Much will be made about the results of today’s BCS poll in the days and weeks to come, but this should be the straw that breaks the BCS camel’s back.
Oklahoma received enough computer points and coaches’ votes to leapfrog Texas in the BCS rankings...and into the Big 12 title game. A win there will give the Sooners a spot in the National Championship.
Nevermind that the teams had identical records and Oklahoma’s loss came at the hands of Texas on a neutral field. Nevermind that Texas had a tougher schedule. Nevermind that Texas’ one loss was on the last play of the game, and by six points, while Oklahoma’s loss was by 10 points.
The BCS proponents (and playoff opponents) say that a playoff would undermine college football’s regular season. Now tell me, how does putting Oklahoma in the title game over the team it lost to not undermine college football’s regular season? The only thing it does do is prove the case
for a playoff.There are so many problems here that it would take books to describe them all. The BCS vs. playoff battles have been waged way too many times, so I’ll just make a couple of points on how the BCS system affects this situation.
First of all, what the BCS does reward is running up the score. The coaches won’t say it, nor will the BCS folks, but it’s true. They call it “looking more impressive.”
They point out Oklahoma’s eye-popping offensive onslaught of four straight games scoring 60-plus points.
Sure, they scored 61 against Oklahoma State on Saturday, but they also couldn’t stop OSU for three and a half quarters, giving up 41 points. Texas gave up only 24 to OSU.
Sure, Oklahoma piled 66 points on Texas A&M. They also gave up 28. Texas scored 49, while giving up just nine.
Sure, Oklahoma scored 45 on Kansas. They also gave up 31. Texas beat Kansas 35-7.
So, what does this all mean? The reward goes to the team that can score more points, not to the best overall team.
Secondly, the USA Today Coaches Poll should never be relied upon to determine the fate of the teams. The coaches themselves don’t like it. Most of them don’t actually do the voting themselves—and why should they? They don’t even watch the games, except for their own and the tape of their next opponent(s).
Oklahoma coach Bob Stoops would never vote Texas ahead of his own team this season, even though Texas beat his team. Going further, why would he even vote Texas anywhere close to his team? There’s no penalty for leaving Texas completely off his ballot, so why give them a chance to be rated higher than his team?
101 comments Last one added about 1 month ago — Leave a Comment
Donald Fincher 7 months ago
Great article. You really sum this up nicely. Oklahoma's entire hope rested on the voters having amnesia about their game with Texas because it was (gasp) 5 weeks ago. This "what have you done for me lately" business does indeed make early and mid season games less important. Now, I'm guessing that the conference big-wigs and tv "execs" sure were wanting us to think those games were plenty important back when they wanted your eyeballs while sitting either at the game or on your couch. Get real folks.
We should all adopt the SEC rule. In a 3 way tie that isn't settled with one of the higher tiebreaker rules and, instead, goes to the "rankings" to decide, the two teams highest in the rankings are settled by their head to head game unless the first place team is more than 5 spots ahead of the next ranked team among them. In this case, Texas and Oklahoma are the two highest and Texas and Oklahoma are one spot apart so, since they are within five of each other, their head to head with Oklahoma wins it.
Edit Comment Cancel
Justin Potts 7 months ago
Thanks man. It's too bad Texas and OU don't play the last game of the regular season every year like Ohio State and Michigan do. Then, neither one would have to worry about not playing thier tough games at the end of the season.
Obviously that didn't matter this year for UM-OSU since Michigan was so bad, but traditionally that's a game that propels the winner into the Rose Bowl or National Championship game.
Edit Comment Cancel
David Hedlind 7 months ago
Ok but really the blame shouldn't be only on the BCS. The Big 12 needs to get better tie breaker rules rather than leaving it up to the BCS.
Edit Comment Cancel
Justin Potts 7 months ago
I agree that the Big 12 tie-breaker rules are partly to blame for this situation because they use the BCS as their sole criteria for deciding who's in the championship game. In any of the other major conferences that have championship games, Texas would have been in.
I'm also a firm believer of getting rid of conference championship games, but I'll talk about that in my next article about a playoff system.
Edit Comment Cancel
Brad James 7 months ago
negative David, I give the BIG 12 tremendous credit for having many institutions in FAVOR of a playoff. Therefore, with that said anything controversial in the BIG 12 makes the BCS look all the more stupid. The NFL was incredible this weekend and will only percolate in magnificence. Meanwhile, college football has peaked and now stay tuned for a bunch of mediocre pointless bowls. I-AA football is compelling as well, that App State/South Carolina State game was pretty good!
Edit Comment Cancel
C.W. O'Brien 7 months ago
Let me preface this by saying I am NOT an OU fan. I think that Texas did have a valid argument for why they should be in the Big XII championship game. So did OU...and to a lesser extent, so did TT. If you look at just heads up between the top two schools then yes it should have been Texas. In a two way tie you can do that. In a three way tie, you can't. If you put UT in, TT fans have a right to go ballistic because TT won the heads up game. If the Big XII put TT in, OU fans are going to go ballistic because they beat TT head to head. If that is the only argument that UT fans can really hold on to, they don't have much footing.
OU has played 5 teams in the current Top 25. Texas has played 4. TT played 3. Edge OU.
OU's best non-conf game was a W against Big East Champ Cincinnati. Texas' best non-conf game was a W against Arkansas. TT's was @ Nevada. Edge OU.
OU's best road win was a 61-41 game @ 9-3 Okie State. Texas' best road win 35-7 @ 7-5 KU. TT's best raod win was 63-21 @ 7-5 KU. Edge OU.
You also CAN'T forget that OU is the only team of the three that does NOT have a vote in any of the polls and hence did not have a say in the way that things went down with the polls. And also, the pollsters did what they could to HELP UT's argument. OU lost 15 points in the USA Today poll and Texas gained 26. OU lost 29 points in the Harris poll and UT passed them. All of that happened THE DAY AFTER OU beat a ranked team by 20 at that teams field compared to UT's win over a 4-8 team at home. They tried.
I feel for Texas fans, but the argument is not with OU, it is with the BCS and with the Big XII conference for using that as the 5th tie-breaker. You will likely see changes in the tie-breaker, especially if OU loses either of it's next two games.
Edit Comment Cancel
Dean Walker 7 months ago
You make the best point(s) I've heard all day. My dad is a big OU fan so naturally I picked UT to be my second favorite team behind Michigan to create some tension in the house on game day. I wish Texas would have gotten the bid but as you said, Tech fans would deserve as much of a right to cry about being left out as Texas fans are now if you base it solely on head-to-head. OU has a better SoS, going 4/5 (.800) against ranked opponents as opposed to Texas' 3/4 (.750) record against the same. Logically OU gets the bid.
Edit Comment Cancel
Larry Sigurdson 7 months ago
Hi Justin,
Great article. ***** and POTD.
You and I are on the same page, while for slightly different reasons, it all comes down to pretty much the same thing: the truth is that the BCS is not about finding the true national football champion; it is about generating the highest TV ratings and paying the highest possible gross to the athletic departments. End of story.
