Of course, then you could simply say Texas had the worse loss - it was to a team that wasn't in the same league as the top teams, apparently. Except the B12 has done a pretty damn good job getting teams into the MNC game over the years as well with our version of the tiebreaker too. I believe we've had more teams in the title game than any other conference - and that, of course, is the goal of the tiebreaker. Of course, the reality is that the total fluke 5th tiebreaker was completely irrelevant for both conferences in terms of getting teams into the MNC, but if that's the argument you want to use to support the SEC version, it breaks down because the B12 has been even more successful getting there.
I never did understand the logic behind Mack Brown's argument last season. He felt the BCS ranking was not a good enough barometer to determine the division winner, but it was good enough to eliminate the lowest ranked team. It was almost as though he had a conflict of interest that swayed his opinion.
His argument was if there are two teams that are clearly superior in the rankings, the tiebreaker should be head to head. There would be a legitimate argument for the current tiebreaker in a situation where the teams are 3-4-5 or some block of three places. It would be hard to justify dropping the low team in that situation. Each tiebreaker has problems. However, last year, it was pretty much a consensus (except for fans of TT, OU and A&M) that UT and OU were the two best teams in the equation. When it came down to two teams, there's a legitimate argument that head-to-head should be the tiebreaker. It's just not what the rule in place was.
There's no way to know, of course, but I wonder if his argument would've been the same had the situation been reversed. Somehow, I doubts it, but who knows.
I still don't see how it's any less arbitrary to exempt the last place team than it is to reward the first place team in the same exact rankings.
I think it's kinda funny that OU gets punished in the scenario that "TT was clearly the worst team" due to their blowout victory over TT. Had OU only beaten TT by 1 point, ala the way TT beat UT, then the argument by most UT fans that you can automatically throw TT out...would not exist. In the long run, OU got punished by destroying TT so bad in the scenario that most UT fans advocate.
That would be the case if TT was clearly worse due to that loss only. However, their close wins down the stretch proved that they weren't who everyone thought they were. As I've stated, no three-way tiebreaker is perfect because it's always going to be deciding a Paper-Scissors-Rock situation. If the roles had been reversed, I'd have been perfectly OK with OU getting the nod because they beat us.
Absolutely. Had the scenario been reversed, I would have no problem with OU going instead of Texas. They would have won on the field.
On a side note, I saw Mike Leach on a flight coming back from Vegas on southwest...i would have thought with all that cash, he'd fly an airline with first class seating...he was in the back like everyone else...
When a 3 way tie in a division, you cant just say,,,, oh lets rule the third team out. If the horns were in the sooners position, they wouldn't be complaining. Is the bcs messed up? ya to an extent. It has always favored the Sooners. However, I think an 8 team playoff is they way to go, obviously. In my opinion, it should start with the pac 10 and the big eleven, they each should have to play a conference championship.
Agree. And the rules were there at the beginning of the season, but nobody knew it could actually happen..... Us Americans need to read first ! lol
You can if the third team has played a clearly weaker schedule and has had clearly weaker gameplay for the entire season. If the situation was reversed, you bet I'd complain. I would feel absolutely embarrassed, as a Texas fan, if OU had beaten Texas, yet Texas had won a three-way tiebreaker on the lame technicality of Tech scraping by against Baylor and Nebraska.
That "weaker" gameplan beat texas. It's not fair either way really. Maybe the big 12 should have just said sorry bobby and mack, were gonna give it to Leach. haha. Either way it was a fun year.
Tech was ranked 7th in the final BCS poll. I don't see how you can argue that 3rd-place Texas was clearly superior in the rankings.
2. OU 3. UT 4. 5. 6. 7. TT That's how. As I said, a three way tiebreaker is tough whoever goes. However, I'd be arguing the same thing regardless of who was in what position. If OU and TT were 2-3 and UT was 7, there's no way I'd be arguing that UT should go. I'd be arguing that OU should go. That's what all the Tech fans, OU fans, and UT haters don't realize. We would not be making an argument that we didn't think was legitimate. What I don't understand are the people who seem to imply that OU was the clear choice. If UT went in similar circumstances I would have felt a little sheepish and a win in the championship wouldn't have felt as sweet because there would be this cloud hanging over the season.
In the end of the season there are two things we can conclude... 1. the UT and OU debate will continue to rage on. UT beat Ohio State, OU got killed by Florida. UT didn't win enough to make themselves the clear cut AP winner, and OU didn't lose enough to seem unworthy enough (though they lost quite a bit). 2. Tech fans can finally shut their mouths about getting robbed after losing to Ol' Miss like that. I don't know if we should keep the system or not. I am actually curious how Mack voted. All I know is UT lost a close game to Tech and it was blamed more for UT's lack of preparation, the previous three games, and a bad angle on the last play/our poor freshman safety dropping the int. we play Tech 10 out of 10 times, UT woulda beat them at least 8 or 9 times. It just wasn't our night. This sets things up wonderfully for the upcoming season!
Texas was obviously higher-ranked than Tech, but there is no way that they were so far ahead that you can't even remotely consider Tech in the discussion, especially considering the head-to-head win. If the bottom team was ranked 20th, the argument would have a little more traction, but Tech was still in the top 10, which makes dropping them entirely from the equation a complete farce.
lmao ... I remember that actually during the live game when the girl was crying. What the hell was she crying about?
