Big 12 should not change their tie-breaker rule

[jkjsooner]

Big 12 should not change their tie-breaker ruleto match the SEC.

First, I'm not convinced the SEC way of determining the tie-breaker is any better than our way. Using BCS to throw out one team and head-to-head for the other is just as arbitrary and subjective as using the BCS to determine the top team.

There are two other reasons:

1. You will have a situation where a team such as OU would avoid winning with such a big margin over Tech to avoid too big of a fall for Tech. Can you imagine a team allowing another to score so as not to let that team drop so far in the BCS?

2. This is the big one. The Big 12 wants to maximize the probability that a Big 12 team can play for a national title. Let's say for whatever reason that OU was #2 with a slim margin over #3 (who will play in their CCG), Texas was #6, and Tech #10. The Big 12 wants the #2 in the CCG to maximize their probability of getting a team in the BCS championship game.

I think #2 is exactly the reason they set the system up like they did. It didn't matter this year as one of OU/TX was going to play in the title game (no matter who wins the CCG) but in some years it could make a difference.

[mdklatt]

I like the suggestion of using aggregate margin of victory against common opponents as the tie breaker. It's completely objective, something the BCS is not since they keep lowering the importance of the computer rankings.

[LRoss]

I can't see how one system is demonstrably better than another. I mean seriously, if we have to go to a 5th tie-breaker, it's going to come down to something that's not going to please everybody. If it was so cut-and-dried, there would be no need for a 5th tie-breaker, right? You have to break it somehow.

[Soonerus]

I like the Big XII approach, it gives the best chance of having a team in the MNC game, which should be the objective...

[GrapevineSooner]

IMO, margin of victory only plays a role to differentiate between a close win and a comfortable win.

For example, let's say you jump out to a 24-0 lead in the first half of a game and wind up winning 27-14 in a game where you completely control play and dominate the other team.

On the other side, you have a game like ours against Texas Tech where we wind up winning by 44 points, or by 3 times as many points as the first example.

In my mind, there's no difference between either example. And as such, I think there should be a way to incorporate total amount time played with the lead into aggregate MOV.

[snp]

Defending champion breaks the tie. If the defending champion is not present, BCS formula breaks the tie. I'm completely fine with the way it is.

[jps]

What would be really funny is if they changed some rules for next year and then we beat TX out of the CCG based on the new rules.

[vigilantesooner]

The only reason all these idiot pundits on TV are touting the tie breakers of other conferences is because they ALL result in Texas being in the CCG. I saw maybe 4 or 5 different tie breaker scenarios and every single one of them, coincidentally, would have resulted in Texas being in.

I can't say for sure that the Big 12 has the best tiebreaker, but it IS a good tie breaker. How can you argue with simply choosing the team who's recognized nationally as the best team? Because in a 3 way tie scenario where they've all lost to each other you certainly can't determine objectively who's definitively the best team using head to head.

[ratedrsuperstar]

I like the suggestion of using aggregate margin of victory against common opponents as the tie breaker. It's completely objective, something the BCS is not since they keep lowering the importance of the computer rankings.

Maybe I don't understand, but wouldn't this mean our starters would need to play the 4th quarter in games against common opponents as we try to increase the "margin of victory" and put them at more of a risk of being injured instead of sitting down after getting a comfortable lead ? A few injuries here and there to key players, all of a sudden you are not that great of a team.

[meoveryouxinfinity]

it was determined that MOV was unsportsmanlike.. i kinda agree.

[mdklatt]

Maybe I don't understand, but wouldn't this mean our starters would need to play the 4th quarter in games against common opponents as we try to increase the "margin of victory" and put them at more of a risk of being injured instead of sitting down after getting a comfortable lead ? A few injuries here and there to key players, all of a sudden you are not that great of a team.

Running up the score--i.e. "style points"--is already inevitable with all the importance given to the human voters in the BCS rankings. I'd like to think that coaches would put their players' best interests ahead of playing what-if games with unlikely tiebreaker scenarios at the end of the season. I see your point, though. If we knew that we had to beat pumpkin aggy by xx points last night to jump Texas, that would certainly effect how we played the game. In that specific case, though, I think any margin of victory would have sealed it so we could have played more conservatively.

[ratedrsuperstar]

I don't like the "MOV" tie breaker because you could have a 11-1 team that is strong on defense and a 11-1 offensive powerhouse. A team that goes 11-1 winning a bunch of 17-10 games wouldn't stand a chance against a team like ours this season. There is a lot of ways to win football games.

[SoonerGM]

all these voters are hypocrites anyway. i mean, what if we had lost to OSU... does that mean Texas gets to go? TT beat them head to head. so then TT should go, but wait, we beat TT head to head. yah we would be at 2 losses, but according to all the media, head to head is most important!

additionally, at that point, would the voters then have to bump TT over Texas? i mean, they did beat them... head to head.

AP doesnt care about any system, or even a playoff. they just want to be able to control CFB. it doesnt matter how many times things get tweaked to thier liking, at the end of every season, if they dont get who they want in the BCS games, they start whining.

[ARW3]

how about the way the NFL does it?

[DuSStyBottoms22]

I can't see how one system is demonstrably better than another. I mean seriously, if we have to go to a 5th tie-breaker, it's going to come down to something that's not going to please everybody. If it was so cut-and-dried, there would be no need for a 5th tie-breaker, right? You have to break it somehow.

I've seen this 5th tie breaker reference quite a few teams so I have to ask, what were the first four tie breakers in a 3 way tie? I've only seen or heard of the BCS standing.

[ratedrsuperstar]

I would guess that for the most part, the first 4 tie-breakers were for a 2 way tie. Just guessing I would think it would have to be something like
1. Head to head
2. Records within the division.
3. Records within the conference.
4. Wins against out of conference D1 opponents (D1 and 1AA)

[badger]

I think if we had a playoff in college, there wouldn't be as much weeping and nashing of (absence of) teeth in Texas, because they'd still have their shot at a national championship. Under this scenario, Texas is pretty much out.

[stunandun]

The best way would have been to have Oklahoma and Texas in the Big 12 championship. This game needs to be played by the (2) best teams in the league. Not the North versus the South.

[HolaKyle]

Here is the problem I have. How long has this tie breaker been in place?

I have no sympathy for Mack Brown or Texas. If they truly had a FUNDAMENTAL problem with this tie breaker, why did they wait until now to bring it up. I'm sure it wasn't just implemented this year. Plus, don't all the schools have input into the rules every year?

I'm sure if they were in Tech's or our's situation, they wouldn't want the rule to be changed. That is the problem I have lobbying for the rule change. If they really had a problem with it, they should have brought it up earlier.

[OklaUalum]

In any situation where there is a tie, some how, some one has to pull out a slide rule and make a decision. One team is going to be unhappy, and the media has a field day with a topic to debate. Wait a while. There will be another conferences tie which will come up, and their system of adjudicating a tie will be unfair and argued ad infinitum. But you are right. Ours is no better or worse than anyone else's.

[GrapevineSooner]

It's been in affect for several years, apparently. And was voted on by all the AD's in the Big 12.

So it's not like this tiebreaker suddenly jumped up and surprised anyone.

[soonerlaw]

nm.