but it’s a part of the process elsewhere.

The tied team with the highest ranking in the Bowl Championship Series Standings following the last weekend of regular-season games shall be the divisional representative in the SEC Championship Game, unless the second of the tied teams is ranked within five-or-fewer places of the highest ranked tied team. In this case, the head-to-head results of the top two ranked tied teams shall determine the representative in the SEC Championship Game.

Look, I appreciate that Sooner fans don’t like to hear from Mack, especially when he has the nerve to do so during Bedlam. But to claim that Stoops took the high road and refused to politick because he’s just too classy suggests some very selective listening. The mere fact that Barry said so refutes its veracity.

As for non-conference scheduling, I certainly grant you that it worked out in OU’s favor this year. But Texas played home & home with Ohio State in 2005 and 2006. And TCU last season. And nobody from I-AA. And nobody who went 0-11. Non-conference scheduling, done half a decade in advance, is a crapshoot. Using it as a basis to criticize Texas is grasping at straws inside a glass house.

Any fan of Texas, OU, or Tech who feels resolute that their team alone deserves to represent the South division is suspect… and if you listened to Mack, he simply said all 3 teams were deserving, while pointing out that the Horns beat both the great teams playing the Bedlam game. He didn’t point out that Texas was the only team without a home game in the Texas-OU-Tech round robin. He didn’t mention that Texas lost on the last play from scrimmage, while OU was dominated in the 4th quarter and Tech barely showed up. It isn’t Mack’s fault, it’s just the nature of the flawed beast. I would expect any head coach of a BCS contender in a similar situation to be an advocate for his kids.

You’d be saying the same things as us if you were in the situation.

Think about it: the argument really was between Texas and OU; if you had actually looked at a poll beyond where UT and OU were, you’d notice Tech was not in the discussion of the BCS-reliant tiebreaker since they fell to 7th or whatever it was. For all practical purposes, Tech was out of the BCS discussion, and it’s not even arguable.

Texas and OU: Two teams with equal records, playing in the same division of the same conference. One beats the other during the regular season. That winner should be ranked ahead of the loser, correct? You can try to dispute that as much as you want, but you can’t. The entire basis of OU’s argument relied on a game they didn’t play in, in which Texas lost to a team who eventually fell out of the discussion (as evidenced by the fact that every single publication, and therefore every voter, was debating UT vs OU, not UT vs OU vs Tech).

So chew on this for a second: what if Tech had somehow stayed in the discussion and the voters kept them high enough that they finished ahead of both Texas and OU, thus sending them to KC? What would be your reaction? Perhaps something along the lines of “But we beat them! Just because they beat the team that beat us doesn’t make them better than us!! We beat them head to head!!”

Maybe now you’ll understand where we’re coming from.

And as far as the politicking is concerned, a coach in Brown’s position would be stupid not to draw attention to his team. He’d be absolutely torn apart if he sat back quietly and let things happen without reminding people what his team had accomplished. You can’t deny that. And you can’t say Stoops would be quiet if put in that position. It’s well known voters have a pretty short memory; what’s wrong with reminding them about what happened before they ate dinner?

Bwah hah hah hah

Merry Christmas. Merry Christmas, Merry Christmas, Merry Christmas, kiss my ass. Kiss his ass. Kiss your ass. Happy Hanukkah.

Is that the BCS is being used to determine who wins the conference (or division, in this matter) when it shouldn’t be up to the BCS to do so. It should be something that is controlled entirely within the conference. But with the current tiebreaker, a random journalist in Boston/Seattle/LA, etc, who doesn’t give two shits about the teams involved and doesn’t watch them play will help determine their fate. It really isn’t fair to everyone involved. I would have no problem losing a tiebreaker, just as long as it’s fair.

Tulane University?

Imagine how you’d feel if you’d beaten Texas by ten points earlier in the year, and then the Texas fans spent the rest of the season telling you how they were “actually a better team” that “puts up more style points”. We wouldn’t be doing that because it would be ridiculous to argue that your team is “actually better” than a team that beat you on a neutral field.

(Bear with me, I know that the above scenario is hy-po-the-ti-cal and will require some serious brain power to compute. You may want to get a sheet of paper out, gather your Sooner buddies and write down some thoughts while you attempt to process that.)

Texas got jobbed by a Big XII tiebreaker rule that will be changed this summer. The fact that the rule is considered by all to be a LOOPHOLE that will be shut should indicate that the the results of the situation do not reflect reality. This would not have happened in any other conference…so what does this lead OU Nation to do…be humble? Admit that Texas might have been a better team (like Bob Stoops stated in October in Dallas)? Realize that they snuck in to the title game?

The thing that has bothered me most about this whole situation are the Sooner fans coming out to say that Oklahoma is actually a better team and would beat Texas if they played again. That’s TERRIBLE logic.

Enjoy having that irrationalism used against you in the future. Now that head-to-head matchups don’t settle anything, don’t expect me to respect a future Sooner win over the Longhorns, because it would obviously prove NOTHING. Even if Texas loses to OU in the future and they end up with the same conference record, interpretations are to be entirely subjective from now on.

Enjoy embarrassing the Big XII AGAIN in your bowl.