Big XII tiebreaker and championship

[Olympic Fan]

During my Turkey Day marathon of college basketball games, I switched over a couple of times to check on Texas-Texax A&M in football. During one of my brief visits, I heard what I think is the single most stupid rationale in sports this year. Yet, you hear it all the time: Oklahama shouldn't be ranked ahead of Texas because Texas beat them head-to-head.

I'll accept that statement if you also agree that it means that Texas can't be ranked ahead of Texas Tech, because Texas Tech beat them head-to-head.

Of course, a Sooner fan would argue that Texas Tech can't be ranked ahead of Oklahoma because Oklahoma beat them head-to-head.

It's a THREE-WAY tie, folks (or it will be if Texas Tech beats Baylor Saturday, while Oklahoma beats Oklahoma State). Texas, Texas Tech and Oklahoma all will have exactly the same record in exactly the same league and they all will be 1-1 against each other.

So how do you seperate them? One of them will get to play Missouri in the Big 12 title game -- which would probably lead to a game against Alabama or Florida in the national title game. Another of the Big 12 trio will get at at large BCS bid. The third of the three will have to play in the Cotton or Holiday bowl.

It looks like the Big 12 is using the BCS standings as its ultimate tiebreaker. It's close -- going into this week's final games, Texas had a narrow, narrow lead on Oklahoma ... with Texas Tech a distant third. But since Oklahoma finishes with a much stronger opponent (9-2 Oklahoma State) than Texas (4-8 Texas A&M) there's a reasonable chance to computers will elevate the Sooners past the Longhorns.

Is there another way to seperate them?

Well, we could look at point differential in the three-way head-to-heads. All three are 1-1, but Oklahoma outscored its two rivals 100-66, Texas was 78-74 and Texas Tech 60-99.

We could look at the four non-conference opponents. Although they played the same Big 12 schedule, the three teams played vastly different non-league teams.

Texas Tech played the weakest slate with two FCS opponents (Eastern Washington and UMass). They also beat a 1-10 SMU team. Their one credible win was an easy victory on the road at 6-5 Nevada.

Texas beat up on 5-6 Florida Atlantic, 5-6 UTEP and 4-7 Arkansas. Its one successful non-conference foe was Rice, which is 8-3 in Conference USA.

Oklahoma opened against FCS Chattanooga and won easily at 0-11 Washington. But the Sooners also routed Big East champion Cincinnati (9-2) and No. 21 TCU (10-2), the best team in Conference USA.

I've got to give the edge to Oklahoma.

Of course, if either Oklahoma or Texas Tech loses Saturday, I withdraw all my objections. If one loses we'll get a two-way tiebreaker between Texas and the Saturday winner -- and head-to-head can rule: Texas>Oklahoma or Texas Tech>Texas. If by chance both lose Saturday, then Texas wins outright.

But if both win Saturday, the Big 12 ends in a three-way dead heat. I don't want to hear any more overpaid commentators say Texas gets the edge because they beat Oklahoma head to head.

[Wander]

Don't forget the home factor though. That's the main argument I've heard - the three teams beat each other, but Texas was the only one to get their win somewhere other than their home stadium.

Of course, the truth is that assuming no upsets in the final two weeks, both Texas and Oklahoma are deserving of playing for the title. If Florida beats Alabama, I know everyone thinks they should automatically be in the title game, but I would take a long hard look at a Texas-Oklahoma rematch instead.

[jimsumner]

Wanna make your head hurt?

Try this one. If Oklahoma State beats Oklahoma and Tech wins their finale, Tech wins the B12 South. But Texas would move ahead of Oklahoma in the polls. And Texas wouldn't have to play Mizzo in the B12 title game. So Texas would be in line for a national title shot v. Florida/Alabama winner. Without even advancing to their conference title game.

So a rational Texas fan would root for this scenario, in which Texas loses the B12 South title.

[BlueintheFace]

Wanna make your head hurt?

Try this one. If Oklahoma State beats Oklahoma and Tech wins their finale, Tech wins the B12 South. But Texas would move ahead of Oklahoma in the polls. And Texas wouldn't have to play Mizzo in the B12 title game. So Texas would be in line for a national title shot v. Florida/Alabama winner. Without even advancing to their conference title game.

So a rational Texas fan would root for this scenario, in which Texas loses the B12 South title.

Not sure if this is true... you would have to add on that Tech loses to Missouri in the Big XII championship. A win over Missouri in that game would put Tech in line for the championship.

[throatybeard]

It's certainly a conundrum. I like considering the OOC, which favors OU.

Try this scenario on for size. The B12CG has had several memorable upsets that threw a wrench into the works (UT over NU, A&M over KSU, KSU over OU).

