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

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?