Three-Way Tie: Remember That, Three-Way Tie

But you Longhorns will say, “No, because we are ahead of Tech in the polls,” oh wait a minute, you mean like OU is ahead of you in the BCS, which determines the tie-breaker?

Look, the reality is simple, two teams were going to be left out, and it is not fair to either one of them that the third team gets the nod instead of them when all three have the same conference standing, but the tie-breaker was decided by the BCS ranking, and the computers chose OU.

If I were a voter, I would have chosen OU too, not because I am an OU fan, not because of head-to-head, neutral field junk, but my decision would be based on the following non-conference schedule info:

Oklahoma

Chattanooga (1-11, 0-8, no bowl opportunity)

Cincinnati (11-1 pending one game, 7-1, Big East champ, BCS bound)

Washington (0-11, 0-8, pending one game, no bowl)

TCU (10-2, 7-1, bowl bound, one win away from winning the Mountain West)

Texas

Florida Atlantic (6-6, 4-3, possible bowl opportunity)

UTEP (5-7, 4-4, no bowl)

Arkansas (5-7, 2-6, no bowl)

Rice (9-3, 7-1 bowl bound)

Texas Tech

Eastern Washington (6-5, 5-3, no bowl opportunity)

Nevada (7-5, 5-3, bowl bound)

Southern Methodist (1-11, 0-8, no bowl)

Massachusetts (7-5, 4-4, no bowl opportunity)

Who has the better non-conference slate? Which was more challenging? Now I do not fault any of the three schools for scheduling Washington, Arkansas, and Southern Methodist, because none of them knew what condition those three schools would be in when they actually played this year.

But I hear a lot of flak at Oklahoma’s expense for scheduling Chattanooga. Are you kidding me?

You're currently logged into Facebook

Do you want to share your Bleacher Report activity on Facebook?