When BCS decisions are viewed the prism of TV ratings and national TV A.C. Nielsen metro markets it makes perfect sense. This explains television's preoccupation with the SEC, Florida, Texas and the Los Angeles schools. It also explains why NBC has a contract with Notre Dame from here to eternity despite Notre Dame's recent win-loss record being only slightly above mediocre.
I agree with you 100-percent that if college football truly wants to annually crown a national champion that is the best of the best in NCAA Division 1-A, then a double elimination playoff, similar to that in basketball is what is required. Personally, I favor a 16-team elimination over four weeks using the existing bowls. But, that's just me. I believe even an 8 team playoff is preferable to the current BCS mess.
This is an annual ritual that is getting worse and not better. As an avid Oregon Ducks fan, we came face-to-face with this a few years ago when we were on track to play Miami but ended up playing Colorado because of built-in BCS computer biases. That year it was "strength of schedule." Truth be told it was because Oregon was considered too small of a TV market and other teams were likely to generate a lot more advertising revenue.
Good job. Welcome to B/R.
--Larry
Edit Comment Cancel
Justin Potts 7 months ago
Thanks Larry! It's a shame that TV ratings and money drive the system, but that's the business as we currently know it until a playoff is instituted.
I would be in favor of any playoff system over the current BCS system. It's the only way to truly leave it in the hand of the teams on the field to determine the national champion.
One reader, in the comments below, pointed out this site to me and it looks pretty feasable:
www.collegefootballsolution.com
What do you think of that one?
Great win for your Ducks this weekend.
Edit Comment Cancel
jay frederick 7 months ago
Stoops does not vote, ge your facts correct before you post....
Edit Comment Cancel
Justin Potts 7 months ago
Jay, I absolutely know that Stoops didn't vote and if you read it again, you'll notice that I didn't say that he did. My statement was just showing the problems I have with the BCS. That point was showing that the USA Today Coaches poll should not be included. I used Stoops as an example because his team was the one that benefited from the BCS in this instance, but the same would be said for any coach in that situation.
I'm a Michigan fan and if Michigan and Ohio State were in this situation, why would Rich Rodriguez vote Ohio State above his own team? There's a conflict of interest that's way too big to allow that poll to be part of the BCS criteria.
Edit Comment Cancel
blackjackjackson 7 months ago
mathematically, a playoff system is implausible. to not hurt anyone's feelings, the minimum games would be over 5 (32 teams) and that would eliminate long standing conference battles.
the conferences are protecting their tv turf b/c no one else is.
the bcs was formed b/c the consensus n.c. was only picked a few times. this makes the bcs more important than individual polls like ap. and keeps the money closer to home. remember, last year it was almost w.va. And, if not for bcs you would have 5yrs of usc as n.c. do you think usc will give up the rose bowl money to actually play texas or tex tech? usc knows the bread is buttered w/ penn st.
here is a good site to see the evolution of consensus.
http://homepages.cae.wisc.edu/~dwilson/rfsc/history/kirlin/champs.html
Edit Comment Cancel
Daniel Chausse 7 months ago
Actually, only the top 8 teams would be given a chance, thus there would only be 3 games total. The lower ranked teams don't deserve a chance, I'm a student at the University of Mississippi (go rebs) but I'd be the first to admit that we don't truly deserve a chance at the National Championship, nor do the other teams ranked worse than #10.
Edit Comment Cancel
James Rodgers about 1 month ago
an 8 or 16 team playoff could easily be structured. You don't have to have 32 teams nor do I (or really anyone for that matter) think there should be. And the higher bowls (rose sugar fiesta orange cotton) could keep there name and be used toward the end of the playoff alternating each year who gets the n.c. game. and I'm willing to give up Pac-10 Big-10 Rose Bowl match up to find a true n.c. and nobody complained about loosing that match up when the Rose bowl was used as the national title game.
Edit Comment Cancel
Lance Hunt 7 months ago
This discussion is stupid. Both teams are a member of the BCS. They knew that their conference game & the BCS championship could be decided by BCS formulas.
BCS Forumulas include Wins/Losses, but also other factors such as strength of schedule, points, yards gained/allowed, etc. The BCS does this so that a school cant coast into a playoff based upon a fluff schedule like Boise State and others. The formulas show OU has the edge, so they advance and Texas doesn't. I don't see whats so complicated about this.
We all know nobody will be satisified until the NCAA settles championships via a playoff system, but since that wasn't in place before this year began, the discussion is moot since both teams signed-up under the same rules.
Now, if Texas doesnt like these rules, they can move to a non-BCS conference or work with the NCAA for next year's rules, but in the mean time, they shouldn't be surprised since they were the ones who scheduled a weaker schedule than OU. Sadly even the strength of schedule factor has been dilluted over the years. If strength of schedule was bolstered in the BCS, the point differential between OU & Texas would be even greater.
In the end, the Texas 45-35 win means less than their 33-39 loss especially when you factor in the Oklahoma 61-25 domination over Texas Tech as well as the 61-41 win over Okla. State where Texas barely eeked-out a 28-24 win.
The voters may lie, but the numbers don't.
Edit Comment Cancel
Justin Potts 7 months ago
Lance,
I've always shied away from getting into arguments about the BCS because I felt the same way you did - all the teams play under the same rules, so they shouldn't complain when one team gets put ahead of them. But this year changed that. It goes beyond the typical assertions that "this team is better than that team," because these two teams actually did play each other. So head-to-head, we know which team was better. That's not to say that if they played again Oklahoma wouldn't win, but teams can only play each other once-a-year, so based on their matchup you can't put the team that lost ahead of the team that won unless there's a significant difference elsewhere - like two losses vs. one loss or a considerable difference in schedule (like Oklahoma vs. Boise State).
I don't understand the argument that people are making that Oklahoma played a tougher schedule. According to the same computers that make up the BCS, Texas' schedule is tougher. In the Sagarin rankings, Texas' is 12th and OU's is 17th. In the Anderson & Hester rankings, Texas' is 5th and OU's is 7th. In the Colley Matrix, Texas' is 4th and OU's is 13th. In the Massey rankings, Texas' is 4th and OU's is 6th.
Edit Comment Cancel
blackjackjackson 7 months ago
boycot??? you sound like usc.
you play by the rules or you cry like a baby.
this is big money, man.
tx could maybe still get in. if the ap were still part of the vote, it would be usc.
the computers work, mainly b/c they aren't like the posters who can't have their way.
the conference is the blame on this one. and remember, ok lost the conference in 03, but played n.c.
renenber, lsu was out until w.va and mo lost on last day.
the fat lady has not sung.
Edit Comment Cancel
Justin Potts 7 months ago
Yeah, that's a bit over-the-top response, and in no way do I think they will do it, but maybe doing so would finally get something to change. I do know that quite a few UT boosters and season-ticket holders are advocating it and would gladly pay the school the $4- or $5 million it would have received from a BCS payout.
Edit Comment Cancel
Doug Dwyer 7 months ago
The BCS is a consortium of the major conferences. And it is a big money maker for those conferences and excludes the minors. Kind of sad that Boise State goes 12-0 and won't get into a BCS bowl.
Edit Comment Cancel
Doug Dwyer 7 months ago
I think the computers are great. It has forced some of the major conference powers to start scheduling quality non-conference opponents rather than 60 point gimmees to start the season.
