Some media getting behind Texas

by JohnsonUT on Nov 10, 2008 8:58 AM CST Comment 13 comments

The Big 12 Tie-Breaker: The Hottest Cheerleaders

By Pete Fiutak

...

Along with strength of schedule, home field advantage needs to be a part of the overall mix far more than it is. Winning a game on the road deserves more love than winning one at home, and close losses on the road should be viewed differently than losing at home or at a neutral site.

Therefore, if Texas Tech loses to Oklahoma, that will mean the Sooners' part of the tie-breaker is based on a home win, while the loss (to Texas) will have happened at a neutral site. They didn't play a true road game in the tie-breaker mix, so, theoretically, they had the easiest path of the three teams.

Texas Tech will have lost to OU on the road, and the win will have come to Texas in the final seconds at home.

And then there's Texas. The loss in the equation came on the greatest play in the history of Texas Tech football on the road in Lubbock. The win came at a neutral site, beating Oklahoma in Dallas. Therefore, Texas, didn't have a home game in the mix and ended up having the hardest path of the three in the three-game round-robin tournament.

I still think Oklahoma is off to play for the national title if it wins out, but by who deserves to be playing for the Big 12 title, go with 1. Texas, 2. Texas Tech, 3. Oklahoma. Or else just hold a rock-paper-scissors playoff and you'll probably have the right answer.

http://cfn.scout.com/2/810112.html

All comments, FanPosts, and FanShots are the views of the reader-authors who create them.

1 recs | Comment 13 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Nice find!

And a fair argument. I’m posting this on facebook, we gotta spread the word that this is how it should go down!

by TXinDC on Nov 10, 2008 9:33 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

facebook?

right. because im sure the coaches are perusing facebook before casting their votes each week.

the coaches are going to vote how theyr’e going to vote. thats just how it is. same with the harris poll voters.

by 6th street on Nov 10, 2008 10:42 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Hey, good point, smartass

My thinking is if you get the right opinions out there to enough people, then eventually they’ll get in front of the right people and might cause a shift.

But hey, dude, I really dig your pessimistic bullshit attitude and I hope to read more of it in the coming weeks.

by TXinDC on Nov 10, 2008 11:52 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

not pessimistic or bullshit

just saying that if you think posting something on facebook is going to cause a shift in the college football poll voting, then youre delusional.

by 6th street on Nov 10, 2008 12:37 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Making friends everywhere!!!

by Longhorny on Nov 10, 2008 12:04 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

being a douche everywhere!!!

by 6th street on Nov 10, 2008 12:35 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Enough

Y’all grow up.

6th street: If you don’t like a post, don’t comment on it. Simple as that. The community has self-filters: Posts which don’t do much for the group dont generate commentary.

In any case, we have a firm community guidelines in place that call for making constructive criticisms if you need to disagree. In this case, silence or “I don’t know that Facebook will help, but the effort can’t hurt.” would be better. Thanks.

Also, let me note for the record: I actually think that if Oklahoma wins on Saturday, Texas fans DO need to start mounting a PR blitz on the rest of the country. Via Facebook, letters to the editor, emails to columnists, etc. No need to be dismissive here. We could be in a battle for thousandths of a percentage point. No effort is too small.

--PB--

by Peter Bean on Nov 10, 2008 1:34 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs

Big money donors

Time for the big money to start buying ad revenue with certain influential companies.

by JohnsonUT on Nov 10, 2008 4:36 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

JohnsonUT, you copied a whole story. That's a serious problem.

Fair usage calls for only three graphs. This is a violation of copyright ethics and can open the site to legal charges. .

Either edit this back to three graphs (which you should put in blockquotes), give a real link (via the linky chain above the comment box, add your comments – or delete this whole fanpost.

Otherwise, to do this you need permission from CFN to use this in toto.

by whills on Nov 10, 2008 11:31 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Copywright

I am not familiar with “fair use”, but I did not copy the whole article. I also provided a link to the full story.

Do you have a link with concise explanation of fair use and online links?

by JohnsonUT on Nov 10, 2008 12:57 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Copyright and "fair use" doctrine

Electronic Freedom Foundation is a definite source.

While you didn’t quote the entire cfn article, you did quote everything that PF said and exceeded what is generally considered the legal limit of three graphs. Mr. Fiutak writes for his employer, who depends on the content generating traffic to his site and revenue to its site. What you have done could be construed as stealing Mr. Fiutak’s work and thus reducing the chance that the readers may go there. Thus, a revenue issue hand-in-hand with literate theft.

One of the people behind the SB Blogs who has a large site which does get a lot more legal abrasion from the world than here has a limit of three graphs as fair use. IANAL but PB is working on become one and he can advise you much better because his butt is on the legal line in such “fair use” cases.

This site does not have a stated fair use criteria although you don’t see whole articles reproduced but just a portion with link; som perhaps you can claim a certain ignorance, but I have given you a link that should fill in the gaps for now.

by whills on Nov 10, 2008 10:21 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs