http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news?slug=ap-big12-tiebreaker&prov=ap&type=lgns Texas should go independent right about now and give the BIG 12 the finger on the way out.
They really need to drop Rice or Sam Houston or anything like that and get more in line with USC's non conference.
As soon as USC joins a challenging conference you can compare schedules. Where are the other top-10 teams outside of USC for them to compete with?
Longhorn fans like to forget that it was a 3-way-tie. If it were a 2-way-tie with sooner and longhorn, then no doubt, longhorn would have been in the big 12 championship and most likely the national champsionship. That freshman safety dropped a gimmee interception and crabtree pulled a touchdown out of his arse soon after. 3-way-tie and ou was higher bcs ranked. big 12 cares more about getting teams into the national championship game, not catering to mack brown or texas. Besides, the vote was from the coaches. Do you think the group as a whole were out to get texas or do you think they were voting for the ultimate benefit of their league? Think carefully about your answer...
I don't see a problem with this. We had an extremely rare, bizarre scenario. If you change the tiebreaker, all it does is create new extremely rare, bizarre scenarios. Take this idea: Team A: Ranked #1 in the BCS, beat team C Team B: Ranked #4 in the BCS, beat team A Team C: Ranked #5 in the BCS, beat team B In the rejected new tiebreaker, you'd have team B going. Does that make any sense? Or, to make it even dumber, let's say team B & C were seperated by 0.001 BCS points. If a few votes had changed between the ranks of teams B and C (but no change with team A), team A would go instead of team B. That's even worse than what happened this year. No 3-way tiebreaker will be perfect if each team lost to each other. I'd prefer using margin of victory instead of BCS rankings, since non-conference games should have no impact on conference standing. But regardless, they all have problems, and there's no reason the current one can't work 99% of the time.
I get tired of SWT students whining. You got your asses whooped last year. I was happily reminded last night when I was at Lucky's how many of y'all wanted to whoop my ass because of your failure. Texas Tech FTW.
oh and by the way. If there is a 3 way tie this year, between OU, oklahoma state, and texas..... guess whos getting the nod again??? Oklahoma The play a neutral game with BYU, AT Miami, and Tulsa at home.
Yeah, you tell 'em! Texas fans have no right to complain about being snubbed for OU when they got their asses whooped and didn't take care of business, like OU. Oh wait, what's that now? OU didn't take care of business themselves? And they lost by double digits, as opposed to on the last play of the game on the road? What was your point again?
aggy fan likes to act as though Texas Tech is overrated trash, until it supports their argument to make Tech appear great, then they act as if Tech was right there with OU and Texas. Reality, of course, is that they weren't. They beat up I-AA teams in non-conference, and scraped by with late-game miracles at home against the likes of Baylor and Nebraska. They might've had the same record, but one quick look at the schedule tells you they weren't even in the same league as OU and Texas. The real tiebreaker was between those two. And if you're going to say that margin of victory and other external cosmetic factors don't matter, then how in the same breath can you support using a system that uses the BCS as the tiebreaker? Complete hypocrisy. By the way, I love that you make it out to be something where changing this system would be damaging to the league's ability to get into the MNC. The system most fans wanted it changed to is used by almost every other conference with divisions, including the vaunted SEC. But yeah, changing the system would be a devastating blow to the league's MNC hopes. It's not like the SEC, which uses that system, has produced a national champion each of the past three years. Oh, oops...
I don't know if you are trying to bait me into an argument, but you still remain incorrect. The red raiders had an inferior non-conference schedule, but theirs was as inferior to the longhorns' schedule as the sooners' was superior to the longhorns. The truth remains that it was a 3 way tie...I see you are still trying to ignore that. How wonderful it is of you to refer back to previous narrow games without stating any facts. Nebraska was 9-4 and obviously had a very successful season. So because they have a new coach, they aren't allowed to be good and give tech a good game? By your argument then, tech should not have given the longhorns a game because the longhorns have more talent. Well, it was a great game and your team lost. It why we play the games on the field and not on paper. In sports, the expected doesn't always happen. In sports 2+2 doesn't always equal 4. There are so many variables that contribute to the outcome. And it was obvious that tech was a pretty damn good team last year; their 2 losses were to the sooners and a team who had defeated the gators, in Ole Miss. Oh and bringing up the Baylor game, how convenient you left out that Harrell was playing with a broken finger on his throwing hand. You reference the SEC, but they haven't had a scenario like the Big 12 did last year. Once again 3-way-tie...that team beat the team that lost to that team, but lost to the team that beat that team, who lost to that other team...yada yada yada. The plan was previously agreed upon. It's not perfect, but it is fair regardless of how angry you and your burnt orange bretheren are. Instead of complaining about the current system, focus your efforts on complaining about getting a playoff, then all 3 of the DESERVING big 12 teams would have had the national championship to play for. At least you're not tech; they beat the vaunted longhorns, and got obliterated by ou and got relegated to the cotton bowl, talk about a kick in the nuts. So who was jaded more in this scenario again?
We should go back to the old SWC/Cotton Bowl tiebreaker. Whichever team amongst the tied teams who hadn't been to the Cotton Bowl in the longest amount of time got to go.
