(10-19-2016 10:23 AM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  

(10-19-2016 07:31 AM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  Bottom line is that ESPN can call some conferences Power 5 and some Group of 5, but it really isn't as bad as we're making it out. We complain about the NY6 bowl like we're getting the shaft, but it's not like we're sitting there with the #2 team in the country and getting rejected from the dance. Houston played in the Peach Bowl at #18, when that game should probably be played by the #5 and #6 teams.

That's all good if the ranking system wasn't so biased, which we all know it is. Of course it's expected when you have a subjective measure like that and you classify teams as "Power". Bias is built into the system. Houston's performance showed it wasn't really 18.

I agree with you there. The bias will take time to overcome, but it's not impossible. If the conference teams that Houston (or whoever is good at the time) beats win all of their P5 OOC games, and keep doing it year after year, it will be tough to argue against a high ranking.

The other problem is that, in any given year, many of our teams fall to their P5 OOC opponents, which makes our good school not look as good.

Examples from this year, assuming Houston is our champ:

Teams that play against Houston:
Navy loss to Air Force(not P5, but 4th in MWC-Mountain)
Memphis loss to Ole Miss (6th in SEC West)
Tulsa loss to Ohio State (ok, this one can slide, but margin was bad)
Tulane loss to Wake Forest (4th in ACC Atlantic)
SMU loss to Baylor and TCU (1st and 5th in B12)

Teams that play against Houston's conf championship opponent:
USF loss to Florida State (3rd in ACC Atlantic)
Temple loss to Penn State (3rd in Big Ten East)
UCF loss to Michigan and Maryland (1st and 4th in Big Ten East)
UConn loss to Syracuse (6th in ACC Atlantic)
ECU losing to VT (3rd in ACC Coastal) and South Carolina (6th in SEC East)
Cincy not scheduling anyone of note, and losing to the teams above

We only get so many OOC games to use as a measuring stick against the P5 conferences, and we're losing most of them, even to their average teams. Hard to argue that our best team is a powerhouse until that changes.

Well, we are getting ready to lose to BYU in two weeks, so we can continue to demonstrate how bad, under Coach Tommy T., we are!

(10-19-2016 03:09 PM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  

(10-19-2016 10:23 AM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  

(10-19-2016 07:31 AM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  Bottom line is that ESPN can call some conferences Power 5 and some Group of 5, but it really isn't as bad as we're making it out. We complain about the NY6 bowl like we're getting the shaft, but it's not like we're sitting there with the #2 team in the country and getting rejected from the dance. Houston played in the Peach Bowl at #18, when that game should probably be played by the #5 and #6 teams.

That's all good if the ranking system wasn't so biased, which we all know it is. Of course it's expected when you have a subjective measure like that and you classify teams as "Power". Bias is built into the system. Houston's performance showed it wasn't really 18.

I agree with you there. The bias will take time to overcome, but it's not impossible. If the conference teams that Houston (or whoever is good at the time) beats win all of their P5 OOC games, and keep doing it year after year, it will be tough to argue against a high ranking.

The other problem is that, in any given year, many of our teams fall to their P5 OOC opponents, which makes our good school not look as good.

Examples from this year, assuming Houston is our champ:

Teams that play against Houston:
Navy loss to Air Force(not P5, but 4th in MWC-Mountain)
Memphis loss to Ole Miss (6th in SEC West)
Tulsa loss to Ohio State (ok, this one can slide, but margin was bad)
Tulane loss to Wake Forest (4th in ACC Atlantic)
SMU loss to Baylor and TCU (1st and 5th in B12)

Teams that play against Houston's conf championship opponent:
USF loss to Florida State (3rd in ACC Atlantic)
Temple loss to Penn State (3rd in Big Ten East)
UCF loss to Michigan and Maryland (1st and 4th in Big Ten East)
UConn loss to Syracuse (6th in ACC Atlantic)
ECU losing to VT (3rd in ACC Coastal) and South Carolina (6th in SEC East)
Cincy not scheduling anyone of note, and losing to the teams above

We only get so many OOC games to use as a measuring stick against the P5 conferences, and we're losing most of them, even to their average teams. Hard to argue that our best team is a powerhouse until that changes.

I noticed you mentioned the loses but how about the wins? The AAC has better record and better P5 wins this year than the B12

People, UT's support of expansion and UH was all to be able to say "We tried" when they are making a case to build out their UT-Houston campus. McCombs' comments here are a continuation of that strategy...making everyone but UT out to be the bad people keeping UH down. This is all about Texas politics.

Exactly. UT in typical fashion get to hide behind everyone else's skirt and act horrified that they didn't get in. Its all a farce, When someone showed up with two more nickels everyone went over the side of the boat.