Edit Comment Cancel
Lance Hunt 7 months ago
Justin,
The BCS calculates Strength of Schedule based upon the ranking of the team at the time they played, not after the fact. Assuming their conference schedules were equal (which arguably, OU's was tougher), at the time OU beat Washington, they were a highly ranked team ( I dont recall the actual ranking).
Rice, Texas's best non-conf win, was not ranked. Therefore, OU would have the higher strength of schedule.
Edit Comment Cancel
C.W. O'Brien 7 months ago
Washington was 0-fer then too. They weren't ranked. SOS is factored in to some of the computer rankings...but it is for who you played as well as who they played. Even that gets skewed...because OU played two bad teams and 2 good teams. UT played 4 average teams. In the polls, OU's schedule looks a lot better than UT's because of who they played and when they played them, even though in the computers UT has the slight edge because OU's two bad teams brought down their SOS.
Edit Comment Cancel
Trey Murphy 7 months ago
outstanding article. I'm curious if anyone will wake up and listen to the facts pouring in advocating a playoff. Keep up the good work
Edit Comment Cancel
Justin Potts 7 months ago
Thanks Trey. I sure hope so.
Edit Comment Cancel
Edmon 7 months ago
In a three way tie (a lot of people forget TT), it's impossible to take and judge two out of three. TT earned their Big XII South tie just like UT and OK. These "new college football fans" need to look at pre-BCS when the No 1 and No 2 teams wouldn't come within 500 miles of each other. And it was guess work to find a champion. I have no pity for USC, UT, TT, or Penn State. If they would have won their games, they wouldn't be in this situation.
Edit Comment Cancel
Lou Vozza 7 months ago
None of your arguments hold water, Justin
Your primary thesis is that an 8 team playoff won't change the regular season that much. That's true, but you need to address the controversies that will continue to plague a mini-playoff. I have proved that these controversies will force it to expand until it eventually becomes a 24 team playoff, with 11 conf champs and 13 wild cards. Once it is at 24 teams, then the regular season won't be the same.
For a full explanation, see my posts:
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/82858-why-a-poll-based-eight-team-college-playoff-has-to-expand-to-a-24-team-playoff
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/81511-top-10-stupid-arguments-for-a-college-playoff
Also, you arguments about the coaches poll are silly. This poll almost always mirrors the Harris poll and the AP poll. Sometimes one team is one or two spots higher or lower, but the coaches poll is a tiny point of the overall formula, and rarely makes a difference in the final top two.
You say every sport has a playoff. Please give an example of another 119 team league that has an 8 team playoff. I can give you an example of two sports - NCAA basketball and 1-AA football - that started with a mini-playoff and were forced to expand to very large playoff systems.
Edit Comment Cancel
Irish Mike 7 months ago
It's extremely convenient to use the head-to-head argument to justify Texas over OU, and then completely dimiss it to exclude Tech. If your argument really held water, than you would be happy w/ Tech winning the south because they beat Texas. You try to justify dismissing them because of the beating they recieved from OU, the very team you feel Texas should be ahead of. I don't see a lot of objectivity or valid logic in your argument which tends to make you come off like just another "homer" who's upset because their team didn't get in...which I'd guess is not your intent.
What it really boils down to is that the BCS system was never set up to try and determine CONFERENCE champions. Shame on the Big 12....and any other conference, who cops out and uses the BCS system as a tie-breaker....in any fashion. I hope all conferences will look at their tie-breaker criteria before next fall and move to take the BCS out of the equation completely.
Edit Comment Cancel
Justin Anthony 7 months ago
Think about the negatives also i know we fall in love with this idea every November and December but if a playoff were to happen say good by to non-conference games, say good by to meaningful upsets and say good buy to rivalry games unless there in conference. People will still be left out and people will still be complaining. And voters will still have their biased opinion get ready to see two SEC teams two Big 12 Ohio State USC over and over and over in the play off because the voters keep them up there look at LSU this year they were ranked with 3 Losses all by blow out.
Edit Comment Cancel
JJ Cardosi 7 months ago
Let's face it. As was mentioned previously, there is only one objective that fuels the BCS. MONEY!! It never has been about picking the best team in the country. The only way to do that is to have a playoff system. All of the negative arguments about it are smoke-screens. If 1-AA, Division II and Division III can figure out how to do it, then the NCAA COULD figure out how to do it for Division I. Even a simple-minded eight team playoff pitting the conference champion of the eight big-school conferences that included: Big12,PAC10,Big10,SEC,ACC,BigEast,MAC and the winner of a MountainWest/WAC playoff would give you a better shot at finding out who was truly the best team than the BCS computer mumbo-jumbo. Sure the SunBelt teams would be mad and the independents would feel left out but the facts would seem to indicate that a national champion would not come from those schools. NotreDame is the wild card in this but until they turn things around, they aren't a factor anyway. You designate which seven bowls get the playoffs and rotate the national championship game. Regionally you could keep fan-base interest by having the RoseBowl take the PAC10/WAC-MW winners, the GatorBowl take SEC/ACC, a domed-stadium bowl in the lower Midwest to host the Big12/Big10, and use the Carrier Dome to host the BigEast/MAC. The semi-final bowls need to be in a southern climate or domed stadium as does the national championship. There will be plenty of good matchups left over for the Non-Championship bowls. AND they could rotate in and out in various years. Ask Jim Tressel about how 1-AA did it when he won two national championships at Youngstown State. Simple-minded? Yes. Clear champion? Yes.
Edit Comment Cancel
Lou Vozza 7 months ago
You are right about the money. The non-BCS conferences are very very unhappy with the current system. The BCS is an illegal cartel within 1-A football and they know it. They also know that an 8 team playoff will lead to a lawsuit by the non-BCS conferences. This will force a playoff with 11 conference champions and at least 13 wild cards. Similar pressures forced 1-AA to expand their playoff from an original 4 teams to today's 20 teams.
Argue for a playoff, fine. But don't delude yourself that an 8 team format will work. It won't.
In a 119 team league, you have to let in just about every team that's competitive and then some. That's why basketball invites 65 teams, even though an 8 seed is the lowest seed to ever win.
Edit Comment Cancel
Irish Mike 7 months ago
You also wrote: "I agree that the Big 12 tie-breaker rules are partly to blame for this situation because they use the BCS as their sole criteria for deciding who's in the championship game. In any of the other major conferences that have championship games, Texas would have been in."
....which is incorrect. Of the Big 12's tie-breaking criteria, the BCS ranking is actually the 5th step in breaking the tie, it is not the sole criteria. Again, IMO, a little more factuality and a little less bias in your articles would make them much more compelling.
http://www.big12sports.com/ViewArticle.dbml?ATCLID=1546006&DB_OEM_ID=10410
Edit Comment Cancel
Justin Potts 7 months ago
Actually, I have absolutely no bias on this subject. I'm a Michigan fan through and through. A quick look at my profile and previous articles will show you that. I could care less about favoring Texas or Oklahoma. However, in this instance, I feel that Texas was wronged and my article explains why.