Say OU loses at Stillwater. UT has leapfrogged TTU and they go to the B12CG. But Mizzou upsets UT. What then? OU, UT and conference champ Mizzou all have two losses. TTU beats Baylor to finish with one loss. What then?

Unlikely perhaps--no one's giving Mizzou a chance in the B12CG, but I think Gary Pinkel likes it that way.

I don't like using the BCS as a tiebreaker, because some inordinate percentage of the BCS poll now is the human polls, which penalize recent losses to good teams more than early losses to lousy teams.

As long as neither Florida nor USC is in the title game, I'm happy.

[A-Tex Devil]

Not sure if this is true... you would have to add on that Tech loses to Missouri in the Big XII championship. A win over Missouri in that game would put Tech in line for the championship.

The conventional wisdom is that if OU loses and Tech goes to the BIG XII championship game, they won't have enough computer juice to jump UT even if they win the BIG XII. Not fair, but just another flaw in the system.

Both OU and UT have arguments in the 3 way tiebreak. There is a lot of good lawyerly issue spotting going on for both sides to try to make the case. My favorite case in UT's favor is that UT would win the tiebreaker in every other BCS conference based on those conferences' tiebreaker rules, other than the Big East which would also come down to BCS standings. That is followed closely by the neutral field win.

I will not make the head to head argument unless... UNLESS... you consider Tech out of the race now, which many do. If you consider Tech out of it, then you have to look at head to head. Can't have your cake and eat it to.

[rockymtn devil]

It's certainly a conundrum. I like considering the OOC, which favors OU.

Try this scenario on for size. The B12CG has had several memorable upsets that threw a wrench into the works (UT over NU, A&M over KSU, KSU over OU).

Say OU loses at Stillwater. UT has leapfrogged TTU and they go to the B12CG. But Mizzou upsets UT. What then? OU, UT and conference champ Mizzou all have two losses. TTU beats Baylor to finish with one loss. What then.

Maybe, I'm missing something, but if OSU beats OU, then TT likely wins the B12S, right? In that case, it's a two-way tie between UT and TT (assuming they beat Baylor) and the tiebreaker would be head-to-head, putting the Raiders into the B12CG. Isn't the BCS only used as a tie-breaker where head-to-head can't answer the question?

Pre-BCS, when head-to-head couldn't be used, the B10 would crown its champion based on who had the longest Rose Bowl drought. That's why 1995 Northwestern went to Pasadena instead of Ohio State. And before that, B10 ADs would vote on who to send in the case of a tie (I believe even when head-to-head would solve it). That's how 1969 Ohio State got to the Rose Bowl despite losing to Michigan, which shared the B10 title.

[jimsumner]

Texas Tech, Texas, and Oklahoma all have one loss. But Texas and Oklahoma lost close, competitive games that could have gone either way.

TT, on the other hand, got their heads handed to them. There's a difference between losing and having the school bully kick sand in your face at recess, take your lunch money, and diss your mama.

I don't see any way that Texas Tech climbs back in the title picture after that loss.

[Troublemaker]

jimsumner and rockymtn are correct. If OSU beats OU (and TTU beats Baylor), then TTU will advance to the B12CG and either they or Mizzou will be the Big12 champion. And yes, this is the preferred scenario of UT fans right now because it would likely put the Longhorns into the BCSCG against the SEC champ. It's also the scenario with the least hurdles. If OU beats OSU, then UT would have to win a campaigning battle with OU to advance to the B12CG where they would THEN have to beat Mizzou in a rematch (always tricky). No, Texas fans definitely want to lose the Big12 South to Texas Tech at this point.

[roywhite]

Okay, what real reason do we have for any of these B12 teams to be ranked ahead of Penn State?

Penn State is 11-1 and champion of a major BCS conference; lost by one point w/ one second left to Iowa on the road; avg score 40-12; nationally ranked offense and defense; never gave up more than 24 points; is the only Top 10 team with a road win over another Top 10 team (Ohio State); all other victories were by 14 points or more; took apart Oregon State (which can end up in the Rose Bowl) 45-14.

Let's suppose that the Big 12 is just a throw-it-around conference with some good QB's and no team with a great defense, and that they would not match up well with USC, Florida, or Penn State. Do those B12 teams have out-of-the-conference wins that would prove otherwise?

The BCS is a lousy way to pick a champion. This year there are 6 or more teams that are worthy of a shot at a championship.

[A-Tex Devil]

Okay, what real reason do we have for any of these B12 teams to be ranked ahead of Penn State?




Because none of them laid the egg Penn State did against an inferior team that's not even in the BCS discussion.

/Big Ten Hater Mode

Honestly, though, you are absolutely right.

