Fixing the Big XII

[Boooom!]

I have a couple of evolving ideas that I feel would help. And especially after last year's Big XII CG, I am really beginning to be convinced.

For starters, the South and the North should not play each other during the regular season. If there is even one ounce of legitimacy in Texas' gripe, it is that they have already beat both opponents who are playing in the title game. I only say this because I too felt this way last year. How ridiculous is it to risk injury to OUr players, which we suffered, playing against a team you have already beat..and for what?

1. Schedule 5 non-conference games. If you pad with pansies, your fault if it doesnt work out in the BCS for you at the end.

2. Play all five teams in your division.

3. Two-way tie breakers will be point differential of the collection of the 5 division teams played. End of story. If there is a tie on points, then it will trigger an automatic 11th game tie-breaker.

3a. If its a 3-way tie like this year, point differentials first. If its still a 3-way tie, then BCS rankings determine which teams plays in the tie-breaker.

4. The winner plays the winner of the other division in a true Big XII Championship Game.

I like this system because it determines who really is the conference champion - It doesnt allow for meaningless games to be played and risk injury - It, this year, would have allowed OU and texas to play a re-match game.

Thoughts?

[IowaSooner26]

Why would you break a two way tie based on points instead of head to head?

[IBleedCrimson]

the biggest problem with system is using bcs as a tiebreaker. The bcs is there strictly to determine who plays in the national title game. That's it, it's a formula that needs the entire season to be complete. It was never designed to be an accurate judge of a teams worthiness outside of #1 or #2 Especially with a game left in it's equation.

I do a round robin sort of thing for each division could be a good idea. It certainly would eliminate rematches in the ccg.

Point totals just encourage teams to run up the score tho, which IMHO, is antithetic to what college fb is supposed to be about.

[Boooom!]

the biggest problem with system is using bcs as a tiebreaker. The bcs is there strictly to determine who plays in the national title game. That's it, it's a formula that needs the entire season to be complete. It was never designed to be an accurate judge of a teams worthiness outside of #1 or #2 Especially with a game left in it's equation.

Then perhaps not the BCS...but something that determines the "better" teams.


Point totals just encourage teams to run up the score tho, which IMHO, is antithetic to what college fb is supposed to be about.

I agree to an extent, but if we dont use points, then a team could scrap by with 3 to 7 point wins, while another team clearly dominates.

[tigepilot]

I think any system that uses the BCS is flawed. The tiebreaker should always come from within the conference and not only does the BCS use polsters from different conferences/regions but it takes non-conference games into consideration.

A also think that any 3-way tie breaking system that elimates the 'lowest' team by some measure to make a two-way tie that can be solved by head to head is flawed. No matter what, you end up in a scenerio where some team needs to win but doesn't want to beat the opponent too bad, in this case OU vs Tech. It has to be something that can be determined through a three team comparison.

With those two understandings I don't think you're going to come up with a perfect answer to a three way tie. If you use point differential with common opponents (should be either limited to division or against each other) you run into the issue with forcing unsportsman like play. Also, those teams that recognize the need to score lots of points for the sake of a three way tie first would have an advantage (I'm sure OU would have seen the need before all else this season because it lost first and that was the best way to 'get back in it' if that was the way it was this year).

I wouldn't mind seeing point differential used but I would rather it be limited to points after 3 quarters. I know that isn't perfect because it elimates completely valid parts of many games but at least it eliminates the need to run up the score with starters in the game against inferior opponents. No team should be faulted for unsportsmanship for leaving their starters and play aggressive through 3 quarters no matter how bad the score.

And I know that my last point favors OU THIS year but I don't think it always would. After all, we're talking about how to break a TIE because the teams are so even it couldn't be settled through the normal means. As for an option that MAY (I didn't do the math) favor Texas this year that I would be OK with is to take point differential as a percentage of total points score for and against. In that case, a score of 20-10 would mean a whole lot more than a score of 40-30. This MAY favor Texas this year but I don't think it always would.

In any case, get the whole politicking thing OUT!!! That was UGLY!

[sooner_born_1960]

From my perspective, ain't nothing broken.

[oupride]

So your point is:
BCS = Worthy to determine National Championship
BCS = NOT Worthy to determine Big 12 South Championship
Right?

[tigepilot]

So your point is:
BCS = Worthy to determine National Championship
BCS = NOT Worthy to determine Big 12 South Championship
Right?

The first is depatable.

The second, I don't like it because it uses non-conference criteria to determine a conference division champ.

Look, I'm as happy as any Sooner for OU getting in but I wish it was done differently.

[MojoRisen]

The system as a whole worked in the end- with acception to the Pollster's not being consistent enough. I understand Stoosp point on people being able to see ballots and the pressure it would put on them to be even more bias... but they have to be monitored or this crap can start passing bucks around not just politics...

I know that Pinkel- said that he wanted to play Texas Tech, Texas and then OU in that order...

If I were him I would have tried to put Tech in their way of a BCS berth in the Fiesta Bowl- which is plenty to play for- for them next week since they have not ever been to one since 1960's.

The system worked the way it was supposed too this year - change it next year if you like - we all knew going in.

I hope we crush Mizzou and get ready to play for number 8!

[tigepilot]

The system as a whole worked in the end- with acception to the Pollster's not being consistent enough. I understand Stoosp point on people being able to see ballots and the pressure it would put on them to be even more bias... but they have to be monitored or this crap can start passing bucks around not just politics...

I know that Pinkel- said that he wanted to play Texas Tech, Texas and then OU in that order...

