Emails: The people have spoken; Tramel is an idiot
The emails are in, and let’s just say the BCS dominates play, particularly my theory that while OU has the stronger resume’ than Texas, Texas has the strongest three-way tie argument because the Longhorns didn’t get a home game within the triangle of OU, Texas and Texas Tech..
Jason wrote, “Your argument regarding the triangle is just flat ridiculous. I realize that the same amount of fans fill the stadium in the Cotton Bowl, and the stadium is closer to Norman than Austin, but to say that it’s a neutral field is a farce. It’s almost as ludicrous as saying that playing LSU in the Sugar Bowl or playing Miami in the Orange Bowl or playing USC in the Rose Bowl provides a neutral playing field. The simple fact is that the game is played in an environment built for Texans. No Oklahoman would travel to the Texas State Fair if it weren’t for the game. Going to the game itself is almost like being on the campus of UT, as they probably outnumber OU fans at least 4-1. No matter how you stack it, in the event of a 3-way tie, OU should get the nod over UT.”
See, here’s the problem in society. When people can’t see the other argument in a non-win debate, all civility breaks down. To declare that “no matter how you stack it” OU should get the nod? Please. As for the Cotton Bowl environment built for Texans, what does that mean? We’re breathing Texas air? Big Tex intimidates Okies? So what if no Oklahoman would go to the fair if it weren’t for the game? They do play the game, and OU revels in the tradition because of its neutrality, and to now claim it’s not neutral just proves you’re grasping at straws. Which you don’t have to do. OU has a very strong argument as well.
Jeff wrote, “I agree that Texas might still have a slight edge in the Big 12 Championship race. However, if the Sooners go up to Stillwater and win handily, I’m not sure things are that clear anymore. Remember: Oklahoma State played Texas close in Austin. If the Sooners end the year by winning two marquee games on the national stage, the Longhorns have little room to complain if the Sooners are sent to Kansas City. Question: Do you think that Texas’ shameless, somewhat pathetic lobbying (signs at the A&M game, a flyover at Bedlam) will have much effect? Do you think it might even backfire and annoy some of the East Coast voters?”
I think it won’t affect the coaches, who generally live in a cocoon. I think it will affect the bad Harris voters and not affect the good Harris voters. Which might not be good news for OU.
Randall wrote, “I struggle with the OU loss to Texas because of the loss of Ryan Reynolds. OU was not the same team defensively after Reynold left the game. So to try to make something out of the fact that Texas beat OU at a neutral location, I struggle to place any stock in that. Had Reynolds not gotten injured, Texas would have been one-dimensional. The location of the field would not have mattered. OU would have won easily. I place this loss in the same category as I do the Tech loss last year in Lubbock. If Bradford doesn’t get hurt, it’s an OU victory.”
And had Colt McCoy played like Todd Dodge, OU would have won. Talking about injuries is an losers excuse. Quarterback, maybe. Linebacker, no way. If you don’t have a decent backup linebacker, that’s no one’s fault but your own. To bring up injuries hurts OU’s cause; the Sooners have a solid case. Emphasize the solid case. Don’t make excuses.
Todd wrote, “One thing your missing in your logic: a solid road win. Among the triange teams, none of them will have won a tough game on the road. UT played Missouri and OSU at home and lost to Tech. OU’s loss was a neutral field with a hurt Murray and a bunch of bad calls/KO returns that was the difference. If (a big if) OU wins at Stillwater, then they will be really the only Big 12 team with a good road win outside of OSU winning at Missouri. The reason to jump UT is simple. The fans want and deserve the best national championship game they can get. They need the two best teams to play. Anything less and you get the blowouts of recent memory. Voters have to vote who they think is the best THAT WEEK in time. Period.”
First of all, no they don’t have to vote that way. They can vote who they think is the best THROUGHOUT THE YEAR. And the tough road win was not missing from my argument. I wrote that OU would have the better BCS resume’ with a win, and that win is a big part of it. But when you start bringing up bad calls and kickoff coverage as some sort of excuse for losing, again, you hurt the Sooner cause. That’s really saying you don’t have much to stand on.
Richard wrote, “In a three-way tie, we are trying to send the best team. If it was OU and just UT and not Tech, that’s one thing. You can say OU should have taken care of business in the Red River. Well, UT shouldn’t have dropped that key interception late. It is not fair for either team. OU is clearly the stronger team and should be rewarded if they handle OSU and not squeak by. If OU throttles OSU, who came within four points of UT in Austin, they prove themselves worthy of the best of the three and should go. The BCS is a way of allowing season long factors to help determine the best team. By the same token, according to your reasoning of only head to head, what if Texas had played Tech before us and now was beating the other Big 12 teams barely because of injuries to Orapko and Shipley, ala English/Reynolds? That is why head to head doesn’t always work.”
Head to head always works. If there’s a tie, like this, then you move on. But head to head always works. And who says OU is clearly the stronger team? How do we know that? The teams played, and Texas was better that day.
Richie wrote, “In this season’s games between the three teams, Oklahoma led in 104 minutes, 13 seconds. Texas Tech led for 53 minutes, 9 seconds. Texas led for 9 minutes, 6 seconds.
So what? This isn’t NASCAR. You don’t get any credit for leading laps.
Kevin wrote, “I think your arbitrary ‘confines of the triangle’ analysis is not conducive to Big 12 South football. First, Oklahoma has a tough road game this weekend. Can you really argue that beating the Cowboys in Stillwater is not an incredibly tough task? If OU wins with style, they will have won their tough road game unlike the Longhorns and Raiders. Granted, Texas lost on the last play, but the Cowboys played them tough in Austin.”
Why does everyone keep saying I’m not counting the OSU game. I wrote it straight: OU has the better body of work, with a win. But if you’re a voter, looking for a way to break the three-way tie, looking at the home/road/neutral question is very valid.
Marc, a Texas fan, wrote, “OU just played a top 10 team for the first time this season. Texas played three top-10 teams and the No. 11 team in a row. I’ll take that any time over Cincy and TCU that play in weak conferences. Bottom line, head to head should decide if records are the same.
If head to head decides it and records are the same, then Tech goes over Texas. Glad we got that settled.
Tom wrote, “Only in college football could the BCS be used in the formula for the tiebreaker. Your idea that the BCS looks at the full body of work is suspect. How can Sagarin and Wolfe have Texas Tech in front of OU after a 65-21 shelling? The coaches don’t watch other games, some don’t vote, they have crazy biased votes. Who really knows who votes in the Harris poll? Personally, I believe that if Texas gets left out, we may move to a playoff pretty quick because of their political clout. If OU gets left out, it will be poor Sooners.
More paranoia about Texas’ political clout. Man, that gets old. Anyway, OU got no margin of victory credit for the rout of Tech. Same as winning 7-6. In the real Sagarin ratings, OU is No. 2 and Tech No. 4.
Onder wrote, “Are you serious? I know writers must be opinionated and raze up the people, but not right now, Berry. Use some judgement in your job setting. How can you possibly use head-to-head if the Big 12 tiebreaker system itself skipped it in the process? Are you trying to override the tiebreaker system to slant towards your arguement? Berry, please put the liquor down when you are writing articles. Please grow up a little.”
Grow up and say your team deserves to be in the title game. Is that what you mean?
Greg wrote, “Let’s not forget that if OU beats OSU on Saturday, OU would have done something that none of the other two teams in question had done. Beat a highly-ranked conference foe on the road (same one that UT very nearly lost to at home). In a final game of the season primetime match-up no less.”
No one is forgetting that. Winning at Stillwater is what likely will push OU ahead of Texas, which is what I pointed out about four weeks ago.
Thomas wrote, “I totally disagree with the definition of a ‘neutral field’ for the annual Oklahoma-Texas game. Arkansas is a ‘neutral field.’ Missouri is a ‘neutral field.’ Playing a game which is half-way between Norman and Austin and still in Texas does NOT make it a neutral field. How about a neutral field somewhere in Oklahoma?”
OK. So tell me how the Cotton Bowl is tilted in Texas’ favor. The OU team hotel sets off the fire alarm on Friday night? The cops don’t create a path for the OU team bus? No hot water in the locker room? Tell me exactly how the Cotton Bowl isn’t neutral. No one does, because they can’t. Truth is, OU has the slight edge in the Cotton Bowl, because OU has the south end, with the tunnel, where the teams enter and exit.
Roy wrote, “Inside-out triangle analysis brilliantly insightful. And better irony than UT arguing head-to-head score.”
Does my heart good to know some people can think rationally.