Edited to say -- Big XII may be a "throw it around conference," but I'd bet OU, UT, OSU, Tech and Mizzou all drop 4 touchdowns on their bowl competition in Dec/Jan. Will their Big Ten/SEC/Pac Ten competition be able to keep up?

[blazindw]

For those confused, here's how the Big 12 divisional tiebreakers work:

If it's a 2-way tie, the head2head is how the champion is determined. So, if OU loses tomorrow and TTech wins, TTech>Texas, TTech goes to the Big 12 title game. If TTech loses and OU wins, Texas>OU, Texas goes to the Big 12 title game.

For 3-way divisional ties, here' the order of tiebreakers:

1. The records of the three teams against each other will be compared. (all 3 teams even)

2. The records of the three teams within their division will be compared. (all 3 teams even)

3. The records of the three teams will be compared against the next highest placed teams in their division in order of finish (4, 5 and 6). (all 3 teams even)

4. The records of the three teams will be compared against all common conference opponents. (all 3 teams even)

5. The highest-ranked team in the first Bowl Championship Series Poll following the completion of Big 12 regular-season conference play shall be the representative. (This will decide it)

6. The team with the best overall winning percentage (excluding exempted games) shall be the representative.

7. The representative will be chosen by draw.

Now, if TTech ends up going to the Big 12 title game and loses, leaving Texas up there at #2, do you think that Texas gets into the title game even though they're not their conference champ and didn't even play in their title game? I don't think they will. Voters in the Harris and Coaches poll have been all about putting conference champs over idle #2 teams because they feel that only conference champs should play for the title, even though that's totally not what the rules say. Do they lift Penn State or USC (if Oregon beats Oregon State giving USC the Pac 10 title) over a #2 Texas that didn't play in its championship game? I think they will, but I don't think they should.

My arguments for Texas...

1) They played one of the hardest schedules in the country, and their only loss was in the last second on the road to Texas Tech, then #5 or 6 in the country, at the end of a brutal stretch where they played 4 Top 10 teams in 4 weeks.

2) They beat OU on a neutral field by 10, the consensus best indication of which team is better. They didn't beat Texas in Austin, they beat them in Dallas in a stadium that is split down the middle with Texas fans and OU fans.

3) TTech did beat Texas, but got stomped by 44 by OU. Texas didn't lose by that much at TTech. Also, TTech had a bye week to prepare for OU and got wrecked; Texas had no such bye week before they played TTech, at the end of their murderer's row stretch (4 Top 10 teams in 4 weeks). TTech also didn't play Missouri, and Texas did, stomping them.

I think the BCS should be about what the rules are: that the 2 best teams in America play for the national championship. Texas is #2 right now, and I don't buy the argument that because a team didn't play in its conference title, that they all of a sudden aren't the 2nd or 3rd best team in the country. I didn't like that logic last year with Georgia being left out or 2 years ago with Michigan being left out. If voters think that only conference champs should be in the title game, then they need to change the rules of the BCS so it will be much clearer. I honestly think that a team that didn't win its conference can be considered the best or 2nd-best team in the country, and I think that team is Texas, not OU or TTech.

[rockymtn devil]

First of all, the BCS is set up to be fluid, so it isn't inherently unfair for a team to be #2 one week and not be #2 the next week. The system is set up to allow that to happen.

Second, just because it isn't explicitly in the rules doesn't mean conference championship--or lack thereof--can't be taken into account. I'm of the opinion that if you don't win your conference title, the only way you can be one of the two best teams in the country is if the best team is the one that beat you out. Even in a tiebreaker situation, it's at best an open question as to whether you are one of the two best in your conference, let alone the country.

Further, Texas advocates simply cannot cherry pick which head-to-head matchups to look at. If you're going to make judgment on h2h, you have to put TT in that equation. In other words, you have to give as much credit to TT's win over UT and OU's win over TT as you do UT's victory against OU. Doing this will lead you around and around and will never provide an answer. Thus, h2h is not the measure to go with.

The neutral field thing is fine, but why should that be given more deference than the margin of victory? Does anyone think OU wouldn't have won huge against TT if that game we played in San Antonio?

In the end, I'm not interested in these attempts to objectively say which team is better (neutral site, margin of victory, etc.). If I were a voter it would a pure gut judgment. Having watched all three of those teams over the course of the season, my eyes tell me that OU is the best, followed by UT and then TT. I would vote OU my #2.

[Troublemaker]

Second, just because it isn't explicitly in the rules doesn't mean conference championship--or lack thereof--can't be taken into account.



Further, Texas advocates simply cannot cherry pick which head-to-head matchups to look at. If you're going to make judgment on h2h, you have to put TT in that equation.