I also know that the BCS ranking is not the one and only criteria for deciding the tie-breaker. You're right that I should have made myself more clear in that comment. What I meant was that in this instance, the BCS ranking is the ultimate criteria for deciding who's in, with all previous steps being equal. I thought that was understood, but I should have made myself more clear.
I think the SEC has the better procedure, where the BCS ranking is the determinant unless the two teams are within five spots of each other. Then it goes to head-to-head results of the top two ranked tied teams.
Edit Comment Cancel
David Singleton 7 months ago
To add a point of clarification, the BCS tiebreaker rule only came into play because it was the fifth tiebreaker for the situation where three teams were tied for the division lead.
Per the website referenced in the comment above:
Divisional Tiebreakers: The following procedure will determine the representative from each division in the event of a tie:
If two teams are tied, the winner of the game between the two tied teams shall be the representative
If three or more teams are tied, steps 1 through 7 will be followed until a determination is made. If only two teams remain tied after any step, the winner of the game between the two tied teams shall be the representative.
The records of the three teams will be compared against each other
The records of the three teams will be compared within their division
The records of the three teams will be compared against the next highest placed teams in their division in order of fi nish (4, 5 and 6)
The records of the three teams will be compared against all common conference opponents;
The highest ranked team in the fi rst Bowl Championship Series Poll following the completion of Big 12 regular season conference play shall be the representative
The team with the best overall winning percentage [excluding exempted games] shall be the representative
The representative will be chosen by draw.
Edit Comment Cancel
dick beninya 7 months ago
Changes all conferences have 12 teams
play 11 regular season games
11 conference championships
8 team playoff
ACC champ
Big East champ
Big 12 champ
Big 10 champ
Pac 10 champ
SEC champ
2 wild cards from the 6 other conferences(WAC,Mid American, Conf USA, MountainWest, Sun Belt and Independents)
Seeds 1-4 host 5-8
Semifinals played at neutral site, cities bid to host
Championship game rotates between Rose, Orange, Sugar and Fiesta
If you dont make the playoffs you get to go to a bowl game
Edit Comment Cancel
Lou Vozza 7 months ago
You don't have enough wild cards. You will have more people ticked off not less. Maybe you think it works OK this year with Boise State and Utah getting in from the non-BCS, but they would be 7-14 point underdogs to at least 5 teams you are leaving out of the playoff. How is that settling it on the field?
There will be no peace in college football until there is a 24 team playoff with 11 conf champs and 13 wild cards.
Thanks for ruining the only good regular season in sports.
Edit Comment Cancel
Iceman 7 months ago
yes but if the sooners lose, texas is in the title game. but i dont think they will.
Edit Comment Cancel
Tuck Fexas 7 months ago
What did all of the of the Texas & ESPN crybabies want OU to do? Lose a another game? This was not OU's fault. The sooner people stop crying about the better. Maybe, just maybe, every one remembers those flops McCoy had in the OU - TU game. Those bad calls gave Texas the game...
Edit Comment Cancel
Derek Private 7 months ago
if the sooners lose then Missouri gets a BCS game not texas...This isnt fair to Texas...what happened to giving texas a bcs game and the sooners going to the title game and whoever wins the national title game get the crown of national champions and if texas wins their bcs game then they get a share of the title..so TWO national champs...everyone is happy :DDDDDDDD
Edit Comment Cancel
Connor Hennessey 7 months ago
two national champs is stupid. no one would be happy. the same thing happened when LSU beat OU in the 2003 title game. USC and LSU was split and USC tried to say that they were going for the 3-peat when all they did was win one title game. sure they one the rose bowl but NOT the BCS CHAMPIONSHIP. there should be one and ONLY ONE national champ and that is the winner of the BCS CHAMPIONSHIP GAME
Edit Comment Cancel
kris topher 7 months ago
By the way.. ONE of the computers that the BCS uses has a feature to ADD and REMOVE games.
If.. and a big if, the right set of circumstances occur..
http://www.colleyrankings.com/
Oklahoma wins
Florida Wins..
http://www.colleyrankings.com/playgod.html
This, ONE, computer actually has 1. Oklahoma 2. Texas 3. Florida
I dont know if two teams that are from the same conference can play each other..but its a possibility i guess
Edit Comment Cancel
Jeffrey Mann 7 months ago
Jim Tressel and other big ten powerhouse coaches will never let a playoff happen as long as they have a seat on the committee. Since they don't have a conference championship, Ohio State somehow squeaks into a BCS bowl game every year after losing 2-3 games and for this reason will always be opposed to a playoff system as it will expose them to the frauds they really are before they make it into a meaningful game. A playoff will make them lose their BCS share, money they can use to spend on more overrated slower players who could never beat a team from the SEC or PAC-Ten.
Edit Comment Cancel
Lou Vozza 7 months ago
I hate to break this to you, but college football players don't get paid.
Edit Comment Cancel
Tom Wallace 7 months ago
Never beat a team from the PAC 10? Other than USC that conference has been pretty damn soft over the last several years. Mind you, I'm not defending the Big 10 at all. SEC and Big 12 are the toughest conferences these days.
Edit Comment Cancel
BlockONation.com -- HD Handshoe 7 months ago
Jeff, you are a MORON...
Ohio State has NEVER been to a BCS bowl with 3 losses. I could see you bitching if OSU was playing in the BCS title game with 2 or 3 losses but since when does 2 losses mean a team can't play in any BCS bowl game period?
1998 Sugar Bowl - Ohio State went (11-1) - only loss was to Mich State 28-24
2002 Fiesta Bowl - Ohio State went (14-0) - BCS National Champs
2003 Fiesta Bowl - Ohio State went (11-2) - only losses were to rivals Wisconsin & Michigan
2005 Fiesta Bowl - Ohio State went (10-2) - only losses were to BCS Champ Texas 25-22 & #5 Penn State 17-10
2006 BCS NCG - Ohio State went (12-1) - only loss was to #2 Florida 41-14 in title game
2007 BCS NCG - Ohio State went (11-2) - only losses were to #15 Illinois 28-21 & #2 LSU 38-24
OSU won it's BCS bowl game in 1998, 2002, 2003 & 2005 and lost in 2006 & 2007
They have a 4-2 record in BCS bowl games....
So I'll close this post the same way I opened it....
JEFF, YOU ARE A MORON!!!
Edit Comment Cancel
BlockONation.com -- HD Handshoe 7 months ago
CORRECTION:
In 2005, Penn State was #3 -- (not #5)
Edit Comment Cancel
Geoff Anderson 7 months ago
This article is written by a bias Texas fan. Get over it, that is all we've heard all season. Boo hoo, you won't have your 2005 season. No to mention Oklahoma's schedule which contained 6 ranked teams (Soon to be 7) as opposed to Texas's 5, so how does that maked Texas's schedule tougher?
Edit Comment Cancel
Lou Vozza 7 months ago
Oklahoma's playing because they are playing better. Texas was hot earlier and it's true they beat Oklahoma, but the Sooners dismantled TTech.
Edit Comment Cancel
Justin Potts 7 months ago
Sorry Geoff, but this article was not written by a biassed Texas fan. It was written by a fan of neither team involved. Check my profile or previous articles and you will realize that I'm a Michigan fan with no ties to Texas or Oklahoma. I'm just calling it like I see it.
