Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ucla-cs.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!tektronix!hplabs!sdcrdcf!trwrb!trwrba!cepu!ucla-cs!lor
From: lor@ucla-cs.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.sport.football
Subject: Re: BYU and Oklahoma: Who's # 1
Message-ID: <3147@ucla-cs.ARPA>
Date: Thu, 10-Jan-85 14:43:27 EST
Article-I.D.: ucla-cs.3147
Posted: Thu Jan 10 14:43:27 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 14-Jan-85 03:29:51 EST
References: <1506@sdcrdcf.UUCP> <5700017@uokvax.UUCP>
Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department
Lines: 98



This discussion may be a little out of dated, but I can't stop answering
the Sooner comments. 


>> ...but beating OSU is no big deal.
>I can think of 9 teams who think it is.  They only lost to OU and Nebraska.

For schools like Iowa State, Colorado, etc., beating OSU is of course a
big deal. Well, they don't even have a winning season. 
But we are talking about Oklahoma, a team which claimed itself as 
world-beaters. 



> >Oklahoma tied Texas and beat Nebraska by the virtue of two goal
> >line stands. But aren't they lucky because of the stupid decisions
> >by Fred Akers and Tom Osborne? If both of them opted for the field goals
> >(18 yards field goal), I don't know what would happen. I am sure the
> >diehard sooners would have said they would win anyway.
> Wasn't boiling a game down to one or two plays discussed in the
> "interception that wasn't" discussion?  Say all you want about Akers, but
> Osbourne is a damn good coach, I think he's a little more qualified to
> call plays than you.  After all, he is second in winning percentage of
> active coaches.  (Number one is left as an exercise to the reader.)

I agree. That's why Nebraska lost the national title last year, 
and the Big-8 title this year.
If a tie would give me the conference or national title,
I would definitely go for it. 
A championship is always more important than a win. 
By the way, since Osborne is second in winning percentage, why
hasn't he won any national championship?


> >Hey, none of OU's 
> >opponents has a decent passing offense. Have OU played 
> >teams like Miami, BYU or Boston College?
> I didn't know that these were the only teams that had a "passing offense",
> Stanford has always been known for the rushing offense (who is John Elway?).
> 
Who is John Elway? Is he Stanford's third-string quarterback in 1984?
I think Stanford's quarterback in the Stanford-OU game was John Paye.  
Stanford didn't have a spectacular passing offense in 1984.
Maybe a passing game quarterbacked by John Paye is considered decent by 
OU's standard.



> >while Washington only won by special
> >teams and defense. Their offense struggled in every game.
> I see...  If you don't have a good offense, you don't have a good team.
> To tell you the truth, I kinda like 3 yards and a cloud of dust.

Ask the Broncos, the Bears, or the 1984 Raiders.
If you don't have a good offense, you may still have a good team, 
but you are not championship material. Period.



> >...They had recruiting violations is another matter.
> did any of these players have an effect on the outcome of their games?
> (I seriously don't know).  I don't hate Florida, their coach (Galen Hall)
> was our offensive coordinator for 10 years (until last year), but if any
> of their violations concerned players who contibuted significantly, then
> they deserved to not be considered.

I am still amazed by this Florida controversy in the polls. 
If everybody agreed that they had violations and should not be
considered, why leave them in the polls. If they were ranked,
why weren't they given full considerations?
How can a team that cheat be considered 
lower than two schools (BYU and OU at the end of regular season)	
but higher than all other schools in the nation. 


Well, justice is finally done. Oklahoma didn't win the national
title. I am upset that Oklahoma almost won it all just by the
outcrying of Barry Switzer, NBC, Bryan Gumbel and all the Sooner followers.
I don't recall anybody from Washington or Florida, which were more 
deserving than Oklahoma, did the same thing before New Year's Day 
to draw the attention of the media (Don James said a lot of things, 
but that was AFTER the Orange Bowl victory.) 
How can a team which played a schedule with eight losing teams, 
lost to Kansas and tied Texas, deserved the #1 spot just because
they defeat Nebraska? Did our national championship boil down to 
just an Oklahoma-Nebraksa matchup? Remember, even if we don't have
a playoff system, the national championship is still decided on the field
(bowl games), not on NBC, CBS, or usenet.


-- 

					Eddy Lor
					...!ucbvax!ucla-cs!lor
					lor@ucla-locus.arpa