Lou wrote, “Dallas is just as neutral as OKC would be! Do the preachings of E.Z. Million mean nothing to you? Why shouldn’t the team conqueroring the tougher non-conference schedule be rewarded with the conference championship game if all else is equal?
The truth is out. The preachings of E.Z. Million mean nothing to me. When you’ve trotted out E.Z. as your prime witness, your case is in trouble.
John wrote, “Get the hell out of Oklahoma! You are a disgrace to the state!”
What? And leave the land that I love to the crazies? I don’t think so.
Patton wrote, “Come on, Berry. Lets find a way to make Oklahoma the pick and put that out, just in case some voters read your paper. Looks like you like Texas.”
I certainly hope some voters read the paper. We want them informed. But your email is priceless, because it’s so honest. It’s what everyone else is saying but without so much clarity. Figure out an argument for OU, then declare that the best way to break the tie.
Cody wrote, “Anywhere but home is away.”
So that means Texas had two road games in the triangle.
Bill wrote, “Did you consider who had the most impressive win in the triangle? Or that OU was handling Texas before Reynolds went out? There are more than one way to skin a triangle.”
And yes, impressiveness of victory is one way. Crying about injuries is not.
Terry wrote, “A road win in Stillwater should count for OU. That won’t be easy, if it happens. UT lost on the road, Tech lost on the road, our game with Texas was a neutral site — advantage neither side. So, the biggest road win and biggest challenge for OU will come at Stillwater (since the Texas game). Why should OU be punished if it shows it can win in Stillwater? OSU’s only losses have been on the road to UT and Tech. It wasn’t that long ago that OSU was in the top 10. Maybe we should be giving OSU more credit for their losses under the consideration of losses on the road. That is Texas’ argument! I know it comes down to the triangle. But playing in Dallas is not a home game for OU. Yes, the stands are split, but it doesn’t create the atmosphere that existed last night in Norman. That crowd was intimidating.”
You wrote about the great atmosphere. Texas didn’t have that against OU or Tech. The OSU game will count for something. There is no right or wrong answer. But if OU gets left out, it has no one to blame but itself. It’s not bias. It’s not the system. OU had its chance and didn’t get it done.
Bob is the reader of the week. He’s the only person who admitted he was wrong about OU’s defense. “I have to eat crow about Bobby Jack Wright. At least for this last game. I was at the game and I’ve been going to the games since 1966 and I’ve never seen a crowd like that. We have had loud crowds before but never for a whole game that was a blowout. The music helps motivate also. The rap music that they played and everyone in the stadium started to jump and raise the roof was the coolest thing I’ve ever seen at a game. Back to Wright. It has been a long time since I’ve seen a pass defense like that. It was perfect.”
OK. Bob has faced the truth. Now what about the rest of you?
David wrote, “Wow! OK, that defensive performance against Tech was awesome! Venables did a great job against a really good team. Hope it can continue through the rest of the season! The offense was pretty darned impressive too. I was glad to see them play with a fire and enthusiasm which I haven’t seen in a long time.”
Now we’re building up some love for Venables.
Jim wrote, “Do you agree that OU’s defense made a lot of money for Venable last week. He has to be a leading candidate for a head coach now. I was a doubter, but he really had them playing at their best.”
Hey, there’s another one. But yes, Venables I think moved up a lot on the coaching carousel.
Wayne wrote, “I normally do not have much to say. I am a retired school teacher. But I must say Sam Bradford is the best quarterback ever from the state of Oklahoma. I compare him to Troy Aikman of UCLA. Austin Box is certainly gaining in recognition from this game. He stuffed them in the middle. His first game, he was just a little out of line. The throws over the middle were just a little out of his reach, but not know. The defensive line played great, (McCoy) was outstanding and the offensive line was superb. That, as you well know, opens up the running game. DeMarco Murray and Chris Brown had a field day. Our receivers (Johnson and Iglesias) definitely went out in style. THE BEST OKLAHOMA TEAM EVER.
Sorry, I can’t buy it. The best OU teams ever didn’t wilt in the fourth quarter against Texas. The best OU teams ever stood toe-to-toe with the toughest foes and prevailed.