Edit Comment Cancel
Brian Bertrand 7 months ago
www.collegefootballsolution.com
....would work perfectly this year. There is really no reason why this system could not be implemented in a compatable manner with the BCS rankings/sponorships, etc....left in tact
Edit Comment Cancel
Justin Potts 7 months ago
Brian,
I've never seen that site before, but after a quick glance, I think that better than any solution I've seen. There may be a minor change or two that I would like to see, but I'll have to think it through a little bit. Thanks for the link.
Edit Comment Cancel
John Minor Minor 7 months ago
Wow, who would have thunk it.
www.anonymize.us.tc
Edit Comment Cancel
Brian Critchfield 7 months ago
Personally, I don't feel too bad for Texas or Oklahoma. They will both end up in BCS games, even though only one will get the shot at the national championship. Either team could have avoided this by going without a loss.
The real shame is someone like a Boise State who goes 12-0 and doesn't even get into the BCS. They beat Oregon, who just pummeled Oregon State this weekend. Utah's biggest win was against Oregon State. Boise State's biggest win was against Oregon. Utah will get into the BCS, Boise State most likely won't. A playoff system is the only way to allow a fair system of determining who wins the national championship. EVERY OTHER SPORT, both pro and college, have a playoff system. Tell me how that nullifies their regular seasons?
Edit Comment Cancel
Justin Potts 7 months ago
I agree that a playoff is the only way to allow a fair system of determining the national champion. I still don't understand why people think it would take away from the regular season. I think it would make the regular season more meaningful because teams would be playing the regular season for a spot in the playoff, and thus, a chance to prove themselves National Champions without a computer determining their fate.
Edit Comment Cancel
Jacob ThatGuy 7 months ago
Hey. Im sorry, I dont like the B.ull C.rap S.ystem anymore than the next guy... But you forgot a pretty big piece in your article.. Texas doesnt deserve to go anyways. Yes Ou and Texas both have 1 lose. Yes Ou's lose came from Texas.. BUT Texas lost to Texas Tech, and you cant rule Tech out.. In a three way tie you have to think about it all the way around, instead of just one way... If you PRETEND that Tech never played Texas then yes, the longhorns deserve to goto the Big-12 title game.. But if you take the Ou-Tech game out of the equation, then Tech deserves to go, not Texas, bends the Red Raiders would still be ranked #1.. If you take the Ou-Texas game out of the equation, then Ou deserves to go.. So all three teams have the same argument... My problem with the BCS is the complete and utter biasness they show time and time again for the Pac-10((which is a very weak confrence in all honestly,, it should be called the Pac-1 bends its always USC)) and the SEC which is a good confrence, but its not as good as the BCS make it seem...
Im an Oklahoma State University fan, I dont like Ou.. BUT, im tired of hearing everybody cry about the Longhorns. In the end blame the Big 12, not for sending OU to the Big-12 Title game, but for sending Missouri instead of the Longhorns.. Missouri doesnt belong in that game, in all honesty, nobody from the Big-12 North belongs there, it should be between the two best teams in the confrence, not the best from the North and the South.. If we could have the Red River Rivalry re-match then everything would be settled..
And one more note for those of you who dont seem to know.. There is no place in Texas which is Neutral to Oklahoma.. If they want a true neutral site for that game then it should be played in Arkansas or Louisiana or some other state instead of Texas every year
Edit Comment Cancel
Justin Potts 7 months ago
Jacob,
I'm not forgetting Texas Tech at all. I understand that they have the same record as Texas and Oklahoma. However, I believe that when you look at all of the factors (losses, schedule, etc) Tech gets ruled out of the equation because of the manner in which they lost. They all have one loss to each other. Texas lost by six, Oklahoma lost by 10, and Texas Tech lost by 44. That automatically rules Tech out in my opinion, and I was actually hoping Tech would make it to the national championship all season (since my Wolverines obvioulsy weren't going to).
Secondly, I agree with you that Missouri doesn't belong in the Big 12 championship game. I'm a firm believer that there shouldn't be conference championship games in the first place, but that's for another article.
Also, you said, "If we could have the Red River Rivalry rematch then everything would be settled." Well, we already had it once and it was settled. 45-35. Teams can (and should) only play each other once a season.
Edit Comment Cancel
Tom Wallace 7 months ago
From the article: Nevermind that Texas had a tougher schedule.
Huh? How do you figure that? OU is 4-1 vs. ranked teams, Texas is 3-1. OU had the tougher schedule and more impressive wins over ranked teams, and that's why they're in the title game. End of story. Head to head match up is meaningless in a 3 way tie, unless one of the games was a blowout (like, 66-21 for example), then the edge would go to the winner of the blowout game.
Edit Comment Cancel
Justin Potts 7 months ago
Tom,
Here's how I figure that: from the six computers used in the BCS standings (only four have schedule strength), here's how their schedules are ranked.
Sagarin: Texas 12th, Oklahoma 17th
Anderson & Hester: Texas 5th, Oklahoma 7th
Colley Matrix: Texas 4th, Oklahoma 13th
Kenneth Massey: Texas 4th, Oklahoma 6th
Also, as a fan completely neutral to this situation, I see things the opposite way. In a three-way tie, in the case of a blowout, the team on the losing end of the blowout should be eliminated from contention.
Edit Comment Cancel
nathan sut 7 months ago
First off, lets go with the tie breaker...Texas beat OU on a level field. Oh, but Tech beat Texas...and then OU beat Tech. You are saying since OU stomped Tech into oblivion, they are no longer in the chase. I would try to point out the flaw in this logic, but if you can't already see it, I can't get it across to you.
I agree with the Big 12 championship. It should be the highest ranked teams, or the teams with the best records playing for the championship, not north vs south. We would at least have two of the best three teams, (Tech, Texas & OU).
I am an avid OU fan, but like I told a Texas buddy. I could've been happy with Texas, Tech, or OU in for the Big 12. They all have legit claims. I am sick of hearing this "two way tie because OU beat the crap out of Tech" argument. And what was with Mack Brown lobbying for his team DURING the OU\OSU game?
*Shakes head* I almost wish Tech had gone for the whole ball of wax. Either way, all three teams are damn good, and Texas or OU will tromple Florida.
Edit Comment Cancel
kris topher 7 months ago
Am I an idiot? I actually cannot believe no one has responded to my post.
Can two teams from the BIG 12 Play each other in the National Title Game if they're ranked 1-2?
Does anyone not realize the implications of the SOS and the Computers?
Out of Texas, OU, and Florida, Florida has the worst SOS. Its noticeably worse than Texas or OU.
If OU takes care of Mizzou, and Florida takes care of Alabama. Will Florida's schedule take the needed jump?
Texas' SOS will take the jump because they defeated an OU team that'll be ranked 1 if Alabama loses.
I may be naive, but if the two favourites win these games the computers are going to put
1.OU
2. Texas
3. Florida
4. USC
5. Utah
6. TTU
The ONLY thing that could screw this up, is the HUMAN vote.
Edit Comment Cancel
Justin Potts 7 months ago
Hey, I agree with you on that one. I just don't see it happening, which is why there has to be a playoff system.