If I were him I would have tried to put Tech in their way of a BCS berth in the Fiesta Bowl- which is plenty to play for- for them next week since they have not ever been to one since 1960's.

The system worked the way it was supposed too this year - change it next year if you like - we all knew going in.

I hope we crush Mizzou and get ready to play for number 8!

The problem there is what motivation would the BCS people have in monitoring something that is supposed to be handled by the Big 12?

[Jacie]

This is too radical to even draw a reponse but to solve the 3-way tie dilemma, ask the other three coaches in the division to rank the tied teams and see if that elevates one above the rest.

[tigepilot]

This is too radical to even draw a reponse but to solve the 3-way tie dilemma, ask the other three coaches in the division to rank the tied teams and see if that elevates one above the rest.

At least that is solved within the division but I still don't like that it's left to people. I would rather something writen down that says when X happens then Y will happen.

[SoonersEnFuego]

We should only have one non-conference game and play everyone in the conference once. Then the 2 top teams can play each other again in the championship game. If there's a 3 way tie, go by point differential.

[SoonersEnFuego]

Also drop Baylor and add Iowa, so the Big 10 actually has 10 teams and we wouldn't have Baylor to not contribute like they always do.

[cheezyq]

Why NOT use the BCS? First of all....it's THE 5TH TIEBREAKER. Why fix something that RARELY ever happens in the first place? Regardless, why do you think the Big 12 did this in the first place? It's because if it gets to the 5th tiebreaker, then you have 3 VERY good teams, all very likely competing for NATIONAL prominence. Allowing the team with highest BCS ranking to go gives that team another opportunity to present its case for being in the top 2 and going to the BCS championship game.

Two things happen at that point. If that team can get into the BCS championship, it benefits the conference in notoriety and national prominence. It also gives the Big 12 a better chance of getting 2 teams into the BCS, and therefore generating MORE MONEY for the Big 12.

Is the system REALLY broken, just because Mack Brown and the rest of the most unreasonable fans in college football say it is?

[MojoRisen]

The System seems to work - the voters are in question trying to change things at the last minute...

Seriously, everyone knows SOS is a factor too me that is an XYZ scenario that is more predictable than biased voters.

Humans are Humans - and I appreciate the fact that they can change their minds- but I don't think they should set precedent with a 120 year history to try and make a point for Texas.

They should have never dropped Texas below OU if they were worth a shiate in this BCS formula...

Drop the Humans - or they need to be monitored and more consistent.

[Boooom!]

We should only have one non-conference game and play everyone in the conference once. Then the 2 top teams can play each other again in the championship game. If there's a 3 way tie, go by point differential.

Then you wouldnt really need a CCG.

At first I had a bit of a problem with using an outside formula [BCS] to help determine the winner of a tie. But what is there that is better? We use it to determine the #1 and #2 ...why shouldnt / wouldnt it be good enough for a simple conference division tie breaker?

The other up side of having a potential rematch is that it at least somewhat introduces a "playoff" of sorts. Image if right now it was a week ago and we were looking forward to the RRR Game - Take Two... not scared are yuns? hehe It would be our 11th game of the year, and still get us to KC in time.

The other other upside to having a divisional playoff like that is that it could very well knock other non-Big XII teams out. The way a two highly rnked mini-playoff would roll down the BCS formula could very weel elevate a couple of other Big XII teams.

[Leroy Lizard]

First, I think South teams should be able to schedule North teams if they wish, but would not be compelled to.

Second, games against North teams do not factor into the conference subdivision title.

In case of a three-way tie, that team that allowed the fewest points in conference subdivision play gets the nod. Running up the score means nothing, but preventing the opponent from scoring means everything. Be classy on offense, play your hardest on defense.

If that doesn't settle it, the team that allowed the fewest points in their last regular season subdivision game gets the nod.

If that doesn't settle it, use a coin flip.

[Leroy Lizard]

Let's be real creative and find ways to make coaches sweat every decision.

In case of a three-way tie, the team that scored the most two-point conversions in the first half of their games gets the nod.

If that doesn't settle it, the team that kicked the most onsides kicks in the first half gets the nod.

[FirstandGoal]

Why NOT use the BCS? First of all....it's THE 5TH TIEBREAKER. Why fix something that RARELY ever happens in the first place? Regardless, why do you think the Big 12 did this in the first place? It's because if it gets to the 5th tiebreaker, then you have 3 VERY good teams, all very likely competing for NATIONAL prominence. Allowing the team with highest BCS ranking to go gives that team another opportunity to present its case for being in the top 2 and going to the BCS championship game.

Two things happen at that point. If that team can get into the BCS championship, it benefits the conference in notoriety and national prominence. It also gives the Big 12 a better chance of getting 2 teams into the BCS, and therefore generating MORE MONEY for the Big 12.

Is the system REALLY broken, just because Mack Brown and the rest of the most unreasonable fans in college football say it is?

Very good points here and extremely logical and well thought out.

I swear some of OUr own posters have been drinking the Mack Brown kool aid without realizing it.

What it all comes down to at the end of the day is the big money. I actually like the fact that the Big 12 has enough smarts to realize that their best chance (as a conference) to score that big money is to get the team into play that has the highest BCS ranking because that team has the best chance of making the best bowl games possible.

Whatever the rest of the nation thinks, that team right now is OU.
I also realize that Texass if they had been selected would have had just as good of a chance to make the big game, but let me ask everyone who is so anti-BCS a question:

If there were still a 3 way tie, and OU were ranked #2 BCS and Texas and TT ranked #8 or higher, would you still like to see some alternative way to settle the tie, or would you want to see your conference represent and make it to the title game?



The system ain't broke just cause Mack says it is.