Shannon had four thoughts: “1. I am excited about the OU men’s team this year as I have seen Capel do much with little. 2. I cannot get excited about the OU women’s team this year as I have seen Coale do less with much. 3. If I’m Sam Bradford, I am 80-100% sure I am leaving after this year. The 20% in question will be determined by Trent Williams’ decision to stay or leave. 4. If I am a Texas Tech fan and I don’t go to the title game, I am frustrated. If I am an OU fan and I don’t go to the title game, I am frustrated. If I am a Texas fan and I don’t go to the title game, I am mad. Maybe that tells us what we need to know.”
Careful, there. Someone will tell you to leave the state.
Jan asked “whether or not the season-ticket policy established this year by OSU is for all games, or just Bedlam? If it’s the latter, how is that acceptable? I’m having a hard time understanding why everyone is so apathetic about something so unreasonable. I kept thinking it would be questioned in the media, but it simply is reported. Perhaps you can explain to me why it is honorable and OK.”
Because it’s a simple business decision. Supply and demand. OSU needs to improve its season-ticket base. The only hammer it has is the Bedlam ticket. Want to see Bedlam? Buy a season ticket. You don’t have to like it, but you have to admit this. It’s worked.
Carl also is upset with the policy. “The state of Oklahoma should have the costs of the empty seats deducted from that IDIOT HOLDER’S salary. Holder even has most of the OSU fans about this. Maybe next year, they will only be to put 30,000 average at each game. One thing about it, the OU-OSU game next year will have 88,000 plus in attendance, something Holder could only dream about.”
Actually, a lot of OSU fans I talk to aren’t upset by it. They think it’s sound strategy. Give Holder credit for this much: He told everyone what was coming, and he stuck to it.
Enough college football. Let’s talk about the NBA. Some readers inquired why I occasionally refer to the Thunder as the Boomers. Jason wrote, “I wanted to let you know that you are, in my opinion, turning off OSU fans in the process. I am guessing that one of the things you local media war lords want to do is generate excitement about the teams, but your nickname will have the opposite effect. If that nickname were to stick, OSU fans, who are currently pumped due to Mason and Lucas on the team, would become weaned off due to the obvious OU connection. I am an OSU fan, but not a rabid, Sooner hating OSU fan. So if Boomers hits me the wrong way, it will do more for the typical OSU fan.”
Doesn’t sound like you’re a rabid Thunder fan, either. Lucas was cut weeks ago. Anyway, generally speaking, OSU fans wake up looking for ways to be offended. I guess a little history lesson is necessary. Boomers are the sworn enemies of Sooners. OU fans have adopted Boomer Sooner as a slogan because of their silly fight song. But Stillwater was the Boomer capital. Payne County is named for David Payne, the leader of the Boomer movement. Boomers are a big part of our state heritage. It’s a fine secondary nickname for the Thunder.
Bill wrote, “I am making an assumption that this is some reference to Boomer Sooner or the like. Now, I have lived in OKC long enough to know that OU sports are king and everything else takes a back seat. If Oklahoma City wants to be a big-league city, it needs help to create an identity separate from OU. If, however, you are merely using the term to describe the team as young, the appearance of an OU reference still exists.”
Actually, Bill, neither is correct. Any team with a singular nickname needs a sidekick, and Boomers is perfect. Thunder booms, and Boomers are part of Oklahoma history.
Doug, an ex-Sonic fan, wrote from Seattle and wasn’t rude. Imagine that. “Losing is a very hard thing to get used to. You never do. Anger builds, resentment grows, depression sets in and gloom settles down over the whole damn town. We have it here to a degree and quantity that has never before existed. Sonics: Gone. Final year they were the second-worst team in the NBA. Mariners: Worst record in series of losing years: 61-101. Team salary $117M. Second worst team in baseball. Seahawks: 2-9 and will lose to the Cowboys. UW football: 0-11 and will lose to Cal next week. Worst year/worst team since we began football in 1890. Worst team in the whole nation. You got a long way to go, brother, to match this. I hope you never do.”
Wow. The Thunder at 1-17 doesn’t seem so bad all of a sudden.
Berry Tramel can be heard Monday through Friday from 4:40-5:20 p.m. on The Sports Animal radio network, including AM-640 and FM-98.1. You can e-mail him here and follow him on Twitter @BerryTramel.
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Comments
Well Berry, your arguments for every single e-mail prove that two people can see the same event and come away with totally different interpretations. The joy of being humans. I really think that OU has been the better team at this time of the year, but you don’t. Oh well now we just have to wait and see what the human built programs put out. I am sure those programs wil be just as fallible as the human poll voters, sports fans and sports columnists.