Edit Comment Cancel
Michael Main 7 months ago
Yes, Kris, the BCS always takes 1 vs 2 in the national championship, even if those two teams are from the same conference.
If things had broken a bit differently, you could even have gotten a Texas-Texas Tech matchup in the national championship, with neither of those teams winning the Big 12. (For example, if all those teams above Texas Tech had another loss or two, and Missouri beats OU).
Here's another interesting situation: OU beats Missouri, but the human pollsters are so broken up over the Texas injustice, that they vote Texas even higher, ending up with Texas ranked above OU in the final BCS poll, and we get a Texas-Alabama or Texas-Florida national championship game.
For me, these are all reasons to sit back and enjoy the regular season; I don't need no playoff, though I did enjoy the www.collegefootballsolution.com. Under that system, Texas, Tech, Utah and Boise State would be the four wildcards in the play-in games.
Edit Comment Cancel
Yarmul Vagner 7 months ago
Bob Stoops doesn't even vote in the Coach's Poll. Do your homework.
Edit Comment Cancel
Justin Potts 7 months ago
Yarmul, if you did your homework and actually read the article (and the comments posted) you'll notice that I never said he did and I already addressed this assertion. I used him as an example to make the point that the Coaches poll should not be included in the BCS. Really, I could have used any coach, because any coach would have fit into that equation if they were in this situation.
Edit Comment Cancel
Tyler Neale 7 months ago
Justin,
Good article, but unless I am mistaken, the BCS wasn't created to be a tie-breaker in the first place. It is not intended to be used for this purpose, yet the BIG VII has made it so. So wouldn't the fault be with the BIG VII conference, and not the BCS system? The BCS didn't decide to become this tie-breaker, it was the conference. The BCS should only come into play at the end of the season when the FINAL rankings are in, allowing it to decide who goes to the NC and the different bowls. Therefore, shame on the BIG VII for misusing the BCS system.
Just a thought.
Edit Comment Cancel
Justin Potts 7 months ago
Tyler,
Thanks and I agree with you. I've said in other replies to posts on here that I think the Big 12 is at fault for using the BCS as a determinating factor in its tie-breaker system.
That being said, I also can't wait for the BCS system to go and a playoff to finally be instituted. I just think there are way too many problems with the BCS, many of which have been pointed out in the comments on here, and many of which are written about all the time.
Do you support the BCS?
Edit Comment Cancel
Tyler Nele 7 months ago
I agree with you that the BCS has many problems, and it seems every year, new ones appear. Those in charge try to fix them at the end of each season, only to find more to arise.
That said, switching to a playoff system would dramatically change the whole college football environment. I think seasons would need to be shorter, and I just see problems arising from that route as well.
Even still, it seems the BCS wasn't very effective last year with its NC game (did Ohio State really deserve to be there? This coming from a die-hard Buckeye). However, I like the debate the BCS brings out, as it adds a new element to the game.
I certainly see the argument against the BCS - most, if not all, points against it are valid. However, if I had to answer you, I would say yes, I support the BCS.
Edit Comment Cancel
kris topher 7 months ago
The question of the BCS is whether or not it should favor late season wins.
They took the margin of victory out of the computer rankings a few years ago, and haven't used it since.
But, what is the BCS for? Is it to put the two best teams against each other at the end of the season? or is it to put the #1 team all year against the #2 team all year.
Quite Frankly, the coaches, and media screw this up more than the computer ever does. The human vote unfairly weights the end of the season.
Say this happens:
Week 3: TTU Beats Texas
Week 5: Oklahoma beats TTU
By week 10, you can essentially assume Texas is sitting pretty right around where Florida or Oklahoma is now.
Week 12: Texas Beats OU
Texas Jumps to 2 ahead of OU, because it just beat them. Ahead of Florida and USC because they lost to the number 7 team, which is a lot different than Ole Miss or Oregon State.
Humans look at style points FAR too much. The computer just looks at your Wins and Losses.
The Computer will say the Championship is Texas vs. OU
but humans will screw it up
Edit Comment Cancel
JJ Cardosi 7 months ago
Lou- SO tell stupid me how the 1-AA,Divsion-II and Division-III figure out who gets into their national championship game? They don't have 119 games to decide it. They have some system to get it down to 16 or 8. The teams must have won some conference. Army and Navy will never be competitve at a national level for obvious reasons- they aren't there just to play football. Anyone left out of my simple-minded scheme wouldn't win against a major conference winner. So the "let's be fair" argument doesn't really fly. Do you really believe Boise St. or Utah would beat Alabama, Oklahoma, Texas, TTech, Florida or USC? And I included their conferences. No Sunbelt team is going to beat a top-8 team. They just don't have the horses. They play good football but not good enough to be national champions. I am not convinced it can't be done.
Edit Comment Cancel
kris topher 7 months ago
Do you remember the Greatest Football Game of All Time? It was on New Years Day? Adrian Peterson certainly does.
Maybe you should limit it to the top 7 :D
Anyways, the point is that *GREAT* teams can lose to *BAD* teams.
Oklahoma wins that game 7 times out of 10, but thats why they play the games.
Florida lost to Ole Miss
USC lost to Oregon State
PSU lost to Iowa
There are teams in the NON BCS conferences that are just as good as Ole Miss, OSU, and IOWA.
Its football..
Edit Comment Cancel
Lola Judd 7 months ago
Will Obama get a playoff system going after his comments during the 2008 World Series?
Edit Comment Cancel
JJ Cardosi 7 months ago
I'm suggesting that we expand the BCS conferences. Only the Sun Belt and Conference USA were not included in my simple scheme. If you wanted, you could do an At-Large pigtail bracket for the top-ranked SB/USA/Indep. so all the Division I schools got a whack at it. But I stick with original premise that those smaller schools, with limited budgets, and fewer NFL-level players would not contend against the big guys in a one-game and-out playoff. But I'd be willing to give them a shot. Why not? I do want it to be a playoff based on performance not computer polls and coaches votes.
Edit Comment Cancel
HuskerDottie 7 months ago
IMHO, this year's mess happened because the Big 8 became the Big 12. Conferences should stay small enough to allow all the teams to play each other every year. And forget this "neutral site" business. Location will always favor one team over another.
But like several have already mentioned, it's all about the Almighty Dollar.
Edit Comment Cancel
John Lewin 7 months ago
The Anti-BCS argument frequently misses the point, and miscasts the blame. As mentioned, bowl games have a much higher sum viwership than playoffs (where most viewers wont watch if thier team is not in contention).
Rather than a playoff, think of solutions that dont reduce viwership (BCS -> to a final 4 playoff, for example).
Edit Comment Cancel
Bob Roberts 7 months ago
Well I think New York winning the super bowl shows that we need a bowl system in the NFL. Don't forget the Stealers winning back in 06. We all know that the NYG were not the best team last year. If they would have just had the best team in the AFC vs. the best in the NFC, we would have had a real champion that was the best overall and not just hot the last few weeks of the season. We see it time and time again in the NCAA basketball tournament. A team gets hot and they go further than they should.