Agree with your first point, disagree with your second. I think the only arguments that are wrong in this tiebreaker debate are those suggesting that the voters must do this or must do that. Since there are no guidelines for how the voters should decide, it's up to each individual voter to choose what's most important to them, and anything they choose is valid. That's the thing about a voting system with no strict guidelines; by it's very nature, everything is subjective and there are no wrong answers.

Personally, if I were a voter, I'd take Texas over OU. TTU doesn't even get consideration from me; I don't think they're as good as either UT or OU and I reject that there is a true "3-way tie" unless a double round-robin had occurred where we see a UT vs TTU matchup in Austin and an OU vs TTU matchup in Lubbock. Then, I choose UT over OU based on their head-to-head win on a neutral site and just my gut feeling that they're better. This argument is as valid as anyone else's (and anyone else's is as valid as mine). Playoffs would be best.

[A-Tex Devil]

Further, Texas advocates simply cannot cherry pick which head-to-head matchups to look at. If you're going to make judgment on h2h, you have to put TT in that equation. In other words, you have to give as much credit to TT's win over UT and OU's win over TT as you do UT's victory against OU. Doing this will lead you around and around and will never provide an answer. Thus, h2h is not the measure to go with.

Agreed. But people cannot dismiss Texas Tech when talking about all three. People seem to be saying "Well Tech's not good enough, so let's look at OU and UT." At that point, you take UT because of the head to head. I am of the opinion, you look at all three and come up with your own parameters on whose best. But don't leave Tech out. If you do, the UT/OU head to head comes back in play (see SEC and ACC tiebreaker system which does exactly that!!)


The neutral field thing is fine, but why should that be given more deference than the margin of victory? Does anyone think OU wouldn't have won huge against TT if that game we played in San Antonio?

Different strokes, I guess. OU has a big play, quick strike offense that sometimes detrimentally keeps its defense on the field. Against lesser teams, the defense gets the ball back to the offense and OU runs up a lot of points. Against equal teams (or even KU), the defense is on the field so much, they get tired. See UT-OU as prime example.

UT scores less points, but they also have like 20-something 80 yard drives of over 5 minutes. They score differently, but are no less dominant. Is OU's 66-28 win against A&M really better than UT's 49-9 victory?

Look- one of UT or OU will get left out. Both have good arguments, I think, but the fact people/pundits aren't discussing UT, OU and Tech as a threesome tells me we are leaving Tech out of the discussion, and, well.... 45-35. :D

After all, that is what the SEC and ACC would do:

"The tied team with the highest ranking in the Bowl Championship Series Standings following the conclusion of regular season games shall be the divisional representative in the ACC Championship Game, unless the second of the tied teams is ranked within five-or-fewer places of the highest ranked tied team. In this case, the head-to-head results of the top two ranked tied teams shall determine the representative in the ACC Championship Game."

[throatybeard]

TTU doesn't even get consideration from me; I don't think they're as good as either UT or OU and I reject that there is a true "3-way tie" unless a double round-robin had occurred where we see a UT vs TTU matchup in Austin and an OU vs TTU matchup in Lubbock.

That's one of the silliest things I've ever heard. FB teams don't have time to play a double round robin in one 3-month season.

[Troublemaker]

That's one of the silliest things I've ever heard. FB teams don't have time to play a double round robin in one 3-month season.

Well, yeah. I'm not suggesting they should play a double round-robin. Just saying that what has actually occurred really isn't a 3-way tie, not without finding out what UT could've done to TTU in Austin or whether TTU would've beaten OU in Lubbock as well (like they did last season). These were not 3 neutral site games played among the 3 teams in question, and therefore, I personally don't consider the 3 results to be 3 sides of an equilateral triangle.

[Heelkiller1]

Any one but Texas, lets get a couple of teams in the National Championship game that hasn't been there for a while.ROLL TIDE

[jimsumner]

"Any one but Texas, lets get a couple of teams in the National Championship game that hasn't been there for a while"

Like Florida, Oklahoma, or Southern Cal?

Sorry but I don't see 'Bama making it to the title game.

[rockymtn devil]

Well, yeah. I'm not suggesting they should play a double round-robin. Just saying that what has actually occurred really isn't a 3-way tie, not without finding out what UT could've done to TTU in Austin or whether TTU would've beaten OU in Lubbock as well (like they did last season). These were not 3 neutral site games played among the 3 teams in question, and therefore, I personally don't consider the 3 results to be 3 sides of an equilateral triangle.