Well, Berry have the Sooners done enough or are you still claiming UT is the better team and deserves the B12CG?
Berry, Sooner Fans,
Good Morning All!
Great Win. Should cement a Big 12 Title and a Heisman.
Dez Bryant is a player!
Bradford deserves the Heisman. But again, media boneheads say things like…well, he has more weapons than other players, so he shouldn’t win. Hey dummies……Tebow…..all the guys around him…….all the speed……..marginal arm, yet throws lots of TD’s and runs for lots. Did he do all of that on his own?
Tired of these arguments. Why play anymore games after the Red River weekend? Why? It seems that people think the conference was settled then. Apparently though, we all had a few more games to play…and they mattered too.
How many games are neutral field? Florida-Georgia (in Florida), Missouri-Kansas (truly neutral)…..OU-Texas (in Texas). What other games really matter? If every BCS eligible team played one…then you could make that argument…but they don’t. So how is this part of the thought process? OSU didn’t lose at home all this year….til last night. Does that matter? Texas struggled with OSU at home….does that matter? Texas needed breaks to beat OU…does that matter?
Tech beat Texas. So if Texas trumps OU then Tech trumps the low upside-down Horns. Wins a win. Regardless of margin.
All of these talking heads try to drive the issue using the media. And how bout good ole Mack Brown……is there a better politician in college football? I think he was even on my local radio station here in VT.
Note to Mack: you played NO ONE in your non-conference schedule. You barely beat OSU at home and you lost to Guns Up! Loss is a loss.
OU Defense and Special teams: please stop pulling at the football and just get the pads on and hit squarely. I can barely take it. You will cause just as many turnovers with big hits. Please…tackle with technique.
Note to Coach Gundy: great job with the program, but you have to either stop tanning or stop using the tanning solution. You look more orange than the uniforms your guys wear. There just isn’t that much sun this time of year, man! Be a Man….had to.
I was impressed with The Boone. However, I have never seen more sky boxes. Priorities…I know.
Still no snow here at my house in beautiful Northwestern VT. Good….I dislike snow.
Go Sooners! On To Arrowhead!
However, my call is, after all the politicing, Texas sneaks in and Gelding wins the Heisman…..because he had less weapons and apparently no offensive line in front of him…..and does it all like Tommy the Pinball Wizard.
Jeff in Vermont
“Everybody is cheated.”
I have the DVD “Oklahoma vs. Texas Red River Rivalry” by ABC. You are one of the commentators in this and when talking about the infamous 1984 tie you said that everyone was cheated. OU fans left knowing that they should have won; UT fans left with their coach trying for the tie.
I think this reminds me of this year’s situation. Texas beat OU by 10 fairly soundly on a neutral field. We did lose 1 game but it was to Tech on basically the last play of the game on the road. OU is a great team and is advancing on but do OU fans truly feel that they are better than UT? Even after losing by 10 on a neutral field?
I think UT fans (like OU fans in 1984) are being cheated by the system and I think deep down OU fans know they shouldn’t be the ones advancing.
Perhaps our comeuppance some 24 years later.
Berry, you have misstated Oklahoma history concerning the Boomers (and Sooners, for that matter).
In your September 11, 2008, Oklahoman video clip, you proposed “Boomers” as a nickname for the Thunder, you saying, “Some thunder cracked the other day and I got to thinking about the sound it makes. And all of the sudden I had a nickname for our nickname. * * * The Boomers were the group that petitioned the government to open the unassigned land but had the scruples to wait until the firing of a pistol, or, yes, boom of a canon, to start the land grab.” That bit about hearing thunder cracking is a bit disingenuous since you’d already proposed Boomers as the team’s name in your August 25, 2008, Oklahoman article (unless, of course, by “the other day” you were referring to August 25).
