A Big Win Almost Cost Oklahoma
by Randyy on Dec 1, 2008 4:33 PM CST
Email
PrintAlmost everyone now agrees that the BCS rankings should not be the fifth tie breaker in a three way tie in the big twelve south. In 2008 Oklahoma shares the championship in the South, and gets to move on to the big 12 championship game in Kansas City, not because of how they play football, but because of luck.
Why is this system wrong? First, because it is influenced by other conference tie breaking yet flawed systems. I have no problem with having a three way tie broken when the lesser of the three (Tech), is thrown out of the equation, giving Texas the win, providing that Tech was NOT thrown out because of the better play of Oklahoma! What happened in this tie breaking political year was that OU got politically punished because they beat Tech too soundly, and Texas was rewarded (Texas had NO control of their destiny before and only political control after the Oklahoma win)! If Oklahoma had beaten Tech by less than 10 points, then Tech would have maintained its honor as an equal combatant in an equal three way tie!
All the experts and many fans are stumbling over politics and the BCS! Oklahoma had to play Oklahoma State in a context where the BCS/ABC/ESPN commentators were declaring that Texas should be ahead of Oklahoma because of head to head. During the Oklahoma, Oklahoma State game Mack Brown's (coach of Texas - BCS) voice was imposed over the game drumming up votes for Texas. Airplanes had been flying over giving a simplistic argument about how that Texas had beaten Oklahoma by ten points on a neutral field. It was good politics, and we can’t blame Texas, because that is what the BCS is about.
If a head to head score between two of the three isn't a fair tiebreaker, then what else isn’t fair?
Home, away, or neutral game arguments are against the very manhood factor of the game of football! . WHERE the game is played has NEVER been considered as important as other factors such as; who won or the score or yards gained or penetrations etc. OSU is not given even one extra point (or even yard!) because they played at Texas. Neither does Texas get a touchdown extra to win the game at Tech. Points and thus wins and losses matter more! Football could not even exist if we got hung up about where every game was played!
What is fair in a 5th tiebreaker? Wins count (playoffs are best). Scores do count in football. Margin of victories do count. Oklahoma is 44, Texas is 10, and Tech is 6. This tiebreaker is rational, and it is already recognized negatively (Tech dropped further in the polls because of POINTS and what if if they had beaten Texas by 45?). If points work negatively then why don’t they work positively for Oklahoma? It beats the tears of politics, because it is a REAL rational logical fair measurement. Points are something we can all agree on as being important, and especially if we know the system beforehand. If we can’t decide by wins and losses, points ARE the next logical and FAIR standard!
Common opponents certainly could be considered as well as a fair standard for a fifth tiebreaker.
It was a huge mistake for Oklahoma to beat Texas Tech so soundly this year because of the BCS system they were under! It almost cost them the national championship! If Oklahoma had not had some luck, and had the toughest Strength of Schedule rankings, their co-championship would have availed them nothing. This is why the BCS cannot be involved in deciding tiebreakers. The win against Texas Tech was one of Oklahoma’s greatest, but that away game squeaking by against the BCS/ESPN/ABC, may be the greatest victory by OU this year. It may very well be the greatest win in college football history, because despite the system, the system somehow worked right.
Oklahoma has been lucky, but Texas has had its share of luck. Texas never had control of its destiny after it lost to Tech. Who knows with possible bad weather in Kansas City this week, Texas may be the luckiest team of all in the big 12 south. They may play for the championship yet.
All comments, FanPosts, and FanShots are the views of the reader-authors who create them.
24 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
um...
I have to say i am kind of confused at what you are getting at in the first paragraph
AUSTIN
WOW
You’re a better person than I am if it was only the first paragraph that confused you…I read the whole thing twice and I am still confused by the whole thing. What a rambling, non-sensical mess.
I disagree
OU got the boost they needed to beat us because they trounced Texas Tech. Consider their huge leap in the human polls, ESPECIALLY since Texas was off that weekend. With Texas trouncing A&M, some voters swung back around, but not all.
I would have preferred Tech to keep the game close and lose. Tech would still be the third team out, in my opinion, but then OU doesn’t get nearly the jump they did. Especially considering Tech’s awful performance against Baylor, Tech would still be out of the equation but OU doesn’t have that national spotlight romp that wowed so many voters. If it was another 60-40 game, like against Okie State, then people would legitimately be questioning that OU defense.
I think OU fans are overstating their case here. OU gained significantly from that Tech blowout. If they didn’t, Texas’ lead in the human polls this final ballot may have been large enough to offset the computer gains.
by TheElusiveShadow on Dec 1, 2008 4:39 PM CST reply actions
look at TTU SOS
The only reason they clung to the top 5 was being undefeated. One loss and the whole thing imploded. Thats what happens when you play 2 DIAA teams, Nebraska, Baylor, A&M, K-State, and Nevada, and SMU. All they had going for them was The Texas and okie State wins. One loss blows the whole thing up. Oh and go away please. Might I direct to your home, your lost
I don't get it
It was a huge mistake for Oklahoma to beat Texas Tech so soundly this year because of the BCS system they were under! It almost cost them the national championship! If Oklahoma had not had some luck, and had the toughest Strength of Schedule rankings, their co-championship would have availed them nothing.