Even for a lawyer like me, this is silly semantics. It is a 3-way tie. This goes beyond cherry picking which h2h to look at. You're cherry picking which teams are involved in the discussion (it's akin to USC fans saying "we lost at OSU; OSU lost at home to Stanford; therefore there is no tie between us and we win the P10"). To paraphrase Bill Parcels, you are what your record says you are. OU, TT, UT all have the same record in B12 play. That's a 3-way tie. I think one of the problems in your line of argument is that it's grounded in determining who gets to play in the BCS Title Game. That isn't the question right now. The question is about who gets to play in the B12CG, and TT has to be involved in that discussion. If Texas didn't want Tech involved, all they had to do was tackle Michael Crabtree...or push him out of bounds.

To add to an earlier post of mine, I can see where others might have a gut reaction that puts Texas as the #2 team over OU. Just wanted to clarify that.

[Troublemaker]

Even for a lawyer like me, this is silly semantics. It is a 3-way tie. This goes beyond cherry picking which h2h to look at. You're cherry picking which teams are involved in the discussion (it's akin to USC fans saying "we lost at OSU; OSU lost at home to Stanford; therefore there is no tie between us and we win the P10"). To paraphrase Bill Parcels, you are what your record says you are. OU, TT, UT all have the same record in B12 play. That's a 3-way tie. I think one of the problems in your line of argument is that it's grounded in determining who gets to play in the BCS Title Game. That isn't the question right now. The question is about who gets to play in the B12CG, and TT has to be involved in that discussion. If Texas didn't want Tech involved, all they had to do was tackle Michael Crabtree...or push him out of bounds.

To add to an earlier post of mine, I can see where others might have a gut reaction that puts Texas as the #2 team over OU. Just wanted to clarify that.

You've lost me on that comparison b/w what I've said and your hypothetical USC fan, but that's not important. Like I said above, what's important is to remember that it's a subjective thing and there's no wrong answer or "silly" answer. If voters want to use 45-35 to put UT ahead of OU in the BCS (and therefore into the B12CG -- no need to distinguish between BCS and B12 here because it's really the same thing as long as OU beats OSU [not a given of course]), then that's perfect valid. In fact, I obviously think that's the most compelling argument.

I reject the "unresolvable 3-way quagmire based on h2h" argument that OU is espousing because I firmly believe the location of games matter; it's tough to play in front of a raucous crowd on the road. Very tough. Texas beats OU on a neutral field, but then, b/c the Longhorns lose to TTU on the road and OU beats TTU at home, all of a sudden everything's equal and an unresolvable quagmire has occurred and you can't use h2h to decide things? People are welcome to buy that argument if they want, but I don't.

[rockymtn devil]

You've lost me on that comparison b/w what I've said and your hypothetical USC fan, but that's not important. Like I said above, what's important is to remember that it's a subjective thing and there's no wrong answer or "silly" answer. If voters want to use 45-35 to put UT ahead of OU in the BCS (and therefore into the B12CG -- no need to distinguish between BCS and B12 here because it's really the same thing as long as OU beats OSU [not a given of course]), then that's perfect valid. In fact, I obviously think that's the most compelling argument.

I reject the "unresolvable 3-way quagmire based on h2h" argument that OU is espousing because I firmly believe the location of games matter; it's tough to play in front of a raucous crowd on the road. Very tough. Texas beats OU on a neutral field, but then, b/c the Longhorns lose to TTU on the road and OU beats TTU at home, all of a sudden everything's equal and an unresolvable quagmire has occurred and you can't use h2h to decide things? People are welcome to buy that argument if they want, but I don't.

I agree that it's a subjective measurement at this point and that's been the crux of my argument. What I'm hearing though is selectively utilizing a single objective standard (the neutral site) instead of a combination of objective arguments to base the decision on the totality of the circumstances. I asked in an earlier post why the neutral site argument (which is valid to a certain extent) deserves more stature than the margin of victory argument or the OOC schedule strength argument. The latter two favor OU. The first, Texas. Putting all that together, and based on what my eyes tell me, I put OU above Texas and TT. I can, however, see how someone could put all of them together and feel that Texas should be the leader. But, I don't see that as happening. All I'm hearing is neutral site, neutral site, neutral site...and TT doesn't belong in the discussion.

And it is essential to separate out the B12CG from the BCS title game. Texas fans seem to feel that TT has no place in the discussion. This is, of course, a convenient talking point for the Horns. If Tech is out, then it's a h2h with OU, which UT wins. And Tech probably doesn't belong in the national title debate. But it absolutely belongs in the B12 debate. It has the same record as the other two and it beat one of them.

In the end I think we agree but come out on different sides of the three-sided coin. Much like Olympic Fan, who started the thread, I think Texas is coming off a little silly in how hard its trying to frame the argument in the exact way that helps it in the face of other plausible (dare I say, more reasonable) arguments. How is Bob Stoops the reasonable one in all of this? (to be fair, Mack Brown sounded reasonable on SportsCenter yesterday).