Edit Comment Cancel
Jeffrey McDaniel 7 months ago
Justin,
Great article. I agree with you about the problems in the Big 12. When three teams are all tied, and they all have a identical records, there's a problem. I can't speak to their needs in terms of fixing those problems, but I think that there is a solution to the postseason in college football.
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/70649-a-modest-proposal-for-the-bcs-playoff
Edit Comment Cancel
Charles McFarland 7 months ago
Texas beat Oklahoma. Texas beat Missouri. Now, Oklahoma and Missouri meet in the Big 12 Championship for the "rest of the marbles." The Couldn't-Beat-Texas Bowl:
http://couldntbeattexas.spreadshirt.com
Edit Comment Cancel
Irish Mike 7 months ago
Why don't you go ahead and print up a bunch of "Couldn't Beat Tech" shirts while you're at it?
Isn't that really what the whole issue boils down to? If you'd taken care of business w/ Tech, there wouldn't be anything to cry about, would there?
Edit Comment Cancel
Charles McFarland 7 months ago
Texas isn't playing in the Big 12 Championship. If we somehow end up in the national championship game, Tech can go make its own t-shirts.
Edit Comment Cancel
Matt 7 months ago
That's the whole problem Texas..... You want it your way only when it favors you. "If Texas ends up in the NC game Tech can go make it's own shirts"? You have got to be kidding me right? How about If OU loses to Mizzou then we can use the "head to head" matchup between Texas and Tech to decide who goes to the best bowl game? I bet Texas would LOVE the BCS then.
Edit Comment Cancel
Charles McFarland 7 months ago
I guess you can equate a last-second comeback with a pants-down spanking and keep Tech in the conversation. Nobody else has, though.
Edit Comment Cancel
Matt 7 months ago
Wasn't the last second comeback by TEXAS??? I'm pretty sure it was Tech giving the "Pants down spanking" for almost the entire game......lol
If you don't want to reward OU for beating Tech by 44 then you can't punish Tech for losing by 44. Sorry if I'm not "everbody else" which mostly equates to "longhorn fans". All three Teams are good. Not one is more deserving than the other. All of the big 12 teams agreed to the tie-breaker. Now people want to cry when it doesn't work out for there team. What a joke....
Edit Comment Cancel
Charles McFarland 7 months ago
Texas Tech scored with one second to left for its win over Texas. Was there some confusion about that?
Texas up by one with 8 seconds to go is far from the pants-down spanking Tech received from OU for not "almost" the entire game but the whole entire game.
I don't take away OU's stomping of Tech--it's what puts OU in the conversation (and one of a few things that takes Tech out of it). Not all losses are the same. OU's best argument is that its only loss to the No. 3 team is better than Texas's only loss, to the No. 7 team (that's Tech).
All three teams are good, but OU and Texas are both more "deserving" than Tech. The best team in the country can lose a game during the regular season - it's happened more than once - but it cannot be humiliated and exposed like Tech was in Norman. Don't take my word for it, check out the polls. Tech lost by 40. Win or lose, nobody scored 40 on Texas all year.
Edit Comment Cancel
Matt 7 months ago
It doesn't matter how anyone looks at it people will not agree. I would be happy if OU/Texas had a rematch for the NC.
Here is a fact though. TEXAS agreed to the BCS tie-breaker. It didn't work out for Texas and now the longhorns want to cry about it and say it's not fair. Take it like a man and move on longhorns. Maybe next year it will work out for Texas or Tech. It really is a good system and I think it's better than the SEC.
Edit Comment Cancel
Charles McFarland 7 months ago
Who's crying? But we can disagree. The Big 12 system is not a good system for the simple reason that it lets non-conference people decide a conference issue. It's worse because the non-conference system is not open to scrutiny - we don't get open ballots until next week, so we don't know what screwy rankings were turned in to game the results one way or the other (like voting Tech No. 1 or putting Florida over Texas but under OU).
Mack Brown had a good point when he said that we all knew a good team would be left out. He was wrong to say it was not fair. It was the system agreed to, and that is fair. What he should have said was, it isn't right.
Edit Comment Cancel
Irish Mike 7 months ago
Sorry Charlie, but your initial comment is sour grapes, and you know it. You can't add sugar to it later and expect everyone to just drink it, unless your from Jonestown.
You write: "All three teams are good, but OU and Texas are both more "deserving" than Tech. The best team in the country can lose a game during the regular season - it's happened more than once - but it cannot be humiliated and exposed like Tech was in Norman. Don't take my word for it, check out the polls. " You also offer: "I guess you can equate a last-second comeback with a pants-down spanking and keep Tech in the conversation. Nobody else has, though." I guess not as many people as you would have liked kept Texas' comeback over OU in mind either.
Funny thing is, you nailed it. The best team in the country can lose a game, and still be the best team in the country. The polls also realize this phenomenon. Thats why OU finished ahead of Texas in the only poll that matters and is playing Missouri for the Big 12 Championship.
Go ahead and print your t-shirts, light a candle, have seance, a kegger, a basket party....whatever makes you sleep at night...then tune in on Saturday and watch the Big 12 Championship. And relax in knowing that, whatever you do(fly banners, print t-shirts, whatever...) your Longhorns won't be playing in it. Get all the satisfaction you want out of the "Couldn't-Beat-Texas" bowl, beacuase in the end, the pathetic, whiney, crybaby UT fans are the only ones who care....the rest of the country has moved on.
Edit Comment Cancel
Charles McFarland 7 months ago
It's not sour grapes, it's marketing. Buy a shirt, eh?
Also, the crying crybaby comments are ridiculous. Not only did Texas beat OU head to head and get left out of the Big 12 Championship game, but apparently Texas fans can't make the case that it could have or should have gone the other way? Since when?
I only hope "Irish" is some reference to Notre Dame.
Edit Comment Cancel
Matt 7 months ago
It's not just you Charles. Market your shirts all you want.....make as much money as possible. Good for you! Your comments are just like every other Texas fans though. You think Tech was a "fluke" just b/c they won by a last second touchdown. Well, Oklahoma thinks their game with Texas was a "fluke" ..... Wow, is that a shocker..... Texas barely beat an OU team, IN DALLAS, when OU had several key injuries including our star middle linebacker/defensive play caller get hurt. The fact is if any of the three teams didn't have these "flukes" than this wouldn't be a problem. It didn't happen that way and it settled as a three way tie, fairly, by the big 12 rules averyone agreed to. Why is the tie-breaker a problem now? Is it just b/c it didn't work out for Texas?
Edit Comment Cancel
Charles McFarland 7 months ago
I don't think the losses are flukes. That doesn't mean that all losses are equal.
The BCS as tiebreaker is flawed because we don't know what it is based on because we don't get to see the ballots for this week's vote. Which is why the Big 12 is stupid for turning a conference decision over to a non-conference decisionmaker.
Edit Comment Cancel
Matt 7 months ago
It is not reasonable to say "Texas is better than Tech" and that not mean the game was a fluke. Maybe Texas was just fired up and OU was flat the second half. Using your reasoning it is also reasonable to say that OU is better than Texas. I personally believe you should be rewarded for playing better as the season goes. This is how it worked out in the rankings. Teams are supposed to get better as the season progress. The tie breaker is fine. The other confrence's sytem is not any better or worse. They are equal. This one works out for OU, the other would work out for Texas.
