the point that the football world would ask “is Texas in the SEC?” (nah-just joking on the SEC part!) But The ‘Horns failed-don’t get me wrong the game was very exciting, especially trying to guess when Boeckman would throw the “streak” route to Pryor and all but that’s the point- Texas may have outscored the other team in the end but they did not produce the definitive result that was expected! Keep in mind that the #10 buckeyes are no longer looked at as Nat’l title “contenders” after their last 2 bowl beatdowns!!
If Florida wins tomorrow night (decisively) then Texas most likely slides into 4th behind Southern Cal (who owned Penn State, the champions of the Big 10/11, in the Rose bowl) & Utah (unless of course the Utah Attorney General is deemed sane). But in front of Oklahoma-which will then fire up the debate on why Oklahoma, BCS runner-up & Big 12 champion, is ranked #5? when Texas barely survived #10 Ohio State…….
by Dawgrees on
Jan 7, 2009 9:15 PM EST
reply
actions
0 recs
First an appology....
to all you Dawg fans for not taking care of business the way that we could have in the title game. Yes I am a Sooner. Nothing would have given me greater satisfaction than putting to rest all of the not so Tiny Tim aka Superman drivel we have been exposed to the past few weeks. Not to mention all of the “Saint” Tim mush we had to endure during the game. He is a capable QB but his performance was not any more Hiesman than Bradfords. The best thing about this season was we managed, by the grace of God maybe, to keep those damned Longhorns out of the title picture. Nowhere on Gods green earth are there more arrogant fans than in Texas. God Bless the Dawgs and Sooners!!!
by ejone on
Jan 10, 2009 4:41 PM EST
reply
actions
0 recs