(10-19-2016 08:03 PM)CalallenStang Wrote:  People, UT's support of expansion and UH was all to be able to say "We tried" when they are making a case to build out their UT-Houston campus. McCombs' comments here are a continuation of that strategy...making everyone but UT out to be the bad people keeping UH down. This is all about Texas politics.

Except it did them no good to fake it because they wont get the campus now for not getting us in.

(10-19-2016 10:29 PM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  

(10-19-2016 08:03 PM)CalallenStang Wrote:  People, UT's support of expansion and UH was all to be able to say "We tried" when they are making a case to build out their UT-Houston campus. McCombs' comments here are a continuation of that strategy...making everyone but UT out to be the bad people keeping UH down. This is all about Texas politics.

Except it did them no good to fake it because they wont get the campus now for not getting us in.

For the decision-makers, the "effort" to get UH in is all that matters. UT "tried" to help UH, "did everything in their power" to help UH, and will now expect UH to help them. This is how UT has operated since 1883.

(10-19-2016 11:23 PM)CalallenStang Wrote:  

(10-19-2016 10:29 PM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  

(10-19-2016 08:03 PM)CalallenStang Wrote:  People, UT's support of expansion and UH was all to be able to say "We tried" when they are making a case to build out their UT-Houston campus. McCombs' comments here are a continuation of that strategy...making everyone but UT out to be the bad people keeping UH down. This is all about Texas politics.

Except it did them no good to fake it because they wont get the campus now for not getting us in.

For the decision-makers, the "effort" to get UH in is all that matters. UT "tried" to help UH, "did everything in their power" to help UH, and will now expect UH to help them. This is how UT has operated since 1883.

Well then they are incredibly dumb if they still expect UH to help them. It was always get us into the big 12 or no deal. Everyone knows UT had the power to get UH in if they wanted. Heck even the Iowa president admitted UT controls the conference. So simply showing support doesn't mean jack to UH since they know UT had the power to get them in.

(10-19-2016 11:27 PM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  

(10-19-2016 11:23 PM)CalallenStang Wrote:  

(10-19-2016 10:29 PM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  

(10-19-2016 08:03 PM)CalallenStang Wrote:  People, UT's support of expansion and UH was all to be able to say "We tried" when they are making a case to build out their UT-Houston campus. McCombs' comments here are a continuation of that strategy...making everyone but UT out to be the bad people keeping UH down. This is all about Texas politics.

Except it did them no good to fake it because they wont get the campus now for not getting us in.

For the decision-makers, the "effort" to get UH in is all that matters. UT "tried" to help UH, "did everything in their power" to help UH, and will now expect UH to help them. This is how UT has operated since 1883.

Well then they are incredibly dumb if they still expect UH to help them. It was always get us into the big 12 or no deal. Everyone knows UT had the power to get UH in if they wanted. Heck even the Iowa president admitted UT controls the conference. So simply showing support doesn't mean jack to UH since they know UT had the power to get them in.

This was their carrot. Rest assured they also will use sticks if the carrot doesn't get the results they want.

I'm against UT-Houston. It's a duplication of spending of my tax dollars. But UT will pull out all the stops to get what they want.

(10-19-2016 11:40 PM)CalallenStang Wrote:  

(10-19-2016 11:27 PM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  

(10-19-2016 11:23 PM)CalallenStang Wrote:  

(10-19-2016 10:29 PM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  

(10-19-2016 08:03 PM)CalallenStang Wrote:  People, UT's support of expansion and UH was all to be able to say "We tried" when they are making a case to build out their UT-Houston campus. McCombs' comments here are a continuation of that strategy...making everyone but UT out to be the bad people keeping UH down. This is all about Texas politics.

Except it did them no good to fake it because they wont get the campus now for not getting us in.

For the decision-makers, the "effort" to get UH in is all that matters. UT "tried" to help UH, "did everything in their power" to help UH, and will now expect UH to help them. This is how UT has operated since 1883.

Well then they are incredibly dumb if they still expect UH to help them. It was always get us into the big 12 or no deal. Everyone knows UT had the power to get UH in if they wanted. Heck even the Iowa president admitted UT controls the conference. So simply showing support doesn't mean jack to UH since they know UT had the power to get them in.

This was their carrot. Rest assured they also will use sticks if the carrot doesn't get the results they want.

I'm against UT-Houston. It's a duplication of spending of my tax dollars. But UT will pull out all the stops to get what they want.

Too bad for the the head of the board of Texas education is a UH alum and is against it. The campus has to be approved by him.

(10-19-2016 05:54 PM)Cubanbull Wrote:  

(10-19-2016 03:09 PM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  

(10-19-2016 10:23 AM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  

(10-19-2016 07:31 AM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  Bottom line is that ESPN can call some conferences Power 5 and some Group of 5, but it really isn't as bad as we're making it out. We complain about the NY6 bowl like we're getting the shaft, but it's not like we're sitting there with the #2 team in the country and getting rejected from the dance. Houston played in the Peach Bowl at #18, when that game should probably be played by the #5 and #6 teams.