You got the 1st part right but got the 2nd part dead wrong. While it is true that David Payne and his group did lobby Congress to open the unassigned lands for settlement, it is COMPLETELY FALSE that they “had the scruples to wait until the firing of a pistol …” Nothing could be further from the truth. The Boomers made repeated incursions into the unassigned lands BEFORE “the firing of a pistol,” as you put it. Their leader, David Payne, actually sold tracts of land in the unassigned land (as though he had title to sell) to unwary buyers BEFORE the unassigned lands were opened for settlement. Can you say “fraudulent land sales?” The Boomers by their forays into the unassigned lands BEFORE the firing of a pistol were criminals, law-breakers, and were most often forcibly removed back to Kansas by the Buffalo Soldiers (black cavalry units) stationed at Ft. Reno, but on occasion some were taken to Ft. Smith for federal prosecution. The people who DID WAIT until the firing of a pistol or boom of a canon at the start of the land run were not Boomers at all.
Second, you said, above, that, “I guess a little history lesson is necessary. Boomers are the sworn enemies of Sooners.” Yes, a history lesson is needed but it’s you who needs to have it if you’re speaking about Oklahoma history. Sooners and Boomers were NOT sworn enemies, they were merely different and unrelated sets of lawbreakers. The Boomers were those led by David Payne and, after his death, William Couch, in their invasions into the unassigned lands before it was legal to do so. The Sooners were those individuals (i.e., not part of a group) who lawfully reconnoitered space in the unassigned lands when they were permitted to do so BEFORE the land run. After their reconnaissance, they were supposed to leave the unassigned lands area and wait for the pistol to be fired (as you put it). Instead of doing that, they remained in the unassigned lands and hid out to wait to claim “their” land once the pistol shot had been fired. There was no relation between Boomers and Sooners. They were merely different sets of criminals.
In your August 25, 2008, Oklahoman article, you said, “why couldn’t Oklahoma City have played off Sooners and gone with Boomers?” By your insistence of the Boomer nickname, you appear to be still trying to make that happen. What you promote is divisive and not unifying. Despite history from the Land Run period, these days the term “Boomer” is more linked to the University of Oklahoma than it is anywhere else, notwithstanding Payne County’s history. We don’t need any college-type acrimony or banter between OU and OSU (or other college) fans when it comes to the Thunder. We need to be unified in our support of the team.
Aside from that, if the team comes to have a nickname other than Thunder, wouldn’t it be better for such a name to develop naturally rather than because of a journalist’s campaign who uses his bully pulpit to push off his ideas on everyone else whether they like it or not?
I agree with “Doug Dawg”. The history lesson aside, the Thunder are not the “OU Sooners” and there is no reason to push a link between them in any way. In fact, many Sooner fans come to Thunder games and act like jerks, some even going as far as booing Kevin Durant, just because he came from Texas. If you want to be a fan of another NBA team, then by all means, be one. Come to the games, root for your team, and leave your college allegiances at home. The NBA is not OU, and OU is not the NBA. The Sooners are not the Thunder, and the Thunder is not the Sooners, or the Boomers. I also agree that any nickname should not be an effort for one local newspaper guy to self promote, but rather that it happen in a natural way, so that people get behind it and it becomes part of the evolution of things, not pre-scripted, pre-packaged or forced.
[...] are evil…. Quite right. I left a smaller version of the same thing as a comment in his blog, Emails: The people have spoken; Tramel is an idiot. __________________ Doug http://www.dougloudenback.com/downtownOKC.htm [...]
Another lame attempt by Tramel to salvage his journalism career. I wish the Oklahoman would get some real reporters already, especially some investigative reporters. I doubt Tramel reads our comments since he doesn’t believe in online blogs and message boards. Funny how technology and his employer probably forced him to start his own blog to save his career. In 10 years, I doubt the Joklahoman will have a print edition, what will Tramel read besides his own blog? I agree with Doug Dawg. Tramel needs to report the facts about the story and nothing more. We don’t need an editorial or an opinion column. Present your story and let the fans and readers make their own nickname for the team if they want, and so help us it never becomes “Boomers”, Thunder is bad enough. I think it’s also tacky as a journalist he fails to mention Clay Bennett’s (the team’s controlling owner) and his ties to the Oklahoman. Conflict of interest? Please disclose the relationship in your Thunder articles. Now back to reading Lackmeyer’s articles about downtown, something I can enjoy…..
Berry, the problem with your OU-Texas reasoning is that it is reasonable. Of course, college football fandom has nothing to do with being reasonable. Were I a Texas fan, I would be arguing the head-to-head game to beat the band. But I’m not. I want heaps of misfortune to fall upon Texas, 365 days per year. Reasonable and sensible has nothing to do with it. It’s OU-Texas.