[Troublemaker]

Yes, I don't think we disagree all that much, rockymtn. For me, it's all about keeping an open mind and letting voters choose what they want to value. For me, I disagree with Stoops that h2h can't be taken into account. And I would disagree with any Texas fans that suggest h2h is the only thing that should matter.

As for the tethering of the BCS standings to the B12CG, that's just the way the B12 has their tiebreaker setup. In the event that OU beats OSU tonight, the BCS standings will determine the B12South champion, even though the BCS is a national ranking, not a B12 poll. Therefore, while TTU is technically in it, for all practical purposes, they're not. It's really just down to OU and Texas because nationally, TTU's standing has been sullied, right or wrong.

[A-Tex Devil]

The biggest travesty of this whole thing is that the Coaches Poll isn't public this week. Stoops' minions (Stoops doesn't have a vote) or Mack Brown could vote one team #1 and the other #25 and no one would ever know.

Garbage

[A-Tex Devil]

I just watched a fast forwarded version of OSU-OU. Yeah.... ummmm. No. It was 44-41 with 7 minutes left. People should remember that.

This is really upsetting. I wish Mizzou would have the common courtesy to allow UT and OU to play in the Big XII championship game. :rolleyes:

Tech proved they were a flash in the pan last night too. It's fitting that in their best season ever, the best they can say is that they ruined Texas' season. Have fun in the cotton bowl, desert aggies. I'm not bitter.

[rockymtn devil]

I just watched a fast forwarded version of OSU-OU. Yeah.... ummmm. No. It was 44-41 with 7 minutes left. People should remember that.

This is really upsetting. I wish Mizzou would have the common courtesy to allow UT and OU to play in the Big XII championship game. :rolleyes:

Tech proved they were a flash in the pan last night too. It's fitting that in their best season ever, the best they can say is that they ruined Texas' season. Have fun in the cotton bowl, desert aggies. I'm not bitter.

Here's the good news for Texas: with Oregon State's loss last night, Ohio State is now probably going to the Fiesta Bowl. That will likely pit the Longhorns against the Buckeyes. A Texas blowout could sway AP voters to award it the AP title, much like it did to USC in 2003-04 (assuming Alabama doesn't win out, including the title). I believe that, prior to last night, most projections had Texas playing Utah in the Fiesta Bowl. That matchup would not afford the Horns an opportunity to make a serious statement (Utah struggled to beat Michigan after all).

[throatybeard]

It's Oklahoma:

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=3735383

Interestingly, the rules are different in the SEC; there, Texas would play in the conference championship. I don't know how it would work in the ACC or the MAC.

[A-Tex Devil]

It's Oklahoma:

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=3735383

Interestingly, the rules are different in the SEC; there, Texas would play in the conference championship. I don't know how it would work in the ACC or the MAC.

Texas wins under every other BCS conference tiebreaker (except Big East which would be the same). Oh well. Go Tigers, go Gators. If OU gets by Mizzou, they better score 60 because Florida will drop 50 on that defense. I am of course assuming Florida beats 'Bama, which I think they will.

Why does Bob Stoops eat his Cheerios on a plate?

Because if they were in a bowl, he'd lose them.

OK, I'm over it now. Maybe the BCS computers will keep UT ahead of Florida if they beat 'Bama. Unlikely and unfair, but it's certainly possible.

[rockymtn devil]

Maybe it helps keep Colt McCoy in Austin while pushing Bradford towards the NFL. I've read that there is talk of a rookie salary cap coming to the NFL in the next few years. If that looks like a reality, that could be a huge motivating factor for those two, as well as Tebow, Stafford, Moreno, and Wells.

[throatybeard]

Bryan Burwell had this assessment of the OU-MU matchup in the B12CG:

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/sports/columnists.nsf/bryanburwell/story/B48312825C3B86318625751300204A4D?OpenDocument


We're all thinking that there are only three logical outcomes to this championship game at Arrowhead Stadium.

Option 1: The Sooners will gangster slap the Tigers.

Option 2: The Sooners will prison slap the Tigers.

Option 3: The Sooners will gangster slap, then prison slap the Tigers.

[Cdog923]

As a born-and-bred Cornhusker, I'm excited to see Missouri get ganster AND prison slapped by OU.

[Ben63]

Alright this really isn't that difficult. Just hear me out.

Should OU be ranked ahead of UT in the BCS? Absolutely

Should OU be the Big XII South Champs? Absolutely not.

For what the BCS is designed to do, OU is deservedly the #2 team, no doubt. This being said THE BCS IS NOT DESIGNED TO BE A CONFERENCE TIEBREAKER. The BCS should determine how the teams rank against all 118 other D-1A teams and NOT how any given team did against it's own conference.