That's all good if the ranking system wasn't so biased, which we all know it is. Of course it's expected when you have a subjective measure like that and you classify teams as "Power". Bias is built into the system. Houston's performance showed it wasn't really 18.

I agree with you there. The bias will take time to overcome, but it's not impossible. If the conference teams that Houston (or whoever is good at the time) beats win all of their P5 OOC games, and keep doing it year after year, it will be tough to argue against a high ranking.

The other problem is that, in any given year, many of our teams fall to their P5 OOC opponents, which makes our good school not look as good.

Examples from this year, assuming Houston is our champ:

Teams that play against Houston:
Navy loss to Air Force(not P5, but 4th in MWC-Mountain)
Memphis loss to Ole Miss (6th in SEC West)
Tulsa loss to Ohio State (ok, this one can slide, but margin was bad)
Tulane loss to Wake Forest (4th in ACC Atlantic)
SMU loss to Baylor and TCU (1st and 5th in B12)

Teams that play against Houston's conf championship opponent:
USF loss to Florida State (3rd in ACC Atlantic)
Temple loss to Penn State (3rd in Big Ten East)
UCF loss to Michigan and Maryland (1st and 4th in Big Ten East)
UConn loss to Syracuse (6th in ACC Atlantic)
ECU losing to VT (3rd in ACC Coastal) and South Carolina (6th in SEC East)
Cincy not scheduling anyone of note, and losing to the teams above

We only get so many OOC games to use as a measuring stick against the P5 conferences, and we're losing most of them, even to their average teams. Hard to argue that our best team is a powerhouse until that changes.

I noticed you mentioned the loses but how about the wins? The AAC has better record and better P5 wins this year than the B12

Did the math really quickly, but it looks like the B12 is 3-6 (33%) against P5 outside of their conference, and we're 5-12 (29%). Haven't looked at the strength of victory, so can't speak to that.

(10-19-2016 11:45 PM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  

(10-19-2016 11:40 PM)CalallenStang Wrote:  

(10-19-2016 11:27 PM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  

(10-19-2016 11:23 PM)CalallenStang Wrote:  

(10-19-2016 10:29 PM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  Except it did them no good to fake it because they wont get the campus now for not getting us in.

For the decision-makers, the "effort" to get UH in is all that matters. UT "tried" to help UH, "did everything in their power" to help UH, and will now expect UH to help them. This is how UT has operated since 1883.

Well then they are incredibly dumb if they still expect UH to help them. It was always get us into the big 12 or no deal. Everyone knows UT had the power to get UH in if they wanted. Heck even the Iowa president admitted UT controls the conference. So simply showing support doesn't mean jack to UH since they know UT had the power to get them in.

This was their carrot. Rest assured they also will use sticks if the carrot doesn't get the results they want.

I'm against UT-Houston. It's a duplication of spending of my tax dollars. But UT will pull out all the stops to get what they want.

Too bad for the the head of the board of Texas education is a UH alum and is against it. The campus has to be approved by him.

Yep, THECB would need to approve it, but UT doesn't need the head if they can get enough votes...and the governor of Texas is a UT alum who also has been vocal about his "disappointment" that UH did not get in after signaling earlier that expansion was a "non-starter" if UH wasn't added.

(10-20-2016 07:48 AM)CalallenStang Wrote:  

(10-19-2016 11:45 PM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  

(10-19-2016 11:40 PM)CalallenStang Wrote:  

(10-19-2016 11:27 PM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  

(10-19-2016 11:23 PM)CalallenStang Wrote:  For the decision-makers, the "effort" to get UH in is all that matters. UT "tried" to help UH, "did everything in their power" to help UH, and will now expect UH to help them. This is how UT has operated since 1883.

Well then they are incredibly dumb if they still expect UH to help them. It was always get us into the big 12 or no deal. Everyone knows UT had the power to get UH in if they wanted. Heck even the Iowa president admitted UT controls the conference. So simply showing support doesn't mean jack to UH since they know UT had the power to get them in.

This was their carrot. Rest assured they also will use sticks if the carrot doesn't get the results they want.

I'm against UT-Houston. It's a duplication of spending of my tax dollars. But UT will pull out all the stops to get what they want.

Too bad for the the head of the board of Texas education is a UH alum and is against it. The campus has to be approved by him.

Yep, THECB would need to approve it, but UT doesn't need the head if they can get enough votes...and the governor of Texas is a UT alum who also has been vocal about his "disappointment" that UH did not get in after signaling earlier that expansion was a "non-starter" if UH wasn't added.

I will be very surprised if UT-Houston doesn't go through, even with UH fighting it tooth and nail.