Texas and OU both played Tech, therefore Tech dropping would have no effect on their relative SOS.
This is really a bit of a reach
And since you won the tiebreaker, why do you feel the need to reach? Why are you still trying to justify the outcome? Perhaps you realize, deep down, that it’s not really a just outcome.
Having said that, it’s an interesting point — that the OU fares better in the three way comparison than in the head to head with Texas. But I second what Mr. Shadow says; OU would never have been so close in the human polls without the crushing defeat of Texas Tech.
Couple of things though
Texas had NO control of their destiny.
Neither did OU or Tech, that is the point.
Home, away, or neutral game arguments are against the very manhood factor of the game of football!
Manhood factor? Really?
Wins count (playoffs are best).
You want to have a mini-playoff round robin to decide the winner of the south?
Scores do count in football. Margin of victories do count.
If points count so much, then why don’t they just give the big 12 to the team that scores the most points? Or does that go against the manhood factor?
Common opponents certainly could be considered as well as a fair standard for a fifth tiebreaker.
That is actually tiebreakers 2, 3 and 4.
It may very well be the greatest win in college football history, because despite the system, the system somehow worked right.
Dude, you are saying that game is more important to you than the 2000 national championship game. You have lost your anchor.
What you've never heard of the manhood factor?
Oh, neither have I—maybe he means the computers. Aren’t we (men) supposed to like electronics?
Points
I like a points tiebreaker, but what about instead of using points scored – which will inherently lead being forced to run up the score just in case – use points surendered. Fewest points wins the tie breaker? I’d much rather see Tech/OU/UT leave their defensive starters in to preserve a low score than offensive starters in to tack more on.
Just don’t use the freaking BCS at all for a tie breaker. Come up with something related only to the Big XII.
I am curious what Tech’s SOS would have been had Tulsa not dropped us just eight months before the season started and we went on to beat them…
by Tech92 on Dec 1, 2008 5:16 PM CST reply actions 1 recs
Why would a Tech fan support this
Tech has an inherently flawed defense. No matter how good your players get you will never be able to hold teams to as low of points total as Texas or OU. Your defense even if the most athletically gifted in the nation(it’s not), cannot withstand being on the field for almost 40 minutes every game. Your players wear out and that is why a lot of teams are able to either beat you or at least force a close game.
Thank you for reading - I think we would all like a better system than the BCS
I wouldnt object to a “points allowed” system. I think it would be opposed to the BCS system – but of course I wouldnt mind a playoff over the BCS anyway.
The best 5th breaker (maybe most rational) is when the north champion loses as many games as the top 3 south champions that the championship is between the two best teams (OU and Texas) rather than north and south.
As to the point that OU did not control its destiny, that is true until after Tech won the last game – course then again maybe not given the BCS standard – heck a three way tie between three great teams its kinda like kissing a sister right?
And i stand by the idea that it Oklahoma scored too many points against Tech – that if they hadnt, then Texas would have never had the argument that it had.. that Tech should be thrown out and that the tie breaker should be who won between OU and Texas. The same point that ESPN/ABC etc all keep argueing.
Yes, we would have
OU fans are under this delusion that Texas fans only pointed to 45-35. That certainly was one of our central arguments, but far from our only argument. It would still have been a prominent argument, but obviously, if Tech was theoretically more in the mix for playing OU close, then we would have to use additional arguments to deal with Tech. Our arguments against OU would remain the same.
by TheElusiveShadow on Dec 1, 2008 10:52 PM CST up reply actions
It rewards bad sportsmanship and
an offensive focus. What about a defensive team that beats people 21-6 by dominating time of posession with a running game and a shut down defense? MOV would hate a team like that. And points? What about points allowed?
I think your argument is self-serving for this situation. In 3 years, OK could be a defensive team like Alabama or the old tOSU teams and you would be crying about how total defense should be considered.
Personally, I don’t think there was a fair solution. It was basically a toss up, that went Oklahoma’s way. But don’t tell me that we don’t have an argument………….See Post Script below.
"A lot of people look for the easy way to do anything, in swimming there is no easy way." - Eddie Reese
P.S. 45-35
I agree that the BCS was NOT a fair solution
I dont have any beef with Texas or their fans! My only complaints about any of the comments on here are those against the health of any of the players on any of the teams.
I am not trying to install a system that would be beneficial for OU. None of us were under that system this year. I want a fair system however, and not a self serving one. Heck I would like to have a system that we can all undersand and live under without waiting for the drumroll of the BCS verdict.
3 things
1. Don’t say heck, especially to begin a sentence.
2. Health of players? What in the hell are you talking about?
3. Shadow is right above. The whole concept of this post is garbage and nonsensical. If OU doesn’t stomp Tech like they did, they don’t jump us in the end because the voters would keep us in front.
"A lot of people look for the easy way to do anything, in swimming there is no easy way." - Eddie Reese
P.S. 45-35
second to last was confusing
Beating Tech soundly majorly helped them!!! They would be behind Texas it they scored a last second touchdown~!!
AUSTIN
2000 national championship
I was four then, but what happened
AUSTIN
two things
yes I do remember the “Points are shiny” comment. It was actually my favorite comment on this whole site. Ill try to find it.
2. Plz vote in my second place poll you can find by clicking on my blog
AUSTIN
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