OU has played a better non-conference schedule and is #1 in the computer poll. I am not saying the BCS is right, I'm not at all, but according to the rules right now, OU is and SHOULD be ranked higher than UT.

The Big XII is to fault for this mess. For an unbreakable 3 way tie it needs to be cut down to a 2 way tie and then head to head should be used. How you want to cut it down is irrelevant (for this particular case), because OU and UT have both proven they are head and shoulders above TTU. This would leave Texas as the Big XII South champ, by merit of beating OU.

I realize we all (well, most) want a playoff but it is just not that simple. College football needs new blood to run it that could make a playoff work, because it is not just as simple as "I want a playoff, put one in now!!" There are too many variables that would have to be ironed out. But that is for another thread.

[A-Tex Devil]

Alright this really isn't that difficult. Just hear me out.

Should OU be ranked ahead of UT in the BCS? Absolutely

Should OU be the Big XII South Champs? Absolutely not.

For what the BCS is designed to do, OU is deservedly the #2 team, no doubt. This being said THE BCS IS NOT DESIGNED TO BE A CONFERENCE TIEBREAKER. The BCS should determine how the teams rank against all 118 other D-1A teams and NOT how any given team did against it's own conference.

OU has played a better non-conference schedule and is #1 in the computer poll. I am not saying the BCS is right, I'm not at all, but according to the rules right now, OU is and SHOULD be ranked higher than UT.

The Big XII is to fault for this mess. For an unbreakable 3 way tie it needs to be cut down to a 2 way tie and then head to head should be used. How you want to cut it down is irrelevant (for this particular case), because OU and UT have both proven they are head and shoulders above TTU. This would leave Texas as the Big XII South champ, by merit of beating OU.

I realize we all (well, most) want a playoff but it is just not that simple. College football needs new blood to run it that could make a playoff work, because it is not just as simple as "I want a playoff, put one in now!!" There are too many variables that would have to be ironed out. But that is for another thread.

Agree it's the Big XII's fault. Every other conference and UT wins (except the Big East -- whose champion is Cincy. NUff said).

College Football has turned into Ice Dancing, Gymnastics, Diving, etc. etc. People come in with predetermined thoughts and it affects their decisions.

I'm not saying this hurts or helps my team of choice. I just think it's sad that a sport like football comes down to the same set of subjective criteria that made Torville and Dean and the Chinese women's gymnastics team so famous.

Peace

[sue71, esq]

Well just check this (http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/blog/dr_saturday/post/Apparently-the-Big-12-South-will-be-decided-by-a?urn=ncaaf,126902) out.

[BlueintheFace]

Got this in an e-mail...

BCS DECLARES GERMANY WINNER OF WORLD WAR II
US Ranked 4th

After determining the Big-12 championship game participants the BCS computers were put to work on other major contests and today the BCS declared Germany to be the winner of World War II.

"Germany put together an incredible number of victories beginning with the annexation of Austria and the Sudetenland and continuing on into conference play with defeats of Poland, France, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Belgium and the Netherlands. Their only losses came against the US and Russia; however considering their entire body of work--including an incredibly tough Strength of Schedule--our computers deemed them worthy of the #1 ranking."

Questioned about the #4 ranking of the United States the BCS commissioner stated "The US only had two major victories--Japan and Germany. The computer models, unlike humans, aren't influenced by head-to-head contests--they consider each contest to be only a single, equally-weighted event."

German Chancellor Adolph Hitler said "Yes, we lost to the US; but we defeated #2 ranked France in only 6 weeks." Herr Hitler has been criticized for seeking dramatic victories to earn 'style points' to enhance Germany's rankings. Hitler protested "Our contest with Poland was in doubt until the final day and the conditions inNorway were incredibly challenging and demanded the application of additional forces."

The French ranking has also come under scrutiny. The BCS commented "France had a single loss against Germany and following a preseason #1 ranking they only fell to #2."

Japan was ranked #3 with victories including Manchuria, Borneo and the Philippines.

[77devil]

Got this in an e-mail...

BCS DECLARES GERMANY WINNER OF WORLD WAR II
US Ranked 4th

After determining the Big-12 championship game participants the BCS computers were put to work on other major contests and today the BCS declared Germany to be the winner of World War II.

"Germany put together an incredible number of victories beginning with the annexation of Austria and the Sudetenland and continuing on into conference play with defeats of Poland, France, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Belgium and the Netherlands. Their only losses came against the US and Russia; however considering their entire body of work--including an incredibly tough Strength of Schedule--our computers deemed them worthy of the #1 ranking."

