If that's the case, then why even play the ****ing games? Auburn beats Alabama to advance to the championship game and has the same # of conference and total losses, but they don't deserve to be ranked above them?

In what other situations have we found KU fans alleging that a team losing to another team head to head and ranking behind them in the BCS is more deserving of a BCS appointment? :hmmm:

There is no need to play the games as far as bitch is concerned. Records don't mean shit. You plug data into computers and let them tell you who the best team is. If you don't like the response, you just change the formula mid-season until you arrive at your predetermined conclusion.

The computers are never wrong. Never mind the fact that they can't possibly account for every important variable. Never mind the fact that they don't even agree with each other. Never mind the fact that the people who run the computer systems have one formula to determine who they think is the best and another to determine BCS rankings that can produce wildly different results from one another (UCF is ranked #2 in Sagarin's BCS poll and #38 in his personal ranking).

None of that matters. The computers are correct. Even when they disagree with one another, they are still correct.

He is worse than KenPomConnection

At least KCC understands that KenPom is useful as a tool rather than the ultimate arbiter. Bitch waits for the games to end so that he can check the computer to see who would be favored in a rematch and then declares that team victorious. I've never seen anything like it.

His KU brethren have shunned him, so somehow we're stuck with his idiocy. Oh well...when you're in the title hunt in football and even undefeated in basketball, you can live with it.

A football season like this trumps anything done in hoops

Huh? They've played 12 already. I thought we played te games to determine the top 2. Here we are at the end and those 2 are clearly identified. What's your point?

Just wow...never thought I'd see the day when Texas football was an afterthought in its own state. The craziest part is that the numbers for the LHN games are inflated. They both officially drew 0.0 ratings but rounded them up to a 0.1.

Crazy shit when more people watch Mizzou play aTm than watch Oklahoma vs Texas.



TV share and viewer numbers from this season.

UT-BYU ............. 0.8 ..... 1,290,000
UT-Ole Miss ........ 0.1 ..... 130,000 (LHN)
UT-ISU ............. 1.5 ..... 2,400,000
UT-OU .............. 3.0, .... 4,710,000
UT-TCU.......... ... 0.4, .... 676,000
UT-KU .............. 0.1 ..... 130,000 (LHN)
UT-WVU ............. 1.5 ..... 2,650,000
UT-OSU ............. 1.4 ..... 2,190,000
UT-Tech ............ 0.7 ..... 1,050,000

A&M-Rice ........... 2.7 ..... 4,200,000
A&M-'Bama .......... 8.5 ... 13,590,000
A&M-SMU ............ 0.5 ..... 809,000
A&M-Arky ........... 1.7 ..... 2,760,000
A&M-Ole Miss ....... 3.2 ..... 5,110,000
A&M-Auburn ......... 4.2 ..... 6,730,000
A&M-UTEP ........... 0.7 ..... 1,120,000
A&M-MSU ............ 2.9 ..... 4,530,000
A&M-LSU ............ 4.8 ..... 8,140,000
A&M-Mizzou ......... 3.6 ..... 5,730,000

Average share:

A&M ...... 3.28
UT ...... 1.06

Total viewers:

A&M ...... 52,719,000
UT ...... 15,181,000

Texas' highest rated game only rated higher than the lowest rated Texas A&M game? That is pretty surprising.

A&M-Mizzou game had 22% more viewers than the only premier game in the Big 12?

Ouch. Looks like Big 12 viewership is falling faster than even the biggest critics could imagine.

Where'd you get those #'s SG?

http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/coll...ll-tv-ratings/

Thanks dude.

Let's see those numbers stay above UT once "you know who" leaves...
































http://blogs-images.forbes.com/lance...hnnyTattoo.jpg

huh? Baylor-Oklahoma State was higher than both. You're focusing on the wrong games.