I would like to see OU/TEXAS for the Big 12 championship! It is fair and resonable that OU is there. It's not really resonable that Mizzou is there but it is fair b/c that's the way our conference is set up. I think that makes sense......lol
Edit Comment Cancel
Matt 7 months ago
Reading my last comment....I can spell I just suck at typing.......lol
Edit Comment Cancel
Michael Pusatera 7 months ago
Well written and thoughtful. Someone has to be left out. That's the way it goes until there is a playoff.
Your argument that putting OU ahead of Texas negates the "on-the-field" meaning of the season is a good point. But I think it has to be negated in this case. Sure Texas beat OU. But TTech beat Texas and OU blew out TTech. Hard to argue that one is better than the other. By that logic, Tech should be above Texas, OU above Tech, and Texas above OU. Can't satisfy all three, since it is circular.
A better method in this case might be to take the strength of schedule of the in conference opponents. Since they all played the same teams in the south, this would come down to who played the easier teams against the north. Unfortunately, in this case all three teams would have the same strength of schedule (11 W 13 L).
After it's all said and done, they are so close, it's hard to argue against any of the three.
Edit Comment Cancel
Terry Jones 7 months ago
To those decrying Texas's "last-second" loss to Tech, you perhaps should go back and re-examine the game:
Tech led for 58 1/2 minutes of the game
Tech led in 1st Downs 31 - 18
Tech led in Total yardage 579 to 374m and out-rushed Texas 105 - 80
Oh, and they won, 39-33.... Texas, to their credit, put on a late charge to make it close, but they were getting spanked all night long. It was 19-0 before Texas got on the board, 22-6 at halftime.
No, it was NOT a fluke. Texas Tech was the better team that night.
Edit Comment Cancel
Cody Thomas 7 months ago
It shouldn't matter who blew who out, It should go to the game that Texas and OU played. TEXAS WON. Texas Tech should't be a factor in deciding because they barely beat Baylor last week. OU will beat Missouri because Missouri isin't that good. Then, if they're in the national championship game they will get killed by Florida and if they play Bama they'll win.
OU doesn't deserve to be ranked ahead of a team that they lost to by ten points.
Edit Comment Cancel
Irish Mike 7 months ago
Cody, that's just the same lame argument that has been regurgitated for days. Using your argument, Tech should be ranked ahead of Texas, Ole Miss should be ranked ahead of Florida, Oregon St. should be ranked ahead of USC. But wait....then OU should ranked ahead of Tech, and Texas should be ranked ahead of OU, and Tech should be ranked ahead of Texas, and OU should be ranked ahead of Tech and....
Longhorn fans will eventually have to come to grips w/ the fact that with the Big 12 tie-breaker criteria, in the case of a 3 way tie, an entire season counts more than 1 game. It's so convenient to use the head-to-head argument....as long as you exclude Tech.
Edit Comment Cancel
Charles McFarland 7 months ago
Check the polls. Texas didn't take Tech out of the argument, they took themselves out of the argument by getting pantsed in Norman. The fact is that Tech lost to OU and didn't play Missouri - they don't have the same argument as Texas when you look at who is playing for the Big 12 Championship: Lost to Texas by 10 vs. Lost to Texas by 25.
The Tech loss was not a fluke; Tech was fired up and played a great game. But that loss is not comparable to Tech's loss. The question is whether it is comparable to OU's loss, to Texas. Texas is better than Tech, so if you ignore home field advantage, then OU's loss is "better" than Texas's loss - OU wins this criteria. If that is enough to get over the fact that it is a head-to-head loss, then the BCS has it right. But we won't ever know because we don't get to see the ballots for this week's vote. Which is why the Big 12 is stupid for turning a conference decision over to non-conference decisionmakers.
Edit Comment Cancel
Matt 7 months ago
If you say Mizzou isn't that good then how did Texas have the hardest 4 games in a row. They barely beat OU, basically had a week off against Mizzou, barely beat OSU at home and then lost to Tech. That's TWO tough games in a row. OU played Tech (who beat Texas) and then played OSU at home (OSU had TWO weeks to prepare for OU). I believe that is just as hard or even harder than Texas' schedule.
Edit Comment Cancel
Matt 7 months ago
Sorry I meant OU/OSU AT OSU
Edit Comment Cancel
Zach Dirlam 7 months ago
dude what happened with OU and UT is a problem with the big 12 tiebreaker not the BCS system. If the big 12 had the same tiebreaker like many of the other major conferences then UT would be in the Big 12 Championship game and we wouldnt be having this discussion. Quit complaining about the BCS and wanting to see a playoff. A playoff is NOT the answer to the BCS because there is no solution for the BCS. Hate to break it to you but the BCS is just fine right now.
Edit Comment Cancel
Justin Potts 7 months ago
Not sure how you see the BCS as just fine when it creates such controversy every year. I don't think this kind of controversy is good for the game. Sure it creates a lot of talk, but talk isn't the same as seeing it happen on the field.
I can't say I've ever fully supported the BCS, but I've always been somewhat skeptical of a playoff. However, it seems like every year the problems with the BCS get worse and I am finally a big-time playoff proponent now. Apparantly, the same goes for 92 percent of the over 1,500 people that voted in the poll in my article as well. I don't see how that equates to the BCS being just fine.
Edit Comment Cancel
Zach Dirlam 7 months ago
NO a playoff will solve nothing! stop listening to all that crap on ESPN. You know why they had to come up with the BCS in the first place? Because of the bias of all the AP sportswriters. Computers have NO bias. This prevents teams from scheduling "cupcake games" and makes them settle it ON the field against good competition. You want an example of the bias of the NCAA, USC. What ever happened to Reggie Bush? They had tapes of his dad talking about payments to Reggie and receipts of the payments. Why hasnt USC been punished? because everyone loves USC. So the computers are the fairest way to decide this. The sportswriters and guys on ESPN are calling for a plyoff because they have NO FACTOR on who is playing in the NC game. The BCS is the right system to have. No playoff is necessary.
Edit Comment Cancel
Matt 7 months ago
The Big 12 tie-breaker is not the problem. Here is a scenario using the SEC tie-breaker rule. Texas beats Oklahoma. Oklahoma beats Tech. Tech beats Texas. Keep the rest of the season the same as it is, just change the order the games were played. They each still go 11-1. At the end of the season Tech and Oklahoma would be ranked higher than Texas. Using the SEC/BCS tie-breaker policy Texas would be dropped and OU and Tech would come down to the "Head to Head" match up and OU still goes to the Big 12 championship. All this is is a bunch of Texas fans whining b/c the rules THEY AGREED to didn't work out for them. Everyone surely can agree that when you lose is a key factor in the BCS. OU lost first. Texas lost second. Tech lost third. And that's the current order they are in. We can change the tie breaker rules but if the scenario above where to happen wouldn't Texas and some of the media be whining just like they are now. Everyone would still say "But Texas beat OU head to head" and "Texas beat both teams in the Big 12 Championship". Bottom line, if you don't go undefeated, there is always a chance for good teams to be left out.
Edit Comment Cancel
Leave a Comment
You must register to post a comment.