Questioned about the #4 ranking of the United States the BCS commissioner stated "The US only had two major victories--Japan and Germany. The computer models, unlike humans, aren't influenced by head-to-head contests--they consider each contest to be only a single, equally-weighted event."

German Chancellor Adolph Hitler said "Yes, we lost to the US; but we defeated #2 ranked France in only 6 weeks." Herr Hitler has been criticized for seeking dramatic victories to earn 'style points' to enhance Germany's rankings. Hitler protested "Our contest with Poland was in doubt until the final day and the conditions inNorway were incredibly challenging and demanded the application of additional forces."

The French ranking has also come under scrutiny. The BCS commented "France had a single loss against Germany and following a preseason #1 ranking they only fell to #2."

Japan was ranked #3 with victories including Manchuria, Borneo and the Philippines.

Hilarious. The BCS is so ethically bankrupt. It's all about money. Arguably the best team this year is U.S.C. and it won't get a shot. College football needs a playoff.

[A-Tex Devil]

Got this in an e-mail...

BCS DECLARES GERMANY WINNER OF WORLD WAR II
US Ranked 4th

After determining the Big-12 championship game participants the BCS computers were put to work on other major contests and today the BCS declared Germany to be the winner of World War II.

"Germany put together an incredible number of victories beginning with the annexation of Austria and the Sudetenland and continuing on into conference play with defeats of Poland, France, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Belgium and the Netherlands. Their only losses came against the US and Russia; however considering their entire body of work--including an incredibly tough Strength of Schedule--our computers deemed them worthy of the #1 ranking."

Questioned about the #4 ranking of the United States the BCS commissioner stated "The US only had two major victories--Japan and Germany. The computer models, unlike humans, aren't influenced by head-to-head contests--they consider each contest to be only a single, equally-weighted event."

German Chancellor Adolph Hitler said "Yes, we lost to the US; but we defeated #2 ranked France in only 6 weeks." Herr Hitler has been criticized for seeking dramatic victories to earn 'style points' to enhance Germany's rankings. Hitler protested "Our contest with Poland was in doubt until the final day and the conditions inNorway were incredibly challenging and demanded the application of additional forces."

The French ranking has also come under scrutiny. The BCS commented "France had a single loss against Germany and following a preseason #1 ranking they only fell to #2."

Japan was ranked #3 with victories including Manchuria, Borneo and the Philippines.

It's not far off.

I really, really hope that UT stays in front of Florida on Sunday if both OU and Florida win. (Still very possible, if unlikely). That would really suck for Florida, but it might actually upset the apple cart enough for people to do something. If we aren't going to have a playoff, and there aren't truly 2 top BCS conference teams in a given year, just go back to old bowl tie-ins. It would be more fun.

This year (assuming Florida and OU victories) it would be:

Sugar - Florida - Texas
Orange - OU (old Big VIII Tie-In) - Bama
Rose - USC-Penn State
Fiesta - Utah-Boise St.

Throw in Texas Tech and Ohio State in the Cotton Bowl for good measure, and I think we've got ourselves a really exciting New Year's Day.

Awesomeness.

[rockymtn devil]

It's not far off.


This year (assuming Florida and OU victories) it would be:

Sugar - Florida - Texas
Orange - OU (old Big VIII Tie-In) - Bama
Rose - USC-Penn State
Fiesta - Utah-Boise St.

Throw in Texas Tech and Ohio State in the Cotton Bowl for good measure, and I think we've got ourselves a really exciting New Year's Day.

Awesomeness.

Wouldn't Cincinnati, as the Big East Champion be headed to the Fiesta? Utah would probably be looking at the Holiday Bowl as its best option and Boise State at its own smurf-turf bowl. Perhaps the Fiesta would be able to take Utah, but, if that's the case, it probably also could've made a bid for Ohio State, which is what it's going to do. If the Buckeyes didn't go to the Fiesta, they'd head to the Florida Citrus Bowl to play Georgia. Texas Tech probably would go to the Cotton Bowl where they would play the fourth choice from the SEC (which this year is someone like Ole Miss?).

[A-Tex Devil]

Wouldn't Cincinnati, as the Big East Champion be headed to the Fiesta? Utah would probably be looking at the Holiday Bowl as its best option and Boise State at its own smurf-turf bowl. Perhaps the Fiesta would be able to take Utah, but, if that's the case, it probably also could've made a bid for Ohio State, which is what it's going to do. If the Buckeyes didn't go to the Fiesta, they'd head to the Florida Citrus Bowl to play Georgia. Texas Tech probably would go to the Cotton Bowl where they would play the fourth choice from the SEC (which this year is someone like Ole Miss?).

Big East doesn't have bowl affiliation as far as I'm concerned. ACC can go to Citrus bowl unless they have a top 8 team :D