Bleacher Report - Articles by Kevin Buller

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

Kevin Buller — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 04:55:35 -0500

A writer of a leading sports news network wrote the following words in a recent article that was written to contest Oklahoma’s participation in the Big 12 Championship instead of Texas:

“It stands to reason that when teams finish in a tie, the team that beat the other should receive at least some kind of benefit for that accomplishment.”

I will give you a moment to let that sink it. Try and figure out this statement. Let’s recap the obvious:

Texas beat Oklahoma

Texas Tech beat Texas

Oklahoma beat Texas Tech

So based on this statement, if the team that beat the team in a tie is supposed to get the nod, why exactly is Texas the logical choice? Texas has done nothing more that OU or Tech to deserve the right to be in the Big 12 Championship.

They won 11 games, so did OU and Tech, they were 7-1 in conference play, so were OU and Tech.

It is ridiculous to take Tech out of this conversation. Point differential in their loss to OU, according to the conference, has no bearing on this situation all of a sudden becoming a two-way tie.

According to the conference tie-breaker rules, the location that a game is played also does not influence the situation, so the whole Texas beating OU on a neutral field (in Texas mind you, so neutrality of the Cotton Bowl has always been questionable) has not bearing either.

How Texas lost at Tech, with just a few seconds left vs. how OU lost to Texas is not part of the tie-breaker either, again an invalid point.

Let’s not forget a couple of very crucial things about Texas having an argument now. They had no argument if OU lost to OSU. Tech was going to the Big 12 Championship had OSU beaten the Sooners.

Texas’ hope to even make it to the conference title game was a void point until OU took a knee in Stillwater to bring the game to a close.

And remember this all you head-to-headers, if OU loses to Missouri this Saturday, and a Big 12 school is destined to play for the National Title, then head-to-head Texas Tech goes to Miami, end of discussion!

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?

Tech schedules Eastern Washington and Massachusetts, and Texas schedules Florida Atlantic, a school that did not even start playing football until 2001!

Here is another interesting stat for you Texas fans, you played a grand total of two of 12 football games out of the state of Texas. Oklahoma went all the way to the northwestern tip of the United States to play Washington, and Tech went to Nevada.

If home field advantage carries any weight, then playing 10 football games in your own state should be considered as a negative for your team.

OU deserves this just as much as the other two. If the tables were turned, I would be ticked off too; I understand your argument. Tech would be ticked off if they had to sit and watch Texas, a team they beat in the Big 12 Championship.

OU would be ticked if we had to watch Tech in the Big 12 Championship. The computers made the choice and we all have to live with it.

We all have one thing in common, this system is ridiculous, and I personally think in this situation that a playoff within the conference among the top four teams makes sense.

But you know that will never happen, makes you wonder if situations like this continue to occur if any reform in the current BCS system ever will?

Hold the Line! A Tale of Two Oklahoma Defensive Coordinators

Kevin Buller — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 05:19:03 -0400

Look at the following scores/games/results: What is the difference?

1999

L Notre Dame 34, Oklahoma 30

L Texas 38, Oklahoma 28

L Texas Tech 38, Oklahoma 28

2000

W Oklahoma 41, Kansas State 31

W Oklahoma 35, Texas A & M 31

2001

W Oklahoma 38, Kansas State 37

2003

L Kansas State 35, Oklahoma 7

2004

W Oklahoma 38, Oklahoma State 35

W Oklahoma 42, Texas A & M 35

L USC 55, Oklahoma 19

2005

L UCLA 41, Oklahoma 24

L Texas 45, Oklahoma 12

2006

L Oregon 34, Oklahoma 33

L Boise State 43, Oklahoma 42

2007

W Oklahoma 41, Missouri 31

L Texas Tech 34, Oklahoma 27

L West Virginia 48, Oklahoma 28

2008

L Texas 45, Oklahoma 35

W Oklahoma 45, Kansas 31

W Oklahoma 58, Kansas State 35

See the difference? It is the Mike Stoops Era (1999-Nov. 2003) as defensive coordinator to the Brent Venables Era (Dec. 2003 - Present).

Using the above games, during the Mike Stoops era Oklahoma's defenses allowed the opposition to score 31+ points six times. Since Venables has taken over, last week's game against Kansas State made the 14th time, and the third time this season alone (third game in a row, by the way) that Oklahoma's defenses have given up this many points.

The problem: OU is 8-12 in these games. The reality is that a team's chances of winning decrease dramatically when you let the opposition score 31 or more points.

Luckily Oklahoma has an offense to keep up this year. If that was not the case, OU might have lost the last three in a row.

These are just a few of the stats I want to share with you in differentiating Stoops from Venables. Let me say this right off—this article is not calling for Venables to be fired, but at least to get him some help and hire a co-defensive coordinator (in addition to Bob) that will help pep this defense back to the way it was earlier this decade.

I also understand the circumstances of the times, such as Bo Pelini assisting Venables in the 2004 campaign.

All of the following were calculated with Mike Stoops not coaching the defense in the 2003 Big 12 Championship or the 2003 Sugar Bowl National Championship (he was hired at Arizona in November of that month).

1999-Nov. 2003 (Mike Stoops Defensive Coordinator)

Losses: Nine

Dec. 2003-present (Brent Venables Defensive Coordinator)

Losses: 14

1999-Nov. 2003 (Stoops)

Bowl Game Record 3-1

BCS 2-0